Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRS_TrafficImpactAnalysis_200302_V4.pdfWilliam Popp Associates Transportation Engineers/Planners ________________________________________________________________________ (425) 401-1030 (425) 401-2124 e-mail: info@wmpoppassoc.com 14-400 Building Suite 206 14400 Bel-Red Road Bellevue, WA 98007 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS for Cedar River Apartments 1915 Maple Valley Hwy, Renton, WA 98055 Prepared for: SRM Renton, LLC 720 6th Street South Ste. 200 Kirkland, WA 98033 Prepared by: William Popp Associates 14-400 Building, Suite 206 14400 Bel-Red Rd Bellevue, WA 98007 February 18, 2020 Traffic Impact Analysis (2/18/2020) Cedar River Apartments Page i T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................ 1 A. EXISTING CONDITIONS .................................................................................................................... 4 1. EXISTING TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES............................................................................................. 4 2. COLLISION DATA, LAST 3 (AVAILABLE) CALENDAR YEARS. ................................................................ 8 3. TRAFFIC VOLUMES .......................................................................................................................... 10 4. LEVEL-OF-SERVICE .......................................................................................................................... 14 5. PLANNED AND PROGRAMMED IMPROVEMENTS................................................................................ 16 B. FUTURE CONDITIONS ..................................................................................................................... 19 1. BACKGROUND TRAFFIC VOLUMES ................................................................................................... 19 2. PROJECT TRIP GENERATION ............................................................................................................. 20 3. TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENT............................................................................... 22 4. BACKGROUND TRAFFIC PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUMES ............................................................. 26 5. LEVEL-OF-SERVICE (FUTURE YEAR PHASED PROJECT CONDITIONS) – SYNCHRO LOS RESULTS .......................................................................................................................................... 35 6. SIM TRAFFIC LOS AND QUEUE RESULTS – FUTURE WITH AND WITHOUT FULL PROJECT – YEAR 2023....................................................................................................................................... 37 7. SIMTRAFFIC LOS AND QUEUE RESULTS – FUTURE WITH AND WITHOUT FULL PROJECT – YEAR 2029....................................................................................................................................... 43 8. PARKING .......................................................................................................................................... 47 C. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................ 50 1. PROJECT DETAILS ............................................................................................................................ 50 2. COLLISIONS ...................................................................................................................................... 50 3. OFF-SITE PROGRAMMED MITIGATION IMPROVEMENTS .................................................................... 51 4. PROJECT TRIP GENERATION IMPACT ................................................................................................ 52 5. LEVEL OF SERVICE AND QUEUES ..................................................................................................... 53 6. SITE ACCESS POINTS ........................................................................................................................ 54 7. PARKING .......................................................................................................................................... 54 D. MITIGATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................. 55 1. WSDOT PROGRAMMED IMPROVEMENTS ........................................................................................ 55 2. FRONTAGE IMPROVEMENTS ............................................................................................................. 55 3. PRIMARY SITE ACCESS .................................................................................................................... 55 4. SECONDARY SITE ACCESS................................................................................................................ 56 5. TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE ....................................................................................................................... 56 Traffic Impact Analysis (2/18/2020) Cedar River Apartments Page ii L I S T O F T A B L E S Table 1 Three-plus Year Collision History a ............................................................................. 8 Table 2A Collision Type a ......................................................................................................... 9 Table 2B Collision Severity History a ..................................................................................... 10 Table 3 Existing Peak Hour Volume Summary a..................................................................... 11 Table 4 Intersection Level-of-Service Criteria ........................................................................ 14 Table 5 Existing Intersection Level-of-Service (Year 2017)................................................... 15 Table 6 Project Trip Generation Estimates a ........................................................................... 21 Table 7 Intersection Level-of-Service -- Intersection Results (per Synchro) ......................... 36 Table 8 Intersection Level-of-Service & Queue -- (per SimTraffic) h Project Horizon Year Full Development – Year 2023 ..................................................................... 40 Table 9 SR 169/Cedar River Park Drive Intersection Queue Summary -- (per SimTraffic) g 2023 with Full Project Development ............................................... 43 Table 10 Intersection Level-of-Service & Queue -- (per SimTraffic) g SR 169 Analysis Year 2029 with Full Project Development ............................................. 45 Table 11 SR 169/Cedar River Park Drive Intersection Queue Summary -- (per SimTraffic) g 2029 with Full Project Development .............................................. 46 Table 12 Parking Supply a ....................................................................................................... 47 Table 13 Parking Demanda ...................................................................................................... 49 L I S T O F F I G U R E S Figure 1: Vicinity Map (north is up) ....................................................................................... 2 Figure 2: Site Parcel Map (north is up) ................................................................................... 2 Figure 3: Site Plan (north is up) ............................................................................................... 3 Figure 4: City of Renton Arterial Classification Map (north is up) ........................................ 5 Figure 5 – 2017 AM Peak Hour Turn Movements ................................................................. 12 Figure 6 – 2017 PM Peak Hour Turn Movements .................................................................. 13 Figure 7a - Project Distribution and Assignment Outer Area (AM and PM) ....................... 23 Figure 7b - Project Trip Assignment Analysis Intersections (AM) ....................................... 24 Figure 7c – Project Trip Assignment Analysis Intersections (PM) ........................................ 25 Figure 8a – 2023 AM Turn Movements without Project ....................................................... 27 Figure 8b – 2023 AM Turn Movements with Project ............................................................ 28 Figure 9a -- 2023 PM Turn Movements without Project....................................................... 29 Figure 9b – 2023 PM Turn Movements with Project ............................................................. 30 Figure 10a – 2029 AM Turn Movements without Project ..................................................... 31 Figure 10b -- 2029 AM Turn Movements with Project ......................................................... 32 Figure 11a -- 2029 PM Turn Movements without Project...................................................... 33 Figure 11b – 2029 PM Turn Movements with Project ........................................................... 34 Figure 12: SR 169/Sunset Way/I-405 SB On-Ramp Improvements ...................................... 51 APPENDICES A, B, C, and D Traffic Impact Analysis (2/06/2020) Cedar River Apartments William Popp Associates Page 1 INTRODUCTION The following report was prepared to address the traffic related impacts of the proposed Cedar River Apartments project located in the City of Renton. This study evaluates the project’s AM and PM peak hour (street peak) traffic impacts at the following intersections per the pre- application meeting direction: 1. SR 169/Sunset Way/Bronson Way/I-405 Southbound On-Ramp 2. SR 169/I-405 Northbound On-Ramp 3. SR 169/Shari’s Driveway 4. SR 169/Cedar River Park Dr The study follows the City of Renton Traffic Impact Analysis Policy Guidelines for New Development. Impacts are evaluated for three separate phases, with Phase 3 being the year of estimated full occupancy. WSDOT requested a 2029 design year analysis based on their Design Manual Chapter 1103.02 as part of their review comments dated September 9, 2019. This six-year addition to the project horizon year is based on standards for WSDOT-sponsored projects, which is not applicable to the proposed Cedar River Apartment project. Nevertheless, this study includes the requested 2029 horizon both with and without the subject project. This report incorporates comments by the City of Renton and their consultant, Transpo Group, to the October 21, 2019 Traffic Impact Analysis for the project. The October 21, 2019 Traffic Impact Analysis report was prepared in response to WSDOT comments dated September 9, 2019. Project Identification The site is located at 1915 Maple Valley Highway (SR 169) in the City of Renton. The parcel number is 1723059026, and the total area of the site is approximately 12.5 acres. The site is currently vacant in terms of building structures, however, it is used as a storage area for heavy construction machinery and in the recent past operated as an aggregate yard. Presently, there are two access points to the site including one to Cedar River Park Drive and one to SR 169. A project vicinity map is shown in Figure 1. Traffic Impact Analysis (2/18/2020) Cedar River Apartments William Popp Associates Page 2 Figure 1: Vicinity Map (north is up) The project site fronts to SR 169 to the east, the Cedar River to the south, and Cedar River Park to the west. A parcel map locating the site is shown in Figure 2. Figure 2: Site Parcel Map (north is up) Traffic Impact Analysis (2/18/2020) Cedar River Apartments William Popp Associates Page 3 The proposed Cedar River Apartments site plan consists of three buildings, to be constructed in three phases. Each building and phase is discussed below: Phase 1 – Building A will be constructed as Phase 1 and is expected to be fully occupied by 2021. This building will consist of 238 apartment units, on 5 levels; along with 306 parking stalls in the structure. In addition to the structure parking, there will be some surface parking on the north side of the building. Building A will be located on the west end of the site and its proposed access will be via both Cedar River Park Drive and SR 169. The SR 169 access will replace the existing driveway opening. Phase 2 –Building B will be constructed as Phase 2. This building will be located at the east side of the site and will consist of 243 apartment units, on 5 levels, plus 4,852 gsf of commercial retail on the ground floor for public use. Phase 2 is expected to be fully occupied by 2022. The retail space specific use is currently undetermined. There will be 339 parking stalls in the structure. Phase 3 – This phase proposes a Medical Office type use on the commercial pad located in the north corner of the parcel, identified in this report as Building C. Parking is currently undetermined. Access is presumed to be via the internal roadway on the north of Building B and the driveway is anticipated to be opposite the garage entry to Building B. No additional access points to public roadways are proposed with Phase 3. The site plan is presented in Figure 3. Figure 3: Site Plan (north is up) Traffic Impact Analysis (2/18/2020) Cedar River Apartments William Popp Associates Page 4 A. EXISTING CONDITIONS 1. Existing Transportation Facilities Key roadways serving the site are discussed below. SR 169 is a two-way east/west Principal Arterial that extends a distance of 25 miles from I- 405 southeastward through the cities of Maple Valley and Black Diamond to its termination in Enumclaw where it intersects with state highways 164 and 410. Per WSDOT’s classification system, SR 169 is a Highway of Statewide Significance (HSS). It is also functionally classified as an Urban-Principal Arterial (U1). The roadway in the site vicinity is a 7-lane roadway with three-lanes each direction and left turn pockets or center two-way left turn lane, along with curb, gutter, and sidewalks on both sides. On-street parking is prohibited. Traffic control includes signals at all major intersection. The posted speed limit is 35 mph in the vicinity of the site. Cedar River Park Dr is a two-way local access public/private street that provides project access and connection to recreational elements including the Cedar River Park, Carco Theatre, and the Henry Moses Aquatics Center. The roadway is identified as a public road for a distance of approximately 300 feet southwest from the SR 169 intersection, at which point it is a private roadway for access and circulation through the park. The public portion of the road is approximately 40 feet wide with curb, gutter, and sidewalks on both sides. On-street parking is not permitted. The public portion of the roadway is channelized with a three-lane section, two lanes northbound towards the signal at SR 169 (left turn and right turn pockets), one lane southbound (exiting away from SR 169). The speed limit is presumed to be 25 mph. On the west side of I-405, nearby roadways include Bronson Way, Houser Way, Sunset Way, the one-way couplet of S 3rd St and S 2nd St, the one-way couplet of N3rd St and N 4th St, and N 3rd St east of I-405 (becoming N 4th St further east at top of the hill), are all identified as Principal Arterials. SR 169 runs in a diagonal northwest to southeast direction in the project vicinity, however, for the analyses, it is described as in the east-west direction with cross streets in the north and south directions. A map identifying the City’s arterial classification system is shown in Figure 4. Traffic Impact Analysis (2/18/2020) Cedar River Apartments William Popp Associates Page 5 Figure 4: City of Renton Arterial Classification Map (north is up) Intersection Geometrics and Signal Operations SR 169/Sunset Way/Bronson Way/I-405 Southbound On-Ramp is a signalized intersection with split phasing for all directions plus some overlaps. The intersection channelization is as follows: • Southbound approach – a four lane approach including a one left turn lane, a shared left/thru lane where the thru is restricted to HOV only, a shared thru/right turn lane, and a right turn lane. The right turn lanes have a large radius turn along with large raised island with exclusive signal control to Bronson Way. There is no pedestrian crosswalk across the main approach or the right turn lanes. • Eastbound approach – a four-lane approach including dual left turn lanes, a thru lane and a shared thru/right lane with a large right turn island. There is no pedestrian crosswalk across this approach. Traffic Impact Analysis (2/18/2020) Cedar River Apartments William Popp Associates Page 6 • Westbound approach – a four-lane approach that includes a left turn pocket, two thru lanes and a right turn lane. There is no pedestrian crosswalk across this approach. • The signal operates with three phases. The southbound phase runs with a westbound right turn overlap. The westbound phase runs exclusive with no overlaps. The eastbound phase runs with the southbound right turn lane overlap. • The south leg is the I-405 southbound on-ramp, a two-lane roadway leaving the intersection which transitions to three lanes by temporary use of the shoulder when the meter is in operation. This ramp thus has two lanes with ramp meter control and an HOV bypass lane. The ramp meter is approximately 510 feet south from the intersection crosswalk. SR 169/I-405 Northbound On-Ramp is a signalized intersection with special operations. This intersection is approximately 400 feet east from the SR 169/I-405 Southbound On-Ramp intersection. The intersection channelization is as follows: • Northbound approach – a single lane off-ramp from northbound I-405. The lane is right turn only. There is a pedestrian crosswalk across this approach. • Eastbound approach – a three-lane approach including one left turn pocket and two thru lanes. The two thru lanes do not have signal control and thus run free. • Westbound approach – a four-lane approach that includes three thru lanes and one right turn lane. There is no pedestrian crosswalk across this approach. • The north leg exit lane to I-405 is a single lane with ramp meter approximately 775 feet north from the crosswalk at the intersection. SR 169/Shari’s Driveway is a signalized intersection serving the restaurant plus a Quality Inn. This intersection is approximately 270 feet east from the SR 169/I-405 Northbound On-Ramp intersection. The intersection channelization is as follows: • Southbound approach – a single or possibly dual lane for right or left turns, however there is no channelization on this leg, as it is a commercial driveway. The pedestrian crossing of this approach is the sidewalk across the driveway. • Eastbound approach – a four-lane approach that includes one left turn pocket, and three thru lanes. There is a pedestrian crosswalk across this approach. U-turns are signed as prohibited however there is a fair amount of u-turn traffic observed. • Westbound approach – a four lane approach that includes three thru lanes and one designated right turn lane that extends through this intersection to the northbound on- ramp. There is no pedestrian crossing of the east leg. SR 169/Cedar River Park Dr is a signalized intersection serving the Cedar River Park and amenities. This intersection is approximately 700 feet east from the SR 169/Shari’s Driveway intersection. The intersection channelization is as follows: Traffic Impact Analysis (2/18/2020) Cedar River Apartments William Popp Associates Page 7 • Eastbound approach – a three-lane approach that includes two thru lanes and one shared thru/right turn lane. There is no pedestrian crosswalk across this approach. • Westbound approach – a four-lane approach that includes three thru lanes and one designated left turn pocket that transitions from a center two-way left turn lane. The turn pocket is 200 feet in length plus a 150-foot transition opening to the center two- way left turn lane markings. There is a pedestrian crossing of the east leg. • Northbound approach – a two lane approach that includes a left turn lane and a right turn lane that extend back approximately 175 feet to where the proposed Cedar River Apartments access will be (and where the current gravel yard driveway is now). There is a pedestrian crossing of this approach. Pedestrian/bicycle Facilities Pedestrian facilities in the vicinity of the site include sidewalks on the adjacent roadways. There are no dedicated bicycle lanes on SR 169 or Cedar River Park Drive. Pedestrian access from the site to the west side of I-405 into downtown Renton is available via the sidewalk along the south side of SR 169 and under I-405. Alternatively, pedestrians, cyclists, scooter riders, etc, can traverse a more pleasant route through Cedar River Park near the river and underneath I-405 to a pedestrian signal and crosswalk across Houser Way N. Transit Service Transit service in the region is provided by the King County Department of Transportation (Metro Transit). There are two routes that run along SR 169 in the vicinity of the site. These are Routes 143 and 907. Route 143 runs between Black Diamond and Downtown Seattle. Buses run during the AM and PM commute hours only with bus headways approximately 20 minutes apart in the peak direction. Route 907 is DART (dial a ride transit) and provides service between Black Diamond and the Renton Transit Center. Service is generally provided between 9am and 4pm. The bus stop for both of these routes are on SR 169 just east of the Cedar River Park Drive intersection, essentially adjacent to the site. The walking/biking distance to/from the Renton Transit Center is approximately 4,000 feet, which is based on the route along S 3rd St to Houser Way N and under I-405 and through Cedar River Park. The Renton Transit Center offers frequent connections for buses serving Seattle downtown and other major transit destinations in King County. And while 4000 feet exceeds the transit planning maximum of 1300 foot for walk access, it is well within the range for cyclists and to a lesser extent, the electric scooter sidewalk mode. Traffic Impact Analysis (2/18/2020) Cedar River Apartments William Popp Associates Page 8 2. Collision Data, last 3 (available) calendar years. The City’s TIA Guidelines suggest an analysis of the “proposed project in light of safety” by reviewing “accident”1 histories. Accordingly a summary of the three-plus year “collision” data at the analysis intersections was obtained from WSDOT Headquarters Olympia. Data for the subject intersections were for the period of January 1, 2014 through May 31, 2017, the most recent available at the time of analysis. All collisions in the milepost vicinity of each intersection identified in the records were included and assumed as intersection related unless description clearly identified as otherwise. A summary of available collision data is presented in Table 1. Table 1 Three-plus Year Collision History a Number of Collisions by Year Collision Intersection 2014 2015 2016 2017a Total Rate b SR 169/Sunset Way/I-405 SB On-Ramp 2 4 4 0 10 0.16 SR 169/I-405 NB On & Off-Ramp 4 5 10 3 22 0.43 SR 169/Shari’s Driveway 8 8 10 2 28 0.71 SR 169/Cedar River Park Dr 8 2 3 1 14 0.36 a Source is WSDOT, data period is 1/1/14 through 5/31/17. Note: Under 23 US Code 409 and 23 US Code 148, safety data, reports, surveys, schedules, lists compiled or collected for the purpose of identifying, evaluating, or planning the safety enhancement of potential crash sites, hazardous roadway conditions, or railway-highway crossings are not subject o discovery or admitted into evidence in a Federal or State court proceeding or considered for other purposes in any action for damages arising from any occurrence at a location mentioned or addressed in such reports, surveys, schedules, lists, or data. b Collisions per million entering vehicles per period (coll/mev). Entering vehicles based on 2017 PM peak hour data * 10. Period is total number of days. As shown in Table 1, the collision rate ranges between 0.16 coll/mev and 0.71 coll/mev for the four analysis intersections for the 3-plus year period. The Transportation Impact Analyses for Site Development, An ITE Recommended Practice (ITE 2010) recommends that any intersection with more than one collision per million entering vehicles may be worthy of additional analysis. The most common type of collisions are rear-end, sideswipe and enter-at-angle Table 2A identifies the number of occurrences by collision type at each of the four intersections, as well as the collision severity. 1Note: the contemporary replacement for the term “Accident” is “Collision” in ITE literature and industry practice. WSDOT uses the term “Crash” in their data tabulations but the three terminologies are considered interchangeable. Traffic Impact Analysis (2/18/2020) Cedar River Apartments William Popp Associates Page 9 Table 2A Collision Type a Collision Type Rear Side Left Fixed Intersection Intersection End Swipe Angle Turn Object Other Related SR 169/Sunset Way/I-405 SB On-Ramp # of Accident Type 2 8 0 0 0 0 6 Percent of Total Accidents 20% 80% 0% 0% 0% 0% 60% SR 169/I-405 NB On & Off-Ramp # of Accident Type 13 2 1 3 0 3 17 Percent of Total Accidents 59% 9% 5% 14% 0% 14% 77% SR 169/Shari’s Driveway # of Accident Type 10 4 5 7 1 1 21 Percent of Total Accidents 36% 14% 18% 25% 4% 4% 75% SR 169/Cedar River Park Dr # of Accident Type 9 4 1 0 0 0 5 Percent of Total Accidents 64% 29% 7% 0% 0% 0% 36% a For the period between 1/1/14 and 5/31/17. As shown in Table 2A, the rear-end type collision is the most prevalent type of collision at three of the four intersections. The most prevalent collision type at the SR 169/Sunset Way/I- 405 SB on-ramp intersection is a sideswipe condition, which is most likely due to the large number of vehicles utilizing the dual turn lanes. It should be noted that Table 2 shows all of the collisions occurring in the vicinity of each intersection, however, as noted in the WSDOT crash data records, crashes are reported as intersection or non-intersection related. The number of intersection related collisions at the two ramp terminal intersections and the Shari’s driveway indicate about 60% to 77% of collisions as intersection related. The number of intersection related collisions at the Cedar River Park Drive intersection is about 36%. Overall, cumulative for all four intersections, the rear-end type of collision accounts for 46% of the total collisions. In general, rear-end accidents are most common at heavily congested signalized intersections where motorists are not anticipating stop conditions during green signal indications. Table 2B identifies the collision severity. Traffic Impact Analysis (2/18/2020) Cedar River Apartments William Popp Associates Page 10 Table 2B Collision Severity History a Total Property Injury Total Total Total Accidents Only Related Fatality Vehicles Pedestrians Bicycles SR 169/Sunset Way/I-405 SB On-Ramp 10 8 2 0 21 0 0 SR 169/I-405 NB On & Off-Ramp 22 8 14 0 52 0 0 SR 169/Shari’s Driveway 28 17 11 0 58 0 0 SR 169/Cedar River Park Dr 14 6 7 1 31 0 0 Totals at the analysis intersections 74 39 34 1 162 0 0 a Source WSDOT. For the period between 1/1/14 and 5/31/17. In terms of collision severity, of the total 74 collision noted, there were 162 vehicles involved and no pedestrians or bicycles reported. Of the 74 collisions, 39 were property damage only, 34 resulted in injury (reported as possible or evident), and 1 was a fatal incident. The fatality occurred at the SR 169/Cedar River Park Drive intersection 12/16/16 at 2:09 PM. The collision details included two vehicles traveling eastbound with one vehicle traveling at a high rate of speed (exceeding reasonable safe speed) passing and overtaking another vehicle changing lanes. The foregoing analysis does not indicate any serious safety issues warranting further evaluation. Furthermore it is highly unlikely that the addition of the project traffic will create any safety hazards or have any negative effect on collision rates. Also it should be noted that the substantial SR 169 corridor congestion and queuing relief that should result from the I-405 ETL project is very likely to reduce collision rates at the analysis intersections in light of the high percentages of rear end collisions. 3. Traffic Volumes Existing AM and PM peak hour turning movement counts were collected at the four subject intersections in mid June of 2017. The AM counts were conducted between 7:00 and 9:00 AM, and the PM counts were conducted between 4:00 and 6:00 PM. Table 3 below identifies the peak hour volume for each location. Traffic Impact Analysis (2/18/2020) Cedar River Apartments William Popp Associates Page 11 Table 3 Existing Peak Hour Volume Summary a Total Entering Volume Intersection AM PK PM PK SR 169/Sunset Way/Bronson Way/I-405 Southbound On-Ramp 4,347 7:300-8:30 am 5,126 4:00 to 5:00pm SR 169/I-405 Northbound On & Off-Ramp 3,267 7:300-8:30 am 4,058 4:15 to 5:15pm SR 169/Shari’s Driveway 2,803 (turns only)b 3,157 (turns only)b SR 169/Cedar River Park Dr 2,717 7:30 to 8:30 am 3,144 4:30 to 5:30pm Pk between SB Ramps between NB Ramps between Shari’s Drvwy Hr Direction and NB Ramps and Shari's Drvwy and Cedar River Park Dr AM WB 2,220 2,090 2,020 EB 370 680 660 PM WB 1,360 960 950 EB 1,670 2,270 2,120 a Traffic counts conducted in mid June 2017 – 2-hour count periods were 7:00 to 9:00 am and 4:00 to 6:00 pm b "turns only" means only the turn movements were recorded for this intersection (EB u-turns, EB left, WB right plus thru volume in curb lane, and SB left and right) and that the thru volumes were obtained from the upstream intersection. As shown in Table 3, the intersection with the heaviest amount of traffic is the SR 169/Sunset Way/Bronson Way/I-405 Southbound On-Ramp intersection. The PM entering volume at this intersection is about 20% greater than the AM entering volume. In fact for all four intersections, the PM peak hour intersection volume is greater than the AM peak hour volume. The link volume on SR 169 by direction shown in Table 3 is about 2,100 vehicles on average during the AM peak hour in the westbound direction. This volume reflects a 79% directional volume in the peak westbound direction. The total two-way volume average is 2,680 vehicles for the AM peak hour. For the PM peak hour, the peak directional volume is on average 2,020 vehicles. This volume reflects a 65% directional volume eastbound. The total volume on average is 3,110 vehicles for the PM peak hour. A summary of the existing 2017 AM and PM peak hour volumes at the analysis intersections are presented in Figure 5 and 6. SR 1 6 9 S h a ri's D rive w a yI-405 N B R am psI-405 NB Off-RampSunset WayI-405 SB On-RampB r o n s o n W a y I-405 SBI-405 NBSITE A B C xx -- 2017 AM Peak Hour Counts (1 hour between 7:00 and 9:00 am) EXISTING AM PEAK TRAFFIC VOLUMES Figure 5 Int #1 Int #3 Int #4 Int #2 North WILLIAM POPP ASSOCIATES Bellevue, WA 98007 425.401.1030 33 5 6 4 0 2 0 0 8 755 6 2 3 5 5 261395 104 47 775 578 895853439 631 1 9 8 4 1 2 6 1 2891 7 3 4 8 1 7 0 6 4 1 2495 Cedar River Apartments SRM Renton, LLC SR 1 6 9 S h a ri's D rive w a yI-405 N B R am psI-405 NB Off-RampSunset WayI-405 SB On-RampB r o n s o n W a y I-405 SBI-405 NBSITE A B C xx -- 2017 PM Peak Hour Counts (1 hour between 4:00 and 6:00 pm) EXISTING PM PEAK TRAFFIC VOLUMES Figure 6 Int #1 Int #3 Int #4 Int #2 North WILLIAM POPP ASSOCIATES Bellevue, WA 98007 425.401.1030 7716 1 1 6 0 4 7 0 4 2 4 6672 44 1 2 1 1 8 9 3 5 1 331 2 0 8 2 1 5 1145673520 65 334 236 770768638 66389 1 01 2 3 6 Cedar River Apartments SRM Renton, LLC Traffic Impact Analysis (2/18/2020) Cedar River Apartments William Popp Associates Page 14 4. Level-of-Service Level-of-service (LOS) is a term defined by transportation and traffic engineers as a qualitative and quantitative measure of operational conditions within a traffic stream and the perception of these conditions by motorists and/or passengers. LOS, its derivations and computational methods are described in extensive detail in the Highway Capacity Manual (Transportation Research Board, 2010). There are several quantitative indices utilized depending on the type of intersection control present. There are six levels-of-service that are given letter designations from "A" to "F", with "A" being the best, or minimum delay conditions, and "F" being the worst, with maximum delay or jammed conditions. LOS "C" or "D" is generally considered acceptable for planning and design purposes, while LOS "E" represents operating conditions at or near capacity with freedom to maneuver being extremely difficult. These levels-of-service are measured in seconds of delay per vehicle. Level-of-service for the existing condition was calculated using Trafficware’s “Synchro” software version 9.0. This software replicates the analytical procedures specified in the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM). The level of service criteria are shown in Table 4. Level- of-service for signalized and non-signalized intersections is quantified in terms of vehicular delay. Delay, measured in terms of time (seconds), also represents driver discomfort, frustration, excess fuel consumption and lost travel time. Table 4 Intersection Level-of-Service Criteria Level of Stopped Delay Per Vehicle1 Service Definition signalized non-signalized A Little or no delay Less than 10.0 sec Less than 10.0 sec B Short traffic delays 10.1 to 20 sec 10.1 to 15 sec C Average traffic delays 20.1 to 35 sec 15.1 to 25 sec D Long traffic delays 35.1 to 55 sec 25.1 to 35 sec E Very long traffic delays 55.1 to 80 sec 35.1 to 50 sec F Extreme delay Greater than 80 sec Greater than 50 sec 1 Delay; seconds per vehicle For signalized intersections, the delay presented represents the overall operation of the intersection, whereas the delay presented for un-signalized intersections represents the delay for the critical approach or movement. The results for un-signalized are presented in this manner since the overall intersection delay at an un-signalized intersection is generally quite good because the major through street maneuvers are not impeded and typically carry the majority of the traffic. Per the WSDOT Developer Services Manual, the LOS threshold for a Highway of Statewide Significance (HSS) is LOS D for Urban Areas; SR 169 in the project vicinity is an Urban-Principal Arterial and an HSS. Traffic Impact Analysis (2/18/2020) Cedar River Apartments William Popp Associates Page 15 It should be noted that level of service results from HCM/Synchro analysis do not fully reflect the queue spill back from downstream signalized intersections, or ramp metering for which additional congestion may occur. Furthermore, the HCM 2010 computational methodology does not support turning movement conditions with shared and exclusive lanes, such as the SR 169/Sunset Way/Bronson Way intersection. However, Trafficware has developed an algorithm to support this shared lane approach geometry. But the queue spill back issue can only be analyzed with micro-simulation software such as Trafficware’s “Sim Traffic”. Accordingly micro-simulation analyses using Sim Traffic software were conducted for AM and PM peak hour conditions at year of full project buildout (2023) as well as for year 2029 as requested by WSDOT. A queue summary for selected locations is also included for these two future year analyses. The micro-simulation results are addressed in Chapter B. Future Conditions, page 37. The existing level of service based on HCM /Synchro calculations at the analysis intersections for AM and PM conditions are presented in Table 5. Table 5 Existing Intersection Level-of-Service (Year 2017) Individual Intersection Results (per Synchro) Intersection LOS a Delay a Comments AM PEAK HOUR b 1 SR 169/Sunset Way/Bronson Way/I-405 SB On-Ramp E 60 ramp meter effects not included 2 SR 169/I-405 NB On & Off-Ramp c B 20 ramp meter effects not included 3 SR 169/Shari’s Café/Quality Inn Driveway A 4 tee intersection 4 SR 169/Cedar River Park Dr A 8 tee intersection PM PEAK HOUR b 1 SR 169/Sunset Way/Bronson Way/I-405 SB On-Ramp D 47 ramp meter effects not included 2 SR 169/I-405 NB On & Off-Ramp B 11 ramp meter effects not included 3 SR 169/Shari’s Café/Quality Inn Driveway A 2 tee intersection 4 SR 169/Cedar River Park Dr A 4 tee intersection a LOS and Delay are per Synchro v10, HCM 2010 except Int2. Delay values represented in seconds per vehicle, all intersections are signalized. b Street peak hour: AM peak hour is one hour between 7:00 and 9:00 am, and the PM peak hour is one hour between 4:00 and 6:00 pm. c Int 2 (SR 169/I-405 NB Ramps) computed using HCM2000 due to fact HCM2010 cannot compute non-NEMA conditions. As shown in Table 5, as stand-alone intersections, each of these are estimated to operate at LOS D or better except for the SR 169/Sunset Way intersection (Intersection 1), which is estimated to operate at LOS E during the AM peak hour. It is important to note that the operations of these four intersections are all affected directly by the daily traffic operations of I-405 and the subsequent ramp metering conditions for Intersections 1 and 2. Ramp congestion and queuing due to long ramp meter intervals Traffic Impact Analysis (2/18/2020) Cedar River Apartments William Popp Associates Page 16 generally results in spillback congestion through the four intersections in this analysis. As discussed above, these conditions are not addressed in the Synchro analysis, but have been modeled for future conditions with the Sim Traffic micro simulation software program. 5. Planned and Programmed Improvements City Improvements According to the city of Renton’s 2019-2024 Transportation Improvement Program, there are four roadway project improvement projects in the vicinity of the project. TIP 34 -- Maple Valley Highway Barriers (Traffic Operations and Safety Project). This project includes two barriers vicinity of western edge of Riverview Park: One is to install a concrete median barrier between east and westbound travel lanes of the SR 169 S-Curve between the Riviera Apartments and S. 5th Street including associated roadway widening to add the barrier. The second barrier improvement will remove the existing concrete barrier end treatment located eastbound (east of the Riviera Apartments) and replace with 2 new concrete barriers extending west. TIP 36-- NE 3rd Street/NE 4th Street Corridor Improvements (Corridor Project) This project involves a series of improvements in this corridor to improve traffic operations such as re-channelization and traffic signal modifications, possible transit priority signal treatments and queue jumps. This project will seek to meet pedestrian, transit and bicycle needs. TIP 24-- South 2nd Street Conversion Project (Corridor Project) The South 2nd Street Conversion Project will be improving multimodal mobility in around the downtown core by converting an existing 4–lane one-way roadway to a roadway with one through-lane in each direction between Main Ave South and Rainier Ave South. This project also includes pedestrian and bicycle facilities, traffic operations improvements, and transit upgrades that will provide better traffic operation and circulation for all modes of transportation. The improvements include a westbound bypass transit lane from just west of Logan Ave S to just east of Lake Avenue. Transit facility upgrades include new Rapid Ride stops and a transit queue jump at the new traffic signal at the Shattuck intersection. TIP 41 -- South 3rd Street Conversion Project (Corridor Project) The project provides pedestrian and bicyclists facilities and enhancements, traffic operation and circulation improvements in Downtown. The improvements include adding raised intersections with bulb outs, parklets, pedestrian plaza, lighting, street furniture, streetscape, bicycle blvd, bike racks, signage, wayfinding and converting S 3rd St to two-way operations. TIP 28 -- Houser Way S/N Non Motorized Improvements (Non-Motorized Project) This project would install a separated bike facility on the north side of Houser Way S/N, between Mill Ave S. and Bronson Way N. Intersection crossings would be improved at Cedar Traffic Impact Analysis (2/18/2020) Cedar River Apartments William Popp Associates Page 17 River Park Drive and Mill Ave S. The project will include planning and pavement overlay, channelization, and intersection crossing improvements. For feasibility and constructability issues, the roadway and pedestrian bridge sections would not be part of this project. Another project not included in the Transportation Element but that is included in the City’s Rate Study for Impact Fees (8/26/11), is Project #10 which consists of widening SR 169 from the Cedar River Park Entrance to East City Limits – “widen existing 4-lane roadway (currently 7 lanes exists along the project frontage -- some 540 feet) to provide additional lane in each direction; traffic operations improvements at intersections.” The total project cost was estimated at $83,693,292 and the amount eligible for impact fees was $59,204,163. This cost is obviously a substantial portion of the total fee basis of $134,330,224 as used for the denominator in the calculations of trip fees. A project of this magnitude on a Highway of Statewide Significance that is driven by safety issues and traffic primarily originating outside and traveling through the City would normally be either a WSDOT project and/or a TIB/safety grant funded effort. As it turns out WSDOT has a project identified in the PSRC Regional Transportation Plan to widen the roadway “from four to six lanes with pedestrian and bicycle improvements from I-405 to 152nd Ave SE” with a budget of $116,196,000. The completion year however is 2040 and the funds are not committed but it is an acknowledgement or responsibility nonetheless and the prioritization and funding are changeable of course via the political process. WSDOT Improvements There are several projects currently in design or as long range proposals that would have significant impact on traffic operations on I-405 and SR 169 in the vicinity of the proposed Cedar River Apartments project. They are: I-405/SR 169 Immediate Interchange Improvements As an initial part of the I-405 - Renton to Bellevue Widening and Express Toll Lanes Project described below, the southbound on-ramp will be re-channelized to include two general purpose lanes (the HOV lane will be removed). Use of the shoulder when the ramp is metered will still be allowed. Also, as part of this, the westbound approach would be modified (underneath I-405) to include two westbound turn lanes to the southbound ramp. This would involve re-channelization of the inside through lane to a shared thru plus left turn lane. The signal already operates as a split phase and no timing changes are required. Also, the existing southbound approach HOV designation on Sunset Boulevard would be modified to a second general purpose through lane onto the on-ramp (southbound shared left and through). This project is expected to be completed in 2020 as its benefits to current traffic operations are substantial. See Figure 12 and more discussion in Section C. 3. of Findings and Conclusions. In addition, the northbound on-ramp is also planned to be widened to include an HOV bypass. This improvement is expected to be completed in the near term as well as it is relatively simple and its benefits for current traffic operations are significant. Traffic Impact Analysis (2/18/2020) Cedar River Apartments William Popp Associates Page 18 I-405 - Renton to Bellevue Widening and Express Toll Lanes (near future) This major Interstate Highway project will add new lanes to create a two-lane express toll lane system between SR 167 in Renton and Northeast 6th Street in Bellevue. In general, the project will add one new tolled lane in each direction. The existing HOV lane will be combined with this new lane to create a dual express toll lane system. Since this project adds a lane of capacity each way the beneficial impacts on mainline and interchange operations should be significant. Project highlights • Dual express toll lane system from SR 167 in Renton to Northeast Sixth Street in Bellevue • New southbound auxiliary lane in the I-90 to 112th Avenue Southeast vicinity • Improvements at interchanges, including Northeast Park Drive and Northeast 44th Street in Renton, and 112th Avenue Southeast and Coal Creek Parkway in Bellevue • Construction of portions of the Eastside Rail Corridor regional trail, including a 2.5- mile paved section and a new crossing over I-405 in downtown Bellevue at the site of the former Wilburton rail bridge (in partnership with King County) • New direct access ramp and inline transit station at NE 44th Street in Renton to help support Bus Rapid Transit operations (in partnership with Sound Transit) The project timeline is: • Summer 2015: Funded by Connecting Washington for preliminary engineering, right of way acquisition, and construction • 2020: Start of construction • 2024: Open to traffic I-405 - SR 167 Interchange Direct Connector Project (completed) At the time of the initial writing of this report, WSDOT was in the final stages of completion of a new flyover ramp connecting the HOT lanes on SR 167 to the carpool lanes on I-405 in Renton. This highway-to-highway connection will address weaving issues associated with drivers exiting the carpool or HOT lanes, merging onto I-405 or SR 167, and merging across traffic again to the toll lanes. The immediate result should be improved operations for both general- purpose lanes and carpool or express toll lanes during peak commuting time periods. I-405 Master Plan Long Range Improvements The longer range plans for the south end of I-405 Master Plan includes one additional general purpose lane in each direction in this section of the roadway and other associated Traffic Impact Analysis (2/18/2020) Cedar River Apartments William Popp Associates Page 19 improvements to interchanges, local roadways, noise walls and storm water management facilities. This longer-term work is not currently funded for design or construction. The Master Plan includes a major change of both the SR 169 interchange and adjacent roadways to the north that, at the conceptual engineering stage, would include one way frontage roads on either side of the freeway from SR 169 to Sunset Boulevard interchange with a fly-over southbound to eastbound ramp to SR 169. The estimated completion of this concept are estimated to be about 15 years out as it will require significant legislative action to fund the remaining portions of the I-405 Master Plan. This project would have a major beneficial effect on access to I-405 and freeway traffic operations in the immediate Renton area as well as Bellevue, Kirkland, Bothell, Woodinville, Newcastle, Redmond and communities north and south of I-405. B. FUTURE CONDITIONS 1. Background Traffic Volumes Background traffic volumes were estimated by factoring the existing traffic volumes by a calculated historical traffic growth rate up to the project's full build out year, plus the six year addition requested by WSDOT. The project’s estimated horizon years are assumed to be 2021 for Phase 1, 2022 for Phase 2, and 2023 for Phase 3. The horizon year analysis requested by WSDOT is 2029. Recent historical traffic counts for SR 169 east of the I-405 interchange were obtained from WSDOT sources for 2012, 2015, and 2018. Traffic volumes were reviewed for the 3-hour windows during the AM peak period (6:00 am to 9:00 am) and PM peak period (3:00 pm to 6:00 pm). With seasonal and axle adjustments, the counts for the AM period indicate the recent historical annual growth rate is 1.4%, and for the PM period the annual growth rate is 0.5%. According to the model based 2025 and 2045 turning movement forecasts from the I-405 Express Toll Lanes Projects Traffic Discipline Report the intersection’s annual growth rate at the two ramp terminal intersections (I-405/SR 169 SB on-ramp, and I-405/SR 169 NB on- ramp) are 0.4% per year at each intersection for both peak hour periods. Given the above ranges of annual growth rates for the two peak periods, a simplified slightly conservative background growth rate of 1% was used to forecast future volumes for all movements out to 2023 as well as out to 2029. No pipeline projects were identified by the City that would have a significant impact on this analysis. Traffic Impact Analysis (2/18/2020) Cedar River Apartments William Popp Associates Page 20 Background peak hour turning movement volume forecasts for Year 2021, 2022, 2023, and 2029 are all shown in Appendix A in tabular form. 2. Project Trip Generation The Cedar River Apartments would consist of 481 apartments in two separate buildings; Building A and B, with 5 levels each building. The third building is proposed as a medical office building with a gross floor area of 25,000 gsf approximately, identified as Building C. The project is proposed to be constructed in three phases. Each phase is discussed below and the trip generation estimate bases are all per the ITE Trip Generation 10th Edition manual. Phase 1 will be Building A. This building will consist of 238 apartment units, on 5 levels; along with 306 structure parking stalls. The best-fit land use is ITE Land Use Code 221, Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise). Mid-rise multi-family housing includes apartments, townhouses, and condominiums located within the same building with at least three other dwelling units and that have between three and 10 levels (floors). Phase 2 will be Building B. This building will consist of 243 apartment units, on 5 levels, plus 4,852 gsf of commercial retail on the ground floor. There will be 339 structure parking stalls. Since the type of tenants are currently undefined for the commercial-retail space the analysis assumes a shopping center retail mix. Per ITE LUC 820, Shopping Center is defined as “an integrated group of commercial establishments that is planned, developed, owned, and managed as a unit. A shopping center’s composition is related to its market area in terms of size, location, and type of store. A shopping center also provides on-site parking facilities sufficient to serve its own parking demands”. For the resultant retail trip generation estimates it was determined that 34% of the total trips would be pass-by related in accordance with the ITE Trip Generation Handbook 3rd Edition, Table 5.4. Since for Phase 2 there is a mix of land uses, an estimate of internal trip capture was made for all non-pass-by related trips using NCHRP 684 “Internal Trip Capture Estimation Tool”. The results are shown in Table 6. Phase 3 will be the future commercial pad, identified in this report as Building C. It is intended to be a Medical Office type use. Therefore, trip generation rates are based on ITE LUC 720, Medical Office. Similar to Phase 2, since there is a mix of land use types, the internal trip capture tool (NCHRP 684) was used to estimate internal and external trips with Phase 3. A 60 parking stall structure is proposed. The site is currently occupied by construction trucks and trailers and other heavy equipment. However, the trips currently generated at the site are likely incidental and are assumed as insignificant and thus not identified in this analysis for any trip credit against future project trips. Traffic Impact Analysis (2/18/2020) Cedar River Apartments William Popp Associates Page 21 The trip generation estimates for the project by phase are presented in Table 6. Table 6 Project Trip Generation Estimates a PHASE and, AM Peak PM Peak ITE Code and Land Use Size AWT Total In Out Total In Out PHASE 1 LUC 221 b – Multi-Family House Mid-Rise (3 to 10 floors) – 238 units (Building A) Rate 5.44 0.360 0.260 0.740 0.440 0.610 0.390 Vol 1,295 86 22 64 105 64 41 PHASE 2 LUC 221 b – Multi-Family House Mid-Rise (3 to 10 floors) – 243 units (Building B) Rate 5.44 0.360 0.260 0.740 0.440 0.610 0.390 Vol 1,322 87 23 64 107 65 42 LUC 820c – Shopping Center Retail Mix – 4,852 gsf commercial/retail Rate 37.75 0.94 0.62 0.38 3.81 0.48 0.52 Vol 183 5 3 2 18 9 9 Non-Pass By (66%) 121 3 2 1 12 6 6 Pass-By 62 2 1 1 6 3 3 Phase 2 Subtotal 1,443 90 25 65 119 71 48 PHASE 1 and 2 Total Trips (internal & external) 2,738 176 47 129 224 135 89 Internal Trip Capture Estimate d 55 2 1 1 6 3 3 Total External Trips 2,683 174 46 128 218 132 86 Total Pass-by Trips 62 2 1 1 6 3 3 PHASE 3 LUC 720 e – Medical-Dental Office Building – approximately 25,000 gsf (Building C) Rate 34.8 2.780 0.780 0.220 3.460 0.280 0.720 Vol 870 70 55 15 87 24 63 PHASE 1, 2 and 3 Total Trips (internal & external) 3,608 246 102 144 311 159 152 Internal Trip Capture Estimate d 144 10 5 5 14 7 7 Total External Trips 3,464 236 97 139 297 152 145 Total Pass-by Trips 62 2 1 1 6 3 3 a ITE Trip Generation 10th Edition b Mid-rise multifamily housing includes apartments, townhouses, and condominiums located within the same building with at least three other dwelling units and that have between three and 10 levels (floors) c ITE LUC 820 Shopping Center trip rates used for the proposed retail mix on site. The pass-by rate per ITE Trip Generation Handbook 3rd Edition Table 5.4 is 34%, thus the non-pass-by component is 66%. d Multi-Use Trip Capture per NCHRP 684 Internal Trip Capture Estimation Tool (see Appendix B). Daily capture assumed at 2% for Phase 1 & 2 and at 4% for Phase 1, 2 & 3. e A medical-dental office building is a facility that provides diagnoses and outpatient care on a routine basis but is unable to provide prolonged in-house medical and surgical care. One or more private physicians or dentists generally operate this type of facility. As shown in Table 6, for Phase 1, Building A is estimated to generate 1,295 average weekday daily trips, 86 AM, and 105 PM peak hour trips. For Phase 2, Building B is estimated to generate 1,443 daily, 90 AM and 119 PM peak hour trips. Including Phase 1, the site is estimated to generate 2,683 average weekday daily trips, Traffic Impact Analysis (2/18/2020) Cedar River Apartments William Popp Associates Page 22 174 AM, and 218 PM peak hour trips to the surrounding street system. These would be the total trips to and from the project (total external trips). In addition, there are 62 daily, 2 AM and 6 PM peak hour estimated pass-by trips. These trips would be vehicles traveling through on SR 169 that would interrupt the trip to visit the site. Hence the pass-by trip would only have impacts at the site access intersections: SR 169/Cedar River Park Dr and SR 169/east site access. For Phase 3, Building C is estimated to generate 870 daily, 70 AM and 87 PM peak hour trips. With completion of all phases, the site is estimated to generate 3,464 average weekday daily trips, 236 AM, and 297 PM peak hour trips to the surrounding street system (which includes Phase 1 and 2). Again these would be the external vehicle trips to and from the project. The pass-by element would remain unchanged from those estimates as part of Phase 2. 3. Trip Distribution and Traffic Assignment The project trip distribution patterns were based on traffic volumes on major vicinity roadways plus knowledge of the surrounding areas with respect to employment and socio- recreational types of attractions. For all of the land uses including the residential, retail, and office elements of the project, the analysis assumed the following: • 25% to I-405 north and 25% to I-405 south, • 10% to S 2nd St and S 3rd St in downtown Renton, • 10% to N 3rd St and N 4th St through North Renton and westerly locations, • 5% to the North Renton via the Houser Way bypass, • 10% to N 3rd St east to the Renton Highlands via N 3rd-N 4th St, • 15% to SR 169 east towards Fairwood, Maple Valley, Black Diamond and other places east. The AM peak and the PM street peak hour trip distribution and assignment for the project for all phases for the greater outlying area are shown in Figure 7a. The AM project trip assignment for the full project through the analysis intersections is shown in Figure 7b. Likewise, the PM project trip assignment, for the full project, through the analysis intersections is shown in Figure 7c. For each individual phase, the project trip assignment turn volumes by movement at each intersection are shown in Appendix A in tabular form. SITE A B C 25% 10% 10% 10% 25%15% 5% N 4th St N 3rd St B ronson W ayHouser WayI-405S R 1 6 9Houser WaySunset WayNE 3rd StFactory Ave(10) (45) (34) (14) (77) (36) (33) (84) (22) (117) (22) (20) (14) (15) (7) (33) (22) (5) (9) (9) (27)(7) 15 15 35 74 38 34 34 127 116 29 25 32 (22) 38 82 368 7 44 7 15 15 14 14 LEGEND (xx) -- AM Peak Hour Project Trips (all phases) xx -- PM Peak Hour Project Trips (all phases) 25% -- Project Trip Distribution Percentage Project Trip Distribution & Assignment Figure 7a all Phases (1, 2, and 3) North WILLIAM POPP ASSOCIATES Bellevue, WA 98007 425.401.1030 Cedar River Apartments SRM Renton, LLC SR 1 6 9 S h a ri's D rive w a yI-405 N B R am psI-405 NB Off-RampSunset WayI-405 SB On-RampB r o n s o n W a y I-405 SBI-405 NBSITE A B C xx -- AM Street Peak Hour Project Volumes (all Phases) AM PEAK PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUMES Figure 7b Int #1 Int #3 Int #4 Int #2 Int #5 all Phases (1, 2, and 3) North WILLIAM POPP ASSOCIATES Bellevue, WA 98007 425.401.1030 7 7 1 1 7 2 0451034 14 36 2117 5 7 225 5 8 4 3 3 2 2 0x 2 0 x 2 0 2 0 Cedar River Apartments SRM Renton, LLC SR 1 6 9 S h a ri's D rive w a yI-405 N B R am psI-405 NB Off-RampSunset WayI-405 SB On-RampB r o n s o n W a y I-405 SBI-405 NBSITE A B C xx -- PM Street Peak Hour Project Volumes (all Phases) PM PEAK PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUMES Figure 7c Int #1 Int #3 Int #4 Int #2 Int #5 all Phases (1, 2, and 3) North WILLIAM POPP ASSOCIATES Bellevue, WA 98007 425.401.1030 1 2 7 1 1 6 1 4741532 15 35 4116 2 5 1 1 3 388 9 8 2 3 4 4 2 5x 2 5 x 1 4 Cedar River Apartments SRM Renton, LLC Traffic Impact Analysis (2/18/2020) Cedar River Apartments William Popp Associates Page 26 4. Background Traffic Plus Project Traffic Volumes Future year AM and PM peak hour with-project traffic volumes were developed by adding project trips to the background forecast traffic volumes. For Phase 1, the AM and PM peak hour volumes include the background traffic growth estimate from 2017 to 2021 as well as the Project Phase 1 traffic, which would all be representative for Year 2021. Similarly for Phase 2, the horizon year estimate is Year 2022 and the AM and PM peak hour volumes include an additional year of background growth plus Phase 2 project traffic. With Phase 2 there will be a small amount of trips that stay on site as a result of the small retail uses on site (trip capture). And finally, for Phase 3, the project buildout/full occupancy year estimate is Year 2023 and would include another year of background growth plus Phase 3 traffic. Like Phase 2, there will be a small amount of trips that stay on site as a result of the small retail and the medical office mix with the residential. In accordance with the WSDOT request, a 2029 analysis for both AM and PM peak hour conditions is also included. This 2029 analysis addresses the difference in operations between the without Project condition and the with Project condition, some 6 years beyond the estimated Project horizon year. All of the volumes by movement at each intersection as well as by Phase and per peak hour are all shown in Appendix A in tabular form. The Year 2023 AM peak hour volumes with and without project volumes are shown in Figure 8a and 8b respectively. The Year 2023 PM peak hour volumes with and without project volumes are shown in Figure 9a and 9b respectively. The Year 2029 AM peak hour with and without project volumes are shown in Figure 10a and 10b respectively. The Year 2029 PM peak hour with and without project volumes are shown in Figure 11a and 11b respectively. S R 1 6 9 S hari's D rivew ayI-405 N B R am psI-405 NB Off-RampI-405 SB On-RampB r o n s o n W a y I-405 SBI-405 NBSITE A B CSunset Way131646241046xx -- 2023 AM Peak Hour Volumes (1 hour between 7:00 and 9:00 am) YEAR 2023 AM PEAK TRAFFIC VOLUMES Figure 8a Int #1 Int #3 Int #4 Int #2 Int #5 without Project North WILLIAM POPP ASSOCIATES Bellevue, WA 98007 425.401.1030 33 7 6 8 0 2 1 3 3 758 6 6 1 5 8 277419 110 50 823 614 951905466 5352 1 0 6 1 3 6 5 3071 8 3 7 0 1 8 1 2 4 3 8525 6 6 8 2 1 1 9 x xxx Cedar River Apartments SRM Renton, LLC SR 1 6 9 S h a ri's D rive w a yI-405 N B R am psI-405 NB Off-RampI-405 SB On-RampB r o n s o n W a y I-405 SBI-405 NBSITE A B C xx -- 2023 AM Peak Hour Volumes (1 hour between 7:00 and 9:00 am)Sunset Way134147144149(xx) -- retail pass-by trips YEAR 2023 AM PEAK TRAFFIC VOLUMES Figure 8b Int #1 Int #3 Int #4 Int #2 Int #5 with Project (Phase 1, 2, and 3) North WILLIAM POPP ASSOCIATES Bellevue, WA 98007 425.401.1030 33 7 7 5 7 2 2 5 0 758 6 8 1 5 8 322419120 50 857 628 987905466 8152 (+1 )2 1 0 5 ( - 1 ) 3 4 ( + 1 ) 1 2 2 3291 8 4 2 5 1 8 9 6 4 7 1525 6 7 0 2 0 X 2 1 3 9 x 2 0 Cedar River Apartments SRM Renton, LLC S R 1 6 9 S hari's D rivew ayI-405 N B R am psI-405 NB Off-RampSunset WayI-405 SB On-RampB r o n s o n W a y I-405 SBI-405 NBSITE A B C95825729433 xx -- 2023 PM Peak Hour Volumes (1 hour between 4:00 and 6:00 pm) YEAR 2023 PM PEAK TRAFFIC VOLUMES Figure 9a Int #1 Int #3 Int #4 Int #2 Int #5 without Project North WILLIAM POPP ASSOCIATES Bellevue, WA 98007 425.401.1030 44 4 2 2 5 0 9 9 4 1 433 2 2 1 0 1 6 1216714 552 69 355 251 818791677 70419 6 6 1 3 4 0 8196 5 1 7 0 4 7 4 8 2 6 1713 2 2 8 0 xx9 7 9 x x Cedar River Apartments SRM Renton, LLC SR 1 6 9 S h a ri's D rive w a yI-405 N B R am psI-405 NB Off-RampI-405 SB On-RampB r o n s o n W a y I-405 SBI-405 NBSITE A B C xx -- 2023 PM Peak Hour Volumes (1 hour between 4:00 and 6:00 pm)Sunset Way98326432236(xx) -- retail pass-by trips YEAR 2023 PM PEAK TRAFFIC VOLUMES Figure 9b Int #1 Int #3 Int #4 Int #2 Int #5 with Project (Phase 1, 2, and 3) North WILLIAM POPP ASSOCIATES Bellevue, WA 98007 425.401.1030 44 4 2 3 7 7 1 1 1 0 1 4331 6 1290714567 69 387 266 853791677 7 4157 (+1 )9 6 6 ( - 1 ) 3 8 ( + 1 ) 1 5 3 ( + 2 )8576 5 1 7 9 3 8 3 0 2 9 5713 2 5 (+2 )x1 0 0 4 x 1 4 2 2 2 4 ( - 2 ) 2 2 8 4 ( - 2 ) Cedar River Apartments SRM Renton, LLC S R 1 6 9 S hari's D rivew ayI-405 N B R am psI-405 NB Off-RampI-405 SB On-RampB r o n s o n W a y I-405 SBI-405 NBSITE A B C xx -- 2023 AM Peak Hour Volumes (1 hour between 7:00 and 9:00 am)Sunset Way139749143648YEAR 2029 AM PEAK TRAFFIC VOLUMES Figure 10a Int #1 Int #3 Int #4 Int #2 Int #5 without Project North WILLIAM POPP ASSOCIATES Bellevue, WA 98007 425.401.1030 33 9 7 2 2 2 2 6 4 862 7 0 2 6 2 294445 117 53 874 652 1009961495 7372 2 3 6 1 4 6 9 3261 9 3 9 3 1 9 2 4 4 6 5558 7 0 9 2 2 4 9 x xxx Cedar River Apartments SRM Renton, LLC SR 1 6 9 S h a ri's D rive w a yI-405 N B R am psI-405 NB Off-RampI-405 SB On-RampB r o n s o n W a y I-405 SBI-405 NBSITE A B CSunset Way142250046652xx -- 2023 AM Peak Hour Volumes (1 hour between 7:00 and 9:00 am) (xx) -- retail pass-by trips YEAR 2029 AM PEAK TRAFFIC VOLUMES Figure 10b Int #1 Int #3 Int #4 Int #2 Int #5 with full Project (Phase 1, 2 and 3) North WILLIAM POPP ASSOCIATES Bellevue, WA 98007 425.401.1030 33 9 7 9 9 2 3 8 1 862 7 2 2 6 2 339445127 53 908 666 1045961495 9154 (+1 )2 2 3 6 ( - 1 ) 3 4 ( + 1 ) 1 2 6 3481 9 4 4 8 2 0 0 7 4 9 8558 7 1 1 2 2 6 9 2 0 2 0x x Cedar River Apartments SRM Renton, LLC S R 1 6 9 S hari's D rivew ayI-405 N B R am psI-405 NB Off-RampI-405 SB On-RampB r o n s o n W a y I-405 SBI-405 NBSITE A B C xx -- 2029 PM Peak Hour Volumes (1 hour between 4:00 and 6:00pm)Sunset Way101727331235YEAR 2029 PM PEAK TRAFFIC VOLUMES Figure 11a Int #1 Int #3 Int #4 Int #2 Int #5 without Project North WILLIAM POPP ASSOCIATES Bellevue, WA 98007 425.401.1030 54 6 2 3 8 8 1 0 5 5 1 535 2 3 4 6 1 7 1291758 586 73 377 266 868839719 74441 0 2 5 1 4 4 2 8696 9 1 8 0 9 7 9 4 2 7 8757 2 4 2 0 1 0 3 9 x xxx Cedar River Apartments SRM Renton, LLC SR 1 6 9 S h a ri's D rive w a yI-405 N B R am psI-405 NB Off-RampI-405 SB On-RampB r o n s o n W a y I-405 SBI-405 NBSITE A B C xx -- 2029 PM Peak Hour Volumes (1 hour between 4:00 and 6:00pm)Sunset Way104227934238(xx) -- retail pass-by trips YEAR 2029 PM PEAK TRAFFIC VOLUMES Figure 11b Int #1 Int #3 Int #4 Int #2 Int #5 with full Project (Phase 1, 2 and 3) North WILLIAM POPP ASSOCIATES Bellevue, WA 98007 425.401.1030 54 6 2 5 1 5 1 1 7 1 1 535 2 3 6 0 ( - 2 ) 1 7 1365758601 73 409 281 903839719 7 8160 (+1 )1 0 2 5 ( - 1 ) 3 9 ( + 1 ) 1 5 5 ( + 2 )9076 9 1 8 9 8 8 7 6 3 1 2757 2 4 2 4 1 0 6 4 1 4 2 5 (+2 )xx Cedar River Apartments SRM Renton, LLC Traffic Impact Analysis (2/18/2020) Cedar River Apartments William Popp Associates Page 35 5. Level-of-Service (Future Year Phased Project Conditions) – Synchro LOS Results The following level of service analysis identifies the AM and PM peak hour results based on Synchro output for each of the three phases of development and their corresponding horizon years. As pointed out previously, the Synchro results essentially assume stand-alone conditions for each intersection without consideration of upstream or downstream effects. A subsequent micro-simulation analysis using Sim Traffic software to address the effects of upstream and downstream traffic is presented later in this report. Table 7 shows the “without Project” and “with Project” Synchro level of service results for each of the three proposed phases of development. Also shown in Table 7 are the LOS results for Intersection 1 with the immediate WSDOT programmed improvements, ie, the dual westbound left turn (WBLT) lane on SR 169 at the Sunset/Bronson/I-405 SB ramp intersection and the conversion of Sunset Blvd southbound to two general purpose lanes. The purpose of showing these LOS results based on HCM/Synchro analysis was to identify intersection LOS & delay impacts/changes with inclusion of the Project, in full and for each of the three phases without involving assumptions about freeway congestion and meter rate operations during the several phases of Project buildout. As shown in Table 7, each of the four analysis intersections are estimated to operate at satisfactory levels of service D or better with the above described WSDOT improvements at the Sunset/Bronson/I-405 SB ramp intersection. Results are also presented for the condition should the WSDOT improvements on SR 169 not be in place in 2021. It is important to note the I-405 Express Toll Lane project completion in 2024, one year past the Cedar Park Apartments project horizon year, is projected to significantly reduce freeway delay which in turn should substantially reduce intersection delay at this SR 169 location. From this analysis it can be concluded that based on classic HCM methodology the Project will have little impact on delay at any of the subject intersections (0 to 5 seconds). The major reason for this is the Project contributes less than 2.5% of all entering traffic at the corridor critical SR 169/I-405/Sunset Blvd intersection. By way of comparison, the I-405 Express Toll Lanes Project Transportation Discipline Report 2 in the 2025 Build scenario gives estimates of LOS C and D for AM and PM peak hour for SR 169/SB on-ramp terminal intersection and LOS D and B for AM and PM for the SR 169/NB on-ramp terminal intersection. These estimates are also based on HCM/Synchro methodology, i.e., without micro-simulation. 2 I-405 Express Toll Lanes Projects, Transportation Discipline Report; Pages E-4 & E-10 Traffic Impact Analysis (2/18/2020) Cedar River Apartments William Popp Associates Page 36 Table 7 Intersection Level-of-Service -- Intersection Results (per Synchro) Without Project With Project Intersection LOS a Delay a LOS a Delay a Comments PHASE 1 (Year 2021) (with and without Phase 1) AM PEAK HOUR b 1 SR 169/Sunset/Bronson/I-405 SB Ramps c E 59 E 61 D 42 D 42 with dual WBLT d 2 SR 169/I-405 NB Ramps c B 20- C 20+ 3 SR 169/Shari's Driveway c A 4 A 4 4 SR 169/Cedar River Park Drive c A 8 A 9 PM PEAK HOUR b 1 SR 169/Sunset/Bronson/I-405 SB Ramps c D 46 D 46 D 41 D 41 with dual WBLT d 2 SR 169/I-405 NB Ramps c B 11 B 11 3 SR 169/Shari's Driveway c A 2 A 2 4 SR 169/Cedar River Park Drive c A 4 A 5 PHASE 2 (Year 2022) (with and without Phase 2, the “without Project” includes Phase 1) AM PEAK HOUR b 1 SR 169/Sunset/Bronson/I-405 SB Ramps c D 42 D 43 with dual WBLT d 2 SR 169/I-405 NB Ramps c C 20- C 20+ 3 SR 169/Shari's Driveway c A 4 A 4 4 SR 169/Cedar River Park Drive c A 9 A 10 PM PEAK HOUR b 1 SR 169/Sunset/Bronson/I-405 SB Ramps c D 42 D 43 with dual WBLT d 2 SR 169/I-405 NB Ramps c B 11 B 11 3 SR 169/Shari's Driveway c A 2 A 2 4 SR 169/Cedar River Park Drive c A 5 A 6 PHASE 3 (Year 2023) (with and without Phase 3, the “without Project” includes Phase 1 and 2) AM PEAK HOUR b 1 SR 169/Sunset/Bronson/I-405 SB Ramps c D 43 D 43 with dual WBLT d 2 SR 169/I-405 NB Ramps c C 21 C 21 3 SR 169/Shari's Driveway c A 4 A 4 4 SR 169/Cedar River Park Drive c B 10 B 11 PM PEAK HOUR b 1 SR 169/Sunset/Bronson/I-405 SB Ramps c D 44 D 44 with dual WBLT d 2 SR 169/I-405 NB Ramps c B 11 B 10 3 SR 169/Shari's Driveway c A 2 A 2 4 SR 169/Cedar River Park Drive c A 6 A 7 AT FULL PROJECT COMPLETION (Year 2023) (“without Project” here assumes NO development) AM PEAK HOUR b 1 SR 169/Sunset/Bronson/I-405 SB Ramps c D 43 D 43 with dual WBLT d 2 SR 169/I-405 NB Ramps c C 20+ C 21 3 SR 169/Shari's Driveway c A 4 A 4 4 SR 169/Cedar River Park Drive c A 6 B 11 PM PEAK HOUR b 1 SR 169/Sunset/Bronson/I-405 SB Ramps c D 42 D 44 with dual WBLT d 2 SR 169/I-405 NB Ramps c B 11 B 10 3 SR 169/Shari's Driveway c A 2 A 2 4 SR 169/Cedar River Park Drive c A 4 A 7 a LOS and Delay are per Synchro v9/10 and HCM methodology. Delay is represented in seconds per vehicle. A 1.0 PHF was used for all of these future Synchro calculations. Similarly the subsequent simulation analyses uses the same 1.0 PHF, based on WSDOT protocol. b Street peak hour: AM peak is one hour between 7:00 and 9:00am, and PM peak is one hour between 4:00 and 6:00 pm. c Potential queue spill back through this intersection (from the southbound on-ramp or northbound on-ramp) due to long ramp meter intervals and subsequent ramp delay associated with I-405 congestion can result in additional delay at some or all of the subject upstream intersections. This cannot be quantified in the Synchro analysis. d Intersection improvements would include conversion of the inside westbound thru lane to a shared left/thru thus creating two westbound left turn lanes to the southbound on-ramp. Also as part of the intersection improvements would be conversion of the HOV southbound thru lane to a general purpose thru lane (shared with southbound left), thus two southbound thru lanes to the on-ramp. Traffic Impact Analysis (2/18/2020) Cedar River Apartments William Popp Associates Page 37 The Synchro/HCM calculation results are all shown in Appendix C. As noted in Table 7, the potential queue spill back from the I-405 southbound ramp or northbound ramp due to long ramp meter delay associated with I-405 congestion can result in additional delay (sometimes significant) at some or all of the subject upstream intersections identified in this report. This incurred delay at each upstream intersection would not be quantified in the Synchro analysis. Hence, this analysis shifted to a micro-simulation analysis for two future analysis years, 2023 with and without project, and 2029 with and without project, for both the AM and PM peak hour periods. 6. Sim Traffic LOS and Queue Results – Future with and without full Project – Year 2023 As noted above, the Synchro results assume stand-alone conditions without upstream or downstream effects. A micro-simulation analysis using Sim Traffic was conducted to compare intersection delay at the subject intersections as well as selected queue length findings. The subsequent analysis computes the level of service at the Project’s four analysis intersections with ramp meter impacts at the two SR 169 on-ramp intersections to I-405 for both near term and post I-405 project completion. It also identifies queue results at selected locations where the queue length is not limited by upstream intersections. The queue results are identified for selected approaches at the SR 169/Cedar River Park Drive intersection. Currently, the northbound and southbound ramp metering is typically operational from 6 am to 9 am and from 3 pm to 7 pm. As discussed previously the meter release rates vary depending on the level of traffic congestion in the freeway lane adjacent to the on-ramp as well as queue spill back on the ramp. For the simulation analysis, it is not possible to vary the meter rate based on these variable conditions, thus a set meter rate was modeled based on average meter cycles for existing conditions. In mid-March of 2019 the southbound ramp meter cycle was observed to be running at approximately 10 seconds per lane both in the AM and PM peak commute peak hour. The ramp meter cycle of course can fluctuate given speed and volume conditions on I-405. During times when the meter is in operation the southbound ramp includes two metered lanes (one lane consists of temporary use of the right side shoulder) and one HOV by-pass lane. The northbound ramp meter cycle was observed to be running at approximately 11 second intervals during the AM commute peak hour and about 8 seconds during the PM commute peak hour. The northbound ramp is currently a single lane on-ramp with no HOV bypass lane. However, for the future analyses, an HOV by-pass was assumed. Traffic Impact Analysis (2/18/2020) Cedar River Apartments William Popp Associates Page 38 The simulation of the four subject intersections including the two ramp meters was conducted for both the AM and PM peak hour cases for the project horizon year of 2023 using the above observed meter rates with and without Project and with and without near term dual westbound left turn lane and on-ramp improvements. The simulation was also conducted assuming 4- second meter rates which represent WSDOT’s standard minimum release rate based on expectations of improved I-405 mainline operations associated with the completion of the ETL project. WSDOT Improvements (assumed in analysis) WSDOT has programmed improvements as part of the I-405 Renton to Bellevue Widening and Express Toll Lanes project and the I-405 - SR 167 Interchange Direct Connector Project which consist of the following (these are also discussed above in an earlier section): • Modifying the southbound on-ramp to I-405 from SR 169. Changes would include conversion of the HOV by-pass lane to general purpose use such that there would be three general purpose metered lanes, with two general purpose lanes entering from the SR 169 intersection. The right most lane would only be usable when the meter is in operation. • In turn the westbound approach (on SR 169 to the ramp) would be modified to a left turn lane and a shared left/through lane (thus two left turn lanes). And for the southbound approach (Sunset Boulevard), the HOV thru lane designation (shared with general purpose southbound left turns) would be removed from the shared left/through lane, and two general-purpose lanes would access the southbound on-ramp. • An HOV meter by-pass lane would be installed on the I-405 Northbound Ramp. • Addition of I-405 to SR 167 fly-over ramps connecting HOT lanes on I-405 to carpool lanes on SR 167 (essentially completed). • Addition of one Express Toll Lane (ETL) each way on I-405 and conversion of existing HOV lane to an ETL. Project slated for late 2024 completion. The WSDOT ETL project when fully operational should significantly reduce congestion on I- 4053 in this area which is expected to significantly reduce ramp meter intervals at both SR 169/Sunset Way/I-405 Southbound and Northbound on-ramp intersections, in particular for AM commute peak period conditions. In the interim, the westbound dual left turn lane conversion will allow more efficient ramp operation but that operation remains significantly burdened by the expectation of long meter rates. However the rates may decrease with the opening of the I-405/SR 167 IC direct HOT ramps as a result of shift in mainline freeway volumes, so the delay estimates for the SB on- ramp are likely overstated under that operation. 3 Ibid; I-405 Operations - 2025 Build AM Period and 2025 Build PM Period, Exhibits 5-9 and 5-10. Traffic Impact Analysis (2/18/2020) Cedar River Apartments William Popp Associates Page 39 AM & PM Peak Hour – Year 2023 The results for the 2023 AM and PM peak hour conditions at the four analysis intersections are shown in Table 8. The table also identifies the queue length for the westbound approach to Intersection 4 for the AM peak hour. It should be noted that in the westbound direction the westbound queue length extends the full length of the link segment at each of the downstream intersections thus the queue is only reported at Intersection 4 since this will be where queues will ultimately reach their full length. The queues reported in this study include the average queue which is actually an average of the maximum queues reported every two minutes for five simulation runs, and the maximum queue which is the average of the maximum queues reported for the full duration from each of five simulation runs. For the PM peak hour, the queue is reported for the eastbound and westbound directions at Intersection 4. The analysis was conducted for the 2023 without project case for existing geometric/signal conditions as well as conducted for the case with improvements at Intersection 1 including southbound ramp changes, dual westbound left turn lane, elimination of the exclusive HOV use southbound on Sunset Way to the southbound on-ramp, as well as an I-405 North Bound on-ramp HOV bypass (assumes 10% HOV use) downstream of Intersection 2. The analysis also conducted LOS for the 2023 with and without project case for conditions with improvements noted above as well as assumed improvements on I-405 that result in shorter ramp meter rates. Traffic Impact Analysis (2/18/2020) Cedar River Apartments William Popp Associates Page 40 Table 8 Intersection Level-of-Service & Queue -- (per SimTraffic) h Project Horizon Year Full Development – Year 2023 Existing with Int 1 Imp’s with Int 1 Imp’s + Operations Conditions a + Ramp Imp’s b Ramp Imp’s + ETL c without Project without Project with Project without Project with Project Intersection (& ref #) LOS Delay d LOS Delay d LOS Delay d LOS Delay d LOS Delay d ---------------- AM PEAK HOUR e ---------------- Intersection LOS and Delay 1 SR 169/Sunset/Bronson/I-405 SB On-Ramp F 225 F 157 F 155 D 40 D 42 2 SR 169/I-405 NB Ramps c C 31 D 41 D 45 C 35 D 41 3 SR 169/Shari's Driveway E 61 D 54 E 67 B 13 C 29 4 SR 169/Cedar River Park Drive C 33 C 26 D 37 A 4 B 14 Selected Queue Results 4 SR 169/Cedar River Park Drive Average Q Westbound Thru (ft) f 3,990’ 3,260’ 3,330’ 110’ 180’ Max Q Westbound Thru (ft) g 9,030’ 7,650’ 8,130’ 380’ 520’ ---------------- PM PEAK HOUR e ---------------- Intersection LOS and Delay 1 SR 169/Sunset/Bronson/I-405 SB On-Ramp F 243 F 125 F 134 D 53 D 54 2 SR 169/I-405 NB Ramps c C 29 C 23 C 32 B 18 C 20 3 SR 169/Shari's Driveway C 31 A 4 C 22 A 4 A 4 4 SR 169/Cedar River Park Drive B 15 A 4 B 12 A 4 B 11 Selected Queue Results 4 SR 169/Cedar River Park Drive Average Q Eastbound Thru (ft) f 50’ 50’ 70’ 50’ 130’ Max Q Eastbound Thru (ft) g 150’ 150’ 220’ 170’ 340’ a With existing ramp and roadway channelization and ramp metering per 2018 observations. b Improvements at Intersection 1 including a dual westbound left turn lane and no HOV exclusivity for the southbound thru lanes. The southbound on-ramp would be modified to allow two general purpose lanes from the intersection and three lanes at the meter. The third lane is used only when meter in operation. 2018 observed meter rates are assumed. Analysis also assumes a NB on-ramp HOV by-pass. c Ramp meter assumed at 4 seconds for both the NB and SB ramps due to the I-405 Express Toll Lanes project and projected reduced freeway congestion. The ETL is assumed to be complete within less than a year of the Project horizon year. d Average delay measured from simulations. Delay values represented in seconds per vehicle, all intersections are signalized. e Street peak hour: AM peak is one hour between 7:00 and 9:00am, and PM peak is one hour between 4:00 and 6:00 pm. f The Average Queue shown here is the average of the maximum queue for every 2 minutes of each simulation. There are 5 simulations. The queue shown reflects the average for all lanes. g The Maximum queue is the average of the maximum queue for each of the 5 runs. The queue shown reflects the average for all lanes. h All results are based on five 60-minute simulations. Each of these simulation results reflects a 5-run, 60-minute simulation summary, with a 15- minute seed time (for purposes of comparison the random seed number was held constant for all cases). Excessive delay and subsequent queue spill back due to conditions downstream once extended through an upstream intersection will be reported as delay at the upstream intersection. That being said, the findings are summarized below. Also, the model calculation results are presented in Appendix D. Traffic Impact Analysis (2/18/2020) Cedar River Apartments William Popp Associates Page 41 SR 169/Sunset/ Bronson/I-405 SB On-Ramp Assuming the existing geometric and operational conditions for 2023, the average intersection delay for the AM is 225 seconds per vehicle (sec/veh) and 243 sec/veh for the PM peak hour. With the scheduled WSDOT near term improvements including a re-channelization of the westbound approach from a single left turn lane, two thru lanes, and a right turn lane, to a left turn lane, a shared left/thru lane, a thru lane, and a right turn lane, along with elimination of the southbound thru lane HOV exclusivity, the delay is estimated to improve to 157 sec/veh for AM conditions and 125 sec/veh for PM conditions, which is a significant improvement; however the grade remains LOS F. The analysis assumes no change in meter rates. With project traffic, the delay is 155 sec/veh for the AM case and 134 sec/veh for the PM case. With completion of the I-405 ETLproject, WSDOT projects significantly reduced congestion on the freeway as a result of the added freeway lane each way. Consequently it is assumed the ramp meter times would decrease to their typical minimum. Assuming a 4-second ramp meter release rate for both the northbound and southbound ramps, the LOS and delay is estimated to improve to LOS D for both AM and PM peak hour with an average delay of 40 sec/veh and 53 sec/veh respectively. This would be for the scenario without Project. With the Project, the LOS is D for both peak hours with average delays of 42 and 54 sec/veh for AM and PM peak hours respectively. SR 169/I-405 NB On/Off Ramps intersection For the AM peak hour period, the intersection is estimated to operate between LOS C and D for the five analyzed conditions at the project’s full build-out horizon year. For the PM peak hour period, the intersection is estimated to operate between LOS B and C for the five analyzed conditions at the project’s full build-out horizon year. SR 169/Shari’s Driveway intersection Congestion and delay is primarily a result of the congestion at the interchange. The LOS is estimated to improve from LOS E to B/C for the AM peak hour with the WSDOT Intersection 1 mitigation and the ETL improvements. The PM peak hour is estimated to improve from LOS C to A for with or without Project scenarios. SR 169/Cedar Rive Park Drive For the AM peak hour period the intersection is estimated to be LOS C without Project for existing geometric and operations conditions and LOS D with Project. The level of service is estimated to improve to LOS A for the AM peak hour without the Project and LOS B with the Project once the I-405 ETL’s are in place. The queue length from the simulations is also reported at this intersection in two forms: the average queue and the maximum queue. The average queue is defined as the average of the Traffic Impact Analysis (2/18/2020) Cedar River Apartments William Popp Associates Page 42 maximum queue observed every two minutes during the one hour simulation. The queue shown in the table is the average of the 2 minute maximum queues for five simulation runs (150 data points). The maximum queue is the longest queue observed for a simulation, in this case over a one hour period. The queues shown in Table 8 are the average of five maximum queues (5 data points). It should be noted that the queues noted in Table 8 reflect the average for the multi-lane section. During the AM peak hour, the maximum westbound queue at the other three intersections is essentially the segment length to the upstream intersection. However, the queue from Intersection 4 to the east is open ended as the modeled link length exceeded 10,000 feet. The average queue was found to range between 3,300 and 4,000 feet for the first three scenarios (existing conditions and Intersection 1 improvements only). The maximum queue length was found to range between approximately 7,700 and 9,000 feet for the same first three scenarios. With implementation of all WSDOT programmed improvements including the I-405 ETL project the average westbound queue is 110 feet from Intersection 4 for the without Project case, and 180 feet for the with Project case. The maximum westbound queue estimate is 380 feet for the without Project condition and 520 feet for the with Project condition. It is an understatement to say the I-405 ETL project and its allowance for theoretical lowering of meter rates has a substantial beneficial effect on SR 169 westbound queues. For the PM case, assuming the full slate of WSDOT improvements noted previously, the average queue was found to be 60 feet without the project and 130’ with the project. The maximum eastbound queue was found to be 140 feet without Project, and 290 feet with Project. The link length eastbound on SR 169 between the Shari’s driveway and Cedar River Park Dr is 615 feet. The average and maximum queue lengths for the AM and PM peak hours for the westbound thru, the westbound left turn lane, and the northbound left are shown in Table 9 for the 2023 full Project development condition. A suggested mitigation measure targeted towards reducing project queue impacts at this intersection is restriping (along with signal modification) of the northbound approach from a single left and right to a dual left with shared right approach. The queue results for this condition are also shown in Table 9. Traffic Impact Analysis (2/18/2020) Cedar River Apartments William Popp Associates Page 43 Table 9 SR 169/Cedar River Park Drive Intersection Queue Summary -- (per SimTraffic) e 2023 with Full Project Development SR 169/Cedar River Park Drive Existing Geometry a with NB Dual LT b Intersection Queue (ft) Queue (ft) ---------------- AM PEAK HOUR ---------------- Selected Queue Results Average Q Westbound Thru (ft) c 180’ 90’ Max Q Westbound Thru (ft) d 530’ 220’ Average Q Northbound Left (ft) c 170’ 80’ Max Q Northbound Left (ft) d 370’ 160’ Average Q Westbound Left (ft) c 40’ 30’ Max Q Westbound Left (ft) d 130’ 100’ ---------------- PM PEAK HOUR ---------------- Selected Queue Results Average Q Eastbound Thru (ft) c 130’ 130’ Max Q Eastbound Thru (ft) d 340’ 310’ Average Q Northbound Left (ft) c 140’ 90’ Max Q Northbound Left (ft) d 270’ 190’ Average Q Eastbound Left (ft) c 40’ 40’ Max Q Eastbound Left (ft) d 100’ 100’ a Queue analysis assumes Intersection 1 improvements plus ETL completion. The simulation analysis excluded all bend nodes and secondary site access east of Intersection 4 for better queue output in SimTraffic. b Dual NB LT assumes restriping of the northbound approach at Cedar River Park Dr to a left turn lane and a shared left/right turn lane. c The Average Queue shown here is the average of the maximum queue for every 2 minutes of each simulation. There are 5 simulations. d The Maximum queue is the average of the maximum queue for each of the 5 runs. e All results are based on five 60-minute simulations. As shown in Table 9, the queue results for the westbound thru and northbound left conditions improve with the northbound dual left shared right concept. 7. SimTraffic LOS and Queue Results – Future with and without full Project – Year 2029 The following 2029 analysis computes the AM and PM peak hour level of service at the Project’s four analysis intersections for with and without Project conditions. For network assumptions, this analysis assumes all of the same improvements as identified in the 2023 analysis, including dual westbound left turn at Intersection 1, northbound and southbound ramp improvements, and I-405 ETL. The results are shown in Table 10. As one may note from review of the table, all analysis intersections are estimated to operate at LOS D or better with or without Project. Traffic Impact Analysis (2/18/2020) Cedar River Apartments William Popp Associates Page 44 The table also identifies the queue length for the westbound approach to Intersection 4 for the AM peak hour. It should be noted that in the westbound direction the westbound queue length extends the full length of the link segment at each of the downstream intersections thus the queue is only reported at Intersection 4 since there is minimal queue variation for the other downstream locations. For the PM peak hour, the queue was reported for the eastbound direction at Intersection 4. The analysis was conducted for year 2029 with and without project case for conditions with improvements noted above which include the ETL’s on I-405 that result in shorter ramp meter rates. Traffic Impact Analysis (2/18/2020) Cedar River Apartments William Popp Associates Page 45 Table 10 Intersection Level-of-Service & Queue -- (per SimTraffic) g Analysis Year 2029 with Full Project Development With Int 1 Imp’s + Ramp Imp’s + ETL a without Project with Project Intersection LOS Delay b LOS Delay b ---------------- AM PEAK HOUR c ---------------- Intersection LOS and Delay 1 SR 169/Sunset/Bronson/I-405 SB On-Ramp d D 45 D 48 2 SR 169/I-405 NB Ramps d D 41 D 41 3 SR 169/Shari's Driveway C 29 C 32 4 SR 169/Cedar River Park Drive A 7 B 17 Selected Queue Results 4 SR 169/Cedar River Park Drive Average Q Westbound (ft) e 70’ 220’ Max Q Westbound (ft) f 440’ 610’ ---------------- PM PEAK HOUR c ---------------- Intersection LOS and Delay 1 SR 169/Sunset/Bronson/I-405 SB On-Ramp d E 56 E 61 2 SR 169/I-405 NB Ramps d C 26 C 29 3 SR 169/Shari's Driveway A 4 A 5 4 SR 169/Cedar River Park Drive A 6 B 15 Selected Queue Results 4 SR 169/Cedar River Park Drive Average Q Eastbound (ft) e 80’ 200’ Max Q Eastbound (ft) f 220’ 540’ a Improvements at Intersection 1 include a dual westbound left turn lane and no HOV exclusivity for the southbound thru lanes. The southbound on-ramp would be modified to allow three general purpose lanes from the intersection. . Ramp meter cycle reduced to 4 seconds for both the NB and SB ramps due to the I-405 Express Toll Lanes project and projected reduced freeway congestion. Technically this occurs in late 2024 but for simplicity is folded into the 2023 analyses. b Average delay measured from simulations. Delay values represented in seconds per vehicle, all intersections are signalized. c Street peak hour: AM peak is one hour between 7:00 and 9:00am, and PM peak is one hour between 4:00 and 6:00 pm. d Ramp meter assumed at 4 seconds for both the NB and SB ramps due to the I-405 Express Toll Lanes project and projected reduced freeway congestion. The ETL is assumed to be complete at a similar time as the project full completion. e The Average Queue shown here is the average of the maximum queue for every 2 minutes of each simulation. There are 5 simulations. f The Maximum queue is the average of the maximum queue for each of the 5 runs. g All results are based on five 60-minute simulations. Similar to the 2023 analysis, each of these simulation results reflect a 5-run, 60-minute simulation summary, with a 15-minute seed time (also the random seed number was held constant for all cases). The calculations results can be found in Appendix D. At the SR 169/Cedar River Park Drive intersection, the average westbound queue and the average for all lanes) in the AM peak hour is estimated to be 70 feet without Project and 220 feet with project. The maximum queue is estimated to be 440 feet without Project and 610 feet with the Project. Traffic Impact Analysis (2/18/2020) Cedar River Apartments William Popp Associates Page 46 For the PM peak hour, the average queue for the eastbound direction is estimated to be 80 feet without Project and 200 feet with Project. The maximum queue for the eastbound approach is estimated to be 220 feet with the Project and 540 feet with the Project. The roadway segment link length of SR 169 between Shari’s driveway and Cedar River Park Drive is 615 feet. The average and maximum queue lengths for the AM and PM peak hours for the westbound thru, the westbound left turn lane, and the northbound left are shown in Table 11 for the 2029 full Project development condition. A suggested mitigation measure for reducing project queue impacts at this intersection is restriping (along with signal modification) of the northbound approach from a single left and right to a dual left with shared right approach. The queue results for this condition are also shown in Table 11. Table 11 SR 169/Cedar River Park Drive Intersection Queue Summary -- (per SimTraffic) e 2029 with Full Project Development SR 169/Cedar River Park Drive Existing Geometry a with NB Dual LT b Intersection Queue (ft) Queue (ft) ---------------- AM PEAK HOUR ---------------- Selected Queue Results Average Q Westbound Thru (ft) c 220’ 160’ Max Q Westbound Thru (ft) d 610’ 710’ Average Q Northbound Left (ft) c 250’ 80’ Max Q Northbound Left (ft) d 440’ 200’ Average Q Wesbound Left (ft) c 30’ 40’ Max Q Westbound Left (ft) d 100’ 150’ ---------------- PM PEAK HOUR ---------------- Selected Queue Results Average Q Eastbound Thru (ft) c 200’ 170’ Max Q Eastbound Thru (ft) d 540’ 420’ Average Q Northbound Left (ft) c 140’ 110’ Max Q Northbound Left (ft) d 250’ 240’ Average Q Wesbound Left (ft) c 50’ 40’ Max Q Westbound Left (ft) d 100’ 90’ a Queue analysis assumes Intersection 1 improvements plus ETL completion. The simulation analysis excluded all bend nodes and secondary site access east of Intersection 4 for better queue output in SimTraffic. b Dual NB LT assumes restriping of the northbound approach at Cedar River Park Dr to a left turn lane and a shared left/right turn lane. c The Average Queue shown here is the average of the maximum queue for every 2 minutes of each simulation. There are 5 simulations. d The Maximum queue is the average of the maximum queue for each of the 5 runs. e All results are based on five 60-minute simulations. Traffic Impact Analysis (2/18/2020) Cedar River Apartments William Popp Associates Page 47 As shown in Table 11, the average queue results for the westbound thru and northbound left conditions improve with the northbound dual left shared right concept. Except however, the maximum queue for the westbound thru increases slightly despite the fact the average queue lessens. Overall, the proposed northbound re-channelization should improve queue conditions at this intersection. 8. Parking The parking section below includes discussion of the proposed parking supply, and discussion of parking demand based on several sources. The parking demand section also includes discussion of the Renton parking code applicable to the project uses. Parking Supply The project is proposing in total 760 parking stalls for the entire site not including loading stalls. Table 12 below identifies the parking supply for the project and the amount constructed at each phase. Table 12 Parking Supply a Phase Building Size Proposed Parking Supply Phase 1 Building A 238 apartments 306 stalls (parking garage) 41 surface stalls (north of Building A and west of Building C) Phase 2 Building B 243 apartments 339 stalls (parking garage: 301 for apartments, 38 stalls designated for retail/restaurant use) 4,852 gsf retail/restaurant 7 surface stalls on the access road (adjacent to Building B) Phase 3 Building C 25 kgsf Medical Office 60 stalls (parking garage) 7 surface stalls on the access road (adjacent to Building C). Total Parking 760 stalls a parking stall count per 10.17.2018 site plan. Stall count does not include loading stalls. Note that kgsf = 1,000 gross square feet As shown in Table 12, the total proposed parking is 760 stalls. The surface stalls on the south side of the access road are assumed to be allocated to Building B, and the surface stalls north of Building A and on the north side of the access road are assumed to be allocated to Building C. Traffic Impact Analysis (2/18/2020) Cedar River Apartments William Popp Associates Page 48 Parking Demand Parking demand for each of the uses were estimated using ITE or the King County Multi- Family Residential Parking Calculator depending on the use. The King County Multi-Family Residential Parking Calculator calculates parking/unit rates for any parcel/area in the county. The program was used in lieu of ITE Parking Generation since it allows application of a number of important factors such as location of the parcel relative to land use density and transit proximity; the unit type (studio, 1-bedroom, 2-bedroom etc.); the average size of the unit type; the proposed parking supply on site; and parking costs inclusive with rent. The model indicates that for the subject parcel based on bedroom count and floor areas as noted in the site plan, and assuming parking costs are included in rent (not a separate tenant cost item), the model yields a parking per unit rate of 1.04 vehicles/unit for Building A and 1.01 vehicles per unit for Building B. The peak demand is estimated to occur between 10 pm and 5 am. ITE Parking 5th Edition estimates a rate of 1.31 per unit for general suburban multi-family units. Parking demand for the commercial use in Building B was based an assumption of a mix of retail and restaurant at 50%. The retail parking demand rate was based on ITE LUC 820 (Shopping Center) with a rate of 1.95 parked veh/kgsf (ie., veh per 1,000 square feet). The restaurant rate was based on ITE LUC 930 (fast casual dining) with a rate of 9.93 parked veh/kgsf. The medical office rate was based on ITE LUC 720 (Medical-Dental Office) with a rate of 3.23 parked veh/kgsf. Table 13 summarizes the peak parking demand for each of the uses on site, as well as identifies parking supply and allocation of spaces. It should be noted that the peak parking demands will vary by use. The residential demand will peak during the overnight period and the retail and office peaks will be mid-day. Some shared parking is expected on the surface stalls. The parking spaces in each of the garages for all three buildings are presumed to be assigned spaces. The garage in Building A will be solely for the tenants of Building A. The garage in Building B will be a mix of spaces for tenants of Building B plus retail/restaurant uses. The residential designated space in the garage will be 301 stalls. The retail/restaurant designated space will be 38 stalls. Table 13 identifies the parking demand estimates for each of the uses and in total. Traffic Impact Analysis (2/18/2020) Cedar River Apartments William Popp Associates Page 49 Table 13 Parking Demanda Parking Parking Parking Buidling size Demand Rate Demand (veh) Supply (stalls) Building A 238 units 1.04 / unit b 248 vehicles 306 stalls in garage total Building B 243 units 1.01 / unit b 245 vehicles 301 stalls in garage for residential 2,426 gsf retail 1.95 / kgsf c 5 vehicles garage and surface 2,426 gsf restaurant 9.93 / kgsf c 24 vehicles garage and surface 29 vehicles 38 stalls for commercial use, 31 in garage, 7 surface stalls on access road Building C 25 kgsf Medical Office 3.23 / kgsf c 81 vehicles 108 stalls garage and surface lot and access road Total Parking 603 vehicles 760 stalls a parking stall count per 10.17.2018 site plan. Stall count does not include loading stalls. b parking rate based on King County Right Size Parking and considers the parcel location, size of unit and unit type, and parking supply c parking rate based on ITE Parking 5th Edition. As shown in Table 13, the peak parking demand for each of the uses totals to 603 vehicles, whereas the parking supply is 760 stalls. Thus, parking demand is estimated to be contained on site. The Renton Municipal Code (RMC) parking requirement for multi-family residential is a minimum of 1.0 stalls per dwelling unit, 2.0 stalls per kgsf for retail, 10.0 stalls per kgsf for eating establishments, and a minimum/maximum of 5.0 stalls per kgsf for medical/dental office buildings. The total parking required given the size of each land use proposed amounts to 636 stalls required which is less than the 760 stalls provided. There is a surplus amount of parking provided based on RMC parking code for all of the residential and retail/restaurant, however, the medical office is low by approximately 17 stalls (125 required less approximately 108 available). The required bicycle parking provision is 0.5 bike stalls per unit. There are two bike storage rooms in Phase 1 and one bike storage room in Phase 2. The required bike storage is 240 bike stalls. The current design is slightly less than that at approximately 200 but that is subject to modification in the final plans to assure that the bike storage meets code. Traffic Impact Analysis (2/18/2020) Cedar River Apartments William Popp Associates Page 50 C. SUMMARY of FINDINGS and CONCLUSIONS 1. Project Details The site is located at 1915 Maple Valley Highway (SR 169) in the City of Renton. The parcel number is 1723059026, and the total area of the site is approximately 12.5 acres. The site is currently vacant in terms of building structures, however, it is used as a storage area for heavy construction machinery. Presently, there are two access points to the site including one to Cedar River Park Drive and one to SR 169. The proposed project consists of three buildings, to be constructed in three phases. Phase 1 – Building A will consist of 238 apartment units, on 5 levels, along with 306 structure parking stalls and is assumed occupied by 2021. In addition to the structure parking, there will be some surface parking on the north side of the building. Phase 2 –Building B will consist of 243 apartment units, on 5 levels, along with 339 structure parking stalls, plus 4,852 gsf of commercial retail on the ground floor for public use and is assumed occupied by 2022. Phase 3 – Building C (as identified in this study) is proposed for Medical Office type use at 25,000 gsf size on the commercial pad located in the north corner of the parcel and is assumed occupied in 2023 for this traffic analysis. Parking is currently planned as 60 stalls for the garage plus 48 in -adjacent surface area stalls. Access is planned for the internal roadway in front of Building B with the driveway aligning opposite the garage entry to Building B. No additional access points to public roadways are proposed with Phase 3. 2. Collisions Based on collision records obtained from WSDOT, none of the four subject intersections have a collision rate higher than 0.71 for the standard 3 years of recent data. The collision rates ranged between 0.16 and 0.71 coll/mev. The accepted state and national threshold for intersections is 1.0 coll/mev for triggering further evaluation of traffic safety. Based on the data at the four intersections, the rear-end type of accident is the most common accident type with 45% of the total accidents, next with sideswipe type accidents at 25%. In general, rear-end accidents are most common at heavily congested signalized intersections where motorists are not anticipating stop conditions during green light situations. In that regard, the substantial SR 169 corridor congestion and queuing relief that is projected post I-405 ETL project is very likely to reduce rear end collisions. In conclusion, the foregoing collision analysis does not indicate any serious safety issues warranting further evaluation. Furthermore it is not expected that the addition of the Project traffic will create any safety hazards or have any negative effect on collision rates. Traffic Impact Analysis (2/18/2020) Cedar River Apartments William Popp Associates Page 51 3. Off-Site Programmed Mitigation Improvements A near term WSDOT programmed project consists of modifying the southbound on-ramp to I- 405 from SR 169 by converting the HOV by-pass lane to general purpose changing the operation from two lanes to three lanes during metered control.. In turn the westbound approach (SR 169) would be modified to a left turn lane and a shared left/through lane. And at the southbound approach (Sunset Boulevard), the HOV lane designation would be removed from the shared left/through lane, and two general-purpose lanes would access the southbound on-ramp. It is estimated that this proposal would substantially reduce delay during the morning peak by some 70 seconds per vehicle and by some 120 seconds per vehicle for the PM condition. However, the impact of this project on westbound queuing is not significant as the average queue east of Cedar Park Drive intersection only reduces from 3,990 feet to 3,260 feet for the critical AM peak hour condition. The maximum queue would reduce from 9,030 to 7,650 feet. The proposed channelization plan from WSDOT is shown in Figure 12. This figure shows paths for two large trucks side-by-side turning left on to the ramp. Figure 12: SR 169/Sunset Way/I-405 SB On-Ramp Improvements Traffic simulation runs indicate significant spill back however much of that depends on the operations of I-405 and the ramp metering. It is expected that the proposed improvement Traffic Impact Analysis (2/18/2020) Cedar River Apartments William Popp Associates Page 52 shown in Figure 12 would result in more efficient storage and metering on the ramp than currently exists thereby minimizing the queue spill back on SR 169. Another I-405 project that should help improve SR 169 southbound on ramp operations is the I-405 - SR 167 Interchange Direct Connector Project. This freeway-to-freeway HOV ramp is open to traffic and is already reducing weaving issues associated with drivers formerly exiting the mainline HOV lane in the immediate vicinity of the SR 169 southbound on-ramp and weaving across two lanes to access the SR 167 off-ramp. But most importantly, the “I-405 Renton to Bellevue Widening and Express Toll Lanes” project is projected to significantly reduce congestion on I-405 in this area which in turn should greatly minimize excessive ramp meter intervals for the SR 169 southbound and northbound on- ramps. This of course should favorably impact the Sunset Way/I-405 Southbound On-Ramp intersection operation with substantial reductions in delay and westbound corridor queuing, in particular for AM commute period conditions. 4. Project Trip Generation Impact In total for all phases, the project is estimated to generate 3,464 average weekday daily trips, 236 AM peak hour trips and 297 PM peak hour trips to the surrounding street network. Phase 1 with 238 units is estimated to generate 1,295 average weekday daily trips, 86 AM, and 105 PM peak hour trips. Phase 2 with 243 units plus 4,852 gsf retail is estimated to generate 1,443 average weekday daily trips, 90 AM, and 119 PM peak hour trips to the surrounding street system. Phase 3 with 25,000 gsf of medical office space is estimated to generate 870 average weekday daily trips, 70 AM, and 87 PM peak hour trips to the surrounding street system. When all phases are occupied some internal trip capture as a mixed-use development is expected and thus the project should generate less trips than if each phase were a stand-alone project. Traffic Impact Analysis (2/18/2020) Cedar River Apartments William Popp Associates Page 53 5. Level of Service and Queues HCM/Synchro Analysis The analysis in this report first presented level of service results at the four subject intersections based on HCM/Synchro methodology. This classic HCM methodology demonstrates that the Project will have little impact on delay at any intersection during any phase of build out. However, the LOS at the SR 169/Sunset Boulevard/I-405 southbound ramp intersection is estimated to be E during the AM peak period – other analysis intersections are LOS D or better. This is the case for with or without Project scenarios with the Project contributing only 0 to 3 seconds to the delay total. The HCM methodology as noted previously does not accommodate assessment of impacts of restrictive ramp metering -- this is addressed with micro-simulation analysis. And while restrictive ramp metering will likely exist during each planned construction phase, that condition is in effect temporary in the context of this Cedar River Apartments Project analysis due to the programmed construction of the I-405 Express Toll Lane project for mid to late 2024. Also worthy of note: the Growth Management Act allows up to 6 years from date Project traffic arrives for needed transportation improvement projects to be in place, so there is a comfortable margin of statutory protection from requirement of a much more complicated analysis and mitigation identification process. Sim Traffic LOS Analysis and Queues The simulation results paint a different picture for the SR 169/ Sunset/Bronson/I-405 SB ramp intersection, even with the near term proposed dual westbound left turn lane and removal of the HOV southbound thru lane exclusivity on Sunset Blvd. In this case the with-Project LOS is F with a large 155 sec/veh delay estimate for the AM peak hour. This is due to assumption of continued application of the existing observed ramp meter rates in the absence of the I-405 ETL completion. The PM peak hour delay is estimated at 134 sec/veh (LOS F) with Project for the same geometric assumptions. But with the scheduled widening of I-405 for the ETL project, along with the recently completed direct access HOV ramp to-from SR 167, freeway congestion is projected to be significantly reduced in the vicinity of SR 169 and this in turn should result in much lower meter release rates. Under these assumed operating conditions, it is estimated that the two ramp terminal intersections at the I-405/SR 169 interchange will operate at LOS C/D in the AM and PM peak hours.with full Project buildout. Under the same conditions the other two intersections, Shari’s and Cedar Park Drive, are estimated to operate at LOS C or better for both AM and PM peak hours Traffic Impact Analysis (2/18/2020) Cedar River Apartments William Popp Associates Page 54 With respect to the critical westbound queues on SR 169 as measured to the east from the Cedar River Park Drive intersection, the average queue in the critical AM peak hour is estimated to drop from 3,330 feet to 180 ft and from 8,130 feet to 520 ft for the maximum queue. These estimated queues reflect 2023 conditions with the Project and without and with I-405 ETL improvements, respectively. At the SR 169/Cedar River Park Dr intersection the AM northbound queue can extend through the Project driveway intersection. To shorten this queue the approach could be restriped to include a dual left with shared right (no widening) and the signal heads and controller modified accordingly. 6. Site Access Points The project will have two access points, one to Cedar River Park Drive and one to SR 169. This analysis assumes that the majority of the project traffic will access Cedar River Park Drive, which currently has signalized access to SR 169. This signalized intersection has a very acceptable LOS B estimated operation that bodes well for Project traffic access to SR 169. The secondary project site access to SR 169, which will be approximately 350 feet east from the SR 169/Cedar River Park Dr intersection, is replacing the existing site driveway further to the east. No left turn out was assumed for this driveway due to the proximity of the Cedar Park Drive left turn lane opening and potential conflicts with driveway traffic during the AM peak period, and no left turn in was assumed based on WSDOT concerns regarding crossing of three lanes of traffic. 7. Parking The project’s peak parking demand for all of the residential in Phase 1 and 2 is estimated to be 493 vehicles. The peak demand would occur for the overnight period. The proposed parking supply in the two garages in Phase 1 and 2 totals to 607 stalls for residential allocated stalls. Thus, the parking supply as proposed for the residential will exceed parking demand estimates and no parking spill over is estimated to occur to surrounding areas, primarily no spill over into the Cedar River Park area. Parking supply for Building C, the medical office proposed use, is currently at 60 stalls in the garage, plus 48 surface stalls on site. Thus the maximum parking supply potential is 108 stalls. The demand is estimated to be 81 vehicles based on ITE rates, hence there would be about 21 vehicles seeking spaces outside the garage. Since there are 48 surface stalls available, parking supply should be adequate in meeting the estimated peak demand. It should be noted that the demand for the residential use during the mid-day period is estimated to be about 60% of the peak demand that would occur during the overnight period. As a result, the surface parking stalls should be mostly vacant during mid-day periods. Traffic Impact Analysis (2/18/2020) Cedar River Apartments William Popp Associates Page 55 Parking supply is more than adequate in Building A and B for the residential uses, thus the surface spaces should be relatively empty, , for daytime periods. D. MITIGATION and RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the foregoing analysis for the Cedar River Apartments project, the following traffic related mitigation observations and recommendations are presented: 1. WSDOT Programmed Improvements The mainline widening for the WSDOT Express Toll Lane project that is slated for completion in late 2024 should result in substantially decreased congestion and queuing for the SR 169 corridor intersections and roadways analyzed in this study. This State project offers the most effective funded mitigation possible for existing corridor traffic issues. The immediate improvement of the SR 169/Sunset Way/I-405 SB On-Ramp intersection slated for 2020 is estimated to significantly reduce PM peak delay at that location, which is beneficial for the early phases. The I-405 - SR 167 Interchange Direct Connector Project ramp connecting the HOT lanes on SR 167 to the carpool lanes on I-405 should also beneficially impact freeway operations in the SR 169 interchange on- ramp locations which is important for maximizing ramp capacity and lowering ramp meter rates. Each of the above programmed WSDOT improvements plays a role in reducing congestion in the SR 169 corridor and should be noted as non-applicant mitigation for the existing and future corridor congestion issues. With these improvements all analysis intersections are estimated to operate at acceptable LOS D or better with the Project’s traffic at full buildout and at least 6 years past that horizon year for the AM peak hour. 2. Frontage Improvements Currently along SR 169 there is relatively new curb and gutter, 6’ to 6.5’ sidewalk and street lighting plus 1.5’ to 14’ (varies) for utilities and landscaping behind the sidewalk. The requirement along SR 169 per the City’s Roadway Development standards is 6” curb, 8’ planter, 8’ sidewalk and 2’ clear behind sidewalk to new property line. The Project design proposal provides all of the cited requirements plus a required 15’ building setback from the property line. 3. Primary Site Access The project’s primary access will be to/from Cedar River Park Drive approximately 175 feet southwest from SR 169 (from stop bar). The existing approach configuration to SR 169 Traffic Impact Analysis (2/18/2020) Cedar River Apartments William Popp Associates Page 56 consists of two lanes (a left turn lane and a right turn lane) and one lane exiting southbound from SR 169. While the intersection level of service is quite good with the Project (LOS B for AM and PM peak hours), the queuing analysis suggests maximum queues may extend into the Project entrance road at full occupancy. To address the potential queuing issue it is recommended that the approach configuration be restriped to provide dual left turn lanes with a shared right turn lane (curb lane). This channelization modification would include signal detection, signal head modifications, and overhead signage on the east side mast-arm. To prevent northbound queues on Cedar River Park Dr from blocking vehicles turning left into the site from Cedar River Park Drive, it is recommended that signage south of the driveway be installed to read “DO NOT BLOCK DRIVEWAY” as well as potential lane marking cross-hatch patterns indicating the area not to block. This secondary measure should assist in preventing southbound direction queue spill back on Cedar River Park Drive towards SR 169 from vehicles turning left into the site driveway. 4. Secondary Site Access The project is proposing a direct access to SR 169 about 350 feet east of the stop bar at the Cedar River Park Dr intersection as a secondary access in addition to the access to Cedar River Park Drive. This access will replace the nearby existing driveway, which is about 490 feet east from the stop bar at the Cedar River Park Dr intersection. No left turn out was assumed for this driveway due to the proximity of the Cedar Park Drive left turn lane opening on SR 169 and possible conflicts in movements and no left turn in was assumed based on WSDOT concerns regarding crossing of three lanes of traffic during the PM peak period. It is recommended that the proposed driveway be designed with a pavement marking or mountable “pork-chop” island concept to discourage entering and existing left turns. The mountable concept is recommended for accommodation of the occasional right turning truck. 5. Traffic Impact Fee The City of Renton’s currently adopted traffic impact fees for various land use types are based on the City’s “Rate Study for Impact Fees for Transportation, Parks, and Fire Protection”, dated August 26, 2011. The City’s impact fee rate based on PM peak hour trips generated by new development is $7,517.08 per PM peak hour Trip (source: Table 7 of the City’s Rate Study 8/26/11). The estimated PM peak hour total trips generated to the surrounding street system by this development are 297 PM peak hour trips with completion of all phases of this development. That would result in a traffic impact fee of $2,232,573. It is important to note that this project Traffic Impact Analysis (2/18/2020) Cedar River Apartments William Popp Associates Page 57 is a mixed-use development with residential, retail, and medical office uses. Computation of traffic impact fees based on stand-alone uses in this case would not be applicable due to the fact it would not take into consideration internal trip capture on site between uses. The PM peak hour project trip generation estimate by phase and corresponding fee would be as follows assuming the project is built exactly as identified in Table 1 of this report: Phase 1: PM Peak Hour Trips = 105 City Impact Fee = $ 789,293 Phase 2: PM Peak Hour Trips = 113 City Impact Fee = $ 849,430 Phase 3: PM Peak Hour Trips = 79 City Impact Fee = $ 593,849 Cedar River Apartments 1915 Maple Valley Hwy, Renton, WA 98055 APPENDECES A, B, C, and D APPENDIX A: AM AND PM PEAK HOUR TURN VOLUME SUMMARIES APPENDIX B: TRIP GENERATION ADJUSTMENT: INTERNAL TRIP CAPTURE APPENDIX C: SYNCHRO AM AND PM LOS ANALYSES (2021, 2022, and 2023) APPENDIX D: SIM TRAFFIC OUTPUTS: DELAYS AND QUEUES (2023 and 2029) APPENDIX A AM AND PM PEAK HOUR TURN VOLUME SUMMARIES 1 SR 169/Sunset/Bronson/I-405 SB Ramps Existing 2021 2021 Phase 1 2021 2022 Phase 2 2022 2023 Phase 3 2023 All Dev 2029 2029 2017 Future Background Project w/Project Future Project w/Project Future Project w/Project by without with AM PK Growth a Traffic Trips AM PK Growth Trips AM PK Growth Trips AM PK 2023 project project EBLT 1 199 8 207 0 207 2 0 209 2 0 211 0 224 224 EBLT 2 196 395 8 204 411 0 204 411 2 0 206 415 2 0 208 419 0 221 445 221 445 EBT 104 4 108 2 110 1 3 114 1 5 120 10 117 127 EBRT 47 2 49 0 49 0 0 49 0 0 50 0 53 53 WBLT 775 31 806 16 822 8 16 847 8 2 857 34 874 908 WBT 578 23 601 6 607 6 7 621 6 1 628 14 652 666 WBRT 895 36 931 15 946 9 18 974 10 3 987 36 1009 1045 NBLT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NBT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NBRT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SBLT 1 187 8 195 5 200 2 6 208 2 13 223 24 211 235 SBLT 2 74 261 3 77 272 6 83 283 1 5 89 296 1 10 100 322 21 84 294 105 339 SBT HOV 358 15 373 0 373 4 0 376 4 0 380 0 403 403 SBT 495 853 20 515 888 0 515 888 5 0 520 897 5 0 525 905 0 558 961 558 961 SBRT 439 18 457 0 457 5 0 461 5 0 466 0 495 495 4347 177 4524 50 4574 46 55 4674 47 34 4755 139 4900 5039 2.0% 1.1% 1.2% 0.7% 2.9% a Background growth estimated based on SR 169 count records WSDOT b Project: 238 apts (Ph1), 243 apts and 4.852 kgsf retail (Ph2), 25 kgsf medical office (Ph3) 1 SR 169/Sunset/Bronson/I-405 SB Ramps1SR 169/Sunset/Bronson/I-405 SB Ramps Existing 2021 2021 Phase 1 w/Project 2022 Phase 2 2022 2023 Phase 3 2023 All Dev 2029 2029 2017 Future Background Project 2021 Future Project w/Project Future Project w/Project by without with PM PK Growth a Traffic Trips PM PK Growth Trips PM PK Growth Trips PM PK 2023 project project EBLT 1 314 13 327 0 327 3 0 330 3 0 333 0 354 354 EBLT 2 359 673 15 374 700 0 374 700 4 0 377 707 4 0 381 714 0 405 758 405 758 EBT 520 21 541 6 547 5 7 560 6 2 567 15 586 601 EBRT 65 3 68 0 68 1 0 68 1 0 69 0 73 73 WBLT 334 14 348 10 358 4 11 372 4 11 387 32 377 409 WBT 236 10 246 4 250 2 4 256 3 7 266 15 266 281 WBRT 770 31 801 10 811 8 10 829 8 15 853 35 868 903 NBLT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NBT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NBRT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SBLT 1 718 29 747 16 763 8 18 789 8 6 803 40 810 850 SBLT 2 427 1145 17 444 1191 15 459 1222 5 16 480 1269 5 3 488 1290 34 482 1291 516 1365 SBT HOV 202 8 210 0 210 2 0 212 2 0 214 0 228 228 SBT 543 745 22 565 775 0 565 775 6 0 571 783 6 0 576 791 0 612 839 612 839 SBRT 638 26 664 0 664 7 0 671 7 0 677 0 719 719 5126 208 5334 61 5395 54 66 5515 55 44 5614 171 5778 5949 2.0% 1.1% 1.2% 0.8% 3.0% a Background growth estimated based on SR 169 count records WSDOT b Project: 238 apts (Ph1), 243 apts and 4.852 kgsf retail (Ph2), 25 kgsf medical office (Ph3) 2 SR 169/I-405 NB Ramps Existing 2021 2021 Phase 1 2021 2022 Phase 2 2022 2023 Phase 3 2023 All Dev 2029 2029 2017 Future Background Project w/Project Future Project w/Project Future Project w/Project by without with AM PK Growth a Traffic Trips AM PK Growth Trips AM PK Growth Trips AM PK 2023 project project EBLT 17 1 18 0 18 0 0 18 0 0 18 0 19 19 EBT 348 14 362 13 375 4 14 393 4 28 425 55 393 448 EBRT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 WBLT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 WBT 1706 69 1775 37 1812 18 41 1871 19 6 1896 84 1923 2007 WBRT 412 17 429 16 445 4 15 464 5 2 471 33 465 498 NBLT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NBT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NBRT 289 12 301 6 307 3 6 316 3 10 329 22 326 348 SBLT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SBT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SBRT 495 20 515 0 515 5 0 520 5 0 525 0 558 558 3267 133 3400 72 3472 35 76 3582 36 46 3664 194 3684 3878 2.0% 2.1% 2.1% 1.3% 5.3% a Background growth estimated based on SR 169 count records WSDOT b Project: 238 apts (Ph1), 243 apts and 4.852 kgsf retail (Ph2), 25 kgsf medical office (Ph3) 2 SR 169/I-405 NB Ramps Existing 2021 2021 Phase 1 w/Project 2022 Phase 2 2022 2023 Phase 3 2023 All Dev 2029 2029 2017 Future Background Project 2021 Future Project w/Project Future Project w/Project by without with PM PK Growth a Traffic Trips PM PK Growth Trips PM PK Growth Trips PM PK 2023 project project EBLT 61 2 63 0 63 1 0 64 1 0 65 0 69 69 EBT 1604 65 1669 37 1706 17 41 1764 18 11 1793 89 1809 1898 EBRT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 WBLT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 WBT 704 29 733 24 757 8 25 789 8 33 830 82 794 876 WBRT 246 10 256 10 266 3 11 280 3 13 295 34 278 312 NBLT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NBT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NBRT 771 31 802 16 818 8 17 843 8 5 857 38 869 907 SBLT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SBT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SBRT 672 27 699 0 699 7 0 706 7 0 713 0 757 757 4058 165 4223 87 4310 43 94 4447 44 62 4554 243 4576 4819 2.0% 2.0% 2.1% 1.4% 5.3% a Background growth estimated based on SR 169 count records WSDOT b Project: 238 apts (Ph1), 243 apts and 4.852 kgsf retail (Ph2), 25 kgsf medical office (Ph3) 3 SR 169/Shari's Driveway Existing 2021 2021 Phase 1 2021 2022 Phase 2 2022 2023 Phase 3 2023 All Dev 2029 2029 2017 Future Background Project w/Project Future Project w/Project Future Project w/Project by without with AM PK Growth a Traffic Trips AM PK Growth Trips Traffic Growth Trips AM PK 2023 project project EBUT 55 2 57 0 57 1 0 58 1 0 58 0 62 62 EBLT 35 1 36 0 36 0 0 37 0 0 37 0 39 39 EBT 1 240 10 250 0 250 2 0 252 3 0 255 0 270 270 EBT 2 260 640 11 271 666 13 284 685 3 14 300 712 3 28 331 757 55 293 722 348 799 EBT 3 140 6 146 6 152 2 6 159 2 10 171 22 158 180 EBRT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 WBLT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 WBT 1 546 22 569 16 585 6 16 606 6 2 614 34 616 650 WBT 2 541 2008 22 563 2090 6 569 2143 6 7 581 2220 6 1 588 2250 14 610 2264 624 2381 WBT 3 541 22 563 15 578 6 18 602 6 3 611 36 610 646 WBT 4 380 15 395 16 411 4 15 431 4 2 437 33 117 429 462 WBRT 7 0 7 0 7 0 0 7 0 0 7 0 8 8 NBLT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NBT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NBRT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SBLT 3 0 3 0 3 0 0 3 0 0 3 0 3 3 SBT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SBRT 55 2 57 0 57 1 0 58 1 0 58 0 62 62 2803 114 2917 72 2989 30 76 3095 31 46 3172 194 3161 3355 2.0% 2.4% 2.5% 1.5% 6.1% a Background growth estimated based on SR 169 count records WSDOT b Project: 238 apts (Ph1), 243 apts and 4.852 kgsf retail (Ph2), 25 kgsf medical office (Ph3) 3 SR 169/Shari's Driveway Existing 2021 2021 Phase 1 2021 2022 Phase 2 2022 2023 Phase 3 2023 All Dev 2029 2029 2017 Future Background Project w/Project Future Project w/Project Future Project w/Project by without with PM PK Growth a Traffic Trips PM PK Growth Trips Traffic Growth Trips PM PK 2023 project project EBUT 15 1 16 0 16 0 0 16 0 0 16 0 17 17 EBLT 41 2 43 0 43 0 0 43 0 0 44 0 46 46 EBT 1 990 40 1030 0 1030 10 0 1040 10 0 1051 0 1116 1116 EBT 2 778 2118 32 810 2204 38 848 2258 8 41 897 2339 9 11 917 2377 90 878 2388 968 2515 EBT 3 350 14 364 16 380 4 17 401 4 4 409 37 395 432 EBRT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 WBLT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 WBT 1 355 14 369 10 379 4 11 394 4 11 409 32 400 432 WBT 2 158 935 6 165 973 7 172 1007 2 4 177 1053 2 8 187 1110 19 178 1055 197 1171 WBT 3 158 6 165 7 172 2 10 183 2 15 200 32 178 210 WBT 4 264 11 275 10 285 3 11 299 3 12 314 33 116 298 331 WBRT 13 1 14 0 14 0 0 14 0 0 14 0 15 15 NBLT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NBT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NBRT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SBLT 4 0 4 0 4 0 0 4 0 0 4 0 5 5 SBT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SBRT 31 1 32 0 32 0 0 33 0 0 33 0 35 35 3157 128 3285 88 3373 34 94 3501 35 61 3597 243 3560 3803 2.0% 2.6% 2.7% 1.7% 6.8% a Background growth estimated based on SR 169 count records WSDOT b Project: 238 apts (Ph1), 243 apts and 4.852 kgsf retail (Ph2), 25 kgsf medical office (Ph3) 4 SR 169/Cedar River Park Drive Existing 2021 2021 Phase 1 2021 2022 Phase 2 2022 2023 Phase 3 2023 All Dev 2029 2029 2017 Future Background Project w/Project Future Project w/Project Future Project w/Project by without with AM PK Growth a Traffic Trips AM PK Growth Trips Traffic Growth Trips AM PK 2023 project project EBLT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 EBT 1 272 11 283 0 283 3 0 286 3 0 289 0 306 306 EBT 2 296 623 12 308 648 0 308 648 3 0 311 660 3 0 314 681 0 334 702 334 722 EBT 3 55 2 57 0 57 1 5 63 1 15 78 20 62 82 EBRT 61 2 63 19 82 1 14 97 1 24 122 57 69 126 WBLT 12 0 12 10 22 0 5 28 0 5 33 20 14 34 WBT 1 536 22 558 0 558 6 0 563 6 0 569 0 604 604 WBT 2 783 1984 32 815 2065 0 815 2065 8 0 823 2085 8 0 831 2106 0 882 2236 882 2236 WBT 3 665 27 692 0 692 7 0 699 7 0 706 0 749 749 WBRT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NBLT 31 1 32 54 86 1 54 141 1 9 152 117 37 154 NBT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NBRT 6 0 6 0 6 0 1 7 0 1 8 2 7 9 SBLT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SBT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SBRT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2717 110 2827 83 2910 29 79 3018 30 54 3103 216 3064 3280 2.0% 2.9% 2.6% 1.7% 7.0% a Background growth estimated based on SR 169 count records WSDOT b Project: 238 apts (Ph1), 243 apts and 4.852 kgsf retail (Ph2), 25 kgsf medical office (Ph3) 4 SR 169/Cedar River Park Drive Existing 2021 2021 Phase 1 2021 2022 Phase 2 2022 2023 Phase 3 2023 All Dev 2029 2029 2017 Future Background Project w/Project Future Project w/Project Future Project w/Project by without with PM PK Growth a Traffic Trips PM PK Growth Trips Traffic Growth Trips PM PK 2023 project project EBLT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 EBT 1 1013 41 1054 0 1054 11 0 1065 11 0 1075 0 1141 1141 EBT 2 989 2082 40 1029 2167 0 1029 2167 10 0 1039 2196 10 0 1050 2224 0 1114 2346 1114 2360 EBT 3 80 3 83 0 83 1 8 92 1 6 99 14 90 104 EBRT 36 1 37 54 91 1 50 142 1 9 153 113 42 155 WBLT 12 0 12 5 17 0 5 23 0 15 38 25 14 39 WBT 1 342 14 356 0 356 4 0 359 4 0 363 0 385 385 WBT 2 229 910 9 238 947 0 238 947 2 0 241 956 2 0 243 966 0 258 1025 258 1025 WBT 3 339 14 353 0 353 4 0 356 4 0 360 0 382 382 WBRT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NBLT 38 2 40 35 75 1 37 112 1 44 157 116 44 160 NBT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NBRT 66 3 69 0 69 1 0 69 1 4 74 4 74 78 SBLT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SBT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SBRT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3144 128 3272 94 3366 34 100 3499 35 78 3612 272 3546 3818 2.8% 2.9% 2.2% 7.5% a Background growth estimated based on SR 169 count records WSDOT b Project: 238 apts (Ph1), 243 apts and 4.852 kgsf retail (Ph2), 25 kgsf medical office (Ph3) 5 SR 169/Cedar River Apts East Driveway Existing 2021 2021 Phase 1 2021 2022 Phase 2 2022 2023 Phase 3 2023 All Dev 2029 2029 2017 Future Background Project w/Project Future Project w/Project Future Project w/Project by without with AM PK Growth a Traffic Trips AM PK Growth Trips Traffic Growth Trips Growth 2020 project project EBLT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 EBT 629 26 655 0 655 7 0 661 7 2 670 2 709 711 EBRT 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 0 16 20 20 0 20 WBLT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 WBT 1996 81 2077 3 2080 21 4 2105 21 13 2139 20 2249 2269 WBRT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NBLT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NBT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NBRT 0 0 0 10 10 0 8 18 0 2 20 20 0 20 SBLT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SBT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SBRT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2625 107 2732 13 2745 27 16 2788 28 33 2849 62 2958 3020 2.0% 0.5% 0.6% 1.2% 2.2% a Background growth estimated based on SR 169 count records WSDOT b Project: 238 apts (Ph1), 243 apts and 4.852 kgsf retail (Ph2), 25 kgsf medical office (Ph3) 5 SR 169/Cedar River Apts East Driveway Existing 2021 2021 Phase 1 w/Project 2022 Phase 2 2022 2023 Phase 3 2023 All Dev 2029 2029 2017 Future Background Project 2021 Future Project w/Project Future Project w/Project by without with PM PK Growth a Traffic Trips PM PK Growth Trips Traffic Growth Trips Growth 2020 project project EBLT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 EBT 2148 87 2235 0 2235 22 0 2258 23 4 2284 4 0 0 EBRT 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 8 0 6 14 14 2420 2424 WBLT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 WBT 922 37 959 10 969 10 10 989 10 5 1004 25 0 0 WBRT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1039 1064 NBLT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NBT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NBRT 0 0 0 6 6 0 7 13 0 12 25 25 0 0 SBLT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SBT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SBRT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3070 125 3195 16 3211 32 25 3268 33 27 3327 68 3460 3489 2.0% 0.5% 0.8% 0.8% 2.0% a Background growth estimated based on SR 169 count records WSDOT b Project: 238 apts (Ph1), 243 apts and 4.852 kgsf retail (Ph2), 25 kgsf medical office (Ph3) APPENDIX B TRIP GENERATION ADJUSTMENT: INTERNAL TRIP CAPTURE APPENDIX B (page1) Project Name:Organization: Project Location:Performed By: Scenario Description:Date: Analysis Year:Checked By: Analysis Period:Date: ITE LUCs1 Quantity Units Total Entering Exiting Office 0 - GFA 0 0 0 Retail 815,920 4,852 GFA 5 3 2 Restaurant 930,936 - GFA 0 0 0 Cinema/Entertainment 0 0 0 Residential 221 481 DU 173 45 128 Hotel 0 All Other Land Uses2 0 178 48 130 Veh. Occ.4 % Transit % Non-Motorized Veh. Occ.4 % Transit % Non-Motorized Office Retail Restaurant Cinema/Entertainment Residential Hotel All Other Land Uses2 Office Retail Restaurant Residential Hotel Office Retail Restaurant Cinema/Entertainment Residential Hotel Office Retail Restaurant Residential Hotel Office 0 0 0 0 Retail 0 0 0 0 Restaurant 0 0 0 0 Cinema/Entertainment 0 0 0 0 0 Residential 0 1 0 0 Hotel 0 0 0 0 Total Entering Exiting Land Use Entering Trips Exiting Trips All Person-Trips 178 48 130 Office N/A N/A Internal Capture Percentage 1% 2% 1% Retail 33% 0% Restaurant N/A N/A External Vehicle-Trips5 176 47 129 Cinema/Entertainment N/A N/A External Transit-Trips6 0 0 0 Residential 0% 1% External Non-Motorized Trips6 0 0 0 Hotel N/A N/A 1915 Maple Valley Highway, Renton AM Street Peak Hour William Popp Associates Bill Popp Jr. At Full Occupancy 23-Sep-19Phase A & B Estimation Tool Developed by the Texas A&M Transportation Institute - Version 2013.1 Table 5-A: Computations Summary Table 6-A: Internal Trip Capture Percentages by Land Use 2Total estimate for all other land uses at mixed-use development site is not subject to internal trip capture computations in this estimator. 5Vehicle-trips computed using the mode split and vehicle occupancy values provided in Table 2-A. 1Land Use Codes (LUCs) from Trip Generation Manual , published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers. 6Person-Trips *Indicates computation that has been rounded to the nearest whole number. 3Enter trips assuming no transit or non-motorized trips (as assumed in ITE Trip Generation Manual ). 4Enter vehicle occupancy assumed in Table 1-A vehicle trips. If vehicle occupancy changes for proposed mixed-use project, manual adjustments must be made to Tables 5-A, 9-A (O and D). Enter transit, non-motorized percentages that will result with proposed mixed-use project complete. Table 2-A: Mode Split and Vehicle Occupancy Estimates Table 4-A: Internal Person-Trip Origin-Destination Matrix* Destination (To)Origin (From) Origin (From)Destination (To) Cinema/Entertainment Land Use Entering Trips Exiting Trips Table 3-A: Average Land Use Interchange Distances (Feet Walking Distance) NCHRP 684 Internal Trip Capture Estimation Tool Table 1-A: Base Vehicle-Trip Generation Estimates (Single-Use Site Estimate) 0 0 Cinema/Entertainment Development Data (For Information Only ) 0 0 0 Estimated Vehicle-Trips3 Land Use Cedar River Apartments NCHRP Report 684 estimator PHASE 2.xlsx, Page 1-A 10/11/2019 APPENDIX B (page 2) Project Name: Analysis Period: Veh. Occ. Vehicle-Trips Person-Trips* Veh. Occ. Vehicle-Trips Person-Trips* Office 1.00 0 0 1.00 0 0 Retail 1.00 3 3 1.00 1.5 2 Restaurant 1.00 0 0 1.00 0 0 Cinema/Entertainment 1.00 0 0 1.00 0 0 Residential 1.00 45 45 1.00 128 128 Hotel 1.00 0 0 1.00 0 0 Office Retail Restaurant Residential Hotel Office 0 0 0 0 Retail 1 0 0 0 Restaurant 0 0 0 0 Cinema/Entertainment 0 0 0 0 0 Residential 3 1 26 0 Hotel 0 0 0 0 Office Retail Restaurant Residential Hotel Office 1 0 0 0 Retail 0 0 1 0 Restaurant 0 0 2 0 Cinema/Entertainment 0 0 0 0 0 Residential 0 1 0 0 Hotel 0 0 0 0 Internal External Total Vehicles1 Transit2 Non-Motorized2 Office 0 0 0 0 0 0 Retail 1 2 3 2 0 0 Restaurant 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cinema/Entertainment 0 0 0 0 0 0 Residential 0 45 45 45 0 0 Hotel 0 0 0 0 0 0 All Other Land Uses3 0 0 0 0 0 0 Internal External Total Vehicles1 Transit2 Non-Motorized2 Office 0 0 0 0 0 0 Retail 0 2 2 2 0 0 Restaurant 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cinema/Entertainment 0 0 0 0 0 0 Residential 1 127 128 127 0 0 Hotel 0 0 0 0 0 0 All Other Land Uses3 0 0 0 0 0 0 Land Use Table 7-A (D): Entering Trips 2Person-Trips Person-Trip Estimates Cedar River Apartments AM Street Peak Hour Table 9-A (D): Internal and External Trips Summary (Entering Trips) Table 8-A (O): Internal Person-Trip Origin-Destination Matrix (Computed at Origin) Origin (From)Destination (To) Cinema/Entertainment Table 7-A: Conversion of Vehicle-Trip Ends to Person-Trip Ends Table 7-A (O): Exiting Trips 0 0 0 Table 8-A (D): Internal Person-Trip Origin-Destination Matrix (Computed at Destination) Origin (From) Origin Land Use Person-Trip Estimates External Trips by Mode* External Trips by Mode* 1Vehicle-trips computed using the mode split and vehicle occupancy values provided in Table 2-A 0 *Indicates computation that has been rounded to the nearest whole number. 0 0 0 0 0 Destination (To) Cinema/Entertainment 0 3Total estimate for all other land uses at mixed-use development site is not subject to internal trip capture computations in this estimator Destination Land Use Table 9-A (O): Internal and External Trips Summary (Exiting Trips) NCHRP Report 684 estimator PHASE 2.xlsx, Page 2-A 10/11/2019 APPENDIX B (page 3) Project Name:Organization: Project Location:Performed By: Scenario Description:Date: Analysis Year:Checked By: Analysis Period:Date: ITE LUCs1 Quantity Units Total Entering Exiting Office 0 - GFA 0 0 0 Retail 815,920 4,852 GFA 12 6 6 Restaurant 930,936 - GFA 0 0 0 Cinema/Entertainment - - - 0 0 0 Residential 221 481 DU 212 129 83 Hotel - - - 0 All Other Land Uses2 - - - 0 224 135 89 Veh. Occ.4 % Transit % Non-Motorized Veh. Occ.4 % Transit % Non-Motorized Office Retail Restaurant Cinema/Entertainment Residential Hotel All Other Land Uses2 Office Retail Restaurant Residential Hotel Office 0 0 0 Retail Restaurant Cinema/Entertainment Residential 0 0 Hotel Office Retail Restaurant Residential Hotel Office 0 0 0 0 Retail 0 0 2 0 Restaurant 0 0 0 0 Cinema/Entertainment 0 0 0 0 0 Residential 0 1 0 0 Hotel 0 0 0 0 Total Entering Exiting Land Use Entering Trips Exiting Trips All Person-Trips 224 135 89 Office N/A N/A Internal Capture Percentage 3% 2% 3% Retail 17% 33% Restaurant N/A N/A External Vehicle-Trips5 218 132 86 Cinema/Entertainment N/A N/A External Transit-Trips6 0 0 0 Residential 2% 1% External Non-Motorized Trips6 0 0 0 Hotel N/A N/A 1Land Use Codes (LUCs) from Trip Generation Manual , published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers. 2Total estimate for all other land uses at mixed-use development site is not subject to internal trip capture computations in this estimator. 3Enter trips assuming no transit or non-motorized trips (as assumed in ITE Trip Generation Manual ). 5Vehicle-trips computed using the mode split and vehicle occupancy values provided in Table 2-P. Table 5-P: Computations Summary Table 6-P: Internal Trip Capture Percentages by Land Use 4Enter vehicle occupancy assumed in Table 1-P vehicle trips. If vehicle occupancy changes for proposed mixed-use project, manual adjustments must be 6Person-Trips 0 0 0 0 Table 4-P: Internal Person-Trip Origin-Destination Matrix* Origin (From)Destination (To) Cinema/Entertainment 0 Table 3-P: Average Land Use Interchange Distances (Feet Walking Distance) Origin (From)Destination (To) Cinema/Entertainment NCHRP 684 Internal Trip Capture Estimation Tool Cedar River Apartments William Popp Associates 1915 Maple Valley Highway, Renton Bill Popp Jr. *Indicates computation that has been rounded to the nearest whole number. Estimation Tool Developed by the Texas A&M Transportation Institute - Version 2013.1 Phase A & B 23-Sep-19 At Full Occupancy PM Street Peak Hour Table 1-P: Base Vehicle-Trip Generation Estimates (Single-Use Site Estimate) Land Use Development Data (For Information Only )Estimated Vehicle-Trips3 Table 2-P: Mode Split and Vehicle Occupancy Estimates Land Use Entering Trips Exiting Trips NCHRP Report 684 estimator PHASE 2.xlsx, Page 1-P 10/11/2019 APPENDIX B (page 4) Project Name: Analysis Period: Veh. Occ. Vehicle-Trips Person-Trips* Veh. Occ. Vehicle-Trips Person-Trips* Office 1.00 0 0 1.00 0 0 Retail 1.00 6 6 1.00 6 6 Restaurant 1.00 0 0 1.00 0 0 Cinema/Entertainment 1.00 0 0 1.00 0 0 Residential 1.00 129 129 1.00 83 83 Hotel 1.00 0 0 1.00 0 0 Office Retail Restaurant Residential Hotel Office 0 0 0 0 Retail 0 2 2 0 Restaurant 0 0 0 0 Cinema/Entertainment 0 0 0 0 0 Residential 3 35 17 2 Hotel 0 0 0 0 Office Retail Restaurant Residential Hotel Office 0 0 5 0 Retail 0 0 59 0 Restaurant 0 3 21 0 Cinema/Entertainment 0 0 0 5 0 Residential 0 1 0 0 Hotel 0 0 0 0 Internal External Total Vehicles1 Transit2 Non-Motorized2 Office 0 0 0 0 0 0 Retail 1 5 6 5 0 0 Restaurant 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cinema/Entertainment 0 0 0 0 0 0 Residential 2 127 129 127 0 0 Hotel 0 0 0 0 0 0 All Other Land Uses3 0 0 0 0 0 0 Internal External Total Vehicles1 Transit2 Non-Motorized2 Office 0 0 0 0 0 0 Retail 2 4 6 4 0 0 Restaurant 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cinema/Entertainment 0 0 0 0 0 0 Residential 1 82 83 82 0 0 Hotel 0 0 0 0 0 0 All Other Land Uses3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3Total estimate for all other land uses at mixed-use development site is not subject to internal trip capture computations in this estimator Table 9-P (O): Internal and External Trips Summary (Exiting Trips) Origin Land Use Person-Trip Estimates External Trips by Mode* Person-Trip Estimates External Trips by Mode* 0 Table 8-P (D): Internal Person-Trip Origin-Destination Matrix (Computed at Destination) Origin (From) 2Person-Trips 0 0 Table 9-P (D): Internal and External Trips Summary (Entering Trips) Destination Land Use *Indicates computation that has been rounded to the nearest whole number. Cedar River Apartments PM Street Peak Hour Table 7-P: Conversion of Vehicle-Trip Ends to Person-Trip Ends Land Use Table 7-P (D): Entering Trips Table 7-P (O): Exiting Trips Table 8-P (O): Internal Person-Trip Origin-Destination Matrix (Computed at Origin) Origin (From)Destination (To) Destination (To) Cinema/Entertainment Cinema/Entertainment 0 0 1Vehicle-trips computed using the mode split and vehicle occupancy values provided in Table 2-P NCHRP Report 684 estimator PHASE 2.xlsx, NCHRP Report 684 estimator PHASE 2.xlsx 10/11/2019 APPENDIX B (page 5) Project Name:Organization: Project Location:Performed By: Scenario Description:Date: Analysis Year:Checked By: Analysis Period:Date: ITE LUCs1 Quantity Units Total Entering Exiting Office 720 25,000 GFA 70 55 15 Retail 815,920 4,852 GFA 5 3 2 Restaurant 930,936 - GFA 0 0 0 Cinema/Entertainment 0 0 0 Residential 221 481 DU 173 45 128 Hotel 0 All Other Land Uses2 0 248 103 145 Veh. Occ.4 % Transit % Non-Motorized Veh. Occ.4 % Transit % Non-Motorized Office Retail Restaurant Cinema/Entertainment Residential Hotel All Other Land Uses2 Office Retail Restaurant Residential Hotel Office Retail Restaurant Cinema/Entertainment Residential Hotel Office Retail Restaurant Residential Hotel Office 1 0 0 0 Retail 1 0 0 0 Restaurant 0 0 0 0 Cinema/Entertainment 0 0 0 0 0 Residential 2 1 0 0 Hotel 0 0 0 0 Total Entering Exiting Land Use Entering Trips Exiting Trips All Person-Trips 248 103 145 Office 5% 7% Internal Capture Percentage 4% 5% 3% Retail 67% 50% Restaurant N/A N/A External Vehicle-Trips5 238 98 140 Cinema/Entertainment N/A N/A External Transit-Trips6 0 0 0 Residential 0% 2% External Non-Motorized Trips6 0 0 0 Hotel N/A N/A 1915 Maple Valley Highway, Renton AM Street Peak Hour William Popp Associates Bill Popp Jr. At Full Occupancy 23-Sep-19Phase A & B & C Estimation Tool Developed by the Texas A&M Transportation Institute - Version 2013.1 Table 5-A: Computations Summary Table 6-A: Internal Trip Capture Percentages by Land Use 2Total estimate for all other land uses at mixed-use development site is not subject to internal trip capture computations in this estimator. 5Vehicle-trips computed using the mode split and vehicle occupancy values provided in Table 2-A. 1Land Use Codes (LUCs) from Trip Generation Manual , published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers. 6Person-Trips *Indicates computation that has been rounded to the nearest whole number. 3Enter trips assuming no transit or non-motorized trips (as assumed in ITE Trip Generation Manual ). 4Enter vehicle occupancy assumed in Table 1-A vehicle trips. If vehicle occupancy changes for proposed mixed-use project, manual adjustments must be made to Tables 5-A, 9-A (O and D). Enter transit, non-motorized percentages that will result with proposed mixed-use project complete. Table 2-A: Mode Split and Vehicle Occupancy Estimates Table 4-A: Internal Person-Trip Origin-Destination Matrix* Destination (To)Origin (From) Origin (From)Destination (To) Cinema/Entertainment Land Use Entering Trips Exiting Trips Table 3-A: Average Land Use Interchange Distances (Feet Walking Distance) NCHRP 684 Internal Trip Capture Estimation Tool Table 1-A: Base Vehicle-Trip Generation Estimates (Single-Use Site Estimate) 0 0 Cinema/Entertainment Development Data (For Information Only ) 0 0 0 Estimated Vehicle-Trips3 Land Use Cedar River Apartments NCHRP Report 684 estimator PHASE 3.xlsx, Page 1-A 10/11/2019 APPENDIX B (page 6) Project Name: Analysis Period: Veh. Occ. Vehicle-Trips Person-Trips* Veh. Occ. Vehicle-Trips Person-Trips* Office 1.00 55 55 1.00 15 15 Retail 1.00 3 3 1.00 1.5 2 Restaurant 1.00 0 0 1.00 0 0 Cinema/Entertainment 1.00 0 0 1.00 0 0 Residential 1.00 45 45 1.00 128 128 Hotel 1.00 0 0 1.00 0 0 Office Retail Restaurant Residential Hotel Office 4 9 0 0 Retail 1 0 0 0 Restaurant 0 0 0 0 Cinema/Entertainment 0 0 0 0 0 Residential 3 1 26 0 Hotel 0 0 0 0 Office Retail Restaurant Residential Hotel Office 1 0 0 0 Retail 2 0 1 0 Restaurant 8 0 2 0 Cinema/Entertainment 0 0 0 0 0 Residential 2 1 0 0 Hotel 2 0 0 0 Internal External Total Vehicles1 Transit2 Non-Motorized2 Office 3 52 55 52 0 0 Retail 2 1 3 1 0 0 Restaurant 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cinema/Entertainment 0 0 0 0 0 0 Residential 0 45 45 45 0 0 Hotel 0 0 0 0 0 0 All Other Land Uses3 0 0 0 0 0 0 Internal External Total Vehicles1 Transit2 Non-Motorized2 Office 1 14 15 14 0 0 Retail 1 1 2 1 0 0 Restaurant 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cinema/Entertainment 0 0 0 0 0 0 Residential 3 125 128 125 0 0 Hotel 0 0 0 0 0 0 All Other Land Uses3 0 0 0 0 0 0 Land Use Table 7-A (D): Entering Trips 2Person-Trips Person-Trip Estimates Cedar River Apartments AM Street Peak Hour Table 9-A (D): Internal and External Trips Summary (Entering Trips) Table 8-A (O): Internal Person-Trip Origin-Destination Matrix (Computed at Origin) Origin (From)Destination (To) Cinema/Entertainment Table 7-A: Conversion of Vehicle-Trip Ends to Person-Trip Ends Table 7-A (O): Exiting Trips 0 0 0 Table 8-A (D): Internal Person-Trip Origin-Destination Matrix (Computed at Destination) Origin (From) Origin Land Use Person-Trip Estimates External Trips by Mode* External Trips by Mode* 1Vehicle-trips computed using the mode split and vehicle occupancy values provided in Table 2-A 0 *Indicates computation that has been rounded to the nearest whole number. 0 0 0 0 0 Destination (To) Cinema/Entertainment 0 3Total estimate for all other land uses at mixed-use development site is not subject to internal trip capture computations in this estimator Destination Land Use Table 9-A (O): Internal and External Trips Summary (Exiting Trips) NCHRP Report 684 estimator PHASE 3.xlsx, Page 2-A 10/11/2019 APPENDIX B (page 7) Project Name:Organization: Project Location:Performed By: Scenario Description:Date: Analysis Year:Checked By: Analysis Period:Date: ITE LUCs1 Quantity Units Total Entering Exiting Office 720 25,000 GFA 87 24 63 Retail 815,920 4,852 GFA 12 6 6 Restaurant 930,936 - GFA 0 0 0 Cinema/Entertainment - - - 0 0 0 Residential 221 481 DU 212 129 83 Hotel - - - 0 All Other Land Uses2 - - - 0 311 159 152 Veh. Occ.4 % Transit % Non-Motorized Veh. Occ.4 % Transit % Non-Motorized Office Retail Restaurant Cinema/Entertainment Residential Hotel All Other Land Uses2 Office Retail Restaurant Residential Hotel Office 0 0 0 Retail Restaurant Cinema/Entertainment Residential 0 0 Hotel Office Retail Restaurant Residential Hotel Office 0 0 1 0 Retail 0 0 2 0 Restaurant 0 0 0 0 Cinema/Entertainment 0 0 0 0 0 Residential 3 1 0 0 Hotel 0 0 0 0 Total Entering Exiting Land Use Entering Trips Exiting Trips All Person-Trips 311 159 152 Office 13% 2% Internal Capture Percentage 5% 4% 5% Retail 17% 33% Restaurant N/A N/A External Vehicle-Trips5 297 152 145 Cinema/Entertainment N/A N/A External Transit-Trips6 0 0 0 Residential 2% 5% External Non-Motorized Trips6 0 0 0 Hotel N/A N/A 1Land Use Codes (LUCs) from Trip Generation Manual , published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers. 2Total estimate for all other land uses at mixed-use development site is not subject to internal trip capture computations in this estimator. 3Enter trips assuming no transit or non-motorized trips (as assumed in ITE Trip Generation Manual ). 5Vehicle-trips computed using the mode split and vehicle occupancy values provided in Table 2-P. Table 5-P: Computations Summary Table 6-P: Internal Trip Capture Percentages by Land Use 4Enter vehicle occupancy assumed in Table 1-P vehicle trips. If vehicle occupancy changes for proposed mixed-use project, manual adjustments must be 6Person-Trips 0 0 0 0 Table 4-P: Internal Person-Trip Origin-Destination Matrix* Origin (From)Destination (To) Cinema/Entertainment 0 Table 3-P: Average Land Use Interchange Distances (Feet Walking Distance) Origin (From)Destination (To) Cinema/Entertainment NCHRP 684 Internal Trip Capture Estimation Tool Cedar River Apartments William Popp Associates 1915 Maple Valley Highway, Renton Bill Popp Jr. *Indicates computation that has been rounded to the nearest whole number. Estimation Tool Developed by the Texas A&M Transportation Institute - Version 2013.1 Phase A & B & C 23-Sep-19 At Full Occupancy PM Street Peak Hour Table 1-P: Base Vehicle-Trip Generation Estimates (Single-Use Site Estimate) Land Use Development Data (For Information Only )Estimated Vehicle-Trips3 Table 2-P: Mode Split and Vehicle Occupancy Estimates Land Use Entering Trips Exiting Trips NCHRP Report 684 estimator PHASE 3.xlsx, Page 1-P 10/11/2019 APPENDIX B (page 8) Project Name: Analysis Period: Veh. Occ. Vehicle-Trips Person-Trips* Veh. Occ. Vehicle-Trips Person-Trips* Office 1.00 24 24 1.00 63 63 Retail 1.00 6 6 1.00 6 6 Restaurant 1.00 0 0 1.00 0 0 Cinema/Entertainment 1.00 0 0 1.00 0 0 Residential 1.00 129 129 1.00 83 83 Hotel 1.00 0 0 1.00 0 0 Office Retail Restaurant Residential Hotel Office 13 3 1 0 Retail 0 2 2 0 Restaurant 0 0 0 0 Cinema/Entertainment 0 0 0 0 0 Residential 3 35 17 2 Hotel 0 0 0 0 Office Retail Restaurant Residential Hotel Office 0 0 5 0 Retail 7 0 59 0 Restaurant 7 3 21 0 Cinema/Entertainment 1 0 0 5 0 Residential 14 1 0 0 Hotel 0 0 0 0 Internal External Total Vehicles1 Transit2 Non-Motorized2 Office 3 21 24 21 0 0 Retail 1 5 6 5 0 0 Restaurant 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cinema/Entertainment 0 0 0 0 0 0 Residential 3 126 129 126 0 0 Hotel 0 0 0 0 0 0 All Other Land Uses3 0 0 0 0 0 0 Internal External Total Vehicles1 Transit2 Non-Motorized2 Office 1 62 63 62 0 0 Retail 2 4 6 4 0 0 Restaurant 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cinema/Entertainment 0 0 0 0 0 0 Residential 4 79 83 79 0 0 Hotel 0 0 0 0 0 0 All Other Land Uses3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3Total estimate for all other land uses at mixed-use development site is not subject to internal trip capture computations in this estimator Table 9-P (O): Internal and External Trips Summary (Exiting Trips) Origin Land Use Person-Trip Estimates External Trips by Mode* Person-Trip Estimates External Trips by Mode* 0 Table 8-P (D): Internal Person-Trip Origin-Destination Matrix (Computed at Destination) Origin (From) 2Person-Trips 0 0 Table 9-P (D): Internal and External Trips Summary (Entering Trips) Destination Land Use *Indicates computation that has been rounded to the nearest whole number. Cedar River Apartments PM Street Peak Hour Table 7-P: Conversion of Vehicle-Trip Ends to Person-Trip Ends Land Use Table 7-P (D): Entering Trips Table 7-P (O): Exiting Trips Table 8-P (O): Internal Person-Trip Origin-Destination Matrix (Computed at Origin) Origin (From)Destination (To) Destination (To) Cinema/Entertainment Cinema/Entertainment 0 0 1Vehicle-trips computed using the mode split and vehicle occupancy values provided in Table 2-P NCHRP Report 684 estimator PHASE 3.xlsx, NCHRP Report 684 estimator PHASE 3.xlsx 10/11/2019 APPENDIX C SYNCHRO AM AND PM LOS ANALYSES (Ph1 2021, Ph2 2022, and Ph3 2023) 1. Synchro AM Peak Hour Level of Service Summaries a. Phase 1 -- Year 2021 with and without Project b. Phase 2 – Year 2022 with and without Project (includes Phase 1) c. Phase 3 – Year 2023 with and without Project (includes Phase 1 and 2) d. Full Build Year 2023 with and without Project. Note that the “without Project” condition does not include any of the phased development. The “with Project” condition is the same as 1.c. above. 2. Synchro PM Peak Hour Level of Service Summaries a. Phase 1 -- Year 2021 with and without Project b. Phase 2 – Year 2022 with and without Project (includes Phase 1) c. Phase 3 – Year 2023 with and without Project (includes Phase 1 and 2) d. Full Build Year 2023 with and without Project. Note that the “without Project” condition does not include any of the phased development. The “with Project” condition is the same as 1.c. above. Synchro Results AM PEAK HOUR HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 1: I-405 SB On-Ramp/Sunset Blvd & Bronson Way/SR 169 01/18/2020 Cedar River Apartments 01/13/2020 2018 AM -- extg Synchro 9 Light Report BPJ; William Popp Associates Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 395 104 47 775 578 895 0 0 0 261 853 439 Future Volume (veh/h) 395 104 47 775 578 895 0 0 0 261 853 439 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 7 4 14 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 416 109 0 816 608 942 275 1129 308 Adj No. of Lanes 2 2 0 1 2 1 1 2 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 631 649 0 672 1340 1157 625 1313 848 Arrive On Green 0.18 0.18 0.00 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.35 0.35 0.35 Sat Flow, veh/h 3442 3632 0 1774 3539 1583 1774 3725 1583 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 416 109 0 816 608 942 275 1129 308 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1721 1770 0 1774 1770 1583 1774 1863 1583 Q Serve(g_s), s 15.7 3.6 0.0 53.0 22.3 39.3 16.6 39.4 15.7 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 15.7 3.6 0.0 53.0 22.3 39.3 16.6 39.4 15.7 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 631 649 0 672 1340 1157 625 1313 848 V/C Ratio(X) 0.66 0.17 0.00 1.22 0.45 0.81 0.44 0.86 0.36 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 631 649 0 672 1340 1157 697 1464 912 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.33 0.33 0.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.44 0.44 0.44 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 53.1 48.2 0.0 61.3 47.8 14.6 34.7 42.1 18.7 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.5 0.1 0.0 103.0 0.5 2.9 0.5 5.0 0.3 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 7.7 1.8 0.0 45.3 11.0 37.5 8.3 21.1 9.6 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 55.7 48.3 0.0 164.3 48.3 17.5 35.2 47.1 19.0 LnGrp LOS E D F D B D D B Approach Vol, veh/h 525 2366 1712 Approach Delay, s/veh 54.1 76.0 40.1 Approach LOS D E D Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 2 4 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 29.7 53.3 57.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 19.0 54.0 52.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 17.7 41.4 55.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.4 6.9 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 60.2 HCM 2010 LOS E Notes HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: I-405 NB Off-Ramp/I-405 NB On-Ramp & SR 169 01/18/2020 Cedar River Apartments 01/13/2020 2018 AM -- extg Synchro 9 Light Report BPJ; William Popp Associates Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 17 348 0 0 1706 412 0 0 289 0 0 495 Future Volume (vph) 17 348 0 0 1706 412 0 0 289 0 0 495 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 *0.70 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.86 0.86 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1711 3421 3781 1531 1558 1558 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1711 3421 3781 1531 1558 1558 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 18 366 0 0 1796 434 0 0 304 0 0 521 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 136 0 0 0 0 0 10 Lane Group Flow (vph) 18 366 0 0 1796 298 0 0 304 0 0 511 Turn Type Prot NA NA Perm Free Over Protected Phases 5 2 6 5 Permitted Phases 6 Free Actuated Green, G (s) 48.7 140.0 81.3 81.3 140.0 48.7 Effective Green, g (s) 49.7 140.0 82.3 82.3 140.0 49.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.36 1.00 0.59 0.59 1.00 0.36 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 607 3421 2222 900 1558 553 v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 0.11 c0.47 c0.33 v/s Ratio Perm 0.19 0.20 v/c Ratio 0.03 0.11 0.81 0.33 0.20 0.92 Uniform Delay, d1 29.4 0.0 22.7 14.8 0.0 43.3 Progression Factor 0.32 1.00 0.65 0.39 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.0 0.0 2.8 0.8 0.3 21.2 Delay (s) 9.4 0.0 17.6 6.7 0.3 64.5 Level of Service A A B A A E Approach Delay (s) 0.4 15.5 0.3 64.5 Approach LOS A B A E Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 19.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.85 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 140.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 70.3% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 Description: SR 169/I-405 NB On-Ramp c Critical Lane Group HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 3: SR 169 & Shari's Driveway 01/18/2020 Cedar River Apartments 01/13/2020 2018 AM -- extg Synchro 9 Light Report BPJ; William Popp Associates Page 4 Movement EBU EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 55 35 640 2008 7 3 55 Future Volume (veh/h) 55 35 640 2008 7 3 55 Number 5 2 6 16 7 14 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1863 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 37 674 2114 7 3 58 Adj No. of Lanes 1 3 4 0 1 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 60 3010 4068 13 95 74 Arrive On Green 0.03 0.77 1.00 1.00 0.05 0.05 Sat Flow, veh/h 1774 4471 6311 19 1774 1583 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 37 674 1438 683 3 58 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1774 1304 1304 1859 1774 1583 Q Serve(g_s), s 2.9 6.7 0.0 0.0 0.2 5.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.9 6.7 0.0 0.0 0.2 5.1 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.01 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 60 3010 2766 1315 95 74 V/C Ratio(X) 0.62 0.22 0.52 0.52 0.03 0.79 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 139 3185 2766 1315 228 192 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.99 0.99 0.86 0.86 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 66.7 4.5 0.0 0.0 62.8 66.1 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 9.8 0.0 0.6 1.3 0.1 16.7 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.6 2.4 0.2 0.5 0.1 4.7 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 76.5 4.5 0.6 1.3 62.9 82.8 LnGrp LOS E A A A E F Approach Vol, veh/h 711 2121 61 Approach Delay, s/veh 8.3 0.8 81.8 Approach LOS A A F Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 2 4 5 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 111.7 11.5 8.7 103.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 113.0 17.0 10.0 98.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 8.7 7.1 4.9 2.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 31.0 0.1 0.0 30.6 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 4.4 HCM 2010 LOS A Notes HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 4: Cedar River Park Dr & SR 169 01/18/2020 Cedar River Apartments 01/13/2020 2018 AM -- extg Synchro 9 Light Report BPJ; William Popp Associates Page 6 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 623 61 12 1984 31 6 Future Volume (veh/h) 623 61 12 1984 31 6 Number 2 12 1 6 3 18 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1863 1900 1863 1863 1863 1863 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 656 64 13 2088 33 6 Adj No. of Lanes 3 0 1 3 1 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 2947 286 28 3698 59 52 Arrive On Green 0.73 0.73 0.02 0.78 0.03 0.03 Sat Flow, veh/h 4572 389 1774 5029 1774 1583 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 425 295 13 2088 33 6 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1304 1794 1774 1583 1774 1583 Q Serve(g_s), s 7.2 7.4 1.0 24.3 2.6 0.5 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 7.2 7.4 1.0 24.3 2.6 0.5 Prop In Lane 0.22 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 1915 1317 28 3698 59 52 V/C Ratio(X) 0.22 0.22 0.47 0.56 0.56 0.11 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1915 1317 114 3698 291 260 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.99 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 5.9 6.0 68.3 6.1 66.7 65.7 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.1 0.1 11.6 0.6 8.2 1.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.6 3.7 0.6 10.7 1.4 0.2 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 6.0 6.0 80.0 6.8 74.9 66.7 LnGrp LOS A A E A E E Approach Vol, veh/h 720 2101 39 Approach Delay, s/veh 6.0 7.2 73.7 Approach LOS A A E Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 6.2 106.8 113.0 8.6 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 8.0 95.0 108.0 22.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.0 9.4 26.3 4.6 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 32.0 31.6 0.1 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 7.8 HCM 2010 LOS A HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 1: I-405 SB On-Ramp/Sunset Blvd & Bronson Way/SR 169 01/18/2020 Cedar River Apartments 01/13/2020 2021 AM -- without project Synchro 9 Light Report BPJ; William Popp Associates Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 411 108 49 806 601 931 0 0 0 272 888 457 Future Volume (veh/h) 411 108 49 806 601 931 0 0 0 272 888 457 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 7 4 14 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 411 108 0 806 601 931 272 1116 305 Adj No. of Lanes 2 2 0 1 2 1 1 2 1 Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 640 658 0 672 1340 1153 620 1303 848 Arrive On Green 0.19 0.19 0.00 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.35 0.35 0.35 Sat Flow, veh/h 3442 3632 0 1774 3539 1583 1774 3725 1583 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 411 108 0 806 601 931 272 1116 305 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1721 1770 0 1774 1770 1583 1774 1863 1583 Q Serve(g_s), s 15.5 3.6 0.0 53.0 22.0 39.1 16.5 38.9 15.5 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 15.5 3.6 0.0 53.0 22.0 39.1 16.5 38.9 15.5 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 640 658 0 672 1340 1153 620 1303 848 V/C Ratio(X) 0.64 0.16 0.00 1.20 0.45 0.81 0.44 0.86 0.36 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 640 658 0 672 1340 1153 697 1464 917 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.33 0.33 0.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.46 0.46 0.46 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 52.7 47.8 0.0 61.3 47.7 14.8 35.0 42.3 18.7 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.2 0.1 0.0 96.9 0.5 2.9 0.5 4.8 0.3 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 7.6 1.8 0.0 44.1 10.9 37.1 8.2 20.9 9.5 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 54.8 48.0 0.0 158.2 48.2 17.7 35.5 47.1 18.9 LnGrp LOS D D F D B D D B Approach Vol, veh/h 519 2338 1693 Approach Delay, s/veh 53.4 74.0 40.2 Approach LOS D E D Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 2 4 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 30.0 53.0 57.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 19.0 54.0 52.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 17.5 40.9 55.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.4 7.0 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 59.0 HCM 2010 LOS E Notes HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 1: I-405 SB On-Ramp/Sunset Blvd & Bronson Way/SR 169 01/18/2020 Cedar River Apartments 01/13/2020 2021 AM -- without project Synchro 9 Light Report BPJ; William Popp Associates Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 411 108 49 806 601 931 0 0 0 272 888 457 Future Volume (veh/h) 411 108 49 806 601 931 0 0 0 272 888 457 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 7 4 14 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 411 108 0 806 601 931 272 1116 305 Adj No. of Lanes 2 2 0 2 1 1 1 2 1 Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 640 658 0 1343 705 1153 620 1303 848 Arrive On Green 0.19 0.19 0.00 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.35 0.35 0.35 Sat Flow, veh/h 3442 3632 0 3548 1863 1583 1774 3725 1583 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 411 108 0 806 601 931 272 1116 305 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1721 1770 0 1774 1863 1583 1774 1863 1583 Q Serve(g_s), s 15.5 3.6 0.0 30.1 44.2 39.1 16.5 38.9 15.5 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 15.5 3.6 0.0 30.1 44.2 39.1 16.5 38.9 15.5 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 640 658 0 1343 705 1153 620 1303 848 V/C Ratio(X) 0.64 0.16 0.00 0.60 0.85 0.81 0.44 0.86 0.36 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 640 658 0 1343 705 1153 697 1464 917 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.33 0.33 0.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.46 0.46 0.46 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 52.7 47.8 0.0 51.2 57.4 14.8 35.0 42.3 18.7 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.2 0.1 0.0 0.9 6.2 2.9 0.5 4.8 0.3 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 7.6 1.8 0.0 15.0 24.1 37.1 8.2 20.9 9.5 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 54.8 48.0 0.0 52.1 63.6 17.7 35.5 47.1 18.9 LnGrp LOS D D D E B D D B Approach Vol, veh/h 519 2338 1693 Approach Delay, s/veh 53.4 41.4 40.2 Approach LOS D D D Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 2 4 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 30.0 53.0 57.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 19.0 54.0 52.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 17.5 40.9 46.2 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.4 7.0 4.8 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 42.3 HCM 2010 LOS D Notes HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: I-405 NB Off-Ramp/I-405 NB On-Ramp & SR 169 01/18/2020 Cedar River Apartments 01/13/2020 2021 AM -- without project Synchro 9 Light Report BPJ; William Popp Associates Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 18 362 0 0 1775 429 0 0 301 0 0 515 Future Volume (vph) 18 362 0 0 1775 429 0 0 301 0 0 515 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 *0.70 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.86 0.86 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1711 3421 3781 1531 1558 1558 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1711 3421 3781 1531 1558 1558 Peak-hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj. Flow (vph) 18 362 0 0 1775 429 0 0 301 0 0 515 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 135 0 0 0 0 0 10 Lane Group Flow (vph) 18 362 0 0 1775 294 0 0 301 0 0 505 Turn Type Prot NA NA Perm Free Over Protected Phases 5 2 6 5 Permitted Phases 6 Free Actuated Green, G (s) 48.3 140.0 81.7 81.7 140.0 48.3 Effective Green, g (s) 49.3 140.0 82.7 82.7 140.0 49.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.35 1.00 0.59 0.59 1.00 0.35 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 602 3421 2233 904 1558 548 v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 0.11 c0.47 c0.32 v/s Ratio Perm 0.19 0.19 v/c Ratio 0.03 0.11 0.79 0.33 0.19 0.92 Uniform Delay, d1 29.7 0.0 22.1 14.5 0.0 43.5 Progression Factor 0.46 1.00 0.65 0.39 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.0 0.0 2.6 0.8 0.3 21.0 Delay (s) 13.7 0.0 17.0 6.5 0.3 64.5 Level of Service B A B A A E Approach Delay (s) 0.7 15.0 0.3 64.5 Approach LOS A B A E Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 19.6 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.84 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 140.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 72.9% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 Description: SR 169/I-405 NB On-Ramp c Critical Lane Group HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 3: SR 169 & Shari's Driveway 01/18/2020 Cedar River Apartments 01/13/2020 2021 AM -- without project Synchro 9 Light Report BPJ; William Popp Associates Page 4 Movement EBU EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 57 36 666 2090 7 3 57 Future Volume (veh/h) 57 36 666 2090 7 3 57 Number 5 2 6 16 7 14 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1863 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 36 666 2090 7 3 57 Adj No. of Lanes 1 3 4 0 1 1 Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 59 3007 4067 14 94 72 Arrive On Green 0.03 0.77 1.00 1.00 0.05 0.05 Sat Flow, veh/h 1774 4471 6311 19 1774 1583 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 36 666 1421 676 3 57 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1774 1304 1304 1859 1774 1583 Q Serve(g_s), s 2.8 6.6 0.0 0.0 0.2 5.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.8 6.6 0.0 0.0 0.2 5.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.01 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 59 3007 2766 1315 94 72 V/C Ratio(X) 0.61 0.22 0.51 0.51 0.03 0.79 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 139 3185 2766 1315 228 192 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.99 0.99 0.87 0.87 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 66.8 4.5 0.0 0.0 62.9 66.1 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 9.9 0.0 0.6 1.3 0.1 16.9 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.5 2.4 0.2 0.5 0.1 4.7 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 76.7 4.5 0.6 1.3 63.0 83.0 LnGrp LOS E A A A E F Approach Vol, veh/h 702 2097 60 Approach Delay, s/veh 8.2 0.8 82.0 Approach LOS A A F Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 2 4 5 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 111.6 11.4 8.6 103.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 113.0 17.0 10.0 98.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 8.6 7.0 4.8 2.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 30.1 0.1 0.0 29.7 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 4.3 HCM 2010 LOS A Notes HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 4: Cedar River Park Dr & SR 169 01/18/2020 Cedar River Apartments 01/13/2020 2021 AM -- without project Synchro 9 Light Report BPJ; William Popp Associates Page 6 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 648 63 12 2065 32 6 Future Volume (veh/h) 648 63 12 2065 32 6 Number 2 12 1 6 3 18 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1863 1900 1863 1863 1863 1863 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 648 63 12 2065 32 6 Adj No. of Lanes 3 0 1 3 1 1 Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 2950 285 27 3698 57 51 Arrive On Green 0.73 0.73 0.02 0.78 0.03 0.03 Sat Flow, veh/h 4573 388 1774 5029 1774 1583 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 420 291 12 2065 32 6 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1304 1794 1774 1583 1774 1583 Q Serve(g_s), s 7.1 7.2 0.9 23.8 2.5 0.5 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 7.1 7.2 0.9 23.8 2.5 0.5 Prop In Lane 0.22 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 1916 1319 27 3698 57 51 V/C Ratio(X) 0.22 0.22 0.45 0.56 0.56 0.12 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1916 1319 114 3698 291 260 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.99 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 5.9 5.9 68.4 6.1 66.8 65.8 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.1 0.1 11.2 0.6 8.3 1.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.6 3.6 0.5 10.5 1.3 0.2 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 5.9 6.0 79.6 6.7 75.0 66.8 LnGrp LOS A A E A E E Approach Vol, veh/h 711 2077 38 Approach Delay, s/veh 6.0 7.1 73.7 Approach LOS A A E Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 6.1 106.9 113.0 8.5 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 8.0 95.0 108.0 22.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.9 9.2 25.8 4.5 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 31.2 30.8 0.1 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 7.7 HCM 2010 LOS A HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 1: I-405 SB On-Ramp/Sunset Blvd & Bronson Way/SR 169 01/18/2020 Cedar River Apartments 01/13/2020 2021 AM -- with project Synchro 9 Light Report BPJ; William Popp Associates Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 411 110 49 822 607 946 0 0 0 283 888 457 Future Volume (veh/h) 411 110 49 822 607 946 0 0 0 283 888 457 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 7 4 14 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 411 110 0 822 607 946 283 1116 305 Adj No. of Lanes 2 2 0 1 2 1 1 2 1 Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 640 658 0 672 1340 1153 621 1303 848 Arrive On Green 0.19 0.19 0.00 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.35 0.35 0.35 Sat Flow, veh/h 3442 3632 0 1774 3539 1583 1774 3725 1583 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 411 110 0 822 607 946 283 1116 305 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1721 1770 0 1774 1770 1583 1774 1863 1583 Q Serve(g_s), s 15.5 3.7 0.0 53.0 22.3 39.8 17.3 38.9 15.5 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 15.5 3.7 0.0 53.0 22.3 39.8 17.3 38.9 15.5 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 640 658 0 672 1340 1153 621 1303 848 V/C Ratio(X) 0.64 0.17 0.00 1.22 0.45 0.82 0.46 0.86 0.36 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 640 658 0 672 1340 1153 697 1464 916 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.33 0.33 0.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.44 0.44 0.44 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 52.7 47.9 0.0 61.3 47.8 14.9 35.2 42.2 18.7 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.2 0.1 0.0 106.8 0.5 3.0 0.5 4.8 0.3 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 7.6 1.8 0.0 46.0 11.0 37.7 8.6 20.9 9.5 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 54.9 48.0 0.0 168.1 48.3 17.9 35.7 47.0 18.9 LnGrp LOS D D F D B D D B Approach Vol, veh/h 521 2375 1704 Approach Delay, s/veh 53.4 77.6 40.1 Approach LOS D E D Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 2 4 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 30.0 53.0 57.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 19.0 54.0 52.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 17.5 40.9 55.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.4 7.1 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 61.0 HCM 2010 LOS E Notes HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 1: I-405 SB On-Ramp/Sunset Blvd & Bronson Way/SR 169 01/18/2020 Cedar River Apartments 01/13/2020 2021 AM -- with project Synchro 9 Light Report BPJ; William Popp Associates Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 411 110 49 822 607 946 0 0 0 283 888 457 Future Volume (veh/h) 411 110 49 822 607 946 0 0 0 283 888 457 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 7 4 14 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 411 110 0 822 607 946 283 1116 305 Adj No. of Lanes 2 2 0 2 1 1 1 2 1 Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 640 658 0 1343 705 1153 621 1303 848 Arrive On Green 0.19 0.19 0.00 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.35 0.35 0.35 Sat Flow, veh/h 3442 3632 0 3548 1863 1583 1774 3725 1583 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 411 110 0 822 607 946 283 1116 305 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1721 1770 0 1774 1863 1583 1774 1863 1583 Q Serve(g_s), s 15.5 3.7 0.0 30.7 44.7 39.8 17.3 38.9 15.5 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 15.5 3.7 0.0 30.7 44.7 39.8 17.3 38.9 15.5 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 640 658 0 1343 705 1153 621 1303 848 V/C Ratio(X) 0.64 0.17 0.00 0.61 0.86 0.82 0.46 0.86 0.36 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 640 658 0 1343 705 1153 697 1464 916 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.33 0.33 0.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.44 0.44 0.44 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 52.7 47.9 0.0 51.5 57.6 14.9 35.2 42.2 18.7 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.2 0.1 0.0 0.9 6.3 3.0 0.5 4.8 0.3 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 7.6 1.8 0.0 15.3 24.3 37.7 8.6 20.9 9.5 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 54.9 48.0 0.0 52.4 63.9 17.9 35.7 47.0 18.9 LnGrp LOS D D D E B D D B Approach Vol, veh/h 521 2375 1704 Approach Delay, s/veh 53.4 41.6 40.1 Approach LOS D D D Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 2 4 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 30.0 53.0 57.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 19.0 54.0 52.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 17.5 40.9 46.7 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.4 7.1 4.4 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 42.4 HCM 2010 LOS D Notes HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: I-405 NB Off-Ramp/I-405 NB On-Ramp & SR 169 01/18/2020 Cedar River Apartments 01/13/2020 2022 AM -- with project Synchro 9 Light Report BPJ; William Popp Associates Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 18 393 0 0 1871 464 0 0 316 0 0 520 Future Volume (vph) 18 393 0 0 1871 464 0 0 316 0 0 520 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 *0.70 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.86 0.86 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1711 3421 3781 1531 1558 1558 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1711 3421 3781 1531 1558 1558 Peak-hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj. Flow (vph) 18 393 0 0 1871 464 0 0 316 0 0 520 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 139 0 0 0 0 0 10 Lane Group Flow (vph) 18 393 0 0 1871 325 0 0 316 0 0 510 Turn Type Prot NA NA Perm Free Over Protected Phases 5 2 6 5 Permitted Phases 6 Free Actuated Green, G (s) 48.6 140.0 81.4 81.4 140.0 48.6 Effective Green, g (s) 49.6 140.0 82.4 82.4 140.0 49.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.35 1.00 0.59 0.59 1.00 0.35 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 606 3421 2225 901 1558 551 v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 0.11 c0.49 c0.33 v/s Ratio Perm 0.21 0.20 v/c Ratio 0.03 0.11 0.84 0.36 0.20 0.92 Uniform Delay, d1 29.5 0.0 23.5 15.0 0.0 43.4 Progression Factor 0.45 1.00 0.65 0.50 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.0 0.0 3.4 0.9 0.3 21.5 Delay (s) 13.3 0.0 18.5 8.4 0.3 64.9 Level of Service B A B A A E Approach Delay (s) 0.6 16.5 0.3 64.9 Approach LOS A B A E Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 20.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.87 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 140.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 75.0% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 Description: SR 169/I-405 NB On-Ramp c Critical Lane Group HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 3: SR 169 & Shari's Driveway 01/18/2020 Cedar River Apartments 01/13/2020 2021 AM -- with project Synchro 9 Light Report BPJ; William Popp Associates Page 4 Movement EBU EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 57 36 685 2143 7 3 57 Future Volume (veh/h) 57 36 685 2143 7 3 57 Number 5 2 6 16 7 14 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1863 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 36 685 2143 7 3 57 Adj No. of Lanes 1 3 4 0 1 1 Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 59 3007 4068 13 94 72 Arrive On Green 0.03 0.77 1.00 1.00 0.05 0.05 Sat Flow, veh/h 1774 4471 6311 19 1774 1583 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 36 685 1457 693 3 57 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1774 1304 1304 1859 1774 1583 Q Serve(g_s), s 2.8 6.9 0.0 0.0 0.2 5.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.8 6.9 0.0 0.0 0.2 5.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.01 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 59 3007 2766 1315 94 72 V/C Ratio(X) 0.61 0.23 0.53 0.53 0.03 0.79 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 139 3185 2766 1315 228 192 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.99 0.99 0.83 0.83 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 66.8 4.5 0.0 0.0 62.9 66.1 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 9.9 0.0 0.6 1.3 0.1 16.9 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.5 2.5 0.2 0.5 0.1 4.7 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 76.7 4.6 0.6 1.3 63.0 83.0 LnGrp LOS E A A A E F Approach Vol, veh/h 721 2150 60 Approach Delay, s/veh 8.2 0.8 82.0 Approach LOS A A F Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 2 4 5 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 111.6 11.4 8.6 103.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 113.0 17.0 10.0 98.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 8.9 7.0 4.8 2.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 32.1 0.1 0.0 31.6 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 4.3 HCM 2010 LOS A Notes HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 4: Cedar River Park Dr & SR 169 01/18/2020 Cedar River Apartments 01/13/2020 2021 AM -- with project Synchro 9 Light Report BPJ; William Popp Associates Page 6 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 648 82 22 2065 86 6 Future Volume (veh/h) 648 82 22 2065 86 6 Number 2 12 1 6 3 18 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1863 1900 1863 1863 1863 1863 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 648 82 22 2065 86 6 Adj No. of Lanes 3 0 1 3 1 1 Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 2834 356 40 3698 122 109 Arrive On Green 0.73 0.72 0.02 0.78 0.07 0.07 Sat Flow, veh/h 4454 489 1774 5029 1774 1583 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 432 298 22 2065 86 6 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1304 1776 1774 1583 1774 1583 Q Serve(g_s), s 7.6 7.7 1.7 23.8 6.6 0.5 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 7.6 7.7 1.7 23.8 6.6 0.5 Prop In Lane 0.28 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 1897 1292 40 3698 122 109 V/C Ratio(X) 0.23 0.23 0.55 0.56 0.71 0.06 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1897 1292 114 3698 291 260 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.99 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 6.2 6.3 67.7 6.1 63.8 61.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.1 0.1 11.4 0.6 7.3 0.2 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.7 3.8 1.0 10.5 3.5 0.2 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 6.3 6.4 79.1 6.7 71.1 61.2 LnGrp LOS A A E A E E Approach Vol, veh/h 730 2087 92 Approach Delay, s/veh 6.3 7.4 70.5 Approach LOS A A E Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 7.1 105.9 113.0 13.6 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 8.0 95.0 108.0 22.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.7 9.7 25.8 8.6 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 31.6 31.3 0.2 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 9.2 HCM 2010 LOS A HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 1: I-405 SB On-Ramp/Sunset Blvd & Bronson Way/SR 169 01/18/2020 Cedar River Apartments 01/13/2020 2022 AM -- without project Synchro 9 Light Report BPJ; William Popp Associates Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 415 111 49 831 614 956 0 0 0 283 897 461 Future Volume (veh/h) 415 111 49 831 614 956 0 0 0 283 897 461 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 7 4 14 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 415 111 0 831 614 956 283 1127 307 Adj No. of Lanes 2 2 0 1 2 1 1 2 1 Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 632 650 0 672 1340 1157 625 1312 848 Arrive On Green 0.18 0.18 0.00 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.35 0.35 0.35 Sat Flow, veh/h 3442 3632 0 1774 3539 1583 1774 3725 1583 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 415 111 0 831 614 956 283 1127 307 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1721 1770 0 1774 1770 1583 1774 1863 1583 Q Serve(g_s), s 15.7 3.7 0.0 53.0 22.5 40.0 17.2 39.3 15.6 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 15.7 3.7 0.0 53.0 22.5 40.0 17.2 39.3 15.6 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 632 650 0 672 1340 1157 625 1312 848 V/C Ratio(X) 0.66 0.17 0.00 1.24 0.46 0.83 0.45 0.86 0.36 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 632 650 0 672 1340 1157 697 1464 913 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.33 0.33 0.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.42 0.42 0.42 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 53.1 48.2 0.0 61.3 47.9 14.7 35.0 42.1 18.7 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.5 0.1 0.0 112.4 0.5 3.0 0.5 5.0 0.3 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 7.7 1.8 0.0 47.0 11.2 38.1 8.5 21.1 9.6 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 55.5 48.3 0.0 173.6 48.4 17.7 35.5 47.1 19.0 LnGrp LOS E D F D B D D B Approach Vol, veh/h 526 2401 1717 Approach Delay, s/veh 54.0 79.5 40.1 Approach LOS D E D Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 2 4 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 29.7 53.3 57.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 19.0 54.0 52.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 17.7 41.3 55.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.4 7.0 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 62.1 HCM 2010 LOS E Notes HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 1: I-405 SB On-Ramp/Sunset Blvd & Bronson Way/SR 169 01/18/2020 Cedar River Apartments 01/13/2020 2022 AM -- without project Synchro 9 Light Report BPJ; William Popp Associates Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 415 111 49 831 614 956 0 0 0 283 897 461 Future Volume (veh/h) 415 111 49 831 614 956 0 0 0 283 897 461 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 7 4 14 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 415 111 0 831 614 956 283 1127 307 Adj No. of Lanes 2 2 0 2 1 1 1 2 1 Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 632 650 0 1343 705 1157 625 1312 848 Arrive On Green 0.18 0.18 0.00 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.35 0.35 0.35 Sat Flow, veh/h 3442 3632 0 3548 1863 1583 1774 3725 1583 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 415 111 0 831 614 956 283 1127 307 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1721 1770 0 1774 1863 1583 1774 1863 1583 Q Serve(g_s), s 15.7 3.7 0.0 31.1 45.3 40.0 17.2 39.3 15.6 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 15.7 3.7 0.0 31.1 45.3 40.0 17.2 39.3 15.6 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 632 650 0 1343 705 1157 625 1312 848 V/C Ratio(X) 0.66 0.17 0.00 0.62 0.87 0.83 0.45 0.86 0.36 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 632 650 0 1343 705 1157 697 1464 913 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.33 0.33 0.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.42 0.42 0.42 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 53.1 48.2 0.0 51.7 57.9 14.7 35.0 42.1 18.7 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.5 0.1 0.0 0.9 6.5 3.0 0.5 5.0 0.3 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 7.7 1.8 0.0 15.5 24.7 38.1 8.5 21.1 9.6 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 55.5 48.3 0.0 52.6 64.4 17.7 35.5 47.1 19.0 LnGrp LOS E D D E B D D B Approach Vol, veh/h 526 2401 1717 Approach Delay, s/veh 54.0 41.7 40.1 Approach LOS D D D Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 2 4 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 29.7 53.3 57.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 19.0 54.0 52.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 17.7 41.3 47.3 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.4 7.0 4.0 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 42.5 HCM 2010 LOS D Notes HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: I-405 NB Off-Ramp/I-405 NB On-Ramp & SR 169 01/18/2020 Cedar River Apartments 01/13/2020 2022 AM -- without project Synchro 9 Light Report BPJ; William Popp Associates Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 18 379 0 0 1830 449 0 0 310 0 0 520 Future Volume (vph) 18 379 0 0 1830 449 0 0 310 0 0 520 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 *0.70 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.86 0.86 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1711 3421 3781 1531 1558 1558 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1711 3421 3781 1531 1558 1558 Peak-hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj. Flow (vph) 18 379 0 0 1830 449 0 0 310 0 0 520 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 138 0 0 0 0 0 10 Lane Group Flow (vph) 18 379 0 0 1830 311 0 0 310 0 0 510 Turn Type Prot NA NA Perm Free Over Protected Phases 5 2 6 5 Permitted Phases 6 Free Actuated Green, G (s) 48.6 140.0 81.4 81.4 140.0 48.6 Effective Green, g (s) 49.6 140.0 82.4 82.4 140.0 49.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.35 1.00 0.59 0.59 1.00 0.35 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 606 3421 2225 901 1558 551 v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 0.11 c0.48 c0.33 v/s Ratio Perm 0.20 0.20 v/c Ratio 0.03 0.11 0.82 0.35 0.20 0.92 Uniform Delay, d1 29.5 0.0 23.0 14.9 0.0 43.4 Progression Factor 0.45 1.00 0.62 0.35 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.9 0.3 21.5 Delay (s) 13.4 0.0 17.2 6.1 0.3 64.9 Level of Service B A B A A E Approach Delay (s) 0.6 15.0 0.3 64.9 Approach LOS A B A E Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 19.5 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.86 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 140.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 74.2% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 Description: SR 169/I-405 NB On-Ramp c Critical Lane Group HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 3: SR 169 & Shari's Driveway 01/18/2020 Cedar River Apartments 01/13/2020 2022 AM -- without project Synchro 9 Light Report BPJ; William Popp Associates Page 4 Movement EBU EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 58 37 692 2164 7 3 58 Future Volume (veh/h) 58 37 692 2164 7 3 58 Number 5 2 6 16 7 14 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1863 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 37 692 2164 7 3 58 Adj No. of Lanes 1 3 4 0 1 1 Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 60 3010 4068 13 95 74 Arrive On Green 0.03 0.77 1.00 1.00 0.05 0.05 Sat Flow, veh/h 1774 4471 6311 19 1774 1583 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 37 692 1472 699 3 58 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1774 1304 1304 1859 1774 1583 Q Serve(g_s), s 2.9 6.9 0.0 0.0 0.2 5.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.9 6.9 0.0 0.0 0.2 5.1 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.01 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 60 3010 2766 1315 95 74 V/C Ratio(X) 0.62 0.23 0.53 0.53 0.03 0.79 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 139 3185 2766 1315 228 192 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.99 0.99 0.83 0.83 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 66.7 4.5 0.0 0.0 62.8 66.1 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 9.8 0.0 0.6 1.3 0.1 16.7 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.6 2.5 0.2 0.5 0.1 4.7 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 76.5 4.6 0.6 1.3 62.9 82.8 LnGrp LOS E A A A E F Approach Vol, veh/h 729 2171 61 Approach Delay, s/veh 8.2 0.8 81.8 Approach LOS A A F Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 2 4 5 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 111.7 11.5 8.7 103.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 113.0 17.0 10.0 98.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 8.9 7.1 4.9 2.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 32.9 0.1 0.0 32.4 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 4.3 HCM 2010 LOS A Notes HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 4: Cedar River Park Dr & SR 169 01/18/2020 Cedar River Apartments 01/13/2020 2022 AM -- without project Synchro 9 Light Report BPJ; William Popp Associates Page 6 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 655 83 23 2085 87 6 Future Volume (veh/h) 655 83 23 2085 87 6 Number 2 12 1 6 3 18 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1863 1900 1863 1863 1863 1863 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 655 83 23 2085 87 6 Adj No. of Lanes 3 0 1 3 1 1 Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 2830 356 41 3698 123 110 Arrive On Green 0.73 0.72 0.02 0.78 0.07 0.07 Sat Flow, veh/h 4453 490 1774 5029 1774 1583 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 437 301 23 2085 87 6 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1304 1776 1774 1583 1774 1583 Q Serve(g_s), s 7.7 7.9 1.8 24.3 6.7 0.5 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 7.7 7.9 1.8 24.3 6.7 0.5 Prop In Lane 0.28 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 1895 1291 41 3698 123 110 V/C Ratio(X) 0.23 0.23 0.56 0.56 0.71 0.05 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1895 1291 114 3698 291 260 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.99 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 6.3 6.3 67.7 6.1 63.8 60.9 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.1 0.1 11.3 0.6 7.3 0.2 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.7 3.8 1.0 10.6 3.6 0.2 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 6.3 6.4 79.0 6.7 71.1 61.1 LnGrp LOS A A E A E E Approach Vol, veh/h 738 2108 93 Approach Delay, s/veh 6.4 7.5 70.4 Approach LOS A A E Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 7.2 105.8 113.0 13.7 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 8.0 95.0 108.0 22.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.8 9.9 26.3 8.7 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 32.3 32.0 0.2 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 9.2 HCM 2010 LOS A HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 1: I-405 SB On-Ramp/Sunset Blvd & Bronson Way/SR 169 01/18/2020 Cedar River Apartments 01/13/2020 2022 AM -- with project Synchro 9 Light Report BPJ; William Popp Associates Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 415 114 49 847 621 974 0 0 0 296 897 461 Future Volume (veh/h) 415 114 49 847 621 974 0 0 0 296 897 461 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 7 4 14 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 415 114 0 847 621 974 296 1127 307 Adj No. of Lanes 2 2 0 1 2 1 1 2 1 Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 631 649 0 672 1340 1157 625 1313 848 Arrive On Green 0.18 0.18 0.00 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.35 0.35 0.35 Sat Flow, veh/h 3442 3632 0 1774 3539 1583 1774 3725 1583 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 415 114 0 847 621 974 296 1127 307 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1721 1770 0 1774 1770 1583 1774 1863 1583 Q Serve(g_s), s 15.7 3.8 0.0 53.0 22.8 40.9 18.2 39.3 15.6 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 15.7 3.8 0.0 53.0 22.8 40.9 18.2 39.3 15.6 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 631 649 0 672 1340 1157 625 1313 848 V/C Ratio(X) 0.66 0.18 0.00 1.26 0.46 0.84 0.47 0.86 0.36 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 631 649 0 672 1340 1157 697 1464 912 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.33 0.33 0.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.39 0.39 0.39 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 53.1 48.2 0.0 61.3 48.0 14.9 35.2 42.1 18.7 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.5 0.1 0.0 122.4 0.5 3.1 0.6 4.9 0.3 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 7.7 1.9 0.0 48.9 11.3 38.8 9.0 21.1 9.6 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 55.6 48.4 0.0 183.7 48.5 18.0 35.8 47.0 19.0 LnGrp LOS E D F D B D D B Approach Vol, veh/h 529 2442 1730 Approach Delay, s/veh 54.0 83.2 40.1 Approach LOS D F D Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 2 4 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 29.7 53.3 57.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 19.0 54.0 52.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 17.7 41.3 55.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.4 7.0 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 64.1 HCM 2010 LOS E Notes HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 1: I-405 SB On-Ramp/Sunset Blvd & Bronson Way/SR 169 01/18/2020 Cedar River Apartments 01/13/2020 2022 AM -- with project Synchro 9 Light Report BPJ; William Popp Associates Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 415 114 49 847 621 974 0 0 0 296 897 461 Future Volume (veh/h) 415 114 49 847 621 974 0 0 0 296 897 461 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 7 4 14 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 415 114 0 847 621 974 296 1127 307 Adj No. of Lanes 2 2 0 2 1 1 1 2 1 Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 631 649 0 1343 705 1157 625 1313 848 Arrive On Green 0.18 0.18 0.00 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.35 0.35 0.35 Sat Flow, veh/h 3442 3632 0 3548 1863 1583 1774 3725 1583 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 415 114 0 847 621 974 296 1127 307 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1721 1770 0 1774 1863 1583 1774 1863 1583 Q Serve(g_s), s 15.7 3.8 0.0 31.7 45.9 40.9 18.2 39.3 15.6 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 15.7 3.8 0.0 31.7 45.9 40.9 18.2 39.3 15.6 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 631 649 0 1343 705 1157 625 1313 848 V/C Ratio(X) 0.66 0.18 0.00 0.63 0.88 0.84 0.47 0.86 0.36 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 631 649 0 1343 705 1157 697 1464 912 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.33 0.33 0.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.39 0.39 0.39 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 53.1 48.2 0.0 52.0 58.1 14.9 35.2 42.1 18.7 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.5 0.1 0.0 0.9 6.6 3.1 0.6 4.9 0.3 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 7.7 1.9 0.0 15.8 25.0 38.8 9.0 21.1 9.6 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 55.6 48.4 0.0 52.9 64.8 18.0 35.8 47.0 19.0 LnGrp LOS E D D E B D D B Approach Vol, veh/h 529 2442 1730 Approach Delay, s/veh 54.0 42.0 40.1 Approach LOS D D D Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 2 4 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 29.7 53.3 57.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 19.0 54.0 52.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 17.7 41.3 47.9 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.4 7.0 3.6 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 42.7 HCM 2010 LOS D Notes HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: I-405 NB Off-Ramp/I-405 NB On-Ramp & SR 169 01/18/2020 Cedar River Apartments 01/13/2020 2022 AM -- with project Synchro 9 Light Report BPJ; William Popp Associates Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 18 393 0 0 1871 464 0 0 316 0 0 520 Future Volume (vph) 18 393 0 0 1871 464 0 0 316 0 0 520 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 *0.70 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.86 0.86 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1711 3421 3781 1531 1558 1558 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1711 3421 3781 1531 1558 1558 Peak-hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj. Flow (vph) 18 393 0 0 1871 464 0 0 316 0 0 520 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 139 0 0 0 0 0 10 Lane Group Flow (vph) 18 393 0 0 1871 325 0 0 316 0 0 510 Turn Type Prot NA NA Perm Free Over Protected Phases 5 2 6 5 Permitted Phases 6 Free Actuated Green, G (s) 48.6 140.0 81.4 81.4 140.0 48.6 Effective Green, g (s) 49.6 140.0 82.4 82.4 140.0 49.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.35 1.00 0.59 0.59 1.00 0.35 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 606 3421 2225 901 1558 551 v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 0.11 c0.49 c0.33 v/s Ratio Perm 0.21 0.20 v/c Ratio 0.03 0.11 0.84 0.36 0.20 0.92 Uniform Delay, d1 29.5 0.0 23.5 15.0 0.0 43.4 Progression Factor 0.45 1.00 0.65 0.50 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.0 0.0 3.4 0.9 0.3 21.5 Delay (s) 13.3 0.0 18.5 8.4 0.3 64.9 Level of Service B A B A A E Approach Delay (s) 0.6 16.5 0.3 64.9 Approach LOS A B A E Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 20.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.87 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 140.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 75.0% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 Description: SR 169/I-405 NB On-Ramp c Critical Lane Group HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 3: SR 169 & Shari's Driveway 01/18/2020 Cedar River Apartments 01/13/2020 2022 AM -- with project Synchro 9 Light Report BPJ; William Popp Associates Page 4 Movement EBU EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 58 37 712 2220 7 3 58 Future Volume (veh/h) 58 37 712 2220 7 3 58 Number 5 2 6 16 7 14 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1863 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 37 712 2220 7 3 58 Adj No. of Lanes 1 3 4 0 1 1 Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 60 3010 4068 13 95 74 Arrive On Green 0.03 0.77 1.00 1.00 0.05 0.05 Sat Flow, veh/h 1774 4471 6312 18 1774 1583 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 37 712 1509 718 3 58 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1774 1304 1304 1860 1774 1583 Q Serve(g_s), s 2.9 7.2 0.0 0.0 0.2 5.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.9 7.2 0.0 0.0 0.2 5.1 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.01 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 60 3010 2766 1315 95 74 V/C Ratio(X) 0.62 0.24 0.55 0.55 0.03 0.79 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 139 3185 2766 1315 228 192 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.99 0.99 0.81 0.81 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 66.7 4.5 0.0 0.0 62.8 66.1 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 9.8 0.0 0.6 1.3 0.1 16.7 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.6 2.6 0.2 0.5 0.1 4.7 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 76.5 4.6 0.6 1.3 62.9 82.8 LnGrp LOS E A A A E F Approach Vol, veh/h 749 2227 61 Approach Delay, s/veh 8.1 0.8 81.8 Approach LOS A A F Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 2 4 5 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 111.7 11.5 8.7 103.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 113.0 17.0 10.0 98.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 9.2 7.1 4.9 2.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 35.1 0.1 0.0 34.5 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 4.3 HCM 2010 LOS A Notes HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 4: Cedar River Park Dr & SR 169 01/18/2020 Cedar River Apartments 01/13/2020 2022 AM -- with project Synchro 9 Light Report BPJ; William Popp Associates Page 6 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 660 97 28 2085 141 7 Future Volume (veh/h) 660 97 28 2085 141 7 Number 2 12 1 6 3 18 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1863 1900 1863 1863 1863 1863 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 660 97 28 2085 141 7 Adj No. of Lanes 3 0 1 3 1 1 Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 2759 402 48 3698 179 160 Arrive On Green 0.72 0.72 0.03 0.78 0.10 0.10 Sat Flow, veh/h 4375 556 1774 5029 1774 1583 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 449 308 28 2085 141 7 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1304 1765 1774 1583 1774 1583 Q Serve(g_s), s 8.1 8.3 2.2 24.3 10.9 0.6 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 8.1 8.3 2.2 24.3 10.9 0.6 Prop In Lane 0.32 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 1885 1276 48 3698 179 160 V/C Ratio(X) 0.24 0.24 0.58 0.56 0.79 0.04 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1885 1276 114 3698 291 260 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.99 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 6.5 6.6 67.3 6.1 61.5 56.8 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.1 0.1 10.8 0.6 7.4 0.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.9 4.0 1.2 10.6 5.7 0.2 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 6.6 6.7 78.1 6.7 68.9 56.9 LnGrp LOS A A E A E E Approach Vol, veh/h 757 2113 148 Approach Delay, s/veh 6.6 7.7 68.3 Approach LOS A A E Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 7.8 105.2 113.0 18.1 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 8.0 95.0 108.0 22.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.2 10.3 26.3 12.9 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 32.7 32.4 0.3 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 10.4 HCM 2010 LOS B HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 1: I-405 SB On-Ramp/Sunset Blvd & Bronson Way/SR 169 01/19/2020 Cedar River Apartments 01/13/2020 2023 AM -- without Ph3, with Ph1 & 2 Synchro 9 Light Report BPJ; William Popp Associates Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 419 115 50 855 627 984 0 0 0 299 905 466 Future Volume (veh/h) 419 115 50 855 627 984 0 0 0 299 905 466 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 7 4 14 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 419 115 0 855 627 984 299 1138 311 Adj No. of Lanes 2 2 0 2 1 1 1 2 1 Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 623 640 0 1343 705 1161 629 1322 848 Arrive On Green 0.18 0.18 0.00 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.35 0.35 0.35 Sat Flow, veh/h 3442 3632 0 3548 1863 1583 1774 3725 1583 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 419 115 0 855 627 984 299 1138 311 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1721 1770 0 1774 1863 1583 1774 1863 1583 Q Serve(g_s), s 15.9 3.9 0.0 32.1 46.4 41.1 18.3 39.7 15.9 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 15.9 3.9 0.0 32.1 46.4 41.1 18.3 39.7 15.9 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 623 640 0 1343 705 1161 629 1322 848 V/C Ratio(X) 0.67 0.18 0.00 0.64 0.89 0.85 0.48 0.86 0.37 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 623 640 0 1343 705 1161 697 1464 908 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.33 0.33 0.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.38 0.38 0.38 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 53.5 48.5 0.0 52.1 58.4 14.7 35.0 42.0 18.8 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.8 0.1 0.0 0.9 6.8 3.1 0.6 5.1 0.3 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 7.8 1.9 0.0 15.9 25.3 39.2 9.1 21.3 9.7 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 56.3 48.7 0.0 53.0 65.1 17.8 35.6 47.0 19.0 LnGrp LOS E D D E B D D B Approach Vol, veh/h 534 2466 1748 Approach Delay, s/veh 54.7 42.0 40.1 Approach LOS D D D Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 2 4 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 29.3 53.7 57.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 19.0 54.0 52.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 17.9 41.7 48.4 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.3 6.9 3.2 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 42.7 HCM 2010 LOS D Notes HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: I-405 NB Off-Ramp/I-405 NB On-Ramp & SR 169 01/19/2020 Cedar River Apartments 01/13/2020 2023 AM -- without Ph3, with Ph1 & 2 Synchro 9 Light Report BPJ; William Popp Associates Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 18 397 0 0 1890 469 0 0 319 0 0 525 Future Volume (vph) 18 397 0 0 1890 469 0 0 319 0 0 525 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 *0.70 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.86 0.86 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1711 3421 3781 1531 1558 1558 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1711 3421 3781 1531 1558 1558 Peak-hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj. Flow (vph) 18 397 0 0 1890 469 0 0 319 0 0 525 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 140 0 0 0 0 0 10 Lane Group Flow (vph) 18 397 0 0 1890 329 0 0 319 0 0 515 Turn Type Prot NA NA Perm Free Over Protected Phases 5 2 6 5 Permitted Phases 6 Free Actuated Green, G (s) 48.9 140.0 81.1 81.1 140.0 48.9 Effective Green, g (s) 49.9 140.0 82.1 82.1 140.0 49.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.36 1.00 0.59 0.59 1.00 0.36 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 609 3421 2217 897 1558 555 v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 0.12 c0.50 c0.33 v/s Ratio Perm 0.22 0.20 v/c Ratio 0.03 0.12 0.85 0.37 0.20 0.93 Uniform Delay, d1 29.3 0.0 23.9 15.3 0.0 43.3 Progression Factor 0.44 1.00 0.65 0.51 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.0 0.0 3.7 1.0 0.3 21.7 Delay (s) 13.1 0.0 19.3 8.7 0.3 65.0 Level of Service B A B A A E Approach Delay (s) 0.6 17.2 0.3 65.0 Approach LOS A B A E Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 20.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.88 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 140.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 75.7% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 Description: SR 169/I-405 NB On-Ramp c Critical Lane Group HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 3: SR 169 & Shari's Driveway 01/19/2020 Cedar River Apartments 01/13/2020 2023 AM -- without Ph3, with Ph1 & 2 Synchro 9 Light Report BPJ; William Popp Associates Page 4 Movement EBU EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 58 37 719 2242 7 3 58 Future Volume (veh/h) 58 37 719 2242 7 3 58 Number 5 2 6 16 7 14 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1863 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 37 719 2242 7 3 58 Adj No. of Lanes 1 3 4 0 1 1 Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 60 3010 4068 13 95 74 Arrive On Green 0.03 0.77 1.00 1.00 0.05 0.05 Sat Flow, veh/h 1774 4471 6312 18 1774 1583 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 37 719 1524 725 3 58 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1774 1304 1304 1860 1774 1583 Q Serve(g_s), s 2.9 7.3 0.0 0.0 0.2 5.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.9 7.3 0.0 0.0 0.2 5.1 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.01 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 60 3010 2766 1315 95 74 V/C Ratio(X) 0.62 0.24 0.55 0.55 0.03 0.79 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 139 3185 2766 1315 228 192 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.99 0.99 0.80 0.80 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 66.7 4.6 0.0 0.0 62.8 66.1 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 9.8 0.0 0.6 1.3 0.1 16.7 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.6 2.6 0.2 0.5 0.1 4.7 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 76.5 4.6 0.6 1.3 62.9 82.8 LnGrp LOS E A A A E F Approach Vol, veh/h 756 2249 61 Approach Delay, s/veh 8.1 0.9 81.8 Approach LOS A A F Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 2 4 5 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 111.7 11.5 8.7 103.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 113.0 17.0 10.0 98.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 9.3 7.1 4.9 2.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 35.9 0.1 0.0 35.3 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 4.3 HCM 2010 LOS A Notes HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 4: Cedar River Park Dr & SR 169 01/19/2020 Cedar River Apartments 01/13/2020 2023 AM -- without Ph3, with Ph1 & 2 Synchro 9 Light Report BPJ; William Popp Associates Page 6 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 666 98 28 2105 143 7 Future Volume (veh/h) 666 98 28 2105 143 7 Number 2 12 1 6 3 18 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1863 1900 1863 1863 1863 1863 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 666 98 28 2105 143 7 Adj No. of Lanes 3 0 1 3 1 1 Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 2759 403 48 3698 181 162 Arrive On Green 0.72 0.72 0.03 0.78 0.10 0.10 Sat Flow, veh/h 4374 557 1774 5029 1774 1583 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 453 311 28 2105 143 7 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1304 1764 1774 1583 1774 1583 Q Serve(g_s), s 8.2 8.3 2.2 24.7 11.0 0.6 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 8.2 8.3 2.2 24.7 11.0 0.6 Prop In Lane 0.32 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 1885 1276 48 3698 181 162 V/C Ratio(X) 0.24 0.24 0.58 0.57 0.79 0.04 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1885 1276 114 3698 291 260 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.99 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 6.5 6.6 67.3 6.2 61.4 56.7 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.1 0.1 10.8 0.6 7.4 0.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.9 4.0 1.2 10.7 5.8 0.2 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 6.6 6.7 78.1 6.8 68.8 56.8 LnGrp LOS A A E A E E Approach Vol, veh/h 764 2133 150 Approach Delay, s/veh 6.6 7.7 68.3 Approach LOS A A E Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 7.8 105.2 113.0 18.3 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 8.0 95.0 108.0 22.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.2 10.3 26.7 13.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 33.4 33.0 0.3 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 10.4 HCM 2010 LOS B HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 1: I-405 SB On-Ramp/Sunset Blvd & Bronson Way/SR 169 01/18/2020 Cedar River Apartments 09/19/2019 2023 AM -- without project Synchro 9 Light Report BPJ; William Popp Associates Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 419 110 50 823 614 951 0 0 0 277 905 466 Future Volume (veh/h) 419 110 50 823 614 951 0 0 0 277 905 466 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 7 4 14 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 419 110 0 823 614 951 277 1138 311 Adj No. of Lanes 2 2 0 2 1 1 1 2 1 Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 624 642 0 1343 705 1161 629 1320 848 Arrive On Green 0.18 0.18 0.00 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.35 0.35 0.35 Sat Flow, veh/h 3442 3632 0 3548 1863 1583 1774 3725 1583 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 419 110 0 823 614 951 277 1138 311 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1721 1770 0 1774 1863 1583 1774 1863 1583 Q Serve(g_s), s 15.9 3.7 0.0 30.8 45.3 39.4 16.7 39.8 15.9 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 15.9 3.7 0.0 30.8 45.3 39.4 16.7 39.8 15.9 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 624 642 0 1343 705 1161 629 1320 848 V/C Ratio(X) 0.67 0.17 0.00 0.61 0.87 0.82 0.44 0.86 0.37 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 624 642 0 1343 705 1161 697 1464 909 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.33 0.33 0.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.43 0.43 0.43 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 53.4 48.4 0.0 51.5 57.9 14.4 34.6 42.0 18.8 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.8 0.1 0.0 0.9 6.6 2.9 0.5 5.1 0.3 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 7.8 1.8 0.0 15.3 24.7 37.8 8.2 21.3 9.7 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 56.2 48.5 0.0 52.4 64.5 17.3 35.1 47.1 19.0 LnGrp LOS E D D E B D D B Approach Vol, veh/h 529 2388 1726 Approach Delay, s/veh 54.6 41.5 40.1 Approach LOS D D D Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 2 4 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 29.4 53.6 57.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 19.0 54.0 52.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 17.9 41.8 47.3 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.3 6.9 4.0 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 42.5 HCM 2010 LOS D Notes HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: I-405 NB Off-Ramp/I-405 NB On-Ramp & SR 169 01/18/2020 Cedar River Apartments 09/19/2019 2023 AM -- without project Synchro 9 Light Report BPJ; William Popp Associates Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 18 370 0 0 1812 438 0 0 307 0 0 525 Future Volume (vph) 18 370 0 0 1812 438 0 0 307 0 0 525 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 *0.70 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.86 0.86 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1711 3421 3781 1531 1558 1558 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1711 3421 3781 1531 1558 1558 Peak-hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj. Flow (vph) 18 370 0 0 1812 438 0 0 307 0 0 525 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 136 0 0 0 0 0 10 Lane Group Flow (vph) 18 370 0 0 1812 302 0 0 307 0 0 515 Turn Type Prot NA NA Perm Free Over Protected Phases 5 2 6 5 Permitted Phases 6 Free Actuated Green, G (s) 48.9 140.0 81.1 81.1 140.0 48.9 Effective Green, g (s) 49.9 140.0 82.1 82.1 140.0 49.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.36 1.00 0.59 0.59 1.00 0.36 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 609 3421 2217 897 1558 555 v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 0.11 c0.48 c0.33 v/s Ratio Perm 0.20 0.20 v/c Ratio 0.03 0.11 0.82 0.34 0.20 0.93 Uniform Delay, d1 29.3 0.0 23.0 14.9 0.0 43.3 Progression Factor 0.46 1.00 0.65 0.39 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.9 0.3 21.7 Delay (s) 13.5 0.0 17.9 6.6 0.3 65.0 Level of Service B A B A A E Approach Delay (s) 0.6 15.7 0.3 65.0 Approach LOS A B A E Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 20.1 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.86 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 140.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 74.2% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 Description: SR 169/I-405 NB On-Ramp c Critical Lane Group HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 3: SR 169 & Shari's Driveway 01/18/2020 Cedar River Apartments 09/19/2019 2023 AM -- without project Synchro 9 Light Report BPJ; William Popp Associates Page 4 Movement EBU EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 58 37 680 2133 7 3 58 Future Volume (veh/h) 58 37 680 2133 7 3 58 Number 5 2 6 16 7 14 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1863 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 37 680 2133 7 3 58 Adj No. of Lanes 1 3 4 0 1 1 Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 60 3010 4068 13 95 74 Arrive On Green 0.03 0.77 1.00 1.00 0.05 0.05 Sat Flow, veh/h 1774 4471 6311 19 1774 1583 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 37 680 1451 689 3 58 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1774 1304 1304 1859 1774 1583 Q Serve(g_s), s 2.9 6.8 0.0 0.0 0.2 5.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.9 6.8 0.0 0.0 0.2 5.1 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.01 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 60 3010 2766 1315 95 74 V/C Ratio(X) 0.62 0.23 0.52 0.52 0.03 0.79 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 139 3185 2766 1315 228 192 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.99 0.99 0.85 0.85 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 66.7 4.5 0.0 0.0 62.8 66.1 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 9.8 0.0 0.6 1.3 0.1 16.7 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.6 2.4 0.2 0.5 0.1 4.7 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 76.5 4.5 0.6 1.3 62.9 82.8 LnGrp LOS E A A A E F Approach Vol, veh/h 717 2140 61 Approach Delay, s/veh 8.3 0.8 81.8 Approach LOS A A F Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 2 4 5 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 111.7 11.5 8.7 103.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 113.0 17.0 10.0 98.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 8.8 7.1 4.9 2.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 31.7 0.1 0.0 31.2 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 4.3 HCM 2010 LOS A Notes HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 4: Cedar River Park Dr & SR 169 01/18/2020 Cedar River Apartments 09/19/2019 2023 AM -- without project Synchro 9 Light Report BPJ; William Popp Associates Page 6 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 661 65 13 2106 35 6 Future Volume (veh/h) 661 65 13 2106 35 6 Number 2 12 1 6 3 18 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1863 1900 1863 1863 1863 1863 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 661 65 13 2106 35 6 Adj No. of Lanes 3 0 1 3 1 1 Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 3059 299 28 3834 61 54 Arrive On Green 0.76 0.76 0.02 0.81 0.03 0.03 Sat Flow, veh/h 4568 392 1774 5029 1774 1583 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 429 297 13 2106 35 6 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1304 1794 1774 1583 1774 1583 Q Serve(g_s), s 6.5 6.6 1.0 21.5 2.7 0.5 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 6.5 6.6 1.0 21.5 2.7 0.5 Prop In Lane 0.22 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 1989 1368 28 3834 61 54 V/C Ratio(X) 0.22 0.22 0.47 0.55 0.57 0.11 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1989 1368 114 3834 241 215 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.99 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 4.7 4.8 68.3 4.7 66.6 65.5 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.1 0.1 11.6 0.6 8.2 0.9 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.3 3.3 0.6 9.4 1.5 0.2 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 4.8 4.8 80.0 5.2 74.8 66.4 LnGrp LOS A A E A E E Approach Vol, veh/h 726 2119 41 Approach Delay, s/veh 4.8 5.7 73.6 Approach LOS A A E Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 6.2 110.8 117.0 8.8 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 8.0 99.0 112.0 18.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.0 8.6 23.5 4.7 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 33.1 33.0 0.1 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 6.4 HCM 2010 LOS A HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 1: I-405 SB On-Ramp/Sunset Blvd & Bronson Way/SR 169 01/18/2020 Cedar River Apartments 01/13/2020 2023 AM -- with project Synchro 9 Light Report BPJ; William Popp Associates Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 419 120 50 857 628 987 0 0 0 322 905 466 Future Volume (veh/h) 419 120 50 857 628 987 0 0 0 322 905 466 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 7 4 14 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 419 120 0 857 628 987 322 1138 311 Adj No. of Lanes 2 2 0 2 1 1 1 2 1 Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 621 639 0 1343 705 1162 630 1323 848 Arrive On Green 0.18 0.18 0.00 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.36 0.36 0.36 Sat Flow, veh/h 3442 3632 0 3548 1863 1583 1774 3725 1583 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 419 120 0 857 628 987 322 1138 311 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1721 1770 0 1774 1863 1583 1774 1863 1583 Q Serve(g_s), s 15.9 4.0 0.0 32.2 46.5 41.2 20.0 39.7 15.9 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 15.9 4.0 0.0 32.2 46.5 41.2 20.0 39.7 15.9 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 621 639 0 1343 705 1162 630 1323 848 V/C Ratio(X) 0.67 0.19 0.00 0.64 0.89 0.85 0.51 0.86 0.37 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 621 639 0 1343 705 1162 697 1464 908 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.33 0.33 0.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.37 0.37 0.37 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 53.5 48.7 0.0 52.1 58.4 14.7 35.6 41.9 18.8 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.9 0.1 0.0 0.9 6.8 3.1 0.6 5.0 0.3 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 7.8 2.0 0.0 16.0 25.3 39.3 10.0 21.3 9.7 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 56.4 48.8 0.0 53.0 65.2 17.8 36.2 46.9 19.0 LnGrp LOS E D D E B D D B Approach Vol, veh/h 539 2472 1771 Approach Delay, s/veh 54.7 42.0 40.1 Approach LOS D D D Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 2 4 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 29.3 53.7 57.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 19.0 54.0 52.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 17.9 41.7 48.5 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.3 7.0 3.1 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 42.7 HCM 2010 LOS D Notes HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: I-405 NB Off-Ramp/I-405 NB On-Ramp & SR 169 01/18/2020 Cedar River Apartments 01/13/2020 2023 AM -- with project Synchro 9 Light Report BPJ; William Popp Associates Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 18 425 0 0 1896 471 0 0 329 0 0 525 Future Volume (vph) 18 425 0 0 1896 471 0 0 329 0 0 525 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 *0.70 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.86 0.86 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1711 3421 3781 1531 1558 1558 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1711 3421 3781 1531 1558 1558 Peak-hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj. Flow (vph) 18 425 0 0 1896 471 0 0 329 0 0 525 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 140 0 0 0 0 0 10 Lane Group Flow (vph) 18 425 0 0 1896 331 0 0 329 0 0 515 Turn Type Prot NA NA Perm Free Over Protected Phases 5 2 6 5 Permitted Phases 6 Free Actuated Green, G (s) 48.9 140.0 81.1 81.1 140.0 48.9 Effective Green, g (s) 49.9 140.0 82.1 82.1 140.0 49.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.36 1.00 0.59 0.59 1.00 0.36 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 609 3421 2217 897 1558 555 v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 0.12 c0.50 c0.33 v/s Ratio Perm 0.22 0.21 v/c Ratio 0.03 0.12 0.86 0.37 0.21 0.93 Uniform Delay, d1 29.3 0.0 24.0 15.3 0.0 43.3 Progression Factor 0.42 1.00 0.66 0.52 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.0 0.0 3.7 1.0 0.3 21.7 Delay (s) 12.5 0.0 19.6 8.9 0.3 65.0 Level of Service B A B A A E Approach Delay (s) 0.5 17.4 0.3 65.0 Approach LOS A B A E Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 20.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.88 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 140.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 75.8% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 Description: SR 169/I-405 NB On-Ramp c Critical Lane Group HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 3: SR 169 & Shari's Driveway 01/18/2020 Cedar River Apartments 01/13/2020 2023 AM -- with project Synchro 9 Light Report BPJ; William Popp Associates Page 4 Movement EBU EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 58 37 757 2250 7 3 58 Future Volume (veh/h) 58 37 757 2250 7 3 58 Number 5 2 6 16 7 14 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1863 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 37 757 2250 7 3 58 Adj No. of Lanes 1 3 4 0 1 1 Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 60 3010 4069 13 95 74 Arrive On Green 0.03 0.77 1.00 1.00 0.05 0.05 Sat Flow, veh/h 1774 4471 6312 18 1774 1583 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 37 757 1530 727 3 58 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1774 1304 1304 1860 1774 1583 Q Serve(g_s), s 2.9 7.7 0.0 0.0 0.2 5.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.9 7.7 0.0 0.0 0.2 5.1 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.01 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 60 3010 2766 1315 95 74 V/C Ratio(X) 0.62 0.25 0.55 0.55 0.03 0.79 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 139 3185 2766 1315 228 192 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.99 0.99 0.80 0.80 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 66.7 4.6 0.0 0.0 62.8 66.1 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 9.8 0.0 0.6 1.3 0.1 16.7 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.6 2.7 0.2 0.5 0.1 4.7 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 76.5 4.7 0.6 1.3 62.9 82.8 LnGrp LOS E A A A E F Approach Vol, veh/h 794 2257 61 Approach Delay, s/veh 8.0 0.9 81.8 Approach LOS A A F Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 2 4 5 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 111.7 11.5 8.7 103.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 113.0 17.0 10.0 98.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 9.7 7.1 4.9 2.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 37.2 0.1 0.0 36.5 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 4.3 HCM 2010 LOS A Notes HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 4: Cedar River Park Dr & SR 169 01/18/2020 Cedar River Apartments 01/13/2020 2023 AM -- with project Synchro 9 Light Report BPJ; William Popp Associates Page 6 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 681 122 34 2105 153 8 Future Volume (veh/h) 681 122 34 2105 153 8 Number 2 12 1 6 3 18 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1863 1900 1863 1863 1863 1863 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 681 122 34 2105 153 8 Adj No. of Lanes 3 0 1 3 1 1 Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 2657 472 56 3698 191 171 Arrive On Green 0.72 0.71 0.03 0.78 0.11 0.11 Sat Flow, veh/h 4257 657 1774 5029 1774 1583 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 478 325 34 2105 153 8 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1304 1747 1774 1583 1774 1583 Q Serve(g_s), s 8.9 9.1 2.6 24.7 11.8 0.6 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 8.9 9.1 2.6 24.7 11.8 0.6 Prop In Lane 0.38 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 1874 1255 56 3698 191 171 V/C Ratio(X) 0.26 0.26 0.61 0.57 0.80 0.05 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1874 1255 114 3698 291 260 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.98 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 6.8 6.9 66.9 6.2 61.0 56.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.1 0.1 10.1 0.6 8.8 0.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 3.2 4.4 1.5 10.7 6.2 0.3 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 6.9 7.0 77.1 6.8 69.7 56.1 LnGrp LOS A A E A E E Approach Vol, veh/h 803 2139 161 Approach Delay, s/veh 6.9 7.9 69.1 Approach LOS A A E Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 8.4 104.6 113.0 19.1 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 8.0 95.0 108.0 22.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.6 11.1 26.7 13.8 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 34.2 33.9 0.3 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 10.8 HCM 2010 LOS B Synchro Results PM PEAK HOUR HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 1: Bronson Way/SR 169 & Sunset Blvd 01/19/2020 Cedar River Apartments 01/17/2020 2017 PM extg Synchro 9 Light Report BPJ; William Popp Associates Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 673 520 65 334 236 770 0 0 0 1145 745 638 Future Volume (veh/h) 673 520 65 334 236 770 0 0 0 1145 745 638 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 7 4 14 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 708 547 0 352 248 811 803 1682 448 Adj No. of Lanes 2 2 0 1 2 1 1 2 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 737 758 0 380 758 1108 862 1810 1108 Arrive On Green 0.21 0.21 0.00 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.49 0.49 0.49 Sat Flow, veh/h 3442 3632 0 1774 3539 1583 1774 3725 1583 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 708 547 0 352 248 811 803 1682 448 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1721 1770 0 1774 1770 1583 1774 1863 1583 Q Serve(g_s), s 28.5 20.1 0.0 27.6 9.3 30.0 59.5 59.3 16.6 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 28.5 20.1 0.0 27.6 9.3 30.0 59.5 59.3 16.6 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 737 758 0 380 758 1108 862 1810 1108 V/C Ratio(X) 0.96 0.72 0.00 0.93 0.33 0.73 0.93 0.93 0.40 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 737 758 0 380 758 1108 862 1810 1108 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.33 0.33 0.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.71 0.71 0.71 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 54.4 51.1 0.0 63.9 55.4 12.8 33.8 33.8 8.8 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 23.7 3.4 0.0 22.3 0.2 1.8 18.0 10.0 1.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 16.0 10.2 0.0 16.0 4.6 32.0 33.3 32.9 12.8 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 78.1 54.5 0.0 86.3 55.6 14.6 51.8 43.7 9.9 LnGrp LOS E D F E B D D A Approach Vol, veh/h 1255 1411 2933 Approach Delay, s/veh 67.8 39.7 40.8 Approach LOS E D D Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 2 4 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 34.0 72.0 34.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 29.0 67.0 29.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 30.5 61.5 32.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 5.0 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 46.6 HCM 2010 LOS D Notes HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: I-405 NB Off-Ramp & SR 169 01/19/2020 Cedar River Apartments 01/17/2020 2017 PM extg Synchro 9 Light Report BPJ; William Popp Associates Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 61 1604 0 0 704 246 0 0 771 0 0 672 Future Volume (vph) 61 1604 0 0 704 246 0 0 771 0 0 672 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 *0.70 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.86 0.86 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1711 3421 3781 1531 1558 1558 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1711 3421 3781 1531 1558 1558 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 64 1688 0 0 741 259 0 0 812 0 0 707 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 159 0 0 0 0 0 19 Lane Group Flow (vph) 64 1688 0 0 741 100 0 0 812 0 0 688 Turn Type Prot NA NA Perm Free Over Protected Phases 5 2 6 5 Permitted Phases 6 Free Actuated Green, G (s) 76.8 140.0 53.2 53.2 140.0 76.8 Effective Green, g (s) 77.8 140.0 54.2 54.2 140.0 77.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.56 1.00 0.39 0.39 1.00 0.56 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 950 3421 1463 592 1558 865 v/s Ratio Prot 0.04 0.49 0.20 c0.44 v/s Ratio Perm 0.07 c0.52 v/c Ratio 0.07 0.49 0.51 0.17 0.52 0.80 Uniform Delay, d1 14.4 0.0 32.7 28.1 0.0 24.8 Progression Factor 1.50 1.00 0.85 0.30 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.0 0.2 1.2 0.6 1.3 5.1 Delay (s) 21.6 0.2 29.0 9.1 1.3 29.9 Level of Service C A C A A C Approach Delay (s) 1.0 23.8 1.3 29.9 Approach LOS A C A C Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 11.2 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.70 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 140.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 61.9% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 Description: SR 169/I-405 NB On-Ramp c Critical Lane Group HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 3: SR 169 & Shari's Driveway 01/19/2020 Cedar River Apartments 01/17/2020 2017 PM extg Synchro 9 Light Report BPJ; William Popp Associates Movement EBU EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 15 41 2118 935 13 4 31 Future Volume (veh/h) 15 41 2118 935 13 4 31 Number 5 2 6 16 7 14 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1863 1863 1863 1900 1863 1900 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 43 2229 984 14 4 33 Adj No. of Lanes 1 3 4 0 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 0 0 Cap, veh/h 67 3545 4769 68 6 51 Arrive On Green 0.08 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.04 0.03 Sat Flow, veh/h 1774 4471 6238 81 169 1396 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 43 2229 677 321 38 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1774 1304 1304 1849 1608 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 3.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.3 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.3 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.04 0.11 0.87 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 67 3545 3285 1552 59 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.64 0.63 0.21 0.21 0.65 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 152 3545 3285 1552 195 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.86 0.86 0.98 0.98 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 63.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 67.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 8.2 0.7 0.1 0.3 11.4 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.8 0.2 0.0 0.1 1.6 0.0 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 72.0 0.7 0.1 0.3 78.4 0.0 LnGrp LOS E A A A E Approach Vol, veh/h 2272 998 38 Approach Delay, s/veh 2.1 0.2 78.4 Approach LOS A A E Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 2 4 5 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 130.9 9.1 9.3 121.6 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 114.0 16.0 11.0 98.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.0 5.3 5.3 2.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 48.8 0.1 0.0 46.1 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 2.4 HCM 2010 LOS A Notes HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 4: Cedar River Park Dr & SR 169 01/19/2020 Cedar River Apartments 01/17/2020 2017 PM extg Synchro 9 Light Report BPJ; William Popp Associates Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 2082 36 12 910 38 66 Future Volume (veh/h) 2082 36 12 910 38 66 Number 2 12 1 6 3 18 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1863 1900 1863 1863 1863 1863 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 2192 38 13 958 40 69 Adj No. of Lanes 3 0 1 3 1 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 3317 57 164 4172 115 102 Arrive On Green 1.00 1.00 0.09 0.88 0.06 0.06 Sat Flow, veh/h 4940 76 1774 5029 1774 1583 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 1304 926 13 958 40 69 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1304 1849 1774 1583 1774 1583 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 0.9 4.3 3.0 6.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 0.0 0.9 4.3 3.0 6.0 Prop In Lane 0.04 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 1975 1400 164 4172 115 102 V/C Ratio(X) 0.66 0.66 0.08 0.23 0.35 0.67 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1975 1400 164 4172 215 192 HCM Platoon Ratio 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.72 0.72 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 0.0 58.1 1.3 62.7 64.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.3 1.8 0.2 0.1 1.8 7.5 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.3 0.7 0.5 1.9 1.5 2.8 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 1.3 1.8 58.3 1.4 64.5 71.5 LnGrp LOS A A E A E E Approach Vol, veh/h 2230 971 109 Approach Delay, s/veh 1.5 2.2 68.9 Approach LOS A A E Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 17.0 110.0 127.0 13.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 4.0 105.0 114.0 16.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.9 2.0 6.3 8.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.6 21.3 5.2 0.2 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 3.9 HCM 2010 LOS A HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 1: Bronson Way/SR 169 & Sunset Blvd 01/19/2020 Cedar River Apartments 01/17/2020 2021 PM without Phase1 Synchro 9 Light Report BPJ; William Popp Associates Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 700 541 68 348 246 801 0 0 0 1191 775 664 Future Volume (veh/h) 700 541 68 348 246 801 0 0 0 1191 775 664 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 7 4 14 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 700 541 0 348 246 801 794 1662 443 Adj No. of Lanes 2 2 0 1 2 1 1 2 1 Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 737 758 0 380 758 1108 862 1810 1108 Arrive On Green 0.21 0.21 0.00 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.49 0.49 0.49 Sat Flow, veh/h 3442 3632 0 1774 3539 1583 1774 3725 1583 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 700 541 0 348 246 801 794 1662 443 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1721 1770 0 1774 1770 1583 1774 1863 1583 Q Serve(g_s), s 28.1 19.8 0.0 27.3 9.3 30.0 58.3 58.0 16.3 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 28.1 19.8 0.0 27.3 9.3 30.0 58.3 58.0 16.3 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 737 758 0 380 758 1108 862 1810 1108 V/C Ratio(X) 0.95 0.71 0.00 0.92 0.32 0.72 0.92 0.92 0.40 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 737 758 0 380 758 1108 862 1810 1108 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.33 0.33 0.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.72 0.72 0.72 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 54.2 51.0 0.0 63.8 55.4 12.8 33.5 33.4 8.7 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 21.6 3.2 0.0 20.8 0.2 1.7 16.7 9.0 1.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 15.5 10.0 0.0 15.6 4.6 31.6 32.4 32.0 12.5 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 75.8 54.2 0.0 84.6 55.6 14.5 50.2 42.4 9.8 LnGrp LOS E D F E B D D A Approach Vol, veh/h 1241 1395 2899 Approach Delay, s/veh 66.4 39.2 39.6 Approach LOS E D D Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 2 4 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 34.0 72.0 34.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 29.0 67.0 29.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 30.1 60.3 32.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 6.0 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 45.5 HCM 2010 LOS D Notes HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 1: Bronson Way/SR 169 & Sunset Blvd 01/19/2020 Cedar River Apartments 01/17/2020 2021 PM without Phase1 Synchro 9 Light Report BPJ; William Popp Associates Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 700 541 68 348 246 801 0 0 0 1191 775 664 Future Volume (veh/h) 700 541 68 348 246 801 0 0 0 1191 775 664 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 7 4 14 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 700 541 0 348 246 801 794 1662 443 Adj No. of Lanes 2 2 0 2 1 1 1 2 1 Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 775 797 0 659 346 1091 893 1875 1154 Arrive On Green 0.23 0.23 0.00 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.50 0.50 0.50 Sat Flow, veh/h 3442 3632 0 3548 1863 1583 1774 3725 1583 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 700 541 0 348 246 801 794 1662 443 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1721 1770 0 1774 1863 1583 1774 1863 1583 Q Serve(g_s), s 27.7 19.6 0.0 13.3 18.1 26.0 56.3 56.0 14.8 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 27.7 19.6 0.0 13.3 18.1 26.0 56.3 56.0 14.8 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 775 797 0 659 346 1091 893 1875 1154 V/C Ratio(X) 0.90 0.68 0.00 0.53 0.71 0.73 0.89 0.89 0.38 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 787 809 0 659 346 1091 893 1875 1154 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.33 0.33 0.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.72 0.72 0.72 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 52.8 49.6 0.0 59.8 62.0 12.5 31.3 31.2 7.2 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 13.6 2.3 0.0 0.6 4.9 1.9 12.9 6.6 1.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 14.6 9.8 0.0 6.6 9.9 31.6 30.8 30.3 12.1 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 66.4 51.9 0.0 60.3 66.9 14.3 44.1 37.8 8.1 LnGrp LOS E D E E B D D A Approach Vol, veh/h 1241 1395 2899 Approach Delay, s/veh 60.1 35.1 35.0 Approach LOS E D C Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 2 4 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 35.5 74.5 30.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 31.0 69.0 25.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 29.7 58.3 28.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.8 9.2 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 40.6 HCM 2010 LOS D Notes HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: I-405 NB Off-Ramp & SR 169 01/19/2020 Cedar River Apartments 01/17/2020 2021 PM without Phase1 Synchro 9 Light Report BPJ; William Popp Associates Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 63 1669 0 0 733 256 0 0 802 0 0 699 Future Volume (vph) 63 1669 0 0 733 256 0 0 802 0 0 699 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 *0.70 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.86 0.86 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1711 3421 3781 1531 1558 1558 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1711 3421 3781 1531 1558 1558 Peak-hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj. Flow (vph) 63 1669 0 0 733 256 0 0 802 0 0 699 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 156 0 0 0 0 0 20 Lane Group Flow (vph) 63 1669 0 0 733 100 0 0 802 0 0 679 Turn Type Prot NA NA Perm Free Over Protected Phases 5 2 6 5 Permitted Phases 6 Free Actuated Green, G (s) 76.1 140.0 53.9 53.9 140.0 76.1 Effective Green, g (s) 77.1 140.0 54.9 54.9 140.0 77.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.55 1.00 0.39 0.39 1.00 0.55 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 942 3421 1482 600 1558 858 v/s Ratio Prot 0.04 0.49 0.19 c0.44 v/s Ratio Perm 0.07 c0.51 v/c Ratio 0.07 0.49 0.49 0.17 0.51 0.79 Uniform Delay, d1 14.7 0.0 32.1 27.7 0.0 25.1 Progression Factor 1.49 1.00 0.85 0.30 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.0 0.3 1.2 0.6 1.2 5.0 Delay (s) 21.9 0.3 28.3 8.8 1.2 30.1 Level of Service C A C A A C Approach Delay (s) 1.0 23.2 1.2 30.1 Approach LOS A C A C Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 11.1 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.69 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 140.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 64.1% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 Description: SR 169/I-405 NB On-Ramp c Critical Lane Group HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 3: SR 169 & Shari's Driveway 01/19/2020 Cedar River Apartments 01/17/2020 2021 PM without Phase1 Synchro 9 Light Report BPJ; William Popp Associates Movement EBU EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 16 43 2204 973 14 4 32 Future Volume (veh/h) 16 43 2204 973 14 4 32 Number 5 2 6 16 7 14 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1863 1863 1863 1900 1863 1900 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 43 2204 973 14 4 32 Adj No. of Lanes 1 3 4 0 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 0 0 Cap, veh/h 67 3549 4773 69 6 50 Arrive On Green 0.08 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.04 0.03 Sat Flow, veh/h 1774 4471 6237 82 174 1391 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 43 2204 670 317 37 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1774 1304 1304 1848 1609 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 3.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.2 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.2 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.04 0.11 0.86 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 67 3549 3288 1554 57 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.64 0.62 0.20 0.20 0.64 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 152 3549 3288 1554 195 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.86 0.86 0.98 0.98 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 63.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 67.1 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 8.3 0.7 0.1 0.3 11.5 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.8 0.2 0.0 0.1 1.6 0.0 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 72.0 0.7 0.1 0.3 78.5 0.0 LnGrp LOS E A A A E Approach Vol, veh/h 2247 987 37 Approach Delay, s/veh 2.1 0.2 78.5 Approach LOS A A E Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 2 4 5 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 131.0 9.0 9.3 121.7 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 114.0 16.0 11.0 98.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.0 5.2 5.3 2.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 47.4 0.0 0.0 44.9 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 2.4 HCM 2010 LOS A Notes HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 4: Cedar River Park Dr & SR 169 01/19/2020 Cedar River Apartments 01/17/2020 2021 PM without Phase1 Synchro 9 Light Report BPJ; William Popp Associates Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 2167 37 12 947 40 69 Future Volume (veh/h) 2167 37 12 947 40 69 Number 2 12 1 6 3 18 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1863 1900 1863 1863 1863 1863 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 2167 37 12 947 40 69 Adj No. of Lanes 3 0 1 3 1 1 Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 3318 57 164 4172 115 102 Arrive On Green 1.00 1.00 0.09 0.88 0.06 0.06 Sat Flow, veh/h 4941 75 1774 5029 1774 1583 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 1288 916 12 947 40 69 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1304 1850 1774 1583 1774 1583 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 0.9 4.2 3.0 6.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 0.0 0.9 4.2 3.0 6.0 Prop In Lane 0.04 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 1975 1400 164 4172 115 102 V/C Ratio(X) 0.65 0.65 0.07 0.23 0.35 0.67 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1975 1400 164 4172 215 192 HCM Platoon Ratio 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.73 0.73 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 0.0 58.0 1.3 62.7 64.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.2 1.8 0.2 0.1 1.8 7.5 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.3 0.7 0.4 1.9 1.5 2.8 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 1.2 1.8 58.2 1.4 64.5 71.5 LnGrp LOS A A E A E E Approach Vol, veh/h 2204 959 109 Approach Delay, s/veh 1.5 2.1 68.9 Approach LOS A A E Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 17.0 110.0 127.0 13.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 4.0 105.0 114.0 16.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.9 2.0 6.2 8.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.6 20.7 5.1 0.2 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 3.9 HCM 2010 LOS A HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 1: Bronson Way/SR 169 & Sunset Blvd 01/19/2020 Cedar River Apartments 01/17/2020 2021 PM with Phase1 Synchro 9 Light Report BPJ; William Popp Associates Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 700 547 68 358 250 811 0 0 0 1222 775 664 Future Volume (veh/h) 700 547 68 358 250 811 0 0 0 1222 775 664 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 7 4 14 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 700 547 0 358 250 811 815 1678 443 Adj No. of Lanes 2 2 0 1 2 1 1 2 1 Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 775 797 0 329 657 1091 893 1875 1154 Arrive On Green 0.23 0.23 0.00 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.50 0.50 0.50 Sat Flow, veh/h 3442 3632 0 1774 3539 1583 1774 3725 1583 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 700 547 0 358 250 811 815 1678 443 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1721 1770 0 1774 1770 1583 1774 1863 1583 Q Serve(g_s), s 27.7 19.8 0.0 26.0 9.5 26.0 59.1 57.0 14.8 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 27.7 19.8 0.0 26.0 9.5 26.0 59.1 57.0 14.8 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 775 797 0 329 657 1091 893 1875 1154 V/C Ratio(X) 0.90 0.69 0.00 1.09 0.38 0.74 0.91 0.89 0.38 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 787 809 0 329 657 1091 893 1875 1154 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.33 0.33 0.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.71 0.71 0.71 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 52.7 49.7 0.0 65.7 58.0 12.5 31.9 31.4 7.2 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 13.6 2.4 0.0 67.3 0.3 2.0 15.2 7.1 1.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 14.6 10.0 0.0 18.9 4.7 32.1 32.5 31.0 12.1 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 66.4 52.1 0.0 133.0 58.2 14.5 47.1 38.5 8.1 LnGrp LOS E D F E B D D A Approach Vol, veh/h 1247 1419 2936 Approach Delay, s/veh 60.1 52.1 36.3 Approach LOS E D D Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 2 4 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 35.5 74.5 30.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 31.0 69.0 25.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 29.7 61.1 28.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.8 7.0 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 45.6 HCM 2010 LOS D Notes HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 1: Bronson Way/SR 169 & Sunset Blvd 01/19/2020 Cedar River Apartments 01/17/2020 2021 PM with Phase1 Synchro 9 Light Report BPJ; William Popp Associates Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 700 547 68 358 250 811 0 0 0 1222 775 664 Future Volume (veh/h) 700 547 68 358 250 811 0 0 0 1222 775 664 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 7 4 14 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 700 547 0 358 250 811 815 1678 443 Adj No. of Lanes 2 2 0 2 1 1 1 2 1 Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 775 797 0 659 346 1091 893 1875 1154 Arrive On Green 0.23 0.23 0.00 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.50 0.50 0.50 Sat Flow, veh/h 3442 3632 0 3548 1863 1583 1774 3725 1583 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 700 547 0 358 250 811 815 1678 443 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1721 1770 0 1774 1863 1583 1774 1863 1583 Q Serve(g_s), s 27.7 19.8 0.0 13.7 18.5 26.0 59.1 57.0 14.8 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 27.7 19.8 0.0 13.7 18.5 26.0 59.1 57.0 14.8 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 775 797 0 659 346 1091 893 1875 1154 V/C Ratio(X) 0.90 0.69 0.00 0.54 0.72 0.74 0.91 0.89 0.38 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 787 809 0 659 346 1091 893 1875 1154 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.33 0.33 0.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.71 0.71 0.71 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 52.7 49.7 0.0 59.9 62.2 12.5 31.9 31.4 7.2 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 13.6 2.4 0.0 0.7 5.3 2.0 15.2 7.1 1.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 14.6 10.0 0.0 6.8 10.0 32.1 32.5 31.0 12.1 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 66.4 52.1 0.0 60.6 67.4 14.5 47.1 38.5 8.1 LnGrp LOS E D E E B D D A Approach Vol, veh/h 1247 1419 2936 Approach Delay, s/veh 60.1 35.4 36.3 Approach LOS E D D Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 2 4 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 35.5 74.5 30.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 31.0 69.0 25.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 29.7 61.1 28.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.8 7.0 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 41.4 HCM 2010 LOS D Notes HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: I-405 NB Off-Ramp & SR 169 01/19/2020 Cedar River Apartments 01/17/2020 2021 PM with Phase1 Synchro 9 Light Report BPJ; William Popp Associates Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 63 1706 0 0 757 266 0 0 818 0 0 699 Future Volume (vph) 63 1706 0 0 757 266 0 0 818 0 0 699 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 *0.70 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.86 0.86 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1711 3421 3781 1531 1558 1558 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1711 3421 3781 1531 1558 1558 Peak-hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj. Flow (vph) 63 1706 0 0 757 266 0 0 818 0 0 699 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 162 0 0 0 0 0 17 Lane Group Flow (vph) 63 1706 0 0 757 104 0 0 818 0 0 682 Turn Type Prot NA NA Perm Free Over Protected Phases 5 2 6 5 Permitted Phases 6 Free Actuated Green, G (s) 76.3 140.0 53.7 53.7 140.0 76.3 Effective Green, g (s) 77.3 140.0 54.7 54.7 140.0 77.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.55 1.00 0.39 0.39 1.00 0.55 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 944 3421 1477 598 1558 860 v/s Ratio Prot 0.04 0.50 0.20 c0.44 v/s Ratio Perm 0.07 c0.53 v/c Ratio 0.07 0.50 0.51 0.17 0.53 0.79 Uniform Delay, d1 14.6 0.0 32.5 27.9 0.0 25.0 Progression Factor 1.49 1.00 0.81 0.22 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.0 0.3 1.3 0.6 1.3 5.1 Delay (s) 21.7 0.3 27.5 6.8 1.3 30.0 Level of Service C A C A A C Approach Delay (s) 1.0 22.1 1.3 30.0 Approach LOS A C A C Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 10.8 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.70 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 140.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 64.6% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 Description: SR 169/I-405 NB On-Ramp c Critical Lane Group HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 3: SR 169 & Shari's Driveway 01/19/2020 Cedar River Apartments 01/17/2020 2021 PM with Phase1 Synchro 9 Light Report BPJ; William Popp Associates Movement EBU EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 16 43 2258 1007 14 4 32 Future Volume (veh/h) 16 43 2258 1007 14 4 32 Number 5 2 6 16 7 14 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1863 1863 1863 1900 1863 1900 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 43 2258 1007 14 4 32 Adj No. of Lanes 1 3 4 0 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 0 0 Cap, veh/h 67 3549 4776 66 6 50 Arrive On Green 0.08 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.04 0.03 Sat Flow, veh/h 1774 4471 6241 79 174 1391 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 43 2258 693 328 37 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1774 1304 1304 1849 1609 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 3.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.2 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.2 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.04 0.11 0.86 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 67 3549 3288 1554 57 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.64 0.64 0.21 0.21 0.64 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 152 3549 3288 1554 195 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.85 0.85 0.98 0.98 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 63.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 67.1 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 8.2 0.8 0.1 0.3 11.5 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.8 0.2 0.0 0.1 1.6 0.0 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 71.9 0.8 0.1 0.3 78.5 0.0 LnGrp LOS E A A A E Approach Vol, veh/h 2301 1021 37 Approach Delay, s/veh 2.1 0.2 78.5 Approach LOS A A E Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 2 4 5 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 131.0 9.0 9.3 121.7 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 114.0 16.0 11.0 98.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.0 5.2 5.3 2.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 50.7 0.0 0.0 47.7 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 2.4 HCM 2010 LOS A Notes HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 4: Cedar River Park Dr & SR 169 01/19/2020 Cedar River Apartments 01/17/2020 2021 PM with Phase1 Synchro 9 Light Report BPJ; William Popp Associates Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 2167 91 17 947 75 69 Future Volume (veh/h) 2167 91 17 947 75 69 Number 2 12 1 6 3 18 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1863 1900 1863 1863 1863 1863 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 2167 91 17 947 75 69 Adj No. of Lanes 3 0 1 3 1 1 Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 3226 135 162 4166 117 104 Arrive On Green 1.00 1.00 0.09 0.88 0.07 0.07 Sat Flow, veh/h 4820 178 1774 5029 1774 1583 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 1324 934 17 947 75 69 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1304 1831 1774 1583 1774 1583 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 1.2 4.3 5.8 6.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 0.0 1.2 4.3 5.8 6.0 Prop In Lane 0.10 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 1975 1387 162 4166 117 104 V/C Ratio(X) 0.67 0.67 0.10 0.23 0.64 0.66 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1975 1387 162 4166 215 192 HCM Platoon Ratio 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.71 0.71 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 0.0 58.4 1.3 63.8 63.9 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.3 1.9 0.3 0.1 5.8 7.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.4 0.7 0.6 1.9 3.0 2.8 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 1.3 1.9 58.6 1.4 69.6 70.9 LnGrp LOS A A E A E E Approach Vol, veh/h 2258 964 144 Approach Delay, s/veh 1.5 2.5 70.2 Approach LOS A A E Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 16.8 110.0 126.8 13.2 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 4.0 105.0 114.0 16.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.2 2.0 6.3 8.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.4 22.2 5.2 0.3 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 4.7 HCM 2010 LOS A HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 1: Bronson Way/SR 169 & Sunset Blvd 01/19/2020 Cedar River Apartments 01/17/2020 2022 PM without Phase2 Synchro 9 Light Report BPJ; William Popp Associates Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 707 553 68 361 252 819 0 0 0 1235 783 671 Future Volume (veh/h) 707 553 68 361 252 819 0 0 0 1235 783 671 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 7 4 14 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 707 553 0 361 252 819 823 1695 447 Adj No. of Lanes 2 2 0 1 2 1 1 2 1 Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 713 733 0 380 758 1120 874 1836 1108 Arrive On Green 0.21 0.21 0.00 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.49 0.49 0.49 Sat Flow, veh/h 3442 3632 0 1774 3539 1583 1774 3725 1583 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 707 553 0 361 252 819 823 1695 447 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1721 1770 0 1774 1770 1583 1774 1863 1583 Q Serve(g_s), s 28.7 20.6 0.0 28.4 9.5 30.0 61.4 59.3 16.5 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 28.7 20.6 0.0 28.4 9.5 30.0 61.4 59.3 16.5 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 713 733 0 380 758 1120 874 1836 1108 V/C Ratio(X) 0.99 0.75 0.00 0.95 0.33 0.73 0.94 0.92 0.40 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 713 733 0 380 758 1120 874 1836 1108 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.33 0.33 0.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.71 0.71 0.71 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 55.4 52.2 0.0 64.3 55.5 12.3 33.6 33.0 8.8 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 31.5 4.5 0.0 26.7 0.2 1.8 19.1 9.3 1.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 16.8 10.5 0.0 16.8 4.7 32.3 34.6 32.7 12.5 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 86.9 56.6 0.0 91.0 55.7 14.1 52.7 42.3 9.9 LnGrp LOS F E F E B D D A Approach Vol, veh/h 1260 1432 2965 Approach Delay, s/veh 73.6 40.8 40.3 Approach LOS E D D Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 2 4 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 33.0 73.0 34.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 28.0 68.0 29.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 30.7 63.4 32.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 4.2 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 47.8 HCM 2010 LOS D Notes HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 1: Bronson Way/SR 169 & Sunset Blvd 01/19/2020 Cedar River Apartments 01/17/2020 2022 PM without Phase2 Synchro 9 Light Report BPJ; William Popp Associates Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 707 553 68 361 252 819 0 0 0 1235 783 671 Future Volume (veh/h) 707 553 68 361 252 819 0 0 0 1235 783 671 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 7 4 14 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 707 553 0 361 252 819 823 1695 447 Adj No. of Lanes 2 2 0 2 1 1 1 2 1 Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 778 800 0 659 346 1090 891 1872 1154 Arrive On Green 0.23 0.23 0.00 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.50 0.50 0.50 Sat Flow, veh/h 3442 3632 0 3548 1863 1583 1774 3725 1583 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 707 553 0 361 252 819 823 1695 447 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1721 1770 0 1774 1863 1583 1774 1863 1583 Q Serve(g_s), s 28.0 20.1 0.0 13.8 18.6 26.0 60.3 58.1 14.9 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 28.0 20.1 0.0 13.8 18.6 26.0 60.3 58.1 14.9 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 778 800 0 659 346 1090 891 1872 1154 V/C Ratio(X) 0.91 0.69 0.00 0.55 0.73 0.75 0.92 0.91 0.39 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 787 809 0 659 346 1090 891 1872 1154 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.33 0.33 0.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.71 0.71 0.71 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 52.8 49.7 0.0 60.0 62.2 12.5 32.3 31.8 7.2 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 14.3 2.5 0.0 0.7 5.4 2.1 16.5 7.8 1.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 14.9 10.1 0.0 6.9 10.1 32.4 33.6 31.9 12.2 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 67.1 52.2 0.0 60.7 67.7 14.6 48.8 39.6 8.2 LnGrp LOS E D E E B D D A Approach Vol, veh/h 1260 1432 2965 Approach Delay, s/veh 60.5 35.6 37.4 Approach LOS E D D Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 2 4 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 35.7 74.3 30.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 31.0 69.0 25.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 30.0 62.3 28.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.6 6.1 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 42.1 HCM 2010 LOS D Notes HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: I-405 NB Off-Ramp & SR 169 01/19/2020 Cedar River Apartments 01/17/2020 2022 PM without Phase2 Synchro 9 Light Report BPJ; William Popp Associates Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 64 1723 0 0 764 269 0 0 826 0 0 706 Future Volume (vph) 64 1723 0 0 764 269 0 0 826 0 0 706 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 *0.70 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.86 0.86 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1711 3421 3781 1531 1558 1558 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1711 3421 3781 1531 1558 1558 Peak-hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj. Flow (vph) 64 1723 0 0 764 269 0 0 826 0 0 706 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 165 0 0 0 0 0 17 Lane Group Flow (vph) 64 1723 0 0 764 104 0 0 826 0 0 689 Turn Type Prot NA NA Perm Free Over Protected Phases 5 2 6 5 Permitted Phases 6 Free Actuated Green, G (s) 76.9 140.0 53.1 53.1 140.0 76.9 Effective Green, g (s) 77.9 140.0 54.1 54.1 140.0 77.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.56 1.00 0.39 0.39 1.00 0.56 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 952 3421 1461 591 1558 866 v/s Ratio Prot 0.04 0.50 0.20 c0.44 v/s Ratio Perm 0.07 c0.53 v/c Ratio 0.07 0.50 0.52 0.18 0.53 0.80 Uniform Delay, d1 14.3 0.0 33.0 28.3 0.0 24.7 Progression Factor 1.48 1.00 0.81 0.23 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.0 0.2 1.3 0.6 1.3 5.1 Delay (s) 21.2 0.2 28.1 7.1 1.3 29.8 Level of Service C A C A A C Approach Delay (s) 1.0 22.7 1.3 29.8 Approach LOS A C A C Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 10.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.70 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 140.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 65.1% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 Description: SR 169/I-405 NB On-Ramp c Critical Lane Group HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 3: SR 169 & Shari's Driveway 01/19/2020 Cedar River Apartments 01/17/2020 2022 PM without Phase2 Synchro 9 Light Report BPJ; William Popp Associates Movement EBU EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 16 43 2281 1017 14 4 33 Future Volume (veh/h) 16 43 2281 1017 14 4 33 Number 5 2 6 16 7 14 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1863 1863 1863 1900 1863 1900 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 43 2281 1017 14 4 33 Adj No. of Lanes 1 3 4 0 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 0 0 Cap, veh/h 67 3545 4772 66 6 51 Arrive On Green 0.08 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.04 0.03 Sat Flow, veh/h 1774 4471 6241 78 169 1396 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 43 2281 700 331 38 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1774 1304 1304 1849 1608 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 3.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.3 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.3 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.04 0.11 0.87 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 67 3545 3285 1553 59 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.64 0.64 0.21 0.21 0.65 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 152 3545 3285 1553 195 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.85 0.85 0.97 0.97 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 63.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 67.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 8.2 0.8 0.1 0.3 11.4 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.8 0.3 0.0 0.1 1.6 0.0 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 71.9 0.8 0.1 0.3 78.4 0.0 LnGrp LOS E A A A E Approach Vol, veh/h 2324 1031 38 Approach Delay, s/veh 2.1 0.2 78.4 Approach LOS A A E Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 2 4 5 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 130.9 9.1 9.3 121.6 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 114.0 16.0 11.0 98.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.0 5.3 5.3 2.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 51.9 0.1 0.0 48.8 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 2.4 HCM 2010 LOS A Notes HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 4: Cedar River Park Dr & SR 169 01/19/2020 Cedar River Apartments 01/17/2020 2022 PM without Phase2 Synchro 9 Light Report BPJ; William Popp Associates Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 2188 92 18 956 75 69 Future Volume (veh/h) 2188 92 18 956 75 69 Number 2 12 1 6 3 18 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1863 1900 1863 1863 1863 1863 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 2188 92 18 956 75 69 Adj No. of Lanes 3 0 1 3 1 1 Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 3226 135 162 4166 117 104 Arrive On Green 1.00 1.00 0.09 0.88 0.07 0.07 Sat Flow, veh/h 4819 179 1774 5029 1774 1583 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 1336 944 18 956 75 69 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1304 1831 1774 1583 1774 1583 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 1.3 4.3 5.8 6.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 0.0 1.3 4.3 5.8 6.0 Prop In Lane 0.10 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 1975 1387 162 4166 117 104 V/C Ratio(X) 0.68 0.68 0.11 0.23 0.64 0.66 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1975 1387 162 4166 215 192 HCM Platoon Ratio 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.70 0.70 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 0.0 58.4 1.3 63.8 63.9 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.3 1.9 0.3 0.1 5.8 7.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.4 0.7 0.7 1.9 3.0 2.8 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 1.3 1.9 58.7 1.5 69.6 70.9 LnGrp LOS A A E A E E Approach Vol, veh/h 2280 974 144 Approach Delay, s/veh 1.6 2.5 70.2 Approach LOS A A E Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 16.8 110.0 126.8 13.2 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 4.0 105.0 114.0 16.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.3 2.0 6.3 8.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.4 22.7 5.2 0.3 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 4.8 HCM 2010 LOS A HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 1: Bronson Way/SR 169 & Sunset Blvd 01/19/2020 Cedar River Apartments 01/17/2020 2022 PM with Phase2 Synchro 9 Light Report BPJ; William Popp Associates Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 707 560 68 372 256 829 0 0 0 1269 783 671 Future Volume (veh/h) 707 560 68 372 256 829 0 0 0 1269 783 671 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 7 4 14 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 707 560 0 372 256 829 846 1711 447 Adj No. of Lanes 2 2 0 1 2 1 1 2 1 Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 713 733 0 393 784 1120 862 1810 1097 Arrive On Green 0.21 0.21 0.00 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.49 0.49 0.49 Sat Flow, veh/h 3442 3632 0 1774 3539 1583 1774 3725 1583 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 707 560 0 372 256 829 846 1711 447 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1721 1770 0 1774 1770 1583 1774 1863 1583 Q Serve(g_s), s 28.7 20.9 0.0 29.2 9.6 30.9 65.6 61.2 16.9 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 28.7 20.9 0.0 29.2 9.6 30.9 65.6 61.2 16.9 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 713 733 0 393 784 1120 862 1810 1097 V/C Ratio(X) 0.99 0.76 0.00 0.95 0.33 0.74 0.98 0.95 0.41 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 713 733 0 393 784 1120 862 1810 1097 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.33 0.33 0.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.70 0.70 0.70 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 55.4 52.3 0.0 64.1 55.0 12.5 35.4 34.2 9.2 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 31.5 4.8 0.0 25.4 0.2 1.9 26.6 11.7 1.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 16.8 10.7 0.0 17.2 4.7 32.7 38.3 34.3 12.6 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 86.9 57.1 0.0 89.4 55.1 14.4 62.0 45.9 10.3 LnGrp LOS F E F E B E D B Approach Vol, veh/h 1267 1457 3004 Approach Delay, s/veh 73.7 40.7 45.1 Approach LOS E D D Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 2 4 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 33.0 72.0 35.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 28.0 67.0 30.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 30.7 67.6 32.9 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 50.3 HCM 2010 LOS D Notes HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 1: Bronson Way/SR 169 & Sunset Blvd 01/19/2020 Cedar River Apartments 01/17/2020 2022 PM with Phase2 Synchro 9 Light Report BPJ; William Popp Associates Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 707 560 68 372 256 829 0 0 0 1269 783 671 Future Volume (veh/h) 707 560 68 372 256 829 0 0 0 1269 783 671 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 7 4 14 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 707 560 0 372 256 829 846 1711 447 Adj No. of Lanes 2 2 0 2 1 1 1 2 1 Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 778 800 0 659 346 1090 891 1872 1154 Arrive On Green 0.23 0.23 0.00 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.50 0.50 0.50 Sat Flow, veh/h 3442 3632 0 3548 1863 1583 1774 3725 1583 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 707 560 0 372 256 829 846 1711 447 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1721 1770 0 1774 1863 1583 1774 1863 1583 Q Serve(g_s), s 28.0 20.4 0.0 14.3 18.9 26.0 63.5 59.2 14.9 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 28.0 20.4 0.0 14.3 18.9 26.0 63.5 59.2 14.9 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 778 800 0 659 346 1090 891 1872 1154 V/C Ratio(X) 0.91 0.70 0.00 0.56 0.74 0.76 0.95 0.91 0.39 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 787 809 0 659 346 1090 891 1872 1154 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.33 0.33 0.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.70 0.70 0.70 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 52.8 49.8 0.0 60.2 62.4 12.5 33.1 32.0 7.2 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 14.3 2.7 0.0 0.8 5.8 2.2 20.1 8.4 1.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 14.9 10.3 0.0 7.1 10.3 32.8 36.0 32.6 12.2 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 67.1 52.5 0.0 61.0 68.2 14.8 53.2 40.5 8.2 LnGrp LOS E D E E B D D A Approach Vol, veh/h 1267 1457 3004 Approach Delay, s/veh 60.6 36.0 39.2 Approach LOS E D D Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 2 4 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 35.7 74.3 30.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 31.0 69.0 25.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 30.0 65.5 28.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.6 3.3 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 43.1 HCM 2010 LOS D Notes HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: I-405 NB Off-Ramp & SR 169 01/19/2020 Cedar River Apartments 01/17/2020 2022 PM with Phase2 Synchro 9 Light Report BPJ; William Popp Associates Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 64 1764 0 0 789 280 0 0 843 0 0 706 Future Volume (vph) 64 1764 0 0 789 280 0 0 843 0 0 706 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 *0.70 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.86 0.86 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1711 3421 3781 1531 1558 1558 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1711 3421 3781 1531 1558 1558 Peak-hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj. Flow (vph) 64 1764 0 0 789 280 0 0 843 0 0 706 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 172 0 0 0 0 0 15 Lane Group Flow (vph) 64 1764 0 0 789 108 0 0 843 0 0 691 Turn Type Prot NA NA Perm Free Over Protected Phases 5 2 6 5 Permitted Phases 6 Free Actuated Green, G (s) 77.1 140.0 52.9 52.9 140.0 77.1 Effective Green, g (s) 78.1 140.0 53.9 53.9 140.0 78.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.56 1.00 0.38 0.38 1.00 0.56 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 954 3421 1455 589 1558 869 v/s Ratio Prot 0.04 0.52 0.21 c0.44 v/s Ratio Perm 0.07 c0.54 v/c Ratio 0.07 0.52 0.54 0.18 0.54 0.80 Uniform Delay, d1 14.2 0.0 33.5 28.5 0.0 24.6 Progression Factor 1.48 1.00 0.78 0.18 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.0 0.2 1.4 0.7 1.4 5.1 Delay (s) 21.1 0.2 27.6 5.9 1.4 29.7 Level of Service C A C A A C Approach Delay (s) 1.0 21.9 1.4 29.7 Approach LOS A C A C Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 10.6 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.71 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 140.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 65.6% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 Description: SR 169/I-405 NB On-Ramp c Critical Lane Group HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 3: SR 169 & Shari's Driveway 01/19/2020 Cedar River Apartments 01/17/2020 2022 PM with Phase2 Synchro 9 Light Report BPJ; William Popp Associates Movement EBU EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 16 44 2339 1053 14 4 33 Future Volume (veh/h) 16 44 2339 1053 14 4 33 Number 5 2 6 16 7 14 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1863 1863 1863 1900 1863 1900 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 44 2339 1053 14 4 33 Adj No. of Lanes 1 3 4 0 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 0 0 Cap, veh/h 69 3545 4770 63 6 51 Arrive On Green 0.08 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.04 0.03 Sat Flow, veh/h 1774 4471 6244 76 169 1396 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 44 2339 724 343 38 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1774 1304 1304 1849 1608 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 3.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.3 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.3 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.04 0.11 0.87 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 69 3545 3282 1552 59 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.64 0.66 0.22 0.22 0.65 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 152 3545 3282 1552 195 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.84 0.84 0.97 0.97 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 63.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 67.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 8.0 0.8 0.2 0.3 11.4 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.8 0.3 0.0 0.1 1.6 0.0 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 71.7 0.8 0.2 0.3 78.4 0.0 LnGrp LOS E A A A E Approach Vol, veh/h 2383 1067 38 Approach Delay, s/veh 2.1 0.2 78.4 Approach LOS A A E Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 2 4 5 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 130.9 9.1 9.4 121.5 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 114.0 16.0 11.0 98.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.0 5.3 5.4 2.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 55.5 0.1 0.0 51.8 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 2.4 HCM 2010 LOS A Notes HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 4: Cedar River Park Dr & SR 169 01/19/2020 Cedar River Apartments 01/17/2020 2022 PM with Phase2 Synchro 9 Light Report BPJ; William Popp Associates Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 2196 142 23 956 112 69 Future Volume (veh/h) 2196 142 23 956 112 69 Number 2 12 1 6 3 18 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1863 1900 1863 1863 1863 1863 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 2196 142 23 956 112 69 Adj No. of Lanes 3 0 1 3 1 1 Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 3147 202 128 4074 151 135 Arrive On Green 1.00 1.00 0.07 0.86 0.09 0.09 Sat Flow, veh/h 4715 267 1774 5029 1774 1583 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 1373 965 23 956 112 69 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1304 1816 1774 1583 1774 1583 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 1.7 5.0 8.6 5.8 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 0.0 1.7 5.0 8.6 5.8 Prop In Lane 0.15 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 1975 1375 128 4074 151 135 V/C Ratio(X) 0.70 0.70 0.18 0.23 0.74 0.51 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1975 1375 128 4074 215 192 HCM Platoon Ratio 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.68 0.68 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 0.0 61.1 1.8 62.5 61.3 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.4 2.1 0.7 0.1 7.9 3.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.4 0.8 0.9 2.2 4.6 2.7 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 1.4 2.1 61.7 1.9 70.5 64.3 LnGrp LOS A A E A E E Approach Vol, veh/h 2338 979 181 Approach Delay, s/veh 1.7 3.3 68.1 Approach LOS A A E Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 14.1 110.0 124.1 15.9 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 4.0 105.0 114.0 16.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.7 2.0 7.0 10.6 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.2 24.4 5.3 0.3 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 5.6 HCM 2010 LOS A HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 1: Bronson Way/SR 169 & Sunset Blvd 01/19/2020 Cedar River Apartments 01/17/2020 2023 PM without Phase3 Synchro 9 Light Report BPJ; William Popp Associates Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 714 565 69 376 259 838 0 0 0 1281 791 677 Future Volume (veh/h) 714 565 69 376 259 838 0 0 0 1281 791 677 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 7 4 14 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 714 565 0 376 259 838 854 1728 451 Adj No. of Lanes 2 2 0 2 1 1 1 2 1 Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 781 803 0 659 346 1088 890 1869 1154 Arrive On Green 0.23 0.23 0.00 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.50 0.50 0.50 Sat Flow, veh/h 3442 3632 0 3548 1863 1583 1774 3725 1583 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 714 565 0 376 259 838 854 1728 451 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1721 1770 0 1774 1863 1583 1774 1863 1583 Q Serve(g_s), s 28.3 20.6 0.0 14.4 19.2 26.0 64.8 60.4 15.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 28.3 20.6 0.0 14.4 19.2 26.0 64.8 60.4 15.1 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 781 803 0 659 346 1088 890 1869 1154 V/C Ratio(X) 0.91 0.70 0.00 0.57 0.75 0.77 0.96 0.92 0.39 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 787 809 0 659 346 1088 890 1869 1154 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.33 0.33 0.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.69 0.69 0.69 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 52.8 49.8 0.0 60.3 62.5 12.6 33.5 32.4 7.2 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 15.1 2.7 0.0 0.8 6.1 2.4 21.9 9.3 1.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 15.1 10.4 0.0 7.2 10.5 33.2 37.0 33.4 12.5 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 67.8 52.5 0.0 61.1 68.6 15.0 55.4 41.7 8.2 LnGrp LOS E D E E B E D A Approach Vol, veh/h 1279 1473 3033 Approach Delay, s/veh 61.1 36.2 40.6 Approach LOS E D D Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 2 4 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 35.8 74.2 30.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 31.0 69.0 25.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 30.3 66.8 28.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.4 2.1 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 44.0 HCM 2010 LOS D Notes HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: I-405 NB Off-Ramp & SR 169 01/19/2020 Cedar River Apartments 01/17/2020 2023 PM without Phase3 Synchro 9 Light Report BPJ; William Popp Associates Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 65 1782 0 0 797 282 0 0 852 0 0 713 Future Volume (vph) 65 1782 0 0 797 282 0 0 852 0 0 713 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 *0.70 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.86 0.86 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1711 3421 3781 1531 1558 1558 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1711 3421 3781 1531 1558 1558 Peak-hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj. Flow (vph) 65 1782 0 0 797 282 0 0 852 0 0 713 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 175 0 0 0 0 0 14 Lane Group Flow (vph) 65 1782 0 0 797 107 0 0 852 0 0 699 Turn Type Prot NA NA Perm Free Over Protected Phases 5 2 6 5 Permitted Phases 6 Free Actuated Green, G (s) 77.7 140.0 52.3 52.3 140.0 77.7 Effective Green, g (s) 78.7 140.0 53.3 53.3 140.0 78.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.56 1.00 0.38 0.38 1.00 0.56 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 961 3421 1439 582 1558 875 v/s Ratio Prot 0.04 0.52 0.21 c0.45 v/s Ratio Perm 0.07 c0.55 v/c Ratio 0.07 0.52 0.55 0.18 0.55 0.80 Uniform Delay, d1 14.0 0.0 34.0 28.9 0.0 24.3 Progression Factor 1.47 1.00 0.78 0.19 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.0 0.2 1.5 0.7 1.4 5.1 Delay (s) 20.5 0.2 28.2 6.2 1.4 29.5 Level of Service C A C A A C Approach Delay (s) 1.0 22.4 1.4 29.5 Approach LOS A C A C Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 10.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.71 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 140.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 66.2% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 Description: SR 169/I-405 NB On-Ramp c Critical Lane Group HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 3: SR 169 & Shari's Driveway 01/19/2020 Cedar River Apartments 01/17/2020 2023 PM without Phase3 Synchro 9 Light Report BPJ; William Popp Associates Movement EBU EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 16 44 2362 1064 14 4 33 Future Volume (veh/h) 16 44 2362 1064 14 4 33 Number 5 2 6 16 7 14 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1863 1863 1863 1900 1863 1900 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 44 2362 1064 14 4 33 Adj No. of Lanes 1 3 4 0 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 0 0 Cap, veh/h 69 3545 4771 63 6 51 Arrive On Green 0.08 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.04 0.03 Sat Flow, veh/h 1774 4471 6245 75 169 1396 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 44 2362 732 346 38 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1774 1304 1304 1850 1608 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 3.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.3 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.3 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.04 0.11 0.87 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 69 3545 3282 1552 59 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.64 0.67 0.22 0.22 0.65 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 152 3545 3282 1552 195 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.83 0.83 0.97 0.97 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 63.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 67.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 8.0 0.8 0.2 0.3 11.4 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.8 0.3 0.0 0.1 1.6 0.0 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 71.6 0.8 0.2 0.3 78.4 0.0 LnGrp LOS E A A A E Approach Vol, veh/h 2406 1078 38 Approach Delay, s/veh 2.1 0.2 78.4 Approach LOS A A E Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 2 4 5 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 130.9 9.1 9.4 121.5 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 114.0 16.0 11.0 98.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.0 5.3 5.4 2.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 56.8 0.1 0.0 52.9 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 2.4 HCM 2010 LOS A Notes HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 4: Cedar River Park Dr & SR 169 01/19/2020 Cedar River Apartments 01/17/2020 2023 PM without Phase3 Synchro 9 Light Report BPJ; William Popp Associates Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 2218 144 23 966 113 70 Future Volume (veh/h) 2218 144 23 966 113 70 Number 2 12 1 6 3 18 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1863 1900 1863 1863 1863 1863 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 2218 144 23 966 113 70 Adj No. of Lanes 3 0 1 3 1 1 Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 3146 203 127 4072 152 136 Arrive On Green 1.00 1.00 0.07 0.86 0.09 0.09 Sat Flow, veh/h 4714 268 1774 5029 1774 1583 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 1387 975 23 966 113 70 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1304 1815 1774 1583 1774 1583 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 1.7 5.1 8.7 5.9 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 0.0 1.7 5.1 8.7 5.9 Prop In Lane 0.15 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 1975 1375 127 4072 152 136 V/C Ratio(X) 0.70 0.71 0.18 0.24 0.74 0.52 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1975 1375 127 4072 215 192 HCM Platoon Ratio 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.67 0.67 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 0.0 61.1 1.8 62.5 61.2 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.4 2.1 0.7 0.1 8.2 3.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.4 0.8 0.9 2.2 4.6 2.7 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 1.4 2.1 61.8 1.9 70.7 64.3 LnGrp LOS A A E A E E Approach Vol, veh/h 2362 989 183 Approach Delay, s/veh 1.7 3.3 68.2 Approach LOS A A E Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 14.0 110.0 124.0 16.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 4.0 105.0 114.0 16.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.7 2.0 7.1 10.7 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.2 25.1 5.3 0.3 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 5.6 HCM 2010 LOS A HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 1: Bronson Way/SR 169 & Sunset Blvd 01/19/2020 Cedar River Apartments 09/29/2019 2023 PM without project with Int1 Imps no ETL Synchro 9 Light Report BPJ; William Popp Associates Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 714 552 69 355 251 818 0 0 0 1216 791 677 Future Volume (veh/h) 714 552 69 355 251 818 0 0 0 1216 791 677 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 7 4 14 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 714 552 0 355 251 818 811 1697 451 Adj No. of Lanes 2 2 0 2 1 1 1 2 1 Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 781 803 0 659 346 1088 890 1869 1154 Arrive On Green 0.23 0.23 0.00 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.50 0.50 0.50 Sat Flow, veh/h 3442 3632 0 3548 1863 1583 1774 3725 1583 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 714 552 0 355 251 818 811 1697 451 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1721 1770 0 1774 1863 1583 1774 1863 1583 Q Serve(g_s), s 28.3 20.0 0.0 13.6 18.5 26.0 58.8 58.4 15.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 28.3 20.0 0.0 13.6 18.5 26.0 58.8 58.4 15.1 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 781 803 0 659 346 1088 890 1869 1154 V/C Ratio(X) 0.91 0.69 0.00 0.54 0.73 0.75 0.91 0.91 0.39 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 787 809 0 659 346 1088 890 1869 1154 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.33 0.33 0.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.71 0.71 0.71 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 52.8 49.6 0.0 59.9 62.2 12.6 32.0 31.9 7.2 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 15.1 2.4 0.0 0.6 5.3 2.1 15.1 8.0 1.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 15.1 10.1 0.0 6.7 10.1 32.4 32.3 32.0 12.5 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 67.9 52.0 0.0 60.5 67.5 14.7 47.1 39.9 8.2 LnGrp LOS E D E E B D D A Approach Vol, veh/h 1266 1424 2959 Approach Delay, s/veh 60.9 35.4 37.1 Approach LOS E D D Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 2 4 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 35.8 74.2 30.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 31.0 69.0 25.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 30.3 60.8 28.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.4 7.3 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 42.0 HCM 2010 LOS D Notes HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: I-405 NB Off-Ramp & SR 169 01/19/2020 Cedar River Apartments 09/29/2019 2023 PM without project with Int1 Imps no ETL Synchro 9 Light Report BPJ; William Popp Associates Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 65 1704 0 0 748 261 0 0 819 0 0 713 Future Volume (vph) 65 1704 0 0 748 261 0 0 819 0 0 713 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 *0.70 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.86 0.86 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1711 3421 3781 1531 1558 1558 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1711 3421 3781 1531 1558 1558 Peak-hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj. Flow (vph) 65 1704 0 0 748 261 0 0 819 0 0 713 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 161 0 0 0 0 0 18 Lane Group Flow (vph) 65 1704 0 0 748 100 0 0 819 0 0 695 Turn Type Prot NA NA Perm Free Over Protected Phases 5 2 6 5 Permitted Phases 6 Free Actuated Green, G (s) 77.3 140.0 52.7 52.7 140.0 77.3 Effective Green, g (s) 78.3 140.0 53.7 53.7 140.0 78.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.56 1.00 0.38 0.38 1.00 0.56 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 956 3421 1450 587 1558 871 v/s Ratio Prot 0.04 0.50 0.20 c0.45 v/s Ratio Perm 0.07 c0.53 v/c Ratio 0.07 0.50 0.52 0.17 0.53 0.80 Uniform Delay, d1 14.1 0.0 33.2 28.5 0.0 24.6 Progression Factor 1.48 1.00 0.85 0.30 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.0 0.2 1.3 0.6 1.3 5.1 Delay (s) 20.9 0.2 29.4 9.2 1.3 29.7 Level of Service C A C A A C Approach Delay (s) 1.0 24.2 1.3 29.7 Approach LOS A C A C Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 11.2 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.70 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 140.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 65.3% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 Description: SR 169/I-405 NB On-Ramp c Critical Lane Group HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 3: SR 169 & Shari's Driveway 01/19/2020 Cedar River Apartments 09/29/2019 2023 PM without project with Int1 Imps no ETL Synchro 9 Light Report BPJ; William Popp Associates Movement EBU EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 16 44 2250 994 14 4 33 Future Volume (veh/h) 16 44 2250 994 14 4 33 Number 5 2 6 16 7 14 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1863 1863 1863 1900 1863 1900 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 44 2250 994 14 4 33 Adj No. of Lanes 1 3 4 0 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 0 0 Cap, veh/h 69 3545 4766 67 6 51 Arrive On Green 0.08 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.04 0.03 Sat Flow, veh/h 1774 4471 6239 80 169 1396 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 44 2250 684 324 38 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1774 1304 1304 1849 1608 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 3.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.3 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.3 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.04 0.11 0.87 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 69 3545 3282 1551 59 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.64 0.63 0.21 0.21 0.65 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 152 3545 3282 1551 195 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.85 0.85 0.98 0.98 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 63.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 67.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 8.2 0.7 0.1 0.3 11.4 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.8 0.2 0.0 0.1 1.6 0.0 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 71.8 0.7 0.1 0.3 78.4 0.0 LnGrp LOS E A A A E Approach Vol, veh/h 2294 1008 38 Approach Delay, s/veh 2.1 0.2 78.4 Approach LOS A A E Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 2 4 5 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 130.9 9.1 9.4 121.5 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 114.0 16.0 11.0 98.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.0 5.3 5.4 2.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 49.9 0.1 0.0 47.1 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 2.4 HCM 2010 LOS A Notes HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 4: Cedar River Park Dr & SR 169 01/19/2020 Cedar River Apartments 09/29/2019 2023 PM without project with Int1 Imps no ETL Synchro 9 Light Report BPJ; William Popp Associates Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 2210 40 13 966 41 70 Future Volume (veh/h) 2210 40 13 966 41 70 Number 2 12 1 6 3 18 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1863 1900 1863 1863 1863 1863 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 2210 40 13 966 41 70 Adj No. of Lanes 3 0 1 3 1 1 Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 3314 60 163 4168 116 103 Arrive On Green 1.00 1.00 0.09 0.88 0.07 0.07 Sat Flow, veh/h 4936 79 1774 5029 1774 1583 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 1315 935 13 966 41 70 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1304 1849 1774 1583 1774 1583 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 0.9 4.4 3.1 6.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 0.0 0.9 4.4 3.1 6.1 Prop In Lane 0.04 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 1975 1400 163 4168 116 103 V/C Ratio(X) 0.67 0.67 0.08 0.23 0.35 0.68 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1975 1400 163 4168 215 192 HCM Platoon Ratio 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.71 0.71 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 0.0 58.2 1.3 62.6 64.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.3 1.8 0.2 0.1 1.8 7.5 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.4 0.7 0.5 1.9 1.6 2.9 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 1.3 1.8 58.4 1.4 64.4 71.5 LnGrp LOS A A E A E E Approach Vol, veh/h 2250 979 111 Approach Delay, s/veh 1.5 2.2 68.9 Approach LOS A A E Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 16.9 110.0 126.9 13.1 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 4.0 105.0 114.0 16.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.9 2.0 6.4 8.1 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.6 21.8 5.3 0.2 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 4.0 HCM 2010 LOS A HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 1: Bronson Way/SR 169 & Sunset Blvd 01/19/2020 Cedar River Apartments 01/13/2020 2023 PM with project with Int1 Imps no ETL Synchro 9 Light Report BPJ; William Popp Associates Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 714 567 69 387 266 853 0 0 0 1290 791 677 Future Volume (veh/h) 714 567 69 387 266 853 0 0 0 1290 791 677 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 7 4 14 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 714 567 0 387 266 853 860 1731 451 Adj No. of Lanes 2 2 0 2 1 1 1 2 1 Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 781 803 0 659 346 1088 890 1869 1154 Arrive On Green 0.23 0.23 0.00 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.50 0.50 0.50 Sat Flow, veh/h 3442 3632 0 3548 1863 1583 1774 3725 1583 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 714 567 0 387 266 853 860 1731 451 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1721 1770 0 1774 1863 1583 1774 1863 1583 Q Serve(g_s), s 28.3 20.6 0.0 14.9 19.7 26.0 65.7 60.6 15.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 28.3 20.6 0.0 14.9 19.7 26.0 65.7 60.6 15.1 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 781 803 0 659 346 1088 890 1869 1154 V/C Ratio(X) 0.91 0.71 0.00 0.59 0.77 0.78 0.97 0.93 0.39 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 787 809 0 659 346 1088 890 1869 1154 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.33 0.33 0.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.67 0.67 0.67 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 52.8 49.8 0.0 60.5 62.8 12.6 33.8 32.5 7.2 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 15.1 2.8 0.0 0.9 7.0 2.6 23.1 9.4 1.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 15.1 10.4 0.0 7.4 10.8 33.9 37.7 33.5 12.5 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 67.8 52.6 0.0 61.4 69.7 15.2 56.8 41.9 8.2 LnGrp LOS E D E E B E D A Approach Vol, veh/h 1281 1506 3042 Approach Delay, s/veh 61.1 36.7 41.1 Approach LOS E D D Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 2 4 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 35.8 74.2 30.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 31.0 69.0 25.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 30.3 67.7 28.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.5 1.3 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 44.4 HCM 2010 LOS D Notes HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: I-405 NB Off-Ramp & SR 169 01/19/2020 Cedar River Apartments 01/13/2020 2023 PM with project with Int1 Imps no ETL Synchro 9 Light Report BPJ; William Popp Associates Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 65 1973 0 0 830 295 0 0 857 0 0 713 Future Volume (vph) 65 1973 0 0 830 295 0 0 857 0 0 713 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 *0.70 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.86 0.86 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1711 3421 3781 1531 1558 1558 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1711 3421 3781 1531 1558 1558 Peak-hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj. Flow (vph) 65 1973 0 0 830 295 0 0 857 0 0 713 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 183 0 0 0 0 0 12 Lane Group Flow (vph) 65 1973 0 0 830 112 0 0 857 0 0 701 Turn Type Prot NA NA Perm Free Over Protected Phases 5 2 6 5 Permitted Phases 6 Free Actuated Green, G (s) 78.0 140.0 52.0 52.0 140.0 78.0 Effective Green, g (s) 79.0 140.0 53.0 53.0 140.0 79.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.56 1.00 0.38 0.38 1.00 0.56 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 965 3421 1431 579 1558 879 v/s Ratio Prot 0.04 c0.58 0.22 c0.45 v/s Ratio Perm 0.07 0.55 v/c Ratio 0.07 0.58 0.58 0.19 0.55 0.80 Uniform Delay, d1 13.8 0.0 34.6 29.2 0.0 24.2 Progression Factor 1.43 1.00 0.76 0.15 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.0 0.4 1.7 0.7 1.4 5.1 Delay (s) 19.7 0.4 27.9 5.1 1.4 29.2 Level of Service B A C A A C Approach Delay (s) 1.0 21.9 1.4 29.2 Approach LOS A C A C Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 10.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.73 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 140.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 66.9% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 Description: SR 169/I-405 NB On-Ramp c Critical Lane Group HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 3: SR 169 & Shari's Driveway 01/19/2020 Cedar River Apartments 01/13/2020 2023 PM with project with Int1 Imps no ETL Synchro 9 Light Report BPJ; William Popp Associates Movement EBU EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 16 44 2377 1110 14 4 33 Future Volume (veh/h) 16 44 2377 1110 14 4 33 Number 5 2 6 16 7 14 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1863 1863 1863 1900 1863 1900 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 44 2377 1110 14 4 33 Adj No. of Lanes 1 3 4 0 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 0 0 Cap, veh/h 69 3545 4774 60 6 51 Arrive On Green 0.08 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.04 0.03 Sat Flow, veh/h 1774 4471 6249 72 169 1396 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 44 2377 763 361 38 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1774 1304 1304 1850 1608 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 3.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.3 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.3 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.04 0.11 0.87 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 69 3545 3282 1552 59 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.64 0.67 0.23 0.23 0.65 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 152 3545 3282 1552 195 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.80 0.80 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 63.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 67.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 7.7 0.8 0.2 0.3 11.4 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.8 0.3 0.0 0.1 1.6 0.0 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 71.3 0.8 0.2 0.3 78.4 0.0 LnGrp LOS E A A A E Approach Vol, veh/h 2421 1124 38 Approach Delay, s/veh 2.1 0.2 78.4 Approach LOS A A E Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 2 4 5 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 130.9 9.1 9.4 121.5 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 114.0 16.0 11.0 98.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.0 5.3 5.4 2.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 58.9 0.1 0.0 54.6 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 2.3 HCM 2010 LOS A Notes HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 4: Cedar River Park Dr & SR 169 01/19/2020 Cedar River Apartments 01/13/2020 2023 PM with project with Int1 Imps no ETL Synchro 9 Light Report BPJ; William Popp Associates Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 2222 155 38 964 159 74 Future Volume (veh/h) 2222 155 38 964 159 74 Number 2 12 1 6 3 18 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1863 1900 1863 1863 1863 1863 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 2222 155 38 964 159 74 Adj No. of Lanes 3 0 1 3 1 1 Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 3130 217 83 3955 195 174 Arrive On Green 1.00 1.00 0.05 0.83 0.11 0.11 Sat Flow, veh/h 4692 286 1774 5029 1774 1583 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 1396 981 38 964 159 74 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1304 1812 1774 1583 1774 1583 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 2.9 6.0 12.3 6.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 0.0 2.9 6.0 12.3 6.1 Prop In Lane 0.16 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 1975 1372 83 3955 195 174 V/C Ratio(X) 0.71 0.71 0.46 0.24 0.81 0.42 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1975 1372 83 3955 215 192 HCM Platoon Ratio 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.67 0.67 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 0.0 65.0 2.5 60.9 58.1 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.5 2.2 3.8 0.1 19.3 1.6 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.4 0.8 1.5 2.6 7.1 2.8 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 1.5 2.2 68.8 2.6 80.2 59.8 LnGrp LOS A A E A F E Approach Vol, veh/h 2377 1002 233 Approach Delay, s/veh 1.7 5.1 73.7 Approach LOS A A E Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 10.6 110.0 120.6 19.4 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 4.0 105.0 114.0 16.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.9 2.0 8.0 14.3 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 25.6 5.4 0.2 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 7.3 HCM 2010 LOS A APPENDIX D SIM TRAFFIC ANALYSES (DELAYS AND QUEUES) AM and PM PEAK HOUR SIMULATION SCENARIOS • Year 2023 without project without any network improvements • Year 2023 with and without project with dual WB lane at Intersection 1 and NB (HOV by-pass) and SB ramp improvements (two GP continuous plus one shoulder lane when metered) • Year 2023 with and without project plus I-405 ETL project completion • Year 2023 with and without project queue simulation east end at Int4. • Year 2029 with and without project including network improvements noted plus I-405 ETL project completion. • Year 2029 with and without project queue simulation east end at Int4. • Year 2029 with project queue test with dual NB left with shared right at Intersection 4. APPENDIX D AM PEAK HOUR PORTION SIM TRAFFIC ANALYSES (DELAYS AND QUEUES) AM PEAK HOUR 1. Year 2023 without project without any network improvements 2. Year 2023 without project with dual WB lane at Intersection 1 and NB (HOV by- pass) and SB ramp improvements (two GP continuous plus one shoulder lane when metered) 3. same as #2 with full project 4. same as #2 plus I-405 ETL project completion 5. same as #4 with full project 6. same as #4 with queue test east end (eliminate bend/merge nodes and driveway). 7. same as #6 with full project 8. same as #7 with modified Intersection 4 for dual NB left with shared right 9. Year 2029 without project including network improvements noted above in #2 plus I-405 ETL project completion. 10. same as #9 with queue test east end 11. same as #9 with full project 12. same as #11 with queue test east end 13. same as #12 with queue test east end plus dual NB left with shared right at Intersection 4. SimTraffic Performance Report 2023 AM -- without project (without Int1 Imp or ETL)01/18/2020 Cedar River Apartments SimTraffic Report BPJ; William Popp Associates Page 1 1: Bronson Way/SR 169 & Sunset Blvd Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBL SBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s) 2.2 2.5 4.0 49.8 24.3 25.4 1148.7 1159.8 1164.6 478.3 Total Del/Veh (s) 699.6 76.3 6.9 86.7 19.2 16.1 624.1 597.6 109.0 224.9 2: I-405 NB Off-Ramp/I-405 NB On-Ramp & SR 169 Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR NBR SBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.1 Total Del/Veh (s) 50.7 3.0 31.5 58.1 3.3 8.4 40.2 31.0 3: SR 169 & Shari's Driveway Performance by movement Movement EBU EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 1.6 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 Total Del/Veh (s) 94.5 94.8 7.2 77.6 55.8 45.6 54.7 61.1 4: Cedar River Park Dr & SR 169 Performance by movement Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 4.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s) 5.1 1.1 95.7 40.5 62.3 4.5 32.8 5: Site East Access & SR 169 Performance by movement Movement EBT EBR WBT NBR All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s) 0.8 0.3 14.3 3.2 11.1 Total Zone Performance Denied Del/Veh (s) 687.2 Total Del/Veh (s) 1911.7 Queuing and Blocking Report 2023 AM -- without project (without Int1 Imp or ETL)01/18/2020 Cedar River Apartments SimTraffic Report BPJ; William Popp Associates Page 2 Intersection: 1: Bronson Way/SR 169 & Sunset Blvd Movement EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB SB SB SB SB Directions Served L L T TR L T T R L LT TR R Maximum Queue (ft) 1857 1828 1535 1208 325 404 189 352 585 1313 1316 1308 Average Queue (ft) 1072 1047 317 143 322 379 109 212 526 1288 1288 1280 95th Queue (ft) 1944 1909 1328 810 351 447 169 358 788 1299 1303 1347 Link Distance (ft) 1917 1917 1917 1917 340 340 340 1272 1272 1272 Upstream Blk Time (%) 6 5 3 0 8 55 1 98 94 61 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 0 0 0 432 7 0 0 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 300 560 Storage Blk Time (%) 74 0 0 94 Queuing Penalty (veh) 229 1 0 129 Intersection: 2: I-405 NB Off-Ramp/I-405 NB On-Ramp & SR 169 Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB WB NB SB Directions Served L T T T T T R R R Maximum Queue (ft) 36 22 22 254 230 250 246 59 568 Average Queue (ft) 7 1 2 243 86 162 173 5 249 95th Queue (ft) 27 20 23 254 195 294 321 63 437 Link Distance (ft) 340 340 239 239 239 239 450 692 Upstream Blk Time (%) 51 0 6 23 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 287 2 34 126 1 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 150 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 3: SR 169 & Shari's Driveway Movement EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB SB Directions Served UL T T T T T T TR LR Maximum Queue (ft) 186 168 171 92 662 195 592 150 139 Average Queue (ft) 108 23 26 6 639 65 368 113 54 95th Queue (ft) 188 122 113 60 780 154 787 203 113 Link Distance (ft) 239 239 239 646 646 646 391 Upstream Blk Time (%) 1 1 0 46 10 Queuing Penalty (veh) 3 3 0 328 69 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 175 125 Storage Blk Time (%) 4 1 11 35 Queuing Penalty (veh) 10 1 57 186 Queuing and Blocking Report 2023 AM -- without project (without Int1 Imp or ETL)01/18/2020 Cedar River Apartments SimTraffic Report BPJ; William Popp Associates Page 3 Intersection: 4: Cedar River Park Dr & SR 169 Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB WB NB NB Directions Served T T TR L T T T L R Maximum Queue (ft) 177 193 66 224 377 307 298 86 31 Average Queue (ft) 20 31 5 34 358 71 159 34 6 95th Queue (ft) 94 111 35 155 455 281 421 73 25 Link Distance (ft) 646 646 646 362 362 362 588 Upstream Blk Time (%) 48 1 10 Queuing Penalty (veh) 340 5 69 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 200 200 Storage Blk Time (%) 81 Queuing Penalty (veh) 10 Intersection: 5: Site East Access & SR 169 Movement WB WB WB B8 B8 NB Directions Served T T T T T R Maximum Queue (ft) 181 74 99 9015 9041 31 Average Queue (ft) 141 8 46 4016 3958 15 95th Queue (ft) 202 57 159 8888 8966 39 Link Distance (ft) 76 76 76 25215 25215 378 Upstream Blk Time (%) 77 1 18 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Zone Summary Zone wide Queuing Penalty: 2330 SimTraffic Performance Report 2023 AM -- without project with Int1 imp no ETL 01/18/2020 Cedar River Apartments SimTraffic Report BPJ; William Popp Associates Page 1 1: I-405 SB On-Ramp/Sunset Blvd & Bronson Way/SR 169 Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBL SBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.1 0.1 0.1 10.1 4.8 3.3 700.6 712.7 717.9 282.3 Total Del/Veh (s) 69.0 54.4 4.0 117.9 41.4 19.3 345.7 621.1 123.8 156.9 2: I-405 NB Off-Ramp/I-405 NB On-Ramp & SR 169 Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR NBR SBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.1 Total Del/Veh (s) 27.7 5.1 32.1 53.3 2.9 33.5 95.7 41.3 3: SR 169 & Shari's Driveway Performance by movement Movement EBU EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 74.7 10.0 0.3 Total Del/Veh (s) 130.0 80.0 7.5 64.6 35.9 167.0 160.0 54.4 4: Cedar River Park Dr & SR 169 Performance by movement Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 3.8 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s) 3.3 1.1 81.8 32.1 65.5 4.3 25.8 5: Site East Access & SR 169 Performance by movement Movement EBT EBR WBT NBR All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s) 0.8 0.4 11.2 3.5 8.6 Total Zone Performance Denied Del/Veh (s) 413.2 Total Del/Veh (s) 2003.2 Queuing and Blocking Report 2023 AM -- without project with Int1 imp no ETL 01/18/2020 Cedar River Apartments SimTraffic Report BPJ; William Popp Associates Page 2 Intersection: 1: I-405 SB On-Ramp/Sunset Blvd & Bronson Way/SR 169 Movement EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB SB SB SB SB Directions Served L L T TR L LT T R L LT TR R Maximum Queue (ft) 296 288 128 133 325 363 361 361 585 1322 1314 1313 Average Queue (ft) 200 189 59 44 312 344 279 241 557 1253 1250 1235 95th Queue (ft) 282 277 107 103 351 375 393 397 748 1478 1475 1502 Link Distance (ft) 1916 1916 1916 1916 340 340 340 1272 1272 1272 Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 37 7 3 84 86 56 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 290 56 21 0 0 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 300 560 Storage Blk Time (%) 20 48 0 93 Queuing Penalty (veh) 141 199 1 128 Intersection: 2: I-405 NB Off-Ramp/I-405 NB On-Ramp & SR 169 Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB WB NB SB Directions Served L T T T T T R R R Maximum Queue (ft) 54 31 41 251 250 248 251 58 750 Average Queue (ft) 10 4 4 242 120 149 167 2 493 95th Queue (ft) 36 38 41 249 244 282 312 40 907 Link Distance (ft) 340 340 239 239 239 239 450 692 Upstream Blk Time (%) 50 2 6 17 26 Queuing Penalty (veh) 281 12 31 93 147 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 150 Storage Blk Time (%) 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 Intersection: 3: SR 169 & Shari's Driveway Movement EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB SB Directions Served UL T T T T T T TR LR Maximum Queue (ft) 175 225 220 147 677 422 653 150 184 Average Queue (ft) 115 33 40 15 633 94 288 117 82 95th Queue (ft) 191 159 158 96 771 252 633 200 252 Link Distance (ft) 239 239 239 646 646 646 391 Upstream Blk Time (%) 4 3 0 42 2 6 Queuing Penalty (veh) 8 6 1 296 15 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 175 125 Storage Blk Time (%) 7 4 10 21 Queuing Penalty (veh) 15 4 53 111 Queuing and Blocking Report 2023 AM -- without project with Int1 imp no ETL 01/18/2020 Cedar River Apartments SimTraffic Report BPJ; William Popp Associates Page 3 Intersection: 4: Cedar River Park Dr & SR 169 Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB WB NB NB Directions Served T T TR L T T T L R Maximum Queue (ft) 138 156 47 186 380 381 279 101 30 Average Queue (ft) 23 30 7 32 338 194 66 35 5 95th Queue (ft) 79 94 30 148 499 431 228 80 23 Link Distance (ft) 646 646 646 362 362 362 588 Upstream Blk Time (%) 46 4 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 325 26 2 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 200 200 Storage Blk Time (%) 70 Queuing Penalty (veh) 9 Intersection: 5: Site East Access & SR 169 Movement WB WB WB B8 B8 NB Directions Served T T T T T R Maximum Queue (ft) 181 121 29 7634 7664 31 Average Queue (ft) 130 8 4 3244 3275 15 95th Queue (ft) 213 50 36 7455 7497 39 Link Distance (ft) 76 76 76 24900 24900 378 Upstream Blk Time (%) 68 1 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Zone Summary Zone wide Queuing Penalty: 2273 SimTraffic Performance Report 2023 AM -- with project with Int1 imp no ETL 01/18/2020 Cedar River Apartments SimTraffic Report BPJ; William Popp Associates Page 1 1: I-405 SB On-Ramp/Sunset Blvd & Bronson Way/SR 169 Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBL SBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.1 0.1 0.1 9.4 6.5 7.1 725.4 709.1 697.3 282.5 Total Del/Veh (s) 66.2 54.8 3.2 122.4 39.4 20.1 347.2 615.7 109.4 155.2 2: I-405 NB Off-Ramp/I-405 NB On-Ramp & SR 169 Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR NBR SBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 7.4 0.0 0.0 0.9 Total Del/Veh (s) 32.4 29.0 31.2 73.8 20.4 33.6 88.0 45.1 3: SR 169 & Shari's Driveway Performance by movement Movement EBU EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.5 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s) 269.1 162.4 13.9 77.5 71.6 100.5 123.1 67.4 4: Cedar River Park Dr & SR 169 Performance by movement Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 3.9 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s) 9.5 3.0 108.1 42.6 74.4 5.8 37.0 5: Site East Access & SR 169 Performance by movement Movement EBT EBR WBT NBR All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s) 1.5 0.8 13.4 3.3 10.6 Total Zone Performance Denied Del/Veh (s) 397.6 Total Del/Veh (s) 1959.6 Queuing and Blocking Report 2023 AM -- with project with Int1 imp no ETL 01/18/2020 Cedar River Apartments SimTraffic Report BPJ; William Popp Associates Page 2 Intersection: 1: I-405 SB On-Ramp/Sunset Blvd & Bronson Way/SR 169 Movement EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB SB SB SB SB Directions Served L L T TR L LT T R L LT TR R Maximum Queue (ft) 309 282 132 120 325 360 366 362 585 1314 1314 1324 Average Queue (ft) 197 188 61 44 316 344 275 253 562 1243 1234 1218 95th Queue (ft) 277 264 109 93 345 372 408 399 730 1504 1513 1537 Link Distance (ft) 1916 1916 1916 1916 340 340 340 1272 1272 1272 Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 39 7 3 83 83 55 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 317 57 20 0 0 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 300 560 Storage Blk Time (%) 22 52 0 93 Queuing Penalty (veh) 162 222 1 149 Intersection: 2: I-405 NB Off-Ramp/I-405 NB On-Ramp & SR 169 Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB WB NB SB Directions Served L T T T T T R R R Maximum Queue (ft) 94 189 187 253 242 251 254 233 778 Average Queue (ft) 12 33 35 242 114 175 210 55 464 95th Queue (ft) 52 174 178 261 235 297 322 295 853 Link Distance (ft) 340 340 239 239 239 239 450 692 Upstream Blk Time (%) 1 1 46 1 9 30 8 18 Queuing Penalty (veh) 2 2 273 6 56 176 0 98 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 150 Storage Blk Time (%) 7 Queuing Penalty (veh) 1 Intersection: 3: SR 169 & Shari's Driveway Movement EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB SB Directions Served UL T T T T T T TR LR Maximum Queue (ft) 188 224 213 221 663 318 664 150 180 Average Queue (ft) 135 84 86 62 638 89 495 130 77 95th Queue (ft) 223 274 275 256 760 230 849 205 200 Link Distance (ft) 239 239 239 646 646 646 391 Upstream Blk Time (%) 16 17 8 37 0 11 1 Queuing Penalty (veh) 40 42 21 279 0 85 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 175 125 Storage Blk Time (%) 30 18 14 46 Queuing Penalty (veh) 74 17 77 258 Queuing and Blocking Report 2023 AM -- with project with Int1 imp no ETL 01/18/2020 Cedar River Apartments SimTraffic Report BPJ; William Popp Associates Page 3 Intersection: 4: Cedar River Park Dr & SR 169 Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB WB NB NB Directions Served T T TR L T T T L R Maximum Queue (ft) 240 267 205 225 380 382 382 264 69 Average Queue (ft) 59 76 30 77 342 219 217 138 9 95th Queue (ft) 181 198 139 229 479 462 459 239 45 Link Distance (ft) 646 646 646 362 362 362 588 Upstream Blk Time (%) 44 4 11 Queuing Penalty (veh) 310 31 76 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 200 200 Storage Blk Time (%) 71 6 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 23 1 0 Intersection: 5: Site East Access & SR 169 Movement WB WB WB B8 B8 NB Directions Served T T T T T R Maximum Queue (ft) 182 129 152 8123 8147 31 Average Queue (ft) 128 18 50 3321 3344 15 95th Queue (ft) 217 82 159 7951 7990 40 Link Distance (ft) 76 76 76 25153 25153 378 Upstream Blk Time (%) 66 1 17 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Zone Summary Zone wide Queuing Penalty: 2877 SimTraffic Performance Report 2023 AM -- without project 01/15/2020 Cedar River Apartments SimTraffic Report BPJ; William Popp Associates Page 1 1: I-405 SB On-Ramp/Sunset Blvd & Bronson Way/SR 169 Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBL SBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.1 0.1 0.1 1.9 1.2 1.9 0.6 0.2 0.2 1.0 Total Del/Veh (s) 92.6 52.6 3.5 45.7 27.8 25.3 36.0 47.6 10.0 39.5 2: I-405 NB Off-Ramp/I-405 NB On-Ramp & SR 169 Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR NBR SBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s) 10.2 1.5 19.3 4.1 2.4 78.3 161.8 34.6 3: SR 169 & Shari's Driveway Performance by movement Movement EBU EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 4.0 0.1 Total Del/Veh (s) 63.6 60.3 4.7 12.1 7.9 88.4 69.4 13.1 4: Cedar River Park Dr & SR 169 Performance by movement Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 4.4 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s) 4.5 1.0 50.8 2.4 43.4 4.7 3.6 5: Site East Access & SR 169 Performance by movement Movement EBT EBR WBT NBR All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s) 0.8 0.7 0.5 3.3 0.6 Total Zone Performance Denied Del/Veh (s) 1.7 Total Del/Veh (s) 1138.2 Queuing and Blocking Report 2023 AM -- without project 01/15/2020 Cedar River Apartments SimTraffic Report BPJ; William Popp Associates Page 2 Intersection: 1: I-405 SB On-Ramp/Sunset Blvd & Bronson Way/SR 169 Movement EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB SB SB SB SB Directions Served L L T TR L LT T R L LT TR R Maximum Queue (ft) 338 340 120 101 314 353 353 359 443 523 472 420 Average Queue (ft) 235 228 57 38 219 245 224 285 242 361 354 188 95th Queue (ft) 356 350 101 83 298 324 332 402 396 482 462 470 Link Distance (ft) 1916 1916 1916 1916 340 340 340 1272 1272 1272 Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 0 1 4 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 1 7 30 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 300 560 Storage Blk Time (%) 1 2 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 6 10 0 Intersection: 2: I-405 NB Off-Ramp/I-405 NB On-Ramp & SR 169 Movement EB EB WB WB WB WB SB Directions Served L T T T T R R Maximum Queue (ft) 36 6 245 236 245 116 808 Average Queue (ft) 9 0 211 100 185 56 688 95th Queue (ft) 32 4 278 197 284 97 969 Link Distance (ft) 340 229 229 229 229 692 Upstream Blk Time (%) 11 0 8 52 Queuing Penalty (veh) 60 1 44 290 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 150 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 3: SR 169 & Shari's Driveway Movement EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB SB SB Directions Served UL T T T T T T TR L R Maximum Queue (ft) 171 202 129 52 454 179 547 150 203 51 Average Queue (ft) 104 22 26 7 216 63 169 97 52 39 95th Queue (ft) 170 109 83 34 387 137 387 185 160 57 Link Distance (ft) 229 229 229 641 641 641 390 Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 1 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 175 125 25 Storage Blk Time (%) 1 1 9 1 6 49 Queuing Penalty (veh) 2 1 49 4 4 1 Queuing and Blocking Report 2023 AM -- without project 01/15/2020 Cedar River Apartments SimTraffic Report BPJ; William Popp Associates Page 3 Intersection: 4: Cedar River Park Dr & SR 169 Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB WB NB NB Directions Served T T TR L T T T L R Maximum Queue (ft) 174 194 131 72 154 88 170 95 29 Average Queue (ft) 26 39 12 16 45 17 59 32 5 95th Queue (ft) 111 130 65 48 116 55 142 73 22 Link Distance (ft) 641 641 641 356 356 356 587 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 200 200 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 5: Site East Access & SR 169 Movement NB Directions Served R Maximum Queue (ft) 40 Average Queue (ft) 13 95th Queue (ft) 38 Link Distance (ft) 378 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Zone Summary Zone wide Queuing Penalty: 511 SimTraffic Performance Report 2023 AM -- with project 01/16/2020 Cedar River Apartments SimTraffic Report BPJ; William Popp Associates Page 1 1: I-405 SB On-Ramp/Sunset Blvd & Bronson Way/SR 169 Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBL SBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.1 0.1 0.1 7.6 6.8 7.7 0.6 0.2 0.2 3.9 Total Del/Veh (s) 79.3 50.8 4.0 49.8 31.9 29.5 37.3 53.8 11.9 41.8 2: I-405 NB Off-Ramp/I-405 NB On-Ramp & SR 169 Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR NBR SBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 4.4 0.6 Total Del/Veh (s) 14.2 1.6 22.8 4.6 2.5 107.3 211.9 40.7 3: SR 169 & Shari's Driveway Performance by movement Movement EBU EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 40.6 53.2 1.0 Total Del/Veh (s) 84.2 73.4 7.1 22.4 20.1 472.9 493.9 29.2 4: Cedar River Park Dr & SR 169 Performance by movement Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 3.7 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s) 9.1 3.9 69.4 7.9 101.3 39.0 13.6 5: Site East Access & SR 169 Performance by movement Movement EBT EBR WBT NBR All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s) 1.3 1.0 1.3 3.1 1.3 Total Zone Performance Denied Del/Veh (s) 7.7 Total Del/Veh (s) 1517.3 Queuing and Blocking Report 2023 AM -- with project 01/16/2020 Cedar River Apartments SimTraffic Report BPJ; William Popp Associates Page 2 Intersection: 1: I-405 SB On-Ramp/Sunset Blvd & Bronson Way/SR 169 Movement EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB SB SB SB SB Directions Served L L T TR L LT T R L LT TR R Maximum Queue (ft) 317 312 112 122 316 344 353 361 538 604 730 543 Average Queue (ft) 215 205 56 47 247 282 257 323 301 407 409 260 95th Queue (ft) 310 299 101 98 330 364 360 407 491 562 631 559 Link Distance (ft) 1916 1916 1916 1916 340 340 340 1272 1272 1272 Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 4 1 7 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 34 12 54 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 300 560 Storage Blk Time (%) 3 11 1 Queuing Penalty (veh) 25 47 2 Intersection: 2: I-405 NB Off-Ramp/I-405 NB On-Ramp & SR 169 Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB WB SB Directions Served L T T T T T R R Maximum Queue (ft) 40 5 5 244 234 249 138 815 Average Queue (ft) 8 0 0 217 96 218 67 771 95th Queue (ft) 31 4 3 282 195 281 115 864 Link Distance (ft) 340 340 229 229 229 229 692 Upstream Blk Time (%) 18 0 20 77 Queuing Penalty (veh) 106 2 119 426 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 150 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 3: SR 169 & Shari's Driveway Movement EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB SB SB Directions Served UL T T T T T T TR L R Maximum Queue (ft) 170 177 167 78 518 269 616 150 364 50 Average Queue (ft) 113 51 62 25 294 90 360 116 209 41 95th Queue (ft) 179 142 145 68 523 194 694 199 446 58 Link Distance (ft) 229 229 229 641 641 641 390 Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 0 1 3 18 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 5 20 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 175 125 25 Storage Blk Time (%) 1 1 22 2 5 83 Queuing Penalty (veh) 2 1 128 12 3 2 Queuing and Blocking Report 2023 AM -- with project 01/16/2020 Cedar River Apartments SimTraffic Report BPJ; William Popp Associates Page 3 Intersection: 4: Cedar River Park Dr & SR 169 Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB WB NB NB Directions Served T T TR L T T T L R Maximum Queue (ft) 151 168 106 117 293 185 331 303 109 Average Queue (ft) 62 82 38 38 128 58 181 172 16 95th Queue (ft) 135 152 86 92 244 155 340 352 95 Link Distance (ft) 641 641 641 356 356 356 587 Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 2 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 18 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 200 200 Storage Blk Time (%) 1 15 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 1 1 0 Intersection: 5: Site East Access & SR 169 Movement WB WB WB B8 B8 NB Directions Served T T T T T R Maximum Queue (ft) 6 21 60 183 230 40 Average Queue (ft) 0 1 16 24 39 14 95th Queue (ft) 4 17 90 237 311 39 Link Distance (ft) 83 83 83 6508 6508 378 Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 3 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Zone Summary Zone wide Queuing Penalty: 1021 SimTraffic Performance Report 2023 AM -- without project -- Queue test Int4 01/23/2020 Cedar River Apartments SimTraffic Report BPJ; William Popp Associates Page 1 1: I-405 SB On-Ramp/Sunset Blvd & Bronson Way/SR 169 Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBL SBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.1 0.1 0.1 4.4 1.5 4.4 0.6 0.2 0.2 2.0 Total Del/Veh (s) 84.2 53.5 3.5 47.9 27.7 26.7 35.0 47.0 10.1 39.3 2: I-405 NB Off-Ramp/I-405 NB On-Ramp & SR 169 Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR NBR SBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 1.3 0.2 Total Del/Veh (s) 11.4 1.4 20.4 4.4 2.4 74.0 155.1 34.1 3: SR 169 & Shari's Driveway Performance by movement Movement EBU EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 16.0 0.3 Total Del/Veh (s) 69.3 60.9 5.4 18.6 17.1 185.2 142.0 19.2 4: Cedar River Park Dr & SR 169 Performance by movement Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.0 2.1 1.7 0.1 4.5 0.1 1.3 Total Del/Veh (s) 5.1 3.7 65.1 17.6 81.8 5.7 28.4 15.8 Total Zone Performance Denied Del/Veh (s) 2.9 Total Del/Veh (s) 435.9 Queuing and Blocking Report 2023 AM -- without project -- Queue test Int4 01/23/2020 Cedar River Apartments SimTraffic Report BPJ; William Popp Associates Page 2 Intersection: 1: I-405 SB On-Ramp/Sunset Blvd & Bronson Way/SR 169 Movement EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB SB SB SB SB Directions Served L L T TR L LT T R L LT TR R Maximum Queue (ft) 327 316 121 117 320 336 344 363 448 518 511 474 Average Queue (ft) 224 211 57 35 231 253 225 305 245 361 352 182 95th Queue (ft) 326 313 103 85 316 336 329 402 421 491 485 474 Link Distance (ft) 1916 1916 1916 1916 340 340 340 1272 1272 1272 Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 1 0 5 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 8 3 36 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 300 560 Storage Blk Time (%) 1 4 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 9 18 0 Intersection: 2: I-405 NB Off-Ramp/I-405 NB On-Ramp & SR 169 Movement EB WB WB WB WB SB Directions Served L T T T R R Maximum Queue (ft) 45 247 236 248 148 801 Average Queue (ft) 8 212 106 199 63 663 95th Queue (ft) 34 280 216 294 113 948 Link Distance (ft) 229 229 229 229 692 Upstream Blk Time (%) 13 1 12 47 Queuing Penalty (veh) 75 4 66 262 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 150 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 3: SR 169 & Shari's Driveway Movement EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB SB SB Directions Served UL T T T T T T TR L R Maximum Queue (ft) 160 160 162 83 527 267 609 150 181 50 Average Queue (ft) 107 20 22 21 279 77 245 102 63 38 95th Queue (ft) 165 98 94 65 563 185 558 188 233 56 Link Distance (ft) 229 229 229 641 641 641 390 Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 0 4 1 5 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 27 5 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 175 125 25 Storage Blk Time (%) 0 1 14 1 4 49 Queuing Penalty (veh) 1 1 78 7 2 1 Queuing and Blocking Report 2023 AM -- without project -- Queue test Int4 01/23/2020 Cedar River Apartments SimTraffic Report BPJ; William Popp Associates Page 3 Intersection: 4: Cedar River Park Dr & SR 169 Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB WB NB NB SB Directions Served T T TR L T T TR L R LTR Maximum Queue (ft) 151 182 198 90 460 403 275 147 31 18 Average Queue (ft) 20 26 38 13 135 103 101 45 5 1 95th Queue (ft) 84 107 127 52 618 602 278 116 24 10 Link Distance (ft) 641 641 641 3818 3818 587 274 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 200 500 200 Storage Blk Time (%) 6 0 0 1 Queuing Penalty (veh) 1 0 3 0 Zone Summary Zone wide Queuing Penalty: 609 SimTraffic Performance Report 2023 AM -- with project - Q test Int4 01/23/2020 Cedar River Apartments SimTraffic Report BPJ; William Popp Associates Page 1 1: I-405 SB On-Ramp/Sunset Blvd & Bronson Way/SR 169 Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBL SBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.1 0.1 0.1 11.8 9.2 11.6 0.6 0.2 0.2 5.8 Total Del/Veh (s) 85.7 51.8 3.6 48.0 28.8 30.6 38.3 50.7 11.2 41.2 2: I-405 NB Off-Ramp/I-405 NB On-Ramp & SR 169 Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR NBR SBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.0 2.5 0.4 Total Del/Veh (s) 9.9 1.6 23.6 4.7 2.5 101.3 199.6 39.4 3: SR 169 & Shari's Driveway Performance by movement Movement EBU EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 78.6 171.3 2.9 Total Del/Veh (s) 97.0 96.2 7.9 26.1 25.9 503.7 805.4 35.6 4: Cedar River Park Dr & SR 169 Performance by movement Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBR SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.0 1.5 1.3 1.0 0.3 3.9 0.1 1.0 Total Del/Veh (s) 10.4 8.0 78.5 25.1 13.8 89.0 25.7 64.3 25.6 Total Zone Performance Denied Del/Veh (s) 7.8 Total Del/Veh (s) 531.9 Queuing and Blocking Report 2023 AM -- with project - Q test Int4 01/23/2020 Cedar River Apartments SimTraffic Report BPJ; William Popp Associates Page 2 Intersection: 1: I-405 SB On-Ramp/Sunset Blvd & Bronson Way/SR 169 Movement EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB SB SB SB SB Directions Served L L T TR L LT T R L LT TR R Maximum Queue (ft) 334 337 118 109 305 328 343 363 478 570 563 479 Average Queue (ft) 220 210 62 42 238 258 241 332 263 382 380 242 95th Queue (ft) 327 323 105 89 306 320 341 398 443 527 520 516 Link Distance (ft) 1916 1916 1916 1916 340 340 340 1272 1272 1272 Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 0 1 7 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 4 57 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 300 560 Storage Blk Time (%) 1 3 1 Queuing Penalty (veh) 9 12 1 Intersection: 2: I-405 NB Off-Ramp/I-405 NB On-Ramp & SR 169 Movement EB EB WB WB WB WB SB Directions Served L T T T T R R Maximum Queue (ft) 46 6 245 231 248 124 806 Average Queue (ft) 7 1 210 86 219 68 749 95th Queue (ft) 30 7 283 182 282 116 918 Link Distance (ft) 340 229 229 229 229 692 Upstream Blk Time (%) 18 0 25 70 Queuing Penalty (veh) 110 1 149 389 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 150 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 3: SR 169 & Shari's Driveway Movement EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB SB SB Directions Served UL T T T T T T TR L R Maximum Queue (ft) 180 210 200 166 567 270 658 150 410 51 Average Queue (ft) 125 65 57 59 341 115 428 121 269 39 95th Queue (ft) 190 174 142 126 582 226 766 201 475 55 Link Distance (ft) 229 229 229 641 641 641 390 Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 0 0 1 4 34 Queuing Penalty (veh) 1 1 0 4 32 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 175 125 25 Storage Blk Time (%) 4 2 25 3 12 93 Queuing Penalty (veh) 9 2 144 18 7 3 Queuing and Blocking Report 2023 AM -- with project - Q test Int4 01/23/2020 Cedar River Apartments SimTraffic Report BPJ; William Popp Associates Page 3 Intersection: 4: Cedar River Park Dr & SR 169 Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB WB NB NB SB Directions Served T T TR L T T TR L R LTR Maximum Queue (ft) 141 176 208 129 410 648 492 366 70 18 Average Queue (ft) 47 67 91 38 155 149 249 172 10 2 95th Queue (ft) 109 137 161 87 322 528 498 328 65 12 Link Distance (ft) 641 641 641 5558 5558 587 129 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 200 500 200 Storage Blk Time (%) 3 0 4 14 Queuing Penalty (veh) 1 0 28 1 Zone Summary Zone wide Queuing Penalty: 983 SimTraffic Performance Report 2023 AM -- with project with dual NBLT Int4 01/20/2020 Cedar River Apartments SimTraffic Report BPJ; William Popp Associates Page 1 1: I-405 SB On-Ramp/Sunset Blvd & Bronson Way/SR 169 Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBL SBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.1 0.1 0.1 4.8 1.8 3.5 0.6 0.2 0.2 1.9 Total Del/Veh (s) 81.4 53.5 3.7 46.9 29.9 25.0 38.3 50.3 10.5 39.6 2: I-405 NB Off-Ramp/I-405 NB On-Ramp & SR 169 Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR NBR SBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 2.0 0.3 Total Del/Veh (s) 13.0 1.5 20.1 4.4 2.6 80.5 165.9 34.7 3: SR 169 & Shari's Driveway Performance by movement Movement EBU EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 26.6 36.2 0.7 Total Del/Veh (s) 76.3 67.4 5.5 15.7 9.2 193.7 178.3 18.0 4: Cedar River Park Dr & SR 169 Performance by movement Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBR SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.0 1.7 1.3 1.9 1.7 0.3 1.0 Total Del/Veh (s) 6.9 6.6 75.9 17.2 23.4 61.0 41.8 17.8 Total Zone Performance Denied Del/Veh (s) 3.0 Total Del/Veh (s) 432.6 Queuing and Blocking Report 2023 AM -- with project with dual NBLT Int4 01/20/2020 Cedar River Apartments SimTraffic Report BPJ; William Popp Associates Page 2 Intersection: 1: I-405 SB On-Ramp/Sunset Blvd & Bronson Way/SR 169 Movement EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB SB SB SB SB Directions Served L L T TR L LT T R L LT TR R Maximum Queue (ft) 342 332 120 116 313 341 344 358 451 538 506 453 Average Queue (ft) 218 207 58 41 227 261 260 290 256 380 372 225 95th Queue (ft) 317 308 102 87 292 335 358 401 424 512 492 497 Link Distance (ft) 1916 1916 1916 1916 340 340 340 1272 1272 1272 Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 0 1 3 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 4 10 23 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 300 560 Storage Blk Time (%) 0 2 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 1 10 0 Intersection: 2: I-405 NB Off-Ramp/I-405 NB On-Ramp & SR 169 Movement EB WB WB WB WB SB Directions Served L T T T R R Maximum Queue (ft) 56 245 222 247 138 810 Average Queue (ft) 10 209 92 196 66 717 95th Queue (ft) 37 275 179 285 112 948 Link Distance (ft) 229 229 229 229 692 Upstream Blk Time (%) 11 0 13 56 Queuing Penalty (veh) 67 1 78 313 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 150 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 3: SR 169 & Shari's Driveway Movement EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB SB SB Directions Served UL T T T T T T TR L R Maximum Queue (ft) 175 196 157 121 479 217 576 150 237 55 Average Queue (ft) 111 33 32 39 249 83 250 115 98 40 95th Queue (ft) 181 121 110 101 441 165 544 195 286 57 Link Distance (ft) 229 229 229 640 640 640 390 Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 0 0 1 8 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 1 5 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 175 125 25 Storage Blk Time (%) 1 1 14 2 5 62 Queuing Penalty (veh) 4 1 80 9 3 2 Queuing and Blocking Report 2023 AM -- with project with dual NBLT Int4 01/20/2020 Cedar River Apartments SimTraffic Report BPJ; William Popp Associates Page 3 Intersection: 4: Cedar River Park Dr & SR 169 Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB WB NB NB SB Directions Served T T TR L T T TR L LTR LTR Maximum Queue (ft) 146 159 192 99 227 112 332 144 175 6 Average Queue (ft) 29 46 71 34 101 44 136 60 97 0 95th Queue (ft) 95 120 150 74 197 97 264 118 160 4 Link Distance (ft) 640 640 640 5558 5558 586 129 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 200 500 200 Storage Blk Time (%) 0 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 Zone Summary Zone wide Queuing Penalty: 613 SimTraffic Performance Report 2029 AM -- without project 01/15/2020 Cedar River Apartments SimTraffic Report BPJ; William Popp Associates Page 1 1: I-405 SB On-Ramp/Sunset Blvd & Bronson Way/SR 169 Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBL SBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.1 0.1 0.1 4.9 4.4 4.9 0.7 0.3 0.2 2.5 Total Del/Veh (s) 112.9 53.9 3.3 50.8 29.4 28.3 38.6 52.8 11.9 44.7 2: I-405 NB Off-Ramp/I-405 NB On-Ramp & SR 169 Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR NBR SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 59.2 7.8 Total Del/Veh (s) 11.5 1.8 21.7 4.4 2.7 213.0 40.9 3: SR 169 & Shari's Driveway Performance by movement Movement EBU EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 249.4 253.5 5.2 Total Del/Veh (s) 92.0 87.1 6.9 22.0 15.0 704.1 466.6 28.7 4: Cedar River Park Dr & SR 169 Performance by movement Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 4.2 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s) 6.5 2.0 50.0 6.3 47.1 4.5 7.0 5: Site East Access & SR 169 Performance by movement Movement EBT EBR WBT NBR All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s) 1.1 0.7 1.5 4.0 1.4 Total Zone Performance Denied Del/Veh (s) 18.6 Total Del/Veh (s) 1651.4 Queuing and Blocking Report 2029 AM -- without project 01/15/2020 Cedar River Apartments SimTraffic Report BPJ; William Popp Associates Page 2 Intersection: 1: I-405 SB On-Ramp/Sunset Blvd & Bronson Way/SR 169 Movement EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB SB SB SB SB Directions Served L L T TR L LT T R L LT TR R Maximum Queue (ft) 387 377 131 124 314 342 353 362 510 568 712 529 Average Queue (ft) 272 261 62 38 254 281 245 312 277 402 408 271 95th Queue (ft) 393 382 109 90 338 362 358 407 461 536 621 544 Link Distance (ft) 1916 1916 1916 1916 340 340 340 1272 1272 1272 Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 5 2 5 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 39 13 44 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 300 560 Storage Blk Time (%) 3 12 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 25 54 1 Intersection: 2: I-405 NB Off-Ramp/I-405 NB On-Ramp & SR 169 Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB WB NB SB Directions Served L T T T T T R R R Maximum Queue (ft) 61 18 14 245 218 246 142 37 812 Average Queue (ft) 10 1 1 212 94 198 62 1 783 95th Queue (ft) 37 13 14 283 187 295 111 26 802 Link Distance (ft) 340 340 229 229 229 229 450 692 Upstream Blk Time (%) 16 0 15 81 Queuing Penalty (veh) 96 1 89 448 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 150 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 3: SR 169 & Shari's Driveway Movement EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB SB SB Directions Served UL T T T T T T TR L R Maximum Queue (ft) 193 219 201 119 517 282 586 150 294 51 Average Queue (ft) 123 57 65 21 320 99 341 121 185 40 95th Queue (ft) 185 175 164 84 596 218 676 199 446 59 Link Distance (ft) 229 229 229 641 641 641 390 Upstream Blk Time (%) 1 1 0 2 2 26 Queuing Penalty (veh) 2 2 1 19 17 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 175 125 25 Storage Blk Time (%) 3 3 19 2 4 73 Queuing Penalty (veh) 8 3 108 12 3 2 Queuing and Blocking Report 2029 AM -- without project 01/15/2020 Cedar River Apartments SimTraffic Report BPJ; William Popp Associates Page 3 Intersection: 4: Cedar River Park Dr & SR 169 Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB WB NB NB Directions Served T T TR L T T T L R Maximum Queue (ft) 203 222 134 91 209 205 300 99 31 Average Queue (ft) 41 56 14 19 86 36 123 34 8 95th Queue (ft) 150 163 74 68 236 145 306 73 30 Link Distance (ft) 641 641 641 356 356 356 587 Upstream Blk Time (%) 2 0 2 Queuing Penalty (veh) 15 1 12 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 200 200 Storage Blk Time (%) 4 Queuing Penalty (veh) 1 Intersection: 5: Site East Access & SR 169 Movement WB WB WB B8 B8 NB Directions Served T T T T T R Maximum Queue (ft) 38 35 95 235 411 18 Average Queue (ft) 9 7 16 21 52 1 95th Queue (ft) 71 44 92 175 338 10 Link Distance (ft) 83 83 83 6508 6508 378 Upstream Blk Time (%) 3 0 3 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Zone Summary Zone wide Queuing Penalty: 1014 SimTraffic Performance Report 2029 AM -- without project - Q test 01/19/2020 Cedar River Apartments SimTraffic Report BPJ; William Popp Associates Page 1 1: I-405 SB On-Ramp/Sunset Blvd & Bronson Way/SR 169 Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBL SBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.1 0.1 0.1 6.3 7.3 7.3 0.6 0.3 0.2 3.6 Total Del/Veh (s) 130.9 54.3 3.8 48.3 28.2 28.3 37.9 52.8 11.7 45.7 2: I-405 NB Off-Ramp/I-405 NB On-Ramp & SR 169 Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR NBR SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 47.5 6.1 Total Del/Veh (s) 11.2 1.6 21.3 4.4 2.6 212.5 40.4 3: SR 169 & Shari's Driveway Performance by movement Movement EBU EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 37.5 0.8 Total Del/Veh (s) 80.3 74.5 6.4 19.2 18.9 240.2 324.4 24.6 4: Cedar River Park Dr & SR 169 Performance by movement Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.0 1.8 1.9 0.1 4.1 0.1 1.4 Total Del/Veh (s) 3.6 3.2 59.6 11.8 48.5 5.2 18.5 10.5 Total Zone Performance Denied Del/Veh (s) 8.8 Total Del/Veh (s) 493.8 Queuing and Blocking Report 2029 AM -- without project - Q test 01/19/2020 Cedar River Apartments SimTraffic Report BPJ; William Popp Associates Page 2 Intersection: 1: I-405 SB On-Ramp/Sunset Blvd & Bronson Way/SR 169 Movement EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB SB SB SB SB Directions Served L L T TR L LT T R L LT TR R Maximum Queue (ft) 457 446 119 134 319 343 352 361 512 573 559 665 Average Queue (ft) 298 292 64 43 242 265 240 312 283 407 400 264 95th Queue (ft) 494 487 105 93 311 334 347 411 470 536 515 571 Link Distance (ft) 1916 1916 1916 1916 340 340 340 1272 1272 1272 Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 0 1 5 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 3 10 44 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 300 560 Storage Blk Time (%) 2 5 0 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 15 20 0 0 Intersection: 2: I-405 NB Off-Ramp/I-405 NB On-Ramp & SR 169 Movement EB EB WB WB WB WB SB Directions Served L T T T T R R Maximum Queue (ft) 49 10 244 206 248 137 816 Average Queue (ft) 10 0 206 99 200 60 782 95th Queue (ft) 36 7 284 189 289 103 811 Link Distance (ft) 340 229 229 229 229 692 Upstream Blk Time (%) 13 0 16 79 Queuing Penalty (veh) 79 0 96 440 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 150 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 3: SR 169 & Shari's Driveway Movement EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB SB SB Directions Served UL T T T T T T TR L R Maximum Queue (ft) 178 206 175 141 550 368 651 150 346 51 Average Queue (ft) 113 46 44 45 297 98 319 111 175 40 95th Queue (ft) 169 138 129 110 518 229 634 196 420 58 Link Distance (ft) 229 229 229 641 641 641 390 Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 0 0 0 1 14 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 1 0 1 11 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 175 125 25 Storage Blk Time (%) 1 1 17 3 6 75 Queuing Penalty (veh) 3 1 95 16 4 2 Queuing and Blocking Report 2029 AM -- without project - Q test 01/19/2020 Cedar River Apartments SimTraffic Report BPJ; William Popp Associates Page 3 Intersection: 4: Cedar River Park Dr & SR 169 Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB WB NB NB SB Directions Served T T TR L T T TR L R LTR Maximum Queue (ft) 109 133 154 72 210 826 280 77 31 12 Average Queue (ft) 16 24 37 14 60 48 92 33 8 1 95th Queue (ft) 64 79 101 47 148 543 235 70 30 8 Link Distance (ft) 641 641 641 3673 3673 587 285 Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 200 500 200 Storage Blk Time (%) 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 Zone Summary Zone wide Queuing Penalty: 842 SimTraffic Performance Report 2029 AM -- with project 01/15/2020 Cedar River Apartments SimTraffic Report BPJ; William Popp Associates Page 1 1: I-405 SB On-Ramp/Sunset Blvd & Bronson Way/SR 169 Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBL SBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.1 0.1 0.1 14.4 14.0 20.7 0.6 0.2 0.2 8.5 Total Del/Veh (s) 127.6 52.6 4.1 47.8 31.1 32.0 41.8 57.0 13.6 47.7 2: I-405 NB Off-Ramp/I-405 NB On-Ramp & SR 169 Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR NBR SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 43.9 5.3 Total Del/Veh (s) 9.1 1.8 24.3 5.0 2.7 223.2 41.4 3: SR 169 & Shari's Driveway Performance by movement Movement EBU EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 134.2 239.2 4.3 Total Del/Veh (s) 87.6 95.2 7.9 25.1 20.4 266.3 594.5 31.9 4: Cedar River Park Dr & SR 169 Performance by movement Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 3.8 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s) 12.4 4.7 67.2 10.9 118.4 32.8 17.4 5: Site East Access & SR 169 Performance by movement Movement EBT EBR WBT NBR All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s) 1.7 1.2 2.2 4.6 2.1 Total Zone Performance Denied Del/Veh (s) 23.5 Total Del/Veh (s) 1680.9 Queuing and Blocking Report 2029 AM -- with project 01/15/2020 Cedar River Apartments SimTraffic Report BPJ; William Popp Associates Page 2 Intersection: 1: I-405 SB On-Ramp/Sunset Blvd & Bronson Way/SR 169 Movement EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB SB SB SB SB Directions Served L L T TR L LT T R L LT TR R Maximum Queue (ft) 432 424 136 144 324 342 354 363 533 877 981 555 Average Queue (ft) 297 288 62 51 242 269 260 340 318 437 431 297 95th Queue (ft) 446 444 110 105 315 341 366 380 494 656 677 574 Link Distance (ft) 1916 1916 1916 1916 340 340 340 1272 1272 1272 Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 0 1 8 0 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 2 12 65 0 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 300 560 Storage Blk Time (%) 1 6 0 2 Queuing Penalty (veh) 9 25 0 3 Intersection: 2: I-405 NB Off-Ramp/I-405 NB On-Ramp & SR 169 Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB WB SB Directions Served L T T T T T R R Maximum Queue (ft) 33 10 29 243 211 246 150 803 Average Queue (ft) 7 0 1 221 94 225 72 776 95th Queue (ft) 27 7 16 272 180 272 127 832 Link Distance (ft) 340 340 229 229 229 229 692 Upstream Blk Time (%) 20 0 25 81 Queuing Penalty (veh) 127 0 158 449 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 150 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 3: SR 169 & Shari's Driveway Movement EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB SB SB Directions Served UL T T T T T T TR L R Maximum Queue (ft) 189 233 232 213 582 339 657 150 332 50 Average Queue (ft) 126 71 74 39 327 120 417 130 222 41 95th Queue (ft) 189 186 170 123 542 266 743 198 437 56 Link Distance (ft) 229 229 229 641 641 641 390 Upstream Blk Time (%) 1 1 0 0 5 25 Queuing Penalty (veh) 2 2 0 2 39 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 175 125 25 Storage Blk Time (%) 3 3 26 3 3 90 Queuing Penalty (veh) 9 3 157 18 2 3 Queuing and Blocking Report 2029 AM -- with project 01/15/2020 Cedar River Apartments SimTraffic Report BPJ; William Popp Associates Page 3 Intersection: 4: Cedar River Park Dr & SR 169 Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB WB NB NB Directions Served T T TR L T T T L R Maximum Queue (ft) 183 189 148 164 331 295 357 458 185 Average Queue (ft) 93 114 44 38 153 82 228 206 15 95th Queue (ft) 161 183 99 101 307 224 408 436 88 Link Distance (ft) 641 641 641 356 356 356 587 Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 0 7 2 Queuing Penalty (veh) 1 1 49 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 200 200 Storage Blk Time (%) 3 20 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 1 2 0 Intersection: 5: Site East Access & SR 169 Movement WB WB WB B8 B8 NB Directions Served T T T T T R Maximum Queue (ft) 36 50 133 469 624 31 Average Queue (ft) 2 5 43 89 157 14 95th Queue (ft) 19 37 153 650 843 39 Link Distance (ft) 83 83 83 6508 6508 378 Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 0 9 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Zone Summary Zone wide Queuing Penalty: 1142 SimTraffic Performance Report 2029 AM -- with project - east end Q test 01/23/2020 Cedar River Apartments SimTraffic Report BPJ; William Popp Associates Page 1 1: I-405 SB On-Ramp/Sunset Blvd & Bronson Way/SR 169 Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBL SBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.1 0.1 0.1 24.4 15.8 20.4 0.6 0.2 0.2 10.6 Total Del/Veh (s) 106.3 51.2 4.1 45.9 29.9 32.2 40.1 55.3 12.5 44.6 2: I-405 NB Off-Ramp/I-405 NB On-Ramp & SR 169 Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR NBR SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 40.2 4.8 Total Del/Veh (s) 10.1 1.8 25.0 4.6 2.6 227.9 42.2 3: SR 169 & Shari's Driveway Performance by movement Movement EBU EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 209.1 348.9 6.8 Total Del/Veh (s) 111.9 107.7 8.5 30.1 33.7 491.4 916.2 40.2 4: Cedar River Park Dr & SR 169 Performance by movement Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.0 2.3 1.9 10.8 19.7 0.1 2.0 Total Del/Veh (s) 12.2 10.4 72.6 24.3 170.6 86.0 24.2 29.5 Total Zone Performance Denied Del/Veh (s) 18.0 Total Del/Veh (s) 589.9 Queuing and Blocking Report 2029 AM -- with project - east end Q test 01/23/2020 Cedar River Apartments SimTraffic Report BPJ; William Popp Associates Page 2 Intersection: 1: I-405 SB On-Ramp/Sunset Blvd & Bronson Way/SR 169 Movement EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB SB SB SB SB Directions Served L L T TR L LT T R L LT TR R Maximum Queue (ft) 383 387 118 132 303 338 353 363 537 613 593 499 Average Queue (ft) 264 257 57 46 229 258 256 342 300 418 414 283 95th Queue (ft) 375 375 105 103 298 328 347 380 485 559 545 556 Link Distance (ft) 1916 1916 1916 1916 340 340 340 1272 1272 1272 Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 0 1 8 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 1 8 70 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 300 560 Storage Blk Time (%) 1 3 0 1 Queuing Penalty (veh) 10 12 0 2 Intersection: 2: I-405 NB Off-Ramp/I-405 NB On-Ramp & SR 169 Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB WB NB SB Directions Served L T T T T T R R R Maximum Queue (ft) 50 38 36 243 202 247 163 34 810 Average Queue (ft) 9 3 2 213 88 232 67 2 780 95th Queue (ft) 33 26 23 281 173 261 122 32 821 Link Distance (ft) 340 340 229 229 229 229 450 692 Upstream Blk Time (%) 19 0 32 82 Queuing Penalty (veh) 117 0 198 458 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 150 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 3: SR 169 & Shari's Driveway Movement EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB SB SB Directions Served UL T T T T T T TR L R Maximum Queue (ft) 196 241 258 248 554 464 662 150 412 51 Average Queue (ft) 131 86 80 68 315 118 533 131 292 41 95th Queue (ft) 197 220 208 162 538 286 818 199 516 52 Link Distance (ft) 229 229 229 641 641 641 390 Upstream Blk Time (%) 1 1 0 1 7 52 Queuing Penalty (veh) 4 3 1 7 59 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 175 125 25 Storage Blk Time (%) 6 5 33 2 2 94 Queuing Penalty (veh) 15 5 197 14 1 3 Queuing and Blocking Report 2029 AM -- with project - east end Q test 01/23/2020 Cedar River Apartments SimTraffic Report BPJ; William Popp Associates Page 3 Intersection: 4: Cedar River Park Dr & SR 169 Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB WB NB NB SB Directions Served T T TR L T T TR L R LTR Maximum Queue (ft) 138 173 202 99 541 754 523 438 185 18 Average Queue (ft) 59 85 108 33 176 196 300 249 20 2 95th Queue (ft) 117 155 177 79 395 646 553 546 112 12 Link Distance (ft) 641 641 641 3559 3559 587 136 Upstream Blk Time (%) 8 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 200 500 200 Storage Blk Time (%) 4 0 6 32 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 1 0 43 3 0 Zone Summary Zone wide Queuing Penalty: 1231 SimTraffic Performance Report 2029 AM -- with project with dual NBLT Int4 01/20/2020 Cedar River Apartments SimTraffic Report BPJ; William Popp Associates Page 1 1: I-405 SB On-Ramp/Sunset Blvd & Bronson Way/SR 169 Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBL SBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.1 0.1 0.1 7.2 6.1 7.1 0.6 0.3 0.2 3.6 Total Del/Veh (s) 134.5 53.3 3.9 47.9 31.6 29.1 41.1 56.0 12.5 47.4 2: I-405 NB Off-Ramp/I-405 NB On-Ramp & SR 169 Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR NBR SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 25.5 3.2 Total Del/Veh (s) 11.1 1.7 23.0 4.4 2.6 212.5 40.2 3: SR 169 & Shari's Driveway Performance by movement Movement EBU EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 171.4 87.1 1.8 Total Del/Veh (s) 97.0 87.2 7.5 22.5 23.1 736.1 504.7 29.7 4: Cedar River Park Dr & SR 169 Performance by movement Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.0 2.2 2.0 1.7 0.6 0.1 1.5 Total Del/Veh (s) 9.6 8.6 74.1 18.6 69.9 48.0 12.5 19.8 Total Zone Performance Denied Del/Veh (s) 7.4 Total Del/Veh (s) 528.2 Queuing and Blocking Report 2029 AM -- with project with dual NBLT Int4 01/20/2020 Cedar River Apartments SimTraffic Report BPJ; William Popp Associates Page 2 Intersection: 1: I-405 SB On-Ramp/Sunset Blvd & Bronson Way/SR 169 Movement EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB SB SB SB SB Directions Served L L T TR L LT T R L LT TR R Maximum Queue (ft) 485 486 138 137 310 343 356 363 560 616 598 549 Average Queue (ft) 305 293 63 42 243 275 273 318 309 420 410 295 95th Queue (ft) 523 507 114 98 305 342 364 403 502 573 553 569 Link Distance (ft) 1916 1916 1916 1916 340 340 340 1272 1272 1272 Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 0 2 5 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 2 16 44 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 300 560 Storage Blk Time (%) 1 4 0 1 Queuing Penalty (veh) 10 19 0 2 Intersection: 2: I-405 NB Off-Ramp/I-405 NB On-Ramp & SR 169 Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB WB SB Directions Served L T T T T T R R Maximum Queue (ft) 53 36 34 243 229 246 128 802 Average Queue (ft) 10 1 1 214 94 219 64 778 95th Queue (ft) 37 14 15 274 181 284 108 832 Link Distance (ft) 340 340 229 229 229 229 692 Upstream Blk Time (%) 17 0 24 78 Queuing Penalty (veh) 104 2 152 435 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 150 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 3: SR 169 & Shari's Driveway Movement EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB SB SB Directions Served UL T T T T T T TR L R Maximum Queue (ft) 192 242 228 244 510 303 656 150 394 50 Average Queue (ft) 124 67 59 63 288 102 405 127 220 39 95th Queue (ft) 189 183 162 157 475 224 719 203 445 56 Link Distance (ft) 229 229 229 640 640 640 390 Upstream Blk Time (%) 1 1 0 4 21 Queuing Penalty (veh) 2 2 1 29 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 175 125 25 Storage Blk Time (%) 3 3 25 4 13 87 Queuing Penalty (veh) 7 3 149 23 8 3 Queuing and Blocking Report 2029 AM -- with project with dual NBLT Int4 01/20/2020 Cedar River Apartments SimTraffic Report BPJ; William Popp Associates Page 3 Intersection: 4: Cedar River Park Dr & SR 169 Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB WB NB NB SB Directions Served T T TR L T T TR L LTR LTR Maximum Queue (ft) 130 171 198 146 630 784 496 171 219 6 Average Queue (ft) 48 68 91 38 149 135 199 65 100 1 95th Queue (ft) 105 136 167 96 509 632 442 131 182 7 Link Distance (ft) 640 640 640 3559 3559 586 136 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 200 500 200 Storage Blk Time (%) 1 0 3 0 2 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 25 0 1 Zone Summary Zone wide Queuing Penalty: 1039 APPENDIX D PM PEAK HOUR PORTION SIM TRAFFIC ANALYSES (DELAYS AND QUEUES) PM PEAK HOUR 1 Year 2023 without project without any network improvements 2 Year 2023 without project with dual WB lane at Intersection 1 and NB (HOV by- pass) and SB ramp improvements (two GP continuous plus one shoulder lane when metered) 3 same as #2 with project 4 same as #2 plus I-405 ETL project completion 5 same as #4 with project 6 same as #5 plus dual NB left with shared right at Intersection 4. 7 Year 2029 without project, includes network improvements noted above in #2 plus I-405 ETL project completion. 8 same as #7 with project 9 same as #8 plus dual NB left with shared right at Intersection 4. SimTraffic Performance Report 2023 PM without project without Int1 Imps or ETL 01/19/2020 Cedar River Apartments SimTraffic Report BPJ; William Popp Associates Page 1 1: Bronson Way/SR 169 & Sunset Blvd Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBL SBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s) 51.7 49.8 51.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 1101.8 1120.6 1119.1 580.5 Total Del/Veh (s) 628.1 277.5 223.9 156.8 47.2 23.0 241.4 318.3 30.0 242.7 2: I-405 NB Off-Ramp & SR 169 Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR NBR SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 2.1 0.6 Total Del/Veh (s) 33.6 2.9 63.8 9.0 5.2 63.6 29.0 3: SR 169 & Shari's Driveway Performance by movement Movement EBU EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 20.8 2.5 0.3 Total Del/Veh (s) 66.9 61.1 2.7 65.3 2.8 532.4 482.3 30.8 4: Cedar River Park Dr & SR 169 Performance by movement Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 62.7 36.8 2.1 Total Del/Veh (s) 4.0 1.1 94.6 19.6 353.3 29.7 15.0 5: Site East Access & SR 169 Performance by movement Movement EBT EBR WBT NBR All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s) 1.4 0.7 4.4 2.5 Total Zone Performance Denied Del/Veh (s) 626.4 Total Del/Veh (s) 1690.2 Queuing and Blocking Report 2023 PM without project without Int1 Imps or ETL 01/19/2020 Cedar River Apartments SimTraffic Report BPJ; William Popp Associates Page 2 Intersection: 1: Bronson Way/SR 169 & Sunset Blvd Movement EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB SB SB SB SB Directions Served L L T TR L T T R L LT TR R Maximum Queue (ft) 1965 1954 1953 1948 325 404 166 362 585 1319 1312 1304 Average Queue (ft) 1529 1512 1286 1108 322 376 98 294 584 1290 1288 1135 95th Queue (ft) 2333 2321 2410 2211 343 472 151 425 592 1305 1300 1683 Link Distance (ft) 1917 1917 1917 1917 340 340 340 1272 1272 1272 Upstream Blk Time (%) 37 38 33 16 6 53 6 96 79 13 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 0 0 0 260 28 0 0 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 300 560 Storage Blk Time (%) 60 1 5 70 Queuing Penalty (veh) 75 2 46 425 Intersection: 2: I-405 NB Off-Ramp & SR 169 Movement EB EB WB WB WB WB SB Directions Served L T T T T R R Maximum Queue (ft) 93 3 266 142 260 168 794 Average Queue (ft) 29 0 254 44 130 63 503 95th Queue (ft) 69 2 290 100 233 123 855 Link Distance (ft) 340 250 250 250 250 692 Upstream Blk Time (%) 67 1 14 Queuing Penalty (veh) 174 2 100 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 150 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 3: SR 169 & Shari's Driveway Movement EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB SB Directions Served UL T T T T T T TR LR Maximum Queue (ft) 109 143 193 124 601 227 130 126 305 Average Queue (ft) 50 30 64 23 449 24 44 38 132 95th Queue (ft) 100 95 155 77 806 119 106 99 341 Link Distance (ft) 250 250 250 615 615 615 391 Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 0 33 0 4 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 111 0 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 175 125 Storage Blk Time (%) 0 0 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 1 0 Queuing and Blocking Report 2023 PM without project without Int1 Imps or ETL 01/19/2020 Cedar River Apartments SimTraffic Report BPJ; William Popp Associates Page 3 Intersection: 4: Cedar River Park Dr & SR 169 Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB WB NB NB Directions Served T T TR L T T T L R Maximum Queue (ft) 195 201 68 189 309 60 178 287 156 Average Queue (ft) 58 75 4 28 154 12 47 106 33 95th Queue (ft) 147 171 32 125 393 43 128 282 97 Link Distance (ft) 615 615 615 356 356 356 321 Upstream Blk Time (%) 14 11 Queuing Penalty (veh) 45 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 200 200 Storage Blk Time (%) 27 18 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 4 13 0 Intersection: 5: Site East Access & SR 169 Movement WB B7 NB Directions Served T T R Maximum Queue (ft) 138 290 6 Average Queue (ft) 36 46 0 95th Queue (ft) 141 223 6 Link Distance (ft) 84 3897 378 Upstream Blk Time (%) 16 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Zone Summary Zone wide Queuing Penalty: 1286 SimTraffic Performance Report 2023 PM without project with Int1 Imps no ETL 01/19/2020 Cedar River Apartments SimTraffic Report BPJ; William Popp Associates Page 1 1: Bronson Way/SR 169 & Sunset Blvd Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBL SBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 649.2 648.8 658.0 320.9 Total Del/Veh (s) 76.9 59.5 31.1 147.6 63.0 25.6 187.9 430.1 49.9 125.2 2: I-405 NB Off-Ramp & SR 169 Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR NBR SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 6.0 1.3 Total Del/Veh (s) 12.4 2.9 36.0 4.6 5.3 72.9 23.4 3: SR 169 & Shari's Driveway Performance by movement Movement EBU EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s) 56.3 57.5 1.7 4.5 2.0 81.5 14.2 3.8 4: Cedar River Park Dr & SR 169 Performance by movement Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 3.9 0.1 Total Del/Veh (s) 3.4 0.8 88.0 1.6 66.8 5.2 4.1 5: Site East Access & SR 169 Performance by movement Movement EBT EBR WBT NBR All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s) 1.4 0.7 0.2 24.4 1.0 Total Zone Performance Denied Del/Veh (s) 350.9 Total Del/Veh (s) 1320.7 Queuing and Blocking Report 2023 PM without project with Int1 Imps no ETL 01/19/2020 Cedar River Apartments SimTraffic Report BPJ; William Popp Associates Page 2 Intersection: 1: Bronson Way/SR 169 & Sunset Blvd Movement EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB SB SB SB SB Directions Served L L T TR L LT T R L LT TR R Maximum Queue (ft) 496 502 370 387 316 332 311 362 585 1326 1308 1304 Average Queue (ft) 320 320 236 246 244 260 180 306 583 1272 1262 1192 95th Queue (ft) 491 491 342 347 332 359 292 413 607 1467 1487 1527 Link Distance (ft) 1916 1916 1916 1916 340 340 340 1272 1272 1272 Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 7 1 8 87 73 14 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 33 3 37 0 0 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 300 560 Storage Blk Time (%) 3 12 7 68 Queuing Penalty (veh) 10 22 71 411 Intersection: 2: I-405 NB Off-Ramp & SR 169 Movement EB EB WB WB WB WB SB Directions Served L T T T T R R Maximum Queue (ft) 68 180 262 143 258 104 782 Average Queue (ft) 16 6 198 50 155 54 536 95th Queue (ft) 49 91 294 107 259 89 878 Link Distance (ft) 340 250 250 250 250 692 Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 5 3 22 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 14 9 154 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 150 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 3: SR 169 & Shari's Driveway Movement EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB SB Directions Served UL T T T T T T TR LR Maximum Queue (ft) 113 55 103 60 168 66 173 122 86 Average Queue (ft) 50 5 15 5 48 11 36 24 28 95th Queue (ft) 97 32 66 29 127 43 109 78 62 Link Distance (ft) 250 250 250 615 615 615 391 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 175 125 Storage Blk Time (%) 0 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 1 0 Queuing and Blocking Report 2023 PM without project with Int1 Imps no ETL 01/19/2020 Cedar River Apartments SimTraffic Report BPJ; William Popp Associates Page 3 Intersection: 4: Cedar River Park Dr & SR 169 Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB WB NB NB Directions Served T T TR L T T T L R Maximum Queue (ft) 181 200 57 59 93 69 132 110 64 Average Queue (ft) 69 88 4 15 21 6 30 39 33 95th Queue (ft) 153 180 27 45 68 34 93 86 55 Link Distance (ft) 615 615 615 356 356 356 321 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 200 200 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 5: Site East Access & SR 169 Movement NB Directions Served R Maximum Queue (ft) 21 Average Queue (ft) 1 95th Queue (ft) 9 Link Distance (ft) 378 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Zone Summary Zone wide Queuing Penalty: 766 SimTraffic Performance Report 2023 PM with project with Int1 Imps no ETL 01/19/2020 Cedar River Apartments SimTraffic Report BPJ; William Popp Associates Page 1 1: Bronson Way/SR 169 & Sunset Blvd Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBL SBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 731.1 717.2 728.8 359.7 Total Del/Veh (s) 97.5 61.8 37.3 201.0 65.5 29.2 201.8 415.1 45.9 133.8 2: I-405 NB Off-Ramp & SR 169 Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR NBR SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 19.6 3.5 Total Del/Veh (s) 13.4 3.0 54.9 4.4 6.1 110.3 32.2 3: SR 169 & Shari's Driveway Performance by movement Movement EBU EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 57.3 55.7 0.7 Total Del/Veh (s) 75.1 64.3 2.6 42.2 3.7 523.2 667.4 22.2 4: Cedar River Park Dr & SR 169 Performance by movement Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 39.7 43.2 2.9 Total Del/Veh (s) 5.8 2.0 82.6 6.9 120.0 18.2 12.1 5: Site East Access & SR 169 Performance by movement Movement EBT EBR WBT NBR All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s) 2.1 0.8 0.5 17.6 1.7 Total Zone Performance Denied Del/Veh (s) 368.9 Total Del/Veh (s) 1138.0 Queuing and Blocking Report 2023 PM with project with Int1 Imps no ETL 01/19/2020 Cedar River Apartments SimTraffic Report BPJ; William Popp Associates Page 2 Intersection: 1: Bronson Way/SR 169 & Sunset Blvd Movement EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB SB SB SB SB Directions Served L L T TR L LT T R L LT TR R Maximum Queue (ft) 643 657 393 397 325 361 344 364 585 1326 1317 1303 Average Queue (ft) 380 384 247 258 299 323 203 327 584 1285 1282 1181 95th Queue (ft) 597 601 363 369 373 404 321 418 587 1383 1394 1531 Link Distance (ft) 1916 1916 1916 1916 340 340 340 1272 1272 1272 Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 29 2 11 92 73 13 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 148 9 56 0 0 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 300 560 Storage Blk Time (%) 16 38 12 69 Queuing Penalty (veh) 54 72 128 445 Intersection: 2: I-405 NB Off-Ramp & SR 169 Movement EB EB WB WB WB WB SB Directions Served L T T T T R R Maximum Queue (ft) 63 177 264 167 259 117 814 Average Queue (ft) 18 9 242 44 152 53 694 95th Queue (ft) 52 110 310 106 249 93 978 Link Distance (ft) 340 250 250 250 250 692 Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 54 0 1 57 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 157 0 4 398 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 150 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 3: SR 169 & Shari's Driveway Movement EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB SB Directions Served UL T T T T T T TR LR Maximum Queue (ft) 125 133 202 114 631 355 155 132 376 Average Queue (ft) 55 29 61 22 368 34 44 39 146 95th Queue (ft) 107 90 153 73 754 171 112 105 380 Link Distance (ft) 250 250 250 615 615 615 391 Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 11 0 13 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 41 0 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 175 125 Storage Blk Time (%) 0 1 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 2 1 Queuing and Blocking Report 2023 PM with project with Int1 Imps no ETL 01/19/2020 Cedar River Apartments SimTraffic Report BPJ; William Popp Associates Page 3 Intersection: 4: Cedar River Park Dr & SR 169 Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB WB NB NB Directions Served T T TR L T T T L R Maximum Queue (ft) 246 264 161 164 261 57 174 314 225 Average Queue (ft) 80 103 24 50 76 14 70 172 41 95th Queue (ft) 183 209 90 125 216 45 149 313 134 Link Distance (ft) 615 615 615 356 356 356 321 Upstream Blk Time (%) 1 13 Queuing Penalty (veh) 2 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 200 200 Storage Blk Time (%) 5 19 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 2 14 0 Intersection: 5: Site East Access & SR 169 Movement WB B7 NB Directions Served T T R Maximum Queue (ft) 50 24 65 Average Queue (ft) 2 1 22 95th Queue (ft) 28 17 52 Link Distance (ft) 84 3897 378 Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Zone Summary Zone wide Queuing Penalty: 1534 SimTraffic Performance Report 2023 PM without project 01/21/2020 Cedar River Apartments SimTraffic Report BPJ; William Popp Associates Page 1 1: Bronson Way/SR 169 & Sunset Blvd Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBL SBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.8 0.7 0.5 Total Del/Veh (s) 134.6 54.4 24.8 69.2 51.5 24.6 43.1 46.9 11.6 52.7 2: I-405 NB Off-Ramp & SR 169 Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR NBR SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.5 0.2 Total Del/Veh (s) 19.4 3.4 30.2 4.6 5.2 57.3 17.8 3: SR 169 & Shari's Driveway Performance by movement Movement EBU EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s) 66.1 65.0 2.5 3.7 1.4 74.7 13.2 4.0 4: Cedar River Park Dr & SR 169 Performance by movement Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 3.9 0.1 Total Del/Veh (s) 4.1 1.3 92.2 1.7 67.6 5.2 4.4 5: Site East Access & SR 169 Performance by movement Movement EBT EBR WBT NBR All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s) 1.8 0.3 21.0 1.3 Total Zone Performance Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.8 Total Del/Veh (s) 800.9 Queuing and Blocking Report 2023 PM without project 01/21/2020 Cedar River Apartments SimTraffic Report BPJ; William Popp Associates Page 2 Intersection: 1: Bronson Way/SR 169 & Sunset Blvd Movement EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB SB SB SB SB Directions Served L L T TR L LT T R L LT TR R Maximum Queue (ft) 730 724 450 429 255 271 218 361 551 1287 1291 955 Average Queue (ft) 481 477 231 234 179 187 130 312 410 563 534 302 95th Queue (ft) 845 828 352 347 250 260 205 411 533 1035 1040 719 Link Distance (ft) 1916 1916 1916 1916 340 340 340 1272 1272 1272 Upstream Blk Time (%) 6 0 1 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 28 0 0 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 300 560 Storage Blk Time (%) 0 0 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 1 1 Intersection: 2: I-405 NB Off-Ramp & SR 169 Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB WB SB Directions Served L T T T T T R R Maximum Queue (ft) 97 22 14 262 139 255 126 802 Average Queue (ft) 34 1 0 179 48 147 53 469 95th Queue (ft) 75 14 7 284 108 235 96 796 Link Distance (ft) 340 340 248 248 248 248 692 Upstream Blk Time (%) 4 1 8 Queuing Penalty (veh) 10 2 56 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 150 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 3: SR 169 & Shari's Driveway Movement EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB SB Directions Served UL T T T T T T TR LR Maximum Queue (ft) 136 194 214 178 158 64 116 108 86 Average Queue (ft) 55 17 26 10 45 10 25 24 27 95th Queue (ft) 106 92 116 70 119 39 74 77 62 Link Distance (ft) 248 248 248 619 619 619 391 Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 0 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 1 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 175 125 Storage Blk Time (%) 0 0 0 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 1 0 Queuing and Blocking Report 2023 PM without project 01/21/2020 Cedar River Apartments SimTraffic Report BPJ; William Popp Associates Page 3 Intersection: 4: Cedar River Park Dr & SR 169 Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB WB NB NB Directions Served T T TR L T T T L R Maximum Queue (ft) 207 220 87 68 91 51 137 91 69 Average Queue (ft) 66 89 8 15 24 5 33 37 29 95th Queue (ft) 161 191 43 45 70 26 98 80 54 Link Distance (ft) 619 619 619 362 362 362 321 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 200 200 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 5: Site East Access & SR 169 Movement NB Directions Served R Maximum Queue (ft) 18 Average Queue (ft) 1 95th Queue (ft) 9 Link Distance (ft) 378 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Zone Summary Zone wide Queuing Penalty: 100 SimTraffic Performance Report 2023 PM with project 01/21/2020 Cedar River Apartments SimTraffic Report BPJ; William Popp Associates Page 1 1: Bronson Way/SR 169 & Sunset Blvd Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBL SBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 1.1 0.9 0.6 Total Del/Veh (s) 124.4 58.5 30.0 69.5 57.1 27.7 48.0 49.8 12.1 53.8 2: I-405 NB Off-Ramp & SR 169 Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR NBR SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 7.3 1.3 Total Del/Veh (s) 17.9 3.7 31.4 4.4 6.1 73.9 20.4 3: SR 169 & Shari's Driveway Performance by movement Movement EBU EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s) 67.5 64.9 2.8 3.7 2.4 81.8 13.1 4.2 4: Cedar River Park Dr & SR 169 Performance by movement Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 3.9 0.1 Total Del/Veh (s) 10.2 2.8 82.5 3.4 63.2 6.2 11.0 5: Site East Access & SR 169 Performance by movement Movement EBT EBR WBT NBR All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s) 3.9 0.9 0.3 30.1 3.1 Total Zone Performance Denied Del/Veh (s) 1.8 Total Del/Veh (s) 938.3 Queuing and Blocking Report 2023 PM with project 01/21/2020 Cedar River Apartments SimTraffic Report BPJ; William Popp Associates Page 2 Intersection: 1: Bronson Way/SR 169 & Sunset Blvd Movement EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB SB SB SB SB Directions Served L L T TR L LT T R L LT TR R Maximum Queue (ft) 661 660 406 413 276 278 254 364 566 1235 1287 997 Average Queue (ft) 461 454 241 252 192 200 151 330 431 562 584 304 95th Queue (ft) 849 833 357 366 264 273 231 400 568 969 1118 702 Link Distance (ft) 1916 1916 1916 1916 340 340 340 1272 1272 1272 Upstream Blk Time (%) 9 0 1 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 48 0 0 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 300 560 Storage Blk Time (%) 0 0 0 1 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 1 7 Intersection: 2: I-405 NB Off-Ramp & SR 169 Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB WB SB Directions Served L T T T T T R R Maximum Queue (ft) 103 10 18 264 118 263 125 795 Average Queue (ft) 30 1 1 188 51 164 53 534 95th Queue (ft) 74 10 11 277 104 262 94 881 Link Distance (ft) 340 340 248 248 248 248 692 Upstream Blk Time (%) 4 2 22 Queuing Penalty (veh) 11 6 157 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 150 Storage Blk Time (%) 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 Intersection: 3: SR 169 & Shari's Driveway Movement EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB SB Directions Served UL T T T T T T TR LR Maximum Queue (ft) 123 167 210 66 127 48 136 129 58 Average Queue (ft) 56 15 28 6 42 8 33 22 25 95th Queue (ft) 110 81 128 34 108 33 95 75 55 Link Distance (ft) 248 248 248 619 619 619 391 Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 1 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 175 125 Storage Blk Time (%) 0 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 1 0 Queuing and Blocking Report 2023 PM with project 01/21/2020 Cedar River Apartments SimTraffic Report BPJ; William Popp Associates Page 3 Intersection: 4: Cedar River Park Dr & SR 169 Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB WB NB NB Directions Served T T TR L T T T L R Maximum Queue (ft) 340 359 313 102 122 68 179 273 191 Average Queue (ft) 162 187 55 40 44 9 72 137 40 95th Queue (ft) 291 312 184 93 102 39 149 231 110 Link Distance (ft) 619 619 619 362 362 362 321 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 200 200 Storage Blk Time (%) 3 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 2 0 Intersection: 5: Site East Access & SR 169 Movement EB NB Directions Served T R Maximum Queue (ft) 79 78 Average Queue (ft) 3 23 95th Queue (ft) 55 59 Link Distance (ft) 362 378 Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Zone Summary Zone wide Queuing Penalty: 235 SimTraffic Performance Report 2023 PM with project, Int4 dual NBLT 01/21/2020 Cedar River Apartments SimTraffic Report BPJ; William Popp Associates Page 1 1: Bronson Way/SR 169 & Sunset Blvd Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBL SBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 1.1 0.9 0.6 Total Del/Veh (s) 97.2 60.2 32.6 67.8 56.5 29.3 49.3 50.3 12.0 50.6 2: I-405 NB Off-Ramp & SR 169 Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR NBR SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 12.7 2.1 Total Del/Veh (s) 16.9 3.7 31.8 4.6 5.6 93.6 23.4 3: SR 169 & Shari's Driveway Performance by movement Movement EBU EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s) 66.0 63.5 2.9 3.8 2.0 62.4 14.6 4.1 4: Cedar River Park Dr & SR 169 Performance by movement Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s) 9.8 2.6 90.3 3.8 59.9 39.9 11.6 5: Site East Access & SR 169 Performance by movement Movement EBT EBR WBT NBR All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s) 3.5 1.0 0.3 36.3 2.8 Total Zone Performance Denied Del/Veh (s) 2.5 Total Del/Veh (s) 873.0 Queuing and Blocking Report 2023 PM with project, Int4 dual NBLT 01/21/2020 Cedar River Apartments SimTraffic Report BPJ; William Popp Associates Page 2 Intersection: 1: Bronson Way/SR 169 & Sunset Blvd Movement EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB SB SB SB SB Directions Served L L T TR L LT T R L LT TR R Maximum Queue (ft) 541 543 377 378 258 272 234 363 583 1293 1287 1130 Average Queue (ft) 375 373 247 253 187 196 136 339 444 604 611 347 95th Queue (ft) 552 547 354 358 246 255 215 396 575 1080 1184 867 Link Distance (ft) 1916 1916 1916 1916 340 340 340 1272 1272 1272 Upstream Blk Time (%) 11 1 1 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 58 0 0 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 300 560 Storage Blk Time (%) 0 0 1 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 1 8 Intersection: 2: I-405 NB Off-Ramp & SR 169 Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB WB SB Directions Served L T T T T T R R Maximum Queue (ft) 94 43 11 262 154 264 124 791 Average Queue (ft) 30 2 1 187 53 167 55 620 95th Queue (ft) 73 19 8 277 112 271 93 963 Link Distance (ft) 340 340 248 248 248 248 692 Upstream Blk Time (%) 2 0 2 41 Queuing Penalty (veh) 6 0 7 287 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 150 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 3: SR 169 & Shari's Driveway Movement EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB SB Directions Served UL T T T T T T TR LR Maximum Queue (ft) 118 116 183 74 123 52 135 119 82 Average Queue (ft) 49 13 26 8 41 6 31 23 30 95th Queue (ft) 98 67 110 42 103 29 93 76 68 Link Distance (ft) 248 248 248 615 615 615 391 Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 1 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 175 125 Storage Blk Time (%) 0 0 0 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 1 0 Queuing and Blocking Report 2023 PM with project, Int4 dual NBLT 01/21/2020 Cedar River Apartments SimTraffic Report BPJ; William Popp Associates Page 3 Intersection: 4: Cedar River Park Dr & SR 169 Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB WB NB NB Directions Served T T TR L T T T L LR Maximum Queue (ft) 354 361 218 117 130 63 161 139 232 Average Queue (ft) 155 182 40 42 50 10 77 61 124 95th Queue (ft) 276 298 127 96 106 38 146 116 207 Link Distance (ft) 615 615 615 366 366 366 537 537 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 200 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 5: Site East Access & SR 169 Movement EB NB Directions Served T R Maximum Queue (ft) 10 74 Average Queue (ft) 0 23 95th Queue (ft) 7 57 Link Distance (ft) 366 378 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Zone Summary Zone wide Queuing Penalty: 370 SimTraffic Performance Report 2029 PM without project 01/19/2020 Cedar River Apartments SimTraffic Report BPJ; William Popp Associates Page 1 1: Bronson Way/SR 169 & Sunset Blvd Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBL SBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.7 1.3 1.2 0.7 Total Del/Veh (s) 148.0 55.1 27.6 69.1 59.7 30.4 44.5 47.6 12.3 56.4 2: I-405 NB Off-Ramp & SR 169 Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR NBR SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 77.2 13.0 Total Del/Veh (s) 17.1 3.6 36.6 4.8 6.3 103.4 26.3 3: SR 169 & Shari's Driveway Performance by movement Movement EBU EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s) 64.4 60.3 2.7 4.3 2.2 81.9 14.3 4.3 4: Cedar River Park Dr & SR 169 Performance by movement Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 4.0 0.1 Total Del/Veh (s) 6.1 1.1 75.7 1.9 64.3 5.4 5.8 5: Site East Access & SR 169 Performance by movement Movement EBT EBR WBT NBR All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s) 2.6 0.2 0.3 31.9 1.9 Total Zone Performance Denied Del/Veh (s) 11.9 Total Del/Veh (s) 899.4 Queuing and Blocking Report 2029 PM without project 01/19/2020 Cedar River Apartments SimTraffic Report BPJ; William Popp Associates Page 2 Intersection: 1: Bronson Way/SR 169 & Sunset Blvd Movement EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB SB SB SB SB Directions Served L L T TR L LT T R L LT TR R Maximum Queue (ft) 729 710 359 380 266 288 270 364 576 1287 1295 1130 Average Queue (ft) 548 544 240 242 192 201 144 340 418 596 609 335 95th Queue (ft) 771 757 345 346 253 268 227 394 561 1111 1223 811 Link Distance (ft) 1916 1916 1916 1916 340 340 340 1272 1272 1272 Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 12 1 2 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 64 0 0 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 300 560 Storage Blk Time (%) 0 0 1 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 3 Intersection: 2: I-405 NB Off-Ramp & SR 169 Movement EB EB WB WB WB WB SB Directions Served L T T T T R R Maximum Queue (ft) 104 7 261 154 249 107 812 Average Queue (ft) 32 0 206 55 183 55 702 95th Queue (ft) 82 6 284 117 259 91 961 Link Distance (ft) 340 243 243 243 243 692 Upstream Blk Time (%) 5 0 3 54 Queuing Penalty (veh) 14 0 9 377 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 150 Storage Blk Time (%) 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 1 Intersection: 3: SR 169 & Shari's Driveway Movement EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB SB Directions Served UL T T T T T T TR LR Maximum Queue (ft) 125 153 213 60 142 64 170 111 70 Average Queue (ft) 58 12 23 6 50 9 38 28 28 95th Queue (ft) 109 67 111 32 112 40 109 81 58 Link Distance (ft) 243 243 243 624 624 624 391 Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 1 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 175 125 Storage Blk Time (%) 0 0 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 1 0 Queuing and Blocking Report 2029 PM without project 01/19/2020 Cedar River Apartments SimTraffic Report BPJ; William Popp Associates Page 3 Intersection: 4: Cedar River Park Dr & SR 169 Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB WB NB NB Directions Served T T TR L T T T L R Maximum Queue (ft) 254 263 148 64 104 44 144 106 69 Average Queue (ft) 95 120 13 16 26 6 38 45 30 95th Queue (ft) 213 236 72 46 73 29 105 93 54 Link Distance (ft) 624 624 624 355 355 355 321 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 200 200 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 5: Site East Access & SR 169 Movement NB Directions Served R Maximum Queue (ft) 24 Average Queue (ft) 2 95th Queue (ft) 12 Link Distance (ft) 378 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Zone Summary Zone wide Queuing Penalty: 470 SimTraffic Performance Report 2029 PM with project 01/19/2020 Cedar River Apartments SimTraffic Report BPJ; William Popp Associates Page 1 1: Bronson Way/SR 169 & Sunset Blvd Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBL SBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.9 1.7 1.5 0.9 Total Del/Veh (s) 147.3 66.7 45.9 72.8 63.2 33.6 52.2 52.5 13.5 61.0 2: I-405 NB Off-Ramp & SR 169 Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR NBR SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 117.2 17.3 Total Del/Veh (s) 16.4 4.1 38.1 5.3 6.2 127.9 28.8 3: SR 169 & Shari's Driveway Performance by movement Movement EBU EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s) 67.4 64.2 3.5 5.9 3.3 70.5 24.3 5.4 4: Cedar River Park Dr & SR 169 Performance by movement Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 3.9 0.1 Total Del/Veh (s) 16.2 4.6 86.6 3.5 63.9 6.7 14.9 5: Site East Access & SR 169 Performance by movement Movement EBT EBR WBT NBR All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s) 5.4 0.8 0.3 34.7 4.1 Total Zone Performance Denied Del/Veh (s) 15.8 Total Del/Veh (s) 1030.2 Queuing and Blocking Report 2029 PM with project 01/19/2020 Cedar River Apartments SimTraffic Report BPJ; William Popp Associates Page 2 Intersection: 1: Bronson Way/SR 169 & Sunset Blvd Movement EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB SB SB SB SB Directions Served L L T TR L LT T R L LT TR R Maximum Queue (ft) 846 846 457 433 288 311 307 364 584 1291 1289 1119 Average Queue (ft) 545 544 288 294 213 224 156 349 465 744 750 351 95th Queue (ft) 871 866 426 424 279 293 251 379 595 1340 1403 801 Link Distance (ft) 1916 1916 1916 1916 340 340 340 1272 1272 1272 Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 0 17 2 2 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 1 92 0 0 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 300 560 Storage Blk Time (%) 0 1 0 2 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 2 3 16 Intersection: 2: I-405 NB Off-Ramp & SR 169 Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB WB SB Directions Served L T T T T T R R Maximum Queue (ft) 80 21 21 262 159 253 132 817 Average Queue (ft) 27 2 1 205 60 197 62 759 95th Queue (ft) 65 15 10 287 123 286 107 865 Link Distance (ft) 340 340 243 243 243 243 692 Upstream Blk Time (%) 7 9 66 Queuing Penalty (veh) 22 28 459 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 150 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 3: SR 169 & Shari's Driveway Movement EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB SB Directions Served UL T T T T T T TR LR Maximum Queue (ft) 122 178 247 161 193 84 213 150 94 Average Queue (ft) 58 20 48 22 59 14 54 39 32 95th Queue (ft) 106 98 165 107 142 53 140 104 74 Link Distance (ft) 243 243 243 624 624 624 391 Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 0 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 1 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 175 125 Storage Blk Time (%) 0 1 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 4 0 Queuing and Blocking Report 2029 PM with project 01/19/2020 Cedar River Apartments SimTraffic Report BPJ; William Popp Associates Page 3 Intersection: 4: Cedar River Park Dr & SR 169 Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB WB NB NB Directions Served T T TR L T T T L R Maximum Queue (ft) 519 562 543 99 138 62 189 251 189 Average Queue (ft) 231 261 116 45 47 13 70 140 47 95th Queue (ft) 457 489 373 103 108 43 151 224 132 Link Distance (ft) 624 624 624 355 355 355 321 Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 0 0 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 1 1 0 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 200 200 Storage Blk Time (%) 3 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 3 0 Intersection: 5: Site East Access & SR 169 Movement EB EB NB Directions Served T T R Maximum Queue (ft) 71 161 76 Average Queue (ft) 2 8 25 95th Queue (ft) 50 99 60 Link Distance (ft) 355 355 378 Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 1 Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Zone Summary Zone wide Queuing Penalty: 633 SimTraffic Performance Report 2029 PM with project, Int4 dual NBLT 01/23/2020 Cedar River Apartments SimTraffic Report BPJ; William Popp Associates Page 1 1: Bronson Way/SR 169 & Sunset Blvd Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBL SBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.5 2.0 2.0 1.1 Total Del/Veh (s) 126.6 59.5 35.4 72.1 61.1 34.3 51.5 51.0 13.1 56.5 2: I-405 NB Off-Ramp & SR 169 Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR NBR SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 119.6 17.4 Total Del/Veh (s) 13.8 4.1 38.8 5.7 6.3 132.1 29.1 3: SR 169 & Shari's Driveway Performance by movement Movement EBU EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s) 79.9 65.7 3.4 7.2 5.7 103.0 36.7 5.9 4: Cedar River Park Dr & SR 169 Performance by movement Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s) 13.9 3.4 75.0 3.6 67.4 54.6 14.6 5: Site East Access & SR 169 Performance by movement Movement EBT EBR WBT NBR All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s) 5.0 0.8 0.3 34.0 3.8 Total Zone Performance Denied Del/Veh (s) 16.0 Total Del/Veh (s) 1023.6 Queuing and Blocking Report 2029 PM with project, Int4 dual NBLT 01/23/2020 Cedar River Apartments SimTraffic Report BPJ; William Popp Associates Page 2 Intersection: 1: Bronson Way/SR 169 & Sunset Blvd Movement EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB SB SB SB SB Directions Served L L T TR L LT T R L LT TR R Maximum Queue (ft) 759 737 426 403 301 311 251 364 582 1296 1311 1284 Average Queue (ft) 479 477 254 262 207 223 143 346 457 778 725 452 95th Queue (ft) 771 759 373 375 279 296 221 392 578 1397 1378 1056 Link Distance (ft) 1916 1916 1916 1916 340 340 340 1272 1272 1272 Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 17 3 3 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 95 0 0 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 300 560 Storage Blk Time (%) 0 1 0 1 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 2 2 8 Intersection: 2: I-405 NB Off-Ramp & SR 169 Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB WB SB Directions Served L T T T T T R R Maximum Queue (ft) 86 24 30 258 136 253 148 822 Average Queue (ft) 26 1 1 204 57 195 63 749 95th Queue (ft) 66 14 13 291 114 283 113 925 Link Distance (ft) 340 340 243 243 243 243 692 Upstream Blk Time (%) 8 10 69 Queuing Penalty (veh) 25 30 484 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 150 Storage Blk Time (%) 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 Intersection: 3: SR 169 & Shari's Driveway Movement EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB SB Directions Served UL T T T T T T TR LR Maximum Queue (ft) 145 229 264 179 175 68 262 132 110 Average Queue (ft) 61 22 45 17 61 12 71 37 37 95th Queue (ft) 122 108 173 93 145 45 260 112 92 Link Distance (ft) 243 243 243 620 620 620 391 Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 0 0 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 2 0 1 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 175 125 Storage Blk Time (%) 0 3 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 1 10 0 Queuing and Blocking Report 2029 PM with project, Int4 dual NBLT 01/23/2020 Cedar River Apartments SimTraffic Report BPJ; William Popp Associates Page 3 Intersection: 4: Cedar River Park Dr & SR 169 Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB WB NB NB Directions Served T T TR L T T T L LR Maximum Queue (ft) 428 494 342 113 137 79 177 155 321 Average Queue (ft) 196 230 73 44 44 18 69 62 151 95th Queue (ft) 364 399 245 94 102 54 149 120 277 Link Distance (ft) 620 620 620 358 358 358 696 696 Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 200 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 5: Site East Access & SR 169 Movement NB Directions Served R Maximum Queue (ft) 78 Average Queue (ft) 24 95th Queue (ft) 60 Link Distance (ft) 378 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Zone Summary Zone wide Queuing Penalty: 662