Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSEPA E99-0036 - GROUP HEALTH - PARKING GARAGEGROUP HEALTH PARKING GARAGE THREE LEVEL PARKING STRUCTURE 12400 E. MARGINAL WY S. E99-0036 4/O6/00 16:23 FAX • ENTRANCO ENG. ENTRANCO Fax To: Of: Fax: Phone: Subject: Brian Shelton, P.E. City of Tukwila (206) 431-3665 (206) 433-0179 a 001/007 10900 NE 8th Street, Suite 300 Bellevue, Washington 98004 Phone (425) 454-5600 Fax (425) 454-0220 www.entranco.com Date: 04/06/00 From: Marc Mizuta Project Name: GHC Office 2 Project Number: 99181-61 cc: Raid Tirhi Updated Memorandum for Mitigation Costs and Neighborhood Impacts and LOS calculations No. of Pages (Incl. Cover): 7 ® For Your Information Original to Follow: 0 Yes IS No ❑ For Review 0 Please Reply Items Transmitted / Message: Brian - Per your request, attached is the updated memorandum that will replace the mitigation section in the traffic study that was submitted on March 22, 2000. We have changed the memo to reflect Raid's revised section on the Traffic Monitoring Program. Furthermore, attached is the LOS calculations at the E Marginal Way S/Pacific Highway S/S Beoing Access Rd intersection. We changed the phasings and left everything else the same. Please call me at (425) 974-8121 if you have any questions. Thanks, Marc The information in this Fax Is confidential and proprietary and Is intended only for the individual(s) or entity(ies) named on the cover sheet. I . ou are not the Intended reclplenl(s), disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of this information Is prohibited. If you do not r e all of the pages or have received this transmittal In error, please notify us immediately at the number above. A-07 (Rev, 12/99) ✓ \ 104, Q4/06/00 16:24 FA MEMORANDUM Date: April 6, 2000 ENTRANCO ENG. To: Brian Shelton, P.E. City of Tukwila From: Marc Mizuta Torsten Lienau, P.E., P.T.O.E. Entranco Subject: Updated Group Health Parking Garage and ternational Gateway East Development Mitigation Fees and Neighbor •od Impacts Entranco Project No. 99181-61 a 002/007 This memorandum is an addendum to the Group Health .• perative (GHC) Parking Garage and International Gateway East Development Tra Study, dated March 22, 2000 and re laces the mitigation section on pages 31 to 33. The completion of the GHC Parking Garage and Intematio al Gateway East Development will impact the following projects: • New Traffic signal at East Marginal Way South/So 112th Street • vew Traffic signal at East Marginal Way South/Sou 130th Street • ew Traffic signal at South 133rd Street/SR 599 On & Off Ramps • East Marginal Way South widening between Boeing Access Road and South 115th Street • . South 124th Street/GHC Main Entrance driveway realignment and signalization For all of the projects mentioned above, it was determined that the a.m. peak hour produced the greatest amount of project trips from both developments. Therefore, mitigation costs were associated with a.m. peak hour project volumes as a worst-case scenario. Costs associated with each project have been separated for the GHC Parking Garage and International Gateway East Development. The GHC facility was previously occupied by other tenants, who had participated in traffic impact fees when they occupied the building. The previous tenants of the GHC facility paid impact fees for 395 a.m. peak hour trips and 377 p.m. peak hour trips. The GHC facility would be responsible for the current traffic impact fees of the City of Tukwila far trips over the vested trips covered by the previous tenant. Because no documentation could be provided by the GHC facility regarding the use of a Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) program and/or the continued use of this program after the garage is constructed, the City requested that 800 employees be used for the Impact fee calculations for the existing GHC facility, instead of 650 employees which was wprolectsisol61A61mem00/mshoI0331.dx (03171100) Ynp 1 04/06/00 16:24] FAX ENTRANCO ENG. 1003/007 doc ted in the. March 22, 2000 traffic study. The reasoning is that the City has no gua e (through a documented CTR program) that the 2 shifts and flex schedules curr used at the GHC facility will continue in the future. The use of 800 employees resu a slightly higher trip generation rate for the GHC Parking Garage development. It sh also be noted that. the 800 employees are used for calculating traffic impact fees. only Ne Traffic Signal at East Marginal Way South/South 112th Street Sig I warrants were satisfied in 2000 without the projects, as well as 2000 with the projects. In addition, the LOS in 2010 with project trips during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours was LOS F. Because the signal is warranted without the projects, the City only requires the developer to pay a proportionate share toward the total cost of the improvement (approximately $200,000) rather than paying for the entire signal inst' llation. Project trips from each development were divided by the difference between 1999/i2000 existing modified a.m. peak hour volumes (1,104) and 2010 a.m. peak hour volum s (1,971 trips) to determine the percentage each project pays toward this signal. Th International Gateway East development produced 28.5 percent of the trips throug this intersection while the GHC Parking Garage produced 7.3 percent of the trips through this intersection. • International Gateway East - $57,057 (247 trips) • GHC Parking Garage - $14,553 (63 trips) New Traffic Signal at East Marginal Way South/South 130th Street A signal warrant analysis in 2000 and 2010 with project trips did not warrant the installation of signal. However, the LOS at this intersection during the p.m. peak hour will be LOS F in 2010 with the project trips. For this reason, the City has requested that a signal be installed at this intersection. The two developments will be responsible for installing a signal at this intersection. Each development will pay a percentage of the total cost based on the number of trips each project sends through this intersection. • International Gateway East — 79 percent of total project costs (247 trips) • GHC Parking Garage — 21 percent of total project costs (65 trips) New Traffic Signal at South 133rd Street/SR 599 On & Off Ramps This project is on the City of Tukwila's TIP list and has a cost of $81/trip. • International Gateway East — $8,910 (110 trips) • GHC Parking Garage — $2,349 (29 trips) East Marginal Way South Widening between Boeing Access Road and South 115th Street The International Gateway East and GHC Parking Garage both impact this City TIP project. According to the City of Tukwila, this project has been updated from the original TIP list and the widening of East Marginal Way South extends from Boeing Access Road to South 115th Street. The City has determined that the impact fee associated with this w:pro)act&O 101Aefinem00/msnnC 31,doc (03I31/00) Imp 2 Q4/06/00 16:25 FAX ENTRANCO ENG. project is $613/trip and has requested that 804 employees be used to calculate the mitigation costs for this project. • International Gateway East — $148,959(243 Itrips) • GHC Parking Garage — $39,845 (65 trips) South 124th Street/GHC Main Entrance Driveway Realignment and Signalization I A peak -hour signal warrant analysis in 2010 with project trips was conducted at the East Marginal Way South/GHC Main Entrance Driveway ntersection. Results indicated that a traffic signal is warranted at this intersection. A peak -hour signal warrant analysis in 2010 with project trips was also conducted at the East Marginal Way South/South 124th Street intersection. Results did not warrant a traffic signal. However, potential developments within the vicinity could warrant a signal at this interjection in the future. A signal at both of these locations would not be recommended and vyould not be practical because these intersections are too closely spaced; the intersections of South 124th Street and GHC Main Entrance Driveway with East Marginal Way Sopth are approximately 150 feet offset from each other. Therefore, the City has requested that South 124th Street and the GHC Main Entrance Driveway be reconstructed so that thopy are directly across from .each other. This signal would benefit trips entering and exiting the International Gateway East development because queues could potentially bloclf the East Marginal Way South/South 124th Street intersection if the streets were not re-ar ned. At this time, no costs are associated with this projec However, each project will pay a percentage of the total cost based on the number of rips each project sends through this intersection. 11004/007 • International Gateway East - 56 percent of tital project costs (274 trips) • GHC Parking Garage — 44 percent of total praject costs (214 trips) Summary of Mitigation Costs International Gateway East OHC Parking Garage Project Cost/ 1 Project Cost Project Trips Trip Total Cost Trips Trip Total Cost E Marginal Way S/S 112th Street Signal 247 $231 $57,057 63 $231 514,553 E Marginal Way S/S 130th Street Signal 247 - 79% of 65 •• 21% of total cost total cost S 133rd St/SR 599 On & Off Ramps 110 581 $8,910 29 $81 52,349 Signal E Marginal Way S (Boeing Access Road 243 $613 5148,959 65 5613 539,845 — S 115th Street) - j. S 124th St/GHCMain Entrance 274 -- 56% of 214 •• 44% of Driveway Rechannelization and Signal total cost total cost Total Impact Fees 5214,926 556,747 w:prolect60818lgepmom0olms11e10331.00c (03/31/00) knp 3 04/06/00 16:25 FAX ENTRANCO ENG. g]005/007 In addition to the mitigations that were mentioned above, we would also recommend constructing the three left -turn lanes that are recommended along East Marginal Way South or providing .a two-way left -turn lane along East Marginal Way South beginning north of South 124th Street and ending south of the south entrance to the International Gateway East Development. With either of these mitigation measures, on -street parking on East Marginal Way South (along frontage of both developments) and South 124th Street (north of International Gateway East Development) should be eliminated and no parking signs should be installed in these areas. The developer would proede street frontage improvements along the public street frontage where improvements are not in place, such as on EasttMarginal Way South, :South 124th Street, and South 126th Street. Further investigation ori" parking restrictions along South 126th Street (south of International Gateway Bast Development) will be conducted by the City of. Tukwila. When the parking restrictions ave been determined, the developer willprovide the parking signs, which would minimize the impacts of on -street parking in the neighborhood. Parking on other neighborhood streets w uld be mitigated by the Neighborhood Traffic Management Program. Neighborhood Traffic Management Program For SEPA transportation mitigation purposes, the City of Tukwila has conditioned the property owners of parcel numbers (734560-0490, 734560-0430, 734560-0385, 734560- 0580) to sign a developer agreement to establish and provide a neighborhood traffic monitoring program. The program is to assure that traffic impacts related to the development arising in the residential neighborhoods will be addressed an resolved. If deemed necessary, the property owners of the proposed development will rovide traffic calming devices and improvements that are approved by the city engineer. To determine if and when appropriate traffic calmingdevices are needed, the program shall monitor and analyze the following criteria: • License plate and directional daily traffic counts • Accident history analysis • Speed study • Review of neighborhood complaints • Perform public meetings to compile and understand complaints and propose solutions The data mentioned above need to be collected at the following four locations: • S 126th Street — west of E Marginal Way S • S 128th Street — east and west of. E Marginal Way S • S 130t Street — east and west of E Marginal Way S • 40th Ave S — South of S 130th Street The Neighborhood Traffic Monitoring Program will be done on an annual basis or as directed by the city engineer depending on the type and number of complaints received. The program will commence one year from the issuance of certificate of occupancy of the first building and continue for a period of up to five years thereafter or as directed by the clty engineer. w.proJeaarDalalAelmam00/mme103.11.dee (Oy#31/00) Imp Q4/06/00 16:26 FAX ENTRANCO ENG. MTM 2010wpam.for (1) GHC Tukwila Office 2 99181-60 E Marginal, ay 8/pacific Highway S/S Boeing Access Rd 2010 Vol w/project tripe - AM Peak Hour SIGNAL97/TEAPAC[Ver 1.01] -.Diglay of Intersection Parameters 1Z 9 201 24.0 2. / 712 24.0 2 638 24.0. 2 4 0.0 0 227 12.0 240 1. a006/007. 03/30/00 17:11:09 Key: VOLUMES -- > 1. WIDTHS v LANES 1202 12.0 1 /t -- 562 24.0 2 + / 750 .12.0 1 North / 0 408 393 0.0 24.0 12.0 0 2 1 Phasing: SEQUENCE 24 PERMSV NNNN OVERLP YYYY LEADLAG. LD LD 94/06/00 16:26 FAX ENTRANCO ENG. MTM.2010wpam.for (1) GHC Tukwila Office 2 99181-60 E Marginal Way 6/Pacific-Highway SIS Hoeing Access Rd 2010 Volumes..w/project tripe - AM Peak Hour BIGNAL97/TEAPAC[Ver 1.01] - Capacity Analysis Summary Intersection Averages: Degree of Saturation (v/c) 0.83 Vehicle Delay 74.8 Sq 24 I Phase 1 1 Phase 2 1 Phase 3 Phase 4 1 **/** ilk North + ****> **** v O/C'0.122 G= 14.7" Y+R- 5.0" OFF= 0.0% G/C=0 114 G= 13.6" Y+R-.5:0" OSB=16.4%s G/C=0.418 G= 50.2" Y+R= 5.0" OFF -31.99 G/C=0.179 G= 21.5" Y+R• 5.0" OPF=77.9%6 el ... _ 03/30/00 17:11:02 Level of Service E C=120 sec G=100.0 sec - 83.3%6 Y=20.0 sec = 16.7% Ped= 0.0 sec . 0.0%6 1 +Group Iane WL eel Regde/C treed 1 @Cr(vgh) GEGE eIVolumjeI I e a1 L 9uuev/c Dy 1Qe. I SB Approach 32.4 C ___ . ==== __ = = ,gr. ..___ __ __ = =====.== _ __= __.== = ==== ==.== ==== RT 2412 0.270 0.738 2051 2055. 223 0.109 `4.5 A 49 ft TH 12'1 0.296 0.278 177 512 252 0.487 36.9 D+ 307 ft LT 24/2 0.267 0.122 1 .391 254 0.606 52.4 *D 188 ft NB Approach 76.9 E as -..J =_-==a=a.-..C== --- as ..C -==aa=. ----- -- -- aa. .,==== ==========--- RT =--- 12/1 0.387 0.574 1 908 437 0.481 15.5 314 TM 1 24/2 10.290 10.114.1 821 1 374 1 453 11.124 1 136.2 I*F 1 339 ft WB Approach _=-.__==========...._ == = 24/2 0.313 0.179 1 LT 1 12/1 10.531 10.418.1 ==a. -=====-===...=C======a=--====......__=_ 80.7 1 623 624 0.984 P, 432 ft 571 1 740 I 833 11.126 1108.3.1*F 1 817 ftl EH Approach 73.1 E 1 LTtRT1 24/2 10.344 (0.416 1 1183 1 1436.1 791 10.551 1 126.8 1*C+I 398 ftI Memorandum Date: 4/6/00 To: Brian Shelton From: Raid Tirhi RE: Group Health- Neighborhood Traffic Mitigation Brian- As per our latest conversation, this memo will be sent to Mark Mizuta. We are seeking mitigation towards the PAC Hwy/Boeing Access Rd intersection LOS drop from E to F with project trips. The Neighborhood Traffic Monitoring Program is the only part that will be addressed through SEPA; other mitigation measures are addressed through Concurrency. Neighborhood Traffic Monitoring Program — Revised: For SEPA transportation mitigation purposes, the City Of Tukwila has conditioned the property owners of parcel numbers (734560-0490, 734560-0430, 734560-0385, 734560-0580) to sign a developer agreement to establish and provide a neighborhood traffic monitoring program. The program is to assure that traffic impacts related to the development arising in the residential neighborhoods will be addressed and resolved. If deemed necessary, the property owners of the proposed development will provide traffic calming devices and improvements that are approved by the city engineer. To determine if and when appropriate traffic calming devices are needed, the program shall monitor and analyze the following criteria: • License plate and directional daily traffic counts • Accident History analysis • Speed study • Review of neighborhood complaints • Perform public meetings to compile and understand complaints and proposed solutions Above criteria need to be collected at the following locations: • S 126th St. -west of E Marginal Way • S 128th St. -east and west of E Marginal Way • S 130th St. -east and west of E Marginal Way • 40th Ave S -south of S 130th Street The Neighborhood Traffic Monitoring Program will be done on an annual basis or as directed by the city engineer depending on type and number of complaints received. The program will commence one year from the issuance of certificate of occupancy of the first building and continue for a period up to five years thereafter or as directed by the city engineer. • City of Tukwila • Steven M. Mullet, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director MEMO TO: Laurie Anderson FROM: Deb Ritter DATE: February 28, 2000 RE: Group Health Parking Garage 12400 East Marginal Way South OLD SEPA File No. E99-0036 NEW SEPA File No. E2000-003 On December 23, 1999, the applicant mistakenly applied for a SEPA "Planned Action" and paid the $325 application fee (E99-0036). A copy of the receipt is attached. We denied the application on January 14, 2000. Per Jack Pace, please apply this $325.00 application fee to the new SEPA application which was filed on February 28, 2000 under E2000-003. Once you have applied the fee to the new file, please initial a copy of this memo and return to me. We will need your confirmation before we can update our Sierra records. Thanks! 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206-431-3670 • Fax: 206-431-3665 City of Tukwila Steven M Mullet, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director PLANNING DIVISION COMMENTS DATE: February 24, 2000 APPLICANT: Lance Mueller & Associates (on behalf of Group Health Cooperative) RE: D2000-0055 Group Health Parking Garage 12400 East Marginal Way South Please review the following comments listed below and submit your revisions accordingly. If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact Deborah Ritter (the Planner assigned to the file) at 206-431-3663. COMMENTS: The applicant must apply for a SEPA determination before any land altering or building permits can be processed. As any SEPA-related requirements may affect subsequent permits, no land altering or building permits will be issued until a SEPA determination has been made. The applicant's application for a SEPA Planned Action was denied on January 14, 2000. On that date, the applicant was advised that a new application for a SEPA Determination must be submitted (see copy of January 14, 2000 letter, attached). 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206-431-3670 • Fax: 206-431-3665 10900 NE 8TH STREET SUITE 300 BELLEVUE WASHINGTON 98004-4405 TELEPHONE 425 454 5600 TOLL FREE 800 454 5601 FAX 425 454 0220 INTERNET www.entranco.com ARIZONA CALIFORNIA IDAHO OREGON UTAH WASHINGTON • ENTRANCO February 18, 2000 Mr. Bob Fadden Lance Mueller & Associates 130 Lakeside, Suite 250 Seattle, WA 98122 Re: Existing Parking Stall Counts Group Health Office Building Tukwila, Washington Entranco Project No. 99181-60 Dear Mr. Fadden: PAY Tp TH OR /IJ.S. id OPWA HINAN tR D OSI UK LAE ITY F T KW A TREAS RE. 'S ACK 1535W5c 5c 069 RECEIVED FEB 18 2000 LANCE MUELLER & ASSOC RECEIVED CITY OF TUKWILA FE ti 2 2 2000 PERMIT CENTER This letter documents the number of existing parking stalls at the Group Health Cooperative (GHC) Operation Center's Main and West parking lot. The location of GHC's Main parking lot is on the northeast corner of East Marginal Way South and South 124th Street; the location of GHC's West parking lot is on the west side of East Marginal Way South between South 124th Street and South 126th Street. Existing stall counts were conducted by Entranco on September 28 and 29, 1999. A total of 408 parking stalls were observed in GHC's Main parking lot and a total of 272 parking stalls were stalls were observed in GHC's West parking lot. If you have any questions regarding the information provided in this letter, please do not hesitate to call me at (425) 454-5600. Sincerely, ENTRANCO, Inc. Marc Mizuta Project Engineer MTM R:\99181\Existing Parking Stalls Letter.doc • City of Tukwila Department of Community Development January 14, 2000 Applicant William D. Biggs Director, Administrative Services Group Health Cooperative of Puget Sound 521 Wall Street Seattle, Washington 98121 Re: SEPA Review (E99-0036) Group Health Parking Garage at 12400 East Marginal Way South, Tukwila Gentlemen: John W Rants, Mayor Steve Lancaster, Director Agent Dave Startzel Trammel Crow Company 1687 114th Avenue S.E., Suite 250 Bellevue, Washington 98004 We have received and reviewed the additional documentation you submitted to us on January 10th in connection with your application for a SEPA Planned Action. We have the following comments. Since the time of Group Health's initial occupancy in 1995-1996 the use of both Marginal Way sites has intensified. As the number of employees have increased, so have the associated traffic levels and impacts. As a result, the City Engineer has asked Group Health to provide one revised traffic analysis that accurately reflects the existing and proposed uses at both sites. Due to this increase in traffic impacts, Tukwila's SEPA Official (Steve Lancaster) has determined that this project does not fall within the scope of the MIC Planned Action EIS. Therefore, your request for a SEPA Planned Action has been denied. A SEPA determination will now be required. To accomplish this, you must apply for the standard SEPA Environmental Review. We have enclosed an application packet for your use. Although you must resubmit using these application requirements, no additional application fees will be charged. Please carefully review the "Complete Application Checklist Table" found in the enclosed packet. For purposes of completeness, you will not need to provide the following items (as they were previously submitted under your SEPA Planned Action request): Checklist Item Number. 2. Four (4) copies of the Geotechnical Study dated September 21, 1999 prepared by Earth Consultants. 2. Four (4) copies of the Level 1 Downstream Analysis dated December 23, 1999 prepared by Barghausen Engineers. 3. Eight (8) sets of full sized plans with one (1) set of PMTs. 7. Vicinity map with site location. 6300 Southcenter Boulevara, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Far (206) 431-3665 • William D. Biggs Dave Startzel January 14, 2000 E99-0036 (SEPA Planned Action Request) Page 2 • "Affidavit of Ownership and Hold Harmless Permission to Enter Property" form. However, please be advised that all other items on the Checklist Table will be required. Among other things, your SEPA Checklist will have to be revised, executed and resubmitted (eight copies). Additionally, four copies of the revised traffic study are required (it is our understanding that Group Health will provide this study by the last week of January). Prior to submitting the required documents, it is particularly important that you verify the number of existing and proposed parking spaces. In the previous submittal there was a great deal of contradictory and inconsistent information on this point. Robert Fadden is aware of these inconsistencies and has been asked that the data be cross-checked with Group Health's Commute Trip Reduction Coordinator. Upon our receipt of the required SEPA items listed above, a new SEPA file number will be assigned and the City will begin the review process under your new SEPA application. If you should have any questions regarding the within, please do not hesitate to contact me at 206-431- 3663. Sincerely, Ietoris__ ate_ Deborah Ritter Assistant Planner Enclosure CITY OF TUKWILA Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 Telephone: (206) 431-3670 FAX (206) 431-366 E-mail: tukplan(a)ci.tukwila.wa.us AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP AND HOLD HARMLESS PERMISSION TO ENTER PROPERTY STATE OF WASHINGTON COUNTY OF KING The undersigned being duly sworn and upon oath states as follows: 1. I am the current owner of the property which is the subject of this application. 2. All statements contained in the applications have been prepared by me or my agents and are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. 3. The application is being submitted with my knowledge and consent. 4. Owner grants the City, its employees,a ents, engineers, pontractors or other rcpreesentatives a right to enter upon Owner's real property locatedat 124W 1^• aaryt\.3at way 5. To kw; 981(01-2661 for the purpose of application review, for thb limited time rt€cessary to complete that purpose. 5. Owner agrees to hold the City harmless for any loss or damage to persons or property occurring on the private property during the City's entry upon the property unless the Toss or damage is the result of the aaltnegligence of the City. p 6. The City shall, at its discretion , cancel the application without refund of fees, if the applicant does not respond to specific requests for items on the "Complete Application Checklist" within ninety (90) days. 7. Non -responsiveness to a City information request for ninety (90) or more days, shall be cause to cancel the application(s) without refund of fees. EXECUTED at '• (C -11-311—C. (city), LI / . (state), on 411-1J', /Lim 5^ loco WI LI t7. 46tr-v ,s IDiwlc-rw„,n.OMtgliDAMecSc�r►�cc (Print Name) O44>< }}C.jsC-I i� 4�oy orWc 9- rts.4('Jr So 1%l, S21 1-1/1t_t_ STImacri SIJ L tLAA q'B1 21 (Address) Lot -4j- - 24t4 (Phone Number) #r1/1,7A._S (Signature) On this day personally appeared before me 101 I a.iy— to me known to be the individual who executed the foregoing instrument and acknowledged that he/she signed the same his/her voluntary act and deed for the uses and purposes mentioned therein. SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE OF . $NE , t t t NOTARY P rLIC in and for the State o Washington kA lIt residing at ��5 (-Q JSP2 V.)/ e� 0 /Commission expires on Tr. i _,• ”' ,,ra.,t lc:, Gs� G:IAPPHAML4NDUSEAPPtspI ,iI dac. 12/06/99 2 • City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director December 28, 1999 Applicant William D. Biggs Director, Administrative Services Group Health Cooperative of Puget Sound 521 Wall Street Seattle, Washington 98121 Re: SEPA Review (E99-0036) Group Health Parking Garage at 12400 East Marginal Way South, Tukwila Gentlemen: Agent Dave Startzel Trammel Crow Company 1687 114th Avenue S.E., Suite 250 Bellevue, Washington 98004 We have received and reviewed your documentation for the above -referenced application, submitted to us on December 23, 1999. We have the following comments. Your application has been found to be incomplete. In order to continue processing your application there are additional items that must be submitted to the Department of Community Development. These items are listed below. 1. A completed SEPA Planned Action Application that has been signed and dated by the applicant. A copy of your incomplete application form is attached. 2. Eight copies of the SEPA Checklist that have been signed and dated by the applicant. A copy of your incomplete checklist is attached. 3. A completed "Affidavit of Ownership and Hold Harmless Permission to Enter Property" form, executed by the applicant and properly notarized. A blank form is enclosed for your use. 4. One high quality 8-1/2" x 11" reduction of the plan sheet prepared by Barghausen Engineers entitled "Preliminary Grading, Drainage and Utility Plan" dated December 22, 1999. • 5. Four complete copies of each of the soils reports referenced on page 3 (Item B(1)(c)) of your SEPA checklist. 6. Four complete copies of the traffic study referenced on page 12 (Item 14(0) of your SEPA checklist. 6300 Southcenter Boulevara4 Suite #100 • Tukwila, Wasl'iington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665 • William D. Biggs Dave Startzel December 28, 1999 E98-0036 (SEPA) Page 2 Upon receipt of the required SEPA items listed above, the City will continue processing your SEPA application. The SEPA application will expire if we do not receive the requested items referenced above within 90 days of this letter's date, unless an extension is granted pursuant to Section 18.104.070(E) of the Tukwila Municipal Code. If you should have any questions regarding the within, please do not hesitate to contact me at 206-431-3663. Sincerely, —b2tcretlil 06e_ Deborah Ritter Assistant Planner Enclosure • CITY OF TUKWILA Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 Telephone: (206) 431-3670 FAX (206) 431-3665 E-mail: tukplan@ci. tukwila. wa. us SEPA PLANNED ACTION APPLICATION NAME OF PROJECT/DEVELOPMENT: GROUP HEALTH PARKING GARAGE LOCATION OF PROJECT/DEVELOPMENT: Give street address or, if vacant, indicate lot(s), block and subdivision, access street, and nearest intersection. LIST ALL TAX LOT NUMBERS. 12400 East Marginal Way S. Assessor Account No. 734-060-0480-00 Quarter: Su) Section: 0 Township: a-3 Range: if (This information may be found on your tax statement.) DEVELOPMENT COORDINATOR : The individual who: • has decision making authority on behalf of the applicant in meetings with City staff, • has full responsibility for identifying and satisfying all relevant and sometimes overlapping development standards, and • is the primary contact with the City, to whom all notices and reports will be sent. Name: Dave Startzel• - TRAMMELL CROW COMPANY Address: 1687 - 114th Ave. S.E. Suite 250, Bellevue, WA 98004 Phone: (425)453-8600 FAX: (425)454-7184 Signature: )N-., J'� Date: O iPP&WIl.1NDUMAPP4-W 2L06.Mft . O9/O3i➢9 CITY OF TUKWILA DEC 2 3 fid. PERMIT GENIE, FOR STAFF USE ONLY Sierra Type: PACT . •R File Number: _R ct - o 0..2 6 Planner: L.Thab -e)(2._ Application Complete (Date: ) Project File Number: Application Incomplete (Date: 1. n qv) MIC Planned Action EIS File Number: E96-0034 Other File Numbers Pre cf9 - 0 3(6, NAME OF PROJECT/DEVELOPMENT: GROUP HEALTH PARKING GARAGE LOCATION OF PROJECT/DEVELOPMENT: Give street address or, if vacant, indicate lot(s), block and subdivision, access street, and nearest intersection. LIST ALL TAX LOT NUMBERS. 12400 East Marginal Way S. Assessor Account No. 734-060-0480-00 Quarter: Su) Section: 0 Township: a-3 Range: if (This information may be found on your tax statement.) DEVELOPMENT COORDINATOR : The individual who: • has decision making authority on behalf of the applicant in meetings with City staff, • has full responsibility for identifying and satisfying all relevant and sometimes overlapping development standards, and • is the primary contact with the City, to whom all notices and reports will be sent. Name: Dave Startzel• - TRAMMELL CROW COMPANY Address: 1687 - 114th Ave. S.E. Suite 250, Bellevue, WA 98004 Phone: (425)453-8600 FAX: (425)454-7184 Signature: )N-., J'� Date: O iPP&WIl.1NDUMAPP4-W 2L06.Mft . O9/O3i➢9 CITY OF TUKWILA DEC 2 3 fid. PERMIT GENIE, COMPLETE APPLICATION CHECKLIST 115 The materials listed below must be submitted with your application unless specifically waived in writing by the Department of Community Development. Please contact the Department if you feel that certain items are not applicable to your project and should be waived. Application review will not begin until it is determined to be complete. There is no filing fee. ADDITIONAL MATERIALS MAY BE REQUIRED. The initial application materials allow starting project review and vesting the applicant's rights. However, they in no way limit the City's ability to require additional information as needed to establish consistency with develoment standards. Department staff are available to answer questions about application materials at 206-431-3670. COMPLETE APPLICATION CHECKLIST TABLE it � w+.'.y}} „� 'liked , "Y. k 6. M f AsF`+'i "`A �'a - .t{'fi7b'° Informah611 Required ay'be }v�a�vedktn unusual; c"'4Ya l'tS`d+'�" 3C'"' as upon approval of the,Planrangg tam � � /"�` ,Information owed ' ,l k r/' .d � Office Use Onl } t 1 F Comments c Co tions One (1) copy of the Complete Application Checklist, indicating items submitted with application. L Eight (8) copies of the completed and signed SEPA Planned Action application. You may use the City's pre-printed form or you may re- type the questions on your computer. If you choose to re -type the form into your_. computer, be sure to do so accurately. Mistakes or omissions will increase the review time. • ) Eight (8) sets of the full size plans needed to clearly describe the proposed action. L4! One (1) set of plans reduced to 8.5" x 11". IV Four (4) copies of supporting studies. 'Y OTU LA OFC 20?9,t PERtiacsaim n,UPPHAW 1NO(/.SF_APPI-WR1.066Q m,,, 09/03/99 COMPLETE APPLICATION CHECKLIST The materials listed below must be submitted with your application unless specifically waived in writing by the Public Works Department and the Department of Community Development. Please contact the Department if you feel that certain items are not applicable to your project and should be waived, or should be submitted in a later timely manner for use at the Public Hearing (e.g., revised colored renderings). Application review will not begin until it is determined to be complete. ADDITIONAL MATERIALS MAY BE REQUIRED, TO ENSURE CONSISTENCY WITH CITY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. Department staff are available to answer questions about application materials at 206-431-3670 Department of Community Development and 206-433-0179 Department of Public Works. COMPLETE APPLICATION CHECKLIST TABLE Information Required. May be waived in unusual cases, upon approval of both Public Works and Planning Information Waived PbWk/Ping Office Use Only Comments & Conditions. APPLICATION FORMS: 1. Application Checklist one (1) copy, indicating items submitted with application. 2. Four (4) copies of supporting studies with original signatures and license stamp as needed. ✓ le" feCh + S'orm wa/hr ►ez1e 3. Complete Application Packet: Eight (8) copies of application form and full sized plans, one set of PMT's of all plans reduced to 8.5"by 11", and other materials and information as specifically listed in Project Description and Analysis, Site Plans and Elevations. ✓ t p )anS 4 PM -Pew pc2 4. SEPA Environmental Checklist (12 copies) and fee ($325). ✓ re -Ca v ezQ ca- aQ. _0,0 PUBLIC NOTICE MATERIALS: SUBMIT ONLY IF UNDERLYING PERMIT REQUIRES PUBLIC NOTICE. 5. King County Assessor's map(s) which shows the location of each property within 500 feet of the subject lot. 6. Two (2) sets of mailing labels for all property owners and tenants (residents and businesses) within 500 feet of the subject property. See Public Notice Materials. Note: Each unit in multiple -family buildings-e.g. apartments, condos, trailer parks must be included). A 4' x 4' Public Notice Board will be required on site within 14 days of the Department determining that a complete application has been received. PROPERTY INFORMATION 7. Vicinity Map with site location. V on P1 an s 4 : TT s 8. Surrounding Land Use Map for all existing land uses within a 1,000 foot radius from the lot's property lines. 9. Title Report -- Clearly establish status as legal lot(s) of record, ownership, all known easements and encumbrances. 10. Lot lines for 300 ft. from the site's property lines including right-of-ways. / I� G:WPPHAN\LANDUSE.APP\SEPAAPP.DOC 10/23/99 PUBLIC NOTICE MATERIALS ADDRESS LABEL REQUIREMENTS: The City of Tukwila requires that neighboring residents, businesses and property owners be notified of certain types of development applications. Applicants are therefore required to submit the following materials: • Two (2) sets of mailing labels listing the property owners of record, residents and businesses within 500 feet of the project property lines (not the property center). • One copy of an Assessor's map(s) showing the boundaries of the subject property and the 500 foot public notice area. 1 1 t 1 ....,..\NI 123 St. 1 1 1 *.i • Property owner names and addresses can be obtained from the King County Department of Assessment located on the 7th floor of the King County Administration Building, Room 700, 500 Fourth Avenue, Seattle. To compile the information required: • Obtain the Assessor's map(s) which contain(s) your property and all neighboring properties within 500 feet (see example diagram). You may use the maps on file in the Assessor's Office or purchase a set from the King County Department of Public Works Map Counter on the 9th floor of the Administration Building. Purchased maps must be ordered several hours in advance of the time you would like to pick them up. • After securing the Assessor's maps, obtain a "Real Estate Inquiry Batch Request Sheet" from the Department of Assessment. On this form, provide the tax account number for each affected property as shown on the Assessor's map(s) and submit the completed form to the Department of Assessment with the appropriate fee. Applicants can request the information be printed in mailing label form or on standard paper. • To obtain occupants/resident/business names and addresses, consult the Kroll maps located in the Tukwila Department of Community Development, consult the Tukwila Business License data base and do a field survey as directed. The information on the mailing labels may refer to "Resident" or "Tenant", with the proper mailing address, if the specific names are unknown. \\TUK2\V OL2\APPHANU.ANDUSE. APP\SEPAAPP.DOC9/29/99 • • PUBLIC INFORMATION SIGNS: Public Information Signs are intended to make the public aware of land use and development actions which are being considered by the City, to facilitate timely and effective public participation in the review process. "On -Site Posting Periods" for public information signs vary based on the type of permits being requested. These periods are shown in Type 1. SIGN INSTALLATION AND SPECIFICATIONS Sign Size and Placement The sign(s) shall be 4'x4' in size, placed no closer than five (5) feet from the right-of-way at the mid -point of the more heavily traveled public street fronting the property (see Figure 2). A minimum of one sign is required on each project site. Additional signs may be required for larger sites or for properties with several street frontages. The sign(s) cannot be located within the required clear vision area depicted in Figure 3. The sign shall be prepared using the official templates provided in this packet or attachable letters (see Figure 4 and 5). Hand lettered signs are not acceptable. Signs meeting the established criteria may be obtained from any professional sign company. Signs Now in Tukwila (206) 271-5465 and Fast Signs in Seattle (206) 368-7331 are two sign companies providing this service. You may consult the yellow pages to obtain quotes from other sign companies. Sign Content • The title "Notice of Land Use Action." • Type of land use or development action which is proposed. • Name of the proposed project. • Address of project site. • Name of the Applicant. • City of Tukwila logo (copy attached). • A graphic or written description of the site boundaries, and space for the Notice of Application and Notice of Public Hearing. • Additional information as the Director of Community Development may determine to be necessary to adequately notify the public of the pending land use application. G:WPPHAN LANDUSE.APP\SEPAAPP.DOCIO/23/99 PLANNED ACTION INITIAL QUALIFICATIONS (TMC 21.04.152) Please complete the following checklist to demonstrate that all significant adverse environmental impacts have been clearly avoided or mitigated. Please respond on separate sheets as needed. Applicant Responses: A. BACKGROUND 1. Date checklist prepared: December 22, 1999 2. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): Start construction March 23, 2000 3. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain The site will be fully developed at this time. 4. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. None 5. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal. SEPA determination, Grading Permit, Utility Permits, Building Permit, Construction Permits, & Electrical Permits. Agency Comments: • • 6. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. Section E requires a complete description of the objectives and alternates of your proposal and should not be summarized here. The proposed 3 -level 600 + parking structure will be developed to consolidate parking for the existing Health Cooperative operations building. The portion of the site is currently to be developed as a parking lot, which will serve the Group Health support facility. The eastern portion of the site contains a detention pond. Access to the site is through existing driveways across from S. 124th Street on East Marginal Way South. The exterior of the building will be a combination of smooth painted rusticated concrete. 7. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. See attached legal and vicinity maps. This project if located in the City of Tukwila on: The northeast corner of the intersection of East Marginal Way South and S. 124th Street. 8. Does the proposal lie within an area designated on the City's Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan Map as environmentally sensitive? No 2 • • B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. Earth a. General description of the site (circle one): rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other. The existing parking lot slopes slightly to the southwest. b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? 5% except for ditches and drainage pond. c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. See attached soils reports for each phase. The site has not been used for agriculture in recent history. d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. No. e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. Site area is presently a parking lot. The grading will entail export of footing only. f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. g. Asphalt paving will remain until concrete paving is in place. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? No significant increase of impervious surface will occur due to the fact that the area of new construction is presently paved as a parking lot. The site will be approximately 85% impervious at completion of this project. h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth if any: Follow best management practices according to a T.E.C.P. that will be approved by the City prior to construction. 3 • • 2. Air a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (for example, dust, automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. During construction we anticipate vehicle and equipment exhaust and dust generation during dry weather grading. After completion, emission from vehicles and gas heating equipment will occur. b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. None c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: Comply with vehicle emission standard, air quality standard for heating equipment and best management practices during project grading. 3. Water a. Surface 1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river if flows into. No known stream exists within 200' of the site. 2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) of the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. No 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. None 4 • • 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions: Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. No withdrawals or division of watercourses will occur. 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100 -year Floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. No — Site elevation falls above 24 feet. 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. None b. Ground 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. Current soils do not percolate well. No water from roof or parking area will be discharged into the site. 2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals...; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the systems are expected to serve. Not applicable. c. Water Runoff (including storm water) 1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. The source of runoff to the site is seasonal rainfall. Storm water runoff generated by the proposed project will be collected and conveyed by a series of catch basins and tightlines to an open combined wet/detention pond for storm water detention and water quality treatment. The pond is located in the northeast corner of the site and will discharge into an existing underground pipe system that conveys runoff east to the East Marginal Way storm drainage system. A portion of the treated storm water will be directed into the wetland mitigation area adjacent to the pond. 5 • • 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. Based on the collection system designed, no waste materials can enter the ground except for fertilizers in planting areas. Impervious surfaces will channel all runoff to the water quality pond which will provide treatment of water from vehicle maneuvering and parking areas. This facility will be designed to meet current Government standards. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts. The site will be designed with a drainage system that will collect all site runoff. This runoff will be conveyed to a detention facility. This facility will regulate the site runoff to a level that will meet City standard. Design of this system will be approved by the City. 4. Plants a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: X Deciduous tree: Alder, Maple, Aspen, other X Evergreen tree: Fir, Cedar, Pine, other X Shrubs Grass Pasture Crop or grain Wet soil plants: Cattail, Buttercup, Bulrush, Skunk, Cabbage, other Water Plants: Water Lily, Eelgrass, Milfoil, other Other types of vegetation - Blackberries b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered Only existing landscape areas along East Marginal Way North, S. 124th Street and within and surrounding the parking areas, existing ground covers, and blackberries will be removed during the grading process. c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None known. d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: The newly developed portion of the site will be landscaped in accordance with an approved City plan. 6 • • 5. Animals a. Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: Birds: Hawk, Heron, Eagle, ongbir•s others; Mammals: Deer, Bear, Elk, Beaver, other; Fish: Bass, Salmon, Trout, Herring, Shellfish, other Other: Rabbits & Rodents b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None known. c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. Other than Pacific Flyway, which covers much of Western Washington, no. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: Provide native planting at water quality area. 6. Energy and Natural Resources a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. Electricity will be used for site lighting only. b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. No c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: N.A. 7. Environmental Health a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. No 7 • • 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. None — Normal fire, police and aid care services could be required. 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: Not applicable. b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic equipment, operation, other)? Traffic noise at this time is minimal. No other offsite noises are present that could affect this use. 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation. other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. Construction noise from vehicles and building activities will be the source of short-term noise. Vehicle noise on the site after it is developed will be the primary source of post construction noise. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: Construction noise will be limited to daylight hours outside the building. Vehicle noise from cars will be controlled by current vehicle noise standards. 8. Land and Shoreline Use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? The site area is currently 100% developed as a parking lot. The parking lot provides parking for the existing Group Health facility. Other uses near the site include a tavern, existing undeveloped land, storage/manufacturing structures. b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. Not in recent time. c. Describe any structures on the site. No building structures are present. Underground storm drainage structures are in place along with landscaping and paving. 8 • d. Will any existing structures be demolished? Some utility structures will be modified or removed. e. What is the current zoning classification of the site Manufacturing/Industrial Center— Light (MIC/L) f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? Industrial g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? Not applicable. h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify: No I. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? N.A. Parking structure is provided for employees of existing Group Health facilities. No additional employees will be added to these facilities due to this parking structure. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? None k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: None 1. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: Comply with good design practices and zoning requirements. 9. Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. None 9 • • b. Approximately how many units, if any would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. Does not apply. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: Does not apply. 10. Aesthetics a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? The estimated building height is about 25' to rail at third level. The exterior materials will be painted concrete. b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? None c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: Install perimeter landscaping. The landscape design should visually buffer the building from public spaces. The building exterior design will utilize painted concrete. 11. Light and Glare a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? Parking lot lighting will be a source of light that will be visible from outside the property perimeter. The parking lot lighting will run in the evening. b. Could Tight or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? No c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? None 10 • d. Proposed measures to reduce or control Tight and glare impacts, if any: Low glare parking lot light fixtures through photometric design will limit lighting effects to this lot. 12. Recreation a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? Existing Group Health facilities provides a weight workout room with lockers. b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreation uses? If so, describe. No c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: None 13. Historic and Cultural Preservation a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, National, State, or Local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. No b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. None known. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: Not applicable. 14. Transportation a. Identify public streets and highway serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. East Marginal Way South, Hwy. 99 and S. 126th Street. 11 • • b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? Yes — Bus stops are provided on East Marginal Way South. The Metro bus facility is in close proximity. c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? About 778 parking stalls will be provided on site with the completion of this project. About 394 stalls are currently provided on the site. d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). No e. Will the project use (or occur in immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. No f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. See attached traffic study. g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: The applicant is providing car pool stalls, van pool parking, transit passes to encourage ride sharing to minimize use of single occupant vehicles. Group Health currently has an employee transportation plan that will be expanded to include this facility. 15. Public Services a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. Existing services adequate based on recent study. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. None 12 16. Utilities • • a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity) natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other. b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. Power is available from City Light. c. Signature The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is relying on them to make its decision. Signature: Date Submitted GRPHEALTH-PKG.CHK 13 • • MEMORANDUM TO: City of Tukwila Planning Division FROM: Dave Startzel DATE: December 15, 1999 RE: Group Health Garage Pursuant to the pre -application checklist file No. PRE99-036, we have outlined the parking management plan explaining how parking will be accommodated during construction. Group Health has executed an agreement with the Boeing Corporation to rent approximately 500 parking stalls at the Boeing Oxbow Facility - located approximately 1.5 miles north of Group Health at the intersection of South 102nd and South 104th. It is Group Health's intent to provide a shuttle service between the two locations for the entire time of construction. The spaces will be available February 1, 2000, or later depending on when construction starts. The term of this agreement with Boeing is open-ended. Please call Dave Startzel at (425) 453-8600 with questions. RECEIVED CITY OF TUION!LA DEC 3 1L PERMIT CENTS, • • D. PROPERTY OWNER DECLARATION The undersigned makes the following statements based upon personal knowledge; 1 am the current owner of the property which is the subject of this application. Ail statements contained In the application are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. The application is being submitted with my knowledge and consent. 1 understand that conditions of approval, which the City and applicant have Jointly agreed may not be completed prior to final approval of the conatruction (e,g., final building permit approval) will be incorporated into an agreement to be executed and recorded against the property prior to issuance of any construction permits. 1 declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington and the United ' States of America that the foregoing statement is true and cOrreCt, EXECUTED at EP rTLE (city), (4) »d -J r'G ro Al (state), an Oe"TogER i; 199.2. u)II I iqm B D. i.5s .fl►reGO`r A&w.‘rt s''v Sarvires G a Coo exct.. i ve , S u (Print Nerne) Sal vcd 15-3-ve S e m,___.11 Q W I (Address) (Phone Number) (Signature) RECEIVED CITY OF TUKWILA DEC 2 3 199 PERMIT CENTER Use additional sheets es needed for all property owner signaturee. MEMORANDUM TO: Brian Shelton, P.E. City of Tukwila FROM: Curtis Chin, P.E. Entranco DATE: August 25, 1999 PROJECT: Traffic Impact Analysis Group Health Cooperative Parking Garage - Tukwila Entranco Project No. 99107-60 This memorandum documents the traffic impacts associated with the proposed Group Health Cooperative (GHC) parking garage in Tukwila, Washington. The proposed parking garage includes approximately 280 parking spaces located on the north side of the existing GHC building at 12400 East Marginal Way South. The current site is occupied by existing GHC surface parking. It is anticipated that the parking garage will be completed in the year 2000. A site plan has been developed for the proposed parking garage and is shown in the attached figure. The proposed parking garage is intended to replace the loss of GHC parking stalls on the west side of East Marginal Way due to the proposed development of that site. Since there are no land use changes associated with the proposed parking garage, we do not expect the number of vehicles generated by the existing site to change with the addition of the proposed parking garage. To determine the traffic impacts of the proposed GHC parking garage, level of service (LOS) calculations were conducted at the GHC main entrance with and without the proposed parking garage. Existing traffic counts were conducted to determine the_ number of vehicle trips that would shift to the realigned GHC main entrance. The counts were conducted by Traffic Data Gathering on July 22, 1999 during both the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. The methodology used to analyze the intersections was consistent with the 1997 Update to the Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report 209, Transportation Research Board. The LOS reported for unsignalized intersections is expressed as average control delay per vehicle by movement. For unsignalized intersections, the LOS is reported for the worst case among all of the calculated movements at the intersection (typically one of the stop -sign controlled side street approaches). Table 1 summarizes the existing a.m. and p.m. peak hour LOS and delay at the GHC main entrance. R:\99107\ghcmemo.doc CFC/JJH 1 of 2' Table 1 Group Health Cooperative (GHC) Main Entrance Level of Service Summary 1999 Existing 2000 With Proposed Conditions Parking Garage Intersection Delay LOS Delay LOS Weekday A.M. Peak Hour East Marginal Way S/GHC Main Entrance 12.0 B 12.4 B Weekday P.M. Peak Hour East Marginal Way S/GHC Main Entrance 20.9 C - 24.8 C Note: The delay and LOS reported for unsignalized intersections is the worst case among all of the calculated movements (usually one of the stop -controlled side street approaches). The LOS at unsignalized intersections applies only to the capacity of the worst movement, and is not a valid indicator of overall traffic operations at an intersection. The GHC main entrance is currently operating below capacity and will continue to operate below capacity with the proposed project. As shown in the above table, the GHC main entrance would operate at LOS C or better during both the a.m. and p.m. peak hours with or without the proposed parking garage. Based on the results of this analysis we do not anticipate any traffic -related issues with the proposed project. Worksheets showing the LOS calculations at the GHC entrance are attached. Please call me at 425-974-8016 if you have any questions. cc: Mike Hubbard, Trammell Crow Company Bob Fadden, Lance Mueller Associates R:\99107\ghcmemo.doc CFC/JJH 2 of 2 r + TrammellCrowCompany January 6, 1999 Ms. Deborah Ritter Assistant Planner City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 Tukwila, WA 98188 RE: SEPA Review (E99-0036) Group Health Parking Garage At 12400 East Marginal Way South, Tukwila Dear Ms. Ritter: Enclosed please find a fully executed "Affidavit of Ownership and Hold Harmless Permission to Enter Property" form for your files. If you have any further questions, please feel free to call. Sincerely, TRAMMELL CROW COMPANY Serena Sanders Administrative Assistant Enclosure cc: Project File 521 Wall Street Seattle, Washington 98121 R cCENEDD AN ®6 2000 HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 3.1b TWO-WAY STOP CONT (TWSC) ANALYSIS Analyst: AVW EMGHam99.hcu Intersection: East Marginal Way/GHC Main Entrance Count Date: 1999 Existing Tim= Period: AM Peak In. .:section Orientation: North-South Major St. Vehicle Volume Data: Movements: 2 3 4 5 7 9 Volume: 237 63 79 69 5 12 HFR: 282 75 99 86 11 26 PHF: 0.84 0.84 0.80 0.80 0.47 0.47 PHV: 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.29 0.29 Pedestrian Volume Data: Movements: Flow: Lane width: Walk speed: % Blockage: Median Type: None # of vehicles: 0 Flared approach Movements: # of vehicles: Eastbound 0 # of vehicles: Westbound 0 Lane usage for movements 1,2&3 approach: Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 L T R L T R L T R N Y Y N N N N N N Channelized: N Grade: 0.00 Lane usage for movements 4,5&6 approach: Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 L T R L T R L T R Y Y N N N N N N N Channelized: N Grade: 0.00 Lane usage for movements 7,8&9 approach: Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 L T R L T R L T R Y N Y N N N N N N Channelized: N Grade: 0.00 Lane usage for movements 10,11&12 approach: Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 L T R L T R L T R N N N N N N N N N Channelized: N Gr• 0.00 Data for Computing Effect of Delay to Major Street Vehicles: Mnvenient 1 40 7 8 9 10 11 II v(vph) 99 136 C '-'ph) 1196 551 ✓ 0.08 0.07 95.0 queue length Control Delay 8.3 12.0 LOS A B Approach Delay 12.0 Approach LOS B Worksheet 11 Shared Major LT Impedance and Delay Rank 1 Delay Calculations Movement 2 5 P of 1.00 0.92 ✓ it 306 69 ✓ i2 0 0 S it 1700 1700 S i2 1700 1700 P* Oj 1.00 0.91 D maj left 0.0 8.3 N number major st lanes 1 1 Delay, rank 1 mvmts 0.0 0.7 Northbound Southbound Shared In volume, major th vehicles: 306 Aiih Shared In volume, major rt vehicles 0 Sat flow rate, major th vehicles: 1700 NW Sat flow rate, major rt vehicles: 1700 1700 Number of major street through lanes: 1 1 I :h of study period, hrs: 0.25. Worksheet 4 Critical Gap and Follow-up time calculation. Critical Gap Calculations: Movement 4 7 9 t c,base 4.1 7.1 6.2 t c,hv 1.0 1.0 1.0 P hv 0.05 0.01 0.01 t c,g 0.2 0.1 G 0.00 0.00 0.00 t 3,1t 0.0 0.7 0.0 t c,T: 1 stage 0.00 0.00 0.00 t c: 1 stage 4.1 6.4 6.2 Follow Up Time Calculations: Movement 4 7 9 t f,base t f,HV P hv t f 2.2 0.9 0.05 2.2 3.5 0.9 0.01 3.5 3.3 0.9 0.01 3.3 Worksheet 6 Impedance and capacity equations Step 1: RT from Minor St. 9 12 Conflicting Flows 112 P itial Capacity 943 P. atrian Impedance Factor 1.00 Movement Capacity 943 Probability of Queue free St. 0.76 Step 2: LT from Major St. 4 1 Conflicting Flows 112 Potential Capacity 1459 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 Movement Capacity 1459 Probability of Queue free St. 1.00 Maj. L Shared ln. Prob. Queue Free St. 1.00 Step 4: LT from Minor St. 7 10 Conflicting Flows 527 Potential Capacity 513 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 Maj. L, Min T Impedance factor 1.00 Maj. L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor. 1.00 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 1.00 Movement Capacity 513 Worksheet 8 Shared Lane Calculations Shared Lane Calculations Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 ✓ ) 223 Movement Capacity 513 Shared Lane Capacity 666 226 943 Worksheet 10 delay,queue length, and LOS HCS: Unsignali.zed Intersections Release 3.1b TWO-WAY STOP CON(TWSC) ANALYSIS Analyst: AVW EMGHam00WS.hcu 8/24/99 Intersection: East Marginal Way/GHC Main Entrance Count Date: 2000 Shift Lot Traffic to Main Period: AM Peak Ii.__rsecti.on Orientation: North-South Major St. Vehicle Volume Data: Movements: 2 3 4 5 7 9 Volume: 242 78 87 62 6 12 HFR: 288 93 109 78 13 26 PHF: 0.84 0.84 0.80 0.80 0.47 0.47 PHV: 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.29 0.29 Pedestrian Volume Data: Movements: Flow: Lane width: nlalk speed: % Blockage: Median Type: None 4 of vehicles: 0 Flared approach Movements: 4 of vehicles: Eastbound 0 4 of vehicles: Westbound 0 Lane usage for movements 1,2&3 approach: Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 L T R L T R L T R N Y Y N N N N N N Channelized: N Grade: 0.00 Lane usage for movements 4,5&6 approach: Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 L T R L T R L T R Y Y N N N N N N N Channelized: N rade: 0.00 Lane usage for movements 7,8&9 approach: Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 L T R L T R L T R Y N Y N N N N N N 2hannelized: N 3rade: 0.00 Lane usage for movements 10,11&12 approach: Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 L T R L T R L T R N N N N N N N N N Thannelized: N 3r- 0.00 Data for Computing Effect of Delay to Major Street Vehicles: Mover.;ent 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 Igli 11, II v(vph) 109 138 II C -, (vph) 1172 523 0.09 0.07 9_ queue length Control Delay 8.4 12.4 LOS A B Approach Delay 12.4 Approach LOS B Worksheet 11 Shared Major LT Impedance and Delay Rank 1 Delay Calculations Movement 2 5 P of 1.00 0.91 ✓ it 242 62 ✓ i2 0 0 S it 1700 1700 S i2 1700 1700 P* Oj 1.00 0.90 D maj left 0.0 8.4 N number major st lanes 1 1 Delay, rank 1 mvmts 0.0 0.8 Northbound Southbound shared In volume, major th vehicles: 68 Iii0 Shared In volume, major rt vehicles • 1 Sat flow rate, major th vehicles: 1700 Sat flow rate, major rt vehicles: 1700 1700 Number of major street through lanes: 1 1 I :h of study period, hrs: 0.25 Worksheet 4 Critical Gap and Follow-up time calculation. Critical Gap Calculations: Movement 4 7 9 t c,base 4.1 7.1 6.2 t c,hv 1.0 1.0 1.0 P hv 0.05 0.01 0.01 t c,g 0.2 0.1 G 0.00 0.00 0.00 t 3,1t 0.0 0.7 0.0 t c,T: 1 stage 0.00 0.00 0.00 t c 1 stage 4.1 6.4 6.2 Follow Up Time Calculations: Movement 4 7 9 t f,base t f,HV P hv t f 2.2 0.9 0.05 2.2 3.5 0.9 0.01 3.5 3.3 0.9 0.01 3.3 Worksheet 6 Impedance and capacity equations Step 1: RT from Minor St. 9 12 Conflicting Flows 85 P -itial Capacity 977 F 3trian Impedance Factor 1.00 Movement Capacity 977 Probability of Queue free St. 0.73 Step 2: LT from Major St. 4 1 Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Movement Capacity Probability of Queue free St. Maj. L Shared ln. Prob. Queue Free St. 85 1493 1.00 1493 1.00 1.00 Step 4: LT from Minor St. 7 10 Conflicting Flows 507 Potential Capacity 527 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 Maj. L, Min T Impedance factor 1.00 Maj. L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor. 1.00 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 1.00 Movement Capacity 527 Worksheet 8 Shared Lane Calculations Shared Lane Calculations Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 ✓ ) 259 Moment Capacity 527 Shared Lane Capacity 685 260 977 Worksheet 10 delay,queue length, and LOS Curtis Chin, Re: Grouiealth TIA Report • To: Curtis Chin <CHIN@Entranco.com> From: Tukwila Public Works Engineering <tukpweng@ci.tukwila.wa.us> Subject: Re: Group Health TIA Report Cc: Bcc: X -Attachments: Curtis - As per your request, the following is a review of your comments. Comment No. 3 Trip generation rates that produce the maximum number of trips must be used in the analyses. As we said before you must be conservative. You need to compare the existing calculated trip generation rate with the rates using different variables as per trip generation manual including square footage and number of employees for a single tenant office building (LUC-715), and total number of parking stalls. If you are proposing more parking stalls than needed then you need to give us an explanation of why do you want to build them. If it is for future expansion plans, then you need to indicate that in your proposal. I am anticipating a summary table listing all above variables when discussing trip generation in the report. Comment No. 7 We asked you to analyze these intersections ((((in addition))) to the seven (7) intersections previously mentioned in your September 29, 1999 TIA report. You also forgot to include all access driveways in your list. Comment No. 5 We have discovered a problem with utilizing a two percent (2%) annual growth rate on top of existing conditions, please give me a call to discuss a more appropriate compounded annual growth rate for traffic on E Marginal Way (EMW). To explain, AADT on EMW has dropped by 9% annual rate between 1990 and 1995. Then it increased by a 6% annual rate between 1995 and 1999. The comprehensive plan estimated an average annual growth rate for EMW of 3% between 1990 and 2010. Trip distribution: To facilitate the review of the report, please provide a figure indicating both prcentages and number of project generated trips. Thanks. » Raid- » >Per our discussion, the following outlines how we are planning to address >your comments documented in the 12/16/99 letter concerning the Group Health >TIA. Please review and comment. Printed for Tukwila Public Works Engineering <tukpweng@ci.tu... Curtis Chin, Re: Groullealth TIA Report • » 1. Project is to be consistent with the requirements of the Strategic » Implementation plan for the Tukwila Manufacturing Industrial Center (MIC) . » As we understand the MIC establishes an acceptable LOS on East Marginal » Way to be LOS E. We will coordinate with Brian to determine if their are » other requirements we are not aware of. » 2. TIA report will be updated to include development on the east side of » EMW (parking structure) and the west side of EMW (2 new buildings). Any » future (re)development and/or expansion will need to be addressed in a » separate study at that time. » 3. To determine the trip generation for the 2 new buildings on the west » side of EMW, we will use the existing trip generation rate for the » existing Group Health development. Peak hour (a.m and p.m.) and daily » traffic counts will be conducted at the existing site driveways for three » consecutive weekdays (Tue, Wed, and Thurs). The trip generation rate » will be reported in trips/square foot. » 4. Base line conditions for the traffic report will be based on the trip » generation documented in the TP&E traffic report dated 1/8/96. » 5. TIA report will address the following: » - Current office space utilized » - Employees » - Parking (current and future) » - 2010 conditions with and without development » To establish 2010 conditions we propose to increase existing volumes by 2 » percent per year and include any trips from pipeline projects in the area. » 6. AM peak hour analysis will be included in the analysis » 7. The following intersections will be included in the report » * Pacific Highway/S 112th Street » * E Marginal Way S/S 112th Street » * E Marginal Way S/S 120th Street » * S 133rd Street/SR 599 ramps » * Interurban Avenue/I-5 northbound ramps » 8. Existing and proposed driveways will be included in the site plans. » 9. Site distance at driveways will be addressed in TIA » 10. To quantify cut -through traffic during the weekday p.m. peak hour Printed for Tukwila Public Works Engineering <tukpweng@ci.tu... 2 Curtis Chin, Re: Grouftealth TIA Report • » through the neighborhoods south of the development, we will conduct a » license plate study for 3 consecutive weekdays. The residential streets » of concern include: » * S 126th Street » * S 128th Street » * S 130th Street » * 40th Avenue S » 11. Document potential mitigation and impact fees. » 12. All calculations to be included in appendices. » 13. Plans and TIA report to be submitted to WSDOT development review » office. » We are planning on conducting the license plate study and traffic counts » at the Group Health driveways next week (January 25-27). » Thanks again for your help. » Curtis Chin » ENTRANCO » ph (425) 974-8016 » fax (425) 454-0220 Printed for Tukwila Public Works Engineering <tukpweng@ci.tu... 3 • , ea. ••••••• ainiet -5P2. • • Omni, svar.r.e. -11 TO /dr e4ita• "WellEMMIPA• 'ar wag eve. Baa %t eara•ra tradtart (POW/ MY/ priwii,dr ZIZGarrt.Z.44' a•ral A.0.0.4.11 41.Hr PALKB-U- , fri Ll. r teS aunt; 005 - 173tO,"‘ 1%.• kVEA.• (...ta•g4 0+0412.Y.. .41801.4sia.a.. .13,_ Cs I-6 ----Zo.••••• r.a.O'35.7 oar ••ea soa7ao o 'i 1 CP ▪ • 1 0 aal "VP Ctial R1.1 PI .0' APOPPOI11111.31. • ..C5.1 W PC, e•••• ,flefea•C") • Hz RM. new .EX !STING_ BUILDING ElevaliOn 20.1 . WDE FNMA - T•nn.- us, 42,t0 .....ceata a .SLIV AO. ••-•-• v4.-ar rw, col la ek."?......• I • .0O3 • 41. )0r. 41,441f.flr sozmr., n•-•,73.0 ritY.i113,1 , .4\ .3 0 earatleal•HO Off Oar GOAN 4im it,to • • 3 I.Eaea goons. MOOS Inas. WV•11 0.1.44111. Imes, Inn lat a ■ reit Moo* a CALL BEFORE YOU DIQ 1-800-424-5555 • • MASSIF i'.1110-1/0("i9cu�� •p 1-1110-414-015 w0 er nura ommeno M'� SA I fa 1 y an o nra �5M�16� hac 1.a.1w1n1 0 0 5M0.1P. .m'ld :i'c'XI.10 M�'1.�'01•' 10 000[019 5M1 0011.101111... WOK. NU It MOT 03•0101111 I5M 011MM91..011 Ma M 0000. 11.15 16.600,1 M "AAA. .ACO 110 Maw591.9 110M1•9 4 nMY •0.•011000 1111111 f M001M 1, 04611KI104 Kl•10!.1101 M K 103-110 01.00E 1.01 R COMM 0• MOW. 10.101. 10.10100 101 MOOS 10 SM. 10.0114 1@II ORM) MCW MOOT. rat 10110100 Of 10.4 1.011 01 0 0[01KM9 001 01100 n .0.1 0 (m0161-1110 009.101 51.11 001.0051 M ORM 0600110 1100 OM RODMO LL 110 691 .00 41M, ■609011 1.50-1010 001 FM5001 O 0116011.001. 1.5 W1M) WV= 11000. 01 OMR.,IMM•R IOVOM 01••01.11111i1.511000% Y M 1.5190 011.01011 M M 01•00001. M0069 10 0. 101P90 KP mows W 114 51 1 51.0 0 0 6 P 510 •00.06001 51.5 M1. M PRELIMINARY GRADING, DRAINAGE AND UTILITY PLAN N0,•1TN:Y ' I• v, fix'-��-� c.Y".-!!..� .°q'�.�9�6sm�T,+t-•+ncr••�e •i.._ ; �.,.J:..,.,._.. • +1+.•11 ♦ .i`cn a 1.6 ♦ ♦ w oc'7+.n ♦ ♦ f N`1 � •1,.1`•J N'111,1• •• I I I'�1 �I r I,� a,a k; :,�,► ♦ _ x fir::+ id r. ierl � i �M �•k k - r.^ 400 S/ I ER s§ ?9 A i 6.0620• V xb' -w 100.90' T 17q>-13AK SOUTH ELEVATION 10 ��n 11 13� 11 IS 16 A IB 19 T20 f..� EAST ELEVATION WEST ELEVATION 20 19 IB I6 IS 14 13 17 11 10 O O O O NORTH ELEVATION nr-+•-e• • iAMC n„'i SOW .17 11. VI z z 0 w J I✓ O J m • sheaf A3.1 TH RD LEVEL PLAN 0 z a 3 La W _1 • Q Mr 0 LJ A2.2 me-•• at -C n'-<' A -r xr-a. ar-<' s'-? ad -cc Dd aY-T aV-a. 0-0 X' .p' -O s'4 a<'-> s -r X0.-0 IS -e. ,V-<' IIIIIIIII L I L I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 [ 1 < C 1 11 �:.. < c c c C < c c c c I I l Pk C 01 f I�11,11,�,, ltr 1 < 1 < c c c CU P. . L I p�.asern ^ ■► c r Ia CCM! 0 ', J M < I 1.cx Incw I<rO.lin O. .o a I \ e M J ✓ POO WALLS TO K .�. I3 WALLS 101A.. ■IIIIIIIII ,• >i Iiiiiiiill I I. TH RD LEVEL PLAN 0 z a 3 La W _1 • Q Mr 0 LJ A2.2 »-0" n' -C #d b-<' s' -P #d .#d a<'•C A -T s'd ar-o- ar-c- >d -C aY-T Jo. It -O. W-.' n'a- a0 -P L I L uc I MACAe111I I I I n 11 �:.. I 11 < I P/441:13 V..]..re I I Pk Illlltl L h T11I CU Av L I p�.asern ^ c r e J mare < I 1.cx Incw I<rO.lin O. .o a I \ e ✓ .�. I3 WALLS 101A.. ■IIIIIIIII ,• TH RD LEVEL PLAN 0 z a 3 La W _1 • Q Mr 0 LJ A2.2 Ol O2 O30 ® © 0 ® Q9 0 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 aX a ad ad aX ad O 1 ♦ CSS OAS OA .011 . FIRST LEVEL PLAN S ®RISER r SPRINKLER EQUIP. ROOM PLAN V] NI. COTS SS stun TO u t CMCN JIsOCISO VIVANT ANT WILCO, COIL ENLARGED ELEVATOR CORE PLAN ENLARGED STAIR PLAN OS ♦ 3 •i i� 1 rW 1 ® VICINITY MAP PROJECT STATISTICS MIA 1.1110 OE. OE WC 01.4 .0 161.1112.51311111. A. .200 02104.11 CA. 5-4 ▪ ▪ OA MAO Ak. AOlool Ito MG mom ti.woo. INCESAW AM MO OWL ROM MA 02E3 A SLCOV noon 111.7•1411.1. 11.00 011011 11101.11 11. MSc PM :elms TACI Map 4/1.100 tf. 40 EC lag IF: PA ELY 1/0011 V. .n .Du. 20.0.200102 1100.0001 Qw Ln. DU IA TUU I. TUU . TUU ..W. 1.1114101 1•3 OAS IS SATS 0 MEI /113 Ma ON OM In (VW If MA 111 A. 104 Ata QD nc•10.D 4. TUU IS TUU 0000) 11 TUU m TUU • ■1 VIM • 1+111.►►Oi 1;....,,JL:_►x..11 , 1 Q'o SITE PLAN 0 0 A1.1 (/1 CZ a U coE U CZ 1. Prepared for: Sabey Corporation JOINT TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR GROUP HEALTH PARKING GARAGE AND INTERNATIONAL GATEWAY EAST DEVELOPMENT E'1°I 0030 RECEIVED MAR 2 1 2000 March 22, 2000 ci tv %Sr°, TUKW{LA C WORKS E N T R A N C O 430 MEMORANDUM Date: March 22, 2000 To: Brian Shelton, P.E. City Engineer, City of Tukwila From: Torsten Lienau, P.E., P.T.O.E. Entranco Subject: Group Health Cooperative Parking Garage and International Gateway East Development Traffic Impact Analysis Response to Comments Entranco Project No. 99818 Entranco received comments from the City of Tukwila regarding the traffic impact analysis report for the Group Health Cooperative (GHC) Parking Garage and International Gateway East Development dated February 18, 2000. The comments were transmitted in a letter dated March 7, 2000, with an attached memo dated March 3, 2000. This memorandum contains Entranco's response to those comments. Comment 1: Multiple trip generation scenarios have been documented in the attached updated traffic impact analysis, dated March 22, 2000. Please see pages 10 to 17. Comment 2: According to Group Health officials, there are no plans for future phases of the project at this time, or for future expansions of the parking facilities. The existing number of employees at the GHC facility is approximately 800 - 650 of which work during the day and 150 of which work at night. See pages 4 and 14 of the attached updated Traffic Impact Analysis, dated March 22, 2000 for an explanation. The existing GHC facility does not monitor the number of users of its current Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) program, and so cannot provide existing or future data. GHC does not envision eliminating the CTR program in the future, nor do they anticipate current levels of CTR use will decrease in the future. Comment 3: We disagree that the additional parking spaces will result in an increase in trip generation. Between the parking on site, on the street, and across the street, there is currently enough parking for the 800 employees of the existing GHC facilities. We do not believe parking is a reliable variable on which to base trip generation. The trip generation section of the traffic impact analysis has been updated to include a better explanation of how the trip generation was calculated, and includes discussion of several trip generation methodologies analyzed. Please see pages 10 to 17 of the attached updated traffic impact analysis, dated March 22, 2000. W:projects\99181\reportstresptocomm(3/22100)jc 1 Comment 4: The total number of a.m. peak -hour trips is 820, 604 of which are new trips that were not previously approved by the City (based on the February 18, 2000 Traffic Impact Analysis). Therefore, there are Tess than twice as many parking stalls as a.m. peak -hour trips. In addition, because of the flex schedule provided at GHC, not all employees arrive during the peak hour, so there are more vehicles entering before and after the peak hour. As mentioned previously, we do not agree with the use of parking stalls as a trip generation variable. Please see the discussion on page 15 of the attached updated traffic impact analysis, dated March 22, 2000. Comment 5: Again, we do not agree with the use of parking stalls as a trip generation variable. Please see discussion on page 15 of the attached updated traffic impact analysis, dated March 22, 2000. We have negotiated an acceptable trip generation methodology with the City that does not involve parking stalls however, a parking stall trip generation methodology was presented in the attached report. Comment 6: Previously approved trips in the 1996 traffic impact analysis report are only being used as a credit for mitigation fees. Trips that have occurred since 1996 due to increased employee density at the existing GHC facility are accounted for in all level of service (LOS), queue, signal warrant, and left turn lane analysis, because they are included in the existing 1999/2000 traffic counts that were conducted. Comment 7: The 2000 Existing Modified Conditions, listed in table 4, do not include the 180 a.m. peak hour or 129 p.m. peak -hour new trips related to the parking garage, because they are being considered by the City as new trips that need to be mitigated. Therefore, they should not be included as "Existing Conditions". As a result, the 2000 With Project Trips and 2010 With Project Trips listed in table 4 do include those 180 a.m. peak hour and 129 p.m. peak -hour new trips related to the parking garage. Those trips are accounted for in all level of service, queue, signal warrant, and left -turn lane analysis that includes project trips. Comment 8: The revised report has proposed mitigation for cut -through traffic. Please see discussion on page 33 of the attached updated traffic impact analysis, dated March 22, 2000. Comment 9: The yellow + red phase has been changed to 5 seconds in all the LOS calculations. Comment 10: Signal warrants were updated based on the new, approved trip generation. In addition, signal warrant 11 was performed for year 2010, as all other warrants are based on 24-hour counts, which cannot be obtained for the future. Please see discussion on pages 28 and 29 of the attached updated Traffic Impact Study, dated March 22, 2000. Comment 11: A pro -rata share towards a future signal at East Marginal Way/South 112th Street has been proposed. Please see discussion on page 32 of the attached updated traffic impact analysis, dated March 22, 2000. Comment 12: Barghausen Consulting Engineers will be providing a schematic design for the left -turn lanes and parking removal. Comment 13: The table number reference for the accident summary has been changed. Comment 14 and 15: Table 5 has been revised to reflect a parking stall trip generation, and employee trip generation methodologies. W:projects\99181keports\resptocomm(3/22/00)jc 2 Traffic Impact Analysis JOINT TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR GROUP HEALTH PARKING GARAGE AND INTERNATIONAL GATEWAY EAST DEVELOPMENT Tukwila, Washington Prepared for SABEY Corporation Prepared by ENTRANCO, Inc. 10900 NE 8th Street, Suite 300 Bellevue, Washington 98004 425-454-5600 March 22, 2000 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This traffic impact analysis was completed at the request of the City of Tukwila Department of Community Development. It addresses the effects of the construction of two separate projects that are located in close proximity to each other on East Marginal Way South between South 120th and South 126th Streets. Each of the proposed projects will be constructed by separate owners. The anticipated construction start is spring 2000. The northerly project lies east of East Marginal Way South and north of the existing GHC building. It consists of a three-story parking garage, which includes 608 parking stalls. The parking garage will be located on the existing Group Health Cooperative (GHC) Operations Center site. This garage is being constructed to accommodate the facility's current and future parking requirements on this site. The parking for this facility is being developed based on a total employee count for year 2004 of approximately 800 people. During the period between 1996 and the present, Group Health Cooperative increased the employee density at the operation center on East Marginal Way South. The number of trips generated and parking demand at the site increased as the employee density increased of the existing facility. To determine the impact of the increased traffic after the 1996 addition to the facility, a Transportation Planning and Engineering, Inc. (TP&E) traffic study dated January 8, 1996, was used. This study was used as the basis for the environmental determination for the 1996 addition. Traffic counts given in that report were used as the basis for determining additional trips generated from the site that are a result of the increase in employee density. The southerly project consists of two, two story research and development (R&D) buildings that comprises the International Gateway East development. The International Gateway East development will include a total of 163,200 square feet (sf) of development. This project lies west of East Marginal Way South between South 124th Street and South 126th Street. This project is being developed based on a maximum employee density of 5 employees per 1,000 sf of development, which equates to approximately 816 projected employees. The purpose of this report is to determine the affects of increased traffic on the street and signal system, the parking needs for the proposed projects, and the affects of increased traffic on the local neighborhood. In order to do this, extensive field data was collected, and analyses and recommendations were prepared based on that data. Based on the number of anticipated employees, the proposed International Gateway East development is estimated to generate 547 a.m. peak -hour trips (449 entering, 57 exiting) and 530 p.m. peak -hour trips (81 entering, 449 exiting). The number of new additional trips generated by the existing GHC Parking Garage was determined to be 220 a.m. peak - hour trips and 194 p.m. peak -hour trips. The project trips from International Gateway East development and the GHC Parking Garage were distributed to the existing transportation network based on existing travel patterns for GHC employees in the area. w: projects' 99181Atraftstdy.doc (3/22/00) jc A level of service (LOS) analysis was conducted at 12 study intersections in the project vicinity. The analysis included figures with and without the proposed project in 2000 and 2010 during a.m. and p.m. peak hours. The results of the LOS analysis indicate that in 2000, with or without the project, all study intersections would operate at LOS D or better during those times. In 2010, with or without the project, three intersections (East Marginal Way South/South 112th Street, State Route 599 (SR 599) On -and Off-Ramps/South 133rd Street, and East Marginal Way South/Pacific Highway South) would operate at LOS F during both the a.m. and p.m. peak -hours. The East Marginal Way South/South 124th Street and East Marginal Way South/South 130th Street intersections would also operate at LOS F in 2010, with project, during the p.m. peak -hours. All other intersections would operate at LOS D or better during the a.m. and p.m. peak -hours. A license plate study was completed for vehicles exiting the GHC parking lot to the south during the p.m. peak -hour. The study was completed to determine the amount of "cut - through" traffic occurring in residential areas south of the project. Results indicated that the majority of the vehicles (82 percent) traveled through the East Marginal Way South/South 130th Street intersection. Of the vehicles traveling south, 17 percent traveled east on South 128th Street, while the rest of the vehicles (1 percent) traveled west on South 128th Street and South 126th Street. A LOS and queue analysis was completed at the two proposed driveways into the International Gateway East development and at the existing GHC Main Entrance. The proposed driveway located on South 124th Street is expected to operate at LOS A during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. The proposed driveway located on East Marginal Way South is expected to operate at LOS D during both the a.m. and p.m. peak -hours. The driveway at the GHC Main Entrance is expected to operate at LOS D or better during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. At the East Marginal Way/GHC south entrance up to six vehicles can be expected in queue during the p.m. peak hour. No queues are expected at either driveway into the International Gateway East development during the a.m. and p.m. peak -hours. However, at the GHC Main Entrance, two vehicles are expected to queue during the a.m. peak -hour and seven vehicles during the p.m. peak hour. A sight distance analysis was performed for the driveways off East Marginal Way South and South 124th Street. Vehicles exiting the East Marginal Way South Driveway would require a sight distance of approximately 250 feet to the north and 260 feet to the south. To meet these sight distance requirements, parking should not be allowed within approximately 80 feet of either side of the driveway. Similar parking restrictions should be made at the access onto South 124th Street. A left -turn lane analysis was completed along East Marginal Way South to determine if left -turn lanes would be recommended at the existing GHC Main Entrance, South 124th Street, and the south entrance into the International Gateway East development. Based on guidelines outlined in the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) Design Manual, left -turn lanes would be recommended at the three locations analyzed. w: projects\99181Atraffstdy.doc (3/22/00) jc ii Signal warrants were conducted at four study intersections, as requested by the City of Tukwila. Three of the four intersections did not satisfy any of the warrants analyzed under existing conditions. The intersection of East Marginal Way South/South 112th Street satisfied three of the five warrants analyzed. By 2001, the project driveway will likely meet signal warrants. Parking for the existing GHC. facility is currently provided by a total of 680 parking stalls. With the addition of the parking structure, the total number of parking stalls on the GHC site (east of East Marginal Way) will be 802. The International Gateway East development (west of East Marginal Way) will provide a total of 772 parking stalls. According to the City of Tukwila, mitigation is determined based on an agreement to pay a fair share to the improvements identified in the City of Tukwila's `Transportation Element, Table 12 — Mitigation Proportionate Share Costs." Of the improvements identified in the Transportation Element, the proposed International Gateway East development and the GHC Parking Garage would impact the following project: • East Marginal Way South from Boeing Access Road to South 115th Street (301 a.m. peak -hour trips) Based on the information provided by the City, costs have not been determined for these projects. Therefore, the mitigation costs associated with the proposed International Gateway East development and the GHC Parking Garage were not determined at this time. In addition, the developer will be required to install a signal at the main project driveway on East Marginal Way, provide mitigation to prevent cut -through traffic in the surrounding neighborhoods, pay a proportionate share towards a signal at 112th Street/East Marginal Way, and install left -turn lanes at the project driveways on East Marginal Way. w: projects\99181Atraffstdy.doc (322/00) jc iii CONTENTS Page EXECUTIVE SUMMARY i INTRODUCTION 1 Primary Data and Information Sources 3 Project Description 3 EXISTING CONDITIONS 4 Road Network 4 Traffic Volumes 4 Accident History 9 Existing Level of Service 9 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS 10 Trip Generation 10 Trip Distribution 17 Cut -Through Traffic 22 Future Level of Service 22 Site Access Analysis 23 Sight Distance Analysis 27 Left -Turn Lane Analysis 27 SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS 28 PEDESTRIAN ACTIVITY 29 PARKING REQUIREMENTS 30 R&D Buildings at International Gateway East 30 GHC Parking Garage 30 MITIGATION 31 APPENDICES A - Level of Service Calculations - 1999/2000 Existing Modified Conditions B - License Plate Survey Results C - Level of Service Calculations - 2000 With Project D - Level of Service Calculations - 2010 No Action E - Level of Service Calculations - 2010 With Project F - LOS and Queuing Worksheets for Project Driveways G - Left -Turn Lane Analysis Worksheets H - Signal Warrant Analysis - Traffic Count Data and Calculation Sheets I - City of Tukwila Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) Project List w: projects\99181Atratlstdy.doc (3/22/00) jc iv FIGURES Page 1. Project Vicinity 2 2. Preliminary Site Plan 5 3. 1999/2000 Existing Modified Peak -Hour Traffic Volumes 8 4. A.M. Project Trips From International Gateway East Development 18 5. P.M. Project Trips From International Gateway East Development 19 6. A.M. Project Trips From GHC Parking Garage 20 7. P.M. Project Trips From GHC Parking Garage 21 8. 2000 Total Peak -Hour Traffic Volumes With Project 24 9. 2010 Total Peak -Hour Traffic Volumes 25 10. 2010 Total Peak -Hour Traffic Volumes With Project 26 TABLES Page 1. Road Classifications 6 2. Study Area Intersection Count Dates 7 3. Accident Data Summary (June 1, 1995 to May 31, 1998) 9 4. Intersection Level -of -Service Summary 11 5. Trip Generation Methodology Summary 12 6. Trip Generation Summary 17 7. Driveway Level of Service 27 8. Signal Warrant Analysis Summary 29 9. Mitigation Costs 32 w: projects\.99181Atraffstdy.doc (3/22/00) jc V w: projects199181Nraflstdy.doc (3/22/00) jc 1 0 m z X a z n 0 Apuioiq loa(oid m El Fl 3 — 0286 99181-60 Intergate Tukwila 03/22/00 CDF • performed a signal warrant analysis at the following intersections: 1. East Marginal Way South/Metro Access north of South 120th Place 2. East Marginal Way South/GHC Main Entrance 3. East Marginal Way South/South 130th Street 4. East Marginal Way South/South 112th Street Primary Data and Information Sources • Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 6th edition, 1997. • 1997 Update to the Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report 209, Transportation Research Board. • Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) Design Manual, 1997. • Federal Highway Administration's Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, 1988. • American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, 1994. • Group Health Cooperative Traffic Impact Study, Transportation Planning & Engineering (TP&E), January 8, 1996. • Integrated GMA Implementation Plan and Draft Environmental Impact Statement, City of Tukwila, May 1997. • City of Tukwila Transportation Element — Table 12 Mitigation Proportionate Fair Share Costs. Project Description The proposed International Gateway East development includes the construction of two new buildings. The proposed buildings consist of two 81,600 -square -foot speculative research and development (R&D) facilities for a total of 163,200 square feet. The proposed site is located west of East Marginal Way South between South 124th Street and South 126th Street. The site is currently occupied by a surface parking lot with 272 parking stalls used by GHC employees. Access to the site will be provided by a full -access driveway on South 124th Street, a full -access driveway on East Marginal Way South, and an emergency -only access on South 126th Street. Based on an employee density of 5 employees per 1,000 sf, the development is estimated to include 816 daytime employees. Parking for the site will be provided by 772 parking stalls. w: projects\99181Atraffstdy.doc (3/22/00) jc 3 The proposed GHC Parking Garage provides a total of 608 parking stalls. The proposed parking garage is located on the east side of East Marginal Way South just north of the existing GHC Operations Center. The parking stalls that will be eliminated by the International Gateway East development across the street, will be accommodated by the proposed GHC Parking Garage. With the addition of the parking garage, there will be a total of 802 parking stalls on the existing GHC Operations Center site east of East Marginal Way South. A preliminary site plan has been developed for the project and is shown in figure 2. According to the City of Tukwila's Integrated GMA Implementation Plan and Draft Environmental Impact Statement, both projects fall within the boundaries of the Tukwila Manufacturing and Industrial Center (MIC). EXISTING CONDITIONS Road Network The primary street that provides access to the development is East Marginal Way South. In the project vicinity, East Marginal Way South is a two-lane, north -south minor arterial with one through lane in each direction. Parallel parking is allowed along each side of the street. The posted speed limit on East Marginal Way South is 25 mph. Sidewalks are located on each side of East Marginal Way South along the project frontage. A painted crosswalk is located at South 124th Street to accommodate pedestrians crossing East Marginal Way South. Other streets that serve the site are summarized in the following table. Table 1 summarizes the street classification, function, and also provides a brief description. Traffic Volumes Existing 1999/2000 weekday a.m. and p.m. peak -hour traffic volume data was collected by Traffic Data Gathering (TDG) at the intersections shown in table 2. The existing GHC building was occupied in 1996 under the assumption that approximately 347 employees would be expected to work at the site. A traffic study was completed by TP&E in 1996, and approved by the City based on the 347 employee assumption. Currently, there are about 800 employees at the site working two separate shifts. According to Group Health officials, approximately 650 employees work during the day between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on weekdays, and 150 employees work overnight between the hours of 6:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. As a result, more traffic is being generated by the existing GHC building than was previously approved. To quantify the impacts of these additional trips, existing year baseline traffic volumes had to be developed. w: projects\99181Atraltstdy.doc (3/22/00) jc 4 4 m z z 0 &01LIIM=1.11UI: 8286 99181-60 Intergate Tukwila 02/17/00 JC 111111111111ii11!i!lillll IIliill III!i�l llll!p Tr117-17ri 1 111 +'jj � I III I' I I I I I��;�g� ,' I I I�■;I BUI'�OINN �'B' a 41!!!!I•II•:•IA/lilill!II III I�� ����i„ ,ilii, !i!I'' I!!I � IIII! III I 1i1� 1111 11111;1 I!:�:1:11!lii!I !IIIII1IIil1 s !!li!1,1;111111!lil! 1 1!0111111 if 1';'1" I I I I III 1 lil IIIII1i11 II 111 1 8. 128TH STREET Roadway Classification Table 1 Road Classifications Function Description South 124th Street South 126th Street South 128th Street South 130th Street East Marginal Way South Access Street Access Street Access Street Collector Arterial Minor Arterial Access streets are generally intended to provide direct access to residences, and to businesses and other land uses not located on arterials. Access streets are generally intended to provide direct access to residences, and to businesses and other land uses not located on arterials. Access streets are generally intended to provide direct access to residences, and to businesses and other land uses not located on arterials. Collector arterials serve traffic traveling between access streets and higher classifications arterials and primarily serve local traffic of a neighborhood or commercial/industrial area. Minor arterials serve inter - community traffic traveling between neighborhoods, traveling between principal and collector arterials. A sidewalk exists on the south side and a gravel shoulder exists on the north side. The pavement width is 33 feet. No sidewalks exist on either side of the roadway, but a grass shoulder is provided on the north side. The pavement width is 23 feet. West of East Marginal Way South, sidewalks exist on both sides and the pavement width is 36 feet. East of East Marginal Way South, no sidewalks or shoulders are provided and the pavement width is 20 feet. East and west of East Marginal Way South, paved shoulders exist on both sides and the pavement width is 23 feet. Sidewalks are provided on both sides with the exception between South 126th Street and South 128th Street where a sidewalk is provided on the west side and a paved shoulder is provided on the east side. The pavement width varies between 33 feet at South 126th Street to 43 feet at South 124th Street. w: projectst99181Atraffstdy.doc (3/22/00) jc 6 Table 2 Study Area Intersection Count Dates Intersection A.M. Peak P.M. Peak 1. East Marginal Way S/Pacific Highway S/Boeing 7/22/99 7/27/99 Access Rd 2. Pacific Highway S/S 112th Street 1/26/00 1/26/00 3. East Marginal Way S/S 112th Street 1/11/00 1/11/00 4. Interurban Ave S/East Marginal Way S 7/22/99 7/27/99 5. East Marginal Way S/S 120th Place 1/11/00 1/11/00 6. East Marginal Way S/S 124th Street 1/26/00 1/26/00 7. Pacific Highway S/S 130th Street 7/22/99 7/22/99 8. East Marginal Way S/S 130th Street 7/22/99 7/22/99 9. S 133rd Street/SR 599 On & Off -Ramp 1/11/00 1/11/00 10. Interurban Avenue S/Gateway Drive 7/27/99 7/27/99 11. Interurban Avenue S/SR 599 NB Off -Ramp 7/22/99 7/22/99 12. Interurban Avenue S/I-5 NB On -Ramp 1/26/00 1/26/00 To establish a baseline for existing conditions, the existing traffic counts conducted in late 1999 and early 2000 already account for the vehicle trips associated with the additional employees. Therefore the existing traffic count data were modified to exclude GHC project trips that were not accounted for in the 1996 traffic study completed by TP&E for GHC. Based on existing counts taken at the GHC driveways, 220 a.m. peak -hour trips and 194 p.m. peak -hour trips are being generated in addition to the trips documented in the 1996 traffic study completed by TP&E. Figure 3 illustrates the existing 1999/2000 existing modified peak -hour traffic volumes. w: projectsl99181Atraffstdy.doc (3/22/00) jc 7 S Boein Access Rd •�, a� 112thSt • N Not to Scale S 133rd St GROUP HEALTH PARKING GARAGE AND INTERNATIONAL GATEWAY EAST DEVELOPMENT E N T R A N C O N East Marginal Way S East Marginal Way S East Marginal Way S 0 (13) (236) (8) 6 122 61 l)1 l 1 �! • 2 3 5 (28) (1) (2) (0627) (328) (585) k--- 812 (270) 136 86 155 -> Ir (881) E-380 (114) 1 l r- 394 (252) (174 f T t (94) (397) 10 171 268 251 12 431 —3 (1) 3 (136) (207) (4) East Marginal Way S East Marginal Way S 0 (13) (236) (8) 6 122 61 l)1 l 1 �! k-- 2 3 5 (28) (1) (2) 4— r (19) 27 (0) 1 (36) 12 � 13 191 (8) (125) t (-4- 7 (1) -> Ir East Marginal Way S SR 599 On and Off Ramps 421/ k— 4 (6) 213 379 6 (23) (12) (182) _191 (505) 16 27 201 t 125 (114) 4— (100) 38 J ' f (5) (94) 75 10 171 0 12 41 —► (5) 12 (4) (46) (64) S 134th St (f) N a N Pacific Hwy S © ) (1208) (20) k— 4 (6) 213 379 6 (54) (6) 4---46 J 1 l r 41 (0) (234) 17 t 4— (67) 5 242 858 97 (155) 17 Th, (43) (497) (32) Pacific Hwy S East Marginal Way S 0 (13) (296) 102 102 GHC Main Entrance (54) A)1 7 (6) (86) 12 J 4) t 4— (68) 9 --, 80 197 (24) 103 J 54 (5) (81) East Marginal Way S cn cn N co A 5 N East Marginal Way S East Marginal Way S (49) (544) 25 298 (20) 25 (132) 135 East Marginal Way S Pacific Hwy S (805) (26) 230 15 Pacific Hwy S Interurban Ave S East Marginal Wav S 0 (54) (222) (7) 7 (6) 13 55 0 36 (89) 4— I 1 L r 10 (39) (24) 103 J 54 4-) t (55) 10 171 21 —► (27) 42 (38) (59) (34) East Marginal Way S N Legend x A.M. Peak Hour (x) P.M. Peak Hour Figure 3 1999/2000 Existing Modified Peak -Hour Traffic Volumes Accident History Traffic accident data along East Marginal Way South in the project vicinity was analyzed for the three-year period from June 1, 1995 through May 31, 1998. Accident data was provided by the City of Tukwila. A summary of the reported total and average annual accidents during this period is provided in table 3. A signalized intersection with 10 or more accidents a year is typically considered a high accident location. Based on table 3, none of the signalized intersections within the study area are considered high -accident locations. Within the project vicinity, there was only one reported accident over the past three years involving a pedestrian. Location Table 3 Accident Data Summary (June 1, 1995 to May 31, 1998) 3 -Year Total Accidents Average Annual Accidents Property Property Personal Damage Personal Damage Total Injury Only Total Injury Only Intersections East Marginal Way S at Interurban 2 0 2 0.67 0.00 0.67 Avenue S East Marginal Way S at S 120th Place 1 0 1 0.33 0.00 0.33 East Marginal Way S at S 120th Street 1 1 0 0.33 0.33 0.00 East Marginal Way S at S 130th Street 1 0 1 0.33 0.00 0.33 Midblock Sections East Marginal Way S between Interurban 5 3 2 1.67 1.00 0.67 Avenue S and S 130th Street Existing Level of Service For the existing LOS analysis, 1999/2000 existing modified volumes were used at the 12 study intersections during the weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hours. Level of service refers to the degree of congestion on a roadway or intersection. It is a measure of vehicle operating speed, travel time, travel delays, and driving comfort. Level of service is generally described by a letter scale from A to F. For intersections, LOS A represents free-flow conditions (motorists experience little or no delay), and LOS F represents forced -flow conditions (motorists experience control delays in excess of 80 seconds/vehicle for signalized intersections and 50 seconds/vehicle for unsignalized intersections). w: projectsl9918 Vvrattstdy.doc (3/22/00) jc 9 w: projects\. 99181Atrattstdy.doc (3/22/00) jc 10 Table 4 Intersection Level -of -Service Summary 2000 Existing Modified 2000 With 2010 Baseline 2010 With Conditions' Project Trips Conditions Project Trips Delay2 Delay2 Delay' Delay2 Intersection (sec) LOS' (sec) LOS' (sec) LOS' (sec) LOS' WEEKDAY A.M. PEAK HOUR SIGNALIZED 1. E Marginal Way S/Pacific Highway S/ 38.8 D 44.8 D 61.9 E 86.9 F Boeing Access Road 2. Pacific Highway S/S 112th Street 20.6 C 20.5 C 22.6 C 22.5 C 3. Interurban Avenue S/E Marginal Way S 10.6 B 12.5 B 12.3 B 15.7 B 4. Pacific Highway S/S 130th Street 9.4 A 9.5 A 10.9 B 11.2 6 5. Interurban Avenue S/S 133rd Street/ 31.3 C 31.9 C 44.0 D 44.5 D Gateway Drive 6. Interurban Avenue S/SR 599 NB Off -Ramp 13.9 B 15.2 B 24.5 C 35.4 D UNSIGNALIZED 7. E Marginal Way S S/S 112th Street 17.0 C 32.2 D 64.3 F 301.4 F 8. E Marginal Way S/S 120th Street 13.0 B 19.2 C 17.2 C 30.7 D 9. E Marginal Way S/S 124th Street 11.8 B 16.8 C 13.3 B 29.1 D 10. E Marginal Way S/S 130th Street 9.6 A 16.2 C 12.9 B 39.8 E 11. SR 599 On- & Off-Ramps/S 133rd Street 10.6 B 11.3 B 109.9 F 355.4 F 12. Interurban Avenue S/I-5 NB On -Ramp 11.1 B 11.5 B 16.4 C 17.5 C WEEKDAY P.M. PEAK HOUR SIGNALIZED 1. E Marginal Way S/Pacific Highway S/ 38.9 D 38.7 D 90.3 F 88.2 F Boeing Access Road 2. Pacific Highway S/S 112th Street 16.4 C 24.0 C 41.0 D 40.8 D 3. Interurban Avenue S/E Marginal Way S 12.3 B 11.3 B 22.2 C 18.5 B 4. Pacific Highway S/S 130th Street 7.8 A 9.7 A 9.2 A 11.1 B 5. Interurban Avenue S/S 133rd 30.1 C 30.2 C 49.2 D 50.7 D Street/Gateway Drive 6. Interurban Avenue S/SR 599 NB Off -Ramp 10.7 B 10.7 B 13.3 B 13.6 B UNSIGNALIZED 7. E Marginal Way S S/S 112th Street 19.4 C 26.7 D 108.6 F 264.3 F 8. E Marginal Way S/S 120th Street 12.0 B 16.5 C 16.1 C 27.1 D 9. E Marginal Way S/S 124th Street 12.5 B 23.0 C 15.3 C 107.7 F 10. E Marginal Way S/S 130th Street 9.7 A 19.9 C 14.0 B 65.4 F 11. SR 599 On- &Off-Ramps/S 133rd Street 13.0 B 18.9 C 285.4 F 910.5 F 12. Interurban Avenue S/I-5 NB On -Ramp 10.1 B 10.3 B 14.2 B 14.7 B 1. Existing modified conditions do not include GHC project trips not accounted for in the 1996 traffic study completed by TP&E and is used to determine the impact of the GHC development per the City of Tukwila's request. 2. Delay refers to average control delay measured in seconds per vehicle. 3. Level of service calculations are based on methodology outlined in the Highway Capacity Manual. The delay and LOS reported for unsignalized intersections is the worst case among all of the calculated movements (usually one of the stop - controlled side street approaches). The LOS at unsignalized intersections applies only to the capacity of the worst movement, and is not a valid indicator of overall traffic operations at an intersection. w: projects\99181Atrattstdy.doc (3/22/00) jc 11 The four trip generation methodologies are described below, and summarized in table 5. Table 5 Trip Generation Methodology Summary Scenario Units Peak Hour Trip Daily Trip Generation Generation Rates Peak Hour Trips Generated International Gateway East Development Methodology 1- Based on ITE LUC' 715 Weekday A.M. Peak Hour 816 employees Weekday P.M. Peak Hour 816 employees Methodology 2 - Based on Counts Observed in Field Weekday A.M. Peak Hour Weekday P.M. Peak Hour 816 employees 816 employees Methodology 3 - Based on Parking Stalls Weekday A.M. Peak Hour Weekday P.M. Peak Hour 772 parking stalls 772 parking stalls Methodology 4 - Based on Approved Rates from City Weekday A.M. Peak Hour Weekday P.M. Peak Hour GHC Parking Garage! Methodology 1- Based on ITE LUC' 715 Weekday A.M. Peak Hour 650 employees Weekday P.M. Peak Hour 650 employees Methodology 2 - Based on Counts Observed in Field 816 employees 816 employees Weekday A.M. Peak Hour Weekday P.M. Peak Hour 650 employees 650 employees Methodology 3 - Based on Parking Stalls Weekday A.M. Peak Hour Weekday P.M. Peak Hour 806 parking stalls 806 parking stalls Methodology 4 - Based on Approved Rates from City Weekday A.M. Peak Hour Weekday P.M. Peak Hour 650 employees 650 employees 2896 3732 3732 2896 3732 3732 0.52 0.50 0.66 0.68 0.72 0.52 0.67 0.65 0.52 0.50 0.66 0.68 0.72 0.52 0.67 0.65 424 408 539 555 556 401 547 530 122 96 216 216 364 190 220 194 1. Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 6th Edition Land Use Code 2. Peak hour trips generated do not include trips not documented in the January 8, 1996 TP&E traffic report (216 a.m. trips and 229 p.m. trips) w: projects\99181Atratfstdy.doc (3/22/00) jc 12 Trip Generation Methodology 1 The first trip generation methodology analyzed was based on the traditional use of trip generation rates/equations published in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 6th edition. There are several land use codes (LUC) that could describe the proposed development of the International Gateway East project, including: General Office (LUC 710), Corporate Headquarters (LUC 714), Single Tenant Office (LUC 715), Office Park (LUC 750), Research and Development (LUC 760), and Business Park (LUC 770). The trip generation rates for each of these uses are comparable, with some being higher than others. Each of these land uses have trip generations based on number of employees or square footage. Square footage is not a good variable for trip generation estimates in this particular case, because Group Health has more employees per square foot than is typical. As a conservative measure, we have used the variable that provides the greatest number of trips. The greatest number of trips are generated using employees as the independent variable. Using employees as the independent variable, Land Use Code (LUC) 715, Single Tenant Office Building has the highest trip generation rates of the six land uses listed above. Therefore, trip generation rates for the Single Tenant Office Building were used to estimate the trip generation for both the International Gateway East development and the GHC Parking Garage. As shown in table 5, the ITE trip generation rates under this methodology are 0.52 and 0.50 trips per employee during the a.m. and p.m. peak hour, respectively. At those rates, the International Gateway East development is expected to generate 424 a.m. peak -hour trips and 408 p.m. peak -hour trips, while the GHC Parking Garage would generate 122 new a.m. peak -hour trips and 96 new p.m. peak -hour trips. Trip Generation Methodology 2 The second trip generation methodology analyzed involved using existing traffic counts entering and exiting the existing Group Health facility on East Marginal Way. Turning movement traffic counts were conducted at the two existing driveways to the GHC (Main Driveway and South Driveway) and at the intersection of South 124th Street/East Marginal Way during the a.m. and p.m. peak periods on Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday, January 25 to 27, 2000. Counts were conducted between 7:00 and 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 and 6:00 p.m. Although not all vehicles entering and exiting South 124th Street are necessarily related to the existing Group Health Building, to be conservative, all vehicles entering South 124th Street were used in the trip generation calculation. Results showed that the total number of vehicles entering and exiting at the three driveways were similar on all three days, but were slightly higher on Thursday. Therefore, vehicle counts performed on Thursday were used to calculate trip generation rates. During the a.m. peak, there were 413 vehicles entering/exiting the site and during the p.m. peak, there were 423 vehicles entering/exiting the site on Thursday. These counts do not reflect vehicles parked on East Marginal Way. On Thursday, March 16, 2000, all of the vehicles parked on East Marginal Way in the vicinity of the GHC facility were counted. A total of 35 vehicles were parked along both sides of East w: projects\99181Atraffstdy.doc (3/22/00) jc 13 Marginal Way during the morning, and there were no spaces on the street left to park. These vehicles that were parked along this roadway were all assumed to use the existing GHC facility. With this information, we first determined the percentage of vehicles that entered the site during the a.m. peak hour from actual turning movement counts. It was determined that approximately 55 percent of the vehicles arrived in the peak hour. This rate was applied to the number of vehicles parked along East Marginal Way to determine the additional trips during the a.m. peak hour (19 vehicles). For the p.m. peak hour, it was assumed that all the vehicles parked on East Marginal Way (35 vehicles) were related to the GHC facility. Using the same methodology as was applied to the a.m. peak hour, it was determined that approximately 62 percent of the vehicles exited in the peak hour, which results in 22 of the 35 parked vehicles on East Marginal Way leaving during the p.m. peak hour. Therefore, there are a total of 432 vehicles entering the site during the a.m. peak hour and a total of 445 vehicles exiting the site during the p.m. peak hour. We calculated the number of entering/exiting trips at the three existing driveways using the 24-hour tube counts, to be sure that the peak hour fell between 7:00 and 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 and 6:00 p.m. The peak hour did fall between those times. As was described previously, there are approximately 800 employees at the existing GHC facility working two separate shifts. According to Group Health officials, approximately 650 employees work during the day between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on weekdays, and 150 employees work overnight between the hours of 6:00 p.m. and 7 a.m. This trip generation methodology assumes that a reduction in trips associated with GHC's existing commute trip reduction (CTR) program will not change in the future. Group Health officials do not expect the work shifts or the flex schedule to change after the parking garage is constructed. The trip generation rate for the existing GHC facility based on the number of existing daytime employees (650) during the a.m. and p.m. peak is 0.66 and 0.68 trips per employee, respectively. This was calculated by dividing the entering/exiting trips by the number of employees. Based on these rates, there are a total of 216 new trips (see table 5) associated with the GHC Parking Garage during both the a.m. and p.m. peak hour. These new trips were calculated by subtracting the trips documented in the TP&E report (216 a.m. trips and 229 p.m. trips) from the actual counts at the driveways (432 a.m. trips and 445 p.m. trips). Using these same rates, and applying them to the estimated number of employees for the International Gateway East development, there are approximately 539 and 555 trips (see table 5) expected during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours, respectively. Trip rates under methodology 2 were about 27 percent higher than trip generation rates from methodology 1 during the a.m. peak hour, and 36 percent higher during the p.m. peak hour. w: projects\99181Atraffstdy.doc (3/22/00)(c 14 Trip Generation Methodology 3 Similar to the second trip generation methodology, the third trip generation methodology considered was based on traffic generated by the existing GHC facility, however, the variable used to calculate trip rates was existing parking stalls rather than employees. It is Entranco's professional opinion that the use of parking stalls as an independent trip generation variable is not a realistic, consistent, or reasonable approach to trip generation calculation. None of the land use codes in the ITE Trip Generation Manual use parking stalls as a trip generation variable, because trips generated by a land use are not dependent on parking stalls, especially when there are more than enough parking stalls. For example, the existing GHC facility currently has 408 stalls on site, east of East Marginal Way. It was found based on 24-hour tube counts that 294 vehicles entered the GHC facility during the a.m. peak hour (just the driveways on the east side of East Marginal Way). The trip rate based on parking stalls is, therefore, 0.72 trips/parking stall. GHC, however, realizes that there is a parking shortage on site, which is the reason they want to build a parking garage. With the addition of the parking garage, the number of employees will not increase, nor decrease, therefore the existing building will not attract any more vehicles than it is right now. Assuming they had 600 parking stalls today, the trip rate would decrease to 0.49 trips/parking stall; however, nothing at the facility changed to attract fewer vehicles. For this reason, we are not recommending that this trip generation methodology be used. Nevertheless, it was found, based on existing counts, that the a.m. and p.m. peak -hour trip generation rates based on parking stalls and existing counts were 0.72 and 0.52 trips per parking stall, respectively. Applying these rates to future conditions, the International Gateway East project would generate 556 and 401 vehicles during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours, respectively (see table 5). The trips are approximately 31 percent higher in the am. peak hour and 2 percent lower in the p.m. peak hour than trip generation methodology 1, and approximately 3 percent higher in the am. peak hour and 28 percent lower in the p.m. peak hour than trip generation methodology 2. The GHC Parking Garage would generate 364 and 190 new trips during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours respectively (see table 5). These trips are approximately 198 percent higher in the am. peak hour and 98 percent higher in the p.m. peak hour than trip generation methodology 1, and approximately 69 percent higher in the a.m. peak hour and 12 percent lower in the p.m. peak hour than trip generation methodology 2. The dramatic differences in trip generation between methodology 3 and methodologies 1 and 2 further exemplify the reason for not using parking stalls at as an independent variable for trip generation. Trip Generation Methodology 4 The fourth trip generation methodology is based on a combination of existing counts at the existing GHC facility and the ITE Trip Generation Manual rates for the land use code 715, Single Tenant Office Building. In effect, this methodology utilizes principles from both trip generation methodology 1 and 2. w: projects \99181 Atraflstdy.doc (3/22/00) jc 15 Based on 24-hour traffic counts at the existing GHC facility, it was found that the site generates 3,732 trips per day. Based on the ITE Trip Generation Manual, and 800 existing employees, the site would generate 2,896 trips per day. Therefore, existing counts are approximately 29 percent higher than what the Trip Generation Manual would predict. As a result, for trip generation methodology 4, the a.m. and p.m. peak -hour trip generation rates for LUC 715 in the ITE Trip Generation Manual, and shown in table 5 (0.52 and 0.50) were increased by 29 percent, resulting in 0.67 trips per employee for the a.m. peak hour, and 0.65 trips per employee for the p.m. peak hour. Applying these rates to future conditions, the International Gateway East project would generate 547 and 530 vehicles during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours, respectively (see table 5). These trips are approximately 29 percent higher in the am. peak hour and p.m. peak hour than trip generation methodology 1, approximately 1 percent higher in the am. peak hour and 4 percent lower in the p.m. peak hour than trip generation methodology 2, and approximately 2 percent lower in the am. peak hour and 32 percent higher in the p.m. peak hour than trip generation methodology 3. The GHC Parking Garage would generate 220 and 194 new trips during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours respectively (see table 5). These trips are approximately 80 percent higher in the a.m. peak hour and 102 percent higher in the p.m. peak hour than trip generation methodology 1, approximately 2 percent higher in the am. peak hour and 10 percent lower in the p.m. peak hour than trip generation methodology 2, and approximately 40 percent lower in the am. peak hour and 2 percent higher in the p.m. peak hour than trip generation methodology 3. Approved Trip Generation After careful consideration, the City of Tukwila has accepted trip generation methodology 4 as the approved trip generation methodology for both the International Gateway East development and the GHC Parking Garage. A detailed trip generation summary for both projects is shown in table 6. w: projects'99181Atraffstdy.doc (3/22/00) jc 16 Time Period Table 6 Trip Generation Summary Trip Generation Rates Trips Generated Units In Out Total In Out Total International Gateway East Development Weekday A.M. Peak Hour Weekday P.M. Peak Hour GHC Parking Garage Weekday A.M. Peak Hour 816 employees 0.60 0.07 0.67 490 57 547 816 employees 0.10 0.55 0.65 81 449 530 650 employees 0.60 0.07 0.67 389 47 436 A.M. peak credit for 1996 approved trips -193 -23 -216 Net New A.M. Peak Hour Trips 196 24 220 Weekday P.M. Peak Hour 650 employees 0.10 0.55 0.65 66 357 423 P.M. peak credit for 1996 approved trips -56 -173 -229 Net New P.M. Peak Hour Trips 10 184 194 Note: Trip generation rates as documented in ITE Trip Generation Manual, 6th Edition (Land Use Code 715) were increased by a factor of 1.29 due to the difference in existing daily volumes based on counts conducted by Traffic Data Gathering on January 27, 2000. Trip Distribution The project trips from the International Gateway East development and the GHC Parking Garage were distributed to the existing transportation network based on travel patterns of existing GHC employees and existing travel patterns in the area. As a result, the distribution of project trips is as follows: • 45 percent to/from the north vial -5 • 55 percent to/from the south vial -5, SR 99, and SR 599 Based on this distribution, the project trips from the International Gateway East development and the GHC Parking Garage were assigned to the existing roadway network. Figures 4 and 5 show the trip assignment of the International Gateway East project trips and figures 6 and 7 show the trip assignment of the GHC Parking Garage trips through the proposed site accesses and study intersections. w: projects \99181Atraffstdy.doc (3/22/00) jc 17 120 (25%) 15 (25%) 48 (10%) Legend x A.M. Peak Hour (x) Project trip Percentages 192 (40%) 1-3—(5%) S 112th St 24 (5%) 24 (5%) 216 (45%) 27 (45%) Project 216(45%)1 Site N Not to Scale S 124th St GHC Main Entrance t 120 12 25%) (20%) 126th St 24(5%) (5%) (5%) International Gateway East Development S 126th St 96 15 (20%5%� 12 (20%) 18 (30%) 27 6 (45%) (10%) Li 6 18 0%)(30%)(5yk-4- S 130th St 48 (10%) \ 24 (5%) 10 (2% 96 (20° 9 6 (20%) S 133rd St 10 (2%) T 144 120 30%) (25%) 38 (8%) 48 (10%) GO GROUP HEALTH PARKING GARAGE AND INTERNATIONAL GATEWAY EAST DEVELOPMENT E N T R A N C O Figure 4 A.M. Project Trips From International Gateway East Development 21 (25%) 118 (25%) 8 (10%) Legend x P.M. Peak Hour (x) Project trip Percentages 33 (40%) 127(5%) S 112th St %* 4 (5°k) 4 (5%) 37 (45%) 212 45%) S 120th PI N Not to Scale S 124th St GHC Main 21 17 Entrance 42 (50%) (25 (20%) S 124th St 118 (25%) T 236 (50%) 118 (25%) 21 94 25%) (20%) S 126th St 17 118 (20%%� 94 (20%) J ' T 42 (30%) 25 21 30%) (25%) 260(55%)ir T46(55%) 213 47 (45%) (10%) 9 (10%) 42) 126th St 4 (5%) 3 (5% 4 (5% 47 142 2 0% (30°,)(5° y S8(10St 8 (10°�)-� 4 (5%) 17 (20° S 133rd St 47 (10%) 17 (20%) 47 (10%) Y°) 8%) (2%),• \ i • % (10%) 9 (10%) GROUP HEALTH PARKING GARAGE AND INTERNATIONAL GATEWAY EAST DEVELOPMENT E N T R A N C O Figure 5 P.M. Project Trips From International Gateway East Development 48 (25%) 6 (25%) 20 (10%) Legend x A.M. Peak Hour (x) Project trip Percentages 7(40%) 11-(-5%) S 112th St r10 (5%) 10 (5%) 86 (45%) r Di�hRiver_ 10 (45%) S 120th PI Not to Scale S 124th St (45%) 3 126th St S 124th St 7 (30%) 4 (2%) 38 (20° 30 (20%) International; Gateway East Development S 133rd St 3 (10%) 4 (2%) 19 (10° 10 3 (45%) (10%) S 126th St 3 (5%) 2 7 1 (10%) (30%) l5%) 19 (10%) 19 (10%) GO GROUP HEALTH PARKING GARAGE AND INTERNATIONAL GATEWAY EAST DEVELOPMENT E N T R A N C O Figure 6 A.M. Project Trips From GHC Parking Garage 2 (25%) 5 (25%) 6 (10%) Legend x P.M. Peak Hour (x) Project trip Percentages 4 (40%) (975%) S 112th St 0 (5%) 0 (5%) 4 (45%) -1:0 O (1r511 -ver_ --- 80 (45%) N Not to Scale S 124th St 0 (5%) 9 (5%) 9 (5%) S 130th St 0 (2%) 98 (55%) 1 (5%) 3 (30%) International Gateway East Development S 133rd St 18 (10%) 12 (10%) S 128th St 18 53 9 (10%) (30%) 15%) 4J y 1 (10%) GROUP HEALTH PARKING GARAGE AND INTERNATIONAL GATEWAY EAST DEVELOPMENT E N T R A N C O Figure 7 P.M. Project Trips From GHC Parking Garage Cut -Through Traffic A license plate survey was conducted from January 25 to 27, 2000 during the weekday p.m. peak hour to determine the percentage of cut -through traffic from the existing GHC Operations Center site through the residential areas south of the project site. The current distribution of vehicles exiting the existing GHC site shows 55 percent destined south on East Marginal Way South and 45 percent destined north on East Marginal Way South. Based on the data from the license plate survey, the majority of the vehicles (82 percent) heading south on East Marginal Way South use minor and collector arterial streets, while only 17 percent of the vehicles traveling south on East Marginal Way South (or 9.5 percent of the total trips generated by the site) use the local access streets South 128th Street, and 1 percent (or 0.5 percent of the total trips generated by the site) use South 126th Street.. A table summarizing the license plate survey data is provided in Appendix B. With the International Gateway East development and the GHC Parking Garage, it is anticipated that the new project -generated traffic will follow the existing travel patterns of the existing GHC Operations Center site, unless intersection operations on East Marginal Way and South 130th Street deteriorated to above -capacity situations. If that were to occur, more traffic could start using the local access streets than currently do. Therefore, it is recommended that mitigation measures be put in place to ensure that the proportion of vehicles using local access streets does not increase, and potentially decrease, over levels experienced today. Mitigation measures are presented later in this report. Based on the assumption that future traffic patterns would not change significantly from existing patterns, it is anticipated that the majority of the traffic destined south on East Marginal Way South would use minor or collector arterials (South 130th Street and East Marginal Way) and not local access streets (South 126th Street or South 128th Street). Based on information from the license plate study, approximately 54 trips during the a.m. peak hour and 56 trips during the p.m. peak hour would be added to South 128th Street with the International Gateway East development. Future Level of Service The future LOS was analyzed at the study intersections for year of occupancy (2000), 2010 background conditions, and 2010 with project. Projected year 2010 background volumes were determined using an applied growth factor of 4 percent per year. The growth factor of 4 percent per year was based on discussions with the City of Tukwila. w: projects\99181Atraflstdy.doc (3/22/00) jc 22 Figures 8, 9, and 10 show year 2000 total peak -hour traffic volumes with project, year 2010 total peak -hour traffic volumes, and year 2010 total peak -hour traffic volumes with project, respectively. The results of the LOS analysis for these three scenarios are summarized in table 4. A review of the LOS results indicate that all the study intersections operate at LOS D or better with or without the proposed project in 2000. Based on existing background traffic volumes being adjusted by 4 percent per year for 10 years (approximately a 50 percent increase in existing background volumes), three intersections would operate at LOS E or F in 2010 with or without the project trips during the a.m. and p.m. peak -hours, and two intersections would operate at LOS F in 2010 with project trips during the p.m. peak -hour. Intersections operating at LOS F include: • East Marginal Way South/Pacific Highway South • East Marginal Way South/South 112th Street • SR 599 On- and Off-Ramps/South 133rd Street • East Marginal Way South/South 124th Street • East Marginal Way South/South 130th Street All other intersections would operate at LOS D or better during the a.m. and p.m. peak -hours in 2010. Worksheets showing the future LOS calculations are shown in Appendices C, D, and E. Potential mitigation for all of these intersections, except the East Marginal Way/Pacific Highway South intersection, may include the installation of traffic signals. The Integrated GMA Implementation Plan and Draft Environmental Impact Statement also identify the East Marginal Way/112th Street intersection as operating at LOS F in the year 2010. To mitigate this situation, the Integrated GMA Implementation Plan states, "The LOS can be improved to LOS B in both peaks with the installation of a traffic signal and intersection channelization." Site Access Analysis A LOS and queue analysis was conducted for year 2000 with project traffic volumes for the weekday a.m. and p.m. peak -hours at the proposed driveways on South 124th Street and East Marginal Way and at the existing GHC Main Entrance (see figure 2). As shown in table 7, the project driveways are expected to operate at LOS D or better during both the a.m. and p.m. peak -hours. Vehicle queues at the proposed driveways were determined using the methodology outlined in the 1997 Update to the Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report 209, published by the Transportation Research Board. Based on this methodology, approximately two vehicles could be expected in a queue at the East Marginal Way/GHC Main Entrance during the a.m. peak -hour and approximately seven vehicles during the p.m. peak -hour. At the East Marginal Way/GHC South Entrance during the p.m. peak -hour, approximately six vehicles could be expected in a queue. No vehicle queues are expected at the other driveway during the a.m. or p.m. peak -hour. LOS and queue calculations are shown in Appendix F. w: projects\99181Atrattstdy.doc (3/22/00) jc 23 112th St N Not to Scale GROUP HEALTH PARKING GARAGE AND INTERNATIONAL GATEWAY EAST DEVELOPMENT E N T R A N C O cn 0) fr N East Marginal Way S (627)0 (338) (585) (33) 812 (270) 136 186 155 (28) 380 (881) 4— 3 (1) l r 561 (268) (174) (2) (19) t I t (397) 431 —.10. 280 272 (43) (36) (1) 3 (361) (207) (325) East Marginal Way S East Marginal Way S 0 (182) 201 1 L 191 (505) 9 (133)25 (33) F— r" (13) (267) (8) --I' —°'0 _ 2 (28) 6 423 61 3 (1) F— AJ 1 Y r 5 (2) (19) 27 J 1 —ii. ' t 242 (0) 13 228 7 (43) (36) 12 (6) (361) (1) East Marginal Way S SR 599 On and Off Ramps 0 (12) 16 27 AJ (182) 201 1 L 191 (505) 9 (133)25 (33) F— r" (165) (159) (5) 46 83 12 --I' —°'0 _ t 1 12 (4) (46) p. 41 (64) S 134th St m 8. 65 y N N a cn Pacific Hwy S © ) (1208) (20) 40 36 4 (6) 213 379 6 ' t 10 372 (38) (87) 46 (6) .4— 1 L r 45 (23) (234) 17 J 4) t r (67) 5 242 858 130 (155) 17 (43) (497) (35) Pacific Hwy S 0 See Below East Marginal Way S (49) (572) 25 566 (20) 25 (135) 168 East Marginal Way S Pacific Hwy S (805) (30) 230 48 24 1611 58 11121 r Pacific Hwy S East Marginal Way S Interurban Ave S East Marginal Way S (119) (417) 21 80 4J (40) 4 1 L 40 36 (10) (89) (39) E— r 10 (33) 170 (55) 54 (27) 42 --I ' t 10 372 (38) (87) 21 (34) —± East Marginal Way S East Marginal Way S 0 41— 0 (0) r 240 (42) (346) (26) 293 137 1�. (21) (479 120 220 )1 (0) 0 —► (0) 0 r 0 30 (0) (236) International Gateway East Development (118) 15 J (118) 15 (17) (462) 96 4)1 (94) 12J (142) 18� 41 (165) r51 (135) GHC Main t( Entrance 262 167 (260) (32) t 120 393 (21) (185) t 144 549 25 111 East Marginal Way S Legend x A.M. Peak Hour (x) P.M. Peak Hour Figure 8 2000 Total Peak -Hour Traffic Volumes with Project 10 (80) r12 (98) GHC Main cn / 4c 112th St S 133rd St 43) GROUP HEALTH PARKING GARAGE AND INTERNATIONAL GATEWAY EAST DEVELOPMENT E N T R A N C 0 0 CL (13 East Marginal Way S 0 (484) (866) 1202 (400) 201 127 229 180 (1304) F-562 J 1 L - 582 (371) (258) r 7 T 1 (28) (588) —> 396 372 (0) 638 (1) 4 (191) (286) (53) East Marginal Way S East Marginal Way S (19) (349) (12) 3 (41) 9 180 90 4 (1) E— <---185 I 1 L r 7 (3) (28) 40 J 4-)tr. (0) 1 19 282 10 —'► (53) 18 (7) (9) (185) (1) East Marginal Way S SR 599 On and OB Ramps 0 (18) (269) '-283 (748) 24 40 298 E— 66 (169) <---185 4) (0) 1 L r 139 (49) (148) 56 —I t 143 (139) 111 (64) (736) 0 18 61 —10. (7) 18 (6) (68) (95) S 134th St 0) 0 5 Pacific Hwv S ©) (1788) (30) 6 (g) 315 561 9 (58) (9) E— 66 T 1 L r 60 (0) (346) 25 _i 4) T r (99) 7 358 1270 143 (229) 25 (64) (736) (47) Pacific Hwy S 0 See Below East Marginal Way S 0 E--0 (0) r 182 (18) (477) (4) 265 86 l� (13) (438) 102 152 ) (0) (0) 0 —4► 0 International Gateway East Development (86) 12 (68) 9 (0) (539) 114� (0) 0 -1 (0) 0 1 r Entrance 365 105 (198) (5) t 80 291 (5) (120) 0 480 0 126 East Marginal Way S East Marginal Way S (73) (806) 37 441 (30) 37 J (195) 199 152 East Marginal Way S Pacific Hwy S East Marginal Way S Interurban Ave S East Marginal Wav S 0 (80) (328) (11) 19 82 0 k—_ 10 53 (8) (132) A— 4) 1 y r 15 (58) (36) 152 J T 80 1 (81) 15 253 31 --4. (40) 62 (56) (88) (50) East Marginal Way S Legend x A.M. Peak Hour (x) P.M. Peak Hour Figure 9 2010 Total Peak -Hour Traffic Volumes 112th St N Not to Scale 1I ii II = t.I Gin �\ GROUP HEALTH PARKING GARAGE AND INTERNATIONAL GATEWAY EAST DEVELOPMENT E N T R A N C O c31 East Marginal Way S (928)0 (498) (866) 1202 (400) 201 227 229 �-562 (1304) J 1 t r 750 (394) (258) r 4) 1 1 408 393 (3) (588) 638 --0- (1) 4 (288) (449) (0) East Marginal Way S East Marginal Way S (19) (390) (12) (269) 3 (41) 9 482 90 319 4 (1) .4— 4) 1 1 r 7 (3) (28) 40 J 1 —> - f v t r (0) 19 319 10 0 (53) 18 (9) (478) (1) East Marginal Way S SR 599 On and Off Ramps 0 (18) (269) 1283 (748) 24 40 298 319 (187) 4-- ) 1 L _139 (49) (213) 64 --.11' ' t (40- (204) 119 358 0 18 61 —s. (7) 18 (6) (68) (95) S 134th St 0) 5 0 ca a Pacific Hwy S ©) (1788) (30) 44 53 6 (9) 315 561 9 *) t 15 454 (56) (116) 68 (9) 4— J 1 l 64 (33) () 25J' 7 T r (99) 358 1270 177 —> (229) 25 (84) (736) (52) Pacific Hwy S 0 See Below East Marginal Way S (73) (843) 37 709 (30) 37 (200) 233 156 799 (155) (791) East Marginal Way S Pacific Hwy S 0 (1192) (43) 340 55 Cl".33 k23g1 Pacific Hwy S cn East Marginal Way S Interurban Ave S East Marginal Way S (145) 27 f (523) (44) 107 4 i L 44 53 (13) (132) (58) .4— r 15 (45) (81) (40) 219 J 80 *) t 15 454 (56) (116) 1 31 (50) —0. 62 _ East Marginal Way S East Marginal Way S 0 0 (0) r 422 (60) (514) (8) 481 171 (34) (553) 222 261 4 (0) (0) 0 —► 0 International Gateway East Development (204) 27—P (186) 24 (17) (637) 96 127� (94) 12� (142) 18� 21 (160) r25 (196) GHC Main T(-Entrance 393 209 (410) (10) t 200 407 (26) (219) t 144 705 25 152 East Marginal Way S cn 5 C/1 Legend x A.M. Peak Hour (x) P.M. Peak Hour Figure 10 2010 Total Peak -Hour Traffic Volumes With Project Table 7 Driveway Level of Service A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour Driveway Delay LOS Delay LOS International Gateway East Development South 124th Street 8.4 A 9.4 A East Marginal Way South 21.3 D 28.3 D GHC Parking Garage GHC Main Entrance 22.1 C 27.9 D Note: The delay and LOS reported for unsignalized intersections is the worst case among all of the calculated movements (usually one of the stop -controlled side street approaches). The LOS at unsignalized intersections applies only to the capacity of the worst movement, and is not a valid indicator of overall traffic operations at an intersection. Sight Distance Analysis Sight distance analyses were performed for the driveway off East Marginal Way South and the driveway off South 124th Street. Based on Figure IX -39 and IX -42 of AASHTO and an assumed design speed of 35 mph, vehicles exiting the East Marginal Way South driveway would require a sight distance of approximately 250 feet to the north and 260 feet to the south. To meet these sight distance requirements, parking should not be allowed within approximately 80 feet of either side of the driveway. Similar parking restrictions should be made at the access onto South 124th Street. Left -Turn Lane Analysis An analysis at the intersections of East Marginal Way South/GHC's Main Entrance to the GHC Parking Garage and East Marginal Way South/South 124th Street and East Marginal Way South/South Driveway to the International Gateway East development was conducted using year 2000 a.m. and p.m. peak -hour volumes with project to determine if a left -turn lane is recommended. Left -turn storage guidelines were based on Figure 910-8 of the WSDOT Design Manual, revised August 1997. Figure 910-8 uses the posted speed limit, number of left -turning vehicles, and total volume from both directions to determine if a left -turn lane is recommended. Based on the results of the left -turn lane analysis, left -turn lanes would be recommended along East Marginal Way South at the three locations analyzed. See Appendix G for worksheets. w: projects\99181Atraftstdy.doc (3/22/00) jc 27 SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS At the request of the City of Tukwila, a signal warrant analysis was conducted at the following intersections: • East Marginal Way South/Metro Access north of South 120th Place • East Marginal Way South/GHC Main Entrance • East Marginal Way South/South 130th Street • East Marginal Way South/South 112th Street The signal warrant analysis was based on traffic signal warrants as outlined in the U.S. Department of Transportation/Federal Highway Administration, Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), 1988 Edition. Of the 11 signal warrants outlined in the MUTCD, the four intersections were analyzed for the applicable warrants (1, 2, 8, 9, and 11) under year 2000 with project conditions. If the intersection was found to be warranted for a signal with project trips, signal warrants were conducted for existing modified conditions to determine if the signal was warranted before the two projects are built. In all cases signal warrant 11 was conducted for year 2010 conditions with the two proposed projects. Warrant 11 is the only warrant that is not based on 24-hour counts, and so is the only warrant that could be used to estimate the need for a signal in the future. Traffic volumes used for the signal warrant analysis were based on 24-hour traffic counts conducted by TDG on Tuesday through Thursday, July 27 to July 29, 1999. Estimated daily project volumes were proportioned over the 24-hour day based on existing traffic distribution. The results of the signal warrant analysis are presented in table 8. The traffic count data sheets and the signal warrant calculation sheets are included in Appendix H. As shown in table 8, the only intersection where MUTCD warrants are met is the East Marginal Way South/South 112th Street intersection. At this intersection, three of the five signal warrants analyzed are satisfied. w: projects\99181Atraflstdy.doc (3/22/00) jc 28 MUTCD1 Signal Warrant Table 8 Signal Warrant Analysis Summary East Marginal Way S/Metro Access north of S 120th Place Warrant Satisfied? East Marginal Way S/GHC Main Entrance Warrant Satisfied? East Marginal Way S/S 130th Street Warrant Satisfied? East Marginal Way S/S 112th Street Warrant Satisfied? Warrant 1: Minimum Vehicular Volume Warrant 2: Interruption of Continuous Traffic Warrant 8: Combination of Warrants Warrant 9: Four -Hour Volume Warrant 11: Peak -Hour Volume 2000 2010 2000 2010 2000 2010 1999 2000 2010 NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO YES YES YES YES YES YES YES NO MAYBE YES YES YES 1. MUTCD — Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, 1988. PEDESTRIAN ACTIVITY The number of pedestrians crossing East Marginal Way South at South 120th Street was determined during the a.m. and p.m. peak -hours. Traffic Data Gathering (TDG) conducted a.m. and p.m. peak -hour pedestrian counts at this intersection on January 11, 2000. Results indicated seven pedestrians crossing East Marginal Way South during the a.m. peak -hour and four pedestrians crossing during the p.m. peak -hour. A painted pedestrian crosswalk is located across the south leg of East Marginal Way South/South 124th Street. Sidewalks are located on both sides of East Marginal Way South along the project frontage that lead to this crosswalk. This crosswalk is provided for GHC employees who park their vehicles in the west parking lot and cross East Marginal Way South. With the completion of the International Gateway Center East project, parking stalls in the west lot would be now relocated to the proposed GHC Parking Garage. Since all parking for the GHC Operation Center would be located on the east side of East Marginal Way South, the number of pedestrian crossings at the East Marginal Way South/South 124th Street crosswalk would significantly be lower; therefore, reducing the number of pedestrians crossing East Marginal Way South. w: projects\99181Atraffstdy.doc (322/00) jc 29 PARKING REQUIREMENTS Minimum parking requirements for projects are generally determined by local planning code or by tenant need. The parking goal of the International Gateway East development and GHC Parking Garage is to provide adequate parking for present and future uses based on the number of people employed at the facility. Facilities that have a large number of employees can reduce their parking needs by participating in transit programs, creating car pools, and promoting vanpooling programs. The parking requirement for each of these projects takes into consideration all of these elements. R&D Buildings at International Gateway East The Tukwila zoning code does not list a minimum parking ratio for R&D facilities. It suggests minimum parking ratios for manufacturing, warehouse, and office and does not establish a maximum parking ratio for R&D uses. In order to determine the required parking ratio for this use, we examined the parking requirements at similar projects in the suburban R&D parks in Bothell, Washington. In order to service the tenant's parking needs on site, the facilities provide between 4.5 and 5 parking stalls per 1,000 square feet of gross building area. The maximum employee density at these facilities is about 1 employee per 200 square feet of gross building area. Based on this information, a parking ratio of 4.75 stalls per 1,000 square feet, which provides approximately 775 stalls, combined with a transit, vanpool, and carpool program, should provide adequate parking for the potential 816 people who could be employed at this site. GHC Parking Garage The GHC Operations Center site currently has 408 existing parking stalls on site and 272 existing parking stalls located off site at an accessory parking lot located at the southwest corner of South 124th Street and East Marginal Way South. The existing project has a parking ratio of 2.5 stalls per 1,000 square feet of gross building area. In addition, the facility participates in a transit, carpool, and vanpool program to reduce traffic to and from the site. Observations were made during a site visit that showed existing parking facilities full during peak -hours and employees parking on the public streets and other offsite locations. The parking requirement for the facility based on the minimum parking ratios under the Tukwila zoning code for the various uses in the existing facility would be approximately 600 stalls. This requirement does not take into account the number of stalls required to accommodate a shift change or facilities that have higher employee densities. Because of this, it is more realistic for a unique facility such as the GHC Operations Center to base its parking requirement on employee density and total employee count. To determine what parking ratio would be required, GHC provided the maximum daily employee count that would exist at the site. From the information supplied by GHC, the maximum employee count (800 people) would occur in 2004. Not all of these people would w: projects\9918 Vttraflstdy.doc (3/22/00) jc 30 be employed on the same shift; however, a shift change could require approximately 800 stalls. This employee count represents an employee density of 1 person per 333 square feet of gross building area. Based on this information, a parking ratio of 2.95 stalls per 1,000 square feet of gross building area, which would provide approximately 800 stalls, combined with a transit, vanpool, and car pool program already in place, would provide adequate parking for the potential 816 employees at the facility. MITIGATION According to the City of Tukwila, mitigation is determined based on an agreement to pay a fair share of the improvements identified in the City of Tukwila "Transportation Element, Table 12 — Mitigation Proportionate Share Costs" (see Appendix I). The fair share mitigation is only assessed when more than five peak -hour project trips impact a project listed in the City of Tukwila's "Transportation Element." The amount to be submitted for mitigation is based on the cost per peak -hour trip for each improvement, as defined in the mitigation table. Based on the projects listed in Table 12 — Mitigation Proportionate Share Costs — and the project trip distribution shown in figures 4, 5, 6, and 7, the proposed International Gateway East development and GHC Parking Garage would impact the following project: East Marginal Way: from Boeing Access Road to South 112th Street (301 a.m. peak - hour trips — 216 trips from International Gateway East and 85 trips from GHC Parking Garage) At the time of the report, costs per peak -hour trip for the previous project have yet to be determined; therefore, no mitigation costs were associated with the proposed International Gateway East development and GHC Parking Garage. As mentioned earlier in the report, traffic signals were warranted at the East Marginal Way/ South 112th Street now and East Marginal Way/GHC Main Entrance by 2001. For the East Marginal Way/South 112th Street intersection, warrants were satisfied in 2000 without the project, as well as 2000 with the project. Because the signal is warranted without the project, the city requires the developer to pay a proportionate share towards the cost of the signal rather than paying for the entire signal installation. For the East Marginal Way/GHC Main Entrance intersection, trips generated by both of the projects warranted the installation of a signal. Therefore, the developer will be solely responsible for installation of a signal at the project driveway. The total cost for the signal at this intersection is approximately $200,000. The developer will be responsible for constructing the three left -turn lanes that are recommended along East Marginal Way. Table 9 below shows the mitigation costs for the East Marginal Way (Boeing Access Road — South 112th Street) project and for the signal at East Marginal Way/South 112th Street intersection. w: projects\ 99181Nraftstdy.doc (3/22/00) jc 31 Table 9 Mitigation Costs International Gateway East GHC Parking Garage Project Cost/ Project Cost/ Project Trips Trip' Total Cost Trips Trip' Total Cost East Marginal Way (Boeing Access 216 85 Road — S 112th Street) East Marginal Way/S 112th Street 243 _ 96 Signal 1. Cost/Trip for the East Marginal Way (Boeing Access Road — S 112th Street) project were determined by the City of Tukwila. 2. Both projects would pay a proportionate share towards this signal since warrants were satisfied in 2000 without project trips. The traffic report was prepared to address concerns and questions expressed by Brian Shelton, City Traffic Engineer and Steve Lancaster, Director of Community Development. The report provides analysis and information about the effect of additional traffic in the neighborhood surrounding the proposed projects. Based on the report, the effects of the additional traffic can be mitigated and pedestrian and vehicular safety can be maintained. In summary, we would recommend the following mitigating measures: • each project shall pay its fair share of mitigation costs associated with the East Marginal Way (Boeing Access Road — South 112th Street) project and the East Marginal Way/South 112th Street signal • both projects would pay the entire cost of the installation for a signal at the East Marginal Way/GHC Main Entrance intersection • construct the three left -turn lanes that are recommended along East Marginal Way • provide a two-way left -turn lane along East Marginal Way South beginning north of South 124th Street and ending south of the south entrance to the International Gateway East development • on -street parking on East Marginal Way (along frontage of both developments) and South 124th Street (north of International Gateway East development) should be eliminated and no parking signs should be installed in these areas • provide street frontage improvements along the public street frontage where improvements are not in place w: projects\99181Atraflstdy.doc (3/22/00) jc 32 • No parking signs between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on weekdays will be provided by the developer on South 126th Street just south of the International Gateway East development. These signs would minimize the impacts of on -street parking in the neighborhood. It should also be noted that these street improvements would satisfy the requirements of the city's ordinance • South 128th Street should not be improved at this time because a wider street would encourage more cut -through traffic and change the rural flavor of the neighborhood. However, since the impacts are not clear at the time of the study, four recommendations are proposed by the developer. They include: 1. Installing a sign at the both ends of South 128th Street that says "Residential Neighborhood Local Traffic Only" 2. Installing 25 mph signs at both ends of South 128th Street 3. Installing speed humps along South 128th Street to encourage drivers to maintain a lower driving speed and encourage through traffic to use South 130th Street 4. Installing c -curbing at the East Marginal Way/South 128th Street intersection to prevent southbound left -turns w: projects\99181Atraffstdy.doc (3/22/00) jc 33 APPENDIX A Level of Service Calculations - 1999/2000 Existing Modified Conditions MTM 2000naam.for (1) GHC Tukwila Office 2 99181-60 Interurban Ave/Pacific Highway S/S Boeing Access Rd 2000 Modified Existing Conditions - AM Peak Hour SIGNAL97/TEAPAC[Ver 1.01] - Display of Intersection Parameters 136 24.0 2 1 86 1 12.0 1 1 1 1 481 24.0 2 / 431 24.0 2 3 0.0 0 \ 11 11 11 1 11 11 1 155 11 1 24.0 11 1 11 \ 812 12.0 1 03/20/00 10:29:56 Key: VOLUMES -- > 1 WIDTHS v LANES /1\ 380 24.0 2 1 + / 394 12.0 1 North 1 \ 1 /. 0 1 268 1 251 1 Phasing: SEQUENCE 27 0.0 1 24.0 1 12.0 1 PERMSV NNNN 0 1 2 1 1 1 OVERLP YYYY 1 I 1 LEADLAG LD LD MTM 2000naam.for (1) GHC Tukwila Office 2 99181-60 Interurban Ave/Pacific Highway S/S Boeing Access Rd 2000 Modified Existing Conditions - AM Peak Hour SIGNAL97/TEAPAC[Ver 1.01] - Capacity Analysis Summary 03/20/00 10:30:02 Intersection Averages: Degree of Saturation (v/c) 0.54 Vehicle Delay 38.8 Level of Service D+ Sq 27 1 Phase 1 1 Phase 2 1 + + + + /I\ <+ + *> v North MTM 2000naam.for (311) GHC Tukwila Office 2 99181-60 Pacific Highway S/S 112th Street 2000 Modified Existing Conditions - AM Peak Hour SIGNAL97/TEAPAC[Ver 1.01] - Display of Intersection Parameters 03/20/00 10:28:40 1 1 1 1 Key: VOLUMES -- > 213 1 379 1 6 1 1 I WIDTHS 0.0 1 24.0 1 12.0 1 v LANES O1 2 11 1 1 1 \ 4 0.0 0 / 1 \ /1\ 46 12.0 1 1 1 17 12.0 1 / + / 41 12.0 1 North 1 5 12.0 1 17 0.0 0 \ \ 1 / 242 858 97 Phasing: SEQUENCE 61 12.0 1 24.0 1 12.0 1 PERMSV YNYN 1 1 2 1 1 1 OVERLP YYYY LEADLAG LD LD MTM 2000naam.for (311) GHC Tukwila Office 2 99181-60 Pacific Highway S/S 112th Street 2000 Modified Existing Conditions - AM Peak Hour SIGNAL97/TEAPAC[Ver 1.01] - Capacity Analysis Summary Intersection Degree Averages: of Saturation (v/c) 0.69 03/20/00 10:28:45 Vehicle Delay 20.6 Level of Service C+ Sq 61 1 Phase 1 1 Phase 2 1 Phase 3 1 Phase 4 /I\ North +> <* * * <+ A A + +> <+ + + + + + + v 1 G/C=0.110 G/C=0.000 1 G= 6.6" G= 0.0" 1 Y+R= 5.0" Y+R= 0.0" 1 OFF= 0.0% OFF=19.3% G/C=0.339 G/C=0.302 G= 20.3" G= 18.1" Y+R= 5.0" Y+R= 5.0" OFF=19.3% OFF=61.5% C= 60 sec G= 45.0 sec = 75.0% Y=15.0 sec = 25.0% Ped= 0.0 sec = 0.0% Lane (Width/1 Group 1 Lanes' g/C Reqd Used 1 Service Rate Adj HCM 1 @C (vph) @E (Volume' v/c Delay L 1 9 0% Max l S Queue SB Approach 17.9 B TH+RTI 24/2 LT 1 12/1 10.241 10.339 10.000 10.110 1 1001 1 1062 1 1 263 1 302 1 673 10.634 1 17.9 1 7 10.023 1 10.2 1 B B+1 195 ftl 25 ft NB Approach 22.5 C+ RT 12/1 0.110 TH 124/2 10.309 LT i 12/1 10.078 0.339 1 451 0.339 1 1084 0.110 1 333 511 1 110 10.215 1 14.4 1 B+1 63 ft 1143 1 975 10.853 1 24.9 1*C+1 280 ft 368 1 275 10.747 1 17.3 1*B 1 112 ft WB Approach 15.3 B TH+RT1 12/1 LT 1 12/1 10.058 10.000 10.302 10.302 458 332 523 393 57 10.109 47 10.120 15.2 15.3 B 1 B 1 35 ftl 29 ftl EB Approach 14.9 B+ TH+RT1 12/1 LT 1 12/1 10.033 10.302 10.000 10.302 419 332 483 393 25 10.052 19 10.048 14.9 14.9 25 ftl 25 ft 1 MTM 2000naam.for (63) GHC Tukwila Office 2 99181-60 Interurban Ave/East Marginal Way S 2000 Modified Existing Conditions - AM Peak Hour SIGNAL97/TEAPAC[Ver 1.01] - Display of Intersection Parameters 03/20/00 10:26:24 II 1 Key: VOLUMES -- > 210 1 19 0 1 I 1 WIDTHS 12.0 1 12.0 0.0 �� 1 v LANES 1 � 1 0 11 1 1 11 \ 0 0.0 0 / 1 \ /1' 0 0.0 0 1 242 12.0 1 / + / 0 0.0 0 North 1 0 0.0 0 13 12.0 1 \ 39 299 0 Phasing: SEQUENCE 31 12.0 12.0 0.0 PERMSV NNYN 1 I 1 0 1 OVERLP YYYY LEADLAG LD LD MTM 2000naam.for (63) GHC Tukwila Office 2 99181-60 Interurban Ave/East Marginal Way S 2000 Modified Existing Conditions - AM Peak Hour SIGNAL97/TEAPAC[Ver 1.01] - Capacity Analysis Summary 03/20/00 10:26:30 Intersection Averages: Degree of Saturation (v/c) 0.36 Vehicle Delay 10.6 Level of Service B+ Sq 31 I Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 **/** /I\ North <+ A <* + ++++ * + v * + v G/C=0.170 G/C=0.170 G/C=0.410 I G= 10.2" G= 10.2" G= 24.6" I Y+R= 5.0" Y+R= 5.0" Y+R= 5.0" I OFF= 0.0% OFF=25.3% OFF=50.6% C= 60 sec G= 45.0 sec = 75.0% Y=15.0 sec = 25.0% Ped= 0.0 sec = 0.0% Lane Width/' g/C Group I Lanes' Reqd Used Service Ratel Adj I I HCM I L 190% Maxi @C (vph) @E I Volume' v/c li Delay I S I Queue SB Approach 5.7 A RT TH 12/1 12/1 10.236 10.032 10.663 10.170 812 I 831 186 I 249 233 10.280 21 10.084 4.4 I A I 21.1 I*C+I 77 ftl 25 ft NB Approach 12.7 B+ TH LT 12/1 12/1 10.241 10.000 10.423 10.170 655 523 705 571 332 10.471 43 10.075 13.0 10.3 I B+I 173 ftl I*B+I 25 ftl EB Approach 12.3 B+ RT LT 12/1 12/1 10.025 10.201 10.663 10.410 988 640 1001 692 14 10.014 269 10.389 3.4 12.8 25 138 ft 1 ft1 MTM 2000naam.for (249) GHC Tukwila Office 2 99181-60 Pacific Highway S/S 130th Street 2000 Modified Existing Conditions - AM Peak Hour SIGNAL97/TEAPAC[Ver 1.01] - Display of Intersection Parameters 03/20/00 10:15:33 I I 11 1 Key: VOLUMES -- > 0 1 230 I 15 11 1 I WIDTHS 0.0 1 24.0 1 12.0 11 1 v LANES 0 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 I 11 \ 20 0.0 0 / 1 \ /1\ 0 12.0 1 1 1 O 0.0 0 / + / 54 0.0 0 North 1 O 0.0 0 O 0.0 0 \ 0 690 0 Phasing: SEQUENCE 11 1 1 0.0 1 24.0 1 0.0 1 PERMSV NNNN I 1 0 1 2 1 0 1 OVERLP YYYY 1 1 1 1 1 LEADLAG LD LD MTM 2000naam.for (249) GHC Tukwila Office 2 99181-60 Pacific Highway S/S 130th Street 2000 Modified Existing Conditions - AM Peak Hour SIGNAL97/TEAPAC[Ver 1.01] - Capacity Analysis Summary 03/20/00 10:15:38 Intersection Averages: Degree of Saturation (v/c) 0.34 Vehicle Delay 9.4 Level of Service A Sq 11 Phase 1 Phase 2 * + * + /I\ * +> v A North + v G/C=0.500 G/C=0.333 G= 30.0" G= 20.0" Y+R= 5.0" Y+R= 5.0" OFF= 0.0% OFF=58.3% C= 60 sec G= 50.0 sec = 83.3% Y=10.0 sec = 16.7% Ped= 0.0 sec = 0.0% Lane (Width/I g/C Group 1 Lanesi Reqd Used Service Rate Adj @C (vph) @E Volume, HCM L Max v/c Delay S 190% Queue SB Approach 8.1 A MTM 2000naam.for (187) GHC Tukwila Office 2 99181-60 Interurban Avenue/S 133rd Street/Gateway Drive 2000 Modified Existing Conditions - AM Peak Hour SIGNAL97/TEAPAC[Ver 1.01] - Display of Intersection Parameters 98 152 0 12.0 24.0 0.0 1 2 1 0 03/20/00 10:12:59 Key: VOLUMES -- > WIDTHS v LANES 1 \ \ 145 0.0 0 / /I\ 52 24.0 2 I 36 0.0 0 / + / 68 0.0 0 North I 22 12.0 1 20 12.0 1 \ 11 II 235 1 741 1 265 I Phasing: SEQUENCE 37 1 11 24.0 1 24.0 1 0.0 1 PERMSV NNNN I 11 2 1 2 1 0 1 OVERLP YYYY I 1I 1 1 1 LEADLAG LD LD \ 1 / MTM 2000naam.for (187) GHC Tukwila Office 2 99181-60 Interurban Avenue/S 133rd Street/Gateway Drive 2000 Modified Existing Conditions - AM Peak Hour SIGNAL97/TEAPAC[Ver 1.01] - Capacity Analysis Summary 03/20/00 10:13:05 Intersection Averages: Degree of Saturation (v/c) 0.77 Vehicle Delay 31.3 Level of Service C Sq 37 Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4 **/** 1I\ North A <* + +> ++++ * + + v * + + G/C=0.104 G/C=0.165 G/C=0.119 G/C=0.279 G= 6.2" G= 9.9" G= 7.2" G= 16.7" Y+R= 5.0" Y+R= 5.0" Y+R= 5.0" Y+R= 5.0" OFF= 0.0% OFF=18.7% OFF=43.5% OFF=63.8% C= 60 sec G= 40.0 sec = 66.7% Y=20.0 sec = 33.3% Ped= 0.0 sec = 0.0% Lane Width/1 g/C Group Lanes' Reqd Used @CSer(vph)ice R@Ee'Volumel v/c 1 Delay = S 1 Queue x� SB Approach 23.0 C+ RT 1 12/1 10.112 10.165 TH 1 24/2 10.075 10.165 171 I 230 ' 104 10.446 1 24.0 1 C+1 78 ftl 432 1 521 1 162 10.311 1 22.4 1 C+1 61 ftl NB Approach 33.4 C TH+RT 24/2 10.348 0.352 LT 24/2 10.103 0.104 1083 255 1140 340 1070 10.939 250 10.735 33.2 *C 34.2 *C 301 ftl 97 ft1 WB Approach 34.1 C 'LT+TH+RT) 24/2 10.118 10.119 286 372 281 10.755 34.1 *C 106 ft1 EB Approach 14.4 B+ RT 'LT+TH 12/1 10.032 10.466 12/1 10.062 10.279 645 404 690 471 21 10.030 1 8.7 1 A 61 10.130 1 16.3 '*B 25 39 ft1 ft) MTM 2000naam.for (125) GHC Tukwila Office 2 99181-60 SR 599 NB off-ramp/Interurban Ave 2000 Modidied Existing Conditions - AM Peak Hour SIGNAL97/TEAPAC[Ver 1.01] - Display of Intersection Parameters 03/20/00 10:11:31 II Key: VOLUMES -- > 0 0 0 1 I WIDTHS 0.0 1 0.0 0.0 1 1 v LANES 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 11 \ 0 0.0 0 / 1 \ 848 24.0 2 /I\ 0 0.0 0 / + / 0 0.0 0 North 1 342 24.0 2 0 0.0 0 \ \ 1 / 1 395 0 1 189 Phasing: SEQUENCE 11 12.0 0.0 1 12.0 PERMSV NNNN 1 1 0 1 1 OVERLP YYYY LEADLAG LD LD MTM 2000naam.for (125) GHC Tukwila Office 2 99181-60 SR 599 NB off-ramp/Interurban Ave 2000 Modidied Existing Conditions - AM Peak Hour SIGNAL97/TEAPAC[Ver 1.01] - Capacity Analysis Summary Intersection Averages: Degree of Saturation (v/c) 0.52 Sq 11 Phase 1 Phase 2 **/** 1 \ North G/C=0.409 G= 24.6" Y+R= 5.0" OFF= 0.0% G/C=0.424 G= 25.4" Y+R= 5.0" OFF=49.3% C= 60 sec 03/20/00 10:11:36 Vehicle Delay 13.9 Level of Service B+ G= 50.0 sec = 83.3% Y=10.0 sec = 16.7% Ped= 0.0 sec = 0.0% Lane 1Width/1 Group Lanes g/C Reqd Used Service Rate Adj HCM L Max @C (vph) @E 'Volume' v/c Delay I S 190% Queue NB Approach 14.3 B+ RT 1 12/1 10.174 10.409 I 577 1 629 1 201 10.320 1 12.3 1 B+1 102 ftl I LT 1 12/1 10.284 10.409 i 651 1 703 1 420 10.597 1 15.3 1*B 1 213 ft WB Approach 14.7 B+ TH 1 24/2 10.294 10.424 1 1369 1 1405 1 902 10.642 1 14.7 1*B+1 228 ftl EB Approach 11.3 B+ TH 24/2 10.139 10.424 1342 1379 364 10.264 11.3 B+1 93 ftl 1 HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 3.1c TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL(TWSC) ANALYSIS Analyst: MTM emw112am00.hcu ntersection: E Marginal Way S/S 112th Street Count Date: 2000 Existing Mod. Conditions ime Period: AM Peak II: ntersection Orientation: North-South Major St. ehicle Volume Data: Movements: 1 2 5 6 10 12 IlEolume: 103 518 298 25 25 135 FR: 113 569 327 27 27 148 PHF: 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 PHV: 0.10 0.10 0.20 0.20 0.13 0.13 Pedestrian Volume Data: Movements: Flow: ane width: alk speed: Blockage: Median Type: None IIof vehicles: 0 r lared approach Movements: of vehicles: Eastbound of vehicles: Westbound Lane 0 0 usage for movements 1,2&3 approach: Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 L T R L T R L T R Y N N N Y N N N N hannelized: N rade: 0.00 Lane usage for movements 4,5&6 approach: Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 L T R L T R L T R N Y Y N N N N N N Iannelized: ade: N 0.00 I ne usage for movements 7,8&9 approach: Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 L T R L T R L T R Lanelzed: ade: N N N N N N N N N Ine N 0.00 usage for movements 10,11&12 approach: Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 L T R L T R L T R Y N Y N N N N N N annelized: N Grade: 0.00 La for Computing Effect of Delay to Major Street Vehicles: 1 Northbound Southbound Shared ln volume, major th vehicles: 0 0 Shared ln volume, major rt vehicles: 0 0 Sat flow rate, major th vehicles: 1700 1700 Sat flow rate, major rt vehicles: 1700 1700 Number of major street through lanes: 1 1 Length of study period, hrs: 0.25 Worksheet 4 Critical Gap and Follow-up time calculation. Critical Gap Calculations: Movement 1 10 12 t c,base 4.1 7.1 6.2 t c,hv 1.0 1.0 1.0 P hv 0.10 0.13 0.13 t c,g 0.2 0.1 G 0.00 0.00 0.00 t 3,1t 0.0 0.7 0.0 t c,T: 1 stage 0.00 0.00 0.00 t c 1 stage 4.2 6.5 6.3 Follow Up Time Calculations: Movement 1 10 12 t f,base t f , Fid/ P hv t f 2.2 0.9 0.10 2.3 3.5 0.9 0.13 3.6 3.3 0.9 0.13 3.4 Worksheet 6 Impedance and capacity equations Step 1: RT from Minor St. 9 12 Conflicting Flows 341 Potential Capacity 677 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 Movement Capacity 677 Probability of Queue free St. 0.78 Step 2: LT from Major St. 4 1 Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Movement Capacity Probability of Queue free St. 355 1161 1.00 1161 0.90 Step 4: LT from Minor St. 7 10 Conflicting Flows 1137 Potential Capacity 212 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 Maj. L, Min T Impedance factor 0.90 Maj. L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor. 0.93 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.93 Movement Capacity 197 Worksheet 8 Shared Lane Calculations Shared Lane Calculations Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 II v(vph)_ 27 148 Movement Capacity 197 677 Shared Lane Capacity 490 Worksheet 10 delay,queue length, and LOS Iovement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 I(vph) 113 176 m(vph) 1161 490 v/c 0.10 0.36 95% queue length 11 ontrol Delay 8.4 16.4 OS A C pproach Delay Approach LOS 16.4 C HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 3.1c TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL(TWSC) ANALYSIS Analyst: MTM emw12000am.hcu Intersection: E Marginal Way S/S 120th Street Count Date: 2000 Existing Mod. Conditions Time Period: AM Peak Intersection Orientation: North-South Major St. Vehicle Volume Data: Movements: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Volume: 13 191 7 61 122 6 5 3 2 27 1 12 HFR: 14 205 8 66 131 6 5 3 2 29 1 13 PHF: 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 PHV: 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.13 0.13 0.13 Pedestrian Volume Data: Movements: Flow: Lane width: Walk speed: % Blockage: Median Type: None # of vehicles: 0 Flared approach Movements: # of vehicles: Eastbound 0 # of vehicles: Westbound 0 Lane usage for movements 1,2&3 approach: Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 L T R L T R L T R Y Y Y N N N N N N Channelized: N Grade: 0.00 Lane usage for movements 4,5&6 approach: Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 L T R L T R L T R Y N N N Y Y N N N Channelized: N Grade: 0.00 Lane usage for movements 7,8&9 approach: Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 L T R L T R L T R Y Y Y N N N N N N Channelized: N Grade: 0.00 Lane usage for movements 10,11&12 approach: Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 L T R L T R L T R Y Y Y N N N N N N Channelized: N Grade: 0.00 Data for Computing Effect of Delay to Major Street Vehicles: Northbound Southbound hared In volume, major th vehicles: 191 0 hared In volume, major rt vehicles: 7 0 Sat flow rate, major th vehicles: 1700 1700 Sat flow rate, major rt vehicles: 1700 1700 umber of major street through lanes: 1IT 1 Length of study period, hrs: 0.25 1 Worksheet 4 Critical Gap and Follow-up time calculation. Iritical Gap Calculations: ovement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 t c,base 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 11 c,hv 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 hv 0.12 0.24 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.13 0.13 0.13 c,g 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 t 3,1t 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 II c,T: 1 stage 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 t c 1 stage 4.2 4.3 7.3 6.7 6.4 7.2 6.6 6.3 IIollow Up Time Calculations: ovement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 f,base f,HV hv f 2.2 0.9 0.12 2.3 2.2 0.9 0.24 2.4 3.5 0.9 0.20 3.7 4.0 0.9 0.20 4.2 3.3 0.9 0.20 3.5 3.5 0.9 0.13 3.6 4.0 0.9 0.13 4.1 3.3 0.9 0.13 3.4 I0rksht 6 Impedance and capacity equations Step 1: RT from Minor St. 9 12 conflicting Flows 209 134 otential Capacity 788 886 edestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Movement Capacity 788 886 Probability of Queue free St. 1.00 0.99 IItep 2: LT from Major St. 4 1 11 r'onflicting Flows otential Capacity edestrian Impedance Factor ovement Capacity Probability of Queue free St. IIaj. L Shared ln. Prob. Queue Free St. Step 3: TH from Minor St. 213 1237 1.00 1237 0.95 0.95 138 1387 1.00 1387 0.99 0.99 8 11 onflicting Flows 506 506 otential Capacity 444 453 edestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.94 0.94 p416ovement Capacity 424 robability of Queue free St. 0.99 1.00 Step 4: LT from Minor St. 7 10 Itnflicting Flows 510 505 tential Capacity 447 460 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Maj. L, Min T Impedance factor 0.93 0.93 j. L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor.li 0.95 0.95 p. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.94 0.94 vement Capacity 418 434 IIrksheet 8 Shared Lane Calculations Shared Lane Calculations vement 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 11 1 HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 3.1c TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL(TWSC) ANALYSIS On alyst: MTM EM124am00.hcu ntersection: East Marginal Way/S 124th Street ount Date: 2000 Existing Mod. Conditions ime Period: AM Peak intersection Orientation: North-South Major St. ehicle Volume Data: Movements: 1 2 5 6 10 12 Iolume: 80 197 102 102 12 9 FR: 89 219 113 113 13 10 PHF: 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 IHV: 0.04 0.04 0.08 0.08 0.14 0.14 Pedestrian Volume Data: IIovements: Flow: width: Iane alk speed: Blockage: 1 edian Type: None of vehicles: 0 lared approach Movements: of vehicles: Eastbound of vehicles: Westbound 0 0 Lane usage for movements 1,2&3 approach: Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 L T R L T R L T R Y Y N N N N N N N annelized: N rade: 0.00 ane usage for movements 4,5&6 approach: Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 L T R L T R L T R N Y Y N N N N N N Ihannelized: N rade: 0.00 'ane usage for movements 7,8&9 approach: Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 L T R L T R L T R 11 hannelized: N rade: 0.00 N N N N N N N N N Lane usage for movements 10,11&12 approach: Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 L T R L T R L T R channelized: N Grade: 0.00 Y N Y N N N N N N Data for Computing Effect of Delay to Major Street Vehicles: Northbound Southbound Shared In volume, major th vehicles: 197 0 Shared ln volume, major rt vehicles: 0 0 Sat flow rate, major th vehicles: 1700 1700 Sat flow rate, major rt vehicles: 1700 1700 Number of major street through lanes: 1 1 Length of study period, hrs: 0.25 Worksheet 4 Critical Gap and Follow-up time calculation. Critical Gap Calculations: Movement 1 10 12 t c,base 4.1 7.1 6.2 t c,hv 1.0 1.0 1.0 P hv 0.04 0.14 0.14 t c,g 0.2 0.1 G 0.00 0.00 0.00 t 3,1t 0.0 0.7 0.0 t c,T: 1 stage 0.00 0.00 0.00 t c 1 stage 4.1 6.5 6.3 Follow Up Time Calculations: Movement 1 10 12 t f,base t f,HV P hv t f 2.2 0.9 0.04 2.2 3.5 0.9 0.14 3.6 3.3 0.9 0.14 3.4 Worksheet 6 Impedance and capacity equations Step 1: RT from Minor St. 9 12 Conflicting Flows 170 Potential Capacity 844 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 Movement Capacity 844 Probability of Queue free St. 0.99 Step 2: LT from Major St. 4 1 Conflicting Flows 227 Potential Capacity 1330 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 Movement Capacity 1330 Probability of Queue free St. 0.93 Maj. L Shared ln. Prob. Queue Free St. 0.92 Step 4: LT from Minor St. 7 10 Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Maj. L, Min T Impedance factor Maj. L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor. Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity 567 465 1.00 0.92 0.94 0.94 439 Worksheet 8 Shared Lane Calculations Shared Lane Calculations Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 v(vph) 13 10 Movement Capacity 439 844 Shared Lane Capacity 552 Worksheet 10 delay,queue length, and LOS ovement 1 11 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 I(vph) 89 23 m(vph) 1330 552 v/c 0.07 0.04 I5% queue length ontrol Delay 7.9 11.8 OS A B Approach Delay Approach LOS 1 11.8 B orksheet 11 Shared Major LT Impedance and Delay 11( ank 1 Delay Calculations ovement 2 5 Iof 0.93 1.00 il 197 0 i2 0 0 S il 1700 1700 S i2 1700 1700 Ilr Oj 0.92 1.00 maj left 7.9 0.0 number major st lanes 1 1 Delay, rank 1 mvmts 0.6 0.0 HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 3.1c ALL -WAY STOP CONTROL(AWSC) ANALYSIS Worksheet 1 - Basic Intersection Information 1. Analyst: MTM EM130am00.hcu 2. Intersection: East Marginal Way/S 130th Street 3. Count Date: 2000 Existing Modified Conditions 4. Time Period: AM Peak Worksheet 2 - Volume Adjustments and Site Characteristics North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Ll Ll Ll L1 1. LT Volume: 10 0 103 10 2. TH Volume: 171 55 54 36 3. RT Volume: 21 13 42 7 4. Peak Hour Factor: 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 5. Flow Rate LT: 11 0 122 11 6. Flow Rate TH: 203 65 64 42 7. Flow Rate RT: 25 15 50 8 8. Flow Rate Total: 240 80 236 63 9. Prop. Heavy Vehicle: 0.02 0.23 0.01 0.02 10. Subject Approach 1 1 1 1 11. Opposing Approach 1 1 1 1 12. Conflicting Approach 1 1 1 1 13. Geometry Group 1 1 1 1 14. T (Time in Hours): 0.250 Worksheet 3 - Saturation Headway Adjustment Worksheet North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound L1 L1 L1 Ll 1. Flow Rate Total: 240 80 236 63 2. Flow Rate LT: 11 0 122 11 3. Flow Rate RT: 25 15 50 8 4. Prop LT in lane: 0.05 0.00 0.52 0.19 5. Prop RT in lane: 0.10 0.19 0.21 0.13 6. Prop. Heavy Vehicle: 0.02 0.23 0.01 0.02 7. Geometry Group 1 1 1 1 8. hLT-adj by Table 10-18 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 9. hRT-adj by Table 10-18 -0.60 -0.60 -0.60 -0.60 10. hHV-adj Table 10-18 1.70 1.70 1.70 1.70 11. hadj -0.02 0.28 -0.01 -0.01 Worksheet 4 - Departure Headway and Service Time 1. Total lane flow rate 2. hd, initial value 3. x, initial 4. hd, final value 5. x, final value 6. Move -up time, m 7. Service Time North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound L1 L1 L1 L1 240 80 236 63 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 0.21 0.07 0.21 0.06 4.7 5.2 4.7 5.0 0.31 0.12 0.31 0.09 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.7 3.2 2.7 3.0 Worksheet 5 - Capacity and Level of Service North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound L1 L1 L1 L1 1. Total lane flow rate 240 80 236 63 2. Service Time 2.7 3.2 2.7 3.0 3. Degree Utilization, x 0.31 0.12 0.31 0.09 4. Departure headway, hd 4.7 5.2 4.7 5.0 5. Capacity 736 659 729 678 6. Delay 9.9 8.9 9.9 8.4 7. Level Of Service A A A A 8. Delay Approach 9.9 8.9 9.9 8.4 9. LOS, approach A A A A 10. Delay, Intersection 9.6 11. LOS, Intersection A HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 3.1c TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL(TWSC) ANALYSIS In alyst: MTM 599133am00.hcu ntersection: S 133rd Street/SR 599 On&Off-Ramps ount Date: 2000 Existing Mod. Conditions Time Period: AM Peak intersection Orientation: East-West Major St. ehicle Volume Data: Movements: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 olume: 38 75 12 94 125 191 0 12 41 201 27 16 FR: 41 81 13 101 134 205 0 13 44 216 29 17 PHF: 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 1-11/: 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.06 0.06 0.06 Pedestrian Volume Data: IIovements: low: ane width: alk speed: Blockage: edian Type: None of vehicles: 0 Flared approach Movements: 1 of vehicles: Northbound 0 of vehicles: Southbound 2 Lane usage for movements 1,2&3 approach: Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 L T R L T R L T R Y N N N Y Y N N N annelized: N rade: 0.00 'lane usage for movements 4,5&6 approach: Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 L T R L T R L T R Y N N N Y N N N Y Ihannelized: Y rade: 0.00 'ane usage for movements 7,8&9 approach: Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 L T R L T R L T R ,hannelized: N Grade: 0.00 Y Y Y N N N N N N lane usage for movements 10,11&12 approach: Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 L T R L T R L T R 11 hannelized: N Grade: 0.00 Y Y Y N N N N N N Data for Computing Effect of Delay to Major Street Vehicles: Eastbound Westbound Shared In volume, major th vehicles: 0 0 Shared In volume, major rt vehicles: 0 0 Sat flow rate, major th vehicles: 1700 1700 Sat flow rate, major rt vehicles: 1700 1700 Number of major street through lanes: 1 1 Length of study period, hrs: 0.25 Worksheet 4 Critical Gap and Follow-up time calculation. Critical Gap Calculations: Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 t c,base 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 t c,hv 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 P hv 0.13 0.14 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.06 0.06 0.06 t c,g 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 G 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 t 3,1t 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 t c,T: 1 stage 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 t c 1 stage 4.2 4.2 7.3 6.8 6.5 7.2 6.6 6.3 Follow Up Time Calculations: Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 t f,base t f,Hv P hv t f 2.2 0.9 0.13 2.3 2.2 0.9 0.14 2.3 3.5 0.9 0.25 3.7 4.0 0.9 0.25 4.2 3.3 0.9 0.25 3.5 3.5 0.9 0.06 3.6 4.0 0.9 0.06 4.1 3.3 0.9 0.06 3.4 Worksheet 6 Impedance and capacity equations Step 1: RT from Minor St. 9 12 Conflicting Flows 87 134 Potential Capacity 912 904 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Movement Capacity 912 904 Probability of Queue free St. 0.95 0.98 Step 2: LT from Major St. 4 1 Conflicting Flows 94 134 Potential Capacity 1429 1385 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Movement Capacity 1429 1385 Probability of Queue free St. 0.93 0.97 Step 3: TH from Minor St. 8 11 Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Probability of Queue free St. 505 438 1.00 0.90 395 0.97 512 460 1.00 0.90 415 0.93 Step 4: LT from Minor St. 7 10 Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Maj. L, Min T Impedance factor Maj. L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor. Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity 631 363 1.00 0.84 0.88 0.86 312 534 451 1.00 0.87 0.90 0.86 387 Worksheet 8 Shared Lane Calculations Shared Lane Calculations Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 v(vph) 0 13 44 216 29 17 ovement Capacityli 312 395 912 387 415 904 hared Lane Capacity 703 405 Worksheet 9 -Computation of effect of flared minor street approaches ovement 7 8 9 10 11 12 C sep 312 395 912 387 415 904 Volume 0 13 44 216 29 17 Delay 16.5 14.4 9.2 25.5 14.3 9.1 sep 0.00 0.05 0.11 1.53 0.12 0.04 sep +1 1.00 1.05 1.11 2.53 1.12 1.04 round (Qsep +1) 1 1 1 3 1 1 I max 1 3 sh 703 405 UM C sep 1618 1706 n 0 2 Iact 703 1272 'orksheet 10 delay,queue length, and LOS ovement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 I 11 (vph) 41 101 57 262 C m(vph) 1385 1429 703 1272 ii/c 0.03 0.07 0.08 0.21 5% queue length ontrol Delay 7.7 7.7 10.6 8.6 LOS A A B A Approach Delay 10.6 8.6 IIpproach LOS B A HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 3.1c TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL(TWSC) ANALYSIS Analyst: MTM int5nbam00.hcu Intersection: Interurban Avenue S/I-5 NB On -Ramp Count Date: 2000 Existing Mod. Conditions Time Period: AM Peak Intersection Orientation: East-West Major St. Vehicle Volume Data: Movements: 1 2 5 6 Volume: 93 525 766 369 HFR: 107 603 880 424 PHF: 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 PHV: 0.13 0.13 0.14 0.14 Pedestrian Volume Data: Movements: Flow: Lane width: Walk speed: % Blockage: Median Type: None # of vehicles: 0 Flared approach Movements: # of vehicles: Northbound 0 # of vehicles: Southbound 0 Lane usage for movements 1,2&3 approach: IILane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 L T R L T R L T R Y N N N Y N N Y N Channelized: N Data for Computing Effect of Delay to Major Street Vehicles: Eastbound Westbound 'hared In volume, major th vehicles: 0 0 hared In volume, major rt vehicles: 0 0 Sat flow rate, major th vehicles: 1700 1700 at flow rate, major rt vehicles: 1700li 1700 umber of major street through lanes: 2 2 Length of study period, hrs: 0.25 Worksheet 4 Critical Gap and Follow-up time calculation. IIritical Gap Calculations: ovement 1 t c,base 4.1 c,hv 2.0 11 hv 0.13 c,g 0.00 t 3,1t 0.0 II C,T: 1 stage 0.00 t c 1 stage 4.4 11 ollow Up Time Calculations: ovement 1 f,base 2.2 f,HV 1.0 hv 0.13 f 2.3 IIorksheet 6 Impedance and capacity equations Step 2: LT from Major St. 4 1 IIonflicting Flows otential Capacity edestrian Impedance Factor Movement Capacity Probability of Queue free St. 880 698 1.00 698 0.85 Worksheet 10 delay,queue length, and LOS livement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 '(vph) 107 m(vph) 698 v/c 0.15 95% queue length ntrol Delay 11.1 S B proach Delay Approach LOS MTM 2000napm.for (1) GHC Tukwila Office 2 99181-60 Interurban Ave/Pacific Highway S/S Boeing Access Rd 2000 Existing Modified Conditions - PM Peak Hour SIGNAL97/TEAPAC[Ver 1.01] - Display of Intersection Parameters 03/20/00 11:00:54 1 1 1 Key: VOLUMES -- > 627 1 327 585 1 1 1 WIDTHS 24.0 1 12.0 24.0 1 1 v LANES 21 11 2111 \ 270 12.0 1 / 1 \ /1' 1 1 881 24.0 2 174 24.0 2 / + / 251 12.0 1 North 1 397 24.0 2 1 0.0 0 \ 0 129 194 Phasing: SEQUENCE 27 0.0 24.0 112.0 PERMSV NNNN 0 2 I 1 I OVERLP YYYY LEADLAG LD LD MTM 2000napm.for (1) GHC Tukwila Office 2 99181-60 Interurban Ave/Pacific Highway S/S Boeing Access Rd 2000 Existing Modified Conditions - PM Peak Hour 03/20/00 11:01:03 SIGNAL97/TEAPAC[Ver 1.01] - Capacity Analysis Summary Intersection Averages: Degree of Saturation (v/c) 0.63 Vehicle Delay 38.9 Level of Service D+ Sq 27 Phase 1 I Phase 2 1 Phase 3Phase 4 I /1\ North + + * + + + + * + + <+ + *> <++ v v v G/C=0.221 G= 26.5" Y+R= 5.0" OFF= 0.0% G/C=0.142 I G/C=0.303 G= 17.0" I G= 36.4" Y+R= 5.0" I Y+R= 5.0" OFF=26.2% I OFF=44.6% G/C=0.168 G= 20.2" Y+R= 5.0" OFF=79.0% C=120 sec G=100.0 sec = 83.3% Y=20.0 sec = 16.7% Ped= 0.0 sec = 0.0% Lane IWidth/I g/C I Service Rate' Adj I I HCM I L 190% Maxi I Group I Lanes' Regd Used I @C (vph) @E 'Volume' v/c I Delay I S I Queue I SB Approach 30.5 C RT TH LT 124/2 10.354 10.614 11623 11694 I 667 10.394 I 12.0 I B+I 219 ftl 112/1 10.326 10.404 I 562 I 745 I 348 10.467 I 26.7 I C+I 352 ftl 124/2 10.317 10.221 I 1 I 750 I 622 10.829 I 52.4 '*D 1411 ftl NB Approach 29.6 C RT 112/1 10.295 10.486 TH 124/2 10.252 10.142 640 1 762 I 206 10.270 473 I 137 10.276 18.4 I B 46.3 l*D 180 ft( 100 ftl WB Approach 47.2 D TH 124/2 10.370 10.303 I 538 11042 I 937 10.899 I 50.6 l*D 1561 ftl LT 112/1 10.306 10.303 I 257 I 519 I 267 10.512 I 35.4 I D+I 319 ftl EB Approach 50.5 D TH+RTI 24/2 10.289 10.168 I 1 I 546 I 423 10.753 I 53.2 '*D 1307 ftl LT 124/2 10.260 10.168 I 1 I 528 I 185 10.339 I 44.4 I D+I 134 ftl MTM 2000napm.for (311) GHC Tukwila Office 2 99181-60 Pacific Highway S/S 112th Street 2000 Existing Modified Conditions - PM Peak Hour SIGNAL97/TEAPAC[Ver 1.01] - Display of Intersection Parameters 03/20/00 11:04:58 1 1 1 Key: VOLUMES -- > 30 1 1208 1 20 1 1 1 WIDTHS 0.0 1 24.0 12.0 1 1 v LANES 0 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 \ 6 0.0 0 / 1 \ /1\ 6 12.0 1 1 1 234 12.0 1 / + / 1 12.0 1 North 1 67 12.0 1 155 0.0 0 \ 43 497 32 Phasing: SEQUENCE 61 12.0 24.0 1 12.0 1 PERMSV YNYN 1 2 1 1 1 OVERLP YYYY LEADLAG LD LD MTM 2000napm.for (311) GHC Tukwila Office 2 99181-60 Pacific Highway S/S 112th Street 2000 Existing Modified Conditions - PM Peak Hour SIGNAL97/TEAPAC[Ver 1.01] - Capacity Analysis Summary Intersection Averages: Degree of Saturation (v/c) Sq 61 **/** North 03/20/00 11:04:52 0.70 Vehicle Delay 24.1 Level of Service C+ Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4 1 +> <* * * A <+ + +> + + + + + + * * * * * <* v +> A <+ + +> + + + + + + A v G/C=0.085 G= 5.1" Y+R= 5.0" OFF= 0.0% G/C=0.000 G= 0.0" Y+R= 0.0" OFF=16.8% G/C=0.384 G= 23.0" Y+R= 5.0" OFF=16.8% G/C=0.281 G= 16.9" Y+R= 5.0" OFF=63.6% C= 60 sec G= 45.0 sec = 75.0% Y=15.0 sec = 25.0% Ped= 0.0 sec = 0.0% 1 Lane (Width/' g/C I Service Rate' Adj 1 1 HCM 1 L 190% Maxi 1 Group 1 Lanes' Reqd Used 1 @C (vph) @E !Volume! v/c 1 Delay 1 S 1 Queue 1 SB Approach 30.7 C 1 TH+RT1 24/2 10.376 10.384 1 1307 1 1353 1 1276 10.943 1 31.1 1*C 1 332 ftl 1 LT 1 12/1 10.000 10.085 1 419 1 460 1 21 10.046 1 8.6 1 A 1 25 ftl NB Approach 13.2 B+ RT TH LT 1 12/1 10.040 10.384 1 558 1 614 1 33 10.054 1 11.7 1 B+1 25 ft1 1 24/2 10.169 10.384 1 1326 1 1372 1 512 10.373 1 13.5 1 B+1 132 ftl 1 12/1 10.000 10.085 1 239 1 277 1 44 10.159 1 10.6 1*B+' 25 ftl WB Approach 15.7 B 1 TH+RT1 12/1 10.023 10.281 1 351 1 415 1 12 10.029 1 15.7 1 B 1 25 ftl 1 LT 1 12/1 10.000 10.281 1 201 1 255 1 1 10.004 1 15.5 1 B 1 25 ftl EB Approach 20.0 B 1 TH+RT1 12/1 10.176 10.281 1 411 1 478 1 229 10.479 1 18.7 1*B 1 137 ftl 1 LT 1 12/1 10.215 10.281 1 336 1 400 1 241 10.603 1 21.2 1 C+1 144 ft1 MTM 2000napm.for (63) GHC Tukwila Office 2 99181-60 Interurban Ave/East Marginal Way S 2000 Existing Modified Conditions - PM Peak Hour SIGNAL97/TEAPAC[Ver 1.01] - Display of Intersection Parameters 03/20/00 11:00:37 1 11 1 Key: VOLUMES -- > 276 1 468 0 11 1 1 WIDTHS 12.0 1 12.0 0.0 1 1 v LANES 1 1l 1 1 0 1 \ 0 0.0 0 / 1 \ /1\ 0 0.0 0 1 170 12.0 1 / + / 0 0.0 0 North 1 0 0.0 0 19 12.0 1 \ 1 22 92 ( 0 Phasing: SEQUENCE 31 12.0 112.0 I 0.0 PERMSV NNYN 1 I 1 I 0 OVERLP YYYY LEADLAG LD LD MTM 2000napm.for (63) GHC Tukwila Office 2 99181-60 Interurban Ave/East Marginal Way S 2000 Existing Modified Conditions - PM Peak Hour SIGNAL97/TEAPAC(Ver 1.01] - Capacity Analysis Summary 03/20/00 11:00:26 Intersection Averages: Degree of Saturation (v/c) 0.47 Vehicle Delay 12.3 Level of Service B+ Sq 31 Phase 1 Phase 2 I Phase 3 I 11\ North v A <* + ++++ * + v * + <+ A G/C=0.112 G/C=0.437 G/C=0.202 G= 6.7" G= 26.2" G= 12.1" Y+R= 5.0" Y+R= 5.0" Y+R= 5.0" OFF= 0.0% OFF=19.5% OFF=71.5% C= 60 sec G= 45.0 sec = 75.0% Y=15.0 sec = 25.0% Ped= 0.0 sec = 0.0% Lane Width/1 g/C 1 Service Rate Adj 1 I HCM 1 L 190% Maxi Group I Lanes Reqd Used I @C (vph) @E 'Volume' v/c 1 Delay 1 S 1 Queue SB Approach 10.9 B+ RT 1 12/1 10.245 10.722 1 1109 1 1110 1 310 10.279 1 3.0 1 A 1 74 ft) TH 1 12/1 10.326 10.437 1 742 1 790 1 526 10.666 1 15.6 *B 1 254 ftl NB Approach 4.7 A TH 1 12/1 10.097 10.632 1 1029 1 1044 1 103 0.0994.4 1 A 1 34 ftl LT 1 12/1 10.000 0.112 367 1 398 25 10.063 I 5.9 *A 1 25 ft1 EB Approach 22.2 C+ RT 1 12/1 10.031 10.397 1 556 1 610 1 21 10.034 1 11.1 1 B+1 25 ftl LT 1 12/1 10.150 10.202 1 277 1 347 1 191 10.550 1 23.4 *C+) 131 ftl MTM 2000napm.for (249) GHC Tukwila Office 2 99181-60 Pacific Highway S/S 130th Street 2000 Existing Modified Conditions - PM Peak Hour SIGNAL97/TEAPAC[Ver 1.01] - Display of Intersection Parameters I 0 1 805 26 0.0 1 24.0 12.0 0 1 2 1 I / I 0 0.0 0 / 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 \ 11 I 1 11 I 11 I 11 I I I I I I \ 28 0.0 0 03/20/00 11:03:56 Key: VOLUMES -- > 1 WIDTHS v LANES /I\ 0 12.0 1 + / 139 0.0 0 North \ I / 0 419 5 0.0 24.0 0.0 0 2 0 Phasing: SEQUENCE 11 PERMSV NNNN OVERLP YYYY LEADLAG LD LD MTM 2000napm.for (249) GHC Tukwila Office 2 99181-60 Pacific Highway S/S 130th Street 2000 Existing Modified Conditions - PM Peak Hour SIGNAL97/TEAPAC[Ver 1.01] - Capacity Analysis Summary 03/20/00 11:03:50 Intersection Averages: Degree of Saturation (v/c) 0.36 Vehicle Delay 7.8 Level of Service A Sq 11 Phase 1 Phase 2 I /I\ North G/C=0.582 G/C=0.252 G= 34.9" G= 15.1" Y+R= 5.0" Y+R= 5.0" OFF= 0.0% I OFF=66.5% C= 60 sec G= 50.0 sec = 83.3% Y=10.0 sec = 16.7% Ped= 0.0 sec = 0.0% I Lane IWidth/I g/C I Service Rate' Adj I I HCM I L I90% Max' I Group I Lanes' Reqd Used I @C (vph) @E 'Volume' v/c I Delay I S I Queue I SB Approach 7.2 A TH 124/2 10.279 10.582 12038 12038 I 904 10.444 I 7.2 I*A 1160 ftl LT 112/1 10.000 10.582 I 478 I 514 I 29 10.056 I 5.5 I A I 25 ftl NB Approach 6.2 A I TH+RTI 24/2 10.164 10.582 12015 12015 I 477 10.237 I 6.2 I A I 85 ftl WB Approach 15.5 B ILT+TH+RTI 12/1 10.161 10.335 I 465 I 526 I 187 10.356 I 15.5 l*B 1105 ftl MTM 2000napm.for (187) GHC Tukwila Office 2 99181-60 Interurban Avenue/S 133rd Street/Gateway Drive 2000 Existing Modified Conditions - PM Peak Hour SIGNAL97/TEAPAC[Ver 1.01] - Display of Intersection Parameters 03/20/00 11:03:01 Key: VOLUMES -- > 254 1 416 0 1 1 1 WIDTHS 12.0 124.0 I 0.0 1 1 v LANES 1 I 2 I 0 1 1 1 \ 56 0.0 0 / 1 \ /1\ 199 24.0 2 1 95 0.0 0 / + / 207 0.0 0 North 1 45 12.0 1 226 12.0 1 \ 197 24.0 2 609 179 Phasing: SEQUENCE 37 24.0 I 0.0 I PERMSV NNNN 2 I 0 I OVERLP YYYY LEADLAG LD LD MTM 2000napm.for (187) GHC Tukwila Office 2 99181-60 Interurban Avenue/S 133rd Street/Gateway Drive 2000 Existing Modified Conditions - PM Peak Hour SIGNAL97/TEAPAC[Ver 1.01] - Capacity Analysis Summary 03/20/00 11:02:55 Intersection Averages: Degree of Saturation (v/c) 0.62 Vehicle Delay 30.1 Level of Service C Sq 37 /I\ North Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4 I A <* + +> ++++ * + + v * + + v G/C=0.101 G/C=0.257 1 G/C=0.199 G/C=0.221 G= 9.0" G= 23.2" G= 17.9" G= 19.9" Y+R= 5.0" I Y+R= 5.0" I Y+R= 5.0" Y+R= 5.0" OFF= 0.0% OFF=15.6% 1 OFF=46.9`o OFF=72.4% C= 90 sec G= 70.0 sec = 77.8% Y=20.0 sec = 22.2% Ped= 0.0 sec = 0.0% I Lane Width/1 g/C I Service Rate' Adj I HCM I L 190% Maxi Group I Lanes' Regd Used I @C (vph) @E 'Volume' v/c I Delay I S I Queue SB Approach 32.1 C RT 112/1 10.265 10.257 I 263 I 385 I 276 10.717 I 36.7 I*D+1 268 ftl TH 124/2 10.207 10.257 I 658 I 861 I 452 10.525 I 29.3 I C 1220 ftl NB Approach 26.4 C+ TH+RT 24/2 10.3160.414 11223 11335 LT 24/2 10.155 10.101 I 1 I 314 857 10.642 214 10.656 22.1 1C+' 329 ft' 43.7 *D+l 126 ftl WB Approach 38.7 D+ ILT+TH+RTI 24/2 10.218 10.199 I 424 I 669 I 502 10.750 I 38.7 I*D+I 256 ftl EB Approach 25.1 C+ I RT 112/1 10.252 10.377 I 451 I 549 I 246 10.448 I 21.6 I C+l 204 ftl ILT+TH 112/1 10.178 10.221 I 229 I 364 I 152 10.415 I 30.8 I*C 1158 ftl MTM 2000napm.for (125) GHC Tukwila Office 2 99181-60 SR 599 NB off-ramp/Interurban Ave 2000 Existing Modified Conditions - PM Peak Hour SIGNAL97/TEAPAC[Ver 1.01] - Display of Intersection Parameters 03/20/00 11:02:12 0 I 0 I 0 II Key: iOLUMEDTHS ' 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 II v LANES 0 I 0 I 0 III I II \ 0 0.0 0 / 1 \ /I\ 775 24.0 2 I 0 0.0 0 / + / 0 0.0 0 North I 845 24.0 2 0 0.0 0 \ \ I / 216 0 69 Phasing: SEQUENCE 11 12.0 I 0.0 112.0 I PERMSV NNNN 1 I 0 I 1 I OVERLP YYYY LEADLAG LD LD MTM 2000napm.for (125) GHC Tukwila Office 2 99181-60 SR 599 NB off-ramp/Interurban Ave 2000 Existing Modified Conditions - PM Peak Hour SIGNAL97/TEAPAC[Ver 1.01] - Capacity Analysis Summary 03/20/00 11:02:01 Intersection Averages: Degree of Saturation (v/c) 0.46 Vehicle Delay 10.7 Level of Service B+ Sq 11 I Phase 1 I Phase 2 /I\ North <++++ +> G/C=0.325 G/C=0.509 G= 19.5" G= 30.5" Y+R= 5.0" Y+R= 5.0" OFF= 0.0% OFF=40.8% C= 60 sec G= 50.0 sec = 83.3% Y=10.0 sec = 16.7% Ped= 0.0 sec = 0.0% I Lane Width/1 g/C I Service Rate' Adj I I HCM I L 190% Max' I Group I Lanes' Reqd Used I @C (vph) @E 'Volume' v/c I Delay I S I Queue I NB Approach 15.9 B RT 112/1 10.079 10.325 I 416 I 477 I 70 10.147 I 14.5 I 8+1 42 fti LT 112/1 10.176 10.325 I 470 I 533 I 220 10.413 I 16.3 I*B 1131 ftf WB Approach 9.6 A I TH 124/2 10.256 10.509 11723 11732 I 791 10.457 I 9.6 I A 1168 ft) EB Approach 9.9 A I TH 124/2 10.275 10.509 11723 11732 I 862 10.498 I 9.9 I*A 1183 ftl HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 3.1c TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL(TWSC) ANALYSIS Analyst: MTM emw112pm00.hcu Intersection: E Marginal Way S/S 112th Street Count Date: 2000 Existing Mod. Conditions Time Period: PM Peak Intersection Orientation: North-South Major St. Vehicle Volume Data: Movements: 1 2 5 6 10 12 Volume: 82 359 544 49 20 132 HFR: 88 386 585 53 22 142 PHF: 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 PHV: 0.10 0.10 0.05 0.05 0.02 0.02 Pedestrian Volume Data: Movements: Flow: Lane width: Walk speed: % Blockage: Median Type: None # of vehicles: 0 Flared approach Movements: # of vehicles: Eastbound 0 # of vehicles: Westbound 0 Lane usage for movements 1,2&3 approach: Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 L T R L T R L T R Y N N N Y N N N N Channelized: N Grade: 0.00 Lane usage for movements 4,5&6 approach: Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 L T R L T R L T R N Y Y N N N N N N Channelized: N Grade: 0.00 Lane usage for movements 7,8&9 approach: Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 L T R L T R L T R N N N N N N N N N Channelized: N Grade: 0.00 Lane usage for movements 10,11&12 approach: Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 L T R L T R L T R Y N Y N N N N N N Channelized: N Grade: 0.00 Data for Computing Effect of Delay to Major Street Vehicles: Northbound Southbound Shared In volume, major th vehicles: 0 0 hared In volume, major rt vehicles: 0 0 Sat flow rate, major th vehicles: 1700 1700 at flow rate, major rt vehicles: 1700If 1700 umber of major street through lanes: 1 1 Length of study period, hrs: 0.25 1 Worksheet 4 Critical Gap and Follow-up time calculation. IIritical Gap Calculations: ovement 1 10 12 t c,base 4.1 7.1 6.2 c,hv 1.0 1.0 1.0 hv 0.10 0.02 0.02 c,g 0.2 0.1 G 0.00 0.00 0.00 t 3,1t 0.0 0.7 0.0 11[c, T: 1 stage 0.00 0.00 0.00 t c 1 stage 4.2 6.4 6.2 Iollow Up Time Calculations: ovement 1 10 12 f,base 2.2 3.5 3.3 f,Hv 0.9 0.9 0.9 hv 0.10 0.02 0.02 f 2.3 3.5 3.3 Iorksheet 6 Impedance and capacity equations Step 1: RT from Minor St. 9 12 IIonflicting Flows otential Capacity edestrian Impedance Factor Movement Capacity robability of Queue free St. II 611 494 1.00 494 0.71 tep 2: LT from Major St. 4 1 IIonflicting Flows otential Capacity edestrian Impedance Factor Movement Capacity Probability of Queue free St. ,tep 4: LT from Minor St. 638 909 1.00 909 0.90 7 10 Conflicting Flows 1174 otential Capacity11 212 edestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 aj. L, Min T Impedance factor 0.90 Maj. L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor. 0.93 Iap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.93 ovement Capacity 196 Iorksheet 8 Shared Lane Calculations hared Lane Calculations Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 v(vph) 111 ovement Capacity ared Lane Capacity 22 196 412 142 494 Worksheet 10 delay,queue length, and LOS Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 v(vph) 88 C m(vph) 909 v/c 0.10 95% queue length Control Delay 9.4 LOS A Approach Delay Approach LOS 163 412 0.40 19.4 c 19.4 c 1 HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 3.1c TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL(TWSC) ANALYSIS In alyst: MTM emw12000pm.hcu ntersection: E Marginal Way S/S 120th Street ount Date: 2000 Existing Mod. Conditions Time Period: PM Peak II ntersection Orientation: North-South Major St. ehicle Volume Data: ovements: II 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 olume: 6 125 1 8 236 13 2 1 28 19 0 36 HFR: 8 158 1 10 299 16 3 1 35 24 0 46 PHF: 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 IIHV 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.09 0.09 0.09 Pedestrian Volume Data: IIovements: low: ane width: alk speed: Blockage: Iedian Type: None of vehicles: 0 Flared approach Movements: 1 of vehicles: Eastbound 0 of vehicles: Westbound 0 lane usage for movements 1,2&3 approach: Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 L T R L T R L T R Y Y Y N N N N N N Ihannelized: N rade: 0.00 'lane usage for movements 4,5&6 approach: Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 L T R L T R L T R 1 hannelized: N rade: 0.00 Y N N N Y Y N N N Lane usage for movements 7,8&9 approach: Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 L T R L T R L T R Y Y Y N N N N N N hannelized: N Grade: 0.00 Iane usage for movements 10,11&12 approach: Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 L T R L T R L T R II Y Channelized: N Grade: 0.00 II Y Y N N N N N N Data for Computing Effect of Delay to Major Street Vehicles: Northbound Southbound Shared ln volume, major th vehicles: 125 0 Shared In volume, major rt vehicles: 1 0 Sat flow rate, major th vehicles: 1700 1700 Sat flow rate, major rt vehicles: 1700 1700 Number of major street through lanes: 1 1 Length of study period, hrs: 0.25 Worksheet 4 Critical Gap and Follow-up time calculation. Critical Gap Calculations: Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 t c,base 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 t c,hv 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 P hv 0.07 0.09 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.09 0.09 0.09 t c,g 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 G 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 t 3,1t 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 t c,T: 1 stage 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 t c 1 stage 4.2 4.2 8.0 7.4 7.1 7.2 6.6 6.3 Follow Up Time Calculations: Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 t f,base t f,HV P hv t f 2.2 0.9 0.07 2.3 2.2 0.9 0.09 2.3 3.5 0.9 0.87 4.3 4.0 0.9 0.87 4.8 3.3 0.9 0.87 4.1 3.5 0.9 0.09 3.6 4.0 0.9 0.09 4.1 3.3 0.9 0.09 3.4 Worksheet 6 Impedance and capacity equations Step 1: RT from Minor St. 9 12 Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Movement Capacity Probability of Queue free St. 159 705 1.00 705 0.95 307 717 1.00 717 0.94 Step 2: LT from Major St. 4 1 Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Movement Capacity Probability of Queue free St. Maj. L Shared ln. Prob. Queue Free St. 159 1378 1.00 1378 0.99 0.99 315 1217 1.00 1217 0.99 0.99 Step 3: TH from Minor St. 8 11 Conflicting Flows 509 502 Potential Capacity 365 462 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.99 0.99 Movement Capacity 360 455 Probability of Queue free St. 1.00 1.00 Step 4: LT from Minor St. 7 10 Conflicting Flows 524 520 Potential Capacity 354 456 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Maj. L, Min T Impedance factor 0.99 0.98 Maj. L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor. 0.99 0.99 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.93 0.94 Movement Capacity 328 427 Worksheet 8 Shared Lane Calculations Shared Lane Calculations Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 (vph) 3 1 35 ovement Capacity 328 360 705 hared Lane Capacity 638 I I 24 0 46 427 455 717 581 orksheet 10 delay,queue length, and LOS ovement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 It(vph) 8 10 39 70 C m(vph) 1217 1378 638 581 tOc 0.01 0.01 0.06 0.12 % queue length ntrol Delay 8.0 7.6 11.0 12.0 S A A B B Approach Delay 11.0 12.0 pproach LOS B IIB Iorksheet 11 Shared Major LT Impedance and Delay ank 1 Delay Calculations Movement 2 5 I/ of 0.99 0.99 il 125 0 i2 1 0 S il 1700 1700 Ii2 1700 1700 * Oj 0.99 0.99 maj left 8.0 7.6 N number major st lanes 1 1 Delay, rank 1 mvmts 0.1 0.1 HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 3.1c TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL(TWSC) ANALYSIS Analyst: MTM EM124pm00.hcu Intersection: East Marginal Way/S 124th Street Count Date: 2000 Existing Mod. Conditions Time Period: PM Peak Intersection Orientation: North-South Major St. Vehicle Volume Data: Movements: 1 2 5 6 10 12 Volume: 5 81 296 13 86 68 HFR: 5 85 312 14 91 72 PHF: 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 PHV: 0.09 0.09 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.03 Pedestrian Volume Data: Movements: Flow: Lane width: Walk speed: % Blockage: Median Type: None # of vehicles: 0 Flared approach Movements: # of vehicles: Eastbound 0 # of vehicles: Westbound 0 Lane usage for movements 1,2&3 approach: Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 L T R L T R L T R Y Y N N N N N N N Channelized: N Grade: 0.00 Lane usage for movements 4,5&6 approach: Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 L T R L T R L T R N Y Y N N N N N N Channelized: N Grade: 0.00 Lane usage for movements 7,8&9 approach: Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 L T R L T R L T R N N N N N N N N N Channelized: N Grade: 0.00 Lane usage for movements 10,11&12 approach: Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 L T R L T R L T R Y N Y N N N N N N Channelized: N Grade: 0.00 Data for Computing Effect of Delay to Major Street Vehicles: Northbound Southbound ared ln volume, major th ILvehicles: 81 0 Shared ln volume, major rt vehicles: 0 0 Sat flow rate, major th vehicles: 1700 1700 Irt flow rate, major rt vehicles: 1700 1700 mber of major street through lanes: 1 1 Length of study period, hrs: 0.25 11 Worksheet 4 Critical Gap and Follow-up time calculation. Ititical Gap Calculations: vement 1 10 12 t c,base 4.1 7.1 6.2 IIc,hv 1.0 1.0 1.0 by 0.09 0.03 0.03 c,g 0.2 0.1 G 0.00 0.00 0.00 3,1t11 0.0 0.7 0.0 c,T: 1 stage 0.00 0.00 0.00 t c stage 4.2 6.4 6.2 llow Up Time Calculations: Movement 1 10 12 f,base 2.2 3.5 3.3 f,HV 0.9 0.9 0.9 by 0.09 0.03 0.03 t f 2.3 3.5 3.3 IIorksheet 6 Impedance and capacity equations Step 1: RT from Minor St. 9 12 IIonflicting Flows otential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Movement Capacity IIrobability of Queue free St. Step 2: LT from Major St. 318 720 1.00 720 0.90 4 1 nflicting Flows otential Capacity edestrian Impedance Factor Movement Capacity 11 robability of Queue free St. aj. L Shared ln. Prob. Queue Free St. Step 4: LT from Minor St. 325 1196 1.00 1196 1.00 1.00 7 10 'onflicting Flows otential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Maj. L, Min T Impedance factor aj. L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor. ap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt ovement Capacity 414 593 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 590 'orksheet 8 Shared Lane Calculations Shared Lane Calculations ovement 7 8 9 10 11 12 II I(vph) ovement Capacity hared Lane Capacity 590 641 72 720 IIorksheet 10 delay,queue length, and LOS Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 v(vph) 5 162 C m(vph) 1196 641 v/c 0.00 0.25 95% queue length Control Delay 8.0 12.5 LOS A B Approach Delay Approach LOS 12.5 B Worksheet 11 Shared Major LT Impedance and Delay Rank 1 Delay Calculations Movement 2 5 P of 1.00 1.00 ✓ it 81 0 ✓ i2 0 0 S it 1700 1700 S i2 1700 1700 P* Oj 1.00 1.00 D maj left 8.0 0.0 N number major st lanes 1 1 Delay, rank 1 mvmts 0.0 0.0 HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 3.1c ALL -WAY STOP CONTROL(AWSC) ANALYSIS IIorksheet 1 - Basic Intersection Information Analyst: MTM EM130pm00.hcu . Intersection: East Marginal Way/S 130th Street 3. Count Date: 2000 Existing Mod. Conditions 4. Time Period: PM Peak 11 orksheet 2 - Volume Adjustments and Site Characteristics North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound L1 L1 L1 L1 LT Volume: 38 7 24 39 . TH Volume: 59 222 55 89 . RT Volume: 34 54 27 6 4. Peak Hour Factor: 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Flow Rate LT: 40 7 25 41 Flow Rate TH: 62 236 58 94 . Flow Rate RT: 36 57 28 6 8. Flow Rate Total: 139 301 112 142 9. Prop. Heavy Vehicle: 0.05 0.01 0.02 0.01 0. Subject Approach 1 1 1 1 1. Opposing Approach 1 1 1 1 2. Conflicting Approach 1 1 1 1 13. Geometry Group 1 1 1 1 4. T (Time in Hours): 0.250 rksheet 3 - Saturation Headway Adjustment Worksheet North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound L1 L1 L1 L1 Flow Rate Total: 139 301 112 142 Flow Rate LT: 40 7 25 41 Flow Rate RT: 36 57 28 6 Prop LT in lane: 0.29 0.02 0.23 0.29 Prop RT in lane: 0.26 0.19 0.25 0.04 Prop. Heavy Vehicle: 0.05 0.01 0.02 0.01 Geometry Group 1 1 1 1 hLT-adj by Table 10-18 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 hRT-adj by Table 10-18 -0.60 -0.60 -0.60 -0.60 hHV-adj Table 10-18 1.70 1.70 1.70 1.70 hadj -0.01 -0.09 -0.07 0.05 Worksheet 4 - Departure Headway and Service Time North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound L1 L1 L1 L1 . Total lane flow rate 139 301 112 142 2. hd, initial value 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 x, initial 0.12 I 0.27 0.10 0.13 hd, final value 4.9 4.6 5.0 5.1 x, final value 0.19 0.39 0.16 0.20 6. Move -up time, m 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 7. Service Time 2.9 2.6 3.0 3.1 11rksheet 5 - Capacity and Level of Service North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound L1 L1 L1 L1 Total lane flow rate 139 301 112 142 Service Time 2.9 2.6 3.0 3.1 . Degree Utilization, x 0.19 0.39 0.16 0.20 4. Departure headway, hd 4.9 4.6 5.0 5.1 11 Capacity 704 754 662 664 Delay 9.0 10.5 9.0 9.4 Level Of Service A B A A 8. Delay Approach 9.0 10.5 9.0 9.4 9. LOS, approach A B A A Delay, Intersection 9.7 . LOS, Intersection A HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 3.1c TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL(TWSC) ANALYSIS Analyst: MTM 599133pm00.hcu Intersection: S 133rd Street/SR 599 On&Off-Ramps Count Date: 2000 Existing Mod. Conditions Time Period: PM Peak Intersection Orientation: East-West Major St. Vehicle Volume Data: Movements: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Volume: HFR: PHF: PHV: 100 110 0.91 0.08 94 103 0.91 0.08 5 5 0.91 0.08 33 36 0.91 0.07 114 125 0.91 0.07 505 555 0.91 0.07 4 4 0.91 0.08 46 51 0.91 0.08 64 70 0.91 0.08 182 200 0.91 0.16 12 13 0.91 0.16 23 25 0.91 0.16 Pedestrian Volume Data: Movements: Flow: Lane width: Walk speed: % Blockage: Median Type: None # of vehicles: 0 Flared approach Movements: # of vehicles: Northbound # of vehicles: Southbound 0 2 Lane usage for movements 1,2&3 approach: Lane 1 Lane 2 L T R L T Lane 3 R L T R Y N N Channelized: N Grade: 0.00 N Y Lane usage for movements 4,5&6 approach: Lane 1 Lane 2 L T R L T Y N N N Lane 3 R L T R Y N N Channelized: Grade: Y 0.00 N Y Lane usage for movements 7,8&9 approach: Lane 1 Lane 2 L T R L T N N N Y Lane 3 R L T R Y Y Y Channelized: Grade: N 0.00 N N Lane usage for movements 10,11&12 approach: Lane 1 Lane 2 L T R L T N N N N Lane 3 R L T R Y Y Y Channelized: Grade: N 0.00 N N N N Data for Computing Effect of Delay to Major Street Vehicles: N N Eastbound Westbound ared In volume, major th vehicles: 0 0 Shared In volume, major rt vehicles: 0 0 Sat flow rate, major th vehicles: 1700 1700 it flow rate, major rt vehicles: 1700 1700 mb er of major street through lanes: 1 1 ngth of study period, hrs: e : 0.25 Worksheet 4 Critical Gap and Follow-up time calculation. Iitical Gap Calculations: vement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 t c,base II c,hv by c,g G 3,1t c,T: stage 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.08 0.07 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 t c stage 4.2 4.2 7.2 6.6 6.3 7.3 6.7 6.4 llow Up Time Calculations: Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 IIf,base 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 f,HV 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 by 0.08 0.07 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.16 0.16 0.16 t f 2.3 2.3 3.6 4.1 3.4 3.6 4.1 3.4 IIrksheet 6 Impedance and capacity equations Step 1: RT from Minor St. 9 12 nflicting FlowsI 106 125 tential Capacity 932 889 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Movement Capacity 932 889 obability of Queue free St. I 0.92 0.97 Step 2: LT from Major St. 4 1 nflicting Flows 109 125 tential Capacity 1451 1425 destrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Movement Capacity 1451 1425 obability of Queue free St. 0.98 0.92 ep 3: TH from Minor St. 8 11 nflicting Flows 524 526 tential Capacity 450 437 destrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.90 0.90 Movement Capacity 405 394 obability of Queue free St. 0.88 I 0.97 Step 4: LT from Minor St. 7 10 I nflicting Flows tential Capacity destrian Impedance Factor Maj. L, Min T Impedance factor Ij. L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor. p. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt vement Capacity 820 287 1.00 0.87 0.90 0.87 251 584 403 1.00 0.79 0.84 0.77 312 trksheet 8 Shared Lane Calculations Shared Lane Calculations vement 7 8 9 o 9 10 11 12 v(vph) 4 51 70 200 13 25 Movement Capacity 251 405 932 312 394 889 Shared Lane Capacity 575 339 Worksheet 9 -Computation of effect of flared minor street approaches Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 C sep 251 405 932 312 394 889 Volume 4 51 70 200 13 25 Delay 19.6 15.2 9.2 35.1 14.5 9.2 Q sep 0.02 0.21 0.18 1.95 0.05 0.06 Q sep +1 1.02 1.21 1.18 2.95 1.05 1.06 round (Qsep +1) 1 1 1 3 1 1 n max 1 3 C sh 575 339 SUM C sep 1588 1594 n 0 2 C act 575 1176 Worksheet 10 delay,queue length, and LOS Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 v(vph) 110 36 125 238 C m(vph) 1425 1451 575 1176 v/c 0.08 0.02 0.22 0.20 95% queue length Control Delay 7.7 7.5 13.0 8.8 LOS A A B A Approach Delay 13.0 8.8 Approach LOS B A HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 3.1c TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL(TWSC) ANALYSIS alyst: MTM int5nbpm00.hcu ntersection: Interurban Avenue S/I-5 NB On -Ramp ount Date: 2000 Existing Mod. Conditions Time Period: PM Peak lin chicle Volume Data: tersection Orientation: East-West Major St. Movements: 1 2 5 6 lume: 174 992 607 433 R: 191 1090 667 476 PHF: 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 Pedestrian Volume Data: II ovements: low: ne width: lk speed: Blockage: Idian Type: None of vehicles: 0 Flared approach Movements: 1 of vehicles: Northbound 0 of vehicles: Southbound 0 Lane usage for movements 1,2&3 approach: ' Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 L T R L T R L T R Y N N N Y N N Y N Iannelized: ade: N 0.00 I ne usage for movements 4,5&6 approach: Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 L T R L T R L T R N Y N N Y N N N Y Iannelized: ade: Y 0.00 usage for movements 7,8&9 approach: Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 L T R L T R L T R 1annelized: N Grade: 0.00 N N N N N N N N N ine usage for movements 10,11&12 approach: Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 L T R L T R L T R N N N N N N N N N annelized: N Grade: 0.00 II Data for Computing Effect of Delay to Major Street Vehicles: Eastbound Westbound Shared In volume, major th vehicles: 0 0 Shared In volume, major rt vehicles: 0 0 Sat flow rate, major th vehicles: 1700 1700 Sat flow rate, major rt vehicles: 1700 1700 Number of major street through lanes: 2 2 Length of study period, hrs: 0.25 Worksheet 4 Critical Gap and Follow-up time calculation. Critical Gap Calculations: Movement 1 t c,base 4.1 t c,hv 2.0 P hv 0.06 t c,g G 0.00 t 3,1t 0.0 t c,T: 1 stage 0.00 t c 1 stage 4.2 Follow Up Time Calculations: Movement 1 t f,base t f,HV P hv t f 2.2 1.0 0.06 2.3 Worksheet 6 Impedance and capacity equations Step 2: LT from Major St. 4 1 Conflicting Flows 667 Potential Capacity 892 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 Movement Capacity 892 Probability of Queue free St. 0.79 Worksheet 10 delay,queue length, and LOS Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 v(vph) 191 C m(vph) 892 v/c 0.21 95% queue length Control Delay 10.1 LOS B Approach Delay Approach LOS APPENDIX B License Plate Survey Results Date: Time: 1/25/00 4-6 PM GROUP HEALTH IN TUKWILA License Plate Survey to from S 126th St WB S 128th St EB S 128th St WB S 130th St EB S 130th St SB S 130th St WB Total GHC Main Driveway 0 3 0 0 4 0 7 S124th Street 0 7 0 1 13 7 28 GHC South Driveway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 10 0 1 17 7 35 Percent 0% 29% 0% 3% 49% 20% 100% Date: Time: 1/26/00 4-6 PM Date: Time: 1/27/00 4-6 PM S 126th St WB S 128th St EB S 128th St WB S 130th St EB S 130th St SB S 130th St WB - Total GHC Main Driveway 0 9 0 2 25 8 44 S124th Street 0 14 1 1 44 14 74 GHC South Driveway 0 0 0 0 4 3 7 Total 0 23 1 3 73 25 125 Percent 0% 18% 1% 2% 58% 20% 100% Date: Time: 1/27/00 4-6 PM E Marginal Way SB S 126th St WB S 128th St EB S 128th St WB S 130th St's EB 130th St SB S 130th St WB Total GHC Main Driveway 0 8 0 4 39 12 63 S124th Street 1 9 1 4 53 11 79 GHC South Driveway 0 2 0 0 5 0 7 Total 1 19 1 8 97 23 149 Percent 1% 13% 1% 5% 65% 15% 100% E Marginal Way SB 40th Ave SSB 1 2 6 10 0 0 7 12 20% 34% E Marginal Way SB 40th Ave SSB 18 10 25 18 1 1 44 29 35% 23% E Marginal Way SB 40th Ave SSB 17 6 23 11 1 1 41 18 28% 12% Date: Time: GROUP HEALTH IN TUKWILA License Plate Survey (Three Days Combined) 1/25/2000 through 1/27/2000 4-6 PM E Marginal Way SB S 126th St WB S 128th St EB S 128th St WB S 130th St EB S 130th St SB S 130th St WB - Total GHC Main Driveway 0 20 0 6 68 20 114 S124th Street 1 30 2 6 110 32 181 GHC South Driveway 0 2 0 0 9 3 14 Total 1 52 2 12 187 55 309 . Percent 0% 17% 1% 4% 61% 18% 100% E Marginal Way SB 40th Ave SSB 36 18 54 39 2 2 92 59 30% 19% APPENDIX C Level of Service Calculations - 2000 With Project MTM 2000wpam.for (1) GHC Tukwila Office 2 99181-60 Interurban Ave/Pacific Highway S/S Boeing Access Rd 2000 Volumes w/project - AM Peak Hour SIGNAL97/TEAPAC[Ver 1.01] - Display of Intersection Parameters 136 1 186 I 155 II I 24.0 112.0 124.0 I 2 1l I 2 I I \ 812 12.0 1 / 1 \ 380 24.0 2 03/20/00 11:56:36 Key: VOLUMES -- > I WIDTHS v LANES 481 24.0 2 / + / 561 12.0 1 431 24.0 2 3 0.0 0 \ \ I / /I\ North 0 280 272 Phasing: SEQUENCE 27 0.0 24.0 112.0 I PERMSV NNNN 0 I 2 I 1 I OVERLP YYYY LEADLAG LD LD MTM 2000wpam.for (1) GHC Tukwila Office 2 99181-60 Interurban Ave/Pacific Highway S/S Boeing Access Rd 2000 Volumes w/project - AM Peak Hour SIGNAL97/TEAPAC[Ver 1.01] - Capacity Analysis Summary Intersection Averages: Degree of Saturation (v/c) 0.64 Vehicle Delay 03/20/00 11:56:42 44.8 Level of Service D+ Sq 27 1 Phase 1 Phase 2 1 Phase 3 Phase 4 /I\ North <+ * * <+ v A * * * +> <++++ **** v +> <+ G/C=0.151 G/C=0.123 G/C=0.386 G= 18.1" G= 14.8" G= 46.3" Y+R= 5.0" Y+R= 5.0" Y+R= 5.0" OFF= 0.0% OFF=19.3% OFF=35.8% G/C=0.173 G= 20.8" Y+R= 5.0" OFF=78.5% C=120 sec G=100.0 sec = 83.3% Y=20.0 sec = 16.7% Ped= 0.0 sec = 0.0% Lane Group Width/1 g/C 1 Lanes Reqd Used @CService (vph)R@Ee�Volumel v/c Delay L 190% Maxi S i Queue SB Approach 31.6 C RT TH LT 1 24/2 10.260 10.531 1 12/1 10.288 10.316 1 24/2 10.258 10.151 1 1215 1 1335 1 1 288 1 531 1 1 1 446 1 143 10.107 1 14.1 196 10.369 1 32.2 163 10.348 1 46.1 B+1 60 ftl C 1 241 ft1 *D 1 124 ftl NB Approach 37.0 D+ RT TH MTM 2000wpam.for (311) GHC Tukwila Office 2 99181-60 Pacific Highway S/S 112th Street 2000 Volumes w/project - AM Peak Hour SIGNAL97/TEAPAC[Ver 1.01] - Display of Intersection Parameters 213 379 � 6 0.0 1 24.0 12.0 01 21 1 / 1 \ 03/20/00 11:24:25 Key: VOLUMES -- > WIDTHS v LANES 4 0.0 0 46 12.0 1 /1\ 17 12.0 1 / + / 45 12.0 1 North 5 12.0 1 17 0.0 0 \ 242 858 130 Phasing: SEQUENCE 61 12.0 24.0 12.0 PERMSV YNYN 1 2 I 1 1 OVERLP YYYY LEADLAG LD LD MTM 2000wpam.for (311) GHC Tukwila Office 2 99181-60 Pacific Highway S/S 112th Street 2000 Volumes w/project - AM Peak Hour SIGNAL97/TEAPAC[Ver 1.01] - Capacity Analysis Summary 03/20/00 11:24:32 Intersection Averages: Degree of Saturation (v/c) 0.68 Vehicle Delay 20.5 Level of Service C+ Sq 61 1 Phase 1 Phase 2 1 Phase 3 Phase 4 **/** / \ North +> A <* <+ + +> * + + 4- 4. + + + + + + + + 4- <4. <+ + +> <++++ v ^ ++++ A ++++ v <+ * +> ****> + * + **** + * + v G/C=0.110 G/C=0.000 G/C=0.339 1 G/C=0.302 G= 6.6" G= 0.0" G= 20.3" 1 G= 18.1" Y+R= 5.0" Y+R= 0.0" Y+R= 5.0" 1 Y+R= 5.0" OFF= 0.0% OFF=19.3% OFF=19.3% 1 OFF=61.5% C= 60 sec G= 45.0 sec = 75.0% Y=15.0 sec = 25.0% Ped= 0.0 sec = 0.0% Lane 1Width/1 g/C I Service Rate' Adj I I HCM 1 L 190% Mal Group 11 Lanes Reqd Used 1 @C (vph) @E Ii Volume ii v/c Ii Delay 1 S li Queue li SB Approach 17.9 B TH+RTI 24/2 10.241 10.339 1 1001 11062 LT 1 12/1 10.000 10.110 1 263 1 302 673 10.634 1 17.9 7 10.023 1 10.2 195 ftl 25 ft1 NB Approach 22.3 C+ RT 1 12/1 10.139 TH 1 24/2 10.309 LT 1 12/1 10.078 0.339 1 451 1 511 I 148 10.290 1 14.9 1 B+1 85 ftl 0.339 1 1084 1 1143 975 10.853 1 24.9 I*C+I 280 ftl 0.110 1 333 1 368 275 10.747 1 17.3 I*B 1 112 ftl WB Approach 15.3 B TH+RT1 LT 1 12/1 12/1 10.058 10.000 10.302 10.302 458 332 523 393 57 10.109 51 10.130 15.2 1 B 15.4 1 B 35 ftl 31 ftl EB Approach 14.9 B+ TH+RT1 LT 1 12/1 12/1 10.033 10.000 10.302 10.302 419 332 483 393 25 10.052 19 10.048 14.9 14.9 25 25 ft1 ft1 MTM 2000wpam.for (63) GHC Tukwila Office 2 99181-60 Interurban Ave/East Marginal Way S 2000 Volumes w/project - AM Peak Hour SIGNAL97/TEAPAC[Ver 1.01] - Display of Intersection Parameters 210 I 320 I 0 I I 12.0 112.0 I 0.0 I I 11 I 1 I 0( \ 0 0.0 0 / 1 \ /I\ 0 0.0 0 I 242 12.0 1 / + / 0 0.0 0 North 1 03/20/00 11:20:57 Key: VOLUMES -- > I WIDTHS v LANES 0 0.0 0 13 12.0 1 \ \ I 39 336 0 I Phasing: SEQUENCE 31 12.0 112.0 I 0.0 I PERMSV NNYN 1 I 1 I 0 I OVERLP YYYY LEADLAG LD LD MTM 2000wpam.for (63) GHC Tukwila Office 2 99181-60 Interurban Ave/East Marginal Way S 2000 Volumes w/project - AM Peak Hour SIGNAL97/TEAPAC[Ver 1.01] - Capacity Analysis Summary 03/20/00 11:21:06 Intersection Averages: Degree of Saturation (v/c) 0.47 Vehicle Delay 12.5 Level of Service B+ Sq 31 Phase 1 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 **/** /I\ <+ v A North <* + <+ + ++++ * + + + v * + + + <+ A ++++ v G/C=0.110 G/C=0.376 G/C=0.265 G= 6.6" G= 22.5" G= 15.9" Y+R= 5.0" Y+R= 5.0" Y+R= 5.0" OFF= 0.0% OFF=19.3% OFF=65.2% C= 60 sec G= 45.0 sec = 75.0% Y=15.0 sec = 25.0% Ped= 0.0 sec = 0.0% Lane 1Width/1 g/C Group Ij Lanes Reqd Used @Cz0% Mal (vph)ice R@Ee'Volume, v/c I Delay I S I9 Queue SB Approach 12.1 B+ RT 1 12/1 10.236 0.724 1 896 1 906 TH 1 12/1 10.286 '0.376 1 497 1 553 233 10.257 1 3.0 1 A 1 63 ftl 356 10.644 1 18.0 l*B 1 217 ftl NB Approach 7.4 A TH LT 12/1 10.265 10.569 12/1 10.000 10.110 922 417 948 453 373 10.393 43 10.095 7.5 6.6 A I*A I 145 ftl 25 ft l EB Approach 20.9 C+ RT LT 12/1 12/1 10.025 10.201 10.458 10.265 645 379 691 447 14 10.020 269 10.602 8.9 1 A 1 25 ftl 21.6 1*C+1 172 ftl MTM 2000wpam.for (249) GHC Tukwila Office 2 99181-60 Pacific Highway S/S 130th Street 2000 Volumes w/project - AM Peak Hour SIGNAL97/TEAPAC[Ver 1.01] - Display of Intersection Parameters I 0 1 230 1 48 0.0 1 24.0 1 12.0 01 21 1 i / 1 \ 0 0.0 0 / 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 \ 03/20/00 11:10:26 Key: VOLUMES -- > 1 WIDTHS v LANES 1 \ 24 0.0 0 0 12.0 1 /1\ + / 58 0.0 0 North 1 0 690 33 Phasing: SEQUENCE 11 0.0 1 24.0 1 0.0 1 PERMSV NNNN 0 1 2 1 0 1 OVERLP YYYY LEADLAG LD LD MTM 2000wpam.for (249) GHC Tukwila Office 2 99181-60 Pacific Highway S/S 130th Street 2000 Volumes w/project - AM Peak Hour SIGNAL97/TEAPAC[Ver 1.01] - Capacity Analysis Summary 03/20/00 11:10:36 Intersection Averages: Degree of Saturation (v/c) 0.35 Vehicle Delay 9.5 Level of Service A Sq 11 1 Phase 1 Phase 2 **/** / \ North * * * +> v A v G/C=0.500 1 G/C=0.333 1 G= 30.0" 1 G= 20.0" 1 Y+R= 5.0" 1 Y+R= 5.0" 1 OFF= 0.0% 1 OFF=58.3% 1 C= 60 sec G= 50.0 sec = 83.3% Y=10.0 sec = 16.7% Ped= 0.0 sec = 0.0% Lane 1Width/1 g/C Group LanesReqd Used Service Ratel Adj I I HCM I L 190% Max @C (vph) @E Volume v/c Delay S Ii Queue SB Approach 8.2 A TH 1 24/2 10.103 10.500 LT 1 12/1 10.000 10.500 1567 1 1583 226 1 266 242 10.153 51 10.192 8.2 *A 1 55 ft 8.6 Al 25 ft' NB Approach 9.9 A 1 TH+RT1 24/2 10.249 10.500 1679 1691 761 10.450 9.9 A 1 164 ftl WB Approach 10.9 B+ ILT+TH+RT1 12/1 10.093 10.417 563 615 86 10.140 10.9 B+1 44 ftl MTM 2000wpam.for (187) GHC Tukwila Office 2 99181-60 Interurban Avenue/S 133rd Street/Gateway Drive 2000 Volumes w/project - AM Peak Hour SIGNAL97/TEAPAC[Ver 1.01] - Display of Intersection Parameters 98 I 152 12.0 124.0 1 I 2 / I 0 0.0 0 36 0.0 0 / + 22 12.0 1 28 12.0 1 \ I I I II II \ 145 0.0 0 03/20/00 11:08:01 Key: VOLUMES -- > I WIDTHS v LANES /I\ 52 24.0 2 / 68 0.0 0 North \ I / 369 I 741 I 265 I Phasing: SEQUENCE 37 24.0 24.0 I 0.0 I PERMSV NNNN 2 I 2 I 0 I OVERLP YYYY I I LEADLAG LD LD MTM 2000wpam.for (187) GHC Tukwila Office 2 99181-60 Interurban Avenue/S 133rd Street/Gateway Drive 2000 Volumes w/project - AM Peak Hour SIGNAL97/TEAPAC[Ver 1.01] - Capacity Analysis Summary Intersection Averages: Degree of Saturation (v/c) 0.80 Vehicle Delay 31.9 Sq 37 Phase 1 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 1 Phase 4 /I\ North v A * * * *> * * v G/C=0.150 G/C=0.119 1 G/C=0.119 G= 9.0" G= 7.1" 1 G= 7.2" Y+R= 5.0" Y+R= 5.0" 1 Y+R= 5.0" OFF= 0.0% OFF=23.3% 1 OFF=43.5% G/C=0.279 G= 16.7" Y+R= 5.0" OFF=63.8% C= 60 sec G= 40.0 sec = 66.7% Y=20.0 sec = 33.3% 03/20/00 11:08:08 Level of Service C Ped= 0.0 sec = 0.0% Lane Group 1Width/1 g/C Ij Lanes Reqd Used Service Rate Adj @C (vph) @E Volume, HCM L 190% Max v/c 1 Delay S 1 Queue SB Approach 27.9 C RT 1 12/1 10.112 10.119 TH 1 24/2 10.075 10.119 113 1 160 1 104 10.619 290 1 376 1 162 10.431 31.9 1 25.3 1 cI c+1 83 ft1 64 ft1 NB Approach 33.4 C TH+RT1 LT 1 24/2 10.348 10.352 24/2 10.148 10.150 1083 400 1140 490 1070 10.939 393 10.802 33.2 1*C 34.0 1*C 301 ft1 145 ftl WB Approach 34.1 C ILT+TH+RT1 24/2 10.118 10.119 286 372 281 10.755 34.1 1*C 106 ftl EB Approach 13.4 B+ 1 RT 1LT+TH 12/1 10.040 10.512 12/1 10.062 10.279 720 404 758 471 30 10.040 61 10.130 7.3 1 A 16.3 l*B 25 ft1 39 ft1 MTM 2000wpam.for (125) GHC Tukwila Office 2 99181-60 SR 599 NB off-ramp/Interurban Ave 2000 Volumes w/project - AM Peak Hour SIGNAL97/TEAPAC[Ver 1.01] - Display of Intersection Parameters 0 0.0 0 I II 1 I I I II I I II \ 0 0.0 0 / I \ /I\ 915 24.0 2 I I 0 0.0 0 / + / 0 0.0 0 North 0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0 03/20/00 11:06:13 Key: VOLUMES -- > I WIDTHS v LANES 350 24.0 2 0 0.0 0 \ \ I / 462 I 0 I 189 I Phasing: SEQUENCE 11 12.0 I 0.0 112.0 I PERMSV NNNN 1 I 0 I 1 I OVERLP YYYY I I LEADLAG LD LD MTM 2000wpam.for (125) GHC Tukwila Office 2 99181-60 SR 599 NB off-ramp/Interurban Ave 2000 Volumes w/project - AM Peak Hour SIGNAL97/TEAPAC[Ver 1.01] - Capacity Analysis Summary 03/20/00 11:06:19 Intersection Averages: Degree of Saturation (v/c) 0.59 Vehicle Delay 15.2 Level of Service B Phase 1 Phase 2 <* +> ++++> * + * + G/C=0.422 G/C=0.411 G= 25.3" G= 24.7" Y+R= 5.0" Y+R= 5.0" OFF= 0.0% OFF=50.6% C= 60 sec G= 50.0 sec = 83.3% Y=10.0 sec = 16.7% Ped= 0.0 sec = 0.0% Lane (Width/1 g/C Group 1 Lanes' Reqd Used Service Rate Adj @C (vph) @E Volume' v/c Delay I S 1 Queue X' NB Approach 15.2 B RT 1 12/1 10.174 0.422 LT 1 12/1 10.323 '0.422 599 1 650 1 201 10.309 1 11.8 1 B+1 100 ftl 676 1 726 1 491 10.676 1 16.5 I*B 1 243 ftl WB Approach 16.6 B TH 24/2 10.314 10.411 1321 1361 973 10.715 16.6 I*B 1 252 ftl EB Approach 11.9 B+ TH 24/2 10.142 10.411 1296 1337 372 10.278 11.9 B+1 97 ft 1 IHCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 3.1c TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL(TWSC) ANALYSIS lin alyst: MTM emw112wpam00.hcu ntersection: E Marginal Way S/S 112th Street ount Date: 2000 Volumes w/project Time Period: AM Peak Intersection Orientation: North-South Major St. ehicle Volume Data: Movements: 1 2 5 6 10 12 Lolume: 107 551 566 25 25 168 FR: 118 605 622 27 27 185 PHF: 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 "HV: 0.10 0.10 0.20 0.20 0.13 0.13 Pedestrian Volume Data: Iovements: low: ane width: alk speed: Blockage: edian Type: None 111 of vehicles: 0 Flared approach Movements: 1 of vehicles: Eastbound of vehicles: Westbound 0 0 Lane usage for movements 1,2&3 approach: Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 L T R L T R L T R Y N N N Y N N N N Ihannelized: N rade: 0.00 'lane usage for movements 4,5&6 approach: Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 L T R L T R L T R N Y Y N N N N N N Ihannelized: N rade: 0.00 ,ane usage for movements 7,8&9 approach: Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 L T R L T R L T R 1hanneljzed: N Grade: 0.00 N N N N N N N N N II ane usage for movements 10,11&12 approach: Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 L T R L T R L T R Ilannelized: N Grade: 0.00 Y N Y N N N N N N 11 Data for Computing Effect of Delay to Major Street Vehicles: Northbound Southbound Shared In volume, major th vehicles: 0 0 Shared In volume, major rt vehicles: 0 0 Sat flow rate, major th vehicles: 1700 1700 Sat flow rate, major rt vehicles: 1700 1700 Number of major street through lanes: 1 1 Length of study period, hrs: 0.25 Worksheet 4 Critical Gap and Follow-up time calculation. Critical Gap Calculations: Movement 1 10 12 t c,base 4.1 7.1 6.2 t c,hv 1.0 1.0 1.0 P hv 0.10 0.13 0.13 t c,g 0.2 0.1 G 0.00 0.00 0.00 t 3,1t 0.0 0.7 0.0 t c,T: 1 stage 0.00 0.00 0.00 t c 1 stage 4.2 6.5 6.3 Follow Up Time Calculations: Movement 1 10 12 t f,base t f,Hv P hv t f 2.2 0.9 0.10 2.3 3.5 0.9 0.13 3.6 3.3 0.9 0.13 3.4 Worksheet 6 Impedance and capacity equations Step 1: RT from Minor St. 9 12 Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Movement Capacity Probability of Queue free St. 636 459 1.00 459 0.60 Step 2: LT from Major St. 4 1 Conflicting Flows 649 Potential Capacity 900 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 Movement Capacity 900 Probability of Queue free St. 0.87 Step 4: LT from Minor St. 7 10 Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Maj. L, Min T Impedance factor Maj. L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor. Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity 1476 131 1.00 0.87 0.90 0.90 118 Worksheet 8 Shared Lane Calculations Shared Lane Calculations Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 v(vph) Movement Capacity Shared Lane Capacity 27 118 334 185 459 Worksheet 10 delay,queue length, and LOS Itovement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 II II[I (vPh) 118 1 11 212 m(vph) 900 334 v/c 0.13 0.64 95% queue length ontrol Delay 9.6 32.8 OS A D pproach Delay 32.8 Approach LOS D HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 3.1c TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL(TWSC) ANALYSIS Analyst: MTM emw120wpam00.hcu Intersection: E Marginal Way S/S 120th Street Count Date: 2000 Volumes w/project Time Period: AM Peak Intersection Orientation: North-South Major St. Vehicle Volume Data: Movements: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Volume: 13 228 7 61 423 6 5 3 2 27 1 12 HFR: 14 245 8 66 455 6 5 3 2 29 1 13 PHF: 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 PHV: 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.13 0.13 0.13 Pedestrian Volume Data: Movements: Flow: Lane width: Walk speed: % Blockage: Median Type: None # of vehicles: 0 Flared approach Movements: # of vehicles: Eastbound 0 # of vehicles: Westbound 0 Lane usage for movements 1,2&3 approach: Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 L T R L T R L T R Y Y Y N N N N N N Channelized: N Grade: 0.00 Lane usage for movements 4,5&6 approach: Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 L T R L T R L T R Y N N N Y Y N N N Channelized: N Grade: 0.00 Lane usage for movements 7,8&9 approach: Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 L T R L T R L T R Y Y Y N N N N N N Channelized: N Grade: 0.00 Lane usage for movements 10,11&12 approach: Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 Y Y Y N N N N N N Channelized: N Grade: 0.00 Data for Computing Effect of Delay to Major Street Vehicles: Northbound Southbound I hared In volume, major th vehicles: 228 0 hared In volume, major rt vehicles: 7 0 Sat flow rate, major th vehicles: 1700 1700 tat flow rate, major rt vehicles: 1700 1700 umber of major street through lanes: 1 1 Length of study period, hrs: 0.25 1 Worksheet 4 Critical Gap and Follow-up time calculation. Iritical Gap Calculations: ovement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 t c,base 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 Ic,hv 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 hv 0.12 0.24 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.13 0.13 0.13 c,g 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 G 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 t 3,1t 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11 c,T: 1 stage 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 t c 1 stage 4.2 4.3 7.3 6.7 6.4 7.2 6.6 6.3 Iollow Up Time Calculations: ovement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 f,base f,HV hv f 2.2 0.9 0.12 2.3 2.2 0.9 0.24 2.4 3.5 0.9 0.20 3.7 4.0 0.9 0.20 4.2 3.3 0.9 0.20 3.5 3.5 0.9 0.13 3.6 4.0 0.9 0.13 4.1 3.3 0.9 0.13 3.4 IIorksheet 6 Impedance and capacity equations Step 1: RT from Minor St. 9 12 Ionflicting Flows otential Capacity edestrian Impedance Factor Movement Capacity Probability of Queue free St. 11tep 2: LT from Major St. 249 748 1.00 748 1.00 458 581 1.00 581 0.98 4 1 11 onflicting Flows otential Capacity edestrian Impedance Factor Movement Capacity Probability of Queue free St. Irj. L Shared ln. Prob. Queue Free St. Step 3: TH from Minor St. 253 1195 1.00 1195 0.95 0.95 461 1049 1.00 1049 0.99 0.98 8 11 Uonflicting Flows otential Capacity edestrian Impedance Factor Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt povement Capacity robability of Queue free St. Step 4: LT from Minor St. 869 271 1.00 0.93 252 0.99 870 278 1.00 0.93 259 1.00 7 10 onflicting Flows 873 869 otential Capacity 252 261 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Maj. L, Min T Impedance factor 0.93 0.92 j. L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor.11; 0.94 0.94 p. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.92 0.94 ovement Capacity 232 244 IIorksheet 8 Shared Lane Calculations Shared Lane Calculations vement 7 8 9 10 11 12 v(vph) 15 3 2 II 29 1 13 Movement Capacity 232 252 748 244 259 581 1 HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 3.1c TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL(TWSC) ANALYSIS alyst: MTM EM124wpam00.hcu tersection: East Marginal Way/S 124th Street t unt Date: 2000 Volumes w/project me Period: AM Peak 1hicle Volume Data: tersection Orientation: North-South Major St. Movements: 1 2 5 6 10 12 glume: 120 393 220 120 15 15 R: 133 437 244 133 17 17 PHF: 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 IIHV: 0.04 0.04 0.08 0.08 0.14 0.14 Pedestrian Volume Data: IIovements: Flow: ane width: alk speed: Blockage: IIedian Type: None of vehicles: 0 Flared approach Movements: 1 of vehicles: Eastbound of vehicles: Westbound 0 0 Lane usage for movements 1,2&3 approach: Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 L T R L T R L T R Y Y N N N N N N N annelized: N rade: 0.00 'lane usage for movements 4,5&6 approach: Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 L T R L T R L T R N Y Y N N N N N N Ihannehjz N rade: 0.00 ,ane usage for movements 7,8&9 approach: Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 L T R L T R L T R 11 hannelized: N rade: 0 00 N N N N N N N N N 'lane usage for movements 10,11&12 approach: Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 L T R L T R L T R IIhannelized: N Grade: 0.00 Data for Computing Effect of Delayto Major Street Vehicles: p 9 Y N Y N N N N N N Northbound Southbound Shared In volume, major th vehicles: 393 0 Shared ln volume, major rt vehicles: 0 0 Sat flow rate, major th vehicles: 1700 1700 Sat flow rate, major rt vehicles: 1700 1700 Number of major street through lanes: 1 1 Length of study period, hrs: 0.25 Worksheet 4 Critical Gap and Follow-up time calculation. Critical Gap Calculations: Movement 1 10 12 t c,base 4.1 7.1 6.2 t c,hv 1.0 1.0 1.0 P hv 0.04 0.14 0.14 t c,g 0.2 0.1 G 0.00 0.00 0.00 t 3,1t 0.0 0.7 0.0 t c,T: 1 stage 0.00 0.00 0.00 t c 1 stage 4.1 6.5 6.3 Follow Up Time Calculations: Movement 1 10 12 t f,base t f,HV P hv t f 2.2 0.9 0.04 2.2 3.5 0.9 0.14 3.6 3.3 0.9 0.14 3.4 Worksheet 6 Impedance and capacity equations Step 1: RT from Minor St. 9 12 Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Movement Capacity Probability of Queue free St. 311 702 1.00 702 0.98 Step 2: LT from Major St. 4 1 Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Movement Capacity Probability of Queue free St. Maj. L Shared ln. Prob. Queue Free St. 378 1170 1.00 1170 0.89 0.85 Step 4: LT from Minor St. 7 10 Conflicting Flows 1014 Potential Capacity 251 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 Maj. L, Min T Impedance factor 0.85 Maj. L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor. 0.89 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.89 Movement Capacity 222 Worksheet 8 Shared Lane Calculations Shared Lane Calculations Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 v(vph) Movement Capacity Shared Lane Capacity 17 222 338 17 702 Worksheet 10 delay,queue length, and LOS 1 •ovement 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 li(vPh) 133 C m(vph) 1170 v/c 0.11 I5% queue length ontrol Delay 8.5 OS A Approach Delay 1Approach LOS II 33 338 0.10 16.8 C 16.8 C orksheet 11 Shared Major LT Impedance and Delay ank 1 Delay Calculations ovement 2 5 of 0.89 1.00 it 393 0 i2 0 0 S it 1700 1700 S i2 1700 1700 II* Oj 0.85 1.00 maj left 8.5 0.0 number major st lanes 1 1 Delay, rank 1 mvmts 1.3 0.0 HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 3.1c ALL -WAY STOP CONTROL(AWSC) ANALYSIS Worksheet 1 - Basic Intersection Information 1. Analyst: MTM EM130wpam00.hcu 2. Intersection: East Marginal Way/S 130th Street 3. Count Date: 2000 Volumes w/project 4. Time Period: AM Peak Worksheet 2 - Volume Adjustments and Site Characteristics 1. LT Volume: 2. TH Volume: 3. RT Volume: 4. Peak Hour Factor: 5. Flow Rate LT: 6. Flow Rate TH: 7. Flow Rate RT: 8. Flow Rate Total: 9. Prop. Heavy Vehicle: 10. Subject Approach 11. Opposing Approach 12. Conflicting Approach 13. Geometry Group 14. T (Time in Hours): North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound L1 L1 Ll L1 10 4 170 10 372 80 54 36 21 21 42 40 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 11 4 202 11 442 95 64 42 25 25 50 47 479 125 316 102 0.02 0.23 0.01 0.02 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.250 Worksheet 3 - Saturation Headway Adjustment Worksheet North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound L1 L1 L1 L1 1. Flow Rate Total: 479 125 316 102 2. Flow Rate LT: 11 4 202 11 3. Flow Rate RT: 25 25 50 47 4. Prop LT in lane: 0.02 0.04 0.64 0.12 5. Prop RT in lane: 0.05 0.20 0.16 0.47 6. Prop. Heavy Vehicle: 0.02 0.23 0.01 0.02 7. Geometry Group 1 1 1 1 8. hLT-adj by Table 10-18 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 9. hRT-adj by Table 10-18 -0.60 -0.60 -0.60 -0.60 10. hHV-adj Table 10-18 1.70 1.70 1.70 1.70 11. hadj 0.01 0.28 0.05 -0.22 Worksheet 4 - Departure Headway and Service Time 1. Total lane flow rate 2. hd, initial value 3. x, initial 4. hd, final value 5. x, final value 6. Move -up time, m 7. Service Time North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound L1 L1 L1 L1 479 125 316 102 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 0.43 0.11 0.28 0.09 5.3 6.1 5.7 5.9 0.71 0.21 0.50 0.17 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.3 4.1 3.7 3.9 Worksheet 5 - Capacity and Level of Service North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound L1 L1 L1 L1 1. Total lane flow rate 479 125 316 102 2. Service Time 3.3 4.1 3.7 3.9 3. Degree Utilization, x 0.71 0.21 0.50 0.17 4. Departure headway, hd 5.3 6.1 5.7 5.9 5. Capacity 663 547 598 547 6. Delay 20.1 10.8 14.5 10.1 7. Level Of Service C B B B 8. Delay Approach 20.1 10.8 14.5 10.1 9. LOS, approach C B B B 10. Delay, Intersection 16.2 11. LOS, Intersection C HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 3.1c TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL(TWSC) ANALYSIS alyst: MTM 599133wpam00.hcu tersection: S 133rd Street/SR 599 On&Off-Ramps unt Date: 2000 Volumes w/project Time Period: AM Peak Ittersection Orientation: East-West Major St. hicle Volume Data: vements: 11( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 lume: 46 83 12 94 259 191 0 12 41 201 27 16 R: 49 89 13 101 278 205 0 13 44 216 29 17 PHF: 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.06 0.06 0.06 Pedestrian Volume Data: IIIL vements: if ow: ne width: lk speed: Blockage: dian Type: None of vehicles: 0 Flared approach Movements: 1 of vehicles: Northbound 0 of vehicles: Southbound 2 ane usage for movements 1,2&3 approach: Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 L T R L T R L T R Y annelized: ade: N N N Y Y N N N N 0.00 lane usage for movements 4,5&6 approach: Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 L T R L T R L T R tannelized: ade: N N N Y N N N Y Y 0.00 I ne usage for movements 7,8&9 approach: Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 L T R L T R L T R 111 annelized: N Grade: 0.00 Y Y Y N N N N N N Ia ne usage for movements 10,11&12 approach: Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 L T R L T R L T R IIhannelized: N Grade: 0.00 I/ Data for Computing Effect of Delay to Major Street Vehicles: Y Y Y N N N N N N 1 Eastbound Westbound Shared ln volume, major th vehicles: 0 0 Shared ln volume, major rt vehicles: 0 0 Sat flow rate, major th vehicles: 1700 1700 Sat flow rate, major rt vehicles: 1700 1700 Number of major street through lanes: 1 1 Length of study period, hrs: 0.25 Worksheet 4 Critical Gap and Follow-up time calculation. Critical Gap Calculations: Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 t c,base 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 t c,hv 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 P hv 0.13 0.14 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.06 0.06 0.06 t c,g 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 G 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 t 3,1t 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 t c,T: 1 stage 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 t c 1 stage 4.2 4.2 7.3 6.8 6.5 7.2 6.6 6.3 Follow Up Time Calculations: Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 t f,base t f,HV P hv t f 2.2 0.9 0.13 2.3 2.2 0.9 0.14 2.3 3.5 0.9 0.25 3.7 4.0 0.9 0.25 4.2 3.3 0.9 0.25 3.5 3.5 0.9 0.06 3.6 4.0 0.9 0.06 4.1 3.3 0.9 0.06 3.4 Worksheet 6 Impedance and capacity equations Step 1: RT from Minor St. 9 12 Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Movement Capacity Probability of Queue free St. 96 278 901 751 1.00 1.00 901 751 0.95 0.98 Step 2: LT from Major St. 4 1 Conflicting Flows 102 278 Potential Capacity 1418 1223 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Movement Capacity 1418 1223 Probability of Queue free St. 0.93 0.96 Step 3: TH from Minor St. 8 11 Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Probability of Queue free St. 675 682 348 367 1.00 1.00 0.89 0.89 310 327 0.96 0.91 Step 4: LT from Minor St. 7 10 Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Maj. L, Min T Impedance factor Maj. L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor. Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity 801 704 277 347 1.00 1.00 0.81 0.85 0.86 0.89 0.84 0.84 232 293 Worksheet 8 Shared Lane Calculations Shared Lane Calculations Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 v(vph) ovement Capacity ared Lane Capacity I II I 0 13 44 216 29 17 232 310 901 293 327 751 629 309 Worksheet 9 -Computation of effect of flared minor street approaches ilovement 7 8 9 10 11 12 C sep 232 310 901 293 327 751 olume 110 13 44 216 29 17 elay 20.5 17.1 9.2 45.3 17.1 9.9 sep 0.00 0.06 0.11 2.72 0.14 0.05 sep +1 1.00 1.06 1.11 3.72 1.14 1.05 round (Qsep +1) 1 1 1 4 1 1 II max 1 4 sh 629 309 SUM C sep 1443 1371 n 0 2 11 act 629 840 11 orksheet 10 delay,queue length, and LOS ovement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 v(vph) C m(vph) 5% 5% queue length ntrol Delay LOS Approach Delay 1proach LOS I II I 49 101 57 262 1223 1418 629 840 0.04 0.07 0.09 0.31 8.1 7.7 11.3 A A B 11.2 B 11.3 11.2 B B HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 3.1c TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL(TWSC) ANALYSIS Analyst: MTM int5nbwpam00.hcu Intersection: Interurban Avenue S/I-5 NB On -Ramp Count Date: 2000 Volumes w/project Time Period: AM Peak Intersection Orientation: East-West Major St. Vehicle Volume Data: Movements: 1 2 5 6 Volume: 94 532 819 369 HFR: 108 611 941 424 PHF: 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 PHV: 0.13 0.13 0.14 0.14 Pedestrian Volume Data: Movements: Flow: Lane width: Walk speed: % Blockage: Median Type: None # of vehicles: 0 Flared approach Movements: # of vehicles: Northbound 0 # of vehicles: Southbound 0 Lane usage for movements 1,2&3 approach: Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 L T R L T R L T R Y N N N Y N N Y N Channelized: N Grade: 0.00 Lane usage for movements 4,5&6 approach: Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 L T R L T R L T R N Y N N Y N N N Y Channelized: Y Grade: 0.00 Lane usage for movements 7,8&9 approach: Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 L T R L T R L T R N N N N N N N N N Channelized: N Grade: 0.00 Lane usage for movements 10,11&12 approach: Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 L T R L T R L T R N N N N N N N N N Channelized: N Grade: 0.00 Data for Computing Effect of Delay to Major Street Vehicles: Eastbound Westbound hared In volume, major th vehicles: 0 0 hared In volume, major rt vehicles: 0 0 Sat flow rate, major th vehicles: 1700 1700 Iat flow rate, major rt vehicles: 1700 1700 umber of major street through lanes: 2 2 Length of study period, hrs: 0.25 Worksheet 4 Critical Gap and Follow-up time calculation. Iritical Gap Calculations: ovement 1 t c,base 4.1 II c,hv 2.0 by 0.13 c,g t 0.00 t 3,1t 0.0 II c,T: 1 stage 0.00 t c stage 4.4 llow Up Time Calculations: Movement 1 IIf,base 2.2 f,HV 1.0 by 0.13 t f 2.3 IFrksheet 6 Impedance and capacity equations Step 2: LT from Major St. 4 1 nflicting Flows tential Capacity edestrian Impedance Factor Movement Capacity lirobability of Queue free St. 941 660 1.00 660 0.84 Worksheet 10 delay,queue length, and LOS livement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 (vph) 108 m(vph) 660 v/c 0.16 0% queue length ntrol Delay 11.5 S B pproach Delay Approach LOS MTM 2000wppm.for (1) GHC Tukwila Office 2 99181-60 Interurban Ave/Pacific Highway S/S Boeing Access Rd 2000 Volumes w/project - PM Peak Hour SIGNAL97/TEAPAC[Ver 1.01] - Display of Intersection Parameters 03/20/00 11:20:00 1 1 1 Key: VOLUMES -- > 627 1 341 585�� I WIDTHS 24.0 12.0 � 24.0 �� i v LANES 2 l 1 2 I 11 \ 270 12.0 1 / 1 \ /I\ 881 24.0 2 174 24.0 2 / + / 274 12.0 1 North 397 24.0 2 1 0.0 0 \ \ 1 / 0 226 0.0 24.0 0 1 2 356 Phasing: SEQUENCE 27 12.0 I PERMSV NNNN 1 I OVERLP YYYY LEADLAG LD LD MTM 2000wppm.for (1) GHC Tukwila Office 2 99181-60 Interurban Ave/Pacific Highway. S/S Boeing Access Rd 2000 Volumes w/project - PM Peak Hour SIGNAL97/TEAPAC[Ver 1.01] - Capacity Analysis Summary Intersection Averages: Degree of Saturation (v/c) 03/20/00 11:19:52 0.64 Vehicle Delay 38.7 Level of Service D+ Sq 27 Phase 1 Phase 2 1 Phase 3 1 Phase 4 **/** /1' 1 North 1 <+ <+ A v G/C=0.221 G= 26.5" Y+R= 5.0" OFF= 0.0% G/C=0.142 G= 17.0" Y+R= 5.0" OFF=26.2% G/C=0.303 G= 36.4" Y+R= 5.0" OFF=44.6% G/C=0.168 G= 20.2" Y+R= 5.0" OFF=79.0% C=120 sec G=100.0 sec = 83.3% Y=20.0 sec = 16.7% Ped= 0.0 sec = 0.0% I Lane Width/1 g/C I Service Rate' Adj I I HCM I L 190% Max' I Group I Lanes' Reqd Used I @C (vph) @E 'Volume' v/c I Delay I S I Queue I SB Approach 30.5 C RT TH LT 124/2 10.354 10.614 11623 11694 I 667 10.394 I 12.0 I B+I 219 ftl 112/1 10.331 10.404 562 I 745 I 363 10.487 I 27.0 I C+I 367 ftl 124/2 10.317 10.221 1 I 750 I 622 10.829 I 52.4 l*D 1411 ftl NB Approach 31.8 C RT 112/1 TH 124/2 10.363 10.486 10.264 10.142 640 I 762 1 I 473 379 10.497 I 21.4 240 10.484 I 48.2 330 ftl 175 ftl WB Approach 47.3 D TH 124/2 10.370 10.303 I 538 11042 I 937 10.899 I 50.6 1*D 1561 ftl LT 112/1 10.315 10.303 I 257 I 519 I 291 10.559 I 36.4 I D+I 348 ft' EB Approach 50.5 D I TH+RTI 24/2 10.289 10.168 I 1 I 546 I 423 10.753 I 53.2 1*D 1307 ftl I LT 124/2 10.260 10.168 I 1 I 528 I 185 10.339 I 44.4 I D+I 134 ft1 MTM 2000wppm.for (311) GHC Tukwila Office 2 99181-60 Pacific Highway S/S 112th Street 2000 Volumes w/project - PM Peak Hour SIGNAL97/TEAPAC[Ver 1.01] - Display of Intersection Parameters 30 1208 20 0.0 24.0 12.0 0 2 1 1 03/20/00 11:24:16 Key: VOLUMES -- > WIDTHS v LANES 6 0.0 0 / 1 \ /I\ 6 12.0 1 1 234 12.0 1 / + / 33 12.0 1 North 1 67 12.0 1 155 0.0 0 \ 43 497 36 12.0 1 24.0 12.0 1 1 2 1 Phasing: SEQUENCE 61 PERMSV YNYN OVERLP YYYY LEADLAG LD LD MTM 2000wppm.for (311) GHC Tukwila Office 2 99181-60 Pacific Highway S/S 112th Street 2000 Volumes w/project - PM Peak Hour SIGNAL97/TEAPAC[Ver 1.01] - Capacity Analysis Intersection Averages: Degree of Saturation (v/c) Summary 03/20/00 11:24:09 0.69 Vehicle Delay 24.0 Level of Service C+ Sq 61 ( Phase 1 1 Phase 2 l Phase 3 1 Phase 4 I **/** /I\ North +> <* * * <+ A +> * * <* v <+ A +> A ++++ <++++ ++++ ++++ v ****> **** v G/C=0.085 G/C=0.000 G= 5.1" G= 0.0" Y+R= 5.0" Y+R= 0.0" OFF= 0.0% OFF=16.8% G/C=0.384 G= 23.0" Y+R= 5.0" OFF=16.8% G/C=0.281 G= 16.9" Y+R= 5.0" OFF=63.6% C= 60 sec G= 45.0 sec = 75.0% Y=15.0 sec = 25.0% Ped= 0.0 sec = 0.0% I Lane IWidth/I g/C I Service Rate Adj I I HCM I L '90% Maxi I Group I Lanes' Reqd Used I @C (vph) @E 'Volume' v/c I Delay I S I Queue I SB Approach 30.7 C I TH+RTI 24/2 10.376 10.384 11307 11353 11276 10.943 I 31.1 (*C 1332 ftl I LT 112/1 10.000 10.085 I 419 I 460 I 21 10.046 I 8.6 I A I 25 ftl NB Approach 13.1 B+ RT TH LT 112/1 10.044 0.384 I 558 I 614 I 37 10.060 I 11.7 B+1 25 ftl 124/2 0.169 '0.384 11326 11372 I 512 10.373 I 13.5 ' B+I 132 ftl 112/1 0.000 0.085 I 239 I 277 I 44 10.159 I 10.6 *B+I 25 ftl WB Approach 16.2 B TH+RT 12/1 10.023 10.281 I 351 I 415 I 12 10.029 I 15.7 I B I 25 ftl LT I 12/1 10.000 10.281 I 201 I 255 I 34 10.133 I 16.4 I B I 25 ftl EB Approach 20.0 B TH+RTI 12/1 10.176 10.281 I 411 I 478 I 229 10.479 I 18.7 I*B 1137 ftl LT 112/1 10.215 10.281 I 336 I 400 I 241 10.603 I 21.2 I C+I 144 ftl MTM 2000wppm.for (63) GHC Tukwila Office 2 99181-60 Interurban Ave/East Marginal Way S 2000 Volumes w/project - PM Peak Hour SIGNAL97/TEAPAC[Ver 1.01] - Display of Intersection Parameters 03/20/00 11:20:50 1 I 1 Key: VOLUMES -- > 276 1 509 1 0 1 1 WIDTHS 12.0 1 12.0 1 0.0 1 v LANES 11 11 01 1 1 1 \ 0 0.0 0 / 1 \ /1\ 0 0.0 0 1 1 170 12.0 1 / 0 0.0 0 19 12.0 1 \ + / 0 0.0 0 North 1 22 384 12.0 12.0 1 1 0 Phasing: SEQUENCE 31 0.0 1 PERMSV NNYN 0 1 OVERLP YYYY LEADLAG LD LD MTM 2000wppm.for (63) GHC Tukwila Office 2 99181-60 Interurban Ave/East Marginal Way S 2000 Volumes w/project - PM Peak Hour SIGNAL97/TEAPAC[Ver 1.01] - Capacity Analysis Summary 03/20/00 11:20:43 Intersection Averages: Degree of Saturation (v/c) 0.50 Vehicle Delay 11.3 Level of Service B+ Sq 31 Phase 1 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 **/** /1\ North <+ A <* + ++++ * + v * + v + + G/C=0.107 G/C=0.449 1 G/C=0.193 G= 6.4" G= 27.0" G= 11.6" Y+R= 5.0" Y+R= 5.0" Y+R= 5.0" OFF= 0.0% OFF=19.0% 1 OFF=72.3% C= 60 sec G= 45.0 sec = 75.0% Y=15.0 sec = 25.0% Ped= 0.0 sec = 0.0% 1 Lane 1Width/1 g/C I Service Rate' Adj 1 1 HCM 1 L 190% Max' 1 Group 1 Lanes! Reqd Used 1 @C (vph) @E 'Volume! v/c 1 Delay 1 S 1 Queue 1 SB Approach 11.5 B+ RT 1 12/1 10.245 10.726 1 1117 1 1117 1 310 10.278 1 3.0 1 A 1 73 ft1 TH 1 12/1 10.350 10.449 1 768 1 813 1 572 10.704 1 16.1 1*B 1 270 ftl NB Approach 5.5 A TH 1 12/1 10.301 10.640 1 1044 1 1057 1 431 10.408 1 5.5 1 A 1 141 ftl LT 1 12/1 10.000 10.107 1 341 1 373 1 25 10.067 1 6.1 1*A 1 25 ftl EB Approach 23.1 C+ RT 1 12/1 10.031 10.384 1 534 1 590 1 21 10.036 1 11.6 1 B+1 25 ftl LT 1 12/1 10.150 10.193 1 262 1 332 1 191 10.575 1 24.4 1*C+1 132 ftl MTM 2000wppm.for (249) GHC Tukwila Office 2 99181-60 Pacific Highway S/S 130th Street 2000 Volumes w/project - PM Peak Hour SIGNAL97/TEAPAC[Ver 1.01] - Display of Intersection Parameters 03/20/00 11:23:28 11 Key: VOLUMES -- > 0 805 1 30 1I 1 WIDTHS 0.0 24.0 1 12.0 1 Ij v LANES 0 2 1 1 1 11 \ 61 0.0 0 / 1 \ /1\ 0 12.0 1 1 1 0 0.0 0 / + / 172 0.0 0 North 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 \ 1 \ 1 / 1 1 0 1 419 1 10 1 Phasing: SEQUENCE 11 0.0 1 24.0 1 0.0 1 PERMSV NNNN 0 1 2 1 0 1 OVERLP YYYY 1 1 I LEADLAG LD LD MTM 2000wppm.for (249) GHC Tukwila Office 2 99181-60 Pacific Highway S/S 130th Street 2000 Volumes w/project - PM Peak Hour SIGNAL97/TEAPAC[Ver 1.01] - Capacity Analysis Summary 03/20/00 11:23:21 Intersection Averages: Degree of Saturation (v/c) 0.41 Vehicle Delay 9.7 Level of Service A Sq 11 /I\ North Phase 1 v A Phase 2 G/C=0.521 G/C=0.312 G= 31.3" G= 18.7" Y+R= 5.0" Y+R= 5.0" OFF= 0.0% 1 OFF=60.4% C= 60 sec G= 50.0 sec = 83.3% Y=10.0 sec = 16.7% Ped= 0.0 sec = 0.0% I Lane Width/1 g/C 1 Service Rate Adj 1 1 HCM I L 190% Maxi Group 1 Lanes Reqd Used 1 @C (vph) @E 1Volumel v/c 1 Delay I S 1 Queue SB Approach 9.4 A TH 1 24/2 10.279 10.521 1 1822 1 1825 1 904 10.495 1 9.5 *A 1 184 ft1 LT 1 12/1 10.000 10.521 1 417 1 458 1 34 10.074 1 7.2 1 A 1 25 ftl NB Approach 8.1 A 1 TH+RTI 24/2 10.166 10.521 1 1799 1 1802 1 482 10.267 1 8.1 1 A 1 99 ft1 WB Approach 13.6 B+ ILT+TH+RT1 12/1 10.212 10.396 1 561 1 615 1 262 10.426 1 13.6 *B+1 133 ftl MTM 2000wppm.for (187) GHC Tukwila Office 2 99181-60 Interurban Avenue/S 133rd Street/Gateway Drive 2000 Volumes w/project - PM Peak Hour SIGNAL97/TEAPAC[Ver 1.01] - Display of Intersection Parameters 254 1 416 12.0 124.0 1I 2 95 0.0 0 / 45 12.0 1 291 12.0 1 \ 0 0.0 I I 0 II II \ 56 0.0 0 \ /I\ 199 24.0 2 + / 207 0.0 0 North 03/20/00 11:22:36 Key: VOLUMES -- > I WIDTHS v LANES \ I / 216 609 24.0 24.0 2 2 179 Phasing: SEQUENCE 37 0.0 PERMSV NNNN 0 OVERLP YYYY LEADLAG LD LD MTM 2000wppm.for (187) GHC Tukwila Office 2 99181-60 Interurban Avenue/S 133rd Street/Gateway Drive 2000 Volumes w/project - PM Peak Hour 03/20/00 11:22:28 SIGNAL97/TEAPAC[Ver 1.01] - Capacity Analysis Summary Intersection Averages: Degree of Saturation (v/c) 0.63 Vehicle Delay 30.2 Level of Service C Sq 37 **/** /I\ North 1 Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4 v A A +> A v **** ****> ++++ v G/C=0.108 G/C=0.255 G= 9.7" G= 22.9" Y+R= 5.0" Y+R= 5.0" OFF= 0.0% OFF=16.3% G/C=0.197 G= 17.7" Y+R= 5.0" OFF=47.3% G/C=0.219 G= 19.7" Y+R= 5.0" OFF=72.6% C= 90 sec G= 70.0 sec = 77.8% Y=20.0 sec = 22.2% Ped= 0.0 sec = 0.0% 1 Lane Width/1 g/C 1 Service Rate' Adj 1 I HCM 1 L 190% Max, 1 Group 1 Lanes, Reqd Used 1 @C (vph) @E IVolumel v/c 1 Delay 1 S 1 Queue 1 SB Approach 32.5 C RT 1 12/1 10.265 10.255 1 259 1 381 1 276 10.724 1 37.4 l*D+, 269 ftl TH 1 24/2 10.207 10.255 1 647 1 852 1 452 10.531 1 29.5 1 C 1 221 ftl NB Approach 26.5 C+ TH+RT1 24/2 10.316 10.418 1 1240 I 1349 1 857 10.635 1 21.8 1 C+1 327 ftl LT 1 24/2 10.159 10.108 1 1 339 1 235 10.673 1 43.7 1*D+1 137 ftl WB Approach 39.2 D+ ILT+TH+RT1 24/2 10.218 10.197 1 415 1 662 1 502 10.758 1 39.2 l*D+1 257 ftl EB Approach 25.9 C+ 1 RT 1 12/1 10.295 10.382 1 458 1 555 1 316 10.569 1 23.4 1 C+1 260 ftl ILT+TH 1 12/1 10.178 10.219 1 225 1 359 1 152 10.420 1 31.0 I*C 1 158 ftl MTM 2000wppm.for (125) GHC Tukwila Office 2 99181-60 SR 599 NB off-ramp/Interurban Ave 2000 Volumes w/project - PM Peak Hour SIGNAL97/TEAPAC[Ver 1.01] - Capacity Analysis Summary 03/20/00 11:34:52 Intersection Averages: Degree of Saturation (v/c) 0.48 Vehicle Delay 10.7 Level of Service B+ Sq 11 1 Phase 1 1 Phase 2 **/** /�\ North <++++ <* +> * + * + G/C=0.319 G/C=0.514 G= 19.2" G= 30.8" Y+R= 5.0" Y+R= 5.0" OFF= 0.0% OFF=40.3% C= 60 sec G= 50.0 sec = 83.3% Y=10.0 sec = 16.7% Ped= 0.0 sec = 0.0% Lane 1Width/1 g/C I Service Rate' Adj 1 1 HCM 1 L 190% Maxi Group 1 Lanes' Reqd Used 1 @C (vph) @E 'Volume' v/c 1 Delay 1 S 1 Queue 1 NB Approach 16.3 B 1 RT 1 12/1 10.079 10.319 1 407 1 469 1 70 10.149 1 14.7 1 B+1 42 ftl 1 LT 1 12/1 10.183 10.319 1 461 1 524 1 231 10.441 1 16.8 1*B 1 139 ftl WB Approach 9.5 A 1 TH 1 24/2 10.258 10.514 1 1743 1 1750 1 800 10.457 1 9.5 1 A 1 168 ftl EB Approach 10.1 B+ 1 TH 1 24/2 10.294 10.514 1 1743 1 1750 1 929 10.531 1 10.1 1*B+1 195 ftl HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 3.1c TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL(TWSC) ANALYSIS Analyst: MTM emw112wppm00.hcu Intersection: E Marginal Way S/S 112th Street Count Date: 2000 Volumes w/project Time Period: PM Peak Intersection Orientation: North-South Major St. Vehicle Volume Data: Movements: 1 2 5 6 10 12 Volume: 115 619 581 49 20 136 HFR: 124 666 625 53 22 146 PHF: 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 PHV: 0.10 0.10 0.05 0.05 0.02 0.02 Pedestrian Volume Data: Movements: Flow: Lane width: Walk speed: % Blockage: Median Type: None # of vehicles: 0 Flared approach Movements: # of vehicles: Eastbound 0 # of vehicles: Westbound 0 Lane usage for movements 1,2&3 approach: Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 L T R L T R L T R Y N N N Y N N N N Channelized: N Grade: 0.00 Lane usage for movements 4,5&6 approach: Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 L T R L T R L T R N Y Y N N N N N N Channelized: N Grade: 0.00 Lane usage for movements 7,8&9 approach: Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 L T R L T R L T R N N N N N N N N N Channelized: N Grade: 0.00 Lane usage for movements 10,11&12 approach: Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 L T R L T R L T R Y N Y N N N N N N Channelized: N Grade: 0.00 Data for Computing Effect of Delay to Major Street Vehicles: Northbound Southbound Shared In volume, major th vehicles: 0 0 Shared In volume, major rt vehicles: 0 0 Sat flow rate, major th vehicles: 1700 1700 Sat flow rate, major rt vehicles: 1700 1700 'Number of major street through lanes: 1 1 Length of study period, hrs: 0.25 ILorksheet 4 Critical Gap and Follow-up time calculation. IIMCritical Gap Calculations: ovement 1 10 12 t c,base 4.1 7.1 6.2 t c,hv 1.0 1.0 1.0 II by 0.10 0.02 0.02 c,g 0.2 0.1 0.00 0.00 0.00 t 3,1t 0.0 0.7 0.0 t c,T: I1 stage 0.00 0.00 0.00 c 1 stage 4.2 6.4 6.2 Itollow Up Time Calculations: ovement 1 10 12 t f,base 2.2 3.5 3.3 f,HV 0.9 0.9 0.9 by 0.10 0.02 0.02 f 2.3 3.5 3.3 1orksheet 6 Impedance and capacity equations tep 1: RT from Minor St. 9 12 11 onflicting Flows 651 otential Capacity 468 edestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 ovement Capacity 468 Probability of Queue free St. 0.69 IItep 2: LT from Major St. 4 1 Conflicting Flows 677 otential CapacityI 878 edestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 ovement Capacity 878 Probability of Queue free St. 0.86 'tep 4: LT from Minor St. 7 10 Conflicting Flows 1564 otential Capacity 123 edestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 j. L, Min T Impedance factor 0.86 Maj. L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor. 0.89 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.89 Irvement Capacity 110 orksheet 8 Shared Lane Calculations II ared Lane Calculations ovement 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 v(vph) Movement Capacity tared Lane Capacity 22 146 110 468 330 Worksheet 10 delay,queue length, and LOS Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 v(vph) 124 C m(vph) 878 v/c 0.14 95% queue length Control Delay 9.8 LOS A Approach Delay Approach LOS 11 168 330 0.51 26.7 D 26.7 D 1 HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 3.1c TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL(TWSC) ANALYSIS lin alyst: MTM emw120wppm00.hcu ntersection: E Marginal Way S/S 120th Street ount Date: 2000 Volumes w/project ime Period: PM Peak intersection Orientation: North-South Major St. ehicle Volume Data: Movements: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Iolume: 6 417 1 8 277 13 2 1 28 19 0 36 FR: 8 528 1 10 351 16 3 1 35 24 0 46 PHF: 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 IV: 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.09 0.09 0.09 Pedestrian Volume Data: IIovements: Flow: ane width: alk speed: Blockage: edian Type:11 None of vehicles: 0 1 lared approach Movements: of vehicles: Eastbound of vehicles: Westbound 0 0 Lane usage for movements 1,2&3 approach: ' Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 L T R L T R L T R Y Y Y N N N N N N hannelized: N rade: 0.00 lane usage for movements 4,5&6 approach: Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 L T R L T R L T R Y N N N Y Y N N N Ihannelized: N rade: 0.00 'ane usage for movements 7,8&9 approach: Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 L T R L T R L T R channelized: N rade: 0.00 Y Y Y N N N N N N 'ane usage for movements 10,11&12 approach: Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 L T R L T R L T R channelized: N Grade: 0.00 Y Y Y N N N N N N ata for Computing Effect of Delay to Major Street Vehicles: Northbound Southbound Shared ln volume, major th vehicles: 417 0 Shared In volume, major rt vehicles: 1 0 Sat flow rate, major th vehicles: 1700 1700 Sat flow rate, major rt vehicles: 1700 1700 Number of major street through lanes: 1 1 Length of study period, hrs: 0.25 Worksheet 4 Critical Gap and Follow-up time calculation. Critical Gap Calculations: Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 t c,base 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 t c,hv 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 P hv 0.07 0.09 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.09 0.09 0.09 t c,g 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 G 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 t 3,1t 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 t c,T: 1 stage 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 t c 1 stage 4.2 4.2 8.0 7.4 7.1 7.2 6.6 6.3 Follow Up Time Calculations: Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 t f,base t f,HV P hv t f 2.2 0.9 0.07 2.3 2.2 0.9 0.09 2.3 3.5 0.9 0.87 4.3 4.0 0.9 0.87 4.8 3.3 0.9 0.87 4.1 3.5 0.9 0.09 3.6 4.0 0.9 0.09 4.1 3.3 0.9 0.09 3.4 Worksheet 6 Impedance and capacity equations Step 1: RT from Minor St. 9 12 Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Movement Capacity Probability of Queue free St. 528 415 1.00 415 0.91 359 670 1.00 670 0.93 Step 2: LT from Major St. 4 1 Conflicting Flows 529 367 Potential Capacity 1003 1164 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Movement Capacity 1003 1164 Probability of Queue free St. 0.99 0.99 Maj. L Shared ln. Prob. Queue Free St. 0.99 0.99 Step 3: TH from Minor St. 8 11 Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Probability of Queue free St. 931 195 1.00 0.98 191 0.99 923 262 1.00 0.98 258 1.00 Step 4: LT from Minor St. 7 10 Conflicting Flows 946 941 Potential Capacity 173 236 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Maj. L, Min T Impedance factor 0.98 0.97 Maj. L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor. 0.99 0.98 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.92 0.90 Movement Capacity 159 212 Worksheet 8 Shared Lane Calculations Shared Lane Calculations Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 v(vph) 3 1 35 24 0 46 Irovement Capacity 159 191 415 212 258 670 hared Lane Capacity 364 384 orksheet 10 delay,queue length, and LOS If ovement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 IlL(vph) 8 10 39 C m(vph) 1164 1003 364 v/c 0.01 0.01 0.11 I5% queue length ontrol Delay OS Approach Delay 111pproach LOS 70 384 0.18 8.1 8.6 16.1 16.5 A A C C 16.1 16.5 C C orksheet 11 Shared Major LT Impedance and Delay ank 1 Delay Calculations Movement 2 5 of 0.99 0.99 il 417 0 12 1 0 S il 1700 1700 4 i2 1700 1700 * Oj 0.99 0.99 maj left 8.1 8.6 number major st lanes 1 1 Delay, rank 1 mvmts 0.1 0.1 HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 3.1c TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL(TWSC) ANALYSIS Analyst: MTM EM124wppm00.hcu Intersection: East Marginal Way/S 124th Street Count Date: 2000 Volumes w/project Time Period: PM Peak Intersection Orientation: North-South Major St. Vehicle Volume Data: Movements: 1 2 5 6 10 12 Volume: 21 185 479 21 118 118 HFR: 22 195 504 22 124 124 PHF: 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 PHV: 0.09 0.09 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.03 Pedestrian Volume Data: Movements: Flow: Data for Computing Effect of Delay to Major Street Vehicles: Northbound Southbound Ilhhared In volume, major th vehicles: 185 0 ared In volume, major rt vehicles: 0 0 Sat flow rate, major th vehicles: 1700 1700 at flow rate, major rt vehicles:II 1700 1700 umber of major street through lanes: 1 1 Length of study period, hrs: 0.25 Worksheet 4 Critical Gap and Follow-up time calculation. Iritical Gap Calculations: ovement 1 10 12 t c,base 4.1 7.1 6.2 c,hv 1.0 1.0 1.0 11 hv 0.09 0.03 0.03 c,g 0.2 0.1 0.00 0.00 0.00 t 3,1t 0.0 0.7 0.0 IIc,T: 1 stage 0.00 0.00 0.00 t c 1 stage 4.2 6.4 6.2 ollow Up Time Calculations: ovement 1 10 12 11 f,base 2.2 3.5 3.3 f,HV 0.9 0.9 0.9 hv 0.09 0.03 0.03 f 2.3 3.5 3.3 IIorksheet 6 Impedance and capacity equations Step 1: RT from Minor St. 9 12 IIonflicting Flows otential Capacity edestrian Impedance Factor Movement Capacity Probability of Queue free St. IItep 2: LT from Major St. 515 558 1.00 558 0.78 4 1 11 onflicting Flows otential Capacity edestrian Impedance Factor ovement Capacity Probability of Queue free St. IIaj. L Shared in. Prob. Queue Free St. Step 4: LT from Minor St. 526 1006 1.00 1006 0.98 0.98 7 10 Ionflicting Flows otential Capacity edestrian Impedance Factor Maj. L, Min T Impedance factor 11aj. L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor. ap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt ovement Capacity 754 375 1.00 0.98 0.98 0.98 368 Iorksheet 8 Shared Lane Calculations Shared Lane Calculations Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 II 1 II 1 II Ii(vph) 124 124 ovement Capacity 368 558 hared Lane Capacity 444 IIorksheet 10 delay,queue length, and LOS Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 v(vph) 22 C m(vph) 1006 v/c 0.02 95% queue length Control Delay 8.7 LOS A Approach Delay Approach LOS 248 444 0.56 23.0 C 23.0 C Worksheet 11 Shared Major LT Impedance and Delay Rank 1 Delay Calculations Movement 2 5 P of 0.98 1.00 ✓ it 185 0 ✓ i2 0 0 S it 1700 1700 S i2 1700 1700 P* Oj 0.98 1.00 D maj left 8.7 0.0 N number major st lanes 1 1 Delay, rank 1 mvmts 0.2 0.0 1 HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 3.1c ALL -WAY STOP CONTROL(AWSC) ANALYSIS orksheet 1 - Basic Intersection Information Analyst: . Intersection: Count Date: 4. Time Period: MTM EM130wppm00.hcu East Marginal Way/S 130th Street 2000 Volumes w/project PM Peak Iorksheet 2 - Volume Adjustments and Site Characteristics North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Ll L1 Ll Ll LT Volume: 38 40 33 39 . TH Volume: 87 417 55 89 RT Volume: 34 119 27 10 4. Peak Hour Factor: 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 . Flow Rate LT: 1140 42 35 41 . Flow Rate TH: 92 443 58 94 . Flow Rate RT: 36 126 28 10 Flow Rate Total: 169 612 122 146 9. Prop. Heavy Vehicle: 0.05 0.01 0.02 0.01 II0 Subject Approach 1 1 1 1 1 Opposing Approach 1 1 1 1 2 Conflicting Approach 1 1 1 1 13 Geometry Group 1 1 1 1 14 T (Time in Hours): 0.250 IIorksheet3 - Saturation Headway Adjustment Worksheet North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound L1 Ll L1 Ll Flow Rate Total: 169 612 122 146 . Flow Rate LT: 40 42 35 41 Flow Rate RT: 36 126 28 10 4. Prop LT in lane: 0.24 0.07 0.29 0.28 Prop RT in lane: 0.21 0.21 0.23 0.07 Prop. Heavy Vehicle: 0.05 0.01 0.02 0.01 Geometry Group 1 1 1 1 8. hLT-adj by Table 10-18 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 9. hRT-adj by Table 10-18 -0.60 -0.60 -0.60 -0.60 '0. hHV-adj Table 10-18 1.70 1.70 1.70 1.70 1. hadj 0.00 -0.09 -0.05 0.03 Worksheet 4 - Departure Headway and Service Time North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound L1 Ll L1 L1 I/. Total lane flow rate 169 612 122 146 2. hd, initial value 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 x, initial 0.15 0.54 0.11 0.13 hd, final value 5.5 4.9 6.0 6.0 x, final value 0.26 0.83 0.20 0.25 Move -up time, m 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 7 Service Time 3.5 2.9 4.0 4.0 IIorksheet5 - Capacity and Level of Service North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound L1 Ll L1 L1 Total lane flow rate 169 612 122 146 . Service Time 3.5 2.9 4.0 4.0 . Degree Utilization, x 0.26 0.83 0.20 0.25 4. Departure headway, hd 5.5 4.9 6.0 6.0 . Capacity 618 739 560 560 . Delay 10.4 26.5 10.6 11.0 . Level Of Service B D B B . Delay Approach 10.4 26.5 10.6 11.0 9. LOS, approach B D B B I0. Delay, Intersection 19.9 1. LOS, Intersection C HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 3.1c TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL(TWSC) ANALYSIS Analyst: MTM 599133wppm00.hcu Intersection: S 133rd Street/SR 599 On&Off-Ramps Count Date: 2000 Volumes w/project Time Period: PM Peak Intersection Orientation: East-West Major St. Vehicle Volume Data: Movements: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Volume: 165 HFR: 181 PHF: 0.91 PHV: 0.08 159 175 0.91 0.08 5 5 0.91 0.08 33 36 0.91 0.07 133 146 0.91 0.07 505 555 0.91 0.07 4 4 0.91 0.08 46 51 0.91 0.08 64 70 0.91 0.08 182 200 0.91 0.16 12 13 0.91 0.16 23 25 0.91 0.16 Pedestrian Volume Data: Movements: Flow: Lane width: Walk speed: % Blockage: Median Type: None # of vehicles: 0 Flared approach Movements: # of vehicles: Northbound # of vehicles: Southbound 0 2 Lane usage for movements 1,2&3 approach: Lane 1 Lane 2 L T R L T Lane 3 R L T R Y N N Channelized: N Grade: 0.00 N Y Y Lane usage for movements 4,5&6 approach: Lane 1 Lane 2 L T R L T R N N N Lane 3 L T R Y N N Channelized: Grade: Y 0.00 N Y Lane usage for movements 7,8&9 approach: Lane 1 Lane 2 L T R L T N N N Y Lane 3 R L T R Y Y Y Channelized: Grade: N 0.00 N N Lane usage for movements 10,11&12 approach: Lane 1 Lane 2 L T R L T N N N N Lane 3 R L T R Y Y Y Channelized: Grade: N 0.00 N N N N Data for Computing Effect of Delay to Major Street Vehicles: N N Eastbound Westbound II hared In volume, major th vehicles: 0 0 hared In volume, major rt vehicles: 0 0 Sat flow rate, major th vehicles: 1700 1700 at flow rate, major rt vehicles:11 1700 1700 umber of major street through lanes: 1 1 Length of study period, hrs: 0.25 Worksheet 4 Critical Gap and Follow-up time calculation. IIritical Gap Calculations: ovement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 t c,base 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 11 c,hv 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 hv 0.08 0.07 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.16 0.16 0.16 c,g 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 G 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 t 3,1t 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 I c,T: stage 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 t c 1 stage 4.2 4.2 7.2 6.6 6.3 7.3 6.7 6.4 IIollow Up Time Calculations: ovement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 f,base 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 f,HV 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 hv 0.08 0.07 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.16 0.16 0.16 f 2.3 2.3 3.6 4.1 3.4 3.6 4.1 3.4 IIorksheet 6 Impedance and capacity equations Step 1: RT from Minor St. 9 12 Ionflicting Flows otential Capacity edestrian Impedance Factor Movement Capacity robability of Queue free St. 11 177 850 1.00 850 0.92 146 865 1.00 865 0.97 tep 2: LT from Major St. 4 1 onflicting Flows I 180 146 otential Capacity 1366 1400 edestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Movement Capacity 1366 1400 Probability of Queue free St. 0.97 0.87 litep 3: TH from Minor St. 8 11 Conflicting Flows Iotential Capacity edestrian Impedance Factor ap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity probability of Queue free St. 759 762 329 319 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.85 279 270 0.82 0.95 Step 4: LT from Minor St. 7 10 onflicting Flows 1055 819 otential Capacity 198 279 edestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Maj. L, Min T Impedance factor 0.81 0.69 Maj. L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor. 0.85 0.76 Iap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.83 0.70 ovement Capacity 164 195 Iorksheet 8 Shared Lane Calculations Shared Lane Calculations Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 v(vph) 4 51 70 200 13 25 Movement Capacity 164 279 850 195 270 865 Shared Lane Capacity 431 216 Worksheet 9 -Computation of effect of flared minor street approaches Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 C sep 164 279 850 195 270 865 Volume 4 51 70 200 13 25 Delay 27.6 20.7 9.6 121.9 19.0 9.3 Q sep 0.03 0.29 0.19 6.77 0.07 0.07 Q sep +1 1.03 1.29 1.19 7.77 1.07 1.07 round (Qsep +1) 1 1 1 8 1 1 n max 1 8 C sh 431 216 SUM C sep 1293 1330 n 0 2 C act 431 495 Worksheet 10 delay,queue length, and LOS Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 v(vph) C m(vph) v/c 95% queue length Control Delay LOS Approach Delay Approach LOS 181 36 125 1400 1366 431 0.13 0.03 0.29 8.0 7.7 16.8 A A C II 238 495 0.48 18.9 C 16.8 18.9 C C ' HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 3.1c TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL(TWSC) ANALYSIS alyst: MTM int5nbwppm00.hcu ntersection: Interurban Avenue S/I-5 NB On -Ramp ount Date: 2000 Volumes w/project ime Period: PM Peak intersection Orientation: East-West Major St. ehicle Volume Data: Movements: 1 2 5 6 Iolume: 187 1044 615 433 FR: 205 1147 676 476 PHF: 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 IIHV: 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 Pedestrian Volume Data: IIovements: Flow: ne width: alk speed: Blockage: 0 edian Type: None of vehicles: 0 lared approach Movements: liof vehicles: Northbound 0 of vehicles: Southbound 0 Lane usage for movements 1,2&3 approach: Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 L T R L T R L T R Y N N N Y N N Y N annelized: N rade: 0.00 ane usage for movements 4,5&6 approach: Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 L T R L T R L T R N Y N N Y N N N Y (annelized: ade: fne Y 0.00 usage for movements 7,8&9 approach: Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 L T R L T R L T R N N N N N N N N N annelized: N rade: 0 00 Ie ne usage for movements 10,11&12 approach: Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 L T R L T R L T R Ilannelized: N Grade: 0.00 N N N N N N N N N 11 ata for Computing Effect of Delay to Major Street Vehicles: Eastbound Westbound Shared in volume, major th vehicles: 0 0 Shared In volume, major rt vehicles: 0 0 Sat flow rate, major th vehicles: 1700 1700 Sat flow rate, major rt vehicles: 1700 1700 Number of major street through lanes: 2 2 Length of study period, hrs: 0.25 Worksheet 4 Critical Gap and Follow-up time calculation. Critical Gap Calculations: Movement 1 t c,base t c,hv P hv t c,g G t 3,1t t c, T: 1 stage t c 1 stage 4.1 2.0 0.06 0.00 0.0 0.00 4.2 Follow Up Time Calculations: Movement 1 t f,base t f,HV P hv t f 2.2 1.0 0.06 2.3 Worksheet 6 Impedance and capacity equations Step 2: LT from Major St. 4 1 Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Movement Capacity Probability of Queue free St. 676 885 1.00 885 0.77 Worksheet 10 delay,queue length, and LOS Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 v(vph) 205 C m(vph) 885 v/c 0.23 95% queue length Control Delay 10.3 LOS B Approach Delay Approach LOS APPENDIX D Level of Service Calculations - 2010 No Action MTM 2010am.for (1) GHC Tukwila Office 2 99181-60 03/20/00 Interurban Ave/Pacific Highway S/S Boeing Access Rd 14:13:54 2010 Baseline Volumes - AM Peak Hour SIGNAL97/TEAPAC[Ver 1.01] - Display of Intersection Parameters 201 I 127 I 229 II 24.0 112.0 124.0 II I 2 I 1 2 I II \ 1202 12.0 1 / I \ /I\ 562 24.0 2 I Key: VOLUMES -- > I WIDTHS v LANES 712 24.0 2 / + / 582 12.0 1 North 638 24.0 2 4 0.0 0 \ 0 396 372 I Phasing: SEQUENCE 27 0.0 24.0 112.0 I PERMSV NNNN 0 I 2 I 1 I OVERLP YYYY I I I LEADLAG LD LD MTM 2010am.for (1) GHC Tukwila Office 2 99181-60 Interurban Ave/Pacific Highway S/S Boeing Access Rd 2010 Baseline Volumes - AM Peak Hour SIGNAL97/TEAPAC[Ver 1.01] - Capacity Analysis Summary Intersection Averages: Degree of Saturation Sq 27 /I\ North 1 (v/c) 0.78 Vehicle Delay 03/20/00 14:13:59 61.9 Level of Service E+ I Phase 1 I Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4 <+ v * * *> <+ v <++++ <+ **** v **** +> ++++> + ++++ + v G/C=0.133 G/C=0.125 G/C=0.358 G= 16.0" G= 15.0" G= 43.0" Y+R= 5.0" Y+R= 5.0" Y+R= 5.0" OFF= 0.0% OFF=17.5% OFF=34.1% G/C=0.217 G= 26.1" Y+R= 5.0" OFF=74.1% C=120 sec G=100.0 sec = 83.3% Y=20.0 sec = 16.7% Ped= 0.0 sec = 0.0% Lane Group (Width/I g/C I Lanesi Reqd Used Service Rate Adj @C (vph) @E Volume' I HCM v/c I Delay L 190% Max S i Queue i SB Approach 33.0 C RT TH LT 124/2 10.272 0.559 11302 112/1 10.271 0.300 I 239 124/2 10.269 =0.133 I 1 1405 I 212 10.151 I 12.8 I B+I 84 ft 501 I 134 10.266 I 32.3 I C 1169 ft 386 I 241 10.585 I 51.1 I*D 1188 ft NB Approach RT TH 64.3 E+ 12/1 24/2 10.387 10.291 10.525 10.125 655 1 757 375 392 10.518 417 11.035 19.2 106.6 333 ft 326 ft WB Approach 57.9 E+ TH LT 24/2 12/1 10.315 10.456 10.358 10.358 836 390 1186 593 592 10.499 613 11.034 30.4 I C 1334 ft1 84.4 I*F 1691 ftl EB Approach 75.8 E I TH+RTI 24/2 10.325 10.217 I I LT 124/2 10.341 10.217 I 1 1 746 723 676 10.906 749 11.035 60.5 89.6 454 ft' 503 ftl MTM 2010am.for (311) GHC Tukwila Office 2 99181-60 Pacific Highway S/S 112th Street 2010 Baseline Volumes - AM Peak Hour SIGNAL97/TEAPAC[Ver 1.01] - Display of Intersection Parameters 03/20/00 14:02:55 II 1 Key: VOLUMES -- > 315 I 561 I 9 II 1 I WIDTHS 0.0 124.0 112.0 II 1 v LANES 0l 2 11I I I II \ 6 0.0 0 / 1 \ /I\ 68 12.0 1 1 25 12.0 1 / + / 60 12.0 1 North 1 7 12.0 1 25 0.0 0 \ I 358 1270 143 Phasing: SEQUENCE 61 12.0 124.0 112.0 I PERMSV YNYN 1 I 2 I 1 I OVERLP YYYY LEADLAG LD LD MTM 2010am.for (311) GHC Tukwila Office 2 99181-60 Pacific Highway S/S 112th Street 2010 Baseline Volumes - AM Peak Hour SIGNAL97/TEAPAC[Ver 1.01] - Capacity Analysis Summary Intersection Averages: Degree of Saturation (v/c) 0.71 Vehicle Delay 03/20/00 14:03:00 22.6 Level of Service C+ Sq 61 Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4 **/** • /I\ North <* * * v <+ A > A v G/C=0.073 G/C=0.111 G/C=0.394 G= 6.5" G= 10.0" G= 35.5" Y+R= 5.0" Y+R= 5.0" Y+R= 5.0" OFF= 0.0% OFF=12.8% OFF=29.5% G/C=0.200 G= 18.0" Y+R= 5.0" OFF=74.5% C= 90 sec G= 70.0 sec = 77.8% Y=20.0 sec = 22.2% Ped= 0.0 sec = 0.0% Lane Group (Width/1 g/C Lanes Reqd Used Service Rate Adj 1 I HCM I L 190% Max I @C (vph) @E IiVolumel v/c li Delay li S Queue SB Approach 28.1 C TH+RTI LT 1 24/2 12/1 10.362 0.000 10.394 0.073 1114 174 1235 215 996 10.806 10 10.047 1 28.3 *C 1398 ftl 1 13.4 I*B+i 25 ftl NB Approach 19.0 B RT 12/1 0.195 TH 124/2 10.455 LT 112/1 0.223 0.561 0.561 0.239 790 1852 434 847 1893 507 163 1443 407 10.192 10.762 10.803 9.8 17.0 29.5 A 93 B 413 *C 270 ft 1 ft1 WB Approach 30.8 C TH+RTI 12/1 10.149 10.200 LT 1 12/1 0.154 10.200 201 143 342 248 84 10.242 68 10.264 30.6 31.0 88 ftl 71 ftl EB Approach 29.7 C TH+RTI 12/1 10.133 10.200 LT 112/1 10.134 10.200 183 141 312 243 36 28 10.113 10.110 29.6 29.7 37 ftl 29 ftl MTM 2010am.for (63) GHC Tukwila Office 2 99181-60 Interurban Ave/East Marginal Way S 2010 Baseline Volumes - AM Peak Hour SIGNAL97/TEAPAC[Ver 1.01] - Display of Intersection Parameters I 311 1 27 0 12.0 1 12.0 0.0 1 1 1 0 I / I \ 358 12.0 1 / 0 0.0 0 19 12.0 1 \ I I 58 1 442 0 I Phasing: SEQUENCE 31 112.0 12.0 0.0 1 PERMSV NNYN I 1 1 1 0 1 OVERLP YYYY I 1 1 LEADLAG LD LD 11 1 1 11 II \ 0 0.0 0 03/20/00 14:00:05 Key: VOLUMES -- > 1 WIDTHS v LANES /I\ 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 North MTM 2010am.for (63) GHC Tukwila Office 2 99181-60 Interurban Ave/East Marginal Way S 2010 Baseline Volumes - AM Peak Hour SIGNAL97/TEAPAC[Ver 1.01] - Capacity Analysis Summary 03/20/00 14:00:11 Intersection Averages: Degree of Saturation (v/c) 0.53 Vehicle Delay 12.3 Level of Service B+ Sq 31 Phase 1 Phase 2 1 Phase 3 + + + + + + /I\ <+ + <+ v A A **** North <* + <+ * ++++ * + + * ++++ v * + + * v G/C=0.119 G/C=0.236 G/C=0.394 G= 7.1" G= 14.2" G= 23.7" Y+R= 5.0" Y+R= 5.0" Y+R= 5.0" OFF= 0.0% OFF=20.2% OFF=52.2% C= 60 sec G= 45.0 sec = 75.0% Y=15.0 sec = 25.0% Ped= 0.0 sec = 0.0% Lane Width/1 g/C Group Lanes' Reqd Used @CSer(vph)ice R@Ee'Volume' v/c Delay 1 S '9QueueMaX' SB Approach 4.8 A RT TH 12/1 12/1 10.324 10.040 10.714 10.236 882 282 894 348 346 30 10.387 10.086 3.7 1 A 1 97 ftl 18.0 1 B 1 25 ft1 NB Approach 15.1 B TH LT 12/1 12/1 10.332 10.000 10.439 10.119 684 519 732 566 491 10.671 64 10.113 15.8 1*B 1 249 ftl 9.9 1*A 1 32 ftl EB Approach 15.3 B RT LT 12/1 10.031 10.597 12/1 10.276 10.394 877 611 901 665 21 10.023 398 10.598 5.0 1 A 1 25 ftl 15.9 1*B 1 209 ftl MTM 2010am.for (249) GHC Tukwila Office 2 99181-60 Pacific Highway S/S 130th Street 2010 Baseline Volumes - AM Peak Hour SIGNAL97/TEAPAC[Ver 1.01] - Display of Intersection Parameters 03/20/00 13:54:51 1 Key: VOLUMES -- > 0 I 340 21 1 I WIDTHS 0 0 I 24.0 12.0 1 v LANES O 1 2 I 1 I I \ 29 0.0 0 / 1 \ /I\ 0 12.0 1 O 0.0 0 / + / 80 0.0 0 North 1 O 0.0 0 1 O 0.0 0 \ O 1021 0 Phasing: SEQUENCE 11 0.0 24.0 0.0 PERMSV NNNN O I 2 0 I OVERLP YYYY LEADLAG LD LD MTM 2010am.for (249) GHC Tukwila Office 2 99181-60 Pacific Highway S/S 130th Street 2010 Baseline Volumes - AM Peak Hour SIGNAL97/TEAPAC[Ver 1.01] - Intersection Averages: Degree of Saturation Capacity Analysis Summary (v/c) 0.50 Vehicle Delay Sq 11 Phase 1 Phase 2 1 /I\ North G/C=0.500 G/C=0.333 G= 30.0" G= 20.0" Y+R= 5.0" Y+R= 5.0" OFF= 0.0% OFF=58.3% C= 60 sec G= 03/20/00 13:54:58 10.9 Level of Service B+ 50.0 sec = 83.3% Y=10.0 sec = 16.7% Ped= 0.0 sec = 0.0% Lane Group Width/1 g/C 1 Lanes Reqd Used Service Rate Adj @C (vph) @E Volume' HCM I L Max v/c Delay 1 S 190% Queue SB Approach 8.5 A TH LT MTM 2010am.for (187) GHC Tukwila Office 2 99181-60 Interurban Avenue/S 133rd Street/Gateway Drive 2010 Baseline Volumes - AM Peak Hour SIGNAL97/TEAPAC[Ver 1.01] - Display of Intersection Parameters 03/20/00 13:52:19 Key: VOLUMES -- > 145 225 0 II I WIDTHS 12.0 124.0 0.0 II I v LANES 1 2 I 0 I II \ 215 0.0 0 / 1 \ /I\ 77 24.0 2 I 53 0.0 0 / + / 101 0.0 0 North I 33 12.0 1 29 12.0 1 \ \ I / 348 1097 I 392 I Phasing: SEQUENCE 37 24.0 124.0 I 0.0 I PERMSV NNNN 2 I 2 I 0 I OVERLP YYYY I I I LEADLAG LD LD MTM 2010am.for (187) GHC Tukwila Office 2 99181-60 Interurban Avenue/S 133rd Street/Gateway Drive 2010 Baseline Volumes - AM Peak Hour SIGNAL97/TEAPAC[Ver 1.01] - Capacity Analysis Summary Intersection Averages: Degree of Saturation (v/c) 0.83 Vehicle Delay 03/20/00 13:52:27 44.0 Level of Service D+ Sq 37 Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4 1 \ North 1 v G/C=0.135 G= 12.1" Y+R= 5.0" OFF= 0.0% G/C=0.297 G= 26.7" Y+R= 5.0" OFF=19.0% G/C=0.157 G= 14.1" Y+R= 5.0" OFF=54.3% G/C=0.189 G= 17.0" Y+R= 5.0" OFF=75.5% C= 90 sec G= 70.0 sec = 77.8% Y=20.0 sec = 22.2% Ped= 0.0 sec = 0.0% Lane 1Width/1 Group Lanes' g/C Reqd Used Service Rate Adj HCM @C (vph) @E Volume' v/c = Delay L 190% Maxi S 1 Queue SB Approach 24.7 C+ RT TH 12/1 24/2 10.197 0.160 10.297 0.297 310 768 421 941 154 10.366 239 10.254 25.5 24.2 147 ftl 114 ftl NB Approach 47.4 D TH+RT1 24/2 LT 1 24/2 0.509 0.189 10.487 10.135 1503 100 1579 439 1584 11.003 370 0.839 46.5 51.4 529 ftl 208 ftl WB Approach 50.8 D ILT+TH+RT1 24/2 10.207 10.157 216 489 418 10.855 1 50.8 l*13 1 227 ftl EB Approach 28.2 C 1 RT 1LT+TH 12/1 12/1 10.132 10.379 10.152 10.189 464 176 562 313 31 10.055 91 10.284 17.7 1 B 31.8 l*C 25 ftl 97 ftl MTM 2010am.for (125) GHC Tukwila Office 2 99181-60 SR 599 NB off-ramp/Interurban Ave 2010 Baseline Volumes - AM Peak Hour SIGNAL97/TEAPAC[Ver 1.01] - Display of Intersection Parameters 03/20/00 13:17:50 0 � 0 0 Key: VOLUMESWIDTHS > 0.0 I 0.0 0.0 I I v LANES OI 0I 0I I I I \ 0 0.0 0 / I \ /I\ -- 1255 24.0 2 0 0.0 0 / + / 0 0.0 0 North I 506 24.0 2 0 0.0 0 \ \ I / 585 I 0 I 280 I Phasing: SEQUENCE 11 12.0 I 0.0 112.0 I PERMSV NNNN 1 I O I 1 I OVERLP YYYY LEADLAG LD LD MTM 2010am.for (125) GHC Tukwila Office 2 99181-60 SR 599 NB off-ramp/Interurban Ave 2010 Baseline Volumes - AM Peak Hour SIGNAL97/TEAPAC[Ver 1.01] - Capacity Analysis Summary 03/20/00 13:17:55 Intersection Averages: Degree of Saturation (v/c) 0.77 Vehicle Delay 24.5 Level of Service C+ Sq 11 Phase 1 Phase 2 **/** North <* +> * + * + G/C=0.406 G/C=0.428 G= 24.3" G= 25.7" Y+R= 5.0" 1 Y+R= 5.0" OFF= 0.0% 1 OFF=48.9% C= 60 sec G= 50.0 sec = 83.3% Y=10.0 sec = 16.7% Ped= 0.0 sec = 0.0% Lane Width/1 g/C Group Lanes Reqd Used Service Rate Adj HCM @C (vph) @E Volume' v/c Delay L 190% Maxf S i Queue i NB Approach 25.0 C+ RT 1 12/1 10.238 10.406 1 571 LT 1 12/1 10.394 10.406 1 644 624 1 298 10.478 1 13.7 1 B+1 152 ftl 697 1 622 10.892 1 30.5 1*C 1 317 ftl WB Approach 29.1 C TH 1 24/2 10.415 10.428 1 1382 1 1417 1 1335 10.942 1 29.1 1*C 1 336 ft! EB Approach 12.0 B+ TH 24/2 10.193 10.428 1355 1391 538 10.387 12.0 B+1 137 ft) HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 3.1c TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL(TWSC) Analyst: MTM emw112am10.hcu Intersection: E Marginal Way S/S 112th Street Count Date: 2010 Baseline Volumes ime Period: AM Peak ANALYSIS Intersection Orientation: North-South Major St. ,Vehicle Volume Data: Movements: 1 2 5 6 10 12 Flume: 152 766 441 37 37 199 R: 167 842 485 41 41 219 PHF: 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 PHV: 0.10 0.10 0.20 0.20 0.13 0.13 1 Pedestrian Volume Data: 1ovements: Flow: Iane width: alk speed: Blockage: Median Type: None IIof vehicles: 0 lared approach Movements: # of vehicles: Eastbound 0 of vehicles: WestboundII 0 Lane usage for movements 1,2&3 approach: Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 L T R L T R L T R Y N N N Y N N N N channelized: N rade: 0.00 Lane 1 usage for movements 4,5&6 approach: Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 L T R L T R L T R N Y Y N N N N N N Iannelized: ade: N 0.00 Ia ne usage for movements 7,8&9 approach: Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 L T R L T R L T R N N N N N N N N N Ian1zeth ade: N 0.00 I ne usage for movements 10,11&12 approach: Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 L T R L T R L T R Y N Y N N N N 1annelized: N N N Grade: 0.00 'La for Computing Effect of Delay to Major Street Vehicles: Northbound Shared In volume, major th vehicles: 0 Shared In volume, major rt vehicles: 0 Sat flow rate, major th vehicles: 1700 Sat flow rate, major rt vehicles: 1700 Number of major street through lanes: 1 Length of study period, hrs: 0.25 Southbound 0 0 1700 1700 1 Worksheet 4 Critical Gap and Follow-up time calculation. Critical Gap Calculations: Movement 1 10 12 t c,base t c,hv P hv t c,g G t 3,1t t c,T: 1 stage t c 1 stage 4.1 1.0 0.10 0.00 0.0 7.1 1.0 0.13 0.2 0.00 0.7 6.2 1.0 0.13 0.1 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.2 6.5 6.3 Follow Up Time Calculations: Movement 1 10 12 t f,base t f,HV P hv t f 2.2 0.9 0.10 2.3 3.5 0.9 0.13 3.6 3.3 0.9 0.13 3.4 Worksheet 6 Impedance and capacity equations Step 1: RT from Minor St. 9 12 Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Movement Capacity Probability of Queue free St. 505 546 1.00 546 0.60 Step 2: LT from Major St. 4 1 Conflicting Flows 525 Potential Capacity 1002 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 Movement Capacity 1002 Probability of Queue free St. 0.83 Step 4: LT from Minor St. 7 10 Conflicting Flows 1681 Potential Capacity 98 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 Maj. L, Min T Impedance factor 0.83 Maj. L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor. 0.87 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.87 Movement Capacity 85 Worksheet 8 Shared Lane Calculations Shared Lane Calculations Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 v(vph) Movement Capacity Shared Lane Capacity 85 295 219 546 Worksheet 10 delay,queue length, and LOS Ifovement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 II 11(vph) 167 259 m(vph) 1002 295 /c 0.17 0.88 95% queue length ontrol Delay 9.3 64.3 OS A F pproach Delay 64.3 pproach LOS F HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 3.1c TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL(TWSC) ANALYSIS Analyst: MTM emw120am10.hcu Intersection: E Marginal Way S/S 120th Street Count Date: 2010 Baseline Volumes Time Period: AM Peak Intersection Orientation: North-South Major St. ' Vehicle Volume Data: Movements: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 IIVolume: 19 282 10 90 180 9 7 4 3 40 1 18 HFR: 20 303 11 97 194 10 8 4 3 43 1 19 PHF: 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 PHV: 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.13 0.13 0.13 IShared ln Shared In Sat flow Sat flow IINumber of volume, major th vehicles: volume, major rt vehicles: rate, major th vehicles: rate, major rt vehicles: major street through lanes: Northbound 282 10 1700 1700 1 Length of study period, hrs: 0.25 Worksheet 4 Critical Gap and Follow-up time calculation. Critical ovement t t t c, base c,hv hv c,g t 3,1t IIt c,T: 1 stage t c 1 stage Gap Calculations: 1 4 7 Southbound 0 0 1700 1700 1 8 9 10 11 12 "Follow Up ovement 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.12 0.24 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.2 4.3 7.3 6.7 6.4 7.2 6.6 6.3 Time Calculations: 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 t f,base f,HV hv f 2.2 0.9 0.12 2.3 2.2 0.9 0.24 2.4 3.5 0.9 0.20 3.7 4.0 0.9 0.20 4.2 3.3 0.9 0.20 3.5 3.5 0.9 0.13 3.6 4.0 0.9 0.13 4.1 3.3 0.9 0.13 3.4 1orksheet 6 Impedance and capacity equations tep 1: RT from Minor St. 9 12 onflicting Flows otential Capacity edestrian Impedance Factor Movement Capacity Probability of Queue free St. Itep 2: LT from Major St. 309 691 1.00 691 1.00 198 815 1.00 815 0.98 4 1 Conflicting Flows Iotential Capacity edestrian Impedance Factor ovement Capacity Probability of Queue free St. aj. L Shared ln. Prob. Queue Free St. 314 1132 1.00 1132 0.91 0.91 203 1311 1.00 1311 0.98 0.98 Step 3: TH from Minor St. 8 11 Ionflicting Flows otential Capacity edestrian Impedance Factor Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity lirobability of Queue free St. Step 4: LT from Minor St. onflicting Flows otential Capacity edestrian Impedance Factor Maj. L, Min T Impedance factor IIaj. L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor. ap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt ovement Capacity 746 321 1.00 0.90 288 0.99 747 329 1.00 0.90 295 1.00 7 10 752 305 1.00 0.89 0.92 0.90 274 745 317 1.00 0.88 0.91 0.91 287 IIorksheet 8 Shared Lane Calculations Shared Lane Calculations IIovement 7 8 9 10 11 12 I III 1 HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 3.1c TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL(TWSC) ANALYSIS linalyst: MTM EM124am10.hcu ntersection: East Marginal Way/S 124th Street ount Date: 2010 Baseline Volumes ime Period: AM Peak Intersection Orientation: North-South Major St. ehicle Volume Data: Movements: 1 2 5 6 10 12 Iolume: 80 291 152 102 12 9 FR: 89 323 169 113 13 10 PHF: 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 lHV: 0.04 0.04 0.08 0.08 0.14 0.14 Pedestrian Volume Data: Iovements: Flow: ane width: alk speed: Blockage: edian Type: None 11 of vehicles: 0 1 lared approach Movements: of vehicles: Eastbound 0 of vehicles: Westbound 0 Lane usage for movements 1,2&3 approach: Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 L T R L T R L T R Y Y N N N N N N N Ihannelized: N rade: 0.00 lane usage for movements 4,5&6 approach: Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 L T R L T R L T R N Y Y N N N N N N channelized: N rade: 0.00 'lane usage for movements 7,8&9 approach: Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 L T R L T R L T R 1 hannelized: N rade: 0.00 N N N N N N N N N Lane usage for movements 10,11&12 approach: Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 L T R L T R L T R Ihannelized: N Grade: 0.00 Y N Y N N N N N N 11ata for Computing Effect of Delay to Major Street Vehicles: Northbound Southbound Shared In volume, major th vehicles: 291 0 Shared In volume, major rt vehicles: 0 0 Sat flow rate, major th vehicles: 1700 1700 Sat flow rate, major rt vehicles: 1700 1700 Number of major street through lanes: 1 1 Length of study period, hrs: 0.25 Worksheet 4 Critical Gap and Follow-up time calculation. Critical Gap Calculations: Movement 1 10 12 t c,base 4.1 7.1 6.2 t c,hv 1.0 1.0 1.0 P hv 0.04 0.14 0.14 t c,g 0.2 0.1 G 0.00 0.00 0.00 t 3,1t 0.0 0.7 0.0 t c,T: 1 stage 0.00 0.00 0.00 t c 1 stage 4.1 6.5 6.3 Follow Up Time Calculations: Movement 1 10 12 t f,base t f,HV P hv t f 2.2 0.9 0.04 2.2 3.5 0.9 0.14 3.6 3.3 0.9 0.14 3.4 Worksheet 6 Impedance and capacity equations Step 1: RT from Minor St. 9 12 Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Movement Capacity Probability of Queue free St. 226 785 1.00 785 0.99 Step 2: LT from Major St. 4 1 Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Movement Capacity Probability of Queue free St. Maj. L Shared ln. Prob. Queue Free St. 282 1269 1.00 1269 0.93 0.92 Step 4: LT from Minor St. 7 10 Conflicting Flows 727 Potential Capacity 374 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 Maj. L, Min T Impedance factor 0.92 Maj. L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor. 0.94 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.94 Movement Capacity 350 Worksheet 8 Shared Lane Calculations Shared Lane Calculations Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 v(vph) Movement Capacity Shared Lane Capacity 350 459 10 785 Worksheet 10 delay,queue length, and LOS IIMovement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Ivvph ) 89 C m(vph) 1269 v/c 0.07 li95% queue length Control Delay 8.1 LOS A Approach Delay Approach LOS 1 11 23 459 0.05 13.3 B 13.3 B Worksheet 11 Shared Major LT Impedance and Delay Rank 1 Delay Calculations ovement 2 5 if oj 0.93 1.00 it 291 0 i2 0 0 S it 1700 1700 S i2 1700 1700 IF*°j 0.92 1.00 maj left 8.1 0.0 number major st lanes 1 1 Delay, rank 1 mvmts 0.7 0.0 HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 3.1c ALL -WAY STOP CONTROL(AWSC) ANALYSIS Worksheet 1 - Basic Intersection Information 1. Analyst: MTM EM130am10.hcu 2. Intersection: East Marginal Way/S 130th Street 3. Count Date: 2000 Baseline Volumes 4. Time Period: AM Peak Worksheet 2 - Volume Adjustments and Site Characteristics 1. LT Volume: 2. TH Volume: 3. RT Volume: 4. Peak Hour Factor: 5. Flow Rate LT: 6. Flow Rate TH: 7. Flow Rate RT: 8. Flow Rate Total: 9. Prop. Heavy Vehicle: 10. Subject Approach 11. Opposing Approach 12. Conflicting Approach 13. Geometry Group 14. T (Time in Hours): North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound L1 Ll Ll Ll 15 0 152 15 253 82 80 53 31 19 62 10 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 17 0 180 17 301 97 95 63 36 22 73 11 355 120 350 92 0.02 0.23 0.01 0.02 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.250 Worksheet 3 - Saturation Headway Adjustment Worksheet North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound L1 L1 Ll L1 1. Flow Rate Total: 355 120 350 92 2. Flow Rate LT: 17 0 180 17 3. Flow Rate RT: 36 22 73 11 4. Prop LT in lane: 0.05 0.00 0.52 0.19 5. Prop RT in lane: 0.10 0.19 0.21 0.13 6. Prop. Heavy Vehicle: 0.02 0.23 0.01 0.02 7. Geometry Group 1 1 1 1 8. hLT-adj by Table 10-18 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 9. hRT-adj by Table 10-18 -0.60 -0.60 -0.60 -0.60 10. hHV-adj Table 10-18 1.70 1.70 1.70 1.70 11. hadj -0.02 0.28 -0.01 -0.00 Worksheet 4 - Departure Headway and Service Time 1. Total lane flow rate 2. hd, initial value 3. x, initial 4. hd, final value 5. x, final value 6. Move -up time, m 7. Service Time North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound L1 Ll L1 L1 355 120 350 92 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 0.32 0.11 0.31 0.08 5.3 5.9 5.3 5.7 0.52 0.20 0.52 0.15 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.3 3.9 3.3 3.7 Worksheet 5 - Capacity and Level of Service North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound L1 L1 L1 L1 1. Total lane flow rate 355 120 350 92 2. Service Time 3.3 3.9 3.3 3.7 3. Degree Utilization, x 0.52 0.20 0.52 0.15 4. Departure headway, hd 5.3 5.9 5.3 5.7 5. Capacity 658 567 652 577 6. Delay 13.8 10.3 13.8 9.7 7. Level Of Service B B B A 8. Delay Approach 13.8 10.3 13.8 9.7 9. LOS, approach B B B A 10. Delay, Intersection 12.9 11. LOS, Intersection B HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 3.1c TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL(TWSC) ANALYSIS talyst: MTM 599133am10.hcu tersection: S 133rd Street/SR 599 On&Off-Ramps unt Date: 2010 Baseline Volumes me Period: AM Peak tersection Orientation: East-West Major St. hicle Volume Data: Movements: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 glume: 56 111 18 139 185 283 0 18 61 298 40 24 R: 60 119 19 149 199 304 0 19 66 320 43 26 PHF: 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 117: 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.06 0.06 0.06 Pedestrian Volume Data: 'ovements: Flow: ne width: alk speed: Blockage: iledian Type: None of vehicles: 0 lared approach Movements: 11 of vehicles: Northbound 0 of vehicles: Southbound 2 Lane usage for movements 1,2&3 approach: Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 L T R L T R L T R Y N N N Y Y N N N hannelized: N rade: 0.00 lane usage for movements 4,5&6 approach: Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 L T R L T R L T R Y N N N Y N N N Y IYhannelized: rade: 0.00 Lane usage for movements 7,8&9 approach: Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 L T R L T R L T R 11 hannelized: N rade: 0.00 Y Y Y N N N N N N I ane usage for movements 10,11&12 approach: Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 L T R L T R L T R Y Y Y N N N N N N hannelized: N Grade: 0.00 ata for Computing Effect of Delay to Major Street Vehicles: Eastbound Westbound Shared ln volume, major th vehicles: 0 0 Shared ln volume, major rt vehicles: 0 0 Sat flow rate, major th vehicles: 1700 1700 Sat flow rate, major rt vehicles: 1700 1700 Number of major street through lanes: 1 1 Length of study period, hrs: 0.25 Worksheet 4 Critical Gap and Follow-up time calculation. Critical Gap Calculations: Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 t c,base 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 t c,hv 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 P hv 0.13 0.14 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.06 0.06 0.06 t c,g 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 G 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 t 3,1t 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 t c,T: 1 stage 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 t c 1 stage 4.2 4.2 7.3 6.8 6.5 7.2 6.6 6.3 Follow Up Time Calculations: Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 t f,base t f,HV P hv t f 2.2 0.9 0.13 2.3 2.2 0.9 0.14 2.3 3.5 0.9 0.25 3.7 4.0 0.9 0.25 4.2 3.3 0.9 0.25 3.5 3.5 0.9 0.06 3.6 4.0 0.9 0.06 4.1 3.3 0.9 0.06 3.4 Worksheet 6 Impedance and capacity equations Step 1: RT from Minor St. 9 12 Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Movement Capacity Probability of Queue free St. 129 863 1.00 863 0.92 199 832 1.00 832 0.97 Step 2: LT from Major St. 4 1 Conflicting Flows 139 199 Potential Capacity 1374 1310 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Movement Capacity 1374 1310 Probability of Queue free St. 0.89 0.95 Step 3: TH from Minor St. 8 11 Conflicting Flows 747 757 Potential Capacity 315 332 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.85 0.85 Movement Capacity 268 282 Probability of Queue free St. 0.93 0.85 Step 4: LT from Minor St. 7 10 Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Maj. L, Min T Impedance factor Maj. L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor. Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity 934 224 1.00 0.72 0.78 0.76 170 790 303 1.00 0.79 0.84 0.77 235 Worksheet 8 Shared Lane Calculations Shared Lane Calculations Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 II ii 1 v(vph) 0 19 66 320 43 26 Movement Capacity 170 268 863 235 282 832 (Shared Lane Capacity 573 251 Worksheet 9 -Computation of effect of flared minor street approaches IIMovement 7 8 9 10 11 12 C sep 170 268 863 235 282 832 Volume 0 19 66 320 43 26 Delay 26.2 19.5 9.5 229.9 20.0 9.5 Q sep 0.00 0.10 0.17 20.46 0.24 0.07 Q sep +1 1.00 1.10 1.17 21.46 1.24 1.07 round (Qsep +1) 1 1 1 21 1 1 max 1 21 C sh 573 251 UM C sep 1301 1349 n 0 2 'C act 573 356 orksheet 10 delay,queue length, and LOS ovement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 1 1 1 11 11 1 Ily(vph) 60 149 85 389 C m(vph) 1310 1374 573 356 v/c 0.05 0.11 0.15 1.09 I5% queue length ontrol Delay 7.9 7.9 12.4 109.9 OS A A B F Approach Delay 12.4 109.9 tPProach LOS B F HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 3.1c TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL(TWSC) ANALYSIS Analyst: MTM int5nbam10.hcu Intersection: Interurban Avenue S/I-5 NB On -Ramp Count Date: 2010 Baseline Volumes Time Period: AM Peak Intersection Orientation: East-West Major St. Vehicle Volume Data: Movements: 1 2 5 6 Volume: 137 HFR: 157 PHF: 0.87 PHV: 0.13 777 893 0.87 0.13 1134 1303 0.87 0.14 546 628 0.87 0.14 Pedestrian Volume Data: Movements: Flow: Lane width: Walk speed: % Blockage: Median Type: # of vehicles: Flared approach None 0 Movements: # of vehicles: Northbound # of vehicles: Southbound 0 0 Lane usage for movements 1,2&3 approach: Lane 1 Lane 2 L T R L T Lane 3 R L T R Y N N Channelized: Grade: N 0.00 N Y Lane usage for movements 4,5&6 approach: Lane 1 Lane 2 L T R L T N N Y N Lane 3 R L T R N Y N Channelized: Grade: Y 0.00 N Y Lane usage for movements 7,8&9 approach: Lane 1 Lane 2 L T R L T N N N Y Lane 3 R L T R N N N Channelized: Grade: N 0.00 N N Lane usage for movements 10,11&12 approach: Lane 1 Lane 2 L T R L T N N N N Lane 3 R L T R N N N Channelized: Grade: N 0.00 N N N N Data for Computing Effect of Delay to Major Street Vehicles: N N Eastbound Westbound hared In volume, major th vehicles: 0 0 hared In volume, major rt vehicles: 0 0 Sat flow rate, major th vehicles: 1700 1700 at flow rate, major rt vehicles:II 1700 1700 umber of major street through lanes: 2 2 Length of study period, hrs: 0.25 1 Worksheet 4 Critical Gap and Follow-up time calculation. Iritical Gap Calculations: ovement 1 t c,base 4.1 IIc,hv 2.0 by 0.13 c,g t 0.00 t 3,1t 0.0 il c,T: 1 stage 0.00 t c 1 stage 4.4 IIollow Up Time Calculations: ovement 1 f,base 2.2 f,HV 1.0 by 0.13 t f 2.3 Iorksheet 6 Impedance and capacity equations Step 2: LT from Major St. 4 1 conflicting Flows 1303 otential Capacity 472 edestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 Movement Capacity 472 IIof Queue free St. 0.67 Worksheet 10 delay,queue length, and LOS 111 ovement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 II[(vph) 157 m(vph) 472 v/c 0.33 95% queue length ontrol Delay 16.4 OS C pproach Delay Approach LOS MTM 2010pm.for (1) GHC Tukwila Office 2 99181-60 Interurban Ave/Pacific Highway S/S Boeing Access Rd 2010 Baseline Volumes - PM Peak Hour SIGNAL97/TEAPAC[Ver 1.01] - Display of Intersection Parameters 928 24.0 2 / 258 24.0 2 / 588 24.0 2 1 0.0 0 \ 03/20/00 11:37:54 11 1 Key: VOLUMES -- > 484 866 II 1 WIDTHS 12.0 1 24.0 �� 1 v LANES 1 1 2 11 11 \ 400 12.0 1 1 \ /1\ -- 1304 24.0 2 1 1 + / 371 12.0 1 North 1 \ 1 / 0 191 286 Phasing: SEQUENCE 27 0.0 1 24.0 1 12.0 1 PERMSV NNNN 0 1 2 1 1 1 OVERLP YYYY LEADLAG LD LD MTM 2010pm.for (1) GHC Tukwila Office 2 99181-60 Interurban Ave/Pacific Highway S/S Boeing Access Rd 2010 Baseline Volumes - PM Peak Hour SIGNAL97/TEAPAC[Ver 1.01] - Capacity Analysis Summary Intersection Averages: Degree of Saturation 03/20/00 11:37:46 (v/c) 0.92 Vehicle Delay 90.3 Level of Service F Sq 27 I Phase 1 I Phase 2 I Phase 3 I Phase 4 _\ North <+ v A * * * +> v G/C=0.226 G/C=0.115 G= 27.1" G= 13.8" Y+R= 5.0" Y+R= 5.0" OFF= 0.0% OFF=26.8% G/C=0.336 G= 40.4" Y+R= 5.0" OFF=42.4% G/C=0.156 G= 18.8" Y+R= 5.0" OFF=80.2% C=120 sec G=100.0 sec = 83.3% Y=20.0 sec = 16.7% Ped= 0.0 sec = 0.0% I Lane Width/I g/C I Service Rate' Adj I I HCM I L 190% Max' I Group I Lanes' Reqd Used I @C (vph) @E 'Volume' v/c I Delay I S I Queue I SB Approach 71.0 E RT TH LT 124/2 10.433 10.580 11510 11601 I 987 10.616 I 17.2 I B 1351 ftl 112/1 10.386 10.382 I 505 I 705 I 515 10.730 I 35.7 I D+I 540 ftl 124/2 10.369 10.226 I 1 I 768 I 921 11.199 1148.5 I*F 1605 ftl NB Approach 32.1 C RT TH 112/1 10.331 10.493 I 653 I 773 I 304 10.393 I 19.5 I B 1262 ftl 124/2 10.260 10.115 I 1 I 373 I 203 10.505 I 51.0 l*D 1152 ftl WB Approach 116.0 F TH LT 124/2 10.461 10.336 I 746 11156 11387 11.200 1138.3 I*F 1790 ftl 112/1 10.354 10.336 I 350 I 578 I 395 10.683 I 37.6 I D+I 450 ftl EB Approach 124.1 F TH+RTI 24/2 10.320 10.156 I 1 I 503 I 627 11.199 1157.5 l*F 1462 ftl LT 124/2 10.271 10.156 I 1 I 487 I 274 10.540 I 47.8 I D 1202 ftl MTM 2010pm.for (311) GHC Tukwila Office 2 99181-60 Pacific Highway S/S 112th Street 2010 Baseline Volumes - PM Peak Hour SIGNAL97/TEAPAC[Ver 1.01] - Display of Intersection Parameters 03/20/00 11:43:07 1 11 1 Key: VOLUMES -- > 44 11788 I 30 II 1 I WIDTHS 0.0 124.0 112.0 II 1 v LANES 0I 2 1 1 I I 11 \ 9 0.0 0 / 1 \ /I\ -- 9 12.0 1 I 346 12.0 1 / + / 1 12.0 1 North I 99 12.0 1 229 0.0 0 \ I 64 736 47 Phasing: SEQUENCE 61 12.0 24.0 12.0 I PERMSV YNYN 1 2 1 OVERLP YYYY LEADLAG LD LD MTM 2010pm.for (311) GHC Tukwila Office 2 99181-60 Pacific Highway S/S 112th Street 2010 Baseline Volumes - PM Peak Hour SIGNAL97/TEAPAC[Ver 1.01] - Capacity Analysis Intersection Averages: Degree of Saturation (v/c) Summary 03/20/00 11:42:58 0.79 Vehicle Delay 41.0 Level of Service D+ Sq 61 I Phase 1 I Phase 2 I Phase 3 I Phase 4 **/** 11' +> North <* A <+ + +> + + + + + + * * <* * * * v +> A <+ + +> + + + + + + A **** G/C=0.042 G= 5.1" Y+R= 5.0" OFF= 0.0% G/C=0.000 G= 0.0" Y+R= 0.0" OFF= 8.4% G/C=0.532 G= 63.9" Y+R= 5.0" OFF= 8.4% G/C=0.301 G= 36.1" Y+R= 5.0" OFF=65.8% C=120 sec G=105.0 sec = 87.5% Y=15.0 sec = 12.5% Ped= 0.0 sec = 0.0% Lane Width/I g/C I Service Rate' Adj I I HCM I L 190% Maxi I Group I Lanes' Reqd Used I @C (vph) @E 'Volume' v/c I Delay I S I Queue I SB Approach 49.6 D I TH+RTI 24/2 10.564 10.532 11748 11877 11888 11.006 I 50.3 I*D 1745 ftl I LT ( 12/1 10.000 10.042 I 310 I 373 I 31 10.083 I 11.7 I B+I 25 ftl NB Approach 17.6 B RT TH LT 112/1 10.249 10.532 I 748 I 851 I 48 10.056 I 13.6 I B+I 38 ftl 124/2 10.333 10.532 11773 11902 I 759 10.399 I 16.8 I B 1298 ftl 112/1 10.029 10.042 I 85 I 126 I 66 10.475 I 29.9 I*C I 60 ftl WB Approach 29.7 C I TH+RTI 12/1 10.242 10.301 I 210 I 437 I 18 10.041 I 29.8 I C I 25 ftl I LT 112/1 10.237 10.301 I 65 I 143 I 1 10.006 I 29.4 I C I 25 ftl EB Approach 46.6 D I TH+RTI 12/1 10.333 10.301 I 245 I 508 I 338 10.661 I 39.8 I D+I 394 ftl I LT 112/1 10.373 10.301 I 201 I 418 I 357 10.838 I 53.0 I*D 1416 ftl MTM 2010pm.for (63) GHC Tukwila Office 2 99181-60 Interurban Ave/East Marginal Way S 2010 Baseline Volumes - PM Peak Hour SIGNAL97/TEAPAC[Ver 1.01] - Display of Intersection Parameters 409 693 I 0 12.0 12.0 I 0.0 1 1 1 0 03/20/00 11:38:53 Rey: VOLUMES -- > WIDTHS v LANES II \ 0 0.0 0 / I \ /I\ 0 0.0 0 252 12.0 1 + / 0 0.0 0 North 0 0.0 0 28 12.0 1 33 136 0 I Phasing: SEQUENCE 31 12.0 12.0 0.0 I PERMSV NNYN 1 I 1 0 I OVERLP YYYY LEADLAG LD LD MTM 2010pm.for (63) GHC Tukwila Office 2 99181-60 Interurban Ave/East Marginal Way S 2010 Baseline Volumes - PM Peak Hour SIGNAL97/TEAPAC[Ver 1.01] - Capacity Analysis Summary 03/20/00 11:38:45 Intersection Averages: Degree of Saturation (v/c) 0.67 Vehicle Delay 22.2 Level of Service C+ Sq 31 **/** /1\ North Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 <+ A <* + ++++ * + v * + v G/C=0.084 G/C=0.459 G/C=0.207 G= 5.0" G= 27.5" G= 12.4" Y+R= 5.0" Y+R= 5.0" Y+R= 5.0" OFF= 0.0% OFF=16.7% OFF=70.9% C= 60 sec G= 45.0 sec = 75.0% Y=15.0 sec = 25.0% Ped= 0.0 sec = 0.0% Lane (Width/1 g/C I Service Rate' Adj 1 1 HCM I L 190% Maxi 1 Group 1 Lanes' Reqd Used 1 @C (vph) @E IVolumel v/c 1 Delay 1 S 1 Queue 1 SB Approach 22.2 C+ RT 1 12/1 10.338 10.749 1 1153 1 1153 1 460 10.399 1 2.9 1 A 1 99 ft1 TH 1 12/1 10.455 10.459 1 786 1 830 1 779 10.939 1 33.5 1*C 1 362 ftl NB Approach 5.7 A TH 1 12/1 10.131 10.626 1 10181034 1 153 10.148 1 4.7 1 A 1 52 fti LT 1 12/1 10.000 10.084 1 214 I 252 1 37 10.147 1 9.9 I*A 1 25 ftl EB Approach 32.2 C 1 RT 1 12/1 10.040 10.375 1 519 1 576 1 31 10.054 1 12.0 1 B+I 25 ft) 1 LT 1 12/1 10.206 10.207 1 286 1 356 1 283 10.795 1 34.4 i*C 1 193 ftl MTM 2010pm.for (249) GHC Tukwila Office 2 99181-60 Pacific Highway S/S 130th Street 2010 Baseline Volumes - PM Peak Hour SIGNAL97/TEAPAC[Ver 1.01] - Display of Intersection Parameters 03/20/00 11:42:06 I IKey: VOLUMES -- > 0 11192 I 38 �I WIDTHS 0.0 124.0 112.0 II 1 v LANES 0I 2 111 I I II \ 42 0.0 0 / I \ /\ 0 12.0 1 0 0.0 0 / + / 206 0.0 0 North 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 \ \ I / 0 620 7 Phasing: SEQUENCE 11 0.0 24.0 I 0.0 I PERMSV NNNN 0 I 2 I 0 I OVERLP YYYY LEADLAG LD LD MTM 2010pm.for (249) GHC Tukwila Office 2 99181-60 Pacific Highway S/S 130th Street 2010 Baseline Volumes - PM Peak Hour SIGNAL97/TEAPAC[Ver 1.01] - Capacity Analysis Summary 03/20/00 11:42:01 Intersection Averages: Degree of Saturation (v/c) 0.54 Vehicle Delay 9.2 Level of Service A Sq 11 I Phase 1 ' Phase 2 I **/** /I\ North * * * v +> G/C=0.588 G/C=0.246 G= 35.3" G= 14.7" Y+R= 5.0" 1 Y+R= 5.0" OFF= 0.0% I OFF=67.1% C= 60 sec G= 50.0 sec = 83.3% Y=10.0 sec = 16.7% Ped= 0.0 sec = 0.0% I Lane IWidth/I g/C I Service Rate' Adj I I HCM I L I90% Maxi I Group I Lanes' Reqd Used I @C (vph) @E 'Volume' v/c I Delay I S I Queue I SB Approach 8.9 A TH 124/2 10.394 10.588 12060 12060 11339 10.650 I 9.0 l*A 1234 ftl LT 112/1 10.000 10.588 I 363 I 399 I 43 10.108 I 5.6 I A I 25 ftl NB Approach 6.5 A I TH+RTI 24/2 10.228 10.588 12036 12036 I 705 10.346 I 6.5 I A 1124 ftl WB Approach 17.6 B ILT+TH+RTI 12/1 10.221 10.329 454 516 278 (0.539 17.6 I*B 157 ft' MTM 2010pm.for (187) GHC Tukwila Office 2 99181-60 Interurban Avenue/S 133rd Street/Gateway Drive 2010 Baseline Volumes - PM Peak Hour SIGNAL97/TEAPAC[Ver 1.01] - Display of Intersection Parameters 03/20/00 11:40:28 376 616 I 0 I I Key: VOLUMES-- > I WIDTHS 12.0 24.0 0.0 � v LANES 1 2 0 11 \ 83 0.0 0 / 1 \ /1\ 295 24.0 2 1 141 0.0 0 / + / 306 0.0 0 North 1 67 12.0 1 335 12.0 1 \ \ 1 / 292 901 265 Phasing: SEQUENCE 37 24.0 24.0 0.0 I PERMSV NNNN 2 I 2 0 I OVERLP YYYY LEADLAG LD LD MTM 2010pm.for (187) GHC Tukwila Office 2 99181-60 Interurban Avenue/S 133rd Street/Gateway Drive 2010 Baseline Volumes - PM Peak Hour SIGNAL97/TEAPAC[Ver 1.01] - Capacity Analysis Summary 03/20/00 11:40:20 Intersection Averages: Degree of Saturation (v/c) 0.89 Vehicle Delay 49.2 Level of Service D Sq 37 /1\ 1 North 1 1 Phase 1 Phase 2 A <* + +> ++++ * + + v * + + Phase 3 Phase 4 v G/C=0.103 ' G/C=0.274 G/C=0.215 G/C=0.185 G= 9.3" G= 24.7" G= 19.4" G= 16.7" Y+R= 5.0" 1 Y+R= 5.0" Y+R= 5.0" Y+R= 5.0" OFF= 0.0% OFF=15.8% OFF=48.8% OFF=75.9% C= 90 sec G= 70.0 sec = 77.8% Y=20.0 sec = 22.2% Ped= 0.0 sec = 0.0% 1 Lane Width/1 g/C 1 Service Rate' Adj 1 1 HCM I L 190% Maxi 1 Group 1 Lanes' Reqd Used 1 @C (vph) @E 'Volume' v/c 1 Delay 1 S 1 Queue 1 SB Approach 49.2 D RT 1 12/1 10.345 10.274 1 291 1 410 1 409 10.998 1 76.4 1*E 1 389 ftl TH 1 24/2 10.261 10.274 1 725 1 917 1 670 10.731 1 32.6 1 C 1 318 ftl NB Approach 41.5 D+ TH+RTI 24/2 10.425 10.433 1 1295 1 1397 1 1267 10.907 1 32.7 1 C 1 471 ftl LT 1 24/2 10.177 10.103 1 1 1 322 1 317 10.952 1 76.9 I*E 1 186 ftl WB Approach 76.0 E ILT+TH+RTI 24/2 10.278 10.215 1 491 1 724 1 744 11.028 1 76.0 l*E 1 372 ftl EB Approach 35.9 D+ 1 RT 1 12/1 10.325 10.344 1 396 1 500 1 364 10.728 1 31.2 1 C 1 318 ftl ILT+TH 1 12/1 10.220 10.185 1 165 1 299 1 226 10.736 1 43.5 I*D+1 245 ftl MTM 2010pm.for (125) GHC Tukwila Office 2 99181-60 03/20/00 SR 599 NB off-ramp/Interurban Ave 11:39:39 MTM 2010pm.for (125) GHC Tukwila Office 2 99181-60 SR 599 NB off-ramp/Interurban Ave 2010 Baseline Volumes - PM Peak Hour SIGNAL97/TEAPAC[Ver 1.01] - Capacity Analysis Summary 03/20/00 11:39:31 Intersection Averages: Degree of Saturation (v/c) 0.67 Vehicle Delay 13.3 Level of Service B+ Sq 11 1 Phase 1 1 Phase 2 /I\ North <++++ +> G/C=0.319 G/C=0.514 G= 19.1" G= 30.9" Y+R= 5.0" Y+R= 5.0" OFF= 0.0% OFF=40.2% C= 60 sec G= 50.0 sec = 83.3% Y=10.0 sec = 16.7% Ped= 0.0 sec = 0.0% Lane (Width/1 g/C 1 Service Rate' Adj 1 I HCM I L 190% Max' I Group I Lanes' Reqd Used 1 @C (vph) @E 'Volume' v/c 1 Delay 1 S I Queue 1 NB Approach 18.6 B I RT 1 12/1 10.108 10.319 1 406 1 468 1 104 10.222 1 15.2 I B 1 63 ftl 1 LT 1 12/1 10.241 10.319 1 460 1 523 1 327 10.625 1 19.7 I*B 1 197 ftl WB Approach 11.8 B+ 1 TH 1 24/2 10.360 10.514 1 1745 1 1752 1 1170 10.668 1 11.8 1 B+1 245 ftl EB Approach 12.9 B+ 1 TH 1 24/2 10.389 10.514 1 1745 1 1752 1 1277 10.729 1 12.9 I*B+I 268 ftl HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 3.1c TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL(TWSC) ANALYSIS Analyst: MTM emw112pm10.hcu Intersection: E Marginal Way S/S 112th Street Count Date: 2010 Baseline Volumes Time Period: PM Peak Intersection Orientation: North-South Major St. Vehicle Volume Data: Movements: 1 2 5 6 10 12 Volume: 122 531 806 73 30 195 HFR: 131 571 867 78 32 210 PHF: 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 PHV: 0.10 0.10 0.05 0.05 0.02 0.02 Pedestrian Volume Data: Movements: Flow: Lane width: Walk speed: % Blockage: Median Type: None # of vehicles: 0 Flared approach Movements: # of vehicles: Eastbound 0 # of vehicles: Westbound 0 Lane usage for movements 1,2&3 approach: Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 L T R L T R L T R Y N N N Y N N N N Channelized: N Grade: 0.00 Lane usage for movements 4,5&6 approach: Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 L T R L T R L T R N Y Y N N N N N N Channelized: N Grade: 0.00 Lane usage for movements 7,8&9 approach: Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 L T R L T R L T R N N N N N N N N N Channelized: N Grade: 0.00 Lane usage for movements 10,11&12 approach: Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 L T R L T R L T R Y N Y N N N N N N Channelized: N Grade: 0.00 Data for Computing Effect of Delay to Major Street Vehicles: Northbound Southbound hared In volume, major th vehicles: 0 0 hared In volume, major rt vehicles: 0 0 Sat flow rate, major th vehicles: 1700 1700 Sat flow rate, major rt vehicles: 1700 1700 umber of major street through lanes: 1It 1 Length of study period, hrs: 0.25 1 Worksheet 4 Critical Gap and Follow-up time calculation. liritical Gap Calculations: ovement 1 10 12 t c,base 4.1 7.1 6.2 •t c,hv 1.0 1.0 1.0 it hv 0.10 0.02 0.02 c,g 0.2 0.1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.7 0.0 t 3,1t IFc,T: stage 0.00 0.00 0.00 t c 1 stage 4.2 6.4 6.2 It ollow Up Time Calculations: ovement 1 10 12 f,base 2.2 3.5 3.3 f,HV 0.9 0.9 0.9 hv 0.10 0.02 0.02 f 2.3 3.5 3.3 IITorksheet 6 Impedance and capacity equations Step 1: RT from Minor St. 9 12 Ionflicting Flows otential Capacity edestrian Impedance Factor Movement Capacity Probability of Queue free St. Itep 2: LT from Major St. 906 335 1.00 335 0.37 4 1 onflicting Flows11 945 otential Capacity 694 edestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 ovement Capacity 694 Probability of Queue free St. 0.81 11tep 4: LT from Minor St. 7 10 Conflicting Flows 1739 otential Capacity 96 edestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 aj. L, Min T Impedance factor 0.81 Maj. L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor. 0.85 ap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmntII 0.85 ovement Capacity 82 Iorksheet 8 Shared Lane Calculations hared Lane Calculations Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 II I I I II v(vph) 32 ovement Capacity11 82 hared Lane Capacity 237 Worksheet 10 delay,queue length, and LOS 210 335 Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 v(vph) 131 242 C m(vph) 694 237 v/c 0.19 1.02 95% queue length Control Delay 11.4 108.6 LOS B F Approach Delay Approach LOS 108.6 F HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 3.1c TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL(TWSC) ANALYSIS Analyst: 185 i ntersection: E Marginal Way S/S 120th Street cunt Date: 2010 Baseline Volumes ime Period: PM Peak intersection Orientation: North-South Major St. ehicle Volume Data: Movements: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Iolume: 9 185 1 12 349 19 3 1 41 28 0 53 FR: 11 234 1 15 442 24 4 1 52 35 0 67 PHF: 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 PHV: 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.09 0.09 0.09 1 Pedestrian Volume Data: lovements: Flow: ane width: Ire speed: Blockage: Median Type: None 11 of vehicles: 0 lared approach Movements: of vehicles: Eastbound of vehicles: Westbound Lane 1 0 0 usage for movements 1,2&3 approach: Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 L T R L T R L T R Y Y Y N N N N N N Iannelized: ade: N 0.00 Lane ne usage for movements 4,5&6 approach: Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 L T R L T R L T R Y N N N Y Y N N N aannelized:N ade: 0.00 lane usage for movements 7,8&9 approach: Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 L T R L T R L T R It annelized: ade: Y Y Y N N N N N N N 0.00 I ne usage for movements 10,11&12 approach: Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 L T R L T R L T R IlLannelized: N Grade: 0.00 Y Y Y N N N N N N Ilata for Computing Effect of Delay to Major Street Vehicles: Northbound Southbound Shared In volume, major th vehicles: 185 0 Shared In volume, major rt vehicles: 1 0 Sat flow rate, major th vehicles: 1700 1700 Sat flow rate, major rt vehicles: 1700 1700 Number of major street through lanes: 1 1 Length of study period, hrs: 0.25 Worksheet 4 Critical Gap and Follow-up time calculation. Critical Gap Calculations: Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 t c,base 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 t c,hv 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 P hv 0.07 0.09 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.09 0.09 0.09 t c,g 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 G 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 t 3,1t 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 t c,T: 1 stage 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 t c 1 stage 4.2 4.2 8.0 7.4 7.1 7.2 6.6 6.3 Follow Up Time Calculations: Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 t f,base t f,HV P hv t f 2.2 0.9 0.07 2.3 2.2 0.9 0.09 2.3 3.5 0.9 0.87 4.3 4.0 0.9 0.87 4.8 3.3 0.9 0.87 4.1 3.5 0.9 0.09 3.6 4.0 0.9 0.09 4.1 3.3 0.9 0.09 3.4 Worksheet 6 Impedance and capacity equations Step 1: RT from Minor St. 9 12 Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Movement Capacity Probability of Queue free St. 235 633 1.00 633 0.92 454 592 1.00 592 0.89 Step 2: LT from Major St. 4 1 Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Movement Capacity Probability of Queue free St. Maj. L Shared ln. Prob. Queue Free St. 235 1292 1.00 1292 0.99 0.99 466 1070 1.00 1070 0.99 0.99 Step 3: TH from Minor St. 8 11 Conflicting Flows 754 742 Potential Capacity 255 335 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.98 0.98 Movement Capacity 249 327 Probability of Queue free St. 0.99 1.00 Step 4: LT from Minor St. 7 10 Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Maj. L, Min T Impedance factor Maj. L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor. Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity 775 231 1.00 0.98 0.98 0.87 201 768 310 1.00 0.97 0.98 0.90 278 Worksheet 8 Shared Lane Calculations Shared Lane Calculations Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 v(vph) I 4 1 ovement Capacity I 201 249 hared Lane Capacity 538 52 633 35 0 67 278 327 592 426 orksheet 10 delay,queue length, and LOS ovement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 11(vph) C m(vph) v/c 5% queue length I ontrol Delay OS Approach Delay 1pproach LOS IIank 1 Delay Calculations Movement 2 5 I I 11 15 57 103 1070 1292 538 426 0.01 0.01 0.11 0.24 8.4 7.8 12.5 A A B 16.1 C 12.5 16.1 B C orksheet 11 Shared Major LT Impedance and Delay IIof 0.99 0.99 it 185 0 i2 1 0 S it 1700 1700 11 i2 1700 1700 Oj 0.99 0.99 maj left 8.4 7.8 number major st lanes 1 1 Delay, rank 1 mvmts 0.1 0.1 HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 3.1c TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL(TWSC) ANALYSIS Analyst: MTM EM124pm10.hcu Intersection: East Marginal Way/S 124th Street Count Date: 2010 Baseline Volumes Time Period: PM Peak Intersection Orientation: North-South Major St. Vehicle Volume Data: Movements: 1 2 5 6 10 12 Volume: 5 120 438 13 86 68 Data for Computing Effect of Delay to Major Street Vehicles: Northbound1.[ Southbound ared In volume, major th vehicles: 120 0 ared In volume, major rt vehicles: 0 0 Sat flow rate, major th vehicles: 1700 1700 Irt flow rate, major rt vehicles: 1700 1700 mber of major street through lanes: 1 1 Length of study period, hrs: 0.25 1 Worksheet 4 Critical Gap and Follow-up time calculation. IIitical Gap Calculations: vement 1 10 12 t c,base 4.1 7.1 6.2 Ic,hv 1.0 1.0 1.0 by 0.09 0.03 0.03 c,g 0.2 0.1 t 0.00 0.00 0.00 t 3,1t 0.0 0.7 0.0 111 C,T: stage 0.00 0.00 0.00 t c 1 stage 4.2 6.4 6.2 1ollow Up Time Calculations: vement 1 10 12 f,base 2.2 3.5 3.3 f,HV 0.9 0.9 0.9 by 0.09 0.03 0.03 t f 2.3 3.5 3.3 Irksheet 6 Impedance and capacity equations Step 1: RT from Minor St. 9 12 nflicting Flows I 468 tential Capacity 593 destrian Impedance Factor 1.00 Movement Capacity 593 probability of Queue free St. 0.88 Step 2: LT from Major St. 4 1 linflicting Flows 475 tential Capacity 1052 destrian Impedance Factor 1.00 Movement Capacity 1052 Probability of Queue free St. 0.99 j. L Shared ln. Prob. Queue Free St.It 0.99 Step 4: LT from Minor St. 7 10 Ienflicting Flows tential Capacity destrian Impedance Factor Maj. L, Min T Impedance factor IF3. L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor. p. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt vement Capacity 605 459 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 457 IIrksheet 8 Shared Lane Calculations Shared Lane Calculations ilovement 7 8 9 10 11 12 tvph) vement Capacity ared Lane Capacity 91 457 509 72 593 Itrksheet 10 delay,queue length, and LOS Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 v(vph) 5 162 C m(vph) 1052 509 v/c 0.01 0.32 95% queue length Control Delay 8.4 15.3 LOS A C Approach Delay Approach LOS 15.3 C Worksheet 11 Shared Major LT Impedance and Delay Rank 1 Delay Calculations Movement 2 5 P of 0.99 1.00 ✓ it 120 0 ✓ i2 0 0 S it 1700 1700 S i2 1700 1700 P* Oj 0.99 1.00 D maj left 8.4 0.0 N number major st lanes 1 1 Delay, rank 1 mvmts 0.0 0.0 1 HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 3.1c ALL -WAY STOP CONTROL(AWSC) ANALYSIS Iorksheet 1 - Basic Intersection Information Analyst: MTM EM130pm10.hcu . Intersection: East Marginal Way/S 130th Street 3. Count Date: 2010 Baseline Volumes 4. Time Period: PM Peak IIorksheet 2 - Volume Adjustments and Site Characteristics North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound L1 L1 Ll Ll LT Volume: 56 11 36 58 . TH Volume: 88 328 81 132 . RT Volume: 50 80 40 8 4. Peak Hour Factor: 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 I59Flow Rate LT: 11 38 61 Flow Rate TH: 93 348 86 140 . Flow Rate RT: 53 85 42 8 8. Flow Rate Total: 206 445 167 210 9. Prop. Heavy Vehicle: 0.05 0.01 0.02 0.01 I0. Subject Approach 1 1 1 1 1. Opposing Approach 1 1 1 1 2. Conflicting Approach 1 1 1 1 13. Geometry Group 1 1 1 1 4. T (Time in Hours):II 0.250 orksheet 3 - Saturation Headway Adjustment Worksheet North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound L1 L1 L1 L1 Flow Rate Total: 206 445 167 210 . Flow Rate LT: 59 11 38 61 3. Flow Rate RT: 53 85 42 8 4. Prop LT in lane: 0.29 0.03 0.23 0.29 Prop RT in lane: 0.26 0.19 0.25 0.04 . Prop. Heavy Vehicle: 0.05 0.01 0.02 0.01 . Geometry Group 1 1 1 1 8. hLT-adj by Table 10-18 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 hRT-adj by Table 10-18li -0.60 -0.60 -0.60 -0.60 0. hHV-adj Table 10-18 1.70 1.70 1.70 1.70 1. hadj -0.01 -0.09 -0.07 0.05 Worksheet 4 - Departure Headway and Service Time I North Bound South Bound East Bound L1 West Bound L1 L1 L1 1. Total lane flow rate 206 445 167 210 2. hd, initial value 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 x, initial 0.18 0.40 0.15 0.19 hd, final value 5.7 5.2 5.9 5.9 x, final value 0.32 0.65 0.27 0.35 6. Move -up time, m 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 7. Service Time 3.7 3.2 3.9 3.9 I/ orksheet 5 - Capacity and Level of Service North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound IILl L1 L1 L1 Total lane flow rate 206 445 167 210 . Service Time 3.7 3.2 3.9 3.9 Degree Utilization, x 0.32 0.65 0.27 0.35 4. Departure headway, hd 5.7 5.2 5.9 5.9 IIiCapacity 599 671 559 564 Delay 11.3 17.3 11.1 12.1 Level Of Service B C B B 8. Delay Approach 11.3 17.3 11.1 12.1 9. LOS, approach B C B B I0. Delay, Intersection 14.0 1. LOS, Intersection B HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 3.1c TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL(TWSC) ANALYSIS Analyst: MTM 599133pm10.hcu Intersection: S 133rd Street/SR 599 On&Off-Ramps Count Date: 2010 Baseline Volumes Time Period: PM Peak Intersection Orientation: East-West Major St. Vehicle Volume Data: Movements: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Volume: 148 HFR: 163 PHF: 0.91 PHV: 0.08 139 153 0.91 0.08 7 8 0.91 0.08 49 54 0.91 0.07 169 186 0.91 0.07 748 822 0.91 0.07 6 7 0.91 0.08 68 75 0.91 0.08 95 104 0.91 0.08 269 296 0.91 0.16 18 20 0.91 0.16 34 37 0.91 0.16 Pedestrian Volume Data: Movements: Flow: Lane width: Walk speed: % Blockage: Median Type: None # of vehicles: 0 Flared approach Movements: # of vehicles: Northbound # of vehicles: Southbound 0 2 Lane usage for movements 1,2&3 approach: Lane 1 Lane 2 L T R L T R Lane 3 L T R Y N N Channelized: N Grade: 0.00 N Y Lane usage for movements 4,5&6 approach: Lane 1 Lane 2 L T R L T Y N N N Lane 3 R L T R Y N N Channelized: Grade: Y 0.00 N Y Lane usage for movements 7,8&9 approach: Lane 1 Lane 2 L T R L T N N N Y Lane 3 R L T R Y Y Y Channelized: Grade: N 0.00 N N Lane usage for movements 10,11&12 approach: Lane 1 Lane 2 L T R L T N N N N Lane 3 R L T R Y Y Y Channelized: Grade: N 0.00 N N N N Data for Computing Effect of Delay to Major Street Vehicles: N N Eastbound Westbound hared In volume, major th vehicles: 0 0 hared In volume, major rt vehicles: 0 0 Sat flow rate, major th vehicles: 1700 1700 Iat flow rate, major rt vehicles: 1700 1700 umber of major street through lanes: 1 1 Length of study period, hrs: 0.25 1 Worksheet 4 Critical Gap and Follow-up time calculation. Iritical Gap Calculations: ovement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 t c,base c,hv I by c,g G t 3,1t IIc,T: 1 stage t c 1 stage IIollow Up Time Calculations: ovement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 4.1 4.1 7.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.08 0.07 0.08 0.2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.5 1.0 0.08 0.2 0.00 0.0 6.2 1.0 0.08 0.1 0.00 0.0 7.1 1.0 0.16 0.2 0.00 0.0 6.5 1.0 0.16 0.2 0.00 0.0 6.2 1.0 0.16 0.1 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.2 4.2 7.2 6.6 6.3 7.3 6.7 6.4 f,base 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 f,HV 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 by 0.08 0.07 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.16 0.16 0.16 t f 2.3 2.3 3.6 4.1 3.4 3.6 4.1 3.4 11orksheet 6 Impedance and capacity equations Step 1: RT from Minor St. 9 12 Ronflicting Flows 157 186 otential Capacity 873 822 edestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Movement Capacity 873 822 probability of Queue free St. 0.88 0.95 Step 2: LT from Major St. 4 1 conflicting Flows otential Capacity edestrian Impedance Factor Movement Capacity Probability of Queue free St. tep 3: TH from Minor St. II 8 11 160 1389 1.00 1389 0.96 186 1353 1.00 1353 0.88 onflicting Flows 775 779 otential Capacity 322 311 edestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 ap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.85 0.85 Movement Capacity 272 263 probability of Queue free St. 0.73 0.92 Step 4: LT from Minor St. 7 10 onflicting FlowsII 1215 865 otential Capacity 154 259 edestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Maj. L, Min T Impedance factor 0.78 0.61 aj. L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor.II 0.83 0.70 ap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.79 0.62 ovement Capacity 122 160 I/orksheet 8 Shared Lane Calculations Shared Lane Calculations Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 v(vph) 7 Movement Capacity 122 Shared Lane Capacity 415 75 104 296 20 37 272 873 160 263 822 179 Worksheet 9 -Computation of effect of flared minor street approaches Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 C sep 122 272 873 160 263 822 Volume 7 75 104 296 20 37 Delay 36.1 23.2 9.7 455.5 19.8 9.6 Q sep 0.07 0.48 0.28 37.40 0.11 0.10 Q sep +1 1.07 1.48 1.28 38.40 1.11 1.10 round (Qsep +1) 1 1 1 38 1 1 n max 1 38 C sh 415 179 SUM C sep 1268 1245 n 0 2 C act 415 235 Worksheet 10 delay,queue length, and LOS Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 v(vph) 163 54 186 353 C m(vph) 1353 1389 415 235 v/c 0.12 0.04 0.45 1.50 95% queue length Control Delay 8.0 7.7 20.5 285.4 LOS A A C F Approach Delay 20.5 285.4 Approach LOS C F 1 HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 3.1c TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL(TWSC) ANALYSIS alyst: MTM int5nbpm10.hcu ntersection: Interurban Avenue S/I-5 NB On -Ramp ount Date: 2010 Baseline Volumes ime Period: PM Peak intersection Orientation: East-West Major St. ehicle Volume Data: Movements: 1 2 5 6 olume: 258 1468 899 641 FR: 284 1613 988 704 PHF: 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 1/HV: 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 Pedestrian Volume Data: IIovements: Flow: IIane width: alk speed: Blockage: IIedian Type: None of vehicles: 0 Flared approach Movements: 1 of vehicles: Northbound 0 of vehicles: Southbound 0 Lane usage for movements 1,2&3 approach: Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 L T R L T R L T R Y N N N Y N N Y N annelized: N rade: 0.00 'lane usage for movements 4,5&6 approach: Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 L T R L T R L T R N Y N N Y N N N Y Iannelized: ade: Y 0.00 lane usage for movements 7,8&9 approach: Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 L T R L T R L T R 1hannelized: N Grade: 0.00 N N N N N N N N N I ne usage for movements 10,11&12 approach: Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 L T R L T R L T R Iiannelized: N Grade: 0.00 II Data for Computing Effect of Delay to Major Street Vehicles: N N N N N N N N N 1 Eastbound Westbound Shared In volume, major th vehicles: 0 0 Shared In volume, major rt vehicles: 0 0 Sat flow rate, major th vehicles: 1700 1700 Sat flow rate, major rt vehicles: 1700 1700 Number of major street through lanes: 2 2 Length of study period, hrs: 0.25 Worksheet 4 Critical Gap and Follow-up time calculation. Critical Gap Calculations: Movement 1 t c,base t c,hv P hv t c,g G t 3,1t t c,T: 1 stage t c 1 stage 4.1 2.0 0.06 0.00 0.0 0.00 4.2 Follow Up Time Calculations: Movement 1 t f,base t f,HV P hv t f 2.2 1.0 0.06 2.3 Worksheet 6 Impedance and capacity equations Step 2: LT from Major St. 4 1 Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Movement Capacity Probability of Queue free St. 988 671 1.00 671 0.58 Worksheet 10 delay,queue length, and LOS Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 v(vph) 284 C m(vph) 671 v/c 0.42 95% queue length Control Delay 14.2 LOS B Approach Delay Approach LOS APPENDIX E Level of Service Calculations - 2010 With Project MTM 2010wpam.for (1) GHC Tukwila Office 2 99181-60 Interurban Ave/Pacific Highway S/S Boeing Access Rd 2010 Volumes w/project trips - AM Peak Hour SIGNAL97/TEAPAC[Ver 1.01] - Display of Intersection Parameters I 201 I 227 I 229 24.0 112.0 24.0 2 I 1 I 2 I / I \ 712 24.0 2 / 638 24.0 2 4 0.0 0 \ I \ 1202 12.0 1 03/20/00 14:46:38 Key: VOLUMES -- > WIDTHS v LANES 562 24.0 2 / 750 12.0 1 /I\ North 0 408 393 Phasing: SEQUENCE 27 0.0 24.0 12.0 I PERMSV NNNN 0 I 2 I 1 I OVERLP YYYY LEADLAG LD LD MTM 2010wpam.for (1) GHC Tukwila Office 2 99181-60 Interurban Ave/Pacific Highway S/S Boeing Access Rd 2010 Volumes w/project trips - AM Peak Hour SIGNAL97/TEAPAC[Ver 1.01] - Capacity Analysis Summary Intersection Averages: Degree of Saturation (v/c) 0.87 Vehicle 03/20/00 14:46:43 Delay 86.9 Level of Service F Sq 27 Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4 /I\ North <+ <+ v A * * * +> <++++ <+ **** A v **** +> ++++> + ++++ + v G/C=0.118 G/C=0.114 G= 14.2" G= 13.7" Y+R= 5.0" Y+R= 5.0" OFF= 0.0% 1 OFF=16.0% G/C=0.409 G= 49.0" Y+R= 5.0" OFF=31.5% G/C=0.193 G= 23.1" Y+R= 5.0" OFF=76.6% C=120 sec G=100.0 sec = 83.3% Y=20.0 sec = 16.7% Ped= 0.0 sec = 0.0% Lane Width/I g/C Group 1 Lanes' Reqd Used Service Rate' Adj @C (vph) @E 'Volume I HCM L Max v/c I Delay S 190% Queue ' SB Approach 37.1 D+ RT TH LT MTM 2010wpam.for (311) GHC Tukwila Office 2 99181-60 Pacific Highway S/S 112th Street 2010 Volumes w/project trips - AM Peak Hour SIGNAL97/TEAPAC(Ver 1.01] - Display of Intersection Parameters 315 561 9 0.0 124.0 i 12.0 2 I 1 I I I I I I \ 6 0.0 0 / 1 /I\ 68 12.0 1 03/20/00 14:44:25 Key: VOLUMES -- > I WIDTHS v LANES 25 12.0 1 / + / 64 12.0 1 North 1 7 12.0 1 25 0.0 0 \ \ I / 358 1270 I 177 Phasing: SEQUENCE 61 12.0 124.0 112.0 I PERMSV YNYN 1 I 2 I 1 I OVERLP YYYY LEADLAG LD LD MTM 2010wpam.for (311) GHC Tukwila Office 2 99181-60 Pacific Highway S/S 112th Street 2010 Volumes w/project trips - AM Peak Hour SIGNAL97/TEAPAC[Ver 1.01] - Capacity Analysis Summary 03/20/00 14:44:58 Intersection Averages: Degree of Saturation (v/c) 0.71 Vehicle Delay 22.5 Level of Service C+ Sq 61 Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 1 Phase 4 * * * * /I\ *> <* A North <+ <* + +> + * + + + * + + v ++++ v ****> **** v G/C=0.073 G/C=0.111 G/C=0.394 G/C=0.200 I G= 6.5" G= 10.0" G= 35.5" G= 18.0" I Y+R= 5.0" Y+R= 5.0" Y+R= 5.0" Y+R= 5.0" I OFF= 0.0% OFF=12.8% OFF=29.5% OFF=74.5% I C= 90 sec G= 70.0 sec = 77.8% Y=20.0 sec = 22.2% Ped= 0.0 sec = 0.0% Lane (Width/I g/C I Service Rate Adj I I HCM I L 190% Max Group ILanes'Reqd Used li @C (vph) @E Ii Volume' v/c li Delay Ii S Ii Queue Mal SB Approach 28.1 C TH+RTI 24/2 10.362 10.394 LT 112/1 10.000 10.073 1114 174 1235 215 996 10.806 10 10.047 28.3 13.4 *C 1398 ftl *B+I 25 ftl NB Approach 18.8 B RT 12/1 TH 124/2 LT 112/1 0.218 0.561 0.455 10.561 0.223 10.239 790 I 847 I 201 10.237 1852 11893 11443 10.762 434 I 507 I 407 10.803 10.2 17.0 29.5 I B+I 115 ftl I B I 413 ftl I*C 1270 ftl WB Approach 30.9 C TH+RTI LT I 12/1 12/1 10.149 10.157 10.200 10.200 201 143 342 248 84 10.242 73 (0.283 30.6 31.2 88 ftl 77 ftl EB Approach 29.7 C TH+RTI 12/1 10.133 10.200 LT 112/1 10.134 10.200 183 141 312 243 36 28 10.113 10.110 29.6 29.7 *C C 37 ftl 29 ftl MTM 2010wpam.for (63) GHC Tukwila Office 2 99181-60 Interurban Ave/East Marginal Way S 2010 Volumes w/project trips - AM Peak Hour SIGNAL97/TEAPAC[Ver 1.01] - Display of Intersection Parameters 311 12.0 1 1 I I I I II \ 0 0.0 0 / I \ /I\ 0 0.0 0 I 358 12.0 1 / + / 0 0.0 0 North 329 12.0 1 0 0.0 0 03/20/00 14:41:52 Key: VOLUMES -- > I WIDTHS v LANES 0 0.0 0 19 12.0 1 \ II II 58 I 479 I 0 I Phasing: SEQUENCE 31 I II 12.0 12.0 I 0.0 I PERMSV NNYN I1 1 I 1 I 0 I OVERLP YYYY I II I I I LEADLAG LD LD \ I / MTM 2010wpam.for (63) GHC Tukwila Office 2 99181-60 Interurban Ave/East Marginal Way S 2010 Volumes w/project trips - AM Peak Hour SIGNAL97/TEAPAC[Ver 1.01] - Capacity Analysis Summary 03/20/00 14:41:58 Intersection Averages: Degree of Saturation (v/c) 0.61 Vehicle Delay 15.7 Level of Service B Sq 31 1 Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 + * + * /I\ <+ * <+ v A A **** North <* + <+ + ++++ * + + + ++++ v * + + + v G/C=0.112 G/C=0.328 G/C=0.310 G= 6.7" G= 19.7" G= 18.6" Y+R= 5.0" Y+R= 5.0" Y+R= 5.0" OFF= 0.0% OFF=19.6% OFF=60.7% C= 60 sec G= 45.0 sec = 75.0% Y=15.0 sec = 25.0% Ped= 0.0 sec = 0.0% Lane !Width/ I g/C Group 1 Lanes Reqd Used Service Rate! AdjI ! HCM I L 190% Maxi @C (vph) @E 1Volume v/c 1 Delay it S ! Queue SB Approach 14.5 B+ RT TH 12/1 10.324 10.721 12/1 10.292 10.328 893 422 903 483 346 10.383 366 10.758 3.5 24.9 1 A 1 94 ftl 1*C+1 241 ftl NB Approach 10.9 B+ TH LT 12/1 12/1 10.355 10.000 10.524 10.112 839 357 873 395 532 10.609 64 10.162 11.2 I B+! 229 ftl 8.2 i*A 1 28 ft1 EB Approach 24.4 C+ RT LT 12/1 10.031 10.505 12/1 10.276 10.310 724 458 763 522 21 !0.028 398 10.762 7.5 1 A 1 25 ft! 25.3 !*C+I 239 ft! MTM 2010wpam.for (249) GHC Tukwila Office 2 99181-60 Pacific Highway S/S 130th Street 2010 Volumes w/project trips - AM Peak Hour SIGNAL97/TEAPAC[Ver 1.01] - Display of Intersection Parameters 03/20/00 14:36:29 11 1 Key: VOLUMES -- > 0 340 55 �� WIDTHS 0.0 24.0 12.0 (� � v LANES 0 12 1 1 1� 1 11 \ 33 0.0 0 / 1 \ /1\ 0 12.0 1 0 0.0 0 / + / 84 0.0 0 North 1 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 \ 1 0 1021 33 Phasing: SEQUENCE 11 0.0 24.0 I 0.0 I PERMSV NNNN 0 2( 0 I OVERLP YYYY LEADLAG LD LD MTM 2010wpam.for (249) GHC Tukwila Office 2 99181-60 Pacific Highway S/S 130th Street 2010 Volumes w/project trips - AM Peak Hour SIGNAL97/TEAPAC[Ver 1.01] - Capacity Analysis Summary 03/20/00 14:36:36 Intersection Averages: Degree of Saturation (v/c) 0.52 Vehicle Delay 11.2 Level of Service B+ Sq 11 Phase 1 Phase 2 **/** /I\ North v v G/C=0.500 G/C=0.333 G= 30.0" G= 20.0" Y+R= 5.0" Y+R= 5.0" OFF= 0.0% OFF=58.3% C= 60 sec G= 50.0 sec = 83.3% Y=10.0 sec = 16.7% Ped= 0.0 sec = 0.0% Lane (Width/1 g/C I Service Rate Adj I I HCM I L 190% Maxl Group I Lanes' Reqd Used I @C (vph) @E Volume' v/c I Delay i S i Queue i SB Approach 8.9 A TH LT 24/2 10.141 12/1 10.000 10.500 10.500 1567 115 1583 143 358 10.226 58 10.395 8.5 l*A I 81 ftl 11.1 I B+I 26 ftl NB Approach 12.1 B+ TH+RTI 24/2 10.345 10.500 1683 1695 1110 10.655 12.1 I B+I 240 ftl WB Approach 11.3 B+ ILT+TH+RTI 12/1 10.123 10.417 563 615 123 10.200 11.3 B+I 62 ftl MTM 2010wpam.for (187) GHC Tukwila Office 2 99181-60 Interurban Avenue/S 133rd Street/Gateway Drive 2010 Volumes w/project trips - AM Peak Hour SIGNAL97/TEAPAC[Ver 1.01] - Display of Intersection Parameters 03/20/00 14:30:11 I I II 1 Key: VOLUMES -- > 145 I 225 I 0 II I I WIDTHS 12.0 124.0 I 0.0 II 1 v LANES 1 1 2 1 0 I I I I II \ 215 0.0 0 / 1 \ /I\ 77 24.0 2 I 1 53 0.0 0 / + / 101 0.0 0 North I 33 12.0 1 37 12.0 1 \ 482 1097 392 Phasing: SEQUENCE 37 I 124.0 124.0 0.0 I PERMSV NNNN 2 I 2 0 I OVERLP YYYY I I I I LEADLAG LD LD MTM 2010wpam.for (187) GHC Tukwila Office 2 99181-60 Interurban Avenue/S 133rd Street/Gateway Drive 2010 Volumes w/project trips - AM Peak Hour SIGNAL97/TEAPAC[Ver 1.01] - Capacity Analysis Summary Intersection Averages: Degree of Saturation (v/c) 0.84 Vehicle Delay 03/20/00 14:30:18 44.5 Level of Service D+ Sq 37 Phase 1 Phase 2 I Phase 3 Phase 4 **/** /'\ North v A * * * *> * * G/C=0.178 G/C=0.254 G= 16.0" G= 22.8" Y+R= 5.0" Y+R= 5.0" OFF= 0.0% OFF=23.4% G/C=0.157 G= 14.1" Y+R= 5.0" OFF=54.3% G/C=0.189 G= 17.0" Y+R= 5.0" OFF=75.5% C= 90 sec G= 70.0 sec = 77.8% Y=20.0 sec = 22.2% Ped= 0.0 sec = 0.0% Lane Group Width/I g/C LanesI Reqd Used Service Rate Adj @C (vph) @E 'Volume' HCM I L 190% Maxiv/c lDelay S Queue SB Approach 28.0 C RT TH 12/1 24/2 10.197 10.160 10.254 10.254 241 604 358 803 154 10.429 239 10.298 29.0 27.3 cI c+I 156 ftl 121 ftl NB Approach 47.5 D TH+RTI LT I 24/2 24/2 10.509 0.225 10.487 10.178 1503 328 1579 583 1584 11.003 513 10.880 46.5 50.5 529 ft ft 275 WB Approach 50.8 D ILT+TH+RTI 24/2 10.207 10.157 216 489 418 10.855 50.8 I*D 1227 ftl EB Approach 26.9 C+ I RT ILT+TH 12/1 12/1 10.136 10.152 10.423 10.189 539 176 627 313 39 10.062 91 10.284 15.4 31.8 30 ftl 97 ftl MTM 2010wpam.for (125) GHC Tukwila Office 2 99181-60 SR 599 NB off-ramp/Interurban Ave 2010 Volumes w/project trips - AM Peak Hour SIGNAL97/TEAPAC[Ver 1.01] - Display of Intersection Parameters 03/20/00 14:28:52 Key: VOLUMES -- > 0 I 0 I 0 it I WIDTHS 0.0 1 0.0 I 0.0 lI v LANES 0I 0 0II I I II \ 0 0.0 0 / 1 \ /I\ -- 1322 24.0 2 I I 0 0.0 0 / + / 0 0.0 0 North 514 24.0 2 \ I / 0 0.0 0\ I I I 652 1 0 I 280 I Phasing: SEQUENCE 11 1 1 12.0 I 0.0 112.0 I PERMSV NNNN I I 1 I 0 I 1 I OVERLP Y I I 1 I I LEADLAG LD LD MTM 2010wpam.for (125) GHC Tukwila Office 2 SR 599 NB off-ramp/Interurban Ave 2010 Volumes w/project trips - AM Peak Hour SIGNAL97/TEAPAC[Ver 1.01] - Intersection Averages: Degree of Saturation 99181-60 Capacity Analysis Summary (v/c) 0.83 Vehicle Delay Sq 11 1 Phase 1 Phase 2 /I\ North G/C=0.413 G/C=0.420 G= 24.8" G= 25.2" Y+R= 5.0" Y+R= 5.0" OFF= 0.0% OFF=49.6% C= 60 sec G= 50.0 03/20/00 14:28:57 35.4 Level of Service D+ sec = 83.3% Y=10.0 sec = 16.7% Ped= 0.0 sec = 0.0% Lane Group 1Width/1 g/C 1 Lanes Reqd Used Service Rate Adj @C (vph) @E Volume' HCM L 190% Max v/c I Delay S 1 Queue NB Approach 35.8 D+ RT LT 1 12/1 10.238 10.413 1 583 1 635 1 298 10.469 1 12/1 10.433 10.413 1 658 1 710 1 694 10.977 13.4 1 B+1 150 ftl 45.5 l*D 1 350 ftl WB Approach 44.0 D+ TH 1 24/2 10.435 10.420 1 1355 1 1392 1 1406 11.010 44.0 *D+1 358 ftl EB Approach 12.3 B+ TH 24/2 10.195 10.420 1329 1367 547 10.400 12.3 B+1 141 ftl 1 HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 3.1c TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL(TWSC) ANALYSIS alyst: MTM emw112wpam10.hcu ntersection: E Marginal Way S/S 112th Street ount Date: 2010 Volumes w/project trips ime Period: AM Peak intersection Orientation: North-South Major St. ehicle Volume Data: Movements: 1 2 5 6 10 12 Iolume: 156 799 709 37 37 233 FR: 171 878 779 41 41 256 PHF: 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 IIHV: 0.10 0.10 0.20 0.20 0.13 0.13 Pedestrian Volume Data: IIovements: Flow: 11 ane width: alk speed: Blockage: 11 edian Type: None of vehicles: 0 lared approach Movements: 1 of vehicles: Eastbound 0 of vehicles: Westbound 0 Lane usage for movements 1,2&3 approach: ' Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 L T R L T R L T R Y N N N Y N N N N Ihannelized: N rade: 0.00 I ane usage for movements 4,5&6 approach: Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 L T R L T R L T R N Y Y N N N N N N annelized: N rade: 0.00 'ane usage for movements 7,8&9 approach: Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 L T R L T R L T R 11 hannelized: N rade: 0.00 N N N N N N N N N Lane usage for movements 10,11&12 approach: Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 L T R L T R L T R Ihannelized: N Grade: 0.00 II Data for Computing Effect of Delay to Major Street Vehicles: Y N Y N N N N N N Northbound Southbound Shared In volume, major th vehicles: 0 0 Shared In volume, major rt vehicles: 0 0 Sat flow rate, major th vehicles: 1700 1700 Sat flow rate, major rt vehicles: 1700 1700 Number of major street through lanes: 1 1 Length of study period, hrs: 0.25 Worksheet 4 Critical Gap and Follow-up time calculation. Critical Gap Calculations: Movement 1 10 12 t c,base t c,hv P hv t c,g G t 3,1t t c,T: 1 stage t c 1 stage 4.1 1.0 0.10 0.00 0.0 7.1 1.0 0.13 0.2 0.00 0.7 6.2 1.0 0.13 0.1 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.2 6.5 6.3 Follow Up Time Calculations: Movement 1 10 12 t f,base t f,HV P hv t f 2.2 0.9 0.10 2.3 3.5 0.9 0.13 3.6 3.3 0.9 0.13 3.4 Worksheet 6 Impedance and capacity equations Step 1: RT from Minor St. 9 12 Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Movement Capacity Probability of Queue free St. 799 369 1.00 369 0.31 Step 2: LT from Major St. 4 1 Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Movement Capacity Probability of Queue free St. 820 775 1.00 775 0.78 Step 4: LT from Minor St. 7 10 Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Maj. L, Min T Impedance factor Maj. L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor. Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity 2020 60 1.00 0.78 0.83 0.83 49 Worksheet 8 Shared Lane Calculations Shared Lane Calculations Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 v(vph) Movement Capacity Shared Lane Capacity 49 196 256 369 Worksheet 10 delay,queue length, and LOS ovement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 •(vph) 171 m(vph) 775 /c 0.22 95% queue length ontrol Delay 11.0 OS B pproach Delay pproach LOS 11 297 196 1.52 301.4 F 301.4 F HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 3.1c TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL(TWSC) ANALYSIS Analyst: MTM emw120wpam10.hcu Intersection: E Marginal Way S/S 120th Street Count Date: 2010 Volumes w/project trips Time Period: AM Peak Intersection Orientation: North-South Major St. Vehicle Volume Data: Movements: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Data for Computing Effect of Delay to Major Street Vehicles: Northbound Southbound hared In volume, major th vehicles: 319 0 hared In volume, major rt vehicles: 10 0 Sat flow rate, major th vehicles: 1700 1700 Sat flow rate, major rt vehicles: 1700 1700 umber of major street through lanes: 1 1 Ir Length of study period, hrs: 0.25 torksheet 4 Critical Gap and Follow-up time calculation. ritical Gap Calculations: ovement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 t c,base 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 t c,hv 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 I by 0.12 0.24 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.13 0.13 0.13 c,9 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 t 3,1t 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 t c,T: 11 stage 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 c 1 stage 4.2 4.3 7.3 6.7 6.4 7.2 6.6 6.3 Iollow Up Time Calculations: ovement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 t f,base 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 f,HV 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 by 0.12 0.24 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.13 0.13 0.13 f 2.3 2.4 3.7 4.2 3.5 3.6 4.1 3.4 IIorksheet 6 Impedance and capacity equations ..,tep 1: RT from Minor St. 9 12 11 onflicting Flows otential Capacity edestrian Impedance Factor ovement Capacity Probability of Queue free St. IItep 2: LT from Major St. 348 656 1.00 656 1.00 523 533 1.00 533 0.96 4 1 Conflicting Flows Iotential Capacity edestrian Impedance Factor ovement Capacity Probability of Queue free St. Maj. L Shared ln. Prob. Queue Free St. litep 3: TH from Minor St. 354 1093 1.00 1093 0.91 0.91 528 990 1.00 990 0.98 0.97 8 11 onflicting Flows 1111 1111 otential Capacity 194 200 edestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.89 0.89 Movement Capacity 172 177 robability of Queue free St. 0.98 II 0.99 Step 4: LT from Minor St. 7 10 11 onflicting Flows otential Capacity edestrian Impedance Factor Maj. L, Min T Impedance factor Iaj. L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor. ap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt ovement Capacity 1116 1110 171 178 1.00 1.00 0.88 0.87 0.91 0.90 0.88 0.89 150 159 IIorksheet 8 Shared Lane Calculations Shared Lane Calculations Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 II I 1v(vph) 18 4 3 43 1 19 Movement Capacity 150 172 656 159 177 533 IIShared Lane Capacity 188 202 Worksheet 10 delay,queue length, and LOS Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 II I 1 HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 3.1c TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL(TWSC) ANALYSIS alyst: MTM EM124wpam10.hcu tersection: East Marginal Way/S 124th Street t unt Date: 2010 Volumes w/project trips me Period: AM Peak tersection Orientation: North-South Major St. hicle Volume Data: Movements: 1 2 5 6 10 12 lume: 200 407 261 222 27 24 R: 222 452 290 247 30 27 PHF: 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.04 0.04 0.08 0.08 0.14 0.14 Pedestrian Volume Data: lovements: Flow: ne width: lk speed: Blockage: Idian Type: None of vehicles: 0 Flared approach Movements: IIof vehicles: Eastbound 0 of vehicles: Westbound 0 Lane usage for movements 1,2&3 approach: Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 L T R L T R L T R Y Iannelized: ade: Y N N N N N N N N 0.00 I ne usage for movements 4,5&6 approach: Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 L T R L T R L T R N Y Y N N N N N N Iaeuized: ade: N 0.00 I ne usage for movements 7,8&9 approach: Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 L T R L T R L T R 1iannelized: N Grade: 0.00 N N N N N N N N N ine usage for movements 10,11&12 approach: Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 L T R L T R L T R IIannelized: N Grade: 0.00 II Data for Computing Effect of Delay to Major Street Vehicles: Y N Y N N N N N N Northbound Southbound Shared In volume, major th vehicles: 407 0 Shared In volume, major rt vehicles: 0 0 Sat flow rate, major th vehicles: 1700 1700 Sat flow rate, major rt vehicles: 1700 1700 Number of major street through lanes: 1 1 Length of study period, hrs: 0.25 Worksheet 4 Critical Gap and Follow-up time calculation. Critical Gap Calculations: Movement 1 10 12 t c,base 4.1 7.1 6.2 t c,hv 1.0 1.0 1.0 P hv 0.04 0.14 0.14 t c,g 0.2 0.1 G 0.00 0.00 0.00 t 3,1t 0.0 0.7 0.0 t c,T: 1 stage 0.00 0.00 0.00 t c 1 stage 4.1 6.5 6.3 Follow Up Time Calculations: Movement 1 10 12 t f,base t f,Hv P hv t f 2.2 0.9 0.04 2.2 3.5 0.9 0.14 3.6 3.3 0.9 0.14 3.4 Worksheet 6 Impedance and capacity equations Step 1: RT from Minor St. 9 12 Conflicting Flows 413 Potential Capacity 614 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 Movement Capacity 614 Probability of Queue free St. 0.96 Step 2: LT from Major St. 4 1 Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Movement Capacity Probability of Queue free St. Maj. L Shared ln. Prob. Queue Free St. 537 1021 1.00 1021 0.78 0.71 Step 4: LT from Minor St. 7 10 Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Maj. L, Min T Impedance factor Maj. L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor. Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity 1310 165 1.00 0.71 0.78 0.78 129 Worksheet 8 Shared Lane Calculations Shared Lane Calculations Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 v(vph) Movement Capacity Shared Lane Capacity 30 129 205 27 614 Worksheet 10 delay,queue length, and LOS Itovement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 1111 I 1 II 1 R(vph) 222 57 m(vph) 1021 205 v/c 0.22 0.28 (5% queue length ontrol Delay 9.5 29.1 OS A D pproach Delay 29.1 Approach LOS D r Worksheet 11 Shared Major LT Impedance and Delay Tank 1 Delay Calculations ovement 2 5 of 0.78 1.00 it 407 0 i2 0 0 S it 1700 1700 S i2 1700 1700 lir Oj 0.71 1.00 maj left 9.5 0.0 number major st lanes 1 1 Delay, rank 1 mvmts 2.7 0.0 HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 3.1c Worksheet 1 1. Analyst: 2. Intersection: 3. Count Date: 4. Time Period: - Basic Worksheet ALL -WAY STOP CONTROL(AWSC) ANALYSIS Intersection Information MTM EM130wpam10.hcu East Marginal Way/S 130th Street 2010 Volumes w/project trips AM Peak 2 - Volume Adjustments 1. LT Volume: 2. TH Volume: 3. RT Volume: 4. Peak Hour Factor: 5. Flow Rate LT: 6. Flow Rate TH: 7. Flow Rate RT: 8. Flow Rate Total: 9. Prop. Heavy Vehicle: 10. Subject Approach 11. Opposing Approach 12. Conflicting Approach 13. Geometry Group 14. T (Time in Hours): and Site Characteristics North Bound L1 15 454 31 0.84 17 540 36 595 0.02 1 1 1 1 0.250 South Bound L1 4 107 27 0.84 4 127 32 164 0.23 1 1 1 1 Worksheet 3 - Saturation Headway Adjustment Worksheet 1. Flow Rate Total: 2. Flow Rate LT: 3. Flow Rate RT: 4. Prop LT in lane: 5. Prop RT in lane: 6. Prop. Heavy Vehicle: 7. Geometry Group 8. hLT-adj by Table 10-18 9. hRT-adj by Table 10-18 10. hHV-adj Table 10-18 11. hadj North Bound Ll 595 17 36 0.03 0.06 0.02 1 0.20 -0.60 1.70 0.00 Worksheet 4 - Departure Headway and Service Time 1. Total lane flow rate 2. hd, initial value 3. x, initial 4. hd, final value 5. x, final value 6. Move -up time, m 7. Service Time Worksheet 5 - Capacity and 1. Total lane flow rate 2. Service Time 3. Degree Utilization, x 4. Departure headway, hd 5. Capacity 6. Delay 7. Level Of Service 8. Delay Approach 9. LOS, approach 10. Delay, Intersection 11. LOS, Intersection South Bound Ll 164 4 32 0.03 0.20 0.23 1 0.20 -0.60 1.70 0.28 North Bound South Bound Ll Ll 595 164 3.2 3.2 0.53 0.15 6.1 7.1 1.00 0.32 2.0 2.0 4.1 5.1 Level of Service North Bound L1 595 4.1 1.00 6.1 597 62.0 F 62.0 F 39.8 E South Bound Ll 164 5.1 0.32 7.1 486 13.5 B 13.5 B East Bound West Bound L1 L1 219 15 80 53 62 44 0.84 0.84 260 17 95 63 73 52 429 133 0.01 0.02 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 East Bound West Bound L1 L1 429 133 260 17 73 52 0.61 0.13 0.17 0.39 0.01 0.02 1 1 0.20 0.20 -0.60 -0.60 1.70 1.70 0.04 -0.17 East Bound West Bound L1 L1 429 133 3.2 3.2 0.38 0.12 6.4 6.9 0.77 0.26 2.0 2.0 4.4 4.9 East Bound West Bound Ll L1 429 133 4.4 4.9 0.77 0.26 6.4 6.9 556 499 27.5 12.3 D B 27.5 12.3 D B HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 3.1c TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL(TWSC) ANALYSIS Analyst: MTM 599133wpam10.hcu Irtersection: S 133rd Street/SR 599 On&Off-Ramps ount Date: 2010 Volumes w/project trips ime Period: AM Peak tersection Orientation: East-West Major St. hicle Volume Data: Movements: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Ilume: 64 119 18 139 319 283 0 18 61 298 40 24 R: 69 128 19 149 343 304 0 19 66 320 43 26 PHF: 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 PHV: 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.06 0.06 0.06 II Pedestrian Volume Data: IIvements: Flow: line width: lk speed: Blockage: Median Type: None 11. of vehicles: 0 1 ared approach Movements: of vehicles: Northbound 0 of vehicles: Southbound 2 Lane 1 usage for movements 1,2&3 approach: Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 L T R L T R L T R Y N N N Y Y N N N Ianrielized: ade: N 0.00 Slane usage for movements 4,5&6 approach: Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 L T R L T R L T R Y Iannelized: ade: re N N N Y N N N Y Y 0.00 usage for movements 7,8&9 approach: Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 L T R L T R L T R tane1zed: ade: Y Y Y N N N N N N N 0.00 I ne usage for movements 10,11&12 approach: Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 L T R L T R L T R Itannelized: N Grade: 0.00 Y Y Y N N N N N N Ita for Computing Effect of Delay to Major Street Vehicles: 1 Eastbound Westbound Shared In volume, major th vehicles: 0 0 Shared In volume, major rt vehicles: 0 0 Sat flow rate, major th vehicles: 1700 1700 Sat flow rate, major rt vehicles: 1700 1700 Number of major street through lanes: 1 1 Length of study period, hrs: 0.25 Worksheet 4 Critical Gap and Follow-up time calculation. Critical Gap Calculations: Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 t c,base 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 t c,hv 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 P hv 0.13 0.14 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.06 0.06 0.06 t c,g 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 G 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 t 3,1t 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 t c,T: 1 stage 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 t c 1 stage 4.2 4.2 7.3 6.8 6.5 7.2 6.6 6.3 Follow Up Time Calculations: Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 t f,base t f,HV P hv t f 2.2 0.9 0.13 2.3 2.2 0.9 0.14 2.3 3.5 0.9 0.25 3.7 4.0 0.9 0.25 4.2 3.3 0.9 0.25 3.5 3.5 0.9 0.06 3.6 4.0 0.9 0.06 4.1 3.3 0.9 0.06 3.4 Worksheet 6 Impedance and capacity equations Step 1: RT from Minor St. 9 12 Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Movement Capacity Probability of Queue free St. 138 853 1.00 853 0.92 343 691 1.00 691 0.96 Step 2: LT from Major St. 4 1 Conflicting Flows 147 343 Potential Capacity 1364 1157 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Movement Capacity 1364 1157 Probability of Queue free St. 0.89 0.94 Step 3: TH from Minor St. 8 11 Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Probability of Queue free St. 917 927 249 264 1.00 1.00 0.84 0.84 209 221 0.91 0.81 Step 4: LT from Minor St. 7 10 Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Maj. L, Min T Impedance factor Maj. L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor. Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity 1104 170 1.00 0.67 0.75 0.72 123 960 232 1.00 0.76 0.81 0.75 175 Worksheet 8 Shared Lane Calculations Shared Lane Calculations Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 r II 1 v(vph) 0 19 66 320 43 26 Movement Capacity 123 209 853 175 221 691 hared Lane Capacity 501 189 If Worksheet 9 -Computation of effect of flared minor street approaches tovement 7 8 9 10 11 12 sep 123 209 853 175 221 691 Volume 0 19 66 320 43 26 elay 34.4 24.0 9.6 441.3 25.1 10.4 sep 0.00 0.13 0.17 39.28 0.30 0.07 sep +1 1.00 1.13 1.17 40.28 1.30 1.07 round (Qsep +1) 1 1 1 40 1 1 Imax 1 40 sh 501 189 UM C sep 1184 1087 n 0 2 IIact 501 233 orksheet 10 delay,queue length, and LOS II ovement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 II(vph) 69 149 85 C m(vph) 1157 1364 501 v/c 0.06 0.11 0.17 115% queue length ontrol Delay 8.3 8.0 13.7 OS A A B Approach Delay IIpproach LOS 11 389 233 1.67 355.4 F 13.7 355.4 B F HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 3.1c Eastbound Westbound hared In volume, major th vehicles: 0 0 hared In volume, major rt vehicles: 0 0 Sat flow rate, major th vehicles: 1700 1700 11 at flow rate, major rt vehicles: 1700 1700 umber of major street through lanes: 2 2 Length of study period, hrs: 0.25 1 Worksheet 4 Critical Gap and Follow-up time calculation. Ir±tical Gap Calculations: ovement 1 t c,base 4.1 c,hv 2.0 I/ hv 0.13 c,g 0.00 t 3,1t 0.0 11 c,T: 1 stage 0.00 t c 1 stage 4.4 Iollow Up Time Calculations: ovement 1 f,base 2.2 f,HV 1.0 hv 0.13 f 2.3 11orksheet 6 Impedance and capacity equations Step 2: LT from Major St. 4 1 I/ onflicting Flows otential Capacity edestrian Impedance Factor Movement Capacity Probability of Queue free St. 1366 445 1.00 445 0.64 Worksheet 10 delay,queue length, and LOS llovement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 II(vph) 160 m(vph) 445 v/c 0.36 95% queue length ontrol Delay 17.5 OS C pproach Delay Approach LOS MTM 2010wppm.for (1) GHC Tukwila Office 2 99181-60 Interurban Ave/Pacific Highway S/S Boeing Access Rd 2010 Volumes w/project trips - PM Peak Hour SIGNAL97/TEAPAC[Ver 1.01] - Display of Intersection Parameters 928 1 498 866 24.0 1 12.0 24.0 2 1 1 2 03/20/00 11:58:13 Key: VOLUMES -- > WIDTHS v LANES 1 \ 400 12.0 1 / 1 \ /I\ -- 1304 24.0 2 258 24.0 2 / + / 394 12.0 1 North 588 24.0 2 \ / 1 0.0 0 \ 0 0.0 0 288 449 24.0 12.0 2 I 1 Phasing: SEQUENCE 27 PERMSV NNNN OVERLP YYYY LEADLAG LD LD MTM 2010wppm.for (1) GHC Tukwila Office 2 99181-60 Interurban Ave/Pacific Highway S/S Boeing Access Rd 2010 Volumes w/project trips - PM Peak Hour SIGNAL97/TEAPAC[Ver 1.01] - Capacity Analysis Summary Intersection Averages: Degree of Saturation 03/20/00 11:58:04 (v/c) 0.93 Vehicle Delay 88.2 Level of Service F Sq 27 Phase 1 I Phase 2 I Phase 3 I Phase 4 /I\ North 1 <+ v * * *> w * * * +> v G/C=0.226 G/C=0.115 G/C=0.336 G= 27.1" G= 13.8" G= 40.4" Y+R= 5.0" Y+R= 5.0" Y+R= 5.0" OFF= 0.0% OFF=26.8% OFF=42.4% G/C=0.156 G= 18.8" Y+R= 5.0" OFF=80.2% C=120 sec G=100.0 sec = 83.3% Y=20.0 sec = 16.7% Ped= 0.0 sec = 0.0% I Lane (Width/1 g/C 1 Service Rate! Adj 1 1 HCM 1 L 190% Maxi 1 Group 1 Lanes! Reqd Used 1 @C (vph) @E 'Volume! v/c 1 Delay 1 S 1 Queue 1 SB Approach 71.0 E RT TH LT 24/2 12/1 24/2 10.433 10.392 10.369 10.580 10.382 10.226 1510 505 1 1601 705 768 987 530 921 10.616 10.752 11.199 17.2 36.7 148.5 351 556 605 ft1 ft1 ft 1 NB Approach 37.8 D+ 1 RT 1 12/1 10.408 10.493 1 653 1 773 1 478 10.618 1 23.7 1 C+1 411 ftl 1 TH 1 24/2 10.272 10.115 1 1 1 373 1 306 10.761 1 59.8 1*E+1 230 ftl WB Approach 115.4 F 1 TH 1 24/2 10.461 10.336 1 746 1 1156 1 1387 11.200 1 138.3 I*F 1 790 ft1 1 LT 1 12/1 10.363 10.336 1 350 1 578 1 419 10.725 1 39.5 1 D+I 477 ftl EB Approach 124.1 F 1 TH+RTI 24/2 10.320 10.156 1 1 I 503 1 627 11.199 1 157.5 I*F 1 462 ftl 1 LT 1 24/2 10.271 10.156 1 1 1 487 1 274 10.540 1 47.8 1 D 1 202 ftl MTM 2010wppm.for (311) GHC Tukwila Office 2 99181-60 Pacific Highway S/S 112th Street 2010 Volumes w/project trips - PM Peak Hour SIGNAL97/TEAPAC[Ver 1.01] - Display of Intersection Parameters 03/20/00 12:02:12 44 1788 1 30 1 i Key: iOLUMEDTHS 0.0 24.0 1 12.0 1 1 v LANES 0 2 1 1 1 I1 \ 9 0.0 0 / 1 \ /1\ 9 12.0 1 346 12.0 1 + / 33 12.0 1 North 99 12.0 1 229 0.0 0 \ 1 / 64 1 736 1 52 1 Phasing: SEQUENCE 61 12.0 1 24.0 1 12.0 1 PERMSV YNYN 1 1 2 1 1 1 OVERLP YYYY LEADLAG LD LD MTM 2010wppm.for (311) GHC Tukwila Office 2 Pacific Highway S/S 112th Street 2010 Volumes w/project trips - PM Peak Hour SIGNAL97/TEAPAC[Ver 1.01] - Capacity Analysis Intersection Averages: Degree of Saturation (v/c) 99181-60 Summary 03/20/00 12:02:06 0.78 Vehicle Delay 40.8 Level of Service D+ Sq 61 I Phase 1 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4 **/** /I\ North +> <* * * A <+ + +> + + + + + + * * <* v G/C=0.042 G= 5.1" Y+R= 5.0" OFF= 0.0% G/C=0.000 G= 0.0" Y+R= 0.0" OFF= 8.4% G/C=0.532 G= 63.9" Y+R= 5.0" OFF= 8.4% G/C=0.301 G= 36.1" Y+R= 5.0" OFF=65.8% C=120 sec G=105.0 sec = 87.5% Y=15.0 sec = 12.5% Ped= 0.0 sec = 0.0% Lane Width/' g/C I Service Rate' Adj I I HCM I L 190% Maxi I Group I Lanes' Reqd Used I @C (vph) @E 'Volume' v/c I Delay I S I Queue I SB Approach 49.6 D TH+RTI 24/2 10.564 10.532 11748 11877 11888 11.006 I 50.3 l*D 1745 ftl LT 112/1 10.000 10.042 I 310 I 373 I 31 10.083 I 11.7 I B+' 25 ftl NB Approach 17.6 B RT TH LT 12/1 10.251 10.532 I 748 I 851 I 54 10.063 I 13.6 I B+' 42 ftl 24/2 10.333 10.532 11773 11902 I 759 10.399 I 16.8 I B 1298 ftl 12/1 10.029 10.042 I 85 I 126 I 66 10.475 I 29.9 I*C I 60 ftl WB Approach 31.2 C TH+RTI 12/1 10.242 10.301 I 210 I 437 I 18 10.041 I 29.8 I C I 25 ftl LT 112/1 10.270 10.301 I 65 I 143 I 34 10.211 I 32.0 I C I 44 ftl EB Approach 46.6 D TH+RTI 12/1 10.333 10.301 I 245 I 508 I 338 10.661 I 39.8 I D+1 394 ftl LT 112/1 10.373 10.301 I 201 I 418 I 357 10.838 I 53.0 I*D 1416 ftl MTM 2010wppm.for (63) GHC Tukwila Office 2 99181-60 Interurban Ave/East Marginal Way S 2010 Volumes w/project trips - PM Peak Hour SIGNAL97/TEAPAC[Ver 1.01] - Display of Intersection Parameters I 409 1 734 0 12.0 1 12.0 I 0.0 1 1 1 1 0 I I \ 0 0.0 0 / 1 \ /1\ 0 0.0 0 1 I + / 0 0.0 0 North 03/20/00 11:58:54 Key: VOLUMES -- > 1 WIDTHS v LANES 252 12.0 1 / 0 0.0 0 28 12.0 1 \ 33 429 1 0 1 Phasing: SEQUENCE 31 12.0 12.0 1 0.0 1 PERMSV NNYN 1 1 1 1 0 1 OVERLP YYYY 1 LEADLAG LD LD MTM 2010wppm.for (63) GHC Tukwila Office 2 99181-60 Interurban Ave/East Marginal Way S 2010 Volumes w/project trips - PM Peak Hour SIGNAL97/TEAPAC[Ver 1.01] - Capacity Analysis Summary 03/20/00 11:58:47 Intersection Averages: Degree of Saturation (v/c) 0.61 Vehicle Delay 18.5 Level of Service B Sq 31 1 Phase 1 Phase 2 I Phase 3 **/** /I\ North v A <* + ++++ * + v * + <+ A G/C=0.058 G/C=0.520 G/C=0.255 G= 5.2" G= 46.8" G= 23.0" Y+R= 5.0" Y+R= 5.0" Y+R= 5.0" OFF= 0.0% OFF=11.4% OFF=68.9% C= 90 sec G= 75.0 sec = 83.3% Y=15.0 sec = 16.7% Ped= 0.0 sec = 0.0% 1 Lane Width/1 g/C I Service Rate' Adj 1 I HCM I L 190% Maxi 1 Group 1 Lanes) Reqd Used 1 @C (vph) @E 'Volume) v/c 1 Delay 1 S 1 Queue 1 SB Approach 19.0 B RT 1 12/1 10.366 10.831 1 1278 1 1278 1 460 10.360 1 2.0 1 A 1 100 ftl TH 1 12/1 10.497 10.520 1 874 1 941 1 825 10.877 1 28.5 1*C 1 510 ftl NB Approach 9.3 A TH 1 12/1 10.357 10.634 1 1009 1 1047 1 482 10.460 1 8.9 1 A 1241 ftl LT 1 12/1 10.000 10.058 1 148 1 188 1 37 10.195 1 14.6 l*B+1 25 ftl EB Approach 31.7 C RT 1 12/1 10.131 10.369 1 466 1 568 1 31 10.055 1 18.3 1 B 1 25 ftl LT 1 12/1 10.244 10.255 1 305 1 439 1 283 10.645 1 33.1 1*C 1 271 ftl MTM 2010wppm.for (249) GHC Tukwila Office 2 99181-60 Pacific Highway S/S 130th Street 2010 Volumes w/project trips - PM Peak Hour SIGNAL97/TEAPAC[Ver 1.01] - Display of Intersection Parameters 1 0 1 1192 43 0.0 1 24.0 12.0 0 1 2 1 1 / 1 0 0.0 0 / 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 \ 1 03/20/00 12:01:12 Key: VOLUMES -- > WIDTHS v LANES 75 0.0 0 0 12.0 1 + / 239 0.0 0 1 0 620 12 0.0 24.0 0.0 0 2 1 0 1I\ North Phasing: SEQUENCE 11 PERMSV NNNN OVERLP YYYY LEADLAG LD LD MTM 2010wppm.for (249) GHC Tukwila Office 2 99181-60 Pacific Highway S/S 130th Street 2010 Volumes w/project trips - PM Peak Hour SIGNAL97/TEAPAC[Ver 1.01] - Intersection Averages: Degree of Saturation Capacity Analysis Summary 03/20/00 12:01:07 (v/c) 0.58 Vehicle Delay 11.1 Level of Service B+ Sq 11 I Phase 1 Phase 2 **/** /I\ North v A +> G/C=0.545 G/C=0.289 G= 32.7" G= 17.3" Y+R= 5.0" I Y+R= 5.0" OFF= 0.0% I OFF=62.8% C= 60 sec G= 50.0 sec = 83.3% Y=10.0 sec = 16.7% Ped= 0.0 sec = 0.0% I Lane Width/1 g/C I Service Rate Adj I I HCM I L 190% Maxi I Group I Lanes' Reqd Used I @C (vph) @E 'Volume' v/c I Delay I S I Queue I SB Approach 11.1 B+ TH LT 124/2 10.394 10.545 11909 11909 11339 10.701 I 11.2 I*B+I 259 ftl 112/1 10.000 10.545 I 319 I 358 I 48 10.134 I 6.9 I A I 25 ftl NB Approach 8.0 A I TH+RTI 24/2 10.230 10.545 11886 11886 I 710 10.376 I 8.0 I A 1138 ftl WB Approach 17.2 B ILT+TH+RTI 12/1 10.269 10.372 I 522 I 579 I 353 10.610 I 17.2 I*B 1187 ftl MTM 2010wppm.for (187) GHC Tukwila Office 2 99181-60 Interurban Avenue/S 133rd Street/Gateway Drive 2010 Volumes w/project trips - PM Peak Hour SIGNAL97/TEAPAC[Ver 1.01] - Capacity Analysis Summary 03/20/00 12:00:14 Intersection Averages: Degree of Saturation (v/c) 0.90 Vehicle Delay 50.7 Level of Service D Sq 37 Phase 1 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 i Phase 4' **/** /1\ North * * <* A <* + +> ++++ * + 4- V v * + + v A v G/C=0.108 G/C=0.272 1 G/C=0.214 G= 9.7" G= 24.5" G= 19.2" Y+R= 5.0" Y+R= 5.0" Y+R= 5.0" OFF= 0.0% OFF=16.3% 1 OFF=49.1% G/C=0.184 G= 16.6" Y+R= 5.0" OFF=76.0% C= 90 sec G= 70.0 sec = 77.8% Y=20.0 sec = 22.2% Ped= 0.0 sec = 0.0% 1 Lane Width/' g/C 1 Service Rate' Adj ' 1 HCM 1 L 19096 Maxi 1 Group i Lanes' Reqd Used i @C (vph) @E 'Volume' v/c i Delay 1 S 1 Queue I SB Approach 50.2 D RT 1 12/1 10.345 10.272 i 288 i 407 1 409 11.005 1 78.6 '*E ' 390 ftl TH i 24/2 10.261 10.272 1 718 i 911 ' 670 10.735 ' 32.9 ' C ' 319 ft' NB Approach 41.8 D+ TH+RTI 24/2 10.425 10.436 LT 24/2 10.182 10.108 ' 1305 1 i ' 1406 ' 1267 339 ' 337 10.901 10.966 31.9 1 C '*E 79.0 468 ftl 197 ft' WB Approach 78.2 E 'LT+TH+RT) 24/2 10.278 10.214 ' 485 ' 719 i 744 11.035 1 78.2 I*E ' 372 ftl EB Approach 42.4 D+ 1 RT 1 12/1 10.368 10.347 ' 401 ' 505 ' 435 10.861 ' 41.5 ' D+I 378 ftl ILT+TH 1 12/1 10.220 10.184 ' 163 ' 297 1 226 10.741 ' 44.0 1*D+1 246 ftl MTM 2010wppm.for (125) GHC Tukwila Office 2 SR 599 NB off-ramp/Interurban Ave 2010 Volumes w/project trips - PM Peak Hour SIGNAL97/TEAPAC[Ver 1.01] - Display of 0 10 1 0 1 o.00 1 0.100 I 0.0 1 1 I I / 1 \ 0 0.0 0 / + 1316 24.0 2 0 0.0 0 \ 330 12.0 1 MTM 2010wppm.for (125) GHC Tukwila Office 2 99181-60 SR 599 NB off-ramp/Interurban Ave 2010 Volumes w/project trips - PM Peak Hour SIGNAL97/TEAPAC[Ver 1.01] - Capacity Analysis Summary 03/20/00 11:59:26 Intersection Averages: Degree of Saturation (v/c) 0.69 Vehicle Delay 13.6 Level of Service B+ Sq 11 1 Phase 1 1 Phase 2 1 / \ North <++++ +> G/C=0.315 G/C=0.518 G= 18.9" G= 31.1" Y+R= 5.0" Y+R= 5.0" OFF= 0.0% OFF=39.8% C= 60 sec G= 50.0 sec = 83.3% Y=10.0 sec = 16.7% Ped= 0.0 sec = 0.0% 1 Lane 1Width/1 g/C 1 Group I Lanes' Reqd Used Service Rated Adj 1 @C (vph) @E 1Volumel v/c HCM Delay L 190% Max 1 S 1 Queue 1 NB Approach 19.4 B 1 RT 1 12/1 10.108 10.315 1 401 1 463 1 104 10.225 1 15.4 1 B 1 63 ftl 1 LT 1 12/1 10.247 10.315 1 454 1 517 1 337 10.652 1 20.6 1*C+1 204 ft1 WB Approach 11.6 B+ 1 TH 1 24/2 10.362 10.518 1 1760 1 1765 1 1180 10.669 1 11.6 1 B+1 245 ftl EB Approach 13.5 B+ 1 TH 1 24/2 10.406 10.518 1 1760 1 1765 1 1343 10.761 1 13.5 1*B+1 279 ftl HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 3.1c Northbound Southbound Shared In volume, major th vehicles: 0 0 hared In volume, major rt vehicles: 0 0 Sat flow rate, major th vehicles: 1700 1700 Sat flow rate, major rt vehicles: 1700 1700 umber of major street through lanes:IF 1 1 Length of study period, hrs: 0.25 IlLorksheet 4 Critical Gap and Follow-up time calculation. IFritical Gap Calculations: ovement 1 10 12 t c,base 4.1 7.1 6.2 t c,hv 1.0 1.0 1.0 It by 0.10 0.02 0.02 c,g 0.2 0.1 0.00 0.00 0.00 t 3,1t 0.0 0.7 0.0 Ilc,T: l stage 0.00 0.00 0.00 t c 1 stage 4.2 6.4 6.2 Iollow Up Time Calculations: ovement 1 10 12 t f,base 2.2 3.5 3.3 If,HV 0.9 0.9 0.9 by 0.10 0.02 0.02 f 2.3 3.5 3.3 itorksheet 6 Impedance and capacity equations tep 1: RT from Minor St. 9 12 Ionflicting Flows otential Capacity edestrian Impedance Factor Movement Capacity Probability of Queue free St. IItep 2: LT from Major St. 946 317 1.00 317 0.32 4 1 Conflicting Flows 985 otential CapacityI 670 edestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 ovement Capacity 670 Probability of Queue free St. 0.75 IItep 4: LT from Minor St. 7 10 Conflicting Flows 2130 II55otential Capacity edestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 aj. L, Min T Impedance factor 0.75 Maj. L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor. 0.81 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.81 ovement CapacityII 44 orksheet 8 Shared Lane Calculations 11 hared Lane Calculations ovement 7 8 9 10 11 12 v(vph) 32 215 Movement Capacity 44 317 Ilh ared Lane Capacity 175 Worksheet 10 delay,queue length, and LOS Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 v(vph) 167 C m(vph) 670 v/c 0.25 95% queue length Control Delay 12.1 LOS B Approach Delay Approach LOS 247 175 1.41 264.3 F 264.3 F 1 HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 3.1c TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL(TWSC) ANALYSIS alyst: MTM emw120wppm10.hcu ntersection: E Marginal Way S/S 120th Street ount Date: 2010 Volumes w/project trips ime Period: PM Peak Intersection Orientation: North-South Major St. ehicle Volume Data: Movements: Lolwne: FR: 11 605 1 15 494 24 4 1 52 35 0 67 9 478 1 12 390 19 3 1 41 28 0 53 FR: 11 605 1 15 494 24 4 1 52 35 0 67 PHF: 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 IIHV: 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.09 0.09 0.09 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Pedestrian Volume Data: IIovements: Flow: Zane width: alk speed: Blockage: edian Type:11 None of vehicles: 0 1 lared approach Movements: of vehicles: Eastbound 0 of vehicles: Westbound 0 Lane usage for movements 1,2&3 approach: Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 L T R L T R L T R Y Y Y N N N N N N annelized: N rade: 0.00 'lane usage for movements 4,5&6 approach: Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 L T R L T R L T R Y N N N Y Y N N N annelized: rade: 0.00 I ne usage for movements 7,8&9 approach: Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 L T R L T R L T R Y Y Y N N N N N N annelized: N rade: 0.00 I ne usage for movements 10,11&12 approach: Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 L T R L T R L T R Itannelized: N Grade: 0.00 Y Y Y N N N N N N 11 ata for Computing Effect of Delay to Major Street Vehicles: Northbound Southbound Shared In volume, major th vehicles: 478 0 Shared In volume, major rt vehicles: 1 0 Sat flow rate, major th vehicles: 1700 1700 Sat flow rate, major rt vehicles: 1700 1700 Number of major street through lanes: 1 1 Length of study period, hrs: 0.25 Worksheet 4 Critical Gap and Follow-up time calculation. Critical Gap Calculations: Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 t c,base 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 t c,hv 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 P hv 0.07 0.09 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.09 0.09 0.09 t c,g 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 G 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 t 3,1t 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 t c,T: 1 stage 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 t c 1 stage 4.2 4.2 8.0 7.4 7.1 7.2 6.6 6.3 Follow Up Time Calculations: Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 t f,base t f,HV P hv t f 2.2 0.9 0.07 2.3 2.2 0.9 0.09 2.3 3.5 0.9 0.87 4.3 4.0 0.9 0.87 4.8 3.3 0.9 0.87 4.1 3.5 0.9 0.09 3.6 4.0 0.9 0.09 4.1 3.3 0.9 0.09 3.4 Worksheet 6 Impedance and capacity equations Step 1: RT from Minor St. 9 12 Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Movement Capacity Probability of Queue free St. 606 371 1.00 371 0.86 506 553 1.00 553 0.88 Step 2: LT from Major St. 4 1 Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Movement Capacity Probability of Queue free St. Maj. L Shared ln. Prob. Queue Free St. 606 939 1.00 939 0.98 0.98 518 1023 1.00 1023 0.99 0.98 Step 3: TH from Minor St. 8 11 Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Probability of Queue free St. 1177 134 1.00 0.97 130 0.99 1165 188 1.00 0.97 182 1.00 Step 4: LT from Minor St. 7 10 Conflicting Flows 1198 1191 Potential Capacity 111 159 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Maj. L, Min T Impedance factor 0.97 0.96 Maj. L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor. 0.98 0.97 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.86 0.83 Movement Capacity 95 132 Worksheet 8 Shared Lane Calculations Shared Lane Calculations Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 I v(vph) 14 1 52 I 35 0 67 ovement Capacity 95 130 371 132 182 553 hared Lane Capacity 301 264 Worksheet 10 delay,queue length, and LOS ovement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 II[(vph) C m(vph) v/c I5% queue length ontrol Delay OS Approach Delay pproach LOS 11 15 57 103 1023 939 301 264 0.01 0.02 0.19 0.39 8.6 8.9 19.8 27.1 A A C D 19.8 27.1 C D orksheet 11 Shared Major LT Impedance and Delay ank 1 Delay Calculations Movement 2 5 of 0.99 0.98 it 478 0 i2 1 0 S it 1700 1700 i2 1700 1700 * Oj 0.98 0.98 maj left 8.6 8.9 . number major st lanes 1 1 Delay, rank 1 mvmts 0.1 0.1 HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 3.1c Northbound Southbound ared In volume, major th vehicles: 219 0 ared In volume, major rt vehicles: 0 0 Sat flow rate, major th vehicles: 1700 1700 Sat flow rate, major rt vehicles: 1700 1700 er of major street through lanes: 1limb 1 Length of study period, hrs: 0.25 Worksheet 4 Critical Gap and Follow-up time calculation. IFitical Gap Calculations: vement 1 10 12 t c,base 4.1 7.1 6.2 * c,hv 1.0 1.0 1.0 Ihv 0.09 0.03 0.03 c,g 0.2 0.1 0.00 0.00 0.00 t 3,1t 0.0 0.7 0.0 i c,T: stage 0.00 0.00 0.00 t c 1 stage 4.2 6.4 6.2 IIllow Up Time Calculations: vement 1 10 12 f,base 2.2 3.5 3.3 f,HV 0.9 0.9 0.9 by 0.09 0.03 0.03 f 2.3 3.5 3.3 IIrksheet 6 Impedance and capacity equations Step 1: RT from Minor St. 9 12 inflicting Flows 600 tential Capacity 499 destrian Impedance Factor 1.00 Movement Capacity 499 Probability of Queue free St. 0.61 Lep 2: LT from Major St. 4 1 onflicting Flows tential Capacity destrian Impedance Factor ovement Capacity Probability of Queue free St. j. L Shared ln. Prob. Queue Free St. lir Step 4: LT from Minor St. 618 929 1.00 929 0.97 0.97 7 10 inflicting Flows 885 tential Capacity 314 destrian Impedance Factor 1.00 Maj. L, Min T Impedance factor 0.97 aj. L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor. 0.97 p. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.97 vement Capacity 306 Irrksheet 8 Shared Lane Calculations Shared Lane Calculations Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 r to(vph) vement Capacity ared Lane Capacity 215 306 375 196 499 'orksheet 10 delay,queue length, and LOS Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 v(vph) 27 C m(vph) 929 v/c 0.03 95% queue length Control Delay 9.0 LOS A Approach Delay Approach LOS 411 375 1.09 107.7 F 107.7 F Worksheet 11 Shared Major LT Impedance and Delay Rank 1 Delay Calculations Movement 2 5 P of ✓ it ✓ i2 S it S i2 P* Oj D maj left N number major st lanes Delay, rank 1 mvmts 0.97 1.00 219 0 0 0 1700 1700 1700 1700 0.97 1.00 9.0 0.0 1 1 0.3 0.0 1 HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 3.1c orksheet 1 Analyst: 3. 4. - Basic Intersection: Count Date: Time Period: Iorkseet 2 ALL -WAY STOP CONTROL(AWSC) ANALYSIS - Volume LT Volume: TH Volume: RT Volume: Peak Hour Factor: 11 • Flow Rate LT: • Flow Rate TH: Flow Rate RT: 8. Flow Rate Total: 9. Prop Heavy Vehicle: I0. Subject Approach 1. Opposing Approach 2. Conflicting Approach 13. Geometry Group 4. T (Time in Hours):11 0.250 Intersection Information MTM EM130wppm10.hcu East Marginal Way/S 130th Street 2010 Volumes w/project trips PM Peak Adjustments and Site Characteristics North Bound L1 56 116 50 0.94 59 123 53 236 0.05 1 1 1 1 South Bound L1 44 523 145 0.94 46 556 154 757 0.01 1 1 1 1 orksheet 3 - Saturation Headway Adjustment Worksheet Flow Rate Total: . Flow Rate LT: 3. Flow Rate RT: 4. Prop LT in lane: I. Prop RT in lane: • Prop. Heavy Vehicle: Geometry Group 8. hLT-adj by Table 10-18 9. hRT-adj by Table 10-18 I0. hHV-adj Table 10-18 1. hadj Worksheet 4 - Departure Headway Total lane flow rate 2. hd, initial value 11 x, initial hd, final value x, final value 6. Move -up time, m 7. Service Time Iorksheet 5 - Capacity and Total lane flow rate . Service Time . Degree Utilization, x 4. Departure headway, hd Capacity . Delay . Level Of Service 8. Delay Approach 9. LOS, approach I0. Delay, Intersection 1. LOS, Intersection East Bound West Bound L1 L1 45 58 81 132 40 13 0.94 0.94 47 61 86 140 42 13 176 215 0.02 0.01 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 North Bound South Bound East Bound L1 L1 L1 236 757 176 59 46 47 53 154 42 0.25 0.06 0.27 0.23 0.20 0.24 0.05 0.01 0.02 1 1 1 0.20 0.20 0.20 -0.60 -0.60 -0.60 1.70 1.70 1.70 0.00 -0.09 -0.06 and Service Time North Bound South Bound L1 L1 236 757 3.2 3.2 0.21 0.67 6.2 5.5 0.41 1.16 2.0 2.0 4.2 3.5 Level of Service North Bound L1 236 4.2 0.41 6.2 564 13.4 B 13.4 B 65.4 F South Bound L1 757 3.5 1.16 5.5 655 108.5 F 108.5 F East Bound L1 176 3.2 0.16 6.6 0.33 2.0 4.6 East Bound L1 176 4.6 0.33 6.6 524 12.8 B 12.8 B West Bound Ll 215 61 13 0.29 0.06 0.01 1 0.20 -0.60 1.70 0.04 West Bound L1 215 3.2 0.19 6.6 0.40 2.0 4.6 West Bound L1 215 4.6 0.40 6.6 528 13.9 B 13.9 B HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 3.1c TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL(TWSC) ANALYSIS Analyst: MTM 599133wppm10.hcu Intersection: S 133rd Street/SR 599 On&Off-Ramps Count Date: 2010 Volumes w/project trips Time Period: PM Peak Intersection Orientation: East-West Major St. Vehicle Volume Data: Movements: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Volume: 213 204 7 49 187 748 6 68 95 269 18 34 HFR: 234 224 8 54 205 822 7 75 104 296 20 37 PHF: 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 PHV: 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.16 0.16 0.16 Pedestrian Volume Data: Movements: Flow: Lane width: Walk speed: % Blockage: Median Type: None # of vehicles: 0 Flared approach Movements: # of vehicles: Northbound 0 # of vehicles: Southbound 2 Lane usage for movements 1,2&3 approach: Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 L T R L T R L T R Y N N N Y Y N N N Channelized: N Grade: 0.00 Lane usage for movements 4,5&6 approach: Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 L T R L T R L T R Y N N N Y N N N Y Channelized: Y Grade: 0.00 Lane usage for movements 7,8&9 approach: Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 L T R L T R L T R Y Y Y N N N N N N Channelized: N Grade: 0.00 Lane usage for movements 10,11&12 approach: Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 L T R L T R L T R Y Y Y N N N N N N Channelized: N Grade: 0.00 Data for Computing Effect of Delay to Major Street Vehicles: Eastbound Westbound hared In volume, major th vehicles: 0 0 hared In volume, major rt vehicles: 0 0 Sat flow rate, major th vehicles: 1700 1700 at flow rate, major rt vehicles: 1700II 1700 umber of major street through lanes: 1 1 Length of study period, hrs: 0.25 1 Worksheet 4 Critical Gap and Follow-up time calculation. I/ ritical Gap Calculations: ovement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 t c,base 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 Ic,hv 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 by 0.08 0.07 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.16 0.16 0.16 c,g 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 t 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 t 3,1t 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 II c,T: 1 stage 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 t c 1 stage 4.2 4.2 7.2 6.6 6.3 7.3 6.7 6.4 11 ollow Up Time Calculations: ovement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 f,base 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 f,HV 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 by 0.08 0.07 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.16 0.16 0.16 t f 2.3 2.3 3.6 4.1 3.4 3.6 4.1 3.4 Iorksheet 6 Impedance and capacity equations Step 1: RT from Minor St. 9 12 IIonflicting Flows otential Capacity edestrian Impedance Factor Movement Capacity robability of Queue free St. 11 228 797 1.00 797 0.87 205 801 1.00 801 0.95 tep 2: LT from Major St. 4 1 Ionflicting Flows otential Capacity edestrian Impedance Factor Movement Capacity Probability of Queue free St. IItep 3: TH from Minor St. 232 1307 1.00 1307 0.96 205 1331 1.00 1331 0.82 8 11 onflicting Flows11 1009 1013 otential Capacity 234 226 edestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 ap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.79 0.79 Movement Capacity 185 178 probability of Queue free St. 0.60 0.89 Step 4: LT from Minor St. 7 10 onflicting Flows 1449 1099 otential Capacity 106 179 edestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Maj. L, Min T Impedance factor 0.70 0.47 aj. L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor.li 0.77 0.58 ap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.73 0.51 ovement Capacity 78 90 11orksheet 8 Shared Lane Calculations Shared Lane Calculations Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 v(vph) 7 75 104 296 20 37 Movement Capacity 78 185 797 90 178 801 Shared Lane Capacity 300 103 Worksheet 9 -Computation of effect of flared minor street approaches Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 C sep 78 185 797 90 178 801 Volume 7 75 104 296 20 37 Delay 55.7 37.0 10.2 1121.6 27.7 9.7 Q sep 0.10 0.77 0.30 92.10 0.15 0.10 Q sep +1 1.10 1.77 1.30 93.10 1.15 1.10 round (Qsep +1) 1 2 1 93 1 1 n max 2 93 C sh 300 103 SUM C sep 1059 1070 n 0 2 C act 300 124 Worksheet 10 delay,queue length, and LOS Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 v(vph) C m(vph) v/c 95% queue length Control Delay LOS Approach Delay Approach LOS 234 54 186 1331 1307 300 0.18 0.04 0.62 8.3 7.9 34.7 A A D 11 353 124 2.85 910.5 F 34.7 910.5 D F ITWO-WAY STOP CONTROL(TWSC) ANALYSIS Onalyst: MTM int5nbwppml0.hcu ntersection: Interurban Avenue S/I-5 NB On -Ramp ount Date: 2010 Volumes w/project trips ime Period: PM Peak HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 3.1c tersection Orientation: East-West Major St. lin Volume Data: Movements: 1 2 5 6 olume: 271 1520 906 641 FR: 298 1670 996 704 PHF: 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 11HV: 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 Pedestrian Volume Data: IIovements: Flow: ne width: alk speed: Blockage: iledian Type: None of vehicles: 0 lared approach Movements: 11 of vehicles: Northbound 0 of vehicles: Southbound 0 Lane usage for movements 1,2&3 approach: Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 11 L T R L T R L T R Y N N N Y N N Y N Irannelized: N rade: 0.00 line usage for movements 4,5&6 approach: Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 L T R L T R L T R N Y N N Y N N N Y Iannelized: ade: Y 0.00 I ne usage for movements 7,8&9 approach: Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 L T R L T R L T R N N N N N N N N N annelized: rade: N 0.00 I ne usage for movements 10,11&12 approach: Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 L T R L T R L T R Inannelized: N Grade: 0.00 N N N N N N N N N ata for Computing Effect of Delay to Major Street Vehicles: Eastbound Westbound Shared In volume, major th vehicles: 0 0 Shared In volume, major rt vehicles: 0 0 Sat flow rate, major th vehicles: 1700 1700 Sat flow rate, major rt vehicles: 1700 1700 Number of major street through lanes: 2 2 Length of study period, hrs: 0.25 Worksheet 4 Critical Gap and Follow-up time calculation. Critical Gap Calculations: Movement 1 t c,base 4.1 t c,hv 2.0 P hv 0.06 t c,g G 0.00 t 3,1t 0.0 t c,T: 1 stage 0.00 t c 1 stage 4.2 Follow Up Time Calculations: Movement 1 t f,base t f,HV P hv t f 2.2 1.0 0.06 2.3 Worksheet 6 Impedance and capacity equations Step 2: LT from Major St. 4 1 Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Movement Capacity Probability of Queue free St. 996 667 1.00 667 0.55 Worksheet 10 delay,queue length, and LOS Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 v(vph) 298 C m(vph) 667 v/c 0.45 95% queue length Control Delay 14.7 LOS B Approach Delay Approach LOS APPENDIX F LOS and Queue Worksheets for Project Driveways 1 HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 3.1c TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL(TWSC) ANALYSIS alyst: MTM 124ndwam00.hcu ntersection: S 124th Street/GHC North Entrance ount Date: 2000 Volumes w/project ime Period: AM Peak Intersection Orientation: East-West Major St. ehicle Volume Data: Movements: 2 3 4 5 7 9 Iolume: 0 0 240 0 0 30 FR: 0 0 267 0 0 33 PHF: 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 IIHV: 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 Pedestrian Volume Data: li ovements: Flow: ane width: alk speed: Blockage: edian Type:11 None of vehicles: 0 r lared approach Movements: of vehicles: Northbound 0 of vehicles: Southbound 0 Lane usage for movements 1,2&3 approach: ' Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 L T R L T R L T R N Y Y N N N N N N Ihannelized: N rade: 0.00 I ane usage for movements 4,5&6 approach: Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 L T R L T R L T R Y N N N N N N N N Ihannelized: N rade: 0.00 I ane usage for movements 7,8&9 approach: Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 L T R L T R L T R IIhannelized: N rade: 0.00 Y N Y N N N N N N Lane usage for movements 10,11&12 approach: Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 L T R L T R L T R channelized: N Grade: 0.00 N N N N N N N N N IIata for Computing Effect of Delay Major Ma'or Street Vehicles: 1 Eastbound Westbound Shared In volume, major th vehicles: 0 0 Shared In volume, major rt vehicles: 0 0 Sat flow rate, major th vehicles: 1700 1700 Sat flow rate, major rt vehicles: 1700 1700 Number of major street through lanes: 1 0 Length of study period, hrs: 0.25 Worksheet 4 Critical Gap and Follow-up time calculation. Critical Gap Calculations: Movement 4 7 9 t c,base 4.1 7.1 6.2 t c,hv 1.0 1.0 1.0 P hv 0.02 0.02 0.02 t c,g 0.2 0.1 G 0.00 0.00 0.00 t 3,1t 0.0 0.7 0.0 t c,T: 1 stage 0.00 0.00 0.00 t c 1 stage 4.1 6.4 6.2 Follow Up Time Calculations: Movement 4 7 9 t f,base t f,HV P hv t f 2.2 0.9 0.02 2.2 3.5 0.9 0.02 3.5 3.3 0.9 0.02 3.3 Worksheet 6 Impedance and capacity equations Step 1: RT from Minor St. 9 12 Conflicting Flows 0 Potential Capacity 1085 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 Movement Capacity 1085 Probability of Queue free St. 0.97 Step 2: LT from Major St. 4 1 Conflicting Flows 0 Potential Capacity 1623 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 Movement Capacity 1623 Probability of Queue free St. 0.84 Step 4: LT from Minor St. 7 10 Conflicting Flows 0 Potential Capacity 1023 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 Maj. L, Min T Impedance factor 0.84 Maj. L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor. 0.87 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.87 Movement Capacity 894 Worksheet 8 Shared Lane Calculations Shared Lane Calculations Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 v(vph) Movement Capacity Shared Lane Capacity 0 894 1085 33 1085 Worksheet 10 delay,queue length, and LOS rement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Ivph) 267 133 m(vph) 1623 1085 v/c 0.16 0.03 95% queue length ntrol Delay 7.7 8.4 IS A A proach Delay Approach LOS 8.4 A 1I 1 HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 3.1c TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL(TWSC) ANALYSIS Analyst: MTM 124ndwpm00.hcu Intersection: S 124th Street/GHC North Entrance Count Date: 2000 Volumes w/project Time Period: PM Peak Intersection Orientation: East-West Major St. Vehicle Volume Data: Movements: 2 3 4 5 7 9 Volume: 0 0 42 0 0 236 HFR: 0 0 47 0 0 262 PHF: 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 PHV: 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 Pedestrian Volume Data: Movements: Flow: Lane width: Walk speed: % Blockage: Median Type: None # of vehicles: 0 Flared approach Movements: # of vehicles: Northbound 0 # of vehicles: Southbound 0 Lane usage for movements 1,2&3 approach: Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 L T R L T R L T R N Y Y N N N N N N Channelized: N Grade: 0.00 Lane usage for movements 4,5&6 approach: Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 L T R L T R L T R Y N N N N N N N N Channelized: N Grade: 0.00 Lane usage for movements 7,8&9 approach: Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 L T R L T R L T R Y N Y N N N N N N Channelized: N Grade: 0.00 Lane usage for movements 10,11&12 approach: Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 L T R L T R L T R N N N N N N N N N Channelized: N Grade: 0.00 Data for Computing Effect of Delay to Major Street Vehicles: Eastbound Westbound hared In volume, major th vehicles: 0 0 hared In volume, major rt vehicles: 0 0 Sat flow rate, major th vehicles: 1700 1700 Sat flow rate, major rt vehicles: 1700 1700 umber of major street through lanes: 1 0 Length of study period, hrs: 0.25 1 Worksheet 4 Critical Gap and Follow-up time calculation. Iritical Gap Calculations: ovement 4 7 9 t c,base 4.1 7.1 6.2 t c,hv 1.0 1.0 1.0 I by 0.02 0.02 0.02 c,g 0.2 0.1 0.00 0.00 0.00 t 3,1t 0.0 0.7 0.0 c,T: 1stag 1 e 0.00 0.00 0.00 t c 1 stage 4.1 6.4 6.2 Iollow Up Time Calculations: ovement 4 7 9 t f,base 2.2 3.5 3.3 f,HV 0.9 0.9 0.9 hv 0.02 0.02 0.02 f 2.2 3.5 3.3 Iorksheet 6 Impedance and capacity equations Step 1: RT from Minor St. 9 12 Ionfl±cting Flows 0 otential Capacity 1085 edestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 Movement Capacity 1085 Probability of Queue free St. 0.76 IItep 2: LT from Major St. 4 1 onflicting Flows4 0 otential Capacity 1623 edestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 ovement Capacity 1623 Probability of Queue free St. 0.97 step 4: LT from Minor St. 7 10 Conflicting Flows 0 Iotential Capacity 1023 edestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 aj. L, Min T Impedance factor 0.97 Maj. L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor. 0.98 ap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.98 ovement Capacity 1001 orksheet 8 Shared Lane Calculations hared Lane Calculations Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 v(vph) ovement Capacity hared Lane Capacity 0 1001 1085 262 1085 Worksheet 10 delay,queue length, and LOS I/ Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 v(vph) 47 262 C m(vph) 1623 1085 v/c 0.03 0.24 95% queue length Control Delay 7.3 9.4 LOS A A Approach Delay Approach LOS 9.4 A 10-22 124 On ST 164c 1Jot-w• Eh+rgv,ce tI13 M,cav464 a) 100 N 80 0 60 c_ �� 40 U CD 20 9-- O cD 10 Z 8 6 4 X 0) 2 U Q X UJ 1 PM PEA K URBAN STREETS 00 tioo0 cif' o0 0 200 so P.9 goy`'mt; O �V 0 0.2 N• GMt r S)1- c>/ Ns QTwovow1i^ 04 0.6 0.8 Volume/Capacity Ratio Figure 10-12. Estimation of 95th -percentile queue length. tions have demonstrated that the probability distribution function for queue lengths for any minor movement at an unsignalizcd intersection is a function of the capacity of the movement and the volume of traffic bcing served during the analysis period. Figure 10-12 can be used to estimate the 95t11 -percentile queue length for any minor movement at an unsignalizcd intersection during the peak 15 -min period on the basis of these two parameters (/ i). Thc mean queue length is computed as the product of the aver- age delay per vehicle and the (low rale for the movement of inter- est. Thc expected total delay (in vehicle hours per hour) equals the expected number of vehicles in the avert_c queue: that is. the total hourly delay and the average queue arc numerically identical. For example. 4 vehicle-lir/lir of delay can he used interchangeably with an average qucuc length of 4 during die hour. IIIoda nvl /let root bet. 1Y77 1.0 1.2 1.4 M PEAK v vpk = 2, (0 2 0 with Control Delay The delay experienced by a motorist is made up of a number of factors that relate to control, geometries. (-raffle. and incidents. Total delay is the difference between the travel time actually expe- rienced and the reference travel time that would result during conditions with ideal geometries and in the absence of incidents. control. and traffic. Chapters 9 and 10 of this manual quantify only that portion of total delay attributed.to traffic control mea- sures. either traffic signals or stop sign.. This delay is called con- trol delay and its use is consistent in Chapters 9. 10. and 11. Control delay includes initial deceleration delay. qucuc move -up time. stopped delay. and final acceleration delay. Although the methodology here results in an estimate of average control delay. it is rccom iendcd where possible under ex- HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 3.1cII TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL(TWSC) ANALYSIS Analyst: MTM emwsdwwpam00.hcu Intersection: East Marginal Way/GHC South EntranceII Count Date: 2000 Volumes w/project Time Period: AM Peak Intersection Orientation: North-South Major St. Northbound Southbound II hared In volume, major th vehicles: 549 0 hared In volume, major rt vehicles: 0 0 Sat flow rate, major th vehicles: 1700 1700 11at flow rate, major rt vehicles: 1700 1700 umber of major street through lanes: 1 1 Length of study period, hrs: 0.25 Worksheet 4 Critical Gap and Follow-up time calculation. 11 ritical Gap Calculations: ovement 1 7 9 10 12 t c,base 4.1 7.1 6.2 7.1 6.2 11 c,hv 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 by 0.05 0.40 0.40 0.00 0.00 c,g 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.1 G 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 t 3,1t 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ic,T: 1 stage 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 t c 1 stage 4.1 7.5 6.6 7.1 6.2 IIollow Up Time Calculations: ovement 1 7 9 10 12 11 f,base 2.2 3.5 3.3 3.5 3.3 f,HV 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 by 0.05 0.40 0.40 0.00 0.00 f 2.2 3.9 3.7 3.5 3.3 IIorksheet 6 Impedance and capacity equations Step 1: RT from Minor St. 9 12 Ionflicting Flows otential Capacity edestrian Impedance Factor Movement Capacity robability of Queue free St. 11 631 419 1.00 419 0.97 159 892 1.00 892 0.98 tep 2: LT from Major St. 4 1 Ionflicting Flows otential Capacity edestrian Impedance Factor Movement Capacity Probability of Queue free St. IIaj. L Shared ln. Prob. Queue Free St. Step 4: LT from Minor St. 214 1339 1.00 1339 0.88 0.82 7 10 conflicting Flows 1131 1126 otential Capacity 153 184 edestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Maj. L, Min T Impedance factor 0.82 0.82 aj. L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor. 0.86 0.86 ap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.84 0.84 ovement Capacity 128 153 11orksheet 8 Shared Lane Calculations Shared Lane Calculations Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 II I 11(vph) 6 11 14 21 ovement Capacity 128 419 153 892 hared Lane Capacity 238 305 IIorksheet 10 delay,queue length, and LOS Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 3.1c TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL(TWSC) ANALYSIS Analyst: MTM emwsdwwppm00.hcu 1/ ntersection: East Marginal Way/GHC South Entrance ount Date: 2000 Volumes w/project ime Period: PM Peak IIntersection Orientation: North-South Major St. ehicle Volume Data: Movements: 1 2 5 6 7 9 10 12 Iolume: 25 111 462 17 5 6 94 142 FR: 29 131 544 20 6 7 111 167 PHF: 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 PHV: 0.07 0.07 0.03 0.03 0.36 0.36 0.00 0.00 1 Pedestrian Volume Data: lovements: Flow: ane width: lk speed: Blockage: Median Type: None IIof vehicles: 0 1 lared approach Movements: of vehicles: Eastbound 0 of vehicles: Westbound 0 Lane 1 usage for movements 1,2&3 approach: Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 L T R L T R L T R Y Y N N N N N N N lannelized: ade: N 0.00 Lane usage for movements 4,5&6 approach: Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 L T R L T R L T R N annelized: ade: Y Y N N N N N N N 0.00 lane usage for movements 7,8&9 approach: Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 L T R L T R L T R Y Ianneied: ade: N Y N N N N N N N 0.00 Ine usage for movements 10,11&12 approach: Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 L T R L T R L T R Iiannelized: N Grade: 0.00 Y N Y N N N N N N 'La for Computing Effect of Delay to Major Street Vehicles: 1 Northbound Southbound Shared In volume, major th vehicles: 111 0 Shared In volume, major rt vehicles: 0 0 Sat flow rate, major th vehicles: 1700 1700 Sat flow rate, major rt vehicles: 1700 1700 Number of major street through lanes: 1 1 Length of study period, hrs: 0.25 Worksheet 4 Critical Gap and Follow-up time calculation. Critical Gap Calculations: Movement 1 7 9 10 12 t c,base 4.1 7.1 6.2 7.1 6.2 t c,hv 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 P hv 0.07 0.36 0.36 0.00 0.00 t c,g 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.1 G 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 t 3,1t 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 t c,T: 1 stage 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 t c 1 stage 4.2 7.5 6.6 7.1 6.2 Follow Up Time Calculations: Movement 1 7 9 10 12 t f,base t f,Hv P hv t f 2.2 0.9 0.07 2.3 3.5 0.9 0.36 3.8 3.3 0.9 0.36 3.6 3.5 0.9 0.00 3.5 3.3 0.9 0.00 3.3 Worksheet 6 Impedance and capacity equations Step 1: RT from Minor St. 9 12 Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Movement Capacity Probability of Queue free St. 131 836 1.00 836 0.99 554 536 1.00 536 0.69 Step 2: LT from Major St. 4 1 Conflicting Flows 564 Potential Capacity 984 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 Movement Capacity 984 Probability of Queue free St. 0.97 Maj. L Shared ln. Prob. Queue Free St. 0.97 Step 4: LT from Minor St. 7 10 Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Maj. L, Min T Impedance factor Maj. L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor. Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity 826 255 1.00 0.97 0.98 0.67 171 746 332 1.00 0.97 0.98 0.97 321 Worksheet 8 Shared Lane Calculations Shared Lane Calculations Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 v(vph) 6 Movement Capacity 171 Shared Lane Capacity 303 836 321 423 167 536 Worksheet 10 delay,queue length, and LOS Iovement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 I(vph) 29 13 278 m(vph) 984 303 423 v/c 0.03 0.04 0.66 95% queue length Iontrol Delay 8.8 17.4 28.3 OS A C D pproach Delay 17.4 28.3 Approach LOS C D 1 Worksheet 11 Shared Major LT Impedance and Delay Iank 1 Delay Calculations ovement 2 5 P of 0.97 1.00 11 it 111 0 i2 0 0 it 1700 1700 S i2 1700 1700 * Oj 0.97 1.00 maj left 8.8 0.0 number major st lanes 1 1 elay, rank 1 mvmts 0.3 0.0 10-22 E 'Avg/ C, iscc 5o v4i4En ref rice i 9 WI* /444 'It/s4 rat I- Expected Maximum Number of Vehicles in Queue 100 80 60 40 20 10 8 6 4 2 1 URBAN STREETS 0 AM PEPK YI'G h J XPi" so 34 0.2 0 4 0 6 0.8 1.0 Volume/Capacity Ratio Figure 10-12. Estimation of 95th -percentile queue length. tions have demonstrated that the probability distribution function for queue lengths for any minor movement at an unsignalizcd intersection is a function of the capacity of the movement and the volume of traffic being served during the analysis period. Figure 10-12 can be used to estimate the 95t11 -percentile qucuc length for any minor movement at an unsignalizcd intersection during the peak 15 -min period on thc basis of these two parameters (1.1). The mean qucuc length is computed as the prcxiucl of the aver- age delay per vehicle and thc flow rate for the movement of inter- est. Thc expected total delay (in vehicle hours per hour) equals the expected number of vehicles in the avcraec qucuc: that is. the total hourly delay and the average queue are numerically identical For example. 4 vehicle-hr/hr of delay can be used interchangcahly with an average qucuc length of 4 during the hour Upranrd net rubor' /997 1.2 PM PEIA v(C = . 6 b vpi-N _ 218 } 1.4 Control Delay The delay experienced by a motorist is made up of a number of factors that relate to control. geometries, traffic, and incidents. Total delay is the difference between the travel time actually expe- rienced and the reference travel time that would result during conditions with ideal geometries and in the absence of incidents, control. and traffic. Chapters 9 and 10 of this manual quantify only that potion of total delay attributed to traffic control mea- sures, either traffic signals or stop signs. llhis delay is called eurn• ural delay and its use is consistent in Chapters 9. 10. and I I. Control delay includes initial deceleration delay. qucuc move -up time, slopped delay. and final acceleration delay. Although the methodology here results in an estimate of average control delay. it is rcionuncndcd that. where possible under cx- 1 HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 3.1c TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL(TWSC) ANALYSIS Analyst: MTM emwghmwpam00.hcu I tersection: East Marginal Way/GHC Main Entrance unt Date: 2000 Volumes w/project me Period: AM Peak tersection Orientation: North-South Major St. 11 hicle Volume Data: Movements: 2 3 4 5 7 9 !Fume: 262 167 137 293 51 41 : 298 190 156 333 58 47 PHF: 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 HV: 0.05 0.05 0.08 0.08 0.02 0.02 Pedestrian Volume Data: 1vements: Flow: Ine width: lk speed: Blockage: edian Type: None of vehicles: 0 ared approach Movements: IIof vehicles: Eastbound 0 of vehicles: Westbound 0 Lane usage for movements 1,2&3 approach: 111- Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 L T R L T R L T R N Y Y N N N N N N Iannelized: ade: N 0.00 f ne usage for movements 4,5&6 approach: Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 L T R L T R L T R Y Y N N N N N N N Iannelized: ade: N 0.00 I ne usage for movements 7,8&9 approach: Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 L T R L T R L T R IIannelized: ade: Y N Y N N N N N N N 0.00 I ne usage for movements 10,11&12 approach: Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 tannelized: N Grade: 0.00 N N N N N N N N N Lata for Computing Effect of Delay to Major Street Vehicles: 1 Northbound Southbound Shared In volume, major th vehicles: 306 293 Shared In volume, major rt vehicles: 0 0 Sat flow rate, major th vehicles: 1700 1700 Sat flow rate, major rt vehicles: 1700 1700 Number of major street through lanes: 1 1 Length of study period, hrs: 0.25 Worksheet 4 Critical Gap and Follow-up time calculation. Critical Gap Calculations: Movement 4 7 9 t c,base 4.1 7.1 6.2 t c,hv 1.0 1.0 1.0 P hv 0.08 0.02 0.02 t c,g 0.2 0.1 G 0.00 0.00 0.00 t 3,1t 0.0 0.7 0.0 t c,T: 1 stage 0.00 0.00 0.00 t c 1 stage 4.2 6.4 6.2 Follow Up Time Calculations: Movement 4 7 9 t f,base t f,HV P hv t f 2.2 0.9 0.08 2.3 3.5 0.9 0.02 3.5 3.3 0.9 0.02 3.3 Worksheet 6 Impedance and capacity equations Step 1: RT from Minor St. 9 12 Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Movement Capacity Probability of Queue free St. 393 656 1.00 656 0.93 Step 2: LT from Major St. 4 1 Conflicting Flows 488 Potential Capacity 1045 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 Movement Capacity 1045 Probability of Queue free St. 0.85 Maj. L Shared ln. Prob. Queue Free St. 0.82 Step 4: LT from Minor St. 7 10 Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Maj. L, Min T Impedance factor Maj. L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor. Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity 1037 256 1.00 0.82 0.86 0.86 221 Worksheet 8 Shared Lane Calculations Shared Lane Calculations Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 v(vph) Movement Capacity Shared Lane Capacity 58 221 313 47 656 Worksheet 10 delay,queue length, and LOS Ioemev 1 nt 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 II 1/(vph) 156 105 m(vph) 1045 313 v/c 0.15 0.33 115% queue length ontrol Delay 9.0 22.1 OS A C Approach Delay 22.1 Approach LOS C 1 ank 1 Delay Calculations 11 ank orksheet 11 Shared Major LT Impedance and Delay 2 5 of 1.00 0.85 il 306 293 i2 0 0 S il 1700 1700 S i2 1700 1700 II* Oj 1.00 0.82 maj left 0.0 9.0 number major st lanes 1 1 Delay, rank 1 mvmts 0.0 1.6 HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 3.1c TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL(TWSC) ANALYSIS Analyst: MTM emwghmwppm00.hcu Intersection: East Marginal Way/GHC Main Entrance Count Date: 2000 Volumes w/project Time Period: PM Peak Intersection Orientation: North-South Major St. Vehicle Volume Data: Movements: 2 3 4 5 7 9 Volume: HFR: PHF: PHV: 260 32 26 346 135 165 302 37 30 402 157 192 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.06 0.06 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.00 Pedestrian Volume Data: Movements: Flow: Lane width: Walk speed: % Blockage: Median Type: None # of vehicles: 0 Flared approach Movements: # of vehicles: Eastbound 0 # of vehicles: Westbound 0 Lane usage for movements 1,2&3 approach: Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 L T R L T R L T R N Y Y N N N N N N Channelized: N Grade: 0.00 Lane usage for movements 4,5&6 approach: Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 L T R L T R L T R Y Y N N N N N N N Channelized: N Grade: 0.00 Lane usage for movements 7,8&9 approach: Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 L T R L T R L T R Y N Y N N N N N N Channelized: N Grade: 0.00 Lane usage for movements 10,11&12 approach: Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 L T R L T R L T R N N N N N N N N N Channelized: N Grade: 0.00 Data for Computing Effect of Delay to Major Street Vehicles: IlhNorthbound Southbound hared ln volume, major th vehicles: 306 346 ared In volume, major rt vehicles: 0 0 Sat flow rate, major th vehicles: 1700 1700 I/at flow rate, major rt vehicles: 1700 1700 umber of major street through lanes: 1 1 Length of study period, hrs: 0.25 Worksheet 4 Critical Gap and Follow-up time calculation. 'ritical Gap Calculations: ovement 4 7 9 t c,base 4.1 7.1 6.2 Ic,hv 1.0 1.0 1.0 by 0.04 0.00 0.00 c,g 0.2 0.1 t 0.00 0.00 0.00 t 3,1t 0.0 0.7 0.0 II c,T: 1 stage 0.00 0.00 0.00 t c 1 stage 4.1 6.4 6.2 ollow Up Time Calculations: ovement 4 7 9 11 f,base 2.2 3.5 3.3 f,HV 0.9 0.9 0.9 by 0.04 0.00 0.00 t f 2.2 3.5 3.3 II orksheet 6 Impedance and capacity equations Step 1: RT from Minor St. 9 12 IIonflicting Flows otential Capacity edestrian Impedance Factor Movement Capacity robability of Queue free St. 11 321 725 1.00 725 0.74 tep 2: LT from Major St. 4 1 onflicting Flows otential Capacity destrian Impedance Factor Movement Capacity Probability of Queue free St. 'aj. L Shared ln. Prob. Queue Free St. Step 4: LT from Minor St. 340 1208 1.00 1208 0.97 0.97 7 10 IIonflicting Flows otential Capacity edestrian Impedance Factor Maj. L, Min T Impedance factor Iaj. L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor. ap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt ovement Capacity 784 365 1.00 0.97 0.98 0.98 356 II orksheet 8 Shared Lane Calculations Shared Lane Calculations Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 (vph) 157 192 ovement Capacity 356 725 ared Lane Capacity 494 'orksheet 10 delay,queue length, and LOS Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 I 11 v(vph) 30 349 C m(vph) 1208 494 v/c 0.03 0.71 95% queue length Control Delay 8.1 27.9 LOS A D Approach Delay 27.9 Approach LOS D Worksheet 11 Shared Major LT Impedance and Delay Rank 1 Delay Calculations Movement 2 5 P of 1.00 0.97 ✓ il 306 346 ✓ i2 0 0 S il 1700 1700 S i2 1700 1700 P* Oj 1.00 0.97 D maj left 0.0 8.1 N number major st lanes 1 1 Delay, rank 1 mvmts 0.0 0.3 10-22 elAW/G 1}(, Ma;n Ev 4 -ranee l,✓6 Move.vitt- 100 Expected Maximum Number of Vehicles in Queue 80 60 40 20 10 8 6 4 URBAN STREETS 0 0.2 0 4 0 6 0.8 RM pEA%( v/c = 33 vele' toy S v.1A Volume/Capacity Ratio Figure 10-12. Estimation of 951h -percentile queue length. tions have demonstrated that the probability distribution function for queue lengths for any minor movement at an unsignalizcd intersection is a function of thc capacity of the movement and the volume of traffic bcing served during the analysis period. Figurc 10-12 can be used to estimate the 95th -percentile queue Icngth for any minor movement at an unsignalizcd intersection during the peak 15 -min period on thc basis of these two parameters (13). Thc mean qucuc Icngth is computed as the product of the :tvcr- age delay per vehicle and the flow rate for the movement of inter- est. Thc expected total delay (in vehicle hours per hour) equals the expected number of vehicles in the average qucuc: that is. the total hourly delay and the average queue arc numerically identical. For example. 4 vehicle-lir/lir of delay can he used interchangeably with an average qucuc Icngth of 4 during the (hour. Updu)rd Ne, ember /497 1.0 1.2 PM puiaK 1.4 V/c,z 11 v t= 3f f 7 v`� Control Delay The delay experienced by a motorist is made up of a number of factors that relate to control, geometries. traffic, and incidents. Total delay is thc difference between thc travel time actually expe- rienced and the reference travel time that would result during conditions with ideal geometries and in the absence of incidents, control. and traffic. Chapters 9 and 10 of this manual quantify only that portion of total delay attributed to traffic control mea- sures, either traffic signals or stop signs. this delay is called c -un - Kul delay and its use is consistent in Chapters 9. 10. and 11. Control delay includes initial deceleration delay. queue move -up time, stopped delay, and final acceleration delay. Although the methodology here results in an estimate of average control delay. it is recommended that. where possible under ex- APPENDIX G Left -Turn Lane Analysis Worksheets eMv'/ 12.4+4A 5i'. A/$ turning movement) v+ c DHV• Turning Left O 4- O 25 20 15 10 5 0 LEFT TURN STORAGE GUIDELINES Unsignolized intersection Two - Ione highway 300 400 500 600 • 700 800 Total OHV• •DHV is total volume from both directions. ••Speeds are posted speed limits. 900 1000 Ani . DN„ : Fs '/• tD41v = j74/g53 y 0/0 1100 PM. 1o‘ 24/06 1 N'Te1i Po L.A'tc Gu1iN5 1200 2660 vot►vt.4E5 w/ P 2o'EGT •KEYo Below curve. Di- storoge not needed for copocity. Above curve, © recommended. . 0 ? • 0 �? • 0 -,• • 3 --storoge lik - 4 a IL 4 t ' t ( 'M) ; . ... . . 300 400 500 600 • 700 800 Total OHV• •DHV is total volume from both directions. ••Speeds are posted speed limits. 900 1000 Ani . DN„ : Fs '/• tD41v = j74/g53 y 0/0 1100 PM. 1o‘ 24/06 1 N'Te1i Po L.A'tc Gu1iN5 1200 2660 vot►vt.4E5 w/ P 2o'EGT b c mto 0 4= Qf N EMw /GI r4c Mao v Go+rarce O 4- 0 0 25 20 15 10 5 0 LEFT TURN STORAGE GUIDELINES Unsignolized intersection Two - lone highway 300 400 500 600 700 800. Totol NV* •DHV is total volume from both directions. **Speeds ore posted speed limits. •�. 1 N-re1Z PO 1.A -T 6uo.vs 900 1000 1100 1200 Ani t> AV 1,14v = Ake )379 rb°�a PM 64. 2.44‘,41 ' 1.. 260o voLun.es w/ p2oz&c-i — m toQ "Cr') apeJ9 JV suopaaSJaJU4 aF c � t Co emwr/Cngc sowW siAiy i ce Not 25 20 15 10 • x 5 0 4- O 0 LEFT TURN STORAGE GUIDELINES Unsignalized intersection Two - lane highway 300 400 500 600 700 800. Total DHV• •DHV is total volume from both directions. ••Speeds are posted speed limits. 900 1000 AM . oH„ : $79 /• luiv = 1414/879 41"4 IN'T> kPot.A-r• GVU.�fi 1100 1200 pti+ 42ts 254145- 47. s/61454-/ 2e6o vot.vruEs v-/ P2ozec? KEY0 Below curve, itik. storoge not needed for capacity. Above curve, © storage recommended. 0 ? •• 0 0 3b S ? • ? •. - C� M) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 lif 1il 41 D . - (3,A) -".IIIIIIII%111-" 11111.11111111111ftimmimmisaimumil RIMINimmosimi . 300 400 500 600 700 800. Total DHV• •DHV is total volume from both directions. ••Speeds are posted speed limits. 900 1000 AM . oH„ : $79 /• luiv = 1414/879 41"4 IN'T> kPot.A-r• GVU.�fi 1100 1200 pti+ 42ts 254145- 47. s/61454-/ 2e6o vot.vruEs v-/ P2ozec? APPENDIX H Signal Warrant Analysis - Traffic Count Data and Calculation Sheets GHC - Tukwila East Marginal Way/S 112th Street Entranco Project No. 99181-61 Signal Warrant Analysis - 1999/2000 Existing Modified (Additional GHC trips not approved from TP&E study subtracted) Total 1999 Existin Hour Begins Highest Minor Approach S 112th Street (1) Major Approaches East Marginal Way S (1) Highest Minor Approach S 112th Street (1) Major Approaches East Marginal Way S (1) Highest Minor Approach S 112th Street (1) Major Approaches East Marginal Way S (1) MUTCD (2, Warrant 1 Warrant 2 Warrant 8 80% Warrant 1 80% Warrant 2 Warrant 9 Warrant 11 12:00 AM 14 116 0 4 14 112 see MUTCD figure 4-7 see MUTCD figure 4-5 1:00 11 90 0 3 11 87 2:00 8 84 0 3 8 81 3:00 13 90 0 3 13 87 4:00 26 166 0 6 26 160 5:00 63 442 1 15 62 427 6:00 69 714 1 24 68 690 YES 7:00 132 1079 10 89 122 990 YES YES YES YES 8:00 125 933 2 32 123 901 YES YES YES YES 9:00 112 791 2 27 110 764 YES YES 10:00 105 790 1 27 104 763 YES YES 11:00 157 964 2 33 155 931 YES YES YES YES YES 12:00 PM 128 1040 2 35 126 1005 YES YES YES YES 1:00 102 928 1 32 101 896 YES YES 2:00 145 1101 2 37 143 1064 YES YES YES YES 3:00 178 1089 3 37 175 1052 YES YES YES YES YES 4:00 218 1154 1 84 217 1070 YES YES YES YES YES 5:00 181 981 3 33 178 948 YES YES YES YES YES 6:00 77 549 1 19 76 530 7:00 54 365 1 12 53 353 8:00 37 279 1 9 36 270 9:00 37 294 1 10 36 284 10:00 34 211 0 7 34 204 11:00 20 175 0 6 20 169 RANT MET= Notes: (1) Major and minor street volumes are based on the three-day average of 24-hour counts conducted from 7/27/99 to 7/29/99 by TDG. (2) MUTCD - Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, 1988. NO YES YES MUTCD Warrant Requirements Warrant 1: Minimum volume of 500 vehicles per hour on major street (both approaches) and 150 vehicles per hour on minor street approach (for 8 hours of an average day) Warrant 2: Minimum volume of 750 vehicles per hour on major street (both approaches) and 75 vehicles per hour on minor street approach (for 8 hours of an average day). Warrant 8: Warrant 8 is satisfied where Warrants 1 and 2 are satisfied to the extent of 80 percent or more of the stated values (for 8 hours of an average day). Warrant 9: The plotted points representing the vehicles per hour on the major street (total of both approaches) and the corresponding vehicles per hour on the higher volume minor street approach (one direction only) all fall above the curve in Figure 4-7. The warrant is satisfied when the conditions above exist for each of any 4 hours of an average day. Warrant 11 The plotted point representing the vehicles per hour on the major street (total of both approaches) and the corresponding vehicle per hour of the higher volume minor street approach (one direction only) for one hour (any four consecutive 15 -minute periods) of an average day falls above the curve in Figure 4-5. YES YES MTM/BVL 3/21/00 r:\99181-61 \slgwar\sigall_2000wp.XLS\112th Modified Existing GHC - Tukwila East Marginal Way/S 112th Street Entranco Project No. 99181-61 Signal Warrant Analysis - 1999/2000 With Project Total 1999 Existin Hour Begins Highest Minor Approach S 112th Street (1) Major Approaches East Marginal Way S (1) Highest Minor Approach S 112th Street (1) Major Approaches East Marginal Way S (1) Highest Minor Approach S 112th Street (1) Major Approaches East Marginal Way S (1) MUTCD (2) Warrant 1 Warrant 2 Warrant 8 80% Warrant 1 80% Warrant 2 Warrant 9 Warrant 11 12:00 AM 14 116 r 0 0 .- r N C7 N 117 V V ID In V CD n V n C7 N r r r r 11 15 _ 127 see MUTCD figure 4-7 see MUTCD figure 4-5 1:00 11 90 9 11 99 2:00 8 84 8 8 92 3:00 13 90 9 14 99 4:00 26 166 16 27 182 5:00 63 442 42 65 484 6:00 69 714 68 72 782 YES 7:00 132 1079 222 157 1301 YES YES YES YES YES 8:00 125 933 89 130 1022 YES YES YES YES 9:00 112 791 75 116 866 YES YES 10:00 105 790 75 109 865 YES YES 11:00 157 964 92 163 1056 YES YES YES YES YES 12:00 PM 128 1040 99 133 1139 YES YES YES YES 1:00 102 928 89 106 1017 YES YES 2:00 145 1101 105 151 1206 YES YES YES YES YES 3:00 178 1089 104 185 1193 YES YES YES YES YES 4:00 218 1154 234 222 1388 YES YES YES YES YES 5:00 181 981 94 188 1075 YES YES YES YES YES 6:00 77 549 52 80 601 YES 7:00 54 365 35 56 400 8:00 37 279 27 38 306 9:00 37 294 28 38 322 10:00 34 211 20 35 231 11:00 20 175 17 21 192 WARRANT MET. Notes: (1) Major and minor street volumes are based on the three-day average of 24-hour counts conducted from 7/27/99 to 7/29/99 by TDG. (2) MUTCD - Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, 1988. NO YES YES MUTCD Warrant Requirements Warrant 1: Minimum volume of 500 vehicles per hour on major street (both approaches) and 150 vehicles per hour on minor street approach (for 8 hours of an average day) Warrant 2: Minimum volume of 750 vehicles per hour on major street (both approaches) and 75 vehicles per hour on minor street approach (for 8 hours of an average day). Warrant 8: Warrant 8 is satisfied where Warrants 1 and 2 are satisfied to the extent of 80 percent or more of the stated values (for 8 hours of an average day). Warrant 9: The plotted points representing the vehicles per hour on the major street (total of both approaches) and the corresponding vehicles per hour on the higher volume minor street approach (one direction only) all fall above the curve in Figure 4-7. The warrant is satisfied when the conditions above exist for each of any 4 hours of an average day. Warrant 11 The plotted point representing the vehicles per hour on the major street (total of both approaches) and the corresponding vehicle per hour of the higher volume minor street approach (one direction only) for one hour (any four consecutive 15 -minute periods) of an average day falls above the curve in Figure 4-5. YES YES MTM/BVL 3/21/00 r: \99181-61 \ sigwor\ sigoll_2000wp.XLS\ 112th WP 9 4as r Mrs-9,nNAL. wAY is 0-74 sT 500 = 400 E— O w< L11 Cr 0 300 CC < O w 200 z2 100 FIGURE 4-7. FOUR HOUR VOLUME WARRANT 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 MAJOR STREET - TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES - VPH *NOTE: 115 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACH WITH TWO OR MORE LANES AND 80 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACHING WITH ONE LANE. ExX.xx) = (999/2ob() w/praJea-E' 2 OR 1 MORE LANES 1 Et 1 2 OR 1 MORE 1 LANES 1 2 OR I MORE I LANES I Et 1 I LANE 1 LANE Et 1 ,D%o,2.) LANE (3 • 1052, a.) •(1044,143) ' 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 MAJOR STREET - TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES - VPH *NOTE: 115 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACH WITH TWO OR MORE LANES AND 80 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACHING WITH ONE LANE. ExX.xx) = (999/2ob() w/praJea-E' 0 to 0 w Co (0 EAST r4AP-GA ntA- 14,./A -y/ s It2- H sT 1 o19 a /2000 W / Prod at, -i' Ex%$+1j Mz l::ed 600 w Q 500 LU CC cc 400 U)0_ o w 300 D 200 J > 100 FIGURE 4-5. PEAK HOUR VOLUME WARRANT 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 MAJOR STREET — TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES — VPH *NOTE: 150 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACH WITH TWO OR MORE LANES AND 100 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACHING WITH ONE LANE. (xx, xk) = 14gq/Zoa w/ Prbj et -k ( "<.) ") = I9 5 & ;5 +;„ MPJ;-r:QJ GHC - Tukwila East Marginal Way/S 120th Street Entranco Project No. 99181-61 Signal Warrant Analysis - 1999/2000 With Project Project Trios Total (1999 Existlnq + Protect Trlps Hour Begins Highest Minor Approach S 130th Street (1) Major Approaches East Marginal Way S (1) Highest Minor Approach S 130th Street (1) Major Approaches East Marginal Way S (1) Highest Minor Approach S 130th Street (1) Major Approaches East Marginal Way S (1) MUTCD (2 Warrant 1 Warrant 2 Warrant 8 80% Warrant 1 80% Warrant 2 Warrant 9 Warrant 11 12:00 AM 9 36 7 9 43 see MUTCD figure 4-7 see MUTCD figure 4-5 1:00 7 37 8 7 45 2:00 2 29 6 2 35 3:00 6 53 11 6 64 4:00 9 147 30 9 177 5:00 7 264 54 7 318 6:00 6 310 63 6 373 7:00 29 523 247 29 770 8:00 40 414 85 40 499 9:00 22 336 69 22 405 10:00 7 301 61 7 362 11:00 17 358 73 17 431 12:00 PM 29 410 84 29 494 1:00 34 398 81 34 479 2:00 19 466 95 19 561 3:00 22 489 238 22 727 4:00 9 499 102 9 601 • 5:00 22 404 82 22 486 6:00 52 262 53 52 315 7:00 31 182 37 31 219 8:00 20 108 22 20 130 9:00 10 110 22 10 132 10:00 9 80 16 9 96 11:00 19 90 18 19 108 WARRANT MET= Notes: (1) Major and minor street volumes are based on the three-day average of 24-hour counts conducted from 7/27/99 to 7/29/99 by TDG. (2) MUTCD - Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, 1988. NO NO NO MUTCD Warrant Requirements Warrant 1: Minimum volume of 500 vehicles per hour on major street (both approaches) and 150 vehicles per hour on minor street approach (for 8 hours of an average day) Warrant 2: Minimum volume of 750 vehicles per hour on major street (both approaches) and 75 vehicles per hour on minor street approach (for 8 hours of an average day). Warrant 8: Warrant 8 is satisfied where Warrants 1 and 2 are satisfied to the extent of 80 percent or more of the stated values (for 8 hours of an average day). Warrant 9: The plotted points representing the vehicles per hour on the major street (total of both approaches) and the corresponding vehicles per hour on the higher volume minor street approach (one direction only) all fall above the curve in Figure 4-7. The warrant is satisfied when the conditions above exist for each of any 4 hours of an average day. Warrant 11 The plotted point representing the vehicles per hour on the major street (total of both approaches) and the corresponding vehicle per hour of the higher volume minor street approach (one direction only) for one hour (any four consecutive 15 -minute periods) of an average day falls above the curve in Figure 4-5. NO NO MTM/BVL 3/21/00 r: \99181-61 \slgwar\sigall 2000wp.XLS\ 120th WP A 2 AS"f MAP-E)IivA-L wA-Y/ S 12oTN ST o_ 500 > = 400 wQ w }- cc 0_ 300 cr < z w 200 0 100 > FIGURE 47. FOUR HOUR VOLUME WARRANT 2 OR MORE IANES 8 2 ORIMORE LANES 2 IR MORE AN IS Er 1 IANE i 1 LANE Ft 1 LANE (091911 . 1 * =* = 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 MAJOR STREET — TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES — VPH • C6°4gl *NOTE: 115 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACH WITH TWO OR MORE LANES AND 80 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER Co' THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACHING WITH ONE LANE. BAST MARC�tP L WA-Y/S 1Zot4 ST Iggc1/200D W / Pro) ec A 2 CO CL > wQ w0 CC CC 1-0_ cc Q Ow z2 J 0 > 2 600 500 400 300 200 100 FIGURE 4-5. PEAK HOUR VOLUME WARRANT * * 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 MAJOR STREET — TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES — VPH *NOTE: 150 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACH WITH TWO OR MORE LANES AND 100 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACHING WITH ONE LANE. 2 OR MORE LANES £t 2 OR MORE LANES 2 OR MORE LANES 1 £t 1 LANE1 poi. 1 LANE £t 1 LANE co b 11:0 * * 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 MAJOR STREET — TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES — VPH *NOTE: 150 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACH WITH TWO OR MORE LANES AND 100 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACHING WITH ONE LANE. Eu s 4 1'ay r9; n41 Wel lc, 12041.54 Zoic w/ ( 1c+ I-- wQ w0 CC cc eL 600 500 400 300 200 102c1 57 FIGURE 4-5. PEAK HOUR VOLUME WARRANT 400 600 800 0,*1000 MAJOR STREET — TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES — VPH 1200 1400 1600 1800 *NOTE: 150 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACH WITH TWO OR MORE LANES AND 100 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACHING WITH ONE LANE. (90,a() 2oIc7 w/ P%«i PM Pe4k i{Dur °129,5°1) =2o10 w/PrD:j«4 AM Ptak kour 1999 Existin GHC - Tukwila East Marginal Way/GHC Main Entrance Entranco Project No. 99181-61 Signal Warrant Analysis - 1999/2000 With Project Project Tri Total (1999 Existino + Project Trips Hour Begins Highest Minor Approach GHC Main Entrance (1) Major Approaches East Marginal Way S (1) Highest Minor Approach GHC Main Entrance (1) Major Approaches East Marginal Way S (1) Highest Minor Approach GHC Main Entrance (1) Major Approaches East Marginal Way S (1) MUTCD (2 Warrant 1 Warrant 2 Warrant 8 80% Warrant 1 80% Warrant 2 Warrant 9 Warrant 11 12:00 AM 9 38 9 9 47 see MUTCD figure 4-7 see MUTCD figure 4-5 1:00 2 39 10 2 49 2:00 6 25 6 6 31 3:00 3 44 11 3 55 4:00 3 109 27 3 136 5:00 9 304 75 9 379 6:00 9 384 95 9 479 7:00 19 676 247 19 923 8:00 40 504 125 40 629 9:00 41 305 75 41 380 10:00 29 239 59 29 298 11:00 54 314 78 54 392 12:00 PM 66 390 97 66 487 1:00 67 381 94 67 475 2:00 83 354 88 83 442 3:00 95 361 89 95 450 4:00 142 353 238 142 591 YES 5:00 135 332 82 135 414 YES 6:00 42 265 66 42 331 7:00 15 190 47 15 237 8:00 15 113 28 15 141 9:00 14 115 28 14 143 10:00 10 83 21 10 104 11:00 11 77 19 11 96 WARRANT MET Notes: (1) Major and minor street volumes are based on the three-day average 01 24-hour counts conducted from 7/27/99 to 7/29/99 by TDG. (2) MUTCD • Manual on Uniform Trattic Control Devices. 1988. NO NO NO MUTCD Warrant Requirements Warrant 1: Minimum volume of 500 vehicles per hour on major street (both approaches) and 150 vehicles per hour on minor street approach (tor 8 hours of an average day) Warrant 2: Minimum volume of 750 vehicles per hour on major street (both approaches) and 75 vehicles per hour on minor street approach (for 8 hours of an average day). Warrant 8: Warrant 8 is satisfied where Warrants 1 and 2 are satisfied to the extent of 80 percent or more of the stated values (for 8 hours of an average day). Warrant 9: The plotted points representing the vehicles per hour on the major street (total of both approaches) and the corresponding vehicles per hour on the higher volume minor street approach (one direction only) all fall above the curve in Figure 4-7. The warrant is satisfied when the conditions above exist for each of any 4 hours of an average day. Warrant 11: The plotted point representing the vehicles per hour on the major street (total of both approaches) and the corresponding vehicle per hour of the higher volume minor street approach (one direction only) for one hour (any four consecutive 15 -minute periods) of an average day falls above the curve in Figure 4-5. NO NO MTM/BVL 3/22/00 r:\9918)-61 \sigwar\sigoll_2000wp\GHC WP A CI) X) CD w (o BAST M1°tRC7i l3►4L WAY /611G MA/K1 EN'rhA-N5 G6 = 500 > I = 400 E- U UJ <( w I- 300 (/)0 Cc Q O w 200 z J 0 100 2 2 FIGURE 4-7. FOUR HOUR VOLUME WARRANT * * 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 MAJOR STREET - TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES - VPH "NOTE: 115 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACH WITH TWO OR MORE LANES AND 80 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACHING WITH ONE LANE. 0 E MAR-C7tNAG wAV (C71-4 G Irl A-lN) ENTR-"NCt 19gc0,,,to t,.J/ Pies"rw-i- 1 600 1-0 500 wQ w � 400 o w 300 2 200 >> 100 C=.7 FIGURE 4-5. PEAK HOUR VOLUME WARRANT 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 MAJOR STREET - TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES - VPH *NOTE: 150 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACH WITH TWO OR MORE LANES AND 100 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACHING WITH ONE LANE. 2 OR MORE 1 LANES 1 Er 1 2 OR 1 MORE 1 LANES 1 1 2OR MORE ,NES £t 1 LANE 1 LANE Er 1 LANE (slait ) 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 MAJOR STREET - TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES - VPH *NOTE: 150 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACH WITH TWO OR MORE LANES AND 100 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACHING WITH ONE LANE. C�. s;- /N ary %n ti l W4�{ 76 -HC M 4, I1 i t►a,.i oe. 1° 1° LA) / Pn Jc��J-}' a_ 600 v 500 wQ LU CC Ct 400 cn Q.. 35& cc O w 300 2 200 0 > 100 = 4b FIGURE 4-5. PEAK HOUR VOLUME WARRANT = 400 600 ,€'800 ,a1000 1200" 1400 1600 * 1800 MAJOR STREET — TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES — VPH *NOTE: 150 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACH WITH TWO OR MORE LANES AND 100 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACHING WITH ONE LANE. `° On, 356) 0 Zolo W( p%PM Peak 300) = 2000 W/ P��e.4-± PM Peak (102i 356)= 1.001 W/ P%e.ct P/4 PLGI< (125y 146) = 2oib W/P%ec* M F.^ IC No 1999 Existin GHC - Tukwila East Marginal Way/S 130th Street Entranco Project No. 99181-61 Signal Warrant Analysis - 1999/2000 With Project Project Trips Total (1999 Existing + Project Trips Hour Begins Highest Minor Approach S 130th Street (1) Major Approaches East Marginal Way S (1) Highest Minor Approach S 130th Street (1) Major Approaches East Marginal Way S (1) Highest Minor Approach S 130th Street (1) Major Approaches East Marginal Way S (1) MUTCD (2) Warrant 1 Warrant 2 Warrant 8 80% Warrant 1 80% Warrant 2 Warrant 9 Warrant 11 12:00 AM 16 41 1 9 17 50 see MUTCD figure 4-7 see MUTCD figure 4-5 1:00 11 22 1 5 12 27 2:00 7 33 1 7 8 40 3:00 15 29 1 7 16 36 4:00 33 75 3 17 36 92 5:00 88 174 7 39 95 213 6:00 161 244 12 55 173 299 7:00 249 378 49 173 298 551 YES YES 8:00 118 296 9 67 127 363 9:00 89 207 7 47 96 254 10:00 91 230 7 52 98 282 11:00 118 316 9 71 127 387 12:00 PM 148 350 11 79 159 429 YES 1:00 139 340 11 77 150 417 YES 2:00 143 401 11 90 154 491 YES 3:00 133 445 10 100 143 545 YES 4:00 104 535 8 226 112 761 YES YES 5:00 111 446 8 100 119 546 6:00 96 257 7 58 103 315 7:00 75 199 6 45 81 244 8:00 52 146 4 33 56 179 9:00 59 155 4 35 63 190 10:00 41 92 3 21 44 113 11:00 19 74 1 17 20 91 WARRANT MET= Notes: (1) Major and minor street volumes are based on the three-day average of 24-hour counts conducted from 7/27/99 to 7/29/99 by TDG. (2) MUTCD - Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, 1988. NO NO NO MUTCD Warrant Requirements Warrant 1: Minimum volume of 500 vehicles per hour on major street (both approaches) and 150 vehicles per hour on minor street approach (for 8 hours of an average day) Warrant 2: Minimum volume of 750 vehicles per hour on major street (both approaches) and 75 vehicles per hour on minor street approach (for 8 hours of an average day). Warrant 8: Warrant 8 is satisfied where Warrants 1 and 2 are satisfied to the extent of 80 percent or more of the stated values (for 8 hours of an average day). Warrant 9: The plotted points representing the vehicles per hour on the major street (total of both approaches) and the corresponding vehicles per hour on the higher volume minor street approach (one direction only) all fall above the curve in Figure 4-7. The warrant is satisfied when the conditions above exist for each of any 4 hours of an average day. Warrant 11 The plotted point representing the vehicles per hour on the major street (total of both approaches) and the corresponding vehicle per hour of the higher volume minor street approach (one direction only) for one hour (any four consecutive 15 -minute periods) of an average day falls above the curve in Figure 4-5. NO NO MTM/BVL 3/21/00 r: \99181-61 \sigwar\slgall_2000wp.XLS\ 130th WP ERST M PrRc7A tvPrL wny/ s 1317T4 .,-r 0_ 500 > = 400 w CC cc 300 CCQ O w 200 z2 0 100 0 -±- FIGURE FIGURE 47. FOUR HOUR VOLUME WARRANT * * 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 MAJOR STREET — TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES — VPH *NOTE: 115 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACH WITH TWO OR MORE LANES AND 80 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACHING WITH ONE LANE. ■ co EAST MAf:c1,NAL WAY l S 13oT4 1999720eD wiPro oQck. z > 1 600 i-- o 500 wQ Li'l I-� 400 cc O W 300 2 n 200 —J > 100 = _ 5-1- FIGURE i FIGURE 4-5. PEAK HOUR VOLUME WARRANT * * 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 MAJOR STREET — TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES — VPH *NOTE: 150 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACH WITH TWO OR MORE LANES AND 100 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACHING WITH ONE LANE. 2 OR MORE LANES 1 1 Et 2 OR 1 MORE 1 LANES 1 1 lk1 2 OR MORE LANES £t 1 LANEA 00.....46: LANE £t 1 LANE -4"lqiiiiiIsl"IIINftillis cso. * * 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 MAJOR STREET — TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES — VPH *NOTE: 150 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACH WITH TWO OR MORE LANES AND 100 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACHING WITH ONE LANE. CAS+ Mn.th4I W* /5, i30-14‘ 5 re.4,f 201D W/ Prbltc4. f7 < Q. ow z2 2J 0 > 600 500 400 368 300 2°0 100 FIGURE 4-5. PEAK HOUR VOLUME WARRANT * * = 400 600, 800 41000 1200 1400 1600 1800 MAJOR STREET — TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES — VPH *NOTE: 150 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACH WITH TWO OR MORE LANES AND 100 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACHING WITH ONE LANE. ( 139,703) = 24, to w / PrbJacfi PM Pe.AIc Roar- ( t'lt aoar (611 30?) = 2OID Wi P%ec.-I- AM ? * gbi'" APPENDIX I City of Tukwila Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) Project List TU_ 20 09:03AM P. 2/3 • _.-...�. 3*Al SPC Mika ,'ELEMmit.wizz.-p ,u._:., 7,-,.: • 44 r:•vvS: e.a'''va�•c>�R.h•�t „..:" • - • 12 - Mitigation Proportionate Fair -share Costs co or Link 4S-4 �trandcleft s Aoodo., rPf; E/Strander dui for ii/s left rums -�;Andover Plc W/Strander .--cwiden for n/s left turns 7 SUSR18i '•�= := n/s and e/w Southcenter PkWv/168 sinal W Valley/Strander NB dual left rum lanes Interurban Bride 'widen for dual lefts -his is a '•p ,/Z level" estimate. (G`}r 1�wr Fut u r e (Beyn d 6 years�(2e0p)). Minkler (APW - Sou thcenter PkWy) construct 3 lane scree( S 178 St (Southcenter PkWy-WCL reale (cap/safer/transit) Andover PkWy (T PkWy-130) widen to 5 lanes • Andover Pk E (T PkWy-180) widen to 5 lanes @ ints. Soudlcen(er PkWy (180-200) construct 3 acid 5 lane street 412 ;v /MjjL November 199; ) 1990 2010 Pk Vol Improvement Cost/ Pk Vol Pk Vol Diff Cost Tri 3.899 4.853 954 5134,000 3 140 3.211 3,905 694 S94,000 3 135 3,083 4,016 934 5296,000 S317 5.236 7,760 2.574 S1,200,000 5475 790 2.441 1,453 663 5250.000 S377 3,078 637 5250.000* S392 2.45 3.324 899 J 5o 3.433 4,316 883 5.50.000' 3283 2.831 3.945 1,114 31,2_50,C001' S1.122 3573 gal 0 - 1.015 1.015 789 1.424 635 1.112 1,833 721 970 1.420 450 408 1.600 1.192 1214 zs71_13ba 121 „t -op -e . JUL 20 '99 09:04AM TUKWILA DCD,PW • TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT Table 12 - Mitigation Proportionate Fai t hate Costs (continued) 1990 2010 Pk Vol improvement Cost/ Pk Vol Vol Diff Cost Trip Intersection or Link Pacific Hwy (152-137) widen to 7 lanes S 133 St (Earnsr) Bridge Gateway Dr to S 129 St E Marginal (BAR -NCL) widen, c/g/sw, coord sigs Pacific Hwy/S 116 St widen for dual left SB Pacific Hwy Bridge widen S 154 St (51 S -Pacific Hwy) widen to 3 lanes E Marginal (BAR -115) �:- widen to 3 lanes Sperry Dr (S 180 St - Saxon) construct 3 lane street Southcenter Blvd (15-62 S) widen to 7 lanes 62 Ave SCS" line bridge) widen to 6 lanes Klicldrai(Southcenter PkWy-I5) widen to 5 lanes Tt ck Dr (Andover Pk W - Andover Pk E) construct 3 lane street W Valley (I405 - Todd) widen to 7 lanes Boeing Access Rd/15 SB off left construct left turn/signal Boeing Access Rd115 NB on construct NB on revision 0 518 518 31/3 /WC Future P. 3i3 2 Soa om9(03, (to be determined) 273, 1300 1535% Zsgy J59c 5/1 586, Es 72 November 1993 PROJECT: DESCRIPTION: JUSTIFICATION: STATUS: • toe . eb: edi-P1 TUKWILA DCI)/PW CITY OF TUKWILA CAPITAL PROJECT SUMMARY 2000 to 2005 E Marginal Way (BAR - S 112 St) UNE ITEM: 104/02. 595.)ooc . xx . 29 , PROJECT NO. 89-RWO5 Design and construct clg/sw, lighting, tum lanes, drainage and traffic control. Safety, capacity, and drainage items needed to serve this area of increasing vehicle and pedestrian traffic. Next step is design report MAINT. IMPACT: Reduction in maintenance. COMMENT: P. 2/2 FINANCIAL. Thru Est',mted (In $000's) 1998 1999 2000 . 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 BEYOND EXPENSES Engineering 35 320 355 Land() 500 500 Construction 1100 1100 TOTAL EXPENSES 0 0 0 0 35 0 ' 0 0 1920 1955 FUND SOURCES . Awarded Grant 0 Proposed Grant 700 700 Mitigat Actual 0 Mitigat Expected • ' 660 660 City Oper. Rev. 0 0 0 0 35 0 0 0 560 595 TOTAL SOURCES 0 0 0 • 0 35 0 0 0 1920 1955 PROJECT \f7..1 LOCA►.TION .01 BeortS n , . ll8 ti �� . t ►� 5 .71 7, S !LE S k• \ S1t:! S: ' • St \ - 49