The URL can be used to link to this page

Ordinance 21-008 adopts impact fee rate studies CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SPOKANE COUNTY,WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. 21-008 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON ADOPTING THE MIRABEAU SUBAREA TRAFFIC STUDY, THE NIIRABEUA SUBAREA TRAFFIC STUDY UPDATE, AND THE MIRABEAU AND NORTH PINES ROAD SUBAREA TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE RATE STUDY, AND OTHER MATTERS RELATING THERETO. WHEREAS, the City of Spokane Valley (City) adopted a Comprehensive Plan establishing the intent to utilize available funding sources to pay for capital improvements necessary as a result of new growth within the City, including use of impact fees for new developments to pay a proportionate share of the cost of new facilities needed to serve such growth; and WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan contains a complete description of the existing level of service for transportation facilities and the impacts for future growth on that level of service; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to ensure that those transportation facilities necessary to support development shall be adequate to serve the development at the time the development is available for occupancy and use, or shortly thereafter, without decreasing current service levels below established minimum standards for the City; and WHEREAS,the City is authorized to adopt,impose,and collect transportation impact fees pursuant to RCW 82.02.050 through 82.02.110 and WAC 365-196-850; and WHEREAS, on December 15, 2020, the City of Spokane Valley adopted Chapter 22.100 SVMC to establish and collect transportation impact fees as provided by adopted impact fee rate studies and the Master Fee Schedule; and WHEREAS,the City's transportation impact fees are set forth in the Master Fee Schedule pursuant to SVMC 17.110.010; and WHEREAS, in June, 2016, the City completed a transportation impact study of the Mirabeau Subarea(the"Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study") identifying traffic demands within the Mirabeau Subarea through 2040,necessary capital transportation improvements to meet the traffic demands, and the fair share proportionate level of financial contribution that new development should pay for those improvements; and WHEREAS, in December, 2019, the City updated the Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study (the "Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study Update")to include an expanded area west of the Mirabeau Subarea and south of I-90,known as the North Pines Road Subarea; and WHEREAS, in June, 2021, the City completed a transportation impact fee rate study for the Mirabeau and North Pines Road Subareas (the "Mirabeau and North Pines Road Subarea Transportation Impact Fee Rate Study")based upon the Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study and the Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study Update, identifying the transportation impact fee rates for the Mirabeau and North Pines Road Subareas; and WHEREAS,the adoption of these studies enable the imposition and collection of impact fees under Chapter 22.100 SVMC and pursuant to RCW 82.02.050-.110 and WAC 365-196-850; and Ordinance 21-008 Mirabeau and North Pines Road Subarea Transportation Impact Fees Page 1 of 3 WHEREAS,on July 13,2021,the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley held a public hearing, received public testimony,and considered all testimony related to the adoption of these studies; and WHEREAS, the adoption set forth below is consistent with the goals and policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan. NOW,THEREFORE,the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley do ordain as follows: Section 1. Purpose. The purpose of this Ordinance is to adopt the Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study,the Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study Update,and the Mirabeau and North Pines Road Transportation Impact Fee Rate Study to allow transportation impact fees to be assessed and collected within the Mirabeau and North Pines Subareas pursuant to Chapter 22.100 SVMC. Section 2. Findings and Conclusions. The City Council hereby makes the following findings: A. Pursuant to the Growth Management Act and the Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 22.100 SVMC was adopted enabling the collection of impact fees as assessed in impact fee rate studies based on traffic studies. B. Noticing of Public Hearing — The City provided notice of the public hearing on the proposed amendments as follows: 1. Publication in the Spokane Valley News Herald on June 25, 2021, July 2, 2021, and July 9, 2021. 2. The notice was published on the City's Public Notices page on June 25, 2021. 3. A press release was issued on June 30,2021. C. Compliance with RCW 82.02.050-.110, WAC 365-196-850, and Chapter 22.100 SVMC 1. The proposed adoption of the Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study,Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study Update,and Mirabeau and North Pines Road Subarea Transportation Impact Fee Rate Study enables assessment of impact fees in accordance with the requirements of RCW 82.02.050-.110 and pursuant to Chapter 22.100 SVMC. 2. The proposed fees are for public street and road system improvements that are reasonably related to the new development, do not exceed the proportionate share of the costs of system improvements that are reasonably related to the new development, and will be used for system improvements that will reasonably benefit the new development within the Mirabeau and North Pines Road Subareas, as identified in the Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study,the Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study Update, and the Mirabeau and North Pines Road Subareas Transportation Impact Fee Rate Study. 3. The Comprehensive Plan contains a complete description of the existing level of service for transportation facilities and the impacts for future growth on that level of service. The City has conducted a comprehensive study and plan of traffic growth and necessary system improvements to support such growth for the Mirabeau and North Pines Road Subareas. Chapters 5 and 10 of the Ordinance 21-008 Mirabeau and North Pines Road Subarea Transportation Impact Fees Page 2 of 3 Comprehensive Plan identify use of impact fees as a funding source for necessary improvements. Section 3. Study Adoption. The City Council hereby adopts the Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study, the Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study Update, and the Mirabeau and North Pines Road Subarea Transportation Impact Fee Rate Study. The Mirabeau and North Pines Road Subarea Transportation Impact Fee Rate Study is attached to this Ordinance as Exhibit"A",the Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study Update is attached to this Ordinance as Exhibit "B", and the Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study is attached to this Ordinance as Exhibit "C". The Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study, the Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study Update, and the Mirabeau and North Pines Road Subarea Transportation Impact Fee Rate Study are incorporated by reference herein and incorporated in Chapter 22.100 SVMC as provided therein. Section 4. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance shall be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section,sentence, clause,or phrase of this Ordinance. Section 5. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect five days after publication of this Ordinance or a summary thereof in the official newspaper of the City as provided by law. PASSED by the City Council this 13th day of July, 2021. ui) Ben Wick, Mayor ATTEST: ga;frlift_ Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Approved As o Form: Office oft City Attorney Date of Publication: 07-23-2021 Effective Date: 07-28-2021 Ordinance 21-008 Mirabeau and North Pines Road Subarea Transportation Impact Fees Page 3 of 3 Exhibit "A" Mirabeau & North Pines Road Subarea Transportation Impact Fee Rate Study Prepared for: City of Spokane Valley, Washington June, 2021 FEHRij' PEERS Table of Contents Introduction 1 Study Area 1 Methodology 4 Project List 5 Travel Growth 5 Cost Allocation 8 Existing Transportation Deficiencies 9 Fair-Share Cost 10 Committed External Funding 12 Cost per PM Peak Hour Trip 13 Impact Fee Schedule 14 Trip Generation 14 Pass-By Trip Adjustment 14 Schedule of Rates 14 Appendices Appendix A— Expanded Impact Fee Schedule Appendix B —Mirabeau Traffic Study Update(2019) List of Figures Figure 1. Mirabeau and North Pines Road Subarea Traffic Study Area 3 Figure 2. Impact Fee Methodology 4 Figure 3. Impact Fee Cost Allocation 9 List of Tables Table 1. Mirabeau Traffic Study Project List and Cost Estimates 5 Table 2. Growth in Mirabeau TIF Area PM Peak Hour Vehicle Trips (2015-2040) 7 Table 3. Growth in North Pines Road TIF Area PM Peak Hour Vehicle Trips (2015-2040) 8 Table 4. Percent of 2040 Traffic Attributable to each Project Location 11 Table 5. Mirabeau TIF Area Eligible Cost Calculations 11 Table 6. North Pines Road TIF Area Eligible Cost Calculations 12 Table 7.Cost Per PM Peak Hour Trip Calculations 13 Table 8. Mirabeau Impact Fee Schedule 15 Table 9. North Pines Road Impact Fee Schedule 15 Table 10. Expanded Mirabeau Impact Fee Schedule 16 II Table 11. Expanded North Pines Road Impact Fee Schedule 17 11 This page intentionally left blank. Introduction This report documents the methods, assumptions, and findings of a transportation impact fee (TIE) rate study for the Mirabeau and North Pines Road subareas in Spokane Valley.The need for a TIF is identified in the Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study Update(Dec 2019),which documented land use growth in the Mirabeau and North Pines Road subareas.That study projected how resulting traffic growth will degrade traffic operations at numerous intersections in and near the two subareas and identified several transportation capacity projects to support growth and ensure adequate level of service through the year 2040.That study identified the needed future transportation capacity improvements in the area, completed project cost estimates, and included a fair share cost analysis to separate project costs between growth in both subareas and growth from other parts of the region.This TIF rate study builds on the Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study and identifies a Growth Management Act(GMA) compliant impact fee rate schedule per development unit in both the Mirabeau Subarea and the North Pines Road Subarea. Using this rate schedule, developers in the TIF area can quickly identify their fair share contribution toward new transportation projects,facilitating development and reducing the cost and complexity of traffic studies associated with project permitting and transportation concurrency requirements. Except as otherwise identified herein, the Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study Update provides the basis for all TIF rates calculated in this rate study. As part of adoption of any TIF rates, both the Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study Update and this TIF rate study will be adopted as supporting documents. Study Area The Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study Update defined the impact fee area for the Mirabeau and North Pines Road Subarea as shown in Figure 1.Along with the two subareas,that Study identified seven intersections, as mapped in Figure 1,where forecast development in the two subareas would contribute to a degradation of transportation level of service (LOS) by the year 2040. The areas were defined in that study using a select zone analysis from the Spokane Regional Transportation Council (SRTC) regional travel demand model to quantify the impact of the transportation analysis zones (TAZs)to the seven intersections. • Mirabeau TIF Area- Figure 1 shows the Mirabeau subarea which covers most of the area between Pines Road and Sullivan Road and 1-90 and the Spokane River in north central Spokane Valley.This includes the following transportation analysis zones(TAZs)from the SRTC regional travel demand model: 320, 321, and 322.This area will be referred to in this report as the Mirabeau TIF area. • North Pines Road TIF Area - Figure 1 also shows the North Pines Road subarea,which is around North Pines Road covering most of the area between University Road and Adams Road and East Valleyway Avenue and Trent Avenue excluding the Mirabeau Subarea.The North Pines Road subarea includes the following TAZs: 293, 297, 298, 305, 306, 329, 330, 331, 395, 396, and 397. This area will be referred to in this report as the North Pines Road TIF area. 1 Mirabeau and North Pines Road Subarea Transportation Impact Fee Rate Study June 2021 Based on the analysis provided in the Mira beau Subarea Traffic Study Update, future development in the two subareas is expected to contribute between 13% and 66%of future traffic to the seven intersections identified _depending on the intersection. Fri 2 '—�--- \`''' 1 I _I I ' TI °' Q .j Ir\lI :15)ea:a. M M iv M..-`- �M M .U- r.� ti CS M itj fg Etr C/1 O a ll . L `t- - P2i uenploS N - -1- ,. Li- f� L w i 4 or yI r �- 1\ M� p�sse36n�d Q7 L.-- M pa sums i _0 ��_ �� PH swept/N MIA j _i___ -0 e rn— 4 1 I M CK I I a5 . M iPHlisiBf:N f0 \ ._ .- . P21 uaeJ6,an3 N PH aaweW N — � ri N M —— —N m P2i'Pleuoa�W NI �_ T- cq ¢ - (13 Y CL [13 0) ``ll I { -1`� M 0 LEI r - R a z M — 03 a L as 03 i C __ n pa'sauld N y - i_aI / w 1 ) 01 J + w N — p 2 JJJ co `� § O ° �/ �� r I w PH 4slpnnb9 N 1 -1- L---__,A____ .—__. _ ,. Ns,,,,, 1y ;,� 74> v/- \\°9-1 cif + 'N II !�' 'M _I _.� M u1 ,01 m l I I.�_�U IIV tl r � I` t • us\ \ ' of PH rimsraNtin N. '( 1 �' �m C I ¢ 3 a - s, t,-.) r 1 rn c N PH si1eJ N coco I a m cn w _ P2i P18}eFE N 1 -" ti 1u 2 c 7 Q § Q PH Ion ,nnMrN �^ M o`L I UI o 8 v %, E 3 1 `o'_ Pit a-1ed N m re 3 fir' _I. m 4-, c i N Mo b?f isnadi N ;co a3 as 1 , — -1..„-c-,....,CA a oe — cl`• P2i Ue{{IInW N 5 } i- r-w �.--0 Ip auuo6�y N w-44 1 1 p�. - I i c • fr1 p21 ailJan6aeW{� _ 1111 , I _ cD rrso in N . 1 Y I JJJ Cy a o.) c? `� i I 1p - _-_T m 2!tua6ieS M Cli3 Hi 11 I - ;, 1 � I i l _1 141�- I Mirabeau and North Pines Road Subarea Transportation Impact Fee Rate Study June 2021 Methodology The impact fee for the Mirabeau and North Pines Road Subareas was developed to establish the fair share of transportation improvement costs that may be charged to new development in the area. Revised Code of Washington Section 82.02,050 authorizes cities planning under the Figure 2. Impact Fee GMA to impose impact fees for system improvements that are Methodology reasonably required to support and mitigate the impacts of new development, Fees may not exceed a proportionate share of the costs of Projects and costs improvements and cannot be used to fund existing deficiencies. identified (Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study) The following key points summarize the process for developing the impact fee structure (refer to Figure 2): Eligible project costs • The Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study Update identified a list of identified (Mirabeau future projects and estimated costs that will be needed to Subarea Traffic Study) support future growth through the year 2040. • The Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study Update also accounted for Fair share of each project any existing deficiency(intersections/roadway segments that do to TIF areas identified not meet current level of service standards) by deducting the (Mirabeau Subarea Traffic costs of those deficiencies from the total project cost. Study) • The Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study Update next identified the share of traffic growth that is attributed to each of the two TIF areas. Forecast growth in PM peak hour vehicle trips in • The forecast growth in PM peak hour vehicle trips in the TIF areas Mirabeau and North Pines Road TIF area was estimated by converting the forecast land use growth in the SRTC regional travel demand model (and modified based on estimates Growth cost allocation provided by developers) using the Institute of Transportation (cost per PM peak hour Engineers (ITE)Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition. vehicle trip) • A cost per PM peak hour trip was calculated by dividing the fair share cost of each project by the growth in vehicle trips in each subarea. Impact Fee Schedule • Lastly, a land use-based fee schedule was developed using the cost per PM peak vehicle trip.Trip rates for multiple land use categories were estimated using vehicle trip generation rates from the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition. Using the ITE Trip Generation Manual will provide consistency between a project trip generation letter or traffic impact study and the impact fee rate, The following sections describe in detail these elements that that are integral to the final impact fee schedule. 4 ii Project List The Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study, originally completed in 2016 and updated in December 2019, included an analysis of traffic demand through the year 2040 to identify potential traffic improvement projects at major intersections in and near the subareas.That study identified a total of seven projects that will be needed by 2040 to accommodate future growth and maintain level of service standards.Those projects, and costs in 2021 dollars, are shown in Table 1.The seven projects total approximately$7.66 million in 2021 dollars(note: these costs have been updated from the cost estimates in the Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study Update to account for construction cost inflation or more detailed estimates by the City of Spokane Valley - COSV). Table 1. Mirabeau Traffic Study Project List and Cost Estimates Cost Estimate Project Description Program (2021 dollars) Pines Rd/Indiana Add westbound left-turn lane; retime traffic signal N/A $1,545,000 Ave Pines Rd/1-90 EB Add eastbound left-turn lane and northbound right-turn Ramps pocket(extending back to Nora Ave); retime traffic N/A $1,152,000 signal Pines Rd/Mission Reconfigure lane assignments on Mission Ave to include Ave eastbound dual-left and a through-right lane and 2022 2027 TIP westbound left,through,and right turn lane; retime and (#13) $2,000,000 upgrade traffic signal;add southbound right-turn lane (extending back to the 1-90 off-ramp) Mirabeau Pkwy/ Add traffic signal,add new 180 foot southbound 2022-2027 TIP $1 252,000 Mansfield Ave through-right lane (#41) Sullivan Rd/ Reconfigure eastbound to include a left and through- N/A $97,000 Mission Ave right lane;retime signal Add a southbound right-turn-only lane;convert the Pines Rd/ existing southbound through-right lane to a through- N/A $843,000 Sprague Ave only lane;add a second eastbound left-turn-only lane. Argonne Rd/ Add a second westbound left-turn lane. N/A $776,000 Trent Ave TOTAL $7,665,000 Source:Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study Update(December 2019).Costs were updated based on California Construction Cost Index, which showed a 3.0%inflation rate from December 2019 to March 2021.The exception being the Pines Road/Mission Avenue project,for which cost estimates were more recently updated by COSV. Note:TIP=City of Spokane Valley Transportation Improvement Plan. Travel Growth Determining the growth in travel demand caused by new development is a key requirement for a TIF program. In nearly every TIF program across Washington and the country, the total eligible costs of building new transportation capacity is divided by the total growth in trips to determine a cost per trip. All 5 Mirabeau and North Pines Road Subarea Transportation Impact Fee Rate Study June 2021 developments pay the same cost per trip, but larger developments that generate more trips pay a higher total fee than smaller developments. In this way,the cost to provide the new transportation infrastructure is fairly apportioned to new development. Moreover, in setting the boundary for the TIF, a select zone analysis was performed to validate that all the areas within the two TIF areas contribute a meaningful amount of total traffic to the combined project sites relative to the amount of growth expected.The amount of traffic varies somewhat based on which project location is evaluated and which TAZ the project resides in, but in all cases each of the 11 identified TAZs within the two TIF areas contribute a similar proportion of the total TIF area traffic to the project sites relative to the amount of growth expected in the respective TAZ. For the Mirabeau TIF area,the future growth in PM peak hour vehicle trips was estimated using the change in land use in the study area from 2015 and 2040 based on the data provided in the original Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study(2016) as well as trip rates from the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition. Forecast land use growth was attained from a combination of sources, including conversations with major developers, a land use audit of development in the pipeline, and the SRTC regional travel demand model. For the North Pines Road TIF area,which was incorporated by the Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study Update in 2019,the future growth in PM peak hour vehicle trips was estimated using the change in land use in the study area from the 2015 and 2040 SRTC regional travel demand model as well as trip rates from the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition.The SRTC travel demand model includes 11 land use categories: two residential and nine non-residential categories. For each land use in the SRTC model, an associated ITE trip rate was identified. Table 2 summarizes the calculation for the Mirabeau TIF area and Table 3 summarizes the calculation for the North Pines Road TIF area. It should be noted that COSV directs developers to apply the trip calculation methodology based on the process detailed in Section 4.4 of the ITE Trip Generation Handbook, 3rd Edition when estimating trip generation for developments. In some situations the best-fit curve would be used instead of average trip rates.That methodology is applicable at the development scale where developments of various sizes can impact trip rates. However, in this situation given growth forecast in the model will occur among developments of various sizes over a 25-year period, using average trip rates is more appropriate and was applied to forecast growth in trips in the TIF area. 6 ii Table 2. Growth in Mirabeau TIF Area PM Peak Hour Vehicle Trips (2015-2040) ITE Average Growth in Land Use (LU) 2015-2040 Unit of ITE Code ITE Description Trip Rate 1 Trips(LU LU Growth Measure growth x (PM peak hr.) trip rate) Single Family 65 1 Dwelling 210 Single-Family Detached 0.99 65 Residential i Units 'Housing Multi-Family Dwelling Multifamily Housing 979 220 0.56, 549 Residential Units (Low-Rise) Hotel/Motel 150 Rooms 310 Hotel 0.60 1 90 Retail Trade 63.89 Thousand 820 Shopping Center 3.81 244 Square Feet pp 9 Office 2,561 Employees 710 General Office Building 0.40 1,025 Total Growth in PM Peak Hour Trips 1,973 1.lTE Trip Generation Manual, 10'h Edition;average trip rate of adjacent street traffic 4-6 PM was used for all land uses given growth will occur among developments of various sizes. 7 Mirabeau and North Pines Road Subarea Transportation Impact Fee Rate Study June 2021 Table 3. Growth in North Pines Road TIF Area PM Peak Hour Vehicle Trips (2015-2040) Growth in ITE Average Trips (LU SRTC Land Use (LU) 2015`2R40 Unit of ITE Code ITE Description Trip Rate LU Growth Measure growth x (PM peak hr.) trip rate) Single Family 78 Dwelling 210 Single Family Detached 0.99 78 Residential Units Housing Multi-Family 157 Dwelling 220 Multifamily Housing 0.56 88 Residential Units (Low-Rise) Hotel/Motel 0'Rooms N/A N/A I N/A 0 Agriculture, Forestry, Mining, Industrial, 79 Employees 110 General Light Industrial 0.49 39 Manufacturing, Wholesale Retail Trade(Non- Central Business i 155 Employees 820 Shopping Center 1.62 252 District) Services and Offices 248 Employees 710 General Office Building 0.40 100 Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate 11 Employees 710 General Office Building 0.40 7 Services (FIRES) 1 Medical 371 Employees 630 Clinic 0.85 316 Retail Trade(CBD) 0 Employees N/A N/A N/A 0 Education Employees 18 Employees 520 Elementary School 1.78 33 University Employees 0 Employees N/A'N/A 0.40 0 I Total Growth in PM Peak Hour Trips 9112 1.ITE Trip Generation Manual,10'h Edition;average trip rate of adjacent street traffic 4-6 PM was used for all land uses given growth will occur among developments of various sizes. 2.Estimated growth in trips is slightly higher than the findings in the Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study Update(2019)because the retail trip generation is based on employees instead of square foot and the trip generation from the school land use was updated. Using this methodology, it is forecast that the Mirabeau TIF area would generate 1,973 new PM peak hour vehicle trips by 2040, and the North Pines TIF area would generate 911 new PM peak hour trips by 2040. The total PM peak hour vehicle trip growth for these two areas will be used in the calculation of the TIF rate. Cost Allocation 1 Three steps were used to allocate costs per PM peak hour trip, see Figure 3. First, the TIF methodology must separate the share of project costs that address existing deficiencies from the share of project costs 8 ii that add transportation capacity and serve new growth. Second, resulting growth-related improvement costs are then further separated to identify the share of growth related to land development in Mirabeau and North Pines Road TIF areas. It should be noted that dedicated funding from external sources (state/regional grants, other mitigation payments, etc.) is considered in the impact fee eligible costs, if the dedicated funding exceeds the share of costs caused by growth outside of the T1F areas.This is currently not the case,thus non-City funding sources were not excluded from the total eligible project cost. Figure 3. Impact Fee Cost Allocation Project List STEPS $7.6M 0 Future Growth Existing Deficiency $7,3 M $320 K 4 0 Inside Mirabeau Inside N Pines Rd Outside TIF Areas TIF Area TIF Area $3.4 M $1.4 M $2.5 M 1+2%Admin 4,+2%Adrnin 4, Eligible Mirabeau Eligible N Pines Rd Other Funds Needed Impact Fee Impact Fee $3 8 M $1.4 M $2.6 M Existing Transportation Deficiencies An existing conditions analysis was conducted for the Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study Update,which identified existing level of service (LOS) deficiencies at two of the seven project locations: Pines Road & Sprague Avenue and Argonne Road &Trent Avenue. A deficiency at an intersection is defined in the Comprehensive Plan as a LOS rating of E or lower at a signalized intersection or LOS F at an unsignalized intersection.The full cost of projects at these two locations cannot be included in the impact fee and a portion must be deducted to account for the existing deficiency.The methodology for accounting for the existing deficiency is explained in Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study Update and provided below. Pines Road&Sprague Avenue The full cost of improvements at the Pines Road &Sprague Avenue intersection cannot be applied to the impact fee because there is a LOS deficiency at this intersection under existing conditions.To account for 9 Mirabeau and North Pines Road Subarea Transportation Impact Fee Rate Study June 2021 this,the portion of traffic that if removed from the system today would effectively reduce the LOS at this intersection from an "E"to a "D"was estimated in Synchro.The result was 10%of existing traffic.This means that if traffic volumes were 10% lower at this intersection under existing conditions,the intersection would meet the LOS D threshold. Therefore,to account for the existing deficiency, 10%of the total cost of the improvement project at Pines Road &Sprague Avenue was deducted from the total cost to arrive at the applicable cost as shown in Table 5 and Table 6. Argonne Road& Trent Avenue Similarly, the full cost of improvements at the Argonne Road &Trent Avenue intersection cannot be applied to the impact fee because there is an existing LOS deficiency at this intersection.To account for this,the cost of a restriping and signal modification project which would bring the intersection to a LOS D under existing conditions was estimated.The project was recommended as part of the North Argonne Road/North Mutton Road Corridor Retiming Project.1 The estimated cost of this project($229,200 in 2019 dollars; updated to $236,000 in 2021 dollars) was deducted from cost of the longer term project to arrive at the applicable cost as shown in Table 5 and Table 6. In total, between the two projects, $320,000 was deducted from the $7.66 million total cost of all seven projects associated with the TIF areas to account for existing deficiencies. Fair-Share Cost With deficiencies accounted for,the remaining project costs are related to supporting new growth in trips that will be funded by COSV. However, not all the growth comes from development in the Mirabeau and North Pines Road TIF area- there is a portion of growth that comes from other parts of Spokane Valley and surrounding jurisdictions.To ensure that the costs assessed to development as part of the TIF are fair and proportional to the impact, a fair share percentage was used.The Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study Update identified the percentage of traffic growth through each project intersection that are expected to be attributable to development in the Mirabeau TIF area and North Pines Road TIF area.This was done using a select zone analysis in the 2040 SRTC travel demand model.The percentages range from 4%to 53%depending on the TIF and the project location as shown in Table 4. Fehr&Peers.Technical Memorandum.N Argonne Road/N Malian Road Corridor Retiming,July 25, 2019. Project# SE18-0621. pi 10 Table 4. Percent of 2040 Traffic Attributable to each Project Location North Pines Road Combined Portion of Mirabeau Subarea Subarea Portion of Future Traffic from Intersection Portion of Future Traffic Future Traffic two Subareas Pines Rd/Indiana Ave 18%, 42% 60% Pines Rd/I-90 EB Ramps 18% 48% 66% Pines Rd/Mission Ave 4% 53% 57% Mirabeau Plcwy/Mansfield Ave 38% 5% 43% Sullivan Rd/Mission Ave 4% 9% 13% Pines Rd/Sprague Ave 6% 19% 25% Argonne Rd/Trent Ave 10% 7%I 17% Source:Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study Update(Dec 2019) The fair share percentages were multiplied by the eligible cost of each project in the corridor to get the cost of growth-related transportation improvements at the seven project locations that is expected to be attributable to development in the two TIE areas. For the Mirabeau TIF area, this equates to$1,384,640. A two percent administrative fee was added to each Subarea cost to cover the cost of administering the program, including future updates to the TIF rate study. When factored in,the eligible project cost for the Mirabeau TIF area equates to $1,412,330 shown in Table 5. Table 5. Mirabeau TIF Area Eligible Cost Calculations Cost to Address TIF Area Fair Cost Existing Eligible Project Share Attributable to Project Location Project Cost Deficiencies Cost Percent Study Area Pines Rd/Indiana Ave $1,545,000 $0 $1,545,000' 18% $278,100 Pines Rd/I-90 EB Ramps $1,152,000 $0 $1,152,000 18% $207,360 Pines Rd/Mission Ave $2,000,000 $0 $2,000,000 16% $320,000 Mirabeau Plcwy/ $1,252,000 $0 $1,252,000 38% $475,760 Mansfield Ave Sullivan Rd/Mission Ave ' $97,000 $0 $97,000 4%' $3,880 Pines Rd/Sprague Ave $843,000 $84,000 $759,000 6% $45,540 Argonne Rd/Trent Ave $776,000 $236,000, $540,000 10% $54,000 SUBTOTAL $7,665,000 $320,000 $7,345,000 Varies $1,384,640 Administrative Cost(2%) $27,690 TOTAL $1,412,330 11 Mirabeau and North Pines Road Subarea Transportation Impact Fee Rate Study June 2021 For the North Pines Road TIF area, the fair share total equates to $2,515,200.When the two percent administrative fee factored in, the eligible project cost for the North Pines Road TIF equates to $2,565,200 as shown in Table 6. Table 6. North Pines Road TIF Area Eligible Cost Calculations Cost to Address Cost Eligible Project TIF Area Fair Attributable to Project Location Project Cost Existing Cost Share Percent Deficiencies Study Area Pines Rd/Indiana Ave $1,545,0001 $0 $1,545,000 42% $648,900 Pines Rd/I-90 EB Ramps $1,152,000 $0 $1,152,000 48% $552,960 Pines Rd/Mission Ave $2,000,000 1 $0 $2,000,000' 53% $1,060,000 Mirabeau PI<wy/ $1,252,000 $0 $1,252,000 5% $62,600 Mansfield Ave Sullivan Rd/Mission Ave $97,000 $0 $97,000 9% $8,730 Pines Rd/Sprague Ave $843,000 $84,000 $759,000 19% $144,210 Argonne Rd/Trent Ave $776,000 $236,000' $540,000 7% $37,800 SUBTOTAL $7,665,000 $320,000 $7,345,000 Varies $2,515,200111 Administrative Cost(2%) $50,300 TOTAL $2,565,500 Committed External Funding As identified in Table 5 and Table 6,the two T1F areas are eligible to fund $3.90 million of the $7.66 million total project costs.The City of Spokane Valley is responsible to fund the balance through any non- TIF area funding source. One of the more common sources of funding to pay for this external growth share are grants.To this end,the City has secured a Congestion Mitigation/Air Quality grant of$1.73 million to fund capacity projects in the area and has chosen to advance implementation of the Pines Road and Mission Avenue intersection. Since this grant is less than the total amount the City is liable to cover to fund the share of growth outside of the TlF areas ($3.76 million),there is no change in cost attributable to either of the TIF areas. Additionally,there are existing "vested"trips from the prior"Pines-Mansfield Development Agreement" that was established by Spokane County.While the transportation improvement projects identified as part of the Pines-Mansfield Development Agreement have largely been constructed, Spokane Valley will count the vested trips as a credit against impact fee documented in this rate study. These trips have a value of $303.36 per PM peak hour trip. Developers can apply the value of their unused vested PM peak hour trips in their current quantity as a credit to the Mirabeau TlF until they have no vested trips remaining. 12 r1 Cost per PM Peak Hour Trip Lastly,the cost per PM peak hour trip for each of the two TIF areas was calculated by dividing the total eligible fee for each TIF by the respective growth in PM peak hour trips in each TIF area.This equates to a fee of$716 per PM peak hour trip in the Mirabeau TIF area and $2,816 per PM peak hour trip in the North Pines Road TIF area as shown in Table 7. Table 7. Cost Per PM Peak Hour Trip Calculations 2015-2040 Cost per PM Fair Share Eligible Growth in PM TIF Area Project Costs Peak Hour Trip Peak Hour Trips Mirabeau TIF I $1,412,330 1,973 $716 North Pines Road TIF $2,565,500 9111 $2,816 13 Mirabeau and North Pines Road Subarea Transportation Impact Fee Rate Study June 2021 Impact Fee Schedule The impact fee schedule was developed by adjusting the cost per PM peak hourvehicle trip to reflect differences in trip-making characteristics for the general land use types forecast in the SRTC regional travel demand model within Spokane Valley.The fee schedule is a table where fees are represented as dollars per unit for each land use category which makes it easier for developers to calculate their impact fee rates.Table 8 and Table 9 shows the various components of the fee schedule. Trip Generation Trip generation rates for each land use type in the PM peak hour were derived from average trip rates for selected land uses of the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition to ensure consistent and repeatable calculations across all land uses. Pass-By Trip Adjustment The ITE trip generation rates represent total vehicles entering and leaving a development. For certain land uses (e.g., retail, convenience stores, etc.), a substantial amount of the motorized travel is already passing by the property and merely turns into and out of the driveway.These pass-by trips do not add trips to the surrounding street system and therefore are subtracted ❑ut prior to calculating the impact fee.The resulting trips are considered "new"trips and are therefore subject to the impact fee calculation.The pass- by trip percentages are taken from the ITE Trip Generation Handbook, 3rd Edition (2017). Schedule of Rates The proposed impact fee rates for the Mirabeau TIF are shown in Table 8 and the proposed impact fee rates for the North Pines Road TIF are shown in Table 9. An expanded table of land uses is provided in Table 10 and Table 11 in Appendix A. In the fee schedule,fees are shown as dollars per unit of development for various land use categories.The impact fee program is flexible in that if a use does not fit into one of the ITE land use categories listed, an impact fee can be calculated based on the development's projected PM peak hour person trip generation and multiplied by the cost per PM peak hour trip which is $716 for the Mirabeau TIF area as shown in Table 8 and $2,816 in the North Pines Road TIF area as shown in Table 9. Projects with land uses not in Table 8-Table 11 shall prepare a trip generation and distribution letter and will be responsible for a fee based on $716 per PM peak hour trip for the Mirabeau TIF are and $2,816 per PM peak hour trip for the North Pines Road TIF area. 14 Table 8. Mirabeau Impact Fee Schedule City of Spokane Valley Mirabeau Transportation Impact Fee Rate Schedule PM Peak Vehicle Passby Adjusted Trips Impact Fee Per Unit4 @ ITE Code ITE Land Use Category r 2 per Unit of Trip Rate ` `y Measure3 $716 per P14 Peak Vehicle Trip I 210 Single Family&Duplex 0.99 0% 0.99 $709 per dwelling unit 220 Multi-Family 0.56 0% 0.56 $401 per dwelling unit 310 Hotel(3 or More Levels) 0.70 0% 0.70 $501 per room 520 Elementary School 0,00137 0% 0.00137 $0.98 per sq ft 630 Medical Clinic 0,00328 0% 0.00328 $2.35 per sq ft 710 General Office 0.00115 0% 0.00115 $0.82 per sq ft 820 Sho.'in.Center 0.00381 34% 0.00251 $1.80 IMIMIIIMII 1 ITE Trip Generation Manual(10th Edition):4-6 PM Peak Hour Vehicle Trip Generation Rates for the Adjacent Street Traffic(weekday 4- 6PM);This worksheet represents only the generalized land uses in the SRTC regional travel demand model and is NOT all-inclusive;see Table 10 for a wider variety of uses;Projects with land uses not in Table 8 or 10 shall prepare a trip generation and distribution letter and will be responsible for a fee based on$716 per PM peak hour trip. 2 New trips will exclude"pass-by"trips:see"ITE Trip Generation Handbook 3rd Edition"(2017). 3 PM peak trip rate excluding passby trips 4 sq ft=square feet,room =available hotel/motel room Table 9. North Pines Road Impact Fee Schedule City of Spokane Valley North Pines Road Transportation Impact Fee Rate Schedule - PM Peak Vehicle ) Passby I Adjusted Trips Impact Fee Per Unit 4 @ ITE Code ITE Land Use Category T 2 per Unit of Trip Rate Measure3 $2,816 per PM Peak Vehicle Trip 210 Single Family&Duplex 0,99 - - -0% 0.99 $2,788 per dwelling unit 220 Multi-Family 0.56 0% 0.56 $1,577 per dwelling unit 310 Hotel(3 or More Levels) 0.70 0%a 0.70 $1,971 per room 520 Elementary School 0.00137 0% 0.00137 $3.86 per sq ft 630 Medical Clinic 0.00328 0% 0.00328 $9.24 per sq ft 710 General Office 0.00115 0% 0.00115 $3.24 per sgft 820 She.sin. Center 0.00381 34% 0.00251 $7.08 IMINTEEM 1 ITE Trip Generation Manual(10th Edition):4-6 PM Peak Hour Vehicle Trip Generation Rates for the Adjacent Street Traffic(weekday 4- 6PM);This worksheet represents only the generalized land uses in the SRTC regional travel demand model and is NOT all-inclusive;see Table 11 for a wider variety of uses;Projects with land uses not in Table 9 or 11 shall prepare a trip generation and distribution letter and will be responsible for a fee based on$2,816 per PM peak hour trip. 2 New trips will exclude"pass-by"trips:see"ITE Trip Generation Handbook 3rd Edition"(2017). 3 PM peak trip rate excluding passby trips 4 sq ft=square feet,room =available hotel/motel room 15 p ,_ b ,; - Expanded Impact Fee �� _)-�r�� I:1l_cc i �I.%_�. .�. 1. t. )(i ..1w.)1.( ( .I,.l� ]� .(_, Table 10. Expanded Mirabeau Impact Fee Schedule City of Spokane Valley Mirabeau Transportation Impact Fee Rate Schedule PM PeaAdjusted Trips Impact Fee Per Unit @ Vehicle per Unit of Land Use Group ITECode ` Trip ITE Land Use Category (fate Passfry%Z 1 r I Measure3 $716 per PM Peak Vehicle Trip 210 Single Family&Duplex 0.99 0% 0.99 $709 per dwelling unit Residential 220 Multi-Famil 0.56 0% 0.56 $401 •erdwellin•unit 310 Hotel(3 or More Levels) 0.70 0% 0.70 __ $501 per room Services 492 Health Club 0.00345 0% 0.00345 $2.47 per sq ft - 912 Bank 0,02045 34% 0.01350 $9.66 .ers.ft 520 Elementary School 0.00137 0% 0.00137 $0.98 per sq ft Institution 522 Middle School 0.00119 0% 000119 $0.85 per sgft 530 Hi.h School 0.00097 0% 0.00097 $0.69 •ers.ft 925 Drinking Establishment 0.01136 43% 0.00648 $4.64 per sq ft Restaurant _ 934 Fast Food Restaurant(with drive-thru) 0.03_267 50% 0.01634 $11.69 per sq ft 937 Coffee Sho•with Drive-Thru 0,04338 69% 0.00477 $3.42 .ers.ft 820 Shopping Center 0.00381 34°! 0.00251 $1.80 per sq ft Retail 841 Automobile Sales-Used/New 0.00375 0% 0.00375 $2.68 per sq ft 853 Convenience Market with GasolinePum.s 23.04 66% 7.83 $5,608 •er.um. 110 Light Industry/High Technology 0.00063 0% 0.00063 $0,45 per sq ft Industrial 140 Manufacturing 0.00067 0% 0.00067 $0.48 per sgft 151 Minl-Stora.e 0.00017 0% 0.00017 $0.12 .ers.ft 710 General Office 0.00115 0% 0.00115 $0.62 per sgft Office 720 Medical Office/Clinic 0.00346 0% 0.00346 $2.48 per sq ft 750 Office Park 0.00107 0% 0.00107 $0.77 .ers.ft 1 1TE Trip Generation Manual(10th Edition):4-6 PM Peak Hour Vehicle Trip Generation Rates for the Adjacent Street Traffic(weekday 4-6PM);This worksheet represents only the most common uses in southeast Spokane Valley and is NOT all-inclusive;Projects with land uses not in Tablet!or 10 shall prepare a trip generation and distribution letter and will be responsible for a fee based on$716 per PM peak hour trip. New trips will exclude"pass-by"trips:see"ITE Trip Generation Handbook 3rd Edition"(2017). 3 PM peak trip rate excluding passby trips sq ft=square feet,pump=vehicle servicing position/gas pump,room-available hotel room i 1 FEHR ' PEERS Table 11. Expanded North Pines Road Impact Fee Schedule City of Spokane Valley North Pines Road Transportation impact Fee Rate Schedule PM Peak Adjusted Trips impact Fee Per Unit' @ Vehicle Land Use Group ITE Cade , ITE Land Use Category Trippassby 2 per Unit of Rate' Measure a $2,816 per PM Peak Vehicle Trip 210 Single Family&Duplex 0.99 0% 0.99 52,788 per dwelling unit Residential 220 Multl-Famil 0.56 0% 0.56 51,577 .erdweilln.unit 310 Hotel(3 or More Levels) 0.70 0% 0,70 $1,971 per roam Services 492 Health Club 0.00345 0% _ 0.00345 $9.72 per sq ft 912 Bank 0.02045 34% 0,01350 $38.01 .ers.ft 520 Elementary School 0.00137 0%_ 0.00137 $3.86 per sq ft Institution 522 Middle School 0.00119 0% 0.00119 $3.35 per sgft 530 Hi.hSchool 0.00097 0% 0.00097 $2.73 .er s.ft 925 Drinking Establishment 0.01136 43% 0.00648 $18.24 per sgft Restaurant 934 East Food Restaurant(with drive-thru) 0.03267 50% 0.01634 $46.00 per sq ft 937 Coffee Sho.with Drive-Thai 0,04338 89% 0,00477 $13.44 .ers.ft 820 Shopping Center 0.00381 34% 0.00251 $7.08 per sq ft Retail 841 Automobile Sales-Used/New 0.00375 0% 0.00375 $10.56 per sq ft 853 Convenience Market with Gasoline Pum.s 23.04 66% 7,83 $22,060 .er.um. 110 Lightlndustry/High Technology 0.00063 0% 0,00063 $1.77 per sgft Industrial 140 Manufacturing 0.00067 0% 0.00067 $1.89 per sq ft 151 Mini-Stora.e 0.00017 0% 0.00017 $0.48 .ers.ft 710 General Office 0.00115 0% 0.00115 $3.24 per sq ft Office 720 Medical Office%Clinic 0.00346 0% 0.00346 $9.74 per sgft 750 Office Park 0.00107 0% 0.00107 $3.01 .er s.ft 1 ITE Trip Generation Manual(10th Edition):4-6 PM Peak Hour Vehicle Trip Generation Rates for the Adjacent Street Traffic(weekday 4-6PM);This worksheet represents only the most common uses in southeast Spokane Valley and is NOT all-inclusive;Projects with land uses not in Table9 or 11 shall prepare a trip generation and distribution letter and will be responsible for a fee based on$2,816 per PM peak hour trip. z New trips will exclude'pass-by"trips:see'"ITE Trip Generation Handbook 3rd Edition"(2017). 1 PM peak trip rate excluding passby trips A sq ft=square feet,pump=vehicle servicing position/gas pump,room=available hotel room FEHRk PEERS Appendix Iii.iY) -- 1Viaraliwa.0 Traffic Study Update (2,orimi.,.(,y-)),\. FEHRif PEERS Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study Update Prepared for: City of Spokane Valley, Washington December 2019 DN19-0631 FEHRif PEERS Table of Contents Introduction 1 Previous Study Findings 1 Update to Expand Subarea 1 Traffic Analysis 4 Level of Service Standards 4 Methodology 5 Existing Traffic Level of Service 7 Year 2040 Traffic Level of Service 8 Project Cost Estimates 10 Updated Project Unit Costs 10 Project Cost Estimates 11 Fair Share &Cost Per Trip Analysis 13 Fair Share Analysis 13 Cost Per Trip 15 Conclusions 17 Appendices Appendix A - Existing Conditions Synchro Reports Appendix B - Existing Conditions Optimized Synchro Reports Appendix C - Future Conditions Synchro Reports Appendix ID - Future Conditions with Mitigations Synchro Reports Appendix E—Project Cost Estimate Spreadsheets List of Figures Figure 1: Study Area 2 Figure 2: Existing and Future Lane Configurations Traffic Controls, and PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 6 List of Tables Table 1: Projects identified in 2016 Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study 3 Table 2: Level of service description and delay thresholds at intersections 5 Table 3: Existing (2019) PM peak hour level of service 7 Table 4: Existing (2019) PM peak hour LOS with signal timing adjustments 8 Table 5: 2040 PM peak hour LOS with signal timing optimized 8 Table 6: Potential project to improve 2040 PM peak hour LOS 9 Table 7: Potential project at Argonne Rd./Trent Ave.to improve 2040 PM peak hour LOS 9 Table 8: Unit costs 10 Table 9: Cost estimate of potential projects to improve future LOS 11 Table 10: Subarea share of future PM peak hour traffic at deficient intersections 13 Table 11: Subareas' share of total improvement costs 14 Table 12: PM peak hour trip generation calculation 15 Table 13: Voluntary Traffic Mitigation Fees for Developers to Meet SEPA Obligation 17 This page intentionally left blank. Introduction The City of Spokane Valley commissioned the Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study in 2016 that identified existing transportation level of service (LOS) deficiencies and future transportation improvements to support existing and planned growth in the Subarea. Based on the traffic forecasts,future traffic impacts and potential mitigation projects, a fair share analysis was used to estimate a cost per PM peak hour vehicle trip that developers in the Subarea would pay to meet their obligation under SEPA.The City will use these fees to offset the cost of transportation improvement projects directly impacted by development in the Subarea.The Mirabeau Subarea is mapped in Figure 1 and covers most of the area between Pines Road and Sullivan Road and 1-90 and the Spokane River in north central Spokane Valley. Previous Study Findings The 2016 Mirabeau Traffic Study identified five intersections in or around the Mirabeau Subarea that are forecast to have LOS deficiencies by 2040. These intersections are shown in Table 1, including the 2015 and 2040 PM peak hour LOS and delay. For each intersection, a project was identified to address the future LOS deficiency, including a cost estimate for each project.A fair share percent was also estimated that represents the portion of future traffic that would pass through the location generated by the Mirabeau Subarea.This proportion is based on a select link analysis using the Spokane Regional Transportation Council (SRTC) regional travel demand model. Based on the estimated project costs,fair share analysis, and future traffic generated by development in the Subarea, a cost per PM peak hour vehicle trip of$323.75 was calculated and assessed to developments in the area to pay for the future transportation improvement projects identified in the Study. Update to Expand Subarea In 2019, the City commissioned an update to the Mirabeau Traffic Study.This report provides a summary of the update, including an updated cost analysis and findings.The main purpose of this Study is to update the fair share cost per PM peak hour vehicle trip from the original traffic study as well as expand the geographic area by which transportation impact fees will be collected to account for new developments planned for the area south of 1-90. Instead of changing the boundaries of the previously established Mirabeau Subarea to accommodate the expanded area, a second Subarea was established directly adjacent to the Mirabeau Subarea.The second Subarea is referred to as the North Pines Road Subarea and is mapped in Figure 1.The North Pines Road Subarea is around Pines Road roughly between Sprague Avenue and Trent Avenue and University Road and Adams Road excluding the Mirabeau Subarea. Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study Update 1 (13 r x Il CD tii a o k. I __T .c 4 en >, . i, '''..,...__\N„...) = co co i v pa uen,111nS N 9 A --- t� Pi1 sseJ641d N Cyr } � r - S ,, `-�, `O pa Sl11 I Q N r— J 1- _ M Piis IPdN I cco �(7)— M CO 0 Ull 1 ://i 1 8L - H 1 -I :r i I ..._.\ _ `.. /ffN w 1> 'ueal$en2Nm4 -, • i �;� --.1— (It p�11aWeW N C m.. 9 d_ i° N i 1— o .3 U� it 1— I W Igi } Pa Pieuod�W N M�~� a M1- iL- - 1Y �pQa�J W. 4 L LL co 4%. . i .a_ 0, a / " , 1 i 'C'--171)I I— -1 hCii g .. ) __ Lu 41) CO - m a said,' w� _ • 'Fa _ c in ili M \ __.\\\\,,, 1. �.ua I c 04( N"efir to • — I I + P?J 4SIpMoB N 1 I ''t -----V — -- Xlicc3'3—- el ar - r ; L r p i 41s1enIUN N I I ¢ I1 Iht ea 0. -� -- - X ff W^O—' coil .M .� o CO I — a d CO w_.�-. N- P3J'slle.�N o I M- �' e _J 0 C N 4 pa Mall P1 —I air ai N rnM 01 pu Brupoomy N 1 en W P21 Z CL — I l )4: W cal L--co ' cm (NI RI asnoo-1 N t tV PiI LL11nN11V co � —I co — ... +� —OH auuo6ly N1 f •rnj o a —o]-/,'cc+1 ,, cow-�4 . -- — I �N yJ �`111 N - 1y �-`_I 1 - LO Table 1: Projects identified in 2016 Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study Mirabeau 2040 LOS Subarea Mirabeau Project 2015 2040 Description of Cost with Proportion Subarea Fair (Intersection) LOS LOS Impray. Improvement Estimate of Future Share Cost Traffic Pines Rd/ E p Add westbound left-turnD $896,000 18% $161,000 Indiana Ave lane; retime traffic signal Add eastbound left-turn lane and northbound Pines Rd/1-90 E F right-turn pocket $753,000 18% $135,000 EB Ramps (extending back to Nora Ave); retime traffic signal Add southbound right- turn lane (extending back to the I- 90 off-ramp); reconfigure lane Pines Rd/ assignments on Mission $457,000 16% $73,000 Mission Ave E F Ave to include eastbound dual-left and a through-right lane and westbound left, through,and right turn lane;retime traffic signal Mirabeau Add traffic signal,add ' Pkwy/ B F C new 180 foot southbound $874,000 38% $332,000 ht lane through-right Mansfield Ave I 9 g Reconfigure eastbound to Sullivan Rd/ include a left andD $61,000 4% $2,500 Mission Ave through-right E B throw h-ri ht lane; retime signal source:Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study(June 2016). Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study Update 3 Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study Update December, 2019 Traffic Analysis In the previous study,traffic analysis was performed for 21 intersections in and around the Mirabeau Subarea,with five of those locations identified as having traffic level of service(LOS) deficiencies by Year 2040. No updates to that analysis were performed as part of this study and the COSV still plans to implement those five projects(listed in Table 1) over time as fees are collected. However, as part of expanding the traffic analysis to include the North Pines Road Subarea as part of this study,three additional signalized intersections were identified to evaluate existing (2019) and future (2040)traffic LOS. These include: 1. Pines Road/Broadway 2. Pines Road/Sprague Avenue 3. Evergreen Road/Sprague Avenue Level of Service Standards City of Spokane Valley Level of Service Standards The City of Spokane Valley uses level of service(LOS)to describe and evaluate traffic operations along major arterial corridors and intersections within the City. Levels range from LOS A to LOS F,which encompass a range of congestion types from uninterrupted traffic(LOS A)to highly-congested conditions (LOS F).The description and intersection delay thresholds of each LOS category are described in Table 2. These are based on the Highway Capacity Manual,which is the methodology used by Spokane Valley.The LOS for signalized intersections is measured by the average delay per vehicle entering the intersection from all approaches, while the LOS for unsignalized intersections is measured by the average delay per vehicle on the approach with the highest average delay. Spokane Valley also applies Corridor LOS to evaluate major arterial corridors in the City.Average daily traffic(ADT) volume thresholds are used to measure average LOS conditions along the length of the entire corridor. Corridor LOS acknowledges that some intersections may experience greater congestion than the corridor as a whole.Sprague Avenue and Pines Road are both major arterials where corridor-level LOS can be applied. The LOS standards used by Spokane Valley are defined in the Comprehensive Plan as follows: • LOS D at the corridor level for major arterial corridors: o Argonne/Mullan between the town of Millwood and Appleway Boulevard o Pines Road between Trent Avenue and 8th Avenue o Evergreen Road between Indiana Avenue and 8th Avenue o Sullivan Road between Wellesley Avenue and 8th Avenue o Sprague Avenue/Appleway Boulevard between Fancher Road and Sullivan Road • LOS D for signalized intersections not on major arterial corridors • LOS E for unsignalized intersections(LOS F acceptable if peak hour traffic signal warrant is unmet) 4 �� Table 2: Level of service description and delay thresholds at intersections Signalized Unsignalized Level of Description Intersection Delay intersection Delay Service (seconds) (seconds) A Free-flowing conditions. 0-10 0-10 B Stable operating conditions. 10-20 10-15 C Stable operating conditions, but individual motorists are 20-35 15-25 affected by the interaction with other motorists. D High density of motorists, but stable flow. 35-55 25-35 F Near-capacity operations,with speeds reduced to a low but 55-80 35-50 uniform speed. F over-capacity conditions with long delays. > 80 >50 Source:Highway Capacity Manual 2016,Transportation Research Board WSDOT LOS Standards WSDOT also uses LOS thresholds for State Highways. The LOS standard for State Highways in Urban Areas (including the Study Area) is LOS D for signalized intersections and LOS E for unsignalized intersections. Within the Study Area WSDOT's LOS standards are also considered for intersections along Pines Road, which is State Route 27. Methodology Traffic Analysis Synchro software(version 9) was used to evaluate PM peak hour LOS at the three signalized intersections included in this Update. Synchro settings were set consistent with WSDOT Synchro &SimTraffic Protocol (Aug 2018) and City of Spokane Valley standards. LOS was measured using the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 2010 methodology within Synchro. Existing (2019) Traffic Volumes Existing intersection turn movement counts were collected between 4 PM and 6 PM on.Thursday, September 19th, 2019.The existing (and future) PM peak hour volumes are shown in Figure 2. Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study Update 5 17= N 1 _i N 1m E Boon®A e' o—g t _Ig Z i - z Z z — E Carsick.Ave - oC Z -- L I • , E Broadway Ave �_ \ A _r 1 EMI('Ave z E Vell wa Ave - z g1!Y_, ppok ne l - — l E Matti Aim ? I I Valley' �. r -SP €ue Ay .=i . E Sprag _, Abandoned RR __ T i-i- -) E 41h Ave_ I , —1 1 1I I -'- 1 — E5thA�e -I 3 1.Pines/Broadway 2.Pines/Sprague 3.S Evergreen Rd/Sprague O G 1 H al a - N1•-•,-- Na w 76(85) o o ,1_173(195) o D o ti '�275(280) N m N 837(1,005) rn m r"44L �123(130) �� r140(160) 09 �1�J s.s.:w d r�+ 3 187(205) In' 216(240)- 1r� ��166(185)-+315(320)�s rn+ 801(960) io ti m830(1,005).T101(110) 93(120)�" *-s" 95(110)-- Existing PM(2040 PM)Volumes Figure 2 Existing and 2040 Lane Configurations Traffic Controls, and PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Future Year (2040) Traffic Volumes Traffic volumes at each of the study intersections were forecast using the current version of the SRTC 2015 and 2040 regional travel demand models, which was last updated in December 2017.After review of the land use forecasts in the model with City staff, no adjustments were made to the existing or future land use assumptions or transportation network in the model. Instead of using the traffic forecasts directly from the 2040 travel demand model, 2040 volumes were estimated using an industry standard approach known as the difference method. Under the difference method,the difference in traffic volumes between the 2015 and 2040 models were added to observed counts at each of the study area intersections to arrive at a 2040 forecast traffic.This method reduces model error by relying as much as possible on observed data rather than model output data, Note:the difference in traffic volumes between the 2015 and 2040 model were multiplied by 0.84 to account for growth in traffic that occurred between 2015 and 2018(21 years/25 years = 0.84). Post processing to account for model anomalies was also applied to arrive at the final 2040 traffic forecasts. Forecast traffic volumes in Year 2040 are also shown in Figure 2. Existing Traffic Level of Service Table 3 shows the existing PM peak hour LOS using the methodology described above for the three intersections analyzed. Under existing conditions, both the Pines Road/Broadway and Pines Road/Sprague Avenue intersections operate at LOS E, exceeding the COSV and WSDOT intersection LOS D threshold. It should be noted that the Pines Road/Sprague Avenue intersection is just on the cusp of LOS D and LOS E during the PM peak hour.Additionally, both Pines Road and Sprague Avenue are major arterials through these intersections and it should be noted that for these corridors the 2016 Comprehensive Plan directs the LOS threshold to be measured by using corridor-wide LOS.While the Comprehensive Plan acknowledges that individual intersections may exceed the LOS D threshold using this method (as long as the corridor-wide average is at or below LOS D),the corridor-level LOS was not a primary consideration in this case and was not analyzed as part of this study. Table 3: Existing (2019) PM peak hour level of service Intersection Control Delay(sec) LOS Pines Rd/Broadway Signal 62 E Pines Rd/Sprague Ave Signa4 56 E Evergreen Rd/Sprague Ave Signal 51 D Source:Fehr&Peers Improving Existing Level of Service The most cost-effective way to improve the existing LOS at the Pines Road/Broadway intersection would be to make signal timing adjustments.Table 4 shows what the existing PM peak hour LOS would be if the signal timing splits were optimized and cycle length maintained in order to preserve coordination between signals along the corridor. Right-turn-on-red movements were factored into the analysis. Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study Update 7 Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study Update December, 2019 Optimizing the signal splits would improve the Pines Road/Broadway intersection to LOS D, but would have little to no effect at the other two intersections. Table 4: Existing (2019) PM peak hour LOS with signal timing adjustments Intersection Control Delay(sec) LOS Pines Rd/Broadway Signal 48 D Pines Rd/Sprague Ave Signal 56 E Evergreen Rd/Sprague Ave Signal 48 D Source:Fehr&Peers Year 2040 Traffic Level of Service Table 5 shows the estimated PM peak hour LOS in 2040 for the three intersections analyzed, based on traffic growth from the SRTC regional travel demand model.The 2040 delay and LOS presented in Table 5 assumes the same cycle length for the signals, but assumes the signal splits would be optimized over time to account for changing traffic patterns. The results show that in 2040 the Pines Road/Sprague intersection would continue to operate at LOS E, but would degrade by an average of 8 seconds per vehicle from existing conditions, and would exceed WSDOT and COSV intersection LOS threshold.Again, it should be noted that City of Spokane Valley uses corridor-level LOS methodology to measure LOS for both the Pines Road and Sprague Avenue corridors. Corridor-level LOS was not measured in 2040 as part of this analysis, but in consultation with City staff it was determined that addressing congestion at Pines Road and Sprague Avenue in the future was desired to reduce delay, improve corridor-wide LOS for both Sprague Avenue and Pines Road, and to mitigate potential congestion related safety issues. Table 5: 2040 PM peak hour LOS with signal timing optimized Intersection Control Delay(sec) LOS Pines Rd/Broadway Il Signal 49 D Pines Rd/Sprague Ave Signal 64 E Evergreen Rd/Sprague Ave Signal 52 D Source:Fehr&Peers Improving 2040 Level of Service Using an iterative approach and accounting for land use constraints, a project was identified to improve the delay at the Pines Road/Sprague Avenue intersection in 2040.A description of the project and the improvements to LOS and delay is shown in Table 6. This project would reduce the 2040 delay by about 9 seconds and bring the LOS from an E to a D (just on the cusp of a D/E). It should be noted that while this intersection is not specifically required to meet LOS D threshold per Spokane Valley standards (instead the 8 /� Pines Road and Sprague Avenue corridors are required to meet corridor-wide average LOS D threshold), improving the average vehicle delay at this intersection will ensure that WSDOT LOS standards are met and would contribute toward ensuring the Pines and Sprague corridors do not exceed LOS D corridor- wide in 2040. Table 6: Potential project to improve 2040 PM peak hour LOS Delay(sec)with LOS with Intersection Description of Improvement Improvement Improvement • Add a southbound right-turn-only lane; Pines Rd/Sprague Ave • Convert the existing southbound through-right 54 p lane to a through-only lane; • Add a second eastbound left-turn-only lane. I Source:Fehr&Peers Argonne Road &Trent Avenue Intersection The intersection of Argonne Road &Trent Avenue is near the North Pines Road Subarea, and while traffic analysis at that intersection was not performed as part of this study,this intersection was identified in the 2016 Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan as a location that would exceed COSV and WSDOT LOS thresholds.As part of the Comprehensive Plan, a project was identified to address the poor LOS in the future, as described in Table 7. Given that development in both the Mirabeau and North Pines Road Subareas would increase traffic at this intersection,this project was also included as part of the fair-share cost analysis for both Subareas. Note that while the improvement at Argonne Road &Trent Avenue would improve the LOS compared to a "do nothing" alternative, this intersection would not meet either WSDOT or COSV LOS thresholds. Land use constraints related to the BNSF railroad overpass and the narrow street cross section in Millwood limit options related to adding roadway capacity to Argonne Road. Because this improvement would add capacity and reduce delay,the cost can be factored into impact fees per the Washington State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), despite not reducing LOS to within the City or State thresholds. Table 7: Potential project at Argonne Rd./Trent Ave. to improve 2040 PM peak hour LOS Delay w/o LOS w/o Delay with LOS with Intersection Description of Improvement Improvement Improvement Improvement Improvement Argonne Rd/ • Add a second westbound 1091 F 96 Trent Ave left-turn lane. Source:Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan(Dec 2016),Appendix A. Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study Update 9 Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study Update December, 2019 Project Cost Estimates This section includes updated cost estimates, including methodology,for the five projects identified in previous plans as well as the cost estimates for two projects identified in this study at both the Pines Road &Sprague Avenue and Argonne Road &Trent Avenue intersections. Updated Project Unit Costs Unit costs for roadway construction were identified in the 2016 traffic study. In collaboration with City staff,these costs were updated based on construction costs from recently completed transportation projects in Spokane Valley. Where recent costs were not available, unit costs were updated based on inflation from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) National Highway Cost lndex.1 Costs to account for drainage and traffic control were also added.Table 8 summarizes the unit costs that were used to develop project cost estimates. Table 8: Unit costs Element Description Unit Quantity Unit Cost(2019$}, Hard Costs Roadway Demolition Demolition and removal of old roadway ,Square Yard $15 Curb Demolition Demolition and removal of old curb/gutter I Linear foot $16 Sidewalk Demolition Demolition and removal of old sidewalk ,Square Yard $20 Signal Demolition Demo and removal of old traffic signal eqpt. Each mast arm $6,000 Excavation Excavation,grading,fill,earthwork Cubic Yard $35 Road Section Construction of new roadway surface Square Yard $60 Curb Construction of new curb/gutter Linear foot $45 Sidewalk I Construction of new sidewalks Square Yard $80 Curb Ramps Construction of new curb ramps Each $4,000 Traffic Signal Construction of new traffic signal Each new system l $480,000 Other Costs Right-of-way Cost of acquiring right-of-way Square Foot $12 Mobilization Cost to get a construction crew engaged 10%of"hard"costs above Drainage Cost to provide proper stormwater drainage 20%of applicable"hard"costs above Traffic Control Cost to manage traffic during construction 15%of"hard"costs above Contingency Cost contingency for unexpected drainage/ utility/ 34%of"hard"costs above earthwork conflicts;WSDOT coordination Engineering Cost to design and permit the project 20%of"hard"costs above Source:City of Spokane Valley,Fehr&Peers,FHWA National Highway Cost Index. 1 https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/otps/nhcci/ptl.cfm FPI 10 Oil Project Cost Estimates Table 9 shows the cost estimates for seven potential projects in the study area where LOS would degrade to unacceptable levels in the future.This includes updated costs for the five projects identified in the previous (2016) Mirabeau Traffic Study to account for construction cost inflation, plus the additional projects at Pines Road &Sprague Avenue intersection identified in this Update and the potential project at Argonne Road &Trent Avenue identified in the Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan (2016). Details for how these costs were estimated is provided in Appendix E.All cost estimates are in 2019 dollars. Table 9: Cost estimate of potential projects to improve future LOS Non- 2016 Cost Project Description Cost Estimate Applicable Applicable Estimates Costs Costs (2016 dollars) Pines Rd/ IAdd westbound left-turn lane; Indiana Ave retime traffic signal $1,500,000 $0 $1,500,000 i $896,000 Pines Rd/1-90 Add eastbound left-turn lane and EB Ramps northbound right-turn pocket j(extending back to Nora Ave); $1,119,000 $0 $1,119,000 $753,000 'retime traffic signal Pines Rd/ 'Reconfigure lane assignments on Mission Ave Mission Ave to include eastbound Phase 1 dual-left and a through-right lane $588 000 $508,620 $79,380 and westbound left,through,and right turn lane; retime and $457,000 I 'upgrade traffic signal Pines Rd/ Add southbound right-turn lane Mission Ave (extending back to the 1-90 off- $812,000 $0 $812,000 Phase 2 ramp); Mirabeau I Add traffic signal, add new 180 Pkwy/ 1 foot southbound through-right $1,215,000 $0 $1,215,000 $874,000 Mansfield Ave lane Sullivan Rd/ Reconfigure eastbound to include Mission Ave a left and through-right lane; $94,000 $0 $94,000 $61,000 Iretime signal Add a southbound right-turn-only Pines Rd/ lane;convert the existing 'southbound through-right lane to 1 $818,000 $82,000 $737,000 NEW Sprague Ave a through-only lane;add a second 1 eastbound left-turn-only lane. Argonne Rd/ Add a second westbound left-turn Trent Ave lane, $753,600 $229,2001 $524,400 NEW Source:Fehr&Peers,City of Spokane Valley. Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study Update '11 Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study Update December, 2019 It should be noted that the improvements at Pines Road &Mission Avenue have been split into two phases as the City is planning to implement a portion of this project(Phase 1) in 2020.Additionally, about 86% of funding for this project is from non-City funds (that portion is funded by a Surface Transportation Block Grant) and thus cannot be included as part of the fair-share cost analysis. All other projects are assumed to be funded entirely by City general funds(which include mitigation fee payments from development). Secondly,the full cost of improvements at the Pines Road &Sprague Avenue intersection cannot be applied to the impact fee because there is a LOS deficiency at this intersection under existing conditions. To account for this,the portion of traffic that if removed from the system today would effectively reduce the LOS at this intersection from an "E"to a "D"was estimated in Synchro.The result was about 10%of existing traffic.This means that if traffic volumes were 10% lower at this intersection under existing conditions,the intersection would meet the LOS D threshold.Therefore, 10% of the total cost of the potential improvement project at Pines Road &Sprague Avenue was deducted from the total cost to arrive at the applicable cost as shown in Table 9. Similarly,the full cost of improvements at the Argonne Road &Trent Avenue intersection cannot be applied to the impact fee because there is an existing LOS deficiency at this intersection.To account for this,the cost of a restriping and signal modification project which would bring the intersection to a LOS D under existing conditions was estimated.The project was recommended as part of the North Argonne Road/North Mullan Road Corridor Retiming project.2 The estimated cost of this project($229,000) was deducted from cost of the longer term project to arrive at the applicable cost as shown in Table 9. 2 Fehr&Peers.Technical Memorandum.N Argonne Road/N Milian Rood Corridor Retiming,July 25, 2019. Project# SE18-062.1. 12 �� Fair Share & Cost Per Trip Analysis Fair Share Analysis A common way for a development project to mitigate its traffic impact is through a fair-share financial contribution toward a transportation system project that would improve LOS to meet City standards.The Subarea's fair-share financial contribution is determined by how much traffic the Subarea is expected to contribute to each of the deficient intersections under future conditions (see Table 9). In other words, what percentage of 2040 traffic through a deficient intersection is caused by new development within the Mirabeau and North Pines Road Subarea? The SRTC regional travel model was used to determine the percentage of traffic generated by future development within the two Subareas.The travel model has a tool called a "select zone analysis"that can track the traffic generated by different areas throughout the city. The select zone analysis was set to identify the traffic generated by Mirabeau and North Pines Road Subarea development separate from any other traffic generated by development in the region.The results of the select zone analysis were analyzed for each of the seven deficient intersections identified in Table 9.Table 10 shows the results of the select zone analysis. This reflects the same portion of traffic from the Mirabeau Subarea through the five deficient intersections identified from the previous (2016) study. Table 10: Subarea share of future PM peak hour traffic at deficient intersections Combined Portion Mirabeau Subarea North Pines Road Subarea of Future Traffic Intersection Portion of Future Traffic Portion of Future Traffic from two Subareas Pines Rd/Indiana Ave 18% 42% 60% Pines Rd/I-90 EB Ramps 18% 48%I 66% Pines Rd/Mission Ave 4% 53%I 57% Mirabeau Pkwy/Mansfield Ave 38% 5% 43% Sullivan Rd/Mission Ave 4% 9% 13% Pines Rd/Sprague Ave 6% 19%i 25% Argonne Rd/Trent Ave 10% 7%. 17% Source:Fehr&Peers,SRTC Regional Travel Demand Model(last updated December,2017). The results in Table 10 show that at some intersections, the majority of future traffic is generated by the two Subareas combined,while at other locations,the majority of future traffic is generated by locations outside the two Subareas. For example, at the Pines Road & 1-90 Eastbound Ramps, 18%of future traffic will be generated by land uses in the Mirabeau Subarea and 48%will be generated by land uses in the North Pines Road Subarea. Combined, the two Subareas will generate about 66%of the future traffic Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study Update 13 Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study Update December, 2019 passing through the intersection during the PM peak hour. In contrast, about 10% of future traffic at Argonne Road &Trent Avenue intersection will be generated by land uses in the Mirabeau Subarea and 7%will be generated by land uses in the North Pines Road Subarea. Combined the two Subareas will generate about 17% of the future traffic passing through the intersection during the PM peak hour, while land uses outside the Subarea will generate about 83% of future traffic passing through the intersection. The results in Table 10 were used to determine the two Subareas'financial share of the total project improvements by multiplying the total improvement cost by the proportion of traffic generated by new development in the two Subareas.The result of this calculation is the fair-share cost of each project to the Subarea and is shown in Table 11.This shows that the total fair-share cost of all seven projects adds up to $1,079,000 for the Mirabeau Subarea and $1,708,000 for the North Pines Road Subarea.A two percent administrative fee was added to each Subarea cost to cover the cost of administering the program, including future updates to this study.Thus, the total fair share cost of improvements, including the administrative fee, equals $1,101,000 for the Mirabeau Subarea and $1,742,000 for the North Pines Road Subarea. Table 11: Subareas' share of total improvement costs Applicable Mirabeau Mirabeau North Pines Road North Pines Intersection Portion of Total Subarea Portion Subarea Subarea Portion Road Subarea Project Cost of Future Traffic UPDATED Fair- of Future Traffic Fair-Share Cost Share Cost Pines Rd/Indiana Ave $1,500,000 18% $270,000 42% $628,000 Pines Rd/I-90 EB $532,000 Ramps $1,119,000, 18% $201,000 48%' Pines Rd/Mission Ave $891,000 4%1 $143,000 53% $476,000 Mirabeau Pkwy/ $462,000 5% Mansfield Ave $1,215,000 i 38% $64,000 Sullivan Rd/ $94,0001 4% $3,700 9% $8,200 Mission Ave Pines Rd/ 1 Sprague Ave $737,000 6% $48,000 i 19% $137,000 Argonne Rd/ $524,000 10% $51,000 7% $38,000 Trent Ave Total Fair Share N/A N/A $1,079,000 N/A $1,708,000 Cost Total Fair-Share Cost with 2% N/A N/A $1,101,000 N/A $1,742,000 Administrative Fee 1/1 ii Cost Per Trip Given both Subareas' share of the total project costs as identified in Table 11, the cost per PM peak hour trip could be updated for the Mirabeau Subarea and calculated for the North Pines Road Subarea by applying the same methodology as the previous study.The same amount of future land use growth in Mirabeau through Year 2040 assumed in the previous study was applied (but with updated project costs and updated trip rates) as shown in Table 12.This calculation might seem counterintuitive because there has been growth in the Mirabeau Subarea between 2016 and today. However, since this study did not re- calculate the proportion of traffic growth associated with the remaining development potential in the Mirabeau Subarea,the original total increase in trip generation was assumed.This is a common assumption used when updating impact/mitigation fees and helps to keep the fees relatively stable and predictable over time. For the North Pines Road Subarea,the difference between the land use assumed in the 2040 SRTC Regional Travel Demand Model and the 2015 model was used. PM peak hour trip generation was estimated with standard Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE)trip generation rates. Table 12 summarizes the land use growth and resulting trip generation rates for both Subareas.This is the same trip generation approach used in the original Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study, except with updated rates based on the current(2017) ITE Trip Generation Manual. Table 12: PM peak hour trip generation calculation Mirabeau Mirabeau North Pines Road North Pines Road Land Use PM Peak Hour Subarea Units of Subarea PM Subarea Units of Subarea PM Peak Trip Rate Development Peak Hour Trips Development Hour Trips i Single-Family 0.99 65 dwelling units 65 78 dwelling units 78 Residential Multi-Family 0.56 979 dwelling units 549 157 dwelling units 88 Residential Retail 3.81 63,890 square feet 244 69,750 square feet 266 Office 0.40 2,561 employees 1,025 i 259 employees 104 Hotel 0.60 150 rooms I 90 0 rooms 0 Medical 0.851 0 employees 1 01 371 employees 316 I School 0.17 0 employees' 0 18 employees 4 Industrial 0.49 0 employees 0 79 employees 39 Total Fair Share N/A N/A 1,973 N/A 895 Cost Source:Trip generation:ITE(2017);Mirabeau Subarea land use growth:Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study(2016);North Pines Subarea land use growth:SRTC Regional Travel Demand Model(last updated December,2017). Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study Update 15 Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study Update December, 2019 Based on the results from Table 11 and Table 12 the cost per PM peak hour for each Subarea are as follows: Mirabeau Subarea (UPDATED): $1,101,000 (Subarea's share of total project costs) / 1,973 (Subarea PM peak hour trip generation from growth) = $ 558 per PM peak hour trip. This compares to $323.75 per PM peak hour trip from the 2016 study.The cost per trip went up because of higher construction costs, the two additional improvement projects (at Pines Road &Sprague Avenue and Argonne Road &Trent Avenue), and slightly lower assumed trip rates based on the updated trip generation manual (which reduced forecast new trips generated by development from 2,176 in the previous study to 1,973). North Pines Road Subarea: $1,742,000 (Subarea's share of total project costs)/895 (Subarea PM peak hour trip generation from growth) = $ 1,946 per PM peak hour trip Vested Trips There are still existing "vested" trips from the prior"Pines-Mansfield Development Agreement"that was established by Spokane County.While the transportation improvement projects identified as part of the Pines-Mansfield Development Agreement have largely been constructed, Spokane Valley is open to counting the vested trips as a credit against this new transportation improvement program. Based on data supplied by the City of Spokane Valley in October 2019,there were 816 PM peak hour vested trips outstanding amongst the land owners in the Subarea.These trips have a value of$303.36 per trip, which works out to a total value of$247,542. Developers can apply the value of their unused vested PM peak hour trips as a credit to the Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Mitigation Program until they have no vested trips remaining. 16 �� Conclusions This report provided an update to the Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study previously performed in 2016.The main purpose of this study was to update the projects costs, based primarily on inflation, and to expand the geographic area paying the traffic LOS impact mitigation fee as planned new developments will add a substantial amount of new traffic to the area. Instead of expanding the Mirabeau Subarea, a new Subarea called the North Pines Road Subarea was defined.As part of this analysis,the existing and future traffic LOS conditions at three new intersections in and around the two Subareas was performed.As shown in the previous study and this update, in the future, traffic LOS is expected to degrade within the study area as the Mirabeau Subarea, North Pines Road Subarea, and the rest of Spokane Valley and the region continue to grow. This report identified the necessary traffic mitigation measures to improve congestion and meet Spokane Valley's LOS standards. Most of the congestion relief projects are on the Pines Road corridor with a separate improvement at Argonne Road &Trent Avenue and a minor improvement at the Sullivan Road & Mission Avenue intersection. A fair-share calculation was developed to identify the Mirabeau Subarea and North Pines Road Subarea landowner's share of future traffic impacts and mitigation costs. If landowners agree to implement future traffic congestion improvement projects through a mitigation contribution up to the amount shown in Table 13,then they will meet their SEPA obligations to mitigate traffic congestion impacts. After making this mitigation payment(which is subject to a credit from the existing Pines-Mansfield Development Agreement),the developer will not have to conduct another traffic study, outside of a site access and circulation study, which may be required by Spokane Valley to ensure safe access for all modes into and within the development site. Table 13: Voluntary Traffic Mitigation Fees for Developers to Meet SEPA Obligation Subarea Cost per PM Peak Hour Vehicle Trip Mirabeau Subarea $ 558 North Pines Road Subarea $1,946 Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study Update 17 Appendix A - Existing Conditions Synchro Reports FEHR4 PEERS HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 2052: Pines & Broadway 10/08/2019 -+ .-- '.- ? ifr \. 1 4/ Movement IRL EV _ . WBL_ WBT V'BR NSL NB _NBR - SAL SST $1411 Lane Configurations Iii t ) ti. 1 4 Traffic Volume(veh/h) 187 315 101 123 275 76 53 805 54 87 1070 177 Future Volume(veh/h) 187 315 101 123 275 76 53 805 54 87 1070 177 Number 3 8 18 7 4 14 1 6 16 5 2 12 initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-BikeAdj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.98 1,00 1.00 1,00 0.99 1.00 0.98 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,vehlhlln 1733 1733 1750 1716 1716 1750 1716 1716 1750 1733 1733 1750 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 195 328 93 128 286 68 55 839 50 91 1115 167 Adj No.of Lanes 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0,96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Percent Heavy Veh,% 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 Cap,vehlh 255 350 99 197 348 83 204 1356 81 112 1080 161 Arrive On Green 0.08 0.27 0.27 0.07 0.26 0.26 0,13 0.43 0.43 0,07 0.38 0,38 Sat Flow,vehlh 1650 1292 366 1634 1339 318 1634 3125 186 1650 2866 428 Grp Volume(v),vehfh 195 0 421 128 0 354 55 438 451 91 639 643 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlh/ln 1650 0 1659 1634 0 1658 1634 1630 1681 1650 1646 1648 Q Serve(g_s),s 11.0 0.0 32.2 7.4 0.0 26.1 4.0 27,0 27.0 7.1 49,0 49,0 Cycle Q Clear(gc),s 11.0 0.0 32.2 7.4 0,0 26.1 4.0 27.0 27.0 7.1 49.0 49.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.22 1.00 0,19 1.00 0.11 1.00 0.26 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 255 0 450 197 0 430 204 707 730 112 620 621 V/C Ratio(X) 0,76 0.00 0.94 0.65 0.00 0,82 0.27 0.62 0.62 0.81 1.03 1.03 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 255 0 472 241 0 497 204 707 730 203 620 621 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1,00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(l) 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.91 0.00 0.91 0.62 0.62 0.62 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 35.7 0.0 46.3 35.5 0.0 45,3 51.5 28.5 28.5 59.7 40.5 40.5 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 12.8 0.0 25.8 4.0 0.0 8.7 0.4 2.5 2.5 12.8 44.0 45,4 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 0,0 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),vehlln 6.1 0.0 18.0 3.5 0.0 13.0 1.8 12.7 13,0 3,6 29.8 30.1 LnGrp Delay(d),slveh 48.5 0,0 72.1 39.5 0.0 54.0 51.9 31.0 30.9 72.6 84.5 85.9 I LnGrp LOS D E D 0 D C C E F F Approach Vol,veh/h 616 482 944 1373 Approach Delay,s/veh 64.6 50,2 32,2 84.4 Approach LOS E D C F [rimer _ 1 2 3' 4 5 6 _ 7 - 8 _ , Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 21.3 54.0 16,0 38,7 13.8 61.4 14.5 40.2 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting(Galax),s 11.0 49,0 11.0 39,0 16.0 44.0 13.0 37,0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+11),s 6,0 51.0 13.0 28.1 9,1 29.0 9.4 34.2 Green Ext Time(pc),s 0.1 0,0 0.0 2.6 0.1 3.6 0.1 1,0 [l'Fttl W ' HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 61.6 HCM 2010 LOS E COSV Network 5:00 pm 06/20/2019 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 1 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 2053: Pines & Sprague 10/08/2019 lovement EBt. _air MR Wl i1 T Ofill - NBL NBT NUI~t: SBL 4BT Ofl Lane Configurations 'fi +4' ) t 11 1i ) +1 Traffic Volume(veh/h) 216 801 93 140 837 173 135 421 77 280 600 291 Future Volume(veh/h) 216 801 93 140 837 173 135 421 77 280 600 291 Number 3 8 18 7 4 14 1 6 16 5 2 12 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(ApbT) 1.00 1,00 1,00 0,99 1,00 0.99 1.00 0,99 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,veh/hlln 1733 1733 1750 1733 1733 1750 1716 1716 1750 1733 1733 1750 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 225 834 82 146 872 147 141 439 64 292 625 231 Adj No.of Lanes 1 3 0 1 3 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 Peak Hour Factor 0,96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Percent Heavy Veh,% 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 Cap,veh/h 241 1190 116 171 933 156 292 797 116 317 686 253 Arrive On Green 0.15 0.27 0.27 0.10 0.23 0.23 0,18 0.28 0.28 0,19 0.29 0,29 Sat Flow,veh/h 1650 4381 429 1650 4074 683 1634 2856 414 1650 2345 866 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 225 599 317 146 674 345 141 249 254 292 438 418 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/hlln 1650 1577 1656 1650 1577 1604 1634 1630 1640 1650 1646 1565 Q Serve(g_s),s 17.5 22.2 22.4 11.3 27.2 27.5 10.1 16.9 17.1 22.6 33.4 33.5 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 17.5 22.2 22.4 11.3 27.2 27,5 10.1 16.9 17.1 22.6 33.4 33.5 Prop In Lane 1.00 0,26 1.00 0.43 1,00 0,25 1.00 0,55 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 241 857 450 171 722 367 292 455 458 317 481 458 VJC Ratio(X) 0.93 0,70 0.70 0,85 0.93 0.94 0.48 0.55 0.55 0.92 0,91 0.91 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 241 857 450 241 728 370 292 455 458 355 557 530 HCM Platoon Ratio 1,00 1,00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0,91 0.91 0,91 0.55 0.55 0.55 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.27 0,27 0.27 Uniform Delay(d),slveh 54.9 42,6 42.6 57.3 49.1 49,2 48,0 39.9 40.0 51.6 44,4 44.4 lncr Delay(d2),s/veh 37,5 2,3 4.5 11.1 12.1 21.1 1.2 4.7 4.8 10.2 8.6 9,1 Initial Q Delay(d3),slveh 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 10.5 9,9 10.8 5.7 13,1 14.3 4.6 8.2 8.4 11.2 16.4 15.7 LnGrp Delay(d),slveh 92.4 44.9 47,1 68.4 61.3 70.4 49,2 44.6 44.7 61,8 52.9 53.4 LnGrp LOS F DDEE EDDD EDD Approach Vol,veh/h 1141 1165 644 1148 Approach Delay,slveh 54.9 64.9 45,7 55,4 Approach LOS D E D E Ttrner - 1 2 3_ - -4 _5 8; 7 8 I Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 28.2 43.0 24.0 34.8 30.0 41.3 18.5 40.3 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 17.0 44.0 19.0 30.0 28.0 33,0 19.0 30.0 Max Q Clear Time(grc+ll),s 12.1 35,5 19.5 29.5 24.6 19.1 13.3 24,4 Green Ext Time(pc),s 1.2 2.6 0.0 0.3 0.4 2,2 0.2 2.6 I fit ` �ta1 1maty 1 HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 56.4 HCM 2010 LOS E COSV Network 5:00 pm 06120/2019 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 2 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 3028: S Evergreen Rd & Sprague 10/08/2019 } - - 4\ t p \. 1 Movement EBI. Mr V Bt. WV WiiR NBL NOT N A.a;. 04. Sr Lane Configurations 1114 ) 'R ) f /1 +1' Traffic Volume(veh/h) 166 830 95 127 873 215 113 421 101 175 648 190 Future Volume(veh/h) 166 830 95 127 873 215 113 421 101 175 648 190 Number 1 6 16 5 2 12 3 8 18 7 4 14 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-BikeAdj(A_pbT) 1.00 0,99 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1,00 Parking Bus,Adj 1,00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,vehlhlln 1733 1733 1750 1733 1733 1750 1733 1733 1750 1733 1733 1750 Adj Flow Rate,vehlh 173 865 82 132 909 173 118 439 82 182 675 168 Adj No.of Lanes 1 3 0 1 3 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0,96 0,96 0.96 0.96 0,96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Percent Heavy Veh,% 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Cap,vehlh 196 1761 166 157 1506 285 141 661 123 203 721 179 Arrive On Green 0.12 0.40 0.40 0,10 0.38 0.38 0.09 0.24 0.24 0.12 0.28 0.28 Sat Flow,veh/h 1650 4393 415 1650 3993 757 1650 2771 514 1650 2612 650 Grp Volume(v),vehlh 173 620 327 132 717 365 118 260 261 182 425 418 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlh/In 1650 1577 1654 1650 1577 1596 1650 1646 1639 1650 1646 1616 Q Serve(gs),s 13.4 19.1 19.2 10.2 23.8 24.0 9,2 18.5 18.8 14.1 32.8 32.8 Cycle Q Cloar(g_c),s 13.4 19.1 19.2 10.2 23.8 24.0 9.2 18.5 18.8 14.1 32.8 32,8 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.25 1.00 0,47 1.00 0.31 1.00 0.40 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 196 1264 663 157 1189 602 141 393 391 203 454 446 V!C Ratio(X) 0.88 0.49 0.49 0.84 0,60 0.61 0.84 0.66 0.67 0.90 0.94 0,94 Avail Cap(ca),veh/h 203 1264 663 203 1189 602 203 462 460 203 462 454 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.98 0.98 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 56.4 29.0 29,1 57.9 32.6 32.7 58.5 44,7 44.8 56.2 45.9 46.0 lncr Delay(d2),s/veh 20.1 0.7 1.4 20.9 2,2 4,4 17.8 2.7 2.9 36,1 26.4 26.9 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 %Ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 7.2 8,4 9.0 5.6 10.7 11.3 4.9 8.7 8.8 8.5 18.2 18.0 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 76.5 29,7 30.4 78.7 34.9 37.1 76.4 47.5 47.8 92.3 72.3 72.9 LnGrp LOS E C C E C D E D D F E E Approach Vol,veh/h 1120 1214 639 1025 Approach Delay,s/veh 37.2 40.3 52,9 76.1 Approach LOS D D D E 'Imer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 19.4 54.0 15.1 41.4 16.4 57.1 20.0 36.5 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.5 4.0 5.0 4,0 5,5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 16.0 43.0 16.0 36.5 16.0 43.0 16.0 36.5 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+11),s 15.4 26.0 11.2 34.8 12,2 21,2 16.1 20.8 Green Ext Time(p_c),s 0.0 12.1 0.1 1.0 0.1 14.4 0.0 5.4 )ntereectlon Summary - - J HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 50.6 HCM 2010 LOS D 1 COSV Network 5:00 pm 06/20/2019 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 3 Appendix B - Existing Conditions Optimized Synchro Reports FEHR ' PEERS HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 2052: Pines & Broadway 10/08/2019 f -PP NV ri' 4- " "` 4\ t / 'd jlovernent i SL EET Mrk WB4, ova WM NSL NIT NPR SQ .. SR OM Lane Configurations 1 ', "j I "I 1 4 Traffic Volume(veh/h) 187 315 101 123 275 76 53 805 54 87 1070 177 Future Volume(veh/h) 187 315 101 123 275 76 53 805 54 87 1070 177 Number 3 8 18 7 4 14 1 6 16 5 2 12 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Fed-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1,00 0.98 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 0,99 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,vehlhlln 1733 1733 1750 1716 1716 1750 1716 1716 1750 1733 1733 1750 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 195 328 93 128 286 69 55 839 50 91 1115 164 Adj No.of Lanes 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0,96 0,96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0,96 0.96 Percent Heavy Veh,% 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 Cap,veh/h 244 350 99 178 310 75 98 1393 83 112 1305 191 Arrive On Green 0.10 0.27 0.27 0.06 0.23 0,23 0.06 0.45 0.45 0.07 0.45 0.45 Sat Flow,veh/h 1650 1292 366 1634 1335 322 1634 3125 186 1650 2875 422 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 195 0 421 128 0 355 55 438 451 91 637 642 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlhlln 1650 0 1659 1634 0 1657 1634 1630 1681 1650 1646 1651 Q Serve(g_s),s 11.4 0.0 32.2 7.8 0.0 27.2 4.3 26.4 26.5 7.1 44,8 45.2 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 11.4 0.0 32.2 7.8 0.0 27.2 4.3 26.4 26.5 7.1 44.8 45.2 Prop In Lane 1,00 0.22 1.00 0.19 1,00 0.11 1.00 0,26 Lane Grp Cap(c),vehlh 244 0 450 178 0 385 98 726 749 112 747 749 WC Ratio(X) 0.80 0.00 0.94 0,72 0,00 0,92 0.56 0,60 0.60 0.81 0.85 0.86 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 244 0 472 178 0 408 98 726 749 178 747 749 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 0,91 0.00 0,91 0.63 0.63 0.63 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 35.1 0.0 46.3 38.4 0,0 48,7 59.5 27.3 27.3 59.8 31.6 31,7 Ina Delay(d2),s/veh 16.7 0.0 25.8 11,9 0,0 23.7 4.6 2.3 2.3 14.0 11.8 12.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),vehlIn 6.3 0.0 18.0 4.1 0.0 15.0 2.0 12,4 12.8 3.7 22.8 23.0 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 51.9 0.0 72,1 50.3 0.0 72.4 64.1 29.6 29.6 73.8 43.5 43.8 LnGrp LOS D E D E E C C E D D Approach Vol,veh/h 616 483 944 1370 Approach Delay,s/veh 65.7 66.5 31.6 45.6 Approach LOS E E C D mer 1 2 3 4 5 6 - 7 8 l Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 12.8 64.0 18.0 35.2 13.8 62.9 13.0 40.2 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax),s 6,0 59.0 13.0 32.0 14.0 51.0 8.0 37.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+11),s 6.3 47.2 13.4 29.2 9.1 28.5 9.8 34.2 Green Ext Time(p_c),s 0,0 4.8 0.0 1.0 0.1 4.0 0.0 1.0 me seotion Summary - -- 1 HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 48,3 HCM 2010 LOS D I COSV Network 5:00 pm 06/2012019 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 1 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 2053: Pines & Sprague - 10/08/2019 Movement - - E L EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT __A fit, BL. S1 Lane Configurations t+l 11 +1 1 +t Traffic Volume(vehlh) 216 801 93 140 837 173 135 421 77 280 600 291 Future Volume(veh/h) 216 801 93 140 837 173 135 421 77 280 600 291 Number 3 8 18 7 4 14 1 6 16 5 2 12 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-BikeAdj(A__pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0,99 1.00 0.99 1.00 0,99 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1,00 Adj Sat Flow,vehlh/In 1733 1733 1750 1733 1733 1750 1716 1716 1750 1733 1733 1750 Adj Flow Rate,vehlh 225 834 81 146 872 147 141 439 63 292 625 231 Adj No,of Lanes 1 3 0 ' 1 3 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0,96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Percent Heavy Veh, % 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 Cap,vehlh 248 1249 121 170 970 163 269 766 109 315 688 254 Arrive On Green 0,15 0.28 0.28 0.10 0,24 0.24 0.16 0.27 0.27 0.19 0.29 0.29 Sat Flow,veh/h 1650 4387 424 1650 4074 683 1634 2862 408 1650 2345 866 Grp Volume(v),vehlh 225 599 316 146 674 345 141 249 253 292 438 418 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlhlln 1650 1577 1657 1650 1577 1604 1634 1630 1641 1650 1646 1565 Q Serve(g_s),s 17.4 21,8 21.9 11.3 26,9 27.2 10,3 17.2 17.4 22.6 33,4 33.4 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 17.4 21.8 21.9 11.3 26.9 27.2 10,3 17.2 17.4 22.6 33.4 33.4 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.26 1,00 0.43 1.00 0.25 1.00 0.55 Lane Grp Cap(c),vehlh 248 898 472 170 751 382 269 436 439 315 483 459 WC Ratio(X) 0.91 0.67 0.67 0.86 0.90 0.90 0,52 0,57 0.58 0,93 0,91 0.91 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 254 898 472 228 800 407 269 436 439 330 570 542 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1,00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1,00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.91 0,91 0.91 0.55 0.55 0.55 1,00 1.00 1.00 0.45 0.45 0,45 Uniform Delay(d),slveh 54.4 41.0 41.1 57.3 48.0 48,1 49.6 41,2 41.2 51.7 44.2 44.3 lncr Delay(d2),s/veh 30.8 1.7 3.3 12.6 7.5 14.0 1.9 5.3 5.4 17,6 12.6 13,3 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0,0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %Ile BackOfQ(50°/4),vehlln 10.1 9.7 10.5 5,7 12.5 13.5 4.8 8,4 8.5 11.8 16.8 16.1 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 85.2 42.8 44.4 70.0 55.5 62.1 51.5 46.5 46.7 69.3 56.8 57,5 LnGrp LOS F D D E E E D D D E E E Approach Vol,veh/h 1140 1165 643 1148 Approach Delay,s/veh 51.6 59,3 47.7 60.3 Approach LOS D E D E Tiber 1 _- 3 4__ 5 6; 7 8 - - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 26.4 43.2 24.5 35.9 29.8 39.8 18.4 42.0 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 5,0 5,0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 12.0 45.0 20.0 33.0 26,0 31.0 18.0 35.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+11),s 12.3 35.4 19.4 29.2 24.6 19.4 13.3 23.9 Green Ext Time(p_c),s 0.0 2,7 0.1 1.8 0.2 2.1 0,2 4.0 Jntersectlon Swr6n10 y _ HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 55,6 HCM 2010 LOS E COSV Network 5:00 pm 06/20/2019 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 2 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 3028: S Evergreen Rd & Sprague 10/08/2019 ` -II* C 44- t ik '. 41 Moment EBL _EBT EBR WBL\ f _MR NBL NBT NBR. ` Sig OR Lane Configurations 1111 14l+ vi +l vi t't4 1 +1 Traffic Volume(veh/h) 166 830 95 127 873 215 113 421 101 175 648 190 Future Volume(veh/h) 166 830 95 127 873 215 113 421 101 175 648 190 Number 1 6 16 5 2 12 3 8 18 7 4 14 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 Adj Sat Flow,vehlhlln 1733 1733 1750 1733 1733 1750 1733 1733 1750 1733 1733 1750 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 173 865 83 132 909 176 118 439 82 182 675 166 Adj No.of Lanes 1 3 0 1 3 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0,96 0,96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Percent Heavy Veh,% 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Cap,veh/h 197 1696 162 158 1443 278 140 695 129 206 761 187 Arrive On Green 0.12 0.39 0.39 0.10 0.36 0.36 0.09 0.25 0.25 0,12 0.29 0,29 Sat Flow,vehlh 1650 4387 419 1650 3980 767 1650 2771 514 1650 - 2619 644 Grp Volume(v),vehlh 173 621 327 132 719 366 118 260 261 182 424 417 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1650 1577 1653 1650 1577 1594 1650 1646 1639 1650 1646 1617 Q Serve(g s),s 13.4 19.5 19.7 10.2 24,5 24,7 9.2 18.2 18.5 14.1 32.0 32,1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 13.4 19.5 19.7 10.2 24.5 24.7 9.2 18.2 18.5 14.1 32,0 32.1 Prop In Lane 1.00 0,25 1.00 0.48 1.00 0.31 1,00 0.40 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 197 1219 639 158 1143 578 140 413 411 206 478 470 V/C Ratio(X) 0.88 0.51 0.51 0.84 0,63 0.63 0.84 0.63 0,64 0.88 0.89 0.89 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 228 1219 639 241 1143 578 165 456 454 241 532 522 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.52 0,52 0.52 0.98 0,98 0.98 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),slveh 56.3 30.5 30,5 57.8 34.2 34.3 58.6 43.3 43.4 55.9 44.1 44.1 Incr Delay(d2),slveh 16.3 0.8 1.5 14.0 2,6 5,1 27.1 2.4 2.5 26.8 15.4 15.8 Initial Q Delay(d3),slveh 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Toile BackOfQ(50%),vehlln 7.0 8.7 9.3 5.3 11.1 11.7 5.3 8.6 8.6 8.0 16.5 16,4 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 72.6 31.3 32.0 71.8 36.8 39.4 85.7 45.7 46.0 82.7 59.5 59.9 LnGrp LOS E C C E D D F D D F E E Approach Vol,veh/h 1121 1217 639 1023 Approach Delay,slveh 37.9 41..4 53.2 63.8 Approach LOS D D D E Omer - 1 2 - 3 - g.- - 6 6; 7 8 1 Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 19,5 52.1 15.1 43.3 16.4 55.2 20.2 38.1 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.0 5,0 4.0 5.5 4,0 5.0 4.0 5.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 18,0 38.5 13.0 42.0 19.0 37.5 19.0 36.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+11),s 15.4 26,7 11.2 34.1 12.2 21.7 16.1 20.5 1 Green Ext Time(p_c),s 0.1 9.1 0.1 3.7 0.2 11.4 0.2 5.4 10b +fmgfy'' HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 48.0 HCM 2010 LOS D COSV Network 5:00 pm 06/20/2019 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 3 Appendix C - Future Conditions Synchro Reports FEHR' ' PEERS HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 2052: Pines & Broadway 10/08/2019 f .-- t 1 4/ Movement , $ Eft _ WEL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR S O " Lane Configurations 'I 1+ 'i I 11 I +I Traffic Volume(veh/h) 205 320 110 130 280 85 55 895 55 90 1190 190 Future Volume(veh/h) 205 320 110 130 280 85 55 895 55 90 1190 190 Number 3 8 18 7 4 14 1 6 16 5 2 12 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pod-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0,98 1.00 0.99 1.00 0,99 1.00 0.99 Parking Bus,Adj 1,00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/In 1733 1733 1750 1716 1716 1750 1716 1716 1750 1733 1733 1750 Adj Flow Rate,vehlh 205 320 97 130 280 73 55 895 50 90 1190 174 Adj No.of Lanes 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Percent Heavy Veh,% 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 Cap,veh/h 239 347 105 171 298 78 68 1417 79 111 1373 200 Arrive On Green 0.10 0.27 0.27 0.05 0.23 0.23 0.04 0.45 0.45 0.07 0.48 0.48 Sat Flow,veh/h 1650 1270 385 1634 1311 342 1634 3138 175 1650 2879 419 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 205 0 417 130 0 353 55 465 480 90 678 686 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1650 0 1655 1634 0 1653 1634 1630 1683 1650 1646 1652 Q Serve(g_s),s 12.1 0.0 31.8 7,0 0.0 27.3 4.3 28,4 28.4 7.0 47.7 48.3 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 12.1 0.0 31.8 7.0 0,0 27,3 4.3 28.4 28,4 7.0 47.7 48.3 Prop In Lane 1,00 0.23 1.00 0.21 1,00 0.10 1.00 0.25 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 239 0 453 171 0 376 68 736 760 111 785 788 V/C Ratio(X) 0.86 0.00 0.92 0.76 0.00 0.94 0,81 0.63 0.63 0.81 0.86 0.87 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 239 0 458 171 0 382 68 736 760 165 785 788 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.91 0.00 0.91 0.55 0.55 0.55 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 35.8 0.0 45,9 42.2 0.0 49.3 61.8 27.3 27.3 59.8 30.2 30.4 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 25.5 0.0 23.8 16.3 0.0 28.8 30.8 2.3 2.2 16.9 12.1 12.6 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %Ile BackOfQ(50°/4),vehlln 7.2 0.0 17.5 2.3 0.0 15.5 2.5 13.2 13.7 3,7 24,1 24.7 LnGrp Delay(d),slveh 61.3 0.0 69,7 58.5 0.0 78.1 92.5 29.6 29.5 76.8 42.4 43.0 LnGrp LOS E E E E F CCEDD Approach Vol,veh/h 622 483 1000 1454 Approach Delay,s/veh 66.9 72.8 33.0 44.8 Approach LOS E E C D 'i ner 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 - 1 Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 10.4 67.0 18.0 34.6 13.7 63.7 12.0 40.6 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5,0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax),s 5.0 62.0 13.0 30.0 13,0 54.0 7,0 36.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+11),s 6.3 50.3 14.1 29.3 9.0 30.4 9.0 33.8 Green Ext Time(p_c),s 0.0 5.2 0.0 0.3 0.1 4.4 0,0 0.8 HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 49.2 HCM 2010 LOS D COSV Network 5:00 pm 06/20/2019 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 1 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 2053: Pines & Sprague 10/08/2019 -` ----► -`t c -4-- k• 4\ t l t 4/ Movement .F'8 . OT -_E R UAL 'MT MIR Mit NI31 NBR, _SBL SST SOO Lane Configurations 1 +0 " + ' fi 1 4 1+ Traffic Volume(veh/h) 240 960 120 160 1005 195 155 470 90 310 670 325 Future Volume(veh/h) 240 960 120 160 1005 195 155 470 90 310 670 325 Number 3 8 18 7 4 14 1 6 16 5 2 12 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 0,99 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,vehlhlln 1733 1733 1750 1733 1733 1750 1716 1716 1750 1733 1733 1750 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 240 960 104 160 1005 166 155 470 74 310 670 257 Adj No.of Lanes 1 3 0 1 3 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Percent Heavy Veh,% 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 Cap,vehlh 241 1219 132 183 1006 166 228 760 119 305 729 280 Arrive On Green 0.15 0.28 0.28 0.11 0.25 0,25 0.14 0,27 0.27 0.18 0.31 0,31 Sat Flow,vehlh 1650 4335 468 1650 4086 673 1634 2823 442 1650 2318 889 Grp Volume(v),vehlh 240 698 366 160 775 396 155 270 274 310 476 451 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlhlln 1650 1577 1649 1650 1577 1606 1634 1630 1635 1650 1646 1562 Q Serve(g_s),s 18,9 26.5 26.7 12.4 31.9 32.0 11.7 18.9 19.1 24.0 36.2 36.2 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 18,9 26.5 26,7 12,4 31.9 32.0 11.7 18,9 19,1 24.0 36.2 36.2 Prop In Lane 1.00 0,28 1.00 0.42 1.00 0.27 1.00 0.57 Lane Grp Cap(c),vehlh 241 887 464 183 776 395 228 439 440 305 518 491 V/C Ratio(X) 1.00 0,79 0.79 0.87 1,00 1.00 0.68 0.62 0,62 1.02 0.92 0.92 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 241 887 464 203 776 395 228 439 440 305 582 553 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.55 0.55 0.55 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.34 0.34 0.34 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 55.5 43.1 43.2 56.9 49.0 49,0 53.2 41.6 41.7 53.0 43.0 43.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 53.8 4,3 8.1 18.7 23,6 33.9 8.0 6.3 6.5 34.7 10.5 11.0 Initial 0 Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 %Ile BackOfQ(50%),vehlln 12.2 12.1 13,2 6.6 16.4 17.9 5,8 9.3 9.4 13,9 18.0 17,2 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 109.2 47.5 51.3 75.5 72.6 82.9 61.2 48.0 48.2 87.8 53.5 54.0 LnGrp LOS F DDEE F EDD F D D Approach Vol,veh/h 1304 1331 699 1237 Approach Delay,s/veh 59.9 76.0 51.0 62.3 Approach LOS E E D E jrimar 1- 2 3 4 6 6 _7_ _ 8 1 Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 23,1 45.9 24,0 37.0 29.0 40.0 19,4 41,6 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 5,0 5,0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 13.0 46.0 19,0 32.0 24.0 35.0 16,0 35.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+11),s 13,7 38.2 20.9 34.0 26,0 21.1 14.4 28,7 Green Ext Time(p_c),s 0,0 2.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.4 0.1 3,2 intergeOgeti UMW - _ .1 HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 63.9 HCM 2010 LOS E COSV Network 5:00 pm 06/20/2019 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 2 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 3028: S Evergreen Rd & Sprague 1 0/08120 1 9 IA --► -Ns. c 4- t t IT Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBI Lane Configurations ++1+ '1 to 'I $4 *S +1 Traffic Volume(veh/h) 185 1005 110 145 980 240 130 470 115 195 720 215 Future Volume(veh/h) 185 1005 110 145 980 240 130 470 115 195 720 215 Number 1 6 16 5 2 12 3 8 18 7 4 14 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.99 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,vehlhlln 1733 1733 1750 1733 1733 1750 1733 1733 1750 1733 1733 1750 Adj Flow Rate,vehlh 185 1005 95 145 980 192 130 470 92 195 720 185 Adj No.of Lanes 1 3 0 1 3 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 Percent Heavy Veh,% 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Cap,veh/h 209 1569 148 169 1323 259 152 731 142 218 792 204 Arrive On Green 0.13 0.36 0.36 0,10 0.33 0.33 0.09 0.27 0.27 0.13 0.31 0.31 Sat Flow,veh/h 1650 4393 414 1650 3970 776 1650 2747 534 1650 2593 666 Grp Volume(v),vehlh 185 721 379 145 778 394 130 280 282 195 457 448 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlhlln 1650 1577 1654 1650 1577 1592 1650 1646 1636 1650 1646 1613 Q Serve(gs),s 14.3 24.8 24,9 11.2 28.4 28.5 10.1 19.6 19.8 15.1 34.7 34.7 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 14.3 24.8 24,9 11.2 28.4 28.5 10.1 19.6 19.8 15.1 34.7 34.7 Prop In Lane 1.00 0,25 1.00 0,49 1,00 0,33 1.00 0.41 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 209 1126 591 169 1051 531 152 438 435 218 503 493 V/C Ratio(X) 0.89 0,64 0,64 0.86 0,74 0.74 0,85 0.64 0.65 0.89 0.91 0.91 Avail Cap(ca),veh/h 228 1126 591 198 1051 531 165 470 467 228 533 522 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.98 0.98 0.98 1,00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1,00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 55.9 34,8 34,9 57.4 38,4 38.4 58,1 42.2 42,3 55.5 43.4 43.4 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 18.3 1,5 2.8 25.8 4,6 8.9 31.0 2.7 2.8 32.2 18,9 19.3 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 %lie BackOfQ(50%),vehlln 7,6 11.0 11.8 6.3 13.0 13.8 5.9 9.2 9.3 8,8 18.4 18,1 LnGrp Delay(d),slveh 74.1 36.3 37,7 83.2 43.0 47.3 89.2 44,9 45.1 87.8 62.3 62.7 LnGrp LOS EDDF D D F D D F E E Approach Vol,veh/h 1285 1317 692 1100 Approach Delay,s/veh 42,2 48,7 53.3 67,0 Approach LOS D D D E Timer - 1 2 3 4 5, 6- 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 20.4 48.3 16,0 45.2 17,3 51.4 21.2 40.1 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.5 4,0 5.0 4.0 5.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 18.0 38.4 13.0 42.1 15,6 40.8 18.0 37.1 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+11),s 16,3 30.5 12.1 36.7 13.2 26.9 17.1 21,8 Green Ext Time(p_e),s 0.1 6.8 0.0 3.0 0.1 11.1 0.1 5.8 IntESeetion S rrram _ HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 52.1 HCM 2010 LOS D COSV Network 5:00 pm 06/20/2019 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 3 Appendix D - Future Conditions with Mitigations Synchro Reports FEHRly PEERS HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 2053: Pines & Sprague 10/22/2019 --. 4- 4\ t t 1 d Movement EBB MT es - WB.k_ _WBT WBR NW.. ITT 1f3R SOL - SSA_ B' 11. Lane Configurations ' +1 Vi +ft+ 19 +14 p ++ r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 240 960 120 160 1005 195 155 470 90 310 670 325 Future Volume(veh/h) 240 960 120 160 1005 195 155 470 90 310 670 325 Number 3 8 18 7 4 14 1 6 16 5 2 12 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0,99 1.00 0.98 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,vehlhlin 1733 1733 1750 1733 1733 1750 1716 1716 1750 1733 1733 1733 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 240 960 104 160 1005 166 155 470 74 310 670 257 Adj No.of Lanes 2 3 0 1 3 0 1 2 0 1 2 1 Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1,00 1.00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Percent Heavy Veh,% 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 Cap,veh/h 292 1120 121 184 1140 188 398 772 121 334 765 336 Arrive On Green 0,09 0.26 0,26 0.11 0.28 0.28 0.24 0.27 0,27 0.20 0.23 0.23 Sat Flow,veh/h 3201 4334 468 1650 4087 674 1634 2823 442 1650 3292 1446 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 240 698 366 160 775 396 155 270 274 310 670 257 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlhlln 1601 1577 1649 1650 1577 1607 1634 1630 1635 1650 1646 1446 Q Serve(g_s),s 9.6 27,4 27.5 12.4 30.5 30.7 10.3 18.8 19.0 24.0 25.5 21.6 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 9.6 27.4 27.5 12.4 30.5 30.7 10.3 18.8 19.0 24,0 25.5 21.6 Prop In Lane 1.00 0,28 1,00 0.42 1.00 0.27 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),vehlh 292 815 426 184 880 448 398 446 447 334 765 336 WC Ratio(X) 0.82 0,86 0.86 0.87 0.88 0.88 0.39 0.61 0.61 0.93 0,88 0,76 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 296 849 444 228 995 507 398 446 447 368 886 389 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.55 0.55 0.55 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.34 0.34 0.34 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 58.0 45.9 45,9 56,8 44.8 44.8 41.1 41.1 41.2 50.9 48.1 46.6 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 15.3 7,7 13.9 15.0 5.0 9,4 0.6 6.0 6.1 12.8 5,2 5.7 Initial Q Delay(d3),slveh 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 Voile BackOIQ(50%),vehfln 4.9 12.8 14.2 6.4 14,0 14.8 4.7 9.2 9.4 12.1 12.2 9.2 LnGrp Delay(d),slveh 73,3 53.6 59.8 71.8 49,8 54.2 41.7 47.2 47.4 63,7 53.3 52,3 LnGrp LOS E D E E D D D D D E D D Approach Vol,veh/h 1304 1331 699 1237 Approach Delay,s/veh 59.0 53.8 46.0 55.7 Approach LOS E D D E [rimer - 1 2 3 4 5 6- 7 8 _I Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 36,7 35.2 16.9 41.3 31,3 40.5 19.5 38.6 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 5,0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5,0 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 22.0 35.0 12,0 41.0 29.0 28.0 18.0 35.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+11),s 12.3 27.5 11.6 32.7 26.0 21.0 14.4 29,5 Green Ext Time(p_c),s 2,1 2.7 0,3 3,6 0.4 1.7 0.2 2.9 - - Jtlter otion 5unl ry 1 HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 54.6 HCM 2010 LOS D l COSV Network 5;00 pm 06/20/2019 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 2 Appendix E Project Cost Estimate Spreadsheets FEHRk PEERS Pines Road&Indiana Ave-600'EB Lane Addition, Partial SW Corner Island Removal,Full Island Pines Road&I-90 EB Ramps-EB 450'Lane Addition Relocation and NB 75'Lane Addition Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost Roadway Demo 400 Sq Yard $ 15 $ 6,000 0 Sq Yard $ 15 $ - Curb Demo 900 IF $ 16 $ 14,400 75 LF $ 16 $ 1,200 Sidewalk Demo 333 Sq Yard $ 20 $ 6,660 42 Sq Yard $ 20 $ 840 Signal Demo 2 Each $ 6,000 $ 12,000 1 Each $ 6,000 $ 6,000 Excavation 400 Cubic Yard $ 35 $ 14,000 233 Cubic Yard $ 35 $ 8,155 Road Section 800 Sq Yard $ 60 $ 48,000 1,059 Sq Yard $ 60 $ 63,540 Curb 900 LF $ 45 $ 40,500 75 LF $ 45 $ 3,375 Sidewalk 700 Sq Yard $ 80 $ 56,000 42 Sq Yard $ 80 $ 3,360 Curb Ramps 6 Each $ 4,000 $ 24,000 0 Each $ 4,000 $ Traffic Signal 1 Each $ 480,000 $ 480,000 1 Each $ 480,000 $ 480,000 ROW 11,000 Sq Foot $ 12 $ 132,000 1,200 Sq Foot $ 12 $ 14,400 Subtotal ' $ 701,560 Subtotal $ 566,470 10%Mobilization $ 70,156 10%Mobilization $ 56,647^ 20%Drainage $ 140,312 20%Drainage $ 113,294 15%Traffic Control $ 105,234 15%Traffic Control $ 84,971 30%Contingency $ 210,468 30%Contingency $ 169,941 20%Engineering $ 140,312 , 20%Engineering $ 113,294 Total I $ 1,500,042 I Total , $ 1,119,017 11000 Sq Ft ROW 1200 Sq Ft ROW *About half of the ROW is WSDOT,using standard"over the fence"price for land Assumes new signal pole and longer mast arm with 1-90 Assumes reallignment of intersection to south.Move off ramp island relocation south.Relocate signal SE corner ped head.Assumes all ROW for NBR lane controller. New pole at Pines/Indiana.Reconstruct both would need to be purchased,but no cost to aquire off- right turn islands.Assumes ROW cost for additional lane ramp widening space.ADA ramps look new,No on south side of road. replacement assumed. I Mirabeau Pkwy and Mansfield Ave-Signalize and Sullivan Road and Mission Ave-Restripe and partially SB 175'Lane Addition remove curb Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost Roadway Demo 0 Sq Yard $ 15 $ - 20 Sq Yard $ 15 $ 300 Curb Demo 175 LF $ 16 $ 2,800 40 LF $ 16 $ 640 Sidewalk Demo 97 Sq Yard $ 20 $ 1,940 0 Sq Yard $ 20 $ - Signal Demo 0 Each $ 6,000 $ - 0 Each $ 6,000 $ - Excavation 0 Cubic Yard $ 35 $ - 0 Cubic Yard $ 35 $ - Road Section 233 Sq Yard $ 60 $ 13,980 20 Sq Yard $ 60 $ 1,200 Curb 300 LF $ 45 $ 13,500 80 LF $ 45 $ 3,600 Sidewalk 250 Sq Yard $ 80 $ 20,000 200 Sq Yard $ 80 $ 16,000 Curb Ramps 4 Each $ 4,000 $ 16,000 2 Each $ 4,000 $ 8,000 Traffic Signal 1.25 Each $480,000 $ 600,000 0.05 Each $ 480,000 $ 24,000 ROW 2,700 Sq Foot $ 12 $ 32,400 0 Sq Foot $ 12 $ - Subtotal $ 668,220 Subtotal $ 53,740_ 10%Mobilization $ 66,822 10%Mobilization $ 5,374 20%Drainage $ 13,644 20%Drainage $ - 15%Traffic Control $ 100,233 15%Traffic Control $ 8,061 30%Contingency $ 200,466 30%Contingency $ 16,122 20%Engineering $ 133,644 20%Engineering $ 10,748 Total I $ 1,215,429 I Total I $ 94,045 2700 Sq Ft ROW 3 ramps will need to be made ADA compliant.Risk: Assumes all new ramps to meet current ADA. Might need to relocate pole and mast arm on NE Assumes new fiber to be installed back to Pines. corner to meet ADA clearance.This is not assumed in the cost. Pines and Sprague-Add 250'SBR and 32S' EBL Argonne&Trent-300'WBL turn add Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost Roadway Demo 460 Sq Yard $ 15 $ 6,900 0 Sq Yard $ 15 $ - Curb Demo 1,215 LF $ 16 $ 19,440 850 LF $ 16 $ 13,600 Sidewalk Demo 433 Sq Yard $ 20 $ 8,667 100 Sq Yard $ 20 $ 2,000 Signal Demo 2 Each $ 6,000 $ 12,000 2 Each $ 6,000 $ 12,000 Excavation 200 Cubic Yard $ 35 $ 6,983 208 Cubic Yard $ 35 $ 7,296 Road Section 566 Sq Yard $ 60 $ 33,933 933 Sq Yard $ 60 $ 56,000 Curb 1,215 LF $ 45 $ 54,675 850 LF $ 45 $ 38,250 Sidewalk 520 Sq Yard $ 80 $ 41,600 67 Sq Yard $ 80 $ 5,333 Curb Ramps 2 Each $ 4,000 $ 8,000 3 Each $ 4,000 $ 12,000 Traffic Signal 0.5 Each $480,000 $ 240,000 0.5 Each $480,000 $ 240,000 ROW 5,175 Sq Foot $ 12 $ 62,100 0 Sq Foot $ 12 $ - Subtotal $ 432,198 Subtotal $ 386,479 10%Mobilization $ 43,220 10%Mobilization $ 38,648 20%Drainage $ - 20%Drainage $ 77,296 15%Traffic Control $ 64,830 15%Traffic Control $ 57,972 30%Contingency $ 129,659 30%Contingency $ 115,944 20%Engineering $ 86,440 20%Engineering $ 77,296 Total I $ 818,446 I Total I $ 753,634 6200 Sq Ft ROW Assumes northwest curb along Sprague would Assumes south curb along Trent Avenue would be moved 4 feet north along with restriping to be moved 12'south for 300'plus 150'taper on narrow outside lanes for second EBR.Assumes both sides of Argonne to accommodate a northwest curb along Pines would be moved second WBL.Both signal poles on the south west 12 feet to accommodate SBR.Two new side would be replaced along with the right turn signals on northwest and southeast corners. island on the SW corner. Pines&Mission Phase 2-Southbound Right Turn Lane Addition Engineers Estimate *Wane Project CIP No.TBD Date Pokane Prepared by-Adam Jackson 3/5/2018 4000 Valley. Item No. net Item Qty Unit Unit Price _Est.Cost Use 100 MOBILIZATION @ 10% 1 L.S. $ 45,042 $ 45,042 101 CONSTRUCTION SURVEYING 1 L.S. $ 15,000 $ 15,000 102 SPCC PLAN 1 L.S. $ 5,000 $ 5,000 103 PROJECT TEMPORARY TRAFFIC CONTROL 1 L.S. $ 50,000 $ 50,000 104 PUBLIC LIAISION REPRESENTATIVE 1 L.S. $ 5,000 $ 5,000 105 EROSION CONTROL 1 L.S. $ 5,000 $ 5,000 106 PORTABLE CHANGEABLE MESSAGE SIGN 1344 HR. $ 4 $ 5,376 107 REMOVE CEMENT CONCRETE CURB 350 L.F. $ 15 $ 5,250 108 SAWCUTASPHALTPAVEMENT 750 L.F.-in $ 5 $ 3,750 109 ROADWAY EXCAV.INCL.HAUL(assumes 16"depth) 400 C.Y. $ 30 $ 12,000 110 CRUSHED SURFACING BASE COURSE,BIN.DEPTH 778 S.Y. $ 25 $ 19,444 111 JOINT/CRACK SEALANT AT HMA JOINTS 500 L.F. $ 3 $ 1,500 112 HMA CL 1/2"PG 70-28 0.50 FT.DEPTH 130 C.Y. $ 50 $ 6,481 113 CEMENT CONCRETE TRAFFIC CURB,TYPE B 350 L.F. $ 45 $ 15,750 114 CONRETE RETAINING WALLAT BACK OF SIDEWALK 1089SF $ 50 $ 54,450 115 CEMENT CONCRETE CURB RAMP PERPENDICULAR TYPE A 1 EACH $ 2,500 $ 2,500 116 CEMENT CONCRETE PEDESTRIAN CURB 20 L.F. $ 30 $ 600 117 TRAFFIC SIGNAL SYSTEM MODIFICATIONS 0 L.S. $ 250,000 $ - 118 REMOVE EXISTING STRIPING 0 L.F. $ 3.00 $ - 119 PLASTIC CROSSWALK LINE 390 S.F. $ 18 $ 7,020 120 PLASTIC LINE 300 L.F, $ 4 $ 1,200 121 PLASTIC WIDE LINE 300 L.F. $ 12 $ 3,600 122 PLASTIC TRAFFIC ARROW 3 EACH $ 300 $ 900 123 PLASTIC STOP LINE 20 L.F. $ 30 $ 600 124 LANDSCAPE RESTORATION 1 L.S. $ 30,000 $ 30,000 125 STORMWATER SWALE AND ROW IN LIMITED ACCESS AREA 1 L.S. $ 100,000 $ 100,000 126 UTILITY RELCOATION(POLES AND BOXES) 1 LS $ 100,000 $ 100,000 ITEMS:Total $ 495,464 Contingency 15% $ 74,320 Inflation Adjustment Factor@ 2 years 3% $ 30,174 Construction Subtotal $ 599,958 PE Engineering 200/0 $ 119,992 CN Engineering 10% $ 59,996 ROW(excl.WSDOT} 1 L.S. $ 32,000,00 $ 32,000 Estimated Project Cost $ 811,945 j $ 812,000 E Trent Road/N Argonne Road Proposed Layout Improvements to Address Existing LOS Deficiency Cost Estimate Unit Unit Cost Qty Cost 1 Install of Ground Sign EA $ 270.00 4 $ 1,080 2 Remove Striping(Grind) LF $ 0.50 800 $ 400 3 Thermoplastic Arrow EA $ 475.00 7 $ 3,325 4 Thermoplastic Lane Line LF $ 3.50 1100 $ 3,850 5 Thermoplastic Stop Bar LF $ 20.00 80 $ 1,600_ 6 Thermoplastic Traffic Letter EA $ 175.00 4 $ 700 7 Traffic Signal Modification EA $480,000.00 0.25 $ 120,000 Construction Subtotal $ 130,955 Design (20%) $ 26,190 Traffic Control (15%) $ 19,640 Mobilization (10%) $ 13,100 Contingency (30%) $ 39,290 Total $ 229,200 Exhibit B Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study Update Prepared for: City of Spokane Valley, Washington December 2019 DN19-0631 FEHO' PEERS Table of Contents Introduction 1 Previous Study Findings 1 Update to Expand Subarea 1 Traffic Analysis 4 Level of Service Standards 4 5 Methodology Existing Traffic Level of Service.. 7 Year 2040 Traffic Level of Service 8 Project Cost Estimates 10 Updated Project Unit Costs 10 Project Cost Estimates 11 Fair Share &Cost Per Trip Analysis 13 Fair Share Analysis 13 Cost Per Trip 15 Conclusions 17 Appendices Appendix A - Existing Conditions Synchro Reports Appendix B - Existing Conditions Optimized Synchro Reports Appendix C - Future Conditions Synchro Reports Appendix D - Future Conditions with Mitigations Synchro Reports Appendix E—Project Cost Estimate Spreadsheets List of Figures Figure 1: Study Area 2 Figure 2: Existing and Future Lane Configurations Traffic Controls, and PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes.. 6 List of Tables Table 1: Projects identified in 2016 Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study 3 Table 2: Level of service description and delay thresholds at intersections 5 Table 3: Existing (2019) PM peak hour level of service .7 Table 4: Existing (2019) PM peak hour LOS with signal timing adjustments 8 Table 5: 2040 PM peak hour LOS with signal timing optimized 8 Table 6: Potential project to improve 2040 PM peak hour LOS 9 Table 7: Potential project at Argonne Rd./Trent Ave.to improve 2040 PM peak hour LOS .. 9 Table 8: Unit costs 10 Table 9: Cost estimate of potential projects to improve future LOS 11 Table 10: Subarea share of future PM peak hour traffic at deficient intersections 13 Table 11: Subareas' share of total improvement costs 14 Table 12: PM peak hour trip generation calculation 15 Table 13: Voluntary Traffic Mitigation Fees for Developers to Meet SEPA Obligation 17 This page intentionally left blank. Introduction The City of Spokane Valley commissioned the Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study in 2016 that identified existing transportation level of service (LOS) deficiencies and future transportation improvements to support existing and planned growth in the Subarea. Based on the traffic forecasts,future traffic impacts and potential mitigation projects, a fair share analysis was used to estimate a cost per PM peak hour vehicle trip that developers in the Subarea would pay to meet their obligation under SEPA.The City will use these fees to offset the cost of transportation improvement projects directly impacted by development in the Subarea.The Mirabeau Subarea is mapped in Figure 1 and covers most of the area between Pines Road and Sullivan Road and 1-90 and the Spokane River in north central Spokane Valley. Previous Study Findings The 2016 Mirabeau Traffic Study identified five intersections in or around the Mirabeau Subarea that are forecast to have LOS deficiencies by 2040.These intersections are shown in Table 1, including the 2015 and 2040 PM peak hour LOS and delay. For each intersection, a project was identified to address the future LOS deficiency, including a cost estimate for each project.A fair share percent was also estimated that represents the portion of future traffic that would pass through the location generated by the Mirabeau Subarea.This proportion is based on a select link analysis using the Spokane Regional Transportation Council (SRTC) regional travel demand model. Based on the estimated project costs,fair share analysis, and future traffic generated by development in the Subarea, a cost per PM peak hour vehicle trip of$323.75 was calculated and assessed to developments in the area to pay for the future transportation improvement projects identified in the Study. Update to Expand Subarea In 2019,the City commissioned an update to the Mirabeau Traffic Study.This report provides a summary of the update, including an updated cost analysis and findings.The main purpose of this Study is to update the fair share cost per PM peak hour vehicle trip from the original traffic study as well as expand the geographic area by which transportation impact fees will be collected to account for new developments planned for the area south of 1-90. Instead of changing the boundaries of the previously established Mirabeau Subarea to accommodate the expanded area, a second Subarea was established directly adjacent to the Mirabeau Subarea. The second Subarea is referred to as the North Pines Road Subarea and is mapped in Figure 1.The North Pines Road Subarea is around Pines Road roughly between Sprague Avenue and Trent Avenue and University Road and Adams Road excluding the Mirabeau Subarea. Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study Update 1 to- ru irl II c00 I` _to c cFr- oCtr coM , r 0 IF.`. / + L pil ire/oils N A .. • +- w N �. /• M Pil ssa�6oid N '- r I T _IL bi---1-- 1----x o pa sum9 I {l q w V I 4 (DJ —_ � Iti ` « _ pH swept'N �M Iz+� i } 3' It'lsag1, m 8 i 1 f uaaJaietDIN 1 . 11 pa iaweW N CO 5 _____.,--s, / (NI T _ 4:J a> co Lc w c 1 z Pb pleuaQarAI N l cn�t M r M ��-.- u-� CD d cup M C__....tl til II..I °° co < m: a aM �c, \� N�, T _ _..-. • ;a_ 1N RI seed 4'1/ w _____ cc) Li d f — Nr Wto L ,_ zi). ,,,,_.imisdL\i'''',$' Ft.i: \e. Lli --V I - 02 11.1 I 1 / co --- c.,) to -6"' a) - :E) :?,1,1 r M .4„.< i___>1 i , L , i_l i __ co a f tri ro \ l � o C N Ji L. , MI Itllstomun N 4 }� to m N w g co - i- 1 J @ rj) Q ZIT) w t P21 glla9 N M 1 w � __ rl P8 PIeleH N I `"c, 0 o Q: e�r� a l n r -i co ai N ° _ Pii�1naRoaM N� 4 - a J7 C ,N r- M O w piaJ Z 0. -C — ] w l to `M 1 \ 0 1 N Rb lsnaol N co N P .uellnWN• '�in c� t Lo co r 1.--C4 1`rn —P2ia�unnidN Q —oi cryL ` i 1 Table 1: Projects identified in 2016 Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study Mirabeau 2040 LOS Subarea Mirabeau Project 2015 2040 with Description of Cost Proportion Subarea Fair (Intersection) LOS LOS Improv. Improvement Estimate of Future Share Cost Traffic Pines Rd/ D E D Add westbound left turn $896,000 18% $161,000 Indiana Ave lane; retime traffic signal Add eastbound left-turn lane and northbound Pines Rd/190 E F D right turn pocket $753,000, 18% $135,000 EB Ramps (extending back to Nora Ave); retime traffic signal Add southbound right- turn lane (extending back to the I- 90 off-ramp); reconfigure lane Pines Rd/ E F D assignments on Mission $457,000 16% $73,000 Mission Ave Ave to include eastbound dual-left and a through-right lane and westbound left, through, and right turn lane; retime traffic signal Mirabeau I Add traffic signal,add Pkwy/ B F C new 180 foot southbound $874,000 38% $332,000 Mansfield Ave (through-right lane Reconfigure eastbound to Sullivan Rd/ include a left and $61,000 4% $2,500 Mission Ave E B through-right lane; retime signal Source:Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study(June 2016). Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study Update 3 Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study Update December, 2019 Traffic Analysis In the previous study,traffic analysis was performed for 21 intersections in and around the Mirabeau Subarea,with five of those locations identified as having traffic level of service (LOS) deficiencies by Year 2040. No updates to that analysis were performed as part of this study and the COSV still plans to implement those five projects (listed in Table 1) over time as fees are collected. However, as part of expanding the traffic analysis to include the North Pines Road Subarea as part of this study,three additional signalized intersections were identified to evaluate existing (2019) and future(2040)traffic LOS. These include: 1. Pines Road/Broadway 2. Pines Road/Sprague Avenue 3. Evergreen Road/Sprague Avenue Level of Service Standards City of Spokane Valley Level of Service Standards The City of Spokane Valley uses level of service (LOS) to describe and evaluate.traffic operations along major arterial corridors and intersections within the City. Levels range from LOS A to LOS F, which encompass a range of congestion types from uninterrupted traffic(LOS A)to highly-congested conditions (LOS F).The description and intersection delay thresholds of each LOS category are described in Table 2. These are based on the Highway Capacity Manual,which is the methodology used by Spokane Valley.The LOS for signalized intersections is measured by the average delay per vehicle entering the intersection from all approaches,while the LOS for unsignalized intersections is measured by the average delay per vehicle on the approach with the highest average delay. Spokane Valley also applies Corridor LOS to evaluate major arterial corridors in the City.Average daily traffic(ADT) volume thresholds are used to measure average LOS conditions along the length of the entire corridor. Corridor LOS acknowledges that some intersections may experience greater congestion than the corridor as a whole. Sprague Avenue and Pines Road are both major arterials where corridor-level LOS can be applied. The LOS standards used by Spokane Valley are defined in the Comprehensive Plan as follows: • LOS D at the corridor level for major arterial corridors: o Argonne/Mullan between the town of Millwood and Appleway Boulevard a Pines Road between Trent Avenue and 8th Avenue o Evergreen Road between Indiana Avenue and 8th Avenue o Sullivan Road between Wellesley Avenue and 8th Avenue o Sprague Avenue/Appleway Boulevard between Fancher Road and Sullivan Road • LOS D for signalized intersections not on major arterial corridors • LOS E for unsignalized intersections (LOS F acceptable if peak hour traffic signal warrant is unmet) F. 4 1I Table 2: Level of service description and delay thresholds at intersections Level of Signalized Unsignalized Description Intersection Delay Intersection Delay Service (seconds) (seconds) A Free-flowing conditions. 0-10 0-10 B Stable operating conditions. 10-20 10-15 C Stable operating conditions, but individual motorists are 20-35 15-25 affected by the interaction with other motorists. D 'High density of motorists, but stable flow. 35-55 25-35 E Near-capacity operations,with speeds reduced to a low but 55-80 35-50 uniform speed. F Over-capacity conditions with long delays. > 80 >50 Source:Highway Capacity Manual 2016,Transportation Research Board WSDOT LOS Standards WSDOT also uses LOS thresholds for State Highways.The LOS standard for State Highways in Urban Areas (including the Study Area) is LOS D for signalized intersections and LOS E for unsignalized intersections. Within the Study Area WSDOT's LOS standards are also considered for intersections along Pines Road, which is State Route 27. Methodology Traffic Analysis Synchro software (version 9)was used to evaluate PM peak hour LOS at the three signalized intersections included in this Update. Synchro settings were set consistent with WSDOT Synchro &SimTraffic Protocol (Aug 2018) and City of Spokane Valley standards. LOS was measured using the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 2010 methodology within Synchro. Existing (2019) Traffic Volumes Existing intersection turn movement counts were collected between 4 PM and 6 PM on Thursday, September 19th, 2019. The existing (and future) PM peak hour volumes are shown in Figure 2. Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study Update 5 -1 I a a ' a S7- ip to �'' cr g t Boone Ave a 1 - —, 2_ €r .,, 24 G Z in r z bk re_ x z — - _ W E Cateldo Ave Z/ $ z T-E g R E Broadway Ava G to a--.- . -013. _ 1110:- It z z — L�4I I EAIkIAve �_ l a E Valleyway Ave — _ — - pane ( i I i I E Maim iI Valley ' -' I` �� — Spr gue Av� I , E Sprat/ _T Abandoned-RR T- -1f-- I r 11 E41hAve 1 I E5lhA _ 0 1— -- 1.Pines/Broadway 2.Pines/Sprague 3.S Evergreen Rd/Sprague rn a e a a- u�—6—r 6T Nti V .o -. v�v w d 78(85) a o 173(195) a CO in +a L 215(240) I~ r 275(280) N 01 837(1,005) rn r 873(980) 4 L 123(130) �� r 140(160) I f r 127(145) I. & 187(205) Ill* so e216(240)— )tt 166(185)— )f 315(320) 4+ v , 801(900) m 830(1.005) n M 101(110) m,� 93(120)—' .` 95(110)�' el 6n I.0. 2 n NO W Existing PM(2040 PM)Volumes Figure 2 Existing and 2040 Lane Configurations Traffic Controls, and PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Future Year (2040) Traffic Volumes Traffic volumes at each of the study intersections were forecast using the current version of the SRTC 2015 and 2040 regional travel demand models,which was last updated in December 2017.After review of the land use forecasts in the model with City staff, no adjustments were made to the existing or future land use assumptions or transportation network in the model. Instead of using the traffic forecasts directly from the 2040 travel demand model, 2040 volumes were estimated using an industry standard approach known as the difference method. Under the difference method,the difference in traffic volumes between the 2015 and 2040 models were added to observed counts at each of the study area intersections to arrive at a 2040 forecast traffic.This method reduces model error by relying as much as possible on observed data rather than model output data. Note:the difference in traffic volumes between the 2015 and 2040 model were multiplied by 0.84 to account for growth in traffic that occurred between 2015 and 2018 (21 years/25 years = 0.84). Post processing to account for model anomalies was also applied to arrive at the final 2040 traffic forecasts. Forecast traffic volumes in Year 2040 are also shown in Figure 2. Existing Traffic Level of Service Table 3 shows the existing PM peak hour LOS using the methodology described above for the three intersections analyzed. Under existing conditions, both the Pines Road/Broadway and Pines Road/Sprague Avenue intersections operate at LOS E, exceeding the COSV and WSDOT intersection LOS D threshold. It should be noted that the Pines Road/Sprague Avenue intersection is just on the cusp of LOS D and LOS E during the PM peak hour. Additionally, both Pines Road and Sprague Avenue are major arterials through these intersections and it should be noted that for these corridors the 2016 Comprehensive Plan directs the LOS threshold to be measured by using corridor-wide LOS.While the Comprehensive Plan acknowledges that individual intersections may exceed the LOS D threshold using this method (as long as the corridor-wide average is at or below LOS D),the corridor-level LOS was not a primary consideration in this case and was not analyzed as part of this study. Table 3: Existing (2019) PM peak hour level of service Intersection Control Delay(sec) LOS Pines Rd/Broadway Signal 62 E Pines Rd/Sprague Ave Signal 56' E Evergreen Rd/Sprague Ave Signal 51 D Source:Fehr&Peers Improving Existing Level of Service The most cost-effective way to improve the existing LOS at the Pines Road/ Broadway intersection would be to make signal timing adjustments.Table 4 shows what the existing PM peak hour LOS would be if the signal timing splits were optimized and cycle length maintained in order to preserve coordination between signals along the corridor. Right-turn-on-red movements were factored into the analysis. Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study Update 7 Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study Update December, 2019 Optimizing the signal splits would improve the Pines Road/Broadway intersection to LOS D, but would have little to no effect at the other two intersections. Table 4: Existing (2019) PM peak hour LOS with signal timing adjustments Intersection Control Delay(sec) LOS Pines Rd/Broadway Signal 48 D Pines Rd/Sprague Ave Signal 56 E Evergreen Rd/Sprague Ave Signal 48 D Source:Fehr&Peers Year 2O4o Traffic Level of Service Table 5 shows the estimated PM peak hour LOS in 2040 for the three intersections analyzed, based on traffic growth from the SRTC regional travel demand model.The 2040 delay and LOS presented in Table 5 assumes the same cycle length for the signals, but assumes the signal splits would be optimized over time to account for changing traffic patterns. The results show that in 2040 the Pines Road/Sprague intersection would continue to operate at LOS E, but would degrade by an average of 8 seconds per vehicle from existing conditions, and would exceed WSDOT and COSV intersection LOS threshold. Again, it should be noted that City of Spokane Valley uses corridor-level LOS methodology to measure LOS for both the Pines Road and Sprague Avenue corridors. Corridor-level LOS was not measured in 2040 as part of this analysis, but in consultation with City staff it was determined that addressing congestion at Pines Road and Sprague Avenue in the future was desired to reduce delay, improve corridor-wide LOS for both Sprague Avenue and Pines Road, and to mitigate potential congestion related safety issues. Table 5: 2040 PM peak hour LOS with signal timing optimized Intersection Control Delay(sec) LOS Pines Rd/Broadway Signal 49 D Pines Rd/Sprague Ave Signal 64 E Evergreen Rd/Sprague Ave Signal 52 D Source:Fehr&Peers Improving 2040 Level of Service Using an iterative approach and accounting for land use constraints, a project was identified to improve the delay at the Pines Road/Sprague Avenue intersection in 2040.A description of the project and the improvements to LOS and delay is shown in Table 6.This project would reduce the 2040 delay by about 9 seconds and bring the LOS from an E to a D (just on the cusp of a D/E). It should be noted that while this intersection is not specifically required to meet LOS D threshold per Spokane Valley standards (instead the 8 ,1 Pines Road and Sprague Avenue corridors are required to meet corridor-wide average LOS D threshold), improving the average vehicle delay at this intersection will ensure that WSDOT LOS standards are met and would contribute toward ensuring the Pines and Sprague corridors do not exceed LOS D corridor- wide in 2040. Table 6: Potential project to improve 2040 PM peak hour LOS Intersection Description of Improvement Delay(sec)with LOS with Improvement Improvement • Add a southbound right-turn-only lane; • Convert the existing southbound through-right Pines Rd/Sprague Ave lane to a through-only lane; 54.6 17 • Add a second eastbound left-turn-only lane. Source:Fehr&Peers Argonne Road &Trent Avenue Intersection The intersection of Argonne Road &Trent Avenue is near the North Pines Road Subarea, and while traffic analysis at that intersection was not performed as part of this study, this intersection was identified in the 2016 Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan as a location that would exceed COSV and WSDOT LOS thresholds.As part of the Comprehensive Plan, a project was identified to address the poor LOS in the future, as described in Table 7. Given that development in both the Mirabeau and North Pines Road Subareas would increase traffic at this intersection,this project was also included as part of the fair-share cost analysis for both. Subareas. Note that while the improvement at Argonne Road &Trent Avenue would improve the LOS compared to a "do nothing" alternative, this intersection would not meet either WSDOT or COSV LOS thresholds. Land use constraints related to the BNSF railroad overpass and the narrow street cross section in Millwood limit options related to adding roadway capacity to Argonne Road. Because this improvement would add capacity and reduce delay, the cost can be factored into impact fees per the Washington State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), despite not reducing LOS to within the City or State thresholds, Table 7: Potential project at Argonne Rd./Trent Ave.to improve 2040 PM peak hour LOS Intersection Description of Improvement Delay w/o LOS w/o Delay with LOS with Improvement Improvement Improvement Improvement Argonne Rd./ • Add a second westbound 109 F 96 F Trent Ave left-turn lane. Source:Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan(Dec 2016),Appendix A. Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study Update 9 Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study Update December, 2019 Project Cost Estimates This section includes updated cost estimates, including methodology,for the five projects identified in previous plans as well as the cost estimates for two projects identified in this study at both the Pines Road &Sprague Avenue and Argonne Road &Trent Avenue intersections. Updated Project Unit Costs Unit costs for roadway construction were identified in the 2016 traffic study. In collaboration with City staff,these costs were updated based on construction costs from recently completed transportation projects in Spokane Valley. Where recent costs were not available, unit costs were updated based on inflation from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) National Highway Cost lndex.1 Costs to account for drainage and traffic control were also added.Table 8 summarizes the. unit costs that were used to develop project cost estimates. Table 8: Unit costs Element Description Unit Quantity Unit Cost(2019 $) Hard Costs Roadway Demolition I Demolition and removal of old roadway Square Yard I $15 Curb Demolition I Demolition and removal of old curb/gutter Linear foot $16 Sidewalk Demolition Demolition and removal of old sidewalk Square Yard $20 Signal Demolition Demo and removal of old traffic signal eqpt. Each mast arm $6,000 Excavation Excavation,grading,fill,earthwork Cubic Yard $35 Road Section Construction of new roadway surface Square Yard $60 Curb Construction of new curb/gutter Linear foot $45 Sidewalk Construction of new sidewalks Square Yard $80 Curb Ramps Construction of new curb ramps Each $4,000 Traffic Signal 1 Construction of new traffic signal Each new system $480,000 Other Costs Right-of-way I Cost of acquiring right-of-way Square Foot _ $12 Mobilization Cost to get a construction crew engaged 10%of"hard"costs above Drainage Cost to provide proper stormwater drainage 20%of applicable"hard"costs above Traffic Control Cost to manage traffic during construction 15%of"hard"costs above Contingency Cost contingency for unexpected drainage/ utility/ 30%of"hard"costs above earthwork conflicts;WSDOT coordination Engineering Cost to design and permit the project 20%of"hard"costs above Source:City of Spokane Valley,Fehr&Peers,FHWA National Highway Cost Index. 1 https://www.fhwa.dot.gOv/policy/ntps/nhcci/ptl,cfm 10 rill I Project Cost Estimates Table 9 shows the cost estimates for seven potential projects in the study area where LOS would degrade to unacceptable levels in the future.This includes updated costs for the five projects identified in the previous (2016) Mirabeau Traffic Study to account for construction cost inflation, plus the additional projects at Pines Road &Sprague Avenue intersection identified in this Update and the potential project at Argonne Road &Trent Avenue identified in the Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan (2016). Details for how these costs were estimated is provided in Appendix E. All cost estimates are in 2019 dollars. Table 9: Cost estimate of potential projects to improve future LOS Non- 2016 Cost Applicable Project Description Cost Estimate Applicable Costs Estimates Costs (2016 dollars) Pines Rd/ Add westbound left-turn lane; Indiana Ave retime traffic signal $1,500,000 $0, $1,500,000 $896,000 Pines Rd/1-90 Add eastbound left-turn lane and EB Ramps I northbound right-turn pocket $1,119,000 $0 $1,119,000 $753,000 (extending back to Nora Ave); retime traffic signal Pines Rd/ I Reconfigure lane assignments on Mission Ave Mission Ave to include eastbound Phase 1 dual-left and a through-right lane and westbound left,through, and $588,000 $508,620; $79,380 right turn lane;retime and $457,000 upgrade traffic signal Pines Rd/ Add southbound right-turn lane Mission Ave (extending back to the 1-90 off- $812,000 $0 $812,000 Phase 2 ramp); Mirabeau Add traffic signal, add new 180 Pkwy/ foot southbound through-right $1,215,000 $0 $1,215,000 $874,000 Mansfield Ave lane Sullivan Rd/ Reconfigure eastbound to include Mission Ave a left and through-right lane; $94,000 $0 $94,000' $61,000 retime signal Add a southbound right-turn-only Pines Rd/ I lane;convert the existing southbound through-right lane to $818,000 $82,000 $737,000 NEW Sprague Ave a through-only lane;add a second eastbound left-turn-only lane, Argonne Rd/ Add a second westbound left-turn Trent Ave lane. $753,600 $229,200 $524,4001 NEW Source:Fehr&Peers,City of Spokane Valley. Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study Update 11 Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study Update December, 2019 It should be noted that the improvements at Pines Road & Mission Avenue have been split into two phases as the City is planning to implement a portion of this project(Phase 1) in 2020.Additionally, about 86%of funding for this project is from non-City funds(that portion is funded by a Surface Transportation Block Grant) and thus cannot be included as part of the fair-share cost analysis.All other projects are assumed to be funded entirely by City general funds (which include mitigation fee payments from development). Secondly,the full cost of improvements at the Pines Road &Sprague Avenue intersection cannot be applied to the impact fee because there is a LOS deficiency at this intersection under existing conditions. To account for this,the portion of traffic that if removed from the system today would effectively reduce the LOS at this intersection from an "E"to a "D"was estimated in Synchro.The result was about 10%of existing traffic.This means that if traffic volumes were 10% lower at this intersection under existing conditions,the intersection would meet the LOS D threshold.Therefore, 10% of the total cost of the potential improvement project at Pines Road &Sprague Avenue was deducted from the total cost to arrive at the applicable cost as shown in Table 9. Similarly,the full cost of improvements at the Argonne Road &Trent Avenue intersection cannot be applied to the impact fee because there is an existing LOS deficiency at this intersection.To account for this,the cost of a restriping and signal modification project which would bring the intersection to a LOS D under existing conditions was estimated. The project was recommended as part of the North Argonne Road/North Mullan Road Corridor Retiming project.2 The estimated cost of this project($229,000)was deducted from cost of the longer term project to arrive at the applicable cost as shown in Table 9. 2 Fehr&Peers.Technical Memorandum.NArgonne Rood/N Multan Road Corridor Retiming.July 25, 2019. Project# 5E18-0621. pi 12 111 Fair Share & Cost Per Trip Analysis Fair Share Analysis A common way for a development project to mitigate its traffic impact is through a fair-share financial contribution toward a transportation system project that would improve LOS to meet City standards. The Subarea's fair-share financial contribution is determined by how much traffic the Subarea is expected to contribute to each of the deficient intersections under future conditions (see Table 9). In other words, what percentage of 2040 traffic through a deficient intersection is caused by new development within the Mirabeau and North Pines Road Subarea? The SRTC regional travel model was used to determine the percentage of traffic generated by future development within the two Subareas.The travel model has a tool called a "select zone analysis"that can track the traffic generated by different areas throughout the city. The select zone analysis was set to identify the traffic generated by Mirabeau and North Pines Road Subarea development separate from any other traffic generated by development in the region.The results of the select zone analysis were analyzed for each of the seven deficient intersections identified in Table 9.Table 10 shows the results of the select zone analysis.This reflects the same portion of traffic from the Mirabeau Subarea through the five deficient intersections identified from the previous (2016) study. Table 10: Subarea share of future PM peak hour traffic at deficient intersections Mirabeau Subarea North Pines Road Subarea Combined Portion Intersection of Future Traffic Portion of Future Traffic Portion of Future Traffic from two Subareas Pines Rd/Indiana Ave 18%I 42% 60% Pines Rd/1-90 ES Ramps 18% 48%. 66% Pines Rd/Mission Ave 4% 53% 57% Mirabeau Pkwy/Mansfield Ave 38% 5% 43% Sullivan Rd/Mission Ave 4% 9% 13% Pines Rd/Sprague Ave 6% 19% 25% Argonne Rd/Trent Ave 10% 7%I 17% Source:Fehr&Peers,SRTC Regional Travel Demand Model(last updated December,2017), The results in Table 10 show that at some intersections,the majority of future traffic is generated by the two Subareas combined, while at other locations, the majority of future traffic is generated by locations outside the two Subareas. For example, at the Pines Road & 1-90 Eastbound Ramps, 18%of future traffic will be generated by land uses in the Mirabeau Subarea and 48%will be generated by land uses in the North Pines Road Subarea. Combined, the two Subareas will generate about 66% of the future traffic Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study Update 13 Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study Update December, 2019 passing through the intersection during the PM peak hour. In contrast, about 10% of future traffic at Argonne Road &Trent Avenue intersection will be generated by land uses in the Mirabeau Subarea and 7%will be generated by land uses in the North Pines Road Subarea. Combined the two Subareas will generate about 17% of the future traffic passing through the intersection during the PM peak hour,while land uses outside the Subarea will generate about 83% of future traffic passing through the intersection. The results in Table 10 were used to determine the two Subareas'financial share of the total project improvements by multiplying the total improvement cost by the proportion of traffic generated by new development in the two Subareas.The result of this calculation is the fair-share cost of each project to the Subarea and is shown in Table 11.This shows that the total fair-share cost of all seven projects adds up to $1,079,000 for the Mirabeau Subarea and $1,708,000 for the North Pines Road Subarea.A two percent administrative fee was added to each Subarea cost to cover the cost of administering the program, including future updates to this study. Thus,the total fair share cost of improvements, including the administrative fee, equals $1,101,000 for the Mirabeau Subarea and $1,742,000 for the North Pines Road Subarea. Table 11: Subareas' share of total improvement costs Applicable Mirabeau Mirabeau North Pines Road North Pines Intersection Portion of Total Subarea Portion Subarea Subarea Portion Road Subarea Project Cost of Future Traffic UPDATED Fair- of Future Traffic Fair-Share Cost Share Cost Pines Rd/Indiana 1 Ave $1,500,000 18% $270,000 42%1 $628,000 Pines Rd/I-90 EB Ramps $1,119,000 18% $201,000 i 48% $532,000 Pines Rd/Mission $891,000 4% $143,000 53% $476,000 Ave Mirabeau Pkwy/ $1,215,000 38% 5% $64,000 Mansfield Ave $462,000 I Sullivan Rd/ Mission Ave $94,000 4%1 $3,7001 9%. $8,200 Pines Rd/ $137,000 Sprague Ave $737,000 6% $48,000 19%1 Argonne Rd/ $38,000 Trent Ave $524,000 10%1 $51,0001 7% I Total Fair Share N/A N/A $1,079,000 N/A $1,708,000 Cost Total Fair-Share Cost with 2°L° N/A N/A $1,101,000 N/A $1,742,000 Administrative Fee 14 �� Cost Per Trip Given both Subareas' share of the total project costs as identified in Table 11, the cost per PM peak hour trip could be updated for the Mirabeau Subarea and calculated for the North Pines Road Subarea by applying the same methodology as the previous study.The same amount of future land use growth in Mirabeau through Year 2040 assumed in the previous study was applied (but with updated project costs and updated trip rates) as shown in Table 12.This calculation might seem counterintuitive because there has been growth in the Mirabeau Subarea between 2016 and -today. However, since this study did not re- calculate the proportion of traffic growth associated with the remaining development potential in the Mirabeau Subarea, the original total increase in trip generation was assumed.This is a common assumption used when updating impact/mitigation fees and helps to keep the fees relatively stable and predictable over time. For the North Pines Road Subarea, the difference between the land use assumed in the 2040 SRTC Regional Travel Demand Model and the 2015 model was used. PM peak hour trip generation was estimated with standard Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE)trip generation rates.Table 12 summarizes the land use growth and resulting trip generation rates for both Subareas.This is the same trip generation approach used in the original Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study, except with updated rates based on the current(2017) ITE Trip Generation Manual. Table 12: PM peak hour trip generation calculation Mirabeau Mirabeau North Pines Road North Pines Road Land Use PM Peak Hour Subarea Units of Subarea PM Subarea Units of Subarea PM Peak Trip Rate Development Peak Hour Trips Development Hour Trips Single-Family amity 0.99 65 dwelling units 65 78 dwelling units 78 Residential Multi-Family 0.56 979 dwelling units 549 1 157 dwelling units 88 Residential Retail 3.81 63,890 square feet 244 69,750 square feetI 266 Office 0.401 2,561 employees 1,025 259 employees 104 Hotel 0.60, 150 rooms 90 0 rooms 0 Medical 0.851 0 employees 0 371 employees 316 School 0.17I 0 employees 01 18 employees 4 Industrial 0.491 0 employees 01 79 employees: 39 Total Fair-Share N/A N/A 1,973 N/A 895 Cost Source:Trip generation:ITE(2017);Mirabeau Subarea land use growth:Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study(2016);North Pines Subarea land use growth:SRTC Regional Travel Demand Model(last updated December,2017). Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study Update 15 Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study Update December, 2019 Based on the results from Table 11 and Table 12 the cost per PM peak hour for each Subarea are as follows: Mirabeau Subarea (UPDATED): $1,101,000 (Subarea's share of total project costs)/ 1,973 (Subarea PM peak hour trip generation from growth) = $ 558 per PM peak hour trip. This compares to $323.75 per PM peak hour trip from the 2016 study.The cost per trip went up because of higher construction costs,the two additional improvement projects (at Pines Road &Sprague Avenue and Argonne Road &Trent Avenue), and slightly lower assumed trip rates based on the updated trip generation manual (which reduced forecast new trips generated by development from 2,176 in the previous study to 1,973). North Pines Road Subarea: $1,742,000 (Subarea's share of total project costs)/895 (Subarea PM peak hour trip generation from growth) = $ 1,946 per PM peak hour trip Vested Trips There are still existing "vested"trips from the prior"Pines-Mansfield Development Agreement" that was established by Spokane County.While the transportation improvement projects identified as part of the Pines-Mansfield Development Agreement have largely been constructed, Spokane Valley is open to counting the vested trips as a credit against this new transportation improvement program. Based on data supplied by the City of Spokane Valley in October 2019,there were 816 PM peak hour vested trips outstanding amongst the land owners in the Subarea.These trips have a value of$303.36 per trip, which works out to a total value of$247,542. Developers can apply the value of their unused vested PM peak hour trips as a credit to the Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Mitigation Program until they have no vested trips remaining. 16 /i Conclusions This report provided an update to the Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study previously performed in 2016.The main purpose of this study was to update the projects costs, based primarily on inflation, and to expand the geographic area paying the traffic LOS impact mitigation fee as planned new developments will add a substantial amount of new traffic to the area. Instead of expanding the Mirabeau Subarea, a new Subarea called the North Pines Road Subarea was defined. As part of this analysis,the existing and future traffic LOS conditions at three new intersections in and around the two Subareas was performed.As shown in the previous study and this update, in the future, traffic LOS is expected to degrade within the study area as the Mirabeau Subarea, North Pines Road Subarea, and the rest of Spokane Valley and the region continue to grow.This report identified the necessary traffic mitigation measures to improve congestion and meet Spokane Valley's LOS standards. Most of the congestion relief projects are on the Pines Road corridor with a separate improvement at Argonne Road &Trent Avenue and a minor improvement at the Sullivan Road & Mission Avenue intersection. A fair-share calculation was developed to identify the Mirabeau Subarea and North Pines Road Subarea landowner's share of future traffic impacts and mitigation costs. If landowners agree to implement future traffic congestion improvement projects through a mitigation contribution up to the amount shown in Table 13,then they will meet their SEPA obligations to mitigate traffic congestion impacts. After making this mitigation payment (which is subject to a credit from the existing Pines-Mansfield Development Agreement),the developer will not have to conduct another traffic study, outside of a site access and circulation study,which may be required by Spokane Valley to ensure safe access for all modes into and within the development site. Table 13: Voluntary Traffic Mitigation Fees for Developers to Meet SEPA Obligation Subarea Cost per PM Peak Hour Vehicle Trip Mirabeau Subarea $ 558 North Pines Road Subarea $1,946 Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study Update 17 Appendix A - Existing Conditions Synchro Reports FEHR ' PEERS HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 2052: Pines & Broadway 10/08/2019 f -► c 4-- k- t P 4- 4/ Movement _ _ , y,L ELT °13 k011L� WIN Nat.= Isar p $64. _ Sa11 Lane Configurations '9 1+ 'Pi 1* T ) `i' Traffic Volume(veh/h) 187 315 101 123 275 76 53 805 54 87 1070 177 Future Volume(vehlh) 187 315 101 123 275 76 53 805 54 87 1070 177 Number 3 8 18 7 4 14 1 6 16 5 2 12 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-BikeAdj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 0,99 1,00 0,98 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/In 1733 1733 1750 1716 1716 1750 1716 1716 1750 1733 1733 1750 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 195 328 93 128 286 68 55 839 50 91 1115 167 Adj No.of Lanes 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 Peak Hour Factor 0,96 0.96 0.96 0,96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Percent Heavy Veh,% 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 Cap,veh/h 255 350 99 197 348 83 204 1356 81 112 1080 161 Arrive On Green 0.08 0.27 0.27 0.07 0.26 0.26 0.13 0.43 0,43 0.07 0.38 0.38 Sat Flow,vehlh 1650 1292 366 1634 1339 318 1634 3125 186 1650 2866 428 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 195 0 421 128 0 354 55 438 451 91 639 643 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1650 0 1659 1634 0 1658 1634 1630 1681 1650 1646 1648 Q Serve(g_s),s 11.0 0.0 32.2 7.4 0.0 26,1 4,0 27.0 27.0 7.1 49.0 49.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 11.0 0,0 32.2 7.4 0.0 26.1 4.0 27.0 27.0 7.1 49,0 49.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.22 1,00 0.19 1.00 0,11 1.00 0.26 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 255 0 450 197 0 430 204 707 730 112 620 621 V/C Ratio(X) 0.76 0.00 0.94 0.65 0.00 0,82 0.27 0.62 0,62 0,81 1,03 1.03 Avail Cap(c_a),vehlh 255 0 472 241 0 497 204 707 730 203 620 621 HCM Platoon Ratio 1,00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 LOU Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.91 0,00 0.91 0.62 0,62 0.62 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 35.7 0,0 46,3 35.5 0.0 45.3 51,5 28.5 28,5 59.7 40.5 40,5 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 12.8 0.0 25.8 4.0 0.0 8.7 0.4 2.5 2,5 12.8 44.0 45.4 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 6.1 0,0 18.0 3.5 0.0 13.0 1.8 12.7 13.0 3.6 29.8 30,1 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 48.5 0,0 72.1 39.5 0.0 54.0 51,9 31.0 30.9 72.6 84.5 85,9 LnGrp LOS D E D D D CC E F F Approach Vol,veh/h 616 482 944 1373 Approach Delay,s/veh 64.6 50,2 32.2 84.4 Approach LOS E D C F iLner ___1 2 3' 4 5 6 7 8 - - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),s 21.3 54.0 16.0 38.7 13.8 61.4 14,5 40.2 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 11,0 49.0 11.0 39.0 16.0 44,0 13.0 37.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+11),s 6,0 51,0 13.0 28.1 9.1 29.0 9,4 34.2 Green Ext Time(p_c),s 0.1 0.0 0.0 2.6 0.1 3.6 0.1 1.0 intact&11 I - = __ - HCM 2010 Ctri Delay 61.6 HCM 2010 LOS E COSV Network 5:00 pm 06/20/2019 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 1 HCM 2010 Signalizes! Intersection Summary 2053: Pines & Sprague 10/08/2019 --. l_ 4\ t P \* 4/ IN-6i * . _ - ' __ ar kAa - _ T v N- _ : -_NB >l er gaR Lane Configurations 1111 ft+ '1 +f l ) f 1 I Traffic Volume(veh/h) 216 801 93 140 837 173 135 421 77 280 600 291 Future Volume(veh/h) 216 801 93 140 837 173 135 421 77 280 600 291 Number 3 8 18 7 4 14 1 6 16 5 2 12 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-BikeAdj(A_pbT) 1,00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 Parking Bus,Adj 1,00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,veh/hlln 1733 1733 1750 1733 1733 1750 1716 1716 1750 1733 1733 1750 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 225 834 82 146 872 147 141 439 64 292 625 231 Adj No.of Lanes 1 3 0 1 3 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0,96 0.96 0.96 0,96 0.96 0.96 0,96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Percent Heavy Veh,%® 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 Cap,veh/h 241 1190 116 171 933 156 292 797 116 317 686 253 Arrive On Green 0.15 0.27 0,27 0,10 0.23 0.23 0.18 0.28 0.28 0.19 0.29 0.29 Sat Flow,veh/h 1650 4381 429 1650 4074 683 1634 2856 414 1650 2345 866 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 225 599 317 146 674 345 141 249 254 292 438 418 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1650 1577 1656 1650 1577 1604 1634 1630 1640 1650 1646 1565 Q Serve(g_s),s 17.5 22.2 22.4 11,3 27,2 27.5 10.1 16.9 17.1 22.6 33.4 33.5 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 17.5 22.2 22.4 11.3 27,2 27.5 10.1 16.9 17.1 22.6 33.4 33,5 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.26 1.00 0,43 1.00 0.25 1.00 0.55 Lane Grp Cap(c),vehJh 241 857 450 171 722 367 292 455 458 317 481 458 V/C Ratio(X) 0.93 0,70 0.70 0.85 0.93 0.94 0.48 0.55 0.55 0.92 0,91 0,91 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 241 857 450 241 728 370 292 455 458 355 557 530 HCM Platoon Ratio 1,00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.55 0.55 0.55 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.27 0.27 0.27 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 54.9 42.6 42.6 57.3 49.1 49.2 48,0 39,9 40.0 51,6 44.4 44,4 Incr.Delay(d2),slveh 37.5 2.3 4.5 11.1 12.1 21.1 1,2 4.7 4.8 10,2 8.6 9.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),vehlIn 10.5 9.9 10.8 5.7 13.1 14.3 4.6 8.2 8,4 11.2 16.4 15.7 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 92.4 44.9 47.1 68.4 61.3 70.4 49.2 44,6 44.7 61.8 52.9 53,4 LnGrp LOS F D D E E E D D _ D E D D Approach Vol,veh/h 1141 1165 644 1148 Approach Delay,s/veh 54.9 64.9 45.7 55.4 Approach LOS D E D llfmer _ 1' 2 3 4 6 a _ 7 8 _ I Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),s 28.2 43.0 24,0 34.8 30.0 41.3 18.5 40.3 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 17.0 44.0 19.0 30.0 28.0 33.0 19.0 30,0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+11),s 12.1 35.5 19.5 29.5 24,6 19.1 13.3 24,4 Green Ext Time(p_c),s 1.2 2.6 0.0 0.3 0,4 2,2 0.2 2.6 HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 56.4 HCM 2010 LOS E COSV Network 5:00 pm 06/20/2019 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 2 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 3028: S Evergreen Rd & Sprague 1010812019 '-'0` /' 41-- 4 t 1 d Mivement Nit 71 1 -_- tom"- 'Or Mal_ NIBT _ NBR IL, fi '1 Lane Configurations ' ++1 '1 + `1+ " 14 11 +14 Traffic Volume(vehlh) 166 830 95 127 873 215 113 421 101 175 648 190 Future Volume(vehlh) 166 830 95 127 873 215 113 421 101 175 648 190 Number 1 6 16 5 2 12 3 8 18 7 4 14 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A pbT) 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 0,99 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,vehlh/In 1733 1733 1750 1733 1733 1750 1733 1733 1750 1733 1733 1750 Adj Flow Rate,vehlh 173 865 82 132 909 173 118 439 82 182 675 168 Adj No.of Lanes 1 3 0 1 3 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0,96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Percent Heavy Veh,% 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Cap,veh/h 196 1761 166 157 1506 285 141 661 123 203 721 179 Arrive On Green 0.12 0.40 0.40 0.10 0.38 0.38 0,09 0.24 0,24 0.12 0.28 0.28 Sat Flow,vehlh 1650 4393 415 1650 3993 757 1650 2771 514 1650 2612 650 Grp Volume(v),vehlh 173 620 327 132 717 365 118 260 261 182 425 418 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlhlln 1650 1577 1654 1650 1577 1596 1650 1646 1639 1650 1646 1616 Q Serve(g_s),s 13.4 19.1 19.2 10,2 23,8 24,0 9.2 18.5 18,8 14.1 32,8 32.8 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 13,4 19.1 19.2 10.2 23.8 24.0 9.2 18.5 18.8 14.1 32.8 32.8 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.25 1.00 0.47 1.00 0.31 1.00 0.40 Lane Grp Cap(c),vehlh 196 1264 663 157 1189 602 141 393 391 203 454 446 V1C Ratio(X) 0.88 0.49 0.49 0.84 0.60 0,61 0.84 0.66 0.67 0.90 0.94 0.94 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 203 1264 663 203 1189 602 203 462 460 203 462 454 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 Upstream Filter(l) 0.52 0,52 0.52 0,98 0.98 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1,00 1 Uniform Delay(d),slveh 56.4 29.0 29.1 57,9 32.6 32,7 58.5 44.7 44.8 56.2 45.9 46.0 her Delay(d2),slveh 20.1 0.7 1.4 20.9 2.2 4.4 17.8 2.7 2.9 36.1 26.4 26,9 Initial Q Delay(d3),slveh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 0,0 0.0 0.0 ` %isle BackOfQ(50%),vehlln 7.2 8.4 9.0 5.6 10.7 11.3 4.9 8.7 8.8 8.5 18.2 18.0 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 76.5 29.7 30.4 78.7 34.9 37.1 76.4 47.5 47.8 92.3 72.3 72.9 LnGrp LOS E C C E C D E D D F E E Approach Vol,veh/h 1120 1214 639 1025 Approach Delay, slveh 37.2 40.3 52.9 76.1 Approach LOS D D D E =i - 4 _t _ - 6c _7 ___:# _ Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 19,4 54.0 15.1 41.4 16.4 57.1 20.0 36.5 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.5 4,0 5,0 4.0 5.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 16.0 43.0 16,0 36.5 16.0 43.0 16,0 36.5 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+11),s 15,4 26.0 11.2 34.8 12.2 21.2 16.1 20.8 Green Ext Time(pc),s 0.0 12.1 0,1 1.0 0.1 14.4 0.0 5.4 Intersection uIvo _ _ __ HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 50,6 HCM 2010 LOS D COSV Network 5:00 pm 0612012019 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 3 Appendix B - Existing Conditions Optimized Synchro Reports FEHR3' PEERS HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 2052: Pines & Broadway 1 0/08120 1 9 M vament ----- _ _Or -80 will -WB Its:_ {I R _ 1-__ Lane Configurations 1 Ti Vi i4: ) fr. 1 fit Traffic Volume(vehlh) 187 315 101 123 275 76 53 805 54 87 1070 177 Future Volume(vehlh) 187 315 101 123 275 76 53 805 54 87 1070 177 Number 3 8 18 7 4 14 1 6 16 5 2 12 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-BikeAdj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.99 1,00 0,99 1.00 0.99 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,vehlh/In 1733 1733 1750 1716 1716 1750 1716 1716 1750 1733 1733 1750 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 195 328 93 128 286 69 55 839 50 91 1115 164 Adj No.of Lanes 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0,96 Percent Heavy Veh,% 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 Cap,veh/h 244 350 99 178 310 75 98 1393 83 112 1305 191 Arrive On Green 0.10 0.27 0.27 0.06 0.23 0,23 0.06 0.45 0.45 0.07 0.45 0.45 Sat Flow,veh/h 1650 1292 366 1634 1335 322 1634 3125 186 1650 2875 422 Grp Valume(v),vehlh 195 0 421 128 0 355 55 438 451 91 637 642 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlhlln 1650 0 1659 1634 0 1657 1634 1630 1681 1650 1646 1651 Q Serve(g_s),s 11.4 0.0 32.2 7.8 0.0 27.2 4.3 26.4 26.5 7.1 44.8 45.2 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 11.4 0,0 32.2 7.8 0.0 27.2 4.3 26.4 26.5 7.1 44,8 45.2 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.22 1.00 0.19 1,00 0,11 1.00 0.26 Lane Grp Cap(c),vehlh 244 0 450 178 0 385 98 726 749 112 747 749 WC Ratio(X) 0.80 0.00 0.94 0,72 0.00 0.92 0,56 0.60 0,60 0.81 0,85 0.86 Avail Cap(c_a),vehlh 244 0 472 178 0 408 98 726 749 178 747 749 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(l) 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.91 0.00 0.91 0.63 0.63 0,63 1.00 1,00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 35.1 0.0 46.3 38,4 0,0 48.7 59,5 27.3 27,3 59.8 31,6 31.7 Incr Delay(d2),slveh 16.7 0.0 25.8 11,9 0,0 23.7 4.6 2.3 2.3 14.0 11.8 12.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),slveh 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %Ile BackOfQ(50%),vehfln 6.3 0.0 18.0 4.1 0.0 15.0 2.0 12.4 12,8 3.7 22.8 23.0 LnGrp Delay(d),slveh 51.9 0,0 72.1 50.3 0.0 72,4 64.1 29.6 29.6 73.8 43.5 43.8 LnGrp LOS D - E D EECCEDD Approach Vol,veh/h 616 483 944 1370 Approach Delay,0/eh 65.7 66.5 31.6 45,6 Approach LOS E E C D tiler = 3 fi 7 8 l Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 12.8 64,0 18.0 35.2 13.8 62.9 13,0 40.2 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5,0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 6.0 59.0 13,0 32.0 14.0 51.0 8.0 37.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+11),s 6,3 47,2 13.4 29.2 9,1 28.5 9.8 34,2 Green Ext Time(p_c),s 0.0 4.8 0.0 1.0 0.1 4.0 0.0 1.0 lLsecUlafl.Skimpily - - - HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 48.3 HCM 2010 LOS D i COSV Network 5:00 pm 06/20/2019 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 1 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 2053: Pines & Sprague 10108/2019 Named -_ gar RA -, - _'0r40 'MR =N31,-_ yra, sr kT_ Lane Configurations '9 1+t vi t1l II 11+ Traffic Volume(vehlh) 216 801 93 140 837 173 135 421 77 280 600 291 Future Volume(vehlh) 216 801 93 140 837 173 135 421 77 280 600 291 Number 3 8 18 7 4 14 1 6 16 5 2 12 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,vehlh/In 1733 1733 1750 1733 1733 1750 1716 1716 1750 1733 1733 1750 Adj Flow Rate,vehlh 225 834 81 146 872 147 141 439 63 292 625 231 Adj No.of Lanes 1 3 0 1 3 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0,96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0,96 0.96 0.96 Percent Heavy Veh,% 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 Cap,vehlh 248 1249 121 170 970 163 269 766 109 315 688 254 Arrive On Green 0,15 0.28 0.28 0.10 0.24 0.24 0.16 0.27 0,27 0.19 0.29 0.29 Sat Flow,vehlh 1650 4387 424 1650 4074 683 1634 2862 408 1650 2345 866 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 225 599 316 146 674 345 141 249 253 292 438 418 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlhlln 1650 1577 1657 1650 1577 1604 1634 1630 1641 1650 1646 1565 QServe(g_s), s 17.4 21,8 21.9 11.3 26.9 27.2 10.3 17.2 17.4 22.6 33.4 33,4 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 17.4 21.8 21.9 11.3 26.9 27.2 10.3 17.2 17.4 22.6 33.4 33.4 Prop In Lane 1.00 0,26 1.00 0.43 1,00 0.25 1.00 0.55 Lane Grp Cap(c),vehlh 248 898 472 170 751 382 269 436 439 315 483 459 WC Ratio(X) 0.91 0,67 0.67 0.86 0.90 0,90 0.52 0.57 0,58 0.93 0.91 0.91 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 254 898 472 228 800 407 269 436 439 330 570 542 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.55 0.55 0.55 1.00 1.00 1.00 0,45 0.45 0.45 Uniform Delay(d),slveh 54.4 41,0 41.1 57.3 48,0 48.1 49,6 41.2 41,2 51.7 44.2 44.3 lncr Delay(d2),slveh 30.8 1,7 3.3 12.6 7.5 14.0 1.9 5.3 5.4 17.6 12.6 13.3 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %Ile BackOfQ(50%),vehlln 10.1 9.7 10.5 5.7 12.5 13.5 4.8 8.4 8.5 11,8 16.8 16.1 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 85.2 42.8 44.4 70.0 55.5 62.1 51,5 46.5 46.7 69.3 56.8 57.5 LnGrp LOS F D D EEEDDDEEE Approach Vol,vehlh 1140 1165 643 1148 Approach Delay,s/veh 51.6 59.3 47.7 60.3 Approach LOS D E D E f'Imer 1 - 2 - 3 4 6_ 6 7 _ 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 26.4 43.2 24.5 35.9 29.8 39.8 18.4 42.0 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 12.0 45.0 20.0 33,0 26.0 31,0 18,0 35.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+I1),s 12.3 35.4 19.4 29,2 24.6 19,4 13.3 23.9 Green Ext Time(p_c),s 0.0 2.7 0.1 1.8 0.2 2,1 0.2 4.0 HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 55.6 HCM 2010 LOS E COSV Network 5:00 pm 06/20/2019 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 2 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 3028: S Evergreen Rd & Sprague 10/08/2019 t s -BT_ O ►hit- 1 I`i ii ® en Lane Configurations I ' I+ 'i ++1+ ' 1 /1 1 Traffic Volume(vehlh) 166 830 95 127 873 215 113 421 101 175 648 190 Future Volume(vehlh) 166 830 95 127 873 215 113 421 101 175 648 190 Number 1 6 16 5 2 12 3 8 18 7 4 14 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0,99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,vehlhlln 1733 1733 1750 1733 1733 1750 1733 1733 1750 1733 1733 1750 Adj Flow Rate,vehlh 173 865 83 132 909 176 118 439 82 182 675 166 Adj No.of Lanes 1 3 0 1 3 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0,96 0.96 Percent Heavy Veh,% 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Cap,veh/h 197 1696 162 158 1443 278 140 695 129 206 761 187 Arrive On Green 0.12 0.39 0.39 0.10 0.36 0.36 0.09 0.25 0.25 0.12 0.29 0,29 Sat Flow,veh/h 1650 4387 419 1650 3980 767 1650 2771 514 1650 2619 644 Grp Volume(v),vehlh 173 621 327 132 719 366 118 260 261 182 424 417 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlhlln 1650 1577 1653 1650 1577 1594 1650 1646 1639 1650 1646 1617 Q Serve(g_s),s 13,4 19.5 19.7 10,2 24.5 24,7 9.2 18.2 18.5 14.1 32.0 32.1 Cycle Q Clear(g _c),s 13.4 19.5 19.7 10.2 24.5 24,7 9.2 18,2 18.5 14.1 32.0 32.1 Prop In Lane 1,00 0.25 1,00 0,48 1.00 0.31 1.00 0,40 Lane Grp Cap(c),vehlh 197 1219 639 158 1143 578 140 413 411 206 478 470 V/C Ratio(X) 0.88 0.51 0.51 0.84 0.63 0.63 0.84 0,63 0.64 0.88 0,89 0,89 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 228 1219 639 241 1143 578 165 456 454 241 532 522 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.98 0.98 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),slveh 56,3 30,5 30.5 57,8 34,2 34.3 58.6 43.3 43.4 55.9 44,1 44.1 Incr Delay(d2),slveh 16.3 0,8 1.5 14,0 2.6 5,1 27.1 2.4 2.5 26.8 15.4 15,8 Initial Q Delay(d3),slveh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),vehlln 7.0 8.7 9.3 5.3 11.1 11.7 5.3 8,6 8.6 8,0 16.5 16.4 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 72.6 31.3 32,0 71.8 36.8 39.4 85,7 45,7 46.0 82,7 59.5 59.9 LnGrp LOS E C C E D D F D D F E E Approach Vol,vehfh 1121 1217 639 1023 Approach Delay,s/veh 37.9 41.4 53.2 63,8 Approach LOS D D D E f Tjtatlr 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8- Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 19,5 52.1 15,1 43.3 16.4 55.2 20.2 38.1 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.5 4.0 5.0 4.0 5,5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 18.0 38.5 13.0 42,0 19.0 37,5 19.0 36.0 Max Q Clear Time(g c+I1),s 15,4 26.7 11.2 34.1 12.2 21,7 16.1 20.5 Green Ext Time(p c),s 0,1 9.1 0.1 3.7 0.2 11,4 0.2 5.4 Intersection Summary . 1 HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 48.0 HCM 2010 LOS D COSV Network 5:00 pm 06/20/2019 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 3 Appendix C - Future Conditions Synchro Reports FEHR'' PEERS HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 2052: Pines & Broadway 1 0/0 8120 1 9 - - Elik Oa Wilir . - left _ $11S SBA Lane Configurations '' '4 VS I "i ft) ' 11+ Traffic Volume(veh/h) 205 320 110 130 280 85 55 895 55 90 1190 190 Future Volume(veh/h) 205 320 110 130 280 85 55 895 55 90 1190 190 Number 3 8 18 7 4 14 1 6 16 5 2 12 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-BikeAdj(A_pbT) 1,00 0.98 1,00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 Parking Bus,Ad] 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,vehlhlln 1733 1733 1750 1716 1716 1750 1716 1716 1750 1733 1733 1750 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 205 320 97 130 280 73 55 895 50 90 1190 174 Ad]No.of Lanes 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Percent Heavy Veh,% 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 Cap,veh/h 239 347 105 171 298 78 68 1417 79 111 1373 200 Arrive On Green 0.10 0.27 0.27 0.05 0,23 0.23 0.04 0,45 0.45 0.07 0.48 0.48 Sat Flow,vehlh 1650 1270 385 1634 1311 342 1634 3138 175 1650 2879 419 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 205 0 417 130 0 353 55 465 480 90 678 686 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlhlln 1650 0 1655 1634 0 1653 1634 1630 1683 1650 1646 1652 Q Serve(g_s),s 12.1 0.0 31.8 7,0 0,0 27.3 4,3 28.4 28.4 7.0 47,7 48.3 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 12.1 0.0 31.8 7.0 0.0 27.3 4.3 28.4 28.4 7.0 47.7 48,3 Prop In Lane 1.00 0,23 1.00 0.21 1,00 0.10 1.00 0.25 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 239 0 453 171 0 376 68 736 760 111 785 788 V/C Ratio(X) 0,86 0,00 0.92 0.76 0.00 0,94 0,81 0,63 0.63 0.81 0.86 0.87 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 239 0 458 171 0 382 68 736 760 165 785 788 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1,00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0,00 1,00 0.91 0.00 0.91 0.55 0.55 0.55 1.00 1,00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 35,8 0.0 45,9 42.2 0,0 49.3 61,8 27.3 27.3 59.8 30.2 30,4 Incr Delay(d2), s/veh 25.5 0.0 23.8 16.3 0.0 28.8 30.8 2.3 2,2 16,9 12.1 12.6 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 °/vile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 7.2 0.0 17.5 2.3 0.0 15.5 2.5 13.2 13.7 3.7 24.1 24.7 LnGrp Delay(d),slveh 61.3 0.0 69.7 58.5 0,0 78.1 92.5 29.6 29.5 76.8 42.4 43.0 LnGrp LOS E E E E F C C E D D Approach Vol,veh/h 622 483 1000 1454 Approach Delay,sfveh 66.9 72.8 33.0 44.8 Approach LOS E E C D oiler. - 1 2 3 4__ r 8 7_ 8 - _ 1 Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 10.4 67.0 18.0 34.6 13.7 63.7 12.0 40.6 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 5.0 5.0 5,0 5,0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting(Gmax), s 5.0 62.0 13.0 30.0 13.0 54.0 7.0 36.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+I1),s 6.3 50.3 14,1 29.3 9,0 30.4 9,0 33.8 Green Ext Time(p_c),s 0.0 5,2 0.0 0.3 0.1 4.4 0.0 0.8 HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 49,2 HCM 2010 LOS D COSV Network 5:00 pm 06/20/2019 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 1 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 2053: Pines & Sprague - 10/08/2019 -f41' -• , T r' \. 4. 'i Wivement - ER ' ,_ Milk w6L WBT W Nat. NOT ail_ _ g$fi Lane Configurations '' EM ) + ) +To /I 41+ Traffic Volume(veh/h) 240 960 120 160 1005 195 155 470 90 310 670 325 Future Volume(veh/h) 240 960 120 160 1005 195 155 470 90 310 670 325 Number 3 8 18 7 4 14 1 6 16 5 2 12 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-BikeAdj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 0,99 Parking Bus,Adj 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,vehlhltn 1733 1733 1750 1733 1733 1750 1716 1716 1750 1733 1733 1750 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 240 960 104 160 1005 166 155 470 74 310 670 257 Adj No.of Lanes 1 3 0 1 3 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Percent Heavy Veil,% 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 Cap,veh/h 241 1219 132 183 1006 166 228 760 119 305 729 280 Arrive On Green 0,15 0.28 0.28 0.11 0,25 0.25 0.14 0.27 0.27 0.18 0.31 0.31 Sat Flow,veh/h 1650 4335 468 1650 4086 673 1634 2823 442 1650 2318 889 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 240 698 366 160 775 396 155 270 274 310 476 451 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlh/ln 1650 1577 1649 1650 1577 1606 1634 1630 1635 1650 1646 1562 Q Serve(g_s),s 18.9 26.5 26.7 12.4 31.9 32,0 11.7 18.9 19.1 24.0 36.2 36,2 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 18.9 26.5 26.7 12.4 31.9 32.0 11.7 18,9 19.1 24.0 36.2 36.2 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.28 1.00 0.42 1.00 0.27 1,00 0.57 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 241 887 464 183 776 395 228 439 440 305 518 491 WC Ratio(X) 1.00 0.79 0.79 0.87 1,00 1.00 0.68 0.62 0.62 1.02 0.92 0.92 Avail Cap(c_a),vehlh 241 887 464 203 776 395 228 439 440 305 582 553 HCM Platoon Ratio 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0,91 0.91 0.91 0.55 0.55 0.55 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.34 0.34 0.34 Uniform Delay(d),slveh 55.5 43.1 43.2 56.9 49.0 49.0 53.2 41.6 41.7 53.0 43.0 43,0 frier Delay(d2),slveh 53,8 4.3 8.1 18.7 23.6 33.9 8.0 6.3 6,5 34.7 10.5 11.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),slveh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0,0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),vehlln 12.2 12.1 13.2 6.6 16,4 17.9 5.8 9.3 9.4 13.9 18.0 17.2 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 109,2 47.5 51.3 75.5 72.6 82.9 61,2 48,0 48.2 87.8 53.5 54.0 LnGrp LOS F DDEEF EDD F D D Approach Vol,veh/h 1304 1331 699 1237 Approach Delay,slveh 59.9 76.0 51.0 62.3 Approach LOS E E 0 E itri 4 8 _i' .; ' Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 23.1 45.9 24.0 37.0 29.0 40.0 19.4 41.6 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5,0 5.0 5,0 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 13.0 46.0 19.0 32.0 24.0 35.0 16.0 35.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+I1),s 13.7 38.2 20.9 34.0 26.0 21.1 14.4 28.7 Green Ext Time(p_c),s 0.0 2.7 0,0 0.0 0.0 2.4 0.1 3,2 HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 63.9 HCM 2010 LOS E COSV Network 5:00 pm 06/20/2019 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 2 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 3028: S Evergreen Rd & Sprague 10/08/2019 &yera ettt" _ EA __. at_ j.3.:4- Mk.:_ WIT � 4A1 ie`_ Nt3 $181. ,S,ff BBf Lane Configurations 1 ++14 ' +1 ' +T+ vi +I+ Traffic Volume(veh/h) 185 1005 110 145 980 240 130 470 115 195 720 215 Future Volume(veh/h) 185 1005 110 145 980 240 130 470 115 195 720 215 Number 1 6 16 5 2 12 3 8 18 7 4 14 initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Fed-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.99 1.00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/In 1733 1733 1750 1733 1733 1750 1733 1733 1750 1733 1733 1750 Adj Flow Rate,vehlh 185 1005 95 145 980 192 130 470 92 195 720 185 Adj No.of Lanes 1 3 0 1 3 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1,00 1.00 1.00 Percent Heavy Veh,% 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Cap,veh/h 209 1569 148 169 1323 259 152 731 142 218 792 204 Arrive On Green 0.13 0.36 0.36 0.10 0.33 0.33 0,09 0.27 0.27 0.13 0,31 0.31 Sat Flow,veh/h 1650 4393 414 1650 3970 776 1650 2747 534 1650 2593 666 Grp Volume(v),vehlh 185 721 379 145 778 394 130 280 282 195 457 448 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/hlln 1650 1577 1654 1650 1577 1592 1650 1646 1636 1650 1646 1613 Q Serve(gs),s 14,3 24.8 24.9 11,2 28.4 28.5 10.1 19.6 19.8 15.1 34,7 34,7 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 14.3 24.8 24.9 11.2 28.4 28.5 10.1 19.6 19.8 15.1 34.7 34.7 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.25 1,00 0.49 1.00 0.33 1.00 0,41 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 209 1126 591 169 1051 531 152 438 435 218 503 493 WC Ratio(X) 0.89 0,64 0,64 0,86 0.74 0.74 0.85 0.64 0.65 0,89 0,91 0.91 Avail Cap(ca),veh/h 228 1126 591 198 1051 531 165 470 467 228 533 522 HCM Platoon Ratio 1,00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1,00 1.00 1,00 1,00 1.00 1,00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.98 0.98 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),slveh 55,9 34.8 34,9 57,4 38.4 38,4 58.1 42.2 42.3 55.5 43,4 43.4 lncr Delay(d2),slveh 18.3 1.5 2.8 25.8 4.6 8.9 31.0 2.7 2.8 32.2 18.9 19.3 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 7.6 11.0 11.8 6.3 13.0 13.8 5.9 9.2 9.3 8.8 18.4 18.1 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 74.1 36.3 37.7 83.2 43.0 47.3 89.2 44.9 45,1 87.8 62.3 62.7 LnGrp LOS E D D F D D F D D F E E Approach Vol,vehlh 1285 1317 692 1100 Approach Delay,s/veh 42.2 48.7 53.3 67.0 Approach LOS D D D E timer 1 2 -_-. 3 4 5 8 7 8 _ Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 20.4 48.3 16,0 45.2 17.3 51.4 21.2 40.1 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.0 5.0 4,0 5.5 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 18.0 38.4 13.0 42.1 15.6 40.8 18.0 37,1 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+11),s 16.3 30,5 12,1 36.7 13,2 26.9 17.1 21.8 Green Ext.Time(p_c),s 0.1 6.8 0.0 3,0 0,1 11.1 0.1 5,8 HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 52.1 HCM 2010 LOS D COSV Network 5:00 pm 06/2012019 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 3 endix D a Future Conditions with Mitigations Synchro Reports FEHR " PEERS HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 2053: Pines & Sprague 10/22/2019 Lane Configurations li 1+4 9 +/ +1 11 +1 r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 240 960 120 160 1005 195 155 470 90 310 670 325 Future Volume(veh/h) 240 960 120 160 1005 195 155 470 90 310 670 325 Number 3 8 18 7 4 14 1 6 16 5 2 12 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pad-BikeAdj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1,00 0.99 1.00 0.98 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,veh/hlln 1733 1733 1750 1733 1733 1750 1716 1716 1750 1733 1733 1733 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 240 960 104 160 1005 166 155 470 74 310 670 257 Adj No.of Lanes 2 3 0 1 3 0 1 2 0 1 2 1 Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Percent Heavy Veh,% 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 Cap,veh/h 292 1120 121 184 1140 188 398 772 121 334 765 336 Arrive On Green 0,09 0.26 0,26 0.11 0.28 0,28 0.24 0.27 0.27 0.20 0.23 0.23 Sat Flow,veh/h 3201 4334 468 1650 4087 674 1634 2823 442 1650 3292 1446 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 240 698 366 160 775 396 155 270 274 310 670 257 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlhlln 1601 1577 1649 1650 1577 1607 1634 1630 1635 1650 1646 1446 Q Serve(g_s),s 9,6 27.4 27.5 12.4 30,5 30.7 10.3 18.8 19.0 24.0 25.5 21.6 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 9,6 27.4 27.5 12.4 30,5 30.7 10.3 18.8 19.0 24.0 25.5 21.6 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.28 1,00 0.42 1.00 0.27 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 292 815 426 184 880 448 398 446 447 334 765 336 WC Ratio(X) 0.82 0,86 0.86 0.87 0.88 0.88 0.39 0.61 0.61 0,93 0.88 0.76 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 296 849 444 228 995 507 398 446 447 368 886 389 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.55 0.55 0,55 1,00 1.00 1.00 0.34 0.34 0.34 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 58.0 45.9 45,9 56.8 44.8 44.8 41.1 41.1 41,2 50.9 48.1 46.6 Incr Delay(d2),slveh 15.3 7.7 13,9 15.0 5.0 9.4 0,6 6.0 6.1 12.8 5,2 5.7 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),vehlln 4.9 12.8 14.2 6.4 14.0 14.8 4.7 9.2 9.4 12.1 12.2 9,2 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 73.3 53.6 59.8 71.8 49,8 54.2 41.7 47,2 47.4 63.7 53.3 52.3 LnGrp LOS E D E E D D D D D E D D Approach Vol,vehfh 1304 1331 699 1237 Approach Delay,s/veh 59.0 53.8. 46.0 55.7 Approach LOS E D D E Thar - - = 1 2 - 3 4 6 6 7 8 - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),s 36,7 35.2 16.9 41.3 31.3 40.5 19.5 38.6 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 22.0 35.0 12.0 41.0 29.0 28.0 18,0 35.0 Max 0 Clear Time(g_c+I1),s 12.3 27.5 11,6 32.7 26.0 21.0 14,4 29.5 Green Ext Time(p_c),s 2.1 2.7 0.3 3.6 0.4 1.7 0,2 2.9 HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 54.6 HCM 2010 LOS D COSV Network 5:00 pm 06/20/2019 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 2 Appendix E - Project Cost Estimate Spreadsheets FEHRkPEERS Pines Road&Indiana Ave-600'EB Lane Addition, Partial SW Corner Island Removal,Full Island Pines Road&I-90 EB Ramps-EB 450'Lane Addition Relocation and NB 75' Lane Addition Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost Roadway Demo 400 Sq Yard $ 15 $ 6,000 0 Sq Yard $ 15 $ - Curb Demo 900 LF $ 16 $ 14,400 75 LF $ 16 $ 1,200 Sidewalk Demo 333 Sq Yard $ 20 $ 6,660 42 Sq Yard $ 20 $ 840 Signal Demo 2 Each $ 6,000 $ 12,000 1 Each $ 6,000 $ 6,000 Excavation 400 Cubic Yard $ 35 $ 14,000 233 Cubic Yard $ 35 $ 8,155 Road Section 800 Sq Yard $ 60 $ 48,000 1,059 Sq Yard $ 60 $ 63,540 Curb 900 LF $ 45 $ 40,500 75 LF $ 45 $ 3,375 Sidewalk 700 Sq Yard $ 80 $ 56,000 42 Sq Yard $ 80 $ 3,360 Curb Ramps 6 Each $ 4,000 $ 24,000 0 Each $ 4,000 $ - Traffic Signal 1 Each $ 480,000 $ 480,000 1 Each $ 480,000 $ 480,000 ROW 11,000 Sq Foot $ 12 $ 132,000 1,200 Sq Foot $ 12 $ 14,400 Subtotal $ 701,560 Subtotal $ 556,470 10%Mobilization $ 70,156 10%Mobilization $ 56,647 20%Drainage $ 140,312 20%Drainage $ 113,294 15%Traffic Control $ 105,234 15%Traffic Control $ 84,971 30%Contingency $ 210,468 30%Contingency $ 169,941 20%Engineering $ 140,312 20%Engineering $ 113,294 Total I $ 1,500,042 I Total I $ 1,119,017 11000 Sq Ft ROW 1200 Sq Ft ROW *About half of the ROW is WSDOT,using standard"over the fence"'price for land Assumes new signal pole and longer mast arm with 1-90 Assumes reallignment of intersection to south,Move off ramp island relocation south.Relocate signal SE corner ped head.Assumes all ROW for NBR lane controller.New pole at Pines/Indiana.Reconstruct both would need to be purchased,but no cost to aquire off- 1 right turn islands.Assumes ROW cost for additional lane ramp widening space.ADA ramps look new.No on south side of road. replacement assumed. it 1 Mirabeau Pkwy and Mansfield Ave-Signalize and Sullivan Road and Mission Ave-Restripe and partially SB 175'Lane Addition remove curb Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost Roadway Demo 0 Sq Yard $ 15 $ - 20 Sq Yard $ 15 $ 300 Curb Demo 175 LF $ 16 $ 2,800 40 LE $ 16 $ 640 Sidewalk Demo 97 Sq Yard $ 20 $ 1,940 0 Sq Yard $ 20 $ - Signal Demo 0 Each $ 6,000 $ - 0 Each $ 6,000 $ - Excavation 0 Cubic Yard $ 35 $ - 0 Cubic Yard $ 35 $ - Road Section 233 Sq Yard $ 60 $ 13,980 20 Sq Yard $ 60 $ 1,200 Curb 300 LF $ 45 $ 13,500 80 LF $ 45 $ 3,600 Sidewalk 250 Sq Yard $ 80 $ 20,000 200 Sq Yard $ 80 $ 16,000 Curb Ramps 4 Each $ 4,000 $ 16,000 2 Each $ 4,000 $ 8,000 Traffic Signal 1,25 Each $480,000 $ 600,000 0.05 Each $ 480,000 $ 24,000 ROW 2,700 Sq Foot $ 12 $ 32,400 0 Sq Foot $ 12 $ - Subtotal I $ 668,220 Subtotal _ $ 53,740 10%Mobilization $ 66,822 10%Mobilization $ 5,374 20%Drainage $ 13,644 20%Drainage $ - 15%Traffic Control $ 100,233 15%Traffic Control $ 80061 30%Contingency $ 200,466 30%Contingency $ 16,122 20%Engineering $ 133,644 20%Engineering $ 10,748 Total I $ 1,215,429 I Total I $ 94,045 2700 Sq Ft ROW 3 ramps will need to be made ADA compliant.Risk: Assumes all new ramps to meet current ADA. Might need to relocate pole and mast arm on NE Assumes new fiber to be installed back to Pines. corner to meet ADA clearance.This is not assumed in the cost. Pines and Sprague-Add 250'SBR and 325'EBL Argonne&Trent-300'WBL turn add item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost Roadway Demo 460 Sq Yard $ 15 $ 6,900 0 Sq Yard $ 15 $ - Curb Demo 1,215 LF $ 16 $ 19,440 850 LF $ 16 $ 13,600 Sidewalk Demo 433 Sq Yard $ 20 $ 8,667 100 Sq Yard $ 20 $ 2,000 Signal Demo 2 Each $ 6,000 $ 12,000 2 Each $ 6,000 $ 12,000 Excavation 200 Cubic Yard $ 35 $ 6,983 208 Cubic Yard $ 35 $ 7,296 Road Section 566 Sq Yard $ 60 $ 33,933 933 Sq Yard $ 60 $ 56,000 Curb 1,215 LF $ 45 $ 54,675 850 LF $ 45 $ 38,250 Sidewalk 520 Sq Yard $ 80 $ 41,600 67 Sq Yard $ 80 $ 5,333 Curb Ramps 2 Each $ 4,000 $ 8,000 3 Each $ 4,000 $ 12,000 Traffic Signal 0.5 Each $480,000 $ 240,000 0.5 Each $480,000 $ 240,000 ROW 5,175 Sq Foot $ 12 $ 62,100 0 Sq Foot $ 12 $ - Subtotal $ 432,198 Subtotal $ 386,479 10%Mobilization $ 43,220 10%Mobilization $ 38,648 20%Drainage $ - 20%Drainage $ 77,296 15%Traffic Control $ 64,830 15%Traffic Control $ 57,972 30%Contingency $ 129,659 30%Contingency $ 115,944 20%Engineering , $ 86,440 20%Engineering $ 77,296 Total , $ 818,446 ` Total I $ 753,634 6200 Sq Ft ROW Assumes northwest curb along Sprague would Assumes south curb along Trent Avenue would be moved 4 feet north along with restriping to be moved 12'south for 300'plus 150'taper on narrow outside lanes for second EBR.Assumes both sides of Argonne to accommodate a northwest curb along Pines would be moved second WBL.Both signal poles on the south II west 12 feet to accommodate SBR.Two new side would be replaced along with the right turn signals on northwest and southeast corners, island on the SW corner. Pines&Mission Phase 2-Southbound Right Turn Lane Addition Engineers Estimate Spok�lrl Prepay dCIP No.TBD Date �'� 1ey. Prepared by-Adam Jackson 315/2018 item No. Bid Item City Unit Unit Price Est.Cost Use 100 MOBILIZATION @ 10% 1 L.S. $ 45,042 $ 45,042 101 CONSTRUCTION SURVEYING 1 L.S. $ 15,000 $ 15,000 102 SPCC PLAN 1 L.S. $ 5,000 $ 5,000 103 PROJECT TEMPORARY TRAFFIC CONTROL 1 L.S. $ 50,000 $ 50,000 104 PUBLIC LIAISION REPRESENTATIVE 1 L.S. $ 5,000 $ 5,000 105 EROSION CONTROL 1 L.S. $ 5,000 $ 5,000 106 PORTABLE CHANGEABLE MESSAGE SIGN 1344 HR. $ 4 $ 5,376 107 REMOVE CEMENT CONCRETE CURB 350 L.F. $ 15 $ 5,250 108 SAWCUT ASPHALT PAVEMENT 750 L.F.-in $ 5 $ 3,750 109 ROADWAY EXCAV.INCL.HAUL(assumes 16"depth) 400 C.Y. $ 30 $ 12,000 - 110 CRUSHED SURFACING BASE COURSE,8 IN.DEPTH 778 S.Y. $ 25 $ 19,444 111 JOINT/CRACK SEALANT AT HMA JOINTS 500 L.F. $ 3 $ 1,500 112 HMA CL 112"PG 70-28 0.50 FT.DEPTH 130 C.Y. $ 50 $ 6,481 113 CEMENT CONCRETE TRAFFIC CURB,TYPE B 350 L.F, $ 45 $ 15,750 114 CONRETE RETAINING WALL AT BACK OF SIDEWALK 1089 SF $ 50 $ 54,450 - 115 CEMENT CONCRETE CURB RAMP PERPENDICULAR TYPE A 1 EACH $ 2,500 $ 2,500 116 CEMENT CONCRETE PEDESTRIAN CURB 20 L.F. $ 30 $ 600 117 TRAFFIC SIGNAL SYSTEM MODIFICATIONS 0 L.S. $ 250,000 $ - 118 REMOVE EXISTING STRIPING 0 L.F. $ 3.00 $ - 119 PLASTIC CROSSWALK LINE 390 S.F. $ 18 $ 7,020 120 PLASTIC LINE 300 L.F. $ 4 $ 1,200 121 PLASTIC WIDE LINE 300 L.F. $ 12 $ 3,600 122 PLASTIC TRAFFIC ARROW 3 EACH $ 300 $ 900 123 PLASTIC STOP LINE 20 L.F. $ 30 $ 600 124 LANDSCAPE RESTORATION f L.S. $ 30,000 $ 30,000 125 STORMWATER SWALE AND ROW IN LIMITED ACCESS AREA 1 L.S. $ 100,000 $ 100,000 _ 126 UTILITY RELCOATION(POLES AND BOXES) 1 LS $ 100,000 $ 100,000 ITEMS:Total $ 495,464 Contingency 15% $ 74,320 Inflation Adjustment Factor @ 2 years 3% $ 30,174 Construction Subtotal $ 599,958 PE Engineering 20% $ 119,992 CN Engineering 10% $ 59,996 ROW(excl.WSDOT) 1 L.S. $ 32,000.00 $ 32,000 Estimated Project Cost $ 811,945 f.$F- 2G; E Trent Road/N Argonne Road Proposed Layout Improvements to Address Existing LOS Deficiency Cost Estimate Unit Unit Cost Qty Cost 1 Install of Ground Sign EA $ 270.00 4 $ 1,080 2 Remove Striping(Grind) LF $ 0.50 800 $ 400 3 Thermoplastic Arrow EA $ 475.00 7 $ 3,325 4 Thermoplastic Lane Line LF $ 3.50 1100 $ 3,850 5 Thermoplastic Stop Bar LF $ 20.00 80 $ 1,600 6 Thermoplastic Traffic Letter EA $ 175.00 4 $ 700 7 Traffic Signal Modification EA $480,000.00 0.25 $ 120,000 Construction Subtotal $ 130,955 Design (20%) $ 26,190_ Traffic Control (15%) $ 19,640 Mobilization (10%) $ 13,100 Contingency (30%) $ 39,290 Total $ 229,200 Exhibit C Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study Prepared for: City of Spokane Valley June 2016. DN15-0515 011.141\aft, Spokane d• P` Valley' FEHRk PEERS Spokane' �FUalley Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study June 2016 Table of Contents BACKGROUND 1 EXISTING CONDITIONS TRAFFIC LEVEL OF SERVICE 2 IMPROVING EXISTING CONDITIONS TRAFFIC LEVEL OF SERVICE 6 FUTURE CONDITIONS (2040) TRAFFIC ANALYSIS 8 IMPROVING FUTURE CONDITIONS TRAFFIC LEVEL OF SERVICE 15 ESTIMATING THE COST OF THE IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS 16 ESTIMATING THE SUBAREA'S FAIR-SHARE CONTRIBUTION AND COST PER TRIP 18 CONCLUSIONS 21 Spokan e� ��Val�ey' Nlirabeau Subarea Traffic Study June 2016 List of Figures Figure 1A. Study Intersections—Existing Lane Configurations, Traffic Controls and PM Peak Hour Traffic 3 Volumes(West) Figure 1 B. Study Intersections— Existing Lane Configurations,Traffic Controls and PM Peak Hour Traffic 4 Volumes (East) Figure 2. SRTC Traffic Analysis Zones in the Study Area 9 Figure 3A. Study Intersections—2040 Lane Configurations,Traffic Controls and PM Peak Hour Traffic 11 Volumes (West) Figure 3B. Study intersections—2040 Lane Configurations,Traffic Controls and PM Peak Hour Traffic 12 Volumes(East) List of Tables Table 1. LOS for Signalized and Unsignalized Intersections 2 Table 2: Intersection Vehicle Delay and LOS for Existing Conditions (2015) 5 Table 3:Approach to Identify Most Cost-Effective Intersection Improvements 6 Table 4: Potential Projects to Improve LOS at Selected Intersections 7 Table 5: Study Area and Surrounding Area Households 9 Table 6: Study Area and Surrounding Area Employment 9 Table 7: Intersection Vehicle Delay and LOS for Future Conditions(2040) 13 Table 8: Potential Projects to improve Future Conditions LOS at Selected Intersections 15 Table 9: Project Unit Costs 16 Table 10: Potential Projects to Improve Future Conditions LOS at Selected Intersections 17 Table 11: Subarea Share of Traffic at the Deficient Intersections 18 Table 12: Subarea's Share of Total Improvement Costs 19 Table 13:Trip Generation Calculation 20 Spokane ��Valley' Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study June 2016 BACKGROUND This report summarizes the methods, assumptions, and results behind the Mirabeau Subarea traffic study. The purpose of this analysis is to identify existing transportation level of service(LOS)deficiencies and future transportation improvements to support existing and planned growth in the subarea. In addition, this analysis uses the Spokane Regional Transportation Council (SRTC) travel model to evaluate the proportion of future traffic growth contributed by development in the Mirabeau Subarea. Identifying the subarea traffic growth allows for the determination of the subarea's fair-share financial contribution towards transportation improvements that provide good access and traffic LOS in the future. As developer's pay their fair-share toward long-term traffic congestion relief projects, they are meeting their obligation under SEPA and no further traffic studies are needed (other than site access and circulation analysis). /4S11° Page 1 Spokan''��" Valley' Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study June 2016 EXISTING CONDITIONS TRAFFIC LEVEL OF SERVICE This section describes the methodology and results of the traffic LOS analysis for existing conditions. The purpose of this analysis is to understand which subarea intersections are currently failing the City's adopted LOS standards of: LOS D for signalized and LOS E for unsignalized intersections, Traffic volume data was provided by the City of Spokane Valley and a data vendor, National Data &Surveying Services. The traffic data provided by The City of Spokane Valley is from one week(3/18-3/24) in March of 2015.The traffic data provided by National Data & Surveying Services was collected on November 18, 2015, Since we had traffic counts from two different time periods, we intentionally "double counted" the intersection of Pines Road / Indiana Avenue to determine if there were any trends between the spring and fall of 2015 that we should be accounting for.The comparison indicated that the traffic was comparable for both time periods and no adjustments were necessary. Using the counts as input data, the traffic LOS analysis was conducted using industry-standard methodologies from the Transportation Research Board's 2070 Highway Capacity Manual. The Highway Capacity Manual LOS categories are defined in Table 1.Analysis was conducted using Synchro,which is the software used by Spokane Valley and most transportation consulting firms for intersection LOS analysis. Input data including lane geometries, traffic signal timing, and traffic signal phasing was provided by Spokane Valley and WSDOT and confirmed by Fehr& Peers using aerial photos. Table 2 shows the results of the existing conditions LOS analysis. Figures 1A and 1 B show the location of the study intersections, lane configurations,traffic controls, and PM peak hour traffic volumes. Appendix A contains the detailed LOS calculation sheets from Synchro. TABLE 1. LOS FOR SIGNALIZED AND UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Average Delay Average Delay Level of (seconds/vehicle)for (seconds/vehicle)for Service Signalized Intersections Unsi nalized Intersections* Description A Less than 10 Less than 10 Free flow,very light traffic 8 10-20 10-15 Slight delays, light traffic C 20-35 15-25 Moderate delays, moderate traffic Moderate delays, may take more D 35-55 25-35 than one traffic signal cycle to clear E 55-80 35-50 High delays,congestion Very high delays, long queues, F More than 80 More than 50 congestion Source:2010 Highway Capacity Manual For side-street stop-controlled intersections,delay is measured for the approach with the longest wait to cross/enter the main street. Page2 , 0 , . W.. O l li 2 1.Cement RoedlPines Rd/Trent(SR 290) 2.Pines RdlPinee n51 Way 3,Pines Rd/Mirabeau Pkwy 4.Pinee 2. '''' ''''',46; —i roft Way/Mirebeev Pkwy -or re o re . E r a P 1E1 20 165 0 �MN v ,505 �-40 �LII co� 0 e)N a +�115 414 r 310 11, `1� 140 �x Trent(SR 296 v_�r 'i )11! c,s Pinecran Way r�, S �t Mllrrabeau Pkwy Mirabeau Pkwy d Ijl I I 0 I�I 5 m III 0 51r 905 M'v o ► one ' a 225---* 265 5 a rt el i + 5.Pines Rd/Grace Ln 6.Pines Rd/Mansfield Ave 7.1-90 WB off-ramp/Indiana Ave B.Pines Rd/Montgomery Dr/Indiana Ave v la 2 • a H it h.. a 20 oumio 50 ��o �245 in Nvu'i01 'Y 5 mm,n �145 �290 NW� 700 40 4 L 170 'I I 4 Grace Ln 4 Mansfield Ave Indiana Ave i Montgomery DT Indiana Ave 65 Ir ono 25- + 000 • 70� 0N 260�� E£ � �m� 30 ° 360�t N r x o v m . o: 3 c 0 9.Pines Rdl1-90 EB Ramps 10.Pines Rd/Mission Ave 11.Mlrabeau Pkvryllndlana Ave. 12.Mirabeau Pkwy/Mansfield Aye W p 14 ia a a c 350 m qN iT N�r 1-130 mro � 235 Ln �0 l'S III N�1 1N r+z-9p mI cv F—220 0 'r�xlL4 �k� � Mansfield Ave 1,90 E6 off-ramp 1-90 1:=8 en-ramp Mission Ave Indiana Ave 375 n� 155 �cv 240--r 0� on 650'-x o r°' 65 220 o' v a° a A CD 0 2 6 Y•,r•.... i n e�..•r •�$ 12 0 0 iq 9 0 m 0 r .•, 0 CD , y ff M• ..• - 0A l 13.S Evergreen Rd/E Indiana Ave 14.S Evergreen Rd11I-90 WB Ramps 15.S Evergreen Rdll-90 ER Ramps 16.Mission ConnectorlE Mission Ave L ,n K a S S I ao It �155 a o 1 315 el cn -250 . . w -30 435 )11 0 260 E Indiana Ave E Indiana Ave 1-90 WB on-ram• 1 1-90 W8 off-ram• I-90 ES off-ram+' 1-90 EB on-ram E Mission Ave ')Yr 1)11 500—A ttttr 9 1r • �,a 210___.� Lem 345� o� ac 5� 190� CS)CD 370� m m �j00 500 m a + 17.Sullivan Rd1E Indiana Ave 18,Sullivan Rd(WB on-ramp 19.Sullivan Rdll-90 ER Ramps 20.Sullivan RdWE Mission Ave � a � a 2 o .2 a� 195 � 65 i—150 �m rn o rI'Ir' N 10 �J II I� r 260 COs rlI r 200 1 I LL 411L 30 Oil r 125 Xi V Y E Indiana Ave WB on-ram 1-90 EB off-ram 1.90 EB on ram E Mission Ave },, '�'»ttr tit 290 ttr iQ5 )ttf 105 a0a a r 1�r' 00O `5 �NrN 330—Tr, re re co 790� r N 125 21.1-90 WB off-ramp)E Indiana Ave 4—330 n210 E Indiana Ave 235=17. Y 6m N O tll B I Si'okan � _ _ .0f Valley Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study June2076 TABLE 2: INTERSECTION VEHICLE DELAY AND LOS FOR EXISTING CONDITIONS (201.5) Intersection Details Existing(2015) Name Control Delay* LOS 1. Pines Road/Trent Ave Signal 63 E 2. Pines Road/Pinecroft Way Side-Street Stop 13 (EB) C 3. Pines Road/Mirabeau Parkway Side-Street Stop 52 (WB) F 4.Mirabeau Parkway/Pinecroft Way Side-Street Stop 11 (SB) B 5.Pines Road/Grace Lane - Side-Street Stop 52 (WB) F 6,Pines Road/Mansfield Avenue Signal 24 7. Indiana Avenue/1-90 WE off-ramp Signal 26 G 8. Pines Road/Indiana Avenue -- Signal 36 9. Pines Road/I-90 E8 ramps Signal 69 E 70.Pines Road/Mission Avenue Signal 76 E 11,Indiana Avenue/Mirabeau Parkway Signal 13 B 12.Mirabeau Parkway!Mansfield Avenue Side-Street Stop 12(EB) B —- 73.Evergreen Road/Indiana Avenue Signal 22 C- 14. Evergreen Road/1-90 WE on and off-ramps Signal 13 B 15.Evergreen Road!1-90 EB on and off-ramps Signal 16 B 16.Mission Connector&Mission Avenue Side-Street Stop 13(NB) i B 77.Indiana Avenue/Sullivan Road - _ Signal 38 D 18.Sullivan Road/I-90 WB on-ramp Signal 9 A 19.Sullivan Road/1-90 ER on-ramp Signal 20 C 20.Sullivan Road/Mission Avenue Signal 40 D 27.Indiana Avenue/1-90 WB off-ramp Signal 11 B *Intersection delay is averaged for all movements:Some movements(e.g.left turns)may have LOS E or F conditions to ensure that the intersection as a whole operates optimally. Spokane Valley staff continually monitors LOS E and F movements and makes intersection timing adjustments as necessary. The results in Table 2 show that five intersections are not currently meeting the City's LOS standards.All the intersections with substandard LOS are along the Pines Road corridor. • Pines Road /Trent Avenue • Pines Road/Mirabeau Parkway • Pines Road/Grace Lane • Pines Road/ 1-90 LB ramps • Pines Road / Mission Avenue Pages Spokane` Valley. Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study June 2016 IMPROVING EXISTING CONDITIONS TRAFFIC LEVEL OF SERVICE The previous section identified several intersections along the Pines Road corridor that are not meeting the City's LOS standard. Based on this finding, Fehr& Peers developed potential improvements that Spokane Valley could implement to improve LOS and maintain acceptable traffic operations. These improvements would ensure that the City meets the Growth Management Act's transportation concurrency requirement. We undertook an iterative approach to developing the most cost-effective traffic improvement measures for each of the deficient intersections. In general, we applied the logic listed in Table 3 which begin with the least costly option and step up to more complex and costly options to improve traffic flow. If a low-cost solution is identified that meets the LOS standard, then we stop and move onto the next location. TABLE 3:APPROACH TO IDENTIFY MOST COST-EFFECTIVE INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS Signalized Intersection Unsignalized Intersection Modify traffic signal timings ,Modify lane assignments Modify lane assignments(e.g., make a through Install a traffic signal (note, that a traffic signal cannot be installed at a location unless it meets or is expected lane into a turn lane) to meet a traffic signal warrant) !Add turn pockets Add turn pockets or two-way left turn lane Add through lanes Add through lanes As shown in Table 3, we start with improving the traffic organization within the existing intersection by modifying lane assignments or traffic signal timings. If that approach is insufficient, then we look to add turn pockets or turn lanes. These lanes extend back a limited distance and are less costly than the final option—adding through lanes, which must be extended to a logical start or end point to ensure they are safe and effective. In many cases, we use a combination of these approaches for the different "legs" of an intersection. For example, it may be sufficient to add a turn lane on only one of the legs and retime the traffic signal to achieve an adequate LOS. Table 4 summarizes the potential improvements for the intersections that do not meet the LOS standard. As shown in the table, all the existing LOS deficiencies can be addressed through the addition/modification of traffic signals or by adding turn lanes. Appendix B contains the detailed LOS calculation sheets from Synchro. Page Spokan Valley Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study June 2016 TABLE y: POTENTIAL PROJECTS TO IMPROVE LOS AT SELECTED INTERSECTIONS Delay with LOS with Intersection Description of Improvement Improvement Improvement Add 260 foot northbound right turn Pines Road/Trent Ave pocket; modify northbound lane 38 D assignments, retime traffic signal !Pines Road/Mirabeau Install traffic signal (currently in design, 18 13 Parkway expected completion in 2016) Install two-way left turn lane (expected 22 Pines Road/Grace Lane (completion in 2017) Pines Road/1-90 EB Retime traffic signal 53 D ramps i I 'Pines Road/Mission (Retime traffic signal 52 D Avenue Page 7 Spokan e�`�' Valley' Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study June 2016 FUTURE CONDITIONS (2040) TRAFFIC ANALYSIS This section summarizes the methods and assumptions to estimate future(2040)traffic volumes in the study area. Future traffic volumes were analyzed using the same methods and software described in the existing conditions LOS analysis section. The primary component of future year traffic analysis is the forecasted traffic volumes at the study intersections. Future year traffic volumes are estimated using the SRTC travel model. The travel model has inputs that include: population, employment, roads, and transit. Based on these inputs, future traffic volumes can be predicted.To ensure the future traffic forecasts are reasonable, SRTC uses the same model with existing conditions input data to model existing travel patterns.The model is fine-tuned to ensure that it can replicate existing traffic conditions in a process known as model calibration and validation. Prior to running the future conditions travel model, City staff reached out to the major developers in the study area to determine what they could reasonably expect to develop on their properties over the long- term. This information was used to update and refine the SRTC land use forecasts for the subarea.This is a critical step because SRTC only has the resources to focus on large-scale regional growth and cannot verify the development potential at the subarea scale. In addition to updating the land use in the subarea, Spokane Valley and Fehr& Peers staff did an audit of the surrounding land use growth assumptions and the assumed changes to the roadway and transit network. Within the vicinity of the subarea, additional land use growth was assumed in the area around Indiana/Sullivan/Flora and the Sullivan/Broadway/Flora areas.This additional development reflects projects that are already in the development pipeline and recent trends toward more growth in those areas. On the roadway network side, we assumed that the Bridging the Valley project at Pines Road/Trent Ave would be completed by 2040, along with additional traffic capacity at the Barker Road interchange. Figure 2 shows the SRTC model's traffic analysis zones in the study area and Tables 5 and 6 summarize the land use growth assumed in the SRTC travel model, including the updates described above. Page Sptikanka '` Valley Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study June 2016 Figure 2.SRTC Traffic Anal sis Zones in the Study Area 111 r2+J3) \ --\ I3'oI 321 fT,J llar "4..- 129 Milliii:-- _ _ __ ,... ---"''--.---__.___. _ MO -4 OIL 366 393 [=J OM TABLE 5: STUDY AREA AND SURROUNDING AREA HOUSEHOLDS TAZ 2010 Existing 2040 Future 2010-2040 Absolute 2010-2040 Percent SRTC Model SRTC Model Change Change 320 1,000 1,184 184 - -= 18% 321 0 860 860 _ N/A 322 0 0 0 0% Surrounding 2,771 4,320 1,549 56% Area TABLE 6: STUDY AREA AND SURROUNDING AREA EMPLOYMENT 2010 Existing 2040 Future 2010-2040 Absolute 2010-2040 Percent SRTC Model SRTC Model Change Change 320 805 1,188 383 46% 321 312 2,767 _ 2,455 787% 322 351 351 0 0% — Surrounding 7,035 9,304 2,269 32% Area )59 Page 9 Spbkane� Valley' Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study June 2016 With the SRTC travel model land use inputs updated to reflect a more realistic level of growth in the subarea, we ran the model and used the output to develop 2040 PM peak hour traffic volume forecasts at each of the study intersections.To reduce the potential for model error,the future volume forecasts were developed using an industry-standard approach known as the difference method. The difference method takes the growth in traffic forecasted by the SRTC travel model and adds this traffic growth to the observed traffic counts at each of the intersections. This reduces model error by relying as much as possible on observed data rather than model output. In addition to applying the difference method, Fehr & Peers reviewed several traffic studies in the area to ensure consistency between studies. One study for the Bella Tess Apartments near Indiana Avenue/Flora Road indicated that the updated SRTC model run may be understating north-south traffic volumes on Sullivan Road through the study area. Based on these findings, we post-processed the SRTC travel model volumes to include approximately 200 additional north and southbound vehicles during the PM peak hour on Sullivan Road through all four study intersections. We also increased the eastbound-westbound traffic on Indiana Avenue east of Sullivan Road by about 100 vehicles per hour in each direction based on the Bella Tess traffic study. Following the difference method forecasting and post-processing, future conditions traffic LOS was evaluated using Synchro and the Highway Capacity Manual methodologies.The results are shown in Table 7. Figures 3A and 3B show the 2040 lane configurations, traffic controls, and PM peak hour turning movement forecasts. Note that all the improvements to address existing conditions LOS deficiencies are assumed in the 2040 analysis, as is the Bridging the Valley railroad grade separation and intersection improvement project at the Pines Road/Trent Avenue intersection.Appendix C contains the detailed LOS calculation sheets from Synchro. Pagel 0 /Jr 0 O • A3' Al CD ,�.::�:,n..C s; .... n..:o. ^y Q .,, .,. .:...,� . i 20 A. % 1.Cement RoadiPines Rd/Trent(SR 290) 2.Pines RdiPinecroft Way 3.Pines Rd/Mlrabeau Pkwy 4.Pinecrofl WaylMirabeau Pkwy a a' d • C a aF a 0 un+n , 4.%--20 u) el 0 ti 405 V != 25 4L01 0 1—890�420 ow0 it-95 ,n '7-265 IIa t 475 Trent SR 290 4.1 L Plnecrolt Way 41 1' Mirabeau Pk Mirabeau Pkwy 19_r 'ntr 5 1If}{ 0 Ill* _ 1354�' u�ia0o.41 5 0a� ��' �roN 515� v `.1:''a re r * • 5.Pines Rd/Grace Ln 6.Pines Rd/Mansfleld Ave 7.I-90 W8 off-ramp/Indiana Ave 8,Pines Rd/Montgomery Dr/Indiana Ave. a: a: re c • 5 0 c. o_ h. 25 Ln m 0 55 .d0.t.co fh—260 Mr2 4--50 amto .4-170 �~-530 ��f 310 II L 4 L 180 L $ 455 Grace Ln 4i Mansfield Ave Indiana Ave Mont arse. Dr ,i Indiana Ave 25 �1 )11' »r ��ttr �� 95� oo,n --}E u70 00vr 5 ► v 125 m n2i 490--s w v, i 0 m 40 470 `� m s rn 1 • + 9;Pines Rd/I-90 E8 Ramps 10.Pines Rd/Mission Ave 11.Mirabeau Pkwy/Indiana Ave 12.Mirabeau Pkwy/Mansfield Ave cc rc a i 0 5 A 11 m-N a m o, a �410 00� @ �585 �c0i 't�10155 I I" co T 9021 cn 0 r=225 c5 u� r 235 1I I l iR—90 4 I 1-90EB off-ramp I-9kEB an-ramp 4txx '}'�rMissionAve Indiana Ave') x Mansfield Ave 11 VIt 25 )tr 4450_4 r'` 275 0nv0iM 335—�► 55 r NmN 705—4 r° 75 230 • v m _1 A 2040 I ow, 0 I •:, . .o,.... .. t . 1 w i . . imiiim i k a g.it t-- wilMILO214 0 4" „, 0 '' D EL , ,..,—• y Pi . 0 A co •-; .P .. , ,.._ 13.S Evergreen RdIE Indiana Ave 14.S Evergreen Rc1/1-90 WB Ramps 15.5 Evergreen Rd/1-90 EB Ramps 16.Mission ConneclorlE Mission Ave — , — -0 0 te CC 5 p 415 ._.` ., 5315 p 4— 0—455 )11 wo .w—350 t_ E Indiana Ave 1-90 WB on-ram 1-90 WB off-ram 1-90 EB off-ram. , 1-90 EB on-ram. E Mission Ave ---i.W .4, '6 kir )Yr ,...) ,..„_ ,...,,, tt a a CO CD V)6) 550—1 5—4 Thil 605—4 ttttr a a 8 W la. 265, )r • o so .4.%' .23 2 0 0 (5 17.Sullivan RdIE Indiana Ave 18.Sullivan Rd/We on-ramp 19.Sullivan Rd/1-90 EB Ramps 20.Sullivan Rd/E Mission Ave ...., — .... Et -0 cr -0 re It— ..4r 15 411L , 250 re—190, 0— i1LL -—35 411 L E Indiana Ave WS on-rampi!41 1-90 EB off-ramp 1-90 EB on-ramp E Mission Ave 140 DI »ttr tit 430_. Itr 180 )1114 535,—). cii E 2 ,__Ay '0 10-4 28W 340 VI c4 esi ...- "-—44 945—4 ,_ 140 -4 '''' -•"` 21.1-90 WB off-rampfE Indiana Ave 1—650 4— ).---425 E Indiana Ave 1005.=,..* 14 0 4 al 04 0.1 2040 , 1 Spokane .....• Valley. Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study June 2016 TABLE 7: INTERSECTION VEHICLE DELAY AND LOS FOR FUTURE CONDITIONS(2040) Intersection Details Existing (2015) Name Control lDeIay* LOS 1.Pines Road/Trent Ave Signal 53 D 2.Pines Road/Pinecroft Way Side-Street Stop 16(EB) C 3.Pines Road/Mirabeau Parkway Signal 38 D 4.Mirabeau Parkway/Pinecroft Way Side-Street Stop 17(SB) C 5.Pines Road/Grace Lane Side-Street Stop 28 (WB) D 6.Pines Road/Mansfield Avenue Signal 33 C 7.Indiana Avenue/1-90 WB off-ramp signal 21 C 8.Pines Road/Indiana Avenue Signal 58 E 9.Pines Road/1-90 EB ramps Signal 116 F 70.Pines Road/Mission Avenue Signal - 81 F 11.Indiana Avenue/Mirabeau Parkway Signal 17 B 12.Mirabeau Parkway/Mansfield Avenue Side-Street Stop >120 (EB) F 73.Evergreen Road/Indiana Avenue Signal - 25 C 14.Evergreen Road/I-90 WA on and off-ramps Signal 22 C 15.Evergreen Road/1-90 EB on and off-ramps Signal 15 B 16.Mission Connector&Mission Avenue Side-Street Stop 15(NB) C 17.Indiana Avenue/Sullivan Road Signal 55 D 18.Sullivan Road/1-90 WA on-ramp Signal 12 8 79.Sullivan Road/1-90 EB on-ramp Signal 33 C 20.Sullivan Road/Mission Avenue Signal 75 E 21.Indiana Avenue/I-90 WA off-ramp Signal 36 C *Intersection delay is averaged for all movements.Some movements(e.g.left turns) may have LOS E or F conditions to ensure that the intersection as a whole operates optimally. Spokane Valley staff continually monitors LOS E and F movements and makes intersection timing adjustments as necessary. Page 13 _ *Wan �sValey Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study June 2076 The results in Table 7 indicate that most subarea intersections are expected to operate acceptably under 2040 conditions and meet Spokane Valley's LOS standards,with the exception of the following locations: • Pines Road/ Indiana Avenue • Pines Road / 1-90 EB ramps • Pines Road /Mission Avenue • Mirabeau Parkway/Mansfield Avenue • Sullivan Road / Mission Avenue Three of the locations are along the Pines Road corridor,which will continue to see traffic growth into the future as Spokane Valley and the region continue to grow. It is important to note that the poor 2040 LOS conditions on Pines Road takes into account the traffic signal retiming improvements described earlier. In other words, even with optimized traffic signal timings, the LOS on the Pines Road corridor is expected to degrade at some point in the future. Traffic congestion at the Mirabeau Parkway/ Mansfield Avenue intersection is also expected to degrade to substandard conditions by 2040.This degradation in LOS is largely due to growth in the Mirabeau subarea that will add to the background traffic growth through the area. Traffic volumes are also expected to increase substantially along the Sullivan Road corridor by 2040. However, this analysis only identifies the Mission Avenue intersection along Sullivan Road as having a substandard LOS.The intersection of Sullivan Road/Indiana Avenue is approaching LOS E, but at this time, it is premature to identify an improvement at this location since this intersection is still forecast to operate at LOS D. /).113° Pagel 4 Spokane`` ley Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study June 2016 IMPROVING FUTURE CONDITIONS TRAFFIC LEVEL OF SERVICE Similar to existing conditions, Fehr & Peers used an iterative approach to identify the most cost-effective means to meet Spokane Valley's LOS standards under 2040 conditions. Table 8 shows the proposed improvements at the five intersections with substandard LOS. Appendix D contains the detailed LOS calculation sheets from Synchro. TABLE 8: POTENTIAL PROJECTS TO IMPROVE FUTURE CONDITIONS LOS AT SELECTED INTERSECTIONS Delay with LOS with Intersection Description of Improvement Improvement Improvement Pines Road/Indiana ;Added westbound left-turn lane; retimed 42 Ave traffic signal Added eastbound left-turn lane and Pines Road/1-90 EB northbound right-turn pocket(extending 35 ID ramps back to Nora Ave); retime traffic signal Added southbound right-turn lane (extending back to the 1-90 off-ramp); (reconfigure lane assignments on Mission Pines Road/Mission (Ave to include eastbound dual-left and a 53 D Ave through-right lane and westbound left, through, and right turn lane; retime traffic (signal Mirabeau Pkwy/ Added traffic signal, added new 180 foot 28 Mansfield Ave southbound through-right lane Sullivan Road/Mission Reconfigure eastbound to include a left 17 Ave ;and through-right lane; retime signal The improvements identified in Table 8 address all the LOS issues within the study area under 2040 conditions. )5' Page Spokane" - Valley• Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study June 2016 ESTIMATING THE COST OF THE IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS To estimate the cost of the projects identified in Table 8, Fehr & Peers collaborated with Spokane Valley staff to identify construction costs from recently completed transportation projects in Spokane Valley.Table 9 shows the unit costs and a description of the project cost elements. Table 10 summarizes the project costs. TABLE 9: PROJECT UNIT COSTS Element Description Unit Quantity Unit Cost (in 2016 dollars) Roadway Demolition Demolition and removal of old Square Yard $12 roadway Curb Demolition Demolition and removal of old Linear foot $13 curb/gutter Sidewalk Demolition Demolition and removal of old Square Yard $16 sidewalk Signal Demolition Demolition and removal of old traffic Each mast arm $$000 signal equipment Excavation Excavation, grading,fill, earthwork Cubic Yard $30 Road Section Construction of new roadway surface Square Yard $50 Curb Construction of new curb/gutter Linear foot $35 Sidewalk Construction of new sidewalks Square Yard $45 Curb Ramps Construction of new curb ramps Each $2,200 Traffic Signal Each new Construction of new traffic signal $400,000 signal system Right-of-way Cost of acquiring right-of-way Square Foot $10 I ' Mobilization Cost to get a construction crew 10%of"hard" costs above engaged //SIP Pagel 6 Spokan 'Daley' Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study June 2016 Contingency Cost contingency for potential for 30% of"hard" costs above unexpected drainage/utility/ earthwork conflicts; WSDOT coordination Engineering Cost to design and permit the project 20% of"hard" costs above TABLE io: POTENTIAL PROJECTS TO IMPROVE FUTURE CONDITIONS LOS AT SELECTED INTERSECTIONS Intersection Cost Estimate — Pines Road/Indiana Ave I$ 856,000 — Pines Road/1-90 EB ramps $ 753,000 Pines Road/Mission Ave $ 457,000 Mirabeau Pkwy/Mansfield Ave $ 874,000 ;Sullivan Road/Mission Ave $ 61,000 /Jr Page 1 7 Spokan ley' Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study June 2016 ESTIMATING THE SUBAREA'S FAIR-SHARE CONTRIBUTION AND COST PER TRIP The previous sections identified future year LOS deficiencies at five intersections within the study area. A common way for a development project to mitigate its traffic impact is through a fair-share financial contribution toward a transportation system project that would improve LOS to meet City standards. This section describes how we calculate the subarea's fair-share contribution toward the improvements identified in Table 8. The subarea's fair-share financial contribution is determined by how much traffic the subarea is expected to contribute to each of the deficient intersections under future conditions. In other words,what percentage of 2040 traffic through a deficient intersection is caused by new development within the Mirabeau Subarea? To determine the percentage of traffic generated by Mirabeau Subarea development, we use the SRTC travel model.The travel model has a tool that can track the traffic generated by different areas throughout the city. This tool is called a "select zone analysis." The select zone analysis was set to identify the traffic generated by Mirabeau Subarea development separate from any other traffic generated by development in the region.The results of the select zone analysis were analyzed for each of the five deficient intersections identified in Table 8.Table 11 shows the results of the select zone analysis, TABLE 11: SUBAREA SHARE OF TRAFFIC AT THE DEFICIENT INTERSECTIONS Intersection Mirabeau Subarea Proportion of Future Year Traffic Pines Road/Indiana Ave 18% Pines Road/1-90 EB ramps 18% Pines Road/Mission Ave 16% Mirabeau Pkwy/Mansfield Ave 38% Sullivan Road/Mission Ave 4% The results in Table 11 indicate that the majority of traffic through the deficient intersections is generated by land uses outside of the subarea. For example, 18 percent of the traffic through the intersection of Pines Road / Indiana Avenue is generated by land uses within the Mirabeau Subarea. The highest proportion of subarea traffic is generated at the Mirabeau Parkway / Mansfield Avenue intersection—a result that is reasonable since this intersection is within the subarea. Page 18 /Jr Spokan`eN, �Ualley Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study June 2076 The results in Table 11 are used to determine the subarea's share of the total project improvements by multiplying the total improvement project cost by the proportion of traffic generated by new development in the subarea.The result of this calculation is shown in Table 12. TABLE 12: SUBAREA'S SHARE OF TOTAL IMPROVEMENT COSTS Mirabeau Subarea Total Project Cost Mirabeau Subarea Proportion of Future Year Fair-Share Cost Intersection Traffic Pines Road/Indiana Ave 18% $ 896,000 $ 161,000 Pines Road/I-90 EB ramps 18% $ 753,000 $ 135,000 Pines Road/Mission 16a`a $ 457,000 Ave $ 73,000 Mirabeau Pkwy1 38% $ 874,000 $ 332,000 Mansfield Ave i I Sullivan Road/ 4/0 o $$ 61,000 2,500 Mission Ave With the subarea's share of the total project costs identified in Table 12, we can identify the cost per PM peak hour trip, similar to how the existing developer agreements are established. Based on the land use growth estimates provided by the area developers (summarized in Tables 5 and 6), PM peak hour trip generation is estimated with standard Institute of Transportation Engineers(ITE)trip generation rates.Table 13 summarizes the trip generation results. Page 19 "kin —aVaiie}' Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study June 2016 TABLE 13:TRIP GENERATION CALCULATION PM Peak Hour Land Use Total Units of Development Trip Rate Total Trips Single-Family Residential 65 dwelling units 1.00 65 Multi-Family Residential 979 dwelling units 0.62 607 Retail 63,890 square feet 3.71 236 Office 2,561 employees 0.46 1,178 Hotel 150 rooms 0.60 90 Total NA NA 2,176 *Includes 8,space. Using the results in Tables 12 and 13, the cost per PM peak hour trip is: $704,000 (subarea's share of total project costs) F 2,176 (subarea new PM peak hour trip generation) = $323.75 per PM peak hour trip. Mitigation Credits There are still existing "vested" trips from the prior "Pines-Mansfield Development Agreement" that was established by Spokane County. While the transportation improvement projects identified as part of the Pines-Mansfield Development Agreement have largely been constructed, Spokane Valley is open to counting the vested trips as a credit against this new transportation improvement program. Based on data supplied by the City of Spokane Valley in December 2015, there were 904 PM peak hour vested trips outstanding amongst the land owners in the subarea. These trips have a value of $303.36 per trip, which works out to a total value of$274,237. Developers can apply the value of their unused vested PM peak hour trips as a credit to the new Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Mitigation Program until they have no vested trips remaining. Page 20 Spokane Valley' Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study June 2016 CONCLUSIONS This report documented the existing and future traffic LOS conditions within and around the Mirabeau Subarea.As described,there are existing LOS deficiencies within the subarea that Spokane Valley is actively addressing through a mix of capital projects and traffic signal retiming. In the future,traffic LOS is expected to degrade within the study area as the Mirabeau subarea, Spokane Valley, and the rest of the region continues to grow. This report identified the necessary traffic mitigation measures to improve congestion and meet Spokane Valley's LOS standards. Most if the congestion relief projects are on the Pines Road corridor with a minor improvement at the Sullivan Road/Mission Avenue intersection. A fair-share calculation was developed to identify the Mirabeau Subarea landowner's share of future traffic impacts and mitigation costs. If landowners agree to help implement future traffic congestion improvement projects through a mitigation contribution of$323.75 per PM peak hour trip,then they will meet their SEPA obligations to mitigate traffic congestion impacts. After making this mitigation payment (which is subject to a credit from the existing Pines-Mansfield Development Agreement), the developer will not have to conduct another traffic study, outside of a site access and circulation study, which may be required by Spokane Valley to ensure safe access for all modes into and within the development site. Page 21 Appendix A HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 1: Pines/Cement Road & Trent (SR 290) 6/1712016 -. I 4-- 4. 4\ t t 4 „' Writh nt _ - Elat. _ - lat WL_Mt- ystag NIAMK iNIBR 6115 _ : Lane Configurations '11 TT r Ni ft. 4 r 4. Traffic Volume(veh/h) 5 905 265 310 505 20 315 35 465 25 35 5 Future Volume(vehlh) 5 905 265 310 505 20 315 35 465 25 35 5 Number 1 6 16 5 2 12 7 4 14 3 8 18 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(kpbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1,00 Adj Sat Flow,vehlhlln 1491 1578 1609 1593 1557 1625 1625 1609 1593 1625 1577 1625 Adj Flow Rate,vehlh 5 953 0 326 532 21 332 37 215 26 37 5 Adj No,of Lanes 1 2 1 1 2 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh,% 9 3 1 2 4 4 1 1 2 1 1 1 Cap,vehlh 9 1016 464 342 1620 64 326 36 318 33 46 6 Arrive On Green 0.01 0.34 0.00 0.23 0,56 0.56 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.06 0.06 0,06 Sat Flow,veh/h 1420 2998 1368 1517 2901 114 1385 154 1352 584 831 112 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 5 953 0 326 271 282 369 0 215 68 0 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlhlln 1420 1499 1368 1517 1479 1537 1540 0 1352 1528 0 0 Q Serve(g_s),s 0,5 45.9 0.0 31.5 14.7 14,8 35,0 0.0 21.5 6.5 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 0.5 45.9 0.0 31.5 14.7 14.8 35.0 0.0 21.5 6.5 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0,07 0.90 1,00 0,38 0,07 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 9 1016 464 342 826 858 362 0 318 85 0 0 WC Ratio(X) 0,56 0.94 0.00 0.95 0.33 0.33 1.02 0.00 0.68 0.80 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 324 1087 496 346 826 858 362 0 318 364 0 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1,00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 Upstream Filter(I) 1,00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 73.8 47.7 0.0 56.9 17,8 17.8 56.9 0.0 51.8 69.4 0,0 0.0 Ina Delay(d2),s/veh 45,4 14.3 0,0 35.7 0.2 0.2 52.4 0.0 5.6 15.3 0,0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0,0 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),vehlln 0.3 20.9 0.0 16.6 6.1 6,3 20.0 0.0 8.6 3.1 0.0 0.0 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 119.2 62.0 0.0 92.5 18,0 18,0 109.3 0.0 57.4 84.7 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS F E F B B F E F Approach Vol,vehlh 958 879 584 68 Approach Delay,s/veh 62.3 45.6 90.2 84.7 Approach LOS E D F F JTitner - -- 1 2 3 _-4 $ - 6 _7 8 -- - I Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 6.9 89.1 40.0 39.6 56.5 12,8 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 6.0 6,0 5.0 6,0 6.0 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax),s 34.0 54.0 35.0 34.0 54.0 35.5 Max Q Clear Time(gc+I1),s 2.5 16.8 37.0 33.5 47,9 8.5 Green Ext Time(p_c),s 0.0 11.5 0.0 0.1 2.6 0.3 Jot r ttati�. n a: _- a� - i=t1 HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 63,6 HCM 2010 LOS E Mirabeau sub-area 4:00 pm 2/7/2013 PM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report PM Page 2 HCM 2010 TWSC 2: Pines & Pinecroft Way - 6/17/2016 intersection 1 Int Delay,s/veh 0.4 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SEAT SBf Lane Configurations 4+ r ' fi' ) +1* Traffic Vol,vehlh 5 0 5 0 0 40 0 765 5 0 615 0 Future Vol,veh/h 5 0 5 0 0 40 0 765 5 0 615 0 Conflicting Peds,Or 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length - - - - - 0 200 - - 300 - - Veh in Median Storage,# - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade,% 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 Heavy Vehicles,%6 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 5 0 5 0 0 44 0 841 5 0 676 0 Major/Minor Minor2 Mlnorl Majorl Major2 I Conflicting Flow All 1097 1522 340 - - 424 676 0 0 846 0 0 Stage 1 676 676 - - - - - - - - - - Stage 2 421 846 - - - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy 7.54 6,54 6.94 - - 6.94 4.14 - - 4,14 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.54 5,54 - - - - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.54 5.54 - - - - - - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.52 4.02 3.32 - - 3.32 2.22 - - 2.22 - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver *397 183 656 0 0 *790 911 - - 1138 - - Stage 1 *409 451 - 0 0 - - - - - - - Stage 2 *744 624 - 0 0 - - - - - - - Platoon blocked, % 1 1 1 - - 1 - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver *374 183 655 - - *789 910 - - 1137 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver *374 183 - - - - - - - - - Stage 1 *409 451 - - - - - - - - - - Stage 2 *702 624 - - - - - - - - - - Approach _�. -- -- - W.B.> NB tom _ ! HCM Control Delay,s 12,7 9,8 0 0 HCM LOS B A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1W8Ln1 SBL SBT SBR l Capacity(veh/h) 910 - - 476 789 1137 - - HCM Lane VIC Ratio - - - 0.023 0,056 - - - HCM Control Delay(s) 0 - - 12.7 9.8 0 - - HCM Lane LOS A - - B A A - - HCM 95th%tile Q(veh) 0 - - 0.1 0.2 0 - - Notes 1 Volume exceeds capacity $:Delay exceeds 300s -:Computation Not Defined *:Ali major volume in platoon Mirabeau sub-area 4:00 pm 2/7/2013 PM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report PM Page 4 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 3: Pines & Mirabeau Parkway - 6117/2016 - -• r t 4\ t t \P I, I as t, EIT Oft Mt MT Lane Configurations 4. 4 ri vs to t1a Traffic Volume(veh/h) 0 0 5 100 0 165 5 605 35 110 505 5 Future Volume(veh/h) 0 0 5 100 0 165 5 605 35 110 505 5 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.99 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/ln 1625 1593 1625 1625 1593 1593 1593 1593 1625 1593 1593 1625 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 0 0 5 110 0 181 5 665 38 121 555 5 Adj No.of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 2 0 1 2 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0,91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 0 0 9 232 0 207 556 1734 99 501 1966 18 Arrive On Green 0.00 0.00 0,01 0.15 0.00 0.15 0.01 0.60 0,60 0.05 0.64 0.64 Sat Flow,veh/h 0 0 1346 1517 0 1354 1517 2911 166 1517 3074 28 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 0 0 5 110 0 181 5 346 357 121 273 287 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/hlln 0 0 1346 1517 0 1354 1517 1513 1564 1517 1513 1588 Q Serve(g_s),s 0.0 0.0 0.4 6.4 0.0 12.7 0.1 11.6 11.6 2.8 7.7 7.7 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 0.0 0.0 0.4 6,4 0.0 12.7 0.1 11.6 11,6 2.8 7.7 7.7 Prop In Lane 0.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 0.11 1.00 0.02 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 0 0 9 232 0 207 556 901 931 501 968 1016 V/C Ratio(X) 0,00 0.00 0.57 0.47 0.00 0,87 0.01 0,38 0.38 0,24 0,28 0.28 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 0 0 139 250 0 223 642 901 931 599 968 1016 HCM Platoon Ratio 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(1) 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),slveh 0.0 0.0 48.1 37.5 0.0 40.2 7.8 10.3 10.3 7.0 7.7 7.7 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 0.0 0.0 47.6 1.5 0.0 28,2 0.0 1,2 1.2 0.2 0.7 0.7 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %Ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.0 0.0 0,2 2.8 0.0 6.4 0.1 5.1 5.3 1.2 3.4 3.5 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 0.0 95,6 39.0 0,0 68.4 7.8 11.5 11.5 7,3 8,4 8.4 LnGrp LOS F D E A B B A A A Approach Vol,veh/h 5 291 708 681 Approach Delay,s/veh 95,6 57.3 11.5 8.2 Approach LOS F E B A Firm 1 2 3 4 5 6 Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),s 8.8 62.8 5.6 4.5 67.0 19.8 Change Period(Y+Rc),S 4.0 5,0 5.0 4,0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 11.0 41.0 10.0 6,0 46.0 16.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+I1),s 4.8 13.6 2.4 2.1 9.7 14.7 Green Ext Time(p_c),s 0.1 8,6 0,0 0,0 9.3 0.2 HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 18.3 HCM 2010 LOS B Mirabeau sub-area 4:00 pm 2/7/2013 PM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report PM Page 6 HCM 2010 TWSC 6/17/2016 4: Mirabeau Parkway & Pinecroft Way Intersection Int Delay,siveh 0.8 Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR I Lane Configurations " + 1+ V Traffic Vol,vehlh 5 225 115 5 20 5 Future Vol,veh/h 5 225 115 5 20 5 Conflicting Peds,#/hr 0 0 0 2 1 1 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 100 - - - 0 Veh in Median Storage,# - 0 0 - 0 Grade,% - 0 0 - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 81 81 81 81 81 81 Heavy Vehicles,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 6 278 142 6 25 6 Major/Minor Majorl Major2 Minor2 1 Conflicting Flow All 150 0 - 0 438 148 Stage 1 - - - - 147 Stage 2 - - - - 291 1 Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - - 6.42 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5,42 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - - 3.518 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1431 - - - 576 899 Stage 1 - - - - 880 Stage 2 - - - - 759 Platoon blocked,% - 572 897 Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1430 - - - 572 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - -- - - 879 - Stage 1 -Stage 2 - - - 755 - pprouoh _ EB — WB - - SB _ u _I. HCM Control Delay,s 0.2 0 10.7 HCM LOS B fajtarteiMajorMyrnt _ _ EBL EBT MT WBR MIA i Capacity(veh/h) 1430 - - - 667 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.004 - - - 0.046 HCM Control Delay(s) 7.5 - - - 10.7 HCM Lane LOS A - - - B HCM 95th%tile Q(veh) 0 - - - 0,1 Mirabeau sub-area 4:00 pm 2/7/2013 PM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report PM Page 8 HCM 2010 TVVSC 5: Pines & Grace Ln 611712016 intersection Int Delay,slveh 3.4 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4 4* 4Ta 41,0 Traffic Vol,veh/h 20 5 30 40 5 20 60 600 45 30 550 25 Future Vol,vehlh 20 5 30 40 5 20 60 600 45 30 550 25 Conflicting Peds,/Or 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length - - - - - - - - Veh in Median Storage,# - 0 - - 0 - - 0 0 _ Grade, % 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 Mvmt Flow 22 5 32 43 5 22 65 645 48 32 591 27 JUlajorlMlnor Minor2 Minorl Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 1123 1492 309 1161 1481 347 618 0 0 694 0 0 Stage 1 669 669 - 798 798 - - - - - - - Stage 2 454 823 - 363 683 - - - - - - Critical Hdwy 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9 4.12 - - 4.12 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.5 5.5 - 6.5 5.5 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy Sig 2 6.5 5,5 - 6.5 5.5 - - - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 4 3.3 3.5 4 3.3 2.21 - - 2.21 - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver *163 125 '890 *153 127 *845 1240 - - 1235 - - Stage 1 *692 637 - *643 596 - - - - - - - Stage 2 *797 577 - *839 627 - - - - - - - Platoon blocked,% 1 1 1 - - 1 - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver *139 110 *890 *129 111 *845 1240 - - 1235 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver *139 110 - *129 111 - - - - - - - Stage 1 *632 612 - *588 545 - - - - - - - Stage 2 *703 528 - *769 602 - - - - - - Approach EB WB NB SB I HCM Control Delay,s 24.1 39.6 0,9 0.5 HCM LOS C E Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity(vehlh) 1240 - - 247 172 1235 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.052 - - 0.239 0.406 0.026 - - HCM Control Delay(s) 8.1 0.3 - 24.1 39.6 8 0.1 - HCM Lane LOS A A - C E A A - HCM 95th%tile Q(veh) 0.2 - - 0,9 1.8 0.1 - - Notes -:Volume exceeds capacity $:Delay exceeds 300s +:Computation Not Defined *:All major volume in platoon Mirabeau sub-area 4:00 pm 217/2013 PM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report PM Page 10 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 6: PINES & Mansfield 6/17/2016 -A -- i- 1- 4- 4\ t P \. 1 41 Lane Configurations 1 + r 1+ '1 1"t+ il +I+ Traffic Volume(vehlh) 65 70 380 170 145 50 210 725 180 50 650 30 Future Volume(veh/h) 65 70 380 170 145 50 210 725 180 50 650 30 Number 3 8 18 7 4 14 1 6 16 5 2 12 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 0,99 0.99 1,00 0.99 1.00 0,99 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1,00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,vehlh/In 1667 1667 1667 1667 1667 1700 1667 1667 1700 1667 1667 1700 Adj How Rate,vehlh 70 75 54 183 156 54 226 780 181 54 699 32 Adj No.of Lanes 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 175 171 145 305 184 64 535 1611 374 395 1804 83 Arrive On Green 0,05 0.10 0.10 0.11 0.16 0,15 0.08 0.63 0.62 0.03 0,59 0,58 Sat Flow,vehlh 1587 1667 1408 1587 1181 409 1587 2547 591 1587 3084 141 Grp Volume(v),vehlh 70 75 54 183 0 210 226 485 476 54 359 372 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlhlln 1587 1667 1408 1587 0 1590 1587 1583 1555 1587 1583 1641 Q Serve(g_s),s 5.1 5.5 4.7 13.1 0.0 16.7 6.9 21.1 21.2 1.7 15,8 15,8 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 5.1 5,5 4.7 13.1 0.0 16.7 6,9 21.1 21.2 1.7 15.8 15.8 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.26 1.00 0.38 1.00 0.09 Lane Grp Cap(c),vehlh 175 171 145 305 0 248 535 1001 984 395 926 960 V/C Ratio(X) 0.40 0.44 0.37 0.60 0,00 0.85 0.42 0.48 0.48 0,14 0.39 0.39 Avail Cap(c a),veh/h 260 333 282 305 0 318 723 1001 984 536 926 960 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 Upstream Filter(I) 1,00 1.00 1,00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.56 0.56 0.56 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 48.7 54.8 54,4 44.3 0,0 53.4 9.4 12.7 12.8 10.7 14.5 14.5 Incr Delay(d2),slveh 1.5 1.8 1.6 3.2 0.0 15.4 0.3 0.9 0.9 0.2 1.2 1.2 Initial Q Delay(d3),slveh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackO1Q(50%),vehlln 2,3 2.6 1.9 6,0 0.0 8.4 3.0 9.4 9.3 0.8 7.2 7.5 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 50.2 56.6 56.0 47.5 0.0 68.8 9.7 13.6 13,7 10.9 15.7 15.7 LnGrp LOS DEED E A BBBBB Approach Vol,veh/h 199 393 1187 785 Approach Delay,s/veh 54.2 58.9 12.9 15.4 Approach LOS D E B B jrimer_ - 1 :2 - 3 - 4: 5 _ f_ . 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),s 14.6 80.1 11.1 24.3 8.4 86,2 18.0 17.3 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 5.0 5.0 4.5 4.5 5.0 5,0 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 25.0 47,0 13.5 25,5 15.0 57.0 13.5 25.5 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+I1),s 8.9 17,8 7,1 18.7 3,7 23.2 15.1 7,5 Green Ext Time(p_c),s 0.7 8.7 0.1 0.8 0.1 8.9 0,0 1.3 HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 23.9 HCM 2010 LOS C Mirabeau sub-area 4:00 pm 2/7/2013 PM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report PM Page 12 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 7: I--90 WB off-ramp & I N D IANA 6117/2016 - '''t c 4- s\ ✓'i" Movement: NIT off' W T t4 {B - r - - I Lane Configurations T4 ++ VI r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 260 0 0 290 425 10 Future Volume(veh/h) 260 0 0 290 425 10 Number 8 18 7 4 1 16 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/ln 1634 0 0 1634 1587 1587 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 271 0 0 302 443 0 Adj No.of Lanes 2 0 0 2 2 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Percent Heavy Veh,% 1 0 0 1 4 4 Cap,veh/h 2339 0 0 2339 542 239 Arrive On Green 0.75 0.00 0.00 0.75 0.18 0.00 Sat Flow,veh/h 3267 0 0 3267 2931 1349 Grp Volume(v),vehJh 271 0 0 302 443 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlh/ln 1552 0 0 1552 1466 1349 Q Serve(g_s),s 3.1 0.0 0.0 3.5 18.9 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 3,1 0.0 0.0 3.5 18.9 0.0 Prop In Lane 0,00 0.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 2339 0 0 2339 542 239 V/C Ratio(X) 0.12 0.00 0,00 0.13 0.82 0.00 Avail Cap(c a),veh/h 2339 0 0 2339 1263 571 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.96 0,00 0.00 0.96 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 4.3 0.0 0.0 4.4 50.9 0.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 0.1 0.0 0,0 0.1 3.1 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0,0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),vehlln 1.3 0.0 0.0 1.5 7.9 0.0 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 4.4 0.0 0.0 4.5 54,0 0.0 LnGrp LOS A A D Approach Vol,veh/h 271 302 443 Approach Delay,s/veh 4.4 4.5 54.0 Approach LOS A A D if'mar _ 1 2 3 4 5 8 7 '_ _.1 Assigned Phs 4 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),s 102.0 28.0 102.0 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 65.0 55,0 65.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+I1),s 5.5 20.9 5.1 Green Ext Time(p_c),s 2.7 2.2 2.7 _- HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 26.0 HCM 2010 LOS C Mirabeau sub-area 4:00 pm 2/7/2013 PM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report PM Page 14 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 8: PINES & INDIANA 6/17/2016 Movement EBL a. -_ T 'ice 1 NW- ._r $ L T NA Lane Configurations 1 41. /1) TT r vi TT fr Traffic Volume(vph) 0 0 0 400 70 245 550 875 160 100 865 235 Future Volume(vph) 0 0 0 400 70 245 550 875 160 100 865 235 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1650 1650 1650 1650 1650 1650 1650 1650 1650 1650 1650 1650 Total Lost time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4,5 4.0 5,5 Lane Util.Factor 0.91 0.91 0,97 0,95 1.00 1,00 0.95 1,00 Frpb,ped/bikes 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.92 1.00 1.00 0.85 1,00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 0.98 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 1265 2399 2710 2794 1250 1397 2794 1250 Flt Permitted 0.95 0.98 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 1265 2399 2710 2794 1250 1397 2794 1250 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0,97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Growth Factor(vph) 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Adj. Flow(vph) 0 0 0 412 72 253 567 902 165 103 892 242 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 178 0 0 0 96 0 0 141 Lane Group Flow(vph) 0 0 0 255 304 0 567 902 69 103 892 101 Confl.Peds. (#/hr) 3 4 Heavy Vehicles(%) 1% 1°/0 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% Turn Type Perm NA Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 4 1 6 515 2 Permitted Phases 4 6 2 Actuated Green,G(s) 32.8 32.8 31.7 53.2 53.2 22.5 49,5 49,5 Effective Green,g(s) 33.8 33.8 33.2 54.7 54.7 24,5 51.0 49.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0,26 0.26 0.26 0.42 0.42 0.19 0.39 0,38 Clearance Time(s) 5.0 5,0 5.5 5,5 5.5 5.5 5.5 Vehicle Extension(s) 4.0 4,0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4,0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 328 623 692 1175 525 263 1096 475 v/s Ratio Prot c0,21 0.32 0.07 c0,32 v/s Ratio Perm c0.20 0.13 0.06 0.08 v/c Ratio 0.78 0.49 0.82 0.77 0,13 0.39 0.81 0.21 Uniform Delay,d1 44,6 40.8 45.6 32.2 23.1 46.2 35.3 27.1 Progression Factor 1.11 1.41 1.03 0.65 0.37 0.93 0,84 0.36 Incremental Delay,d2 11.4 0.8 0,8 0.3 0.0 1,1 5.7 0.9 Delay(s) 60.9 58,2 47.9 21.3 8.5 43.9 35,4 10.7 Level of Service E E D C A D D B Approach Delay(s) 0.0 59.2 29.2 31,3 Approach LOS A E C C JOtersection&army 1 HCM 2000 Control Delay 36.0 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.84 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 130.0 Sum of lost time(s) 17.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 79.3% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period(min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Mirabeau sub-area 4:00 pm 2/7/2013 PM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report PM Page 15 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 9: Pines & EB Ramps 6117/2016 -' fl 4- k- '\ t /' 4 d Movement: ,_fir -f WWl WBT WE.R -NI,1, MBT- NBP, SBL SET Stii Lane Configurations 4 er ft. ii Tt Traffic Volume(veh/h) 370 5 650 0 0 0 0 1215 365 230 1035 0 Future Volume(vehlh) 370 5 650 0 0 0 0 1215 365 230 1035 0 Number 3 8 18 1 6 16 5 2 12 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-BikeAdj(ALL.pbT) 1.00 0.99 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,vehlh/In 1650 1618 1618 0 1618 1650 1618 1618 0 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 381 5 637 0 1253 352 237 1067 0 Adj No.of Lanes 0 1 2 0 2 0 1 2 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0,97 0.97 0.97 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 2 2 0 2 2 2 2 0 Cap,veh/h 447 6 705 0 1077 297 243 1981 0 Arrive On Green 0.29 0,29 0.29 0.00 0.60 0.59 0.16 0.64 0.00 Sat Flow,vehlh 1522 20 2399 0 2463 656 1541 3154 0 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 386 0 637 0 799 806 237 1067 0 Grp Sat Flaw(s),vehlhlln 1542 0 1200 0 1537 1502 1541 1537 0 Q Serve(g_s),s 30.7 0.0 33.2 0.0 58.8 58.8 19.9 24,6 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g c),s 30.7 0.0 33.2 0.0 58.8 58.8 19.9 24.6 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.99 1.00 0.00 0.44 1.00 0.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),vehlh 453 0 705 0 695 679 243 1981 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.85 0.00 0.90 0.00 1.15 1.19 0.98 0.54 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a),vehlh 480 0 748 0 695 679 243 1981 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.33 1.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0,00 1.00 0,00 0.41 0.41 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay(d),slveh 43.2 0.0 44.1 0.0 25.9 26.2 54,5 12.6 0.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 13.2 0.0 13.9 0.0 74.9 90.2 50.7 1.1 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),slveh 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 %Ile BackOfQ(50%),vehlln 14.7 0.0 12.3 0.0 39.0 41.0 11.9 10.7 0,0 LnGrp Delay(d),slveh 56,4 0,0 58.0 0,0 100.8 116,4 105,2 13.6 0.0 LnGrp LOS E E F F F B Approach Vol,veh/h 1023 1605 1304 Approach Delay,slveh 57.4 108.6 30.3 Approach LOS E F C trim%r 1 _ ,2 3, 4 5. - 6 7 8 - _ Assigned Phs 2 5 6 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 88.3 25.0 63.3 41.7 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 5.5 5.5 5.5 4.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 57.5 19.5 55,5 39.5 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+11),s 26,6 21.9 60.8 35.2 Green Ext Time(p_c),s 6.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 hermtkaSurnmary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 69.3 HCM 2010 LOS E Mirabeau sub-area 4:00 pm 21712013 PM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report PM Page 18 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 10: Pines & Mission 611 712 01 6 1. - . C 4-- t 4\ t t' '► 1 41 r r 9 " t _ EBL E 1 -Wit. At VAR NBL 'NBI NW atik . sot egq Lane Configurations 41* 41. r vS ft. /1) TI, Traffic Volume(veh/h) 265 155 65 90 130 350 45 970 30 275 1150 270 Future Volume(vehlh) 265 155 65 90 130 350 45 970 30 275 1150 270 Number 3 8 18 7 4 14 1 6 16 5 2 12 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1,00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1,00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,vehlh/In 1650 1618 1650 1650 1618 1618 1618 1618 1650 1618 1618 1650 Adj Flow Rate,vehlh 279 163 68 95 137 88 47 1021 32 289 1211 268 Adj No.of Lanes 0 2 0 0 2 1 1 2 0 2 2 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0,95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 273 192 80 128 202 146 250 1413 44 384 1080 237 Arrive On Green 0.18 0.18 0.17 0.11 0.11 0,11 0.16 0.46 0.46 0.13 0.43 0.42 Sat Flow,veh/h 1541 1084 452 1201 1893 1363 1541 3042 95 2989 2507 549 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 279 0 231 123 109 88 47 516 537 289 738 741 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlhiln 1541 0 1537 1558 1537 1363 1541 1537 1601 1494 1537 1519 Q Serve(g_s),s 23.0 0.0 18.9 10.0 8.8 8.0 3.4 35,2 35.2 12.1 56.0 56.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 23.0 0.0 18.9 10,0 8.8 8.0 3.4 35.2 35.2 12.1 56.0 56.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.29 0.77 1.00 1,00 0.06 1,00 0.36 Lane Grp Cap(c),vehlh 273 0 272 167 164 146 250 714 744 384 662 654 V/C Ratio(X) 1.02 0.00 0.85 0.74 0,66 0.60 0.19 0.72 0,72 0.75 1.11 1.13 Avail Cap(c_a),vehlh 273 0 272 228 225 199 250 714 744 506 662 654 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.64 0.64 0.64 Uniform Delay(d),slveh 53.5 0.0 52.0 56.3 55.8 55.4 47.0 28.0 28.1 54.7 37.0 37.2 Incr Delay(d2),slveh 60.7 0.0 21.6 8.1 4.5 4.0 0,4 6.2 6.0 7.0 64.8 72.2 Initial Q Delay(d3),slveh 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0,0 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),vehlln 14.4 0.0 9.7 4.7 4.0 3.2 1.5 16.1 16.8 5.4 35.6 36.6 LnGrp Delay(d),slveh 114.3 0.0 73.6 64,4 60,3 59.4 47,4 34.3 34.1 61.6 101.8 109,3 LnGrp LOS F E E E E D C C E F F Approach Vol,veh/h 510 320 1100 1768 Approach Delay,slveh 95,9 61.6 34.8 98.4 Approach LOS F E C F Imes 1_ 2 3 4 _ 5 6 7 8, Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 25.1 60.0 17.9 20.7 64.4 27.0 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 15.0 55.0 18.0 21.0 49.0 22.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+11),s 5.4 58.0 12.0 14,1 37.2 25.0 Green Ext Time(p_c),s 3.5 0.0 0.6 1.6 4.0 0.0 HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 75,9 HCM 2010 LOS E' I Mirabeau sub-area 4:00 pm 2/7/2013 PM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report PM Page 20 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 11 : INDIANA & Mirabeau Parkway 611712016 ,! --. ,- k \ d tovement'._ el .I -VW 2.0k Sit, _ 9 _ Lane Configurations 1 11 fT r In r Traffic Volume(vehlh) 50 240 220 235 360 65 Future Volume(vehlh) 50 240 220 235 360 65 Number 1 6 2 12 3 18 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,vehlh/In 1434 1434 1434 1434 1434 1434 Adj Flow Rate,vehlh 53 255 234 0 383 30 Adj No.of Lanes 1 2 2 1 2 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0,94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,vehlh 53 1106 640 567 609 327 Arrive On Green 0.04 0.41 0,24 0.00 0.23 0.23 Sat Flow,vehlh 1366 2796 2796 1219 2649 1219 Grp Valume(v),vehlh 53 255 234 0 383 30 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlhlln 1366 1362 1362 1219 1325 1219 Q Serve(g_s),s 1.2 1,9 2,2 0.0 3.9 0.6 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 1,2 1,9 2.2 0.0 3.9 0.6 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 53 1106 640 567 609 327 V/C Ratio(X) 1.00 0.23 0,37 0.00 0.63 0.09 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 949 1758 1758 1067 1710 834 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(l) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1,00 1,00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 14.5 5.9 9.7 0.0 10.5 8.3 Incr Delay(d2),slveh 58.7 0.1 0.3 0.0 1.1 0,1 Initial Q Delay(d3),slveh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %wile BackOfQ(50%),vehlln 1.3 0.7 0.8 0.0 1.5 0.2 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 73,3 6.0 10,0 0,0 11.5 8.4 LnGrp LOS F A B B A Approach Vol,veh/h 308 234 413 Approach Delay,s/veh 17.6 10.0 11.3 Approach LOS B B B Assigned Phs 1 2 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),s 5.2 12.6 17.8 12.4 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.0 5.5 5.5 5.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 21.0 19.5 19.5 19.5 Max 0 Clear Time(g c+11),s 3.2 4.2 3.9 5.9 Green Ext Time(p_c),s 0,1 2.7 2,7 1.2 - - -- - r it HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 13,0 HCM 2010 LOS B Mirabeau sub-area 4:00 pm 2/7/2013 PM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report PM Page 22 HCM 2010 TWSC 12: Mirabeau Parkway & Mansfield 6/17/2016 Intersection Int De#ay,slveh 5.8 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBIl Lane Configurations 11 A ) 1► I T i ) I* Traffic Vol,vehlh 20 0 220 0 0 0 195 90 0 0 210 25 Future Vol,vehlh 20 0 220 0 0 0 195 90 0 0 210 25 Conflicting Peds,#/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length - - - - - - 175 - 0 175 - - Veh in Median Storage,# - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade,% - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 Heavy Vehicles,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 21 0 227 0 0 0 201 93 0 0 216 26 _ VW. Maori _ _ Majorl Major2 1 Conflicting Flow All 724 724 229 838 737 93 242 0 0 93 0 0 Stage 1 229 229 - 495 495 - - - - - - - Stage 2 495 495 - 343 242 - - - - - - Critical Hdwy 7.12 6.52 6.22 7,12 6.52 6.22 4.12 - - 4.12 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.12 5,52 - 6.12 5.52 - - - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3,518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 2.218 - - 2.218 - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 341 352 810 286 346 964 1324 - - 1501 - - Stage 1 774 715 - 556 546 - - - - - - _ Stage 2 556 546 - 672 705 - - - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - - - ` Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 301 299 810 182 293 964 1324 - - 1501 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 301 299 - 182 293 - - - - - - - Stage 1 656 715 - 472 463 - - - - - - - Stage 2 472 463 - 484 705 - - - - - - - HCM Control Delay,s 11.8 0 5.6 0 HCM LOS B A 1111 , c art Nfilf. Rig 110gg-1.3141010/"IttWataOL Capacity(vehlh) 1324 - - 301 810 - - 1501 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.152 - - 0,069 0.28 - - - - - HCM Control Delay(s) 8.2 - - 17.8 11.2 0 0 0 - - HCM Lane LOS A - - C B A A A - - HCM 95th%tile Q(veh) 0.5 - - 0,2 1,1 - - 0 - - Mirabeau sub-area 4:00 pm 2/7/2013 PM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report PM Page 24 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 13: S Evergreen Rd & E Indiana Ave 6/1712016 -�• �" .- '\ /`' $o ement. EBT _ ,EBR: oat W 'f Lane Configurations r 4+ r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 345 370 435 315 310 355 Future Volume(veh/h) 345 370 435 315 310 355 Number 6 16 5 2 7 14 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,vehlhfln 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 363 81 458 332 381 192 Adj No.of Lanes 2 1 2 1 2 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0,95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 579 259 828 435 1485 662 Arrive On Green 0.16 0.16 0,23 0.23 0.42 0,42 Sat Flow,veh/h 3632 1583 3548 1863 3548 1583 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 363 81 458 332 381 192 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1770 1583 1774 1863 1774 1583 Q Serve(g_s),s 6.2 2.9 7.4 10.8 4.5 5.2 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 6.2 2.9 7.4 10,8 4.5 5.2 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 579 259 828 435 1485 662 V/C Ratio(X) 0.63 0.31 0.55 0,76 0,26 0.29 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 1143 512 873 459 1485 662 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(l) 0.92 0.92 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 25.3 24.0 21.9 23.2 12.3 12.5 lncr Delay(d2),slveh 0.4 0.2 0.9 7.7 0.4 1.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),slveh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 %ile BackOtQ(50%)„veh/In 3.1 1.3 3.7 6.5 2.3 2.4 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 25.7 24.2 22.8 31.0 12.7 13,6 LnGrp LOS CCCCBB Approach Vol,veh/h 444 790 573 Approach Delay,slveh 25.4 26.3 13.0 Approach LOS C C B rimer - - I 3; _ 4 - 6_ -'- 8 Assigned Phs 2 4 6 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 19.2 31.2 14.6 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 5.5 5.0 5,5 Max Green Setting(Gmax), s 14.5 15.0 19.5 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+11),s 12.8 7.2 8.2 Green Ext Time(p_c),s 0.9 1,1 0.9 HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 21.9 HCM 2010 LOS C tg <<,_ _ _ - _ - - User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. Mirabeau sub-area 4:00 pm 2/7/2013 PM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report PM Page 26 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 14: S Evergreen Rd & North Ramps 6/17/2016 s ~'s r 4- k- '\ t P \* ,1 Movement - at.- _EST EBR Wit, WRT NFL , -:;W„ - ;KT WI - Lane Configurations 1 4 r 'i'i ft. Tt r Traffic Volume(vehlh) 0 0 0 260 1 155 300 835 0 0 560 245 Future Volume(veh/h) 0 0 0 260 1 155 300 835 0 0 560 245 Number 7 4 14 1 6 16 5 2 12 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/ln 1937 1937 1863 1863 1863 0 0 1863 1863 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 281 0 0 323 898 0 0 602 0 Adj No.of Lanes 2 0 1 2 2 0 0 2 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0,93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0,93 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 2 2 Cap,vehfh 483 0 207 1631 2668 0 0 772 346 Arrive On Green 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.95 1.00 0,00 0.00 0.22 0.00 Sat Flow,veh/h 3690 0 1583 3442 3632 0 0 3632 1583 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 281 0 0 323 898 0 0 602 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1845 0 1583 1721 1770 0 0 1770 1583 0 Serve(g_s),s 4.7 0,0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0,0 0,0 10.4 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 4.7 0,0 0.0 0,4 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.4 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0,00 0.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 483 0 207 1631 2668 0 0 772 346 V/C Ratio(X) 0.58 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.34 0.00 0.00 0.78 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 1107 0 475 1631 2668 0 0 871 390 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1,00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 Upstream Filter(I) 1,00 0.00 0.00 0.92 0.92 0.00 0.00 1,00 0.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 26.6 0.0 0.0 0,9 0.0 0.0 0,0 23.9 0.0 Incr Delay(d2),siveh 1.1 0.0 0,0 0.1 0.3 0,0 0.0 7.6 0.0 Initial 0 Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %vile BackOfQ(50%o),vehiln 2.5 0.0 0,0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 5.9 0,0 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 27.7 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.3 0.0 0,0 31.6 0,0 LnGrp LOS C A A C Approach Vol,vehth 281 1221 602 Approach Delay, s/veh 27.7 0.5 31.6 Approach LOS C A C rimer __ - I 2 3 _ 4 5, 13 7 8 _ _ _ - - [ Assigned Phs 1 2 4 6 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 34.8 18.2 12.0 53.0 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 5.0 5.0 4.5 5.0 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 17,0 15.0 18.5 37.0 Max 0 Clear Time(g_c+I1),s 2.4 12.4 6,7 2.0 Green Ext Time(p_c),s 5,3 0.8 0.9 6.9 HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 13.0 HCM 2010 LOS B Nutt -_ -= -- - User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. Mirabeau sub-area 4:00 pm 2/7/2013 PM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report PM Page 28 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 15: S Evergreen Rd & South Ramps 6/17/2016 - -. c ,-- 4\ t /* 4 4 ./ nit - - Eft, EDT _ ERR WE . vor1,,,l-fa T A __NW - if - ZSTI WA Lane Configurations 11 4 re ft11 r ) tT Traffic Volume(vehlh) 500 5 500 0 0 0 0 635 230 190 630 0 Future Volume(veh/h) 500 5 500 0 0 0 0 635 230 190 630 0 Number 3 8 18 1 6 16 5 2 12 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 Adj Sat Row,vehlh/In 1863 1937 1937 0 1863 1937 1863 1863 0 Adj Flow Rate,vehlh 536 0 265 0 676 0 202 670 0 Adj No.of Lanes 2 0 2 0 4 1 1 2 0 Peak Hour Factor 0,94 0,94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 2 2 0 2 2 2 2 0 Gap,vehlh 911 0 845 0 1134 266 691 2222 0 Arrive On Green 0.26 0.00 0.26 0.00 0.18 0.00 0.78 1.00 0.00 Sat Flow,veh/h 3548 0 3293 0 6669 1647 1774 3632 0 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 536 0 265 0 676 0 202 670 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlhlln 1774 0 1647 0 1602 1647 1774 1770 0 Q Serve(g_s),s 8.6 0.0 4.2 0.0 6.3 0.0 2.1 0.0 0.0 Cycle 0 Clear(g_c),s 8.6 0.0 4.2 0.0 6.3 0.0 2.1 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),vehlh 911 0 845 0 1134 266 691 2222 0 VIC Ratio(X) 0.59 0.00 0.31 0.00 0.60 0.00 0,29 0.30 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 1228 0 1140 0 1774 431 691 2222 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1,00 1,00 1.00 1.00 2,00 2.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(l) 1.00 0.00 1.00 0,00 0.90 0.00 0.93 0.93 0.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 21,2 0.0 19.5 0,0 24.6 0.0 4,6 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 1.3 0.0 0.4 0,0 2.1 0,0 0.5 0.3 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0,0 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %Ile BackOfQ(50%),vehlln 4.3 0.0 2.0 0.0 2.9 0,0 1,0 0.1 0.0 LnGrp Delay(d),slveh 22.4 0.0 20,0 0.0 26..7 0,0 5.1 0.3 0.0 LnGrp LOS C B C A A Approach Vol,veh/h 801 676 872 Approach Delay,s/veh 21.6 26.7 1.4 Approach LOS C C A luer-- _ 1_ 2 3 = 4 6 _ 9 7 ` r 8 Assigned Phs 2 5 6 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 44.8 29.3 15.5 20.2 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 34.0 12.0 17.0 21.5 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+t1),s 2.0 4.1 8.3 10.6 Green Ext Time(p_c),s 5.3 3.0 2.2 5.1 HCM 2010 Ctri Delay 15.6 HCM 2010 LOS B User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. Mirabeau sub-area 4:00 pm 2/7/2013 PM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report PM Page 30 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 16: Mission Connector & E Mission Ave 6/17/2016 —► '— `, p M0/01trent. EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 210 190 30 250 95 65 Future Volume(Vehlh) 210 190 30 250 95 65 Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 0,91 0.91 0,91 0.91 Hourly flow rate(vph) 231 209 33 275 104 71 Pedestrians 1 1 Lane Width(ft) 12.0 12.0 Walking Speed(ftls) 4,0 4,0 Percent Blockage 0 0 Right turn flare(veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal(ft) pX,platoon unblocked vC,conflicting volume 231 573 232 vC1,stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu,unblocked vol 231 573 232 tC,single(s) 4,1 6.4 6.2 tC,2 stage(s) tF(s) 2.2 3.5 3,3 p0 queue free% 98 78 91 cM capacity(veh/h) 1337 469 806 Direction,Lane# EB 1 EB 2 WB 1 WB 2 NB 1 NB 2 Volume Total 231 209 33 275 104 71 Volume Left 0 0 33 0 104 0 Volume Right 0 209 0 0 0 71 cSH 1700 1700 1337 1700 469 806 Volume to Capacity 0.14 0.12 0,02 0.16 0.22 0.09 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 2 0 21 7 Control Delay(s) 0.0 0.0 7.8 0.0 14.9 9.9 Lane LOS A B A Approach Delay(s) 0.0 0.8 12.8 Approach LOS B pntersection Summary — -- — -- Average Delay 2.7 Intersection Capacity Utilization 29.9% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period(min) 15 Mirabeau sub-area 4:00 pm 217/2013 PM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report PM Page 31 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 17: Sullivan & E Indiana Ave 6/1712016 Movernerit _ E±81_, E=6T Mt OW WO-'WAX N Liiar _ ' SEC `r $ Lane Configurations 'I'1 T1a 7' 'i T1+ r vi"i TT r ) TT1; Traffic Volume(vph) 130 105 330 125 260 195 320 600 70 55 1020 125 Future Volume(vph) 130 105 330 125 260 195 320 600 70 55 1020 125 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1625 1625 1625 1900 1625 1900 1625 1900 1900 1900 1900 1625 Total Lost time(s) 4.0 5.0 5.0 4,0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4,0 5.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util.Factor 0.97 0.91 0.91 1.00 0,91 0,91 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.91 Frpb,ped/bikes 1.00 0.99 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 Flpb,ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 Frt 1.00 0.91 0,85 1.00 0.97 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.98 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1,00 Satd.Flow(prot) 2936 2628 1228 1787 2812 1354 2965 3438 1572 1736 4952 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Said. Flow(perm) 2936 2628 1228 1787 2812 1354 2965 3438 1572 1736 4952 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.89 0.89 0.89 0,89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0,89 0,89 0.89 0.89 Adj. Flow(vph) 146 118 371 140 292 219 360 674 79 62 1146 140 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 163 162 0 14 129 0 0 41 0 11 0 Lane Group Flow(vph) 146 141 23 140 342 26 360 674 38 62 1275 0 Confl. Peds.(#1hr) 1 1 2 2 1 1 Conti.Bikes(#Ihr) 1 5 Heavy Vehicles(%) 2% 2% 1% 1% 1% 7% 1% 5% 1% 4% 3% 2% Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 1 6 5 2 Permitted Phases 4 8 6 Actuated Green,G(s) 11.8 16.3 16.3 15.4 20.9 20.9 19.0 63.2 63,2 15.1 59,3 Effective Green,g(s) 11.8 16.3 16.3 16.4 20.9 21.9 19.0 64,2 63,2 16.1 60.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0,09 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.16 0,17 0.15 0,49 0.49 0.12 0.46 Clearance Time(s) 4.0 5.0 5.0 5,0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5,0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension(s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3,0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3,0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 266 329 153 225 452 228 433 1697 764 214 2296 vis Ratio Prot 0.05 0.05 c0.08 c0.12 c0.12 0.20 0.04 c0.26 Ws Ratio Perm 0.02 0.02 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.55 0,43 0.15 0.62 0.76 0.11 0.83 0.40 0,05 0.29 0.56 Uniform Delay,d1 56.6 52.6 50,7 53.9 52.1 45.8 53.9 20.7 17,6 51.8 25.2 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.75 0.42 6.26 1,00 1.00 Incremental Delay,d2 2.3 0.9 0.5 5.3 7.1 0.2 12.3 0.7 0,1 0.8 1.0 Delay(s) 58,9 53,5 51.1 59.1 59.2 46,1 52.8 9.4 110.3 52.5 26,1 Level of Service E D D E E D D A F D C Approach Delay(s) 54.0 56.0 30.6 27,4 Approach LOS D E C C it*Mittan E 1 :- i HCM 2000 Control Delay 37.8 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0,66 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 130.0 Sum of lost time(s) 19.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 68,9% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period(min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Mirabeau sub-area 4:00 pm 2/7/2013 PM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report PM Page 33 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 18: Sullivan & WB on-ramp 6/17/2016 -A --.. i_ 4- 4\ t /* `► 1 4' Lane EBL • ''! BT ,VIA N k O NIBS Traffic Volume(vph) 0 0 0 200 150 0 0 990 0 0 1105 375 Future Volume(vph) 0 0 0 200 150 0 0 990 0 0 1105 375 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util.Factor 1.00 1.00 0.91 0.91 0.91 Frt 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0,95 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd.Flow(prot) 1805 1900 5036 3401 1386 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 1805 1900 5036 3401 1386 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 0,88 0.88 0.88 0,88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Adj. Flow(vph) 0 0 0 227 170 0 0 1125 0 0 1256 426 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Lane Group Flow(vph) 0 0 0 227 170 0 0 1125 0 0 1298 383 Heavy Vehicles(%) 2% 2% 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3% 0% 0% 1% 6% Turn Type Split NA NA NA Free Protected Phases 18! 18! 1 2 6 2 4 519! Permitted Phases Free Actuated Green,G(s) 36.7 36.7 83.3 80.6 130.0 Effective Green,g(s) 37.7 37.7 84.3 81.6 130.0 Actuated 91C Ratio 0,29 0.29 0.65 0.63 1.00 Clearance Time(s) 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension(s) 3,0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 523 551 3265 2134 1386 v/s Ratio Prot c0.13 0.09 c0,22 c0.38 v/s Ratio Perm 0.28 vfc Ratio 0.43 0.31 0.34 0.61 0.28 Uniform Delay,d1 37.5 36.0 10.3 14.6 0.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1,00 0.55 0.36 1,00 Incremental Delay,d2 0.6 0,3 0.1 0.4 0.4 Delay(s) 38.1 36.3 5,7 5.7 0.4 Level of Service D D A A A Approach Delay(s) 0.0 37.3 5,7 4.5 Approach LOS A D A A n0`t ti Gi2t(Mi `,, HCM 2000 Control Delay 9.0 HCM 2000 Level of Service A HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.58 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 130.0 Sum of lost time(s) 17.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 52.3% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period(min) 15 Phase conflict between lane groups. c Critical Lane Group Mirabeau sub-area 4:00 pm 2/7/2013 PM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report PM Page 35 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 19: Sullivan & 1-90 EB on 6/17/2016 - c 4- k- 4\ t ,4 \* 4- 41 Lane Configurations 'K 4fi rig i t r vivi H' Traffic Volume(veh/h) 290 1 790 0 0 0 0 1120 260 225 1080 0 Future Volume(vehlh) 290 1 790 0 0 0 0 1120 260 225 1080 0 Number 3 8 18 1 6 16 5 2 12 Initial 0(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-BikeAdj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 Parking Bus,Adj 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,vehlh/In 1759 1760 1900 0 1881 1900 1881 1881 0 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 303 0 670 0 1167 155 234 1125 0 Adj No.of Lanes 2 0 2 0 2 1 2 2 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0,96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0,96 0.96 Percent Heavy Veh,% 8 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 Cap,veh/h 839 0 809 0 2015 910 325 2460 0 Arrive On Green 0.25 0,00 0,25 0.00 1.00 1.00 0,09 0.69 0.00 Sat Flow,vehlh 3351 0 3230 0 3668 1614 3476 3668 0 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 303 0 670 0 1167 155 234 1125 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1675 0 1615 0 1787 1614 1738 1787 0 Q Serve(g_s),s 9,7 0.0 25.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.5 18.6 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 9.7 0,0 25.5 0.0 0.0 0,0 8.5 18.6 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 0,00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),vehlh 839 0 809 0 2015 910 325 2460 0 WC Ratio(X) 0,36 0,00 0.83 0,00 0.58 0,17 0,72 0.46 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 1057 0 1019 0 2015 910 561 2460 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2,00 2.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0,95 0.95 1,00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay(d),slveh 40,2 0,0 46.1 0.0 0.0 0,0 57.3 9.2 0.0 lncr Delay(d2),slveh 0.3 0.0 4,7 0.0 1,2 0.4 3,0 0.6 0.0 Initial 0 Delay(d3),slveh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOtQ(50%),vehlln 4.5 0.0 11.9 0.0 0.3 0.1 4.2 9.3 0.0 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 40.4 0.0 50.8 0,0 1.2 0.4 60,3 9.8 0.0 LnGrp LOS D D A A E A Approach Vol,veh/h 973 1322 1359 Approach Delay,s/veh 47.6 1.1 18.5 Approach LOS D A B 11 t r 1 2 3, -4 5 6 7 8 _ _ J Assigned Phs 2 5 6 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 93.5 16.2 77.3 36.5 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5,0 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 80.0 20.0 55,0 40.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+11),s 20.6 10.5 2,0 27,5 Green Ext Time(p_c),s 22.0 0.7 21.3 4.0 HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 19.9 HCM 2010 LOS B bts j User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. Mirabeau sub-area 4:00 pm 2/7/2013 PM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report PM Page 38 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 20: Sullivan & E Mission Ave 6/17/2016 -ft --P. - r 'r k- 4\ t I' \' 1 4/ ivemont ESL EST ERR VI 9 i_ ,� . vat L- NST NBR: `B SST SBA Lane Configurations 41 r 4 r vi t+ta 9 +414 Traffic Volume(vehlh) 105 5 125 30 10 65 80 1210 20 50 1710 110 Future Volume(veh/h) 105 5 125 30 10 65 80 1210 20 50 1710 110 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,vehlhlln 1900 1882 1881 1900 1900 1900 1900 1881 1900 1900 1881 1900 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 107 5 16 31 10 8 82 1235 20 51 1745 112 Adj No.of Lanes 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 3 0 1 3 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Percent Heavy Veh,% 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 Cap,vehlh 54 1 387 49 9 390 483 3254 53 66 1910 122 Arrive On Green 0,24 0.24 0,24 0.24 0.24 0,24 0.27 0.62 0.62 0.07 0,77 0,76 Sat Flow,veh/h 0 6 1597 0 39 1611 1810 5207 84 1810 4933 316 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 112 0 16 41 0 8 82 812 443 51 1210 647 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlhlln 6 0 1597 39 0 1611 1810 1712 1867 1810 1712 1825 Q Serve(g_s),s 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 4.5 15,2 15.2 3,6 35,4 35.8 Cycle Q Clear(gc),s 31.5 0,0 1.0 31.5 0.0 0.5 4.5 15.2 15.2 3,6 35.4 35.8 Prop In Lane 0.96 1.00 0.76 1.00 1.00 0.05 1.00 0.17 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 56 0 387 58 0 390 483 2140 1166 66 1325 707 WC Ratio(X) 2.02 0.00 0.04 0,71 0,00 0,02 0.17 0.38 0,38 0.77 0.91 0,92 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 56 0 387 58 0 390 483 2140 1166 306 1791 955 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 2,00 2.00 2.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1,00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 0.72 0.72 0.72 Uniform Delay(d),slveh 64.2 0.0 37.7 57,8 0.0 37,5 36.6 12.0 12,0 59.7 13.0 13,2 lncr Delay(d2),s/veh 515.2 0.0 0.0 28,2 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.5 0.9 5.0 8.4 14.3 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 °/wile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 9.9 0.0 0.4 1.9 0.0 0.2 2.3 7.3 8.1 1.9 17.3 20,1 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 579.5 0.0 37.7 86.0 0.0 37,5 36.8 12.5 12,9 64.7 21.4 27.5 LnGrp LOS F D F D D B B E C C Approach Vol,vehlh 128 49 1337 1908 Approach Delay,s/veh 511.8 78.1 14,1 24.6 Approach LOS F E B C i er - 1 2 3 4 - 5 6 _ 7 8' - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),s 8.8 85.2 36.0 39.7 54.3 36.0 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.0 5.0 5.5 5.0 *5 5.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 22.0 63.0 30.5 18.0 A 67 30.5 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+11),s 5,6 17.2 33.5 6,5 37.8 33.5 Green Ext Time(p_c),s 0.1 7.3 0.0 4.9 11,5 0.0 HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 39.5 HCM 2010 LOS D *HCM 2010 computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. Mirabeau sub-area 4:00 pm 2/7/2013 PM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report PM Page 40 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 21: 1-90 WB off& E Indiana Ave 6/17/2016 --► 'i, ►- 4- 4\ r' 'J ,* Movement I, T iN l ma, _ Lane Configurations Tt li Tt 'V Traffic Volume(vehlh) 235 0 210 330 245 18 0 0 Future Volume(vehlh) 235 0 210 330 245 18 0 0 Number 4 14 3 8 1 16 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,vehlh/In 1881 0 1625 1900 1865 1900 Adj Flow Rate,vehlh 273 0 244 384 285 0 Adj No.of Lanes 2 0 1 2 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0,86 0.86 Percent Heavy Veh,% 1 0 0 0 0 0 Cap,vehlh 821 0 305 2012 483 0 Arrive On Green 0.23 0.00 0.20 0,56 0.27 0.00 Sal Flow,vehlh 3762 0 1548 3705 1771 0 Grp Volume(v),vehlh 273 0 244 384 286 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlhlln 1787 0 1548 1805 1777 0 Q Serve(g_s),s 2.4 0.0 5.8 2.0 5.3 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.4 0.0 5.8 2.0 5.3 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),vehlh 821 0 305 2012 484 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.33 0.00 0.80 0,19 0.59 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a),vehlh 2475 0 607 2500 1950 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 12.3 0,0 14.6 4.2 12,1 0.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 0.2 0.0 4.8 0.0 1.1 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0,0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),vehlln 1.2 0.0 2.8 1.0 2.8 0.0 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 12.5 0.0 19,5 4.2 13.2 0.0 LnGrp LOS B B A B Approach Vol,vehlh 273 628 286 Approach Delay,slveh 12.5 10.2 13.2 Approach LOS B B B rile 1 2;_ 3 4 5� _6 _ '- 8 -- _ Assigned Phs 3 4 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),s 12.5 12.3 13.4 24.8 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 5.0 5.0 5,0 5,0 Max Green Setting(Gmax), s 15.0 25.0 40.0 25.0 Max 0 Clear Time(g_c+11),s 7,8 4.4 7,3 4.0 Green Ext Time(p_c),s 0.4 2.9 1.1 2.9 Intersection Summary _ _ HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 11.4 HCM 2010 LOS B Pfges User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. Mirabeau sub-area 4:00 pm 2/7/2013 PM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report PM Page 42 Appendix B HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 1: Pines/Cement Road & Trent (SR 290) 6/17/2016 s -. NV r '- 4\ t P \. 1 4 li ve`r t - - A :- ' - ' _ti , rt :-,, _F_I K1 8 i_ 1`' Lane Configurations I 1+ r,P " TA 1 4 ri 4, Traffic Volume(veh/h) 5 905 265 310 505 20 315 35 465 25 35 5 Future Volume(veh/h) 5 905 265 310 505 20 315 35 465 25 35 5 Number 1 6 16 5 2 12 7 4 14 3 8 18 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,vehlh/ln 1491 1578 1609 1593 1557 1625 1609 1609 1593 1625 1577 1625 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 5 953 0 326 532 21 358 0 215 26 37 5 Adj No.of Lanes 1 2 1 1 2 0 2 0 1 0 1 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0,95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0,95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh,% 9 3 1 2 4 4 1 1 2 1 1 1 Cap,vehlh 9 1112 507 350 1726 68 464 0 517 33 47 6 Arrive On Green 0,01 0.37 0,00 0.23 0.59 0,59 0.15 0,00 0.15 0.06 0,06 0.06 Sat Flow,veh/h 1420 2998 1368 1517 2901 114 3065 0 1351 584 831 112 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 5 953 0 326 271 282 358 0 215 68 0 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlhlln 1420 1499 1368 1517 1479 1537 1532 0 1351 1528 0 0 Q Serve(g_s),s 0,4 33,0 0.0 23.7 10,2 10.3 12.6 0.0 13.2 4.9 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 0.4 33.0 0.0 23.7 10,2 10.3 12.6 0.0 13.2 4,9 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0,07 1,00 1,00 0.38 0.07 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 9 1112 507 350 880 914 464 0 517 86 0 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.55 0.86 0.00 0.93 0.31 0.31 0.77 0.00 0.42 0,79 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap(ca),veh/h 76 1252 571 377 907 942 790 0 660 333 0 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1,00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1,00 1,00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay(d),slveh 55.8 32.7 0.0 42.4 11.3 11.3 45.9 0,0 25,6 52.5 0.0 0.0 lncr Delay(d2),s/veh 42.7 5.6 0.0 28.7 0.2 0.2 2.8 0.0 0,5 14.8 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.3 14.5 0.0 12.7 4.2 4.4 5.5 0.0 4,9 2.5 0.0 0.0 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 98.4 38.2 0.0 71.2 11,5 11.5 48,6 0.0 26.1 67.3 0,0 0.0 LnGrp LOS F D E B B D C E Approach Vol,veh/h 958 879 573 68 Approach Delay,s/veh 38.6 33.6 40,2 67.3 Approach LOS D C D E trimer _ 1 _- ,2 3` 4 s 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),s 6.7 73,0 22,0 31.9 47.7 10.8 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 6,0 6,0 5.0 6.0 6.0 4.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 6.0 69.0 29.0 28.0 47.0 24.5 Max()Clear Time(g_c+11),s 2.4 12.3 15.2 25.7 35,0 6.9 Green Ext Time(p_c),s 0.0 12.4 1.8 0,2 6.7 0.2 _ -_ _ T • 1 HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 38.0 HCM 2010 LOS D Note :. I User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. Mirabeau sub-area Existing Optimized Improved 4:00 pm 2/7/2013 Synchro 8 Report PM Page 2 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 3: Pines & Mirabeau Parkway 6/17/2016 I' -. c 4- k 4\ fi t \. 1 4/ ape" Ear -: _, '. i. - . _ 141;gl 8 Lane Configurations 4 4 r '1 +1+ !I Tt+ Traffic Volume(vehlh) 0 0 5 100 0 165 5 605 35 110 505 5 Future Volume(veh/h) 0 0 5 100 0 165 5 605 35 110 505 5 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0,99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,vehlh/In 1625 1593 1625 1625 1593 1593 1593 1593 1625 1593 1593 1625 Adj Flow Rate,vehlh 0 0 5 110 0 181 5 665 38 121 555 5 Adj No.of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 2 0 1 2 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0,91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,vehlh 0 0 9 232 0 207 556 1734 99 501 1966 18 Arrive On Green 0.00 0,00 0.01 0.15 0.00 0,15 0.01 0,60 0,60 0.05 0.64 0.64 Sat Flow,veh/h 0 0 1346 1517 0 1354 1517 2911 166 1517 3074 28 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 0 0 5 110 0 181 5 346 357 121 273 287 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlhlln 0 0 1346 1517 0 1354 1517 1513 1564 1517 1513 1588 Q Serve(g_s),s 0,0 0.0 0,4 6.4 0.0 12.7 0.1 11.6 11.6 2,8 7.7 7.7 Cycle Q Ciear(g_c), s 0.0 0.0 0.4 6.4 0.0 12.7 0.1 11.6 11.6 2.8 7.7 7.7 Prop In Lane 0.00 1,00 1.00 1,00 1.00 0.11 1.00 0.02 Lane Grp Cap(c),vehlh 0 0 9 232 0 207 556 901 931 501 968 1016 V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 0.00 0.57 0.47 0.00 0.87 0.01 0.38 0.38 0.24 0,28 0.28 Avail Cap(c_a),vehlh 0 0 139 250 0 223 642 901 931 599 968 1016 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),slveh 0,0 0,0 48.1 37,5 0,0 40.2 7.8 10,3 10.3 7.0 7,7 7.7 Incr Delay(d2), s/veh 0.0 0,0 47.6 1.5 0,0 28.2 0.0 1.2 1.2 0.2 0.7 0.7 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %Ile BackOfQ(50%),vehlln 0.0 0.0 0.2 2.8 0,0 6.4 0.1 5.1 5.3 1.2 3.4 3,5 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 0.0 95,6 39.0 0.0 68.4 7.8 11.5 11.5 7.3 8.4 8.4 LnGrp LOS F D E A BB A A A Approach Vol,vehlh 5 291 708 681 Approach Delay,s/veh 95.6 57.3 11.5 8,2 Approach LOS F E B A rfirver - 1 2 3 4 6 6 7 8 I Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 8.8 62.8 5.6 4.5 67,0 19.8 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 11.0 41.0 10.0 6.0 46.0 16.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+I1),s 4.8 13.6 2.4 2.1 9.7 14.7 Green Ext Time(p_c),s 0.1 8.6 0.0 0.0 9.3 0.2 HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 18.3 HCM 2010 LOS B Mirabeau sub-area Existing Optimized Improved 4:00 pm 2/7/2013 Synchro 8 Report PM Page 7 HCM 2010 TWSC 5: Pines & Grace Ln 6117/2016 Intersection - t Int Delay, slveh 3.4 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4+ 4 41* 41. Traffic Vol,veh/h 20 5 30 40 5 20 60 600 45 30 550 25 Future Vol,veh/h 20 5 30 40 5 20 60 600 45 30 550 25 Conflicting Peds,#/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length - - - - - - - - - - - - Veh in Median Storage,# - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade,% - 0 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 Heavy Vehicles,% 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 Mvmt Flow 22 5 32 43 5 22 65 645 48 32 591 27 Major/Minor Minor Minor2 Mimi Major1 Major2" _ l Conflicting Flow All 1123 1492 309 1161 1481 347 618 0 0 694 0 0 Stage 1 669 669 - 798 798 - - - - - - - Stage 2 454 823 - 363 683 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9 4.12 - - 4.12 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.5 5.5 - 6.5 5.5 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.5 5.5 - 6.5 5.5 - - - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 4 3.3 3.5 4 3.3 2.21 - - 2•21 - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver *163 125 *890 *153 127 *845 1240 - - 1235 - - Stage 1 *692 637 - *643 596 - - - - - - - Stage 2 *797 577 - *839 627 - - - - - - - Platoon blocked, % 1 1 1 - - 1 - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver *139 110 *890 *129 111 *845 1240 - - 1235 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver *139 110 - *129 111 - - - - - - - Stage 1 *632 612 - *588 545 - - - - - - - Stage 2 *703 528 - *769 602 - - - - - - - Approach EB WB NB Sti _ __I HCM Control Delay, s 24.1 39.6 0.9 0.5 HCM LOS C E Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR l Capacity(veh/h) 1240 - - 247 172 1235 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.052 - - 0.239 0.406 0.026 - - HCM Control Delay(s) 8.1 0.3 - 24.1 39.6 8 0.1 - HCM Lane LOS A A - C E A A - HCM 95th%tile Q(veh) 0,2 - - 0.9 1,8 0.1 - - Notes -i -:Volume exceeds capacity $:Delay exceeds 300s -f:Computation Not Defined *:All major volume in platoon Mirabeau sub-area Existing Optimized Improved 4:00 pm 2/7/2013 Synchro 8 Report PM Page 11 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 9: Pines & EB Ramps 6/17/2016 J -w { k- 4\ 1 P \P' 1 4/ gomertt Sit t -EBR, mt. WhfBT _ weiR -NBA_____ n OR. ikat,_ ,` °a io; Lane Configurations d re ft. II ft Traffic Volume(veh/h) 370 5 650 0 0 0 0 1215 365 230 1035 0 Future Volume(veh/h) 370 5 650 0 0 0 0 1215 365 230 1035 0 Number 3 8 18 1 6 16 5 2 12 Initial Q(Oh),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-BikeAdj(A_pbT) 1.00 0,99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,vehlhlln 1650 1618 1618 0 1618 1650 1618 1618 0 Adj Flow Rate,vehfh 381 5 637 0 1253 352 237 1067 0 Adj No.of Lanes 0 1 2 0 2 0 1 2 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0,97 0.97 0.97 0,97 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 2 2 0 2 2 2 2 0 Cap,veh/h 357 5 562 0 1230 339 236 2163 0 Arrive On Green 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.00 1,00 1,00 0.15 0.70 0,00 Sat Flow,veh/h 1522 20 2394 0 2463 656 1541 3154 0 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 386 0 637 0 799 806 237 1067 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1542 0 1197 0 1537 1502 1541 1537 0 Q Serve(g_s),s 30.5 0.0 30.5 0,0 0,0 67.1 19,9 20.5 0.0 Cycle 0 Clear(g_c),s 30.5 0,0 30.5 0,0 0.0 67,1 19.9 20,5 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.99 1.00 0,00 0.44 1.00 0.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),vehfh 362 0 562 0 793 775 236 2163 0 WC Ratio(X) 1.07 0.00 1.13 0.00 1.01 1.04 1.00 0.49 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 362 0 562 0 793 775 236 2163 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2,00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.44 0.44 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 49.8 0.0 49.8 0.0 0,0 0.0 55.0 8.7 0.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 66.3 0.0 80.6 0.0 23.0 32.3 59.9 0.8 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),slveh 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 %Ile BackOfQ(50%),vehlln 19.6 0.0 16.4 0.0 5.1 7.0 12.4 8.8 0.0 LnGrp Delay(d),slveh 116.1 0.0 130.3 0.0 23,0 32.3 114.9 9,5 0.0 LnGrp LOS F F _ F F F A Approach Vol,veh/h 1023 1605 1304 Approach Delay,slveh 125.0 27.7 28.7 Approach LOS F C C inter _ - It 2 3 4 6 8 7 8 -1 Assigned Phs 2 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),s 96.0 24.4 71.6 34.0 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 5,5 5.5 5,5 4.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 67.5 18,9 66.1 29.5 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+l1),s 22.5 21.9 69.1 32.5 Green Ext Time(p_c),s 6.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 OWN', ''' ._1, HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 53,3 HCM 2010 LOS D Mirabeau sub-area Existing Optimized Improved 4:00 pm 2/712013 Synchro 8 Report PM Page 19 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 10: Pines & Mission 6/17/2016 -' -► le '- k- 41 t r* ti 1 4' IVIQveM nt EBL EBT E*R wet. WBT 1NBR NBL NBT NBR SB, MT SO Lane Configurations M. 4+ r 'i VI T1a Traffic Volume(veh/h) 265 155 65 90 130 350 45 970 30 275 1150 270 Future Volume(veh/h) 265 155 65 90 130 350 45 970 30 275 1150 270 Number 3 8 18 7 4 14 1 6 16 5 2 12 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,vehlhlln 1650 1618 1650 1650 1618 1618 1618 1618 1650 1618 1618 1650 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 279 163 68 95 137 88 47 1021 32 289 1211 268 Adj No.of Lanes 0 2 0 0 2 1 1 2 0 2 2 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0,95 0.95 0,95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,vehlh 273 192 80 129 203 146 202 1446 45 350 1157 253 Arrive On Green 0,18 0.18 0.17 0,11 0,11 0.11 0.13 0.48 0.47 0.23 0.92 0.91 Sat Flow,veh/h 1541 1084 452 1201 1893 1363 1541 3042 95 2989 2507 549 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 279 0 231 123 109 88 47 516 537 289 738 741 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlhlln 1541 0 1537 1558 1537 1363 1541 1537 1601 1494 1537 1519 Q Serve(g_s),s 23,0 0.0 18.9 10.0 8,8 8.0 3.6 34.4 34.5 11.9 60.0 60.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 23.0 0.0 18.9 10.0 8,8 8.0 3,6 34.4 34.5 11.9 60.0 60.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.29 0.77 1.00 1.00 0,06 1.00 0.36 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 273 0 272 167 165 146 202 731 761 350 709 701 V/C Ratio(X) 1.02 0.00 0.85 0,74 0.66 0.60 0.23 0.71 0.71 0.83 1.04 1.06 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 273 0 272 240 236 210 202 731 761 368 709 701 HCM Platoon Ratio 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1,00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 0.66 0.66 0.66 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 53,5 0.0 52.0 56.2 55.7 55.4 50.6 26.9 26.9 48,5 5.0 5.4 lncr Delay(d2),s/veh 60,7 0.0 21.6 6.8 4.4 3.9 0.6 5.7 5.5 12.6 38.4 44.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/n 14.4 0.0 9.7 4.6 3.9 3.2 1.5 15.8 16.4 5,5 28.0 29.3 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 114.3 0.0 73,6 63.0 60.2 59.3 51.2 32.6 32.4 61.1 43.4 49.4 LnGrp LOS F E E E E D C C E F F Approach Vol,veh/h 510 320 1100 1768 Approach Delay,slveh 95.9 61.0 33,3 48.8 Approach LOS F E C D ;'imp -1 2 3 4 . 5 6 7 8 _j Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 21.0 64.0 18.0 19,2 65.8 27.0 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5,0 5,0 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 10.0 59.0 19.0 15.0 54.0 22.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+11),s 5,6 62.0 12.0 13.9 36.5 25,0 Green Ext Time(pc),s 2.1 0.0 0.7 0.3 4.7 0.0 tf4� 1r HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 51.7 HCM 2010 LOS D Mirabeau sub-area Existing Optimized Improved 4:00 pm 2/7/2013 Synchro 8 Report PM Page 21 Appendix C HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 1: Pines/Cement Road & Trent (SR 290) 6/1712016 J -. c 4 A ? P \* 4, 4/ toottato - wry ; Lane Configurations i iifi r /111 i'i► VI + r 11 1a Traffic Volume(vehlh) 10 1125 350 420 690 20 455 80 575 35 75 10 Future Volume(veh/h) 10 1125 350 420 690 20 455 80 575 35 75 10 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,vehlh/In 1491 1578 1609 1593 1558 1625 1609 1609 1593 1548 1596 1625 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 11 1223 380 457 750 22 495 87 457 38 82 11 Adj No.of Lanes 1 2 1 2 2 0 2 1 1 1 1 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0,92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh,% 9 3 1 2 4 4 1 1 2 5 1 1 Cap,veh/h 18 1204 788 506 1646 48 522 328 508 45 81 11 Arrive On Green 0,01 0.40 0.40 0.17 0.56 0.56 0.18 0,20 0.20 0.03 0,06 0.06 Sat Flow,vehlh 1420 2998 1365 2944 2937 86 2973 1609 1352 1474 1378 185 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 11 1223 380 457 378 394 495 87 457 38 0 93 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlhlln 1420 1499 1365 1472 1480 1543 1486 1609 1352 1474 0 1563 Q Serve(g_s),s 0.9 48.0 19,5 18.2 18.0 18.0 19,7 5.4 24.4 3.1 0.0 7.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.9 48.0 19.5 18.2 18.0 18.0 19.7 5.4 24.4 3.1 0.0 7.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.06 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.12 Lane Grp Cap(c),vehlh 18 1204 788 506 830 865 522 328 508 45 0 92 WC Ratio(X) 0.61 1,02 0.48 0.90 0.46 0.46 0.95 0.27 0.90 0.85 0.00 1.02 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 59 1204 788 542 830 865 522 328 508 62 0 92 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),slveh 58,7 35.8 14.8 48.5 15.5 15,5 48,7 40.0 35.2 57.7 0.0 56.3 lncr Delay(d2),slveh 28.3 30,0 0.5 17.9 0.4 0,4 26.8 0.4 18,8 51,2 0,0 98.5 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0,0 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 %Ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 0.5 24.7 7.4 8.7 7.4 7.8 10.1 2.5 16.8 1.9 0,0 5.5 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 87,0 65.8 15.3 66.4 15.9 15.9 75.6 40.5 54.0 108.9 0.0 154.9 LnGrp LOS F F B E B BED D F F Approach Vol,vehlh 1614 1229 1039 131 Approach Delay,slveh 54.0 34.7 63.1 141.5 Approach LOS D C E F (f mer_ .1. 2 3 ` 4 5 6 7 1 , Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 9,6 29.4 26.5 54.0 27.0 12,0 7.5 73.0 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 6.0 5.0 6.0 *6 6.0 5,0 6.0 6.0 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 5,0 23.0 22.0 *48 21.0 7.0 5.0 64.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+11),s 5.1 26.4 20.2 50.0 21.7 9.0 2.9 20.0 Green Ext Time(pc),s 0.0 0.0 0,3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 21.9 HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 53.3 HCM 2010 LOS D Nam . *HCM 2010 computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. Mirabeau sub-area 2040 Improvements 4:00 pm 2/7/2013 Synchro 8 Report PM Page 2 HCM 2010 TWSC 2: Pines & Pinecroft Way 6/17/2016 Intersection I Int Delay,slveh 0.6 Movement ESL EBT EBR WBL WBT WEIR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBIzi Lane Configurations 4* r "1 TA ) 44 Traffic Vol,veh/h 5 0 5 0 0 95 0 1005 10 0 845 0 Future Vol,veh/h 5 0 5 0 0 95 0 1005 10 0 845 0 Conflicting Peds,#/hr 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length - - - - - 0 200 - - 300 - - Veh in Median Storage,# - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade,% - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 5 0 5 0 0 103 0 1092 11 0 918 0 Major/Minor Minor2 -Minerl Major-I Major2 1 Conflicting Flow All 1465 2021 461 - - 553 918 0 0 1103 0 0 Stage 1 918 918 - - - - - - - - - - Stage 2 547 1103 - - - - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy 7.54 6.54 6.94 - - 6.94 4.14 - - 4.14 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.54 5,54 - - - - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.54 5,54 - - - - - - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.52 4,02 3.32 - - 3.32 2.22 - - 2 22 - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver *277 *84 547 0 0 *666 739 - - *997 - - Stage 1 *292 *349 - 0 0 - - - - - - - Stage 2 *628 *551 - 0 0 - - - - - - - Platoon blocked,% 1 1 1 - - 1 - - May Cap-1 Maneuver *234 *84 546 - - *666 738 - - *996 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver *234 *84 - - - - - - - - - - Stage 1 *292 *349 - - - - - - - - - - Stage 2 *530 *551 - - - - - - - - - - Approach EB WB NB SB f HCM Contml Delay,s 16.4 11.4 0 0 HCM LOS C B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR -1 Capacity(veh/h) 738 - - 328 666 *996 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - - 0.033 0.155 - - - HCM Control Delay(s) 0 - - 16.4 11.4 0 - - HCM Lane LOS A - - C B A - - HCM 95th%tile Q(veh) 0 - - 0.1 0.5 0 - - Notes 1 Volume exceeds capacity $:Delay exceeds 300s +:Computation Not Defined *:All major volume in platoon Mirabeau sub-area 2040 Base 4;00 pm 2/7/2013 Synchro 8 Report PM Page 5 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 3: Pines & Mirabeau Parkway 6/17/2016 t -• 4 - k 4s, ? P "* I MT Werk NBI. NBT ` ,+ BR Lane Configurations 4► 4 r '1 T1, ) +1a Traffic Volume(veh/h) 0 0 5 265 0 405 5 610 215 290 555 5 Future Volume(veh/h) 0 0 5 265 0 405 5 610 215 290 555 5 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0,99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1,00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1,00 Adj Sat Flow,vehlhlln 1625 1593 1625 1625 1593 1593 1593 1593 1625 1593 1593 1625 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 0 0 5 288 0 351 5 663 159 315 603 5 Adj No.of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 2 0 1 2 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0,92 0.92 0.92 0,92 0.92 0.92 0,92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 0 0 9 379 0 339 440 1116 267 420 1785 15 Arrive On Green 0.00 0.00 0.01 0,25 0.00 0.25 0.01 0.46 0.46 0,12 0.58 0.58 Sat Flow,veh/h 0 0 1344 1517 0 1354 1517 2424 581 1517 3077 26 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 0 0 5 288 0 351 5 414 408 315 297 311 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlhlln 0 0 1344 1517 0 1354 1517 1513 1491 1517 1513 1589 Q Serve(g s),s 0.0 0,0 0.4 21.1 0,0 30,0 0.2 24.4 24.4 12.5 12.3 12.3 Cycle Q Clear(gc), s 0.0 0.0 0.4 21.1 0.0 30.0 0.2 24.4 24.4 12,5 12.3 12.3 Prop In Lane 0.00 1,00 1.00 1,00 1.00 0.39 1.00 0.02 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 0 0 9 379 0 339 440 697 686 420 878 922 WC Ratio(X) 0.00 0.00 0.58 0.76 0.00 1.04 0,01 0.59 0,59 0.75 0.34 0.34 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 0 0 112 379 0 339 483 697 686 483 878 922 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1,00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.00 0.00 1,00 1.00 0.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 0.0 59.5 41.7 0.0 45.0 17.2 24.0 24.1 17.5 13.2 13.2 incr Delay(d2),s/veh 0.0 0.0 49.7 8.6 0,0 58,8 0.0 3.7 3.8 5.6 1.0 1.0 initial Q Delay(d3),slveh 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),vehlln 0.0 0.0 0.3 9.7 0.0 16,7 0.1 10.8 10.7 5.8 5,4 5.6 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0,0 0.0 109.2 50.3 0.0 103.8 17,2 27.7 27.8 23.1 14.2 14.1 LnGrp LOS F D F BCCCB B Approach Vol,vehlh 5 639 827 923 Approach Delay,s/veh 109.2 79.7 27.7 17.2 Approach LOS F E C B trimer 1 Z - 3 4 5_ _ 6 - 7- 8`_ - _ - _ Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 19,0 60,2 5.8 4,6 74.6 35.0 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4,0 5.0 5,0 4.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 20,0 41.0 10.0 4.0 57.0 30.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+l1),s 14.5 26.4 2.4 2,2 14,3 32.0 Green Ext Time(p, c),s 0.5 7.5 0,0 0,0 11.7 0.0 HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 37.7 HCM 2010 LOS D Mirabeau sub-area 2040 Base 4:00 pm 2/7/2013 Synchro 8 Report PM Page 7 HCM 2010 TWSC 4: Mirabeau Parkway & Pinecroft Way 6117/2016 ts±ilorf _ - = 1 Int Delay,slveh 1.8 MtMOM _ _ - M. an_ _ _ WBT. OR; sgt 0 . Lane Configurations I + t. V Traffic Vol,veh/h 40 515 475 25 60 40 Future Vol,veh/h 40 515 475 25 60 40 Conflicting Peds,#/hr 0 0 0 2 1 1 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 100 - - - 0 - Veh in Median Storage,# - 0 0 - 0 - Grade,% - 0 0 - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 43 560 516 27 65 43 lvlajor/M1nor - Majorl - Major2 Mfnor2 1 Conflicting Flow All 545 0 - 0 1180 533 Stage 1 - - - - 532 - Stage 2 - 648 - Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - 6,42 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - - 3.518 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1024 - - - 210 547 Stage 1 - - - - 589 - Stage 2 - - - - 521 - Platoon blocked,% - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1023 - - - 201 546 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 337 - Stage 1 - - - - 588 - Stage 2 - - - - 498 - �pprotach _.EB - -- --_ ;. - - - - - HCM Control Delay,s 0.6 0 17,4 HCM LOS C j C1tnr aioJtor Murk Eli. E.ST WBT WBRUI01' Capacity(veh/h) 1023 - - - 398 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.043 - - - 0.273 HCM Control Delay(s) 8.7 - - - 17.4 HCM Lane LOS A - - - C HCM 95th%tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - - 1,1 Mirabeau sub-area 2040 Base 4:00 pm 2/7/2013 Synchro 8 Report PM Page 9 SimTraffic Performance Report 6/20/2016 5: Pines & Grace Ln Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WST WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBF Denied Delay(hr) 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Denied Del/Veh(s) 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0,2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,1 0.0 0.0 Total Delay(hr) 0.2 0,0 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.1 0,1 1.1 0.1 0.1 0,5 0.0 Total DelNeh(s) 25.2 23,9 9.6 26.0 28,4 13.8 9,3 4.8 5,4 8.5 2.2 2.0 Stop Delay(hr) 0.2 0,0 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.1 0,1 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Stop DellVeh (s) 23,1 20.8 8,8 23,6 24.8 13,0 4.3 0.1 0.1 5.4 0.1 0,1 5: Pines & Grace Ln Performance by movement _ All Denied Delay(hr) 0.0 Denied DelNeh(s) 0.0 Total Delay(hr) 2.6 Total DelNeh(s) 5,0 Stop Delay(hr) 0.9 Stop Del/Veh(s) 1.7 Mirabeau sub-area Existing Optimized Improved SimTraffic Report AM Page 3 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 6: PINES & Mansfield 6/17/2016 - i- 1- k- 4\ t l' \► 4, d MPtement: - - - _all j'i: _ R ' l ' _ '071111- Lane Configurations 1 + r ) A "f +1. li t1a Traffic Volume(veh/h) 95 125 470 180 170 55 220 870 205 60 885 45 Future Volume(veh/h) 95 125 470 180 170 55 220 870 205 60 885 45 Number 3 8 18 7 4 14 1 6 16 5 2 12 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-BikeAdj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1,00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,vehlhlln 1667 1667 1667 1667 1667 1700 1667 1667 1700 1667 1667 1700 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 103 136 293 196 185 60 239 946 209 65 962 49 Adj No.of Lanes 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 Peak Hour Factor 0,92 0.92 0.92 0,92 0.92 0.92 0,92 0.92 0.92 0,92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 273 392 332 328 296 96 350 1381 305 251 1457 74 Arrive On Green 0.06 0.23 0.23 0.07 0.25 0.24 0,10 0,54 0.53 0.04 0.48 0.47 Sat Flow,vehlh 1587 1667 1413 1587 1204 391 1587 2574 568 1587 3066 156 Grp Volume(v),vehlh 103 136 293 196 0 245 239 581 574 65 497 514 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlhlln 1587 1667 1413 1587 0 1595 1587 1583 1558 1587 1583 1639 Q Serve(g_s),s 6.4 8.8 26.0 8,7 0,0 17.8 9.4 35.0 35,2 2.7 31.2 31.2 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 6.4 8.8 26.0 8.7 0,0 17.8 9.4 35.0 35.2 2.7 31.2 31.2 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.24 1.00 0,36 1.00 0.10 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 273 392 332 328 0 392 350 850 836 251 753 779 V/C Ratio(X) 0.38 0.35 0.88 0.60 0,00 0,63 0.68 0.68 0,69 0.26 0,66 0.66 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 273 474 402 328 0 471 436 850 836 251 753 779 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.31 0.31 0.31 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),slveh 36.1 41.4 48.0 39,3 0.0 43,7 20,0 22,1 22.3 19.3 26.1 26.1 Incr Delay(d2),slveh 0.9 0,5 17,5 2.9 0.0 1,9 1.0 1.4 1.4 0.5 4.5 4.4 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%)„vehlln 2.9 4.1 11.7 2.8 0,0 8.0 4.2 15.5 15,3 1.2 14.6 15.1 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 36.9 41.9 65.5 42.2 0.0 45.6 21.0 23.5 23,7 19.8 30.6 30.5 LnGrp LOS D D E D D C C C B C C Approach Vol,veh/h 532 441 1394 1076 Approach Delay,slveh 54,0 44,1 23,1 29.9 Approach LOS D D C C Miner ---_ _-1, 2 3 -4 6 6.- - -7 a. - ____I Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),s 17.0 65.8 11.3 35,9 9.0 73.8 12,7 34.5 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 5.0 5.0 4.5 4,5 5,0 5.0 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax), s 19,0 47,3 6.8 37.9 4.0 62.3 8.2 36.5 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+I1),s 11.4 33.2 8.4 19.8 4.7 37,2 10.7 28.0 Green Ext Time(p_c),s 0.5 8.5 0.0 2.8 0,0 11.7 0.0 2.0 HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 32.7 HCM 2010 LOS C Mirabeau sub-area 2040 Base 4;00 pm 2/7/2013 Synchro 8 Report PM Page 13 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 7: 1-90 WB off-ramp & INDIANA 6/17/2016 -► .."V c ~ 4\ P gooftefil - -_ GeV _OR WSL WB N __ _ _ __ Lane Configurations TT TT vill r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 490 0 0 530 495 10 Future Volume(veh/h) 490 0 0 530 495 10 Number 8 18 7 4 1 16 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/In 1634 0 0 1634 1587 1587 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 533 0 0 576 538 0 Adj No.of Lanes 2 0 0 2 2 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0,92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh,% 1 0 0 1 4 4 Cap,veh/h 2232 0 0 2232 643 286 Arrive On Green 0,72 0.00 0,00 0.72 0.22 0.00 Sat Flow,veh/h 3267 0 0 3267 2931 1349 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 533 0 0 576 538 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1552 0 0 1552 1466 1349 Q Serve(g_s),s 7.6 0.0 0.0 8.3 22.8 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 7.6 0.0 0.0 8.3 22.8 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.00 0,00 1,00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 2232 0 0 2232 643 286 V/C Ratio(X) 0.24 0,00 0.00 0.26 0.84 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 2232 0 0 2232 1353 612 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1,00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.77 0.00 0.00 0.91 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 6,2 0.0 0,0 6.3 48.5 0.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.3 3,0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 3.2 0.0 0.0 3.6 9.5 0.0 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 6,4 0.0 0.0 6.6 51.5 0.0 LnGrp LOS A A D Approach Vol,veh/h 533 576 538 Approach Delay, s/veh 6.4 6.6 51.5 Approach LOS A A D Mow 7 - 1 2 3 4 5" 8 4 - - Assigned Phs 4 6 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 97.5 32.5 97.5 Change Period(Y+Rc),a 5,0 5.0 5,0 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 61,0 59.0 61.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+11),s 10.3 24.8 9.6 Green Ext Time(p_c),s 5.9 2.7 5,9 HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 21.2 HCM 2010 LOS C Mirabeau sub-area 2040 Base 4:00 pm 2/7/2013 Synchro 8 Report PM Page 15 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 8: PINES & INDIANA 6/17/2016 f - k• 4\ ? t 1 4/ plovement la114 Mr,-MR , L 'WIT VIM N XST_ i :.. it SST nil Lane Configurations II 41+ 111 Tt r h TT r Traffic Volume(vph) 0 0 0 455 310 260 560 1040 325 165 1130 240 Future Volume(vph) 0 0 0 455 310 260 560 1040 325 165 1130 240 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1650 1650 1650 1650 1650 1650 1650 1650 1650 1650 1650 1650 Total Lost time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.5 4.0 5.5 Lane Util.Factor 0.91 0.91 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frpb,ped/bikes 1.00 0,99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, pod/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.94 1.00 1,00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 0.99 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 1265 2483 2710 2794 1250 1397 2794 1250 Flt Permitted 0.95 0.99 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 1265 2483 2710 2794 1250 1397 2794 1250 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0,92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0,92 0.92 0.92 0,92 Growth Factor(vph) 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Adj.Flow(vph) 0 0 0 495 337 283 609 1130 353 179 1228 261 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 64 0 0 0 195 0 0 79 Lane Group Flow(vph) 0 0 0 376 675 0 609 1130 158 179 1228 182 Conti. Peds. (#/hr) 3 4 Heavy Vehicles(%) 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% Turn Type Perm NA Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 4 1 6 515 2 Permitted Phases 4 6 2 Actuated Green,G(s) 34.0 34,0 26.5 56.8 56.8 17.7 53.5 53.5 Effective Green,g(s) 35.0 35.0 28,0 58.3 58.3 19.7 55.0 53.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.27 0.27 0.22 0.45 0.45 0.15 0,42 0.41 Clearance Time(s) 5.0 5.0 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 Vehicle Extension(s) 4.0 4,0 4.0 4.0 4,0 4.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 340 668 583 1253 560 211 1182 514 v/s Ratio Prot c0.22 0.40 0.13 c0.44 vls Ratio Perm c0.30 0.27 0.13 0.15 v/c Ratio 1.11 1.01 1.04 0.90 0.28 0.85 1.04 0,35 Uniform Delay,d1 47.5 47.5 51.0 33.2 22,6 53.7 37.5 26,3 Progression Factor 0,85 0.83 1.00 0.73 0.98 0.87 0.84 0.92 Incremental Delay,d2 79.4 36.9 25.2 1.0 0,0 18.2 31.5 1.2 Delay(s) 119.9 76.4 76.3 25.3 22.3 65.1 63.0 25.4 Level of Service F E E C C E E C Approach Delay(s) 0.0 91.1 39.6 57.3 Approach LOS A F D E Intrec#ionumm ! - - =- _ --- HCM 2000 Control Delay 57.5 HCM 2000 Level of Service E HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 1,11 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 130.0 Sum of lost time(s) 17.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 96.2% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Mirabeau sub-area 2040 Base 4:00 pm 217/2013 Synchro 8 Report PM Page 16 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 9: Pines & EB Ramps 6/17/2016 -fr -. C '- k- 4\ T \o 4, I P+ov .'_ BL WI._ War :Mot if t _1ST- NW -MMI Lane Configurations 4 lr +1+ 1 t1 Traffic Volume(veh/h) 440 5 705 0 0 0 0 1485 385 275 1310 0 Future Volume(veh/h) 440 5 705 0 0 0 0 1485 385 275 1310 0 Number 3 8 18 1 6 16 5 2 12 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1,00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1,00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,vehlh/In 1650 1618 1618 0 1618 1650 1618 1618 0 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 478 5 728 0 1614 400 299 1424 0 Adj No.of Lanes 0 1 2 0 2 0 1 2 0 Peak Hour Factor 0,92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 2 2 0 2 2 2 2 0 Cap,veh/h 381 4 599 0 1242 295 231 2116 0 Arrive On Green 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.00 1.00 0.99 0.15 0.69 0.00 Sat Flow,veh/h 1525 16 2396 0 2545 586 1541 3154 0 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 483 0 728 0 981 1033 299 1424 0 Grp Sat Flaw(s),veh/h/ln 1541 0 1198 0 1537 1514 1541 1537 0 Q Serve(g .$),s 32.5 0,0 32,5 0.0 0.0 65,5 19.5 35.0 0,0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 32.5 0.0 32.5 0.0 0.0 65,5 19.5 35.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.99 1.00 0.00 0.39 1,00 0.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 385 0 599 0 774 763 231 2116 0 V/C Ratio(X) 1.25 0.00 1.22 0.00 1.27 1.35 1.29 0.67 0.00 Avail Cap(c a),veh/h 385 0 599 0 774 763 231 2116 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.09 0.09 1,00 1.00 0,00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 48.8 0.0 48.8 0.0 0.0 0.2 55.3 11,8 0.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 133.7 0.0 111.7 0.0 121.2 160.0 160.5 1.7 0,0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),vehlln 28.1 0.0 20.1 0.0 26.1 34.0 18.6 15.1 0.0 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 182,5 0,0 160.4 0.0 121.2 160.2 215,7 13,5 0.0 LnGrp LOS F F F F F B Approach Vol,veh/h 1211 2014 1723 Approach Delay, slveh 169.2 141.2 48.6 Approach LOS F F D Timer - - - 1 2 3 4 6 6 7 8 I Assigned Phs 2 5 6 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 94.0 24.0 70,0 36.0 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 5.5 5.5 5.5 4.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax), s 65,5 18.5 64.5 31.5 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+I1),s 37.0 21,5 67.5 34.5 Green Ext Time(p_c),s 8.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 1nteft� wct> - HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 115.8 - - -s - - - HCM 2010 LOS F Mirabeau sub-area 2040 Base 4:00 pm 2/7/2013 Synchro 8 Report PM Page 19 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 10: Pines & Mission 6/17/2016 1 -. ,(' 4- 4 t P' 1 Movement -- . _ ,. , - eV: al kIlk_ - S - Mk_ se&itr . Lane Configurations 41''7<+ AT r 'I 14 '11 11, Traffic Volume(vehlh) 315 205 75 90 215 410 50 1150 30 395 1295 330 Future Volume(vehlh) 315 205 75 90 215 410 50 1150 30 395 1295 330 Number 3 8 18 7 4 14 1 6 16 5 2 12 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1,00 1.00 1,00 Adj Sat Flow,vehlh/In 1650 1618 1650 1650 1618 1618 1618 1618 1650 1618 1618 1650 Adj Flow Rate,vehlh 342 223 73 98 234 238 54 1250 33 429 1408 343 Adj No.of Lanes 0 2 0 0 2 1 1 2 0 2 2 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0,92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,vehlh 273 207 68 128 327 390 71 1271 34 414 1251 297 Arrive On Green 0.18 0.18 0.17 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.05 0.42 0.41 0.28 1.00 1.00 Sat Flow,veh/h 1541 1167 382 875 2235 1367 1541 3059 81 2989 2465 585 Grp Volume(v),vehlh 342 0 296 176 156 238 54 628 655 429 864 887 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlhlln 1541 0 1549 1574 1537 1367 1541 1537 1603 1494 1537 1513 Q Serve(g_s),s 23.0 0.0 23.0 14.0 12.5 19.0 4.5 52.5 52.5 18.0 66.0 66.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 23.0 0.0 23.0 14.0 12.5 19,0 4.5 52.5 52.5 18.0 66.0 66.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.25 0.56 1.00 1.00 0.05 1.00 0.39 Lane Grp Cap(c),vehlh 273 0 274 230 225 390 71 638 666 414 780 768 V/C Ratio(X) 1.25 0.00 1.08 0.77 0.69 0.61 0.76 0.98 0.98 1.04 1.11 1.15 Avail Cap(c_a),vehlh 273 0 274 230 225 390 71 638 666 414 780 768 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.42 0.42 0.42 Uniform Delay(d),sfveh 53.5 0.0 53.6 53.4 52.7 40.3 61.3 37.6 37.6 47.0 0.0 0.0 Ina Delay(d2),slveh 141.1 0.0 77.2 14.3 8.9 2.8 37.1 31.7 31.2 38,6 56.7 76.4 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0,0 0.0 0.0 0,0 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 %Ile BackOfQ(50%),vehlln 20.4 0,0 15.7 7.0 5.9 7.7 2.7 27.8 28.9 9.6 12.3 16.3 LnGrp Delay(d),slveh 194.6 0.0 130.8 67.6 61,6 43.0 98.4 69.3 68.8 85.6 56.7 76.4 LnGrp LOS F F E E D F E E F F F Approach Vol,veh/h 638 570 1337 2180 Approach Delay,s/veh 165.0 55.7 70.2 70.4 Approach LOS F E E E to riser 1, 2 3 4 a 6 7 8 ] Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 10.0 70.0 23.0 22.0 58.0 27.0 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5,0 5,0 Max Green Setting(Gmax), s 5.0 65.0 18.0 17.0 53,0 22,0 Max 0 Clear Time(g_c+11),,s 6.5 68.0 21.0 20.0 54.5 25,0 Green Ext Time(p_c),s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 81.4 HCM 2010 LOS F Mirabeau sub-area 2040 Base 4:00 pm 2/7/2013 Synchro 8 Report PM Page 21 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 11 : INDIANA & Mirabeau Parkway 6/17/2016 Lane Configurations I TT fT r im r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 160 335 225 585 690 305 Future Volume(veh/h) 160 335 225 585 690 305 Number 1 6 2 12 3 18 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 Fed-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,vehlhlln 1434 1434 1434 1434 1434 1434 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 174 364 245 0 750 292 Adj No.of Lanes 1 2 2 1 2 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0,92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 213 1152 497 642 913 610 Arrive On Green 0.16 0.42 0,18 0.00 0.34 0.34 Sat Flow,veh/h 1366 2796 2796 1219 2649 1219 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 174 364 245 0 750 292 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlh/ln 1366 1362 1362 1219 1325 1219 Q Serve(g_s),s 5.8 4.2 3,8 0.0 12.2 7.4 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 5.8 4,2 3.8 0.0 12.2 7.4 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 213 1152 497 642 913 610 V/C Ratio(X) 0.82 0,32 0.49 0.00 0.82 0.48 Avail Cap(ca),vehlh 606 1152 1123 922 1092 692 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(l) 1,00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),slveh 19.3 9.1 17.4 0.0 14.2 7.8 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 7.6 0.2 0.8 0,0 4.4 0.6 Initial Q Delay(d3),slveh 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Toile BackOf0(50%),vehlln 2.6 1.6 1.5 0.0 4.9 2.6 LnGrp Delay(d),slveh 26.9 9.2 18.1 0.0 18.6 8,4 LnGrp LOS C A B B A Approach Vol,vehlh 538 245 1042 Approach Delay,s/veh 15.0 18.1 15.7 Approach LOS B B B gill" - - 1 - ____-4 5 6 I N- - Assigned Phs 1 2 6 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 11.4 14.1 25.5 21,8 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.0 5,5 5.5 5.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax),s 21.0 19,5 19.5 19.5 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+11),s 7.8 5.8 6.2 14.2 Green Ext Time(p_c),s 0.4 2.5 3.2 2.1 HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 15.8 HCM 2010 LOS B Mirabeau sub-area 2040 Base 4:00 pm 2/7/2013 Synchro 8 Report PM Page 23 HCM 2010 TWSC 12: Mirabeau Parkway & Mansfield 6117/2016 Intersection 1 Int Delay,slveh 583.4 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1 T. ' T+ l + r ) 14 Traffic Vol,vehlh 25 55 230 235 10 155 205 300 240 5 530 35 Future Vol,veh/h 25 55 230 235 10 155 205 300 240 5 530 35 Conflicting Peds,#/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length - - - - - - 175 - 0 175 - - Veh in Median Storage,# - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade,% - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 MvmtFlow 27 60 250 255 11 168 223 326 261 5 576 38 Major/Minor Minor2 Minorl Marl, Mated _ 1 Conflicting Flow All 1467 1378 595 1533 1397 326 614 0 0 326 0 0 Stage 1 606 606 - 772 772 - - - - - - - Stage 2 861 772 - 761 625 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 4.12 - - 4.12 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6,12 5,52 - 6.12 5,52 - - - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 2.218 - - 2.218 - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 106 145 504 -'95 141 715 965 - - 1234 - - Stage 1 484 487 - 392 409 - - - - - - - Stage 2 350 409 - 398 477 - - - - - - - Platoon blocked,% - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 61 111 504 -23 108 715 965 - - 1234 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 61 111 - -23 108 - - - - - - - Stage 1 372 485 - 301 314 - - - - - - - Stage 2 199 314 - -175 475 - - - - - - - lit\pprbaeh _ WB NB SB -- -1. HCM Control Delay,s 100.8 $2870,4 2,7 0.1 HCM LOS F F Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1 EBLn2WBLn1WBLn2 SBL SBT SBR I Capacity(veh/h) 965 - - 61 299 23 533 1234 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.231 - - 0.445 1.03611.106 0.336 0.004 - - HCM Control Delay(s) 9.8 - - 104.8 100,$4875.1 15,1 7.9 - - HCM Lane LOS A - - F F F C A - - HCM 95th%tile Q(veh) 0.9 - - 1.7 11.5 32 1.5 0 - - Notes-:Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +:Computation Not Defined A:All major volume in platoon Mirabeau sub-area 2040 Base 4:00 pm 2/7/2013 Synchro 8 Report PM Page 25 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 13: S Evergreen Rd & E Indiana Ave 611 712 0 1 6 -.%r ,- .\ t mod "im__ '+ fi t�' Lane Configurations Tt r 'i 4+ V Traffic Volume(veh/h) 565 600 455 415 535 415 Future Volume(veh/h) 565 600 455 415 535 415 Number 6 16 5 2 7 14 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(ApbT) 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,vehlhlln 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 614 224 528 405 582 221 Adj No.of Lanes 2 1 2 1 2 1 Peak Hour Factor 0,92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,vehlh 841 376 873 459 1176 525 Arrive On Green 0,24 0.24 0.25 0.25 0.33 0.33 Sat Flow,veh/h 3632 1583 3548 1863 3548 1583 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 614 224 528 405 582 221 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlhlln 1770 1583 1774 1863 1774 1583 Q Serve(g_s),s 10.4 8.2 8.6 13.6 8,5 7.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 10.4 8.2 8,6 13.6 8.5 7.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 841 376 873 459 1176 525 V/C Ratio(X) 0,73 0.60 0.60 0.88 0.49 0.42 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 1143 512 873 459 1176 525 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1,00 1,00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.71 0.71 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 22.8 22.0 21.7 23.6 17.4 16.9 lncr Delay(d2),s/veh 0.6 0.4 1.4 18.4 1.5 2.5 Initial Q Delay(d3),slveh 0.0 0,0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackQfQ(50%),vehlln 5.1 3.6 4.4 9.3 4.4 3.4 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 23.4 22.4 23,1 42,0 18.9 19,4 LnGrp LOS CC CD B B Approach Vol,veh/h 838 933 803 Approach Delay,s/veh 23,2 31.3 19.0 Approach LOS C C B Timor - - 1 2 3 4 6 6 7 8 - Assigned Phs 2 4 6 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 20.0 25.5 19,5 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 5.5 5.0 5.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax),s 14.5 15.0 19.5 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+11),s 15.6 10.5 12.4 Green Ext Time(p_c),s 0.0 1.2 1.6 Pitor000tipri$40mary l HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 24.8 HCM 2010 LOS C User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement, Mirabeau sub-area 2040 Base 4:00 pm 2/7/2013 Synchro 8 Report PM Page 27 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 14: S Evergreen Rd & North Ramps 6/17/2016 ."4 --. c - k- 4\ S ,► \* 1 d pi en ent `r WIT NLL. NOT f � S SST Lane Configurations 'I 41 r vivi fT ft r Traffic Volume(vehlh) 0 0 0 350 5 315 390 960 0 0 800 255 Future Volume(vehlh) 0 0 0 350 5 315 390 960 0 0 800 255 Number 7 4 14 1 6 16 5 2 12 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Fed-BikeAdj(A pbT) 1,00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1,00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1,00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 Adj Sat Flow,vehlh/In 1937 1937 1863 1863 1863 0 0 1863 1863 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 384 0 0 424 1043 0. 0 870 0 Adj No.of Lanes 2 0 1 2 2 0 0 2 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0,92 0.92 0,92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 2 2 Cap,vehlh 598 0 256 1428 2558 0 0 871 390 Arrive On Green 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.83 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.25 0,00 Sat Flow,vehlh 3690 0 1583 3442 3632 0 0 3632 1583 Grp Volume(v),vehlh 384 0 0 424 1043 0 0 870 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlh/ln 1845 0 1583 1721 1770 0 0 1770 1583 Q Serve(g_s),s 6.3 0.0 0,0 1.8 0.0 0.0 0,0 16,0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 6.3 0.0 0.0 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1,00 1.00 0,00 0.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),vehlh 598 0 256 1428 2558 0 0 871 390 V/C Ratio(X) 0.64 0.00 0.00 0.30 0.41 0.00 0.00 1,00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 1107 0 475 1428 2558 0 0 871 390 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1,00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 Upstream Filter(l) 1.00 0.00 0,00 0.84 0.84 0,00 0.00 1,00 0.00 Uniform Delay(d),slveh 25.5 0.0 0.0 3.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 24.5 0.0 Incr Delay(d2), s/veh 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.4 0.0 0.0 30,2 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0,0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),vehlln 3.3 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.1 0.0 0.0 11.4 0.0 LnGrp Delay(d),slveh 26.6 0.0 0.0 3.5 0,4 0.0 0.0 54.7 0.0 LnGrp LOS C A A D Approach Vol,vehlh 384 1467 870 Approach Delay,s/veh 26.6 1.3 54,7 Approach LOS C A D �- - I. Assigned Phs 1 2 4 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),a 31.0 20.0 14.0 51.0 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 5.0 5.0 4,5 5.0 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 17.0 15,0 18.5 37.0 Max Q Clear Time(g c+11),s 3.8 18.0 8.3 2.0 Green Ext Time(p_c),s 6.1 0.0 1.2 8.9 HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 21.9 HCM 2010 LOS C lo User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. Mirabeau sub-area 2040 Base 4:00 pm 2/7/2013 Synchro 8 Report PM Page 29 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 15: S Evergreen Rd & South Ramps 6/17/2016 -. 4 - t 4\ ? P \* 1 4' Movement nt EREBT BBR 1`th 'BT IN BR NBC 'Nel Nt rI_ 'IL _ '1' v Lane Configurations ) 4 IT tttl r i +fi Traffic Volume(vehlh) 550 5 605 0 0 0 0 800 460 355 795 0 Future Volume(veh/h) 550 5 605 0 0 0 0 800 460 355 795 0 Number 3 8 18 1 6 16 5 2 12 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,veh/hlln 1863 1937 1937 0 1863 1937 1863 1863 0 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 602 0 501 0 870 0 386 864 0 Adj No.of Lanes 2 0 2 0 4 1 1 2 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0,92 0.92 0,92 0,92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 2 2 0 2 2 2 2 0 Cap,veh/h 1025 0 951 0 1337 318 578 2109 0 Arrive On Green 0.29 0.00 0.29 0.00 0.21 0.00 0.65 1,00 0.00 Sat Flow,veh/h 3548 0 3293 0 6669 1647 1774 3632 0 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 602 0 501 0 870 0 386 864 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1774 0 1647 0 1602 1647 1774 1770 0 Q Serve(g_s),s 9.4 0,0 8.3 0.0 8.1 0,0 8.7 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(gc), s 9.4 0.0 8.3 0,0 8.1 0.0 8.7 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),vehlh 1025 0 951 0 1337 318 578 2109 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0,59 0.00 0.53 0.00 0.65 0.00 0,67 0.41 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 1228 0 1140 0 1774 431 578 2109 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0,47 0.00 0.72 0.72 0.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 19.8 0.0 19,4 0,0 23.5 0.0 9.2 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay(d2),slveh 1.2 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.2 0,0 2.9 0.4 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 %Ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 4.8 0.0 3.9 0.0 3.7 0.0 4.4 0.1 0.0 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 20.9 0,0 20,4 0.0 24.7 0,0 12.0 0.4 0.0 LnGrp LOS C C C B A Approach Vol,veh/h 1103 870 1250 Approach Delay,slveh 20.7 24.7 4,0 Approach LOS C C A in la 1' ' - 4 6; 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 2 5 6 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 42.7 25.2 17.6 22.3 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 5.0 5.0 5.0 4,5 Max Green Setting (Gmax),s 34.0 12.0 17.0 21.5 Max Q Clear Time(g-c+11),s 2.0 10.7 10.1 11.4 Green Dxt Time(pc),s 9.1 0.9 2.5 6.3 nur� = - nt r HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 15.3 HCM 2010 LOS B User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. Mirabeau sub-area 2040 Base 4:00 pm 2/7/2013 Synchro 8 Report PM Page 31 HCM 2010 TWSC 16: Mission Connector & E Mission Ave 6/17/2016 Intersection 1 Int Delay,slveh 5 Movement EBT ERR WBL WBT NBL NBR I Lane Configurations + iv ) T '1 rr Traffic Vol,vehlh 265 250 70 305 110 140 Future Vol,vehlh 265 250 70 305 110 140 Conflicting Peds,#Ihr 0 0 0 0 1 1 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - Free - None - Stop Storage Length - 292 410 - 0 0 Veh in Median Storage,# 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 288 272 76 332 120 152 Major/Minor MaJor1 Major2 Mini rl I Conflicting Flow All 0 - 288 0 773 289 Stage 1 - - - - 288 - Stage 2 - - - - 485 - Critical Hdwy - - 4.12 - 6.42 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 - Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.218 - 3.518 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - 0 1274 - 367 750 Stage 1 - 0 - - 761 - Stage 2 - 0 - - 619 - Platoon blocked,% - - May Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1273 - 345 749 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 345 - Stage 1 - - - - 761 - Stage 2 - - - - 582 - Approach EB WB NB - HCM Control Delay,s 0 1,5 15.4 HCM LOS C Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 NBLn2 EBT WBL WBT 1 Capacity(vehlh) 345 749 - 1273 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.347 0.203 - 0.06 - HCM Control Delay(s) 20.9 11 - 8 - HCM Lane LOS C B - A - HCM 95th%tile Q(veh) 1.5 0.8 - 0.2 - Mirabeau sub-area 2040 Base 4:00 pm 2/7/2013 Synchro 8 Report PM Page 33 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 18: Sullivan & WB on-ramp 6/17/2016 , -* { .- 41, T /* \* 4. 4/ trlovernant _ 5131_ Mr- MR _ _ J Nam' - _ No iA Lane Configurations li t T++ T13 r Traffic Volume(vph) 0 0 0 250 365 0 0 1235 0 0 1370 385 Future Volume(vph) 0 0 0 250 365 0 0 1235 0 0 1370 385 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4,0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 0.91 0.91 0.91 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 1805 1900 5036 3405 1386 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1,00 1,00 Satd, Flow(perm) 1805 1900 5036 3405 1386 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0,92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0,92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj.Flow(vph) 0 0 0 272 397 0 0 1342 0 0 1489 418 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Lane Group Flow(vph) 0 0 0 272 397 0 0 1342 0 0 1530 376 Heavy Vehicles(%) 2% 2% 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3% 0% 0%© 1% 6% Turn Type Split NA NA NA Free Protected Phases 181 18! 1 2 6 2 4 5 191 Permitted Phases Free Actuated Green,G(s) 54.4 54.4 65.6 82.1 130.0 Effective Green,g(s) 55.4 55.4 66.6 83.1 130,0 Actuated g!C Ratio 0.43 0.43 0,51 0.64 1.00 Clearance Time(s) 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension(s) 3.0 3,0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 769 809 2579 2176 1386 Ws Ratio Prot 0.15 c0.21 c0.27 c0.45 Ws Ratio Perm 0.27 v/c Ratio 0.35 0.49 0.52 0.70 0.27 Uniform Delay,dl 25.2 27.1 21.1 15.4 0.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.55 0.58 1.00 Incremental Delay,d2 0,3 0.5 0.1 0.6 0.2 Delay(s) 25.5 27.5 11.7 9,5 0.2 Level of Service C C B A A Approach Delay(s) 0.0 26.7 11.7 7,6 Approach LOS A C B A )mtpo citIOn.Sam+ ary - - - .J HCM 2000 Control Delay 12.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.69 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 130.0 Sum of lost time(s) 17.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 67.8% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period(min) 15 I Phase conflict between lane groups. c Critical Lane Group Mirabeau sub-area 2040 Base 4:00 pm 2/7/2013 Synchro 8 Report PM Page 36 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 19: Sullivan & 1-90 EB on 6/1712016 f --. c 4\ t t `- 1 4/ Movement EBL EBT Mt_ ' till,: 10.41: 'WBR M I .. ikets _S L, Lane Configurations ) 4 irir ft r TT Traffic Volume(vph) 430 0 945 0 0 0 0 1335 320 235 1385 0 Future Volume(vph) 430 0 945 0 0 0 0 1335 320 235 1385 0 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0,95 0.88 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 Frpb,pedlbikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1,00 1.00 Fipb,ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0,85 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 FltProtected 0.95 0.95 1,00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 1588 1588 2842 3574 1593 3467 3574 Flt Permitted 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1,00 Satd. Flow(perm) 1588 1588 2842 3574 1593 3467 3574 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0,92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0,92 0,92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow(vph) 467 0 1027 0 0 0 0 1451 348 255 1505 0 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 0 37 0 0 0 0 0 139 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow(vph) 233 234 990 0 0 0 0 1451 209 255 1505 0 Confl, Peds.(#lhr) 1 1 1 Heavy Vehicles(%) 8% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 1% 1% 0% Turn Type Split NA Perm NA Perm Prot NA Protected Phases 8 8 6 5 2 Permitted Phases 8 6 Actuated Green,G(s) 46.5 46,5 46.5 58.1 58.1 10.4 73.5 Effective Green,g(s) 47.5 47,5 47.5 59.1 59.1 11.4 74.5 Actuated g1C Ratio 0,37 0.37 0.37 0,45 0.45 0.09 0.57 Clearance Time(s) 5.0 5,0 5,0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5,0 Vehicle Extension(s) 3.0 3.0 3,0 3,0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 580 580 1038 1624 724 304 2048 vls Ratio Prot 0.15 0,15 c0.41 c0.07 0.42 v/s Ratio Perm c0.35 0,13 v/c Ratio 0,40 0.40 0.95 0.89 0.29 0.84 0.73 Uniform Delay,d1 30.7 30.7 40.2 32.6 22.3 58.4 20,5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.81 0.42 1.08 1.20 Incremental Delay,d2 0.5 0.5 17.7 7.2 0.9 14.2 1,8 Delay(s) 31.1 31.2 57.9 33,6 10.2 77.2 26.3 Level of Service C C E C B E C Approach Delay(s) 49.5 0.0 29.1 33.7 Approach LOS D A C C kitarsectton Summary - __ _=1 HCM 2000 Control Delay 36,7 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.91 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 130.0 Sum of lost time(s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 78.0% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period(min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Mirabeau sub-area 2040 Base 4:00 pm 2/7/2013 Synchro 8 Report PM Page 38 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 19: Sullivan & 1-90 EB on 6/17/2016 - --r ir 1' 4st t , \* 4, 4/ Movement_ t t . T Elii Wet, MT WaR tilk_______JorMg_ Mt Mals 814 Lane Configurations 111 4 re Tt a NI 11 Traffic Volume(vehlh) 430 0 945 0 0 0 0 1335 320 235 1385 0 Future Volume(veh/h) 430 0 945 0 0 0 0 1335 320 235 1385 0 Number 3 8 18 1 6 16 5 2 12 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-BikeAdj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1,00 1,00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,vehlhlln 1759 1759 1900 0 1881 1900 1881 1881 0 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 467 0 990 0 1451 209 255 1505 0 Adj No.of Lanes 2 0 2 0 2 1 2 2 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0,92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh,% 8 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 Cap,veh/h 1158 0 1116 0 1707 771 294 2119 0 Arrive On Green 0.35 0,00 0.35 0.00 0.96 0.96 0.08 0.59 0.00 Sat Flow,veh/h 3351 0 3230 0 3668 1614 3476 3668 0 Grp Valume(v),veh/h 467 0 990 0 1451 209 255 1505 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/hlln 1675 0 1615 0 1787 1614 1738 1787 0 Q Serve(g_s),s 13.8 0.0 37.6 0.0 12,6 1,0 9.4 38.5 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(gc),s 13.8 0.0 37.6 0.0 12.6 1.0 9.4 38.5 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 0.00 1,00 1.00 0.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 1158 0 1116 0 1707 771 294 2119 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.40 0.00 0.89 0.00 0.85 0,27 0,87 0.71 0,00 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 1237 0 1193 0 1707 771 294 2119 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.88 0.88 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 32.4 0.0 40.1 0.0 1.8 1.5 58,8 18.6 0.0 lncr Delay(d2),slveh 0.2 0.0 8.0 0.0 4.9 0.8 22,9 2.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 6.4 0.0 18.0 0.0 5.6 0.5 5.5 19.4 0.0 LnGrp Delay(d),slveh 32.6 0,0 48,2 0,0 6.7 2.3 81.6 20,7 0.0 LnGrp LOS C D A A F C Approach Vol,vehlh 1457 1660 1760 Approach Delay,slveh 43.2 6.2 29.5 Approach LOS D A C iTi - 1 _ 2`__ 3 4 - 5 6, 7 8 __ Assigned Phs 2 5 6 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 81.1 15.0 66,1 48.9 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 5.0 5.0 5,0 5.0 Max Green Setting(Gmax), s 73.0 10.0 58.0 47.0 Max Q Clear Time(g-c+I1),s 40.5 11.4 14.6 39.6 Green Ext Time(pc),s 23.9 0.0 29.3 4,3 106144461110141, - _ - 1 HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 25,6 HCM 2010 LOS C User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. Mirabeau sub-area 2040 Base 4:00 pm 2/7/2013 Synchro 8 Report PM Page 39 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 20: Sullivan & E Mission Ave 6/17/2016 f -• c I- 4\ ? r* \ 41 Namara . Wit'.. f _ wiair WBR _ t� _M T NBA : .MIT . Lane Configurations 4 r 4 r ) 1.114 1 TT1i Traffic Volume(veh/h) 180 10 140 35 15 85 105 1390 40 75 2135 120 Future Volume(veh/h) 180 10 140 35 15 85 105 1390 40 75 2135 120 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1,00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,vehlhiln 1900 1882 1881 1900 1900 1900 1900 1882 1900 1900 1881 1900 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 196 11 29 38 16 18 114 1511 43 82 2321 130 Adj No.of Lanes 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 3 0 1 3 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0,92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 Cap,veh/h 54 0 387 47 12 390 359 3105 88 103 2268 126 Arrive On Green 0,24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0,24 0.24 0.20 0,60 0.60 0.11 0.91 0.90 Sat Flow,vehih 0 0 1597 0 51 1611 1810 5134 146 1810 4980 277 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 207 0 29 54 0 18 114 1008 546 82 1590 861 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlhiln 0 0 1597 51 0 1611 1810 1712 1856 1810 1712 1832 Q Serve(g_s),s 0.0 0.0 1,8 0.0 0.0 1,1 7.0 21.4 21.5 5.7 59,2 59.2 Cycle Q Clear(g-c),s 31.5 0.0 1.8 31.5 0.0 1.1 7.0 21,4 21.5 5.7 59.2 59.2 Prop In Lane 0,95 1,00 0.70 1.00 1,00 0.08 1.00 0.15 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 54 0 387 59 0 390 359 2071 1122 103 1560 835 V/C Ratio(X) 3,84 0.00 0.07 0,91 0.00 0.05 0,32 0.49 0.49 0.80 1,02 1.03 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 54 0 387 59 0 390 359 2071 1122 167 1923 1029 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2,00 2.00 2.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.46 0.46 0.46 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 65,0 0,0 38,0 57,9 0.0 37.7 44.6 14.4 14.4 56.9 5.8 5.9 lncr Delay(d2),s/veh 1321.4 0.0 0.0 82,7 0.0 0.0 0,5 0.8 1,5 2.5 20.5 29.7 Initial Q Delay(d3),slveh 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),vehlln 21.7 0.0 0,8 3.3 0.0 0.5 3.6 10.3 11.4 2.9 27.8 32.4 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 1386.4 0,0 38.0 140.6 0.0 37.8 45.1 15.2 15,9 59.4 26.3 35.7 LnGrp LOS F D F D D BB E F F Approach Vol,vehih 236 72 1668 2533 Approach Delay, slveh 1220.7 114.9 17.5 30.6 Approach LOS F F B C leer - 1 - 2 3 4 6 6 7 4' Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 11.4 82.6 36.0 25.1 68,9 36,0 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.0 5.0 5.5 5,0 *5 5,5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 12.0 73,0 30.5 13.0 *72 30,5 Max Q Clear Time(gc+11),s 7.7 23,5 33.5 ' 9.0 61.2 33.5 Green Ext Time(p_c),s 0.0 10.5 0.0 1.0 8.4 0.0 0 fa< v a HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 89.4 HCM 2010 LOS F Nato _ HCM 2010 computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. Mirabeau sub-area 2040 Base 4:00 pm 2/7/2013 Synchro 8 Report PM Page 41 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 21: 1-90 WB off & E Indiana Ave 6117/2016 -0. .., 4\ P 'J /` OW MOM _ :;E .. ; _g: v W T NBL NBR NEL NER I Lane Configurations Tt 1 T' V Traffic Volume(veh/h) 1005 0 425 650 280 20 0 0 Future Volume(veh/h) 1005 0 425 650 280 20 0 0 Number 4 14 3 8 1 16 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/In 1881 0 1625 1900 1865 1900 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 1092 0 462 707 304 0 Adj No.of Lanes 2 0 1 2 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh,% 1 0 0 0 0 0 Cap,veh/h 1186 0 490 2551 385 0 Arrive On Green 0.33 0.00 0.32 0,71 0.22 0.00 Sat Flow,veh/h 3762 0 1548 3705 1771 0 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 1092 0 462 707 305 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlhlln 1787 0 1548 1805 1777 0 Q Serve(g_s),s 25,2 0.0 25.0 6.1 13.9 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 25.2 0.0 25.0 6.1 13.9 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 1186 0 490 2551 387 0 V/C Rat€o(X) 0,92 0.00 0.94 0.28 0.79 0,00 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 1186 0 505 2586 559 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 27,6 0.0 28.6 4.6 31.7 0.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 11.6 0.0 26.2 0.1 4.8 0,0 Initial Q Delay(d3),slveh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Toile BackOfQ(50%),vehlin 14.3 0.0 14.2 3.1 7.3 0.0 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 39.2 0,0 54.8 4.7 36.5 0.0 LnGrp LOS _ D D A D Approach Vol,vehlh 1092 1169 305 Approach Delay,s/veh 39.2 24.5 36.5 Approach LOS D C D f t"` - _1: 2 - 3 4_-- 6 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 3 4 6 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 32.2 32.0 21.7 64.2 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 28.0 27.0 25.0 60.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+11),s 27.0 27.2 15,9 8.1 Green Ext Time(pc),s 0.2 0.0 0.8 12.5 Intersection Summary - - - - - - 1 HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 32.2 HCM 2010 LOS C Notes User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. Mirabeau sub-area 2040 Base 4:00 pm 2/7/2013 Synchro 8 Report PM Page 43 Appendix D HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 8: PINES & INDIANA 6/17/2016 -'4 --0. c k- 4\ t r* \ 1 I �. prat' EE1. - 1f "ILL. __' --' Ni;e= ___-imji:4- RI._ ~ i, "l Lane Configurations vf) TA 's ft r �'i 44 r Traffic Volume(vph) 0 0 0 455 310 260 560 1040 325 165 1130 240 Future Volume(vph) 0 0 0 455 310 260 560 1040 325 165 1130 240 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1650 1650 1650 1650 1650 1650 1650 1650 1650 1650 1650 1650 Total Lost time(s) 4.0 4,0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.5 4.0 5.5 Lane Util. Factor 0,97 0.95 0.97 0,95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frpb,ped/bikes 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 Flpb, ped/bikes 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.93 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1,00 0.85 FltProtected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1,00 1.00 Satd. Flow(Prot) 2688 2580 2710 2794 1250 1397 2794 1250 FltPermitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1,00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 2688 2580 2710 2794 1250 1397 2794 1250 Peak-hour factor,PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0,92 0.92 0,92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Growth Factor(vph) 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Adj. Flow(vph) 0 0 0 495 337 283 609 1130 353 179 1228 261 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 0 0 0 116 0 0 0 184 0 0 60 Lane Group Flow(vph) 0 0 0 495 504 0 609 1130 169 179 1228 201 Confl.Pods.(#/hr) 3 4 Heavy Vehicles(%) 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1°/a 1% 1% 1% 1% Turn Type Perm NA Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 4 1 6 5 15 2 Permitted Phases 4 6 2 Actuated Green,G(s) 25,7 25.7 29.6 60.6 60.6 22.2 58.7 58.7 Effective Green,g(s) 26.7 26.7 31.1 62.1 62.1 24.2 60.2 58.7 Actuated gIC Ratio 0.21 0.21 0.24 0.48 0.48 0.19 0.46 0.45 Clearance Time(s) 5.0 5.0 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 Vehicle Extension(s) 4.0 4.0 - 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 552 529 648 1334 597 260 1293 564 v/s Ratio Prot c0.20 c0.22 0.40 0.13 c0.44 v/s Ratio Perm 0,18 0.13 0.16 v/c Ratio 0.90 0.95 0.94 0.85 0.28 0,69 0.95 0.36 Uniform Delay,d1 50.3 51.0 48.5 29,8 20.5 49.4 33.4 23.3 Progression Factor 1.01 1.01 1.04 0.62 0.97 0.83 0,82 0,94 Incremental Delay,d2 16.9 27.0 7.8 1.4 0.1 5.1 11.0 1.1 Delay(s) 67.8 78.4 58.3 20.0 20,0 46.3 38.4 23.0 Level of Service E E ECCDDC Approach Delay(s) 0.0 73.7 31.2 36.8 Approach LOS A E C D k`tua,ltt18, _ - _ - -- -1 HCM 2000 Control Delay 42.8 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.99 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 130.0 Sum of lost time(s) 17.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 92.2% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period(min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Mirabeau sub-area 2040 Improvements 4:00 pm 2/7/2013 Synchro 8 Report PM Page 16 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9: Pines & EB Ramps 6/17/2016 -. -N, r t 4\ t /' 1 4/ iviavern_!flt - E_Bt_ EST ERR Via ,ter Vi tk 1401. _ teat B __SW Lane Configurations 1 4' igir Tt r 1 11 Traffic Volume(vph) 440 5 705 0 0 0 0 1485 385 275 1310 0 Future Volume(vph) 440 5 705 0 0 0 0 1485 385 275 1310 0 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1650 1650 1650 1650 1650 1650 1650 1650 1650 1650 1650 1650 Total Lost time(s) 3.5 3.5 3,5 4.5 5,5 4.5 4.5 Lane Utll, Factor 0.95 0.95 0.88 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 Frpb,ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, pedlbikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1,00 1.00 FltProtected 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 1460 1465 2420 3074 1375 1537 3074 Flt Permitted 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 1460 1465 2420 3074 1375 1537 3074 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0,92 0,92 0,92 0.92 0,92 0,92 0,92 0,92 0.92 0.92 0,92 Growth Factor(vph) 100% 100% 100°/° 105% 105% 105% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Adj.Flow(vph) 478 5 766 0 0 0 0 1614 418 299 1424 0 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 46 0 0 0 0 0 55 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow(vph) 239 244 720 0 0 0 0 1614 363 299 1424 0 Confl. Peds.(#lhr) 5 5 - Turn Type Split NA custom NA Perm Prot NA Protected Phases 8 8 81 6 5 2 Permitted Phases 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 21.5 21.5 48.6 67.7 67,7 25.3 71.4 Effective Green,g(s) 22.5 22.5 49.6 68.7 67.7 26,3 72.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.17 0.17 0.38 0.53 0.52 0.20 0.56 Clearance Time(s) 4.5 4.5 5.5 5.5 5,5 5.5 Vehicle Extension(s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3,0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 252 253 923 1624 716 310 1711 v/s Ratio Prot 0.16 c0.17 0.30 c0.53 c0.19 0.46 vls Ratio Perm 0,26 v/c Ratio 0.95 0.96 0.78 0.99 0,51 0.96 0.83 Uniform Delay,dl 53.2 53.4 35.4 30.4 20.3 51.4 23.8 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.50 1.86 0.49 0.46 Incremental Delay,d2 42.2 46.3 4.3 11,2 0.8 22.2 1.9 Delay(s) 95.3 99.7 39.7 56.9 38.5 47.2 12.8 Level of Service F F D EDDB Approach Delay(s) 62.1 0.0 53.1 18.8 Approach LOS E A D B jntersection Summary -- -. HCM 2000 Control Delay 43.5 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.98 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 130.0 Sum of lost time(s) 12.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 89.8% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period(min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Mirabeau sub-area 2040 Improvements 4:00 pm 2/7/2013 Synchro 8 Report PM Page 18 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 10: Pines & Mission 6/17/2016 f --P. I '- 4\ t , \. i' d i'pVan1 1t: SIC ---® T Mt - :WBT - 'MR Net Plir NM 4FL 8 if et Lane Configurations 11) Is 1 + r 't +Is !l ++ r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 315 205 75 90 215 410 50 1150 30 395 1295 330 Future Volume(veh/h) 315 205 75 90 215 410 50 1150 30 395 1295 330 Number 3 8 18 7 4 14 1 6 16 5 2 12 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,vehlhlln 1618 1618 1650 1618 1618 1618 1618 1618 1650 1618 1618 1618 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 342 223 73 98 234 238 54 1250 33 429 1408 343 Adj No.of Lanes 2 1 0 1 1 1 1 2 0 2 2 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0,92 0,92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 418 265 87 130 278 415 155 1329 35 391 1429 808 Arrive On Green 0.14 0.23 0,22 0.08 0,17 0,17 0.10 0,43 0.43 0.26 0.93 0.91 Sat Flow,vehlh 2989 1167 382 1541 1618 1368 1541 3059 81 2989 3074 1370 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 342 0 296 98 234 238 54 628 655 429 1408 343 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlh/ln 1494 0 1550 1541 1618 1368 1541 1537 1603 1494 1537 1370 Q Serve(g s),s 14.4 0,0 23.7 8.1 18.2 19.1 4,2 50.8 50.9 17.0 50.1 2.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 14.4 0.0 23.7 8,1 18.2 19.1 4.2 50.8 50.9 17.0 50.1 2.1 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.25 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.05 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 418 0 352 130 278 415 155 667 696 391 1429 808 V/C Ratio(X) 0.82 0,00 0.84 0.75 0.84 0.57 0.35 0,94 0.94 1.10 0.99 0.42 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 529 0 352 273 286 422 155 667 696 391 1466 825 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.47 0.47 0,47 Uniform Delay(d),slveh 54,3 0.0 48.1 58.2 52.1 38.3 54.5 35,2 35,2 48.0 4.2 0,6 Ina Delay(d2),slveh 7.9 0.0 16.4 8.4 19.3 1.8 1.3 22.9 22.4 61.3 13.3 0.8 Initial Q Delay(d3),slveh 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %Ile BackOfQ(50%),vehlln 6,4 0.0 11.8 3.8 9.6 7.4 1.9 25.7 26.7 10.3 19.4 0.8 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 62,2 0.0 64,5 66.6 71.4 40,1 55.9 58.1 57.6 109.3 17.5 1.4 LnGrp LOS E E E E D E E E F B A Approach Vol,veh/h 638 570 1337 2180 Approach Delay,slveh 63.2 57.5 57.8 33.0 Approach LOS E E E C j'frcr 1 2- - 3: _ 4 5 6 7 8 I Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 17.8 63.6 22.2 26,3 21.0 60.5 15.0 33,5 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 5.0 61.0 22.0 22.0 16.0 50.0 22.0 22.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+11),s 6,2 52.1 16.4 21.1 19.0 52.9 10.1 25,7 Green Ext Time(p_c),s 0.0 5.8 0.7 0.2 0,0 0.0 0.2 0.0 HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 47,1 HCM 2010 LOS D Mirabeau sub-area 2040 Improvements 4:00 pm 2/7/2013 Synchro 8 Report PM Page 21 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 12: Mirabeau Parkway & Mansfield 6/17/2016 '.4 --► NS, i_ & 4\ 't P \* 4' 4/ Movement_ _ - -- fillt. ..- WV WBlL "b W Not. OW NBR SOL SOY- jig Lane Configurations 4 r ) 1+ 1 t if ) f1+ Traffic Volume(veh/h) 25 55 230 235 10 155 205 300 240 5 530 35 Future Volume(veh/h) 25 55 230 235 10 155 205 300 240 5 530 35 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(ApbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,vehlh/In 1625 1593 1593 1593 1593 1625 1593 1593 1593 1593 1593 1625 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 27 60 250 255 11 168 223 326 261 5 576 38 Adj No.of Lanes 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 2 0 Peak Hour Factor 0,92 0.92 0,92 0.92 0.92 0,92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 37 82 309 325 18 275 231 637 541 8 729 48 Arrive On Green 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.15 0,40 0.40 0.01 0.25 0.25 Sat Flow,vehlh 487 1082 1354 1517 84 1283 1517 1593 1354 1517 2883 190 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 87 0 250 255 0 179 223 326 261 5 302 312 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlhlln 1569 0 1354 1517 0 1367 1517 1593 1354 1517 1513 1560 Q Serve(g_s),s 2.9 0.0 4,0 8.3 0.0 6,2 7.7 8.1 7.5 0.2 9,8 9,8 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 2.9 0.0 4.0 8.3 0,0 6.2 7.7 8.1 7.5 0.2 9.8 9.8 Prop In Lane 0.31 1.00 1,00 0.94 1.00 1.00 1.00 0,12 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 119 0 309 325 0 293 231 637 541 8 383 394 V/C Ratio(X) 0.73 0.00 0.81 0.78 0.00 0.61 0,97 0.51 0.48 0.62 0.79 0.79 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 119 0 309 462 0 416 231 637 541 115 461 475 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1,00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1,00 Upstream Filter(l) 1.00 0,00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 23.7 0.0 19.2 19.5 0,0 18,7 22.1 11,9 11.7 26.1 18.3 18.3 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 20.0 0.0 14.7 5,6 0.0 2.1 49.3 0,7 0.7 57.4 7.5 7.4 Initial Q Delay(d3),slveh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %Ile BackOfQ(50%),vehlin 1.9 0.0 4,6 4.0 0.0 2.5 6.3 3.7 2.9 0.2 4.8 5.0 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 43.7 0.0 33.9 25.1 0,0 20.7 71.5 12,6 12.4 83,5 25.8 25.8 LnGrp LOS D C C C E B B F C C Approach Vol,veh/h 337 434 810 619 Approach Delay,s/veh 36.4 23.3 28.7 26,3 Approach LOS D C C C Der - - _ 1 _2- 3 -- 4 _5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 4,3 25.0 8.0 12.0 17.3 15.3 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4,0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4,0 4,0 Max Green Setting(Gmax), s 4.0 20.0 4.0 8.0 16.0 16,0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+11),s 2,2 10.1 6.0 9,7 11.8 10,3 Green Ext Time(p_c),s 0.0 4,6 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.9 1001,14ti v 0 - �. == I HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 28.2 HCM 2010 LOS C Mirabeau sub-area 2040 Improvements 4:00 pm 2/7/2013 Synchro 8 Report PM Page 25 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 20: Sullivan & E Mission Ave 6/17/2016 -' -. c 1- k- 4\ 1 t \* 4/ Movement EBL ER ' EBR M. imff '_.')I.�. - NV___ NA . Lane Configurations 11 I. 4 r vi to +t 1'+t Traffic Volume(veh/h) 180 10 140 35 15 85 105 1680 40 75 2280 130 Future Volume(veh/h) 180 10 140 35 15 85 105 1680 40 75 2280 130 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A pbT) 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,vehlhlln 1881 1882 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1882 1900 1900 1881 1900 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 196 11 29 38 16 18 114 1826 43 82 2478 141 Adj No.of Lanes 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 3 0 1 3 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0,92 0,92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0,92 Percent Heavy Veh,% 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 Cap,veh/h 290 85 224 244 95 298 380 3418 80 103 2493 140 Arrive On Green 0.18 0,18 0.18 0.18 0,18 0,18 0.21 0.66 0.65 0.11 1.00 0.99 Sat Flow,veh/h 1612 458 1208 1064 515 1610 1810 5163 122 1810 4976 280 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 196 0 40 54 0 18 114 1211 658 82 1696 923 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlhlln 1612 0 1667 1579 0 1610 1810 1712 1860 1810 1712 1832 Q Serve(g_s),s 15.4 0.0 2,6 2.6 0.0 1.2 6.9 24.0 24.1 5.7 0.0 65.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 20,6 0.0 2.6 5.2 0.0 1,2 6.9 24.0 24.1 5,7 0.0 65.1 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.73 0.70 1.00 1.00 0.07 1.00 0.15 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 290 0 308 339 0 298 380 2267 1232 103 1715 918 V/C Ratio(X) 0.68 0.00 0.13 0.16 0.00 0.06 0.30 0.53 0.53 0.80 0.99 1.01 Avail Cap(c_a),vehlh 382 0 404 436 0 390 380 2267 1232 167 1923 1029 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.37 0.37 0.37 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 54.1 0.0 44.2 45.6 0.0 43.7 43.3 11,5 11.5 56.9 0.0 0,1 lncr Delay(d2),slveh 1.4 0,0 0.1 0.1 0,0 0.0 0.4 0,9 1.7 2.0 11.0 19,5 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0,0 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),vehlln 7.0 0.0 1.2 1.7 0,.0 0.5 3.5 11,6 12.8 2.9 2.6 5.1 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 55.4 0.0 44,3 45.7 0.0 43.7 43.7 12.4 13.2 58,9 11.0 19.7 LnGrp LOS E D D D D B B E B F Approach Vol,veh/h 236 72 1983 2701 Approach Delay,slveh 53.5 45.2 14.4 15.4 Approach LOS D D B B )`rimer - -1 2 3 4_ 5 6 7 .8 I Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 11.4 90.1 28.6 28.7 72,8 28.6 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.0 5.0 5,5 5.0 *5 5.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 12.0 73.0 30.5 13.0 *72 30.5 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+11),s 7.7 26.1 22.6 8,9 67.1 7.2 Green Ext Time(p_c),s 0,0 14.2 0,4 0.2 4.3 0.6 joterseatien Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 17.3 HCM 2010 LOS B t.tj --- *HCM 2010 computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. Mirabeau sub-area 2040 Improvements 4:00 pm 2/7/2013 Synchro 8 Report PM Page 41