HomeMy WebLinkAboutPermit L92-0090 - HOME DEPOT - DEMOLITION AND REMODEL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENTS (EIS)l92-0090 6810 south 180th street
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENTS (EIS)
02/16/1993 10:22 FROM HILLIS CLARK
TO 4313665 P.01
• I 1 I I . 1 , 1 S C L A R K M A R ' f I N & P E T E R S O N •
A Pro{rxcir rrl r,vv ;rr Corporation
SS)O 04.I7nri ?i. il,:in;., i!,21 tircanti Avenuo
()Oiq ;i73.171F. 1, r.in i1-! I)10 (i23.77g9
FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION
TO: Carol Proud______
Date: 16 Feb 93
Time_ 10't1
FAX NO.: 431 -3665
PHONE NO.: 431 -3661
FROM: Glenn J. Amster
RE: Depot
NUMBER OF PAGES, including cover page: 2
If you do not receive the correct number of pages, please
contact our Central Services Department at (206) 623 -1745. Our
fax number is (206) 623 -7789. Thank you.
MESSAGE:
Attached is the February 1.2, 1993, letter from Segale
Business Park withdrawing their appeal. The Tukwila City Clerk
has confirmed with us that the hearing tonight has been cancelled.
Please call me if you have any questions.
CLIENT /MATTER NO.: 14300-8
RECE "! —%
FEB 1 b 1J93
COYJI I r Y» r
17EVELOPivt. -ivT
02/16/1993 10:23 FROM HILLIS CLARK
City Clerk
`H City. of Tukwila
6220 SouthCenter Blvd.
'Tukwila. Washington 9B1 :$
RE: 68io South :100th St ..t
Tukwila.. Washington
Parcel 362304 -9074
Proponent= Home De - of . USA, Inc.
TO WHOM /T. MAY CONCERN:
We have been provided wish sufficient information relative to the
concerns we raised in o appeal of the above captioned arosect
and we therefor ask tha you please consider this letter as our
withdrawal of 'the appeal .
QIrfNCIL AGENDAS SYNOPSIS
Initials
Meeting Date
Prepared by
Mayor's review
Council review
ITEM NO.
FORMAT
CAS Number:
Original Agenda Date:
Agenda Item Title: Public hearing for an appeal of the Mitigated Determination of Non -
significance for the Home Depot retail warehouse.
Original Sponsor: Council
Admin. X
Timeline:
Sponsor's Summary: On January 22, 1992, an appeal was filed on the MDNS issued for the
Home Depot redevelopment of the former Frederick and Nelson warehouse.
Recommendations:
Sponsor:
Committee:
Administration: Denial of appeal
Cost Impact (if known):
Fund Source (if known):
Meeting Date
Action
2 -16 -93
Meeting Date
2 -16 -93
2 -16 -93
2 -16 -93
Attachments
A) Letter of appeal dated 1 -22 -93
B) SEPA decision document dated 1 -11 -93
C) Memorandum from Ron Cameron, City Engineer, to Jack Pace, Senior Planner,
dated 2 -1 -93
SEGA L. E BUS /MESS PA RK
January 22, 1993
City Clerk
City of Tukwila
6200 Southcenter Blvd..
Tukwila, Washington 98188
RE: 6810 South 180th Street
Tukwila, Washington
Parcel 362304 -9074
Proponent: Home Depot, USA, Inc.
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
We have reviewed the materials provided by City of Tukwila Planning
and Engineering Staff relative to the above captioned project. We
wish to appeal this action on the . basis that we cannot find any
level of service studies showing the effect of this project on the
following intersections after improvements have been made to the
intersection at South 180th Street and West Valley Highway:
S. 180th Street and West Valley Highway
S. 180th Street and Andover Park East
S. 180th Street and Andover Park West
S. 180th Street and Southcenter Parkway
Very truly yours,
S GA ,E BUSINESS PARK
Mario A. Segale
AJN:su
sbpltrs \ctytuk.app
ATTACHMENT A
P.O. BOX 88050 ■ TELEPHONE: (206) 575 -3200 0 FAX: (206) 575-3207 ■ TUKWILA, WASHINGTON 98138
SEPA DECISION DOCUMENT
DATE: January 11, 1993
PROPONENT: Home Depot, Inc.
PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION: Demolish approximately half of an existing
270,000 square foot warehouse /distribution building, remodel the
remaining building for a retail warehouse use and establish two
future building pads.
LOCATION: 6810 S. 180th Street.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
BACKGROUND: Anticipated adverse impacts identified during
environmental review include traffic related issues associated with
additional vehicle trips to the site and aesthetic issues
associated with development of the future building pads. The
following comments are from the Public Works Department and the
Department of Community Development based on review of the
submitted environmental checklist, plans, associated studies and
field inspections.
ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS:
Transportation
Development traffic mitigations are determined from identified
capacity or safety improvements needed to provide the improvements
needed for traffic increases. The Traffic Deficiencies Study
identifies increased traffic and improvements needed to provide the
safety and capacity for 2010 traffic. The cost of the capacity
improvement is divided by the traffic increase from 1988 to 2010
for the mitigation cost /trip. Mitigations are determined from the
development's increased peak hour traffic and the cost /trip. Home
Depot Peak hour traffic affects four intersections with
improvements planned for construction within the next 5 years:
Southcenter Parkway /Strander. The increase to 2010 is 954 peak
hour trips, the improvement cost is $134,000 and the prorated share
is $140 per trip. Home Depot's 127 peak hour trips mitigation is
$17,780.
Andover Park W /Strander. The increase to 2010 is 934 trips, the
improvement cost is $296,000 and the prorated share per trip is
$317. Home Depot's 64 trips mitigation is $20,288.
Andover Park E /Strander. The increase to 2010 is 694 peak hour
trips, improvement cost is $94,000 and the prorated share per trip
is $135. Home Depot's 233 trips mitigation is $31,455.
S 180 St /SR181. The increase to 2010 is 3,200 trips, improvement
cost is $1,520,000, and the prorated share per trip is $475. Home
Depot's 395 trips mitigation is $187,625.
ATTACHMENT B
Total trip mitigation based on the above described prorated share
per trip is $257,148. The change in use from warehouse to retail
generates significantly more traffic affecting other intersections
without planned improvements, particularly the Andover Park E. and
S. 180th Street. A connection to Saxon should be provided with the
access shown on the site plan. A provision to turn this 30 foot
wide access and improvement over to the city for increased
circulation and safety created by the change in use should be
provided so that if. the City in the future determines that it is
needed as public instead of private access that it can be provided.
The turnover will be determined in the future based on actual
traffic and safety needs determined by the new use. For example,
further development of the northern area or traffic generation .
higher than shown in the study. The Costco facility has had to add
parking access to serve their success.
Aesthetics.
The applicant has identified two building pads at the south end of
the subject property fronting S. 180th Street. As a phased
development, future construction is subject design review and Board
of Architectural Review (BAR) approval.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is appropriate as per WAC 197 -11 -660 and RCW 43.21c.060, and
TMC 21.04.250, to establish conditions to mitigate the above
identified impacts. Supporting documents for the conditions and
mitigating measures are included in the documents listed in TMC
21.04.270.
Staff recommends that a mitigated determination of nonsignificance
(MDNS) be issued subject to the attached conditions and mitigating
measures.
Mitigated Determination of Non - significance for Home Depot, Inc.
1680 S. 180th Street, L92 -.0090
January 12, 1993
MITIGATION MEASURES REQUIRED TO ADDRESS IMPACTS IDENTIFIED IN THE
SEPA CHECKLIST.
1. The applicant shall establish a 30 foot wide private access
easement at the eastern 'portion of the property that extends
between S. 180th Street and S. Saxon Drive. Said easement shall be
constructed from S. 180th Street to the proposed northern edge of
the development to City street standards that include at a minimum
curbing, raised sidewalks and turn -in radii to interior parking lot
drive aisles. The applicant may at their own discretion extend the
constructed access driveway and sidewalk to within one foot of
S. Saxon Drive.
2. At such time as the City determines that public access is
necessary based on traffic and safety needs at this location the
applicant shall agree to dedicate the private access to the City at
no cost. An agreement to that effect shall be recorded with King
County Department of Records prior to issuance of any construction
permits.
3. The applicant shall contribute $257,148 for traffic impact
mitigation based on a pro -rata share of local infrastructure
improvements.
4. Future development of the two identified building pads at the
front of the subject property near S. 180th Street shall be subject
to approval by the Board of Architectural Review, TMC 18.60.
}
t •
To Jack Pace L L.;_; w, t== r,
From: Ron Cameron FE2 0 2 1993
Date: February 1 , 1993 CUP4lv;v;:o J_
Subject: Home Depot Appeal
The Segale Appeal explains that it is based on the Home Depot traf-
fic analysis not having S 180 St information. This memo explains
the rationale for not having requested Home Depot to provide that
information.
Two extensive studies have been conducted of the S 180 St traffic
that found the LOS is adequate except for the.SR181 intersection.
No capacity or safety measures have been identified or scheduled for
construction within the next five years.except the SR181 intersec-
tion.
A Traffic Defeciencies Study was conducted in 1988 and 1989. Traf-
fic was modeled for existing and 2010 conditions. The model was re-
run with various capacity and safety improvement alternatives to
identify projects for further specific study.
The existing condition S 180 St LOS (level -of- service) was found to
be LOS D on S 180 St except for the SR181 intersection. The 2010
LOS was found to be E. This information is shown on large maps that
are located in my office and have been used for determining what
analysis is needed for specific developments. This process has been
used since 1988.
Further extensive evaluation has been made of the SR181 intersec-
tion. A series of alternatives were evaluated and LOS curves for
increasing traffic through the year 2025 developed for the alterna-
tives. The current phase I bridge widening will provide LOS D. The
second phase SR181 widening continues LOS D for future (beyond 5
years) traffic. .The graphic curve chart is available in my office.
' The City analysis and traffic information is above and beyond a
"normal" development traffic study; the Home Depot was not asked to
prepare duplicative analysis and answers.
ATTACHMENT C
Law Offices
Ta s, ...... u Y r._.....
• H I L L I S C L A R K M A R T I N & P E T E R S O N •
FE;3 1 2 iya3
DEVELOPMENT
A Professional Service Corporation
500 Gotland Building, 1221 Second Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101 -2925
(206) 623 -1745 Facsimile (206) 623 -7789
February 11, 1993
Ms. Jane Cantu, City Clerk
City of Tukwila
Tukwila City Hall
6300 Southcenter Blvd.
Tukwila, WA 98188
Re: Home Depot SEPA Appeal
Dear Ms. Cantu:
Enclosed for filing is the Proponent's Response to the
Appeal filed by Segale Business Park in the above - referenced
matter. We would appreciate it if you would distribute copies
to the members of the City Council. This matter is set for
hearing at the next Council meeting on Tuesday, February 16,
1993.
Thank you very much for your attention to this matter. If
you have any questions, please let us know.
Enclosure
cc (w /encl.): Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.
Department of Community Development
Segale Business Park
Mark Miller Consultants
Linda Cohen
BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF TUKWILA
In re: )
Appeal of Mitigated Determination )
of Non - Significance (MDNS) for )
Home Depot Proposal )
)
)
File No. L92 -0090
Proponent's Response to
Appeal
INTRODUCTION
Segale Business Park ( "Segale ") challenges the decision of the
Director of the Department of Community Development, acting in his
capacity as the Responsible Official under the State Environmental
Policy Act ( "SEPA "), to issue a mitigated determination of non -
significance ( "MDNS ") for the construction of a Home Depot store.
Significantly, Segale does not contend that the MDNS is in error,
or that the Home Depot proposal requires preparation of an EIS.
Segale challenges the MDNS only on the grounds that it could not
find any level of service ( "LOS ") analysis for a number of
intersections along S. 180th Street after improvements are made to
the S. 180th Street /West Valley Highway (SR 181) intersection.
Home Depot prepared a traffic impact study to assess the
impacts of its proposal. In addition, the City has expended
Proponent's Response to Appeal - 1
hundreds of thousands of dollars on an extensive analysis of the
City's transportation network, including specific studies analyzing
the effect of projected traffic growth and the proposed
improvements to S. 180th Street and the West Valley Highway. The
record demonstrates that these studies were considered by the
Responsible Official in making the threshold determination.
Furthermore, the appeal letter reveals a basic
misunderstanding of LOS analysis. The LOS calculation is based
upon a ratio of traffic volumes to street capacity. Except for the
improved intersection, the capacity of intersections along S. 180th
Street will not change. Thus, improvements to the SR 181 /S. 180th
Street intersection may reduce delays at other intersections along
S. 180th Street, but will not affect the LOS at those
intersections.
The Responsible Official's consideration of existing
transportation studies, in addition to the applicant's
transportation study, evidences reasonable and appropriate
consideration of the traffic issues. Segale's appeal should be
denied.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. proposes to demolish half of an
existing warehouse /distribution facility and extensively remodel
the building for use as a home improvement warehouse /retail
operation. The development site is located on the north side of
Proponent's Response to Appeal - 2
S. 180th Street, west of Andover Park East. The existing building
formerly served as the warehouse /distribution center for the
Frederick & Nelson stores throughout the Puget Sound area.
In accordance with the requirements of SEPA, Home Depot's
development applications were accompanied by an environmental
checklist. The checklist identified the project's potential
adverse effect on area roadways. Therefore, in accordance with his
authority under SEPA, the Responsible Official required Home Depot
to prepare a traffic impact analysis. This report, prepared by
Entranco Engineers, analyzed the probable impacts of the Home Depot
project on ten intersections in the vicinity of the project site.
The traffic study indicated that most intersections in the vicinity
operated at an acceptable level of service, with the exception of
the intersection of S. 180th Street /West Valley Highway which
operated at LOS F, with or without Home Depot. In addition, the
study recognized that while other intersections along S. 180th
Street had adequate capacity for the existing and projected
volumes, motorists experienced significant delays as a result of
queuing of traffic at the West Valley Highway.
The City has long recognized the bottleneck at S. 180th Street
and West Valley Highway. The Engineering Department has directed
preparation of several major traffic studies to address the
problems at this and other intersections in the vicinity. First, a
deficiency study, using permissible zoning densities rather than
Proponent's Response to Appeal - 3
existing uses, projected the traffic conditions that could be
expected to occur in the City without traffic improvements.
Subsequently, a number of studies have examined the potential
benefits of a wide -range of alternative traffic improvements. One
such study, entitled "SR 181/S. 180th Street Short -Term and Long -
Term Improvement Alternative Analysis" (INCA Engineers, 1989),
analyzed a number of alternative improvements for the intersection
and provided a level of service analysis for each. This study
provided the basis for the City Council's decision to include the
recommended intersection improvements in the City's transportation
improvement plan. The first of these improvements
the City's 1993 capital improvement program.
The Responsible Official, in consultation with the Engineering
Department, considered the information in these studies, together
with the Home Depot traffic study, to determine the probable
impacts of the proposed project. These studies address the very
issues to which this appeal is directed.
DISCUSSION
SEPA is intended to ensure that governmental agencies will be
fully informed of the environmental consequences of a proposal.
See RCW 43.21C.030. Though it may seem otherwise at times, SEPA is
is included in
not intended to generate meaningless and duplicative analysis.
1984 the SEPA Rules were revised to, among other things, "reduce
paperwork and the accumulation of extraneous background data."
Proponent's Response to Appeal - 4
In
WAC 197- 11- 030(2)(b). Thus, the Responsible Official may rely on a
wide variety of information in addition to the initial checklist in
making the threshold determination. See Brown v. City of Tacoma,
30 Wn. App. 762, 765 -66, 637 P.2d 1005 (1981).
The SEPA Rules provide, in particular, that environmental
documents may be combined with other agency documents to reduce
duplication and paperwork and improve decisionmaking. WAC 197 -11-
640. This is precisely what the Responsible Official did in this
case.
Existing City studies fully analyzed the effects of traffic
improvements on the SR 181/S. 180th Street intersection. This
information is referenced in the SEPA decision document. As a
result of this analysis, a condition of the threshold determination
is that the applicant contribute approximately $250,000.00 for
traffic impact mitigation, more than half of which will go towards
the improvements scheduled for the SR 181 /S. 180th Street
intersection.
With respect to the other intersections mentioned in the
appeal letter, the level of service analysis remains the same with
or without the scheduled improvements to the SR 181 /S. 180th Street
intersection. See Exhibit A attached hereto. LOS is based upon a
calculation of the ratio of traffic volumes to the available
capacity at a particular street intersection. The number of lanes,
presence of turn lanes, type of traffic control, signal phasing,
Proponent's Response to Appeal - 5
etc. provide the basis for determining the street capacity. This
type of analysis helps to identify areas that may need improvement
to meet projected capacity.
In addition to LOS, traffic assessments require some
qualitative judgment. For example, the S. 180th Street /Andover
Park East intersection operates at LOS C, which may be described as
moderate traffic. Yet anyone who drives through this intersection
during the peak hours will experience substantial delay. The
reason for this delay, however, is not that the intersection lacks
the capacity to serve traffic volumes, but rather because the
intersection at S. 180th Street and West Valley Highway causes cars
to backup along S. 180th Street all the way to this intersection.
Both the City's deficiency and improvement studies, and the Home
Depot traffic study, recognize this phenomenon.
The planned improvements to the SR 181/S. 180th Street
intersection will improve the LOS at that intersection because the
improvements will provide additional volume capacity, thereby
improving the ratio. This analysis is set forth in some detail in
the INCA Engineers study, which was considered by the Responsible
Official. At the other intersections, however, the volumes and
capacity remain essentially the same because there are no
improvements scheduled to occur. Thus, although the improvements
to the West Valley Highway and S. 180th Street may reduce delays at
Andover Park East and to a lesser degree at Andover Park West
Proponents Response to Appeal - 6
because cars will not queue up quite as much, the LOS remains the
same. As for Southcenter Parkway, there is no evidence that the
traffic improvements to SR 181 and S. 180th Street will have any
effect at all. This intersection is too distant from SR 181 to be
affected by the traffic at the SR 181 /S. 180th Street intersection
and, likewise, would be unaffected by the proposed improvements.
In summary, SEPA encourages the Responsible Official to
consult with other departments and to utilize existing studies in
reaching the threshold determination. This is precisely what
occurred here. The City's extensive analysis of the SR 181/
S. 180th Street intersection was part and parcel of the Responsible
Official's decisionmaking process. In particular, the analysis of
LOS at the SR 181 /S. 180th Street intersection with the proposed
improvements, which Segale claims is absent, is specifically
identified in the City's improvement analysis study. As for the
other three intersections referenced in the appeal letter, the
proposed improvements to SR 181/S. 180th Street would have no
effect on the levels of service. At worst, the Responsible
Official neglected to articulate the potential qualitative
improvement in traffic flows at these other intersections, but this
omission would not affect the analysis of Home Depot's impacts. If
anything, the analysis of Home Depot's traffic without the planned
improvements reflects a conservative examination of the issues.
Proponent's Response to Appeal - 7
t•:: �.:l �. C=. Mi' Ti ' ,vJ. L� %�' %:..�. '"�'� ✓. i...
ars:r rt:.�i"�tis.::,., ., >.C{ '"64'SY.3a;CK,L.,.:.,"�",::a .a.,eti'."t�.'L... ..,. .. _... i; �C. ��x'; tnl �. tY. ^,tw;.Fmnr^:arot.�o�..r,...,,,r. „,�•.w.ewan,;,:
SEPA requir s only that the threshold determination be based
upon information reasonably sufficient to determine the
environmental im'act of a proposal. Pease Hill v. County of
Spokane, 62 Wn. pp. 800, 810, 816 P.2d 37 (1991). The MDNS issued
by the Responsib e Official clearly meets this test.
The Respons.ble Official's determination is entitled to
substantial weig t and should be sustained. The Segale appeal
should be denied
Respectfull submitted this 114 day of February, 1993.
HILLIS CLARK
MARTIN & PETERSON.�'.S.
316185
By
G1 J.
Att eys fo
Home Depot U
Proponent's Res•onse to Appeal - 8
ter
the Proponent
S.A., Inc.
10100
NI 6111 sT
TufT0 300
i! ;
0id:1t0IIf
• WAOIINGTIIN
1
Y4
{
ei
2 011
TEIEPRONE
:.�
211;
•
4S'4 5 00
ll
s;(
l~.f
,;
WA111 IIGT06
ARIZONA
CALIiOINIA
EXHIBIT A
E N T R A N C O
February 11, 1993
Glenn J. Amster
Hillis, Clark, Martin, and Peterson
500 Galland Building
1221 Second Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101 -2925
Re: Response to Segale Appeal for the Proposed
Home Depot Outlet In Tukwila, Washington
Entranco Project No. 92040.60
i
Dear Glenn:
• I � i
The purpose of this letter Is to desoribe the impacts of the planned improvements at
the West Valley Highway (SR 181) /South 180th Street intersection and the effects the
improvements will have on the South 180th Street intersections of Andover Park East,
Andover Park West, and Southcenter Parkway.
The planned improvements at the West Valley Highway /South 180th Street
interseotion include improving the eastbound approach on South 180th Street by
November 1993, and additional channelization improvements on West Valley Highway
and the westbound approach on South 180th Street at a future date. The timing of
the additional improvements has not been defined by the City of Tukwila, but is
estimated to begin approximately two years after the initial improvement.
i .
The :improvements planned for the West Valley Highway /South 180th Street
• intersection will improve the level of service (LOS) at the intersection from a current
LOS F to LOS E. This finding is documented in INCA Engineers "Final Report for the
• SR 181 /South 180th Street Improvement Altemative Analysis ", April 1989, for the City
of Tukwila. The INCA study uses traffic volumes forecast from a number of sources,
• including a transportation deficiency study conducted by CH2M Hill. The CH2M Hill
study accounts for the traffic generated by uses (such as the proposed Home Depot)
by assuming future development allowable under current zoning, rather than the pre -
existing uses, and projecting traffic based on that probable future development.
The LOS for the South 180th Street intersections would not be affected by the
improvements at the West Valley Highway /South 180th Street interseotion because an
LOS analysis evaluates each intersection as an isolated location. Therefore, the
improvements would qualitatively improve the traffic flow operations and reduce delay
along the South 180th Street corridor, but would not reflect a benefit in the actual LOS
calculations.
The intersection of Andover Park East/South 180th Street will benefit from the
planned improvements by allowing traffic to travel through the intersection with
increased efficiency and reduced delay. The traffic flow improves because the
.- ......,.,o, . .,.n.....�r,..��z�r.,n+n..,,... ,......,.. �o,,.,....,.,. d ...............,<.n..r»..v -.,. .�a- ��,+y. .w,yq• .r�uy V,r�.1 r :.+:sw,- xinu,.w...X•. <�,.wr, I.,.»„
ids. m:; r. �ma+ t ^r..ir:}.'+q`'t�!YL ?r('ititi:x s''�., �.r,�:��iu�x. ��'�'f� � :i c�I?` i3• .ir°..S#.i4.F:cM= c'!s +m�n<v�n:�
Glenn J. Amster
February 11, 1993
Page 2
eastbound queue from West Valley Highway will be reduced significantly with the
improvement, thus creating additional vehicle storage on South 180th Street.
The intersection of Andover Park West/South 180th Street will benefit similarly to the
Andover Park East intersection; however, the benefit will be proportionately less since
the intersection is located further west from West Valley Highway than Andover Park
East,
The Southoenter Parkway /South 180th Street intersection would not significantly
benefit from the improvements at West Valley Highway due to its distance from the
West Valley Highway /South 180th Street Intersection. To reduce delay at this
intersection would require improvements for the intersection itself or others within
closer proximity.
We trust that this description will clarify the questions regarding the impacts of the
:planned West Valley Highway and assist you and Home Depot in your
response to the Segale appeal. Please call me if you have any questions or
comments' regarding the information presented in this document or if I could further
"assist you;
Sincerely,
:ENTRANCO:
Sherman Goong
Project Engineer
SDG:ahw
;
City of Tukwila
John W Rants, Mayor
Department of Community Development Rick Beeler, Director
MEMORANDUM
DATE: February 10, 1993
TO: Tukwila City Council
FROM: Rick Beeler, SEPA Responsible Official
RE: Home Depot Appeal, (File Number L92 -0090)
APPEAL SUMMARY:
Mario A. Segale, Tukwila, appealed the Mitigated Determination of
Nonsignificance (MDNS) issued for the Home Depot project located at
6810 S. 180th Street. The decision (MDNS) was issued by the SEPA
responsible official on January 12, 1993. The appeal questions the
adequacy of the traffic study conducted by the applicant and the
City in assessing the impacts of the increased traffic volumes at
four intersections in the immediate vicinity of the proposal after
improvements have been made to the intersection at S. 180th Street
and West Valley Highway (SR 181). (Please refer to attached copy
of appeal letter, Attachment A)
BACKGROUND:
The applicant proposes to convert the former Frederick and Nelson
warehouse /distribution facility into a retail warehouse.
Approximately half of the existing building will be demolished.
The remaining 149,585 square feet will be remodeled and will
include the addition of a 28,535 square foot garden center with
associated parking and landscape areas.
Anticipated adverse impacts identified during environmental review
were traffic related issues associated with additional vehicle
trips to the site and aesthetic issues associated with development
of the future building pads.
Mitigating measures included establishing a private access easement
along the eastern property line constructed to modified City
standards, dedicating the easement to the City as demand warrants,
contributing funds for future street improvements, and obtaining
BAR approval for development of the future building pads. (Please
refer to attached decision document and mitigating conditions,
Attachment B)
SEPA AUTHORITY:
It is appropriate per WAC 197 -11 -660 and RCW 43.21c.060, and
TMC 21.04.250, to establish conditions to mitigate identified
impacts of a proposal. Supporting documents for the conditions and
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665
r'i
Home Depot Appeal Memo
page 2
mitigating measures are included in the documents listed in TMC
21.04.270 which includes the Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP).
The responsible official may also incorporate by reference per WAC
197 -11- 635(2) associated studies such as the Transportation
Deficiencies Study (1988 and 1989) and the S. 180th /SR 181 Design
Report on file with the Public Works Department.
Appeal procedures identified in TMC 21.04.280. state that all
appeals shall be heard by the City Council and "...the procedural
determination by the city's responsible official shall carry
substantial weight in any appeal proceeding ".
STAFF RESPONSE:
Appellant concern is the impact of additional traffic generated by
the Home Depot proposal to S. 180th Street after scheduled street
improvements have been completed. The appellant would like
information which analyzes the project in light of level of service
(LOS) studies at the following intersections:
S. 180th Street and West Valley Highway (SR 181)
S. 180th Street and Andover Park East
S. 180th Street and Andover Park West
S. 180th Street and Southcenter Parkway
The Public Works Department when analyzing traffic impacts
associated with new or infill development utilize the
Transportation Deficiencies Study and a detailed evaluation of
level of service alternatives for the intersection of SR 181 and S.
180th Street through the year 2025. These studies are on file with
the Department and available for public review. A site specific
traffic study using this existing city information was submitted
for the Home Depot project.
The City studies were based on zoning classifications, resultant
build out of permitted land uses and area traffic growth
projections. Inherent in the zoning classifications for the
Southcenter area is the capacity for all development or
redevelopment to occur as potential commercial or higher density
uses. Therefore, the City planning studies anticipated traffic
volumes associated with commercial development as opposed to
volumes associated with strictly warehouse /distribution uses.
Street improvements are scheduled in the Council adopted
Transportation Improvement Plan and Capital Improvement Plan (CIP)
using local, state and federal funds based on the Transportation
Deficiencies Study and level of service alternatives. Please refer
to the attached memo dated February 2, 1993 from Ron Cameron, City
Engineer, which explains.in greater detail the use of existing
Home Depot Appeal Memo
page 3
studies for assessing traffic impacts to the SR 181 /S. 180th Street
intersection (Attachment C)
As a result of the traffic analysis, it was determined that
appropriate mitigation for the Home Depot proposal would be the
contribution of $257,148 based on a pro -rata share of local street
improvements. These improvements include a two phased widening of
the S. 180th Street bridge at SR 181. The first phase, which will
provide an additional east bound lane, is funded and included in
the City's 1993 Capital Improvement Plan.
The appellant was provided the requested information in subsequent
meetings and phone conversations with City staff and Home Depot
representatives.
CONCLUSION:
1. The Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance (MDNS) for the
Home Depot Project was based on an analysis of all relevant
transportation studies that have been available since 1988.
It was inappropriate for the site specific traffic study to
include available information on file with the City.
2. All relevant traffic studies analyze new or infill development
based on current land use information and the potential for
commercial or higher density uses.
3. The SEPA Responsible Official did not err in using existing
relevant traffic information to determine traffic impacts from
the proposal.
4. The SEPA Responsible Official did not err in issuing a
Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance and in requiring
the specific mitigation measures.
5. The record has shown that all requested information has been
made available to the appellant and the appellant has not to
date demonstrated that the SEPA Responsible Official erred in
his decisions.
Therefore staff recommends that the appeal of the Mitigated
Determination of Nonsignificance issued by the SEPA Responsible
Official be DENIED.
CITY OF TUKWILA
MITIGATED DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE (MDNS)
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL:
DEMOLISH HALF OF AN EXISTING 270,000 E0. FT.
WAREHOUSE /DI'STRIBUTION BUILDING AND REMODEL FOR
A RETAIL WAREHOUSE USE.
PROPONENT: /46 M g b Gr pO / CGS/- . !A/C
LOCATION OF PROPOSAL,f .INCLUDING .STREET ADDRESS, IF ANY:
ADDRESS: 6810.5 180 ST
PARCEL NO: 3.l3 -1 . - qo l 'I
'SEC /TWN /RNG .,, vJ .3 le 23oC1
LEAD AGENCY: CITY OF TUKWILA FILE NO: L92 -0090
The City has determined that the proposal does not have a probable
significant adverse impact on the environment. An
environmental impact statement (EIS) is not required.under RCW 43.21c.030(2)(c). This
decision.was.made after review 'of a completed environmental checklist
and other, information on file with the lead agency. This information
is available-to the public on request. The Conditions to this SEPA
Determination are attached. •
Thy. DNS i issued under 197 -11- 340(2). Comments must be..submitted by
. The lead agency will not act on this
oposa l f ; 15 days from the date below.
% 1'? 9
L. Rick •eeler.,.Responsible Official Da .e
City of Tukwila, (206) 431 -3680
6300 Southcenter .Boulevard
Tukwila, WA 98188
You may appeal this determination to the C.ty Clerk. at City Hall, 6200
Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 no later than 10 days from the
above signature date by written appeal stating the basis of the appeal
for specific factual objections. You may be required to bear some of
the expenses for an appeal.
Copies of the procedures for SEPA appeals are available with the City
Clerk and Department of Community Development.
.
•
City of Tukwila
John W. Rants, Mayor
Department of Public Works Ross A. Earnst, P. E., Director
February 5, 1993
Mr. Jeff Nichols
The Home Depot
601 South Placentia
Fullerton, California 92631
Dear Mr. Nichols:
RE: South 180th Street /SR -181 Improvements
In response to your request, we are writing to confirm the City's program for
implementing the scheduled improvements to the South 180th Street /SR -181
Intersection.
The initial improvement, widening the south side of the west approach of South
180th Street, including the South 180th Street bridge, to provide an additional
eastbound through lane, is fully funded and included in the City's 1993 Capital
Improvement Plan. This improvement should be completed by the end of 1993 or
early 1994.
The second phase of improvements, adding left turn lanes to both the north and
south approaches of SR -181 and widening the east approach of South 180th
Street, is expected to follow approximately two years after completion of the
initial improvements, i.e., by 1995. Although all funding sources have not yet
been identified, the Home Depot mitigation fees, as outlined in the mitigated
DNS, will provide a good beginning to meet this need.
We hope this letter is adequate for your purposes.
Sincerely,
Ron Cameron, P.E.
City Engineer
RMC /kjp
File: Home Depot Development
0
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: (206) 433 -0179 • Fax (206) 4313665
To: Jack Pace
From: Ron Cameron
Date: February 1, 1993
Subject: Home Depot Appeal
d 4! L
FE3 0 2 1993
DEV °LOPit;l ttiT
The Segale Appeal explains that it is based on the Home Depot traf-
fic analysis not having S 180 St information. This memo explains
the rationale for not having requested Home Depot to provide that
information.
Two extensive studies have been conducted of the S 180 St traffic
that found the LOS is adequate except for the SR181 intersection.
No capacity or safety measures have been identified or scheduled for
construction within the next five years except the SR181 intersec-
tion.
A Traffic Defeciencies Study was conducted in 1988 and 1989. Traf-
fic was modeled for existing and 2010 conditions. The model was re-
run with various capacity and safety improvement alternatives to
identify projects for further specific study.
The existing condition S 180 St LOS (level -of- service) was found to
be LOS D on S 180 St except for the SR181 intersection. The 2010
LOS was found to be E. This information is shown on large maps that
are located in my office and have been used for determining what
analysis is needed for specific developments. This process has been
used since 1988.
Further extensive evaluation has been made of the SR181 intersec-
tion. A series of alternatives were evaluated and LOS curves for
increasing traffic through the year 2025 developed for the alterna-
tives. The current phase I bridge widening will provide LOS D. The
second phase SR181 widening continues LOS D for future (beyond 5
years) traffic. The graphic curve chart is available in my office.
The City analysis and traffic information is above and beyond a
"normal" development traffic study; the Home Depot was not asked to
prepare duplicative analysis and answers.
STATE OF WASHINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY
Mail Stop PV -11 • Olympia, Washington 98504 -8711 • (206) 459 -6000
•
January 29, 1993
Mr. Rick Beeler
City of Tukwila
6300 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila WA 98188
Dear Mr. Beeler:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the determination of nonsignificance
for the demolish of half of an existing 270,000 square foot
warehouse /distribution building and remodel for a retail warehouse proposed by
Home Depot, USA Incorporated. We reviewed the environmental checklist and have
the following comments.
1. The applicant proposes to demolish an existing structure(s). Item B.7.a
of the checklist asks if there are any environmental health hazards that could
occur as a result of the proposal. Improper disposal of solid waste, including
demolition waste, can result in environmental health hazards. The applicant
should identify the disposal site for the demolition material. In addition, the
applicant should be encouraged to pursue mitigating activities such as salvage,
reuse, and recycling of the demolition materials.
2. If greater than 2,000 cubic yards of inert, demolition, and /or wood waste
is used as fill material, a solid waste handling permit is required from the
jurisdictional health department.
3. The outdoor garden area must incorporate a means of preventing fertilizers,
pesticides and other chemicals from affecting the storm drainage system and
discharge to the Green River.
If you have any questions on comments one or two please call Mr. Stuart Kent with
our Solid and Hazardous Waste Program at (206) 649 -7132. If you have any
questions on comment three please call Mr. Ron Devitt with our Water Quality
Program at (206) 649 -7028.
Sincerely,
t -cjJ,'l.LCC Ct C
Patricia L. Crumley
Environmental Review Section
PLC:rch
93 -284
cc: Stuart Kent/Ron Devitt /Janet Thompson -Lee, NWRO
uk■a40, 3
0
10900
NE 8TH 51
SUITE 300
BELLEVUE
WAS111NGTON
98004
TELEFAX
206
454 0220
TELEPHONE
206
454 5600
WASHINGTON
ARIZONA
CALIFORNIA
:
E N T R A N C O
January 27, 1993
Rick Beeler
City of Tukwila
6300 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, WA 98188
aria
U •T `693
CUM- M- plvl i iT
DEVELO
Re: Home Depot Tukwila DNS Comment Letter
Dear Mr. Beeler:
This letter is in response to the concerns of Mr. Mario Segale in his
letter dated January 22, 1993. We understand Mr. Segale is concerned
that the analysis of Home Depot traffic did not analyze improvements in
the city of Tukwila's Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). It is
our understanding that the city's staff is aware that the planned
improvement to the South 180th Street /West Valley Highway
intersection will improve the level of service at the intersection of South
180th Street /West Valley Highway which is of concern to Mr. Segale
and considered the effect of this improvement in making the threshold
determination.
The first phase of the improvement at South 180th Street /West Valley
Highway includes a bridge widening which would provide an additional
eastbound through lane. According to the city, Phase 1 widening is
funded and scheduled for completion by November 1993. Funding for
Phase 2 is currently not allocated, however, it is in the six -year TIP.
The Phase 1 improvement will decrease delays at the intersection of
South 180th Street /West Valley Highway, improve traffic flow along
South 180th Street, and shorten the existing queue lengths in front of
the proposed Home Depot site. If you have any questions or concern,
please call us.
Sincerely,
ENTRANC
Sherman Goo
Project Engineer
Jiff Haynie, E.I.T.
Project Engineer
cc: Ron Cameron, Tukwila City Engineer
01/28/93 09:14 FAX 206 454 0220
10900
YE 0TH ST
!UM 300
CELL rU
WA(IIIMGT0'
9000•
1111IA>f
tai
4S4 0720
I1liPHUNi
10A
ltd E■00
W Ai111i1(,1 u11
I J D N A
CALIIO1l1IA
O M T 11 A N C O
January 25, 1993
Ron Cameron
City Engineer, City of Tukwila
6300 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, Washington 98188
ENTRANCO ENG, 444 CITY OF TUKWILLA 21002/006
Re: Home Depot • Tukwila
Mitigation Fee Methodology
Entronca Project No. 9204040
Dear Ron:
RECEIVEr.
JAN 2 8 7993
COMMUNITY
DEVELOP
I,7CN7'
This letter summarizes our methodology for determining the mitigation fees for the
proposed Home Depot in Tukwila, Washington. Per our telephone conversation on
January 22, 1993, we are sending you the information needed to justify the numbers
we used for mitigation. There was an error in figure 6 of our report which I believe
caused this confusion. It was not clear if the project generated traffic volumes in
figure 6 included the passby trips or if it showed only the net "new" project trips.
Figure 6 has been corrected to show the total (new + passby) trips generated by
Horne Depot. The mitigation fees are applied to only the new trips, therefore, the
volumes shown in figure 6 volumes should not used to determine mitigation fees. For
your convenience we have separated the new trips (figure A) from the passby trips
(figure 6), The combination of these figures will result in the volumes shown In the
revised figure 6. The mitigation fees are based on the increase in peak hour traffic at
the intersections. Thus, the volumes shown in figure A only should be used to
determine the mitigation fees for Home Depot. The mitigation fees should be as
follows:
• Southcenter Parkway /Strandor
• Andover Park West/Strander
• Andover Park East/Strander
• S 180th Street/SR 181
127 peak hour trips at $140/trip
64 trips at $317 /trip
223 trips at $135 /trip
286 trips at $475 /trip
= $17,780
$20,288
$30,105
$135,850
01/28/93 09:15 FAX 208 454 0220
Ron Cameron
January 25, 1993
Page 2
ENTRANCO ENG. -4- CITY OF TUKWILLA 1J003 /006
The total trip mitigation for Home Depot is $204,023. if you have any questions,
please feel free to call me.
Sincerely,
ENTRANCO
Sherman Goon
eft Haynie, E.I.T.
Project Engineer / project Engineer
Attachments: Revised Figure 6
Figure A and Figure B
oc: Francis Chu, Greenberg Farrow Architects
Mark Miller, Mark Miller Consultants, Inc.
JJH:SDG:jhw
01/26/99 09 :15 FAX 206 454 0220
ENTRANCO ENG, -+y4 CITI OF TUKWILLA 2004/006
11
Figure A
Project Generated
Traffic volumes
7570 NEW 7R-/f 5
01%28/93 09:16 FAX 206 454 0220
ENTRANCO ENG.
444 CITY OF TUKWILLA Z005/006
^
PHoPO',A.ra
►•FHOJE_C: T
��11E
01/28/93 09:17 FAX 206 454 0220
ENTRANCO ENG. 4-4 -4 CITY OF TUKWILLA I j006- 006
•
Strander Blvd
45
!?., r 30 (30)
:..Y q (34 (30) 30 !` 34
? i 134) (S0) (34)
330 (40) 4
3
LT,
>:
-ti t
17
(171
(34) 34
•10 54 (34) 1
(30)30 �►
..1i
00) g
111
1111)
Minkler Blvd
4'i r11iMgarz• Y1jt.:il.}.i+.✓:uinr'^^
(106) 0
"IL' (101)
!3
111415m 10 (00)
Cik
h
1
(81)10 �i'`
(0) (105) ik
tot 4 v (101)
1f
t
174 (174)
J~
' 301s
iC1:ti2YY; 3v 'iiel~finwJ!k+A.1,
t:•
(30) 00 .1 w
(1h 70 - g'
i
S 1110th St
161;y.L'":. ".rn!t411:1r;u +J2�3�64'
(44)41 44•414. )r
(e) 6 IL. 116 (17)
too 4.00(10)
GPrwrwwMww
1071 (70) If SO 730)
tilt • 70 vb . 80 (40)
30) O 1
( ►
>
000 . Nam WPM Pug Haut Olin Mau to swan Wu
(000) . Non and PM Puk Hour with Aamw to Sues Gliw
SOO . Volu m Suon 0*m Aowu
(47) 47 .00 �1"
(12) 83 co,
(m) 111
(I4)
Figure 6
Project Generated
Traffic Volumes
+., �.�.��
GACO WESTERN, INC.
POLYURETHANE FOAM AND
ELASTOMERIC COATINGS
City of Tukwila
Planning Division
6300 South_ertcY Blvd.
Tukwila, WA 98188
Gentlemen:
I an writing in regard to
Inc.
January 22, 1993
case number L92 -0088, Home Depot, USA,
I have worked in Tukwila since 1974 and have seen
increase due primarily to expansion of retail space.
city is aware of the massive traffic congestion at the
of 180th. and West Valley Highway.
the traffic
I'm sure the
intersection
Common sense would dictate that a responsible firm like Home Depot
would address the traffic congestion as part of their plan.
Unfortunately, I will be unable to attend the January 28, 1993
hearing, however, I would be interested to know what studies have
been done regarding the impact the Depot will have on traffic and
the plan they or the city has to minimize the traffic problems.
JPH /yds
Sincerely,
C:A.00 � EcTL��1�,� INC
Va.VV . %Y�I�v1• •�
0
ames P. Hazard
President
P.O. Box 88698 / Seattle, WA 98138.2698 / 206 - 5756450
P.O. Box 646 / Waukesha, WI 53187-0646 / 414 - 542.8072
To: Carol Proud, Associate Planner
From: Ron Cameron, City Engineer (: cS"r-
Date: January 7, 1993
Subject: Hoene Depot
ee
RECEIVED
JAN o 8 1993
DEVELOC-`t \1r N r
Development traffic mitigations are determined from identified capac-
ity or safety improvements needed for traffic increases. The Traffic
Deficiencies Study identifies increased traffic and improvements
needed to provide the safety and capacity for 2010 traffic. The cost
of the capacity improvement is divided by the "1990" to 2010 traffic
increase to determine the prorated share cost. Mitigations are deter-
mined from the development's increased peak hour traffic and the
cost /trip. Home Depot peak hour traffic affects four intersections
with improvements planned for construction within the next 5 years:
Southcenter Parkway /Strander. The increase to 2010 is 954 peak hour
trips and improvement cost is $134,000. The prorated share is
$140 /trip. Home Depot's 127 peak hour trips mitgation is $17,780.
Andover Park W /Strander. The increase to 2010 is 934 trips and im-
provement cost is $296,000. The prorated share is $317 /trip. Home
Depot's 64 trips mitigation is $20,288.
Andover Park E /Strander. The increase to 2010 is 694 peak hour trips
and improvement cost is $94,000. The prorated share is $135 /trip.
Home Depot's 233 trips mitigation is $31,455.
S 180 St /SR181. The increase to 2010 is 3,200 trips and improvement .
cost is $1,520,000. The prorated share is $475. Home Depot's 395
trips mitigation is $187,625.
Total trip mitigation is $257,148. The change in use from warehouse
to "retail" generates signifcantly more traffic affecting other inter-
sections without planned improvements, particularly the Andover Pk E
and 5 180 St intersection. The LOS degradation can be mitigated by
connecting the Sperry Drive access through to Saxon. The Home Depot
traffic analysis shows that this reduces the affect on Andover Pk E
and S 180 St. A connection to Saxon should be provided with the ac-
cess shown on the site plan. A provision to turn this 30 foot access
and improvement over to the city for increased circulation and safety
created by the change in use should be provided so that if the City in
the future determines that it is needed as public instead of private
access that it can be provided. The turnover will be determined in
the future based on actual traffic and safety needs determined by the
new use. For example, further development of the northern area or
traffic generation higher than shown in the study. The Costco facil-
ity has had to add parking and access to serve their success.
As provided on the Pre -Ap checklist: 10 stalls in the front lot next
to the trail are signed and reserved for trail access only with other
stalls available for trail users as space is available. Oil water
separators are to be provided for catch basins not having them. The
fire system is required to have double check valves if they haven't
been installed. Frontal improvements along 5 180 St are to be
provided in accord with the Sidewalk Ordinance.
City of Tukwila
Department of Public Works
Cie PAw'D
}iovR A4//"O.
/a //L
John W. Rants, Mayor
MEMORANDUM
Ross A. Earnst, P. E., Director
TO: John Pierog, Associate Engineer
FROM: Ron Cameron, City Engineer AV`----
DATE: December 15, 1992
SUBJECT: Home Depot
Cei&
Call Frances Chu regarding Home Depot and Sherman at Entranco Engineers.
I. Trip Generation - Substantiation needed on the rates
A. The facility will function more as a hardware /paint facility with
51.3 (24 hr.) and 5.2 (peak) and +60% on Saturday then the
lumber /bldg. shown with 30.6 ad 3.1 and same on Saturday. Would
like to see employee number for weekday and Saturday.
8. The pads could be fast food @ 700+ instead of the 160 reported.
We can contract this trip generation amount with a developer
agreement that limits the pads to result in not generating more
than full facilty is shown to for approval; i.e. if facility is
approval— with 7,539 trip gen. @ driveway, pads come in for
approval, study shows Home Depot is generatng 8,539 - then,
additional mitigation fees for the 8,539 -7,539 = 1,000 extra are
to be collected and the pads and traffic study reassessed. -
additional analysis if under the 7,539, then, rnits /original
agreement are O.K.
II. The trip distribution needs substantiation. It shows 50% (N) on APE,
20% (W) on S 180 St, and 30% (E) on S 180 St. All other studies show
50% or more east. Need basis for the small amount and adjustments.
III. Would like directional 24 hour volumes on Figure 6 for reference.
/147:4r: 54 RE FGO74 ES Doe Nor A{iRE 8�"/YyE 4/ .PLANS 4 TRAJC�jG
//`7p4cT S7LVy.V
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: P06) 433-0179 • Fax (206) 431-3665
John Pierog
MEMORANDUM
December 15, 1992
Page 2
TRIP GENERATION
Entranco Report
Trip Generation Hardware /Paint ( +60% on Sat.)
24 HR PEAK 24 HR PEAK
Home Depot Rate 30.6 3.1 51.289 5.229
(139,585 ft2)
139,585 Volume 4,286 434 7,180 732
Garden Center
28,141 ft2 Volume 1,000
Pads Shopping Center @ SC rate
14,100 Rate 163
Volume 2,253 102
V. Page 14, 2nd paragraph - Is the 55 + 46 = 100 Costco trips the peak hour
projected increase for Sperry of Costco traffic if Saxon and Sperry re-
connected? (We need to check Costco volumes).
VI. Table 3, APE /Minkler "is" signalized for capacity analysis.
RMC
•
;
Control No.
Epic File No.
Fee $225, Receipt
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
A. BACKGROUND
1. Name of proposed project, if applicable:
The Home Depot
2. Name of applicant:
Greenberg Farrow ArchitecturaUPlanning
3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person:
RECEIVED
NOV 1 31992
COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT
Greenberg Farrow
17671 Irvine Blvd., Suite . 220
Tustin, CA 92680
(714) 544 -6767
Contact: Francis Chu
Local Contact
Mark Miller Consultants, Inc.
10801 Main Street, Suite 204
Bellevue, WA 98004
,(206) 455 -1724
Contact: Mark Miller
4. Date checklist prepared:
November 16, 1992
5. Agency requesting checklist:
City of Tukwila
6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing,
applicable) :
Design December 1992 - February 1993
Permits by March 1993
Construction begin April 1993
Construction end September 1993
7. Do you have any plans for future additions,
further activity related to or connected with
If yes, explain.
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST - PAGE 1
if
expansion, or
this proposal?
8. List any environmental information you know about that has
been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this
proposal.
Traffic Study.
9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental
approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property
covered by your proposal? If yes, explain.
lib
10. List any governmental approvals or permits that will be needed
for your proposal.
Permits are as follows:
• Shoreline Management • Building • Mechanical • Rack Storage
• Building Demolition • Electrical • Plumbing
• King County Health Department • Fire Protection Systems
• Land Altering • Storm Drainage • Hauling
• Sanitary Side Sewer • Fire Line Capping and Abandon
• Water Turn -on • Sidewalk
• Board of Architectural Review and Sign Approval
11. Give a 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 alternatives of
your proposal and should not be summarized here.
The project involves converting the existing warehouse into a Home Depot retail
outlet and reconfiguring the parking areas to accommodate two separate buildings for
retail shops. Approximately 130,115 square feet of the existing dock high building
will be demolished. The remaining 139,585 square feet will be remodeled. The
adjacent parking lot grades will be adjusted to match the existing finished floor.
Adjacent to the building will be a 28,000- square foot outdoor garden center and an
8,000- square foot outdoor lumber storage area. The two 1 -story out - parcel
buildings will have approximately 7,500 square feet and 6,600 square feet. Portions
of the existing utilities will be incorporated into the project where feasible.
Note: The parcel north of the existing building is not included with this project.
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST - PAGE 2
12. 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 a 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.
Address: 6810 S. 180th Street, Tukwila, Washington. The site is adjacent to the
west side of the Green River on the north side of S. 180th Street. It is
the old Frederick & Nelson distribution warehouse.
13. Does the proposal lie within an area designated on the City's
Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan Map as environmentally
sensitive?
11b
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST — PAGE 3
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS
1. Earth
a. General description of the site (circle one):
Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes,
mountainous, other
b. What is the steepest slope on the site
(approximate percent slope ?)
t4
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.
Silt, Ur (Urban Land) - Most of the existing site is covered
by building or asphalt pavement.
d. Are there surface indications or history of
unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If
so, describe.
Ab
e. Describe the purpose, type and approximate
quantities of any filling or grading
proposed. Indicate source of fill.
To raise parking areas adjacent to building. Approximately
10,000 cubic yards of material will be excavated from
underneath the existing floor slab area which will be
demolished. 3,500 CY of borrow will be rquired. Material
will be imported from a local borrow pit. Exact source has
not been identified.
f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing,
construction or use? If so, generally
describe?
None is expected, because the site is relatively flat.
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST - PAGE 4
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
g About what percent of the site will be
covered with impervious surfaces after
project construction (for example, asphalt or
buildings)?
90% of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces.
This includes buildings, parking areas, driveways and
sidewalks.
h. Proposed measures to reduce or control
erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if
any:
Silt fences and straw bale dams will be used at existing
catchbasins to protect the storm sewer from silt -laden run-
off.
2. Aim
a. What types of emissions to the air would
result from the proposal (i.e.,. 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, vehicular exhaust and some dust
emissions will result. After construction, emissions to the
air will be primarily vehicular exhaust from customer and
delivery vehicles.
b. Are there any off -site sources of emissions
or odor that may affect your proposal? If
so, generally describe.
NJ
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control
emissions or other impacts to air, if any:
The contractor will be required to water the site during
grading and earthwork construction to minimize dust
emissions. Construction equipment will be required to meet
local, state and federal emission standards.
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST - PAGE 5
3. Water
a. Surface.
1) Is there any surface water body on or in the
immediate vicinity of the site (including
year- around and seasonal streams, saltwater,
lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe
type and provide names. If appropriate,
state what stream or river it flows into.
The Green River is within 100 feet. of the east boundary of
the site.
2) Will the project require any work over, in,
or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the
described waters? If yes, please describe
and attach available plans.
The asphalt parking area east of the existing building will be
reconstructed. Portions of the proposed outdoor garden
center may lie within 200 feet of the Green River.
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.
Does not apply, proposed project will not disturb the river.
4) Will the proposal require surface water
withdrawals or diversions? Give general
description, purpose, and approximate
quantities, if known.
11b
5) Does the proposal lie within a 100 -year
floodplain? If so, note location on the site
plan.
No, the dike along the west bank of the Green River contains
the 100 -year floodplain within the riverbank.
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.
lib
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST - PAGE 6
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
b. Ground.
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water
be discharged to ground water? Give general
description, purpose, and approximate
quantities, if known.
No
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 system(s) are
expected to serve.
lib
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.
Surface parking runoff and building roof runoff will be
collected and routed by gravity to the existing City storm
drainage system. The City system lies within the P -17
basin.
2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface
waters? If so, generally describe.
No, unless an oil /water separator fails, then oily parking lot
runoff could flow into the City storm sewer.
d. Proposed measured to reduce or control
surface, ground and runoff water impacts, if
any:
Parking lot runoff will pass through oil /water separators
before discharging to the City storm sewer.
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST - PAGE 7
4. plants
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on
the site:
__X_ deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen,
other
,_X_ evergreen tree: cedar,
other
__X_ shrubs
__x,_ grass
pasture
crop or grain
wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup,
bullrush, skunk cabbage, other
water plants: water lily, eelgrass,
milfoil, other
other types of vegetation
b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be
removed or altered?
Most of the existing landscape vegetation will be removed.
- New trees and shrubs will be planted at designated landscape
areas. Where feasible, existing trees and shrubs will be
reused or relocated.
c. List threatened or endangered species known
to be on or near the site.
None
d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants,
or other measures to preserve or enhance
vegetation on the site, if any:
Landscaping will meet local requirements.
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:
heron, eagle, songbird, other:
mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other:
Do not kno
fish: bass, salmo , trout, herring,
shellfish, other:
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST - PAGE 8
b. List any threatened or endangered species
known to be on or near the site.
None
c. Is the site part of a migration route? If
so, explain.
Do not know.
d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance
wildlife, if any:
None
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.
Electric and natural gas will be used for lighting and heating
purposes respectively.
b. Would your project affect the potential use
of solar energy by adjacent properties? If
so, generally describe.
Nb
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:
The store lighting and heating will be controlled by an energy
management system. Skylights will be used to supplement
lighting during the day.
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.
AVb
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST - PAGE 9
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
1) Describe special emergency services that
might be required.
None
2) Proposed measures to reduce or control
environmental health hazards, if any:
Trash compactors and balers will be used for recycling
materials.
b. Noise
1) What types of noise exist in the area which
may affect your project (for example:
traffic, equipment, operation, other)?
None
2) What types and level 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.
Equipment operating noise during construction and typical
retail customer traffic noise during business hours. During
construction the primary source of noise will be from
construction equipment which will occur during normal
business hours. After the stores are open, delivery trucks,
customer traffic, an outdoor intercom system and backup
horns on forklifts will generate noise.
3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise
impacts, if any:
Contractor will operate all equipment with approved
mufflers, as required.
8. Land and Shoreline Use
a. What is the current use of the site and
adjacent properties?
Site:
Adjacent Properties:
b. Has the site been
so, describe.
Not since the 1960's.
Vacant Warehouse
Warehouse, Light Industrial
used for agriculture? If
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST - PAGE 10
c. Describe any structures on the site.
Concrete building. 270,000 sf dock -high warehouse
exterior finish is tilt -up concrete panels. Overall height is
approximately 33 feet.
d. Will any structures be demolished? If so,
what?
Approximately half of existing warehouse will be
demolished.
e. What is the current zoning classification of
the site?
CM Industrial
f. What is the current comprehensive plan
designation of the site?
g.
Light Industrial
If applicable, what is the current shoreline
master program designation of the site?
Falls within Tukwila Shoreline Program. •-
h. Has any part of the site been classified as
an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so,
specify.
Nb
i. Approximately how many people would reside or
work in the completed project?
150 people will be employed by Home Depot and
approximately 15 to 20 people will work in the retail shops.
Approximately how many people would the
completed project displace?
Zero, the existing building is vacant.
J.
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.
None
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST - PAGE 11
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
9. Housing
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
a. Approximately how many units would be
provided, if any? Indicate whether high,
middle, or low- income housing.
Does not apply (retail).
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 materials(s)
proposed?
Height of existing building is approximately 33 feet.;
however, certain architectural elements will exceed that
height by 5 to 7 feet. The retail shops will be about 20 feet
high, with architectural elements extending approximately 5
feet higher.
b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be
altered or obstructed?
None
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control
aesthetic impacts, if any:
Building elevations will be modified to increase aesthetic
relief.
11. Light and Glare
a. What type of light or glare will the proposal
produce? What time of day would it mainly
occur?
No anticipated glare from buildings. Parking lot will be
illuminated during dark hours .
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST - PAGE 12
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
b. Could light or glare from the finished
project be a safety hazard or interfere with
views?
11b
c. What existing off -site sources of light or
glare may affect your proposal?
Nave
d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light
and glare impacts, if any.
None
12. Recreation
a. What designated and informal recreational
opportunities are in the immediate vicinity?
A pedestrian/ bike frail parallels the east boundary of the
site.
b. Would the proposed project displace any
existing recreational 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:
Parking for trail users will be provided in accordance with
previous agreements. Bike racks for store customers will
be provided as required.
13. Bistoric 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.
A
b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence
of historic, archaeological, scientific, or
cultural importance known to be on or next to
the site.
None that we are aware of.
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST - PAGE 13
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control
impacts, if any.
None
14 Transportation
a. Identify public streets and highways serving
the site, and describe proposed access to the
existing street system. Show on site plans,
if any.
• S. 180th Street - Main arterial.
• Two driveways on S. 180th Street - One access is
controlled by traffic signal.
b. Is site currently served by the public
transit? If not, what is the approximate
distance to the nearest transit stop?
Yes. Metro provides bus service on S. 180th Street.
c. How many parking spaces would the completed
project have? How many would the project
eliminate? •-
• Approximately 650 spaces for Home Depot and 70 spaces
for retail shops and overflow.
• Will not eliminate existing parking spaces.
• There are 39 existing spaces in the southeast parking
area. Ten of these will be marked for Christensen Trail
users.
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).
A sidewalk will be constructed along the north side of S.
180th Street for the entire project frontage.
e. Will the project use (or occur in the
immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air
transportation? If so, generally describe.
lib
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST - PAGE 14
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
f. How many vehicular trips per day would be
generated by the completed project? If
known, indicate when peak volumes would
occur.
Average weekday vehicular trips per day for Home Depot
will be 5,286 and 2,253 for the retail shops. The peak hour
volume for Home Depot will be 539 trips and 204 trips for
the retail shops. The peak hour volume will occur between
6:00 and 7:00 p.m.
g. Proposed measures to reduce or control
transportation impacts, if any:
Home Depot intends to contribute traffic impact fees as
required by the City of Tukwila.
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.
lib
b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct
impacts on public services, if any.
None
16. Utilities
a. Circle u 'lities currentl available at the
site:
sep is system, other.
b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for
the project, the utilities providing the
service, and the general construction
activities on the site or in the immediate
vicinity which might be needed.
• Storm drainage: modify existing on -site system,
discharge to City storm sewer.
• Sanitary sewer: construct new, connect to City sewer.
• Water: modify existing. Service provided by City.
• Telephone, gas & electricity: Extend existing to serve
new buildings. Service provided by PNB, WNG, and
Puget Power. All work will be done on -site.
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST - PAGE 15
C. SIGNATURE
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
The above answers are true and complete to
the best of my knowledge. I understand that
the City is relying on them to make its
decision.
Signature:
Date Submitted: MO Vet* 6 r, /4, Z
Please continue to next page.
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST - PAGE 16
SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR, NON - PROJECT ACTIONS
NOT USE THIS SHEET FOR PROJECT ACTIO
B•cause these questions are very genera
ma be helpful to read them in conju
wit the list of the elements
envi••nment.
When a
the ext
activiti
proposal,
intensity
proposal we
briefly and i
swering these questions, be
nt the proposal, or the
$ likely to result
ould affect the item
at a faster rate
e not implement
general terms.
it
tion
the
aware of
types of
from the
t a greater
than if the
d. Respond
1. How would the proposal be 1' ely to increase
discharge to -ter; em ssions to air;
production, stora• -, or r lease of toxic or
hazardous substance ; or roduction of noise?
AESPo14Is - A/oT
Proposed measures t• -void or reduce such
increases are:
AEQ a/R o /1 S
2. How would the p oposal be 1'kely to affect
plant's, animals fish, or marl e life?
/,NS% -de7Fo
Proposed m: -sures to protect o conserve
plants, an als, fish, or marine li are:
C/
3. How wo d the proposal be likely to de• ete
energy or natural resources are:
posed measures to protect or conserve
ergy and natural resources are:
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST - PAGE 17
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
How would the proposal be likely to use o
affect environmentally sensitive areas 'r
areas designated (or eligible or under stu- )
for governmental protection; such as pa s,
ilderness, wild and scenic riv-rs,
t reatened or endangered species ha • tat,
hi toric or cultural sites, wet ands,
flo••plains, or prime farmlands?
Propose• measures to protect suc resources
or to av• d or reduce impacts ar
5. How would t - proposal be .kely to affect
land and shoreline use, inc uding whether it
would allow o encourage and or shoreline
uses incompatib,- with ex'.ting plans?
Proposed measure o avoid or reduce
shoreline and land u impacts are:
How does the pro••sal co orm to the Tukwila
Shoreline Master *Ian?
6. How would th proposal be lik- y to increase
demands on ransportation or p,•lic services
and utilit -s?
Propos=e measures to reduce or re pond to
such • mand(s) are:
7. I• ntify, if possible, whether the prop
y conflict with local, state, or fede
aws or requirements for the protection
the environment.
al
1
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST - PAGE 18
�....... w..ror+n w.m•m w.r.r..c. :Nh'.. a.a'}le,'...::,)::_Cl'fl ?'list :Y•'19kv�:nf•I ..aaaHn). * cf.TJid..
C
E. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR ALL PROJECT AND NON -
PROJECT PROPOSALS
The objectives and the alternative means of
reaching the objectives for a proposal will
be helpful in reviewing the aforegoing items
of the Environmental Checklist. This
information provides a general overall
perspective of the proposed action in the
context of the environmental information
provided and the submitted plans, documents,
supportive information, studies, etc.
1. What are the objective(s) of the proposal?
The purpose of this proposal is to utilize an existing
warehouse for commercial retail, modify the existing
parking and consruct two new out - parcels for retail shops.
2. What are the alternative means of
accomplishing these objectives?
Moving the project to another site in the Renton /Kent area.
3. Please compare the alternative means and
indicate the preferred course of action?
The preferred alternative is to proceed with the Tukwila
site.
4. Does the proposal conflict with policies of
the Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Policy
Plan? If so, what policies of the Plan?
t'b
5. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce the
conflict (s) are:
None
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST - PAGE 20
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
8. '• he proposal conflict with policie
the Tu - Comprehensive Land - -olicy.
Plan? If so, - policies - e Plan?
Propos asures to avoid • educe the
ct(s) are:
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST - PAGE 19
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
RECEIVED
.r� WN 1 s 1693
COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT
THE HOME DEPOT U.S.A. INC. G FARROW
TUKWILA, WASHINGTON
IMO RTOI R�
. C I I4
AL 7144M-7444
F X 7I441111-7440
WAwn. J. &Mow ANNUM
IMQf1ICRMi RArMO
THE HOME DEPOT
6810 S.I80th STREET
TUKW ILA, WASHINGTON
DEVELOPMENT PLAN
JANUARY 1993
Getc FLOW
IMO Iffo4 NMI
11186 C/11101111Allin•
n 7144 444
Pm 71Ml1►7440
mcmcmili NANO
(WITH PARTIAL FLOOR PLAN/
SOUTH ELEVATION
I I
I 4.41
• - " •
• . . • • • -
ELEVATION
0
ILJ
-J
LU
WEST ELEVATION
a
gt
81
03
03
0
co
0
2
2
0
to a;
dm
1
-A°
D1IVE
35'
l �
ROLL -0
019
5517
la Y��1'r11� ae r
; /,
ENTRY
75' 1.•
b
.0 3
b-
b .'.
9a
CLEASOI.E
•
:'
175
_40
150
0
IQ
<=as=
} }
10
40
I
m
0, Z
61 a 1 :a C.
'V: 1 RVEc
IN ACT 5509014.5.05
INVF :5594 1
O
0
c -c to
0
15
50
m
(AINO OlddV 1 NVI J
r--
4
6a
R
N1pi L1
6a
1151;
121
L 35'
GREENBERG FARROW
N 11)5026' W
2067' SOUTH 180th STREET
5, 811•15'15'w
••.,K■...n•••••s
HOME DEPOT USA., NC. 91088
SOUTH 19019 5 JAMES CHRSTENSEN ROAD
TLKNLLA, WAD-I GTON
TUKWILLA
ROOR PLAN
PRELLMNARY
“linar4 IMO 14•11•1 .111101•1111
57155'
Senn
•
SAXON DRIVE
Dr
0
M
J r„
Iq .b
THE HOME DEPOT
tExuTr:G 5 ;00. AREA TO REMAN)
137,760 SF
E\ISTNG F.F. - :5.00
SPl
GREENBERG FARROW
,•,_7,,,,..11•■••■■•
(1
HOME DEPOT USA., USA., NC. 91080
SOUTH I BOLA l JAMES C1485TETSEN ROAD
TUKKIIA, WAD -1470N
TUKWILLA
FLOOR PLAN
PREUMNARY
I' -307.0.
0.010.ww 0•111.1111110.111.0414.
A
•0 Dnrt
1
.0 SiZilii-
°c :•s z; t
0 ac
P IA In
°� bn ova =
OS m F 4 m
moo ,. O P � m
3 1i G
a
'° cr
' n 0
m 2 O I�
ti
•I;,
•• 1
EXIT
uD
r,r
P
_50
•
it
owl
our
SP I
Y
STAIYI V AO 0.40
GAG FARRow
sN88.45' ,4TW —t. .� C .,� ..5
Mil w t.!
HOME DEPOT US.A,, NC. 91088
SOUTH I80M t JAMES CHRLSTENSEN ROAD
TIJKW 1A, WASPNGTON
TUKWILLA
ROOK PLAN
PRRNWARY
AND
CONCEPTUAL
BITE PLAN
wa nrl r.mm°w N.A.
•
. e=
0
4 2 Q 9 9
to000(k.
iJ 1111 II LIIIIITIIIIIIIVIIII II 1111'11
it si 1 4-iill'ill.' Ili . II
Ft 1; 1; 11 111
:‘ a! ift oil. I. 1,1,
I it: L; 11, 1 1 ! 111
' 1,1 ■ ' 1 1 11 11 111
1
ENIfir
141,P
IMMO ...OA •••••
0 ow.
0 mows
4.• ha. IS
•••
SP!
GIEEfeEfiG FARROW
MAIO MN
HOME CEPOT HZ! COM
SOUTH IIMn & J&S 0-feTENSEN ROAD
11.m4.1.A, WASH/GYP+
TUKWILLA
•••
ROOM KM
KIMMMY
M•M• mnia •••• • AY MANN
fabowil JUNI
SAXON ONVE
lb
8
W
THE HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC.
TUKW I LA, WASH I NGTON
Weisman Design Group
2329-East Madison Ave
Seattle, WA 98112
'-;14F-Et FAR R, , V.
•
• .1•••• n• ••••1.. • +.11.••
EXISTING VIEWS
THE HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC. GREBOERG OW
TUKWI LA, WASHINGTON
Mlle= MI POW NW
IMO *7.�
• Lew. Miaow Maga=
ROI 714111114403
MOONIMA RMMN
w4N713:4_. COST CO
••••• 00••••• o••••
1•rorirl
ONLLSIX3
3 SflOH3NVM
11
z
CD
• Ft • t :i �ii'ii'it I I rill 1
if 11 i�Igi11�l;��l�j�;�l
11l1 1
pp'l•1111t l'lilii
'll4Yiplilil���1�I III I
1111 �I II
II1g14�11jIM
II II II
VriTT119171
•
ell
11
I t
m
MIPMPR 1
j j
ll I
I 1 1 !
II .h
11.11 1 111111 III
I
f
i •1• � ' I�I:i I \, `L- , � 1 +
` d
tt1' 113 . � =i J > i
Mi i. " a a it 'I �.
1• u -. �+ /J; ♦
litaratliMMErgegiadeir0:::::::;;- -
Armwommmmm
•Y• 54•14 r'
\ •.... !P !1:
SOUTH 180TH STREET
I
4__ _••' ••NY -
-19" r9.7
THE HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC.
TUKWILA, WASH I NGTON
EXISTINGVIEWS 8.180th Stroot
GREENBERG FARROW
Cmpamo FAxmAx AICHOCTIrd RK;COPORATO
17941 Mai ROAD
7M Room
RM1,11, CAUOMA
T. 714-889-7444
FAX 714-638-7440
WRY. J. RANO* MOTICT
THE HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC.
TUKW I LA, WASHINGTON
EXISTINGVIEWS Jsmas Christsnsfn Road
GREENBERG FARROW
THE HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC.
TUKWILA, WASHINGTON
FX!ST!NGV!FWS Saxon Drive
GREENBERG FARROW
GgYSw: Fwwah. AN0411cTIN. MWM4x.ATIU
i/941 Fi1CM ROAD
231,1 ROCS
PM{ CALrumpO. 1.3:1
Ty 714 - &99-7 444
FAk 714 -0.99 -/ 4 W
LAW. J. FANUw AA)fTLC,
APCHTICCTVi FiN+1K
THE HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC.
TUKW I LA, WASHINGTON
EXISTINGVIEWS View Front West
GAG FARROW
1
17941 Riu11wwn
Td Room
Wm. Counion 1,914
h 714 O 3.7444
Fox 714-035-7440
Loon. J. FA NO* A+IO(L}cT
ANCHTIC11# FLNIMO
5
■,?
1 A—A°
, 75 '' .• — L 00' MIN
.415 • ' ' '' . Ct(ANANCE
,.--' _
, 1.::::::•,..
i 'C' Z;
....— 10 ..
&I a ".5 17-_-__-_-3.r.T""1--: •-
••• ' •
•
5.
B—B
C-
Dovo
=255=
8
m
tn
(7)
m
m
ISC C.
1 Y.': 1 RIVER
IN AC T ENVAONVEN
NVS.
0.
—
;7, —00—
_ 8
-
—
-
40
Ii
0
-D
(flNO DI33b1:11 NVI8LS3
..,•10•
010101
111L11111,01111.1ir
60'
6
35.
3.
0
i1111,11111.11111,5111MI
11 87'5026 W 10 85i507' W
2667 SOUTH 180th STREET
57150
•110•111•10■ DO DO D•0004
0/12/11
•••
••••••• LO■NOIN D MOD
•••••••••• •//
SPI
GREENBERG FARROW
IlOWEI /VW/ MIDI MA./
HOME DEPOT USA., NC. 91088
SOUTH 180th & JAMES CPRISTENSEN ROAD
TUKWLLA, WASHNGTCN
TUKWILLA
.1.1111111 DUI
FLOOR PLAN
PREUMNARY
DD.. DM/ 0/1041. O. DM DODD
I/OCCID MM.
l01 1/./1001410■•• 0/ 1m cte.t.c
SAXON DRIVE
/1
CP 9,
0
t)
Mg
74,.) (-5-■ 1-------
-:
THE HOME DEPOT
1E X1STNG BLDG AREA TO REMAIN)
137,760 SF
EX1STI1G FF..- 25.00
SIMI, MINOR IM
11.M
••• •••• n
•• ••• •
1.1.100 0 CU.*
SP 1
GREENBERG FARROW
HOME I3EPOT U.S.A., INC. 91088
SOUTH I BOth 1 JAMES CHRISTENSEN ROAD
TURWLLA, WASHNGTON
TUKWILLA
.11 11111 W•11
FLOOR PLAN
PREUMPIARY
111014.0 4111.1,A 14 .11.11 .11101
IVIXJ.I IPSO
04.0.10.1■11.0,04 POO,
SCALE: 1116' ■ 1-0'
AST ELEVATION
SCALE: 1116' - 1 -0'
NORTH ELEVATION
---------
8
WEST ELEVATION
11/12/92 DD W -1te
z
0
LLI
1
L
FJ
•c 4.IVc
CLEARAN
/
=i
• o ROL -UP
EXIT ENTRY
--
8I411C.1,•L • •11I•4 WALL -_
g • f.o.r •
.... moiGi
0 401110
• s Or
a0 =..
M `MO
^"1�i- . 4 •AA
RI MI
411:411 MOVONIMIKANIMMINCIONIME
_. egg,_
1-a1et
• • 0
WIMMMWMINOM
,Wwwwww. My,
ay
SP1
G GF oow
mom MY
1;:ri how Owe
7'50'20
2007'
w — ..a1.j
HOME DEPOT U.S.A., NC. 91088
SOUTH 180th L JAMES OFfRSTEMEN ROAD
TUCNLLA, WASHNGTON
TUKWILLA
.. mu w
•
FLOOR PLAN
PREUMNARY
AND
CONCEPTUAL
SITE PLAN
N :. i5'97' W +..
as NMI r•1Yl 1110111 ...
neme I1mc
a
8
NCO UP
; rt
Li
I. two ooct:5*--)
it 11
tippri n 11 1: I; i; I; pi III I
T I it: 01 II 11111 litli Ili It 11
`" I'll I
1 II ICI
i! tit
1
111
al
''(7
LWILLI
ENTRY
4
_ 211
4
141
1
ClEARANCE
o
0 D
0
0
(1,
a I or
aa.
11,09.43 0°Y
rOlOrt. oltarOga aa..410
1..L •
ra ...or a *OVA *ado
0,
Man Or 110
r ala
o_* or
*let!
000,
m• or. Ow
ow. co
SPI
GREEMERG LARFICIti
arm. Oro
Ir. an ir
HOPOE DEPOT USA. NC. NOM
SCUM 110N 1 JANES CDNISTENSEN ROAD
TUCYA1A, WASHIGTON
TUKWILLA
11.0061 NAN
14181MNARY
Po30 -CO
Ora MAD fora Oa =Jon
MEMO /IWO
RECEIVED
DEC 3 01992
TUKWILA
PUBLIC WORKS
Home Depot Store
Tukwila, Washington
TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY
December 1992
Home Depot Store
Tukwila, Washington
TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY
Prepared for
Home Depot Corporation
Greenberg Farrow Architects
17941 Fitch Road, Second Floor
Irvine, California 92714
Prepared by
ENTRANCO
10900 NE 8th Street, Suite 300
Bellevue, Washington 98004
(206) 454 -5600
December 30, 1992
CONTENTS Page
INTRODUCTION 1
EXISTING CONDITIONS 1
Road Network 1
Traffic Volumes 5
Levels of Service 6
Traffic Operations 7
TRAFFIC VOLUME FORECASTS 7
Trip Generation 7
Trip Distribution 9
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS 14
Future Levels of Service 14
Site Access Issues 16
MITIGATION 17
SUMMARY 17
APPENDICES
A - Level of Service Concept and Calculations
B - Home Depot Trip Rate Summary
9204060/ REPORTS / TRFCIMP (12/29/92) / lbw
FIGURES Page
1. Project Vicinity 2
2. Proposed Site Plan 3
3. 1992 Existing Intersection Control
and Channelization 4
4. 1992 Existing Traffic Volumes 7
5. Project Trip Distribution 10
6. Project Generated Traffic Volumes 11
7. 1993 Total Traffic Volumes with Home Depot
(without access to Saxon Drive) 12
8. 1993 Total Traffic Volumes with Home Depot
(with access to Saxon Drive) 13
TABLES Page
1. Study Intersection Count Rates 5
2. 1991 Existing Level of Service Summary 6
3. Trip Generation Summary 9
4. 1993 Level of Service with the
Proposed Home Depot and Retail Uses 15
92040-60/ REPORTS / TRFCIMP (12/29192)1 lbw
INTRODUCTION
This report documents the traffic impact analysis performed for the proposed Home
Depot Store in Tukwila, Washington. The report addresses the existing traffic condi-
tions in the area and provides an analysis and discussion of the traffic impacts created
by and potential mitigations for the proposed Home Depot Store.
The proposed Home Depot is located on the north side of South 180th Street west
of Andover Park East (figure 1). The site is currently unoccupied, but formerly served
as the distribution center for the Frederick and Nelson (F &N) retail chain stores. The
James Christensen Pedestrian /Bike Trail and the Green River are adjacent to the site
on the east side.
At the time of Home Depot's opening in 1993, the site will consist of a 145,572 -
square -foot Home Depot Improvement Center, a 28,538- square -foot garden center,
and two retail pads which will total 14,100 square feet (figure 2). There are two
existing access driveways leading into the site. Both driveways ingress from and
egress to South 180th Street. The east driveway is the north leg of the existing Sperry
Drive /South 180th Street signalized intersection. The west driveway is the existing
access driveway used by the previous occupant which is controlled with stop signs.
Both driveways are planned to operate with one inbound and one outbound lane for all
turn movements.
At the request of the City of Tukwila, an alternative access driveway north to Saxon
Drive is also being addressed and analyzed in this study.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Road Network
The major access streets to the proposed Home Depot site are South 180th Street,
the West Valley Highway, and Andover Park East. Figure 3 shows the existing
intersection control and channelization for the study area.
West Valley Highway (SR 181) is a five -lane north -south principal arterial with two
through lanes in each direction and a two -way left-turn lane. It provides a link to the
west Kent area south of the project site and northeast Tukwila north of the project site.
It also provides a connection to the City of Renton via its interchange with Interstate
405 (1 -405). It is currently signed for 40 mph just east of the project site.
South 180th Street is a five -lane east -west minor arterial with two through lanes in
each direction and a two -way left -turn lane. It is signed for 35 mph adjacent to the pro-
ject site. This roadway provides a major connection from Tukwila's central business
district to the West Valley Highway and Kent.
92040.60 / REPORTS / TRFCIMP (12/29/92) / lbw 1
!156TH ST
58TH a
1
1
z
•
rTElar4r
PARE,,.
S 167714 ST
168Th ST
$166714Ltd
S 170" !ST
. ST
175TH ST
5t 9 3 ST
in
K v
RD
Iwo
1
•
VALLE
111/ST.:•r`
F ::JtJGG
• PM
tagn
S1mTHST
m I
1�4O ST I S BIND .ST
� }
Ja
1114TH sr
r
1•. =ha
UJ
2
BOEING AEROSPACE CENTER
d,.
CfiOME D EWA 1
rME D
® E N T R A N C O
Figure 1
Project Vicinity
2
i
SAXON DRIVE
SOUTH 180TH STREET
1
C�11 OMKE LD, E POTj
D
E N T R A N C O
Figure 2
Proposed Site Plan
3
tt
trander Blvd
r
'It tor
!/
A)uki. ' r
`Nttr
S
w
a)
CL
ry
N
U
L
O
NTS
Minkler Blvd
PROPOSED
PROJECT
SITE
Aellsk
.....::.:....: >..:. ,.
Saxon Drive
*Aver
M1�
S 180th St
f.-
`5ttt
C�IOME DEPOTJ)
rUKWILA, w�
GP
E N T R A N C O
Legend:
n. Traffic Signal
ja_° Stop Signal
f •TrafficLanes
. Channelized Free
Right Tum Lane
Figure 3
1992 Existing
Intersection Control
and Channelization
4
Andover Park East is a four -lane north -south collector arterial with two through
lanes in each direction and left turn pockets at the critical intersections. It serves as an
alternative northbound route to West Valley Highway and areas northeast of the project
site. It is also a potential route to Interstate 5 (1 -5) via Southcenter Boulevard and
Tukwila Parkway. It is signed for 35 mph west of the project site.
Traffic Volumes
Existing traffic volume data for the arterial street network and intersections was
provided by the City of Tukwila Engineering Department and supplemented by addi-
tional intersection turn movement counts by Entranco. The count information provided
by the City was gathered between February 1989 and September 1992 for all of the
study intersections as shown in table 1.
Table 1
Study Intersection Count Dates
Intersection Noon Peak P.M. Peak
South 180th Street/Southcenter Parkway 10/92 10/92
South 180th Street/Andover Park West 10/92 10/92
South 180th Street/Andover Park East 2/89 2/89
South 180th Street/Sperry Drive 2/89 2/89
South 180th Street/West Valley Highway 2/89 3/91
Andover Park East/Minkler Boulevard 8/91 8/91
Strander Boulevard /Southcenter Parkway 9/89 9/89
Strander Boulevard /Andover Park West 4/91 4/91
Strander Boulevard /Andover Park East 5/92 3/91
Strander Boulevard/West Valley Highway 2/89 3/91
The counts provided by the City of Tukwila taken prior to 1992 were all considered
to be equivalent to 1992 existing volumes without applying a growth factor. This
assumption was suggested by Mr. Ron Cameron, Tukwila City Engineer, based on low
historical traffic growth trends. Entranco performed turn movement counts at the South
180th Street/Southcenter Parkway and South 180th Street/Andover Park West
intersections during the noon and p.m. peak hours. These counts were performed on
October 20 and 21, 1992.
92040.60 / REPORTS / TRFCIMP (12/29/92) / lbw 5
Figure 4 shows the 1992 existing noon and p.m. peak hour traffic volumes on
primary access routes in the study area based on Entranco's counts and the data from
the City. It should be noted that some of the City of Tukwila counts were taken while
the F &N distribution center was still in operation, and trips generated by the F &N center
were not subtracted from the historic traffic counts.
Levels of Service
Intersection operations are generally measured in terms of levels of service (LOS).
Facilities are rated with a LOS A through F, with A being free flow and F being forced
flow or over - capacity conditions. All LOS calculations followed the methodology out-
lined in the 1985 "Highway Capacity Manual ", Transportation Research Board, Special
Report 209. At signalized intersections, the LOS is calculated in terms of average
delay per vehicle passing through the intersection. The LOS at stop - controlled
intersections is measured in terms of unused or reserve capacity available for each
stop controlled movement and each left turn movement on the uncontrolled ap-
proaches. The LOS is typically reported for the worst case of all the calculated turn
movements. Geometric characteristics and conflicting traffic movements are taken into
consideration when determining LOS values.
Entranco conducted an LOS evaluation of the previously listed study intersections
for the weekday noon and p.m. peak hours. The results of this analysis for the existing
conditions are summarized in table 2. Additional discussion of the LOS concept and
calculation sheets for each intersection LOS are included in Appendix A.
Table 2
1992 Existing Level of Service Summary
Signalized Intersections
Noon Peak P.M. Peak
LOS Delay LOS Delay
(sec/veh) (sec /veh)
S. 180th St. /Southcenter Pkwy. E 47.2 D 25.6
S. 180th St. /Andover Park W. B 12.2 C 22.7
S. 180th St. /Andover Park E. C 15.6 C 17.2
S. 180th St. /Sperry Dr. B 5.6 B 6.3
S. 180th St./West Valley Hwy. D 37.1 F 86.2
Strander Blvd. /Southcenter Pkwy. E 43.4 D 32.0
Strander Blvd. /Andover Park W. F 63.5 E 58.3
Strander Blvd. /Andover Park E. E 41.6 D 28.4
Strander Blvd./West Valley Hwy. C 23.4 D 31.8
Andover Park E. /Minkler Blvd. A 4.6 A 4.8
92040-60/ REPORTS / TRFCIMP (12/29/92) / lbw
6
C�fiOME DEPOJ J)
7UKWILA, WA
1 r
(678) (390)
887 414
366 (670)
512 (272)
t
958 513
(1046) (373)
(70) 1343)1161) < 146 (88)
'•`'�� 435 (423)
)1%,„ e- 221(131)
(5) 86
-,
:•:: : �
�
(515) 530 — .''':•;; :: ;:•:;:•:
289 394 241
(194) 258 's (284) (361) (262)
Strander Blvd
9220 (492)4
I4
(186) (706 00) 46 (21)
6 ,
43 (10)
::.(520)409:..:J ;.: 1Nt( :...:;.:
(,1)62 ∎ ►;
(350) (228) (1257) (3)
12530 (492) 44-
12330 (4-92) —
8830 (492) —►
(129) (144) (215) 123 (205)
143 360 191 44•.. 499 ()
A�i
': r 164 (140)
(100)1 1st
(328) 443 •/ —�' s:
(115) 176 2: (194) (492) (97�
8
r.
(54) (541) (53) IL 65 (80)
f'• 25 (31)
.41)1,kik r 60 (83)
:;.::..(2749:.: 1ter
(6) 31 .irte•
(55) 74 52 678 70
-.4%, (50) (577) (22)
Minkler Blvd
PROPOSED
PROJECT
SITE
(151) (85 (325) ` 245 (211)
725 (781)
Ir 141 (28)
(69)1:,•:::::: :. ' > : ....... ............
(406) 469 I
(14) 14 69 78 80
(41) (82) (64)
/r
(11) (0) (10) ' 7(3)
8 44— 1051(1040)
�0
01
Saxon Drive
Q
(211) (136) (2B) ` 564 (334)
:;:;�- 261 (536)
r 66 (148)
( ) 184 j
.....::t:::.....
(178) 220 —r r: " � E)
21 108 (37 4•
11 '> (22) n08) (37►
(7)10 `
44— 9100 (4-92)
—► 9740 (4-92)
S 1 80th St
kg�l
•-11790 l7,10
—I•41840 k
(2)6j.':... " t
ti• (978) 735 -� 25 1 15
(23) 21 . (41) (1) (38)
i��5w:a�uir. �oD>vn.�x \JaOwrh\:.i �wxti�`
(242) (389)
237 335 :; 377 (278)
41) till, ••• 774 (962)
(95) 216
(780) 674 —•
I
i2
44 -1061 (1092)
(1003) 762 --►
;'?•`JFaa:
(78) () (42781`'S k. 264 (351)
98 523 278 �: ♦� 662 n85}
1 )1� 1:1: r 151 (175)
35) 56 � `6 z ...: "I fi
(578) 430 Si 7) 412 —7 ?; (311) 402 (932) 643 (10
E N T R A N C O
Legend:
000 . Noon Peak Hour
(000) . PM Peak Hour
000 . Daily Volumes
(000) . (Date)
Figure 4
1992 Existing
Traffic Volumes
7
Traffic Operations
Field observations at the West Valley Highway /180th Street SW intersection
identified that the eastbound queue on South 180th Street consistently backed up to
Andover Park East during each signal cycle in the p.m. peak hour. This queue stores
traffic along the frontage of the proposed site on South 180th Street, allowing a gap
only at the Sperry Drive /South 180th Street intersection.
TRAFFIC VOLUME FORECASTS
Trip Generation
The trip generation for the Home Depot's main building (145,572 square feet) was
based on a trip rate developed from access driveway counts provided by Greenberg
Farrow Architects. The counts provided were conducted during the p.m. peak period
by Crain and Associates at five existing Home Depot outlets in California. A trip rate
was determined for each of the outlets based on vehicle trips per 1,000 square feet of
gross leasable floor area (Appendix B). The average of the trip rates for each of the
outlets counted was then used to determine the trip rate to be used for the proposed
Tukwila outlet. It should be noted that the proposed Tukwila Home Depot is larger than
the five outlets surveyed. According to the ITE Trip Generation manual, the larger a
retail facility is, the lower the rate of trip generation. Typically, the trip interaction
between a retail site and the adjacent pads would reduce the overall trip making
external to the site. For this study it was conservatively assumed that all trips were
external to the site.
The trip generation for the nursery and retail pads was determined using trip rates
published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation manual,
Fifth Edition, January 1991. The trip rates used for the Garden Center are the land use
rates published for a Nursery (Land Use Code 817) and the trip rates used for the retail
pads assumed the trip rates published for a Shopping Center (Land Use Code 820).
The noon peak hour trip generation values assumed the same trip generation as the
p.m. peak hour for the Home Depot and Garden Center land uses. This assumption
was suggested by Home Depot based on previous studies conducted. To provide
consistency, Entranco assumed the noon peak hour generation for the retail pads to be
the same as the p.m. peak hour. The rates and methodology used to determine the trip
generation forecasts were approved by Mr. Cameron during a telephone conversation
on December 23, 1992.
A passby reduction factor of 25 percent was applied to the gross trip generation to
account for vehicles already using the street network. This value was based on the
factor used in a previous Home Depot study, and this factor was also approved by Mr.
Cameron during the December 23 telephone conversation. The proposed project is
projected to generate a total of 7,735 average weekday daily trips with 847 trips
occurring during the noon and p.m. peak hours. Table 3 summarizes the trip
generation used for this analysis.
9204060 / REPORTS / TRFCIMP (12129/92) / lbw 8
Land Use
Table 3
Trip Generation Summary
Trip Rate
Noon Peak and P.M. Peak
Per1000 Per1000
Square Square Total Square
Feet Feet AWDT Feet In Out Total
Home Depot 145,572 30.7 4,469 3.68 252 284 536
Garden Center 28,538 35.5 1,013 3.73 50 56 106
Retail Pads 14,100 159.8 2.253 14.5 95. :1.$ 204
Gross Total Trips 7,735 398 448 847
Less 25% Passby 1.934 22 112 21 g
Net Total Trips 5,801 299 336 635
Note: AWDT - Average Weekday Daily Traffic.
Trip Distribution
The trip distribution and assignment for the proposed development's trip generation
was based on the existing travel patterns, access to the major arterials, and access to
1 -5 and 1 -405. The passby traffic distribution was taken from traffic traveling along West
Valley Highway and South 180th Street. Figure 5 depicts the trip distribution
percentages of the proposed project with and without an access at Saxon Drive. Trip
assignment of the project - generated volumes to the surrounding street network based
on this distribution is shown in figure 6 for the noon and p.m. peak hours. This
distribution was also approved by Mr. Cameron.
As suggested by the Tukwila Engineering Department, no background traffic growth
was assumed for the 1993 traffic volumes. Therefore, 1993 projected traffic is based
on the existing traffic and projected Home Depot traffic. Figures 7 and 8 show the
resulting study intersection volumes with and without the potential additional access to
Saxon Drive.
9204060! REPORTS / TRFCIMP (12/29/92) / lbw 9
(10%) (10%) titt
10% 10% •••■ 10% (10%)
t
10%
litit (10%)
(15%)
15%
INT(
(10%) 10% 15%
Strander Blvd
(10%) (5%)
10% 5%
t(10%) 10% j
5%
(5%)
• (1 0%) t 0% ■■•■• w
CLS
I CL
(35%)
35%
35% >
1 .8
)...
as
1
X
0... '.i.
1.— 35% it
CD
(35%) $.•
C
.,..4"
CD•••.... ... :•. ..... ......, •,.....,...,, •
0
••,.
=
Minkler Blvd
,..;::.41•■• 20%(20%)
(20%) 20% ■iie.
•
(0%) (35%)
t:: k 0%(30%)
tek
35%
(5%)
Drive
(5%) (30%)
20% 30%
(35)
10% (10%
401) )
(10%) 30%
(15%) 15%'''.'"
S 180th St
(I 01)
10 N■ 10% (10)
1 0% (10%)
(1 0%) 10% .-111- (20%) 20%
....0.••••••vqz.s.svcs • ...“,..”••
"en'• 20%(20%)
A
(20%) (15%)
35% 15% 10%(10%)
ksh.
20% (5%)
VaNtk...
(10%) 25% .1
(10%) 30% ''"1"
fiRtifS,REI:Pe
CO
IINTRANCO
Legend:
000 Without Access to Saxon Drive
(000) • With Access to Saxon Drive
— — Potential Saxon Drive Access
(5%)
5% •
20%(20%)
(5%) 5% •1 "IN
(20%) 20% mil.
2
(20%) 20% X tititi
(20%)
Figure 5
Project Trip
Distribution
10
(30) (30 ' 34 (34)
1
33
(33)
(45)
45
Jr 30 (30)
NNter
(30) 30 '"lik ': (34) (50) (34)
(30) (15)
3015
(34) 34 t
17
(17)
Strander Blvd
387 0-
387 —0
(30) 30 —►
(118)
Minkler Blvd
(105) 0
(60) 60 •••••••
'4"-* 70 (70)
(0) (105) 0 (101)
105 0
(40) (161)
Saxon
Drive
•
(30) 90
(50) 50
‘‘k
(40)
�S�acwa.;t<
--- 774
—►774
S 180th St
PROPOSED
PROJECT
SITE
(30) 30 —10'
(60)60 —0
(47) 47
(67) 67 — ►::;
(97) 97 '>
C�KOME DEPOTJ)
7UKWILA, WA
■ N T R A N C O
Legend:
000 . Noon and PM Peak Hour without Access to Saxon Drive
(000) . Noon and PM Peak Hour with Access to Saxon Drive
000 . Daily Volumes
• Potential Saxon Drive Access
11
d
(708) (420)
917 444
N
NTS
400 (704)
r 512 (272)
91 5
(19079) (37313
)
Southcenter P
•
12917 4-
12717 —
1; u) (388) (16) `> k 146 (88)
435 (423)
)1' r251(161)
(48) 88 JE NNter
(515) 830'"� ? 323 444 275
(224) 288 (318) (411) (296)
Strander Blvd
(143)(380)(191) `:' ` 123 (205)
J » 4- 533 (582)
r 164 (140)
(100) 109:�L<::4:•::;�t( >:.:,....
(358) 473 -- <. 204 373 133
(115)178 ` (194) (492) (97)
(54) (712) (21) < 65 (80)
51 646 53 25 (31)
)1' r 60 (83)
(6)31
(55) 74 52 796 70
(50) (695) (22)
Andover P
(237) (57) (291) .411—, ) k_ 245 (211)
`{ .411—, 795 (851)
111 r 141 (28)
A) kik (69) 100 J 1 er
(466) 529 —r 69 78 80
(14) 14 (41) (82) (64)
•
4— 9875
—► 10515
211) (136) (294) 1` 598 (368) 32 60 511
r
297 66 (1 (572) 48 )
(208) 250 11 149 371
(7) 10 111 ? (22) (108) (37)
S 180th St
r
s.s.,a •CO..
W
ca
O
t
•
r 12565
—► 12615
(237) (440) 495 (396)
844 (1032)
(95) 216
(840) 734 —
4
(4166) (742) 40 ' k.- 46 (21)
41 65 (12)
,1t r 43 (10)
(554)443: >; 1111)teir•»s:
(11) 62
(390) 234 244 700 4
(228) (1274) (3)
/ ^y
9605 4-
9215—►
Minkler Blvd
PROPOSED
PROJECT
SITE
Saxon Drive
•
(118) (79) 4'•
118 79 '. k_ 30 (30)
1131 (1162)
(104) 104
(1064) 823 —i
0
a)
0.
•
(98) l0) (1 ) y> 1811 (177)
<� �' 061 (1050)
r 12(11)
"1992)23)7)992651 —* E 25
> > (41) (1) 1 (3819 )
•
f
(118) (875) (427):;;:;; 1` 264 (351)
138 498 278 722 (845)
11�► r151(175)
q{ 'tf(
(82)103 � g
4 (645) 497 .-10. 486 618 118
(694) 509 (455) (907) (107)'
C(KOME DEPOT)
7UX WILA, WA
E N T R A N C O
Legend:
000 . Noon Peak Hour
(000) . PM Peak Hour
000 . Daly Volumes
— — — - . Potential Saxon Drive Access
Figure 7
1993 Total Traffic
with Home Depot
without Access to
Saxon Drive
12
(708) (420)
917 444
400 (704)
r 512 (272)
991 513
(1079) (373)
(7 3) (288) (14) 146 (88)
110 351 161
l 1L, ?•- 435 (423)
x 251 (161)
(515) 530 �'► 323 444 275
(224) 288 (318) (411) (296)
(416) (7� 1U IL 46 (21)
432 '�� 65 (12)
1lt& r 43 (10)
(554)4:zi: ,ter
(11) 62 4`>
244 700 4
(3`10) (228) (1274) (3)
Strander Blvd
12917 4-
12717 —#
9605 4-
9215 —
(1)(360)(191) 1 123(205)
143 f
�J :> 53
f j� ii r 533 (582) 164 (140)
(100) 109 qtr:::,::.::.
(358) 473 ••••40' 204 373 133
(115) 176 . (194) (492) (97))
t
�
54) (112) 65 (80)
51 848 53 (21)
1..411- 25 (31)
Ail `: r 60(83)
:.:.(2749.:.:`::::ti:;; >:��/ ;;::;:: Jr
(6) 31 �♦► .:.` 52 796 70
(55) 74 '�
i (50) lei) (22) N
.aee;,..Raa..`SwuJ,Maaa caiwaaw. a2 \�
(237) (57) (291) •
'411—' 795 (851)
151 85 325
,. ,. ,,. ,. ,.:...: „ ........,.
(69) 100
(466) 529 �►
(14)14 -\
k— 245 (211)
Minkler Blvd
x71(62)
101 115
(101) (83)
r 141 (28)
r
69 78 80
(41) (82) (64)
Saxon
Drive
(51) (0) (233) :. IL 296 (260)
48 ,�, 240 `:: 41-- 1061 (1050)
12 (11)
:.:.::.(32): >:: < »:< •::::::.;;
(628) 785 ....OP 25 1 ♦1 19
(23) 21 :7 (41) (1) (38)
�:i�avucGSa.4:.tiv�3X.tt>'
4— 9875
'-► 10515
S 180th St
"'► 12615
PROPOSED
PROJECT
SITE
(211) (136) (294) IL 598 (368)
32 60 511 r 297 (572)
�... �..... r 66 (148)........
NNt r:::::.
(208) 250 11 149 371
(7) 10 (22) (108) (37)
(67)
67
30 (30)
�'- 1081 (1112)
(59) 59
(1004) 763 ''-'►
(118) (875) (427);;:':: IL 264 (351)
138 498 278 I; 0.■ 722 (845)
j%. it r 151 (175)
(82) 103 _# er
(645) 497 ;!1i 486 618 118
(694) 509 - :E:: (455) (907) (107).../
(MOMEr DEPOTD
E N T N A N C O
Legend:
000 . Noon Peak Hour
(000) - PM Peak Hour
000 . Daily Volumes
- — — - = Polemial Saxon Drive Access
* . COSTCOTraffic
Figure 8
1993 Total Traffic
with Home Depot
with Access to
Saxon Drive
13
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
Future Levels of Service
The LOS analysis of the future conditions and traffic impacts with the proposed
project was performed for the proposed site plan under two scenarios: with and
without the additional access driveway to Saxon Drive, as requested by the City of
Tukwila. The location of this driveway relative to the proposed building has not yet
been determined and would need to be negotiated between Home Depot Corporation
and the City of Tukwila. The additional access driveway to Saxon Drive would benefit
Home Depot customers by providing an access to Andover Park East via Saxon Drive
without using the more heavily traveled South 180th Street.
The additional access, however, may also attract some traffic from the existing
Costco Outlet just north of the project site. To determine the amount of existing Costco
traffic that would potentially use the Saxon Drive access as an alternative route to
South 180th Street, a turn movement count was performed at the Saxon Drive /Andover
Park East intersection to review the existing distribution of Costco traffic. Based on this
count and peak hour counts on Saxon Drive provided by the Tukwila Engineering
Department, the amount of Costco traffic projected to use the potential Saxon Drive
access is summarized as follows:
Inbound Outbound
Noon Peak 115 71
P.M. Peak 83 62
The projections assume that half of the Costco traffic to and from the south would
go east on South 180th Street. This would be the amount of traffic using the Saxon
Drive access route. This traffic was accounted for in the LOS analysis of the Home
Depot East driveway.
The future level of service analysis was performed under the two traffic distribution
scenarios above for the study intersections. The results of the level of service analysis
for the two scenarios are summarized in table 4.
9204060! REPORTS 1 TRFCIMP (12/29/92)1 lbw
14
Table 4
1993 Level of Service with the
Proposed Home Depot and Retail Uses
Without Saxon
Signalized Intersections
Drive Access
Noon Peak
P.M. Peak
LOS
Delay
(sec /veh)
LOS
Delay
(sec /veh)
S. 180th St. /Southcenter Pkwy.
S. 180th St. /Andover Park W.
S. 180th St. /Andover Park E.
S. 180th St. /Sperry Dr.
S. 180th St./West Valley Hwy.
Strander Blvd. /Southcenter Pkwy.
Strander Blvd. /Andover Park W.
Strander Blvd. /Andover Park E.
Strander Blvd./West Valley Hwy.
Andover Park E. /Minkler Blvd.
E
B
D
B
F
E
F
E
D
A
52.5
12.4
27.9
11.9
66.5
48.1
64.0
50.6
23.5
4.4
D
C
D
B
F
D
F
D
D
A
26.3
17.2
31.1
11.5
112.2
34.9
60.3
38.6
35.8
4.5
Unsignalized Intersection
LOS
Reserve
Capacity
LOS
Reserve
Capacity
S. 180th St./West Driveway
F
-26
F
-27
With Saxon
Signalized Intersections
Drive Access
Noon Peak
P.M. Peak
LOS
Delay
(sec /veh)
LOS
Delay
(sec /veh)
S. 180th St. /Southcenter Pkwy.
S. 180th St. /Andover Park W.
S. 180th St. /Andover Park E.
S. 180th St. /Sperry Dr.
S. 180th St./West Valley Hwy.
Strander Blvd. /Southcenter Pkwy.
Strander Blvd. /Andover Park W.
Strander Blvd. /Andover Park E.
Strander Blvd./West Valley Hwy.
Andover Park E. /Minkler Blvd.
E
B
C
B
F
E
F
E
D
A
52.5
12.4
17.5
9.2
66.5
48.1
64.0
50.6
23.5
4.4
D
C
C
C
F
D
F
D
D
A
26.3
17.2
18.0
16.1
112.2
34.9
60.3
38.6
35.8
4.5
Unsignalized Intersection
LOS
Reserve
Capacity
LOS
Reserve
Capacity
S. 180th St./West Driveway
F
-13
F
-14
9204060 / REPORTS / TRFCIMP (12/29/92) / lbw
15
Without Saxon Drive
The results show that three of the study intersections will deteriorate in LOS with
the additional traffic generated by the project during the noon peak hour. The
intersections of South 180th Street/Andover Park East and South 180th Street/West
Valley Highway will deteriorate from LOS C and LOS D to LOS D and LOS F,
respectively. The intersection of Strander Boulevard/West Valley Highway will also
drop from LOS C to LOS D.
The LOS analysis for the p.m. peak hour with the proposed project shows that two
intersections will deteriorate in LOS, with the intersection of South 180th
Street/Andover Park East deteriorating from LOS C to LOS D and the Strander
Boulevard /Andover Park West intersection deteriorating from LOS E to LOS F. The
West Driveway will operate at LOS F without the Saxon Drive access.
With Saxon Drive Access
The LOS analysis with the Saxon Drive access showed the same results for the
South 180th Street/West Valley Highway and Strander Boulevard/West Valley Highway
intersections during the noon peak hour. The intersection of South 180th
Street/Andover Park East will continue to operate at LOS C with the project and the
additional access during this peak period.
The results of the LOS analysis for the p.m. peak hour show that only the Strander
Boulevard /Andover Park West intersection will deteriorate in LOS. The intersection will
drop from an existing LOS E to LOS F with the project and Saxon Drive access.
Site Access Issues
The East Driveway at South 180th Street/Sperry Drive is signalized; therefore, the
ingress of project traffic at this location would not experience significant delay. This
signal would also provide gaps in the westbound traffic flow for vehicles ingressing at
the West Driveway.
The existing vehicle queue extending from the eastbound approach at the West
Valley Highway /South 180th Street intersection, however, will create delay for project
traffic turning left in and out of the site at either of the driveways during the p.m. peak
hour. Since left-turn traffic from the site would be difficult during the peak hours with
the existing vehicle queue, left-turn traffic would become self- restricting. Therefore,
traffic flow at the West Driveway may operate more efficiently than the projected LOS F.
The sight distance from the West Driveway would not be obstructed to the east, if
the landscaping is trimmed low enough to not block the driver's view.
92040.601 REPORTS / TRFCIMP (12/29/92) / lbw
16
MITIGATION
The mitigation for the proposed project is currently identified by Mr. Cameron as an
agreement to pay for traffic impacts at the South 180th Street/West Valley Highway
intersection. The amount to be submitted for mitigation is based on the total project -
trips entering the intersections from the project at a rate of $475 per trip. Thus, since
286 new project trips are projected to enter this intersection from all of the intersection
approaches, the mitigation fee attributed to this improvement is $135,850. Mitigation
fees for other intersections impacted have not been determined and the final mitigation
for this project will be negotiated later, as suggested by Tukwila staff, but will be based
on project traffic generation in this report. The methodology used to determine
mitigation at the other impacted intersections will be similar to the West Valley
Highway /South 180th Street intersection mitigation (dollars per project trip).
A conditional use agreement between Home Depot and the City of Tukwila would
be negotiated to limit the retail pads from generating more traffic than projected by this
report. Additional mitigation fees would be determined if future traffic counts are
greater than projected.
No other specific mitigating measures were identified, although mitigation for other
intersection improvements will be determined assuming a similar methodology.
SUMMARY
Based on the trip generation developed from driveway counts at existing Home
Depot outlets, and as outlined in the ITE Trip Generation manual, the proposed Home
Depot and retail development in Tukwila will generate a total of 7,735 average weekday
vehicle trips, with 847 of those occurring during both the noon and p.m. peak hours. A
passby reduction factor of 25 percent will reduce the number of new trips added to the
adjacent street system to 5,801 average weekday trips with 635 of those occurring
during both the noon and p.m. peak hours.
An LOS analysis showed that in 1993 with the project, with or without the Saxon
Drive access, two study intersections would operate at LOS F: the South 180th
Street/West Valley Highway intersection will deteriorate from LOS D to LOS F during
the noon peak hour, and the intersection of Strander Boulevard /Andover Park West will
deteriorate from LOS E to LOS F during the p.m. peak hour. The LOS analysis
performed for the West Driveway shows that the driveway will also operate at LOS F
with the project, with or without the Saxon Drive access.
The eastbound queue extending from the West Valley Highway /South 180th Street
intersection will block the access for left- turning project traffic at both driveways, since
the queue consistently extends to Andover Park East during the p.m. peak hour.
92040.60 / REPORTS / TRFCIMP (12/29/92) / lbw
17
The mitigation defined at this time consists of a mitigation payment of $135,850 for
project . traffic entering the West Valley Highway /South 180th Street intersection.
Mitigation for other intersections will be negotiated later.
92040.601 REPORTS 1 TRFCIMP (12129192) / lbw
18
Appendix A
LEVEL OF SERVICE CONCEPT
AND CALCULATIONS
LEVEL OF SERVICE CONCEPT
Because intersection capacity and traffic flow performance, or "level of service ", are
prime factors in the alternatives development and evaluation process, a brief
description is presented here for the benefit of the lay reader.
The ratio of existing traffic volume to available capacity provides a measure of
intensity of traffic loading relative to the ability of the street intersection to accommodate
the traffic. The number of lanes, presence of turn lanes, type of traffic control, signal
phasing, etc., are important capacity determinants. As the volume /capacity ratio (v /c)
approaches a value of 1.0, extreme congestion sets in, with long backups at signalized
intersections and the passage of several complete changes of the signal cycles before
a motorist can proceed. Motorists at stop -sign controlled intersection approaches face
extremely long delays. This congestion can also impede access to and from upstream
abutting property as traffic queues lengthen.
The term "level of service" is used to describe intersection traffic flow performance
and for signalized intersections is essentially based on v/c ratios (see Table A -1):
Table A -1
Traffic Level of Service and Volume/
Capacity Ratio Relationships for Signalized Intersections
Level Stopped Delay Per
of General Description Vehicle Intersection
Service (Signalized Intersections) (Sec.)1 V/C Ratio2
A Free flow 555.0 Under 0.60
B Stable flow (slight delays) 5.1 to 15.0 0.61 to 0.70
C Stable flow (acceptable delays) 15.1 to 25.0 0.71 to 0.80
D Approaching unstable flow 25.1 to 40.0 0.81 to 0.90
(tolerable delay - occasionally wait
through more than one signal cycle
before proceeding)
E Unstable flow (intolerable delay) 40.1 to 60.0 0.91 to 1.00
- capacity
F Forced flow (jammed) >60.0 Over 1.00
1 For detailed operational analysis method.
2 For planning level analysis method.
Source: Transportation Research Board: "Highway Capacity Manual', Special Report 209, 1985; and
Circular 212, "Interim Materials on Highway Capacity ", 1980.
92040 / Report / TRFCIMP (12/30/92) / ahw
A.1
L
Level of service "A" is a condition of unimpeded flow, while level of service "C" is
often used in the design of new urban streets as the lowest acceptable level for peak
periods. Congestion begins to occur at level of service "D" (v /c from 0.81 to 0.90).
Because of funding and /or environmental constraints for improvements, this level of
service is being used by more cities as an adequate level, particularly for improvements
to congested existing facilities. Increasingly unstable traffic flow with excessive delay
and congestion occurs as level of service "E" (capacity) is approached (v /c = 0.91 to
1.00). For v/c > 1.00, level of service "F" (forced flow) is obtained, and the intersection
is overloaded or is jammed due to traffic backups from overloaded downstream
intersections.
Table A -2 shows daily traffic volumes corresponding to peak -hour level of service C, D,
and E (capacity) applicable to suburban arterial roadways of various numbers of lanes
and configurations.
92040 / Report / TRFCIMP (12/30/92) / ahw
A.2
Table A -2
Guidelines for Relating Average Weekday Daily Traffic Volumes
to Peak -Hour Level of Service for Suburban Arterials of
Various Roadway Lane Configurations
Daily Two -Way Traffic Volume/
for Various Levels of Service*
Total Number of
Lanes
Lane Configuration
Level of
Level of Level of Service E
Service C Service D (Capacity
Two -way Streets
2
Two Lanes
8,000
11,000
13,000
3
Two Lanes with Left-Turn
Lane
10,000
14,000
16,000
4
Four Lanes
16,000
23,000
26,000
5
Four Lanes with Left-Turn
Lane
21,000
29,000
32,000
6
Six Lanes
25,000
36,000
39,000
7
Six Lanes with Left -Turn
Lane
31,000
45,000
49,000
One -way Streets
2
Two Lanes
12,000
17,000
19,000
3
Three Lanes
19,000
27,000
29,000
4
Four Lanes
23,000
33,000
36,000
5
Five Lanes
29,000
42,000
45,000
*The volumes represent maximums for the daily volume that will result in levels of service indicated during
peak hours, for an average signal spacing of 2.5 to 4.5 signalized intersections per mile. For
approximations at other signal spacings, multiply the above service volumes as follows:
Signals per Mile
0.50 -2.49, multiply by:
Over 4.5, multiply by:
LOS C
1.55
Not Possible
LOS D
1.16
0.87
LOS E
1.06
0.99
Prepared by Entranco based on data in the Florida Department of Transportation "Level of Service
Standards and Guidelines Manual', April 1992.
92040/ Report ! TRFCIMP (12!30/92) / ahw
A.3
It should be noted that equal v/c ratios at several locations do not necessarily
indicate equal overall performance of intersections since one location may experience a
high v/c ratio for a considerable period of the day while at another the peak period is of
short duration. In addition, a low level of service is more tolerable at a low- volume
intersection than a high - volume location.
Capacity analysis for two -way stop intersections is based on the assumption that
major street traffic is not affected by the minor street movements, and left-turns from
the major streets to the minor streets are influenced only by opposing major street
through flow. The level of service calculated for two -way stop intersections are
therefore only for all movements on the minor street and left-turn movement on major
streets.
The general level of service concept also holds for stop- sign - controlled intersections,
although the capacity of the stop- sign - controlled approaches is less than that of the
signalized intersection approach. Table A -3 shows the level of service criteria for
unsignalized intersections.
Table A -3
Level of Service Criteria for Unsignalized Intersections
Reserve Capacity1
Expected Delay to
Level of Service Minor Street Traffic
400
300 -399
200 -299
100 -199
0 -99
2
A
B
C
D
E
F
Little or no delay
Short traffic delays
Average traffic delays
Long traffic delays
Very long traffic delays
2
1 Passenger cars per hour.
2 When demand volume exceeds the capacity of the lane, extreme delays will be
encountered with queuing which may cause severe congestion affecting other traffic
movements in the intersection. This condition usually warrants improvements to the
Intersection.
Source: Transportation Research Board Special Report 209, "Highway Capacity
Manual ", 1985.
92040 / Report/ TRFCIMP (12/30/92)/ ahw
A.4
1992 EXISTING LOS
NOON AND PM PEAK
110 180TH ST/SOUTHCENTER PARKWAY
JJH SCP180 (54)
1992 EXISTING NOON PEAK
SIGNAL85/TEAPAC - Display of Intersection Parameters
•
10/27/
10:33:�
| || Display of: VOLUMES
32 60 | 481 || WIDTHS
0 12 | 24 || LANES
0 1 | 2 }|
|| \ 564 12 1
/ \
261 12 1 ^
|
184 12 1 / + / 66 12 1 North
|
220 12 1 --
\
/
10 12 1 \ | | | |
| 11 | 149 | 371 | Phasing: SEQUENCE 73
12 | 12 1 0 1 PRM N N N N
| 1 1 1 : 0 | LDL8 LD LD
| | |
180TH ST /SOUTHCENTEF: PARKWAY
JJH S+_ F' 18O (54 )
1992 EXISTING NOON PEAT(
SIGNAL85 /TEAF'AC: - Capacity Analysis Summary
10/27
10:34
INTERSECTION AVERAGES :
DEGREE OF SATURATION .91 VEHICULAR DELAY 47.2 LEVEL OF SERVICE E+
SEQUENCE 73
1 PHASE 1 1 PHASE 2 1 PHASE 3 1 PHASE 4
1 + + + A 1
1 + + + * * * *1
+ -+- +
1 V 1 1 A
1 : A 1 * * **
: 1 <+ * *>1++++>
1 + + ++ + * * 1 + + ++
1
V + * * 1 V
V
1 G /+-•- • 189 1 13/+_= .378 1 G/+_- . 135 1 G/C= .165 1
' G= 17.0 " 1 13_ 34.0 " 1 +j= 12.1 " 1 G= 14.8 11 1
' Y= 3.0 " : Y= 3.0 " 1 Y= 3.0 " ; Y= 3.0 " 1
C := 90 SEC: 6= 78.0 SEC: = 86.77.. Y =12.0 SEC = 13.3% F'ED= .0 SEC: = .0%.
1 LANE 1WIDTH /1 G /C: 1 SERVICE FATE1 ADJ 1 1 L 1 MAXIMUM;
1 GROUP 1 LANES: REDD USED 1 C: (VPH) E !VOLUME: DELAY : S I QUEUE 1
SB APPROACH
42.3 E+
TH +RT: 12/1 1 .13 1 .19 1 210 1 314 1 112 : 20.8 1 C: 1 116 FT :
LT : 24/2+1 .26 1 .19 : 280 1 614 1 587 1 46.4 1 E+1 304 FT 1
WB APPROACH
52.2
r� 1 .45 1 .39 1 1 C 5 1 5 i 1 5 �•' � 1 1 465
F:T 1 1�/1 +1 .4� 1 .�•� 1 494 1 J6J 1 594 1 ..�G.':. 1 }E 1 46� F 1
TH ' 12/1 : . '�:'2 1 . 1 1 1 - 5 1 1 1 293 1
1 .16 1 181 1 292 1 �7� 1 47.5 1 E+ 1 �'3� FT 1
1 1 1 1 25 1 1 1 - 1 1 73 1
LT 1 1:.!1 +, .21 1 . 16 1 �� 1 91 1 69 1 ��t•.... 1 D 1 1
NB APPROACH
55.0 E
1 1 1 3 1 522 1 5i 1 1 55 1 1
1 TH +F:T 1 1':/ 1 1 .44 . �8 .,�.� 1 �_ +6 1 627 1 55.9 1 *E 487 FT 1
LT 1 12/1 +1 .15 1 .38 1 531 1 647 1 13 : 13.3 ; B 1 25 FT 1
EB APPROACH
�J•J . 8
D
F:T 1 12/1+1 .08 : .74 1 1083 1 1085 1 11 1 1.9 1 A 1 25 FT 1
1 1 1 33 1 5 1 CO 1 •` 5 �' 1 1 1 3'1 1
TH 1 1:./ 1 1 .20 1 . V.:J 1 502 1 588 1 ��� 1 15.3 1 L :+ 1 i.1 .J FT 1
LT 1 12/1 +1 1 .13 1 1 1 212 1 209 1 57.6 1 *E : 231 FT 1
•
_ •
S. 180TH ST / SOUTHCENTER PARKWAY 1 c :) /'2-
JJH Si : :F' 18� :) c:1 :) 10:31
1992 EXISTING PM PEAK
.. F :T 1 12/1+1 .16 1 .67 1 952 1 980 1 8 1 3.8 1 A 1 25 FT 1
1 TL.J ! 1'7!/1 ! '7P7 ! _ rr ! P41 ! '.'i 1 (7) ! 2C)r ! 9_4 ! Fi+ ! 155 FT !
����
���180TH ST/ANDOVER PARK WEST
JJH 180APW (54)
1992 EXISTING NOON PEAK
'SIGNAL85/TEAPAC - Display of Intersection Parameters
10/27/
10:41:
|| Display of: VOLUMES
151 | 85 | 325 || WIDTHS
O | 24 : 0 || LANES
O | 2 | 0 ||
| | || \ 245 0 0
/ \
100 12 1 /
469 24 2
14 0 0 \
•
•
725 24 2
+ / 141 • 12 1 North
\ / •
| |
69 78 | 80 | Phasing: SEQUENCE 16
O 24 | 0 | PRM N N N N
O 2 | • 0 | LDLG LD LD
| |
411180TH ST /ANDOVER PAW WEST 10/-'-
JJH 18OAF'W (54) 10:4.'
1992 EXISTING NOON PEAK
SIi3NAL85 /TEAPAC - Capacity Analysis Summary
INTERSECTION AVERAGGES :
DEGREE OF SATURATION .62 VEH I C :ULAF: DELAY 12.2 LEVEL OF SERVICE 3
SEQUENCE 16
PHASE 1 PHASE 2 PHASE 3 : PHASE 4
ar . A
: * * * *:
•:; * :: , ; * * **:
V A * * * *: A :
: A : + + ++ V : + + ++ : :
: <+ + + :>: : + + + +::> : + + + +;: :
: + + + : 1++++ : + + ++ :
+ + + : : V V
G /C:= .282 c /C := . 164 : ii /c= . 000 : 13/C= . 403
G= 16.9 " i 6= '9.8 " I 6= .0 " I I3= 24.2 "
i
'= 3.0 Y= 3.0 " : Y= .0 " Y= 3.0
C:= 60. SEC: '3= 51.0 SEC = 85.0% Y= 9.0 SEC: = 15.0% F'ED= .0 SEC: = .07
LANE WIDTH /I 13 /C: : SERVIC :E RATE! ADJ 1 I L 1 MAXIMUM:
i3ROUF' I LANES! REQD USED : C: c: VPH': E :VOLUME: DELAY s S QUEUE
SB APPROACH 14.6 8
: LT +TH +F :T : 24/2
.28 8 : 760 : 809 1 591 I 14.E ; *8 ; 180 FT 4
WB APPROACH
12.7 B
TH +RT: 24/2 .32 .40 1 1343 : 1362 1 1054 1 11.7 1 *8 S 268 FT
LT : 12/1+1 .13 1 .16 f 204 I 275 1 153 I 19.4 :*C+1 109 FT
NB APPROACH 11.4 3
LT +TH +RT : 24/2 : .12 1 .28 603 I 653 1 253 1 11.4 13 1 75 FT
APPROACH
9 3 •
3+
TH +RTI 24/2 I .17 I .40 1399 : 1416 : 514 I 8.1 : 8 +: 130 FT
LT 0 12/1+1 .10 : .21 I 286 1 359 : 106 : 15.2 : C+ I 71 FT !
-
• 180TH ST/ANDOVER F'AF :K WEST
JJH 180AF'W (1)
1992 EX I ST I NIi F'M PEAK
SIi3NAL85/ TEAF'AC - Capacity Analysis Summary
10/'27
10:39
INTERSECTION AVERAGES:
DEGREE OF SATURATION .67 VEHICULAR DELAY 22.7 LEVEL OF SERVICE C:
SEQUENCE 16
: PHASE 1 1 PHASE 2 PHASE 3 1 PHASE 4
*• * 1
* * : :
* k 1 1
1 1
V 1 A + + + +1 A
A I**** V 1++++
<+ + +>I : + + ++ >
+ + + : 1 + + ++
+ + + : : V
: V
A
:
1 G /C= .318 1 c /C := .245 1 ii /i== . 000 : G/! :_ . 354 1
' G= 35. 1 " 1 '3= 27.0 " : G= .0 " : G= 39.0 " 1
3.0 " 1 Y= 3.0 " 1 Y= .0 : Y= 3.0 "
C: =110 SEC: iG =101.0 SEC = 91.8% Y= 9.0 SEC: = 8.2% F'ED= .0 SEC: = .0%
1 LANE :WIDTH/1 '3 /C: 1 SERVIC :E RATE: ADJ 1 t L MAXIMUM:
t GROUP t LANES! REQD USED C: ( VF'H ) E t VOLUME t DELAY 1 S 1 QUEUE 1
S8 APPROACH 24.8 C:
:LT +TH +RT1 24/2 1
'").-.$ 1
.32 663 t 842 : 1 657 1 24.8 1*C 1 349 FT 1
WB APPROACH 24.7 C:
TH +F :T : 24/2 1
LT 1 12/1 +1
$7$. C
• Vv1 1
yn 1
1
. 35 1 1031 1 1205 1 1023 1 24.7 t *C= 1 516 FT 1
. 25 1 78 1 402 : : 29 1 24.2 : C: 1 34 FT :
NB APPROACH
18.'9
C:+
:LT +TH +RTt 24/2 :
1
`
a7 1
nr 1
rJL 1
521 1 679 :
2'S6 1
18.9 : C+1 133 FT 1
APPROACH 24/2 _ 17.9 i-+
1 �2 1 X13 1 35 : 1066 : 1243 1 447 1 17.0 1 I_: +' 5
1 TH•+-F:T 1 .�4� ... 1 . _,:, 1 . �� : � 17 1 1 ��
: LT : 12/1+1 .24 : .27 1 177 1 452 : 73 1 23.1 :*C 1 83 FT 1
11/1SOTH ST/ANDOVER PARK EAST
JJH 180APE (54)
1992 EXISTING NOON PEAK
SIGNAL85/TEAPAC - Display of Intersection Parameters
237 \
0|
216 12 1 /
674 24 2
0 0 0
•
||
Display of: VOLUMES
WIDTHS
LANES
0 I 335 \�
12 | 12 ||
1 1 1 ||
|| \ 377 0 0
||
||
10/20•
[
20:01:
774 24 2 ^
/ 0 0 0 North
Phasing: SEQUENCE 13
PRM N N N N
LDL8 LD LD
180TH ST/ANDOVER PARK EAST
JJH 1S0APE (54)
1992 EXISTING NOON PEAK
SIGNAL85/TEAPAC - Capacity Analysis Summary.
t0/2C
20:01
INTERSECTION AVERAGES:
DEGREE OF SATURATION .72 VEHICULAR DELAY 15.6 LEVEL OF SERVICE 0+
SEQUENCE 13
| PHASE 1 | PHASE 2 | PHASE 3
_____
|+ * A |
| + * **+*|
1<+ *> \ \ <****|
| | A | |
|**** |
|++++> |++++> �
| | |
1 G/C= .271 | G/C= .190 | G/C= .389 |
= 16.2 " 1 G= 11.4 " | S= 23.4 "
����'= 3.0 " 1 Y= 3.0 " 1 Y= 3.0 "
��~
SEC G= 51-0 SEC = 85.0% Y= 9.0 SEC = 15.0% PED= .0 q7-7C = .0%
| LANE |WIDTH/| G/C 1 SERVICE RATE1 ADJ | | L | MAXIMUM|
( GROUP | LANES| REQD USED | C (VPH) E |VOLUME1 DELAY | B 1 QUEUE \
SE APPROACH
19.2 C+
TH+RT1 12/1 1 .21 | .27 1 343 \ 392 | 255 \ 14.8 1 B | 160 FT I
LT | 12/1+1 .26 | .27 | 379 | 450 | 360 | 22.3 |*C | 226 FT |
WE APPROACH
19.6
C+
TH+RT| 24/2 | .37 | .39 | 1267 | 1290 1 1212 | 19.6 |*C+| 317 FT |
EB APPROACH 8.2 B+
___
TH | 24/2 | .22 1 .63 1 2212 | 2212 | 725 | 3.4 1 A 1 115 FT |
LT 1 12/1+1 .18 1 .19 1 245 | 318 | 232 | 23.1 |*C | 161 FT 1
'0. 180TH ST/ANDOVER PARK EAST
JJH 180APE (1)
1992 EXISTING PM PEAK
SIGNAL85/TEAPAC - Display of Intersection Parameters
10/20/
19:59:
| || Display of: VOLUMES
242 | 0 | 389 || WIDTHS
O 1 12 1 12 || LANES
O | 1 1 1 ||
| || \ 2.78. 0 0
/ \
962 24 2 ^
|
95 12 1 / + / 0 0 0 North
780 24 2
\ /
•
0 0 0 \ ■ | |
O 1 0 | 0 1 Phasing: SEQUENCE 13
O | 0 1 0 | PRM N N N N
0 | 0 1 0 | LDLG LD LD
�
|
0180TH ST/ANDOVER PARK EAST
.TJH 180APE (1)
1592 EXISTING PM PEAK
SIGNAL85/TEAPAC - Capacity Analysis Summary
10/2(
19:5�
INTERSECTION AVERAGES:
DEGREE OF SATURATION .72 VEHICULAR DELAY 17.2 LEVEL OF SERVICE C+
SEQUENCE 13
| PHASE 1 PHASE 2 | PHASE 3
|+ *
+
|<+ *>
| | A
| |**** |
)++++> |++++>
| |
| G/C= .343 | G/C= .057 | G/C= .459 |
' G= 30.9 " | G= 2.8 " | G= 41.3 "
3.0 " | Y= 3.0 " | Y= 3.0 " |
6= 81.0 SEC = 90.0% Y= 5.0 SEC = 10.0% PED= .0 SEC = .0%
C= 90 SEC
| LANE :WIDTH/1 G/C | SERVICE RATE| ADJ | | L | MAXIMUM|
1 GROUP I LANES| REM USED | C (VPH) E !VOLUME: DELAY | S ( QUEUE t
SB APPROACH
22.8
TH+RT| 12/1 | .26 : .34 | 423 | 501 | 292 ; 16.8 I C+I 245 FT \
LT | 12/1+1 .35 | .34 | 452 | 576 : 469 1 26.6 |*D+| 353 FT
WB APPROACH
19.4 C+
TH+RTI 24/2 | .43 | .46 | 1505 | 1558 | 1409 | 15.4 |*C+| 487 FT |
EB APPROACH
9.5 B+
-
TH | 24/2 | .27 | .59 | 2081 | 2081 | 830 | 6.4 | B+| 217 FT |
LT | 12/1+1 .18 | .10 I 1 | 147 | 101 | 34.4 |*D | 116 FT |
111180TH ST/SPERRY DRIVE
JJH 180SPY (54)
1992 EXISTING NOON PEAK
SIGNAL85/TEAPAC - Display of Intersection Parameters
10/20/
20:15:
| || Display of: VOLUMES
8 0 | 8 || WIDTHS
12 12 | 0 || LANES
1 1 | 0 ||
|| \ 7 0 0
/ \
-- 1051 24 2 ^
|
6 12 1 / + / 12 12 1 North
735 24 2
21 0 \
\ /
| | |
25 | 1 | 19 | Phasing: SEQUENCE 14
|| 12 | 12 | 12 | PRM N N N N
|| 1 | 1 | 1 | LDLG LD LD
(| |
-
- g�~ 180TH ST/SPERRY DRIVE
JJH 180SPY (54)
- | G/C= .137 | 6/C= .137 1 8/C= .576 :
G= 8.2 " 1 S= 8.2 " | G= 34.6 " |
3.0 " : Y= 3.0 " : Y= 3.0 " |
C= 60 SEC S= 51.0 SEC = 85.0% Y= 9.0 SEC = 15.0% PED= .0 SEC = .0%
| LANE IWIDTH/: G/C | SERVICE RATEI ADJ | | L | MAXIMUM|
I GROUP 1 LANES: REDD USED I C (VPH) E IVOLUME1 DELAY I S I QUEUE I
SB APPROACH
11.8 B
RT | 12/1+1 .02 I .32 i 348 | 392 I 14 I 9.0 \ 8+1 25 FT I
|LT+TH | 12/1 | .02 | .14 1 153 | 201 | 14 | 14.6 |*B | 25 FT |
WB APPROACH
5.7 8+
TH+RT| 24/2 | .35 | .58 | 2006 | 2006 1 1189 | 5.6 1*8+1 218 FT |
LT 1 12/1+1 .02 | .14 1 159 | 223 | 13 | 17.1 |*C+| 25 FT |
NB APPROACH 13.7 B
| RT | 12/1+1 .03 | .32 | 437 | 482 | 22 | 9.0 | B+| 25 FT |
| TH \ 12/1 | .00 1 .14 | 194 1 247 | 1 | 14.4 | B | 25 FT |
LT 1 12/1+1 .04 | .14 | 165 | 230 1 29 | 17.3 1 C+| 25 FT |
EB APPROACH 4.8 A
TH+RT| 24/2 | .27 | .58 1 1997 1 1997 1 869 | 4.7 1 A 1 159 FT 1
LT : 12/1+1 .01 1 .14 | 159 | 222 | 7 1 17.1 1 C+1 25 FT 1
'-' ..... ----
411
b. 180TH ST/SPERRY DRIVE
JJH 180SPY (1)
1992 EXISTING PM PEAK
SIGNAL85/TEAPAC - Display of Intersection Parameters
10/20/
20:10:
� 1 Display of: VOLUMES
11 | 0 | 10 1 WIDTHS
12 \ 12 | 0 || LANES
1 | 1 | 0 ||
| || \ � 0 0
2 12 1 /
978 24 2
23
0
•
•
\
-- 1040 24 2
+ / 11 12 1 North
\ /
41 1 38 Phasing: SEQUENCE 14
12 12 12 PRM N N N N
1 1 1 LDLG LD LD
180TH ST/SPERRY DRIVE
JJH 180SPY (1)
1992 EXISTING PM PEAK
SIGNAL85/TEAPAC - Capacity Analysis Summary
INTERSECTION AVERAGES:
DEGREE OF SATURATION
SEQUENCE 14
.52
10/2(
20:1:
VEHICULAR DELAY 6.3 LEVEL OF SERVICE 8+
1 PHASE 1 PHASE 2 | PHASE 3
(
`
G/C= .144 | 6/C= .144 1 G/C= .561 |
G= 8.7 " ) G= 8.7 " | 8= 33.7 "
3.0"|Y= 3.0"|Y= 3.0"|
C= 60 SEC G= 51.0 SEC = 85.0% Y= 9.0 SEC = 15.0% PED= .0 SEC = .0%
| LANE |WIDTH/| G/C | SERVICE RATE1 ADJ | | L | MAXIMUM!
1 GROUP 1 LANES! REQD USED C (VPH) E IVOLUME1 DELAY 1 S 1 QUEUE 1
SB APPROACH
11.3
RT | 12/1+1 .03 | .34 | 448 t 492 1 22 1 8.6 \ 8+1 25 FT \
|LT+TH | 12/1 | .02 | .14 | 201 | 254 | 20 | 14.4 1*8 | 25 FT 1
WB APPROACH
5.8
B+
TH+RT| 24/2 1 .32 | .56 | 1982 1 1982 1 1098 | 5.6 | B+| 205 FT 1
LT 1 12/1+1 .02 | .14 | 173 | 239 | 12 | 16.8 |*C+| 25 FT |
NB APPROACH 13.4 B
| RT 1 12/1+1 .07 1 .34 | 454 498 | 66 1 8.9 | B+| 36 FT |
1 TH 1 12/1 1 .00 1 .14 1 204 1 257 ( 2 | 14.2 1 B | 25 FT 1
4. LT | 12/1+1 .07 1 .14 | 174 | 241 � 71 | 17.6 < C+| 51 FT |
, �
EB APPROACH
5.7 8+
TH+RT| 24/2 | .32 | .56 | 1971 1 1971 1 1100 | 5.7 |*B+| 206 FT |
LT 1 12/1+1 .01 | .14 | 173 | 239 | 2 : 16.7 1 C+| 25 FT 1
0180TH, ST/WEST VALLEY HIGHWAY
JJH 1B0WVH (54)
1992 EXISTING NOON PEAK
SIGNAL85/TEAPAC Display of Intersection Parameters
10/21/
16:03:
| | || Display of: VOLUMES
98 | 523 1 278 || WIDTHS
| 0 1 24 | 12 || LANES
0 1 2 1 1 ||
| | || \ 264 0 0
/ \
662 24 2
56 12 1 / + / 151 12 1 North
|
430 12 1
412 12 1 \
�
�
\ /
|| | 1 |
|| 402 1 643 | 0 1 Phasing: SEQUENCE 65
| | 12 | 24 1 0 1 PRM N N N N
|| 1 | 2 | 0 1 LDLG LD LD
|| | /�
/ |
//L/
L-!-•':-�
130TH ST /WEST VALLEY HIGHWAY
JJH 18OWVH (54 )
1992 EXISTING NOON PEAK
SIGNAL85 /TEAP'AC: - Capacity Analysis Summary
10/21/
16: 04:
INTERSECTION AVEF:AGES :
DEGREE OF SATURATION .89 VEHICULAR DELAY 37.1 LEVEL OF SERVICE D
SEQUENCE 65
: PHASE 1 : PHASE 2 : PHASE 3 : PHASE 4 : PHASE 5 : PHASE 6 :
: * : * *
1 1
: * : * * : :
: *`• 1 : <* * :
1 1 1 V , A ++++:
, , , ,
: A A : * * ** V :
<:; + : ••s * + + : :
: + + ++ + : + + ++ * + 1 + 1 :
: V + : V * + +
: 13/1== .193 : G/ C := .0149 : G/ I_= . 194 : 13/0= .057 : 13/1:= .023 : G /1_= .284
17.3 " , " , - 17.5 " , 5 " : j= 2. 1 " 1 3= 25.6 „
: Ij= 1 /..:, , 1�= 4.4 , 1�= 1 /..� , Imo= 5.1 I I
fIY= 3.0 Y= 3.0 " : Y'= 3.0 " : Y= 3.0 " : Y= 3.0 " : Y= 3.0
SEC 6= 72.0 SEC = 30.0% Y =18.0 SEC = 20.0% F'ED= .0 SEC = .0%
: LANE :WIDTH/1 13/C : SEF :VIC :E FATE: ADJ : : L : MAXIMUM:
: GROUP : LANES: REQD USED : 0 (VF'H) E :VOLUME: DELAY : S : QUEUE :
SB APPROACH 54.6 E
TH +FT: 24/2 : .24 : .19 : 437 : 648 : 668 : 54.2 1 *E : 356 FT :
, - , , 3 , 3 , , 5c , , 3 ,
LT 12/ 1 +, ..�7 . 1'? 138 306 299 JJ. 6 , *E 319 FT ,
WS AF'F'F:OA1=H
30.0 D+
3 , 3 , 1023 , , , - C 5 1 ,
TH +F:T , 24/2 . �4 . �4 101.., 1 124 1029 '�,�...� D +, 442 FT ,
LT 1 12/1+1 .21 : . 1 1 : 1 1 171 1 168 1 57.5 : *E : 194 FT
NB APPROACH
34.3
, .25 1 H2O 1 825 1 955 1 1 , 1 33 ,
TH 24/2 .::� . �,� 8'::.� '�JJ 714 21.2 1 338 FT ,
LT : 12/1+1 .35 1 .27 : 307 : 451 1 447 : 55.3 : *E 1 424 FT :
itAPPROAC :H
32.4 D+
RT 1 12/1+1 .39 1 .59 : 824 1 857 : 490 : 7.9 : 8+1 258 FT :
TH 1 12/1 1 .34 1 .28 : 403 1 498 1 512 1 54.1 1*E 1 473 FT :
LT 1 12/1+1 .16 1 .06 1 1 1 78 1 67 1 46.1 : *E +: 81 FT 1
II/180TH ST /WEST VALLEY HIGHWAY
JJH 18OWVH (1)
1992 EXISTING PM PEAK
SIGNAL85 /TEf P'Ai_ - Display of Intersection Parameters
10/20,
20:20:
Display o f: VOLUMES
78
900 : 427 1 WIDTHS
24 12 LANES
4 1 ` 1 1 1
1 1
•
1SOTH ST /WEST VALLEY HIGHWAY
JJH 18OWVH c :1 :►
199' EXISTING PM F'EiK
SIGNAL85 /TEAF'AC - Capacity Analysis Summary
1c:► /''0/
20:21:
INTERSECTION AVERAGES :
DEGREE OF SATURATION 1.02 VEHICULAR DELAY 86.2 LEVEL OF SERVICE F
SEQUENCE 65
PHASE 1 1 PHASE 2 1 PHASE 3 PHASE 4 1 PHASE 5 : PHASE 6 1
* * 1 A 1 A ;
* ; ; * * ; 1 + + + +; + + + +;
:� ;::• 1 ; * * 1 <-1--1-+-1-I + + ++ ;
; ; ; V ; A + + + +; * * * *: ;
' ; A 1 A 1 * * ** V 1 V ; 1
‹+ ; ••.. + + + ; 1****).
+ + ++ + ; + + ++ + + ; + 1 1 ; + + ++ ;
1 V+ ; V ++ ; + 1 1 1 V ;
►] /►__ .248 ; G/0= .000 ; G/0= .274 ; G/0= .0'21 1 ►j%0= .068 ; G/0= .31 ;
5 �. " 1 11 1 57 it 1 11 1 11 1 r_ �� " 1
►]= J.i . �.► 1 �]_ .0 1 ►]^ J / . � 1 I,]= 4.4 1 �]= 14.2 1 �]� JV .
Y= 3. c_► " 1 Y= .0 ► '1 ; Y= 3.0 " 1 Y= 3.0 " 1 Y= 3.0 11 1 Y= 3.0 "
s 1
.
C=210 SEC G =195.0 SEC = 92.87.. Y =15.0 SEC = 7.1% F'ED= .0 SEC = .0%
LANE 1WIDTH /1 ►3/i= : SERVICE F :ATE; ADJ ; ; L ; MAXIMUM:
1 GROUP 1 LANES 1 F :EQD USED ; ►_ (VF'H ) E :VOLUME: DELAY ; S ; QUEUE ;
SB APPROACH
1'.'x.3
J
+ I 24/2 I 50 1 . - 1 1 1 1087 ; 1 12.0 ; *F 1 1 165 FT '
TH R:T 1 �4i'.. 1 . � 1 .27 1 1 1 916 1 112.0 1
LT 1 12/1 +;
.53 1
.'7'5 1 1 1 311 1 474 1 145.9 1*F :1052 FT 1
WB APPROACH
62.8 F
TH +F:T; 24/2 1 .53 ; .40 1 S5 1 1351 1 126' ; 46.4 ; E +11116 FT ;
LT 1 12/1+1 .47 1 . 10 : 1 : 1 1 194 1 169.2 ; *F 1 513 FT 1
NB APPROACH
8.6 F
TH 1 2.4 / 2 1 .49 ; .27 ; 1 1 930 ; 1 036 ; 85.2 1 F ; 1 1 10 FT 1
1 24/2
1 1 5 2� I 1 1 3 : 1 - 1 I 1
LT I 1'�i 1+ 1 . �� 1 . �6 I 1 1 .J4':: 1 41 � 1 76. �. 1 F 1 897 1
ItAPPROACH
F
1 C 1 5i 1 1 1 663 1 -- 5 1 1 1
RT I 12/1+1 . �8 1 . � � 1 71 1 1 876 1 66� 1 ��. ...1 1 ►� 1 792 FT 1
TH 1 12/1 1 1 .53 1 .32 1 1 ; 535 1 642 1 115.4 1 *F 11291 FT 1
LT 1 12/1+1 .45 1 .0':: 1 1 1 1 1 39 1 244.2 ; *F 1 112 FT 1
' STRANDER BLVD/SOUTHCENTER PARKWAY
|� JJH STRSCP (54) •
1992 EXISTING NOON PEAK
|�
�- SIGNAL85/TEAPAC - Display of Intersection Parameters
�
| ||
.
+ / 512 12 1 North
|
•
0 • 0 0 /
0 0 0
0 c) \
||
||
||
||
|| •
•
0
•
0 |
| |
958 | 513 |
• 24 | 12
2 | 1 |
| |
Phasing: SEQUENCE 71
PRM N N N N
LDL8 LD LD
.
•
STRANDER BLVD/SOUTHCENTER PARKWAY
JJH STRSCP (1)
1992 EXISTING PM PEAK
SIGNAL85/TEAPAC - Display
of
Intersection Parameters
11/13/
09:03:
| || Display of: VOLUMES
O | 678 1 390 || WIDTHS
O 1 24 | 24 || LANES
O | 2 | 2 ||
| || \ 670 12 1
/ \
0 0 O ^
O 0 0 / + / 272 12 1 North
O 0 0
•
\ /
O 0 0 \ | | | |
O 1 1046 1 373 ( Phasing: SEQUENCE 71
O | 24 1 12 1 PRM N N N N
O 1 2 1 1 1 LDLG LD LD
| |
• •
\ STRANDER BLVD/SOUTHCENTER PARKWAY
/ _ JJH STRSCP (1)
1992 EXISTING PM PEAK
SIGNAL85/TEAPAC - Capacity Analysis Summary
11/13
09:03
INTERSECTION AVERAGES:
DEGREE OF SATURATION .78 VEHICULAR DELAY 32.0 LEVEL OF SERVICE D+
SEQUENCE 71
| _-
[
- | PHASE 1 | PHASE 2 . PHASE 3
| + + A |
| + + ****|
| + +> |
V
C= .283 1 G/C= .350 1 G/C= .307 |
42.5 " | G= 52.5 " | G= 45.0 "
V= 3.0 " | Y= 3.0 " | Y= 3.0 " |
C=150 SEC G=141.0 SEC = 94.0% Y= 9.0 SEC = 6.0% PED= .0 SEC = .0%
| LANE |WIDTH/| 6/0 ) SERVICE RATE| ADJ | | L 1 MAXIMUM|
GROUP | LANES REQD USED | C (VPH) E |VOLUME| DELAY | S | QUEUE |
SB APPROACH
35.6 D
TH | 24/2 | .38 1 .28 | 18 | 1009 | 837 | 36.1 | D | 633 FT |
LT | 24/2+1 .39 | .28 1 1 | 914 | 481 | 34.7 | D | 353 FT |
WB APPROACH
33.0
D
RT | 12/1+1 .63 | .61 | 785 | 862 | 627 1 31.3 |*D+| 680 FT |
LT I 12/1+| .42 | .31 1 1 | 475 | 336 | 37.1 | D | 491 FT |
NB APPROACH
28.2
D+
RT | 12/1+1 .41 | .68 | 944 | 995 | 401 | 7.1 | 8+1 273 FT |
TH | 24/2 : .42 | .35 | 617 | 1245 | 1125 | 35.7 |*D | 772 FT |
(_
-
BLVD/ANDOVER PARK WEST ST 10/21/^
JJH STRAPW (54) 10:08::
[_ 1992 EXISTING NOON PEAK
[_
>'� SIGNAL85/TEAPAC - Display of Intersection Parameters
| || Display of: VOLUMES
[ 143 360 | 191 || WIDTHS
|
^- 0 24 | 0 || LANES
0 2 | 0 |�
| || \ 123 0 0
| / \
499 24 2 ^
|
[ _ 109 12 1 / + / 164 12 1 North
0 2 0 LDLG LD LD
"PANDER BLVD/ ANDOVER F'AF :K WEST
JJH STF :AF'W (54 )
1992 EXISTINip NOON PEAK
SI8NAL85 /TEAF'AC: - Capacity Analysis Summary
10/21
10:0'=
INTERSECTION AVEF:Ai3ES :
DEGREE OF SATURATION .88 VEHICULAR DELAY 63.5 LEVEL OF SERV I f:E F
SEQUENCE 76
1 PHASE 1 1 PHASE 2 1 PHASE 3 PHASE 4 1 PHASE 5
A 1
1 1
1 A * * * *1 A 1 :
A ; + + ++ V ; + + ++ ; ;
<* * * ::•: : + + + + :• 1 + + + +:::
* •* ; ; + + ++ 1++++ ;
V V 1
G/ C= .331 1 13 /x_ =42.2 .325 1 �� /C= .088 : 1j /f := .000 : G /�_= .164 :
G= ' = 43 . 1 " 1 G= " 1 G= 11.4 " f3= .0 11 : G= 21.3 11 1
'Y- 3.0 11 1 Y= 3.0 " 1 Y= 3.0 11 1 Y= .0 11 1 Y= 3.0 " 1
C=130 SEC G=118.0 SEC = 90.8% Y =12.0 SEC = 9.2% F'ED= .0 SEC = .0%
1 LANE 1 WIDTH/ 1 G/i:: : SERVICE RATE: ADJ 1 L 1 MAXIMUM!
1 GROUP 1 LANES: REQD USED 1 C: (VPH) E !VOLUME: DELAY 1 S 1 QUEUE 1
SB APPROACH
'5.8 D+
: LT +TH +RT 1 24/2 1 .34 1
nn 1
"J..) 1
749 1 1 124 1 798 1 25.8 1 *-D+ 1 487 FT 1
WB APPF :OAi :H 149.4 F
TH +F;T: 24/2 1
LT 1 12/1+1
• V.14
• JJ
1 1 1 5^ 5 1 1 3^ 5 1 1 522 1
1 . 16 1 1 1 ...,b..� 684 1 136.5 1 �'F 1 �:�� FT ,
. 0 3 : 1 : 117 1 180 : 198.3 1 *F 1 300 FT :
NB APPROACH
26.1 D+
1 LT +TH +RT : 24/2 : .34 1 . 3 . 1 711 1 1 104 : 780 : 26.1 1 *D+ 1 481 FT 1
APPROACH 45.9 E+
1 1 1 I I 1 1 .i 1 1 3 1
1 PT 1 12/1+1 .29 1 • 16 1 1 1 227 1 207 1 4 . S 1 E +1 316 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 C 5 1 521 1 1 1 397 1
1 TH 1 24/2 1 . �9 1 . 16 1 1 1 J8J 1 �� 1 1 44.0 1 E+ 1 •.:J � FT 1
1 LT 1 12/1+1 .3' 1 .11 1 1 1 156 1 128 : 48.8 1 E +1 207 FT 1
i i/ - _,•RA NDE - SLVD i r\DOVE = FAF : WEST
JJH STRP1F'W ( 1 ) 1'�
1'3'92 EXISTING PM PEAK .: 5:
SIGi \.IraLS5 /TEAF'A - Display of Intersection Parameter=_
! : Display .- .r : VOLUMES
:
•F:ANDEF: BLVD/ANDOyE74 PARK WEST
JJH STRAPW (1)
i?92 EXISTING PM PEAK
SIGNAL85/TEAPAC - Capacity Analysis Summary
INTERSECTION AVERAGES:
DEGREE OF SATURATION .81 VEHICULAR DELAY
SEQUENCE 75
PHASE 1 | PHASE 2 ( PHASE 3 . PHASE 4
| � ++++|
|*+** V |
<* * *>|
**�| <
** *| �
5M.3
10/2{
19:3E
LEVEL OF SERVICE E
PHASE 5
| G/C= .266 1 6/C= .379 | G/C= .053 | G/C= .005 | G/C= .182 |
174= 34.r " � G= 4� 3 " | G= 6 � " | G= 6 " | 6= 23 7 "
. . . . ^
Y= 3.0 " | Y= 3.0 " | Y= 3.0 " | Y= 2.0." | Y= 3.0 "
C=130 SEC
8=115.0 SEC = 88.5% Y=15.0 SEC = 11.5% FED= 0
Sr:C
=
.0%
| LANE |WIDTH/1 6/C | SERVICE RATE| ADJ | | L MAXIMUM|
| GROUP | LANES! REQD USED 1 C (YPH) E 1VOLUME1 DELAY | S QUEUE \
SE APPROACH
=
28..4 D+
|LT+TH+RT| 24/2 | .30 | .27 | 306 I
28.4 |*D+| 384 FT |
WB APPROACH
----------
TH+RT| 24/2 |
LT | 12/1+|
. 34 | '21 |
. 32 | .08 |
NB APPROACH
======---
<LT+TH+RT| 24/2 : .36 |
)
108.2 F
_
1 I 713 | 810 1 100.5 I*F ! 584 FT
1 | 106 | 151 | 149.7 :*F | 253 FT |
23.1
.38
___________
| 1027 | 1307 | 921 | 23.1 |*C | 522 FT |
APPROACH 51.2 F
======_ =====-
RT | 12/1+1 .26 | .18 : 1 | 256 1 119 | 31.2 1 D+| 177 FT |
TH : 24/2 1 .27 I .18 1 1 | 650 I 338 | 31.6 | D+| 252 FT |
LT \ 12/1+1 .31 I .05 \ 1 \ 63 I 103 | 193.3 |*F | 178 FT 1
[.: •
:ANDER BLVD/ANDOVER PARK EAST
3�H STRAPE (54)
1992 EXISTING NOON PEAK
•I8NAL85/TEAPAC - Display of Intersection Parameters
e
•
86 12
530 12 1 -
258 12 1 \
306
24 |
2 |
`
10/�0.'
!9:19:
�!.spla. of: VOLUMES
WIDTHS
LANES
\ 146 0 0
435 12 1
12 1
\ /
| | |
239 | 394 1 241 |
12 | 24 | 0 |
1 ! 2. ! 0 |
North
Phasing: SEQUENCE 66
PRM N N N N
LDLG LD LD
°
ANDER 2LVD/AND0'/Eg. PARK EAST
,-H STRAPE (54)
1992 EXI=;TINI-.4 NOON P=AK
ciIGNALS5/TEAPAC Analysis Summary
INTERSECTION A\'E9AGE��
DEGREE OF SATURATION
SEQUENCE 65
_____________________
PHASE 1
| G/C= .11g.
\ S= 10.4 "
| Y= 3.0 "
�HA�E 2 |
<+
|++++ *
�*
10/20
1S:20
VEHICULAR DELI 43.6 LEVEL E+
. z-
:
FHA=.= 2
+
./
PHASE 4
_______________
• PHASg: 5 ! PHA�E 6
___________
+ +
|+ +
| A ****| A
A |++++ V |++++
* *>I
* * | |++++
* *| | V
.040 | '123 | G/C= '16G | G/C= .000 | 0/0= .389 |
I 8= 2.6 " \ 8= 11.0 " I G= 14.9 " | 8= .0 " 1 G= 35.0 "
Y= 3.0 " | f= 3.0 " | Y= 3.0 " 1 Y= .0 " | Y= 2.0 "
- 90 SEC S= 75'0 SEC = 23.7% Y=15.0 SEC = i6.7%
PED=
.0 SEC =
.0%
|____
- | LANF |WIDTH/| G/C | SERVICE RATEI ADJ | | L | MAXIMUM|
: GROUP | LANES: REQD USED 1 0 (VPH) E |VOLUMEI DELAY : S | QUEUE I
> _ -
|
�
88 APPROACH 34.2
_-_
| RT | 12/1+1 .15 | .36 | 449 | 526 | 122 | 13.2 | B | 98 FT |
• TH | 24/2 | .15 | .12 | 244 | 440 | 340 1 2S.6 | D+: 187 FT |
• LT | 12/1+1 .21 | .12 | 1 | 182 | 179 | 57.5 14.= | 198 FT |
\ ------------- ------- ----- --------
(
WB APPROACH
55.7
------========----------------------------------- - --- ------
} | TH+RT| 12/1 | .45 | '3? | 582 | 656 | 6S2 | 55.2 :*E | 541 FT |
- \ L7- \ 12/1+1 .25 : .�� � 73 \ 267 : 263 \ 57.0 :*E. : 230 FT |
[.. NB APPROACH 56.8
- --- ' --------- ------------------
TH+RT1 24/2 I .25 I .20 I 490 I 650 I 6.7g, 1 5g..5 1.4.= 1 345 FT \
L� | 12/1+| .27 1 '�9 | 135 \ 311 ! 307 � 57.4 |*E | �1G FT |
| EB APPROACH 16.7 C+
`
RT | 12/1+1 .25 | .61 | 872 | 901 | 280 | 5.5 | B+| 137 FT |
TH | 12/1 1 .37 | .39 | 619 | 693 | 576 | 21.1 | C | 445 FT |
LT \ 12/1+1 .17 | .20 | 160 | 331 | 93 | 23.3 | C | 94 FT |
>�
_
:ANDEF: BLVD /ANDOVER PARK EAST
JJH STRAFE c :1 :►
1992 EXISTING F'M PEAK
SII3NAL85 /TEAPAC - Capacity Analysis Summary
10/21
16:0E
I NTEF :SEC :T I ON AVERAGES:
DEGREE OF SATUPATION .78 VEHICULAR DELAY 28.4 LEVEL OF SERVIC :E D+
SEQUENCE 66
1 PHASE 1 : PHASE 2 : PHASE 3 : PHASE 4 : PHASE 5 : PHASE 6
: *• : + + : + : + : ++++:
•k: : : <'+ + 1 <+ : <;+ : <++++:
: : : V : A * * * *: A :
A : A 1 + + ++ V 1 + + ++
<;+ <* + +r•: * *:••: 1++++> : ** -* •
1++++ + 1++++ * + + : •;c• * ; 1++++ 1++++
: V + : V * + + ; * * : : V : V
: G /C:= .143 1 13/C:= .065 : '3 /C= .14E : i3/ C= .1'0 : i3/C= .000 : G /C:= .361 :
„ C " : - 3 " " " 3"5 • " 1
ice= 12.8 � ice= �.8 � ice= 1.:,. 1 � ice= It :�.8 � ice= . i� � ice= .
. 3.0 " : Y= 3.0 " : Y= 3.0 " 1 Y= 3.0 " 1 Y= .0 " 1 Y= 3.0 " :
C:= 90 SEC: '3= 75.0 SEC: = 83.3;: Y =15.0 SEC: = 16.7% PED= .0 SEC: = .0%
: LANE :WIDTH /: C; /C 1 SEF :VIC :E RATE: ADJ : 1 L : MAXIMUM:
: GROUP 1 LANES: READ USED : %: ( VPH) E :VOLUME! DELAY 1 S 1 QUEUE
SB APPROACH
6.3 D+
RT 1 12/1+1 .13 1 .3'7! : 408 1 489 1 94 : 13.9 1 8 1 79 FT 1
TH 1 24/2 1 .14 : .15 : 332 : 519 : 312 1 34.5 1 i_ : 168 FT :
LT 1 12/1+1 . 1 1 .14 1 1 1 228 : 179 1 36.0 1*D 1 194 FT 1
WB APPROACH
29.5 D+
TH +F :T: 12/1 1 .37 : .36 1 542 1 622 : 562 1 27.8 1 D +: 456 FT :
LT : 12/1 +: .19 1 .12 1 1 : 187 1 144 1 36.4 :*•D 1 160 FT :
NB APPROACH
33.0
•
657 1 32 3 1 359 1
TH +F ;T 1 24/2 1 .27 1 .24 1 Ems, 1 797 1 742 � ,:,�. � 1 }D+ � ��� FT
LT 1 12/1+1 .29 1 .24 1 246 1 403 1 338 : 34.7 :*D : 328 FT 1
�-
EB APPROACH
c_
RT ' 12/1+1 .22 1 .63 1 905 1 1 4.6 : A 1 103 FT '
TH : 12/1 1 .38 1 .36 1 558 : 639 1 592 1 30.0 1 *•D+ 1 482 FT 1
LT 1 12/1+1 ' .15 ! 22 t 248 ! 52 : 25.4 1 ' 56 1
likT VALLEY HI►3HWAY/ STRANDER BLVD
JJH
WVHSTR (54) •
1992 EXISTING NOON PEAK
SI►3NAL85 /TEAPAC. - Display of Intersec_tion Parameters
402 1 706 1
12 1 24 1
1 ' 1
/
403 12 1 /
62 12 1
234 12 1 \
•
10/21r
16:07:
Display o f : VOLUMES
40 :1 WIDTHS
12 11 LANES
1
65 12 1
+ / 43 12 1 North
\ /
244 1 683 4 1 Phasing: SEQUENCE 67
1 2 1 24 0 1 PRM N N N N
1 1 0 1 LDLG LD LD
litT VALLEY HI6HWAY/STRANDER BLVD
JJH WVHSTR (54)
1992 EXISTING NOON PEAK
SIGNAL85/TEAPAC - Capacity Analysis Summary
10/21
16:0T
INTERSECTION AVERAGES:
DEGREE OF SATURATION .67 VEHICULAR DELAY 23.4 LEVEL OF SERVICE C
SEQUENCE 67
| PHASE 1 | PHASE 2 1 PHASE 3 1 PHASE 4 | PHASE 5
| * | |*+ | |
| * | |*+ | |
| *> |<* + <****|
�
| | V | ++++| A
| | A | A | V |****
| <+ | <* + +>| + +>| |++++>
|++++ + |++++ * + + | + + 1 |++++
| V+ | V*++| ++| | V
| 8/C= .057 | 6/C= .105 | G/C= .325 | G/C= .057 | G/C= .290 |
G= 5.1 " | G= 9.4 " | G= 29.3 " | G= 5.1 " 1 G= 26.1 "
OY= 3.0 " | Y= 3.0 " | Y= 3.0 " | Y= 3.0 " | Y= 3.0 " |
C= 90 SEC G= 75.0 SEC = 83.3% Y=15.0 SEC = 16.7% PED= .0 SEC = .0%
1 LANE :WIDTH/1 6/C | SERVICE RATE| ADJ 1 | L | MAXlMUM|
GROUP | LANES| REQD USED | C (VPH) E :VOLUME: DELAY | S | QUEUE |
SB APPROACH
25.1 D+
RT | 12/1+1 .36 |
TH | 24/2 | .26 |
LT | 12/1+1 .16 |
.33
. 33
. 06
| 383 1 463 | 437 | 36.6 |*D | 387 FT |
1 1012 | 1121 | 767 1 18.1 | C+| 340 FT |
1 : 77 | 43 | 33.9 |*D | 53 FT |
WB APPROACH
37.1
D
TH | 12/1 | .10 | .06 | 1 | 90 | 72 1 38.7 }*D | 86 FT |
LT | 12/1+1 .16 | .06 | 1 | 80 | 48 | 34.7 | D | 57 FT |
NB APPROACH 18.1 C+
| TH+RT| 24/2 | .26 | .46 | 1536 1 1588 | 747 | 10.9 | B | 264 FT |
Alk LT | 12/1+1 .25 | .19 | 142 | 310 | 265 : 38.4 1*D | 281 FT
EB APPROACH
25.7 D+
RT | 12/1+1 .24 | .52 1 712 1 759 |
TH | 12/1 1 .10 1 .29 | 420 | 515 |
."I" . ,"5,.^. on^ . no . ',°n 1 ^~,° .
8.2 | B+| 154 FT |
67 | 15.2 1 0+1 60 FT 1
�-, ° .." . ~` ,-T .
4117 YAL17:'
WYHST7f
17497 17XISTINC' 7'1
S:IDNAL815/TEAPAC - D:13play :ntarsaction Parameters
__: , . • , 'Li:F.:play c ;:.! VC' 1'McF.
, •
. ,
7rE ' 727 . ,-,
, ' .WIDTHS
12 ' 24 ' 17 I , LANES
.
; \ 0
° °
••■•••••• _
, ,.T.I.;-, i--, 1 . 4.. / 10 12 1 North
I
•
•
223 ! 7 I Phinc: 3!=r1HENCF 67
PRM NNNN
2 I LL3 LT) rt
ilpT H.f.3HA1..TRANDER
WHciR
1.992 EXE7TIM19
I11ALS5STAPAC - Summa
,y
DEGREE CF SATURATInN .7° :.EHICULAR DELAY
°FIIFMCF
PHASF 1 PHASE 2
PHASE 4
----------- -------
21 8 LEVEL"
PHASE 5
* t
i
*> 1
+ 1
1 <****1
ri
, v
. .•• • a ‹* " "›! +. +>! 1++++:%
1 ,
1++++ + 1•+++ * + + ; + +
V " ! V ''i' + " -I- •.. t
V
3/0= •026 ' .122 : 1/0= .219
11 1 47.7 "
= 2.0 " ! Y=. 3 2 "
74/0= .02f= : G/0=. .27c
°;= 5.4 " I 13= FE.7 " !
y= 2, •= 3 1
150 SEC G-=125.0 220 = Y=15.0 SEC = 10.0% pr7n= .0
GRnUP ! iANES!
Sr' AR: P n C.:1-i
R7
TH
LT
13: 39:
' SEC:W.CE ?ATE: Anj
P777. ; 0 :VPH:, c !VOLUME! DP AY I c ! CUPmc 1
-------.
3F•7
_-. ..... .42 : .21 :.42 . d:3 . 47.4
• .. , ,22 ! 7."-,1. ! ....lac:, : SOP : 20.4 : 7)• .: f.°0 F7 :
' : 22 ! '74 : 52.2 ::4-7 : 77 FT !
WE" A°°"•CC•
TH 1 12/1 !
I -
APPRnACH
.27 :
.24
1 : 44 :
22 '
29.1 D:
FT 1
FT 1
1 71-1+.71 24 /2 . -:.7 .47 ' ' 14c..0 24.8 ! 7°17' 77 1
LT .9 .1;
!
•
'72 ARFRnACH
-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-__
RT : 12/I4• 1 .42 1 •Es 1 775 1 r7-,(:.7 ! 423 1 12.1 1 E : 378 FT 1
' TH 1 12/1 1 .28 1 .28 ! .7.7.'P 1 574 1 12 1 13.9 1 0+1 25 FT 1
1
' LT 1 12/1-L1 .48 1 •22 ' 194 1 633 1 5 '1
78 1 4.1. 1*E-1-1 7E8 FT 1
.
ANDOVER PARK EAST/MINKLER BLVD
JJH APEMIN (54)
1992 .EXISTING NOON PEAK
SIGNAL85/TEAPAC - Display of Intersection Parameters
12/25/a�
14:42:5'
|| Display of: VOLUMES
51 1 541 | 53 || WIDTHS
O | 24 | 0 || LANES
O | 2 | 0 ||
| | 11 \ 65 .0 0
/ \
12 1
|
49 12 1 / + / 60 12 1 North
|
31 12 1 --
\ / __
74 0 0 \ | | |
52 1 678 | 70 | Phasing: SEQUENCE 11
O | 24 | 0 | PRM N N N N
O | 2 | 0 \ LDLS LD LD
| | |
NDOVER PARK EAST/MINKLER BLVD
JH APEMIN (54)
992 EXISTING NOON PEAK
IGNAL85/TEAPAC - Capacity Analysis Summary
12/25/9:
14:43:1�
NTERSECTION AVERAGES:
DEGREE OF SATURATION .37 VEHICULAR DELAY 4.6 LEVEL OF SERVICE A
EQUENCE 11
PHASE 1 | PHASE 2
_______
+ ++ | A |
+ + + | ++++|
<+ + +> | <++++|
V | A ++++|
A 1++++ V �
<* * *>|****> |
* * * |**** |
* **| v |
6/C= .681 | 6/C= .219 |
G= 40.9 " | G= 13.1 " |
Y= 3.0 " | Y= 3.0 " |
= 60 SEC . 54.0 SEC = 90.0% Y= 6.0 SEC = 10.0% PED= .0 SEC = .0%
LANE |WIDTH/| S/C | SERVICE RATE| ADJ 1 | L 1 MAXIMUM|
GROUP | LANES! REQD USED | C (VPH) E !VOLUME: DELAY | S 1 QUEUE 1
B APPROACH
2.7 A
LT+TH+RT| 24/2 1 .31 1 .68 1 1932 | 1932 | 717 1 2.7 1 A 1 96 FT 1
|B APPROACH
13.5
B
TH+RT| 12/1 | .09 1
LT | 12/1+1 .07 |
.•• |
.22 |
290 | 342 | 100 1 12.8 1 B 1 65 FT 1
258 1 328 1 67 | 14.6 1 B 1 44 FT 1
!B APPROACH 2.8 A
_
LT+TH+RT| 24/2 1 .32 1 .68 1 2146 | 2146 1 889 1 2.8 |*A 1 119 FT 1
APPROACH 13.4 B
TH+RT| 12/1 1 .10 1 .22 1 291 1 343 | 117 | 13.0 |*B 1 77 FT 1
LT | 12/1+1 .06 | .I2 1 271 1 342 | 54 1 14.4 1 B 1 35 FT 1
.NDOVER PARK EAST/MINKLER BLVD
3H APEMIN (1)
992 EXISTING PM PEAK
`IGNAL85/TEAPAC - Capacity Analysis Summary
NTERSECTION AVERAGES:
DEGREE OF SATURATION
EQUENCE 11
^��
PHASE 1 : PHASE 2
+ ++ | A |
+ + + | ****|
<+ + +> | <****|
V | A ++++|
A |++++ V |
<* * *>|++++} |
* * * |++++ |
* **| v |
G/C= .645 | 8/C=
G= 38.7 " 1 G= 15.3 "
Y= 3.0"|Y= 3.0"|
12/25/9':;
14:41:0��
VEHICULAR DELAY 4.8 LEVEL OF SERVICE A
= 60 SEC G= 54.0 SEC = 90.0% Y= 6.0 SEC = 10.0% PED= .0 SEC = .0%
LANE |WIDTH/| 8/C | SERVICE RATE| ADJ | | L | MAXIMUM|
GROUP 1 LANES: REQD USED 1 C (VPH) E :VOLUME: DELAY 1 S QUEUE :
a APPROACH
3.2
A
======
LT+TH+RT| 24/2 | .26 : .65 | 2168 | 2168 | 758 | 3.2 | A | 113 FT |
/B APPROACH
12.5 B
TH+RT\ 12/1 1 .11 | .25 | 347 | 398 | 123 | 11.8 |*B | 77 FT |
LT | 12/1+1 .08 | .25 | 345 | 417 | 92 | 13.5 | B | 57 FT |
|B APPROACH
3.2 A
LT+TH+RT| 24/2 | .27 | .65 | 1988 | 1988 | 721 | 3.2 |*A | 107 FT |
�D APPROACH 11.9 B
TH+RT| 12/1 1 .07 1 .25 1 234 | 3S4 1 6S 1 11.3 1 B 1 42 FT |
LT | 12/1+1 .04 | .25 | 304 | 372 | 30 | 12.9 | 8 1 25 FT |
__
1993 LOS
WITH HOME DEPOT
NOON AND PM PEAK
130TH ST /SOUTHCENTEF: PARKWAY
3Dt3 SC F' 1 s0 ( 107 )
1993 WITH HOME DEPOT NOON PEAK
SIi3NAL85 /TEAFai_ - Display of Intersection Parameters
c) 1 1':
0 ' 1
184 12 1 /
.7'50 12 1 --
10 12 1 \
12/25/92
14:04:3t
Display f: VOLUMES
511 WIDTHS
24 1 LANES
I
598
1' 1
297 12 1
+ / 66 12 1 North
11 : 149 I, 371
12 f 12 1 0
1 1 1 : 0
Phasing: SEQUENCE 73
F'RM N N N N
LDLG LD LD
S. 180TH ST/SOUTHCENTER PARKWAY
SDG SCP180 (107)
1993 WITH HOME DEPOT NOON PEAK
SIGNAL85/TEAPAC - Capacity Analysis Summary
12/25/9
14:05:2
INTERSECTION AVERAGES:
DEGREE OF SATURATION .91 VEHICULAR DELAY 52.5 LEVEL OF SEPVICE E
SEQUENCE 73
PHASE 1 \ PHASE 2 | PHASE 3 | PHASE 4
|+++A
+ + + ****|
|<+ + +> | |
| V | | A
A
1****
<+ * *>|++++>
1++++ + * * |++++
| � V+**| V
| G/C= .198 \ 8/C= .385 I G/C= .121 1 8/C= .196 |
1 G= 23.7 " | G= 46.2 " | G= 14.5 " | G= 23.6 " |
Y= 3.0 " | Y= 3.0 " | Y= 3.0 " | Y= 3.0 "
6=120 SEC G=108.0 SEC = 90.0% Y=12.0 SEC = 10.0% PD= .0 SEC = .0%
LANE |WIDTH/| 6/C | SERVICE RATE| ADJ | | L | MAXIMUM|
| GROUP | LANES| REQD USED | C (VPH) E :VOLUME! DELAY | S | QUEUE |
SB APPROACH
52.8
E
TH+RT| 12/1 1
LT | 24/2+1
. 23 |
. 3� |
. 20 | 3 1 323 | 112 | 27.0 | D+| 153 FT |
. 20 1 1 | 632 | 623 | 57.4 1 E 1 426 FT |
WB APPROACH 50.8 E
RT | 12/1+1 .49 1 .42 | 500 | 611 | 629 | 53.8 |*E | 623 FT |
TH | 12/1 1 .29 1 .20 1 1 1 343 | 313 1 46.0 1 E+| 429 FT 1
LT | 12/1+1 .30 1 .20 | 1 1 82 | 69 | 45.5 | E+1 94 FT |
NB APPROACH
=^ o
�
TH+RTI 12/1 | .46 | .39 1 478 | 608 | 627 | 55.6 1*E | 642 FT |
LT | 12/1+1 .26 | .39 1 440 | 659 : 13 | 17.4 | C+| 25 FT
EB APPROACH 52.6 E
_==
RT 1 12/1+1 .20 | .75 1 1084 | 1097 | 11 | 2.4 1 A 1 25 FT 1
TH 1 12/1 | .28 1 .34 1 441 | 604 | 284 | 20.4 | C 1 319 FT |
S. 180TH ST/SOUTHCENTER PARKWAY
SDG SCP180 (160)
1992 WITH HOME DEPOT PM PEAK
.SI8NAL85/TEAPAC - Display of Intersection Parameters
12/25/9
14:06:2
| | || Display of: VOLUMES
211 | 136 | 294 || WIDTHS
O | 12 | 24 || LANES
O | 1 \ 2 ||
| || \ 368 12 1
208 12 1
7 12 1 \
572 12 1
+ / 148 12 1 North
\ • /
| | |
22| 108| 37|
12| 12| 0|
1| 1| 0|
Phasing: SEQUENCE 73
PRM N N N N
LDLG LD LD
180TH ST /SOUTHC :ENTER PARKWAY
DG SCF' 180 1 60 )
992 WITH HOME DEPOT F'M PEAK
3IGNALS5/TEAPAC — Capacity Analysis Summary
l'/25/9
14 :06:5
NTER'SEC :T I ON AVERAGES:
DEGREE OF SATURATION . 63 VEHICULAR DELAY 26.3 LEVEL OF SERVICE D+
EC UENGE
PHASE 1 : PHASE 2
FHASE 3
: FHASE 4
A 1 1
1 1
+ + + + +: :
:;-* * +::• 1 1
1 1
v : : A
: A :****
: <;+ * *>1++++>
: + + ++ + * * : + + ++
V + * } : V
G /i ::= .267 : '3 /C:= . 126 : 13 /x_= . 138 : G /f := .360 :
-,9 1 11 1 3 ,:y 11 1 1 C 11 1 39 11 1
Y= 3.0 " : Y= 3 . 0 ' 1 : Y= ` . 0 11 : Y= 3.0 " :
=110 SEi ::
G= '98.0 SEC : = 69.1% Y =13.0 SEt :: = 10.9% F'ED= .0 SEC = .0%
1%
LANE :WIDTH /: G /C: : SERVICE RATE: ADJ : : L : MAXIMUM:
GROUP : LANES: F :EOD USED : C: c :VPH i E :VOLUME: DELAY : S : QUEUE
B APPROACH
31.3 D+
TH +RT : 12/1 : .32 :
LT : 24/2 +: .27 :
. 7 :
. 7 1
1 1 '1 71 1 3•- 7 1 1 4 1
71 1 4':_ 1 �. 1 .,G. , 1D 1 �T7 FT 1
316 : 868 : 316 : 25.0 : D +: 181 FT :
1-3 APPROACH
RT 1 1 3• 1 5 1 1 5�.i 1 363 1 C 1 1 1
1 a. + 1 . ��`} 1 .6 1 'J'.. 1 '��I M' 1 .J L'V 1 �I . 'J 1 �.`+ 1 � 17 F I 1
T : 1 - 1 3^ : L 3 : 3" 1 596 1 35 . 1 : 59 1
1 H I 12/1 1 . `r (.1 1 . .J G : �..1 1 v.7 1 6 �• G 1 �I � L' ' V �..J .� 1� D : .J J G F T 1
LT I + 1 1 ' 3 ' - 1 ' l • 1 1 C { ' - f 1 j. 1 1 5 4 1
1 i! 1 1 . sJ 1 1 . .. 1 ..i'J J .'1.J.._ 1 1 �J't 1 .•�� 1• . 1 - 1 1 JET 7 T 1
APPROACH
37.5 D
-� 1 1 I 3 1 1 1 5 1 3 Q 3 1 1 - 1
Tl-1 +�.T , ?! 1 1 . � 1 1 .1 �, 1 1 1 �t:17 1 16.., 1 ,�� .*D 1 kD 1 ���:1 FT 1
LT I .v-/ 1 -h 1 .23 1 .13 1 1 1 194 1 32.4 1 D+: •:I..f FT 1
APPROACH
20.5
F'T ' 12/1+1 . 1 6 1 1 ,963 1 '116 1 8 1 7 1 A' 25 FT '
1 1 .68 1 � 1 �� , 1 �!. , 1 1 1
TH : 12/1 ' . 24 : 860 : 9� 239 : '11.3 : F : +: 177 FT :
: 1 1 1 L� t� : �' 6 1
LT 1 1 �- ! 1 .27 : .14 1 : -� 1 1 i 53 1 38 '9 : 1
1 I r/ _+ 1 iJ 1 1'T 1 1 : � �= 1 ,i..lv I v10 • �D '(:1
i 180TH iTH ST /ANDOVEF: PARK WEST
TJH 180AF'W ( 1(7 ) •
.993 WITH HOME DEPOT NOON PEAK
3Ii3NAL85 /TEAF'Ai_ - Display of Intersection Parameter=
1'2/'25/'3.
14: 08:
1 1 11 Display f: .VOLUMES
151 1 S5 1 325 11 { WIDTHS
0 1 24 1 0 11 LANES
i i 11 \ 245 0 0
/
100 12 1 /
5' 9 24
14 0 O \
795 24
+ / 141 12 1 North
1
/
78 1 80 1
'4 1 0 1
Phasing: SEQUENCE 16
F'F:M N N N N
LDL8 LD LD
1SOTH ST/ANDOVER PARK WEST
!JH 180APW (107)
.993 WITH HOME DEPOT NOON PEAK
3IGNAL85/TEAPAC - Capacity Analysis Summary
�NTERSECTION AVERAGES:
DEGREE OF SATURATION
3EQUENCE 16
'------'
.64
12/25/9�
14:0B:3'
VEHICULAR DELAY 12.4 LEVEL OF SERVICE B
PHASE 1 | PHASE 2 | PHASE 3 | PHASE 4 |
* * *
; * * * |
'<* * *> |
✓ | A ****| A
A |++++ V |++++
<+ + +>1 |++++>
+ + + 1 |++++
+ ++| | v
.
8/C= .274 1 G/C= .159 1 8/C= .000 1 G/C= .416 1
G= 16.5 " 1 8= 9.6 " 1 8= .0 " 1 6= 25.0 " 1
Y= 3.0 " | Y= 3.0 " | Y= .0 " | Y= 3.0 " 1
�= 60 SEC G= 51.0 SEC = 85.0% Y= 9.0 SEC = 15.0% PED= .0 SEC = .0%
LANE |WIDTH/| G/C 1 SERVICE RATE| ADJ 1 1 L 1 MAXIMUM|
GROUP 1 LANES REQD USED 1 C (VPH) E :VOLUME: DELAY 1 S 1 QUEUE 1
3.3 APPROACH
15.3
C+
'LT+TH+RT| 24/2 |
• • |
.27
735 |
786 1 591 1 15.3 |*C+| 182 FT 1
�B APPROACH 12.9 B
TH+RT| 24/2 | .34 | .42 1 1394 1 1409 1 1130 1 12.0 1*5 1 281 FT 1
LT 1 12/1+1 .13 1 .16 | 196 1 266 1 153 1 19.9 |*C+| 109 FT 1
15 APPROACH
11.7
LT+TH+RT| 24/2 1 .12 1 .27 1 580 | 632 1 252 | 11.7 1 B 1 76 FT 1
:8 APPROACH
9.1 8+
TH+RT| 24/2 1 .18 1 .42 1 1448 | 1462 1 578 1 8.0 1 5+1 144 FT 1
LT 1 12/1+1 .10 1 .21 1 278 1 351 1 106 1 15.4 1 0+1 71 FT 1
S. 1SOTH ST /ANDOVER PARK WEST
JJH 1SOAF'W (160)
1993 WITH HOME DEPOT PM PEAK
S1GNAL85 /TEAPAC - Display of Intersection Parameters
12/25/9
14:09.3
1 1� Display f: VOLUMES
237 57 1 291 1 ' WIDTHS
0 24 1 0 :: LANES
1 00 1
1 1 \ 211 0 0
/ \
851 24
69 12 1 / + / 28 12 1 North
4664
\ /
14 0 0 \ 1
1 41 1 82 1 64 1 Phasing: SEQUENCE 16
: c i : 24 : 0 1 F'R?'t N N N N
1 0 1 1 0 1 LDL' LD LD
180TH ST/ANDOVER PARK WEST
'JH 1B0APW (160)
993 WITH HOME DEPOT PM PEAK
;IGNAL85/TEAPAC - Capacity Analysis Summary
12/25/9.
14:09:5
NTERSECTION AVERAGES:
DEGREE OF SATURATION .57 VEHICULAR DELAY 17.2 LEVEL OF SERVICE C+
;EQUENCE 16
PHASE 1 | PHASE 2 | PHASE 3 | PHASE 4
* * *
* * *
<***> | |
V | A ****1 A
A |++++ V |****
<+ + +>| 1++++>
+ + + | |++++
+ ++| | V
G/C= .366 | G/C= .065 1 G/C= .010 | 6/C= .449 |
G= 40.3 " 1 G= 7.1 " | 8= 1.1 " | G= 49.4 " |
Y= 3.0 " 1 Y= 3.0 " 1 Y= 3.0 " | Y= 3.0 " |
:=110 SEC G= 98.0 SEC = 89.1% Y=12.0 SEC = 10.9% PED= .0 SEC = .0%
. LANE :WIDTH/1 G/C | SERVICE RATEI ADJ. | | L | MAXIMUM|
GROUP | LANES REQD USED | C (VPH) E :VOLUME: DELAY | S | QUEUE |
;13 APPPOACH '0.0 C
LT+TH+RT| 24/2 | .32 1 .37 | 829 | 976 | 657 | 20.0 |*C | 325 FT (
18 APPROACH
-- '
17.4 C+
---
TH+RT| 24/2 | .37 | .45 | 1425 : 1532 | 1095 | 16.8 |*C+| 471 FT 1
LT | 12/1+1 .23 | .06 1 1 | Si | 29 | 37.5 |*D | 42 FT |
JB APPROACH 16.2
C+
LT+TH+RT| 24/2 |
.23 |
•
.37 1 677 | 812 | 256 | 16.2 | C+| 123 FT |
:B APPROACH 14.1 B
TH+RT| 24/2 | .24 | .49 | 1624 | 1708 1 511 1 11.0 1 B | 205 FT |
LT | 12/1+1 .24 1 .10 | 1 1 149 1 73 | 36.3 |*D | 102 FT 1
S. 180TH ST /ANDOVER PAF.< EAST
JJH 180APE t 1 07 i
11993 WITH HOME DEPOT NOON PEAT;
12/25/9
':
14:10:5
I S I UNAL85 /TEAF'AC Display of Intersection Parameter s
1 Display of: VOLUMES
237 1 0 : 440 ; WIDTHS
O : 12 1 12 1 LANES
O ' 1 1 1 I
{ \ 495 0 i
/ \
844 24 2 ^
216 12 1 / +
/ 0 0 0 North
\ /
0 0 c i \
O 0 1 0 Phasing: SEQUENCE 13
0 0 1 0 F'RM N N N N
O 0 1 0 LDLi3 LD LD
734 24
S. 130TH ST/ANDOVER F'AF:K EAST
JJH 18OAPE ( 1 0 7 )
1993 WITH HOME DEPOT NOON PEAK
SIGNALSS /TEAF'AC: — Capacity Analysis Summary
12/25/9:
14:11:0c
INTERSE!=TION AVERAGES:
DEGREE OF SATURATION .79 VEHICULAR DELAY 27. 9 LEVEL OF SERVICE D+
SEQUENCE
13
PHASE 1 1 PHASE ':
1 PHASE 3
+ { . A .
1 + . * *:
1 1 A 1 1
1 1 1 1
{ . + + ++ • : + + + -t• .`.•• :
1 1 1 1
1 1 i 1
1 1 1
1 1
: v /C:= .310 : !S/ C := .170 . !G /C := .420 0 .
1 9 n 1 ! 15.3 n 1 G= 37.8 11 1
1 v= 3. 0 n 1 Y= 3. 0 ' 1 Y— 3. t:) n
1 .:i 1 � 1 f— J
C:= 90 SEC: G= 81.0 SEC: _ q0.0% Y= '1'1.0 SEC: = 10.0% F'ED= .0 SEI_: = .0%
: LANE .WIDTH /: G/'C: 1 SERVI!=E RATE. ADJ . . L . MAXIMUM
. !GROUP 1 LANES: REQD USED : != ( VF'H) E !VOLUME: DELAY : S : QUEUE :
S% APPROACH
31.1 D+
y .T 1 / 1 .24 1 3 a 1 n 5 1 448 1
255 1 1 1 227 TH.R1 : 12 1 1 1 .�� 1 �C•� 1 4`T8 1 ::�� 1 17.9 1 !_ +1 7 rT 1
1 1 1 .31 1 n c 5 1 473 1 3r 3 1 1 1
LT 1 12/1+1 .;;5 1 .��1 1 �,S1 � �I 1 •7.:, 1 38.3 1�•D 1 421 FT 1
WD APPROACH
1)
-. 2 1 , = 1 1 �S . D : _ "'5 FT .
TH +F.'f 1 24/2 1 . �� 1 .42 . 1313 . � .:. 1 1�7C�'3 1 ��. �: �I�
EB APPROACH
13.0 8
TH . 24/2 : .26 : .62 . 2191 : 2191 1 789 . 5.4 : E: +. 191 FT .
1 1 1 `3 1 1 4 a 1 73 1 �. $.
LT 1 1' /. 1 1 . 17 1 4 1 .., sJ 1 ��.. : 39.0 . D : 247 FT 1
a 1SOTH.STZANDOVER PARK EAST
rJH 180APE (160)
993 WITH HOME DEPOT PM PEAK
3IGNALS5 /TEAPAC — Display of Intersection Parameters
'12/25/92
14 :12 :0(
I II
I II Display of: VOLUMES
242 | 0 | 494 || WIDTHS
0 | 12 ' 12 11 LANES
0 | 1 : 1 |:
| . \ 396 0 0
Z \
-- 1032 24 2
95. 12 1 / + / O 0 0
840 24 2
\ . Z
0 0 0 \ | | |
0 0 | 0 |
0 | 0 | 0 :
0 | 0 0
North
Phasing: SEQUENCE 13
PRM N N N N
LDLG LD LD
;. 180TH ST/ANDOVER PARK EAST
'JH 180APE (160)
993 WITH HOME DEPOT PM PEAK
3IGNAL85/TEAPAC - Capacity Analysis Summary
• 12/25/9
14:12:2
NTERSECTION AVERAGES:
DEGREE OF SATURATION .83 VEHICULAR DELAY 31.1 LEVEL OF SERVICE D+
;EQUENCE
13
PHASE 1 | PHASE 2 | PHASE 3
* | \ A |
* | | ****|
*> | | <****|
1 1 A | |
|**** | |
|++++> \++++> |
1 |
| |
8/C= .362 | 8/C= .074 1 6/C= .464 1
G= 32.6 " | 6= 6.7 " | G= 41.7 " |
Y= 3.0 " | Y= 3.0 " | Y= 3.0 " |
90 SEC G= 81.0 SEC = 90.0% Y= 9.0 SEC = 10.0% PED= .0 SEC = .0%
LANE :WIDTH/1 G/C | SERVICE RATE! ADJ | | L | MAXIMUM|
GROUP | LANES! REQD USED | C (VPH) E IVOLUME| DELAY | S | QUEUE |
1:( APPROACH
35.4
TH+RT| 12/1 | .26 | .36 | 453 | 529 | 292 | 15.6 | C+| 238 FT |
LT | 12/1+1 .42 1 .36 | 489 | 608 | 595 | 45.1 |*E+| 485 FT |
!B APPROACH 40.6 E+
TH+RT| 24/2 | .49 | .46 | 1507 | 1559 | 1623 | 40.6 |*E+| 556 FT |
2B APPROACH 11.9 B
TH | 24/2 | .29 | .57 | 2009 | 2015 | 894 | 7.2 | B+} 245 FT |
LT | 12/1+1 .18 | .07 | 1 | 108 | 101 | 52.6 |*E | 119 FT |
S. 180TH ST/SPERRY DRIVE
JJH 180SPY (107)
1993 WITH HOME DEPOT NOON PEAK
SI8NAL85/TEAPAC - Display of Intersection Parameters
98 |
12 |
96 12 1 /
785 24 2
21 0 0 \
12/25/9
14:13:5 i
| || Display of: VOLUMES
0 | 169 || WIDTHS
12 | 0 || LANES
1 | 0 ||
| |� \ 181 0 0
\
-- 1061 24 2
+ / 12 12 1
|
North
|
\ /
|| | | |
|| 25 | 1 | 19 | Phasing: SEQUENCE 14
| | 12 | 12 | 12 | PRM N N N N
| | ' 1 | 1 | 1. | LDLG LD LD
S. 1880TH ST, /SFERRY DRIVE
JJH 130SPY (107 )
1993 WITH HOME DEPOT NOON PEAK
SIi3NAL85 /TEAF'Ai_ — C pa'_ity Analysis Summary
12/25/9 ..
14:14:0
INTERSECTION AVERAGES:
DEGREE OF SATURATION . 71 VEHICULAR DELAY 11.9 LEVEL OF SERVICE B
SEQUENCE 14
PHASE 1 PHASE 2 I PHASE 3
+ * 1 ► A ,
+ * ; + ****I
+ ;:: :<+ 1 <****:
A + + + +:
A ! :� :� ** V ,
+ + + ; + ; + + ++
+ -t- + ; + ; V
G /C= .266 I G/C= .117 I i3 /C= .467
I )j= 16.0 11 I Ij= 7.0 11 I l]= 23.0 51 I
1 Y= 3.0 n , 3.0 u , v= 3 n 1
60 SEC G= 51.0 SEC = 85.07.. Y= 9.0 SEC = 15.0% FED .0 SEC = .0%
. TH -1 -RT I 24/2 : .28 I 1 1620 1 • 0 1 926 1 �7. 8 I Bi- 213 FT f
.47 16:: 1 G
1 1 1 1 110 i . 0 15-C 1 84 I
1 LT � 12/1+1 . iC- . 1� 1 129 1 136 1 S4
180TH ST/SPERRY DRIVE
'JH 180SPY (160)
.993 .WITH HOME DEPOT PM PEAK
3IGNAL85/TEAPAC - Display of Intersection Parameters
12/25/9:
14:15:4
| ( || Display of: VOLUMES
| 101 | 0 | 171 || WIDTHS
| 12 | 12 | 0 || LANES
| 1 1 1 | 0 |�
11 | \ 177 0 0
92 12 1 /
1028 24 2 --
23
0 0 \
+
-- 1050 24 2
/ 11 12 1 North
|
\ /
r | |
41 | 1 | 38 | Phasing: SEQUENCE 14
12 | 12 | 12 | PRM N N N N
1 | 1 I. 1 | LDLG LD LD
| |
'. 180TH ST/SPERRY DRIVE
JH 180SPY (160)
993 WITH HOME DEPOT PM PEAK
;I6NAL85/TEAPAC - Capacity Analysis Summary
12/25/9:.H
^�
14:16:0:,
NTERSECTION AVERAGES:
DEGREE OF SATURATION .71 VEHICULAR DELAY 11.5 LEVEL OF SERVICE B
'EQUENCE 14
PHASE 1 | PHASE
,
| PHASE 3
+ * |+ | A �
+ * | + | ****|
<+ *> |<+ <****|
( A ++++| |
A |**** V | |
<+ + +>\ +>\++++> \
+ + + | + |++++ |
+ ++| +| V
____
G/C= .285 | 8/C= .113 | G/C= .451 |
G= 17.1 " 1 8= 6.8 " 1 8= 27.1 "
Y= 3.0 " 1 Y= 3.0 " 1 Y= 3.0 "
�= 60 SEC G= 51.0 SEC= 85.0% Y= 9.0 SEC = 15.0%
PEI}=
.0 SEC =
.0%
LANE :WIDTH/1 6/C 1 SERVICE RATE| ADJ. 1 | L 1 MAXIMUM|
GROUP 1 LANES! REQD USED | C (VPH) E |VOLUME| DELAY 1 S | QUEUE |
B APPROACH 12.1 B
^
________==
RT | 12/1+1 .17 1 .45 1 620 1 652 1 202 1 6.9 | B+| 95 FT |
LT+TH | 12/1 1 .24 1 .29 1 404 1 453 1 342 1 16.8 |*C+| 209 FT 1
APPROACH 11.8 B
TH+RT| 24/2 | .38 | .45 | 1549 1 1554 | 1292 | 11.8 |*B : 302 FT |
LT | 12/1+1 .02 | .11 | 127 | 184 | 12 1 18.0 | C+| 25 FT |
B APPROACH
9.3
8+
RT | 12/1+1 .07 1 .45 | 628 | 660 | 66 1 6.2 | B+| 30 FT 1
TH 1 12/1 | .00 1 .29 1 458 1 508 1 2 1 9.9 1 B+1 25 FT 1
LT | 12/1+1 .07 1 .29 1 412 | 483 1 71 : 12.2 1 B 1 42 FT 1
_
13 APPROACH
10.7 B
TH+RT| 24/2 | .34 1 .45 1 1581 1 1584 1 1155 | 9.7 1 B+| 270 FT |
LT 1 12/1+1 .10 1 .11 1 126 1 183 1 101 1 21.3 |*C 1 76 FT 1
,,�
180TH ST/WEST VALLEY HIGHWAY
'JH 180WVH (107),
993 WITH HOME DEPOT NOON PEAK
3I8NAL85/TEAPAC - Display of Intersection Parameters
138 |
• 0 |
0|
103 12 1 /
497 12 1
509 12 1 \
12/25/9:
14:17:1E
| || Display of: VOLUMES
478 | 278 || WIDTHS
24 | 12 || LANES
2 | 1 ||
| || \ 264 0 0
\
722 24 2
|
+ / 151 12 1 North
|
\ /
|| 1 | |
|| 486 | 629 1 0 1 Phasing: SEQUENCE 65
| | 12 1 24 | 0 1 PRM N N N N
|| 1 | 2 1 0 1 LDLG LD LD
|| 1 |
/M
2'/6f-f7~
. 180TH ST /WEST VALLEY HIGHWAY
JH 18OWVH (1 c:07 )
993 WITH HOME DEPOT NOON PEAK
;;I6NAL85 /TEAF'AC: - Capacity Analysis Summary
NTEF :SEC :TION AVERAGES:
DEGREE OF SATURATION
EQUENCE 65
.89
12/25/9.
14:18:1'
VEHICULAR DELAY 66.5 LEVEL OF SERVICE F
PHASE 1 PHASE 2 PHASE 3: PHASE 4 1 PHASE 5 1 PHASE 6
1 1 V 1 A + + ++ : * *** 1 1
1 A 1 A : * *** V 1 V 1 1
:+ + + t
1 1 1 * *•* 1
+ + ++ + 1 + + ++ * + 1 + 1 : ++ ++ :
V+ 1 V * + + 1 V 1
G/ C= .178 1 I3 /f:= . 127 1 13/C= .195 1 8/0= .072 1 G/C= .013 / '3 /C:= .328 1
37.5 11 t 11 1 11 1 11 1 - 8 11 1 11 1
�]_ 1 �]_ 26.7 1 �]= 41.0 / ►]= 15.1 1 c]= .� . 0 1 ►]= 69.0 i
3 11 1 ,- II t n It 1 3 11 1 3 i 11 1 Y= 3 11 1
Y= 3.0 1 1- �.t� 1 Y= �.i1 1 Y= ,�.0 1 Y= _. _> 1 r- �.c.� t
=210 SEC '3= 1'92.0 SEC: = 91.4% Y=18.0 SEC = 8.6% F'ED= .0 SEC = .0%
LANE :WIDTH /1 i3 /C: 1 SERVICE RATE: ADJ 1 L 1 MAXIMUM:
GROUP 1 LANES! READ USED 1 C: CVF'H :J E !VOLUME: DELAY 1 S 1 QUEUE 1
:8 APPROACH
'34.7 F
1 1 I 1 1 557 1 1 85 - 1 1 822 1
TH +RT 1 24/2 I . 46 1 .'��� 1 1 1 557 1 66'. 1 ate.'. 1 -xF 1 0.... FT 1
LT 1 12/1+1 .50 1 .18 1 1 1 141 1 299 1 115.7 1 *F 1 758 FT 1
'E: APPROACH 61.4 F
}! 1 '} i/ 2 1 C 1 1 1 1 1 50.2 1 1 7 C 1
rH +F :T 1 i`f/ .� 1 . �11 1 .36 1 1 1 1172 I 1096 1 1 E 1 ii�, � F 1
LT 1 12/1+1 .47 1 .10 1 1 1 1 1 168 1 134.6 1*F 1 461 FT 1
18 AF'F'F :OAC :H 62.1 F
TH 1 24/2 1 .46 1 . 3.1 1 1 1 j 15 1 699 1 3n 1 : - 8 1
1 �,. "t 1 1 1 a �.J 1 1 rJ'J'� 1 �' �. �.� 1 D : 7�� 17 F
1 55 1 32 I 1 450 1 540 1 3 2 1 1 1
LT 1 12/1+1 . JJ 1 . �,� t 1 1 4.,c:� 1 .,4i? 1 93.2 1 xF 1 11'�'� F 1
.L: APPROACH
•
55 ..�
E
1 1 .56 1 1 851 I C 1 1 t 1 1
RT 1 12/1+1 ...IG 1 .66 1 �..,1 1 '�.�8 1 606 1 14.1 t 1 616 1
1 12/1 1 .52 1 .33 1 1 545 1 592 1 1 1 0
TH 1 1:, 1 1 .�.:. 1 .�� 1 1 1 J`rJ 1 ��� 1 77.8 1•� l 11'38 FT
LT 1 12/1+1 . 46 1 .07 1 1 1 1 1 123 1 148.3 1 *F 1 344 FT :
3. 180TH ST/WEST VALLEY HIGHWAY
JJH 180WVH (160)
1993 WITH HOME DEPOT PM PEAK
3IGNAi-85/TEAPAC - Display of Intersection Parameters
|
118 |
0 |
0|
12/25/9.
14:19:0(
| || Display of VOLUMES
875 | 427 || WIDTHS
24 1 12 || LANES
2 |
J. ||
|| \ 351 0 0
82 12 1 /
645 12 1
694 12 1 \
+
845 24 2
/ 175 12 1 North
\ /
| |
455 | 918 | • 0
12 1 24 | 0
1| 2| 0
�
/p~m�� ��
G-7
Phasing: SEQUENCE 65
PRM N N N N
LDLG LD LD
. 180TH ST /WEST VALLEY HIGHWAY
%IN 18OWVH (160 )
993 WITH HOME DEPOT F'M PEAK
3II3NAL85 /TEAPAC: - Capacity
NTERSEC T I ON AVERAGES:
:
DEGREE OF SATURATION 1.09
SEQUENCE 65
Analysis Summary
12/25/9.
14: 1'3:5!.
VEH I C:ULAR DELAY 112.2 LEVEL OF SERVICE F
PHASE 1 1 PHASE 2 1 PHASE
V +
1 PHASE 4
1 PHASE 5
PHASE 6
A
+
T
A
+
+
G/ I_:= .232 1 G /C := .004 1 G/L := .262 1 )3 /C= . 045 1 G/ C := .039 : G/ )_= .333 1
48.7 " 1 3= .8 " 1 G= 55.0 " 1 G= ".1 '3= 3.1 " " 1
y= 3 " : = 3 " 1 Y= 3 " : Y= 3 " : i= 3 " i " 1
>=210 10 SEC 13 =192.0 SEC _ '91.4 Y=18.0 SEC = 8 F' -D= EE _. .0%
LANE 1 WIDTH / 1 G /C: 1 SERVI)=E RATE! ADJ 1 : L 1 MAXIMUM:
GROUP 1 LANES! REQD USED : C: (VPH ) E !VOLUME: DELAY S 1 QUEUE 1
APPROACH
160.8 F
TH +RT :4/' :
LT 1 12/1 +1
. 5i)
. 53 1
. 26 : 1 : 862 1 1103 1 148.5 1*F 11201 FT 1
. 23 1 1 : 276 1 474 1 189.3 1 *F 11074 FT :
J8 APPROACH
TH+RT 1 24/2 :
LT 1 12/1+1
▪ J4
1 .39 1
1 .10 :
80.4 F
1 1 1307 1 1329 1 61.9 1 F
1 1 1 1 194 1 206.9 1 *F
113 APPROACH
11203 FT 1
516 FT 1
109.4 F
TH
LT
,•i 1
1
1 12/1 +1
. 49 1 : 1 956 : 0 : : �3 1
�S 1 . Wit:) 7'� . 6 � F' � 1 c.)5�, FT
. 54 1
.25 1 1 316 1 506 1 183.4 1 *F 11119 FT 1
=8 APPROACH
97.2 F
RT 1 12/1+1 .62 1 .60 1 719 1 881 1 771 1 2'9.0 1 D+1 915 FT 1
TH 1 12/1 1 .55 1 .33 1 1 1 566 1 717 1 149.5 1 *F 11410 FT 1
LT 1 12/1•!-1 .46 1 .04 1 1 1 1 1 '31 1 262.0 1 *F : 256 FT '
•
'
STRANDER BLVD/SOUTHCENTER PARKWAY
JJH STRSCP (107)
1993 WITH HOME DEPOT NOON PEAK
SIGNAL85/TEAPAC - Display of Intersection Parameters
Display of: VOLUMES
O 1 917 | 444 || WIDTHS
O | 24 | 24 || LANES
0 | 2 | 2 11
| | || \ 400 12 1
/ \
0 0 0
0
0 V / + / 512 12 1 North
|
0 0 O --
0 0 0 \
O | 991 | 513 | Phasing: SEQUENCE 71
O | 24 | 12 | PRM N N N N
O | 2 | 1 | LDLG LD LD
| | |
)
12/25/91' .
14:21:0:.
;TRANDEF; BLVD /SOUTHI: :ENTER F'AF :k:.WAY
H STRSCF' (107)
993 WITH HOME DEPOT NOON PEA}(
Ii3NAL85 /TEAPAC: — Capacity Analysis Summary
1'2/'25/9
14:21:2
NTEF;SEC :T I ON AVERAGES:
DEGREE OF SATURATION .85 VEHICULAR DELAY 48.1 LEVEL OF SERVICE E+
EQUENCE 71
PHASE 1 I PHASE 2 : PHASE 3
G/C .318 1 G/ C'- .288 : i3 /C= .334 1
n I 43 " 1 50.1 n 1
3.0 11 1 3.0 11 1 1!— 3 II
=15 i EEC: G=141.0 + SEA_ = 94. 07. Y= q.0 EEC = 6.0% PD=
.0 SEC: = .0% .
LANE (WIDTH /1 C; /C: I SERVICE FATE: ADJ 1 L : MAXIMUM;
i3F :OUF' 1 LANES! R,'EDD USED : C. (VF'H) E :VOLUME: DELAY I S I QUEUE 1
;F. APPROACH
51.2 E
TH 14/2 1 .43 : .32 I 346 1 1132 1 1176 1 60.2 1 .xF 1 847 FT 1
LT I i. 4/ ' -, 1 . I .32 : : I 5^ I 32 6 1 I . I
�+ 4i� 1 1040 1 JC•'3 1 ��.� 1 D 1 Y�+'3 F'f
)F. APPROACH 48.1
RT I 1 . .67 1 895 1 '9 4'9 1 a I 3 1 1 3' C 1
1 :. I 1 12/1+1 .43 I 1 V'3J 1 440 1 7• V 1 E� -+' 1 rJc. +`I FT 1
LT I 12/1+1 . 4�3 1 33 1 1 1 525 1 C 3 1 79 1 1
1 . �JV 1 1 1 525 1 J6� 1 . 6 1 � F 1 792 FT 1
APPROACH 44.7 E+
: 1'2/1 +' 1 1 1 10.5 I 1 417 FT I
1 . 48 I . 64 I 880 1 344 1 JJ.:. 1 � .
1 24/2 1 .41 1 .2q : 65 : 1026 : 1066 1 52.5 1*F : 801 FT 1
1
3TRANDER BLVD/SOUTHCENTER PARKWAY
JJH STRSCP (160)
1993 WITH HOME DEPOT PM PEAK
SI8NAL85/TEAPAC - Display of Intersection Parameters
| |
O | 708 | 420 |
O | 24 | 24 |
O | 2| 2|
| | | \ 704 12 1
/ \
-- 0 0 0 ^
|
+ / 272 12 1 North
|
\ /
| | |
0 | 1079 | 373 1 Phasing: SEQUENCE 71
| 0 | 24 | 12 | PRM N N N N
0 | 2 | 1 | LDLG LD LD
| �
12/25/Sj
14:22:3
Display of: VOLUMES
0 0 0 /
0 0 0
0 0 0 \
WIDTHS
LANES
STRANDER BLVD/SOUTHCENTER PARKWAY
JJH STRSCP (160)
1993 WITH HOME DEPOT PM PEAK
SIGNAL85/TEAPAC - Capacity Analysis Summary
12/25/9
14:22:4
INTERSECTION AVERAGES:
DEGREE OF SATURATION .81 VEHICULAR DELAY 34.9 LEVEL OF SERVICE D
3EQUENCE 71
PHASE 1 | PHASE 2 | PHASE 3
+ +A | � A
+ + ****| ****|
+ +> | | |
V | | ++++|
| | A | V |
| � * +>1 +>|
| | *+| +|
6/C= .290 | G/C= .346 | G/C= .304 |
G= 43.5 " I 6= 51.9 " 1 8= 45.6 " |
| Y= 3.0 " 1 Y= 3.0 " | Y= 3.0 " |
::=150 SEC G=141.0 SEC = 94.0% Y= 9.0 SEC = 6.0% PED= .0 SEC = .0%
| LANE |WIDTH/| G/C | SERVICE RATE! ADJ | | L | MAXIMUM|
| GROUP | LANES! REQD USED | C (VpH) E :VOLUME: DELAY | S | QUEUE |
38 APPROACH
35.7
TH | 24/2 | .38 | .29 | 85 1 1033 1 874 1 36.3 1 D | 655 FT |
LT | 24/2+1 .39 | .29 | 1 1 939 | 519 1 34.6 | D | 388 FT |
43 APPROACH
'7o
D
RT | 12/1+1 .66 1 .61 | 793 |
867 1 869 | |*D | 707 FT |
LT | 12/1+1 .42 | .30 | 1 | 470 1 336 | 37.5 | D | 493 FT |
NB APPROACH
31.3 D+
RT | 12/1+1 .41 | .67 | 931 | 985 | 401 1 7.4 | B+| 279 FT |
TH 1 24/2 1 .43 1 .35 1 584 1 1231 1 1160 1 39.6 |*". 1 801 FT 1
STRANDER BLVD/ANDOVER PARK WEST
JJH STRAPW (107)
1993 WITH HOME DEPOT NOON PEAK
SIGNAL85/TEAPAC - Display of Intersection Parameters
| | || Display of: VOLUMES
143 | 360 | 191 || WIDTHS
0 | 24 | 0 || LANES
0 | 2 | 0 || - - --
| | || \ 123 0 0
/ \
12/5/91
14:27:2
533 24 2
_ |
109 12 1 / + / 164 12 1 North
|
473 24 2
\ /
176 12 1 \ | | |
204 | 373 | 133 | Phasin|: SEQUENCE 76
0 1 24 | 0 | PRM N N N N
0 | 2 | 0 | LDLG LD LD
| | |
rRANDER BLVD/ANDOVER PARK WEST
JH STRAPW (107)
D93 WITH HOME DEPOT NOON PEAK
IGNAL85/TEAPAC - Capacity Analysis Summary
12/25/9.
14: 28: 0:
'ITERSECTION AVERAGES:
DEGREE OF SATURATION .89 VEHICULAR DELAY 64.0 LEVEL OF SERVICE F
EQUENCE 76
PHASE 1 | PHASE 2 | PHASE 3 PHASE 4 | PHASE 5
* * * � \ A |
* * * | 1 ****|
(* * *> | <****|
V | A ****1 A | |
A |++++ V |++++ |
<* * *>| |++++> |++++> |
* * * | |++++ |++++ |
* **| | V | V |
8/C= .328 1 G/C= .322 | G/C= .087 | G/C= .000 | G/C= .171 |
6= 42.7 " | G= 41.8 " 1 G= 11.3 " \ G= .0 " | G= 22.2 " |
Y= 3.0 " 1 Y= 3.0 " | Y= 3.0 " | Y= .0 " | Y= 3.0 " |
=130 SEC G=118.0 SEC = 90.8% Y=12.0 SEC = 9.2% PED= .0 SEC = .0%
LANE |WIDTH/| 6/C | SERVICE RATE| ADJ | | L | MAXIMUM|
GROUP | LANES! REQD USED | C (VPH) E !VOLUME! DELAY | S | QUEUE |
B APPROACH
26.1 D+
LT+TH+RT| 24/2 | .34 | .33 | 730 | 1113 1 798 | 26.1 |*D+| 489 FT |
2 APPROACH 148.3 F
TH+RT| 24/2 | .32 | .17 |
LT | 12/1+1 .33 | .09 |
B APPROACH
1 1 590 : 721 1 135.7 1*F 1 546 FT
1 | 116 | 180 | 198.7 1*F | 300 FT |
26.4 D+
LT+TH+RT| 24/2 1 .34 |
.3� |
693 | 1094 | 780 1 26.4 |*D+| 483 FT |
B APPROACH 45.7 E+
- _ __ _ __===_____======___
RT | 12/1+1 .29 | .17 | 1 | 238 | 207 | 44.8 | E+| 313 FT |
TH 1 24/2 1 .30 | .17 / 1 | 609 | 556 1 45.3 | E+| 421 FT 1
LT 1 12/1+1 .32 1 .11 1 1 1 154 1 128 1 49.2 1 E+1 208 FT 1
STRANDER BLVD/ANDOVER PARK WEST
JJH STRAPW •(160)
1993 WITH HOME DEPOT PM PEAK
SIGNAL85/TEAPAC - Display of Intersection Parameters
12/25/9,
14:28:5
| | |� Display of: VOLUMES
129 | 144 | 215 || WIDTHS
0 | 24 : 0 || LANES
0 | 2 | 0 ||
| | || \ 205 0 0
/ \
24 2 ^
100 12 1 / + / 140 12 1 North
358 24 2
_
\ /
|| | | |
|| 194 | 492 | 97 |
|| 0 | • 24 | 0 |
0 | 2 | 0 |
| | |
Phasing: SEQUENCE 75
PRM N N N N
LDLG LD LD
iTRANDER BLVD/ANDOVER PARK WEST
`JH STRAPW (160)
.993 WITH HOME DEPOT PM PEAK
3IGNAL25/TEAPAC - Capacity Analysis Summary
12/25/9
14:29:0
.NTERSECTION AVERAGES:
DEGREE OF SATURATION .83 VEHICULAR DELAY 60.3 LEVEL OF SERVICE F
SEQUENCE
75
PHASE 1 | PHASE 2 | PHASE 3 | PHASE 4 | PHASE 5 |
__
*** A . A �
i * * * | | ++++| ****|
.<* * *> ( | <++++| <****|
V | A ++++| ****| |
A |**** V | V | |
| <* * *>| | |++++> |
* * * | |++++
***| | V
•
| G/C= .263 1 G/C= .376 1 G/C= .052 | G/C= .
S= 34.2 " | 8= 48.8 " | G= 6.8 " | G=
' Y= 3.0 " 1 Y= 3.0 " | Y= 3.0 " | Y= 3.
005
6
"
| G/C= .189 |
| 8= 24.6 "
Y= 3.0 "
_=130 SEC 0=115.0 SEC = 88.5% Y=15.0 SEC = 11.5% PED= .0 SEC = ,0%
| LANE |WIDTH/| G/C | SERVICE RATE| ADJ | | L | MAXIMUM;
: GROUP | LANES| REQD USED | C (VPH) E :VOLUME: DELAY | S | QUEUE |
3B APPROACH
=
D +
|LT+TH+RT| 24/2 | .30 | .26 | 286 | 877 | 574 | 28.6 |*D+| 386 FT |
JB APPROACH 112.2 F
TH+RT| 24/2 | .35 | .22
LT | 12/1+1 .32 | .08
1 | 732 :
4 1 1{5 1
846 | 104.8 1*F | 6C75 FT |
151 1 153.9 |*F | 253 FT |
'4B APPROACH
=
23.5 C
|LT+TH+RT| 24/2 | .36 | .38 | 1008 | 1294 | 921 | 23.5 |*C | 525 FT |
EB APPROACH 60.8 F
-=_
{ RT 1 12/1+1 .26 | .19 | 1 | 267 | 119 | 30.6 1 D+1 176 FT |
TH 1 24/2 | .27 1 .19 1 1 1 674 1 369 1 31.4 | D+| 273 FT |
LT | 12/1+1 .31 | .05 | 1 1 62 | 103 | 200.8 |*F | 178 FT |
_______
TRANDER BLVD/ANDOVER PARK EAST
JH STRAPE (107)
993 WITH HOME DEPOT NOON PEAK
'I6NAL85/TEAPAC - Display of Intersection Parameters
'--
12/25/9:
14:30:2E
| | || Display of: VOLUMES
110 | 351 | 161 11 WIDTHS
12 | 24 | 12 || LANES
1 | 2 | 1 ||
| | || \ 146 0 0
86 12 1 �
530 12 1
+
435 12 1
/ 251 12 1 North
- |
288 12 1 \ || | | |
|| 323 | 444 | 275 | Phasing: SEQUENCE 6G
12 | 24 | 0 | PRM N N N N
;TF:ANDEF; BLVD /ANDOVER PARK EAST
;'JH STRAFE (107)
.993 WITH HOME DEPOT NOON PEAK
3Ii3NAL85 /TEAPAC - Capacity Analysis Summary
1'.•_:/ 25 /9.
14:31:01
NTERSECTION AVERAGES:
DEGREE OF SATURATION .S7 VEH I C :ULAR DELAY 50.6 LEVEL OF SERVICE E
EOUENCE 66
PHASE 1 1 PHASE 2 1 PHASE 3 I PHASE 4 1 PHASE 5 1 PHASE 6 1
* : 1 c- + 1 + 1 +
1 : + + 1 + 1 +
1 1 V 1 A **• * *: A
1 A I A 1 + + ++ V 1++++
+ : + +:.: *>: 1 + +t+
+ + ++ + 1++++ * + + 1 * * 1 1++++
V+ 1 V *• ++ I ** 1 : V
1 a 1
* ** *I
<****:
1 1
: 1
1 +-t + +>
V
Y
G/ = .102 1 +3/ C= .072 i 1310:= .128 1 13/C := .173 1 13/f:= . OCX:) 1 13 /C= . 399 1
1-'- . 3 11 1 +3= 8.6 . 6 11 1 13= 15.4 11 1 +3= 20.8 11 1 13= .0 0 11 1 +3= 4 7 . '� 11 1 .
�- 1:�
rl 11 1 3 t' 1 3 11 1 3.0 11 1 Y 11 1 n 11
Y= �. • � 1 1 Y- � . t 1 1 Y= V • { 1 1 Y= 1 T = .0 1 Y= �J . t 1
SEC G=105.0 1 SEC = 87.5% Y =15.0 SEC = 1 . PED=
RT 1 12/1+: �3 1 . 35 1 381 1 5:1 1 1' ::� 1 17.8 1 C:+ 1 132 FT 1
1 1 -.5 1 3 1 1 . c 1 3r - 1 1 E+1 8 1
TH 1 :•'� -!•'' 1 . ��� 1 . 1� 1 1 1 ���..tS 1 � �c.1 1 41.2 1 + 1 .:.�4 FT 1
1 1 n 1 1 1 1 . 1 -� 1 1 -"- 1
LT 1 1':: /1 +1 .,��:1 1 . 1c:: 1 1 1 147 1 179 1 102.8 1 *F 1 ::�'� F 1
,L. APPROACH E,S. y F
•+ 1 1 < 1 1 5 �.+ a 1 673 1 1 52.9 1 1 1
j H +F%:T 1 1'v!' 1 1 .47 1 .40 1 v.144 1 67� 1 6'�1';:: 1 1 *C 1 710 1
1 .34 1 1 1 1 - 1 1 1 12 1
LT 1 12/1+1 ..r4 1 . 17 1 1 1 267 1 ::'�'� 1 87.0 1 *•F 1 K.:.1 F 1
1B APPROACH
TH +F :T: 24/2 1
LT 1 12/1+1
,71.7. 1
▪ V:. 1
. 35 1
65.0 F
747 1 755 1 57.4 1 E 1 502 1
.20 1 1 1 1 8 I 1 1
1 1 1 315 1 344 1 ` 1. 7 1 yF' 1 �.i- FT 1
13 APPROACH
19. S
F:T 1 12/1+1 . ▪ 3'' 1 .62 1 S71 : 918 1 313 1 7.1 : E+ 1 199 FT 1
1 1 t� / 1 1 1 578 1 7 1 576 1 � �� 1 C 1 5 8 1
T H 1 J i/ 1 1 .40 1 . `7l 1 1 vl 1 1 , 1 1 1 JIG 1 r'T . 1 - 1 � �.�'•r 1
1 1 12/1+1 -28 1 1 1 3 5 1 93 1 31.1 1 1 J- C T 1
....T . ' ..:.V 1 .20 1 1 1 v:l ..1 1 '3 �.I 1 1 L'+ 1 1.:.� F I 1
STF'ANDER BLVD /ANDOVER PARK EAST
JJH STRAFE (160
1993 WITH HOME DEPOT PM PEAS
SIGNALS5 /TEAF'AC: — Display of Inter =ec::tioon Parameters
12/25/9
14: 32: 0
1 1 11 Display of: VOLUMES
73 18S 1 140 11 WIDTHS
12 14 1 12 11 LANES
1 ' 2 ' 1 " 11
\ 8S 0 0
45 12 1 /
515
12 1 --
224 12 1 \
423 12 1
\ /
318 1 411 1 296 1
12 1 24 1
1 1 2 1 0
North
F'h as i n q : SEQUENCE 66
PRM N N N N
LDLi3 LD LD
STRANDER BLVD/ANDOVER PARK EAST
JJH STF:APE is 1 Eo :'
1933 WITH HOME DEPOT PM PEAK
SIGNAL85 /TEAPAC: - Capacity Analysis Summary
12/25/9
14:3:2
INTERSECTION AVERAGES :
DEGREE OF SATURATION .90 VEHICULAR DELAY 38.6 LEVEL OF SERVICE D
SEQUENCE 68
PHASE 1 : PHASE PHASE 3 : PHASE 4 , PHASE 5 I PHASE 6
1
: * 1 : + '�• : : + 1 A :
: : : + + : + 1 + 1 + + ++
1 1 I v : A �: a I :
I : A 1 A : + + ++ V 1 + + ++ I :
: <; + : <*. + +>: * *>: 1 + +++ t• :****> 1
1++++ + 1++++ :8 + + : ?R• * : 1++++ 1++++ 1
: V + : V k + + I * * : 1 V : V :
13/0= .115 I 13/ C := .064 : I3/ 0= .132 I 13 /C := .114 1 6/C= .000 I 13/!-= .325 I
- 9 " 1 n 8 n 1 n 1 .3 " 1 " 1 n
13 <✓ . 1 1� _ .� . � 1 I] = 7 . 1 1� _ � . 1 !3 = . I) , 1� = 19.5
1 3.0 '' 1 Y= '' 1 n '' 1 'i- '' t Y= '' , '(/= n " 1
1 Y ^ 1 I - 3.0 1 Y - � . � � 1 t - 3.0 1 T - .0 I r - � . � 1 1
r= 60 SEC : '3= 45.0 SEC: = 75.0%* Y =15.0 SEC = F'ED= .0 SEC = .0%
I LANE : WIDTH/ I 3/ C: I SERVICE F :ATE: ADJ I 1 L I MAXIMUM:
I GROUP I LANES 1 RECD USED , L. (VPH) E I VOLUi•1E I DELAY I S : QUEUE I
SB APPROACH 27. 4 D+
�.- , .35 , 1 c 1 1 0 1 3 1 c FT 1
RT : � /1 +: .�•� , .��J , 466 1 510 , 94 1 v.'� 1 �.,i -1 51 , 1
TH : 24/' ' .12 ' .13 ' 402 ' • 470 1 369 1 21.4 I 0 : 135 FT I
1 r 1+, .15 , 1 , 89 1 1 1 1 7 , C I 133 1
LT 1 i::/ 1 .� . 1� 13t! 1c:1 1 7'3 <•r� _; 1•��j•, 1.�.. FT 1
;•1B APPROACH
41
TH+RTI 12/1 : .35 I .3' 1 514 1 560 1 1 38.9 1 D 1 321 FT
1 i i 1 .15 1 1 1 87 1 177 1 1 9 1 E 1 3 ;� ,
LT 1'�.. +1 � 1 .11 1 1:'3 1�•, 1 17; 1 `r�.3 1� TI 1�� FT 1
NB APPROACH
47.'3 E+
TH +RT I 24/2 ' . 27 1 1 . J 1 � '3 1 SO4 1
1 :: 74
LT : 12/1 +1 .27 1
t�J 1
n.1. 1 1
47.2 1 E' 270 FT 1
3 1 3 .1 1 3 7i- 1 49.6 1 + 1 1
V 1 1 , ♦J V `r 1 �/ / � 1 1 •y� E 1 249 ,
EB APPROACH
D+
1 • j 1 1 873 1 88�� 1 -'57 1 3.7 1 1 8 1
RT 1 1'.••:/1�•, .21 1 .60 1 S7v 1 Ov r, .�, 1 , A 1 "a 1
TH 1 1 .36 1 .22 1 530 1 575 1 5132 1 44.7 1 y� 1
1 ..JI J 1 J.l +.- 1 1 ••E 1 339 1
1 T ! 1 :r / 1 .1_ ! t'IC_ ! 1 C. ! ! t•;1 7C. ! c,•-. ! 1 C. _ ! I '-I• ! ^C. rT !
.WEST VALLEY HIUHWAY /STF:ANDEF: BLVD
JJH WVHSTR (107)
1993 WITH HOME DEPOT NOON PEAK
SI►3NALB5 /TEAPA►= - Display .c'f Intersection Parameters
1 721
V •. 1 1 1
12 .4 1 • 1
1 r
1 ' i 1
\
\
12/25/9
14:34:2 i
:
Display of: VOLUMES
WIDTHS
LANES
65 12 1 .
443 12 1 / + / 43 12 . 1
62 12 • 1 --
North
\ /
.=54 12 1 \{ 1 I 1
244 1 700 , 4 : phasing: SEQUENCE 67
1'� 24 � 0; F'RM N N N
1 1 2 1 0 1 LDLG LD LD
. 1 1 1 1
EST VALLEY HIGHWAY/STRANDER BLVD
3H WVHSTR (107)
993 WITH HOME DEPOT NOON PEAK
18NAL85/TEAPAC - Capacity Analysis Summary
12/25/9�
14:34:4�
NTERSECTION AVERAGES:
DEGREE OF SATURATION .75 VEHICULAR DELAY 23.5 LEVEL OF SERVICE C
,EQUENCE 67
PHASE 1 | PHASE 2 | PHASE 3 | PHASE 4 | PHASE 5 |
* |+* | |
* | +*
*> | |<+ * <****|
'^' '. ' A
v ���� �
. .
. A . A | V |****
<+ | <* + +>| + +>| |++++>
++++ + |++++ * + + | + + | |++++
V+ | V*++| ++| | v
6/C= .086 | G/C= .047 | 8/C= .230 | G/C= .086 | G/C= .301 |
G= 5.2 " | G= 2.8 " | 8= 13.8 " | G= 5.2 " | G= 18.1 " |
Y= 3.0 " | Y= 3.0 " | Y= 3.0 " | Y= 3.0 " Y= 3.0 " |
__
= 60 SEC 6= 45.0 SEC = 75.0% Y=15.0 SEC = 25.0% PED= .0 SEC = .0%
^- -------
LANE |WIDTH/( 6/C | SERVICE RATE| ADJ | | L | MAXIMUM!
GROUP | LANES! REQD USED | C (VPH) E !VOLUME: DELAY | S | QUEUE |
1;B APPROACH
29.7 D+
RT | 12/1+1 .13 | .23 | 279 | 329 | 143 | 13.3 | B 1 96 FT |
TH | 24/2 | .24 1 .23 | 737 | 795 | 784 | 33.2 |*D | 264 FT 1
LT | 12/1+1 .05 1 .09 : 85 | 131 | 43 : 20.0 |*C+| 34 FT |
:D APPROACH 19.1 C+
TH | 12/1 1 .06 | .09 | 108 1 149 | 72 1 18.4 |*C+| 55 FT |
LT 1 12/1+1 .05 | .09 | 88 1 135 | 48 | 20.1 1 C 1 37 FT |
APPROACH 18.6 C+
TH+RT| 24/2 | .24 1 .33 | 1085 | 1122 1 765 1 12.3 | B | 226 FT |
LT | 12/1+1 .21 | .18 | 226 | 298 | 265 | 36.7 |*D 1 190 FT |
�B APPROACH
C
---
RT | 12/1+1 .21 1 .53 | 761 : 782 1 252 1 5.2 1 B+| 99 FT 1
TH | 12/1 | .06 | .30 | 486 1 534 | 67 | 9.8 | B+| 39 FT 1
WEST VALLEY HIGHWAY /STRANDER BLVD
JJH WVHSTR (160)
:1993 WITH HOME DEPOT PM PEAK
SIGNALBS /TEARAC - Display of.Int■rsection Parameters
.12/25/9|
14 :35 :4|
Display of: VOLUMES
416 | 742 | S | WIDTHS
12 | 24 | 12 11 LANES
1 : 3 1 1 11
| | || \ 0 0 0
/ \
12 12 1
554 12 1 / + / 10 12 1 North
11 12 1
• \ /
390 12 1 \ 11 |
:1 223 1 1274 : 3 : Phasing: SEQUENCE 67
, . 12 | 24 ` 0 1 RRM N N N N
1 1 2 1 0 1 LDLG LD LD
JEST VALLEY HIGHWAY /STFzANDEF. BLVD
?'J'H WVHSTF' (160)
Y393 WITH HOME DEPOT PM PEAK
3IGNAL85 /TEAPAI_: - Capacity Analysis Summary
12/25/92
1.41. :36: a..
NTEF.'SEC :T I ON AVERAGES:
DEGREE OF SATURATION .90 VEHICULAR DELAY 35.8 LEVEL OF SERVICE D
'SEQUENCE 67
PHASE 1 1 PHASE 2 PHASE 3 I PHASE 4 I PHASE 5
-------------------------------------------------------------
;:
<
• I :*
•
_ : + + ++
V + 1 V * + :
G /C= .056 f GiC= .068 1 G /C= .301
G= 5.0 I' : G= 6.1 " : 13= 27. 1
y= 3,0 11 i }'= 3.0 " i Y= 3.0 11
I G /C= .056 1 I3 /I_= .353 i
1 1.7= 5.0 " 1 G= 31.8 11
1 Y- 3.0 11 1 Y_ 3.0 1'
_ 90 SEC G= 75.0 SEC - 83.3 Y=15.0 SEC = 16.7;: PED= .0 SEC = :0%
LANE I WIDTH/ 1 G/i : : SERVICE PATE: ADJ 1 1 L MAXIMUM
GROUP 1 LANES: F :EOD USED 1 C (VP'H) E :VOLUME: DELAY : S QUEUE
8 APPROACH
r.^ 1 r1 1 359 1 •{ i 1 1 - I 59 - 1 : T 1
TH 1 12/1+1 . �J C� 1 • .J� I 1 �'J � 1 444 1 `I'G� 1 J J. i I �E 1 4� 13 F I 1
I H 1 24/2 1 . 27 1 . I 953 1 7,3 1 8' .* : 20.5 1 1 S �i /' 1
1 .� % 1 � �.1 1 J� 1 1��� �. 1 V l 4 1 1 C 1 � iJ 4 F -1 I
LT t 12/1+1 1 +: . 15 : .06 1 1 1 78 I 9 : 30.7 l *D +: 25 FT J
13 AF'F'F :OAi :H
D+
1 I I 1 1 as 1 13 t 1 1 25 1
TH 1 1'�/ 1 1 , i!8 , i ?6 1 1 1 u� 1 1:, 1 26.1 1 *D+ 1 25 FT 1
LT 1 12/1+1 .15 : .06 1 1 1 78 : 11 I 30.7 1 D4-1 25 FT
APPROACH
35.4
TH +RT : 24/2 1 . 4 : 1 .40 1 1357 1 1433 : 1419 1 31.1 1 1)+1 536 FT 1
LT 1 1 -. . 1 1 4� 5 1 254 1 -.5 3 1 5 i 5 1 1 -
1 1:. 1 +t .24 1 . ltl 1 J 1 .':J4 I LJ.:! I 59.5 I�E I 269 FT I
:N APP F :OAGH
F:T f 12/1+1 .35 1 .54 1 758 1 800 1 433 : 9.1 : 8+1 250 FT
TH 1 12/1 1 .08 1 .35 1 547 1 630 I 12 1 12.2 : B f 25 FT I
L.
)NDOVER PARK EAST/MINKLER BLVD
JJH APEMIN (107)
1993 'WITH HOME DEPOT NOON PEAK
3IGNAL35/TEAPAC - Display of Intersection Parameters
12/25/9:
14:45:1;
'| || Display of: VOLUMES
• 51 | 646 | 53 || WIDTHS
0 | 24 | 0 || LANES
0 | 2 | 0 ||
| | || \ 65 0 0
/ \
25 12 1 ^
|
+ / 60 12 1 North
|
\ /
|| | | |
|| 52 | 796 | 70 1 Phasing: SEQUENCE 11
| | 0 | 24 | 0 | PRM N N N N
|| 0 1 2 1 0 1 LDLG LD LD
|� | |
49 12 1 /
74 0 0 \
-'
NDOVER PARK EAST/MINKLER BLVD
JH APEMIN (107)
993 WITH HOME DEPOT NOON PEAK
IGNAL85/TEAPAC - Capacity Analysis Summary
12/25/9'.
14:45:3t
NTERSECTION AVERAGES:
DEGREE OF SATURATION .43 VEHICULAR DELAY 4.4 LEVEL OF SERVICE A
G/C= .707 \ G/C= .193 1
G= 42.4 " | G= 11.6 "
Y= 3.0 " | Y= 3.0 " |
= 60 SEC G= 54.0 EEC = 90.0% Y= 6.0 SEC = 10.0% PED= .0 SEC = .0%
LANE |WIDTH/| G/C | SERVICE RATE| ADJ | | L | MAXIMUM|
GROUP | LANES| REQD USED | C (VPH) E !VOLUME: DELAY | S | QUEUE |
B APPROACH
2.5 A
LT+TH+RT| 24/2 | .36 | .71 | 1892 | 1892 1 833 | 2.5 | A | 102 FT |
8 APPROACH 14.5 B
_____________
TH+RT| 12/1 | .09 | .19 1 249 1 301 | 100 | 13.7 1 G | 68 FT |
LT 1 12/1+1 .07 | .19 | 223 | 293 | 67 | 15.6 1 C+| 45 FT |
B APPROACH 2.6 A
■- -- -- -
_ _______=__-___
LT+TH+RT| 24/2 | .38 | .71 | 2165 | 2165 1 1020 | 2.6 |*A | 125 FT |
B APPROACH
14.5
B
TH+RT| 12/1 1 .10 | .19 | 250 | 302 | 117 | 14.0 |*B | 79 FT 1
LT | 12/1+1 .06 1 .19 1 235 1 306 1 54 1 15.4 1 C+| 36 FT 1
ANDOVER PARK:: EAST / MINKLER BLVD
1JJH APEMIN •(160 )
11993 WITH HOME DEPOT PM PEAK
i SIGNALSS /TEAF'AC: - Display
Intersectioon Parameters
12/25/S
14:46:2
Display of: VOLUMES
54 1 712 1 21 11 WIDTHS
: �4 : 0 11 LANES
0
1 : 11 \ 80 0 c)
6 12 1 --
5J
c) O. \
/
83 12 1 North
\ /
50 1 695 1 �.2 1 Phasing: SEQUENCE 11
c) 1 : . ' 4 1 0 1 F' T:M N N N N
U ■ 1 0 : LDLi3 LD LD
1 1
NDOVER PARK EAST /MIN) <LER BLVD
JH AF'EMIN (160)
993 WITH HOME DEPOT PM PEAK
I6NAL 85/ TEAF'AC: - Capac=ity Analysis Summary
1.5/92
14:46:41
NTERSECTION AVERAGES:
DEGREE OF SATURATION .39 VEHICULAR DELAY 4.5 LEVEL OF SERVICE A
EC?UENi=E 11
PHASE 1 : PHASE
+ + + A I
+ + + ** } *:
;+ + +:` : <****:
V : A + + + +:
A 1++++ V
1
<* * *>I++++> :
* * •x 1++++ '
• r: * : V
G/ C := .675 : 6/ C= .225 :
6= 40.5 " S
1 I
1 = 13.5 � II
Y= 3.0 " : 4'= 3.0 " :
60 SEA= i3= 54.0 SEC = 90.0% Y= 6.0 SEC: = 10.07. PED= .0 SEC = .0Y.
LANE :WIDTH/1 G/C : SERVICE FATE: ADS : : L : MAXIMUM'1:
GROUP : LANES: REDD USED : C: ('VF'H) E :VOLUME: DELAY : S : QUEUE :
03 APPROACH
2.8 A
LT +TH -+-RT: 24/2 :
. 63 : 2225 : 2225 : 874 : 2.8 : A : 119 FT
AF'F'F :OAC :H
TH +RT : 12/1 : . 1 1 : .22 ' 300 I 35 1 1 1 *E: I SO I
1 u 1 351 1 123 1 1'�.'J 1 1 V.. FT i
LT : 12/1 +: .08 :
I
• a.. a. I
302 376 1 9' : 14.6 : B : 60 FT :
1B APPROACH
LT +TH+F :T : 24/2 :
'":071 J I
VV 1
A
. 68 : 2021 : 2021 :
:13 AF'F'ROAC :H
TH +RT: 12/1 : .07 :
LT : 12/1+1 .04 :
..... 1
• vi I
85 1
.JV:. 1
2.9 :*A : 116 FT :
12.9 B
2c' : 339 : 68 : 12.2 1 E C FT : 44 FT
262 26 1 332 1 30 I 14.0 1 1 25 T 1
LOCATION:S. 180TH ST/WEST DPIVEWAY
HOURLY VOLUMES
Major street:S. 180TH ST
N
v
N= 2 <---V5--- 823
Grade 1131---V2---> v---V4--- 104
0% 30---V3---v N= 3
Date of Counts: l
1993 WITH PROJE |
Time Period:
NOON PEAK
Approach Speed:
35
<| |>
\ | |
V7 V9 1 X STOP
| | | YIELD
79 1181
Minor Street:
Grade
WEST DRIVEWAY 0%
PHF: .9 N= 2
.Population: 250000
VOLUMES IN PCPH
<---V5---
---V2---> v---V4--- 11'�
---V3---v
<| |>
| |
V7 V9 |
( | �
87 130|
VOLUME ADJUSTMENTS
Movement no.
2
•
4
5
7
Volume (vph) | 1131 |
30
104 |
79
9
-----'
118 '
Vol(pcph),see Table 10.11XXXXXXXX|XXXX%XXX1
114 |X%XXXXXX| 87
130
STEP 1 : RT From Minor Street
Conflicting Flows, Vc
Critical Gap, Tc
Potential Capacity, Co
Actual Capacity, Cm
1-> V9
STEP 2 : LT From Major Street
| 1/2 V3+V2= 15 + 566 = 581 vph(Vc3)
| Tc= 5 secs (Tab.10.2)
Co9= 645 pcph (Fig.10.3)
Cm9=Cp9= 645 pcph
v-- V4
Conflicting Flows, Vc
Critical Gap, Tc
Potential Capacity, Cp
% of Cp utilized and Impedance Factor
Actual Capacity, Cm (Fig.10.5)
•STEP 3 : LT From Minor Street
| V3+V2= 30 + 1131 = 1161 vph(Vc4)
| Tc= 5 secs (Tab.10.2)
| Cp4= 323 pcph (Fig.10.3)
(V4/Cp4)x100= 35.3% P4= .72
\ Cm4=Cp4= 323 pcph
Conflicting Flows, Vc
Critical Gap, Tc
|potential Capacity,
Actual Capacity, Cm
Cp
<-\ V7
| 1/2 V3+V2+V5+V4=
1 15 + 1131 + 823 + 104 = 1700 vph(Vc7
1 Tc= 6.5 secs (Tab.10.2)
1 Cp7= 85 pcph (Fig.10.3)
Cm7=Cp7xP4= 85 x .72 = 61 pcph
SHARED LANE CAPACITY SH = (V7+V9)/((V7/Cm7)+(V9/Cm9)) if lane is shared
MOVEMENT V(PCPH)
CM(PCPH)
CR CR
CSH(PCPH) (CM-V) (CSH-V)
LOS LOS
CM CSH
7
9
4
87
130
114
61
645
-26
515
209
A
|LOCATION:S. 180TH ST/WEST DRIVEWAY
_____
'HOURLY VOLUMES
�
Major street:S. 180TH ST
|NAME:JJH 180WDPWP
N
v
.N= 2 <---V5--- 1064
:Grade 1162---V2---> v---V4--- 104
0% 30---V3---v N= 3
<1 |>
Date of Counts: 1 | |
1993 WITH PROJE | V7 V9 | X STOP
Time Period: | | YIELD
PM PEAK . 79 118|
Approach Speed: Minor Street: Grade
35 WEST DRIVEWAY 0%
PHF: .9 N= 2
.Population: 250000
VOLUMES IN PCPH
(---V5---
---V2---> v---V4--- 11
---V3---v
--- |
V7
|
87
V9
| |
130|
VOLUME ADJUSTMENTS
Movement no.
3
Volume (vph) 1 1162
30
Vol(pcph),see Table 10.11X%XXXXXX1XXXXXXXX|
STEP 1 : RT From Minor Street
Conflicting Flows, Vc
Critical Gap" Tc
'Potential Capacity, Cp
'Actual Capacity, Cm
4 5 7 9
104 1 1064 1 79 118
114 |XXXXXXXX) 87 130
/-> V9
| 1/2 V3+V2= 15 + 581 = 596 vph(Vc9)
| Tc= 5 secs (Tab.10.2)
| Cp9= 633 pcph (Fig.10.3)
1 Cm9=Cp9= 633 pcph
,STEP 2 : LT From Major Street
v-- V4
Conflicting Flows, Vc
Critical Gap, Tc
Potential Capacity, Cp
% of Co utilized and Impedance Factor
Actual Capacity, Cm (Fig.10.5)
V3+V2= 30 + 1162 = 1192 vph(Vc4)
1 Tc= 5 secs (Tab.10.2)
| Cp4= 309 pcph (Fig.10.3)
(V4/Cp4)x100= 36.9% P4= .7
1 Cm4=Cp4= 309 pcph
STEP 3 : LT From Minor Street
'Conflicting Flows, Vc
Critical Gap, Tc
'Potential Capacity, Co
Actual Capacity, Cm
<-\ V7
_===____________======_
| 1/2 V3+V2+V5+V4=
1 15 + 1162 + 1064 + 104 = 1700 vph(Vc.
| Tc= 5.5 secs (Tab.10.2)
| Cp7= 85 pcph (Fig.10.3)
1 Cm7=Cp7xP4= 85 x .7 = 60 pcph
SHARED LANE CAPACITY
MOVEMENT V(PCPH)
SH = (V7+V9)/((V7/Cm7)+(V9/Cm9)) if lane is shared
CSH(PCPH)
7
9
4
87
130
114
60
309
CR
(CM-V)
CR
(CSH-V)
LOS LOS
CM CSH
-27
503
195
F
A
D
•
1993 . LOS
WITH HOME DEPOT
AND CONNECTION TO SAXON DRIVE
NOON AND PM PEAK
NOTE:. Three study intersections affected by the connection to Saxon Drive.
S. 180TH ST/ANDOVER PARK EAST
JJH 180APE (213)
1993 WITH HOME DEPOT & CONNECTION NOON PEAK
SIGNAL85/TEAPAC - Display of Intersection Parameters
12/25/E
14:48:{
| | || Display of: VOLUMES
237 | 0 | 335 || WIDTHS
0 | 12 | 12 || LANES
0 | 1 1 1 ||
| | 1 \ 394 0 0
/ \
844 24 2 ^
|
+ / 0 0 0 North
|
216 12 1 /
734 24 2
c) 0 0
|
•
\ /
| | |
O 1 0 | 0 1 Phasing: SEQUENCE 13
O 1 0 | 0 1 PRM N N N N
O 1 0 | 0 | LDL8 LD LD
/ . .
1SOTH ST /ANDOVER PARK EAST
JH 18OAF'E (213)
993 WITH HOME DEPOT & CONNECTION NOON PEAK
;It3NAL55 /TEAPAC: - Capacity Analysis Summary
12/25/9:
14:4°: 1':
NTERSEt= T I ON AVERAGES:
DEGREE OF SATURATION .75 VEH I C :ULAR DELAY 17.5 LEVEL OF SERVICE C:+
EOUENC E
1^
PHASE 1 1 PHASE 2 : PHASE
GI C= .263 1 t3/ t_= . 184 1 G/ r:= . 403 1
c r " 1 - / " 1 n 1
G= i J ..3 1 tom= . 1. 1 ��_ 24.2 1
Y= 3 . 0 1 1 1 •i1= 3.0 1 1 1 Y= 3 . 1 11
60 SEC G= 51.0 SEC = 85.0 Y= q.0 SEC = 15.0% F'ED= .0 SEC _ .0%
t;'.
LANE 1 W I DTH/ 1 G/ C: 1 SERVICE R'ATE 1 ADJ 1 1 L 1 MAXIMUM!
GROUP 1 LANES 1 REOD USED 1 C: (VPH) E !VOLUME! DELAY 1 8 1 QUEUE 1
rD APPROACH
20.6
C
TH +RT 1 1' / 1 . 21 . 26 1 331 1 380 1 255 1 15.5 1 t_+ 1 162 FT '
1 1 1 1 V rJ 1 v:! l7 1 J 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 365 1 . 37 1 nc 1 n 1 *-' 1 -"".IS F
LT I r:/ 1 -� 1 . �F• 1 .26 1 365 1 ���� 1 �'6tt 1 i4• J 1 t. 1 +. -+-L1 1
,D APPROACH
23.3 +_
r 1 1 1 i 1 1 '' ' 2 1 1 3 h 1 1 '" 1 ,r r1 T 1
1 Fi f T 1 24/2 1 .40 1 . �yt 1 1318 1 1. J V , 1303 1 i . 1 : t_. 1 1 F, 1
:B APPROACH 8.1 r:+
1 1 1 i 1 -y.� 1 •r .i 1 78P' 1 3 3 1 A 1 j� - T 1
TH I �4/' i . �4 1 . �`T 1 refit 1 ter. �� :> 1 . L•J 1 vJ. .J 1 rti 1 _r r 1 1
1 1 1 3 1 236 1 3- 8 1 232 I 5 1 1 162 FT
LT 1 12/1+1 • iG• 1 • .1.: 1 i..lt. 1 V�.�17 1 ��:Ji 1 ��. J I �t..• i 1
S. 1SOTH ST /ANDOVER PARK EAST
JJH 18OAPE ( SS)
1993 WITH HOME DEPOT L< CONNECTION PM PEAK
SIGNAL85 /TEAPAi: — Display of intersection Parameters
12/'25/'7
14:49:0
!I Display �_f: VOLUMES
:
' c_a 3S'3 WIDTHS
c:a 1'.: 1' LANES
o ' 1 1 II
1
\ x'35 0 0 / \
-- 1032 24 :L
95 12 1 / +
/ c:a 0 c:a North
840 24
0 ; 0 ; 0 f F'hasinc,: SEQUENCE 13
t:a 0 ; 0 ; F'F :M N N N N
0 ; G ; c_) ; LDLG LD LD
3. 180TH ST /ANDOVER: PARK EAST
rJH 180AF'E (266)
.993 WITH HOME DEPOT °< CONNECTION PM PEAK
3Ii3NAL85 /TEAPAC: - Capacity Analysis Summary
12/25/'3:.
14:4'3:2:
: NTERSECT I ON AVERAGES:
DEGREE OF SATURATION .78 VEHICULAR DELAY 18.0 LEVEL OF SERVICE C+
3EQUENi: E 13
PHASE 1 PHASE 2 PHASE 3
+ 1 A 1
+ 1 : * **:
1 A 1 I
1 1 1
: + + ++ .> ; + +++ > 1
1 1
1 1 1
1 1 1
1 1 1
3 / i_ = .309 3 / C := .089 1 13/C:= .451 1
18.6 11 1 5.3 11 1 27.1 II 1
Y= 3.0 11 : Y= 3.0 11 : Y= 3.0 11 1
:= 60 SEC: G= 51.0 SEC = 85.0 Y= 9.0 SEC = 15.0% F'ED= .0 SEC = .0%
LANE WIDTH/ 1 O/C 1 SERVICE RATE: ADJ 1 1 L 1 MAXIMUM:
GROUP : LANES! F :EQD USED : C: ( VF'H ) E :VOLUME: DELAY : 5 : QUEUE :
38 APPROACH
22.9
TH +R:T , 12/1 ,1 1 . 23 1 31 I 4 05 1 _ -. 1 1 13 = 1 E 171 FT '
1 i/ 1 .23 1 . vl 1 � ...J 1 452 I +.'�+. I V. � 1 1 1
1 1 3 1 451 1 5 1 1 1 8 1 1 2 7 1
LT 12/1+1 .32 1 .31 1 -�.� 1 1 519 1 X76'3 1 .::". 7 1 �D+ 1 .i: 6 F 1
)B} APPROACH
TH +R: T 1 24/2 1
.45 1 15'7'7 1533 1 1508 1
•
22.9 1 i_ : 352 FT
1
:r APPROACH 6.8 B+
TH I 24/2 1 .'7'7 1 . `i I 2f 183 1 2083 1 8•714 ' 4. 4 1 A : 156 FT I
1 I 1 t 1 1 1 1 1 78 I
LT I 12/1+1 .10 1 . � ?'3 92 , 140 1 c:� 27.8 1 �D-�- 1 , � F ,
S. 180TH ST/SPERRY DRIVE
JJH 180SPY (213)
1993 WITH HOME DEPOT & CONNECTION NOON PEAK
S%8NALB5/TEAPAC - Display of Intersection Parameters
| 1 ||
48 1 0 1 240 11
12 | 12 | 0 ||
1 1 1 | 0 ||
| 1 ||
36 12 1
24 2
+
12/27
Display of: VOLUMES
WIDTHS
LANES
\ 296 0 0
-- 1061 24 2
/ 12 12 1 North
\ /
21 0 0 \ || | 1 |
|| 25 | 1 | 19 | Phasing: SEQUENCE 14
| | 12 | 12 | 12 | PRM N N N N
|| 1 | 1 | 1 | LDLG LD LD
|| \
S. 1SOTH ST /SF'ERRY DRIVE
.i'.1 H 1 0OSPY (' 13 )
1993 WITH HOME DEPOT & CONNECTION NOON F'EAK
SIGNAL 85 /TEAF'At= - Capacity Analysis Summary
12/27.
09:53
INTERSECTION AVERAGES :
DEGREE OF SATURATION .66 VEHICULAR DELAY 9.2 LEVEL OF SERVICE 8+
SEQUENCE 14
1 PHASE 1
PHASE 2 PHASE 3
+ * 1 + A 1
1 ± + : ****1
1<q- *> 1<+ <****:
1 1 A * **+ : . 1
/ A 1 + + ++ I, 1 1
1 ♦ + + + )• 1 + > 1 + + ++ •� 1
1 + + _F 1 1 + +++ 1
+ + + : + 1 V 1
1 6/ ice= .217 1 :3 /t-•= . 100 : G /t-•= .532 1
1 ti- 13.0 '1 1 G= 6.0 1' 1 G-' 31.S " 1
: Y= 3.0 11 1 Y= 3.0 " 1 Y= 3.0 " 1
)_= 60 SEC G= 51.0 SE;: = 35.0% Y= 9.0 SE' : = 15.0% F'ED= .':) SEC • = . Q'.
1 LANE :WIDTH/1 )3 /i= 1 SERVICE RATE! ADJ : 1 L 1 MAXIMUM!
1 GROUP 1 LANES 1 F :EQD USED 1 t_ (VF'H) E 1 VOLUME 1 DELAY : S 1 QUEUE 1
S8 APPROACH 15.5 C+
1 1 1 ^1 1 C 1 C 1 Cpl 1 8 1 8 1 8 1
1 RT 1 12/1+1 . Q6 1 . 37 1 500 1 542 1 J,.:7 1 V . � � 1 ES+ 1 'i67 F , 1
1 1 .22 1 334 1 3 1 - 1 1 1 1
1 LT +TH 1 1':::! 1 1 .18 1 ..... 1 :J.:, -� 1 �,2° 1 "••r CJ7 1 17. c:) 1 }� :•��• 1 176 r T 1
WE: APPROACH
9.6 E;+
i 24/2 1 1 .53 1 1 1 C 1 5 1 I 7 FT 1
�'H-'•FiT 1 ::�. � 1 . ��� ..�,� 1 1826 1 1 S'E 1 1 �I�:)S 1 ' ?...� 1 �_i+ 1 :" 3 / 1
1 1 1 1 1 162 1 3 1 a 8 1 -• J. 1 -� 5, 1
LT 1 1'� /i +1 .02 1 .10 1 1C)'3 1 16'� 1 1� 1 i6:.6 1� :�• 1 25 ,
NB APPROACH 11.5
E�
RT 1 12/1 +1 .03 1
TH : 12/1 1 .00
LT 1 12/1 +1 .04 1
.37 1 500 1 542 1 21 1 7.9 1 8+1 25 FT '
334 1 328 1 1 9 1 8 1 '7'5 1
'v!T 1 r7QU 1 1 1 i l. 1 1 i....1 F 1 1
94 1 368 1 28 1 14.2 1 8 1 25 FT 1
EE: APPROACH
6.A
8+
TH(H,+, 1 24/2 1 . 1 53 1 C 1 1889 1 8- 1 5. S 1 B+ 1 1 76 FT 1
i:'T 1 1 .27 1 . ..., ..J 1 1675'.! 1 V 1 61'6 1 V 1 1 1
LT 1 5 1 1 . 1 - 1 .i 1 1 1 `, 1
l 12/1+1 . c : ?., .10 1 t: ?'3 1 1 6+. 1 . C) 1 19.0 1 t.:+ 1 f ", FT 1
S. 18OTH ST /SF'ERRY DRIVE
JJH 1SOSPY (2EE:)
1993 WITH HOME DEPOT Z. CONNECTION F'M PEAK
S I+3NAL85 /TEAF'A+=: — Display of Intersection Parameters
.w.
12/27/
09:52:,
Display o f: VOLUMES
51 1 •0 { 233 1: WIDTHS
12 1 12 1 0 11 LANES
1 1 1 1 c:r 11
\ 26c i 0 0
32 1'2 1 /
102S• .24 2
0 0 \
-- 1050 24 2
+ / 11 12 1 North
\ /
i i
.1 . . 1
li
I 41 1 1 1 3S ; Phasing: SEQUENCE 14
1. 12 1 1 2 1 12 1 PRM N N N N
. ! 1 1 1 LDL +� LD LD
.
S. 1880TH ST /SF'ERRY DRIVE
JJH 1 SOSF'Y (26E)
19'93 WITH HOME DEFOT °: CONNECTION F'M F'EAF`:
SI)3NAL85 /TEAF'A)_: - Capacity Analysis Summary
1/27
0'9:52
INTERSECTION AVERAGES
DECREE OF SATURATION .81 VEHICULAR DELAY 16.1 LEVEL OF SERVICE i= :+
SEQUENCE 14
PHASE 1 PHASE 2 1 PHASE 3
+ + , A ,
+ t ****:
<+ *:• 1<+ <, x***
1 1 A ** * *: ,
1 1
A 1 + + ++ V ,
1 .(.L. + +:H •" 1 't" �.: ++ ++: • 1
1 + + + : + : -t- + ++ 1
, + + + , + 1 V 1
1 L/) .= . 340 1 )'/C= .086 1 G/ C= .424 1
1 8= 20.4 " I G= 5.2 " i G= 25.4 " I
$ Y= 3.0 " 1 Y= 3.0 " 1 Y= 3.0 "
C= 60 SEC i3= 51.0 SE): = 85.0% •Y= '9.0 SE17 = 15.0% F'ED= .0 SEC = .0%
1 LANE I WIDTH/ 1 8/' ; SE;;VIC :E RATE; ADJ 1 L 1 MAXIMUM:
)GROUP : LANES• 1 REQD USED 1 C: (VF'H) E ; VOLUME 1 DELAY , S 1 QUEUE
S8 APPROACH 19.0 C:-!.
1_ -- 1 RT 1 12/1+1 .10 1 .4S 1 663 1 692 1 102 1 5.7 1 8+1 45 FT
1 1 1 .in 1 1 •S•$ 1 c•-•'•f 1 1 -.4 1 1 •�•1 1
I L T 1 12/1 1 • J •:J 1 .34 1 '-r' -. 1 •.J ./ 1 466 1 s. '.'�i 1 )� I 6.J r T I
4•JB APPROACH 19.3 )_.r
�. .. i 1 1 +� 1 -. • 1 1 n �. 1 ♦ c 1 1375 1 _^ 1 1'• I n.� C 1
I TH I'T 1 24/'r 1 .41 1 . 4'i 1 14._,� 1 1445 1 3/ 3 1 1'a, ` , •�+ 1 338 I T 1
1 J� p 1 1 +• 1 1 1 -. 5 t- T 1
1 1 �! +, . (_)� 1 . 1'� 1 p0 1 135 1 l � 1 1'7 . ... 1 ��� + 1 25 1 1 1
NS APPROACH S.1 8+
F :T 1 12/1+1 .07 : .46 1 671 1 700 1 66 1 5.6 1 8+1 29 FT
1 1 I 1 1 c 1 605 1 2 1 8 1 + 1 25 FT 1
T I 1 12/1 1 . t) :) 1 .34 1 .J 61 1 6�)` 1 �. 1 V• '"r 1 8 1 a. �I 1 T 1
1 1 7 1 !1.4 1 509 1 575 1 1 1 1J 1 ni ' T 1
�., 1 12/1+1 . f 3/ 1 • r 1 f )'-/ 1 *.1 / s.J 1 7 1 1 10.4 1 L.• 1 .J :.� 1 1
E8 APPROACH 11.4 8
TH +F.T 1 24/2 1 .34 1 .42' 1 1476 1 1488 1 1 155 f 11.2 1 8 : '.•:84 FT 1
' 12/1+1 .04 1 . 0.9 1 88 1 135 1 35 1 19.6 1 ' 27 FT 1
��r l' LT_: ��., ..' •. 1 08 1 �.J 1 35 1 , �� :+ , ,
. ;1 (r YS :•�14) y41i 34 :?!'�� 4i: ucf > :i _: .. •_t .. • . .. ..
LOCATION:S. 180TH ST/WEST DRIVEWAY
HOURLY VOLUMES
Major street:S. 180TH ST
1NAME:JJH 80WDNWE
N
v
N= 2
Grade 1081---V2--->
0% 30---V3---v
-== |
Date of Counts:
1993 W/EXT
Time Period:
|
V7
<---V5--- 763
v---V4--- 59
N= 3
|>
1
}X STOP
YIELD
NOON PEAK . 79 671
Approach Speed: Minor Street: Grade
35 WEST DRIVEWAY 0%
PHF: .9 N= 2
Population� 250000
| VOLUMES IN PCPH
1 _-_-=:
| <---V5---
| ---V2---> v---V4---
| ---V3---`/
| --- ----==== <| |>
\ | \ !
| V7 V9 |
| | | |
87 74|
VOLUME ADJUSTMENTS
Movement no.
Volume (vph)
1081
30
Vol(pcph),see Table 10.11XXXXXXXX|XXXXXXXX1
4 5 7
59 763 79
65 1XXXXXXXX1 87 1
STEP 1 : RT From Minor Street
Conflicting Flows, Vc
Critical Gap, Tc
Potential Capacity, Cp
Actual Capacity, Cm
/-> V9
9
67
74
_________________
====--
| 1/2 V3+V2= 15 + 541 = 556
( Tc= 5 secs (Tab.10.2)
Cp9= 665 pcph (Fig.10.3)
| Cm9=Cp9= 665 pcph
----
vph(Vc9)
STEP 2 : LT From Major Street
v-- V4
__
Conflicting Flows, Vc
Critical Gap, Tc
Potential Capacity, Cp
% of Cp utilized and Impedance Factor
Actual Capacity, Cm (Fig.10.5)
V3+V2= 30 + 1081 = 1111 vph(Vc4)
Tc= 5 secs (Tab.10.2)
Cp4= 345 pcph (Fig.10.3)
(V4/Cp4):100= 18.8% P4= .
Cm4=Cp4= 345 pcph
STEP 3
: LT From Minor Street
Conflicting Flows, Vc
Critical Gap, Tc
Potential Capacity, Cp
Actual Capacity, Cm
■•
1/2 V3+V2+V5+V4=
15 + 1081 + 763 + 59 = 1700 vph(Vc7
Tc= 6.5 secs (Tab.10.2)
Cp7= 85 pcph (Fig.10.3)
Cm7=Cp7xP4= 85 x .87 = 74 pcph
SHARED LANE CAPACITY SH = (V7+V9)/((V7/Cm7)+(V9/Cm9)) if lane is shared
MOVEMENT V(PCPH)
7
9
4
0-
74
65
74
665
345
CR CR
(CM-V) (CBH-V)
-13
591
280
LOS .LCE
CM CS�
F
A
LOCATION: S. 180TH ST /WEST DRIVEWAY
HOURLY VOLUMES
: NAME: JJH SOWDPWE
Major street : S. 180TH ST
N=
rade 1112---V2--->
0% 30--- V3 - - -y
Date of l ::Lint
1993 W/EXT V7
Time Period:
F'M PEAK 79 67
Approach Speed: Mincer Street:
35 WEST DRIVEWAY
F'HF : .9 N=
Population: 25000( :)
`r- - -V4 - --
V9 : X STOP
YIELD
Grade
: VOLUMES IN F'C :F'H
--- '.15 - --
v--- 1)4 - --
tY 9
VOLUME ADJUSTMENTS
Movement no.
4
5
Volume (vph) : 1112 30
Vc'1 (pcph), see Table 10.1 : XXXXXXXX: XXXXXXXX:
STEF' 1 : RT From Minor Street
Conflicting Flows, Vc
Critical Gap, Tc
Potential Capacity, Cp
Actual Capacity, Cm
59
7
1 004 : 79
65 :XXXXXXXX:
87
/-> V9
9
67
74
: 1/2 V3 +V' = 15 + 556 = 571 vph(V':S)
Tc= 5 ..e' :s (Tab. 10.2
Cp9= 653 pcph (Fig. 10. 3 )
: Cm9=0p9= 653 pcph
STEP 2 : LT From Major Street
v -- V4
Conflicting Flows, Vc
Critical leap, Tc
Potential Capacity, Cp
% of Cp utilized and Impedance Factor
Actual Capacity, Cm (Fig.10.5)
: V3 +V2= 30 + 1112 = 1 142 vph (Vc 4 )
1':= 5 sets (Tab.10.2)
: Cp4= 331 pcph (F ig. 10. 3)
(V4 /C :p4) .;loo= 19.6% F'4= .86
: C:m4 =Cp4= 331 pcph
STEP 3 : LT From Minor Street
Conflicting Flows, Vc
Critical Gap, Tc
Potential Capacity, Cp
Actual Capacity, Cm
<-\ V7
SHARED LANE CAPACITY SH =
MOVEMENT V ( F'C :F'H )
15 + 1112 + 1004 + 59 = 1700 vpi1 (Vt:
: Tc= 6.5 secs (Tab.1o.2)
: cp7= 85 pcph (Fig 10.3)
: Cm7=Cp7::P4= 85 x .86 = 73 p' :ph
(V7riV7 ) /(CV7 /' : :1r7)-(V9/C :ms)) if lane is shared
CM (F'C:F'H)
C:r C R
C :SH t F'c PH :► (CM-V) ( C:SH -V )
7
87
65
65
-14
57?
L OS LOS
.CM CSH
r
Appendix B
HOME DEPOT
TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY
Crain & Associates
November 9, 1992
Draft
Ilonre Depot Trip Generation Summary
Crain & Associates' staff has collected trip generation data at five !tome Depot Stores. This
data was collected between the hours of 4:00 1'M - 7:00 PM on a typical weekday. The
highest afternoon peak -hour was calculated based on inbound and outbound trip data
collected in 15-minute increments. '!'rip generation rates per 1,000 square feet have also
been calculated for each store and are shown below:
Store Square
Location Footage
Hawthorne
Glendale
Canoga Park
Van Nuys
Sun Fernando
121,240
110,475
114,554
110,460
10(1,664
Trip
(late
3.18
3.10
3.81
4.38
3.95
Average !tale = 3.68 trips/1,000 sq. fl.
B.1