Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
LUA-08-117_Misc 2
October 6, 2008 Renton Properties, LLC 2025 First Avenue, Suite 700 Seattle, Washington 98121 Attention: Keith Maehlum, Vice President Subject: Triton Towers Expansion Renton, Washington File No. 0344-014-00 GEOENGINEERS C} We understand that you are proposing to add four additional office buildings and a parking garage to the existing office complex, which has three buildings. The site is bordered by SW Grady Way, Talbot Road, 1-405 and Renton Village to the west. The proposed new office buildings will be 11 stories each, which is four stories higher than existing Building No. 2. Soil conditions consist of gravel fill over native soils. The fill is underlain by a complex sequence of interbedded peat, organic silt, silt, sand and gravel overlying bedrock. The depth to bedrock varies from a few feet near the south end of Building 2 to around 80 feet at Building 3. The existing buildings are supported on piling extending into the bedrock. Loads from future structures will also need to be carried down to or within the bedrock. We did geotechnical reports for Building 2 (dated May 9, 1985) and Building 3 (dated April 30, 1986) which provide information for site development and foundation support using piling. These reports are suitable for preliminary design of the buildings. Some additional site-specific exploration at each of the building sites may be necessary to develop final foundation designs due to changes in the building code. We trust that the foregoing meets your present needs. Please contact us ifwe can be of further assistance. Sincerely, Geo Engineers, Inc. Gary W. Henderson, PE Senior Principal J -Disclaimer. Any electronic: form. facsimile or hard copy of the original docmllent (email, text,. table, and/or figure}, if provided. and any auachmcnts are only a copy of the original document. The original document is stored by GeoEngineers,. Inc. and will serve M the official document of record. cc: Jo Moniz, AJA, LEED AP, Associate Callison 1420 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2400 Seattle, Washington 98101-2343 ia,drSot111ot+ Tla"lllnolqy---1-t 01-S FawoalH1n S1ite 200 'JUHi, WA ._ .9$482 lellphan1 ·253.383.4940 lmlndl, 2153.383.4923 Nltlita WWlf,tH•"llilaer,ict• 12061881 · 70CIJ 2020 124th Ave. N.E. P.O. Box6325 Bellevue. WA 9!:KJ08 Renton Village Company Evergreen Building Renton, Washington 98055 Attention: Mr. Everett Johnson Gentlen,en: Phone: [2001474 3161 5915 Orchard St. W. Tacorna. WA 98467 September 4, 1985 Consultation II Renton Place Renton, Washington File No. 344-06 GeoEnglneers Incorporated Consulting Geotechnicol Engineers and Geologists This letter is to clarify and summarize our recommendations for repair of the weaving area in the north parking lot. The recommendations were presented verbally at a meeting on-site on September 3, 1985 and modify some of the recommendations provided in our field report dated August 29, 1985. In areas of major weaving, we recommend the existing fill material be removed to a depth of 3 feet below subgrade. Woven filter fabric such as Mirafi should be placed over the exposed soils and covered with 18 inches of pit run material. The pit run material should consist of sand or sand and gravel with less than 5 percent by weight of fines (material paning a No. 200 sieve). This initial lift of material should be spread in a single lift with the top of the lift compacted as much as possible without creating additional weaving. The second layer of fabric should then be placed and covered with compacted pit run material. In areas of minor weaving, we recommend overexcavation to a depth of 18 inches below subgrade. Filter fabric should then be placed on the exposed ground surface and the area filled with pit run material. The surface of the pit run fill material at subgrade should be compacted to 95 percent of its maximum dry density. Should any area exhibit significant weaving (l/2 inch or more under a Loaded dump truck), it should be covered with fabric placed immediately below the asphalt-treated base. Renton Village Company September 4, 1985 Page Two We recommend that all compaction be done carefully so as not to cause additional pumping of the subgrade. Using a dozer to spread and backblade the material usually provides fairly good compaction. Also, the vibratory roller on-site used without the vibrator should provide fairly good com- pact ion. Use of these procedures may require placement of the fill in fairly thin lifts to obtain compaction. Use of the vibratory at subgrade may also be appropriate, depending upon moisture conditions and other factors. We trust that the foregoing meetings your present needs. Should you have any questions or need additional information, please call. GWH:wd Three copies submitted Yours very truly, GeoEngineers, Inc. JJf o.r lJ!) ,i:t.Al&V-~ Gary W~ Henderson Principal GeoEnglneers Incorporated SUMMARY REPORT CONSTRUCTION MONITORING OF AUGERCAST PILE INSTALLATION 1'\10 RENTON PLACE RENTON, WASHINGTON FOR RENTON VILLAGE COMPANY GeoEnglneers Incorporated 1206) 881-7900 P.O. Box 6325 2020 124th Ave. NE Bellevue. WA 98008 Renton Village Company Evergreen Building Renton, Washington 98055 Attention: Mr. Everett Johnson Gentlemen: July 25, 1985 Summary Report Construction Monitoring of -4tt,~ ----~ GeoEnglneers Incorporated Consulling Geotechn1cal Engineers and Geologists Augercast Pile Installation Two Renton Place Renton, Washington File No. 344-06 This report presents the results of our construction monitoring of augercast piles installed for the foundation of the proposed Two Renton Place building located on the northwest corner of Talbot Road South and Renton Village Place, Renton, Washington. Two hundred forty-seven (247) 16-inch-diameter augercast piles were installed between July 2 and July 24, 1985. The 14-inch-diameter augercast piles in the original design were replaced by 16-inch-diameter augercast piles at the option of American Construction Company. Pile installation was observed by a representative from our firm who kept records of pile lengths, grout pump pressures, withdrawal ratesy grout heads and grout volumes. A summary of the installation data for each pile is presented in the field reports, a copy of which was left on site daily. The complete set of daily field reports and augercast pile summary sheets was sent to your office July 24, 1985; summary sheets are attached to this report. The 16-inch-diameter piles were installed by drilling to practical refusal in the underlying bedrock. The depth of these piles ranged from 10 feet to 48, 5 feet below the f.ill surface. Renton Village Company July 25, 1985 Page 2 Some modifications were made in pile groups C-2 and F-4, due to equipment problems encountered by American Construction Company. While attempting to install pile G-2 #4, the auger broke after pouring 11 feet of grout in the 21 foot hole. After a failed attempt at redrilling the hole, a recommendation was made in conjunction with the structural engineer at KPFF to install a pile from the same surface location with a batter of 1:12 or greater. The battered pile (1:12) was subsequently installed, with a southeasterly slope to a depth of 15 feet. Pile F-4 #3 was abandoned after American Construction Company lost 8 feet of auger and the tip in the partially grout-filled 43 foot hole. Piles F-4 #3A and F-4 #3B were subsequently installed according to the recommendation made in conjunction with the structural engineer at KPFF. Pile F-4 #3A was installed immediately to the north of F-4 #3 to a depth of 44 feet. Pile F-4 /13B was installed immediately to the south of F-4 #3 to a depth of 40 feet. These modifications are shown on the attached pile map. Some irregularities in the bedrock surface were found to be present in the west portion of the site. These irregularities were identified from the variable pile depths within pile groups A-1, A-2, A-3, C-1, C-2, G/D-2, C-3 and C-4, Contour maps of the bedrock surface based on pile depths were used to determine the probable steepness of slope on which some piles were installed. A total of 13 additional piles were recommended and subsequently installed in the above pile groups. These additional piles were recommended to satisfy the original design specifications. The location of the thirteen additional piles is shown on the attached pile map. Soil types of the underlying stratum were observed in the cutting from the auger flights. Bedrock was occasionally observed in the cuttings, and by periodically withdrawing the auger to examine the material on the teeth after practical refusal had been reached. The soil and bedrock types observed were generally consistent with the subsurface conditions anticipated from the results of the test borings and test pits done by our firm in April 1985. GeoEnglneers Incorporated Renton Village Co~pany July 25, 1985 Page 3 A 10-foot-long, or to the total depth for short piles, steel reinforce- ment cage was placed in the upper portion of each pile. In addition, a single steel bar was placed in the center of each pile. Based on our observations and evaluation, it is our opinion that the augercast piles for Two Renton Place have been installed in accordance with the geotechnical criteria of the project plans and specifications, and will provide the design capacities. If there are any questions regarding the contents of this report or if you need additional information, please contact us. KSK:GWH:js Attachments Three copies submitted cc: Building Department City of Renton Yours very truly, GeoEngineers, Inc. JJ)a..;JxJ.~ Gary W. Henderson Principal 200 Mill Ave, s., Renton, WA 98055 GeoEngineers Incorporated @ © © ,· "!' ' l ·· > '.t •· /. / ,- 1, < j:: ·-·--± -+ _o~~ . -----r (~) "' ;C .~_-,l ·i .~i _ I 0- £ .,I 0: I } .;: .. .. : C a, C "' 0 & JOB IM!IE : e I? e,v.-\c,.... I'.........._ MTE: -,-z-e~ f'ILE !.lf: a1.11.1-o~ B\': tJ1..:r ( ~ . . . .. "' i,5 ~ ::l I ~~ .. !; !! PILE !~ i5 :,: "" 0 . ~ ffi ~ 1:l o....i 0 • COMMENTS NIJNBE!l ... ;; ~ ~~ ... .-l .. "' "" ' Cl"" :,: A Cl :,: u~ ') ·--\ ( ... 1.) f:~o """". s-(.. 10' s~~ ,..,_-i,._, ~ J.crf,, ;a:~ goo l?..J~ 3, ~ ,..s &-2 c., v'i '1·., (. Lt z. 4 -C. I~ '" "-,,~ · i=-2 (ii.lo) o:-"' " S-7 Iii' ... -i 11(.. 1=-"'~ o\ '"':-ti,,,_ 't-· 7 q ..,, J )$0 . F-/(.111--')-0'"'~ ~ :;, .... ~ ,sa F-1 (JtSJ tz:1$ :t..>.'I, ,. 2, r'.S )(..:, I "'-Z( "z.) 1?!'1< 1./'3 13 4, / I"""-I J?<C.., .,._., (><<n l!Z'/1. 300-.. ~ 3 ·" 1.<,-.; ~Y., f?eJ.nll.J ~ ~ . z,2o >U<) E -Ii .;7 Lj(.. --"-~ ,,I 11 I cl~~ 1~ c,:...,._c~'k' )l;y~,vcJJ z.: .,., "~o . (' .. ,. .( ' . \ ; . :/ ,, Gro,Jt 'Jo lume (i:) ~ \'oluaie Pumpo,d ; C., lcu l.ot.><l PH,< \'olum"(:t) I CROtrr HEAD •DEPTH OF AUGER AT WHICH GROUT RETURN OBSERVED AT SURFACE GeoEngineers Inc. .\t:C.F'I\C\ST P [lE Sl~\RY SHEET ,,;..·· ( .. __ .j JOB N~IE: ck. ~~ro,(\ MOC..€ t'lLE ;>;O: ~'t-J-(l(o PILE kt,MBER · ,.. __ "l ( 1" \l l·r c,= = 1 ~~-s· 7 +-:::i/tr. IJ q;:-i,-, 'u-:l. ~q_-t-7 I ("' I) /f\'M ;::l."i 1 .@.<r" /A .C-\(il:/...,j !(),'·l,·-I ~-= c; c-. '°' /ti:<.4') '" ,ar, l<J I </_ : ~-/ _ ,..._ ".\ (~~) j',...c:; l:lfl~ ~0,..: I . 1-, "l<,,<, ,, CJ ' nATE: , /"1,/KS BY: kSl<:. '1 I</. l~O ""'°' fi<.~ ~a., .Ur;\ ieJ 7 ,~~~ 1~0 I f\ '{,<"16'1 I I o 11 1-:t'°'c:. oc< I('\ -::i :'IC:. l<./'l F"~sl,...cla., re&illcl ,..., l:i?\c; 11~'i \ In ."UC\ \ <=. 1 Cro•.at 'Julume G:) .... Volullc Pump~d .;.. C.·:dcul.a.t~<l Pil~ \'olum~%} 1 CRO!Tr HEAD •DEPTH OF .AUCER AT WHICH GROUT RETURN OBSERVED AT SURFACE GeoEngineers Inc. ..__ __ I .\L'C:l'I\C\ST l'lLF. St~i:-t\RY SKF.ET Qer,t::;.r ~t,c e ,_ JOB N,\)IE: ,'.) Oi\ TE: -; IX 'ifc., nu; );(l: ::, '-/ 'i -01..,:, O'l: ~i,( - ~ -... "' i:: ... V) I ... !:: ..... PILE el~ ::, V) iS :,: "' ~~ ::, ~ -'O !ii ~ 0 .... 0 COMMENTS N~~IBE!t ;:. ... • H i!l .... ~~ "' 0 "' .., ... "' "' -. Cl "' ::,: "' 0 :,: o> uo ) ... 7,/.'.) 3d Y.: -J&:,- i -1 "3 ;;ISO S-G 3,".\7 ;\OI -' /~, -_:} "'-"' 1,,~ ...... l?,1 _'/, ;J.(oO ">;a;n C, IQ 3JJ< 17" -'t-') n 7 <;• Ir'\ i 2,'l v? " C..-1-I 1 '-=<A" 1q.;1 +:. ~ ~ "' ',: . .,,._., I "<C\ d,Oo - /,-1-=l,," ,5t7 "'-~ ID \-'-I "t!. ( "). l'.<'00 l".s, ,, G (() '3, ;;L3 17n r--I ti '-i '1';;).._S 4/n ;;i(oO- '-..oo (,,-7 I I ~.9 .J. '11.1 I E: -I ;c-I Q, '/<, • 4,'.)Y.:, ~~~-lo 15 13.30 I<;-, '---' ~ ', (/'\;(\ s 14 -"' " ec-'7 ' ' 15 ?,.7o Ii., 'ii C-~ n 'x /0.<./i'l 14/"\ ,;, 12. 130--,r,n S··l_, ID 3.'18 fl, 7 ( i:c -;:) tt I '"·<.< .41 " 5 1,i=n Ii -I d-0 n-.., .. "I f:So l-=s1 ~ ~'{; (,,, tel.. ;;,,75 l'-i 'i' o-a -J;,,_, l~.I 'O 1-,, '-/ ;,;:i.c - '.O., ~ 'do I () 11~-'" S< n-1 J:-i ...... ;}.' '.l < 7, 'l ,. (;_, I <sj -0..,'J.7 \io.3 f\-1 " I /'(\() ~5\ ;;,<.JO- \ () ') ., 'l1 , . " 6t.··10 !,-' _( ::.lo-;;:i "' -1 I ''le, (1~Yz ,r r, J.~"' c.'< -_, -, ' ' (, I I ,''-/0 ;:)5( ,;,,o-(~; 'l .'.), :::l S< II ~ ,:_"'J;-1 I ·-,_," r -c-1... "' 'ii I .'5,) ::t:-1 17 ;t'iO. lo-7 &, l,'11 ]"',9 .,,_,,,,_) c--. " I l.:i; IC, 1"7 )·,-,- /Q'-f '·-,51.C, f.··. -7 C. 11..C (' C I ii-I CJ:_"'\Q '1 <., 3fO -'-I,, r. -. ,,-( ,..~ I~ ,qy ·~"' r -I u I~ ::i -,,, :1 I ;:'.;).t:io ~ ;:::...,rs. '-:;_,-{ ! () r.83 1'7 r, ( r-, -"' I \/ .;),~C)~ ?,· 11, -.y,-. '\7 .c:.. r '--/CJ •b'- GroHt 'lo lume (::) ~ Voloinc f'ump~d .;. c.-i lcu l~1t..:zcJ Pit~ \',>lllS1"(%) I GROUT HEAD •DEPTH OF AUGER AT \.IHICH GROUT RETURN OBSERVED AT SURFACE GeoEngineers Inc. .IL:f:F.I\C\ST PlLF. Sl<:'C:-IAR\' SKF.ET { J08 N,\~IE: ;). Q.P-"-\o,-, ?lc,c e. nu: Xtl": 3'1'-1-c:L,, PILE N~~tBER . -. -:.Oo -8:5-, l<..t! ~ Cl'l O (,,, 13 13 /.S i-, :, . 0.., P<O c> I, l::l 17 \Int I 19. ,,,Jo-'J "'"<.o n·1r-. ::i" •· 1 -7 ' "' '-' '<'.) o l,.:i3 ll1\TE: 7/ll/'85 OY: K:SJ::. COMHENTS ) Groot '/iJlumc (i:) .. \'olulllC Putn('~d .;. C:1lcuL.,t~d Pl!-1: \\,lu!:1~%) ' CROUT HEAD •OEPTif OF AUGER AT IJHICH CROUT RETURN OBSERVED AT SURFACE GeoEngineers Inc. I ,\(X:F.1:C\ST P{lf. St~CUR'( SKF.ET I JOB N,l!IE: :;i. p,.;, (\1°'\.)f. '\:\ iC ,' nATE: ,/10/BS f!LE :Sll': 3'1<.l-()0 BY: KSK ( --. . -f-, .... i= f-, "' I f-, ~ ~!! PILE ~~ ::, "' i: ;:. "' g~ . • ;:! ~ . ~ l:l .... ;;:i~ 0..., 0 • COMMENTS NliNBER "' 0 "' ..., f-, "' ~-<.!I"" :,: 0 C :,: C> co ) ... c-;:;i It '-f 7,0S coc.l,lf\t-re,l,-.11-tr,:,r,, 7/ q/R s ;) 1t '.l, ~<./c>. q . ('· Ir I c, ;:;, '-I ~"' ',,, 1 (, . 7 / Cl-:,, t •",,i ( • ;) Ir _c:., IT-:,c:; I I ,. 7 I '.1, ',.-/,~ ,,n,.., !7--/ (' . \ It cc; 7.'"i·") I/ " ( . 7 (., I, 'f.J I I. J . . I ,: ,:, ;; .. .., ;"'> l,; ,. "'-,..(, ll ::J, I c;. I"' I C./r,,. '.) " c:, 5\' /C.. 1,.,9'/ " ' '7 ,~.7<) I x' r . '2 l; I r/f'\-.1" '.l, 9 :o.< 1, ,, j/a) I IC:.-(,., 1-/ ,<./ :::i n--:i "5 ~.50 1-:V-7:;i ,- (n C/ 1::i,RR I c,,; . .,-...., "! T\. z,. "3 1<:i.· F'-! -:,,7 ~ " (,.., 5? I,(~ Jr,C r,. I ,I> "' Ill'-;,, "','f,, 5.-10. 1,,-7 I') 3.o'i 15~ lrn,:, • · n/,:; -n 11 I It! ·c:;,..; I "17 ~ ~o-?{ I:'.) l.'<..t,, "' 14'1 I .,_., s) ( 0-,1 ~"1 /(l'-i C I c:. ;}.'{ ~ -5-; f-',:Y'I l1c;c=; ::i,>, r;:!. 'l ~ '1 I LOS "\'<. 1.'. ' ~~er I<;.(,.., 7 1.75< l'-IR .:. • ..., ot I !'"",~ "'1-:l, /I C:,-(-, 7 J q '<! 11.<J • .( '8· I~ 3 11. :',S 13 .;)(,,,_ ~ . lc;-7 '-I /,"./.r,. 1--,,..,..., -~-:-~ .:-, ?. -\ ,ti: "-I 11, "i,... w:;u ~t..e trt \l 1 d.),,._; ('\ t,, -,, "' I 1:00 I ':'l .;J.oo ~ ':,-7 "', ·--I""-? koA \:,e-<:'.h den..,ed O'-"'t --." A -::i .,_ I A I'/,"\ 1~· ,, c.,.. 7 '-/ ,.:;i.s 11~ I A-1-.t1.-:i.. '. ,<; ;'.} \ " /.er 7 r~ 1,1\S ,..,,., R-\ -tt '-J '<./ 0 I' ,, / -, -7 .~ /,30 l'Jn ~~" I Itel .J/ ':.ro•-+<::r r~\!jtr ( I'?.. r, " I U:rc '') l!oO· 7 '-J I, (Si) 1,1~ I 'i\"\ ' i <.:rm,t 'lolume (::) .... Vo l,111c Pump~<l ; C,li lcu l;,t.Jc.1 PU~ \'olnm"(%) I GROUT HEAD •DEPTH OF AUGER AT IJHICH GROUT RETURN OBSERVED AT SURFACE GeoEngineers Inc. .,t:r.rnc \ST P(Lf. Sl~t't\RY SHF.ET JOB N,\~IE: d-R ..... r-.'- ·,:, .i--C MTE: 7/11 i: c I ' nu, );{l: ",'"1 '' "'H •.. OY: . (. -~ -... ~ ... "' I ... ... ... .. PH.I:: el~ "' :, "' ~ ::,, "' :, ~ :, . ::, ~ .., '-' 0 ~ ~ ... C 0 .., 0 COHMENTS Nu~IBER ;::i .... .... fj "' H ~ "" "' 0 "' .., ... "' "' <l "' ::< Cl '-' :r: <> > <> 0 -, -,-I/ ")~ .. "'\· .. (' .. .) ' I . .., r-11 ?.;;1 ( ' I /.7,J 1.SS r, . -. ,. -'·· '.£1 ' .. T\ .. () ~'; I ) i ,_-:) :;_ ,.) . (,)· 7 -:,,,,< I~~ .l'-i i /_,' .. "' r, .. ...., .. -:,_ / · " .. '-' Cl, ,. 7 "'.l, ·'·/'1, I"'>? I "'.l, :'-:..., _ :, " 1 ) . ,. ,-~ .1 ;:-,1 -~ . :i._ "'.l,"'17 I r,,0 ,,,,,·,""' I. l - -: I ~ ' n :l (\ ~?/~ J :J.,.-., :.1 '4 -. I ' / 1 ::),, i ( ' '~-I ·: Ir:: i .. ' I 1·, '--f ,""' ' \, •.. --!,·_ ,-.-~ -,' I " ' -;·1 ··,> \1 (,. (,1 I "J:l i,O ' ,•.-... I r. .. ·7 I' 1.'1,·, I?, F(\;:1 (;-7 I. ";.; i,',.,\ \ , r.: / ,--' ~-' 1 ·~: ,-·, .:~ ··1 / ,. -II 1 '1,, " . ' '· I<: I'" ·" ( C l r. s '-i ci .. ,, ! l:l.50 i~)G " 1··~ •J ·.\<Cl ,~ ~1 () I ' ' .. ; ;2. ,.;l -. ~:::-.... .., .. ,· ., ,, -, --I -" \> ~~ '~J ,, "\ l':"17 ('f 1-" " ,, ) [q7 I l; I J i I .' () :i ,.) )\t c. ·. I . ,;,-' .;l. .. ' ..::j:lD · -' 7 (i13 16? ... I 1 __ , .... ~j C) .)" .'r, "-. -I t.'. 1...; 0 '""'I -i I ~) ;)~(::,•:_) - ~ ·-i 0.:'1,) il:S i_ ltC, t-·~ •.. , ( .' -} /)-:·-C .' --·. \ R " i ;·1.1 7 I/ d.'--1 ri --..., 1.33 I Sic I/.·; ·2 ·"\I, .~) ~, :L) ' ~ I cc P)-"' I 0 " 5 s /.5;> ') ?,'! ' l..) :).'::; -' ' __ ) . Gr-01at Vulume (;:) -~ Volu-cnc Pump't':d ;. C.-alculitt:~d PU-, \'olu"1"(%) CROUT KEAD -DEPTH OF AUGER AT I-IHICH GROUT RETURN OBSERVED AT SURFACE I GeoEngineers Inc. .,t:ccF.1:c ,sr P[Lf. SlC:-C't\RY SHF.H ( ' { \ J.1 J06 NMIE: J,_ \(er,\o" l"\CIC..<e HLE XO: 3'--l'-J-01.o PILE Nli~IBER n-o."' d- ·1:,-1"1 11'.\.. -i " 11 ('-'.) .. ') ?--'-I "..5 ('-...,""\ R -"" .tt I q·si 1, in:30 \'1 1::i. OS l;:J1 'j, I ·3 7 I "'- l'<;ri 11 ,, ' " ;J 200· "'l " .. " 7-x '-I 7 , s 4 ' 7-?, '-{ 1 / -1 "1 (; I 9. 1-:i..-i o ISO ,. ",'x l<./7 /. lo O /CoO /.75 !7S I.O,'> IS'/ 1 1:J II.of '.~' 159 /,QC. 191 1.75? l\o'\ 1.73 IS7 I. 3-;J.. 't 3 l'.J.oo \'I "I /."-' lioS I. 52 I ,:,2 I .I 3 J,'/0 llo5, rs I /.70 17'1 pear llATE: 7/12./3:5 OY: KSk. COHMENTS ) Gro,,c 'lulume (;:) .. \'oluinc Pumr~d ~ Cil<:ul~•c.::J Pil~ \'olum~z) CR<>UT HEAD •DEPTil Of' AUCER AT llllICH CROUT RETURN OBSERVED AT SURFACE I .\l:C:f.l\C \ST I' lLF. Sl~\RY SHEET I GeoEngineers Inc. I ....._ _______________ ---L---------------~ • • . , ( ( .( ( JOB N,l~IE: do-. l<<n~ \Jlac.£ llATE:l / 15/8.S Pr LE Xll: 3't<.J . 0<.o OY: KSK ~ . . - !.'l~ "' i= '""' "' ' j~ !; • !; ~ l'[LE ~ "' ~ :,, "' ..., (.!) ~ ::l o..:, 0 • COMMENTS N~llBER ;:i '""' • M i!i ... ~~ "' 0 "' ..., ' '""' ti) "' i 0"' ;:,: A (.!) :,: C) > (.!) 0 ~ ... c.-':I,_ ti:/_ 7.'~0 <../1 '/7. ;,.Go· ;"))({) v 13 I-=< 7-n ! c;c; ru~ :Sh.AC.L· r-e.d.r,\ l ' r---:;, :if '-I 7'60 ~q ~~.; ,, \ "', ',:\,') ;i. IC:. I i+-'-I ""0 R: ro l'-1:<i 12 " ,, I<-~.75'. \t ., +-~ 1t I lZ ~s 4.<;'.lz ,, ,, ,, "",[,-,,<., .:._7 . r.--1 .,, I· ct·oo '-17 '/0-.;.o /n·7 f "'i ?..7<::. jC:,~ ('..,.. '.'<, J.j :; 1'3S 117 j; ?~r "l 13 '3,:::i <: II~"! I ,:,. "l. " '-I , .. ·oo "2,~ ~i-2::: (n·7 I" ~-'" ,,,q .:-::i. tt ICl . O''.J 0 <fC.,'/-., ~ ;,o· rn 7 1? --<; c; t"-:,, ti 5', 'r.:'-/ <, 14'-I 'I, ~ O· 1;;~~ S-r,, (-:i •-:,. "'('\ t'f5 r-s 1t ri 11 ·r, 5 W)~ ;;,.;;,.o- 7-9, 'r, 'l, '!1'7 I~'\ :i.'Y \-.) (' --:,, ,1! I r. n.h ;:l."10. 11:::..c:, ~(oO ,, Vi t O ':a. Ho 7- r-""."'.::i 11:'/Q I 'ii .:;ic,,o-'3~,, 7 ."'i l.<in IS0 ('-3 .. ~ '-,•:) <: ') \ a.,.o. " ~ I.")"' IIP3 ;t"-/ Cl C,.-~ -11 <./ ,-,-.:<-I c;~ • (;,-7 '-/ /.:J 0 5$ .-e,1,;11 ,.,._ lo~r '-""'el<. -.,.,;'\y, (ti~ b:ittif ~<,;~=encl o~o-\',,.u p, 1t:, c-~"'<o 1·1<.. ,n '/-;,. .. " <..( .C/5 t 'RI R·t"c; 1: <.\) I '-i " (n I-· /.18 l (051 A-1"::i I;'-( :S .. ! '"1 ,, c; /.3.S I.SC\ ('-\ ... -=i_ ,itz " :) ;r,r, 1~-1 5 /.'fr, ISS ?,-::) .... '7 :.i . I:-; .:l I /}_,;;\ (" g /, (o'i{ IS<o 'B-d. ,t c::, .TI .. 7-7, ~ /.77 15'8 n·.,o .b,, -:;). "' ~ !J ."{ ._ !..'.l.;;l_ •• v,-7 7 /. 77 I S51 A-'3"' LJ '")'<I. \'1 ~ ~?~ (,~ 7 1.loS l0S '- A.-".:l."'3 2i'.Q"\ \'x " 11· '.\ I~ /.(i), \ 80 \ Gl"01Jt;: '/ulume (i:) ... Volu111c Pump~-d .;. C.ilcul.:•ti!J Pil,e \'1>lumC(%) I GROUT HEAD •DEPTil OF AUGER AT !.ll!ICH GROUT RETURN OBSERVED AT SURFACE Geo Engineers Inc. l .\t:1.Fr:C\ST I' [Lf. Sl~~\R'( SHF:ET JOB N,l~IE: d--R-ei,-t(){'-"9\oc..e llt\ TE: , / I to/'f>S t'I u: ~o: '2, 'i 'I . 00 OY: KSK ~ --I-< "' iS !,~ I I-< I-< !,~ PILE el ~ iS :,: w g~ ;:, . • ;:l ~ l;l ~ 0..., 0 COMMENTS NuNBER ;:'.l I-< H~~ "" "' "' 0 "' ..., I-< "' ... ". CJ ... :,: 0 o:r o> 00 ) .. A-"'i ~ ;;i_ TCl 5 d,C) rw-sin, r 7 I.~ ,~ \ '_,,_ 1\. 3 h•,i::, \""I~ ~~ 1~-1 <-j • 'l::, 1'6:l . ?.-;;) .. ~ ,:-.5 b, y'".l " I~ 1 Uo.:l I '-1 '6 'Ct-"'\ :ii I("'\ ,·-1a !'.:\<, " 1-i <;: l.<o'x Ho :i. IR--::,-ll Q. I,:"'-"' \C\ iU_q,-G-7 '3 1.si \~(a :0.-~ ;II R:ac \ I,., . -----broi::,, 'r, p · b<XJ:f, lled Co " I; fts I r-<-.J "''-q; <.C • ::::i Vl '2:':22 • I -13 "\,3 ;;:i. i'lS (,' • "-I :ti "'\ IT\: fC) '.l ') " ,_ 11 t_'il:f\ I(.,() 'll-'-I ,. I,-, '".''°' <:: :2.3, " (_ CJ 'i c; "::,. l'l '1 ( ''"' ,-.... _<J ,ii I 0 ,\J<.. 33 !;'t.0 . '·" I.tr 7 ' l'.J.~ I 0S . n-c, ,i "" r;,.:oo ~(o 'JO -t I " a.03 IS3 00 ''T"\-'Cl c1t I I c}.'IS 3JK I~~-1->< I ;;l. .;/.(a;:). 157 r.:: -< .. (" C, J;)'.</0 ':l. I. " S-G CJ l~.oo llo~ £-'-/"CJ 1:;i.::55 40 ,, lo 13 b, </ ;;i \ln7 '"--z,t 9. /.'JS J.'i }6_ lc,(00 -7 s ,A~ 1551 Qc,.O F -:,_"c::: I .'</-S, IZ7i •• /,1 10 l'.\'!S 153 -( ' ( ' Crm1t 1/ulume (~) ,. \loluV1c Pump~d T Calcul~lt~d Pil~ \·l,lHmC(z) ' I CROUT HEAD •DEPTH OF AUCER AT WIICH CROUT RETURN OBSERVED AT SURFACE GeoEnoineers Inc. I .\(;Cf.t:c,s, l'[LF. Sl~t'l..\P.Y SKF.ET ( -( ( ;: I :::_. JOB N,l)IE: ;:t Rt:. ' - fl Le :.ti: ":,'N _ )_ PltE NultBE~ --, /"< \ '/('I\~ / '-f.: ' -., -. ' ,----( '' ·-....1 i \ - ' - ' I _.,,...._. -. ·•. ., . ..., :;, "· ,, ,. -::,··· I : .. \ \) :··. --i 1 7 ; -- -7 •-/ --, " ' ,, " ... :, . 0 ..I "' 0 t:> > I. I,_·.'.- J. ··-::- ,.., ...... :,- 0 • "' ..I 00 - I ..-~· ::... ··' -, '<:.:_ ~ ',, ' ~ \ ., ; I MT£:, j 1,/1< ~' OY: K.-,...._ COHMENTS ) Gr:oot 1/vlume (i:) ,~ Volu1t1.c rumped .; C;1Jcul~tt-.J<l Pf.l~ \\llumC(z:) CRotrt HEAD •DEPTH or AUGER AT \./Hrca GROUT RETURN OBSERVED Ar SURFACE f GeoEngineers Inc. l \IXF.1:c:,sT P!LE S\!cN.\RY SHF.F.T I I i JOB NMIE: a Q~~ l"J\oc e,, O,\TE: 1/r'g/'cJS f'f LE :,;o: :3H'-I-0\o O'{; KSK ~ .. -I-< "' ~ I-< "' I ~~ ... !; !! P[LE el~ ::, "' ~ :x "' :, .., (.) ~~ ~ 0.., 0 • COMMENTS NunBE!l. ;:i I-< .... ei ... ;:i "' 0 "' .., I-< ti) ... ' u 0.. :x Q (.) "' (.) > (.) 0 ~ -1\-'·l.°~3 ! R: r,c::, :::in \t,o-r::.,. r~ -, I ,<,,;2. I~ ,>l,?:Sd · re<lr,llec\ \<tt'I I '>l. -<..\ ~ '-l \; ) I \ "" o~odt· <>" t, p · ~.d,:, P""-' j""--r ) 51.' ::\ C. ---- . i=--""' 0\ '.] ~.''-JS '-l I ,, (n \ '4 3-IR 15\ i:: -::t. ... I c, ~:(V) '-1..., " f-I <.I I':\, "In \<;--=>. I= -<-i"' <../. Cl'. ::i "" ~\ ,~-/,.,-7 I ":l. I.:>. R-::>, Jc;Ot F "-I" '-\ ~ :c:;n 'qi}, . ~o-C::.-,_ \1 '·I.OS I/ ..cl ., ---I " .--'.", ... 7 II"\ IC:... ·kn.I . ~a;2: 1--, 13 13.io I c:. :i, r-'-1 ... '-l \::'in 143 ,~-/., \'Cl, ~<.I< ,c;, pl~~e,i-re,:l,,llec\ r,-'?, "'5 I '<.l C::.. -:i.'1 " "l I '-I ~ \ 9-\C,"I ,, ( r-~~s l::i: I c:, -~'1 ~~-'--/ \ <.! I ":l..=1.1 \l,H " ® r:.k-\/:::l'" \ b:<.1c; ?., "7 ,, ,, I'-! ~AS 155 -~ :b0 :--=l· -,~ -v? <;;1,'.;;~ l-?, \ -:i.. .'.1.~ I <.J -:z .l , ' --.r - ( ( - Gro11t 1/olumc (Z) ... 'Voloatc rump'<!'d .;. Calcul~it~<l P11~ \',>ln~C(%) I GROUT HEAD •DEPTII Of AUGER AT 1/llICH CROUT RETURN OBSERVED AT SUR.FACE GeoEngineers Inc. I .\l:CF.r:c \ST !' Cl.F. Sl~~\RY SHF.ET ( JOB N,l~IE: ;;). i<.e"+o" Vlo c. e nu: Xl>: 3 'i'i. O'.o s g~ C, :,: .Jo I c:, t-::, o...:, "' 0 U> l:J,37 h7<.. ~ s~ 0 -"' .... 00 - 1<-1 11~~ · 1'-'l.." '-1 -,· c,, I -:i..3 '' -, I 5 h.:<..-;. \ :SO n.\TE: ,jl'li8.S OY: 1(51::: . . - C0!1MENTS ) 1'''-' 'J':ft.tl · n"01 , I I ph .• ~ " ( I n-'-l .1-:,,, IQ· 1 f\ I':!;:))'~ ~~f C,-r-1<-1 1-i -<,-, I <:'-j ),o~14•~ .~~"11 rt''rx\, -re~r,11<:d la+c., C:-~'*3· 'ri'.':,111:-i?/-, ,. ,1 i,'.'.1(\ l:il'"\R floa 1'\u~e<1-.-e<i,,\\ r::--c,,it.7 lq·n"'-1'-ll " (~-7 il!. °<..'.:Jf'I \;s;l._ I ". '-l ~ ~ l:) , '"l <( I~' i/., ~1°; /,., I '-I ? -;;i. 3..., I 3 "i ""' ;.,,., . I\ ~-d +, : ... ~{\ \I ..,h,.,.. .("--=i"IA lq:'-l(''\ I'-\\ '' /A-7 \~ l--:."3'J< \(p\ st!'; ,,,<*fr-1 '"""SS i;_«~~ 1,-,·r.-l'-!n q IC:.·(~ \'7 lq~~ !lln'\ " " " "''Ytr:~l'..j""'""' ( n/r:.."ll'.l.~\ 10:?icl'.l.:i.. " r~ \<.! i::)_RJ.. \(o(o · r:.<..l ~3 ,r,-~ "!L ~~ ~-r-1h RAa \(o3 Ir~--:i.." \ 11 '"lo '-13 ~9-: " \<../ -;,,,37 1 s3 ,1L30,t<1 cci.-,1\ f'~· ~" (o \'I <Jr-'-:i.1_ ~9: 0· 7 \ J.. I~ q') 15'8 ~ @ ~Ir-~--,/~"\ l'!"\r'\ l-:igY1-" " ')..-:a:, '~-Ill IS7 ( +-'-I,,/"<. ::it""'\ <.j~ ~1o__-I 1:::1 -k.-b'";~"'\l'..,tm,~<.rQr",~·,• Groin 1/utume (i':) .. Volomc Purr,p<c"d .;. C."llcol~1t.::d Pil~ \·1•lut:1~I) 1 / GROI.IT HEAD •DEPTH OF AUGER AT !IHICH GROUT RETURN 06SERVEO AT SURFACE i---G_e_o_E_n_<1_i_n_e_e_r_s--l n-c-. -----.,---.1-t:r.-.r.-.1~-c-,s-T-P l_L_F._s_t-~-\R-,YLSH_F._E_T __ i ( J06 N,l)IE: d RPJ,"rof' F\(\c. e nu: :so: 3'i '-I· LXa llATE: 7/;J..;)/'35 OY: KSk .... ::> l'[LE i'i!JllBES 0 .., "' 0 <> :> COHHENTS (~_u11-J ~·.,,-,_ '-Vl 1;~-fo 11. -;i..,._, l"'iC:, r---:i_"'"l <1.'c:_,,l<.tn !.?.i· l~-7 \('\ 1-,<.lr"\ ,r~tn ~-'-lit.~ ~:'")("\ ,rc.1L II C.-1 I, 1..i.,-,-, ,-, I 'I"\-...\ >i '-./ If'\'("'\, I ".s J. l,;(.1~ '' \ U ~ "'<= I,::_ c::_ ,,_-::,*-':l,. \f\·~-""\(n ~?,9:, (n I~ h ,.::. II~""\ l:,.,.-.,p, ~+,,._<,o\ 1'-.,_ "'q '"' c:.r l:Y'I '' " , n .:i.,o \<i<:-:i, " -<-t ~ '-l I r · s;ci I c; l~'(O: 5-0 7 , . ~"' , <.J s::, "" -1, p c---::i ,;,., ,,·--::,r, 11Y2. l~,9--c::: , f,r.C. i 'il:'.l. l:,....=1"'/ ref,_._,,,!· ~::,~~+,F "--:,~c:; ,-.·u,c. N " i"-C. ,-,,i ,c:.u " • " " • ( A-'-! ,i <..J I 'Ac:. .1q ~~-,. 'i 1.<;7 I c. I R-<..) .,t '-l . I h !.....,, ..;., ~';;-" R I. lo"-'"',{"'\ I -c, -":I ~ /,... . ":I"' cc Y-z. " " I , ~ -:, I c; ~ I,,.. "'\"Y ref...ca I r.--.~,~'· 1;5<: ,,_.,3 ~~ c,.;_ c; I.O). i8G ,.bv-ry.-efw..c.1-s,;,,,,t,p ~/r.,--.:19,ex. ,:rn 1~/;!h ~S'Q-" <./ 1.33 c:1<· .. .. ·· .. '@ A-:l""'~ e,,: h·.::v--, 11'"''4' ~,:.,_':;" " ~ /.-;;,i7 \7,;:L 6,.:.~v,:,,:,\. ::,~ d,-~k-:, 1c1r. -~1<..Jc11 I 1 '.'.l:<o ~,Y,, --""~""-·' f"'-~c1 -, -, t?,1-f'i-:··i'· •, £.l'"t' : ·--~-\ : I :.I."\ " . ' .-...r 1 )\ ·-·1 ' -.-> ..J ! .. \/··,f_1·::t.~~~\c~ ._1 ·""?-·--.)1 ·T,·, S\.-:t:-'~-......-.J-B·t' nr ,,.1, "·r·'\·~ S::)\ \e . ,~· 0 (;. I ~ ,:-::C.d )" ·( r1 ' ... 2 .,.), Cro.,c '/ulume (;:) -\'ot 11..., l'utnp,,d ,;. c.~lculat.::d PU~ l'oliu:,"(%) 1 J l-c-R_o_UT_H_EAD __ ·_o_E_P_Tll_o_r_A_uc_E_R_A_r_1m_r_c_H_c_Ro_u_r~I-R_E_ru_RN __ o_s_sE_R_v_ED_A_r_s_u_RF_A_c_E_.L _____ 1 GeoEngineers Inc. .\t:c1-:1tc,sT rtu Sl':,~\RY sHF.ET ( ( -( Joa H,1~1E: ;;.i Re"1"ClV" Ho< e nu: x11: 3 '-1<...J . O<o PILE Nli~IBES !; . 0.., "' 0 u> llt\TE: 1[ :r3 70 O\': !(SI( COMKENTS ) ;:-_<.J •'-:z..o. ~·nn <.J<J '' 1,,-7 \i 1-:,,1,,"1 11,,-::,,, 1"-~·~r,1\ · C <.J • 3.?, lt<.J() I <-1 " " I ,., I C, 1 <J 15<. "ll'"f.l fl~~· ,..,,., ;1 I ,::./+-'J./<i.,./ a:s,., ':!'::I.I, ~~g-" It\ '.3,IT'l \"1/n ou_')«l•Mo~-1,? r,,/r=. -~/ .. /1 -I / o: I:'-. ''" 1 " " I /,.. -:i. n".'l I I" I ,. n--n .'_')-t" I la :'-IS ·~~· ';~;::.,· ,. I(") :J <./'R , ,;~ "1',-'lh" I 11:% 1:lciJ,2 '' '' I~ :J.3S 1~"7 ...-A..\stt:; ex., i'"\'15 ti;'.4. ~F,-'1-(,., (,.. f,\'.3 llnl w.s,rcl"SSc~t,I' t,,'.'.),0.7 lj..,t~:3~\C.,(;1 II {-, ~ 1.07 17t'.l ,, " • " C-\ ._ I .Q;. i'.Y SS 1'7'!21 :f,l.~-" .Ci I. 3::2. I, l " '' t..lo.-::il:z 11 \ \'!l.O \1· " 7-'9-. ~ l.'·f:S ,-,1 ~'.:J ~ci ex. ,:~ 1nl3J '' C,·f,., "'2, .ro7 \<lJ " " "· '.'.l -*11 ,ti'-I 'SO ,~Yz~ ~<;e_· " 3 • i::i.. li<-1 • • .. " 1>,/(' -'.)./:'.l,,;\ I !~:()<._ I c.,,1/.. .. / ~ II"> /.35 l I .cl " • " . ' i--""'"'-f d-: I '1-. .'.}?:, ,, 11-~ Ci 1. i:i s \( ,.! ,, l:>Jp, · 3 N"' I ;;i.::,,, <;, :i \ " /.,,-7 I I I. l.?. 11,.,0 @ R~'-1 ~-:., ;;·<.,r. r;:,-,Y?. •• 1 /) 1 n 1.qs ,,o .. . ( · . Gro"t •1., lume (7.) • \'oh.-Pua,p-,_d .;. C., lcu l'1t.::d Pilot \'.>lumq:%) I CROUT HEAD -DEPTH Of AUGER AT 1/KICH CROUT RETURN OBSERVED AT SURFACE GeoEnqineers fnc. I .\l:C.f.ltC \ST p [ l,f' sv,,,qr.y <; .. ~ .. ( ( -( ( · .. ' JOB NA~IE: :;i_ l<l2/'ltt,.,, n ace ~'tLE :,;ll: 3'-/'-/-CX.0 PILE Nv~IBE!!. , .. " " lltl.TE: 1/a~/ ~ ll'l: KSk COHMENTS ,, Cl"o,u: 1/ulume (;:) .. \'olucnc f'ump.ed ..;. C"llcul~,t~d Pilti! \°1,lotl'IC(%) 1 CROl1l' HEAD •DEPTH OF AUCER AT lillICR CROUT RETURN OBSERVED AT SURFACE GeoEnoineers Inc_ I .\l:C:F.I\C \ST E' ICE Sl':<:'URY Sl!F.ET I (206) 881-7900 PO. Box 6325 2020 124th /we N E Bellevue. WA 98008 Renton Village Company Evergreen Building Renton, Washington 98D55 Attention: Mr. Everett Johnson Gentlemen: June 17, 1985 Consultation Two Renton Place Renton Village Renton, Washington File No. 344-06 GeoEnglneers Incorporated Consulting Geotechnical Engineers and Geologists This letter summarizes our conversation with Mr. Dan Symonds of KPFF regarding recollllllended allowable pile capacities for augercast piles presented in our report dated May 9, 1985. The recommended capacities are intended to apply to the total of dead and long-term live loads. Based on the strength of the soil and rock total capacity of the piles for short-term loads including wind earth seismic may be increased by 50 percent. This provides a maximum design capacity from the standpoint of soil and rock strength of 66, 99 and 150 tons for 12-, 14-and 16-inch piles, respectively. As indicated in the report, the structural adequacy of the piles should be determined by an structural engineer for the actual design loads on the piles. 0 () 0 1 Renton Village Company June 17, 1985 Page Two We trust that the foregoing meets your present needs. Should you have any questions or need additional information, please call. GWH:da Four copies-submitted cc: Mr. Dan Symonds KPFF Mr. Rick King Callison Partnership Yours very truly, GeoEngineers, Inc. i,~err~ Principal GeoEngineers Incorporated REPORT GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING SERVICES TWO RENTON PLACE RENTON, WASHINGTON FOR RENTON VILLAGE COMPANY GeoEnglneers Incorporated (206) 881-7900 P.O. Bo, 6325 2020 1241h Ave. N E. Bellevue. WA 98008 Renton Village Company Evergreen Building Renton, Washington 98055 Attention: Mr. Everett Johnson Gentlemen: May 9, 1985 Report ifli 11111= GeoEngineers Incorporated Consul1ing Geotechnicai Engineers and Geologists Geotechnical Engineering Services Two Renton Place Renton, Washington File No. 344-06 INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of our geotechnical engineering services regarding site development and foundation support for the proposed Two Renton Place. The site is located to the west of Talbot Road South and includes a large parcel of property to the north and a smaller parcel to the south of Renton Village Place as shown on Figure l. The smaller parcel is triangular in shape and extends from the existing parking lot adjacent to One Renton Place to Talbot Road South. We understand that it will be developed for parking. The larger parcel lies between the existing stores of the Renton Village Shopping Center and Talbot Road South and extends north from Renton Village Place 300 to 450 feet. We understand that you plan to build a seven-story office building with a footprint of approximately 110 by 190 feet surrounded by parking. Considerable geotechnical explorations and evaluations have been previously done for projects adjacent to and on the site. These projects include a large-diameter storm drain along Talbot Road South and Renton Village Place, One Renton Place office structure, Puget Sound Power & Light substation to the north of the site, and two borings drilled on the site as part of a preliminary investigation for a r,reviously-envisioned development. • The Renton Village Company May 9, 1985 Page Two The proposed structure will be a concrete frame similar to One Renton Place located a short distance away and south of Renton Village Place. Pile design capacities are in the range of SO to 90 tons (downward load) with 3 to 12 piles per column; no significant uplift loads are anticipated. However, for support of the crane during construction, uplift may be in the range of 30 to 35 tons. Present plans call for the finish floor to be at Elevation 29.0, requiring up to 8 feet of fill below the floor slab. Base shear for the structure is to be resisted by lateral loading of the piles and passive resistance on grade beams and pile caps. The purpose of our work is to provide recommendations for development of the site and foundation support of the proposed structures. Specifically, our is as follows: l. Site explorations of the near-surface materials in the parking area using a backhoe and identifying the depth to bedrock by drilling three borings inside the building footprint. 2. Providing recommendations for design of piling to support the structure, including the type of piles and estimated lengths. 3. Providing installation criteria for the type of piles selected, including refusal criteria} hammer size or other information, as appropriate. 4. Providing recommendations for site preparation and grading, including stripping and overexcavation requirements, compaction criteria, imported fill material quality, and underground and utility con- nections to building structure. S. Providing recommendations for design of pavement in parking and roadway areas. 6. Evaluate and provide site period in accordance with the Uniform Building Code procedure. SITE CONDITIONS SURFACE CONDITIONS The site north of Renton Viliage Place has an estimated 12 to 15 feet of relief and is generally flat tc rolling, with some mounded areas. It GeoEnglneers Incorporated J ---.--i The Renton Village Company May 9, 1985 Page Three is presently vacant and supports brush and berry vines interspersed with open areas. Reeds and cattails occur in the lower areas, indicating a fairly high ground water table. Also, some trash and construction debris have been dumped on the site. The smaller site south of Renton Village Place slopes downward to the east and is about 5 feet higher than the adjacent parking lot at the west end. It has a vacant building formerly used as a veterinarian clinic that has asphalt driveways, some parking, shrubs and a few small trees. The remainder of the site has a grass cover with some brush and berry vines and a few scattered trees. SUBSURFACE COl!IDITIONS Subsurface conditions have been been further defined in our investigation by drilling 3 borings within the building footprint and by excavating 15 test pits in the proposed parking areas. Locations of the borings and test pits, along with the locations of previous explorations, are presented on the Plot Plan, Plate 1. A description of our field exploration program, .along with the boring logs, are contained in the Appendix to this report. The borings encountered highly variable subsurface conditions within the proposed building footprint. Boring l encountered soft or loose silt peat and silty fine sand overlying medium dense silty sand at 38 feet and reasonably sound sandstone bedrock at 41 feet. Boring 2, located on the west side of the proposed building site, encountered 17 feet of medium dense sandy silt and silty sand overlying weathered sandstone from 17 to 22 feet and reasonably sound sandstone bedrock at 22 feet. Since the depth to bedrock varied dramatically between the borings, an additional boring was drilled to further delineate the subsurface portion of the sandstone bedrock between Borings 85-1 and 85-2. Overburden material in this boring was similar to that of Boring 2, and sandstone bedrock was encountered at 21 feet. The surface elevation of the borings was developed in the field by using a hand level; reference elevation was taken at a point on Renton Village Place where contour li.-oes on our map cross the street centerline. GeoEnglneers Incorporated The Renton Village Company May 9, 1985 Page Four Based on the bedrock surface elevations calculated 1 we have developed a bedrock surface contour as shown on the Figure 2, by interpolation, bedrock surface elevations between the borings. The accuracy of the bedrock contours is as implied by methods and procedures used. Test Pits I through 3, located in the lowlying area encountered, varying thicknesses of soft and loose silt and peat and silty sand fill. Test Pits 4 through 6, located on the south side of Renton Village Place, encountered 1-1/2 to 6-1/2 feet of very stiff fine sandy silt underlain by dense fine sand. The remainder of the test pits are located in the western portion of the site and generally encountered to approximately 8 feet of very stiff fine sandy silt underlain by dense fine sand. The overlying silt material is apparently thickest in the far western side of the site and wedges out on top of the low hill on the western edge of the proposed building location. CONCLUSIONS AND RECClfKl!NDATlONS GEIIKRAL We recommend that the structure and the lower floor slab be supported on piling. The piling should bear on the underlying bedrock and would generally be end-bearing. Practically no friction would be developed i.n the southwest corner where bedrock is shallow; more significant friction and downdrag will develop in the northeast corner where bedrock is deep and overlain by compressible soils. Fill placement in the lowlying areas of the site will result in con- siderable settlement. A majority of the settlement should occur fairly rapidly. Some additional settlement is likely to occur over a period of several years. In order to minimize postconstruction settlement, a major portion of the filling· should be done at the onset of the construction activity and final grading and paving should be delayed as long as possible. The on-site soils consist of fill materials, silt and reasonably clean sand. The sand will be reasonably sood fill; the silt material will be more difficult to place and very difficult to properly compact. Ideal weather conditions (warm and ~iry) and thin lifts will be needed to properly compact the silt materials. Also, where the silt is encounteLed at subgradet GeoEnglneers Incorporated The Renton Village Company May 9, I 985 Page Five the upper one foot should be overexcavated and replaced with compacted clean sand and gravel fill to form a suitable subgrade for parking areas. Developing site grades to minimize excavation of the silt should lead to overall economy unless it can be utilized for fill material in other portions of the site. Generally, the silt material should not be used for fill within 1-1/2 to 2 feet of finished subgrade. SITE PREPARATION AND FILLING Prior to filling in the building area, we recommend that all rubble and tree stumps be removed that would interfere with pile installation. In parking and roadway areas, surface vegetation consisting of brush and trees should be removed. In areas where the existing ground surface is within 2 feet of finished subgrade, the topsoil should be stripped and wasted. Prior to filling, filter fabric should be placed over the wet ground in lowlying areas, except that filter fabric should not be used in the building area where drilled piles are contemplated or where utility trench excavations will encounter it. In lowlying are.as, the initial lift of fill should consist of reasonably clean granular material approximately 2 feet thick so that it supports construction equipment. Subsequent fill should be placed in layers of appropriate thickness for the type of material used and each layer compacted as specified. We recoonnend that the specified compaction be to 90 percent of the maximum dry density, except that the upper 2 feet below subgrade outside the building area should be compacted to 95 percent. The density should be determined in accordance with ASTM D-l557 compaction procedures. A large portion of the upper on-site soils, particularly those located west of the proposed structure, consist of silt. The material will be difficult to use as compacted fill because it is moisture-sensitive and relatively slow-drying. This material should be suitable for fi 11 in the lowlying areas, providing that weather conditions are suit.able for placement and compaction and it is placed 2 feet below subgrade where cornpactio11 to 90 percent of the max.imum dry density is satisfactory. Use of the silt GeoEnglneers Incorporated The Renton Village Company May 9, 1985 Page Six material for fill in the building area would be an advantage because it will tend to seal off methane gas generated in the underlying organic materials and reduce the requirements for venting under the floor slab. We recommend that imported fill consist of sand or sand and gravel containing less than 5 percent fines (material passing a U.S. No. 200 sieve). Imported fill should generally be reserved for topping out. When fill is placed during favorable weather, the fines content can be relaxed somewhat. If this is permitted, the overlying surfacing should be placed prior to the onset of wet weather to protect the silty material. If final surfacing has to be delayed for utility installation or other purposes, use of asphalt- treated base material provides a reasonable good protective blanket. UTILITIES Utility trench backfill should be compacted as outlined above, except· for trenches that bottom more than 4 feet below subgrade. Below a depth of 4 feet, the backfill need only be compacted to the approximate density . of the adjacent soil. Utilities that cross existing low ground will experience settlement and should be designed accordingly. Utility lines that tie to the structure should be flexible and design to accommodate differential settlement without breaking. PILE SUPPORT General: We recommend that the structure be pile-supported. The piles should be socketed into the underlying sandstone bedrock that varies from approximately 15 to 45 feet below the slab elevation. The resulting highly variable pile lengths combined with soft silts and peat overburden in portions of the structure 1 s footprint makes selection of the most efficient type of pile complex. In our opinion, either steel pipe or large-diameter cast-in-place concrete piles may be the roost economical. Other types of piles are also technically feasible, including prestressed concrete and auge rcas t piles. Because of the wide variation in pi le lengths, pres tressed concrete piles may not be economically competitive. Augercast and cast-in- plRce concrete piles should !ffl efficient since their lengtllS can be easily GeoEnglneers Incorporated The Renton Village Company May 9, 1985 Page Seven varie<l. However, the soft overburden will require casing for cast-in-place piles and may lead to installation difficulties for augercast piles in pile groups. Since the piles are essentially end bearing, no reduction for group efficiency is needed. Augercast Piles: The recommended allowable design bearing for augercast piles is 40, 60 and 90 tons for 12-, 14-and 16-inch-diameter piles. Recom- mended design capacities are intended to apply to the total of all design loads (dead, live, ~..Y(;:Jd~exclusive of downdrag loads which are expected to develop in the eastern two-thirds of the building footprint. An allowance for downdrag loads of 4, 6 and 10 tons for the 12-, 14-, and 16-inch piles have been incorporated in the recommended design values. Also, the recommended pile capacities are based on the strength of the soil and sandstone bedrock and ignores the structural strength of the pile. Structural capacity of the piles should be evaluated by a structural engineer and should incorporate the allowance for downdrag added to the allowable bearing values. We recommend that the augercast piles be installed by drilling into the bedrock to practical refusal. It should be installed by a contractor experienced in their placement. Monitoring of pile installation should include a log providing a detailed record of the installation procedure, the volume of grout used per pile, pressure maintained during grouting, and any irregularities noted. For pile groups, we recommend that the augercast piles be spaced a minimum of 2-1/2 diameters apart, and preferably three diarneters. Success of the minimum spacing is dependent on the experience of the contractor, and installation problems can occur if proper procedures are not followed. These problems include loss of grout from a pile caused by inadequate set time between adjacent piles and damage to adjacent piles caused by out- of-plumb drilling. These problems are compounded by the presence of the peat and soft silts that occur at the building site. In order to minimize the risk of damagiI1g a completed ~ile, tl1e following could be included in the specifications. GeoEngineers Incorporated The Renton Village Company May 9, 1985 Page Eight 1. Contractor shall be responsible for all methods and construction sequence to achieve satisfactory installation of the piles and shall replace at no cost to the owner any completed pile that is damaged by his work. 2. Piles should not be installed within a minimum of 10 pile diameters and further as dictated by local ground conditions of the pile in which the grout has not obtained a minimum set. The set time shall be evaluated from the strength gain/time relationship that is based on tests of the grout mix used for the piles. Minimum set time should be taken as a maximum time for the grout to attain a strength of 60 psi. 3. Piles should not be installed within a minimum of three pile diameters of the pile in which the grout has not obtained a strength of 500 psi. Corresponding time for 500 psi grout strength shall be evaluated from the strength gain/time relationship, Cast-In-Place Piling: Large-diameter drilled piles socketed l to 2 feet into relatively hard bedrock may be designed for allowable bearings as follows: Pile Diameter Allowable Bearing 24 inch 200 tons 30 inch 300 tons 36 inch 400 tons 42 inch 550 tons Again, the recommended allowable bearings are based on the strength of the soil and rock at the site and their structural integrity should be determined by a structural engineer. We are available to provide allowances for downdrag in the eastern t1o10-thirds of the site should you wish to consider this type of pile further. Steel Piles: Pipe or H-piles driven to practical refusal into the sandstone bedrock may also be used to support the structure. The pipe GeoEnglneers Incorporated The Renton Village Company May 9, 1985 Page Nine piles should be driven open-ended and the tips protected with a hardened driving shoe. Also, Pruyn points should be used to protect the points of H-piles. There is more corrosion potential than normal at this site result1n-g-· from general galvanic corrosion and stray current. The site is near an electrical substation and two separate transmission lines, which increases the risk for stray currents. We understand that the substation is grounded and that there is low risk of stray currents from that source. There is also a higher than normal risk from galvanic corrosion because some of the piles will penetrate four significantly different types of soil (fill, peat, alluvium and bedrock). Because of the higher than normal risk of corrosion, we recommend that it be considered in pile selection and design; Penetration into the relatively hard bedrock will vary with the pile tip area, driving energy, and practical refusal criteria, as well as the type of pile. The pipe piles will probably penetrate an average of 3 to 4 feet, and H-piles could penetrate 6 to 8 feet into the bedrock. In our opinion, 12-inch pipe or H-piles are satisfactory for 90 tons allowable bearing and 8-to 10-inch pipe or H-piles for 50 tons allowable bearing. During pile installation, dynamic compression stresses in the piles will be in the range of two to three times the allowable bearing, and the steel sections should be chosen accordingly. Tentative pile driving criteria defining practical refusal or the various piles indicated are outlined below by assuming a hammer with a minimum energy of 30,000 ft/lb, After the type of piles and hammer size have been developed, we will re-evaluate the refusal criteria. Capacity Pile T)'.ee (tons) 12 inch pipe 90 12 inch H 90 10 inch pipe 50 8 inch H 50 Refusal Criteria s blows/ inch 5 blows/inch 2 blows/inch l. 6 blows/ inch GeoEngineers Incorporated The Renton Village Company May 9, 1985 Page Ten Pile Uplift: Pile uplift capacities have been evaluated using a semi- empirical approach. The calculated allowable uplift that includes a safety factor of 2 for Jarious piles are indicated below. The allowable capacities are in kips where Pis the perimeter of the pile in feet. For H-piles, the perimeter should be taken as a square. Embedment Length Cast-in-Place Concrete Augercast Steel feet ki s kiES ~ 15 lP !.SP 0.8P 20 2.3P 3.5P 1. SP 25 3.5P 5.3P 2.8P 30 SP 7. SP 4P 35 7P 10.SP 5.6P 40 9P 13. SP 7.2P 45 l!P 16.SP 8.8P The above capacities are based on the strength of the soil and ignore the weight of the pile. The structural strength of the pile and connections should be as determined by your structucal engineer. Also, the higher allowable capacities for augercast piles assume pressure grouting to increase lateral soil pressures on the pile. LATERAL RESISTANCE Lateral resistance to ~ind or seismic loading can be developed by passive resistance in the native soils acting on the upper portions of piles, pile caps and any grade beams constructed under the structure. Assuming that the upper materials will consist primarily of fill, we recommend passive resistance equivalent to a fluid weighing 300 pounds per cubic foot acting on grade beams and pile caps. For a single 12.75-inch-diameter steel pipe pile, a lateral load of 10 tons results in horizontal displacement of less than 1/2 inch by assuming that the pile head is fixed against rotation. Other types of piles with a similar diameter will deflect more or less, depending on their relative stHfoess. Groups of piles are likely to deflect more with a similar per pile lateral Joad. GeoEnglneers Incorporated The Renton Village Company May 9, 1985 Page Eleven SITE PERIOD We have evaluated the probable range of site period based an estimated shear wave velocities in the overburden material in accordance with procedures described in the Uniform Building Code Standards. For conditions encountered in the building area the calculated site periods ranges from somewhat less than .5 to .8 seconds. The higher value reflects the presence of peat coupled with the depth of bedrock of 45 feet in the northeast corner of the building. Based on the Uniform Building Code Standards, a site period of .8 seconds is recommended for your analysis. FLOOR SLAB SUPPORT We have recommended that the lower floor slab be supported on piles because of the potential for significant differential settlement. In general, fill material placed in the building area need only be adequate to support floor slab construction, However, provisions should be made under the slab to vent potential accumulations of methane gas and to protect the floor slab from dampness .. For thist we recommend a 6-inch blanket of coarse sand or gravel with a vapor barrier placed between the blanket and the floor slab. The sand or gravel blanket should be vented to the outside using perforated drain pipes placed at 60-to 80-foot intervals, PAVEMENTS We recommend that the pavement section consist of 2 inches of Class B asphalt pavement overlying 4 inches of crushed base course. Asphalt-treated base course can be substitltted for the base course to provide a working surface and staging area during construction.. Areas that experience severe cracking should be repaired and the entire surface releveled prior to placing the asphalt surfacing. ENTRIES Steps and sidewalks on the outside of the structure will experience long-term settlement. The settlement should be insignificant on the west side of the building and could be in excess of 4 inches at the north entrance and on the west end of the building. We recommend that the settlement GeoEnglneers Incorporated The Renton Village Company May 9, 1985 Page Twelve be considered in designing the sidewalks and entries to the building. Entries designed as a bridge with one end supported on the building and the other on the ground should be considered. USE OF THIS REPORT We have prepared this report for use by Renton Village Company and by their architects and engineers for their use in design of a portion of this project. The data and report should be provided to prospective contractors for their bidding or estimating purposes, but our report, con- clusions and interpretations should not be construed as a warranty of the subsurface conditions. If there are changes in the loads, grades, location, configuration or type of construction for the facilities, we request that we be given the opportunity to review our conclusions and recommendations and to provide a written modification or verification. When the design has been finalized, we recommend that the final design and specifications be reviewed by our firm to see that our recommendations have been interpreted and implemented as intended. The scope of our services does not include services related to construction safety precautions and our recommendations are not intended to direct the contractor 1 s methods, techniques~ sequences or procedures, except as specifi.- cal ly described in our report for consideration in design. There are possible variations in subsurface conditions between the explorations and also with time. A contingency for unanticipated conditions should be included in the budget and schedule. Sufficient monitoring, testing and consultation by our firm should be provided during construction to confirm that the conditions encountered are consistent with those indicated by the explorations, to provide recommendations for design changes should the conditions revealed ducing the work diffec from those anticipated, and to evaluate whether or not earthwork and foundation installation activ1.ties comply with contract plans and specifications. GeoEnglneers Incorporated The Renton Village Company May 9, 1985 Page Thirteen Within the limitations of scope, schedule and budget, our services have been executed in accordance with generally accepted practices in this area at the time the report was prepared. No other conditions, express or implied, should be understood. 0 0 0 We trust that the foregoing meets your present needs. Should you have any GWH:wd Four copies submitted cc: Mr. Rick King Callison Partnership 1423 3rd Ave., Seattle, WA 98101 Mr. Dan Symonds KPFF 850 First Interstate Center 999 3rd Ave., Seattle, WA 98104 Mr. Bill Guedel Lease Crutcher P.O. Box 817 Redmond, WA 98052 Yours very truly, GeoEngineers, Inc. Q4' ct,,/ /}t' /} k,1.ef1..," Gary W. Henderson Principal call. GeoEngineers Incorporated -1!,' ~ ~ ;, r "' ~ ij: " " 8 ~ NCRTH EXISTING PAY 'N SAVE 8UlLD[NG J .. r ,,Cf':' -·-1;:</+1 '-':::3:-;" -:::t-===~-==--/(; I ,, -f-;~-~ =aj'~"' / .. , .. ~"':Y 11 ' " l--'.'-"\~ " ( \) ) ,, p,f .1.182- / /// " ' "-\ I ' ,,, .. ,·:a,- ~11 .• . 1" -Jl.5-2 ' / / i= ' ,;,, I "•. L' ' ' OS ' ' ti-" KEY: / . I/ ..... / / )8,1,''-. >·,\ I J CJ' -· // / I V . \ \ ~ ' ' ,, I -H ' SS-l-$-BORIMG NUMBER & LOCAT[ON 1,-$-TFST Pll NUM!'lER 1.: l_OCATlotS , .. --_...,--EX I ST I NG CONTOURS 79-1+-$-TEST PIT FROM PREVIOUS EXPLORATIONS ~ i 80-~1... / I/ //. I /----· ----/ ,,.--I !() / ! \ \ .. ( . ;~;p~;~~ON PLACE.-"'. 'jfl ;' / . // ! / 1, \ ', 80 BU!LD!Nr. NEW OFFICE s I " / , • ·• , "' I J>· I / / ' ', ' ' ,,., ...... I " / i ' SH ' • I ' I <I> ' I ... , \.~<.1-2"C>< .. j ... oe,,oo .,, '~""" ,! ·· :')$'''') \",h ·Cc:;--··, ~2-f ·~ . -~ ~~' ' ~,-,, .. . ,._ \ \\ ~ l_7*~b";· 82 -!$-BORING FROM PREVlOUS EXPLORATIONS REF~RENCE: DRAWING [NTITL[O ''SIT[ PLAN,'' PROJEC-1 84266, RENTON VILI.Al:rf' (01'1PP..NY, DATED APRiL lG, l98S 0 80 160 SCALE IN FEET r--;:::::::::::-~-=~):;::·-· -\ 82 '---'-f' I -;;· ~'-->•~"-,..-EXIS~;:iG-~-{ VACANT \ -$-4 ~UILDING {-y fP"-' -$-] l/-1! -$-6 ------.. ____...--· ---;"· i~ ,.,,~s _ __...--~~i:~~s'f>-. --c· G&oEngineers Inc. SITE PLAN FIGURE 1 ) ) I ') 0 i ' ,, "' ":i ' ' FJGURE 2 ~ 0 ------DEPTH OF BEDROCK SURFACE BELOW FLOOR SLAB I~ ;zo •:fl TWO RENTON PLACE ,io 25 ~ // !>~ NORTH))__=::=:::=~ ~o 0 40 80 SCALE IN FEET GeoEngineers Inc. / .~ DEPTH TO BEDROCK INTERPOLATED BETWEEN BORINGS. BUILDING SITE PLAN I ' ; I I I ' ' I i I ' I ' A P P E N D I X FIELD EXPLORATION PROGRAM Subsurface conditions at the site were explored by drilling 3 borings within the building footprint and by excavating 15 test pits. The drilling was done with a truck-mounted Mobile B-61 drill rig using 4-inch-inside- diameter, hollow-stem auger. The test pits were excavated with a backhoe mounted on a rubber-tired tractor. The locations of the explorations, along with other explorations on the site, are shown on the Plot Plan1 Figure !. The explorations were located in the field by an engineer from our staff who selected sample intervals, examined and classified samples recovered, and kept a log of each exploration based on examination of the samples. Exploration locations were measured by taping and pacing from existing roadways and other features shown on the Site Plan. Ground surface elevations at the explorations have been interpreted from contours shown on the Site Plan and by using a hand level, with the datum based on the contours. The soils encountered in our explorations were classified in accordance with the Soil Classification System shown on Figure A-1. The boring logs, modified to reflect examination of the samples in the lab, are presented on Figures A-2 through A-5. Test pit logs are presented on Figures A-6 through A-13. Relatively undisturbed samples were obtained from the borings using a 3-1/4-inch outside-diameter heavy-duty sampler with a 2.4-inch brass liner ring. The heavy-duty sampler consisted of a barrel that is split and can be disassembled for removal of the sample. The sampler was driven with a 300-pounds hammer falling a distance of 30 inches. The length of the sample driven, sample condition and resistance to driving are noted on the exploration log adjacent to the sample notation. GeoEnglneers Incorporated C) J , > w UJ FIGURE A 1 - BORING LOG AND SAMPLE DATA KEY DRIVEN SAMPLES r--BLOWS REQUIREO TO DRIVE SAMPLER ONE FOOT OR INDICATED PENETRATION USING POUND HAMMER MOISTURE FALLING INCHES CONTENT/ 11 P11 INDICATES SAMPLER PUSHED WITH WEIGHT OF HAMMER 28 11.2% 111 • INDICATES LOCATION OF UNDISTURBED SAMPLE DRY DE~ ~ INDICATES LOCATION OF DISTURBED SAMPLE IN PCF D INDICATES LOCATION OF SAMPLl NG ATTEMPT WITH NO RECOVERY OTHER TYPES GRAPHIC LOG - OF SAMPLES SM LETTER SYMBOL SOIL TYPE I INDICATES LOCATION THIN WALL, ,__ DISTINCT CONTACT OF BETWEEN SOIL STRATA PI TC HER, OR OTHER TYPES OF SAMPLES (SEE TEXT) / GRADUAL CHANGE BETWEEN SOIL STRATA -BOTTOM OF BORING UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM MAJOR DIVISIONS LETTER DESCRIPTIONS SYMBOL GRAVEL I w£CL-C"A'Of0-GAAV£LS, (,RA!,(L-SN(I ANO ' CLEAN GRAVELS GW 14fX1\IIES. lfiTLE 111" Ml f!t,ES COAR$€ GRAVELLY !CJTT'.E QI!~ FIJ,,{5) GRAINED SOILS GP f'<XALY...(;RAO(o GIIA',(LS. GAA.'IEL- SNlJ ~I)(l'tfl[S, LITTU Oft J'() Fir.ES SOILS GRAVELS I01I:: nW'f :m,., I GM SIL l'I ~,,us. (;AAVfl-5-'IO-SllT CF COM5E FRAC-WITH FINES 14l~S Tl CN 8fJ'.Alt£l2 01 I'll. "I SIEVE t,l?<'Rf.CJABU A>OJ,IT CLAYEY GAAVllS, GRAYU-SAHO-~H T t¥' F1""5) GC IHXTU!t(S SAND CLEAN SANDS SW ll'i:ll (.ff.ll(Jf0 SN,OS, GAA\i£LL'f' SAN)S, AND I LJ1Tlf CIR M, iJ~S SANDY SOILS i 1umt DR •.c q"l:s1 --= SP f>Cl:IRl'l·VIAOED ~. f.AAvflLY SN,l)S, {F MATERl-'l TS Ll1TU ~1'll'1'11>ES LMlifB, TIWI 11(). ---I 200 SIEVE Sl Z£ CJ' Cl'.W!S£ FAA£:-SANDS SM S!Lrr' WOS. W-0-SILT MllC'TlKS Tl(J,j~ WITH FINES '(]. • Sff\1£ i :APF'l'rf:·:li>&.f NO.HT SC OF F 11',(S) cu..vrv SNllS, 5N<l-cu.~ MJlCT\ME~ I I JIOl(,,e,N!C SILTS, N-0 \4:fN FJHI: SN,DS, ML ROCK Fllll~. SlLTY OR C'J.YE'I' F!M:: FINE SILTS SN<>S oo CL.AVEY Slt T!. wn~ !.I. rGH"I LIQUID LIMIT Pi.AS! IC !TY GRAINED ANO LESS SOILS CLAYS THAN 50 l~IC Cl.AYS ~ lO'oo TD "'fDlUM CL PL..sr[C!TY. G!t,1,VEtl) 0::LAYS, SNC;T i l":L.JIYS. SILT'r' ClAYS, lFl>i'I CLAYS i i OL (lR(,ANlC StLTS JW.; (f>(....,.I~ ~,HT"'!' I CU,Y";. Of tflW PU.ST 10 P MH J~lC SllfS. "ICAl.'.fDVS CJ! 01/11.TU· SILTS "4AC:f0if., ~lr-t ~ ~ Slt'N SOILS -""""" LIQUID UMIT -- r, ""TEAlAl 1S ANO I GREATER ~TtilNICI. CH !~IC f.l-~Y'~ Cl ,.W,H "!.ASTICJ ,y 200 SIN Sll{ CLAYS I THAN 50 ~Al fl AY,, ------------------- OH "'R(J.ft<<. '.L,',(':, t• "l:Dlt"' .,, ~I[~< i /'i.A.';T1C/!'"T', ':Flf;.IJ,l[r: <,;llS ----------- HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS PT l>~J.1, >i',.,f>,. ·-'~'ll' .. !'li HJ,,>! ,"Jf'(Nll!:: '.fHl'l"T~ ""' ou-.. ,C,Tlft'.lS lll(;Jt.,,n !!lllfn.>€i<'.!~ <,1.11. 'lAS'>tr1cn1a.. GeoEngineers Inc. I UNIFIED SO!L CLASSlflCAT!ON SYSTEM AND KfY TO SAMPLE DATA . "' " (!) Cl( 0: "' 0 r···· " " "' ~ '0 -' LJ - f-< "' "' i,. z .... ;:: "' r.,J 0 FIGURE A-2 BORING NO. 85-1 *GRAPHIC *TEST DATA LOG DESCRIPTION o~-=-::..:......:::.:.:..::...-......::.::..:.:.~---------==-=;..:.;=:--------ML GRAY FINE SANDY SILT WITH SOME ORGANIC MATTER, 5- 10- 15- 20- 30- 35 - 40 - POCKETS OF SAND AND MISCELLENOUS DEBRIS 4 (MEDIUMS STIFF, MOIST) (FILL) • 0 .....__ II PT BROWN PEAT (SOFT, WET) 4 II l II ~ GRAY PT ORGANIC SILT AND PEAT (SOFT, WET) ENCOUNTERED LOG AT 14 FEET V ~ GRAY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND AND SILTY SAND WITH SM POCKETS OF PEAT (VERY LOOSE, WET) V ML GRAYISH-GREEN FJNE SANDY SILT (MEDIUM SOFT, 9 MOIST) • ~ GRAYISH-GREEN SILTY SAND WITH A TRACE OF GRAVEL 13 (MEDIUM DENSE, WET) II 14 • 3 1 • OCCASIONAL CHUNKS OF BROKEN SANDSTONE *SEE f'.f.Y FOR EXPLA'.lATWN OF SY"'~<J!i' GeoEngineers Inc. LOG Of F.Xl'LORATTO'.l -DEPTH " "' ' en N ~ -" .,: 0 (( "' "' o:·· C I -" .,. "' '"O I ., Ll H "' "' .... :z H 1'.; p.. w Q eJGURE A-3 BORING NO. 85-1 (CONTINUED) *GRAPHIC *TEST DATA LOG DESCRIPTION 40~~..:.::.::..:....~~~......:::.::..::.,~~~~~~~~.......;;,;;;:c:.;;.;.:.:....:..~~~~~~~~~ 45- SM 14~ pi ROC • - LIGHT GRAY MICACEOUS SILTY SANDSTONE (WEATHERED) AUGER REFUSAL AT 44.0 FEET BORING COMPLETED AT 44 FEET ON 4/22/85 GROUND WATER LEVEL AT 4 FEET ON 4/22/85 *SF.E KEY FOR F.XPLA::ATlON OF SY!-'8(1],S GeoEngineers Inc. I LOf: OF r::XPLORATIO:l -DEPTH . <l C ,.J ... .., .., <x. z ... ;::: "" ~ "' FIGURE A-'+ BORING NO. 85-2 *GRAPHIC 0-r_.:"::.;Tc:E:::·s~T....:'..DA:::_·.::rA::.__,...!::LO:::_G~---------.!:D;;:E:.:.SC~R::.;I~P..:·'..:'I::.O:.:.N ________ _ SP BROWN FINE SAND (MEDIUM DENSE, DAMP) 5- 1 0 - 15 - 20- 2 5 - 30 _ 16 • 4 • 9 • ML ~ 411----1 LIGHT BROWN FINE SANDY SILT WITH ORGANIC MA (MEDIUM STIFF, WET) BROWN SILTY SAND WITH A TRACE OF GRAVEL AND ORGANIC MATTER (LOOSE, WET) • SM GRAY TO BROWNISH-GREEN SILTY M!CACEOUS SAND (DENSE, WET) (HIGHLY WEATHERED SANDSTONE) 1.:±. 4" 1----i • RK GRAY 7 0 GRAYISH-GREEN SANDSTONE (WEATHERED, MODERATELY HARD) 100 • AUGER REFUSAL AT 29.5 FEET .____, BORING COMPLETED AT 29.5 FEET ON 4/22/85 GROUND WATER LEVEL AT 8 FEET ON 4/22/85 TTER ''SFE KEY FOR EXPLA'.IATTON OF SYH~O>.:·· GeoEngineers Inc. LOG Of EXPLORATW:; -DEPTH FIGURE A-5 BORING NO. 85-3 *GRAPH JC *TEST DATA LOG DESCRIPTION 0 ~....:...:..:::::..:......;:::.::..:::___,_;;:;;::.:.,.. _______ __;~.::..:.;.:c:...c..""'-'-------- 5- 15 - 20 - 2 5 - 20 • 5 • 14 • 15 • SP BROWN FINE SAND WITH A TRACE OF SILT (MED!UM DENSE, MOIST) -SM BROWN SILTY FINE SAND WITH LAYERS OF SILT (LOOSE, WET) SM GRAYISH-GREEN SILTY MICACEOUS SAND (MEDIUM DENSE, WET) (HIGHLY WEATHERED SANDSTONE) RK GR1\i' TC GRAY I SH-GREEN SANDSTONE (WEATHERED - • MODERATELY HARD) ,__--!AUGER REFUSAL AT 25 FEET BORING COMPLETED AT 25 FEET ON 4/22/85 GROUND WATER LEVEL AT 5 FEET ON 4/22/85 ''oEE KEY FOR EXPLA'.lAT !ClN OF SY"ll0L'' GeoEngineers Inc. LOG OF EXPJ.0RAT! O'l -DEPTH :) ,, DEPTH BELOW GROUND SURFACE (FEET) UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM SYMBOL FIGURE A-6 DESCRIPTION TEST PIT 85-l APPROXIMATE GROUND SURFACE ELEVATION: 27 FEET 0 -2.5 2.5 -4.0 4.0 -8.0 8.0 -8.5 8.5 -9,5 SM SP/ SM ML PT ML GeoEngineers Inc. BROWN AND DARK BROWN SILTY SAND WITH A TRACE OF GRAVEL AND ABUNDANT DECAYED ORGANICS (LOOSE, DAMP) BLUISH-GRAY SAND WITH SOME SILT (MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST) GRAY SILT WITH SAND LAYERS AND ABUNDANT LARGE DECAYED ORGANIC MATTER (MEDIUM STIFF, WET) DARK BROWN PEAT (SOFT, WET) GRAY SILT WITH DECAYED ORGANIC MATTER (MEDIUM STIFF, WET) TEST PIT COMPLETED AT 9,5 FEET ON 4/24/85 GROUND WATER ENCOUNTERED AT 4 FEET RAPID GROUND WATER SEEPAGE FROM SAND LAYER AT 6 TO 8 FEET TEST PIT LOGS ::, u DEPTH BELOW GROUND SURFACE (FEET) UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM SYMBOL FIGURE A-7 DESCRIPTION TEST PIT 85-2 APPROXIMATE GROUND SURFACE ELEVATION: 22 FEET 0 1. 5 SM 1.5 -7.5 ML GeoEngineers Inc. BROWN SILTY FINE SAND WITH ABUNDANT ROOTS (LOOSE, MOIST) GRAY SANDY SILT WITH LAYERS AND LENSES OF MEDIUM SAND (SOFT, WET) PEAT LAYER AT 6 FEET LARGE LOGS ENCOUNTERED AT 7.5 FEET TEST PIT COMPLETED AT 7.5 FEET ON 4/24/85 GROUND WATER ENCOUNTERED AT 1.5 FEET MODERATE SEEPAGE AND CAVING BELOW 4. 5 FEET I TEST PIT LOGS :, ,, DEPTH BELOW GROUND SURFACE (FEET) UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM SYMBOL FIGURE A-8 DESCRIPTION TEST PIT 85-3 APPROXIMATE GROUND SURFACE ELEVATION: 28 FEET 0 -1.5 SP/SM 1.5 -4.0 SW 4.0 -6.0 ML 6.0 -8.0 SW 8.0 -9.S PT/OL 9.5 -10.5 ML GeoEngineers Inc. BROWN FINE SAND WITH SOME SILT AND GRAVEL (MEDIUM DENSE, DAMP) (FILL) BROWN FINE TO COARSE SAND WITH SOME GRAVEL AND A TRACE OF COBBLES (MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST) (FILL) GRAY FINE SANDY SILT WITH ABUNDANT LARGE DECAYED ORGANIC MATTER (MEDIUM STIFF, WET) (LOGS TO 6 INCHES) GRAY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH ABUNDANT SMALL ORGANIC MATTER (LOOSE, WET) BROWN PEAT AND ORGANIC SILT (SOFT, WET) GRAY SANDY SILT (STIFF, WET) TEST PIT COMPLETED AT 10.5 FEET ON 4/24/85 GROUND WATER ENCOUNTERED AT 5 FEET RAPID SEEPAGE AT 6 TO 8 FEET TEST PIT LOGS "' cc ' , ) 0 "1 ) DEPTH BELOW GROUNO SURFACE (FEET) UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM SYMBOL TEST PIT 85-4 FJGURE A-9 DESCRIPTION APPROXIMATE GROUND SURFACE ELEVATION: 39 FEET 0 6.5 ML 6.5 -11.0 SP LIGHT BROWN TO BROWN FINE SANDY SILT (VERY STIFF TO HARD) BROWN MICACEOUS MEDIUM SAND (DENSE, .MOIST) TEST PIT COMPLETED AT 11 FEET ON 4/24/85 SLOW GROUND WATER SEEPAGE ENCOUNTERIV BELOW 6. 5 FEET TEST PIT 85-5 APPROXIMATE GROUND SURFACE ELEVATION: 44 FEET 0 l. 5 ML 1.5 -10.5 SP GeoEngineers Inc. TAN AND BROWN FINE SANDY SILT WITH A TRACE OF GRAVEL BROWN FINE TO .MEDIUM SAND WITH A TRACE OF GRAVEL ·(DENSE, DAMP TO MOIST) TEST PIT COMPLETED AT 10.5 FEET ON 4/24/85 NO GROUND WATER ENCOUNTERED I TEST PIT LOGS DEPTH BELOW GROUND SURFACE (FEET) UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM SYMBOL TEST PIT 85-6 FIGURE A-10 DESCRIPTION APPROXIMATE GROUND SURFACE ELEVATION: 45 FEET 0 l. 0 SM 1.0 -3.0 ML 3.0 -ll.O SP DARK BROWN SILTY FINE SAND WITH SOME GRAVEL (MEDIUM DENSE, DAMP) TAN AND LIGHT BROWN FINE SANDY SILT (VERY STIFF, DAMP) BROWN FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH A TRACE OF GRAVEL (DENSE, DAMP TO MOIST) TEST PIT COMPLETED AT 11 FEET ON 4/24/85 NO GROUND WATER ENCOUNTERED TEST PIT 85-7 APPROXIMATE GROUND SURFACE ELEVATION: 37 FEET 0 l. 0 ML 1.0 -9.5 SP GeoEngineers Inc. LIGHT BROWN SANDY SILT WITH A TRACE OF GRAVEL (STIFF, DAMP) BROWN FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH A TRACE OF COARSE SAND AND GRAVEL (LOOSE TO MEDIUM DENSE, DAMP) LARGE LOG AT 9,5 FEET TEST PIT COMPLETED AT 9.5 FEET NO GROUND WATER ENCOUNTERED I TEST PIT LOGS 0 DEPTH BELOW GROUND SURFACE (FEET) UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM SYMBOL TEST PIT 85-8 FIGURE A-11 DESCRIPTION APPROXIMATE GROUND SURFACE ELEVATION: 35 FEET 0 o.s 0.5 -10.0 10.0 -11.0 SM SP SM/ML SILTY SAND WITH ROOTS (TOPSOIL) BROWNISH-GRAY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH A TRACE OF GRAVEL (LOOSE TO MEDIUM DENSE, DAMP TO MOIST) BROWNISH-GRAY SILTY SAND AND SANDY SILT WITH A TRACE OF GRAVEL (LOOSE AND SOFT, MOIST) TEST PIT COMPLETED AT 11.0 FEET ON 4/24/85 NO GROUND WATER ENCOUNTERED TEST PIT 85-9 APPROXIMATE GROUND SURFACE ELEVATION: 27 FEET 0 4.5 SP 4.5 -9.0 LML 9.0 -10.5 SM 10.5 -11.0 RK GeoEngineers Inc. BROWN FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH A TRACE OF SILT AND GRAVEL (LOOSE TO MEDIUM DENSE, DAMP TO MOIST) BROWNISH-GRAY SANDY SILT (STIFF, MOIST TO WET) BROWNISH-GRAY SILTY SAND WITH CHUNKS OF WEATHERED SANDSTONE (DENSE, WET) SANDSTONE (MODERATE HARD) TEST PIT COMPLETED AT 11 FEET ON 4/24/85 GROUND WATER ENCOUNTERED AT 8 FEET; SLOPE SEEPAGE AT 9 TO 11 FEET I TEST PIT LOGS ::, DEPTH BELOW GROUND SURFACE (FEET) UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM SYMBOL TEST PIT 85-10 FIGURE A-12 DESCRIPTION APPROXIMATE GROUND SURFACE ELEVATION: 29 FEET 0 -o .. 5 SP 0.5 -2.0 SM 2.0 -8.5 ML BROWN GRAVELLY SAND WITH SOME SILT (MEDIUM DENSE, DAMP) DARK BROWN SILTY FINE SAND WITH A TRACE OF GRAVEL (MEDIUM DENSE, DAMP) GRAY AND LIGHT BROWN FINE SANDY SILT (STIFF, DAMP) TEST PIT COMPELTED AT 8.5 FEET ON 4/24/85 NO GROUND WATER ENCOUNTERED TEST PIT 85-11 APPROXIMATE GROUND SURFACE ELEVATION: 26 FEET 0 -I. 5 SP 1.5 -4.0 SM/ML 4.0 -9.0 ML GeoEngineers Inc. LIGHT BROWN FINE SAND WITH SOME GRAVEL (MEDIUM DENSE, DAMP) DARK BROWN SILTY FINE SAND AND FINE SANDY SILT (MEDIUM DENSE AND STIFF, DAMP) LIGHT BROWN AND GRAY FINE SANDY SILT (STIFF, DAMP) TEST PIT COMPLETED AT 9 FEET ON 4/24/85 NO GROUND WATER ENCOUNTERED TEST PIT LOGS DEPTH BELOW GROUND SURFACE (FEET) UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM SYMBOL TEST PIT 85-12 FIGURE A-13 DESCRIPTION APPROXIMATE GROUND SURFACE ELEVATION: 24 FEET 0 -1 .. 0 SW 1.0 -2.0 ML 2.0 -8.5 ML BROWN FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH SOME COARSE SAND AND GRAVEL (LOOSE, DAMP) LIGHT BROWN FINE SANDY SILT WITH ORGANIC MATTER (MEDIUM STIFF, DAMP) DARK BROWN TO GRAY FINE SANDY SILT (STIFF, DAMP) TEST PIT COMPLETED AT 8.5 FEET ON 4/24/85 NO GROUND WATER ENCOUNTERED TEST PIT 85-13 APPROXIMATE GROUND SURFACE ELEVATION: 24 PEET 0 -6.0 ML 6.0 -10.5 SP GeoEngineers Inc. LIGHT BROWN AND GRAY SANDY SILT STIFF, DAMP) GRAY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND (MEDIUM DENSE TO DENSE, WET) TEST PIT COMPLETED AT 10.5 FEET ON 4/24/85 GROUND WATER ENCOUNTERED AT 7 FEET; RAPID SEEPAGE AT 8 FEET TEST PIT LOGS 0 DEPTH BELOW GROUND SURFACE (FEET) UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM SYMBOL TEST PIT 85-14 FIGURE A-14 DESCRIPTION APPROXIMATE GROUND SURFACE ELEVATION: 29 FEET 0 -o.s 0.5 -5.0 5.0 -10.0 ML ML SP BROWN SANDY SILT (TOPSOIL) LIGHT BROWN AND GRAY SANDY SILT (STIFF, DAMP TO MOIST) ~ROWN FINE TO MEDIUM SAND (MEDIUM DENSE TO DENSE, MOIST) TEST PIT COMPLETED AT 10 FEET ON 4/24/85 NO GROUND WATER ENCOUNTERED TEST PIT 85-15 APPROXIMATE GROUND SURFACE ELEVATION: 34 FEET 0 -1.0 SP 1.0 -2.0 ML 2.0 -6.0 ML 6.0 -11.5 SP GeoEngineers Inc. GRAY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH A TRACE OF GRAVEL (MEDIUM DENSE, DAMP) DARK BROWN FINE SANDY SILT WITH ORGANIC MATTER (MEDIUM STIFF, DAMP) LIGHT BROWN SANDY SILT (STIFF, DAMP) BROWN AND GRAY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH A TRACE OF GRAVEL (DENSE, DAMP TO MOIST) TEST PIT COMPLETED AT 11.5 FEET ON 4/24/85 NO GROUND WATER ENCOUNTERED TEST PIT LOGS PRELIMINARY REPORT GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING SERVICES TWO RENTON PLACE RENTON, WASHINGTON FOR RENTON VILLAGE COMPANY GeoEnglneers Incorporated (206) 881-7900 P. 0. Box 6325 2020 124th ~. N.E. Bellevue. WA 98008 Renton Village Company Evergreen Building Renton, Washington 98055 Attention: Mr. Everett Johnson Gentlemen: April l8, 1985 Preliminary Report •~ '\~ GeoEnglneers Incorporated Consulting Geo1echn;cal Engineers and Geologists Geotechnical Engineering Services Two Renton Place Renton, Washington File No. 344-06 IIITRODUCTION This preliminary report summarizes site conditions and provides preliminary conclusions regardiag site development and foundation support for the proposed Two Renton Place. The site is located to the west of Talbot Road South and includes a large parcel of property to the north and a smaller parcel to the £ouch of Renton Village Place. The smaller parcel is triangular in shape and extends from the existing parking lot adjacent to One Renton Place to Talbot Road South, We understarrd that it will be developed for parking. The larger parcel lies between the existing stores of the Renton Village Shopping Center and Talbot Road South and extends north from Renton Village Place 300 to 450 feet. We understand that you plan to build a seven-story office building with a footprint of approximately 110 by 190 feet surrounded by parking. SITE CONDITIONS GENERAL Considerable geotechnical explorations and evaluations have been done for projects adjacent to and on the site. These projects include a large- diameter storm drain along Talbot Road South and Renton Village Place, One Renton Place office structure, Puget Sound Power & Light substation to the north of the site, a11d two borings drilled on the site as part of Renton Village Company April 18, 1985 Page Two a preliminary investigation for a previously-envisioned development. Infor- mation from these studies, along with site reconnaissance, have formed the basis for information presented in this preliminary report. SURFACE CONDITIONS The site north of Renton Village Place has an estimated 10 to 12 feet of relief and is generally flat to rolling, with some mounded areas. It is presently vacant and supports brush and berry vines interspersed with open areas. Reeds and cattails occur in the lower areas~ indicating a fairly high ground water table. Also, some trash and construction debris have been dumped on the site. The smaller site south of Renton Village Place slopes downward to the east and is about 5 feet higher than the adjacent parking lot at the west end. It has a vacant building formerly used as a veterinarian clinic that has asphalt driveways, some parking, shrubs and a few small trees. The remainder of the site has a grass cover with some brush and berry vines and a few scattered trees. Based on our review of existing information, the site is underlain by sandstone bedrock. The upper portion of the rock is weathered and moderately soft and grades to re la ti ve ly hard at 3 to 4 feet below the rock surface. Soils overlying bedrock include recent alluvium, peat, possibly some mine tailings waste, and fill. These materials vary in consistency from medium dense to soft, are moderately compressible to compressible and have fairly low strength. The depth to bedrock is expected to vary from about 25 to 45 feet below the existing ground surface, and its surface appears to slope downward to the north. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS GENERAL We recommend that the structure and the lower slab-on-grade floor be pile-supported. The piles shoulrl penetrate into the bedrock a short distance and would essentially b~ end-bearing, but would develop a minor amount of frictional resistance for uplift loads. Generally, steel or GeoEngineers Incorporated Renton Village Company April 18, 1985 Page Three precast reinforced concrete piles are feasible. Also, augercast piles are technically feasible, but may be difficult to properly construct because of the underlying peat materials. Pile lengths installation criteria and preferred types of piles will be further evaluated and presented in our final report, Parking areas can be developed by placing compacted fill over the existing site, The addition of fill will cause subsidence due to compression of the underlying soft soils. As a consequence, a major portion of the filling should be done at the onset of construction activity on the site. Also, final grading and paving should be delayed as long as possible to minimize postconstruction settlement. 0 0 0 We trust that the foregoing meets your present needs. We are proceeding with additional site explorations and geotechnical evaluations. Should you have any questions or need additional information, please call. GWH:wd Three copies submitted cc: Mr. Rick King Callison Partnership Yours very truly, GeoEngineers, Inc. ~;1.~~~ Principal 1423 3rd Ave., Seattle, WA 98101 Mr. Dan Symonds KPFF 850 First Interstate Center 999 3rd Ave., Seattle, WA 98104 GeoEnglneers Incorporated 'i/transpOGROUP Revised Transportation Impact Study TRITON TOWERS RENTON EXPANSION ~ f\ent0 " c,\'J O Qi'J\s\ol'\ 91ann1n9 11C:I ~ I) 'l~~~ October 2009 ~®,©®,i~®.© -. ---·------------~-·--~·-···----·-·····--·--~ -~~:--:: -----------··-----·----·· --.---~·-··· ---··-··-----··-~----------- ----- ----------·-········--.----·· -~--····~-... ·--·------·----- WHAT TRANSPORTATION CAN BE Revised Transportation Impact Study TRITON TOWERS RENTON EXPANSION Kevin L. Jones, P.E., PTOE License No. 37893 Prepared for: Renton Properties LLC October 2009 Prepared by: 'iftranspoGROUP 11730 118th Avenue NE, Suite 600 Kirkland, WA 98034-7120 Phone: 425-821-3665 Fax: 425-825-8434 www.transpogroup.com 07367.00 © 2009 Transpo Group Revised Transportation Impact Study Triton Towers Renton Expansion October 2009 Table of Contents FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS ............................................................................................. 11 Where is the project located? ................................................................................................. ii What is the project land use and trip generation? .................................................................. ii What are the existing and future without-project conditions in the study area? ..................... ii Would the project have any transportation impacts? .............................................................. ii What mitigation measures are recommended? ...................................................................... ii INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................. 1 Project Description ................................................................................................................. 1 Study Scope ........................................................................................................................... 1 EXISTING AND BASELINE CONDITIONS ..................................................................................... 3 Roadway Network .................................................................................................................. 3 Traffic Volumes ...................................................................................................................... 4 Peak Hour Traffic Operations ................................................................................................ 9 Traffic Safety ........................................................................................................................ 11 Transit and Non-Motorized Facilities ................................................................................... 11 PROJECT IMPACTS ..................................................................................................................... 13 Trip Generation .................................................................................................................... 13 Trip Distribution and Assignment ......................................................................................... 14 Traffic Volume Impact .......................................................................................................... 17 Traffic Operations Impact .................................................................................................... 19 Proposed Parking Supply .................................................................................................... 20 Parking Code Requirements ................................................................................................ 20 Peak Parking Demand ......................................................................................................... 21 Transit and Non-Motorized Facilities ................................................................................... 21 MITIGATION .................................................................................................................................. 22 APPENDIX A APPENDIXB APPENDIXC APPENDIX D LOS Definitions LOS Worksheets Shared Parking Calculations Parking Demand Analysis -Downtown Kirkland Condominiums Figures 1 . Site Vicinity ................................................................................................................... 1 2. Site Plan ....................................................................................................................... 2 3. Existing Intersection Channelization ............................................................................ 5 4. Future Intersection Channelization .............................................................................. 6 5. Existing AM and PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ........................................................ 7 6. Future Baseline AM and PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ............................................ 8 7. Project Trip Distribution .............................................................................................. 15 8. Project Trip Assignment ............................................................................................. 16 9. Future With-Project Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ........................................................ 18 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Tables Intersection Peak Hour LOS -Existing and Future Baseline ........................... 10 Intersection Crash Summary -2005 to 2007 .................................................... 11 Metro Transit Routes at South Renton Park and Ride ...................................... 12 Trip Generation Summary-Office Only Scenario ............................................ 13 Trip Generation Summary-Mixed-Use Scenario ............................................. 14 Future Traffic Volume Impacts at Off-Site Study Intersections ......................... 17 Intersection Peak Hour LOS -Future Baseline and With Project... .................. 19 ~ft,anspooROUP Revised Transportation Impact Study Triton Towers Renton Expansion .. ,---·---···-· Frequently Asked Questions October 2009 This section provides an executive summary of the Transportation Impact Study through a set of frequently asked questions (FAQs). Where is the project located? The project is located in Renton, near the interchange of SR 167 and 1-405. The existing site includes three office buildings and surface parking. The Renton Village Shopping Center is next to the project site. What is the project land use and trip generation? The future land use of the project site is either commercial office use or a mix of uses including office, multi-family residential, and hotel. If developed as the former, the proposed 1.1 million square feet gross floor area would generate approximately 1,246 PM peak hour trips and 1,071 AM peak hour trips. If developed as the latter, the new buildings would generate approximately 1, 115 PM peak hour trips and 1,009 AM peak hour trips. What are the existing and future without-project conditions in the study area? The existing and future without-project conditions are affected by a planned half-diamond interchange on 1-405 east of the 1-405 / SR 167 interchange at SR 515 (Talbot Road). This fourth leg of the Talbot Road/S Renton Village Place intersection does not exist now, and will change the operations of this intersection from the current LOS A to LOS C in the AM peak hour and from LOS B to LOS D in the PM peak hour. Beyond the change at the Talbot Road/S Renton Village Place intersection, all of the study intersections currently operate at LOS D or better in both the AM and PM peak hours. The future without-project, or baseline, conditions in the study area are mostly the same. The one exception is the intersection of S Grady Way and Talbot Road S which will operate at LOS E during the weekday PM peak hour. The accident histories for the past three years at all study intersections were examined. No existing safety issues were revealed that need to be addressed. Many of the existing roadways in the study vicinity currently have sidewalks on both sides of the street, and there are marked crosswalks at the intersections. Within the project site, there are no pedestrian facilities among the existing office buildings and surface parking lots. Would the project have any transportation impacts? The traffic operations at one intersection are anticipated to degrade to LOS F in the future With-Project scenario, but with mitigation measures the conditions at this intersection are anticipated to improve. What mitigation measures are recommended? Additional transportation demand management (TDM) measures are proposed to mitigate potential parking impacts and additional trips on the adjacent roadway system, in particular the intersection at S Renton Village Place and Talbot Road S. 'j(t,anspoGROJP ii Revised Transportation Impact Study Triton Towers Renton Expansi~-~~-October 2009 Introduction The purpose of this transportation impact study (TIS) is to identify potential traffic-related impacts associated with the proposed expansion of the Triton Towers office complex. As necessary, mitigation measures are identified that would offset or reduce potential impacts. This report follows the TIS guidelines provided by the City of Renton. Project Description The project consists of four new buildings totaling approximately 1.1 million square feet (sf) gross floor area (GFA). The use of these buildings would be either exclusively office or a mix of uses, including office (approximately 596,600 sf GFA), multi-family residential (400 units at approximately 270,400 sf GFA), and hotel (450 rooms at approximately 245,300 sf GFA). The new buildings would be built over the existing surface parking lots on site that have 1,817 parking spaces; the displaced surface parking would be replaced by structured parking. The site is located on the west side of Talbot Road S, between S Grady Way and 1-405. Figure 1 illustrates the project site and surrounding vicinity. The proposed site plan is illustrated in Figure 2. The development would be served by 14 existing driveways along S Grady Way, Talbot Road S, and S Renton Village Place, which runs through the project site. The proposed project would include the removal of three of the existing site access driveways. Study Scope The scope of the analysis is based on discussions with City staff. Five off-site signalized intersections are included within the study area as shown on Figure 1, as well as eleven stop- controlled driveways. The traffic operations analysis does not evaluate both development scenarios but instead, the office-only scenario because, as demonstrated in the Trip Generation section of this TIS, this scenario would generate more peak hour trips than the mixed-use scenario. Any potential impacts associated with the mixed-use scenario would be less than those documented for the office-only scenario. The study focuses on the weekday AM and PM peak hours, when the combination of project traffic and adjacent street traffic are at their highest levels. The analysis begins by describing conditions in the vicinity of the project site, including the roadway network, existing and future peak hour traffic volumes, traffic operations, traffic safety, non-motorized facilities, and transit service. Future with-project conditions are evaluated by adding site-generated traffic to future without-project volumes, and by examining the project impacts on parking conditions within the project site. Study intersections and driveways include: 0 S Grady Way/Talbot Road S 0 S Renton Village PL/Theater Driveway 0 S Renton Village PI./Talbot Road S 0 S Renton Village PI./West Driveway-Tower 1 0 Talbot Road S/1-405 Northbound On-Ramp 0 S Renton Village PI./West Rite Aid Driveway 0 S Grady Way/Lake Avenue S 0 S Renton Village PI./East Driveway-Tower 1 0 S Grady Way/Shattuck Avenue S 0 S Renton Village PI./SW Driveway-Tower 2 0 S Grady Way/North Rite Aid Driveway 0 S Renton Village PI./South Driveway-Tower 2 0 S Grady Way/North Driveway-Tower 3 0 S Renton Village PI./East Driveway-Tower 1 0 Talbot Road S/East Driveway-Tower 3 'j(transpoGROUP Page 1 Site Vicinity Triton Towers Renton Expansion M:\07\07367 Triton Toweis Renton Expansion\Graphics\Graphics01 <Fig 1> ca rolet 10121109 12:52 • N NOTTO SCALE FIGURE 'iftranspOG ROUP 1 ;• ~ 1, .,. --~-/ . '~ .... ~-'/ ~-:.....1~ . .:r .. -: t ) ·, I ,, ~-; ... :~~: -~1 '\'>. t • S;·( Lt '! \~\ ,::-,, Site Plan Triton Towers Renton Expansion M:\07\07367 Triton Towers Renton Expansion\Graphics\Graphics01 <Fig 2> carolet 10/21/0912:53 C ·- B ·- A ~(transpOGROUP • N NOTTO SCALE FIGURE 2 Revised Transportation Impact Study Triton .Towers Renton Expansion Existing and Baseline Conditions October 2009 This section describes both existing conditions and baseline conditions within the identified study area. Study area characteristics are provided for the roadway network, planned improvements, existing and forecasted baseline volumes, traffic operations, traffic safety, and transit and non-motorized facilities. Roadway Network The existing roadway network is discussed along with planned improvements that would likely be completed before the proposed project horizon year, if any. In general, the roadway descriptions given apply to the roadways within the study area of the proposed project. Existing Inventory The existing roadway characteristics in the proposed project vicinity are described in detail below for relevant facilities. Roadway classification is based on the City of Renton Arterial Streets (August 2007) map. Figure 3 illustrates existing channelization at study intersections. S Grady Way is a four-to five-lane principal arterial that serves east-west travel through Renton, connecting Renton Village with other local roadways. The posted speed limit is 35 miles per hour (mph). There are sidewalks on both sides of S Grady Way, which provide pedestrian access to the South Renton Park and Ride lot across the street from the project site. The intersection of S Grady Way and Talbot Road S has a marked and protected crosswalk, allowing for safe access to the park and ride lot. Talbot Road S (SR 515) is a four-to seven-lane principal arterial. Talbot Road Sis a north- south roadway that connects the project site with the residential area to the north. The posted speed limit is 35 mph. Within the project vicinity, there are sidewalks on both sides of the street. S Renton Village Place is a local access road running through the site to provide access to the existing Triton Towers office complex and the commercial area immediately to the west. The posted speed limit is 25 mph. Within the project vicinity there are sidewalks on both sides of the roadway, although further to the west (near Renton Village) there are intermittent sidewalks. 1-405 is classified by Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) as an urban interstate. It primarily runs north-south from 1-5 in Tukwila to 1-5/SR 525 Alderwood. In the vicinity of the SR 167 interchange, 1-405 provides three general purpose lanes per direction and one high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane per direction. Lake Avenue S is two-lane north-south local access road that accesses the site at a signal on S Grady Way. This roadway has a sidewalk on one side of the street south of S Grady Way. Shattuck Avenue Sis a two-to four-lane north-south collector that accesses the site at a signal on S Grady Way. Shattuck Avenue S connects the site vicinity with the South Renton Park and Ride lot. There are sidewalks on both sides of the street north of S Grady Way, as well as a marked and protected crosswalks at the intersection with S Grady Way. These crosswalks allow for safe access to the park and ride lot. 'jrr_ranspoGROUP Page 3 Revised Transportation Impact Study Triton Towers Renton Expansion Planned Improvements October 2009 A new half-diamond interchange on 1-405 east of the 1-405 / SR 167 interchange at SR 515 (Talbot Road) is currently planned to begin construction in 2009 with a targeted completion in 2011. A new northbound 1-405 off-ramp would form a fourth leg to the existing Talbot Road/S Renton Village Place intersection. Northbound on-ramps to 1-405 would be constructed on Talbot Road S, between Renton Village Place and S Puget Drive. Future channelization at study intersections is illustrated in Figure 4. Traffic Volumes Existing (2008) AM and PM peak-hour traffic volumes at the signalized site accesses at Lake Avenue S and at Shattuck Avenue S were provided by the City of Renton. AM and PM peak- hour turning-movement volumes at the remaining driveways and at the off-site intersections were collected in August 2008. Since the new half-diamond interchange on Talbot Road will have a strong influence on local traffic patterns, traffic volume forecasts provided by WSDOT were used to determine future conditions. The horizon year of 2014 was used for this analysis. Existing and future peak-hour traffic volumes are shown in Figures 5 and 6, respectively. ~(transpooPOuP Page4 G) TALBOT ROAD GRADY WAY ® T.&LBOTROAD S RENTON VILLAGE Pl 0 TA1.BOTROAD 1-405 NB ON-RAMP © LAKE AVENUES GRADY WAY 0 SHATTUCK AVENUES GRADY WAY .JHL _j-{! Future =1_ _J_ Intersection -- ~tt-" ·1tt 0 NORTH DRIVEWAY· TOWER 3 GRADY WAY ® TALBOT ROAD EAST DRIVEWAY· TOWER 3 ® TALBOT ROAD I EAST DRIVEWAY • TOWER 2 .JU -{! --T -t tt t r tt @WEST RITE AID DRIVEWAY S RENTON VlllAGE Pl @RITEAID~T DRIVEWAY, TOWER 1 @WESTORl'IEWAY · TOWER 2 S RENTON VllAGE Pl S RENTON VILLAGE Pl _J_ +++ _J_ -L _J_ -L _J_ + Existing Intersection Channelization Triton Towers Renton Expansion M:\07\0 7367 Triton Towers Renton Expansion\Graphics\Graphics01 <Fig 3> carolet 10121 /09 12:54 d_+_L --t 1tr-• @THEATER DRIVEWAY S RENTON VILLAGE Pl +++ + @EAST DRIVEWAY· TOWER 2 S RENTON VILLAGE Pl _J_ -L _J_ d_-{L_L --·~t-· • N NOTTO SCALE ,;:;\ NORTH RITE AIO DRNEWAY \::.) GRADYWAY --T - 1· @WEST DRIVEWAY· TOWER 1 S RENTON VILLAGE Pl T T I @EAST DRIVEWAY· TOWER 1 S RENTON VlllAGE PL T T r FIGURE e,(transpO GROUP 3 CD TAI.BOT ROAD GRNJYWAY 0 TAI.BOT ROAD S RENTON VIUAGE Pl G) TALBOT ROAD 1-405 NB Ot+-RAMP 0 LAKEAVENUES GRNJYWAY ® SHATTUCKAVENUES GRNJYWAY .JHl. =1_ L --~tt-fr- --T -r @ WEST RITE AID OONEWAY S RENTON VlliGE Pl _j-1! L - ·1tt fr- tt (;"::;\ RITE AlllicASTDRNEWAY, ~TOWER 1 S RENTON VI LLAGE Pl Hl. =1_ + _L -- tt r-t 1tr-• tt =1_ --j L_L --·~r-· • N NOTTO SCALE r-;;\ NORT!i RITEAID l)!NEWAY \VGRNJYWAY r:;:;\ WESTDRNEWAY • TOWER 1 ~ S RENTON VIUAGE PL TT I a WEST DRNel/AY • TOWER2 ~ EAST DRIVEWAY· TOWER 2 ~ EAST OONEWAY • TOWER 1 v_y S RENTON VllAG E Pl ~ S RENTON VIUAGE Pl ~ S RENTON VILLAGE Pl -L Driveway to ! ! Driveway to be removed ----1..-. ~ be removed Future Intersection Channelization FIGURE Triton Towers Renton Expansion M:\07\07367 Triton Towera Renton Expansion\Graphics\Graphics01 <Fig 4> carolet 10/2110912:55 'i/transpoGROUP 4 r.\ TAI.BOT ROAD \._V GRADYWAY r.;\ TALBOT ROAD \.::.) E RENTON VILLAGE PL ! '3' TALBOTROAD \::..) 1-405 NB ON-RAMP IA\ LAKEAVENUES ~GRADYWAY /;;\ SHATIUCK AVENU ES \::J GRAD YWAY (125) 660 130) 30 I 65 (20) -' t '- (35) 50 J l 20 [45) (340) 400 --575 (595) (200) m, ( 345 (205) ~tr-(890) 465 205 ( 175) 170 (725) (3401 1,715 (40!j i 15)55 } 0 NOOTH DRIVEWAY · TOWER 3 GIWJYWAY ® TAI.BOT ROAD EAST DRIVEWAY · TOWER 3 [465) 1,745 (4~ i (580)1.275 --1,020(1, (35)5 ") (5)1 5") r-t 30(5) 805 (1,865) @ WEST RITE AID DRIVEWAY E RENTON Vlll.AGE PL @ RITEAID/EASTDRIVEWAY, TOWER 1 E RENTOO YllAGE PL 1 (30) 15 155(40) (5)1 i 15(5) -' '--' '- (1)10} l 65(130) (5)1 } l 10 110) (55)145 --85 (65) (65)285 --140(1851 (30) 10 ") ( 20130) ~ tr-[5) 15 20 (5) 5 (5) I Futu re Intersection (5) 5 (15110 I 15(10) -' t '- [10) 25 } l 20 (10) (15) 75 120i 30 I 1~ 1151 -' t '- (10) 20 J l_ 35 (40) (820)1,330 --1.175 (1, (645) 1,425 --Im (1,420) (110) 150 ") ( 20(15) ~tr-(125) 155 f ( 75 (20) ~tr-(130) 220 30 (10) 1 ® TAI.BOT ROAD EAST DRIVEWAY· TOWER 2 @ THEATER DRIVEWAY E RENTOO YllAGE PL 1375) (25) 1,730 5 t3!; i 5 i 30(101 -' '-5} l.30(20) (15)40 --25(20) (5)5 ") ;t (10)1 ") (5(5) ~tr-5 10 835 15 (1,970) (5) @ WESTDRIVEWAY • TOWER 2 E RENTOO VILLAG E PL @ EAST DRIVEWAY · TOWER 2 E RENTON VILLAGE Pl (5) 1 15)20 5(5) (5)25 i 45 (5) -' '--' '-115)5 } l.1(15) (10)5 J l 5(60) (130) 185 95 (30) 30 (25) • N NOTTO SCALE LEGEND X = PM PEAK HOUR (X) = AM PEAK HOUR r,;;\ NORTHRITEAIDDRIVEWAY \::!..) GRADY WAY (570) 1,265 --980 (1,505) (35)5 ") (55(85) ~ r- 1 60 (30) (;".;\ WEST DRIVEWAY· TOWER 1 ~ E RENTON VILLAGE PL (50) 125 --85 (65) (20) 15 ") ( 15 (28) ~ r- ( 5) 10 30(5) r.;-;,. EAST DRIVEWAY · TOWER 1 ~ E RENTON VILLAGE PL (551310 --140(220) (45)315 --115(230) (40)380 --110 !300) (5)' tr ( (201 (5)1 ") ( (10) ~ r- s 10 (5) 1 Existing AM and PM Peak H our Traffic Volumes FIGURE 5 Triton Towers Renton Expansion M:\07\07367 Triton Towers Renton Expansion\Graphics\Grapllics01 <Fig 5> carolet 1012 1/0912:55 'iftranspoGROJP CD TALBOT ROAD GRADY WAY (2001 r,:;\ TALBOT ROAD \=.) E RENTON VUAGE Pl (500) 1 1 f:3\ TALBOTROAD ~ 1-405 NB ON-RAMP (ifiOI 2,730 IA\ LAKEAVENUES \V GfWJYWAY (1) /c\ SHATIUCKAVENUES \::::..) GfWJY WAY 130) 740 (00140 I 80!20! ..Jt'- 140) 70 ) l_ 40 100) (440)890--670 (690) (100)840 f ( 430 (200) "4\ t r-11,070) ~ :®(320) 470 (1,1 50) 1,900 (60~ i 140)70 ) 140)200 f (2f;l)~t 1,040 12,330) l_ 170 (100) -10(10) ( 620(2ll) (675) 2.025 (40!3 i 1665) 1,770 --1.260 (1,820 (35)5 ") (5)1 5") r- 30(5) 1,280 (2.5551 @WESTRITT: AID DRIVEWAY E RENTON VPJAG E PL @RITEAJOJ9ST DRIVEWAY, TOWER 1 E RENTON VILLAGE PL 5 (30) 15 155(40) (5)5 l 15(5) .I '-.I'- (5)10 ) l 65(130) (5)5) l_ 10 (10) (85)116 --149155) (00)256 --194 1175) (30) 10 f ( 20 (30) "4\ t r-15) 15 20(5) 5 (5) i ~100) I (301 oo I 401101 ..Jt'- !20140 ) l_ 20 !20) 80 (50170 I 220 (40! ..; t '- (30)40 ) l_ 80(150) 1750)1.~--1.240 11.740 (660)1,480 --1.120(1 ,600 t,(400) 1180) 140 f ( 50 (30) "4\ t r- 1,100 (2,580) 0 TALBOT ROAD EAS-DRIVEWAY • TOWER 2 (645) 2,035 (3!; l :sis , 7; t 1,200 (2,555) @WEST ORMWAY • TOWER 2 E RENTON VILLAGE PL 15)20 5(5) .I '- (15)5) l_ 1(15) (140) 250 50110) 1 11) @ lHEATER DRMWAY E RENTON VILLAGE PL (25) 5 5 l 30 110) .I'- 5) l 30(20) 195)71 --124(35) (10)5 ") (5(5) "4\ tr-5 10 15 (5) @EAST DRIVEWAY · TOWER 2 E RENTON VIUAGE PL (5) 1 (5)25 l 45(5) .I '- 110)5 ) l_ 5160) (80) 120 f ( 110150) "4\ t r-1140) 120 120 (50) 50 (30) .. N NOTTO SCALE LEGEND X PM PEAK HOUR (X) = AM PEAK HOUR fc\ NORlH RITT: AID DRIVEWAY '-::..) GRADY WAY (670) 1,715 --1,205 (1 ,735 135)5") (55(85) "4\ r- 1 60(30) @ WEST DRMWAY • TOWER I E RENTO~ VILLAGE Pl (85)96--149155) 120) 15 f ( 15 (30) "4\ r- ( 5) 10 30(5) @ EAST ORJVEWAY • TOWER 1 E RENTON VIUAGE PL (85)286 --204(210) (75)286 --180(220) (75)350 --180(300) (5)") t: ( !20) (5)1 ") ( 120) "4\ r- s 1015) 1 Future Baseline AM and PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes FIGURE 6 Triton Towers Renton Expansion M:\07\07367Triton Towers Renton Expansion\Graphics\Graphics0 1 <Fig 6> jesseb 101281091 1:44 c:;(transpOGROUP Revised Transportation Impact Study Triton Towers Renton Expansion Peak Hour Traffic Operations October 2009 The operational characteristics of a roadway segment are determined by calculating the roadway capacity level of service (LOS). Like roadway segments, level of service for intersection operations is described alphabetically (A through F). LOS is measured in average control delay per vehicle and is typically reported by approach movement for two- way, stop-controlled intersections. Detailed LOS definitions are included in Appendix A. Existing and future peak hour LOS results were calculated at study intersections based on methodologies contained in the Highway Capacity Manual (Transportation Research Board, 2000). Synchro 6.0 (Build 614) was used for the calculations. Results are summarized in Table 1. Detailed LOS worksheets for each intersection analysis are included in Appendix B. As shown in Table 1, all study intersections currently operate at LOS Dor better during the AM and PM peak hours. These locations will continue to operate at LOS Dor better under future baseline conditions, with the exception of Grady Way/Talbot Road, where operations are anticipated to degrade to LOS E during the weekday PM peak hour. 'j{transpoGROUP Page9 Revised Transportation Impact Study Triton Towers Renton Expansion October 2009 Table 1. Intersection Peak Hour LOS -Existing and Future Baseline Existing Future Baseline V/Cor VIC or Intersection LOS' Delay' WM' LOS Delay WM AM Peak Hour Signalized Intersections 1. S Grady Way IT al bot Road S C 31.7 0.59 0 41.1 0.87 2. S Renton Village Place/Talbot Road S A 7.7 SB C 28.7 0.90 3. Talbot Road S/1-405 NB On-Ramp NA NA NA A 8.1 0.85 4. S Grady Way/Lake Avenue S A 9.1 0.67 A 9.5 0.75 5. S Grady Way/Shattuck Avenue S B 11.8 0.61 C 28.3 0.75 Stop Controlled Driveways 6. S Grady Way/North Rite Aid Driveway A 9.8 NB A 9.9 NB 7. S Grady Way/North Driveway -Tower 3 A 9.8 NB A 9.8 NB 8. Talbot Road S/East Driveway-Tower 34 A 9.8 EB B 10.4 EB 9. Talbot Road S/East Driveway -Tower 24 A 9.6 EB B 10.6 EB 10. S Renton Village PlacefTheater Driveway A 9.6 SB B 10.6 SB 11. S Renton Village Place/West Driveway -Tower 1 A 9.3 NB A 9.5 NB 12. S Renton Village Place/West Rite Aid Driveway A 10.0 SB B 10.1 SB 13. S Renton Village Place/Rile Aid/East Driveway -Tower 1 B 11.3 NB B 11.5 NB 14. S Renton Village Place/Southwest Driveway -Tower 2 B 10.3 SB B 10.4 SB 15. S Renton Village Place/South Driveway -Tower 2 B 11.7 SB B 11.8 SB 16. S Renton Village Place/East Driveway -Tower 1 A 8.5 NB A 8.7 NB PM Peak Hour Signalized Intersections 1. S Grady Way!Talbot Road S D 49.9 0.89 E 57.9 1.08 2. S Renton Village PlacefTalbot Road S B 16.7 0.74 D 49.4 0.99 3. Talbot Road S/1-405 NB On-Ramp NA NA NA A 4.4 0.86 4. S Grady Way/Lake Avenue S B 18.0 0.69 C 20.8 0.80 5. S Grady Way/Shattuck Avenue S B 19.2 0.74 C 28.0 0.86 Stop Controlled Driveways 6. S Grady Way/North Rile Aid Driveway D 14.3 WBL D 28.6 WBL 7. S Grady Way/North Driveway-Tower 3 B 10.4 NB B 12.4 NB 8. Talbot Road S/East Driveway -Tower 34 C 16.8 EB C 20.8 EB 9. Talbot Road S/East Driveway -Tower 24 C 15.9 EB C 19.4 EB 10. S Renton Village Place!Theater Driveway A 9.6 SB B 10.9 SB 11. S Renton Village Place/West Driveway -Tower 1 A 9.5 NB A 9.4 NB 12. S Renton Village Place/West Rite Aid Driveway B 11.9 SB B 12.4 SB 13. S Renton Village Place/Rite Aid/East Driveway -Tower 1 B 13.0 SB B 12.9 SB 14. S Renton Village Place/Southwest Driveway -Tower 2 A 9.7 SB B 10.0 SB 15. S Renton Village Place/South Driveway -Tower 2 B 12.7 SB B 13.3 SB 16. S Renton Village Place/East Driveway -Tower 1 B 11.2 NB B 11.2 NB 1. Level of Service (A -F) as defined by the Highway Capacity Manual (TRB, 2000) 2. Average delay per vehide in seconds. 3. Volume to capacity ratio reported for signalized intersections. Worst movement reported for unsignalized driveways. 4. These driveways are restricted to right-infright-out turning movements. The intersection operations during the weekday AM peak hour are at LOS D or better; this can be partly attributed to the distribution of traffic on various adjacent streets. As mentioned above, one intersection is anticipated to degrade to LOS E during the weekday PM peak hour in future baseline conditions. The degraded LOS at this intersection, S Grady Way and Talbot ---~·-····-·-·----·-···-···- c;(transpoGROUP Page 10 Revised Transportation Impact Study Triton Towers Renton ~.e.ansion __ October 2009 Road S, is largely due to the fact that S Grady Way is the only principal arterial to access the site from the east. Traffic Safety The signalized intersections were reviewed for potential traffic safety inadequacies. The most-recent three-year accident history was provided by the City of Renton and is summarized in the Table 2. Table 2. Intersection Crash Summary -2005 to 2007 Number of Crashes Annual Rate per Intersection Total Raia MEv' 2005 2006 2007 Grady Way/Lake Avenue S 9 12 3 24 8 0.58 Grady Way/Shattuck Avenue S 3 3 4 10 3.33 0.23 Grady Way/Talbot Road 10 17 13 40 13.3 0.96 S Renton Village PlacefT al bot Road 5 4 10 19 6.3 0.58 1. Accident rate per Million Entering Vehicles. By incorporating the traffic volume at the intersection, the rate of accidents per million entering vehicles (MEV) allows a uniform standard for evaluating accident history. Generally, an accident rate greater than 1.0 accidents per MEV is considered higher than normal. Based on this threshold, none of the signalized study intersections represented was identified for further safety analysis. Transit and Non-Motorized Facilities The South Renton Park and Ride is located on S Grady Way, opposite the project site, between Lake Avenue Sand Shattuck Avenue S. This park and ride lot provides parking for 373 vehicles with transit service provided by King County Metro. Specifically, the site is served by routes 101, 140, 148, 153, 167,169,247, and 280. Table 3 outlines the details of these transit routes. Routes 101, 148, and 169 all make stops near the intersection of S Renton Village Place and Talbot Road S in addition to stopping at the park and ride lot. Routes 101, 148, 153, 247, and 280 all make stops near the intersection of S Grady Way and Talbot Road S. Most of these routes connect to transit centers and park and ride lots around the Seattle metropolltan area. For example, Route 167 connects with 20 other Metro and Sound Transit routes at the Evergreen Point Station on SR 520. These other routes serve a variety of locations around SeaWe, Bellevue, Kirkland, Redmond, and beyond. Crosswalks and sidewalks connect the park and ride lot to the project site. In addition to the park and ride lot, the Sound Transit Sounder commuter rail service stops at the Tukwila Station located on S. 158th St. (also known as Longacres Way). The Tukwila Station has a parking lot with 233 spaces, and this station is connected to the project site via Metro's Route 140 bus. The 140 route travels along S Grady Way and makes a stop at the South Renton Park and Ride lot. Sidewalks are provided adjacent to the existing office towers, but there are currently no marked pedestrian paths between the buildings. Large surface parking lots without marked pedestrian paths contribute to an increased potential for pedestrian-vehicle conflicts. 'i/transpoGROJP Page 11 Revised Transportation Impact Study Triton Towers Renton Ex_pa._n_s_io_n __ _ October 2009 Table 3. Metro Transit Routes at South Renton Park and Ride Route Service Areas Days of Operation Frequency 101 Renton, Skyway, Downtown Daily (M-Su) 10-15 minutes (Peak period); 30 minutes Seattle (non-peak period) 140 Renton, Tukwila, Sea-Tac, Daily (M-Su) 15 minutes (Peak period): 30-60 minutes Burien (non-peak period) 148 Fairwood Center, Renton Daily (M-Su) 30 minutes (Weekdays); 60 minutes (Weekends) 153 Renton, Kent Weekdays (M-F) 30 minutes 167 Renton, Newport Hills, Weekdays (M-F)-20-30 minutes (Peak periods only) Evergreen Point, University peak periods only District 169 Renton, Kent Daily (M-Su) 30 minutes 247 Kent, Renton, Eastgate, Weekdays (M-F)-30 minutes (Peak periods only) Overlake peak periods only 280 Renton, Bellevue, Downtown Nightly (M-Su) 75-90 minutes (Late night route only) Seattle, Tukwila Source: King County Metro 'j(t,anspoGROUP Page 12 Revised Transportation Impact Study Triton Towers Renton Expansion October 2009 Project Impacts This section of the analysis documents project-generated impacts on the surrounding roadway network and at the intersections of interest. First, peak hour and daily traffic volumes are estimated, distributed, and assigned to adjacent roadways and intersections within the study area. Next, future traffic volumes are projected and potential impact to traffic volumes, traffic operations, parking, non-motorized facilities, and transit are identified. Trip Generation Trip generation data collected at the existing Triton Towers driveways during the AM and PM peak hours were found to be consistent with what would be calculated through using the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation, J'h Edition equations for general office land use category (#710). Given this result the future trip generation for the office-only scenario was calculated based on the ITE equations using the square feet of development for the entire site and subtracting the existing traffic. This industry-standard formula reflects the typical conditions of suburban office complexes across the country. Specifically, suburban office buildings and complexes that do not have comprehensive traffic demand management (TDM) programs, which is consistent with the existing site. Office-Only Scenario Anticipated trip generation for the office-only scenario and comparisons with observed driveway volumes are summarized in Table 4, below. Table 4. Trip Generation Summary-Office Only Scenario Daily AM Peak Hour Trips 1 PM Peak Hour Trips Land Use Size (sf) Trips In Out Total In Out Total Existing Site 433,419 4,127 533 73 606 96 468 564 Expanded Site 1,545,725 10,985 1,476 201 1,677 308 1,502 1,810 Net New Trips 1,112,306 6,858 943 128 1,071 212 1,034 1,246 1. Trip generation calculated from equations for General Office Land Use (#710) in ITE Trip Generation, 7 Edition. Based on the ITE equations, this development scenario is anticipated to generate approximately 1,071 net new trips during the weekday AM peak hour and 1,246 net new trips during the weekday PM peak hour. For the AM Peak Hour condition, the combination of 606 existing trips with the 1,071 new trips equals a total of 1,677 AM peak hour trips. For the PM Peak Hour condition, the combination of 564 existing trips with the 1,246 new trips equals a total of 1,810 PM peak hour trips. Mixed-Use Scenario For the mixed-use scenario, future trip generation for the office use was calculated using the same methodologies as described above. Trip generation for the multi-family residential and hotel uses was based on the equations in Trip Generation for the mid-rise apartment land use category (#223) and the average rates for the hotel land use category (#310). Anticipated trip generation is summarized in Table 5 below. ··············-·-·-·---··-··--···-·--··------ ~{transpoGROJP Page 13 • Revised Transportation Impact Study Triton Towers Renton_Expansion -~ October 2009 Table 5. Trip Generation Summary-Mixed-Use Scenario Daily AM Peak Hour Trips PM Peak Hour Trips Land Use Size (sf) Trips In Out Total In Out Total Existing Site (Office) 1 433,419 4,127 533 73 606 96 468 564 Expanded Site (Office)' 1,030,041 8,037 1,066 146 1,212 210 1,022 1,232 Net New Office Trips 1 596,622 3,910 533 73 606 114 554 668 Mid-Rise Apartments2.3 400 units 2,554 47 104 151 105 76 181 Hotel 4 450 rooms 3,654 154 98 252 141 125 266 Net New Trips 10.118 734 275 1,009 360 755 1,115 1. Trip generation calculated from equations for General Office Land Use (#710) in ITE Trip Generation, ,81 Edition. 2. Peak-hour trip generation from equations for Mid-Rise Apartment Land Use (#223) in ITE Trip Generation, 7'" Edition. 3. Daily trip generation from equations for Apartment Land Use (#220) in ITE Trip Generation, t" Edition 4. Trip generation calculated from average rates for Hotel Land Use (#310) in ITE Trip Generation, 71ti Edition As illustrated in Table 5, the mixed-use development scenario is anticipated to generate approximately 1,009 net new trips during the weekday AM peak hour and 1,115 net new trips during the weekday PM peak hour. For the AM Peak Hour condition, the combination of 606 existing trips with the 1,009 new trips equals a total of 1,615 AM peak hour trips. For the PM Peak Hour condition, the combination of 564 existing trips with the 1,115 new trips equals a total of 1,679 PM peak hour trips. This represents less peak hour trip generation as compared to the office-only scenario. Trip Distribution and Assignment Trip distribution for this development was based on the existing travel patterns at the study intersections and the general location of the site within the community. As shown in Figure 7, approximately 40 percent of project traffic would be oriented to the south, 20 percent to the east, and 40 percent to the west. The corresponding assignment of AM and PM peak hour project traffic volumes is illustrated in Figure 8 . -----~··-·····-····-·-·-·-·-··--------~ c::;(transpooROJP Page 14 Project Trip Distribution Triton Towers Renton Expansion M:\07\07367 Triton Towers Renton Expansion\Graphics\Graphics01 <Fig 7> carolet 10121/09 12:56 • N NOTTO SCALE FIGURE ~(transpoGROJP 7 (";\ TALBOT ROAD \..'..) GRADY WAY 0 TALBOT ROAD E RENTON VI UAGE Pl 0 TAL BOT ROAD l..\05 NBO~ 10 LAKE AVEN UES GfWJYWAY 0 SHAnucKAVENUES GRADY WAY (40) 270 l 125)107 --11 147) -32 1140) (321141) (13)104 f 0 NOR1HDRIVEWAY • TOWER3 GfWJYWAY (1 9)156--11 (47) (93)21 ") r 51 (5) @ WEST RITE AID DRIVEWAY E RENTON VIUAGE PL (3)22 --73(100) ~ (236) 53 ® TALBOT ROAD EAST DRIVEWAY· TO WER 3 147) 11 (94~ l 119)1 53 f @ RITEAIDlcASTDRIVEWAY, TOWER 1 E RENTON VIUAGE Pl (5) ..; (1 5)) 1-17)22 - (5)' ~ (6)52 21 (8) '- l.2111101 -21 (89) (211134) r 40 14) Project Trip Assignment Triton Towers Renton Expansion (32) I 259 ! l tl10) t 50 (224) 0 TAl.llOTROAD EASTORIVEWAY · TOWER 2 (1 9) 145 (46j l (19)155 f r;:;\ WE ST DRIVEWAY· TOWER 2 I \'..j' E RENTON VIUAGE PL I I Driveway to be removed M:\07\07367 Triton Towers Renton Expansion\Graphics\Grapllics01 <Fig 8> ca ro let 10/21/09 12:57 (331)73 --101126) 150)11 ") ~ (27)109 @THEATER DRIVEWAY E RENTON VIUAGE Pl -5216) ~ (6)53 Q EAST DRNEWAY · TOWER 2 \.'..:V E RENTON VIUAGE PL 2113) '-~ 21 (94) 110) 83 --64 (322) 1236)53- (96)21 f ~ 126) 107 r 52 (7) • N NOTTO SCALE LEGEND X = PM PEAK HOUR (X) AM PEAK HOUR (;;\ NORTH RITE AID DRNEWAY \::..) GRADY WAY (100)73 - (142)32 f ( 11 (47) r 103(13) @ WEST DRIVEWAY· TOWER 1 E RENTON VILLAGE Pl -52 (6) (21 (94) r 22(3) @ EAST DRNEWAY • TOWER 1 E RENTON VLLAGE Pl Driveway to be removed FIGURE 'iftranspOGROU P 8 Revised Transportation Impact Study Triton Towers Renton Expansion Traffic Volume Impact October 2009 Project traffic was added to future AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes at the intersections of interest. The resulting future with-project traffic volumes are illustrated in Figure 9. Table 5 summarizes the project impact of volu me s at study intersections during the PM peak hour. Table 6. Future Traffic Volume Impacts at Off-Site Study Intersections PM Peak Hour Total Entering Vehicles Future With Project Total Attributable Intersection Existing Project Generated to Project Signalized Intersections 1. Grady Way/Talbot Road 3 ,795 4 ,733 213 4.5 % 2. S Renton Village Place/Talbot Ro ad 2,990 4 ,169 429 10.3% 3 . Talbot Road/1-4 05 NB On-Ramp NA 4 ,166 276 6.6% 4. Grady Way/Lake A venue S 3,061 3 ,366 434 12.9% 5 . Grady Way/Shattuck Avenue S 3,130 3 ,275 365 11 .1% Approximately 4 to 13 percent of the tota l e ntering PM peak hour traffic volumes at study intersections would be attributab le to the pro posed development. 'i/transpOGROUP Page 17 r.;\ TAI.BOT ROAD \.,}J GWJYWAY (200) 740 !601 40 I 80 1101 _.I+'- (40) 70 ) l_ 40 (60) (465) l,W7 --681 (737) (100) 840 ") ( 462 (421) ~ t,,. (1 ,070) 550 ~(320) 470 (1,150) ('-;;\ T Al.BOT ROAD \::.) E RENTON VlllAGE Pl (6:30) 2,260 (60~ l (40)70) 153)394 ") (486)~ t t,040 (2,330) l_ 170(100) -42(150) ( 620(230) (";\ TAI.BOTROAO \V "405 NB ON-AAMP (792) 2,989 l e11101 t ,1460) 1210 (2,804) IA'\ LAKE AVENUES /c\ SHATTUC1( AVENUES \:!.) GRNJYWAY \V GRNJYWAY (1) (30) 1 00 (30160 I 401101 1ro170 I 220 (401 _.I + '-_.I + '- (20) 40 ) l_ 10 (10) (30) 40 ) l_ 80 (tflO) 1,081) t.623--1.447(17f,6 (896) t.533 --t,110 (1,600 (233) 151 ") ( r,o (30) (176) 141 ") ( 110 (flO) ~t,,. ~t,,. (167) 459 r,o (10) (166) 327 172 (57) 1 50 (ti (30) • N NOTTO SCALE LEGEND X PM PEAK HOUR (X) = AM PEAK HOUR (c\ NORTH RITE AID DRIVEWAY \::.) GRADY WAY (770) 1,788 --1,205 (1,735 (177) 37 ") ( 66 (132) ~ ,,. 1 163(43) 0 NORTH DRNEWAY · TOWER 3 GRADY WAY ® TALBOT ROAD EAST DRIVEWAY -TOWER 3 t ® TALBOTROAD EASTORIVEWAY · TOWER 2 @ THEATERDRIVEWAY E RENTON VILLAGE Pl @ WEST DRIVEWAY· TOWER 1 E RENTON VIUAGE Pl (722) 2.036 (1 34.!3 l (684) 1,926 --1271(1,86 (128)26 ") (24)168 ") ,,. t 81 (10) 1,200 (2,555] @WESTRITEAIDDRII/EWAY E RENTON viUAGE Pl @RITE AID/EAST DRIVEWAY, TOWERt E RENTON VlllAGE Pl 5 (30)1 5 155 (40) (10)25 l 41 (13) _.I '-_.I '- (5]10 ) l_ 65(130) (20) 10) l_ 32 (110) (88)138--222(155] (73)282 --195 (164) (35)1 ") (41 (1 64) ~tr-(11)67 60(9) 5 (5] (664) I 2,100 (81!3 l I (24) 160 ") I ~t 1,200 (2,555] @ WEST DRl'.fWAY -TOWER 1 E RENTON VlllAGE Pl Driveway to be removed (251 5 5 l 301101 _.I '- 5 J l_ 30(20) (95)71--176(41) (10)5") (5(5) ~tr-16)58 to 15 (5) @EAST DRNEWAY • TOWER 2 E RENTON VIUAGE Pl 151 1 (5)25 l 66 (8) _.I '- (10) 5 ) l_ 26 (154) (85)378--244 (542) (85)96--101 (61) (20) 15 ") ( 36 (124) ~ r- ( 5] 10 52 (8) r:;-;;;-.. EAST DRIVEWAY -TOWER 1 ~ E RENTON VILLAGE Pl Driveway to be removed Future With-Project Peak Hour Traffic Volumes FIGURE 9 Triton Towers Renton Expansion M:\07\07367 Triton Towers Renton Expansion\Graphics\Graphics01 <Fig 9> jesseb 10/28/09 11 :46 'j(transpO GROUP Revised Transportation Impact Study Triton Towers Renton Expansion October 2009 Traffic Operations Impact Table 6 shows baseline and with project traffic operations results for the future horizon year. Table 7. Intersection Peak Hour LOS -Future Baseline and With Project Future Baseline Future With Project V/Cor V/C or Intersection LOS' Delay' WM' LOS Delay WM AM Peak Hour Signalized Intersections 1. Grady Way/Lake Avenue S A 9.5 0.75 B 11.1 0.79 2. Grady Way/Shattuck Avenue S C 28.3 0.75 C 27.7 0.77 3. Grady Way/Talbot Road D 41.1 0.87 D 45.7 0.96 4. S Renton Village Place/Talbot Road C 28.7 0.90 D 40.7 1.01 5. Talbot Road/1-405 NB On-Ramp A 8.1 0.85 B 13.5 0.94 Stop Controlled Driveways 6. Grady Way/North Rite Aid Driveway A 9.9 NB B 11.5 WBL 7. Grady Way/North Driveway -Tower 3 A 9.8 NB A 9.9 NB 8. Talbot Road/East Driveway-Tower 34 B 10.4 EB B 10.8 EB 9. Talbot Road/East Driveway -Tower 24 B 10.6 EB B 11.1 EB 10. S Renton Village Place/Theater Driveway B 10.6 SB B 10.7 SB 11. S Renton Village Place/West Driveway -Tower 1 A 9.5 NB B 10.4 NB 12. S Renton Village Place/West Rite Aid Driveway B 10.1 SB B 11.1 SB 13. S Renton Village Place/Rite Aid/East Driveway -Tower 1 B 11.5 NB C 20.6 NB 14. S Renton Village Place/Southwest Driveway-Tower 2 B 10.4 SB NA NA NA 15. S Renton Village Place/South Driveway -Tower 2 B 11.8 SB C 16.3 SB 16. S Renton Village Place/East Driveway -Tower 1 A 8.7 NB NA NA NA PM Peak Hour Signalized Intersections 1. S Grady Way/Lake Avenue S C 20.8 0.80 D 45.9 1.01 2. S Grady Way/Shattuck Avenue S C 28.0 0.86 D 36.7 0.94 3. S Grady Way/Talbot Road S E 57.9 1.08 E 74.8 1.11 4. S Renton Village Place/Talbot Road S D 49.4 0.99 F 102.2 1.19 5. Talbot Road/1-405 NB On-Ramp A 4.4 0.86 A 9.4 0.95 Stop Controlled Driveways 6. S Grady Way/North Rite Aid Driveway D 28.6 WBL E 40.8 WBL 7. S Grady Way/North Driveway-Tower 3 B 12.4 NB C 15.5 NB 8. Talbot Road/East Driveway-Tower 34 C 20.8 EB F 53.0 EB 9. Talbot Road/East Driveway -Tower 24 C 19.4 EB F 58.7 EB 10. S Renton Village Place/Theater Driveway B 10.9 SB B 11.8 NB 11. S Renton Village Place/West Driveway -Tower 1 A 9.4 NB A 9.5 NB 12. S Renton Village Place/West Rite Aid Driveway B 12.4 SB B 13.9 SB 13. S Renton Village Place/Rite Aid/East Driveway -Tower 1 B 12.9 SB C 15.7 NB 14. S Renton Village Place/Southwest Driveway -Tower 2 B 10.0 SB NA NA NA 15. S Renton Village Place/South Driveway -Tower 2 B 13.3 SB C 15.3 SB 16. S Renton Village Place/East Driveway -Tower 1 B 11.2 NB NA NA NA 1. Level or Service (A-F) as defined by the Highway Capacity Manual (TRB, 2000) 2. Average delay per vehide in seconds. 3. Volume to capacity ratio reported for signalized intersections. Worst movement reported for unslgnallzed driveways. 4. These driveways are restricted to right-in/right-out turning movements. 'j(transpoGROUP Page 19 • Revised Transportation Impact Study Triton Towers Renton Expansion October 2009 As shown in Table 6, all study intersections would continue to operate at LOS D or better during the weekday AM peak hour. All study intersections, with one exception, would operate at LOS E or better during the weekday PM peak hour. The one exception is that project-generated traffic would cause operations at S Renton Village Place/Talbot Road S to degrade to LOS F. This degradation is in part because Talbot Road S is the only north-south arterial that connects the eastern side of the project site with the roadways north and south of 1-405. In addition, the new fourth leg at the 1-405 interchange would attract additional traffic volumes that do not currently use this intersection. In addition to the degraded operations at S Renton Village Place/Talbot Road S, three of the site driveways are anticipated to degrade to LOS E or F. It should be noted that all three of these driveways have right-in and right-out only turning allowances. The driveway that is estimated to operate at LOS E is the S Grady Way/North Rite Aid driveway; it is located directly across the street from the South Renton Park and Ride lot. The worst movement at this intersection is the westbound left turn, which would be for those turning off of S Grady Way into the Rite Aid and the Renton Village Shopping Center. The two driveway intersections that are anticipated to degrade to LOS Fare both located on Talbot Road S: Talbot Road/East Driveway-Tower 3 and Talbot Road/East Driveway-Tower 2. The worst movement at both of these intersections is the eastbound leg, which would be for those leaving the project site and turning onto Talbot Road S, which would not impact the operations of the City street network. Proposed Parking Supply The Triton Towers development currently provides 1,827 parking stalls in surface parking lots. The proposed project includes four five-level parking structures in addition to surface parking lots, for a total of 3,212 parking stalls. This total represents an increase of 1,385 parking stalls. Parking Code Requirements The City of Renton parking code requirement is based on net square footage rather than gross square footage. With the proposed project, the combined net floor area of the Triton Towers development would total approximately 1,243,500 square feet. According the City of Renton parking codes, general office building developments are required to have a minimum of 3 parking spaces per 1,000 feet of net floor area, and a maximum of 4.5 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of net floor area. Based on this criterion, the project would be required to provide at least 3,731 new spaces and no more than 5,596 new spaces for the office-only scenario. The current site plan for the proposed project would provide a total of 3,212 spaces, or 2.58 spaces per 1,000 feet of net floor area. A more limited supply of on-site parking will encourage employees and visitors to the site to carpool and use alternative modes of transportation. For the mixed-use scenario, the project would be required to provide at least 2,486 parking spaces for the office component, based on the criteria described above. The residential component would require at least 400 parking spaces (1.0 space per dwelling unit) and the hotel component would require at least 450 spaces (1.0 space per guest room) in addition to two spaces for every three employees. Information on the number of hotel employees is not available at this time. Thus, the mixed use development would be required to provide at least 3,336 parking spaces, in addition to any parking required for hotel employees. The proposed parking supply or 3,212 parking spaces would not meet this requirement. The code requirements do not take into account the potential for shared parking between uses or the implementation of a successful TDM program. ~(tranSpoGROUP Page20 Revised Transportation Impact Study Triton Towers Renton Expansion Peak Parking Demand October 2009 A parking demand analysis for the proposed project was completed to determine how closely the proposed parking supply would meet the anticipated parking demand. The parking demand rate for large office building sites (1 million gross square feet or more) from !TE Parking Generation, 3rd Edition, was used. Specifically, this rate is 2.58 vehicles per 1,000 square feet GFA, which equate to a total peak demand of 3,988 spaces for the overall development of the office-only scenario. With a proposed parking supply of 3,212 the calculated parking demand would exceed the proposed supply by 776 spaces, or 24 percent. As mentioned in the Trip Generation section, the !TE rates reflect the typical conditions of suburban office complexes across the country that do not have Transportation Demand Management (TOM) programs. If a TOM program is implemented it is anticipated that the proposed demand could be reduced by as much as 24 percent depending on the specific elements incorporated into the program. Similar to the office-only scenario, the ITE parking demand rate for large office building sites was used to estimate the demand associated with the office component of the mixed-use scenario. The average peak parking demand published in ITE Parking Generation for hotels was used to estimate the demand associated with the hotel component. A local parking demand rate was used to estimate the peak demand for the residential component. Appendix D includes a copy of a parking study Transpo Group completed for three existing multi-family developments in Kirkland. This study determined that, on average, the local projects studied generated a peak parking demand of 0.78 vehicles per bedroom. For the Triton Towers proposal, it was assumed that the 400-unit residential component would include 500 bedrooms. Since the hotel and office land uses included in the mixed-use scenario would experience peak parking demand at different times of day, the hourly distribution of the parking demand for each of these uses was used to determine the potential for shared parking. It was not assumed that the residential component of the mixed-use alternative would share any parking with the other two uses. A detailed analysis of the hourly parking demand for the entire site is included in Appendix C. Based on this analysis, the overall site would have a peak parking demand of approximately 3,404 spaces between 11 a.m. and 12 p.m. This would exceed the proposed supply by 195 spaces, or six percent. If a TOM program is implemented that would reduce office parking demand by 24 percent, the total parking demand for the site would be 2,779 spaces. This reduced parking demand would be adequately served by the proposed parking supply. Transit and Non-Motorized Facilities The proposed project site would include a few improvements related to non-motorized facilities. The existing sidewalks on the site frontage would be complemented by internal walkways between the proposed office buildings and parking structures. The walkways would enhance the pedestrian connectivity of the site, and are indicative of the urban design found in a typical downtown city block. This type of pedestrian-friendly design allows for safe travel among the office buildings, parking structures, and adjacent surface parking lots. Sidewalk enhancements such as street trees also help to create a central business district feel to the project site. Also, the project would reduce the potential for pedestrian-vehicle conflicts on-site by replacing the existing large surface parking lots that lack dedicated pedestrian facilities with structured parking that would include dedicated pedestrian facillties. 'i/transpoGRCJJP Page 21 Revised Transportation Impact Study Triton Towers Renton Expansion Mitigation October 2009 This section presents the recommended measures that would be taken to mitigate the impacts of the project on the adjacent roadway network. The most significant mitigation that can be implemented would be to reduce the number of vehicles to the site through implementing a transportation demand management (TOM) program. The impacts of TOM programs on vehicular trip generation were studied in project B-4 of the Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP), reported in !TE Trip Generation Handbook, Appendix B (2004). This study was based nationwide survey data from employers with active TOM programs. The TCRP report addresses three types of TOM measures: support measures, transportation services, and economic incentives. Support measures, such as rideshare matching, promotional activities, and flexible work hours, are intended to foster an environment that is supportive of alternative modes and off-peak travel. Support services alone were not found to have an impact on vehicle trip reduction. Transportation services, such as on-site showers and changing facilities, van-pool programs, and shuttle service to transit stations, were found to have a more noticeable impact on the number of vehicles used by commuters, with an average reduction of 8 percent. Economic incentives, such as transit subsidies and parking fees, were observed to reduce the number of vehicles used by commuters by an average of 16 percent. The greatest reduction in commuter vehicles was achieved by TOM programs that combined economic incentives with transportation services, with an average reduction of 24 percent. With this reduction, the two stop controlled driveways on Talbot Road S would operate at LOSO and the intersection of S Renton Village PlacefTalbot Road S would operate at LOS E during the PM peak hour. The detailed LOS worksheets supporting these findings are included in Appendix B. The existing Triton Towers development has very limited TOM measures. Only one of the tenants in the existing development (Boeing) has implemented some participation in carpooling and vanpooling. With the high availability of free parking these simple measures have not significantly reduced the volume of traffic traveling to and from the site. By implementing the following TOM measures, traffic operations at the S Renton Village PlacefTalbot Road S could be improved. A TOM program for this site could include these measures: • Limiting the amount of free parking to each tenant • Charge parking fees for non-rideshare vehicles • Provide discounted transit passes for employees • Provide on-site showers and changing facilities • Provide sheltered bike racks • Implement an employee van-pool program • Provide a shuttle bus service to off-site transn stations • Promote flexible scheduling and work hours • Create a transportation coordinator posnion for employees '1/ftranspoGROJP Page 22 Revised Transportation Impact Study Tri_ton .Towers Renton Expansion Transportation Mitigation Fees October 2009 According to the City of Renton Development Fees schedule, the developer would be required to pay a transportation fee of $75 per daily vehicle trip based on the City's Resolution #3100. Based on this criterion, the development would pay a transportation fee of approximately $514,350 for the office-only scenario or $758,850 for the mixed-use scenario. The exact amount of the transportation mitigation fee will be determined in coordination with City staff and should include an adjustment for TOM-based trip generation reductions. 'irtranSpoGP0UP Page 23 Highway Capacity Manual, 2000 Signalized intersection level of service (LOS) is defined in terms of the average total vehicle delay of all movements through an intersection. Vehicle delay is a method of quantifying several intangible factors, including driver discomfort, frustration, and lost travel time. Specifically, LOS criteria are stated in terms of average delay per vehicle during a specified time period (for example, the PM peak hour). Vehicle delay is a complex measure based on many variables, including signal phasing (i.e., progression of movements through the intersection), signal cycle length, and traffic volumes with respect to intersection capacity. Table 1 shows LOS criteria for signalized intersections, as described in the Highway Capacity Manual (Transportation Research Board, Special Report 209, 2000). Table 1. Level of Service Criteria for Signalized Intersections Level of Service Average Control Delay (sec/veh) General Description (Signalized Intersections) A <10 B >10-20 C >20-35 D >35-55 E >55-80 F >80 Free Flow Stable Flow (slight delays) Stable flow (acceptable delays) Approaching unstable flow (tolerable delay, occasionally wait through more than one signal cycle before proceeding) Unstable flow (intolerable delay) Forced flow ijammed) Unsignalized intersection LOS criteria can be further reduced into two intersection types: all- way stop-controlled and two-way stop-controlled. All-way, stop-controlled intersection LOS is expressed in terms of the average vehicle delay of all of the movements, much like that of a signalized intersection. Two-way, stop-controlled intersection LOS is defined in terms of the average vehicle delay of an individual movement(s). This is because the performance of a two- way, stop-controlled intersection is more closely reflected in terms of its individual movements, rather than its performance overall. For this reason, LOS for a two-way, stop-controlled intersection is defined in terms of its individual movements. With this in mind, total average vehicle delay (i.e., average delay of all movements) for a two-way, stop-controlled intersection should be viewed with discretion. Table 2 shows LOS criteria for unsignalized intersections (both all-way and two-way, stop-controlled). Table 2. Level of Service Criteria for Unslgnallzed Intersections Level of Service Average Control Delay (secJveh) A 0-10 B >10 -15 C >15 -25 D >25 -35 E >35 -50 F >50 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 20 14 With Project PM. TOM Reduction 11 : S Renton Villaae PL & Rite Aid/East Ori vewa~ -Tower 1 10/22/2009 _, -"'\ " -' ~ t ,. '-. ' ., -• --=-----------aa:"'.'."lil Lane Configuration s ... ... • ... Signeonwt F-F-Slop Slq, Grade -1% 0% 0% 0% Valume (Wlhlh) 10 274 1 34 188 25 49 5 48 33 5 25 Peak Hour Factor 0 .97 0.97 0.97 0 .97 0 .97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0 .97 0.97 0.97 0 .97 Hout1y flow ..... (ll!lh) 10 212 1 35 194 26 51 5 47 34 5 26 Pedestrians i... Wlclll (I) ------.._ ___ Walking Speed (IVs) -PM:eiC Blodlage ------~----· Right tum Hare (veh) Medlal'ltype --------None --None --' Median storage veh) Upawaan ligllal (I) -·-734 pX, platoon unblocked vC, conlllcllng --220 -284 ------809 593 283 830 581 'l!J7 vC1 , stage 1 con! vol vC2, stage 2 con! vol vCu, unblocked vol 220 284 609 593 283 630 581 207 tC, single (s) 4.1 4.1 7 .1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6 .5 6.2 tC , 2 stage (s) tF (S) 2.2 2.2 3 .5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4 .0 3.3 pO queue free % 99 97 87 99 94 91 99 97 cM capacity (veh/h) 1356 1285 379 403 754 358 413 839 11111, VollaMTCIMI -2k 256 103 • ----"'--------- Volume Left 10 35 51 34 Yaume Rlglll 1 2' 47 211 - cSH 1356 1285 493 470 Valumelll~ 0.01 0 .03 0.21 0.14 ---' Queue Length 95th (ft) 1 2 19 12 CoNnll Delar <•) 0.3 1.3 14.2 13.11 -·-------_J Lan e LOS A A 8 8 Appr-=tl Delar (•) 0.3 1.3 14.2 13.9 ·-- Approach LOS B B Average Delay 3 .9 ~~. Capacily Utilization 42.0% ICU L-i ol SeMoe -A __ __J Analysis Period (min) 15 Transpo · ct Synchro 6 Report M:107\07367 Triton Towers Renton Expansion\Analysis\Traffic Operalions\PM With Project· rev trip dist. ~e <ltls y7 The Transpo Group HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2014 With Project PM -TOM Reduction 13: S Renton Villaae PL & South Orivewa~ -Tower 2 10/22/2009 _, --' '-. ., Lane Configurations --' ' ¥ Sign Conlrol F-F-Slop Grade -1% 0% 0% Valume (Wlhlh) 5 349 221 19 58 25 Peak Hour Factor 0 .89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0 .89 0 .89 Hout1y tow ..... (ll!lh) 8 382 248 21 86 28 Pedestrians i... Wldlll (I) Walking Speed (IVs) "--Blodlage Right turn Oare (veh) Medlal'llype Median storage veh) Upalr.-111,1111 (I) pX, platoon u nblock ed 1.00 ve.~--270 vC1 . stage 1 confvol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 269 662 259 tC, single (s) 4.1 6 .4 6.2 IC 2 stage (s) IF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 pO queue free % 100 85 96 cM capacity (veh/h) 1 299 426 782 ValumeTalal -270 93 -Volume Left 6 0 65 Volume Rlglll 0 21 28 cSH 1299 1700 494 Valumelll~ 0.00 0.11 0.19 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 17 Cami Delar (•) 0.2 0 .0 14 .0 Lane L OS A 8 Appr-=tl Deley <•) 0 .2 0 .0 14.0 Approach LOS 8 iii Average Delay 1.8 lntenectlon ~ Ulllizallon 35.4'!(, ICU L....a ol SeMoe A --Analysis Period (min) 15 Transpo • ct Synchro 6 Report M:\07\07367 Triton T owers Renton Expansion\Analysis\Traff,c Operations\PM With Project-rev trip dist . l'Nlile dQsy7 The Transpo Group HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2014 W ith Project PM -TDM Reduction 9 : S Renton Villa9e PL & West Dirvewaz: -Tower 1 10/22/2009 -~ "' -~ ~ • I • Lane Configurations ,. ;f "' Sljjii Ccliwal FtN Free Slap Grade -1% 0% 0% VCIUM(WMI) 118 15 29 113 10 44 Peak Hour Factor 0 .94 0 .94 0.94 0.94 0 .94 0 .94 HlutJ 1111w ... ~) 102 18 31 i.-11 47 Pedestrians i.-Wldll(11) Walking Speed (Ills) PeiClllt l!lloclrage Right tum ftare (veh) Mlldlan t,pe None Median storage ~ u,.-nllg!W(II) ----pX, platoon unblocked ---ve. CCll'lllcllng wii----118 3118 110 vC1 . stage 1 cent vol ---vC2,llaga2oodvd --- vCu, unblocked vol 11 8 366 110 IC, llrigle (a) 4 .1 -8 .4 8.2 tC , 2 stage (s) tF (•) 2.2 -3.5 3.3 l ---pO queue free % 98 98 95 cM i:apadly (WM!) ---1478 820 943 . ·-----~ ---. ------· Volume Tola! 118 228 57 -Volume Lefl 0 31 11 Vdumi Right -18 0 47 cSH 1700 1476 860 ~loCapedly 0 .07 0.02 0 .07 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 2 5 Conlrol Delay 1•1 0.0 1.2 9 .5 Lane LOS A A ~Delay(•) 0.0 1.2 9 .5 Approach LOS A 2.0 29.8'1. ICU LIIV'll ol SeMca --A --15 Transpo -ct Synchro 6 Report M:\07\07367 Triton Towers Renton Expanslon\Analysis\T raffic Operations\PM With Project-rev trip dist -TN!lllg dsy7 The Transpo Group HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capaci ty Analysis 20 14 With Project PM -TDM Reduction 10 : S Renton Villa9e PL & West R ite Aid Drivewaz: 10122/2009 .> --'-~ ., Lane Configurations ' .. Sign Conlrol F,.. F,.. Slap Grade -1% 0% 0% VCIUM ("9hlh) 10 130 197 15 155 15 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0 .94 Hourly tow ..... Mlfl) 11 138 210 1111 115 18 Pedest rians i.-Wklh(ft) Walking Speed (Ills) ~~ Right tum flare ~) Median t,pe ---None Median storage veh) ---u,.-n..,.(11) -900 p X. platoon unblocked \IC, iiintllcliijj ...._ 279 --404 244 vC 1 .. stag!_!. cent vol vC2, age 2 corlvd vCu , unblocked vol 279 404 244 IC , *""9 (e) 4.1 8.4 8 .2 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (•) 2.2 3.5 3.3 p0 queue free o/o 99 73 98 cM capadly (vehlhl 1290 eoo m Volume Total 149 -279 181 Volume Left 11 0 165 Volume Righi -0 89 18 cSH 1290 1700 613 Volume lo Capedly 0 .01 0.18 0.29 Queue Length 95th (ft) 1 0 3 1 Conlrol Delay <•I 0.8 0 .0 13.3 Lane LOS A B ~Oelay(I) 0.8 0 .0 13.3 Approach LOS B I!!!!!! Average Delay 4 .1 lnl1Nwc:tlon Cllpaclly Ullllzllllon 32.11% ICU LIIV'II DI SeMce --A Analysis Period (min) 15 Transpo -ct Synchro 6 Report M:\07\07367 Triton Towers Renton Expansion\Analysis\Traffic Opera lions\PM With Project-rev trip dist -Tlllll!le dO!y7 The Transpo Group HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 20 14 With Project PM -TOM Reduction 7 : East Orivewa~ • Tower 2 & SR 5 15/Talbot 10/22/2009 ~ ~ ~ t ' ., lane Configurations f <ft +to -SignCGmal Slop F,-F,- Grade 0% 0% 0% Volume (wehlh) 0 108 0 1280 2129 12 ------------. ---__ J Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0 .97 0 .97 0.97 0.97 0 .97 Houl1y low ,... ("'Pl!) 0 108 0 1320 2196 12 Pedestrians '--Wklll(ft) ------------Walking Speed (IVs) ~Blocllage ------------------- Right tum flare (veh) Medlall type None -----------------I Median storage veh) Upanall ligrlll (I) 285 926 -------------------- pX, platoon u nblocked 0.88 0.82 0.82 ve. conllicling w1ume 2861 1104 2207 ----------.J vC1 . stage 1 con! vol vC2, stage 2 cont vol vCu , unblocked vol 2582 9 10 2252 tC, single (s) 6.8 6 .9 4 .1 tC , 2 stage (s) IF (S) 3.5 3.3 2 . .2 pO queue free % 100 53 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 19 231 188 we w:w,=w --, IN I llolumeToal -108 440 IIO 14413 744 --------------Volume L eft 0 0 0 0 0 Volume Rlglll --108 0 0 0 12 cSH 231 188 1700 1700 1700 Volume ID Capaclly 0 .47 0.00 0.52 0 .88 0 .44 ----------Queue l e ngth 95th (ft) 58 0 0 0 0 Cor*a Dalar <•> 33.8 0.0 0 .0 0 .0 0.0 ----------------Lane LOS D Appra.:11 Dalar <•> 33.8 0.0 0 .0 ----Approach LOS D Average Delay 1.0 kllenedlan Capaclly Utilzalion 74.1% ICU Level ol SeMce D -----~ Analysis Period (min ) 15 Transpo . ct Synchro 6 Report M:\07\07367 Triton Towers Renton Expansion\Analysis\Trarfic Operations\PM With Project-rev trip dist • TM!aga:Usy7 Th e Transpo Group HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2014 With Project PM· TOM Reduction 8 : S Renton Villa!;je PL & T heater Orivewa~ 10/2212009 ~ -~ ~ -' ~ t ~ '. ' ., ~----------lane Configurations • • • • Sign Corvo! F,-F,-Slop Slop Grade -1% 0% 0% 0% VOiume (wMI) 5 71 5 5 158 30 40 15 10 30 5 5 Peak Hour Factor 0 .86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0 .86 0 .86 0 .86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0 .86 Houl1y low 1'11111 (vph) 6 83 6 6 184 35 47 17 12 35 6 6 Pedestrians '--Widlh (ft) Walking Speed (IVs) ~Blocllage Right turn flare (veh) Medlall lype Median storage veh ) IJpln.n ligrlll (ft) pX, platoon unblocked ve . conlllcting ~ vC 1 , stage 1 conr vol vC2. stage 2 conr vol vCu, unblocked vol 219 88 319 327 85 330 313 201 tC , single (s) 4 .1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 tC . 2 stage (s) IF (s) 2 .2 2.2 3 .5 4 .0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 pO queue free % 100 100 92 97 99 94 99 99 cM capacity (veh/h) 1351 1507 619 585 971 602 601 845 Volume TOia! 114 224 71 47 -Volume lert 6 6 47 35 Volume~ 6 35 12 6 cSH 1351 1507 647 624 Volume lo Capac:ily 0 .00 0 .00 0 .12 0 .07 Queue L engt h 95t h (It) 0 0 10 6 ConllOI Deley (I) 0 .5 02 11 .3 11.2 lane LOS A A B B Appra.:11 Delay(•) 0.5 02 11 .3 11 .2 Approach LOS B B Average Delay 3.3 lnl...alon Capac:ily UUlizalion 23.8'4 ICU Level ol SeMce -------A Analysis Period (min) 15 Transpo · ct Synchro 6 Report M:107\07367 Triton Towers Renton Expansion\Analysis\Trarfic Operations\PM W ith Project-rev trip dist -HJHilga:8sy7 The Transpo Group HCM S ignalized Inte rsection Capacity Analysis 2014 With P roject P M -TOM Red uction 5: Grad~ W~ & S R 515/Talbot 10122/2009 .> -..... ~ -"' ~ t ,. ~ ' 4' -----~----------~---------Lane Configurations 'I ff I' 'l'I +• 'l'I tf. 'I ff I' Ideal F1llw ("llflpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Grade(%) 0% -1% 0% 1% Talll Loet ..,_ (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 -5.0 5.0 5.0 La ne Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 0 .95 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Flt 1.00 1.00 o.as 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.94 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0 .95 1.00 1.00 Said. F1llw (pral) 1770 35311 15113 3450 3493 3487 3357 17911 31112 1907 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1 .00 0 .95 1 .00 0.95 1.00 0 .95 1.00 1.00 .... Flow (Diiiii) 1770 -3531 -15113 -3490 -3413 --3417 -3357 • -17911 -3592 -1907 Volume (vph) 70 1024 840 451 677 40 550 470 320 80 740 40 ,Pak-hourfac:a, AF 0.90 0.90 0.90 o.a 0.97 0.97 0.17 0.97 0.87 0.17 0.97 0.97 Adj . Flow (vph) 78 11 38 933 512 698 41 567 485 330 82 763 41 RTOR Rllducllon (\lph) 0 0 3 0 3 0 0 100 0 0 0 21' La ne Group Flow (vph) 78 1138 930 512 736 0 567 7 15 0 82 763 20 ,...,,, V9llldN ~l 2% 2% 2" 2" n. n. 1% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% Tum Type P rot pm+ov Prat P rat Prot Perm Pldldld "'-1 II 3 5 2 3 8 7 4 Permitted Phases 6 4 ~ Oiiiii, 0 (•) 8.11 35.0 !19.0 18.0 44.4 24 .0 39.2 1.8 w 23 .o-23.o Effective Green , g (s) 8.6 35.0 59 .0 18.0 44.4 24.0 39 .2 7.8 23 .0 23 .0 Aduad s,'C Raio 0.07 0.28 0.41 0 .15 0.37 0.20 0.33 o.oe 0.11 0.11 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5 .0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5 .0 5.0 5.0 5.0 VIINde EJdanalon !•I 4.0 4 .0 5.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 127 1032 844 518 1292 693 1097 117 688 308 vii Rillo Priii 0.04 c0.32 c().22 c0 .15 0.21 0.18 0.21 0.05 c0.21 vis Ralio P erm 0.37 0.01 \,le Rllllo 0.81 1.10 1.10 0 .19 0.57 0.82 0.115 0.70 1.11 O.OII Unif orm Delay, d1 54.1 42.5 30 .5 50.9 30.2 45.9 34.6 55.0 48 .5 39 .7 Pn+...io,, Fedor 0.88 0.71 0.53 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 5.7 55 .2 56 .6 36.2 1.8 8.4 1 .9 17.3 68.2 0 .1 Diiiy (a) 53.1 85.2 72 .1 87.1 32.0 54 .3 311.4 72.2 1111.7 39.8 Level of Service D F E F C D D E F D Applmdl Delay<•> 78 .7 54.11 43.8 109.0 Approach LOS E D D F ----------=~-- HCM Average Cont rol Delay 69 .6 HCM Level of Service E RcfiiVdumi IO eap. ty ralo w f.Oll w - Actuat ed Cycle Length {s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 15.0 :lnlllrNc:IIOI, Capeclly UIIIDllon 97 .8% ICU Lewi al 8eMca -F Analysis Period {min) 15 c Cltlall '--Onlilp Transpo -ct Synchro 6 Report M:\07107367 Triton Towers Renton Expansion\Analysis\Traffic Operations\PM With Project-rev trip dist · TNllilgEEfisy7 The Transpo Group H CM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2014 With P roject PM -TOM R eduction 6 : East Orivewa~ • T ower 3 & SR 5 15fTalbot 1012mo09 .> ..... ~ t • 4' Lane Configurations I' SlgnConlrd Slap Grade 0% 0% 0% ~(whlh) 0 114 0 1280 2032 23 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0 .94 0.94 0.94 0 .94 0 .94 Hourly low ,.... (wptl) 0 121 0 13112 2182 24 P edest rians '--Wlclh!ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Piiwi!Bliiiiige Right tum flare (veh) Mlldllll lypll None Median s1orage veh) Upenan...,.. (ft) 1173 5311 p X, platoon unblocked 0.87 0.82 0.82 .c.~--2843 1091 211111 vC 1 , stage 1 conr vol vC2 , lllge 2 _., -.al vCu , unblocked vol 2560 874 2228 IC, lllrigle (a) 11.8 u 4 .1 tC, 2 stage (s) IF (a) 3.5 3.3 2.2 pO queue free % 100 50 100 cM capec:lly (welllh) 11 242 190 Volume TOIII -121 11111 1181 1091 1091 24 Volume Len 0 0 0 0 0 0 Volume Right -121 0 0 0 0 24 cSH 242 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Volume IO Capeclly 0.50 0.40 0.40 0.114 0.114 0.01 Queue Length 95th (ft) 64 0 0 0 0 0 Conbd Delay (a) 33.8 0.0 0.0 0 .0 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS D Applmdl Delay (•) 33.8 0.0 0.0 Approach LOS D I!!!!! Average Delay 1 .1 lnlenecllon Capeclly Ullmllon 71.11% ICU Lewi al SeMce -C Analysis Period (min) 15 Transpo -ct Synchro 6 Report M :107107367 Triton Towers Renton Expansion\Analysis\T raffic Operations\PM With Project-rev trip dist · TN!lilgdisy7 The Transpo Group HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 201 4 W ith Project PM -TOM Reduction 3: Grad"i. WY. & North R ite Aid Orivewa"i. 1012212009 -~ " -~ ~ ...--.: ---=--==-I La ne Configurations •• " tt ¥ Sign Corllnll FIN FIN Smp -------. Grade 0% 0% 0% Vol&nw (vehlh) 1713 26 82 1205 1 127 _J Peak Hour Factor 0 .94 0.94 0.94 0 .94 0 .94 0.94 Hourly ........ (vph) 1878 28 18 1282 1 135 ----------Pedestrians !MW Wklll (I ) ------------------------ Walking Speed (IVs) p.,cent BlocMge Right t um flare (veh) Median type None Median storage veh) IJpAeMI ligllal (II) 420 562 ------------pX , platoon unblocked 0.54 0 .62 0.54 ve . con1licling vo1ume -1803 26412 952 --vC1 , stage 1 con! vol vC2, stage 2 con! vol vCu , unblocked vo l 1822 2318 71 IC , single (s) 4 .1 6.8 6 .9 IC , 2 stage (s) IF (S) 2 .2 3.5 3.3 pO queue free % 63 92 75 cM capacity (veh/h) 181 13 534 .... _.. .-Clllh ~·· •• •1 I ~Tall! 1250 853 88 841 841 138 Volume Left 0 0 66 0 0 1 ~Rlglll 0 28 0 0 0 135 -----_· __ _I cSH 1700 1700 181 1700 1700 405 ~IOCapecily 0 .74 0.38 0 .37 0.38 0.38 0.34 --- Queue Lengt h 951h (fl) 0 0 39 0 0 36 Corllnll Deiar (1) 0 .0 0.0 38.0 0 .0 0 .0 18.3 Lane LOS E C Apploacll Delar (a) 0 .0 --1.8 --18.3 ·--------· -I Approach LOS C Average Delay 1.4 ~. Capecily UIIIDllon 87.8% ICU Level ol SeMce C -- Analysis Period (min) 15 Transpo -ct Synchro 6 Report M:\07\07367 Triton Towers Renton Expansion\Analysis\Traffic Operations\PM With Project-rev trip dist· TM!aga:C~y7 The T ra nspo Group HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2014 With Project PM -TOM Reduction 4 : Grad"i. WY. & North Orivewa"i. -T ower 3 10122/2009 -~ " -~ ~ -------·• .-... -----lillr" . La ne Configurations tf. tt Sign Conlrol FIN FIN Smp Grade 0% 0% 0% VOiume (vehlh) 11n 111 0 1297 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0 95 0 .95 0.95 0.95 Hourly low .... (vph) 11171 20 0 1334 0 Pedestrians !MW Wldll (II) Walking Speed (IVs) p.,cent BlocMge Right tum flare (veh) Median type None Median storage veh) Upanar, ligllal (l ) 881 321 pX , platoon unblocked 0 .55 0 .63 ve . con11C11ng va1urne 1991 2647 vC 1 , stage 1 con! vol vC2, stage 2 con! vol vCu , unblocked vol 1983 2245 183 IC, Single (s) 4 .2 6.8 6.9 IC, 2 stage (s) IF (s) 2 .2 3.5 3.3 pO que ue free 0/o 100 100 86 cM capacity (veh/h) 157 23 462 ,-,- Vol&nwTalll 1314 sn 887 887 18 Volume Left 0 0 0 0 0 VOiume Rlgl1I 0 20 0 0 86 cSH 1700 1700 1700 1700 462 VOiume lo Capacity o.n 0.40 0.311 0 .311 0 .14 Queue Length 95th (fl) 0 0 0 0 12 ConllOI Delar (•) 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0.0 14.1 Lane LOS 8 Apploacll Delay (a) 0 .0 0 .0 14.1 Approach LOS 8 iii Average Delay 0 .3 lnlerNdlon Capacity Ulllizalion 84.8% ICU Level ol SeMce ---C Analysis Period (min) 15 Transpo -ct Synchro 6 Report M:\07\07367 Tri ton Towers Renton Expansion\Analysis\Traffic Operations\PM With Project-rev trip dist -HJ!lilgoi:llsy7 The Transpo Group HCM S ignalized In ter section Capacity Analysis 2014 With Project P M -TOM Reduction 1 : Grad;i: w;i: & Lake A ve S 10/22/2009 .> -..... "' -' .... t ~ ~ ' ~ -----~-~-~- Lane Configurations 11 tt f 11 +• 11 t f • -Flow (vptlpl) 1900 1IIOO 1IIOO 1IIOO 1IIOO 1IIOO 1IIOO 1IIOO 1IIOO 1IIOO 1IIOO 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5 .0 5 .0 5.0 5.0 5 .0 5 .0 5.0 5.0 a.-l.M.F8CD 1.00 0,95 1.00 1.00 0,95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ~ Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0 .85 0.92 Fl Prilllii:lid 0 .95 1.00 1.00 0.15 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 O.N J Said. Flow (prot) 1787 3574 1599 1770 3532 1770 1863 1583 1393 FIPwmlllad O.t& 1.00 1.00 0.15 1.00 o.ee 1.00 1.00 O.to Said. Flow (~rm) 1787 3574 1599 1770 3532 1265 1863 1583 1274 Volumec,.ptt) 40 1Sll7 147 90 1374 20 -1 50 40 1 IIO Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0 .92 0 .92 0 .92 0.92 0 .92 0.92 0 .92 0.92 0.92 0 .92 0 .92 Mj. Flow(llph) 43 1738 180 54 1413 22 420 1 54 43 1 815 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 59 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 43 0 a.-Oraup Flow ("Ph) 43 1738 101 54 1514 0 420 1 54 •ow ee 0 Heavl Vehicles(%) 1% 1% 1% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 23% 23% 23% Tum Type Prat Penn Prat Penn Fl'N Penn Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 4 4 Pwmlled "'-2 4 FIN 4 :::J Actuated Green, G ~ 6 .2 64.0 64.0 4.8 62 .6 36.2 36.2 120.0 36 .2 Effiicihe OrNn, 11 (1) 8.2 84.0 84.0 4.8 82.8 38.2 38.2 120.0 38.2 J Actuated g/C Ratio 0 .05 0 .53 0 .53 0.04 0.52 0.30 0.30 1.00 0 .30 Clearance Time (1) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 J Vehicle Extension !SJ 3 .0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3 .0 .... Orp Clip ("Ph) t2 1908 853 71 1843 382 582 1583 384 .J vis Ratio Prot 0 .02 c0.49 0.03 c0 .43 0.00 wa R1111o Penn o.oe c0.33 0.03 0.05 J v/c Ratio 0 .47 0 .91 0 .12 0.76 0 .82 1.10 0.00 0.03 0 .17 Unllam Oeley, d1 55.3 25.4 13.t 57 .0 24.0 ~29.3 0.0 30.9 _J Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.70 0 .45 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1na ...... Delay, d2 3.7 a.o 0.3 28 .8 2.2 75.8 0.0 0.0 0.2 :::J Delay (s) 59.0 33.4 14.2 68.5 13.1 117.5 29.3 0 .0 31 .1 l.ftlll of s.-. E c II E II F C A C :::J Approacll Delay .\!L 32.4 15.0 -104 .0 31.1 Appiaadl LOS C B F C :::J HCM A-. CGl*«II Oeley 34.0 HCM lftlll ol Semce C -HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.95 Adualld Cyda langlh (a) 120.0 Sum al loll 1111'111 (1) --10.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 80.5% ICU Level or Service D Analylla Pwlod ("*') 15 -~- C Critical Lane Group Transpo -ct Syncllro 6 Repcrt M:\07\07367 Triton Towers Renton Expansion\Analysis\Traffic Operations\PM With Project-rev trip dist -T~g«:Msy7 The Transpo Group H CM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2014 W ith Project PM -TOM Reduction 2: Grad;i: w;i: & Shattuck Av S 10/22/2009 .> -..... "' -' .... t ~ ~ ' ~ La-ne Configurations , tt-......_,~,~_t-f.-·~,--~,-.-· ---~-11 -f. ldelllflow(vptlpl) 190019001II0019001II001II001II0019001II001II001IIOO 1IIOO Lane Width 12 11 11 12 11 12 12 11 12 12 11 12 Grade(%) 0% 0% 1% 0% Total Los t time (s) 5.0 5 .0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5 .0 a.-UII.F8CD 1.00 0.15 1.00 1.00 0.15 0 .11 0.11 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0 .85 1.00 0 .99 1.00 0 .93 1.00 0 .93 Fl Pralecled 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.15 1.00 0.95 0.118 0.15 1.00 Satd . Flow (prot) 1770 3421 153 1 1770 3387 1634 3031 1656 1567 Fl Pamllled 0.15 1.00 1.00 O.t& 1.00 0.95 O.N 0.15 1.00 Satd . Flow !eenm) 1770 3421 1531 1770 3387 1634 3031 1656 1567 Valuma~ 40 1514 134 110 1120 IIO 254 50 154 220 80 70 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 Adi-Flow Mill) 42 1594 141 118 1179 84 287 53 182 232 84 74 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 55 0 4 0 0 116 0 0 26 0 a.-Oraup Flow ("Ph) 42 1514 • 118 1258 0 145 221 0 232 132 0 Hea'.!'.)'. Vehicles(%) 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 0% 0% 0% 9% 9% 9% Tum r.,.,. Prat Penn Prat St* St* Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 8 8 4 4 P8lmllled "'-8 Actuated Green, G (s) 5.6 57 .4 57.4 10.0 61 .8 14.6 14 .6 18 .0 18.0 E"'9c:llw 0.-. 11 (1) 5.8 57.4 57.4 10.0 81.8 14.8 14.8 18.0 18.0 Actuated g /C Ratio 0.05 0 .48 0.48 0 .08 0.52 0.12 0.12 0 .15 0.15 Clearance Time (1) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension !s) 3 .0 5 .0 5.0 3.0 5 .0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 i.-Orp Clip ("Ph) 83 1838 732 148 1744 118 -248 235 vis Ratio Prot 0.02 c0.47 c0.07 0.37 c0.09 0.07 c0.14 0.08 In Raio Peml o.oe vie Ratio 0 .51 0 .97 0 .12 0.78 0.72 0 .73 0.60 0 .94 0.56 Uniform Oeley, d1 55.I 30.8 17.3 53.9 22 .5 50.8 41.9 50.4 47.3 Progression Factor 0.72 0 .24 0 .04 1.05 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 .__,.., Deley, d2 2.4 10.8 0.2 19.4 2 .1 13.3 3.1 40.0 3.7 Delay (s) 42.6 18.0 0.9 76.0 21 .1 64.1 53 .0 90.4 51.0 L .... olSeMce D B A E C E D F D Approach Delay (sL 17.2 25 .7 56 .3 74.4 ~LOS II C -E -E HCM Average Conlral Delar 30.3 HCM L .... ol Sen,lce C -HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.91 ~ Cyde lenglh (1) 120.0 Sum o11oe111m11 (1) 20.0 -Intersection Capacity Utilization 85.9% ICU Level of Service E Analylla Pwlod (min) 15 C Critical Lane Group Transpo -ct Syncllro 6 Report M :\07107367 Triton Towers Renton Expansion\Analysis\Traffic Operations\PM With Project-rev trip dist -T~g«:tasy7 The Transpo Group HCM Signalized Int ersection Capacity Analysis T riton Towers 1 5 : S R enton Villaae PL & SR 5 15/Talbot 2014 With Project PM ~ -~ " -' ~ t ~ \. ' *' Lane Configurations 'I , 'l'I t , 'I tt tfo ..... Flow (vpllp) 11100 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1IIOO 1IIOO 1900 1900 1900 Grade (%) -1% 0% -3% 0% Taal Le.a lime (a) 5 .0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 --5.0 -· Lane Util . Factor 1.00 1.00 0 .97 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 Frt UICI 0.85 1.00 1.()0 0 .85 1.00 1.00 1.00 - Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0 .95 1.00 1.00 0 .95 1.00 1.00 Said. Flow (prat) 11116 1807 3502 1900 1815 1814 3828 --3563 -Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0 .95 1.00 1.00 0 .95 1.00 1.00 Said. Flow (Denni 17116 1807 3502 1IIOO 1815 181 4 3828 3563 Volume (vph) 70 0 394 620 42 170 173 1040 0 0 2260 50 F'Nk~ faclor, PHF 0.115 0.115 0 .95 0.95 0.115 0 .115 0.115 0.115 0.115 0.115 0 .115 0 .115 Adj. Flow (vph) 74 0 415 653 44 179 182 1095 0 0 2379 53 RTOR~(vph) 0 0 83 0 0 107 0 0 0 0 1 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 74 0 332 653 44 72 182 1095 0 0 2431 0 HeavyVelllclN!%! 1% 1% 1% ()'!(, o,r, ()'!(, 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% Tum Type Prat custom Prat Perm Prat Protected Phases 7 3 8 5 2 6 Permitted Phases 8 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 6 .0 19.0 30.0 19.0 19.0 7.0 80.0 68.0 Effe ct ive Green. g (s) 60 19 0 30 0 19 0 19 0 7.0 80.0 68 0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.05 0 .16 0.25 0.16 0 .16 0 .06 0.67 0.57 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 50 5.0 5.0 50 Vehicle Extension (s) 3 .0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3 .0 4.0 6.5 6 .5 Lane Grp Cap (v ph ) 90 254 876 30 1 256 106 2419 2019 waRalio Prol 0.04 c0.111 0.02 c0.10 0.30 c0 .88 --vis Ratio Perm c0 .21 0 .04 vie Ralio 0.82 1.31 0.75 0.15 0.28 1.72 0.45 1.20 Uniform Delay, d1 56 .5 50.5 41 .5 43.5 44 .5 56.5 9.5 26.0 Pnlgr9Ulan Fac:tor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.81 0.51 1.111 -Incremental Delay, d2 42.9 163.1 3.5 0.2 0 .6 355.1 0.5 93.6 Delay<•> 1111.3 213.8 45.0 43 .7 45.1 40U 8.1 -·-124.8 Level of Service F F D D D F A F Approec:h Delay<•> 1116.3 44 .11 82 .11 --124 .8 Approach LOS F D E F HCM Average Control Delay 102.2 H CM Level of Service F HCM V...,_ ID Capaclly ralio 1.111 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120 .0 Sum of lost time (s) 15.0 lnalMClion Capacity Ullizallon 118.1'11. ICU Lewi al SeMce H -----· Analysis Period (min) 15 C CIIUcal Law Group M:107\07367 Triton Towers Renton Expansion\Analysis\T raff,c Operat ions\PM With Project-rev tflprnilta;jli'Re port 9/2612008 Pag e 13 The Transpo Group HCM Signali zed In tersection Capacit y Analysis Triton Towers 16 : 1-405 N B On-Rame & SR 51 5 /Talbot 2014 With Project PM " ' t ~ \. ' ·---..... ........ Lane Configurations tt , 'I tt Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1IIOO 1900 Grade(%) 0% ·3% 6% T olal Le.a time <•I 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 1.00 1.00 0 .95 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Said. Flow (pot) 3692 1807 1717 3433 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0 .95 1.00 Said. Flow (Jlerm! 3692 1607 1717 3433 Volume (vph) 0 0 1210 280 324 2989 F'Nk~ faclor, PHF 0.92 0.112 0.92 0.92 0.92 0 .92 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 1315 304 352 3249 RTOR~(vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Graue Flow (veh) 0 0 1315 304 352 3249 Tum Type FIN Prol Protected Phases 2 1 6 Permitted Phases Free Actua ted Green, G (s) 88 .0 120 .0 22 .0 120 0 Effective Green, g (s) 88.0 120.0 22 .0 120.0 Actua ted giC Rati o 0.73 1 00 0 18 1 00 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5 .0 5 .0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3 .0 3 .0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 2634 1607 315 3433 vi s Ratio Prat 0.37 0 .21 c0 .95 via Ralio P9fm 0.111 vie Ratio 0.50 0.19 1.12 0.95 Unbm Delay, d1 1 .7 0 .0 49.0 0.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 ~-Delay , d2 ---0.7 0 .3 57 .4 0.8 Delay (s) 7.4 0.3 104.4 0 .8 i..v. al Senllca A A F A Approach Delay (s) 0 .0 6.1 10.9 Approec:h LOS A A B iii HCM A-. Conlral Delay 11.4 HCM t..v.l al SeMce HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.95 Adulllad Cyde LMlglh <•I 120.0 Sum o11oe1 lime <•I Intersection Capacity Utilization 86.8% ICU Level of Service Analylia Period (nin) 15 C Critical Lane Group M:107\07367 Triton T owers Renton Expansion \Analysis\Traffic Operations\PM Wit h Project-rev lflpniiiita;jli'Report 9/26/2008 Page 14 The Transpo Group HCM Unsigna lized Intersection Capacity Analysis Triton T owers 11 : S Renton Villaae PL & Rite Aid/East Drivewa:r: -Tower 1 2014 With Project PM ~ -~ "' -~ ~ t ~ .... ! ., Lane Configurations ... ... ... ... Slgnecnd Ftw Frw Slop Slop Grade -1% 0% 0% 0% Vabne(wMI) 10 282 1 41 195 32 67 5 eo 41 5 25 Peak Hour Factor 0 .97 0 .97 0 .97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0 .97 0 .97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0 .97 Hourly low ,... (¥pt!) 10 291 1 42 201 33 • 5 82 42 5 28 Pedestrians Liiii Wldli (II) Walking_§_peed (ft/s) ,._... lllodcage --Right tum Hare (veh) ~lw,e -~ None -~ ~-None :::J Median sto.:.:.veh) -----IJjiiiiwm (II) ---734 pX, platoon unblocked ---lie.~~ 234 ---292 --842 830 291 878 814 218 vC1, stage 1 conf vol -----va. 11age 2 conf lfd -----vCu , unblocked vol 234 292 642 630 291 678 614 2 18 IC,elngle(I) 4.1 ---4.1 --7.1 8.5 82 7 .1 8.5 8.2 -----t C, 2 stage~ iFli) 2.2 --2.2 ---3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 pO queue free % 99 97 81 99 92 87 99 97 cM c:apec:lly (Ylhlh) 1339 --1278 ---358 381 748 324 393 827 --- --~ -~------- VcbMTOIII 302 278 138 73 Volume Left 10 42 69 42 VcbM~ 1 33 82 28 cSH 1339 1276 470 4 19 VcbM ID Capacity 0 .01 0 .03 0.29 0.17 Queue Length 95th (ft) 1 3 30 16 eor.ai Delay (1) 0.3 1.5 15.7 15.4 Lane LOS A A C C Appraadl Delay (1) 0 .3 1.5 15.7 15.4 Approach LOS C C -------~ Average De lay 4.8 llllalNc:lloll Capacity lMIZ8llon 48.3'1. ICU Lftlll of SeMce --A --Analysis Period (min) 15 M:\07\07367 T riton Towers Renton Expansion\Analysis\Traffic Operations\PM With Project-rev tllprdilhsj!.'Report 9 /26/2008 Page 11 The Transpo Group I I I I HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Triton Towers 13: S Renton Villaae PL & South Drivewa;i: -Tower 2 2014 With Project PM ~ --~ .... ., Lane Configurations 4 to V Sign Control Frw Free Slap Grade -1% 0% 0% Voune (veh,11) 5 378 244 28 1111 25 Peak Hour Factor 0.89 0 .89 0 .89 0.89 0.89 0.89 Hourly flow rale (vph) 8 425 274 29 74 28 Pedestrians ta.Width (II) Walking Speed (ft/s) P9l'cent l!loclraga Rig ht turn Hare (veh) Medlenlw,e ---None Median storage veh) Upalr9Mll llgl,al (ft) ---438 pX, platoon unblocked ve.~~ 303 725 289 vC 1, stage 1 conr vol vC2, llage 2 conf 11d vCu, unblocked vol 303 725 289 IC, elngle (a) 4.1 8.4 -U tC, 2 stage (s) tF(a) 2.2 3.5 3.3 pO queue free % 100 81 96 cM capedly (Wlhlh) 1283 392~ ---~~ VouneTotal 430 303 102 Volume Left 6 0 74 voune Right -0 29 28 cSH 1263 1700 451 Voune ID Capacity 0.00 0 .18 0.23 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 22 CcMol Delay (1) 0.1 0.0 15.3 Lane LOS A C Appraadl Delay (1) 0.1 0.0 15.3 Approach LOS C ------.....__.____.,_-. --- Average Delay 1.9 lntenedlol'I Capacity IMrallon 37.4% ICU Lftlll of SeMce --A Analysis Period (min) 15 M:\07\07367 Triton Towers Renton Expansion\Analysis\Traffic Operations\PM With Project-rev tllprmlltcsj!.'Report 9/26/2008 Page 12 The Transpo Group HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Ana lysis Triton T owers 9: S Renton Villaae PL & West Dirvewa~ • Tower 1 2014 With Project PM -~ "' -~ ~ ----' .. Lane Configurations " • V 8c,'I Cannl FIN Frw Slq) -·----·---------· Grade -1% 0% 0% VGUM (wh/11) Ill 15 38 201 10 52 - Peak Hour Factor 0 .94 0.94 0.94 0 .94 0 .94 0.94 Hou,1y low,... (vph) 102 111 38 214 11 55 ------------Pedestrians LawWldll(11) -----Walking Speed (ft/s) Percall llloc:bga ---- Right tum flare (veh) Medill'I type ------None -------- Median storage veh) Upal,Nm 191111 (I) 965 -------------- pX, platoon unblocked IIC, conlidlng volume 118 401 110 ·--vC 1 . stage 1 conf vol vC2 . stage 2 cont vol vCu. unblocked vol 118 401 110 tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) IF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 pO queue free % 97 98 94 cM capacity (veh/h) 1476 590 943 -~-· a1---1-:-1aa ; : l Valume Tallll 118 252 ee ---Volume Left 0 38 11 Voune~ 111 0 5fi ----------------cSH 1700 1476 860 Voune lo Capedly 0 .07 0 .03 0 .08 ' ----------------------~---' Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 2 6 Conni 0.-. (•) 0 .0 1.3 9.5 Lane LOS A A Approach 0.-. <•> 0.0 1.3 9.5 -------Approach LOS A Average Delay 2.2 lnWNdlon Capacily UllliZallon 31.3% ICU I.AMI cl SeNk:e A - Analysis Period (min) 15 M:\07107 367 Triton Towers Renton Expansion\Analysis\T raffic Operations\PM With Project-rev t8l"'Oht~j7Report 9/26/2008 Page 9 The Transpo Group HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Triton Towers 10: S Renton Villaae PL & West Rite Aid Drivewa~ 2014 With Project PM ..> --"' " ., Lane Configurations 4 SqleonRI Frw Grade -1 % 0% Voune (veMI) 10 138 222 86 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 094 0 .94 094 Hou,1y llow,... (vph) 11 147 238 88 Pedestrians LawWlcal(ft) -··--· Walking Speed (ft/s) Pwcent Blocbge - Right tum flare (veh) Median type None Median storage ve h) Upat,-n signal (ft) 900 pX, platoon unblocked ,,c, conlidlng volume 306 -----439 271 vC 1, stage 1 cont vol vC2, stage 2 cont vol vCu. unblocked vol 305 439 271 tC , single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2 tC , 2 st age (s) IF (s) 2.2 3 .5 3.3 pO queue fr ee % 99 71 98 cM capacity (veh/h) 1261 572 770 -...,. ,-....., llllalltlll Ill VouneTotal 157 306 111 -Volume Left 11 0 165 VouneRighl 0 118 111 cS H 1261 1700 586 Voune lo Capaaly 0 .01 0 .18 0.31 Queue Length 95th (ft) 1 0 33 Col*ol Delay (•l 0 .6 0.0 13.9 Lane LOS A B Approach Delay (1) 0 .6 0.0 13.9 Approach LOS B Average Delay 4.0 tnlarUcllon Capacily Ullllzalion 33 .5% ICU l.8WII cl SeNlce Analysis Period (min) 15 M :\07\07367 Triton Towers Renton Expansion\Analysis\T raffic Operations\PM With Project-rev t8l"'Oht~j7Report 9/26/2008 Page 10 The Transpo Group HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Triton Towers 7: East Drivewal -Tower 2 & SR 515/Ta lbot 2014 Wi lh Project PM ,., ~ .... t ' 4' ---------- Lane Configurations Sign Conlnll Slap ,, eft tto Frw Frw I Grade 0% 0% 0% ~(whlh) 0 190 0 1280 2190 18 Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0 .97 0.97 0.97 Hourly lbw 11118 (vph) 0 185 0 1320 2247 18 Pedestrians .... Wldli (ft) Walking Speed (ftls) l>iniinl liioclcage Right tum flare (veh) Medlanlw,e None ---Median storage veh) ~algnal(ft) 2115 929 pX, platoon unblocked 0.90 0.82 0 .82 VC:, conlldlng "'*-2915 1132 2284 vC1. stage 1 cont vol vC2, atage 2 conf vd vCu, unblocked vol 2529 944 2321 IC,1ir911(1) u "'"8.9 4.1 t C, 2 stage (s) if (1) 3.5 3.3 2.2 pO queue free o/o 100 25 100 i:M cipii:lly (wMI) 21 219 178 . ----~------~ Volume Total 185 440 ll80 1498 788 Volume Left 0 0 0 0 0 Volume_.. -185 0 0 0 18 cSH 219 176 1700 1700 1700 Volume ID Capeclly 0.75 0.00 0.52 0.118 0.45 Queue Leng1h 951h (ft) 129 0 0 0 0 Ccinlia Dilay (a) 58.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS F Approach Delay (1) 511.7 0.0 -0.0 Approach LOS F _.....,._ ---·-•~-. -_ .......... -..-J~~~~-........ ---·-·' Average De lay 2 .6 -IIIIINNCtloi, C8padly lJazallon 79.0% ICU Leval d SeMce -D Analysis Period (min) 15 M :107\07367 T riton Towers Renton Expansion\Analysis\Traffic Operations\PM With Project-rev ll!prdilt,sjl7Report 9/26/2008 Page 7 The T ranspo Group HCM Unsignalized Intersectio n Capacity Analysis Triton Towers 8 : S Renton Villaae PL & Theater Drivewal 2014 With Project PM .> -~ " -' .... t ,. ~ ' 4' ~--~-~~-~--------........... ---- Lan e Configurations -• --• --• • Sign Conlnll Frw Frw 8'ap 8'ap Grade -1% 0% 0% 0% l7ii1iime (veMI) 5 71 5 5 178 30 58 15 10 30 5 5 Peak Hour Factor 0 .86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0 .86 0 .86 0.86 0.86 0 .86 0 .86 0.86 0.86 Hourly lbw 111111 (vph) 8 83 8 8 206 36 87 17 12 36 8 8 Pedestrians l.aiii Wldli (ft) Walking Speed (11/s) p.,cent llloc:bge Right tum flare (veh) Medlanlw,e None Median storage veh) l)plnam aigllal (II) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conlldlng "'*-240 ---118 ---340 348 85 3151 334 222 vC 1, stage 1 cont vol vC2, llage 2 contvd vCu, unblocked vol 240 88 340 348 85 35 1 334 222 IC-;'iliijli" (I) 4.1 ------4-:,---11-9-:-5-e:-2~1.1 8.5 82 t C, 2 stage (s) IF (1) 2.2 ---22 ---3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 -----pO queue free % 100 100 89 97 99 94 99 99 cM CliP!C*Y (whlh) 1327 --1507 eoo -971 582 585 822 -- Volume To4111 94 245 97 47 Volume Left 6 6 67 35 Volume_.. -8 35 12 8 cSH 1327 1507 622 605 Volume ID Capedty 0.00 0.00 0.18 0.08 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 14 6 CcinlriJI Delay (1) 0.5 0.2 11 .8 11 .4 Lane LOS A A B B Approach Delay (1) 0.5 0.2 11 .11 11 .4 Approach LOS B B • Average Delay 3.7 .... Ndb. Capeclly Ulllzallon 25.9"' ICU LIMII d SeMce A Analysis Period (min) 15 M :107\07367 Triton Towers Renton Expansion\Analysis\Traffic Operations\PM With Project-rev ll!prdillt<Sjl7Report 9/26/2008 Page 8 The Transpo Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Triton Towers 5: Gradl Wl & SR 515/Tal bot 2014 With Project PM .> -• ~ -' ~ t ~ '-. £ ., Lane Configurations -__________ w ___ -=-" ff , "" t) "" t) " ff , Ideal Flow ("llhP) 1900 1IIOO 1900 1900 1IIOO 1900 1IIOO I IIOO 1IIOO 1900 1900 1IIOO Grade(%) 0% -1% 0 % 1% Tolal L.oel lime (a) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Ulil. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0 .97 0 .95 0.97 0 .95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.15 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.114 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0 .95 1.00 1.00 095 1 .00 0.95 1.00 0 .95 1.00 1.00 Said. Flaw (pol) ,no 3638 1513 3450 3493 3487 3357 1796 3692 1607 Flt Permitted 0 .95 1.00 1.00 0 .95 1 .00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Said. Flaw "*"'I ,no 35311 1583 3450 3493 3487 3357 1796 35112 1607 Volume (vph) 70 1097 840 462 681 40 550 470 320 80 740 40 ,._~ .... PHF 0 .90 0.90 0.90 o.u 0.117 0.117 0.117 0.117 0.117 0.117 0.117 0.117 Adj. Flow (vph) 78 1219 933 525 702 41 567 485 330 82 763 41 RTOR Radldon (\IP'I) 0 0 3 0 3 0 0 100 0 0 0 21 Lane Group Flow (vph) 78 1219 930 525 740 0 567 715 0 82 763 20 HN\>w Vallidn ~l 2% 2% 2% 2% 3"4 3% 1% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% T um T ype Prat pm+ov P rot P rot Prot Perm Protected Phases 1 6 3 5 2 3 8 7 4 Permitted Phases 6 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 8.6 35.0 59 .0 18.0 44.4 24.0 39.2 7.8 23.0 23.0 Effective Green. g (s) 8 .6 35 0 59 0 18 0 44 4 24 0 39.2 78 23.0 23.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.07 0.29 0.49 0.15 0.37 0 .20 0 .33 0.06 0.19 0 .19 Clearan ce Time (s) 5.0 50 50 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5 .0 5.0 5 .0 Vehicle Extension (sl 4.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 3.0 3 .0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 127 1032 844 518 1292 693 1097 117 688 308 vlaRalioPrat 0.04 c:0.34 c:0.22 c:0.15 0.21 0 .18 0.21 0.05 c:0.21 vis Ratio Perm 0 .37 0 .01 vie Raio 0.81 1.18 1.10 1.01 0.57 0 .82 0 .66 0.70 1.11 0 .08 Uniform Delay , d1 54.1 42 .5 30.5 51 .0 30.2 45.9 34 .6 55.0 48.5 39.7 Prog,9ulon Fadal' 0.811 0.71 0 .54 1.00 1.00 0.79 0 .88 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 5.7 87 .6 56 .8 43.0 1.8 7.7 1 .7 17.3 68.2 0 .1 Delay (I) 53.8 117.8 73.1 114.0 32.1 43.8 25.2 72.2 118.7 311.8 Level of Service D F E F C D C E F D Apprgec:h Delay(•) 96 .11 57 .7 -32.8 -109.0 Approach LOS F E C F HCM Average Control Delay 74.8 HCM Level of Service E HCM II'*-ID Capacity ralio 1.11 --~---j Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 15.0 IIIIIINdion Capacity Ullliz.alion 118.1% ICU Level of s-ice F -- Analysis Period (min) 15 C Crilical ta. Gnlup M:107\07367 Triton Towers Renton Expansion\Analysis\Traffic Operations\PM With Project-rev 18..-,tilltcsj!,Report 9/26/2008 Page 5 The Transpo Group HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Triton Towers 6: East Drivewal-T ower 3 & SR 515/Talbot 2014 With P roject PM .> • ~ t ' ., Lane Configurations ,_ -ff ff I' Sq, Control Slop FIN FIN Grade 0% 0% 0% VdUITle (vehlh) 0 188 0 1280 2036 30 Peak Hour Factor 0 .94 0 .94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0 .94 Hourly IIDw ..... (\IP'I) 0 179 0 1382 2166 32 Pedestrians ta. WicWI (11) Walking Speed (ft/s) Panlanl Bloclcage Right tum flare (veh) Median type None Median storage veh) ~ aiglllll (11) pX, platoon unblocked 0.89 ve . conlicting vo1ume 2847 vC1 . stage 1 cont vol vC2, stage 2 cont vol vCu, unbl ocked vol 2450 876 2242 tC, single (s) 6.8 6.9 4 .1 tC , 2 stage (s ) tF (s) 3 .5 3.3 2.2 pO queue free % 100 26 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 23 242 188 V'*-Tatal 179 881 Volume Left 0 0 \/'*-Righi 1711 0 cSH 242 1700 V'*-ID Capacity 0.74 0.40 Queue Length 95th (ft) 129 0 0 eon.al Delay (1) 53.0 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS F Appoadl Delay(•) 53.0 0.0 0.0 Approach LOS F Iii Average Delay 2 .5 lnlltNdlon Capacity Utlllzalion 75 .0% ICU Level of SeMc:e Analysis Period (min) 15 M:\07\07367 Triton Towers Renton Expansion\Analysis\Traffic Operations\PM With Project-rev 18pniilltcsj!7Report 9/26/2008 Page 6 The Transpo Group HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3 : Grady Wy & North R ite Aid Driveway -..... " -'\ Lane Configurations +• -"~w--v Sign Cor*1JI ~ FnNI Slop Grade 0% 0% 0% V1*lme (Vllhlh) 1788 37 118 1205 1 Peak Hour Factor 0 .94 0 .94 0 .94 0.94 0 .94 ~ 193 0 .94 Hourty low rae'{vpli) w 1902 w 39 w 70 w 1282 w 1 w 173 w Pedestrians .__ Wlclll (ft) Walking Speed (11/s) ~lllodcaga Right tum flare (veh) Median lype --None Median storage veh) IJpllr8an llgnlll (II) . .. ~ 582 pX , platoon unblocked 0.54 0 .62 0 .54 ve . c:on11c1ng vo1ume --1141 2703 971 vC1 , stage 1 confvol vC2, lllage 2 conf vol ~-----vCu, unblocked vol 1892 238 1 95 IC~(I) ---4.1 8.8 W U W IC, 2 stage (s) -IF(1)• -2.2 -3.5 3.3 pO queue free % 58 90 66 cM CllpeClly (Vllhlh) 199 -11 513 : Triton Towers 2014 With Project PM :..==-J . . -·-· ------'----""""~·-__ ...w.....a:.M~ Vabne Tatel -1298 873 70 8'41 8'41 174 Volume Left 0 0 70 0 0 1 Vaklme Righi -0 39 0 0 0 173 cSH 1700 1700 169 1700 1700 398 Vobiiii lo Cijiidly 0.75 0.40 0.42 0.38 0.38 0.44 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 47 0 0 54 c::cinlnll Delay (1) 0.0 0.0 40.8 0.0 0.0 20.9 Lane LOS E C Approadi Day (9) 0.0 -2.1 --20.9 Approach LOS C .. ------- Average Delay 1.9 lniiiieclun Clijjii:lly uaiillloil w 73.3% ICU c...e d Service --D ~- Analysis Period (min) 15 M:107\07367 T ri1on Towers Renton Expansion\Analysis\Traffic Operations\PM With Project-re v ll!i,rdi!~jfi'Report 9/26/2008 Page 3 The Transpo Group HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: Grady Wy & North Driveway -Tower 3 -..... " -'\ ~ Triton Towers 2014 With Project PM -· ---~ -......... -.-----------..,___ ---~ ... ~ --..-.~ ,.__ .... ~ ~ ~ -~°" ..... Lane Configurations t• tt ' Sign ConlrDI Fl'N Fl'N Slop Grade 0% 0% 0% Volume (Wh/11) 1928 29 0 1271 0 81 Peak Hour Factor 0 .95 0.95 0 .95 0.95 0.95 0 .95 Hourly flow 1'1119 (vph) 2027 27 0 1338 0 85 Pedestrians l.aMWldlh(ft) Walking Speed (11/s) ~lllodcaga Right tum flare (veh) ,-ital lype ---None Median storage veh) Openem llgnel (ft) 1181 321 pX, platoon unblocked 0.55 0 .63 0 .55 ve. corillc:ilng ¥dlfflll 2055 2710 1027 vC1, stage 1 conf vol VC:2 . llage 2 confvol vCu. unblocked vol 2100 2340 230 IC, lingl9 (1) ---4.2 8.8 8.9 ---IC, 2 stage (s) IF (1) 2.2 3.5 3.3 pO queue free % 100 100 80 cM capacity (Vllhlh) 140 20 429 Voklme Tatel 1352 703 889 -85 Volume Left 0 0 0 0 0 Vciime Righi -0 27 0 0 85 cSH 1700 1700 1700 1700 428 Voklme lo Capeclly O.IIO 0.41 0.39 0.39 0.20 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 0 0 18 Conlrol Dllay (1) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.5 Lane LOS C ~Dillay(a) 0.0 0.0 15.5 Approach LOS C I!!!!!!!!!! Average Delay 0 .4 lnler9edlol, Capacity Ulllzallcn 87.4% ICU LIMII d Semclt -C Analysis Period (min) 15 M:\07\07367 Triton Towers Renton Expansion\Analysis\Traffic Operations\PM With Project-rev ll!pntihtisjfi'Report 9/26/2008 Page 4 The Transpo Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Triton Towers 1 : Grad~ W~ & Lake Ave S 2014 With Project PM .,> -~ ... -' ~ t ~ '. ' ~ .. -w~ .. ----___,_ •--.c::• -Lane Configurations ' ff , ' t) ' + , • Idell Flow (vpllpl) 1IIOO 1IIOO 1IIOO 1IIOO 1IIOO 1IIOO 1IIOO 1IIOO 1IIOO 1IIOO 1IIOO 1IIOO T otal Lost time (s) 5 .0 5 .0 5 .0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 lMwUII.F_,, 1.00 0 .96 1.00 1.00 G.9S 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ~ Frt 1.00 1.00 0 .85 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.92 Fl Praac:lld 0.115 1.00 1.00 0.115 1.00 0.115 1.00 1.00 0.98 Satd. Flow (pro!) 1787 3574 1599 1770 3522 1770 1863 1583 1393 Fl Pwmilled 0 .115 1.00 1.00 0.115 1.00 0.88 1.00 1.00 0.90 Satd . Flow !e!!rm) 1787 3574 1599 1770 3522 1259 1863 1583 1272 Volume (vpll) 40 1123 151 20 1447 50 4511 1 50 40 1 80 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0 .92 0.92 0.92 0 .92 0 .92 0 .92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vpll) 43 1784 184 22 1573 54 41111 1 54 43 1 65 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 54 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 44 0 law Group Flow (vph) 43 1784 110 22 162S 0 41111 1 54 0 65 0 Hea~ Vehicles(%) 1% 1% 1% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 23% 23% 23% Tum Type Prot Pwm Prot Pwm Fl'N Pwm Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 4 4 Permitted Phases 2 4 Free 4 Actuated G reen. G (s) 6 .2 68.6 68.6 2.4 64 .8 34.0 34.0 120.0 34.0 Effective Green, g (s) 6 .2 68 .6 68.6 2.4 64 .8 34.0 34.0 120.0 34 .0 Actuated gJC Ratio 0.05 0 57 0 57 0.02 0.54 0.28 0.28 1.00 0.28 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Ext en sion (s) 30 30 30 30 30 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 92 2043 914 35 1902 357 528 1583 360 vis Rabo Prot 0.02 c0.49 0 .01 c0.46 0 .00 via Ralio Pwm 0 .07 c:0.40 0.03 0 .05 vie Ratio 0.47 0.86 0 .12 0 .63 0.85 1.40 0 .00 0.03 0.18 Unllonn Delaw, d1 56.3 21 .7 11 .8 S8.4 23.8 43.0 30.8 0 .0 32.S Progression Factor 1.00 1 .00 1 .00 0 .72 0.43 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ina-.1 Delay, d2 3.7 S.1 0.3 21 .8 2.8 1115.2 0.0 0 .0 0 .2 -Delay (s) 59.0 26.9 12.1 64.1 12 .8 238.2 30.8 a.a 32.7 LIMI al SeMce E C B E B F C A C Approach Delay (s) 26.3 13.5 214.6 32.7 Approach LOS C B F C HCM--. Conni Delay 4S.9 HCM Lewi al 8e,W)e D -----HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1 .01 Adualed Cyde Lenglh (1) 120.0 Sum al loel time (1) 10.0 ------Intersection Capacity Utilization 85.3% ICU Level of Service E Analya P9rlod (min) 1S - C Critical L ane Group M:107107367 T riton Towers Renton Expansion\Analysis\Traffic Operations\PM With Project-rev t8prmilltcsj!7Report 9i26/2008 Page 1 The Transpo Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capaci ty Analysis Triton Towers 2: Grad~ W~ & Shattuck Av S 2014 W ith Project PM .,> -~ ... -' ~ t ~ '. ' ~ ,-.__.,., '~~--;-----_____.-~~ Lane Configurations ' ff , ' •• , .. , • Idell Flow (vphp) 1IIOO 1IIOO 1IIOO 1IIOO 1IIOO 1IIOO 1IIOO 1IIOO 1IIOO 1IIOO 1IIOO 1IIOO L ane Width 12 11 11 12 11 12 12 11 12 12 11 12 Grade('II,) (I'll, (I'll, 1'11, (I'll, Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5 .0 5 .0 5.0 5.0 5.0 l..a,e Util. F_,, 1.00 0.115 1.00 1.00 0 .96 0 .111 0.111 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 1 .00 0 .93 1.00 0.93 Fl Proledecl 0.115 1.00 1.00 0.115 1.00 0 .115 0.118 0.115 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3421 1531 1770 3387 1634 3039 1656 1567 FIPenniMad G.9S 1.00 1.00 0.115 1.00 0 .115 0.118 0.115 1.00 Satd. Flow (e!!rml 1770 3421 1531 1770 3387 1634 3039 1656 1567 Volume (vpll) 40 1533 141 110 1120 80 327 50 172 220 80 70 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 (vpll) 42 1814 148 118 11711 84 344 S3 18 1 232 84 74 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 58 0 4 0 0 114 0 0 26 0 L.a,e Group Flow (vpll) 42 1814 90 118 12511 0 174 290 0 232 132 0 Hea~ Vehicles(%) 2 % 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 0% 0% 0% 9% 9% 9% Tum Type Prat Perm Prot Split Split Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 8 8 4 4 Permitted Phases 6 Actuated Green. G (s) 5 .6 56.6 56.6 10.0 61 0 1 5 4 15.4 18.0 18 0 Effective Green , g (s) 5.6 56.6 56.6 10.0 61.0 15.4 15.4 18.0 18.0 Actuated gi C Ratio 0 .05 0 .47 047 008 051 0 13 0 13 0 15 0 .15 Clearance T ime (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3 .0 5.0 5.0 3.0 5.0 4 .0 4 .0 4.0 4.0 l..a,e Grp Cap (,iph) 83 181 4 722 148 1722 210 380 248 235 vis Ratio Prot 0 .02 c0.47 c0.07 0.37 c0.11 0 .10 c0 .14 0.08 via R.iio Pwm 0.08 vie Ratio 0 .51 1.00 0 .12 0.78 0.73 0 .83 0 .74 0 .94 0 .56 Unllonn Delay, d1 S5.8 31 .7 17.8 53.11 23.1 S1.0 50.4 50.4 47 .3 Progression Factor 0 .71 0.41 0 .06 1.05 0.85 1.00 1 .00 1.00 1.00 lncnlMldal Delay, d2 2.8 17.1 0.2 111.4 2.3 23.7 7.9 40.0 3.7 Delay(s) 42.6 30.1 1.2 76.1 21 .8 74 .7 58.3 90.4 51.0 UM1 al Sen1ic:a D C A E C E E F D Approach Delay (s) 28.0 26.3 63.3 74.4 Approach LOS C C E E HCM A-.ge Conni Delay 38.7 HCM LIMI al SeMce ~ D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0 .94 Aduaad Cycle~ (1) 120.0 Sum al loel lime (1) 20.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 88.3% ICU L evel of Service E Analyail Pariod (rrin) 15 C Critical Lane Group M :\07\07367 Triton T owers Renton Expansion\Analysis\Traffic Operations\PM With Project-rev t8pniietcsj!7Report 9/26/2008 Page 2 The Transpo Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 15: S Renton Villa,ae PL & SR 515{falbot .> -~ ~ -'-"' t ~ Triton Towers 2014 With Project AM '-. ' 4' • --• -• • ·•--•-----------•L ___ . __ .. __ .:_ ____ . __ Lane Configurations 'I ,, ,, t ,, 'I tt iiJiifFliiw"MJIIIJI) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 ff. 1900 1900 1900 1900 Grade(%) -1% 0% -3% 0% Talal Loet lime (a) 5 .0 5.0 5.0 5 .0 5.0 5.0 !5.0 5.0 Lane Util. FactOf 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 0 .95 0 .95 ~ -niiJ 0.85 1.00 1.00 0 .85 1.00 1.00 0 .99 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0 .95 1.00 1.00 Said. Flow (prat) 1791 1579 3502 1900 11115 11114 311211 3459 Flt Permitted 0 .95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0 .95 1.00 1.00 Said. Flow ll*ml 1791 1579 3502 1900 11115 11114 311211 3459 Volume (vph) 40 0 53 230 150 190 486 2330 0 0 630 60 Peak«iur lador, PHF 0.97 0.97 0 .97 0.97 0 .97 0 .97 0.97 0.97 0 .97 0 .97 0.97 0.97 Adj . Flow (vph) 41 0 55 237 155 196 501 2402 R'tOR ReclilCIIOl'I (Vpll/ 0 O w 48 w 0 0 111 0 0 0 0 649 62 0 0 5 0 Lane Group Flow (_vph) 41 0 7 237 155 180 50 1 2402 0 0 706 0 HeavyV......~l "' "' 3% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 1% "' "' 3% Tum Type Pro! custom Prot Perm Prot Pruledlld "'-7 3 8 5 2 II Permitted Phases 8 8 ~G(a) 3.2 17.4 25.11 17.4 17.4 29.0 Effective Green, g (s) 3.2 17.4 25 .6 17.4 17.4 29.0 Adulllld glC Raio 0.02 11.13 0.20 0 .13 0 .1 3 0.22 Clearance T ime (s 5.0 5.0 5 .0 5 .0 5 .0 5.0 v .... Eldlnllari • 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.o-"3.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 43 211 690 254 216 405 vfa Ralol'l'CII c0.02 0 .07 0.08 c0.28 vis Ratio Perm 0.00 c0.11 vie Raio 0.95 0 .03 0 .34 0.111 'lf.&41 .24 0.91 Uniform Delay , d1 63.3 49.0 45.0 53.1 54.9 50.5 14.4 Progi..ioi, Fadar 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 118.5 0.1 0 .3 4 .3 23.4 113.7 2.2 Oelay <•> 181 .8 49.1 45.3 57.4 78.3 1112.7 111.8 Level of Service F D D E E F B Appruach Oelay (1) 105.8 59.5 ~ Approach LOS F E D • HCM Average Control Delay 40.7 HCM Level of Service D HCM ~ ID Capedly rallo -n,r Actuated Cycle Length (s) 130.0 Sum of lost time (s) 20.0 , .. Ndlon Capedly lMzallan 92.0% ICU LIMII fl Service F Analysis Period (min) 15 C Olllcal i.-Group M:107107367 Triton Towers Renton Expanslon\Analysis\Traffic Operalions\AM With Project-re v t8pntilltcsj57Re pcrt 9/26/2008 Page 13 T he Tra nspc Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 16: 1-405 NB On-Ram,e & SR 515/Talbot ~ '-t ~ '-. ' Triton Towers 2014 With Project AM ----. . -------------~---~-·-----_..__ ___ :_ - Lane Configurations Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 Grade(%) 0% Total Leal time (a) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Sale!. Flow (prat) Flt Permitted Seid. Flow (l*ffll Volume (vph) 0 Pellk-hcu facmr, PHF w 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 RTOR Reducllon (,ipfl) 0 Lane Group Flow ~-2) 0 I lelw~ Vehlclea !%1 0% Tum Type Prollded "'-- Permitted Phases Adulllld Orwn, 0 <•> Effective Green. g (s) Aaiiiliil ~ Raio Clearance Time ~) Vllhlde Exlllnllon !•l Lane Grp Cap (vph ) vis Ratio Pl'lll v/s Ratio Perm vie Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 P10grna1on Facllor Incremental Delay. d2 Oelay(a) Level of Service Approllct, Delay<•> 0.0 Approach LOS A HCM Average Control Delay HCMValume ID Capedly ra11o Actuated Cycle Length (s) --Ndlon Capeclly Ulllzallon Analysis Period (min) C Crtllc:al Lane Group tt,, 'ltt 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 -3% 6% 5.0 5.0 5 .0 5 .0 0 .95 1.00 1.00 0 .95 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 311211 11123 1700 3400 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 311211 1823 1700 3400 0 2804 460 110 792 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0 .97 0 2891 474 113 816 0 0 0 0 0 0 2891 474 113 816 0% 1% 1% 3% 3% Free Prot 2 1 II Free 108.11 130.0 11.4 130.0 108.6 130.0 11.4 130 .0 0.84 1.00 0 .09 1.00 5.0 5 .0 5 .0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3031 1623 149 3400 c0.80 c0.07 0.24 0.29 0.95 0 .29 0.78 0.24 8.7 0.0 58.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 0.81 1.00 8.7 0 .5 18.4 0.2 17.3 0 .5 85.4 0.2 B A E A 14.9 8.1 B A 13.5 HCM Level or Service 0.94 130.0 Sum of lost lime (s) 91.9% ICU lAwl fl SeMce 15 B --10.0 -F M :\07107367 Triton Towers Renton Expansion\Analysis\Traffic Operations\AM With Project-rev t8pntilltcsj57Report 9/26/2008 Page 14 The Transpo Group HCM Un signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Triton Towers 11 : S Renton Villa~e PL & Rite Aid/East Drivewal -Tower 1 2014 With Project AM _, -~ .,. -' ~ t ~ \i. ' ., -.. • ----------· ---·=--=• Lane Configurations ... ... ... • 89'Col'nl F-F-Slap Slap Grade -1% 0% 0% 0% Volume (wMI) 20 73 35 1&4 2M 120 11 5 II 13 0 10 Peak Hour Factor 0 .82 0 .82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0 .82 0 .82 Hourly low ,... (vph) 24 88 43 200 322 148 13 6 11 16 0 12 Pedestrians t.a. WldMI (11) Walking Speed (tt/s) Pen:enl llloc:lcage ----Right turn flare (veh) ---- Median~ -------None None Median storage veh) ~lil,lal(ft) 738 pX, platoon unblocked 0.97 0.97 0.97 0 .97 0 .97 0.97 we. con11e11ng vo1ume 468 132 --1168 1027 110 1168 1176 3115 vC 1 , stage 1 conf vol vC2 , stage 2 cont vol vCu. unblocked vol 452 132 965 1028 110 967 975 377 t C, single (s) 4 .1 4 .1 7.2 6.6 6 .3 7 .1 6.5 6.2 tC, 2 slage (s) tF (s) 2 .2 2.2 3.6 4 .1 3.4 3 .5 4.0 3.3 pO qu eu e free % 98 86 93 97 99 92 100 98 cM capacity (veh/h) 1086 1460 187 183 914 194 208 654 I I . .-. ariiiiS • •·2 j VolumeTCllal 15' -30 28 --------------··----- Volume Left 24 200 13 16 Volume~ 43 146 11 12 ---------J cSH 1086 1460 261 279 Vaume IO Capacity 0 .02 0.14 0.12 0.10 ---Queue Length 95th (ft ) 2 12 10 8 Conuol Delay <•> 1.5 3.4 20.6 111.3 ------------· -Lane LOS A A C C Approach Delay (•l 1.5 3.4 20.6 111 .3 -------------Approach LOS C C Average De lay 4.2 lnWNdlan Capacity Utillzalion 48.6% ICU L.,,. al Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 M :107\07367 Triton Towers Renton Expansion\Analysis\Traffic Operations\AM With Project-rev tl!prmilllcsJ!lReport 9/26/2008 Page 11 The Transpo Group HCM Unsigna lized Intersection Capacity Analys is Triton Towers 13: S Renton Vi lla~e PL & East Drivewal-Tower 2 2014 With Project AM _, --' \i. ., Lane Configurations " • V 891 Control F-F-Slap Grade -1% 0% 0% Volume (whlh) 10 85 542 154 8 Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0 .90 0 .90 Hourly flow,... (vph) 11 114 602 171 II Pedeslrians t.a. Wldlh (l) Walking Speed (ft/s) Pen:enl Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Medial!~ Median storage veh) Upslrum signal (ft) 443 pX, platoon unblocked 0.93 we. conllcting vo1ume 773 v C 1, stage 1 cont vol vC2, stage 2 cont vol vCu. unblocked vol 755 789 663 tC, single (s) 4.1 6 .6 6.4 tC , 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 3 .7 3.5 pO queue free % 99 97 99 cM capacity (veh/h) 793 304 397 a I ... Volume T OIIII 106 773 14 -Volume Left 11 0 9 Volume Righi -0 171 6 cSH 793 1700 334 Vdume IO Capadly 0.01 0 .45 0 .04 Queue Length 95th (ft) 1 0 3 Col'nl Delay (a) 1.1 0.0 16.3 Lane LOS A C Appoach Delay (•l 1.1 0.0 16.3 Approach LOS C lllfli Average Delay 0.4 lntarw:liol, Capacity Utilizalion 411 .6% ICU LeWII cl SeMce --A Analysis Period (min) 15 M :\07\07367 T riton Towers Renton Expansion\Analysis\Traffic Operations\AM With Project-rev t8pntibtcsj;i'R eport 9/26/2008 Page 12 The Transpo Group HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Triton Towers 9 : S Renton Villaae PL & West D rivewa:z: -Tower 1 20 14 With Project AM -~ ~ -" ~ ------------- Lane Configurations • • V SlgnConlnJI FIN Fn111 Slap Grade -1% 0% 0% ~(wh/11) as 20 124 81 5 8 Peak Hour Factor 0 .81 0 .81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0 .81 Roiiily !low nm ~> 105 25 153 75 8 10 Pedestrians i.-Wlcll'I (II) Walking Speed (ft/s) Pel"CIIII Blodiage Right tum flare (veh) Median type None Median storage veh) ~llgrlll(ft) 989 ---pX, platoon unblocked --~ ve . canac:tlng ~ ---130 -499 117 vC 1, stage 1 con! vol ---vC2. llage 2 oorlwd ~~--vCu, unblocked vol 130 499 117 IC, ilngli (a) 4 .1 -8 .4 82 tC, 2 stage (!) IF(I) ---2.2 --3 .5 3 .3 pO queue free % 90 99 99 cM aapeclly (whlh) ---1482 479 940 - --. -----~ .. -- ~Talal -130 228 18 Volume Len 0 153 6 V~Rll,II -25 0 10 cSH 1700 1462 686 V~ ID Capeclly 0 .08 0 .10 0 .02 Queue Length 95th (ff) 0 9 2 ConlnJI Delay (1) 0 .0 5.5 10.4 Lane LOS A B ~Dllay(I) o.o 5.5 10.4 Approach LOS B --____ .........._ _ _.~. ~~_...-, ........... __ ,.._.....__~L-~ ---~ 3.8 28.4% ICU LIMII d Seiw:e --A --15 M:107107367 Triton Towers Re nton Expansion\Analysis\Traffic Operations\AM With Project-rev tl!pndltcsjj7Report 912612008 Page 9 The Transpo Group HCM Un signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Triton Towers 10: S Renton Villaae PL & West Rite Aid D rivewa:z: 2014 With Project AM .> --'-'.. ~ __ ...... _,-~..,.------... -----. ......... __ ~ ... Lane Configurations 4 .. V Sign Control Fn111 Fn111 Slap Grade -1% 0% 0% VoMne (whlh) 5 • 155 130 40 30 Peak Hour Factor 0.81 0.81 0 .81 0.8 1 0.81 0 .81 Hourly flow 1'11111 Mlh) 8 109 191 180 49 37 Pedestrians La.Wldlh~ Walking Speed (ft/s) Pwcent Blockage Rig ht tum flare (veh) Uidantype ---None Median storage veh) ..,.,..,_ ligrlll (II) ---892 pX, plat oon unblocked -ve , conllldlng vo1ume 3112 393 272 vC 1, stage 1 con! vol vC2, tllllge 2 conf wd vCu, unblocked vol 352 393 272 IC, algle (a) 4.1 8 .4-U IC, 2 stage (s) IF (1) 2 .2 3 .5 3.3 p0 queue free % 99 92 95 cM capedly (Wlhlh) 1213 81 3 m VobNTalal 115 352 • Volume Left 6 0 49 VobneRlght 0 180 37 cSH 1213 1700 672 Vobne ID Capedly 0.01 0 .21 0 .13 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 11 ConlnJI Dalay (I) 0 .5 0 .0 11 .1 Lane LOS A B ~Delay(•) 0 .5 0 .0 11 .1 Approac h LOS B ~-------- Average Delay 1.8 lnllnecllon Capacity Ulllrallon 28.5% --ICU L....i d Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 M :\07\07367 Triton Towers Renton Expansion\Analysis\T raffic Operations\AM With Project-rev tl!pnjjlltisjj7Report 912612008 Page 10 The Transpo Group ----- HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Triton T owers 7: East Drivewal • Tower 2 & SR 515fTalbot 2014 With Project AM ~ • ...... t ' .' ... 11111 =111 -I L ane Configurations , ,t t) SV,COMOI Skip FIN FIN _________ _J Grade 0% 0% 0% Volume (vehlh) 0 24 5 2556 884 11 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0 .95 0.95 0.95 Hourly low ..... (vph) 0 25 5 2688 1188 15 ---____ , __ J Pedestrians t.a. Widfl (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent 8lodcaoa -----------------· Right tum fla re (veh) ~IWl)e Hane ---· ----J Median storage veh) µpalrum 19181 (I) 2113 928 pX, platoon unblocked 0 .29 vC , conllcllng wk.me 2087 392 784 ----------___ ..J vC1 , stage 1 conf vol VC2 , stage 2 conf vol vCu , unblocked vol 2340 392 784 IC, single (S) 6 .8 6.9 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3 .5 3.3 2.2 pO que ue free % 100 96 99 c M capacity (vehlh) 9 613 837 ~-.~ 25 902 1793 488 318 ---Volume Left 0 5 0 0 0 Volume RIQtll 25 0 0 0 85 ----· --I cSH 613 837 1700 1700 1700 Volume 10 Capedly 0 .04 0 .01 1.05 0.27 0.19 --------Queue Length 95th (ft) 3 0 0 0 0 COMO!~(•) 11 .1 0.2 0.0 0 .0 0.0 ----------·-Lane LOS B A Approach Dalay (1) 11.1 0.1 0.0 --------~ Approach LOS B Average Delay 0.1 lnl9rMdion Capac:ity Ulilizallon 78.3% ICU Lewi al Service 0 Analysis Period (min) 15 M:\07\07367 Triton Towers Renton Expansion\Analysis\Traffic Operations\AM With Project-rev lllpnditcsjlReport 9/26/2008 Page 7 The Transpo Group H CM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Triton Towers 8: S Renton Villa ~e PL & T heater Drivewal 2014 With Project AM ~ -• " -' ...... t ~ '. ' .' ~ . ''Ill" ·•·· 'iW' w· •• -~ Lane Co nfigurations • • • • SV,COMOI FIN FIN Step Step Grade -1% 0% 0% 0% Volume (vehlh) 0 115 10 5 41 20 I 5 0 10 25 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.90 0.69 0.90 0.69 0.90 0 .90 0.90 Hour1y low ,ale (vph) 0 138 14 7 58 22 9 8 0 11 28 0 Pedestrians t.a. Widlh (ft) Walking Speed (IVs) Percent 8locilage Right turn flare (veh) Mecliarl IWl)e Median storage veh) IJpelNM, algnal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conllicling wk.me 82 --152 -· 244 241 145 233 237 71 vC 1, stage 1 cont vol vC2, stage 2 cont vol vCu, unblocked vol 82 152 244 241 145 233 237 71 tC, single (s) 4.1 4 .1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7 .1 6.5 6 .2 tC 2 sta ge (s) IF (s) 2.2 2 .2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4 .0 3.3 pO queue free % 100 99 99 99 100 98 96 100 cM capacity (vehlll) 1516 1429 689 657 908 715 660 992 Volume Toll! 152 Ill 14 311 -Volume Left 0 7 9 11 Volume Right 14 22 0 0 cSH 1516 1429 676 675 Volume IO Capacily 0.00 0.01 0.02 0 .08 Queue Leng th 95th (ft) 0 0 2 5 COMO! Dalay (1) 0.0 0.7 10.4 10.7 Lane LOS A B B App,oach Dalay (I) 0.0 0.7 10.4 10.7 Approach LOS B B Average Delay 2.1 lnlerMc1ion Capacily UtiMDlio,, 19.4% ICU lAvel al Service Analysis Period (min) 15 M :\07\07367 Triton Towers Ren ton Expansion\Analysis \Traffic Operations\AM With Project-rev lllpnmetcsjlReport 9/26/2008 Page 8 The Transpo Group HCM Signalized Intersecti on Capacity Analysis Triton Towers 5: Gradi wi & SR 515/Talbot 2014 With Project AM .> -• ~ -'-"' f ,. '.. ! 4' .. . ---~~ ~--~~--- Lane Configurations 'I ff ,, 'l'I t to '111 t f. 'I ff ,, ldNI Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Grade(%) 0% -1% 0% 1% TOlll l.oll time (•I 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util . Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0 .97 0 .95 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 ~ 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0 .95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0 .95 1.00 1.00 Silo.Flow (pro!) 1887 ~74 1509 34 17 3'183 3487 3458 17111 3522 1575 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0 .95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0 .95 1.00 1.00 Said. Flow (perm) 1887 3374 1509 34 17 3483 3487 3458 17111 3522 1575 Volume (vph) 40 465 190 421 737 60 1070 11 50 320 20 200 60 p.a-. fac:a. PHF 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Adj. Flow (vph) 42 484 198 439 768 62 1115 1198 333 21 208 62 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 57 0 4 0 0 19 0 0 0 52 Lane Group Flow (vph) 42 484 141 439 826 0 111 5 1512 0 21 208 10 ...... ,v.....1%1 71' 71' 71' "' "' 3% 1% 1% 1% 2" 2" 2" T um T ype Prot pm+ov Pro! Prot Prot Perm Pralacllld ~ 1 8 3 5 2 3 8 7 4 Permitted Phases 6 4 Adulllld 0.-, G (•I 5.3 27 .8 74.7 15.0 37.5 48.9 113.8 -3.8 20.3 20.3 Effective Green, g (s) 5.3 27 .8 74 .7 15 .0 37.5 46.9 63.6 3.6 20.3 20 .3 ~~Raio 0.04 l>.21 b .57 0.12 0.29 0.38 0.49 0.03 0.18 0.18 Clearance Time ~s) 5.0 5.0 5 .0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehlclli Eldiiiilliin f• l 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 69 722 867 394 1005 1251 1692 49 550 246 via Raio Pl'III 0.02 c0.14 O.OII c0.13 c0.24 c0.32 c0.44 0.01 O.OII vis Ratio Perm 0.03 0.01 vie Raio O.ll 0.87 0.18 1.1 1 0.82 0.119 0.119 0.43 0.38 0.04 unnorm Delay, d1 61.3 46.9 13.0 57.5 43.1 39.1 30.1 62.2 49.2 46.6 Progr•llo11 Fador 0.77 0.92 0.92 1.00 1.00 0.90 0.88 1.00 1.00--n!il Incremental Delay, d2 14.7 4.4 0.1 80.0 7.5 4.3 3.3 5.9 0.4 0.1 Oelay (1) 81.7 47 .4 12.1 137.5 50.7 39.4 23 .7 88.1 49.8 48.8 Level of Service E D B F D D C E D D ~Oilay(s) 38 .8 80.7 30 .3 50.3 Approach LOS D F C D HCM Average Control Delay 45.7 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume 1o Capec:lly rallo 0.98 --Actuated Cycle Length (s) 130.0 Sum of lost time (s) 25.0 lnlllnledlon Ciiiialy Ulllzalion 91 .0% ICU LIMII al Service -- Analysis Period (min) 15 C Clllcal .__ Group M:107\07367 Triton Towers Renton Expansion\Analysis\T raffic Operations\AM With Project-rev t8prdihtcs j!?Report 9126/2008 Page 5 The Transpo Group HCM Unsignal ized Intersection Capacity An alysis Trito n Towers 6 : East Drivewai -T ower 3 & SR 5 15/Talbot 20 14 With Project AM .> • "' f ! ~ _... ............ ~~--~-~ Lane Config urations .,, ff tt .,, Sign Control Slop F-F- Grade 0% 0% 0% Volume (vehlh) 0 24 0 25M 722 134 Peak Hour F actor 0.94 0 .94 0 .94 0.94 0.94 0 .94 Hol.rty flow 1'1119 (vph) 0 29 0 2718 798 143 Pedestria ns a.-Wkllh(ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) ~Blockage Right tum flare (veh) ~type None Media n storage veh) ~algral (ft) 881 1538 ~-platoon unblocked 0.31 0 .97 0 .97 . Cllllllctlng ~ 2127 384 911 vC1, stage 1 con! vol vC2, ltage 2 COl'II vol vCu, unblocked vol 2165 342 882 IC,N911 (•1 u 8.9 4.1 IC, 2 stage (s) tF <•I 3.5 3.3 22 pO queue free % 100 96 100 cM capec:lly (Whlh) 13 843 749 Volume Tollll ~ 29 13119 13119 384 384 143 Volume Left 0 0 0 0 0 0 Volume Righi -29 0 0 0 0 143 cSH 643 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Volume 1o Cepedly 0.04 0.80 0.80 0.23 023 O.OII Queue Length 95th (H) 3 0 0 0 0 0 COMOI Delay (S) 10.8 0.0 0.0 0 .0 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS B Approach Delay(•) 10.8 0.0 0 .0 Approach LOS B I!!!! Average Delay 0.1 ~-~IIINw:lloli Cepedly lJllllzJlllon 74.8" ICU Lewi al Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 M:\07\07367 T riton T owers Renton Expansion\Analys is\Traffic Operations\AM Wijh Project-rev 18prdiatcsj!?Report 9/26/2008 Page 6 T he Tra nspo Group HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Triton Towers HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Triton Towers 3: Grady Wy & North Rite Aid Driveway 2014 With Project AM 4 : Grady Wy & North Driveway -Tower 3 2014 With Project AM _.,.. "-~,. _.,.. "-~,. . ----=-----. T .. •• .. • iw• • Lane Configurations t• 'I tt V Lane Configurations t• tt t' SV, CoMol FIN FIN Slq> ____ ----__ -· SV, Control FIN FIN Slop Grade 0% 0% 0% Grade 0% 0% 0% va1ume (vahlh) no 1n 132 1736 o 43 va1ume (VWllh) 884 128 o 1ee1 o 10 Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0 .96 0 .96 0.96 0.96 0 .96 Peak Hour Factor 0 .97 0 .97 0.97 0.97 0 .97 0.97 ~low .... (llpll) 802 184 138 1807 0 45 ~flow .... (vph) 705 132 0 1925 0 10 Pedestrians Pedestrians '--Widll (I) _ _ _ . _. '--Widll (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Walking Speed (ft/s) Pwwnt llloc:llaga -------Percent lllodlaga Right tum flare (ve h) Right tum flare (veh) Medlall lype None -----------Medlar! lype --None Median storage veh) Median storage veh) ui-,-11gna1 (I) "408 562 --_ . _ _ _ lJpllrNm signal (I) 849 321 pX. platoon unblocked 0.82 0.89 0.82 pX. platoon unblocked 0.86 0.85 0.86 ve. conllcllng-*-988 2013 493 "IIC. con111c11ng vo1ume 837 1134 419 vC1 , stage 1 confvol --------vC1 , stage 1 confvol vC2, stage 2 cont vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu , unblocked vol 765 1475 164 vCu, unblocked vol 646 1192 158 tC, single (s) 4. 1 6.8 6 .9 tC, single (s) 4.2 6.8 6 .9 IC, 2 stage (s ) IC, 2 sta ge (s) IF (s) 2 .2 3.5 3 .3 IF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 pO qu eue free % 80 100 94 pO qlJclJ e free % 100 100 99 cM capacity (veh/h) 693 85 704 cM capacity (veh/h) 798 156 743 h~ Ml Ill Ml Ml Ml at I -7 lell Mt Ml Ml Ml~-, Tolal 535 452 131 804 804 45 ' ~ Tolal 470 387 982 982 10 Volume Left O O 138 0 0 0 Volume Left O O O O 0 Valume Rigtll O 184 0 0 0 45 ____ ------_ Valume Rigtll O 132 0 0 10 cSH 1700 1700 693 1700 1700 704 cSH 1700 1700 1700 1700 743 Valume lo Capec:ily 0.31 0.27 0.20 0.53 0.53 0.08 . Valume lo Capacity 0.28 0.22 0 .57 0.57 0.01 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 18 0 0 5 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 0 0 1 Conlrull>elay(a) 0.0 0.0 11 .5 0.0 0.0 10.5 ___ ---------Cor*olOellly(a) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.9 Lane LOS B B Lane LOS A Appoadl D11ay <•> o.o o.a 10.s __ __ App,oac:11 o.i.y <•> o.o o.o 9.9 Approach LOS B Approach LOS A liliiiiilii Average Delay 0. 7 Average Delay 0 .0 lnlerMcliol'I Capac:lty Utillzlllion 58.8% ICU Level d SeMce B _ _ _ lnlerMcliol'I Capacity Ulilizlllion 55.8% ICU Level d Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 Analysis Period (min) 15 M:\07\07367 Triton Towers Renton Expansion\Analysis\Traffic Operations\AM With Project-rev l811rliiitcs~eport 9126/2008 Page 3 The Transpo Group M:\07\07367 Triton Towers Renton Expansion\Analysis\Traffic Operations\AM With Project-rev 18pnmlltcs~eport 9126/2008 Page 4 The Transpo Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Triton Towers 1: Gradl Wl & Lake Ave S 201 4 With Project AM .> -~ ~ -~ ~ t ,. '.. ' ~ j i! ' , Lane Configurations 'I ++ ,, 1aJ,~-1900 ... Ideal Flow MJhpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5 .0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5 .0 5.0 5.0 5 .0 5.0 t.. UII. FeclDr 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ~ Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0 .85 0.90 Fl PrOlldld 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.99 J Satd . Flow (pro!) 1752 3505 1568 1770 3533 1752 1845 1568 1070 Fl Pennlll9d 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.78 1.00 1.00 0.95 Satd. Flow (e!!rm l 1752 3505 1566 1770 3533 1436 1645 1566 1031 VouneMJh) 20 1081 230 30 1788 20 187 1 10 10 1 30 Peak-hour factor , PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0 .92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adi-Flow Mlh) 22 1175 250 33 1920 22 182 1 11 11 1 33 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 90 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 26 0 i.-Graup ~1/Phl 22 1175 180 33 1941 0 ,er" 1 11 0 19 0 Hea::'.l'. Vehicles(%) 3% 3% 3% 2% 2% 2% 3% 3% 3% 58% 58% 58% Tum Type Prat Perm Prat Perm FIN P9tm Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 4 4 P8nnllled A-. 2 4 FIN 4 J Aciuated Green, G (s) 6.0 83.0 63.0 6 .0 83.0 26.0 26 .0 130.0 26.0 EffKt¥9 Grwl, o <•> 8.0 113.0 83.0 8.0 113.0 211.0 211.0 130.0 211.0 :::J Aciuated g/C Ratio 0.05 0.64 0.64 0 .05 0 .64 0.20 0.20 1.00 0.20 ca--'Time l•l 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 -, Lane Grp Cap (vph) 81 2236 1001 62 2256 268 369 1568 206 vii Raio Prat 0.01 0.34 c0.02 c0.55 0.00 J vis Ratio Perm 0.10 c0.13 0 .01 0.02 vlcRalo 0.27 0.53 0.18 0.40 0.118 0.83 0.00 0.01 0.09 J Uniform Delay, d1 59.9 12.8 9 .5 60.3 18.9 47 .6 4 1.6 0.0 42.4 Pragi..ic., FIIClar 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.113 0.09 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 J Incremental Delay, d2 8.1 0 .9 0 .3 4 .8 1.6 10.1 0 .0 0 .0 0.9 Diliy(il ~88.0 w 13.7 w 9.8 w 54.9 w 3.3 ww 57.7 w 41 .8 w 0.0 w w 43.2 w J Level of Service E B A D A E D A D ~aid! Delay (a) 13.8 -4.1 -54.4 43.2 J Approach LOS B A D D HCM Average Con1rol Delay HCM Level of Service 0 11.1 ~ Volume ID Cepedly rallo 0.79 Aciuated Cycle Length (s) 130 .0 Sum of lost time (s) 15.0 ~-Ndlol I Capadly lJarallool 73.7% ICU level rA Service -D ~ Analysis Period (min) 15 C Cltllcal i.-Group ---- M :\07\07367 T riton Towers Renton Expansion\Analysis\T raffic Operations\AM With Project -re v 18pntiltcsj!i'Report 9/26/2008 Page 1 T he Transpo Group HCM S ignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Triton Towers 2: Gradl Wl & Shattuck Av S 2014 With Project AM .> -~ ~ -~ ~ t ,. ~ ' ~ ~--~-~~~--- Lane Configurations 'I ++ ,, 'I tfo 'I () 'I to ~I Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width 12 11 11 12 11 12 12 11 12 12 11 12 Grade(%) 0% 0% 1% 0% Total Lost time (s) 5 .0 5.0 5.0 5 .0 5 .0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 !-a. UII . Fedor 1.00 W0.95 1.00 1.00 0 .95 0.91 0.91 1.00 w 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0 .99 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.91 Fl Prolected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.98 0.95 1.00 Said. Flow (prot) 1770 3421 1531 1770 3377 1616 3053 1530 1412 FiP•mllled 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.98 0.95 1.00 Said. Flow (eerml 1770 3421 1531 1770 3377 1616 3053 1530 141 2 VouneMJh) 30 898 179 50 1800 150 198 30 57 40 30 50 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0 .92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0 .92 0 .92 0.92 0 .92 0 .92 0.92 0.92 0 .92 Adi-Flow (1/Ph) 33 974 191 54 1739 1113 1110 33 82 43 33 54 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 90 0 5 0 0 43 0 0 46 0 i.-Group Flow (vph) 33 974 101 54 1897 0 90 142 0 43 41 0 Heavl Vehicles (%l 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 1% 1% 1% 18% 16% 16% Tum Type Prat Pwm Prat 9pll 9pll Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 3 3 4 4 Permlned A-. 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 6.0 69.0 69.0 9 .0 72.0 16.0 16 .0 El'lecllft Grwl, 9 (a) 8.0 99.0 99.0 9.0 72.0 18.0 18.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0 .05 0.53 0.53 0.07 0 .5 5 0.12 0 .12 CINrwim Time l•l 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 -S:0 5.0 5.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 82 1816 813 123 1870 199 376 .,,. Rallo Prat 0.02 c0.211 0 .03 c0.58 c0.08 0.115 vis Ratio Perm 0.07 vie Rallo 0.40 0.54 0.12 0 .44 1.01 0.45 0.38 0.23 0-:2-1 Uniform Delay. d1 60.3 20.0 15.3 58 .1 29.0 52 .9 52.4 51 .4 51 .5 PlagleNlon Fedor 0.79 0.38 0.14 1.14 0.41 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 12.3 1.0 0.3 7 .1 20 .3 7.3 2 .9 2.8 3 .2 Delay(•) 59.7 8.5 2 .5 73.5 32.2 902 55.3 54 .2 54.7 Level of Service E A A E C E E D D ~Dilay(a) 9.0 33.3 58.9 ~ 54.5 Approach LOS A C E D HCM Average Control Delay 27 .7 HCM Level of Service C HCM Voune ID Capeclly ratio o.n --Actuated Cycle Length (s) 130.0 Sum of lost time (s) 15.0 lnleraedlon Cepedly Ulllzallon 88.8" ICU level rA Service --C Analysis Period (min) 15 C Crtllclil Lane Group M :\07\07367 Triton Towers Renton Expansion\Analysis\Traffic Operations\AM With Project-rev 18pntiltcsj!i'Report 9/26/2008 Page 2 The Transpo Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Triton T owers 15: S Renton Villa9e PL & SR 515/Talbot 20 14 Baseline PM .> -~ • -' ~ t ~ \. ~ ~ • • -------.. ...-.. ' ,, " t ,, 'I tt ., 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 ·1% 0% ·3% 0% 5.0 5 .0 5.0 5.0 5 .0 5.0 5.0 5.0 ~ 1.00 1.00 0 .97 1.00 1.00 1.00 0 .95 0.95 1.00 0 .85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 --1.00 .....J Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0 .95 1.00 1.00 0 .95 1.00 1.00 Said. Flow (pral) 1798 1807 3502 1900 1815 1814 3628 3581 -I --I Flt Permitted 0 .95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Said. Flow IPennl 1798 1807 3502 1900 1815 1814 3828 3581 Volume (vph) 70 0 290 620 10 170 120 1040 0 0 1990 50 Peek-nour fac*lr, PHF 0.115 0.115 0.95 0 .115 0 .115 0 .115 0 .115 0 .115 0 .115 0.115 0.115 0.95 Adj . Flow (vph) 74 0 305 653 11 179 126 1095 0 0 2095 53 ATOR Aaclucllall (\lllh) 0 0 87 0 0 108 0 0 0 0 1 0 Lane Group Flow (vp h) 74 0 2 18 653 11 71 126 1095 0 0 2147 0 ...... Vlllic:INl"'I 1% 1% 1% °"' °"' °"' 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% Tum Type Prot custom Prol Perm Prol Protected Phases 7 3 8 5 2 6 Perm,lled Phases 8 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 6.3 18.1 29.4 18.1 18.1 7 .0 80.6 68.6 Effective Green, g (s) 6.3 18 .1 29 .4 18 1 18.1 7 0 80 6 68 6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0 .05 0.15 0.24 0 .15 0.15 0 .06 0 .67 0.57 Clearance Time (s ) 5.0 50 50 5.0 50 50 50 5 .0 Vehide Extension ;s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3 .0 4 .0 6.5 6.5 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 94 242 858 287 244 106 2437 2036 "" Ralio Pnll 0.04 c:0 .19 0 .01 c:0 .07 0 .30 ~-c:0.80 vis Rat io Perm c0.14 0.04 vie Aalio 0.79 0.90 0 .78 0 .04 0 .29 1.19 0 .45 1.05 56.2 50.1 42 .0 43.5 45.3 56 .5 9.3 25 .7 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.88 0 .58 1.26 ---34.1 33.0 4 .0 0.1 0.7 142.0 05 25.9 90.3 83.1 48.1 43.6 45 .9 191 .7 5 .9 58.3 F F D D D F A E 84.5 46.0 25.1 ---58.3 ...J F D C E =:, HCM Average Control Delay 49.4 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume IO Capecity ratio 0.99 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost bme (s) 15.0 ~~ Capecity Utilzalion -104.7% ICU Lewi al SeMc:ie --G ---Analysis Period (min) 15 C Ctllical LMw Group M :\07\07367 Triton Towers Renton Expansion\Analysis\Traffic Operations\PM Baseline.sy7 9118/2008 Synchro 6 Report Page 15 The Transpo Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 16: 1-405 NB On-Rame & SR 515/Talbot • ' t ~ \. ' Lane Configurations tt ,, ·-,---.. Ideal Flow (vptlpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Grade(%) 0% -3% 6% Total lost lime (1) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5 .0 Lane Util. Factor 0 .95 1.00 1.00 0.95 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Said. Flow (pral) --------..-----3582 1807 1717 3433 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Said. FIOw (perm) 3582 1807 1717 3433 Volume (vph) 0 0 11 60 280 170 2730 Peak-hour fac*lr, PHF 0 .92 0 .92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 126 1 304 185 2967 ATOR ReduClian (\lllh) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Groue Flow (veh) 0 0 126 1 304 185 2967 TumTp f,-Pnll Protected Phases 2 1 6 Peonitted Phases Free Actuated Green, G (s) 88 0 120.0 22 .0 120.0 Effective Green , g (s) 88.0 120.0 22.0 120.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0 73 1 00 0 .18 1 00 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Ex tension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 2634 1607 315 3433 vis Ratio Prot 0 .35 0 .11 c0.86 v/1Raio f>9rm 0 .19 vie Ratio 0.48 0 .19 0 .59 0.86 Uniform Delay. en ---8.6 0.0 44 .8 0 .0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0 .97 1.00 lnawnenlal Delay. d2 ·---0.8 0.3 0.9 1.1 Delay (s) 7.2 0 .3 44.5 1.1 Lewi al Sefvlce A A 0 A Approach Delay (s) 0.0 5 .9 3.6 M)IOIICh LOS A A A HCM A.-.ge Conlrol Delay u HCM Lewi al Senrice --A HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.86 Adualecl Cycle lengll (1) 120.0 Sum of k»l lima (1) --0 .0 Intersection Capacity Util ization 79.6% ICU Level of Service D Analylil Period (min) 15 C Cribcal Lane Group M:\07\07367 Tnton Towers Renton Expansion\Analysis\T raffic Operations\PM Baseline.sy7 9/18/2008 T he Transpo Group Triton Towers 2014 Baseline PM Synchro 6 Report Page 16 HCM Unsi gnalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Triton Towers 13: S Renton Villaae PL & South Drivewaz:-Tower 2 2014 Baseline PM .> -..... f -' ~ t ~ ~ ' 4' -~ _.,. -----~-. ....._ _______ -~ Lane Configurations -• --... --... --... -Sign Conlral F,w F,w S1lop Slop Grade -1% 0% 0% 0% Volume (fth/h) 5 288 0 0 180 5 0 1 20 45 1 25 Peak Hour Factor 0 .89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0 .89 0.89 0.89 0 .89 0 .89 0 .89 Hourly tlow,... ("Ph) 8 321 0 0 202 8 0 1 22 51 1 28 Pedest rians t.a.Wldli(11) Walking Sp eed (ft/s) Pw-,1 Bloclcage ---Right tum flare (veh) --Meclarl lype --None --None ::J Median s torage veh) ---Upn-,. llgrlal (ft) ---439 pX, platoon unblocked ve . cont11c1ng vo1ume 208 ------321 ---588 540 321 5e1 538 205 vC 1 , stage 1 con! vol vC2, llage 2 ctn vol ------ -~~ ~-~ vCu , unblocked vol 208 321 566 540 321 561 538 205 IC,llrlgle(I) 4.1 ---4 .1 ---7.1 8.5 8.2 7.1 8.5 8.2 ------tC . 2 stage (s) IF (9) 2.2 ---2.2 --------3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 pO queu e free % 100 100 100 100 97 88 100 97 cM capec:ly (whlh) 1388 -~ 1244 ------421 449 724 424 450 838 - '" .:.a.:!·...a_:... -~-.::.......~-!;..:.:....:..a.:.j,;~~~ Volume Talal -327 208 24 80 Volume Left 6 0 0 51 Volume Righi -0 8 22 28 cSH 1369 1244 704 514 Volume lo Capaclly 0 .00 0.00 0.03 0.18 Queue L ength 95th (ft) 0 0 3 14 Conbd Dllay (1) 0.2 0.0 10.3 13.3 Lane LOS A B B Approach Delay (1) 0.2 0.0 10.3 13.3 Approach LOS B B ---------~---:...... -Joo-~--...;.:.;.~~-----:..!.----""'-· - Average De lay 2.1 ~ rlerNcllorl Capec:lly lHzallon 38.1'!1. ICU LIMII of SeMce --A --Analysis Period (min) 15 M :\07\07367 Triton Towers Re nton Expansion\Analysis\Traffic Operalions\PM Baseline.sy7 9/18/2008 Th e Transpo Grou p Synchro 6 Report Page 13 I I I I I I HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 14: S Renton Vi llaae PL & East Drivewaz:-Tower 1 -..... f -~ ~ -----------~ .. .____ --~--~--·-Lane Configurations ft --' V Sign Conlrd F,w F,w Slop Grade -1% 0% 0% V~(Wtllh) 350 1 0 180 5 10 Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0 .97 0 .97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Hourly low 1'11111 ("Ph) 381 1 0 1118 5 10 Pedestrians C-Wlclll(ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Piii:iill Bloclcage Right tum flare ~ ~lype None Median storage veh) Upenan llgr.i (11) ---288 pX, platoon unblocked ve.-.... vo1ume ~~~ 382 547 -381 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2,llage 2otnvol vCu, unblocked vol 362 547 361 IC, llngle (1) ---4.1 8.5 8 .3 tC, 2 stage (s) IF (1) 2.2 -3.8 3.4 ----pO queue free % ---100 99 98 cM capec:ly (Wtllh) 1202 490 en ---~---- V~Total 382 1811 15 -Volume Left 0 0 5 V~Rlghl -1 0 10 cSH 1700 1202 598 v~ 1o Capec:11y 0.21 0 .00 0.03 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 2 CoiiiiiilDiiley (1) 0.0 0 .0 11 .2 Lane L OS B Approach Dalay (1) 0.0 0 .0 11 .2 Approach LOS B --~--. -~--~..:..,._..__._ Average Delay 0.3 lnlenNldlon Capaclly Ulllzallon 30.1'!1, ICU Lewi of SeMce Analysis Period (min) 15 M:107\07367 Triton Towers Renton Expansion\Analysis\Traffic Operalions\PM Baseline.sy7 9/18/2008 The Transpo Group Triton Towers 2014 Baseline PM Synchro 6 Report Page 14 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Triton T owers 11: S Renton Villa9e PL & Rite A id/East Drivewal -Tower 1 2014 Baseline PM .> -~ " -' ... t ,; '. ' ., • • • --------II[ -Lane Configurations • • • • SignCcwWOI FIN FIN Slop Slop Grade -1% 0% 0% 0% VOiume (vehlh) 5 256 10 20 194 10 15 5 20 15 5 5 Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0 .97 0 .97 0.97 0.97 0 .97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0 .97 0 .97 Houl1y llow ..... (vph) 5 264 10 21 200 10 15 5 21 15 5 5 Pedestrians l.aw Wldll (II) ---------------- Walking Speed (ft/s) ,.._,. 8lodlage ·---..J Right turn flare (veh) Medlall lype ---------None -None Median storage veh) Upalr-, ligrllll (I) ---734 pX, platoon unb locked ve. conlllcllng voll#M 210 274 534 -531 269 5411 531 206 vC1, stage 1 cont vol vC2, stage 2 cont vot vCu , unblocked vol 210 274 534 531 269 549 531 205 tC , single (s) 4.1 4.1 7 .1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6 .5 6 .2 tC , 2 stage (s) lF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4 .0 3.3 pO queue free 1% 100 98 97 99 97 96 99 99 cM capacity (veh/h) 1366 1295 442 444 767 427 448 841 .... ,--111 11111 .1:111 j VOiume Tola! 279 231 41 28 ----· --------Volume Le ft 5 21 15 15 Volulne~ 10 10 21 5 cSH 1366 1295 561 479 VOiume ID Capecily 0.00 0.02 0.07 0.05 . ·---------Queue Lenglh 95th (fl) 0 1 6 4 Canlral Oelar <•> 0.2 0.1 11 .11 12.11 --------------La ne LOS A A B B 0.2 0.1 11 .11 12.11 ~~(1) --------- Approach LOS B B Average Delay 1.8 lnlenecllon Capacily IMz.allon 33.6% ICU l-' of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 M:\07107367 Triton Towers Renton Expansion\Analysis\Traffic Operations\PM Basetine.sy7 9118/2008 The Transpo Group - Synchro 6 Report Page 11 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Anal ysis 12: S Renton Villa9e PL & Southwest Drivewal -T ower 2 .> --' '. ., Lane Configurations ' • V Sign Conl,ol FIN FIN Slop Grade -1% 0% 0% VOiume (vehlh) 5 286 204 1 5 20 Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 096 0 .96 0 .96 Houl1y low nlla (vph) 5 298 212 1 5 21 Pedestrians i.-Widtl lll) Walking Speed (ft/s) ,.._,. llk>clulge Right turn flare (veh) Mediall type Median storage veh) UpelNmn ligrllll (II) 622 pX, platoon unblocked ve. c:onlliding vo1ume 214 -----521 213 vC 1, stage 1 confvol vC2, stage 2 cont vot vCu, unblocked vol 214 521 213 IC, single (s) 4 .1 6.4 6.2 IC 2 stage (s ) IF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 pO queue free % 100 99 97 cM capacity (veh/h) 1363 517 832 llliiilii: VOiume Tola! Volume Left VOiume~ cSH Volume ID Capacily Queue Length 95t h (fl) Conl,ol Oelar <•) Lane LOS A ~Delay(I) 0 .2 0 .0 Approach LOS Average Delay 0 .6 lnlefNdlon Capacily Utilization 30.7% ICU level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 M:\07107367 Triton Towers Renton Expansion\Analysis\Traffic Operations\PM Baseline.sy7 9/1812008 The Transpo Group Triton Towers 2014 Baseline PM Synchro 6 Report Page 12 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Triton Towers 9: S Renton Villa~e PL & West Dirvewa~ -Tower 1 2014 Baseline P M -~ " -~ ,. Lane Configurations '" .. V Sign Conlrd F198 F198 Slop Grade -1% 0% 0% Volume (¥9hlhJ 98 15 15 149 10 30 Peak Hour Factor 0 .94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0 .94 Hourly tluw ..... (wph) 102 111 111 159 11 32 Pedestrians i.-Wklll(ft) Walking Speed (IVs) "--11 Blocbte Right tum flare (veh) Medlall lype -None Median storage veh) vi--, llgrw (ft) ---986 pX , platoon unblocked -~~ vC, conllcllng "'*----1111 301 110 vC1, stage 1 con! vol --~ vC2, llage 2 oonl val -~-vCu, unblocked vol 118 30 1 110 1e-;-11ng19 ~) ---w 4 .1w: ll.4 w ll.2 w tC , 2 stage (s) IF (1) ---2.2 3.5 3.3 pO queue free % 99 98 97 cM capeclly (v911/h) ---14711 11114 943 -. -.. _,_ ---.......... ...G...;.J..~~ Volume Tallll -1111 174 43 Volume Left 0 16 11 \1aliiiia Rlgtll • -w 111 Ow 32 cSH 1700 1476 861 Volume IO Capeclly 0.07 0.01 0 .05 Queue Lengt h 95th (ft) 0 1 4 Conlnil Delay<•> 0.0 0 .11 9 .4 Lane LOS A A Approach Delay<•> 0 .0 0 .11 9.4 Approach LOS A ------~---,..-~--~~~ .. ~~- 1 .6 27.0% ICU LIMII d 5eMce ----A 15 M:\On07367 Triton Towers Renton Expansion\Analysis\Traffic Operations\PM Baseline.sy7 9/18/2008 The Transpo Group Synchro 6 Report Pag e9 HC M Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10: S Renton Villa~e PL & West Rite Aid Drivewa~ .> --'-~ ., Lane Configurations .. '" V Sign Control F198 F198 Slop Grade -1% 0% 0% Volume (Wlfllh) 10 1111 149 es 155 15 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Hoully low ..... (wph) 11 123 159 89 1115 111 Pedestrians i.a.Wldll(ft) Walking Speed (IVs) ~Ellodulge Right tum flare (veh) Mlldlln type ---None Median storage veh) Upenan llgrw (ft) ---900 pX, platoon unblocked vC, conllctln9 ...,._ 228 3311 193 vC 1 , stage 1 conf vol vC2, llage 2 oonl vol vCu , unblocked vol 228 338 193 IC, iilniili (a) w 4.1 11.4 11.2 tC, 2 stage (s) IF (a) 2.2 3.5 3.3 pO queue free % 99 75 98 cM capacly (liiililli) 1347 1156 851 Volume Total 134 2211 1111 Volume Left 11 0 165 Volumi Righi -W OW ll9 111 cSH 1347 1700 668 Volume IO Capdy 0.01 0.13 0 .27 Queue Le ngth 95th (ft) 1 0 27 Contflil Delay (a) 0.7 0.0 12.4 La ne LOS A B Approach Delay(•) 0.7 0.0-12.4 Approac h LOS B -. -~---- Average Delay 4 .3 lnlSNdlon Capacity Ullllzllllon 32.2"' ICU LIMII d SeMc:e --A --Analysis P eriod (min) 15 M:IOn07367 Triton Towers Renton Expansion\Analysis\Traff,c Operations\PM Baseline.sy7 9/18/2008 The Transpo Group Triton Towers 2014 Baseline P M Synchro 6 Report Page 10 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Triton Towers 7: East Drivewa~ -Tower 2 & SR 515fTalbot 2014 Baseline PM ,,, ~ ~ t ' ., • ----' Lane Configurations , ... +• SlgnCCIMol Slop F-F-------------------- Grade 0% 0% 0 % Voll-. (whlh) 0 5 0 1280 2035 5 -------Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0 .97 0.97 0.97 0 .97 Houitr low ,.. (111111) 0 5 0 1320 2088 5 Pedestrians ~Wldll(ft) ----------------------------- Walking Speed (IVs) ..._... 8loc:uge --~--- Right turn flare (veh) Mldlall twie None -------------- Median storage veh ) Upananlil,al(a) 285 1128 ------pX, platoon unblocked 0.89 0.82 0 .82 ve. car*'"II-... 27IO 1052 2103 vC1 , stage 1 cont vol vC2, stage 2 con! vol vC u , unblocked vol 2364 847 2125 tC, single (s) 6.8 6.9 4 .1 IC, 2 stage (s) IF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 pO queue free % 100 98 100 cM capacity (veh.lh) 27 255 211 Volume Tolll 5 440 IIO 1388 704 -· ------- Volume Left 0 0 0 0 0 ~Righi 5 0 0 0 5 --------cSH 255 211 1700 1700 1700 ~toCapdy 0.112 0 .00 0.52 0.82 0 .41 ------- _. ___ _. __ Queue Length 95th (ft) 2 0 0 0 0 Conlrd o.iar (1) 19.4 0.0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 ----------- Lane LOS C 19.4 0.0 0 .0 AclPfoacll o.iar (1) --------------Approach LOS C Average Delay 0.0 k1611Ndion Capdy UUllzalion 88.1% ICU UMI ol SeMoe C An alysis Period (m in) 15 M:\07\07367 Triton Towers Renlon Expansion\Analysis\Traffic Operations\PM Baseline.sy7 9/18/2008 The Transpo Group --- Synchro 6 Report Page 7 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Ana lysis 8: S Renton Villaae PL & Theater Dri vewa~ ,,, -~ ,r -' ~ t I' -------------Lane Configurations • • • Sign ConllOI Free Free Slop Grade ·1% 0% 0% Volume (whlh) 5 71 5 5 124 30 5 15 10 Peak Hour Factor 0 .86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0 .86 0 .86 0 .86 0 .86 0.86 Hoo.wly low .... (vph) 8 83 8 8 144 35 8 17 12 Pedestrians ~Wldlll(ft) Walking Speed (IVs) Percenl 8loc:uge Right turn flare (veh) Meclall lype None Median storage veh ) Upa.--nlil,al(ft) pX, p latoon unblocked ve . a:inllicling voune 179 -88 ---279 288 85 vC 1 , slage 1 con! vol vC2, stage 2 con! vol vCu , u nblocked vol 179 88 279 288 85 tC, single (s) 4 .1 4.1 7.1 6 .5 6.2 IC, 2 slage (s) tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 pO queue free % 100 100 99 97 99 cM capacity (vehlh) 1397 1507 658 615 971 7 7 ·-· .... , ., Ml t 1/olume T olal ~ 1M 185 36 47 Volume Left 6 6 6 35 Volume Righi 8 35 12 8 cSH 1397 1507 710 662 Voune to Capdy 0.00 0 .00 0 .05 0 .07 Queue Ler,gth 95th (ft) 0 0 4 6 ConllOI Delay (1) 0 .5 0.3 10.3 10.9 Lane LOS A A B B AclPfoacll o.lay (1) 0.5 0.3 10.3 10.9 Approach LOS B B Average Delay 2.7 lnl..-..c:lian Capacity Ulilizalion 25.8% ICU L....i ol SeMoe A Analysis Period (min) 15 M :\07\07367 Trilon Towers Renton Expansion\Analysis\Traffic Operalions\PM Baseline.sy7 9/18/2008 Th e Transpo Group Triton Towers 2014 Baseline PM '. ' ., 0% 30 5 5 0.86 0.86 0.86 35 8 8 None 291 273 182 291 273 162 7.1 6.5 6.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 95 99 99 639 632 889 t I Synchro 6 Report Page 8 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Triton Towers 5: GradX WX & SR 515/Talbot 2014 Baseline P M .> -.... <(' -.... ~ t ~ ~ ' ~ Lane Configurations 1~-r~ 1sJ 1~ _+to '" 't)'-----------, _!I-~_ .. -----, Ideal Row Mlflpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Grade (%) 0% -1% 0% Tall! Lael lme (a) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1 .00 0 .97 0 .95 0.97 0.95 Flt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.911 1.00 0.94 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0 .95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Said. Fluw (protJ 1770 3539 1583 34SO 3493 3487 3357 Flt Permitted 0.95 1 .00 1.00 0 .95 1.00 0.95 1 .00 Sad. Row (perm) 1770 3539 1583 34SO 3483 3487 3357 Volume (vph) 70 890 840 430 670 40 550 470 320 p.k-h:u fador, PHF 0.90 0.90 0 .90 o.118 0.97 0.97 0.97 0 .97 0.97 Adj . Flow (vph) 78 989 933 489 691 41 567 485 330 lffOR Redl.:ion (wph) 0 0 4 0 4 0 0 100 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 78 989 929 489 728 0 56 7 71 5 0 ._.,veNdN~I 2% 2% 2% 2% ~ ~ 1% 1% 1% Tum Type Prot pm+ov P rot Prot ~Pliiiie 1 8 3 5 2 3 8 Permitted P hases 6 Aduallld 0.-, G (a) 8.5 35.0 59.0 19.0 44.5 24.0 311.2 Effective Green, g (s) 8 .5 35 .0 59.0 18.0 44 .5 24 .0 39 .2 Aciiilid s,C Raio 0 .07 0.29 0.49 0.15 0.37 0.20 0.33 Clearance T ime (s) 5.0 5 .0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5 .0 5.0 Yettie Eldlnalon l•l 4.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 La ne Grp Cap (vph) 125 1032 844 5 18 1295 693 1097 vfl Rallo Plal O.CM o.2r c0zz c0--:i.-Cf.21 0 .18 02, vis Ratio Perm 0 .37 wcRallo 0 .82 0.98 1.10 0.94 0.58 0.82 0.85 54 .2 41 .8 30 .5 50.5 30.0 45 .9 34.6 o.as · o.70 0.55 1.00 1.00 0.79 o.ea 6 .3 13.5 56.4 26.3 1 .8 7.7 1.7 52.3 42.9 73.2 78.9 31 .9 44.0 25.3 D D E E C D C 57.4 49.9 32.9 --E D C --~-~"----HCM Average Control Delay 57.9 HCM Level of Service E HCM Vdin. lo C..,.r:lly rallo 1.08 --Actuated Cycle Length (s ) 120.0 Sum of lost lime (s) 15.0 -··llldlon C..,.r:lly Ulllzllllon 97.2% ICU Levi! al Seivlce -F -Analysis Period (min) 15 C Clllcal .__ Gl'!ql M :\07107367 Triton Towers Renton Expansion \Analysis\Traffic Opera tions\P M B aseline.sy7 9/18/2008 The Transpo Group 1900 1900 1900 1% 5.0 5.0 5.0 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0 .95 1.00 1.00 1798 3592 1807 0 .95 1.00 1 .00 1798 3592 1807 80 740 40 0.97 0.97 0.97 82 763 41 0 0 21 82 763 20 0% 0% 0% P rot Perm 7 4 4 7.9 23.0 23.0 7.8 23.0 23.0 o.oa 0.19 0.19 5.0 5 .0 5.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 117 688 308 0.05 c:0 2 1 0 .01 0.70 1.11 o.oa 55.0 48.5 39.7 1.00 1.00 1.00 17.3 68.2 0.1 1221T8 .1 39-:S E F D 109.0 F Synchro 6 Report Page 5 I I HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analy sis 6 : East Drivewax -Tower 3 & SR 515/Talbot .> .... ~ t ' ~ La ne Configurations ' ++ ++ ' Sign Conlrol Slop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% V'*-(vahlh) 0 15 0 1280 2025 10 Peak Hour Factor 0 .94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0 .94 0.94 Hourly tloir rate (wph) 0 18 0 13112 2154 11 Pedestrians .__ Wldltl (II) Walking Speed (fVs) "-enlBlcNQe Righi tum nare (v_~ Medlanlype None Median storage veh ) l.lpa"-" signal (II) 873 5311 pX , platoon unblocked 0 .89 0.82 0.82 ve . conlllctlng vollffl8 2835 1077 2185 vC 1, stage 1 con! vol vC2, mge 2 conl wol vCu , unblocked vol 2445 869 2202 IC ..... (a) u u 4.1 tC . 2 stage (s) IF (a) 3.5 3.3 2.2 pO queue free % 100 93 100 cM capaclly (¥1111111) 24 244 195 VolumeTollll -18 1181 1181 1077 1077 11 Volume Left 0 0 0 0 0 0 v~ -18 0 0 0 0 11 cSH 244 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Volume lo C8p8Cfty 0.07 0.40 0 .40 0.83 0.83 0.01 Queue Length 95th (ft) 5 0 0 0 0 0 Conliol Oilay-rsr-20.8 0 .0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS C Approach Delay(•) 20 .8 0 .0 0.0 Approach LOS C I!!!!! Avera ge Delay 0 .1 lnlllrllllCtlon C..,.r:lly Ullllzallon 87.8% ICU ......., of SeMce -C Analysis Period (min) 15 M:107107367 Triton Towers Re nton Expansion\Analysis\Traffic Operations\PM B aseline.sy7 911812008 The Transpo Group Triton Towers 2014 Baseline P M Synchro 6 Report Page 6 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Triton Towers 3: Grad:z: w:z: & North Rite Aid Drivewa:z: 2014 Baseline PM -• f -... ~ ..--.. . .. -. j Lane Conf,guralions--•• ' ++ V SlgnCGMOI "-F-Sq, --------~ Grade 0% 0% 0 % VOUM(whlh) 1715 5 56 1206 1 80 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0 .94 0 .94 0 .94 0.94 0 .94 Hourtr11ow .... (-) 1124 5 5e 1282 1 64 -------- Pedestrians a.-Wlclll (I) -------Wal king Speed (IVs) Percenl Bloc:uge --------------- Right tum flare (veh) Medler! lw,e --None --------------- Median s torage veh) Upla-n ligrllll (ft) 420 562 ----------- pX, platoon unblocked 0.57 0 .64 0 .57 ve. canllcting ~ ---1830 2585 915 -----------__ _.__ vC1 , stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu , unblocked vol 1701 2195 91 IC, single (s) 4 .1 6 .8 6 .9 t C, 2 slage (s) tF (s) 2 .2 3.5 3.3 pO queue free % 72 94 88 cM capacity (veh/h) 211 18 543 lii:liiii"J •1 alliiilil •• ma al • Valume Total -1211 813 5e 841 841 85 Volume Left 0 0 59 0 0 1 Voluma RiQIII 0 5 0 0 0 84 -cSH 1700 1700 211 1700 1700 370 Volume lo Capeclly o.n 0.38 0.28 0.38 0.38 0.18 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 27 0 0 16 CoMol Dalay (•) o.o o.o 28.8 0.0 0.0 18.8 -..: Lane LOS D C Appniadl Dalay (a) 0.0 1.2 ---16.8 ------_____ I Approach LOS C Average Delay 0.9 lnlerMdion Capdy Ulilzalion 59.7% ICU LIMII ol SeMce B -----' Analysis Period (min) 15 M:\07107367 Triton Towers Renton Expansion\Analysis\Traffic Operations\PM Baseline.sy7 9/1812008 The Transpo Group - Synchro 6 Report Page3 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4 : Grad:z: W:z: & North D rivewa:z: -Tower 3 -• f -... ~ I ------Lane Configurations +to ++ Sign Conlrol F-F- Grade 0% 0% Voune (veh/11) 1770 5 0 1280 Peak Hour Faclor 0 .95 0 .95 0.95 0 .95 Hourly tow ..... (vph) 1863 5 0 1326 Pedestrians a.-Wldlh (II) Walking Speed (!Us) Percenl Blockage Right tum flare (veh) Median type ---None Median storage v eh) Upla-n 19181 (II) 661 321 pX, platoon unblocked 0.57 0 .65 0.57 \IC, conkting IIOIUme --1868 2529 934 vC1 , stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu. unblocked vol 1768 2068 122 tC, single (s) 4 .2 6 .8 6.9 IC , 2 stage (s) IF (s) 2 .2 3.5 3 .3 pO queue free % 100 100 94 cM capacity (veh/h) 195 31 518 •1 a1 a1 a1 •I 1242 828 883 883 32 -Volume Left 0 0 0 0 0 Voune RiQIII 0 5 0 0 32 cSH 1700 1700 1700 1700 518 voune 1o Capdy 0 .73 0 .37 0 .39 0.38 0,08 Queue Length 951h (ft) 0 0 0 0 5 Conlrol Dalay <•J o.o 0 .0 0.0 0.0 12.4 Lane LOS B Appniadl Delay (•) 0 .0 0.0 12.4 Approach LOS B A verage Delay 0 .1 lnler98Cllon Capdy Ullllzalion 80.8% ICU Le..i ol Servica Analysis Period (min) 15 M :\07107367 Triton Towers Renton Expansion\Analysis\Traffic Operations\PM Baseline.sy7 9/18/2008 The Transpo Group Triton Towers 2014 Baseline PM Synchro 6 Report Page 4 HCM Signalized Intersection Capaci ty Analysis 1: Grad~ & Lake Ave S ..> -~ f -' ~ f I" T riton T ow ers 2014 Baseline PM .... ' ., . . ' . -.._ -... ------~ ---~-----Lane Configurations ldNI Flow (vphpl) Total Lost ti me ( s) a.-UIII. Faclor Frt FIi Pluladacl Satd. Flow (prot ) FIi Permlllacl Said.Flow ~ Vdume(wph) Peak-hour fa ctor, PHF Adi -Flow (wph) RTOR Reduction (vph) a.-Gnlllp Flow {vpli) Heavy Vehicles(%) Tum Type Protected Phases Permllled ..._ Actuated Green, G (s) Eir.cthii Giiin, g I•) Actuated giC Ratio ~Time(•) Vehicle Extension ~ a.-Grp Cep (wph) vis Rat io Prot "'8RaloPemt vie Rat io Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor lnClan•llal Delay, d2 Delay (s) lAMII al 9eMce Approach Delay (s) AIJproach LOS ~ 1900 1900 5.0 5 .0 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.115 1.00 1787 3574 0.95 1.00 1787 3574 40 1550 0.92 0.92 43 1985 0 0 43 1985 1% 1% Pral 5 2 6 .3 71 .2 ~71 .2 0.05 0 .59 5.0 5.0 3 .0 3 .0 94 2121 0.02 c0.47 0.46 0 .79 55.2 111.11 1.00 1.00 3.5 3.2 58 .7 2 1.9 E C 2 1.9 C HCM A-.ge Conllal Delay HCM Volume to Capacity ratio AebadCyde Lengll (aJ Intersection Capacity Utilization Analyall Period("*') c Criti cal Lane Group f' 11 tt. 'I 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 5 .0 1.00 0 .85 T.00 1599 1.00 1599 140 0 .92 152 50 102 1% Perm 2 71 .2 71 .2 0 .59 5.0 3.0 949 0.1111 0 .11 10.11 1.00 0.2 10.8 B 20.11 0 .80 1 20.0 71.7% 15 5.0 5.0 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 ~0.115 1.00 1770 353 1 0.95 1.00 1770 353 1 50 1240 0.92 0.92 54 1348 0 1 54 13811 2% 2% Pral 1 6 4.8 69.7 4.11 119.7 0.04 0.58 5.0 5.0 3.0 3.0 71 20!51 0.03 c0.39 0.76 0.67 57 .0 17.2 0.67 0.35 2U 0.8 68.1 6.7 E A 9.0 A 5.0 1.00 1.00 1f.95 1770 0 .87 1240 20 250 0.92 0.92 22 272 0 0 0 272 2% 2% Penn 4 29 .0 29.0 0.24 5.0 3 .0 300 c:0 .22 0.91 44.2 1.00 29.0 73 .2 E HCM LIMII of SeMce Sum al loat time (1) ICU Leve l of Service l 1900 5 .0 1.00 1.00 -1.00 1863 1.00 1863 1 0.92 1 0 1 2% 4 29 .0 29.0 0 .24 5.0 3 .0 450 0 .00 0 .00 34.5 1.00 0.0 34.5 C 6 1.0 E ,, 1900 1900 5.0 1.00 0 .85 1.00 1583 1.00 1583 50 40 0 .92 0.92 54 43 0 0 54 0 2% 23% Free Perm Free 4 120.0 120.0 1.00 15113 0.03 0.03 0.0 1.00 0.0 0.0 A C 10.0 C • 1900 1900 5.0 1.00 ~ 0.92 0.98 :::J 1393 0.119 - 1267 1 80 0.92 0.92 1 815 47 0 82 0 23% 23% 4 - ~ 29 .0 29 .0 -~ 0.24 5.0 --3 .0 30II - 0.05 --0.20 311.3 -.._, 1.00 0 .3 -, -36 .6 D ~ -36 .6 D -- M:107107367 Triton Towers Re nton Expansion \Analysis\Traffic Operati ons\PM Baseline.sy7 9i18/2008 Synchro 6 Report Page 1 The Transpo Group HCM Signa lized Intersection Capacity Ana lysis 2: Grad~ & Shattuck Av S ..> -~ f Lane Configurations 'I ff ,, 'I - t Tt ldNI Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width 12 11 11 12 11 Grade(%) 0% 0% Total Lost tim e (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5 .0 5.0 ' ~ f I" 'I 4ft 1900 1900 1900 1900 12 12 11 12 1% 5.0 5.0 Triton Towers 20 14 Baseline PM .... ' ., 11 • 1900 1900 1900 12 11 12 0% 5.0 5.0 a.-UII. Faclor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.91 0.91 -1:00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0 .99 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.93 FIi Proleded Q.915 1.00 1.00 0.915 1.00 0.915 o .• 0.915 1.00 Satd . Flow (prot) 1770 3421 1531 1770 3387 1634 3007 1656 1567 FIi Permllled G.915 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 o . .r--o.til 0.111 1.00 Said. Flow (eerm) 1770 3421 1531 1770 3387 1634 3007 1656 1567 VOiume (wph) 40 1480 120 110 1120 90 120 50 120 220 90 70 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 Adi -Flow (wph) 42 1558 128 11l 1179 84~ 53~ 129 232 114 74 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 49 0 4 0 0 113 0 0 26 0 a.-Gnlllp Flow (wph) 42 1558 77 1111 1258 0 82 100 0 232 132 0 Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 0% 0% 0% 9% 9% 9% Tum Type Pral Perm Pral 81111 81111 Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 8 8 4 4 Pennllled PheN8 II Actuated Green , G (s) 5.6 59.2 59 .2 10 .0 63.6 12.8 12.8 18.0 18.0 Effeclve Gleen, g (1) 5.11 58 .2 58.2 10.0 113.11 12.11 12.11 111.0 111.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0 .05 0.49 0.49 0.08 0 .53 0.11 0 .11 0.15 0.15 Cleii •ice Time (8) 5-:0-S.o-s.o--s.-o 5.0 5.0 T O~ -S.-0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 5.0 5.0 3 .0 5.0 4 .0 4 .0 4.0 4 .0 i.-Grp Cep (wph) 113 1111111 755 1411 1795 174 321 2411 235 vis Ratio Prat 0 .02 c0.46 c0.07 0 .37 c0.06 0 .03 c0.14 0.08 vis RalloPemt 0.05 vie Ratio 0.51 0.92 0.10 0.78 0 .70 0.53 0.3 1 0.94 0.56 Uniform Delay, d1 55.11 211.3 ~-2 53.9 21 :T 50--:'7 49.5 --S0.4 4H Progression Fa ctor 0.75 0.35 0.06 1.04 0.85 1.00 1.00 ~ aemaal Delay. d2 3.1 II.II 02 19.4 1.9 3.7 0.11 Delay (s) 44.8 16.7 1.1 75.8 19.8 54.5 50.3 LIMII al s.w» D B A E B D D Approach Delay (s) 16.2 24.5 5 1.6 Apprcs.tl LOS B C -D --------~ -,U ...... ~ ... ~~~--~ .. ~, ..... :_ HCM A-.ge Control Delay 211.0 HCM Lewi al Semce -C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.86 Adualed Cycle Langi! (a) 120.0 Sum of loll lime (1) -20.0 Intersection Capacity Utilizalion 8 1.7% ICU Level of Service D Analy8la Period ("*') 15 C Critical Lane Group M:107107367 T riton Towers Renton Expansion\Analysis\Traffic Operations\PM Baseline .sy7 9i18/2008 The Transpo Group 1.00 1.00 40.0 3.7 90.4 51 .0 F D 74 .4 E Synchro 6 Report Page 2 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Triton Towers 15: Renton Place & SR 515/Talbot 2014 Baseline AM ..> -~ ~ -' .... t ~ ~ ' .,, • • -~---=•-...--=-ar -'I ' 'l'I t ' 'I t+ ti. 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 -1% 0% -3% 0% 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5 .0 5.0 5.0 ----1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 0 .95 0 .95 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0,85 1.00 1.00 0.90 ---· Flt Protected 0 .95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Said. flOw (prol) 1781 1578 3502 1900 1815 1814 3828 3456 Flt Permitted 0 .95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1 00 Said. FIOw "*"'I 1781 1578 3502 1900 1815 1814 3828 3456 Volume (vph) 40 0 40 230 10 190 250 2330 0 0 590 60 Pealt-ftOUr lacu, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0 .97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0 .97 0.97 0 .97 0.97 0.97 Adj . Flow (vph) 4 1 0 41 237 10 196 258 2402 0 0 608 62 RTOR RacM:lior'I (vph) 0 0 38 0 0 16 0 0 0 0 6 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 41 0 5 237 10 180 258 2402 0 0 664 0 ....... y Vehic:lel !'Ir.I 3,r. 3'11, 3,r. o,r. o,r. 0'11, 1,r. 1,r. 1,r. 3% 3,r. 3'11, Tum Type Prot custom Prol Perm Prot Protected Phases 7 3 8 5 2 6 Pe rmitted Phases 8 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 3.2 17.4 25.6 17.4 17.4 29 .0 94.4 60.4 Effective Green, g (s) 3.2 17.4 25 6 17.4 17.4 29.0 94.4 60.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0 .02 0.13 0.20 0.13 0 .13 0.22 0.73 0.46 C learance T ,me (s) 5.0 5.0 5 0 50 50 50 5 0 50 Vehicle Extension!•) 3.0 3.0 30 3.0 3.0 4 .0 6 .0 6.5 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 43 211 690 254 216 405 2634 1606 vii Ratio Pro! c:0.02 0.07 0 .01 0.14 c:0 .66 0.19 vis Ratio Perm 0.00 c0.11 vie Ratio 0.95 0.03 0 .34 0 .04 0.84 0.64 0 .91 0.41 Uniform Delay , d1 63.3 48.9 45 .0 49.0 --54 .9 45.7 14.4 23.1 l'rogrNlioll Fac:u 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0 .90 --1.54 lnctemental Delay, d2 118.5 0.1 0 .3 0.1 23.4 1.7 3 .0 0.7 Deiay(I) 181.8 49.0 45.3 49.1 78.3 45 .1 18.0 38.3 Level or Service F D D D E D B D Approach Delay (1) 115.4 80.0 18.9 ---36.3 -Approach LOS F E B D HCM Average Control Delay 28.7 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume IO Capecily l'lllio 0.90 ~- Actuated Cycle Length (s) 130.0 Sum of lost time (s) 15.0 lnllrNc:tion Capecily Utilizallon 92.0'lr. ICU Level ol S.W:. F Analysis Period (min) 15 C Crilical law Group ------- M:\07\07367 Triton Towers Renton Expansion\Analysis\Traffic Operations\AM Baseline .sy7 9117/2008 Synchro 6 Report Page 15 The Transpo Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 16: 1-405 NB On-Rame & SR 515/Talbot ~ ' t ~ ~ ' Lane Configurations ff ' 'I t+ Ideal Flaw(~) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Grade(%) 0% -3% 6% Tola! loal lime (1) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5 .0 La ne Util. Factor 0 .95 1.00 1.00 0.95 Flt ---1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 Fil Protected 1.00 1.00 0 .95 1.00 Said. Flow (prol) -3828 1823 1700 3400 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0 .95 1.00 Said. flOw (perm) 3828 1823 1700 3400 Volume (vph) 0 0 2580 460 90 760 PNk-ftOUr factor, PHF 0 .97 0 .97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 2660 474 93 784 RTOR ReduClion (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 2660 474 93 784 Hea\'y Vehlclea !'Ir.I o,r. o,r. 1,r. 1,r. 3,r. 3'11, Turn Type Free Prot Protected Phases 2 1 6 Perm ,tted Phases Free Actuated Green, G (s) 109.4 130.0 10.6 130.0 Effective Green. g (s) 109 4 1300 10.6 130 0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0 .84 1.00 0 .08 1.00 C learance T,me (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension !•! 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 3053 1623 139 3400 "'' Rao Pro! c:0.73 c:0.05 0.23 v/s Ratio Perm 0 .29 wcRlllo 0.87 0.29 0.87 0.23 Uniform Delay , d1 6.1 o.o 58.0 o.o Progrnaion Fac:u 1.00 1.00 0.88 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 3 .7 0.5 10.9 0.1 Delay(•) 9.9 0.5 62.3 0.1 Level of Service A A E A Approach Delay (1) 0 .0 -8.4 8.7 Approach LOS A A A HCM Average Control Delay 8.1 HCM Level of Service A HCM Volume IO Capacily ralio 0 .85 Actuated Cycle Length {s) 130.0 Sum of lost t ime (s) 10.0 lnlenecllon Capecily Ullllzallon 79.0'lr. ICU Level ol SeMce D Analysis Period (min) 15 C Crtllcal law Group M :\07\07367 Triton Towers Renton Expansion\Analysis\Traffic Operations\AM Baseline.sy7 9/17/2008 The Transpo Group T riton Towers 2014 Baseline AM Synchro 6 Report Page 16 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Triton Towers 13: S Renton Village PL & East Orivewaz: -Tower 2 2014 Baseline AM .,, -~ f -~ ~ t I" \,. • ~ ·-Lane Configurations • • • • Sign Ccn'CII Free Free Stop Stop Grade -1% 0% 0% 0% Vou.(wh/11) 10 75 5 20 220 IIO 0 0 0 5 5 5 Peak Hour Factor 0 .90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0 .90 0 .90 Hourly flow,... (vpfl) 11 83 8 22 244 97 0 0 0 8 8 8 Pedestrians i.a.Wldll(II) Walking Speed (11/s) Piri:ini 8liidiige --Right tum flare (veh) Meclall type ~-None --None J Median storage veh) Upnwan~ 443 ----- pX, platoon unblocked ----1/C, conlllclng ..._ 311 ---99 ---439 484 1111 431 433 278 vC 1 , stage 1 con! vol 11C2,llage 2oonlvd -~--~-------vCu, unblocked vol 311 89 439 464 86 431 433 278 IC, llr,gle (a) 4.1 ---4 .1 ---7.1 8.5 82 7.3 8.7 8.4 ------IC, 2 stage (s) IF (w) 2.2 --22 ---3.5 4 .o---3.3 3.7 4 .2 3.5 pO queue free % 99 99 100 100 100 99 99 99 cM capeclly (WIMI) 1249 --1513 ---514 487 978 493 475 718 -----------~ ----~-~~~-~-.-.., .... --~ ... V--Tollll 100 333 0 17 Volume Len 11 22 0 6 V--Rlghl r 8 87 0 8 cSH 1249 1513 1700 542 V--111 Capeclly 0 .01 0.01 0.00 0.03 Queue Lenglh 951h (ft) 1 1 0 2 Conlrol Delay<•> 0.9 0 .8 0 .0 11 .8 Lane LOS A A A B Approach Delay (a) 0.9 0.9 0 .0 11.9 Approach LOS A B ----. -~-·-------.... ...::---~--~~ Average Delay 1.1 lnllnedlon Capeclly Ulllzallon 31 .0% ICU LIMlt d SeMcl --A --Analysis Period (min) 15 M :\07\07367 T ri ton Towers Renton Expansion\Analysis\Traffic Operations\AM Baseline.sy7 9/17/2008 The Transpo Group ------- Synchro 6 Report Page 13 ' HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 14: S Renton Village PL & East Orivewaz: -Tower 1 -~ f -~ I" Lane Configurations ,. .t V Sign Contrcl Free Free Stop Grade ~1% 0% 0% voi-(WMI) 75 5 20 300 0 5 Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0 .85 0 .85 0.85 0.85 Riiwiy low ,... (vpfl) ea 8 24 353 0 8 Pedestrians laMWlclh(fl) Walking Speed (11/s) Piri:ini Blodiage Right tum flare (veh) Medlall type None Median storage veh) ui,.n.n 19* (ft) 272 pX, platoon unblocked 1/C, conllctlng wune ---114 411 11 vC1, stage 1 conf vol l,C2, 11age 2 oonl vol vCu, unblocked vol 94 491 91 IC, 11ng1e (1) 4.1 8.4 92 tC , 2 stage (s) ff'(•) ---2.2 3.5 3 .3 pO queue free % 98 100 99 cM capeclly ("911111) --~ 1508 532 972 -----• ----...L. Volume Tollll 114 3711 8 Volume Left 0 24 0 Volume Righi 8 0 8 cSH 1700 1506 972 Volume to Capeclly 0.08 0.02 0.01 Queue Length 95th (fi) 0 1 0 Conlrol Delay (1) 0 .0 0.8 9.7 Lane LOS A A ~Oellly(a) -0:0-0.8 9.7 Approach LOS A ----t...--~ .. - Average Delay 0.6 lnlll99dlon Capeclly lMzallon 35.2"' ICU LIMlt d SeMce --A Analysis Period (min) 15 M:\07\07367 Triton Towers Renton Expansion\Analysis\Traffic Operations\AM Baseline.sy7 9/17/2008 The Transpo Group Triton Towers 20 14 Baseline AM Synchro 6 Report Page 14 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Triton Towers 11 : S Renton Villa!je PL & Rite Aid/East Drivewa:z: -Tower 1 2014 Baseline AM .,> -~ ~ -' ~ t ~ ~ ! .I ~~-.. ~. Lane ConfiguraLions • • • ... Sign Cor*1II F-F-Slap Slap Grade -1% 0% 0% 0% Volume(v.MI) 5 IIO 30 30 175 10 5 5 5 5 0 5 Peak Hour Factor 0 .82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0 .82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0 .82 0.82 0.82 0.82 Hourly flaw ..... (wph) 6 110 37 37 213 12 6 6 6 6 0 8 Pedestrians t...Widlh(I) ·---------------------Walking Speed (ft/s) "--II IIIDc:uga ---------------Right tum flare (veh) Medlall type -------None Median storage veh) Upu9MlliC,llll(II) -738 p X, platoon unblocked ve. conact1ng ,,.._ 226 146 -4311 4311 126 vC1 , stage 1 cont vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu , unblocked vol 226 146 439 439 128 IC, single (S) 4 .1 4.1 7.2 6.6 6.3 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3 .6 4.1 3.4 pO q u eue free % 100 97 99 99 99 cM capacity (vehlh) 1355 1442 494 481 893 ----· ....... .-.. :a.1 --- VdlaMTalal -152 2t2 18 12 Volume Left 6 37 6 6 Volume Right 37 12 6 6 -----cSH 1355 1442 574 629 Volume to C..-itr 0.00 0.03 O.o3 0.02 -----Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 2 2 1 Conlld~(•) 0.3 1.2 11.5 10.8 --------Lane LOS A A B B App,oadl Daar (a) 0.3 1.2 11.5 10.8 - Approach LOS B B Average Delay 1.6 lnlarw:liorl C..-itr Ulilizalion 211.8% ICU L .... ol Senlice A Analysis Period (min) 15 M:\07\07367 Triton Towers Renton Expansion\Analysis\Traffic Operations\AM Baseline.sy7 9/17/2008 The Transpo Group - None 442 451 220 442 451 220 7.1 6 .5 6.2 3.5 4 .0 3.3 99 100 99 509 492 825 ! --- ---- ------- ---_ ___J - --_I Synchro 6 Report Page 11 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 12 : S Renton Villa!je PL & West Drivewa:z:-Tower 2 .,> --' '. .I ---..... Lane ConfiguraLions ., • Sign Conlrol Free Free Grade -1% 0% Volume (vehlh) 15 85 210 Peak Hour Factor 0 .84 0 .84 0.84 Hourly low ..... (wph) 18 101 250 Pedestrians t...Widlh(ft) Walking Speed (IVs) "--II 8locuge Righi tum flare (veh) Medlall type ---None Median storage v eh) IJpsnMI ~ (ft) 626 pX, platoon unblocked ve . conklinQ VOiume 268 -3116 259 vC1 , stage 1 cont vol vC2, stage 2 C011f vol vCu , unblocked vol 268 396 259 tC, single (s) 4 .1 6.4 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 pO queue free % 99 99 99 cM capacity (veh/h) 1302 605 785 ~-T.-T Volume Tolal 1111 -Volume Left 18 0 Volume Right 0 18 cSH 1302 1700 Volume to Capacily 0.01 0.18 Queue Length 95th (ft) 1 0 1 Conlrol ~ <•> 1.3 0.0 10.4 La ne LOS A B App,oadl Delay (•) 1.3 0.0 10.4 Approach LOS B Average Delay 0.7 lnleneclion Capacily Ullllzalion 28.11% ICU l,.,,. ol Senlice A Analysis Period (min) 15 M:107\07367 Triton Towers Renton Expansion\Analysis\Traffic Operatioos\AM Baseline.sy7 9 /17/2008 The Transpo G ro up Triton Towers 2014 Baseline AM Synchro 6 Report Page 12 ,- HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9 : S Renton Villaae PL & West Drivewa~ -Tower 1 -~ "' -~ ~ Ill!!!!!!!!!!!! Lane Configurations To --" ¥ Sign Conlrol Frw Frw Slap Grade -1% 0% 0% Volume (!WMI) 85 20 30 55 5 5 Peak Hour Factor 0 .81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0 .81 HDurtr lb, ,... ("Ph) 105 25 37 1111 8 8 Pedest rians liiii MIi\ (ft) w Walking Speed (ft/s) Per-,t lllocbge Right tum flare (veh) Meclal'l lype None Median storage veh) Upiiriim lllgrllll (ft) ---9119 pX, platoon unblocked ---ve. conftlcllng ~ 130 2511 117 ---vC1 , slage 1 con! vol ---vC2. llage 2 conf vd ---vCu, unblocked vol 130 259 117 IC. llngle (1) ---4.1 8.4 8 .2 IC, 2 stage (s) F1i, ---2.2 3.5 3.3 pO queue free % 97 99 99 cM capedly (veMI) ---1462 715 940 --. ~--··___._: ___ ~~----·,·, Volume Total 130 105 12 -Volume Left 0 37 6 Vdumll Righi 25 0 8 cSH 1700 1462 812 Volume lo Capadly 0.08 0 .03 0 .02 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 2 1 toiiinil Dillly <•> 0.0 2.8 9.5 Lane LOS A A AppnJedl Delay (1) 0 .0 2 .8 9.5 Approach LOS A ----- Average Delay 1.7 ·~-NCllol. Capadly tJUlzallon 22.9% ICU Lewi of S8MC8 ----A Analysis Period (min) 15 M:\07\07367 Triton Towers Renton Expansion\Analysis\Traffic Operalions\AM Baseline.sy7 9117/2008 The Transpo Group Triton Towers 2014 Baseline AM J - Synchro 6 Report Page 9 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10: S Renton Villaae PL & West Rite Aid Drivewa~ .,, --\.. '.. 4' Lane Configurations 4 f. ¥ $ig,I Conlrol FIW FIW Slap Grade -1% 0% 0% Volume (velllll) 5 85 55 130 40 30 Peak Hour Factor 0.81 0 .81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 Hllurtr lbr 111111 (~) 8 105 1111 190 49 37 Pedestrians i.-Wldlll (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) P.-nl lllocbge Right tum flare (veh) Meclal'l lype ----None Median slorage veh ) I.Jplnanlllgrllll(ft) 892 pX. platoon unblocked ve . conftlcllng odlffl9 228 285 148 vC 1 • stage 1 con! vot vC2 , llage 2 conf vol vCu , unblocked vol 228 265 148 IC. lllugle(e) 4.1 8.4 8.2 IC, 2 stage (s) IF (1) 2.2 3.5 3.3 pO queue free % 100 93 96 cM capedty (Wlhlh) 1348 725 904 ---~ Volume TOIIII 111 -228 88 Volume Lefl 6 0 49 Volume Righi -o w 1eo w YI cSH 1346 1700 792 Volume ID Capacity 0.00 0 .1 3 0 .1 1 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 9 Ccnlrol Delay (a) 0.5 0 .0 10.1 Lane LOS A B AppnJedl Delay (1) 0.5 0.0 10.1 Approach LOS B I!!!!! Average Delay 2.2 lnlerwcllon Capacly Ullllzallon 23.3% ICU Level ol SeMce A Analysis Period (min) 15 M:\07\07367 Triton Towers Renton Expansion\Analysis\Traffic Operations\AM Baseline.sy7 911712008 The Transpo Group Triton Towers 2014 Baseline AM Synchro 6 Report Page 10 HCM Un si gnalized Intersection Capacity Analys is Triton T owers 7: East Drivewa~ -Tower 2 & SR 515/Talbot 20 14 Baseline AM j, ~ ~ t • ~ ---• -j Lane Configurations ,, <ft tr. SlgnCcn"111 Slop F-f fN ----Grade 0% 0% 0% Valume ("9hlh) 0 5 5 2565 845 35 ------·----------~ Peak Hour Factor 0 .95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0 .95 Hourly llow,... (llpll) 0 5 5 2689 879 37 ~--------- Pedestrians '--Widll (II) -------------------------Walking Speed (IVs) Pwcn llloc:llage -----. --Right turn flare (veh) Median type None ------~ Median storage veh) ""'*-" 19* (II) 293 928 ·---------pX, platoon unblocked 0 .29 0 .99 0.99 we, oon11c11ng va1ume 2053 358 718 vC1 , stage 1 cont vol v C2 , stage 2 cont vol vCu, unblocked vol 2124 349 709 IC, single (s) 6 .8 6.9 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) IF (s) 3 .5 3.3 2.2 pO queue free % 100 99 99 cM capacity (veh/h) 13 650 888 Volume Tolal 5 902 1793 453 283 -------------~-~-- Volume Left 0 5 0 0 0 Volume RJglll 5 0 0 0 37 cSH 650 888 1700 1700 1700 Volume lo Capacily 0 .01 0 .01 1.1)5 0.27 0.15 Queue Length 95th (ft) 1 0 0 0 0 Cena Delay (•) 10.8 0 .2 0.0 0.0 o.o --Lane LOS B A Applwdl Delay<•> 10.8 0 .1 0.0 Approach LOS B Average Delay 0 .1 lnlelMdion Cepacily Utilizalion 78.3% ICU L-i of SeMce --0 Analysis Period (min) 15 M :107107367 Trilon Towers Renton Expansion\Analysis\Traffi c Operations\AM Baseli ne.sy7 9/17/2008 The Transpo Group ----- --. --·--- -- __J ------ Synchro 6 Report Page 7 HCM Uns ignalized Inte r section Capacity Analysis Triton Towers 8: S Renton Villase PL & Theater Dri vewa~ 201 4 Baseline AM j, -~ "' -' ~ t ~ .... ' ~ ·--......... ·-. ... ..... ---· '-·· . -· ."-. ..... ·-_.-· La ne Configurations • ... ... -• -----Sign Conltol Slop SIGp F-ffN Grade -1% 0% 0% Volume ("9hlh) 0 95 10 5 35 20 0 5 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.69 0 .69 0 .69 0 .69 0.90 0.69 0.90 0.69 Hourly low ,... (llpll) 0 138 14 7 51 22 0 8 0 Pedestrians '--Widll (II) Walking Speed (ft/s) P.-.1 Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None Media n storage veh) Upalr-.n signal (II) pX, platoon unblocked we, co,*1lng voune 73 152 235 232 145 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 73 152 235 232 145 tC, single (s) 4.1 4 .1 7.1 6.5 6.2 tC , 2 stage (s) IF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 pO queue free % 100 99 100 99 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 1527 1429 698 664 908 •• •• •• •• Volume T olal 152 80 8 311 Volume Lef t 0 7 0 11 Volume RJglll 14 22 0 0 cSH 1527 1429 664 683 Volume ta Capacily 0 .00 0.01 0.01 0 .08 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 1 5 Conltol Delay <•> 0.0 0.7 10.5 10.8 Lane LOS A B B Applwdl 0..y (1) 0.0 0.7 10.5 10.8 Approach LOS B B Average Delay 1.9 lnlMMclion Capacily Ulllizalion 24.3% ICU L-i of SeMce " Analysis P eriod (min) 15 M :107107367 Triton Towers Renton Expansion\Analysis\Traffic Operations\AM Baseline.sy7 9/17/2008 The Transpo Group 0% 10 25 0 0 .90 090 0 .90 11 28 0 None 224 229 82 224 229 62 7.1 6.5 6 .2 3.5 4 .0 3.3 98 96 100 724 668 1003 Synchro 6 Report P age 8 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Triton Towers 5: Gradz: Wz: & SR 515/Talbot 2014 Baseline AM .> -~ ~ -'-' t ,. \. ' ., -~----~--~~~~-- Lane Configurations 'I tt ' 11'1 tto 'l'I tfo 'I tt ' ldNI Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Grade(%) 0% -1% 0% 1% Tillal Lael time (•) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0-S.O 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Ulil. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 0.97 0.95 1.00 0 .95 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.85 Fil Protected 0 .95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1 .00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1 .00 1.00 Said. Flow (pn,t) 1987 3374 1509 3417 3480 ,te7 3458 1781 3522 1575 Flt Permitted 0 .95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1 .00 0.95 1.00 0 .95 1 .00 1.00 Said. Flow (perm) 1987 3374 1509 3417 3480 3487 3458 17111 3522 1575 40 440 190 280 690 60 1070 1150 320 20 200 60 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0 .98 0 .98 0.98 0.98 0 .98 0 .98 0.98 0.98 42 458 198 292 719 62 1115 1 198 333 21 208 62 0 0 88 0 5 0 0 19 0 0 0 50 42 458 130 292 776 0 1115 1512 0 21 208 12 7" 7" 7" 3" 3" 3% 1,r 1% 1~2"' 2"' 2"' Pro! pm+ov Prot Prot Prot Perm 1 8 3 5 2 3 8 7 4 Permitted Phases 6 4 Aduallld ~. 0 <•> 5.3 24.8 89.1 15.1 34.4 44.5 88.7 --U--25.8 25.8 Effective Green, g (s) 5 .3 24.6 69.1 15 .1 34.4 44.5 66.7 3 .6 25.8 25.8 Aduiiid jj/C Rilo W 0 .04W 0.19 w 0.53 w 0.12 W 0.28 0.34 0.51 0.03 0.211 O.'lO Clearance Time (s) 5 .0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5 .0 5.0 Vllfllde EJdenelon l•I 4.0 4.0 4.0 4 .0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 69 638 802 397 921 1187 1774 49 699 313 .,,. Rallo Plal 0.02 c0--:,.c-o-:-oe~o-:-® c0-:-22 c0.32 c0.44 0.01 0.08 vis Ratio Perm 0.03 0 .01 'lie Rallo 0 .81 o.n 0.18 0.74 0.84 0.94 0.85 ~0 .30 0.04 Uniform Delay, d1 61.3 49.4 15.6 55.5 45 .2 41.4 27.4 62.2 44.4 42.1 Plog.wb, Factor 0 .81 0.95 0.50 1.00 1.00 1.02 0.75 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 15.6 6.5 0.1 7.4 9 .2 7.7 2.1 5 .9 0 .2 0.1 Dellly(a) 85.0 53.8 7~-:11 54.5 :_-49.9 22.8 418 .1 44.8 421 Level of Service E D A E D D C E D D Approec:11 DIiey (8) 41.3 58.8 -34.1 -45.8 Approach LOS D E C D --~-~-~r""'".._1.:.--...i-~~ HCM Average Control Delay 41.1 HCM Level of Service D HCM ~ ID Capeclly l'llllo 0.87 ~ -Aclualed Cycle Length (s) 130.0 Sum of lost lime (s) 15.0 lnllnedlol, Capacity lMzalon 89.7" ICU Lewi ol SeMce -E Analysis P eriod (min) ~Clllcll i.-Qn,up 15 M :\07\07367 Triton Towers Renton Expansion\Analysis\Traflic Operations\AM Baseline.sy7 9/17/2008 The Transpo Group Synchro 6 Report Page 5 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6 : East Drivewaz:-Tower 3 & SR 515fTalbot .> ~ ' t ' ., V ·-· ,~ti..:....__.tf ____ ,· Lane Configurations Sign Conlrol Slop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Volume(wMI) 0 5 0 2555 875 40 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0 .94 0 .94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Hourly low rate (111)11) 0 5 0 2718 718 43 Pedestrians lane Wlclll (II) Walking Speed (fVs) p--,e Blockllge Right tum flare (veh) ~type None Median storage veh) Ojiinan llgrllll (ft) 881 538 pX. platoon unblocked 0.31 0 .97 0 .97 YC, conactlng vdume 'lOn 359 781 vC1, stage 1 conf vol YCZ 1111g11 2 cod vol vCu, unblocked vol 1941 305 720 IC,A,gle(I) 8.8 8.9 4.1 IC. 2 stage (s) IF (1) 3.5 3.3 2.2 pO queue free % 100 99 100 cM capllClly ("9MI) 18 875 1158 Volume TOIIII 5 1359 1359 3158 359 43 -Volume Left 0 0 0 0 0 0 Volume Righi -5 0 0 0 0 43 cSH 675 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Volume ID Capecly 0.01 0.80 0.80 0.21 0.21 0.03 Queue Length 95th (fl) 1 0 0 0 0 0 Conlrol Dellly <•> 10.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 .0 Lane L OS B Approec:11 Delay (1) 10.4 0.0 0.0 Approach LOS B • Average Delay 0.0 -lnlereecllon Capacily Ullllzallon 74 .8"' ICU Lewi ol SeMce D Analysis Period (min) 15 M:107\07367 T riton Towers Renton Expansion\Analysis\Traffic Operations\AM Baseline.sy7 9/17/2008 The Transpo Group Triton Towers 2014 Baseline AM Synchro 6 Report Page 6 HCM Unsignalized Inte r sect ion Capacity Analysis Triton Towers 3 : Grad:z: W:z: & North Rite Aid Drivewa:z: 20 14 Baseline AM -• "' -... ,. • -iiillLWlr • -! lane Configurati ons tfo 'I tt V SlgnCOIIRI F-FIN Slop Grade 0% 0% 0% Vauw(veh.'11) 870 35 85 1735 0 30 ____J Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0 .96 0 .96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Houl1y ....... (vph) 8911 38 1111 1807 0 31 ---------Pedestrians ~Wklll(ft) --------------------r Walking Speed (ft/s) Pwcanl Bloc:lcagl ------------------------Right turn flare (veh) Meclal'l lype --None --------. Median storage veh) l..lpenmn 111,.i (I) 408 562 -pX, platoon unblocked 0 .89 0 .86 0.89 ve. con11ct1ng vo1ume 734 1797 387 vC1 , stage 1 con! vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unbloc ked vol 573 1369 158 tC, single (s) 4.1 6.8 6 .9 IC , 2 stage (s ) IF (s) 2 .2 3.5 3 .3 pO queue free % 90 100 96 cM capacity (vel\lh) 883 109 767 ewe ., Ill WI Pl WI •t ! VOIIMWTolal 485 -88 904 II04 31 -------------------- Volume Left 0 0 89 0 0 0 Volume~ 0 36 0 0 0 31 -------- -------------cSH 1700 1700 883 1700 1700 767 Volume lo Cl,pecily 0.27 0 .18 0 .10 0.53 0 .53 0 .04 Queue Le ngth 95th (It) 0 0 8 0 0 3 ConlrQI Deley (1) 0 .0 0 .0 9.5 0.0 0.0 9 .9 Lane LOS A A Approach Deley (1) 0 .0 0.4 --9 .9 ------Approacll LOS A Average Delay 0.4 ln6arw:tian Cl,pecily Wizallon 58.8% ICU L....i ol SeMc» B Analysis Period (min) 15 ---------------- M:\07107367 Triton Towers Renton Expansion\Analysis\Traffic Operations\AM Baseline.sy7 911712008 Synchro 6 Report Page 3 The Transpo Group HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4 : Grad:z: W:z: & North Drivewa:z: -Tower 3 -• "' -... ,. ·-------... ·i..··....--.• ~-.r· l ane Configurations tfo tt ., Sign Conltol F,_ F,_ Slop Grade 0 % 0% 0% Volume (whlll) 816 35 0 1820 0 Peak Hour Factor 0 .97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0 .97 Houl1y low,. (vph) 886 36 0 1876 0 Pedestlians ~Wldlh(ft) Walking Speed (IVs) Pwcanl Bloc:lcagl Right turn flare (veh) Madlall type ---_..__._. __ None Median storage veh) u.-.-ligr\lll (ft) 649 321 pX, platoon unblocked 0.90 0.84 vC, conllctlng volume 722 1842 vC 1, stage 1 con! vol vC2, stage 2 cont vol vCu, unblocked vol 58 1 1223 181 IC, single (s) 4 .2 6 .8 6 .9 IC, 2 stage (s) IF (s) 2 .2 3.5 3 .3 pO queue free % 100 100 99 cM capacity (veh/h) 885 147 754 7 a Q Volume Toal 457 265 938 938 5 Volume Left 0 0 0 0 0 Volume~ 0 36 0 0 5 cSH 1700 1700 1700 1700 754 VOii.me lo Cl,pecily 0 .27 0.18 0.55 0.55 0 .01 Queue Length 95th (fl) 0 0 0 0 1 Conltol Delay (1) 0 .0 0.0 0 .0 0 .0 9.8 Lane LOS A AppfOadl Deley (1) 0.0 0 .0 9.8 Approach LOS A iii Average Delay 0.0 ~ Capacily Ulilizalion 54.5% ICU Lewi ol SeMce -A Analysis P eriod (min) 15 M:107107367 Triton Towers Renton Expansion\Analysis\Traffic Operations\AM Baseline .sy7 9/17/2008 The Transpo Group T riton Towers 20 14 Baseline AM Syncllro 6 Report P age 4 HCM Signalized Inters e c tion Capacity Analysi s Trito n Tow ers 1: Grad~ W~ & Lake A v e S 20 14 Baseline AM .> -• ('" -' ' t ~ ..... ' ., ------4--------~-~~---'~ Lane Configurations ' _tt _, 'I tfo _'I + ' • ldlllllFlow~ 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5 .0 .__I.Ml.Fedor 1.CIO 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 -Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0 .90 FIPraleded 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.99 J Satd. Flow (prot) 1752 3505 1568 1770 3533 1752 1845 1568 1070 Fl Pennllllld 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0. 78--r.oo' 1.00 0.95 Satd. Flow !~nn) 1752 3505 1568 1770 3533 1438 1845 1568 103 1 Vdumelvph) 20 760 180 30 1740 20 140 1 10 10 1 30 Peak-hourfactor, PHF 0 .92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0 .92 0.92 0.92 0 .92 0 .92 0 .92 0 .92 A4. Flow(vph) 22 815 1911 33 11191 22 152 1 11 11 1 33 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 71 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 26 0 .... Olal,p Flow (vph) 22 815 125 33 1912 0 152 1 11 0 19 0 Heavl Vehicles(%) 3% 3% 3% 2% 2% 2% 3% 3% 3% 58% 58% 58% Tum Type PraC Perm PraC Perm Frw Perm Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 4 Pwmllad "'-2 4 Frw Actuated Green , G (s) 6.0 63.0 63.0 6 .0 63.0 26.0 26.0 130 .0 E1filc:lve 0.-. II (s) 8.0 83.0 83 .0 8 .0 83.0 29.o 29.0 130.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0 .05 0.64 0.64 0.05 0.64 0.20 0.20 1.00 Cliii•a Time !•I 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 81 2236 1001 62 2256 286 369 1568 .,,. Raio PraC 0.01 0.23 c0.02 c0 .54 0.00 vis Ratio Perm 0.06 c0.11 0.01 ~ 0~38-o:13 0.40 0 .85 0.53 0.00 0-:-01 59.9 11.1 9.2 60.3 16.5 46.5 41 .6 0 .0 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.82 0.08 1.00 1.00 1.00 6.1 0.5 0.3 4 .6 1.4 6.6 0.0 0 .0 88.0 11 .5 9.5 54 .0 2.9 53.3 41 .8 0.0 E B A D A D D A 12.3 3.8 49.8 B A D HCM Average Control Del ay 9.5 HCM Level of Service A HCM~ to Capeclty 11111o 0.75 --Actuated Cycle Length (s) 130.0 Sum of lost time (s) 15.0 -lle,wclol. Capeclty Ulllzallon 71 .5% ICU L-' d SeMce -C -Analysis Period (min) 15 C Clllcll i.-Gfoup - M:107\07367 T riton Towers Renton Expa ns ion \Analysis\Traffic Operations\AM Baseline.sy7 9/17/2008 The Transpo Group 4 4 J 26 .0 29.0 J 0 .20 5.0 l 206 J 0 .02 0.09 J 42.4 1.00 J 0 .9 43.2 J D 43.2 :::J D Synchro 6 Report Page 1 HCM Signalized Inters ection Capacity Analysis Trito n Towe r s 2: Grad~ W~ & Shattu c k A v S 20 14 Baseline AM .> -• ('" -' ' t ~ ..... ' ~ ~~~-·~--·---- Lane Config urati ons 'I ++ ' 'I ... ' .ff, Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width 12 11 11 12 11 12 12 11 12 Oracle(%) 0% 0% 1% Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5 .0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane UII. Fedor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0 .91 0.91 Frt 1.00 1.00 0 .85 1.00 0.99 1.00 0 .95 Fl Prolected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 ~ Said. Flow (prot ) 1770 3421 153 1 1770 3377 1618 3057 flt Pennltled 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0 .95 0.911 Said. Flow !eenn) 1770 3421 153 1 1770 3377 1618 3057 Volume (vph) 30 8IIO 80 50 1800 150 140 30 50 Peak-hour f actor, PHF 0.92 0 .92 0 .92 0 .92 0.92 0.92 0 .92 0 .92 0.92 A4 . Flow (vph) 33 717 87 54 1738 183 152 33 54 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 41 0 5 0 0 44 0 Lane Gtoup Flow (vph) 33 717 48 54 1897 0 78 117 0 Hea~ Ve hicles(%) 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 1% 1% 1% Tum Type PraC Perm PraC Spit Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 3 3 Parmllled PhaN 8 Actuated Green , G (s) 6.0 69 .0 69.0 9.0 72.0 16 .0 16.0 ~fllc:IM GrwM, II (s) 8.0 119.0 119.0 9.0 72.0 18.0 18.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.05 0 .53 0 .53 0 .07 0.55 0 .12 0 .12 CINnnce Tlmll !•I 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 La ne Grp Cap (vph) 62 1816 613 123 1870 199 376 vis Rallo PraC 0.02 c0.21 0.03 c0.58 cO .OIS 0.04 v/s Ratio Penn 0 .03 vie Raio 0.40 0 .39 0.08 0.44 1.01 0.39 0.31 Unif onn Del ay , d1 60.3 18 .1 14.8 56.1 29.0 52.5 52.0 Prog,ealon Factcr 0.82 0.41 0.15 1.14 0.35 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay , d2 13.4 0 .6 0.1 6.7 19.8 5 .7 2.2 [)jliy <•> -e2.8 8:0 2.3 72.8 30.0 58.2 54 .1 Level of Service E A A E C E D Approedl Delay (1) 9.8 31.2 -515.5 -Approach LOS A C E ---~-------~--HCM Average Control Delay 28.3 HCM Level of Service C liCMVolume lo Cepedly rallo 0.75 --Actuated Cycle Length (s) 130.0 Sum of lost time (s) 15.0 lnlerMCllon Capaclly Ulllzallon 87.9% ICU Le,,el d SeMce -C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Crlllcal i.-Gtoup M:107\07367 Triton Towers Re nton Expansion\Analysis\Traffic Operations\AM Base line.sy7 91171200 6 The Transpo Group ' ), 1900 1900 1900 12 11 12 0% 5 .0 5 .0 1.00 1.00 1.00 0 .9 1 0 .95 1.00 1530 141 2 0 .95 1.00 1530 141 2 40 30 50 0 .92 0 .92 0 .92 43 33 54 0 46 0 43 41 0 16% 16% 16% Spit 4 4 16.0 16.0 18.0 18.0 0 .12 0 .12 5.0 5.0 166 174 0.03 c0.03 -o:23'" 0.24 51.4 51 .5 1.00 1.00 2 .8 3.2 54.2 54.7 D D -SU D Synchro 6 Report Page 2 HC M Sig na lized In tersection Ca paci ty Analysis 15: Re nton V illaae Pl. & SR 5 15 ~ ~ ~ t ! ~ La ne Confi gurations 11 ·-~ "I -tt • +r. Idell Flow ("l)hpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.0 3.0 3 .0 3.0 3.0 Lane Ulil. Fedor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.115 0.115 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 FIPYOledld 0.115 1.00 0 .115 1.00 1.00 Said . Flow (prot ) 1787 1599 1787 3574 3570 RI P9rmilled 0.115 1.00 0 .95 1.00 1.00 Said. Flow !~nm) 1787 1599 1787 3574 3570 Volume (IIP!I) 56 330 115 780 1715 15 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 095 0 .95 0 .95 0 .95 Adj. Flow (IIP!I) 58 347 100 821 1805 18 RTOR Reducti on (vph) 0 164 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (IIP!I) 58 183 100 821 1821 0 He a~ Vehicles (%) 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% Tum Type P9rm Prol Protected Phases 4 1 6 2 Penmitted Pha ses 4 Actuated Green , G (s) 16.9 16.9 11 9 95.1 79 2 Effe ctive Green , g (s) 17.9 17.9 12.9 96.1 602 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.15 0.1 5 011 0.80 0.67 Cleara nce Time (s) 4.0 4 .0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 4.0 4 0 4 0 80 80 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 267 239 192 2862 2386 vi s Ratio Prat 0.03 c0.06 0.23 c0.51 vii Ratio P9rm c0.11 vie Ratio 0.22 0.76 0 .52 0 .29 0.76 UNfonn Delay. d1 44.9 49.0 50.8 3.1 13.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.72 ~-.... Dllay, d2 0 .8 14.3 3.3 0.3 1.1 Delay (s) 45.4 63 .4 53 .9 3.3 10.8 lAwl al s.n.ic. 0 E D A B Approach Delay (s) 60.8 8.8 108 ~LOS E A B liiiiii HCM Avwage Conllal Delay 18.7 HCM Lewi al S.W:. B HCM Volume to Capacity rati o 0 .74 ~ Cycle Langlh (a) 120.0 Sum ol lOel lime <•> 9.0 Intersecti on Capacity Utilization 75 .0% ICU Level of Service D ~ P9rtod ("*') 15 C Critical La ne Group M:\07\07367 Triton Towers Renton Expansion\Analysis\Traffic Operations\PM Existing.sy7 911712008 The T ranspo Group Trito n Towers 2008 Existing PM Synchro 6 Report Page 15 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Triton Towers 13: S Renton Villa!je PL & South Drivewa:z:-Tower 2 2008 Existing PM .> -~ ~ -~ ~ t ~ ~ ' ~ -~~-------~~-------Lane Configurations ... .fo .fo ... Sign Contral Frw Frw Slop Slop Grade -1% 0% 0% 0% ~(¥ehlh) 5 315 0 0 115 5 0 1 20 45 1 25 Peak Hour Factor 0 .89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0 .89 0 .89 0.89 0.89 0 .89 0 .89 0.89 0.89 Hourly 111,w ,. MJII) 8 354 0 0 129 8 0 1 22 51 1 28 Pedestrians l..Wlclll(ft) -- Walk ing Speed (fVs) ..__ Bloctcage --Right tum flare (veh) ,......type --None -~ ~-None :J Median storage veh) \JpA'ea'n llgnlll (II) w 439 w ----- pX, platoon unblocked ---IIC, canacitng ..._ 135 ---354 ---528 500 354 520 497 132 vC1, stage 1 conf vol ------vC2, llllg9 2 cod vol ------vCu, unblocked vol 135 354 526 500 354 520 497 132 IC, 811,g!e (1) 4 .1 ---4.1 7 .1 8.5 8.2 7.1 8 .s-TI ------t C, 2 stage (s) F(•) 2.2 ---2.2 --------3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4 .0 3.3 pO queue free % 100 100 100 100 97 89 100 97 cM capaclly (¥8MI) 1458 --1210 ------449 474 .. 451 474 920 - -----------~-------------:...~....:.....-.._. ... ~~~-~ ~Tola! -390 136 24 80 Volume Left 6 0 0 51 ~~ -0 8 22 28 cSH 1456 1210 679 550 Volume ID Cepeclly 0 .00 0 .00 0 .03 0.15 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 3 13 Conlrol Delay (•) 0 .2 0.0 10.5 12.7 Lane LOS A B B ~Delay(•) 0 .2 0.0 10.5 12.7 Approach LOS B B • ... ---...:... .... ·-_:i.._:...., ..... ~--~·-..:.-:. . Average Delay 2.2 -·-wc:lon Cepeclly lMzellon 39.7'11, ICU L ..... ol SeMce --A --Analysis Period (min) 15 M:\07\07367 Triton Towers Renton ExpansiOn\Anatysis\Traffic Operations\PM Exisling.sy7 911712008 The Transpo Group . - Synchro 6 Report Page 13 I I HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capaci ty Analysis 14: S Renton Villa!je PL & East Drivewa:z:-Tower 1 -~ ~ -~ ~ -----.. ----~~~ Lane Configurations 1' .f V Sign Conlrol Frw Frw Slop Grade -1% 0% 0% 1/dume (whlh) 380 1 0 110 5 10 P eak Hour Factor 0 .97 0 .97 0.97 0.97 0 .97 0.97 Hourty 111,w 18111 (\lllfl) 392 1 0 113 5 10 Pedestrians .... Wldlll(ft) Walking Speed (fl/s) Percanl Blockage Right tum fla re (veh) Mediln type None Median storage veh) lJpa"-llgnlll (ft) ---288 pX, platoon unblocked ve. i:onlllcllng ~ ---393 508 392 vC 1, stage 1 con! vot IIC2, llage 2 conhol vCu , unblocked vol 393 506 392 IC, 811,g!e (a) ---4 .1 8 .5 8 .3 IC, 2 stage (s) IF(I) -n--:--3.8 3 .4 ---pO q ueue free % 100 99 98 cM capaclly (wlllh) ---1171 518 848 ~Total 393 113 15 Volume Left 0 0 5 Volume~ 1 0 10 cSH 1700 1171 596 Volume lo Cepeclly 0.23 0.00 0 .03 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 2 Conlrol Delay <•> 0 .0 0 .0 11 .2 Lan e LOS B Approecfl Deley<•> 0.0 0.0 11 .2 Approach LOS B • Average Delay 0.3 lnlerNdlon Cepeclly Ulllzallon 31.7'11, ICU~ ol SeMce --A Analysis Period (min) 15 M:107\07367 Triton Towers Renton ExpansiOn\Analysis\Traffic OperatiOns\PM Existing.sy7 9117/2008 The Transpo Group Triton Towers 2008 Existing PM Synchro 6 Report Page 14 HCM Un signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Triton Towers 11 : S Renton Village PL & Rite A id/East Drivewa~ -Tower 1 2008 Existing PM .> -• ... -' ~ t ~ \. ' ., .... ---·...-.... --------;~ ~- Lane Configurations • • • • Sjg,ICouol F-F-Slop Slop Grade ·1% 0% 0 % 0% Volume(W911/h) 1 286 10 20 140 10 15 5 20 15 1 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0 .97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0 .97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0 .97 0 .97 0 .97 Hourly low,... ("Ph) 1 294 10 21 144 10 15 5 21 15 1 1 Pedestrians Law Widll (II) ----- Walking Speed (IVs) ~lllodlage ---Right tu rn flare {veh) Mldlall type . ------None Median storage veh) ~aigrial(ft) 734 pX, platoon unblocked we. conacung voune 155 --304 ---493 497 2911 vC1 , stage 1 c onf vol vC2, stage 2 cont vol vCu. unblocked vol 155 304 493 497 299 IC, single (s) 4 .1 4 .1 7.1 6.5 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) I F (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 pO queue free % 100 98 97 99 97 cM capacity (veh/h) 1432 1262 477 465 738 = --· a1:a1--i::a1 -- V~Tolal 305 175 41 18 ·-------Volume Left 1 21 15 15 Volume Rlglll 10 10 21 1 cSH 1432 1262 577 465 Volume lo Capacity 0.00 0 .02 0 .07 0.04 -Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 1 6 3 Col*al Delay <•> o.o 1.1 11 .7 13.0 ----- Lane LOS A A B B App,oactl Delay (a) 0 .0 1.1 11 .7 13.0 --Approach LOS B B Average Delay 1.7 ~-w:llon Capacity Utillzalion 35.2% ICU L...i ol SeMca A Analysis Period (min) 15 M:\07107367 Triton Towers Renton Expansion\Analysis\Traffic Operations\PM Existing.sy7 9/17/2008 The Transpo Group None 515 497 149 515 49 7 149 7.1 6 .5 6.2 3.5 4 .0 3.3 97 100 100 450 469 902 ::::, - - ____ _._ _______ -- Synchro 6 Report Page 11 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 12: S Renton Village PL & Southwest Drivewa~ -Tower 2 .> --' \. ., Lane Configurations " • $jg,I Conltol F-F- G rade -1% 0% 0% Volume(W911/h) 5 320 140 1 5 Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0 .96 0.96 Houlty low ..... (vpll) 5 333 146 1 5 Pedestrians Law Widll (ft) Walking Speed (IVs) ~lllodlage Right tum fl are (veh) ~type None Median storage veh) ~19181(11) 622 pX, platoon unblocked we , canacting voune 147 ----490 146 vC1 , stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 con! vol vCu, unb locked vol 147 490 146 IC, single {s) 4.1 6 .4 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) IF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 pO queue free % ,oo 99 98 cM capacity (veh/h) 1441 539 906 Volume Total -338 147 2e Volume Left 5 0 5 Volume Rlglll 0 1 21 cSH 1441 1700 797 Volume ID Capacity 0 .00 0.09 0.03 Queue Le ngth 95th (ft) 0 0 3 Conwl Delay (•) 0.1 0.0 9.7 Lane LOS A A App,oactl Delay <•> 0.1 0.0 9 .7 Approach LOS A Iii Average Delay 0.6 lnle,MCllon Capacity Ulillallon 32.S'll, ICU Lewi ol SeMce Analysis Period (min) 15 M:\07107367 Triton Towers Re nton Expansion\Analysis\Traffic Operations\PM Existing.sy7 9/17/2008 The Transpo Group Triton Towers 2008 Existing PM Synchro 6 Report Page 12 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Triton Towers 9 : S Renton Villaae PL & West Drivewa:z: -Tower 1 2008 E xisting PM -~ " -' ,. J ___. __ __,_...._~----~- Lane Configurations ,. --• SlgnCOl*d Free Free Grade -1% 0% 0% Volume(W9hlh) 125 15 15 85 10 30 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0 .94 0.94 0.94 ~llow .... M)h) 133 18 18 90 11 32 Pedestrians ta. Wldll (ft) Walking Speed (IVs) ~llliicii"ge Right tum flare (veh) Medlanlype None Median storage veh) ~lignal (II) -~-985 pX, platoon unblocked ve. con11c11ng...,. ---149 283 141 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2 , 119 2 conf vol ------vCu, unblocked vol 14 9 263 141 IC, a1rig1e <•I ---4 .1 8.4 8 .2 IC, 2 stage (s) IF<•> 22 -3.5 3.3 pO queue free % 99 99 96 cM capec:lly (whlh) 1439 718 907 -~·-"'------·--~ •. Volume Tolal 149 108 43 -Volume Left 0 16 11 VolumeRWII 18 0 32 cSH 1700 1439 851 Volume ID Capacly 0.08 0.01 0.05 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 1 4 Ca*d Deley<•> 0 .0 1.2 9 .5 La ne LOS A A Appiua:h Deley(•) 0.0 1.2 9 .5 Approach LOS A -----~~~~ Average Delay 1.8 k,111-*in Capac:lly Ulllzllllon 28.8% ICU level af SeMce --A --Analysis Period (min) 15 M :\07\07367 T riton Towers Renton Expansion\Anatysis\Traffic Operations\PM Exisling.sy7 9/17/2008 The Transpo Group Synchro 6 Report Page 9 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10: S Renton Villaae PL & W est Ri te A id Drivewa :z: ..> --" ~ ~ ~~-·---~--- Lane Configurations • ft y Sign Control Free Free Slop Grade -1% 0% 0% Volume (whlh) 10 145 85 85 155 15 Peak Hour Factor 0 .94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0 .94 0.94 Hourly flow,. (vph) 11 154 90 99 185 18 Pedestrians ta. Wldlh (ft) Walking Speed (fVs) Pwcent liliickige Righi tum flare (veh) Median lype None Median storage veh) UpelreMI lignal (ft) ---900 pX. platoon unblocked .c. conllcllng ~ 190 r 301 125 vC 1 , stage 1 conf vol vC2, llllge 2 cont vol vCu , unblocked vol 160 301 125 IC, NIQle (a) 4.1 8 .4 -0 tC, 2 stage (s) IF(•) 2 .2 3.5 3 .3 pO queue free o/o 99 76 98 cM capec:lly (W9hlh) 1428 881 9211 Volume Tolal 185 180 181 -Volume Left 1 1 0 165 Valurrie Right -(i • 18 cSH 1426 1700 704 Volume ID Capacly 0 .01 0.09 028 Queue Length 95th (ft) 1 0 26 Control Delay<•> 0 .5 0.0 11 .9 Lane LOS A B AIJPlu.:h Delay (a) 0 .5 0.0 11 .9 Approach LOS B -------- Average De lay 4.4 k~erwdlon Capeclly Ullzallon 33.7" ICU Lewi a1 SeMce Analysis Period (min) 15 M:\07\07367 Triton T owers Renton Expansion\Analysis\Traffic Operalions\PM Exlsling.sy7 9/17/2008 The Transpo Group Trito n Towers 2008 Existing PM Synchro 6 Report Page 10 HCM Unsignalized Intersecti on Capacity Ana lysis Tri ton Towers 7: East Drivewax-Tower 2 & SR 515/Ta lbot 2008 Existing PM .> ~ ~ t l ,,, • ----I Lane Configurations ' 4+ tfo Sign Contra Slap FIN FIN ~ Grade 0% 0% 0% \lakMW(wh,11) 0 5 0 136 1T.IO 5 -- Peak Hour Factor 0 .97 0.97 0.97 0 .97 0 .97 0.97 ~low ... (""") 0 5 0 111 1784 5 ---P edestrians i...Wldll(I) ------------ Walking Speed (!Us) ,.._.. lllocuge -------------Righi tum flare (veh) Medlalltype None -----Median s torage veh) ~li(plal(t) 285 926 ------- p X, platoon unblocked 0.86 0 .83 0.83 2218 894 1789 we. cor**'II vo1unw -----------------vC1 , stage 1 cont vol vC2 , stage 2 cont VOi vCu, unblocked vol 2051 671 1746 IC, single (s) 6 .8 6 .9 4.1 IC, 2 stage (s) IF (s) 3.5 3.3 2 .2 pO queue free %. 100 98 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 42 338 299 \ml 111:111111:•1 .. -.. :, VoiinwTOUI --5 287 574 1118 800 _I Volume Left 0 0 0 0 0 Vollnw RIQfll -5 0 0 0 5 --I ---------__ _._ __ ---· cSH 336 299 1700 1700 1700 Volume IO Capacity 0.02 0 .00 0 .34 0 .70 0.35 . --------------" Queue Length 95th (ft) 1 0 0 0 0 Conlrol Delay (1) 15.9 0 .0 0 .0 0.0 0.0 ----------·---_I Lane LOS C ~Oelay(I) 15.9 0.0 0.0 --- Approach LOS C Average Delay 0.0 lnlllnec:lion Capacity Ulillzalion 58.8% ICU L.....a ol SeMce B Analysis P eriod (min) 15 M:107\07367 Triton To wers Renton Expansion\Analysis\Traffic Operations\PM Existing.sy7 9/17/2008 Synchro 6 Report Page 7 The Transpo Group HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 8: S Renton Villase PL & Theater Drivewax .> -~ ~ -' ~ t ~ lb I -= .. -..... ..... ---Lane Configurations • • -• -Sign Conlrol FIN FIN Slap Grade ~1% 0% 0% Vollnw (..ivtl) 5 40 1 5 25 30 5 15 10 Peak Hour Factor 0.86 0.86 0.86 0 .86 0 .86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0 .86 HoWly low .... (I/Phi 8 47 1 8 28 36 8 17 12 Pedestrians LMw Wldfl (fl) Walking Speed (fVs) PM:enl lllocuge Right tu m flare (veh) Madlarl type Median storage veh) ~ aigr\81 (II) pX, platoon unblocked we. canlicling vo1ume 84 -------48 128 134 47 -vC1 , slage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 64 48 126 134 47 IC, single (s) 4.1 4 .1 7.1 6.5 6.2 IC , 2 stage (s) IF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 pO queue free % 100 100 99 98 99 cM capacity (veh/h) 1538 1560 832 749 1019 . aa--,-•1 aCillcal Vollnw Talal 53 70 35 47 Volume Left 6 6 6 35 Volume~ 1 35 12 8 cSH 1538 1560 837 826 Volume IO Capacily 0 .00 0 .00 0 .04 0.08 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 3 4 Conlrol Daley (1) 0 .8 0 .8 9.5 9.8 Lane LOS A A A A ~Oelay(I) 0 .8 0 .8 9.5 9.8 Approach LOS A A WEE a •• Average Delay 4 .2 lnlenedion Capacily Ulillzallon 20.1% ICU Le..i ol Service --. A Analysis Period (m in) 15 M:\07\07387 Triton Towers Renton Expansion \Anatysis\Traffic Operations\PM Existing.sy7 9/1712008 The Transpo Group Triton Towers 2008 Existing PM '-. l ,,, -=-• Slop 0% 30 5 5 0 .86 0 .86 0 .86 35 8 e 137 117 47 137 117 41 7.1 6.5 6.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 96 99 99 809 n1 1029 Synchro 6 Report Page 8 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 5_~ Grad~ & Talbot .., -~ <' -'-' t ~ Triton Towers 2008 Existing PM .... ' ~ --a~ -... ,.__ -----'----""----------~--~-~· ---~~ - Lane Configurations Ideal Flow (yphpl) Total Lost time (s) .__ UIII. Fec:IDr 'I 1900 3.0 T.00 Frt 1.00 FIi PIOl8dld 0 .95 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 FIi Permlllld 0 .95 Said. Flow~ 1770 Volume (vph) 50 Peak-hourfactor , PHF 0 .90 M -Flow Mlhl 5tl RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 .__ Oraup Flow (vph) 5tl Heavy Vehicles(%) 2% Tum Type PYd Protected Phases 2 Permlllld PheMa tt 1900 3.0 T.95 1.00 1.ClO 3539 1.00 3539 480 0 .90 1133 0 533 2% 6 Actuated Green, G (s) Effec:llve a.-. a <•I Actuated g/C Ratio ci..--Tima (•I Vehicle Extension~ 9.6 40.7 .__ Olp Cllp (vph) vis Ratio Prot .,,. Rallo Perm vie Ratio Unloml Delay, d1 Progression Factor 1na ....... Delay. d2 Delay (s) ~ Approach Delay (!l Appnla:tl LOS 11 .11 41.7 0 .10 0.35 5.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 171 1230 0.03 0 .15 0 .33 0.43 50.8 30.1 0 .88 0.82 1.1 0.11 45.7 25.5 0 c 61.4 E HCM A-. Conlnll Delay HCM Volume to Capacity ratio AduMecl Cycle Lenglh <•> Intersection Capacity Utilization Analyla Pwlod (min) c Critical lane Group .,, ,, 1900 1900 3.0 3.0 1.00 0.97 0 .85 1.00 1.00 0.911 1583 3433 1.00 0.911 1583 3433 730 345 0.90 0.88 811 382 239 0 572 3112 2% 2% Perm PYd 5 8 40.7 18.5 41.7 20 .5 0.35 0.17 lf. 1900 3.0 0.911 0.99 1.00 3487 1.00 3487 575 0.97 593 2 1112 1900 20 0.97 21 0 0 ~ 1 48.6 50 .8 0.42 'l'I tf. 1900 1900 3 .0 3.0 0 .97 0.95 1.00 0 .92 0 .95 1.00 3467 3281 0.95 1.00 3467 3281 485 170 0.97 0 .97 479 175 0 147 479 239 1% 1% PYd 3 8 18.8 35.4 20.11 311.4 0.17 0 .30 ~5.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 !ll50 c0.311 1.04 39.2 1.09 43.2 86.0 F 49.9 0.89 120.0 83.3% 15 3.0 4 .0 5.0 5.0 51111 1470 801 9911 c0.11 0.18 c0.14 0.07 0.67 0.42 0 .80 0.24 48.11 24.3 47.11 31.4 1.00 1.00 0 .92 2.9 o.a 11.1 49 .5 25 .2 51 .7 0 C 0 34 .7 C HCM LIMII of SeMce Sum of loal time (1) ICU Level of Service 0.79 0.3 25.1 C 39.8 0 1900 205 0.97 211 0 0 1% 0 12.0 E M:107\07367 Triton Towers Renton Expansion\Analysis\Traffic Operations\PM Existing.sy7 9i17i2008 The Transpo Group 'I tt .,, 1900 1900 1900 3.0 3 .0 3.0 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0 .85 0.95 1.00 1.00 1805 3610 1615 0.95 1.00 1.00 1805 3610 1615 85 IIIIO 30 0.97 0 .97 0 .97 117 8IIO 31 0 0 25 87 IIIIO II 0% 0% 0% PYd Perm 7 4 4 8 .4 23.0 23.0 9.4 25.0 25.0 0.08 0 .21 0 .21 'l]f 5.0 ~ 3.0 5 .0 5.0 141 752 3311 0.04 c0.19 0.00 0.48 0 .90 0 .02 52.9 48.3 37.11 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.5 15.1 0.0 55 .5 61.4 37.8 E E D 60.0 E Synchro 6 Report Page 5 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: East Drivewa.z'. -Tower 3 & SR 515/Talbot .., ~ ' t ' Lane Configurations .,, tt tt Sign Conlrol Slop F-F- Grade 0% 0% 0% V'*-(wh/11) 0 15 0 IICl!5 17411 Peak Hour Factor 0 .94 0.94 0.94 0 .94 0.94 Hourty flow rate (vph) 0 18 0 858 1868 Pedestrians i...Wldlh(ft) Wal king Speed (IVs) ,.__ Blockage Right tum flare ~eh) Median type None Median storage veh) ~aiglW(ft) 1173 5311 pX, platoon unblocked 0.84 0.82 0 .82 ve. con111c11ng va1ume 22115 9211 111117 vC1, stage 1 confvol VC:2, -ae 2 conhol vCu, unblocked vol 2186 690 1838 IC,lllngle(I) 8.11 8.9 4.1 IC, 2 stage (s) IF (1) 3.5 3.3 2.2 pO queue free % 100 95 100 cM c:apecly (wlllh) 34 321 271 Y'*-Tollll -111 428 4211 9211 9211 Volume Left 0 0 0 0 0 Y'*-Rlghl -111 0 0 0 0 cSH 321 1700 1700 1700 1700 V'*-to Capeclly 0.05 0.25 0.25 0.55 0.55 Queue Length 95th (ft) 4 0 0 0 0 Conlnll Delay (1) 111.11 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS C Approach Delay (I) 111.11 0.0 0.0 Approach LOS C Average Delay 0.1 ~ .,, 10 0.94 11 11 0 11 1700 0.01 0 0.0 lnlenedlon Capeclly Ullllzallon 59 .9% ICU Lewi of SeMce Analysis Period (min) 15 --B M:\07\07367 Triton Towers Renton Expansion\Analysls\Traffic Operations\PM Existing.sy7 9i 17/2008 The Transpo Group Triton Towers 2008 Existing PM Synchro 6 Report Page 6 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Triton Towers 3: Gradl'. WX & North Rite A id Drivewax 2008 Existing PM -• "' -" ~ • -----I Lane Configurations .,. ' ff V SlgnCcllllrd FtN FIN Sq) ---- Grade 0% 0 % 0% Vall.-(whlll) 1216 5 55 9IO 1 80 ---·-·----·----Peak Ho ur Factor 0.94 0.94 0 .94 0.94 0.94 0.94 ~lciwrm("llh) 1348 5 58 1043 1 84 Pedestrians i...Wldll(I) -------- Walking Speed (IVs) PMlenllllodlage Right tum flare (veh) ~type ---None ----------- Median sto,age veh) ~ligrial(ft) 420 562 ------pX, platoon unblocked 0.65 0 .7 1 0 .65 we, canllCllnQ.,,.. ---1351 11187 878 vet , stage 1 cont vol vC2 , stage 2 cont vol vCu, unblocked vol 1008 1531 0 tC, single (s) 4.1 6 .8 6.9 tC, 2 stage (s) I F (s) 2.2 3.5 3 .3 pO queue free 0/Q 87 98 91 cM capacity (veh/h) 447 67 714 •=• •rm »••11 •-i •• j Vollnw TOIII -887 454 58 521 521 85 ---------_ __J Volume Left 0 0 59 0 0 1 Vollnw Righi 0 5 0 0 0 84 -------- cSH 1700 1700 447 1700 1700 617 V-*-lo Capacily 0 .53 0.27 0 .13 0 .31 0.31 0 .11 ------------·----· Queue Le nglh 951h (ft) 0 0 11 0 0 9 Ccllllrd Daley (•) 0.0 0 .0 14.3 0.0 0.0 11.5 ---------- Lane LOS B B Appn)adl Daley (a) 0.0 0 .8 ---11.5 ------ Approach L OS B Average Delay 0 .6 ---lnlerNdion Capacily lMz.alion 54.7% ICU L...i ol SeMce A --Analysis Period (min) 15 M:\07\07367 Triton Towers Renton Expansion\Analysis\Traffic Operalions\PM Exi sting.sy7 911712008 The Transpo Group Synchro 6 Report Page 3 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: Gradl'. W~ & North Drivewa~ -Tower 3 -• "' -" ~ ts I • .. -.. --Lane Configurations .,. ff , Sign Conltol FIN FIN Sq) Grade 0% 0 % 0 % Volume (wehlh) 1275 5 0 1020 0 30 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0 .95 0 .95 0.95 0.95 ~-llllll(vph) 1342 5 0 1074 0 32 Pedestrians lMw Widlh (II) Walking Speed (fVs ) P9n:erll Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Medi8II type ---None Median storag e veh ) Upenan signal (II) 661 321 pX, platoon unblocked 0 .67 0 .73 0.67 we, conllicling vo1ume 1347 1882 874 vC 1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu unblocked vol 1033 1360 35 tC , single (s) 4 .2 6 .8 6.9 tC, 2 slage (s) tF (s) 2.2 3 .5 3 .3 pO queue free % 100 100 95 cM capacity (veh/h) 447 104 700 7 ... -. •• Volume Tola! 895 -Volume Left 0 VouwRighl 0 cSH 1700 Volume to Capacily 0.53 Queue Length 95th (ft ) 0 0 0 0 4 Conltol Daley (a) 0.0 0 .0 0.0 0,0 10.4 Lane LOS B Approach Oallly (•) 0.0 0 .0 10.4 Approach LOS B Average Delay 0 .1 lnwuction Capacily Ulllizalion 47.1% ICU L...i ol Service --A Analysis Pe riod (min) 15 M:\07\07367 Triton Towers Renton Expansion\Analysis\Traffic Operations\PM Existing.sy7 9 117/2008 T he T ran spo Group Triton Towers 2008 Existing PM Synchro 6 Report Page4 HC M Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1 : Grad~ & La ke Ave S ..,. -~ "'- Lane Configurations 'I tt ., 'I +to iilNI Flow ('llpllpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 T otal Lost time (s ) 5.0 5 .0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lri UIII. Faclor 1.00 0 .95 1.00 1.00 0 .95 Fri 1 .00 1 .00 0.85 1.00 1 .00 FlP!Oladld W 0 .95W 1.00 1.00 0 .95 1.00 Said. Flow (prot) 1787 3574 1599 1770 3530 Fl Pwmllled 0 .95 1.00 1.00 0 .95 1.00 Said. Flow (~rm) 1787 3574 1599 1770 3530 V1*lme (,.,it) 25 1330 150 20 1175 Peak-hour factor , PHF 0.92 0 .92 0.92 0.92 0 .92 A4. Flow (¥1111) 'Z1 144 193 -22 1277 RTOR Reduct ion (vph) 0 0 57 0 1 c.. Gn:lup Flow (lfPII) 'Z1 144 108 22 1298 Heavt Vehicles \%) 1% 1% 1% 2% 2% ' ~ t ~ 'I • ., 1900 1900 1900 1900 5.0 5.0 5.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 W 0.95 W 1.00 1.00 1770 1863 1583 o.ee 1.00 1.00 1237 1863 1583 20 220 1 30 0 .92 0.92 0.92 0 .92 22 239 -~,~ 33 0 0 0 0 0 239 1 33 2% 2% 2% 2% Triton T owers 2008 Existing PM '. ' ~ • 1900 1900 1900 5.0 1.00 0.89 0.99 1370 0 .98 1330 15 5 70 0 .92 0.92 0 .92 18 5 711 0 59 0 0 311 0 23% 23% 23% Tum Type Pro! Perm Pro! Perm FIN Perm P rotected Phases 5 2 1 6 4 4 Permllecl PtlaNS 2 4 FIN 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 4 .7 75.3 75 .3 3.6 74.2 26.1 26.1 120.0 26 .1 Efl'ecfil Oiiin, 11 (a) 4.7 75.3 75.3 3.8 74.2 29.1 29.1 120.0 29.1 Actuated g/C Ra tio 0 .04 0.63 0.63 0.03 0 .62 0.22 0.22 1.00 0 .22 Clearance Time <•> 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5]) 5.0 5 .0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3 .0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3 .0 i.a. Gip Cap(,.,it) 70 2243 1003 53 2183 299 405 1583 289 vis Ratio Prot 0 .02 c0.40 0 .0 1 c0.37 0.00 WI Rllllo Perm 0 .07 c:0.19 0 .02 0 .03 v/c Ratio 0 .39 0.64 0.11 0 .42 0 .59 0.89 0.00 0 .02 0 .13 Unlrorm Dally, ct1 58.2 14.0 8 .9 57.2 13.8 45.5 311.8 0.0 37.8 P rogression Factor 1.00 1.00 1 .00 0 .76 0 .65 1 .00 1 .00 1.00 1 .00 lncnltallal Delay, d2 3.5 1.4 0.2 4.8 0.4 'ZT .7 0.0 0.0 0 .2 Delay (s) 59.7 15.4 9.1 48.4 9.4 73 .3 36.8 0.0 38.0 l.e\1111 ol SeMca E B A D A E D A D Approach Delay (s) 15.5 10.1 64.3 38.0 Appf..:11 LOS B B E D ~ -~ --~ -.... ---...-....---~-..... --·---------------.. --· .. HCM Awraga CcnRI Dallly HCM Volume to Capacity ratio Ai:liiilid Cydil.angll (•) Intersection Capacity Utilization ~ Pel1od (min) c Critical Lane G roup 18.0 0.69 120.0 64.0% 15 HCM l-' of SeMca Sum of loal lime (a) ICU Level of Service 8 10.0 B M :\07107367 Triton Towers Renton Expansion\Analysis\Traffic Operations\PM Existing .sy7 9/17/2008 The Transpo Group Synchro 6 Report Page 1 HC M Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2 : Grad~ & Shattuck Av S ..,. -~ "' - Lane Configurations 'I ff ., 'I tf. Ideal Flow ('llpllpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width 12 1 1 11 12 1 1 Grade(%) 0% 0% Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 t... I.Ill. Fedor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0 .95 Frt 1 .00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0 .99 Fl Proled9d 0 .95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Said. Flow (prot) 1770 3421 1531 1770 3402 Fl Pwmlllacl 0 _95---,:-00 1~00 0~95 coo Said. Flow (perm) 1770 3421 1531 1770 3402 V«*lmeMJh) 20 1425 155 75 900 P eak-hour factor, PHF 0 .95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0 .95 ' ~ t 'I <tf. 1900 1900 1900 12 12 11 1,r, 5.0 5.0 0.91 0.91 1.00 0.93 0.95 0.98 1634 3041 0.95 0 .98 1634 3041 35 185 30 0.95 0.95 0.95 A4.FlowMJh) 21 1500 183 79 947 37 195~ RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 61 0 2 0 0 89 i.-Gn:lup Flow (¥1111) 21 1500 102 79 9112 0 102 138 Hea::'.l Vehic les(%) 2% 2% 2% 2% 2 % 2% 0% 0% Tum Type Pro! Perm Pro! Spll Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 8 8 Permllecl PtlaNS 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 2.8 63.9 63 .9 9 .2 70.3 13.1 13.1 Etrac:IM Grw.l, g (•) 2.8 83.9 83.9 9.2 70.3 13.1 13.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.02 0.53 0.53 0.08 0 .59 0.11 0 .11 Clearance Time <•> 5.0 5 .0 5.0 5 .0 5.0 5 .0 5.0 Vehicle E>ctension (s) 3.0 5.0 5.0 3.0 5.0 4 .0 4.0 i.-Gip Cap (¥1111) 41 1822 815 138 1993 178 332 v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 c0.44 c0.04 0 .29 c0.06 0 .04 ,,,. Raao Perm 0 .07 vie Ratio 0.51 0.82 0.13 0 .58 0 .49 0 .57 0.41 Unlorm Delay, d1 57.9 23.3 '14.1 53.5 14.5 50.8 40 Progression Factor 0.82 0.45 0.03 0 .6 1 0.54 1 .00 1.00 i--11a1 Deley, d2 8 .9 3 .7 0.3 5.2 0.7 5.3 1.1 Delay (s) 56.2 14 .1 0 .8 37.7 8.5 56.1 5 1.0 l.e\1111 ol ServlCe E 8 A D A E D Approach Delay (s) 13.4 10.7 52.6 ~LOS 8 8 -D 1!!!1111 HCM A-.ga Control Delay 19.2 HCM L-' of ServlCe -HCM Volume to Capac ity ratio 0 .74 Adualed Cycle Lenglh (a) 120.0 Sum of loll lime (1) --Intersection Capacity Utilization 73 .0% ICU Level of Service Analylls Period (min) 15 C Critical Lane Group ~ 1900 12 95 0 .95 100 0 0 0% - 8 20.0 D M:\07107367 Triton Towers Re nton Expansion\Analysis\Traffic Operations\PM Existing.sy7 9/17/2008 The T ranspo Group Tri ton Towers 2008 Existing P M '-. ' ~ 'I • 1900 1900 1900 12 11 12 0% 5 .0 5.0 1.00 -i:-oo 1.00 0.96 0.95 1.00 1656 1612 D.915 1.00 1656 1612 105 75 30 0.95 0.95 0 .95 111 w 79 32 0 12 0 111 19 0 9% 9 % 9% Spll 4 4 13.8 13.8 13.1 13.8 0.12 0.12 5.0 5.0 4 .0 4 .0 190 185 c0.07 0.06 0.58 0.53 50.4 50.1 1 .00 1.00 5 .3 3.1 55 .7 53.8 E w -o 54.8 D Synchro 6 Report Page 2 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 15: Renton Villaae Pl. & SR 515 _, ~ ' t i ., Lane Configurations " , " ff ·~ ldNI Flow(~) 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 Tota l Lost time (s) 3 .0 3 .0 3 .0 3.0 3.0 lMWUII.Faca 1.()0 1.00 1.00 0.115 0.115 Frt 1 .00 0 .85 1.00 1.00 0.98 FIProladld 0 .115 1.00 0.115 1.00 1.00 Sald. Flow (prot) 1752 1568 1787 3574 3450 FIPwmlllad 0 .115 1.00 0.116 1.00 1.00 Said. Flow (~rm) 1752 1568 1787 3574 3450 Voune(,oph) 5 30 275 1980 340 40 Peak-hour facior, PHF 0.97 0.97 0 .97 0.97 0.97 0 .97 A4.Flow(IIPI!) 5 31 284 2021 351 41 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 29 0 0 6 0 LMw Gnlup Flow (IIPII) 5 2 284 2021 388 0 Hea~ Vehicles(%) 3% 3% 1% 1% 3% 3% Tum Type Pwm Prot Protected Phases 4 1 6 2 Permitted Phase s 4 Actuated Green. G (s) 4 .2 4 2 17 5 68 5 47 0 Effective Green , g (s) 5.2 5 .2 18.5 69.5 48 .0 A ctuated glC Rat,o 0.06 0.06 0 23 0.86 0 .59 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s! 4.0 4 .0 4 .0 8.0 8 0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 11 3 101 410 3078 2052 vis Ratio Prot c0.00 c0.16 c0 .57 0.11 ,,,. Rallo Pwm 0.00 vie Ratio 0.04 0.02 0 .69 066 0 .19 Uniform Delay, d1 36.4 36.4 28.6 1.8 7 .5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1 .00 1.00 1.00 tna..1181 Delay, d2 0.2 0 .1 5.4 1.1 0.2 Delay (s) 35.6 35.5 33.9 2.9 7.7 Lewi ol Ser*-D D C A A Approach Delay (s) 35.5 6.7 7.7 Appl'C*h LOS D A A - HCM "-age Conwl Delay 7.2 HCM level ol SeNlca A HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.62 Ac1u-«1 Cyde lenglh (1) 80.7 Sum ol lolt lime (I) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 65.0% I CU level of Service C Analylia P..io«I ("*') 15 C Critical L ane Group M :\07\07367 Tri ton Towers Renton Ex pansion\Analysis\Traffic Operations\AM Exisling.sy7 911712008 The Transpo Group Triton Towers 2008 Existing AM Synchro 6 Report P age 15 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 13~ S Renton Village PL & South Driveway -T ower 2 _, -• f -' ~ t ~ Triton Towers 2008 Existing AM '. ' .,, --~ ----~·~-~--_-...... _ ___............_~~ Lane Configurations • • • • SlgnConlrd Free Free Slop Stop Grade -1 % 0% 0% 0% Vakiiii {wht11) 10 45 5 20 -m-eo 0 0 0 5 5 5 Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0 .90 0 .90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0 .90 0 .90 0.90 0.90 Houlty flllw .... ("Ph) 11 50 6 22 256 67 0 0 0 6 6 6 Pedestrians tiiii Wldli (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Pwcenl Bloc:llage ~--Right tum flare (veh) ---~type --None ---None ::::J Median storage veh) -----IJpiiii,anl llgrial (II) ---443 -pX, platoon unblocked ve. co,.ac11ng vo1ume 322 ------511 ----417 442 53 406 411 2119 vC1, stage 1 conf vol ------vC2, ltage 2 oad vol ------vCu, unblocked vol 322 56 417 442 53 408 411 289 IC,llr'lllll(•I 4 .1 ---4.1 ---------7 .1 6.5 6.2 7.3 6.7 6 .4 tC, 2 stage (s) IFli, 22 ---2.2 --------3.5 4.0 3.3 3.7 4 .2 3 .5 pO queue free % 99 99 100 100 100 99 99 99 cM c:apec:lly (wMI) w 1236 --15511 ---531 501 1020 510 490 705 =-----·-t-__ _._ -~-----...........-~~~--~~....t. Volume Total 87 344 0 17 Volume Lefl 11 2.2 0 6 VolumeRW!I -6 87 0 6 cSH 1238 1556 1700 553 Volume lo Capeclly 0 .01 0 .0 1 0.00 0.03 = Queue Length 95th (ft) 1 1 0 2 Coiilnil Diiliy (•)-1.4 -o:r -0:0 11 .7 Lane LOS A A A B Apploecfl Deley (1) 1.4 0 .6 0.0 11 .7 Approach LOS A B ------- 1.2 30.4% ICU liivil of &iMcil --A 15 M:107\07367 Triton Towers Renton Expansion\Analysis\Traffic Operations\AM Existing .sy7 9/1712008 The Transpo Group 1 ------------ Synchro 6 Reporl Page 13 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analys is 14: S Renton Village PL & East Driveway -Tower 1 -. f -~ Lane Configurations fo ' V Sign Conlrd Free Free Slap Grade -1% 0% 0% Volume (whlh) 40 5 20 300 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0 .85 Hourly llow ..... ("Ph) 47 6 24 353 0 Pedestrians ~Wlcllh(ft) Walking Speed (ftls) Pwcent Bloc:llage Right tum flare (veh ) Medllntype None Median storage veh) Upehan llgrial (ft) pX, platoon unblocked .c. contlctlng ..mime ---53 450 vC 1 , stage 1 conf vol vC2, llage 2 oadvol vCu. unblocked vol 53 450 IC, elngle (1) 4.1 6.4 t C, 2 stage (s) F(a) ---2 .2 -3.5 pO queue free % 98 100 cM c:apacly (veMI) ---1569 5112 --·-_ _.__.J.:.... ____ .....___.. Volume Total ~ 53 376 6 Volume Lert 0 24 0 Volume Righi -6 0~ 6 cSH 1700 1559 1024 Volume lo Capeclly 0.03 0.02 0.01 Queue L ength 95th (fl) 0 1 0 Conlrd Delay (1) 0.0 0 .6 6.5 Lane LOS A A Apploecfl Delay (1) 0.0 0.6 8.5 Approach LOS A Average Delay 0.6 ~ 5 0 .85 6 50 50 6.2 3.3 99 1024 .... tllldlon Capeclly UIIIZallon 35.2% ICU l-' ol SeMc:e Analysis Period (min) 15 M:\07\07367 Triton Towers Renton Expansion\Analysis\Traffic Operations\AM E.xisting.sy7 9 /1712008 The Transpo Group Triton Towers 2008 Existing AM Synchro 6 Reporl Page 14 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Trito n Tower s 11 : S Ren ton Villa ~e PL & Rite Aid /East Drivewal -Tower 1 2008 Existing AM ~ -~ • -" ~ t ~ '. ' ., ---~-.. ~ •ill" -..,, --· -.... ------ Lane Configurations • • • • SignConlrd Free Free Slop Slop Grade -1% 0% 0% 0% Volume (V9hlh) 5 85 30 30 185 10 5 5 5 5 0 5 Peak Hour Factor 0.82 0.82 0.82 0 .82 0.82 0.82 0 .82 0 .82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 Hourly low ..... (vph) 8 79 37 37 226 12 8 8 8 8 0 8 Pedestrians LaneWidlll(tl) ------------------ Walking Sp eed (fVs) Pwcant Blockage ------------Right tu m flare (veh) Mecl8n type None None -Median s torage veh ) Upanmn 111,1111 (ti) 738 pX, p latoon u nblocked vC , canlliCling vaklme 238 118 -421 421 118 424 433 232 vC 1 . stage 1 con! vol vC2, stage 2 con! vol vCu, unblocked vol 238 116 42 1 42 1 98 424 433 232 IC, single (s) 4 _1 4 _1 7 .2 6 .6 6 .3 7 .1 6.5 6.2 tC, 2 slage (s) lf (&) 2 .2 2.2 3.6 4 .1 34 3.5 4.0 3.3 pO Queue free % 100 98 99 99 99 99 100 99 cM capacity (vehlh) 1341 1479 509 493 929 524 504 812 -1~ 111 •1 •1:•1 VolumeTOlal 122 274 11 12 ------------------------_________ J Volume Left 6 37 6 6 Volume Righi 37 12 8 8 cSH 1341 1479 592 637 Vouw to Capac:ily 0 .00 0 .02 0-03 0.02 ---Queu e Length 95th (ft) 0 2 2 1 Conlral Delay l•) 0 .4 1.2 11 .3 10.8 ----Lane LOS A A B B App,-=tl Delay <•J 0 .4 1-2 11-3 10.8 - Approach L OS B B Average Delay 1.7 lnlerNdlon Capac:ily Uliizalion 30.3 % ICU L .... d Senrice A An alysis Period (min) 15 M:\07\07367 Triton Towers Renton Expan sion\Analysis\Traffic Operatioos\AM E xi sting.sy7 9/17/2008 The Transpo Group - --.. --------------' -- Syn chro 6 Report Page 11 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity A nalys is 12 : S Renton Villa~e PL & Southwest Drivewal -Tower 2 ~ --" '. ., ·---.... -.... ·- Lan e Configurations ' • ..,, Sign Conlnll Free Free Slap Grade ·1% 0% 0% Volume (V9hlh) 16 66 220 16 5 5 Peak Hour Factor 0 .84 0 .84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 Hourly low ..... (vph) 18 85 282 18 8 8 Pedestrians lMWWkllh(ft) Walking Sp eed (fU s) Pereenl~ Right t um flare (veh ) Maclian type None Median storage veh ) Upanan av\81 (ti) -628 pX, p latoon unblocked vC , conllicling vaklme 280 ----372 vC1 . stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 oonr vol vCu. unblocked vol 280 372 27 1 tC, single (s) 4 .1 6.4 6.2 tC , 2 slage (s) t F (s) 2 .2 3.5 3.3 pO queL1e free % 99 99 99 cM capacity (vehlh) 1289 624 773 Volume Toal Volume Left Volume Righi cSH Volume to Cepacjly Queue Length 95t h (ft) 1 0 1 Conlrol o.lay (•) 1.8 0 .0 10.3 Lan e LOS A B App,-=tl Delay<•> 1.8 0 .0 10.3 Approach LOS B Average Delay 0.7 lnl8nNldlon Cepacjly Ulllization 27.8% ICU Level d SeNlce Analysis Period (min) 15 M:107\07367 Triton Towers Renlon Expansion \An alysis\Traffic Operations\AM Existing.sy7 9/17/2008 The Transpo Group Triton Towers 2008 Existing A M Synchro 6 Report P age 12 HC M Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9 : S Renton Villaae PL & West Drivewal -Tower 1 -~ ~ -~ I" Lane Configurations • cf V SlgnConwl FIN FIN Slop Grade -1% 0% 0% ~("9MI) 50 20 28 85 5 5 Peak Hour Factor 0.81 0 .81 0 .81 0.81 0.8 1 0.81 Houiti tii,. M'hl 82 25 35 IIO 8 8 Pedestrians i.-Wlltll (II) Walking Speed (fVs) "--'I lllodlag9 Right tum flare (veh) Medlen lype -None Median storage veh) ~ llgrllll (II) ---9811 pX, platoon unblocked ---vC, contllc:lng vca,me ---vC1 , stage 1 conf vol 88 223 74 ----vC2,llage2!Xlt'lvd ----vCu, unblocked vol 86 223 74 IC,lil,gle (a) 4 .1 8 .4 8.2 IC, 2 stage (s) IF (a) 2 .2 3.5 3.3 pO queue free % 98 99 99 cM capaclly ("9MI) 1518 752 993 ~ -· -...--.. _.. ___ __. C Volume Total -88 115 12 Volume Left 0 35 6 Volume ~ -25 0 8 cSH 1700 1516 856 ~ to Capeclly 0 .05 0.02 0 .01 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 2 1 Conlrol Delay<•> 0.0 2 .4 9 .3 Lane LOS A A Apploecfl Delay<•> 0.0 2 .4 9 .3 Approach LOS A -~""--~;I,-~ 1.8 23.3% ICU Level d SeMca --A --15 M :\07\07367 Triton T owers Re nto n Expansion\Analysis\Traffic Operations\AM Existing .sy7 9/17/2008 The Transpo Group Tri ton T owers 2008 Existing AM Synchro 6 Report P age9 I I I I I HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10 : S Renton Villaae PL & West Rite A id Drivewal ,, --" ~ 4' Lane Configurations cf 1o V Sign Conlrol Fl'N Fl'N Slop Grade -1% 0% 0% Volume (Wh/11) 1 55 85 130 40 30 Peak Hour Factor 0 .81 0.81 0.81 0 .81 0.81 0.81 Hiiiiriy low ,.. (vph) 1 88 IIO 111D 49 37 Pedestrians laMWlclh(ft) Walking Speed (fVs) ~Bloc:uge Right tum flare (veh) ~lype ----None Median storage veh) ---Opsnan llgrllll (II) -1192 pX, platoon unblocked vC, con9dlng vca,me 241 ~ 231 180 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2,llage2!Xlt'lvd vCu, unblocked vol 241 231 160 IC, lingle <•> 4 .1 8.4 8.2 t C, 2 stage (s) IF (9) 22 3.5 3.3 pO queue free % 100 94 96 cM capaclly ("9MI) 1332 781 890 Volume Total -99 241 118 Volume Left 1 0 49 Volume Righi -W OW 180 37 cSH 1332 1700 8 11 Volume to Capecly 0 .00 0.14 0.11 Queue Le nglh 95th (ft) 0 0 9 Control Delay (a) 0.1 0.0 10.0 Lane LOS A A Apploecfl Delay(•) 0.1 0 .0 10.0 Approach LOS A • Average Delay 2.2 lnterNclon Capeclly Ulllzallon 23.8% ICU LIMII d SeMce Analysis Period (min) 15 M:\07\07367 Triton Towers Renton Expansion\Analys is\Traffic Operalions\AM Exist ing .sy7 911712008 The Transpo Group Tri ton Towers 2008 Existing AM Synchro 6 Report Page 10 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Ana l ysis Triton Tower s 7 : East Drivewa~ -Tower 2 & SR 515/Talbot 2008 ExisUng AM ..> • ' t ' ., Lane Configurations ., <ft tfo Sign Con.-ol Slop Free Free -Grade 0% 0% 0% V~(..ivtl) 0 5 5 11170 375 35 Peak Hour Factor 0 .95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0 .95 Hourly ftDw .... (wptl) 0 5 5 2074 396 37 Pedestrians ---· ---- t.a.Wldll(ft) ----------------------- Walking Speed (!Us) Petcen!Blocllage Right tum flare (veh ) --------. - Median type None -Median s torage veh) ------- Upair..n 191111 (ft) 2113 926 --pX, p latoon unblocked 0.16 ve. conlllcting vdume 1481 216 432 -----vC1, stage 1 con! vol vC2 , stage 2 cont vol vCu . unblocked vol o 2 16 4 32 tC, single (s ) 6.8 6.9 4.1 IC, 2 st age (s) IF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 pO queue fr ee % 100 99 100 cM capacity (veM,) 166 795 11 32 -------· Volume Left 0 5 0 0 0 V~RiQN 5 0 0 0 37 cSH 795 11 32 1700 1700 1700 V~ ID Capecllr 0 .01 0 .00 0.81 0.15 0.10 -------· Queue Length 95th (ft ) 0 0 0 o o eon.a Delay (1) u 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 ----Lane LOS A A Appolldl Delay (1) 11.6 0.0 0 .0 ---Approach LOS A Average Delay 0.1 lnlarNclloll Capeclly UlilizMion 82.1% ICU L81191 ot Service B Analysis Period (min ) 15 M :107\07367 Triton Towers Renton E xpans ion\Analysis\Traffic OperaUonslAM ExisUng.sy7 9/17/2008 The Transpo Group _____ _J ---~ - ------ -----..J -- --------' Synchro 6 Report Page 7 HCM Unsignalized Inte rsection Capacity Analysis Triton Towers 8 : S Renton Villase PL & Theater Drivewa~ 2008 Existing AM ..> -• "' -' ' t ~ ~ ' ., 77 I -IIIL; i11111 :...-::1111------=--.. =.-,-=• Lane Configurations • ---• • Sign Conlrol Free Free Slop Grade ~1% 0 % 0% V~(..ivtl) 0 15 10 5 20 20 0 5 0 Peak Hour Factor 0 .90 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.90 0.69 0 .90 0 .69 Hourly low ..... (wptl) 0 22 14 7 211 22 0 e 0 Pedestrians t.a.Widll(ft) Walking Speed (IVs) Petcenl Blockage Right tum flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh ) llpanan 191111 (II) pX, platoon unblocked vC. conlllcting vdume 51 36 117 115 211 vC 1 , stage 1 cont vol vC2 , stage 2 cont vol vCu u nblocked vol 51 36 97 95 29 IC, single (s) 4 .1 4.1 7.1 6 .5 6 .2 tC. 2 s tage (s) tF (s) 2 .2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3 .3 pO queue free % 100 100 100 99 100 cM capacity (veMi) 1555 1575 863 792 1052 --1•1:: V~Taal Volume L eft 0 7 0 11 V~RiQN 14 22 0 0 cSH 1555 1575 792 821 V~ ID Capeclly 0 .00 0.00 0.01 0.06 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 1 4 Conllol Delay (1) 0.0 0.11 11.8 11.8 Lan e LOS A A A Appolldl Dela~ (1) 0.0 0.11 11.6 11.8 Approach LOS A A iii Average Delay 3.5 lnlaraecllon Capacily UIIIIZallan 23.6% ICU L....t ot Service Analysis Period (min) 15 M:107\07367 Triton Towers Renton Expansion\Anatysis\Traffic Operauons\AM ExisUng.sy7 9/17/2008 The Transpo Group ... Slop 0% 10 26 0 0.90 0 .90 0 .90 11 28 0 ee 111 40 86 91 4 0 7 .1 6.5 6.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 99 97 100 892 796 1031 Synchro 6 Report Page 8 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 5: Grad~ & Talbot ..> -. ~ - Lane Configurations 1~ 1J: ,, 'l!I t_to -Flow (vpllpl) 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost t ime (s) 3.0 3.0 3 .0 3.0 3.0 Ciiie UII. Fedor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0 .99 fll Pnll9ded 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Said. Flow (prot) 1687 3374 1509 3400 3468 ~ ~ t ~ '" tfo 1900 1900 1900 1900 3.0 3 .0 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 3467 3470 T riton Towers 2008 Existing AM ~ ! ~ ' ff ,, 1900 1900 1900 3.0 3.0 3.0 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.95 1.00 1.00 1770 3539 1583 fll Piimllliil w W 0.95 w 1.00 W 1.00 W 0.95 w 1.00 W W 0.95 w 1:00 W W 0.95W 1.00 W 1.00 Satd. Flow (e!rm) 1687 3374 1509 3400 3468 3467 3470 1770 3539 1583 ifclume MIii) 35 340 200 205 5115 45 1191) 725 175 20 125 30 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0 .96 0.96 0.96 0 .96 0 .96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0 .96 0 .96 0.96 0.96 ~-Flow MJ!I) 311 354 20II 214 ll20 47 927 755 182 21 130 31 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 145 0 4 0 0 18 0 0 0 28 ta. C3nlup Flow(~) 311 354 113 214 11113 0 927 919 0 21 130 3 Hea~ Vehicles(%) 7% 7% 7 % 3% 3% 3% 1% 1% 1% 2% 2% 2% Tum Type Pl'al Pwm Pl'al Prol Pl'al Pwm Protected Phases 2 6 5 1 3 8 7 4 Pwmllled "'-II 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 3.6 35.5 35 .5 12.6 43.5 41.4 52 .5 2.4 11.5 11.5 Etrac:lhe °'9ml. 9 (1) 5.11 311.5 311.5 14.11 45.5 43 .4 53.5 3.4 13.5 13.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.05 0.30 0.30 0 .12 0 .38 0.36 0.45 0 .03 0.11 0.11 p.iaa Time (1) 5.0 4 .0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 --.:0--5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 4.0 4.0 4 .0 3.0 4.0 5.0 5 .0 3.0 5.0 5.0 ta. Olp Cap(~) 79 1029 459 414 1315 1254 1547 50 3911 178 vis Ratio Prat 0.02 c0.10 0 .06 c0.19 c0.27 c0.26 c0.01 0.04 waRalloPwm 0 .04 0.00 0.46 0.35 0 .14 0 .52 0 .50 0.74 0.59 0 .42 0.33 0.02 55.7 32 .5 30.3 49.4 211.11 33.4 25.1 57.3 49.1 47.4 0.75 0.67 0.60 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 5.4 0 .9 0.11 1.1 1.4 2.11 0.9 5.8 1.0 0.1 47.5 22 .7 18.9 50.5 30.0 36 .2 26 .0 62.9 50.1 47.5 D C 8 D C D C E D D Approach Delay (s) 22.9 35.0 31.1 51 .1 Approach LOS --c-C -C -D ~ --_ ... --~---. --~---~~-~-----·-~--- HCM A-.ge Canlnll Delay HCM Volume to Capacity ratio Adualld C)de Lengll (a) In tersection Capacity Utilization ~ F'9llod (Im) c Critical Lane Group 31 .7 0.59 120.0 65.2% 15 HCM L...i ol Service Sum of to111ime (1) ICU Level of Service C 12.0 C M:\07\07367 Triton Towers Renton Expansion\Analysis\Traffic Operations\AM Existing .sy7 9117/2008 The Transpo Group Synchro 6 Report Page 5 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6 : East Drivewai -Tower 3 & SR 515/Talbot ..> • ~ t ! Lane Configurations ,, tt tt Sign Conlrol Slop F-F- Grade 0% 0% 0% Vclume (Wlhlh) 0 5 0 1885 485 Peak Hour Factor 0 .94 0 .94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Houlty llow rale (~) 0 5 0 11184 4115 Pedestrians ~ Wiiiiii111) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percenl BIDdlage Right tum flare (veh) "'8dlan type None Median storage veh) Uplnan llgr,al (ft) 8111 538 pX, platoon unblocked 0 .70 1.00 1.00 .c. conllclng ~ 1487 247 537 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, llage 2 oonl vol vCu, unblocked vol 1257 245 535 IC, elllQle (a) II.II 11.9 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) IF (1) 3.5 3.3 2.2 pO queue free % 100 99 100 cM Cllpac:lly {veMI) 1111 '181 1034 Vclume TOia! 5 992 992 247 247 -Volume Left 0 0 0 0 0 Vclume Righi -5 0 0 0 0 cSH 761 1700 1700 1700 1700 Vclume lo Capacily 0 .01 0.511 0.511 0.15 0 .15 Queue Length 95th (ft) 1 0 0 0 0 Control Delay (1) 9.11 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS A Aiiiiioii:fl Diliy (1) ,:S-0.0 0.0 Approach LOS A ---------~- Average Delay 0.0 ~ ,, 40 0 .94 43 43 0 43 1700 0.03 0 0.0 lnlei eedlon Capacily lJllllzallon 55.7% ICU L"91 ol &INk:e Analysis Period (min) 15 8 M :107\07367 Trilon Towers Renlon Expansion\Analysis\Traffic Operations\AM Existing .sy7 9/1 7/2008 The Transpo Group Triton Towers 2008 Existing AM Synchro 6 Report Page 6 HC M Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Triton Towe rs 3: Grad~ W~ & North Rite Aid Drivewa~ 2008 ExisUng AM -• ~ -" ,; ----------: j Lane Configurations tfo 11 tt V Sign ConlnJI FIN FIN Step Grade 0% 0% 0% 11~(...ivtl) 570 36 86 1505 0 30 -----------Peak Hour Factor 0 .96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0 .96 Hourly low .... (llph) 584 3e 18 1588 0 31 --Pedestrians lMw Widll (ft) -- Walking Speed (ftls) -------------- Percanl Blockage -------Right tum fl are (veh) ---------- Median type None ---------------Media n storage veh) Upanall 19* (ft) 408 562 ---pX, platoon unblocked 0.92 0.9 1 0.92 ve. contlctlng ~ 830 vC1 , stage 1 conf vol 1573 315 ------~ ------- vC2 , stage 2 conf vol vC u. unblocked vol 515 1275 174 IC, Single (s) 4 .1 6.8 6.9 t C, 2 slage (s) IF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 pO queue free % 9 1 100 96 cM capacity (veh/h) 966 133 780 Volume Left 0 0 89 --------------0 0 0 \lolume Riglll 0 3e 0 0 0 31 -----cSH 1700 1700 966 1700 1700 780 \lolume lo Capacily 0.23 0.14 0.08 0 .48 0 .48 0.04 _J Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 8 0 0 3 Conbol Deiar (1) 0.0 0 .0 9.1 0.0 0.0 9.8 Lane LOS A A ~Delar(I) 0.0 O.li ---9.8 ---· Approach LOS A - Average Delay 0 .5 lnllrNcliol'I Capacily Ullllzalion 53.3% ICU l.,.. ol SeMca A ----~~---~ Analysis P eriod (min) 15 M :107\07367 Tri to n Towera Renton Expansion\Analysis\Traffic Operalions\AM Existing .sy7 9/17/2008 Synchro 6 Report Page 3 The Transpo Group HCM Unsigna lized Intersection Capacity Analys is 4 : Grad~ W~ & North Drivewa~ -Tower 3 -• ~ -" ,; II -----..c-= -Lane Configurations t fo tt , Sign Conlrol FIN FIN Step Grade 0% 0% 0% 1/~(whlh) 580 35 0 1525 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0 .97 0 .97 Hourly low .... (llph) 5118 3e 0 1572 0 Pedestrians lMwWidll(ft) Walking Speed (IVs) Percanl Blockage Righi lum fl are (veh) Median type None Median storage veh) Upanall 19* (I) 649 321 pX, platoon unblocked 0.94 0 .89 0 .94 ve. conlicling vo1wne --634 1402 317 vC 1 . stage 1 conf vol vC2 , stage 2 conf vol vCu , unblocked vol 554 11 39 218 tC, single (s) 4 .2 6 .8 6.9 t C, 2 slage (s) I F (s) 2 .2 3.5 3.3 pO queue free % 100 100 99 cM capacity (veh/h) 950 176 748 .. ,.-, •J 1/~Talal 3118 235 7811 718 5 Volume Lett 0 0 0 0 0 \/~Righi 0 3e 0 0 5 cSH 1700 1700 1700 1700 748 II~ to Capdy 0.23 0 .14 0 .48 0.48 0.01 Queue Length 95t h (ft) 0 0 0 0 1 Conbol Deiar (1) 0 .0 0 .0 0.0 0.0 II.I Lane LOS A ~Oeiay(I) 0 .0 0.0 u Approach LOS A iii Average Delay 0 .0 lnlerNdlon Capacily Ulilizallon 48.~ ICU level ol SeMc:e Analysis Period (min) 15 M :\07\07367 Triton Towers Renton Expansion\Analysis\Traffic Operations\AM ExisUng .sy7 9/17/2008 The Transpo G roup Triton Tower s 2008 ExisUng AM Synchro 6 Report Page 4 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Triton Towers 1: Grad;t Wy_ & Lake Ave S 2008 Existing AM .., -• • -' ~ t ,. ~ ' ., ----. ·---""~ --...... -~ ....... -...... ---..:...--~ ---- Lane Configurations _j +t ,, 'I ... 'I + ,, ... ldNI fllJij (,iphpl) 1900 1900~ 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost lime (s) 5 .0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5 .0 t..UII.Fedor UIO 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 -Frt LOO LOO 0.85 1,00 1,00 LOO 0,85 0.93 FIi Pnlleded 0,915 1,00 1,00 0,1115 1,00 0,115 1,00 O,N J Satd, Flow (prol) 1752 3505 1568 1770 3536 1752 1568 1102 FIi P9rmllad 0.95 1.00 1,00 0.95 1.00 0.74 1.00 0,112 Satd. Flow (~rm) 1752 3505 1568 1770 3536 1358 1568 1036 Y1*IIM (vptl) 10 -820 110 15 11135 10 130 0 10 10 5 15 Peak-h our factor, PHF 0 ,92 0 ,92 0,92 0,92 0,92 0 ,92 0 ,92 0,92 0,92 0 .92 0 .92 0 .92 Ai:I, Flow (lfllh) 11 w l81 w 120 18 w 1777w 11 w 141 0 11 11 5 18 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 36 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 t.. Gnlup Flow (vptl) 11 181 114 18 171111 0 141 0 11 0 18 0 Heavl Vehicles(%! 3% 3% 3% 2% 2% 2% 3% 3% 3% 58% 58% 58% Tum Type Pnll Pwm Pnll Pwm Frw Pwm Protecied Phases 5 2 1 6 4 4 Permllad "'-2 4 Frw 4 :J Actuated Green, G (s) 1.4 84.2 84.2 3.8 86.6 17.0 120.0 17 .0 Elfac:lhe 0.-, II (a) u 114,2 1142 3,8 88.8 17,0 120.0 17.0 J Aclualed g/C Ratio 0,01 0.70 0.70 0.03 0.72 0 .14 1 ,00 0 ,14 ~Time(•) -n 5,0 5,0 5,0 TI> 5,0 5 ,0 J Vehlde Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3 .0 t.. Orp Cap (lfllh) 20 2459 1100 58 2552 192 1588 147 _J vis Ratio Prot 0 ,01 0 .25 c0,01 c0,51 via Rallo P1iim 0,05 c:0.10 c:0,01 0~ vie Ratio 0 .55 0,36 0.08 0.29 0.70 0.73 0,01 0.12 Unlonn Delay, ct1 59,0 72 5,8 58,8 9,4 49,3 0,0 45,0 J Progression Factor LOO 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.33 1.00 1.00 1 ,00 1na ........ Deley, d2 28.9 0 ,4 0 ,1 22 u 13,5 0 ,0 0.4 J Delay (s) 87,9 7,6 5,8 58,9 4.4 62.9 0 .0 45.4 liwilaf Sertlce F A A E A E A o :J Approach Delay (s) 8.2 4.9 58.3 45.4 A A -E D ~ Approecll LOS ~~ - HCM A-. CGnlld Dlllay 9,1 HCM L9V8I d 8eMce .. HCM Volume to capacity ratio 0.67 Ac11.-c1 Cycle Lengll I•> 120.0 Sum of loal lime (•) --10.0 lnterseciion Capacity Utilization 67.7% ICU Level of Service C ~Perlod(mln) 15 -- C Cmical Lane Group M :\07\07367 Triton Towers Renton Expansion\Analysis\Traffic Operalions\AM Existi ng.sy7 9/17/2008 The Transpo Group Synchro 6 Report Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2 : Grady_ W;t & Shattuck Av S .., -• • -' ~ t ,. ---~-~~~ '• Lane Configurations 'I +t ,, 'I ... 'I ,f) Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Wid1h 12 11 11 12 11 12 12 11 12 Grade <'I') (I'll, 0% 1% T otal Lost time (s) 5.0 5 .0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 1..-UII, Fedor 1,00 0 ,95 1,00 1,00 0 ,95 0 ,91 0,111 Frl 1 .00 LOO 0 ,85 LOO 1,00 1 ,00 0,96 _Fl Protecled 0 ,95 1,00 1,00 0,1115 1,00 0,95 0,97 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3421 1531 1770 3407 1618 3085 Fl Permllled 0,95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0 .95 0,17 Said. Flow !eerm ) 1770 3421 1531 1770 3407 1618 3085 Volume (vptl) 10 1145 125 20 1420 40 130 25 30 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0 .92 0 .92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0 .92 0.92 0.92 ~-Flow (vptl) 11 701 138 22 1543w 43 141 27 33 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 51 0 1 0 0 27 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 11 701 85 22 1585 0 71 103 0 Hea~ Vehicles(%) 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 1% 1% 1% Tum Type Pnll Pwm Pnll Spit Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 3 3 P8lmllled "'-8 -Aciuated Green, G (s) 1.2 75.1 75.1 4.1 78.0 1 L5 11.5 Effec:llve ONwl, 11 I•) 12 7l5.1 75,1 4,1 78,0 11.5 11.5 Aciuated g/C Ratio 0.01 0 .63 0 .63 0 .03 0,65 0 .10 0 .10 ClearancllTlme (a) 5.0 5.0 5,0 5,0 5,0 5,0 ,:a' Vehicle Extension (s! 3,0 5 ,0 5,0 3.0 5.0 4 .0 4.0 l-GrpCap(lfllh) 18 2141 958 80 2215 1515 298 vi s Ratio Prot 0.01 c0.20 0 .01 c0.47 c0.04 0.03 via Rallo Perm 0.08 vie Ratio 0.61 0 .33 0 .09 0 .37 0,72 0 .46 0 ,35 ~Deley.d1 592 10.8 8.9 58.7 13.7 51.3 50.7 Progression Factor 0,83 0 .51 0 .14 L20 0.42 1.00 1.00 ~c12----.e.9 o--:r-0.2 3-:-0 u-2.e---r.o Delay (s) 96.0 5 .7 1.4 71.3 7.4 54.2 SU level d SeMCe F A A E A D D Approach Delay (s) 6 .2 8.2 52.6 Approecll LOS A A -D - HCM Av.age Ccnol Deley 11.8 HCM L....i d Sertlce B -HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0 .61 AdUlled Cyde Lengll (a) 120,0 Sum d IOel llme (1) -15,0 Intersection Capactty Utilization 59,1% ICU Level of Service B Anelylll Period (min) 15 C Critical Lane Group M:107\07367 Triton Towers Renton Expansion\Analysis\Traffic Operalions\AM Exist ing.sy7 9/1712008 The Transpo Group Triton Towers 2008 Existing AM ~ ' ., - 'I .. 1900 1900 1900 12 11 12 0% 5 .0 5 .0 1,00 1.00 LOO 0 .91 0 ,1115 Too 1530 1421 0 ,1115 1,00 1530 1421 15 15 20 0 .92 0 ,92 0 ,92 18 w 18 w 22 0 20 0 18 18 0 18% 18% 18% Spit 4 4 9 .3 u 0 ,08 5 ,0 4 .0 119 0 .01 0 ,13 0 .16 51.8 51 ,7 1 .00 L OO o-:;~o.9 52.3 52.6 D D 52.5 D Synchro 6 Report Page 2 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2014 With Project PM -TOM Reduction 15: S Rento n Villalle PL & SR 515rralbot 10/22/2009 .> -~ ~ -' ~ t ,. \,. ' ~ -.---.--· -•r-----.. . .,-----'" Lane Configurations 'I ., 'l'I t ., , tt ... ldallflow(lll*PI) 1IIOO 1IIOO 1IIOO 1IIOO 1900 1IIOO 1IIOO 1IIOO 1IIOO 1IIOO 1IIOO 1900 Grade(%) -1% 0% -3% 0% T•t.oallma(a) 5 .0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5 .0 Lane uw. Factor 1.00 1.00 0 .97 1.00 1.00 1.00 0 .95 0.95 Ftl 1.00 0.15 1.00 1.00 OM 1.00 1.00 1.00 Fil Protected 0.95 1.00 0 .95 1.00 1.00 0 .95 1.00 1.00 ..... Flow(lnt) 1791 1807 3502 1900 1815 1814 3821 3582 Fil Permitted 0.95 1.00 0 .95 1.00 1.00 0 .95 1.00 1.00 ..... FlowC-1 17811 1807 3502 1900 1815 1814 3821 3582 Volume (vph) 70 0 357 620 42 170 173 1040 0 0 2166 50 PNll.-.rfador,PHF 0.115 0.115 0 .95 0.115 0.115 0 .95 0 .95 0 .95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 74 0 376 653 44 179 182 1095 0 0 2280 53 RTOR Rlducllorl (vph) 0 0 8 0 0 138 0 0 0 0 1 0 Lane Grou p Flow (vph) 74 0 370 653 44 43 182 1095 0 0 2332 0 te-rValliclN~I 1% 1% 1% 0% 0"4 0% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% Tum Type Prot custom Prot Perm Prot Protected Phases 7 5 3 8 5 2 6 Perm itted Phases 8 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 10.5 25.0 29.5 14.0 14.0 11 .0 110.5 94.5 Effective Green, g (s) 10.5 25.0 29 .5 14.0 14.0 11.0 110.5 94.5 Actuated {1/C Ratio 0 .07 0.17 0 .20 0 .09 0.09 0.07 0 .74 0.63 Clearance Time (s) 5 .0 50 50 50 50 50 50 5.0 Vehicle Extension!•! 3.0 4 .0 3.0 3.0 3.0 4 .0 6 .5 6.5 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 126 321 689 177 151 133 2673 2244 via Ralio Prat 0.04 c0.08 c0.19 0 .02 0.10 0 .30 c0.85 vis Ratio Perm 0.15 O.Q3 we Ralio 0 .511 1.15 0 .95 0.25 0.28 1.37 0 .41 1.04 Uniform Delay , d1 67.6 62.5 59 .5 63.1 63.3 69.5 7.4 27.8 ~Fllelor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ---Incremental Delay, d2 6 .8 98.5 22 .1 0.7 1.0 206.2 0.5 30.1 Delef (•) 74.5 181 .0 81.8 83.8 84.4 275.7 7.9 ---57.8 -Level of Service E F F E E F A E ~l)alay(I) 148.7 172 48.1 57.8 Approach LOS F E D E HCM Average Control Delay 66.3 HCM Level of Service E HCM ~ ID Capacly rallo 1.04 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 150.0 Sum of lost time (s) 10.0 ~tllrNdioll Capacily Ulilzalion 113.8% ICU L.,.. al SeMca -H -____ I Analysis Period (min) 15 C Cl1ICal Law Group Transpo -c l Synchro 6 Report M:\07\07367 Triton Towers Renton Expansion\Analysis\Traffic Operations\PM With Project-rev trip dist -lNfge d!lsy7 The Transpo Group HCM Signalized Inter section Capacity Analysis 20 14 With Project PM -TOM Reducti on 16: 1-405 NB On-Rame & SR 515/Talbot 10/22/2009 ~ ' t ,. \,. ' ·------·-...... Lane Configurations tt ., , tt ldNI Flow (vpt,pl) 1IIOO 1IIOO 1IIOO 1900 1IIOO 1IIOO Grade(%) 0% -3% 6% Taul Lael time (1) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 1.00 1.00 0 .95 Fr1 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 Fil Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Said . Flow (prct) ----3582 1807 1717 3433 Fil Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Said . Flow (llennl 3582 1807 1717 3433 Volume (vph) 0 0 1210 280 270 2898 Peek-how faclor, PHF 0 .92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0 .92 0 .92 Adj . Flow (vph) 0 0 1315 304 293 3150 RTOR Radudiol'I (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Graue Flow (veh) 0 0 1315 304 293 3150 Tum Type Free Prol Protected Phases 2 1 6 Permitted Phases Free Actuated Green, G (s) 88.0 120.0 22 .0 120.0 Effective Green, g (s) 88.0 120.0 22.0 120.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.73 1 00 0 .18 1.00 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5 .0 Veh1cie Extension (s) 30 3.0 30 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 2634 1607 315 3433 vis Ratio Prot 0.37 0 .17 c0.92 vii Raio Penn 0 .19 ----vie Rat io 0.50 0 .19 0 .93 0.92 Uniform Delef. d1 _.__ ____ 8.7 0.0 48.2 0 .0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 lncnmenlal Delef, d2 -0.7 0.3 33.0 5.1 ---Delay (s) 7.4 0 .3 81.2 5.1 L.,..alSeMca A A F A -Approach Delay (s) 0 .0 6 .1 11.6 ~LOS A -A B HCM A-. Corftl Delef u HCM L.,.. al Service HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.92 Ackalld Cycle Langlh <•> 120.0 Sum al !oat lime (1) 0.0 Intersection Capacity Ulilizabon 84.3% ICU Level of Service E ~ Period (min) 15 C Critical Lane Group Transpo. cl Synchro 6 Report M:\07\07367 Triton Towers Renton Expansion\Analysis\Traffic Operations\PM With Pro ject-rev trip dist -TNl!le dllsy7 The Transpo Group Revised Transportation lmact Study Triton Towers Renton Expansion October 2009 ··--··--··--··· • -•H•••n -···-··-·-···--··-·· Weekd Hourly Parkf D ,d Distributi With TDM Reducli -------- Otll" Office Buililng with Land Use Hob! 6.nartinenl Bulldlna,Sl.lburtlan Lend Use Holel & .... rtment TDM ReducUon' ITE Code 310 701 ITE Code '" 701 ••• ... ... 1030.041 Size ... 500 103G.041 Units ·~-a.,-kafGFA Units -m• ... _, ksfGFA Average Rete'·' 0.91 0.78 2.58 Average Ra11t'·2 0.91 0.78 1.96 Parklna Provided: 3212 ... -Parkinci Provided: 3212 •pace• it r~-!~ -~~ i~ -~~ •• i~i iji -~ [ ~ s if) !! ~~ ii j f=i h! ~.s"' ~ . Total Hou'ly P.rt1ng Surplus AWJ=~~ Oemarl<I ~~-sl i j 2 ~? Oemarl<I or(Deficit) ~~ l~. it • i~ r~-~~ .. .. E ~ ~~ !~ I ~~ :i fS .r~ Q ! • ~.s oi if i f=; 11! j=i Total Hour1y Parking Surplus Averaoe Demand ~ i j ]s! ·-~-Demand (If (Deficit) 12:00-4:00AM 100% ,10 100% 390 0% 0 800 2.413 12:0D-4:00AM 100% 410 100% 390 0% 0 800 2,413 5:00AM 100% '" 100% 390 0% 0 800 2.413 5:00AM 100% 410 100% 390 0% 0 600 2,413 6:00AM 100% '" 100% 390 6% 159 959 2,253 6:00AM 100% 410 100% 390 6% 121 921 2,291 7:00AM 95% 389 100% 390 56% 1,488 2,267 945 7:00AM 95% 389 100% 390 56% 1,131 1,910 1,302 8:00AM 91% 373 100% 390 86% 2,285 3,048 16' 8:00AM 91% 373 100% 390 86% 1.737 2,500 m 9·00 AM 87% 356 100% 390 97% 2,578 3.324 (112) 9·00AM 87% 356 100% 390 97% 1,959 2.705 507 10:00 AM 82% 336 100% '90 100% 2,658 3.383 (171) 10:00AM 82% 336 100% '"' 100% 2 020 2.745 467 11.00AM 100% 410 100% 390 98% L,604 3,404 (192) 11:00AM 100% 410 100% '"' 98% 1 979 2.779 m 12-00 PM 98% 401 100% 390 87% 2,312 3.103 "" 12:00 PM 98% 401 100% 390 87% 1 757 2.548 664 1:00 PM 90% 369 100% 3,0 75% 1,993 2.752 460 1:00 PM 90% 369 100% 390 75% 1,515 2.273 939 200 PM 82% 336 100% 390 84% 2,232 2.958 '54 2:00 PM 82% 336 100% 390 84% 1,697 2,422 790 3:00 PM 70% '" 100% 390 87% 2,312 2.989 m 3:00 PM 70% "' 100% 090 67% 1,757 2,434 "' 4:00 PM 70% 287 HXJ% 390 75% 1,993 2,670 542 4:00PM 70% 287 100% 390 75% 1,515 2,191 1,021 5:00 PM 66% 270 100% 390 43% 1.143 1.803 1,409 5:00PM 66% 270 100% 390 43% 868 1.529 1,683 6:00 PM 73% 299 "''" 390 18% 478 1,167 2.045 6:00PM 73% 299 100% 390 18% "' 1,052 2,160 7:00 PM 81% 332 100% 390 0% 0 n, 2,490 7:00PM 81% 332 100% 390 0% 0 722 2,490 8:00 PM 79% '" 100% 390 0% 0 "' 2,498 8:00PM 79% 32, 100% 390 0% 0 714 2,498 9:00PM 60% 328 100% 390 0% 0 718 2,494 9:00PM 80% 328 100% 390 0% 0 718 2,494 10:00 PM 60% 328 100% 390 0% 0 718 2.494 10:00PM 80% 328 100% 390 0% 0 718 2,494 11:00 PM 100% '" 100% 390 0% 0 800 2,413 11:00PM )00% 410 100% 390 0% 0 600 2,413 Maximum '" 390 2.658 '·"' {1121 Maximum 410 300 2.020 2,n11 "' 1. AYerage parking demand rates for Halitl 11nd Office from ITE Parting Generation, 3rd Edijion 1. Assumes 24 percent reduction in perking generation due lo successful implementation of a TOM progam. 2. Average ralit from Pa,l(lng DIMland Anslyais -Downtown Kirl<Jand Condominiums. 3. Hourly Oistribu~on from ITE Parking G1mmiililln, 3rd Edilicm. Italics represent assumed values wtlere data were not available 4. Hourly distribution assumes spaces are reserved for residents and are not a11ai1ble for sharing M:\07\07367 Triton Towers Renton Expansion\Analysis\Parking\Shared Parking. Oct09.xls Transpo Group MEMORANDUM Date: October 28, 2005 Thang Nguyen, City of Kirkland David Godfrey, City of Kirkland To: Jeremy McMahan, City of Kirkland From: Dan McKinney, Jr., The Transpo Group cc: Dan Shieder, Trammell Crow Residential TG: 05165.00 Subject: Parking Demand Analysis -Downtown Kirkland Condominiums This memorandum summarizes the results of a parking demand analysis conducted for three residential condominium buildings in the downtown area of Kirkland. The purpose of the study was to identify the parking demand for the secured tenant parking, guest parking, and on-street parking for use in determining parking needs for future condominium projects in downtown Kirkland. The preliminary results of this analysis support the City's practice of allowing 1 space per bedroom to meet the demand of both guests and tenants and show that on-street impacts from residential parking arc minimal. Methodology The scope of the analysis was coordinated with staff from the City of Kirkland and included the evaluation of three residential condominium sites in the downtown Kirkland area. The three sites are: 1. Brezza Condominiums 2. Portsmith Condominiums 3. Plaza on State Condominiums The parking supply and utilization for the secured tenant parking, guest parking, and on-street parking was inventoried for the three sites by staff from The Transpo Group on three separate weekdays with an additional count of the guest parking on Saturday. All of the units were occupied during the data collected in October 2005. The parking demand for the secured tenant parking, guest parking, and the on-street parking was collected at 5:00 a.m. Tuesday through Thursday and for only guest parking at 6:00 p.m. Tuesday through Thursday (10/18-10/20) and on Saturday (10/22). In addition to the 6:00 p.m. count, guest parking data was also collected at 7:00 p.m. on Tuesday (10/18) and was found to be lower than that at 6:00 p.m.; therefore data was only collected at 6:00 p.m. on the remaining days. It should also be noted that general observations of the tenant parking during the 6:00 p.m. counts did verify that volumes were lower than those identified during the 5:00 a.m. count. These times were selected to try and capture the typical peak demand for each use. The Transpo Group Inc. 11730 118th Avenue N.E .. Suite 600 Kirkland, WA 98034-7120 425.821.3665 fax: 425.825.8434 Coordination and approval from the condominium management and/ or home owners associations of each building was obtained in order to gain access to the secured garages. Locations The Brezza Condominiums arc located at 224 4"' Avenue and includes 75 units with 124 bedrooms. lbe site has a total of 147 parking stalls including 126 that are assigned or rented to tenants, 20 designated for guest parking and 1 designated for kayak storage. All of the stalls are located in two secured garages that include an intercom system for guest entry. The Portsmith Condominiums are located at 108 2°d Avenue and includes 153 units with 263 bedrooms. The site has a total of 273 parking spaces including 260 secured spaces assigned to tenants and 13 designated for guest parking that are located just outside of the two secured garages. Signs indicate guest parkers are required to display a guest parking pass and our understanding is guest parking is limited to 24 hours. The Plaza on State Condominiums are located at 120 State Street and include 81 units with 117 bedrooms. The site has a total of 157 parking spaces including 146 secured spaces assigned to tenants and 13 designated for guest parking that are located just outside of the two secured garages. Table 1 summarizes the number of units, bedrooms and parking provided for each site. Table I. Summary of Units, Bedrooms and Parking Supply Parking Spaces Bedrooms Spaces/ Spaces/ Location Units Bedrooms Per Unit Tenant Guest Total Unit Bedroom Brezza 75 124 1.65 127 20 146 1.96 1.19 Portsmith 153 263 1.72 260 13 273 1.78 1.04 Plaza on State 81 117 1.44 146 11 157 1.94 1.34 As shown in Table 1, each of the three condominium developments has a slightly different number of units, bedrooms, and even ratios of parking provided. This information is helpful as the parking demand for individual sites can be impacted by the bedroom unit mix. Parking Demand The detailed parking demand data is provided in Attachment 1 and is summarized in the following section. The summary tables below focus on the peak parking demand ratios for each the tenant parking, guest parking and on-street parking. Additional summary tables are provided in Attachment 1 that includes the average parking demand ratios as well. The parking demand ratios for both the number of spaces per The Transpo Group Page 2 unit as well as the number of spaces per bedroom were provided as the parking demand ratios were found to differ depending on the unit mix of the condominium. Table 2. Peak Parking Demand Rates based on Units Tenant Parking Guest Parking Total On·Site Parking Peak Peak Rate Peak Peak Rate Peak Peak Rate Location Units Demand Demand Demand Brezza 75 91 1.21 7 0.09 98 1.31 Portsmith 153 170 1.11 7 0.05 177 1.16 Plaza on State .!!.l 96 .Ll.9. 7 .M9. 103 U2 Average 103 1.17 0.08 1.25 As shown in Table 2, the peak parking demand ratio per unit for tenant parking ranges from 1.11 to 1.21 and the peak parking demand ratio per unit for guest parking ranges from 0.05 to 0.09. The total peak parking demand average of the three sites is 1.25 spaces per unit. Table 3. Peak Parking Demand Rates based on Bedrooms Tenant Parking Guest Parking Total On-Site Parking Peak Peak Rate Peak Peak Rate Peak Peak Rate Location Bedrooms Demand Demand Demand Brezza 124 91 0.73 7 0.06 98 0.79 Portsmith 263 170 0.65 7 0.03 177 0.67 Plaza on State ill 96 0.82 7 0.06 103 0.88 Average 168 0.73 0.05 0.78 As shown in Table 3, the peak parking demand ratio per bedroom for tenant parking ranges from 0.65 to 0.82 and the peak parking demand ratio per bedroom for guest parking ranges from 0.03 to 0.06. The total peak parking demand average of the three sites is 0.78 spaces per bedroom. This supports the City allowing one space per bedroom for residential development in the downtown area. Even if you consider doubling the guest parking calculations the total demand would be lower than one space per bedroom. The data for both the peak rate per unit and the peak rate per bedroom are well correlated and have low standard deviations. Statistically, neither rate is more valid than the other and variables such as unit mix will play more of a factor when determining which rate to usc. On-Street Parking The on-street parking spaces along the block faces surrounding each site were counted at 5:00 a.m. to identify the number of vehicles that could be associated with tenants of each condominium. In general on-street parking in the area is plentiful at 5:00 a.m. and only a minimal amount of vehicles were parked on the street. The number of vehicles parked during the 5:00 a.m. count were 70 to 80 percent lower than the number counted during the evening 6:00 p.m. count. To be conservative, all The Transpo Group Page 3 of the vehicles surrounding each building during the 5:00 a.m. count were assumed to be associated with each condominium Table 4. Peak On-Street Parking Demand Rates On-Street Parking vs. Units On-Street Parking vs. Bedrooms Location Units Peak Demand Peak Rate Bedrooms Peak Demand Peak Rate Brezza 75 4 0.05 124 4 0.03 Portsmith 153 4 0.03 263 4 0.02 Pliza Qn Statg fil. 3 0.04 llZ 3 0.03 Average 103 0.04 168 O.D2 As shown in Table 4, the average on-street peak parking demand rario per unit and bedroom is 0.04 spaces per unit or 0.02 spaces per bedroom. Conclusions The above parking analysis provides peak parking demand data for three condominium projects in downtown Kirkland. Each of the study locations has differing unit and bedroom counts. Using the parking demand ratio data for other sites should consider how the unit counts and number of bedrooms relates to those included in this analysis. The parking demand summary indicates that a peak demand of 1.25 parking spaces per condominium unit would be needed to accommodate residents and guests parking needs for residential condominium developments in the downtown Kirkland area. Similarly, a peak demand of 0.78 parking spaces per condominium bedroom would be needed to accommodate residents and guests parking needs at a residential condominium development in the downtown Kirkland area. Using the number of spaces per unit or per bedroom for future development will need to consider the unit mix of the proposed project. On-street impacts from the condominium projects were found to be low with a maximum of 4 vehicles parked on the street during the 5:00 a.m. observation. On- street parking during the evening periods was busier with 70 to 80 percent more vehicles parked on-street but it was estimated that much of the parking was related to general public parking associated with the downtown area as a whole as there were always guest parking spaces available during our observations. Please contact us at (425) 821-3665 if you have any questions or comments regarding the information documented herein. The T111111po Group Page 4 CALLISON October 6, 2008 MASTER SITE PLAN APPROVAL/ ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Triton Towers Expansion Renton, Washington 207606.01 Traffic Study -+----142 0 FIFTH AVENUE #2400 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101-2343 T 206 623 4646 F 206 623 4625 www.ca111son.com CU/transpoGROUP Transportation Impact Study TRITON TOWERS RENTON EXPANSION September 2008 ·---·, ··=====- WHAT TRANSPORTATION CAN BE Transportation Impact Study TRITON TOWERS RENTON EXPANSION Prepared for: HAL Real Estate, LLC. September 2008 Prepared by: ':,/transpoGROUP 11730 1181h Avenue NE, Suite 600 Kirkland, WA 98034-7120 Phone: 425-821-3665 Fax: 425-825-8434 www.transpogroup.com 07367.00 © 2008 T ranspo Group Transportation Impact Study Triton Towers Renton Expansion September 2008 -------- Table of Contents FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS ............................................................................................ 11 Where is the project located? ................................................................................................. ii What is the project land use and trip generation? .................................................................. ii What are the existing and future without-project conditions in the study area? ..................... ii Would the project have any transportation impacts? .............................................................. ii What mitigation measures are recommended? ...................................................................... ii INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................. 1 Project Description ................................................................................................................. 1 Study Scope ........................................................................................................................... 1 EXISTING AND BASELINE CONDITIONS ..................................................................................... 4 Roadway Network .................................................................................................................. 4 Traffic Volumes ...................................................................................................................... 5 Peak Hour T raffle Operations ................................................................................................ 8 T raffle Safety ........................................................................................................................ 1 O Transit and Non-Motorized Facilities ................................................................................... 1 O PROJECT IMPACTS ..................................................................................................................... 12 Trip Generation ................................................................................................................... 12 Trip Distribution and Assignment. ........................................................................................ 12 Traffic Volume Impact.. ........................................................................................................ 15 Traffic Operations Impact .................................................................................................... 17 Proposed Parking Supply .................................................................................................... 18 Parking Code Requirements ................................................................................................ 18 Peak Parking Demand ......................................................................................................... 18 Transit and Non-Motorized Facilities ................................................................................... 19 MITIGATION ................................................................................................................................ 20 Figure 1. Figure 2. Figure 3. Figure 4. Figure 5. Figure 6. Figure 7. Table 1. Table 2. Table 3. Table 4. Table 5. Table 6. Figures Site Vicinity......... . ................................................................................ 2 Site Plan ............................................................................................................. 3 Existing 2008 AM and PM Peak-Hour Traffic Volumes ....................................... 6 Baseline 2014 AM and PM Peak-Hour Traffic Volumes ..................................... 7 Project Trip Distribution ..................................................................................... 13 Project Trip Assignmenl .................................................................................... 14 2014 With-Project Peak Hour Traffic Volumes .................................................. 16 Tables Intersection Peak Hour LOS -2008 Existing and 2014 Baseline ....................... 9 Intersection Crash Summary-2005 to 2007 .................................................... 10 Metro Tran sit Routes at South Renton Park and Ride ...................................... 11 Trip Generation Summary ................................................................................. 12 2014 Traffic Volume Impacts at Off-Site Study Intersections ........................... 15 Intersection Peak Hour LOS -2014 Baseline and With Project.. ..................... 17 1/{transpooROUP Transportation Impact Study Triton Towers Renton Expansion Frequently Asked Questions This section provides an executive summary of the Transportation Impact Study through a set of frequently asked questions (FAQs). Where is the project located? The project is located in Renton, near the interchange of SR 167 and 1-405, and it is expected to be fully completed by 2014. The existing site includes three office buildings and surface parking. The Renton Village Shopping Center is next to the project site. What is the project land use and trip generation? The current and future land use of the project site is commercial office use. There is a nearby shopping center that is commercial retail land use. The proposed 1.1 million square feet of gross floor area (GFA) office building development would generate approximately 2,317 daily trips, 1,246 PM peak hour trips, and 1,071 AM peak hour trips. What are the existing and future without-project conditions in the study area? The existing and future without-project conditions are affected by a planned half-diamond interchange on 1-405 east of the 1-405 / SR 167 interchange at SR 515 (Talbot Road). This fourth leg of the Talbot Road/S Renton Village Place intersection does not exist now, and will change the operations of this intersection from the current LOS A to LOS C in the AM peak hour and from LOS B to LOS D in the PM peak hour. Beyond the change at the Talbot Road/S Renton Village Place intersection, all of the study intersections currently operate at LOS D or better in both the AM and PM peak hours. The future without-project, or baseline, conditions in the study area are mostly the same. The one exception is the intersection of S Grady Way and Talbot Road S which will operate at LOS E during the weekday PM peak hour. The accident histories for the past three years at all study intersections were examined. No existing safety issues were revealed that need to be addressed. Many of the existing roadways in the study vicinity currently have sidewalks on both sides of the street, and there are marked crosswalks at the intersections. Within the project site, there are no dedicated pedestrian facilities among the existing office buildings and the surface parking lots. Would the project have any transportation impacts? The traffic operations at one intersection are anticipated to degrade to LOS Fin the 2014 With-Project scenario, but with mitigation measures the conditions at this intersection are anticipated to improve. What mitigation measures are recommended? Additional transportation demand management (TOM) measures are proposed to mitigate potential parking impacts and additional trips on the adjacent roadway system, in particular the intersection at S Renton Village Place and Talbot Road S. 'j(transpoGROUP ii Transportation Impact Study "!".~.ton Towers Renton Expansion __ _ ___________ Sept~rriber_2008 Introduction The purpose of this transportation impact study (TIS) is to identify potential traffic-related impacts associated with the proposed expansion of the Triton Towers office complex. As necessary, mitigation measures are identified that would offset or reduce potential impacts. This report follows the TIS guidelines provided by the City of Renton. Project Description The project consists of four new office towers totaling approximately 1.1 million square feet of gross floor area, and is anticipated to be completed by 2014. The new towers would be built over the existing surface parking lots on site that have 1,817 parking spaces; the displaced surface parking would be replaced by structured parking. The site is located on the west side of Talbot Road S, between S Grady Way and 1-405. Figure 1 illustrates the project site and the surrounding vicinity. The proposed site plan is illustrated in Figure 2. The development would be served by 14 existing driveways along S Grady Way, Talbot Road S, and S Renton Village Place, which runs through the project site. The proposed project would include the removal of three of the existing site access driveways. Study Scope The scope of the analysis is based on discussions with City staff. Five off-site signalized intersections are included within the study area as shown on Figure 1, as well as eleven stop- controlled driveways. The study focuses on the weekday AM and PM peak hours, when the combination of project traffic and adjacent street traffic are at their highest levels. The analysis begins by describing conditions in the vicinity of the project site, including the roadway network, existing and future peak hour traffic volumes, traffic operations, traffic safety, non-motorized facilities, and transit service. Future with-project conditions are evaluated by adding s~e-generated traffic to future without-project volumes, and by examining the project impacts on parking conditions within the project site. Study intersections and driveways include: o S Grady Way/Talbot Road S o S Renton Village Place/Talbot Road S o Talbot Road S/1-405 NB On-ramp o S Grady Way/Lake Avenue S o S Grady Way/Shattuck Avenue S o S Grady Way/North Rite Aid Driveway o S Grady Way/North Driveway-Tower 3 o Talbot Road S/East Driveway-Tower 3 o S Renton Village Place/Theater Driveway o S Renton Village Place/West Driveway-Tower 1 o S Renton Village Place/West Rite Aid Driveway o S Renton Village Place/Rite Aid/East Driveway-Tower 1 o S Renton Village Place/Southwest Driveway-Tower 2 o S Renton Village Place/South Driveway-Tower 2 o S Renton Village Place/East Driveway-Tower 1 'i/transpoGROUP Page 1 Site Vicinity Triton Towers Renton Expansion M:\07\07367 Triton Towers Rento n Expansion\Graphics\Graphics01 <Fig 1> meli ndap 09 /23/0813:49 • N NOTTO SCALE FIGURE 'iftranspoGROUP 1 ,j .~· -... r/'~/, ~.,.·., .... ,... . .:--.. ~, '' ... Site Plan Triton Towers Renton Expansion M:\07\0 7367 Triton Towers Renton Expansion \Graphics\Graphics0 1 <Fig 2> melindap 09123/0813:50 C ·- 8 ... _ A 'i/transpOGRO UP • N NOTTO SCALE FIGURE 2 Transportation Impact Study Triton Towers Renton Expansion Existing and Baseline Conditions September:_?008 This section describes both existing con d itions and baseline conditions within the identified study area. Study area characterist ics are provided for the roadway network, planned improvements, existing and fore casted baseline volumes, traffic operations, traffic safety, and transit and non-motorized facilities . Roadway Network The existing roadway network is discussed a long with planned improvements that would likely be completed before the proposed project horizon year, if any. In general, the roadway descriptions given apply to the roa dwa ys wi thin the study area of the proposed project. Existing Inventory The existing roadway characteristics in the proposed project vicinity are described in detail below for relevant facilities . Road way cla ssification is based on the City of Renton Arterial Streets (August 2007) map. 5 Grady Way is a four-to five-lane pri nci pal arterial that serves east-west travel through Renton , connecting Renton Villa ge wi th o ther local roadways. The posted speed limit is 35 miles per hour (mph). There are sidewal ks on both sides of S Grady Way, which provide pedestrian a ccess to the South Rento n Park and Ride lot across the street from the proj e ct site. The intersection of S Grady Way a nd Talbot Road S has a marked and protected c rosswalk, allowing for safe access to the pa rk and ride lot. Talbot Road Sis a four-to seven-l ane pr incipal arterial. Talbot Road S is a north-south roadway that connects the proje ct site with the residential area to the north. The posted s peed limit is 3 5 mph. Within th e project vicinity, there are sidewalks on both sides of the street. 5 Renton Village Place is a loca l access roa d running through the site to provide access to the existing Triton Towers office comp lex a nd the commercial area immedia tely to the west. The posted speed limit is 25 mph . With in the project v icinity there are sidewalks on both side s of the roadway, al though further to the west (near Renton Village) there are intermittent sidewalks . 1-405 is c la ssified by Washington Sta te Depa rtment of Transportation (WSDOT) as an urban interstate. It primarily run s north -south from 1-5 in Tukwila to 1-5/SR 525 Alderwood. In the vicinity of the SR 167 interchange , 1-405 provides thre e general purpo se lanes per direction and one high occupan cy vehicle (HOV) lane per direction. Lake Avenue 5 is two-lane n orth -south local a ccess road that a ccesses the site at a signal on S Grady Way . Thi s roadw ay has a sidewa lk on one s ide of the street south of S Grady Way. Shattuck Avenue 5 is a two -to fou r-la ne no rth-south collector that accesses the site a t a signal on S Grady Way. Shattuck Avenue S connects the site vicinity with the South Renton Park and Ride lot. There are side wa lks on both sides of the street north of S Grady Way, as well as a marked and protected crosswal k s at the intersection with S Grady Way. These c rosswalks allow for safe access to th e pa rk and ride lot. 'i/transpOGROUP Page 4 Transportation Im pact Study Triton Towers Renton Expansion Planned Improvements A new half-diamond interchange on 1-4 05 ea st of the 1-405 / SR 167 interchange at SR 515 (Talbot Road) is currently planned to begin construction in 2009 with a targeted completion in 2011. A new northbound 1-405 off-ramp would form a fourth leg to the existing Talbot Road/S Renton Village Place intersection. Northbound on-ramps to 1-405 would be constructed on Tal bot Road S, between Renton Village Place and S Puget Drive . Traffic Volumes Existing 2008 AM and PM peak-hour traffic volumes at the signalized site accesses at Lake Avenue S and at Shattuck Avenue S were provided by the City of Renton . AM and PM peak- hour turning-movement volumes at the remaining driveways and at the off-site intersections were collected in August 2008. Since the new half-diamond interchange on Talbot Road will have a strong influence on local traffic patte rns, traffic volume forecasts provided by WSDOT were used to determine future 2014 conditio ns . Existing 2008 and future 2014 peak-hour traffic volumes are shown in Fig ures 3 and 4 , respectively. 'j(transpoGROUP Page 5 r.;\ T.AJ..BOTROAD \.J GRNJYWAY 0 TALBOT ROAD E RENTON VILLAGE Pl r:;-.. TALBO-ROAD \::.,) 1-405 N3 ON-RAMP ,;\ LAKE AVEN UES (c\ SHATIUCKAVENUES \V GfWJYWAY '\:::..) GRNJYWAY (125) 600 !30130 I 65 (201 _, + '- (35)50 J l. 20 (45) (340) 480 --575 (595) (340) 1,715 (40!j l (5)55 ) (200) 730 ) ( 345 (205) (30)330 ) ~t~ (800)465 205(175) 170 (725) 0 NORTH DRIVEWAY -TOWER 3 GfWJYWAY (580)1 ,275 --1.020 11,525 (35)5 ") ~ 30 (5) @WESTRITE,IJDDRIVEWAY E RENTON VILLAGE Pl (30) 15 _, 155 (40) '- (1)10 ) l 65(130) (55)145 --65 (65) (27~ t 780 (1,960) 0 TALBOT ROAD EASTDRIVEWAY • TOWER 3 (465) 1,HS (40!j l (5)15 ) 805 (1 ,865) @ RITE AID/EAST DRIVEWAY. TOWER 1 E RIENTON VI LLAGE PL I (5) 1 l 15(5) _, '- (5)1 ) l_ 10(10) 165)285 --140 (1 65) (30) 10 ") ( 20 (301 4\t~ (5) 15 20 (5) 5 (5) Future Intersection (5) (15) 5 ~ r1SJ 10 I 15 r10J (20130 I 1os (151 -'+'--'+'- (10)25 ) l. 20 (10) (10) 20 ) l :is (40) (820)1,330 --1,175 (1,635 1645)1,425 --900(1,420) (1 10)150 ") (20 (1 5) (125)155 ") (75 (20) ~t~ ~t~ ® TALBOT ROAD EAST DRIVEWAY -TOWER 2 (375) 1,730 l~l 15)5 ") ~t 835 (1,970) @WESTDRIVEWAY · TOWER 2 E RENTON VI LLAGE PL (5)20 _, 5(5) '- (15)5 ) l 1(1 5) (551320 --140 (220) C - (130) 220 30 (10) (1 30) 185 95 (30) 1 30 @ THEAT1:RDRJVEWAY E RENTON VILLAGE Pl 1251 5 5 l 30(10) _, '- 5 J l_ 30 (20) (1 5)40 --25 (20) (10)1") (515) ~t~ 5 10 15 (5) @ EAST DRIVEWAY -TOWER 2 E RENTON "1LLAGE PL (5) 1 (5) 25 l 45 (5) _, '- (10)5) l.5(60) (45)315--115 (230) (5)' t, ( (20) (25) • N NOTTO SCAL E LEGEND X PM PEAK HOUR (X) = Afli PEAK HOUR ,;;\ NORTH RITE AID DRIVEWAY \.::._} GRNJY WAY (570)1,265 --900 (1 ,505) (35)5 ") ( 55 (85) ~ ~ 1 60 (30) ('.;".;\ WEST DRIVEWAY -TOWER 1 \.'..._Y E RENTON VILLAGE PL (50) 125 --65 (65) (20) 15 ") ( 15 (28) ~ ~ (5) 10 30 (5) ~ EASTDRIVEWAY · TOWER 1 ~ ERENTON VILLAGE PL (40)380 --110 (300) (5)1) ( (20) ~ ~ 5 10(5) Existing 2008 AM & PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes FIGURE 3 Triton Towers Renton Expansion M:107\07367 Triton Towers Renton Expansion\Graphics\Graphics0 1 <Fig 3> meli ndap 09126/08 13:15 'i/transpOGROUP r.\ TALBOTR(W) \.!..) GRADY WAY r,;\ TALBOT ROAD \.::,) E RENTON VILLAG E PL (':;\ TALBOTRO AD \::..) 1-405 NB O~-AAl,f' ,;\ LN<EAVENUES f?'I SHATTUCKAVENUES \.:._J GRNJY WAY \:::_} GfWJY WAY (200) 740 (590) 1,990 (60, i (60140 I oo (201 _; + '- 140) 70 J l_ 40 (60) (40)70 J l_ 1101190) -10(10) ( 6201230) (440)!00 --670 1600) (190)840 ) ( 430 (200) ~tr-(1,070) 550 320 (320) (40)290 ) (250)~ t HO (1.150) 0 NORTH DRIVEWAY· TOWER 3 GfWJYWAY (li65J1.n o--1.260(1 ,820 (35)5) r- 30 (5) @ WEST RITE AID DRIVEWAY E RENTON VILLAGE PL 130) 15 155 140) _; '- (5)10 ) l_ 65(130) (B5)116 --149 (55) 1,040 (ZJl'J) 0 TALBOT ROAD EAST DRIVEWAY· TOWER J (615) Z025 (40!3 i 15)15 ) t 1,2&1 12,555) @ RITE AIDBST DRIVEVIAY, TOWER 1 E RENTON VILLAGE PL 5 15)5 i 15(5) _; '- 15)5) l_ 10110) 190)256--194 (\lS) (30) 10 t ( 20130) ~tr-(5) 15 20 (5) 5 (5) 1760) 1,730 (1) 130) 1 80 (30l 60 I 40 110) 150110 I 220 (40) i ~(90) _;+'-_;+'- (20)40 J l. 20 (201 (30) 40 J l. so (150) (750)1,550 --1.240(1,740 (660)1 ,400 --1.120(1,600 t ,(460) (1 80) 140 ) ( 50 ())) (80) 120 ) ( 110 (50) ~tr-~tr- 1,160 11,:al) ® TALBOT ROAD EAST DRIVEWAY· TOWER 2 (645) Z035 (3:!; i 15)5 ) ~t 1,280 IZ555) @WEST DRIVEWAY· TOWER2 E RENTON VILLAGE PL (5)20 5(5) _; '- (1 5)5) l.1(15) 185)286 --2041210) (140) 250 50 (10) (140) 120 120 (50) 1 50 (1) (30) @THEATER DRIVEWAY E RENTON VILLAG E PL (25) 5 5 i 30(10) _; '- 5) l_ 30 (20) (95)71 --124 (35) (10)5) (515) ~tr-5 10 15 (5) @EASTDRJVEWAY · TOWER 2 E RENTON VILLAGE PL 15) 1 15)25 i 45 (5) _; '- (10)5) l 5160) (75)286 --180 (220) (51 ) tr ( (20) 1 • N NOTTO SCALE LEGEND X = PM PEAK HOUR (X) = AM PEAK HOUR fa\ NORTH RITE AID DRIVEWAY \V GRADY WAY (670)1,715 --1.20511.1 (35) 5 ) ( 55 IBS) ~ r- 1 60 (30) (;'.;\ WEST DRIVEWAY· TOWER 1 ~ E RENTON VI LLAGE PL IBSJ~ --149 (55) 120) 15 ) ( 15 (30) ~ r- ( 5) 10 30(5) r;;;-, EAST DRIVEWAY· TOWER 1 ~ E RENTON VILLAGE PL (75) 350 --100 (300) (5)1) ( 120) ~ r- s 1015) Baseline 2014 AM & PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes FIGURE Triton Towers Renton Expansion M:\07\0736 7 Triton Towers Renton Expansion\Graphics\Graphics01 <Fig 4> melindap 09/26/08 13:16 4 'iftranspOGROUP Transportation Impact Study Triton T owers Renton Expansion Peak Hour Traffic Operations September 2008 The operational characteristics o f a road way segment are determined by calculating the roadway capacity level of service (LOS ). Like roadway segments, level of service for intersection operations is described alphabetically (A through F). LOS is measured in average control delay per vehicle an d is ty pically reported by approach movement for two- way, stop-controlled intersections. De ta il ed LOS definitions are included in Appendix A. Existing and future peak hour LOS resu lt s were calculated at study intersections based on methodologies contained in the H ighway Capacity Manual (Transportation Research Board, 2000). Synchro 6.0 (Build 614) was used fo r the calculations. Results are summarized in Table 1. Detailed LOS worksheets fo r ea c h intersection analysis are included in Appendix B. As shown in Table 1, all study intersectio ns c urrently operate at LOS Dor better during the AM and PM peak hours. These locations w ill continue to operate at LOS D or better under 2014 baseline conditions , with th e excepti o n of Grady Way/Talbot Road, where operations are anticipated to degrade to LO S E du ri ng the weekday PM peak hour. 'iftranspO GROUP Page 8 Transportation Impact Study Triton Towers Renton Expansion September 2008 ----- Table 1 . Intersection Peak Hour LOS -2008 Existing and 2014 Baseline 2008 Existing 2014 Baseline VIC or VIC or Intersection LOS' Delay2 WM3 LOS Delay WM AM Peak Hour Signalized Intersections 1. S Grady WayfTalbot Road S C 31 .7 0 .59 D 41 .1 0 .8 7 2. S Renton Village PlacefTal bot Roa d S A 7.7 SB C 28.7 0.90 3. Talbot Ro ad Sl l-405 NB On-Ramp NA NA NA A 8 .1 0 .85 4 . S Grady Way/Lake Avenue S A 9.1 0 .67 A 9 .5 0.75 5. S Grady Way/Shattuck Avenue S B 11.8 0 .61 C 28.3 0.75 Stop Controlled Driveways 6. 4 S Grady Way/North Rite Aid Driveway A 9.8 NB A 9 .9 NB 7. S Grady Wa y/North Driveway -Tower 3 A 9 .8 NB A 9.8 NB 8. Talbot Road S/East Driveway -Tower 34 A 9.8 EB B 10.4 EB 9. Talbot Road S/East Driveway -Tower 24 A 9 .6 EB B 10.6 EB 10. S Renton Village Place/Theater Dr iveway A 9 .6 SB B 10.6 SB 11. S Renton Vi llage Place/West Driveway -T ower 1 A 9 .3 NB A 9.5 NB 12. S Renton Village Pla ce/West Rite Aid Dr iveway A 10 .0 SB B 10.1 SB 13. S Renton Village Place/Rite Aid/Ea st Dr iveway -T o wer 1 B 11 .3 NB B 11.5 NB 14. S Renton Village Place/Southwest Dnveway -T ower 2 B 10 .3 SB B 10.4 SB 15. S Renton Village Place/South Driveway -Tower 2 B 11 .7 SB B 11 .8 SB 16. S Renton Village Place /East Driveway -Tower 1 A 8 .5 NB A 8 .7 NB PM Peak Hour Signali ze d Intersec tions 1. S Grady Way/Tal bot Road S D 49 .9 0.89 E 57.9 1.08 2 . S Renton Village Place/Talbot Road S B 16 .7 0.74 D 49.4 0 .99 3 . Talbot Road S/1-4 05 NB On-Ramp NA NA NA A 4.4 0 .86 4 . S Gra dy Way/Lake Avenue S B 18 .0 0.69 C 20.8 0 .80 5 . S Grady Way/Shattuck Av enue S B 19 .2 0.74 C 28.0 0 .86 Stop Controlled Driveways 6 . S Grady Way/North Rite Aid Driveway 4 D 14.3 W BL D 28.6 WBL 7 . S Grady Way/North Driveway -Tower 3 B 10.4 NB B 12.4 NB 8 . Talbot Road S/East Driveway -T ower 34 C 16.8 EB C 20.8 EB 9 . Talbot Road S/East Driveway -Towe r 24 C 15.9 EB C 19.4 EB 10. S Renton Village PlacefTheater Drivewa y A 9 .6 SB B 10.9 SB 11 . S Renton V illage Place/West Driveway -To wer 1 A 9.5 NB A 9.4 NB 12. S Renton V illage Place/West Rite Aid Driveway B 1 1.9 SB B 12.4 SB 13. S Renton Village Place/R ite Aid/Eas t Drive way -Tower 1 B 13.0 SB B 12.9 SB 14. S Renton Vill age Place/South west D riv eway -To w er 2 A 9.7 SB B 10.0 SB 15. S Renton Vi ll age Place/South Driveway -Tower 2 B 12.7 SB B 13.3 SB 16. S Renton Vi ll age Place/East Driveway -To w e r 1 B 11 .2 NB B 11 .2 NB 1. Level of Service (A -F) as defi ned by the Highway Capacity Manual (T RB , 2000) 2. Average delay per ve hicle in seconds. 3. Volume to capacity rati o reported for signa lized intersections. Worst moveme nt reported for unsigna lized driveways. 4 . These driveways are restr icted to right-in/rig ht-out turn ing movements. The intersection operations durin g the weekd ay AM peak hour are at LOS D or better; this can be partly attributed to the distribution of tra ffi c on various adjacent streets. As mentioned above, one intersection is anticipa te d to degrade to LOS E during the weekday PM peak hour in future 2014 baseline conditions. The degraded LOS at this intersection , S Grady Way and 'i/transpOGROUP Page 9 Transportation Impact Study Triton Towers Renton Expansion September 2008 Talbot Road S, is largely due to the fact that S Grady Way is the only principal arterial to access the site from the east. Traffic Safety The signalized intersections were reviewed for potential traffic safety inadequacies. The most-recent three-year accident history was provided by the City of Renton and is summarized in the Table 2. Table 2. Intersection Crash Summary -2005 to 2007 Number of Crashes Annual Rate per Intersection Total Rate MEV1 2005 2006 2007 Grady Way/Lake Avenue S 9 12 3 24 8 0.58 Grady Way/Shattuck Avenue S 3 3 4 10 3.33 0.23 Grady WayfTal bot Road 10 17 13 40 13.3 0.96 S Renton Village PlacefTalbot Road 5 4 10 19 6 .3 0.58 1 . Accident rate per Million Entering Vehicles . By incorporating the traffic volum e at the intersection , the rate of accidents per million entering vehicles (M EV) allows a uniform sta ndard for evaluating accident history. Generally, an accident ra te greater tha n 1.0 accidents pe r MEV is considered higher than normal. Based on this threshold, none of the signalized study intersections represented was identified for furthe r safety analysis. Transit and Non-Motorized Facilities The South Renton Park and Ride is located on S Grady Way, opposite the project site , between Lake Avenue S and Sha ttuck Avenue S. This park and ride lot provides parking for 373 vehicles with transit service provided by King County Metro. Specifically, the site is served by routes 101, 140, 148, 153, 167, 169, 247 , and 280. Table 3 outlines the details of these transit routes. Routes 101 , 148 , and 16 9 all make stops near the intersection of S Re nton Village Pla ce and Talbot Road S in addition to stopping at the park and ride lot. Routes 101 , 148, 153, 247, and 280 all make stops near the intersection of S Grady Way and Talbot Road S. Most of these routes connect to transit centers and park and r ide lots around the Seattle metropolitan area. For example, Route 167 co nnects with 20 other Metro and Sound Transit routes at the Evergreen Point Stati on on SR 520. These other routes serve a variety of locatio ns around Seattle, Bellevu e, Kirkland, Redmond , and beyond . Crosswalks and sidewalks connect the park and ride lot to the project site. In addition to the park and ride lot, the Sound Transit Sounder commuter rail service stops at the Tukwila Station located on S. 158th St. (al so known as Longacres Way). The Tukwila Station has a parking lot with 233 spaces, and this station is connected to the project site via Metro 's Route 140 bus. The 140 route travels along S Grady Way and makes a stop at the South Renton Park and Ride lot. Sidewalks are provided adjacent to the existing office towers , but there are currently no marked pedestrian paths between the buildings. Large surface parking lots without marked pedestrian paths contribute to an in creas ed potential for pedestrian-vehicle conflicts. ~[transpOGROUP Page 10 Transportation Impact Study Triton Towers Renton Expansion September 2.Q.08_ Table 3. Metro Transit Routes at South Renton Park and Ride Route Service Areas Days of Operation Frequency 101 Renton , Skyway, Downtown Daily (M-Su) 10-15 minutes (Peak period); 30 minutes Seattle (non-peak period) 140 Renton, Tukwila, Sea-Tac, Dai ly (M-Su) 15 minutes (Peak period); 30-60 minutes Bu rien (non-peak period) 148 Fairwood Center, Renton Dai ly (M-Su) 30 minutes (Weekdays); 60 minutes (Weekend s) 153 Renton, Kent Weekdays (M-F ) 30 minutes 167 Renton, Newport Hills, Week days (M-F)-20-30 minutes (Peak periods only) Evergreen Point, Unive rs ity peak periods only District 169 Renton, Kent Dai ly (M-Su) 30 mi nutes 247 Kent, Renton , Eastgate, Weekdays (M-F)-30 minutes (Peak periods only ) Over1ake peak periods only 280 Renton , Bellevue, Downtown N ightl y (M-Su) 75-90 minutes (Late night route only) Seattle, Tukwila Source : King Cou nty Metro ~(transpOGROUP Page 11 Transportation Impact Study Triton Towers Renton Expansion September 2008 Project Impacts This section of the analysis documents project-generated impacts on the surrounding roadway network and at the intersect ions of interest. First, peak hour and daily traffic volumes are estimated, distributed, and a ssigned to adjacent roadways and intersections within the study area . Next, 2014 volumes are projected and potential impact to traffic volumes, traffic operations, parking , non-motorized facilities, and transit are identified. Trip Generation Trip generation data collected at the existing Triton Towers driveways during the AM and PM peak hours were found to be con sistent w ith what would be calculated through using the Institute of Transportation Engin eer s (IT E) Trip Generation, 7th Edition equations for general office land use category (#710). Given th is result the future trip generation was calculated based on the ITE equations usin g the square feet of development for the entire site and subtracting the exiting traffic. This industry-standard formula reflects the ty pical conditions of suburban office complexes across the country. Specifically, suburban office buildings and complexes that do not have comprehensive traffic demand management (TOM) programs , which is consistent with the existing site. Anticipated trip generation and comparisons with observed driveway volumes are summarized in Table 4, below. Table 4. Trip Generation Summary AM Peak Hour Trips 1 PM Peak Hour Trips Land Use Size (sf) In Out Total In Out Total Exi sting Site 4 33,419 533 73 606 96 468 564 Expanded Si te 1,545,725 1,476 20 1 1,677 308 1,502 1,81 0 Net New Trips 1,112,306 942 129 1,071 212 1,034 1,246 1. Trip generation calculated from equations for Ge neral Office La nd Use (#710) in !TE Trip Generation, 7"' Ed ition. Based on the ITE equations, the proposed expansion of the Triton Towers development is anticipated to generate approxim ately 1,0 71 net new trips during the weekday AM peak hour and 1,246 net new trips during th e wee kda y PM peak hour. Trip Distribution and Assignment Trip distribution for this developm ent was based on the existing travel patterns at the study intersections and the general location of the site within the community. As shown in Figure 5 , approximately 40 percent of proj ect traffic wou ld be oriented to the south, 20 percent to the east, and 40 percent to the west. The corresponding assignment of AM and PM peak hour project traffic volumes is illustrated in Figure 6. ~(transpoGROUP Page 12 Project Trip Distribution Triton Towers Renton Expansion M:\07\07367 Triton Towers Renton Expansion\Gra phics\Graphics01 <F ,g 5> melinda p 09/25/08 15:37 • N NOTTO SCALE FIGURE 'i/transpOGROUP 5 0 TALBOTROAD GRADY WAY ®TAf.BOT ROAD E RENTON VILLAG E PL 0 TALBOT ROAD 1-405 NB ON-RMI' 0 LAKEAVENUES GRADY WAY ® SHATilJCKAVENUES GRADY WAY (40) 132) 270 259 i i ~(20) 125)207 --11w1 -32 (140) (331)73 --207(26) (236)53 - (32 (1 41) (13)104 ") 0 NORTH DRIVEWAY· TOWER 3 GRADY WAY (19)156 --11(47) (93)21 ') ~ 51 (5) @ WEST RITE ND DRIVEWAY E RENTON VILLAGE Pl (3)22 --73 (100) "4\ (236) 53 fo\ TALBOT ROAD \V EAST DRIVEWAY -TOWER 3 (47) II (94~ i (1 9) 153 ') Q R1TE ND.£ASTDRIVEWAY. \!..::Y TOWER 1 E RENTON VILLAGE Pl -' [15)) (-17)22- (5) ') "4\ (6)52 21 (8) '- .... 21 (110) -21(891 ( 21(134) ~ 40 (41 Project Trip Assignment Triton Towers Renton Expansion 50 (7;\ TALBOT ROAD \V EASTORIVEWAY -TOWER 2 119) 145 r,~i Q \'/EST DRIVEWAY -TOWER2 \.'.Y E RENTON VILLAGE PL Driveway to be removed M:107\07367 Triton Towers Renton Expansion\Graphics\Graphics01 <Fig 6> rne lindap 09126/08 13:16 (50)11 ") "4\ (27) 209 ~ THEATER DRIVEWAY ~ E RENTON VILLAGE PL "4\ (6)53 -5216) ~ EAST DRIVEWAY -TOWER 2 \.!.:V E RENTON VILLAGE PL 21 (3) '- l21(94) (10)83 --64 (322) (96)21') "4\ 126) 207 ~ 52(7) • N NOTTO SCALE LEGEND X = PM PEAK HOUR (X) = AM PEAK HOUR /;;;\ NORTH RITE ND DRIVEWAY \V GRADYWAY (100)73- (142)32 ') ( 11 (47) ~ 103(13) r;:;\ WEST DRIVEWAY -TOWER 1 \'._.YE RENTON VILLAGE PL -52 (6) (21(94) ~ 22 (3) (;;;\ EAST DRNEWAY -TOWER 1 ~ E RENTON VI LLAGE PL Driveway to be removed FIGURE 'j(tran~fJOGROUP 6 Transportation Impact Study Tri ton Towers Renton Expansion Traffic Volume Impact September 2008 Project traffic was added to futu re AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes at the intersections of interest. The resulting 2014 with-project tra ffic volumes are illustrated in Figure 7. Tabl e 5 summarizes the project impact of vo lumes at study intersections during the PM peak hour. Table 5. 2014 Traffic Volume Impacts at Off-Site Study Intersections PM Peak Hour Total Entering Vehicles 2014 2008 With Project Total Attributable Intersection Existin~ Project Generated to Project Signalized Intersections 1. Gra dy WayfTalbot Road 3,795 4 ,733 213 4.5% 2. S Renton Village PlacefTalbot Road 2,990 4,169 429 10.3% 3. Talbot Road/1-405 NB On-Ramp NA 4,166 276 6.6% 4. Grady Way/Lake Avenue S 3,061 3 ,366 434 12.9% 5 . Gr ady Way/Shattu ck Aven ue S 3,130 3,275 365 11 .1% In 2014, it is estimated that of the total entering PM peak hour traffic volumes at stu dy intersections, approximately 4 to 13 percent would be attributable to the proposed development. C:,(transpoGROU P Page 15 ,.\ TALBOT ROAD ~GRADYWAY (200) 740 (OOl 40 I so 120J _, + '- (40)70 ) \. 40 (60) (465) 1,097 --681 (737) I (1 90)840 f ( 462 (42 1) ---t r-(t,070) 550 320 (320) 470 (1 ,150) ,,:;\ TALBOT ROAD \.::,) E RENTON VIUAG E PL (630) 2,260 (60!3 i (40)70 ) (53)394 f (486)~ t t,040 (2,330) \_ 170(100) -42 (150) ( 620 (230) (':;", TALBOT ROAD \::..) 1-105 NB O~RAMP (192) 2989 i t (110) t ,(400) 1.210 (2,804) (;\ LAKE AVENUES ~ SHATIUCKAVENUES \::!.,) GRADY WAY \:::..) GRADY WAY (1) (30) 1 80 (30l oo I 40 (to) (50J 10 I m (40) -'+'--'+'- (20)40 ) \. 20 (20) (30)40 ) \. 80 (150) 1,081) 1,623 --1,447(1 ,766 [896) 1,533 --1,120 (1,600 (230) 151 f ( 50 (30) (176) 141 f ( 110 (50) --.tr---.tr-(167) 459 50 (t O) (166) 327 tn (57) 1 50 (1) (30) • N NOTTO SCALE LEGENO X = PM PEAK HOUR (X) = AM PEAK HOUR (';;\ NORTH RJTE AI D DRIVEWAY \::!.)GRADYWAY (770) 1,188 --1,205 (1,735 (117) 37 f ( 66 (132) ---r-1 163(43) 0 NORTH DRIVEWAY· TOWER 3 GFWJYWAY ® TALBOT ROAD EAST DRIVEWAY· TOWER 3 ® TAL BOT ROAD EAST DRJVEWAY • TOWER 2 @ THEATER DRIVEWAY E RENTON VILLAGE PL (;:;\ WESTDRJVEWAY • TOWER 1 ~ E RENTON VIUAGE PL (722) 2,036 11 34!_3 i (684) t,926 --1.211 (1,86 (128)26 f (24)168 f r- 81 (10) 1200 (2,555) @ WEST RITE AID DRIVEWAY E RENTON VIUAGE PL @ RITEAIDitASTDRIVEWAY, TOWER 1 E RENTON VILLAGE PL 5 (30} 15 155 (40) (10) 25 i 41 113) _, '-_, '- (5)t0 ) \. 65 (130) (20) 10 ) \. 31 ('10) [88)138 --222 11ss) (73)282 --195(264) (35)1 ) (41('54) ---tr-(1 1)61 60(9) 5 (5) (664) 2,180 !81~ i 124) 16D f ;t 1,280 (2,555) @ WEST DRIVEWAY · TOWER2 E ~ENTON VILLAGE PL Driveway to be rem oved (25) 5 5 i 30 (10) _, '- sJ \.30 (20) (95}71--176 (41) (10)5') (SIS) ---t r-16)58 10 15 15) @ EASTDRJVEWAY · TOWER 2 E RENTON VILLAGE PL (5) I (5) 25 i 66 (8) _, '- (10) 5 ) \. 26 (154) (85)378 --244 (542) (85)96 --201 (61) (20) 15 t ( 36 (1 24) ---r-(5) 10 52(8) c;;,. EAST DRJVEWAY · TOWER 1 \.'...'.V E RENTON VILLAGE PL Driveway to be removed 2014 With-Project Peak Hour Traffic Volumes FIGURE 7 Triton Towers Renton Expansion M:107\07367 Triton Towers Renton Expansion\Graphics\Graphics01 <Fig 7> mel1ndap 09/26/08 13:16 'iftranspOGROUP Transportation Impact Study _!~ton Towers ~E:_nton Expansion September 2008 Traffic Operations Impact Table 6 shows baseline and with project traffic operations results for the 2014 horizon year. Table 6. Intersection Peak Hour LOS -201 4 Basel ine and With Project 2014 Baseline 2014 With Project V/C or V/C or Intersection LOS1 Delay2 WM3 LOS Delay WM AM Peak Hour Signalized Intersections 1 . Grady Way/Lake Avenue S A 9 .5 0 .75 B 11 .1 0.79 2 . Gr ady Way/Shattuck Avenue S C 28 .3 0 .75 C 27 .7 0.77 3 . Grady WayfTalbot R oad D 41 .1 0.87 D 45.7 0.96 4 . S Renton Village PlacefTalbot Road C 28.7 0.90 D 40 .7 1.01 5 . Talbot Road/1-405 NB On-Ramp A 8 .1 0.85 B 13 .5 0.94 Stop Controlled Driveways 6 . Grady Way/North Rite A id Driveway 4 A 9 .9 NB B 11 .5 WBL 7 . Gr ady Way/N orth Driveway -Tower 3 A 9 .8 NB A 9 .9 NB 8 . Talbot Road/East Driveway -Tower 34 B 10.4 EB B 10.8 EB 9. Talbot Road/East Driveway -Tower 24 B 10 .6 EB B 11 .1 EB 10 . S Renton Village PlacefTheater Driveway B 10 .6 SB B 10.7 SB 11 . S Renton Village Place/West Driveway -Tower 1 A 9.5 NB B 10.4 NB 12. S Rento n Village Place/West Rite A id Dri veway B 10.1 SB B 1 1 .1 SB 13 . S Renton Village Place/Rite Aid/East Driveway -To wer 1 B 11 .5 NB C 20.6 NB 14 . S Renton Village Place/Southwest Driv eway -Tower 2 B 10.4 SB NA NA NA 15. S Renton Vi llage Place/South Driveway -Tower 2 B 11 .8 SB C 16 .3 SB 16 . S Renton Village Place/East Driveway -Tower 1 A 8.7 NB NA NA NA PM Peak Hour Signalized Intersections 1. S Grady Way/Lake Avenue S C 20.8 0.80 D 45.9 1.01 2 . S Grady Way/Shattuck Avenue S C 28.0 0 .86 D 36.7 0.94 3 . S Grady WayfTalbot Road S E 57 9 1.08 E 74 .8 1.11 4 . S Renton Vi llage Pl acefTalbot Road S D 49.4 0 .99 F 102.2 1.19 5 . Tal bot Road/1-405 NB On-Ramp A 4.4 0 .86 A 9.4 0.95 Stop Controlled Driveways 6 . S Grady Way/N orth Rite Aid Dr ivewa y 4 D 28.6 WBL E 40.8 WBL 7. S Grady Way/N orth Dr iveway -Tower 3 B 12.4 NB C 15.5 NB 8. Tal bot Road/East Driveway -Tower 3 4 C 20.8 EB F 53.0 EB 9. Tal bot Road/East Driveway -Tower 2 4 C 19.4 EB F 58 .7 EB 10. S Renton Village PlacefTheater Driveway B 10.9 SB B 11.8 NB 11 . S Renton Village Place/West Driveway -T ower 1 A 9.4 NB A 9.5 NB 12. S Renton Village Place/West Rite Ai d Driveway B 1 2.4 SB B 13.9 SB 13. S Renton Village Pl ace/Rite Aid/East Driveway -Tower 1 B 12.9 SB C 15.7 NB 14. S Renton Village Place/Southwest D riveway -Tower 2 B 10.0 SB NA NA NA 15. S Renton Village Place/South Dr iveway -Tower 2 B 13.3 SB C 15.3 SB 1 6. S Renton Village Place/East Driveway -Tower 1 B 11 .2 NB NA NA NA 1. Level of Service (A-F) as defined by the Highway Capacity Manual (TRB, 2000) 2. Average delay per veh icle in seco nds . 3 . Volume to capacity ratio reported for signa lized inte rsect ions . Worst movement reporte d for unsignalized driveways . 4 . These driveways are restricted to ri ght-in/right-ou t tu rn ing movements. 'j(transpOGROUP Page 17 Transportation Impact Study Triton Towers Rento n Expansion ----·-----September 2008_ As shown in Table 6, all study intersections w ould continue to operate at LOS Dor better during the weekday AM peak ho ur. All study intersections, with one exce ption , would operate at LOS E or better during the weekday PM peak hour. The on e exception is that project-generated traffic would cause operations at S Renton Village Place/Ta lbot Road S to degrade to LOS F. This degradation is in part because Talbot Road Sis the only no rth-south arterial that connects the eastern side of the project site with the roadways north a nd south of 1-405 . In addition, the new fourth leg at the 1-405 interchange would attract additio nal traffic volumes that do not currently use this intersection . In addition to the degraded operati on s at S Renton Village Place/Talbot Road S , three of the site driveways are anticipated to degrade to LOS E or F . It should be noted that all three of these driveways have right-in an d right-out o nly turning allowances. The driveway that is estimated to operate at LOS E is th e S Grady Way/North Rite Aid driveway; it is located directly across the street from th e South Renton Park and Ride lot. The worst movement at this intersection is the westbound left turn , wh ich would be for those turning off of S Grady Way into the Rite Aid and the Renton Vi ll age Shopping Center. The two driveway intersections that are anticipated to deg rade to LOS Fare both located on Talbot Road S: Talbot Road/Ea st Driveway-T ower 3 and Talbot Road /East Driveway-Tower 2. The worst movement at both of these intersections is the eastbound leg, which would be for those leaving the project site and turnin g onto Talbot Road S , which would not impact the operations of the City street network. Proposed Parking Supply The Triton Towers development currently provi des 1,827 parking stalls in surface parking lots. The proposed project includes four five-l evel parking structures in addition to surface parking lots, for a total of 3 ,212 parking stalls. This total represents an increase of 1,385 parking stalls. Parking Code Requirements The City of Renton parking code requirement is based on net square footage rather than gross square footage. With the p roposed proj ect, the combined net floor area of the Triton Towers development would total approximately 1,243,500 square feet. According the City of Renton parking codes, general office bui ldi ng developments are required to have a minimum of 3 parking spaces per 1,000 fe et of net floor area, and a maximum of 4.5 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of net floor a rea. Based on this criterion , the project would be required to provide at least 3,731 new spa ces a nd no more than 5 ,596 new spaces. The current site plan for the proposed project wou ld provide a total of 3,212 spaces, or 2.58 spaces per 1,000 feet of net floor area. A more limited supply of on-site parking will encourage employees and visitors to the si te to carpool and use alternati ve modes of transportation. Peak Parking Demand A parking demand analysis for th e proposed project was completed to determine how closely the proposed parking supply would meet the anticipated parking d e mand . The parking demand rate for large office buildin g sites (1 million gross square feet or more) from ITE Parking Demand , 3rd Edition, were used . Specifically, this rate is 2.58 vehicles per 1,000 square feet GFA, which equate to a total peak demand of 3 ,988 spaces for the overall development. With a proposed parkin g supp ly of 3,212 the proposed parking demand would exceed the calculated supply by 776 space s, or 24 percent. As mentioned in the Trip Generation section , the ITE rates reflect the typ ical conditions of suburban office co mplexes 1J/transpoGROUP Page 18 T ransportation Impact Study T~ito n T owers R__Elt1to _n Ex pansion ~eptembe r 2008_ across the country that do not have Tra nsportation Demand Management (TOM) programs . If a TOM program is implemented it is anti c ipated that the proposed demand could be reduced by as much as 24 percent depen di ng on t he specific elements incorporated into the program. Transit and Non-Motorized Facilities The proposed project site w ould include a fe w improvements related to non-motorized facilities. The existing sidewalks o n th e site frontage would be complemented by internal walkways between the proposed office bu il di ngs and parking structures. The walkways would enhance the pedestrian connectivity of the site , and are indicative of the urban design found in a typical downtown city bloc k. Thi s type o f pedestrian-friendly design allows for safe travel among the office building s, parking structures, and adjacent surface parking lots . S idewalk enhancements such as street tre es also help to create a central business district feel to the project site. Also, the project would reduce th e potentia l for pedestrian-vehicle conflicts on-site by replacing the existing large surfa ce pa rking lots that lack dedicated pedestrian facilities with structured parking that would in cl ude dedicated pedestrian facilities. ~TtranspOGROUP Page 19 Transportation Impact Stu dy Triton Towers Renton Expansion Mitigation Septe_~ber 2008 This section presents the recomm ended measures that would be taken to mitigate the impacts of the project on the adjace nt roadway network. The most significant mitigation that can be implemented would be to reduce the number of vehicles to the site through implementing a transportation demand mana gement (TOM) program. The impacts of TOM programs on vehicular trip genera ti on were studied in project B-4 of the Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP), rep orted in /TE Trip Generation Handbook, Appendix B (2004). This study was based nationwide survey data from employers with active TOM programs. The TCRP report addresses three types of TOM measures : support measures, transportation services, and economic incentives. Support measures, such as rideshare matching, promotional activities, and flexibl e work hours, are intended to foster an environment that is supportive of alternative modes and off-peak travel. Support services alone were not found to have an impact on vehicle trip reduction. Transportation services, such as on-site showers and changing facilities, van-pool programs, a nd shuttle service to transit stations, were found to have a more noticeable impact o n the number of vehicles used by commuters, with an average reduction of 8 percent. Economic in centives, such as transit subsidies and parking fees , were observed to reduce th e number of vehicles used by commuters by an average of 16 percent. The greatest reduction in commuter veh icles was achieved by TOM programs that combined economic in cent ives with transp ortation services, w ith an average reduction of 24 percent. The ex isting Triton Towers development has very limited TOM measures. Only one of the tenants in the existing development (Boeing ) has implemented some participation in carpooling and vanpooling. With the high availa bility of free parking these simple measures have not significantly reduced th e volume o f traffic traveling to and from the site. By implementing the following TOM measures , tra ffi c operations at the S Renton Village Place/Talbot Road S could be im proved. A TOM program for this site could in clude the se measures : • Limiting the amount of free parking to each tenant • C harge parking fees for non-rideshare vehicles • Provide discounted transit pa sses for employees • Provide on-site showers and changing facilities • Provid e sheltered bike ra cks • Implement an empl oyee va n-pool program • Provide a shu ttle bus service to off-site transit stations • Promote fle x ible sch eduling and work hours • Create a transp ortation coordinator position for employees Transportation Mitigation Fees According to the City of Renton Development Fees schedule , the developer would be required to pay a transportation fee of $75 per daily vehicle trip based on the City's Resolution #3100. Based on this criteri on, the development would pay a transportation fee of approximately $514,350. The ex act amount o f the transportation mitigation fee will be determined in coordination with City staff. 'j/transpoGROUP Page 20 (f) C 0 C ~ (1) 0 (f) 0 .....I <{ X "'O C (1) Q. Q. <{ Highway Capacity Manual, 2000 Si g n alized i nters ection level of service (I ,( )S) is defined in terms of the average total vehicle d elay of all m ovements through an intersecrion . Ve hicle delay is a m ethod of quan tifying several intangible factors, including d river discomfort, fr usrratio n, an d lost travel time. Specifica lly , LOS criteria a re stated in terms of average delay per veh icle during a specified time period (for example, th e P M peak hour). Vehicle d elay is a complex measure ba sed un many variables, includin g signal phasing (i .e., progression of movements through the intersectio n), signal cycle length, and traffic volumes with respect co intersection capacity. Tabl e I shows I .OS criteria for signalized intersections, as described in the F-Tighlllqy Capaciry Manual (fransp onarion Research Board, Special Report 209, 2000). Table 1. Level of Service A B C D E F Level of Service Criteria for Si g na l ized Intersections Average Control Delay (sec /veh) $]0 >10 · 20 >20 · 35 >35 · 5 5 >5 5 · 80 >80 General De scription (S ig na l ize d Intersecti ons) Free Flow Stable Flow (sligh t delays) Stable flow (accep t able d el ays) Approaching unstabl e flow (tolerabl e delay, occasionall y wait through more than one signal cycl e be fo r e pro cee di ng) Unstable flow (i ntolerable d elay) Forced flow Ua mmed) Unsignalize d int e rsection L OS criteri a c a n he further reduced into two intersection types: aU-way stop-controlled and two-way stop-con trolled. All -way, stop-controlled intersection LOS is expressed in terms of the average vehicle delay of a ll of the movements, much like t hat of a signali7.ed intersection. Two-way, sco p-concroU ed intersection LOS is defi ned in terms of the average vehicle d elay of an individual movement(s). T h is is beca use the p erform anc e of a two-w ay , s top-controlled intersection is m ore closely refl ected in terms of its individua l move ments, rather than its performance overall. For this reason, I .OS for a two-way, scop-controlled intersection is defi ned in terms of its individual m ovemen ts. Wirh rhis in mind, total average vehicle delay (i .e., average delay of all movements) for a two -way, scop -concrollcd intersection should be v iewed \vith discretion. Table 2 s hows LOS criteria for unsignali7.ed intersectio ns (both all-way and two-way, stop- con troll ed). Table 2. Level of Servic e Criteria for Unsignalized Intersections Level of Service Average Control Delay (sec /veh) A 0-10 B >1 0 · 1 5 C >1 5 -25 D >25 · 35 E >35 · 50 F >50 Appendix B : LOS Worksheets HCM Signaliz ed Intersection Capacity Analysis 1 : Grad~ W~ & Lake Ave S ..> -• • -" ~ t ~ Ma -- gi,, EBT §I!! ml!: mI !!!I!! ... -,.,. NIR Lane Configurations 11 ++ f 11 +t> 11 + f Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5 .0 5.0 LMe Utll. Factor 1.00 0 .95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Fri 1.00 1 00 0 .85 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 Fh Prolected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0 .95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1752 3505 1568 1770 3536 17 52 1568 Fh Pemlilled 0 .95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.74 1.00 Satd. Flow !~rm) 1752 3505 1568 1770 3536 1358 1568 Volume (vph) 10 820 110 15 1635 10 130 0 10 Peak-hour fa ctor, PHF 0.92 0 .92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0 .92 0.92 0.92 Adj . Flow (vph) 11 891 120 16 1777 11 141 0 11 RTOR Re d uction (vph) 0 0 36 0 0 0 0 0 0 LMe Group Flow (vph) 11 891 84 16 1788 0 141 0 11 Heav~ Vehicles l%/ 3% 3% 3% 2% 2% 2% 3% 3% 3% Tum Type Prot Perm Prol Penn Free Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 4 Permitted Phases 2 4 Free Aclualed Green. G (s) 14 84.2 84.2 38 86.6 17 .0 120.0 Effective Green, g (s) 1.4 84.2 84.2 3.8 86.6 17.0 120.0 Aclualed g/C Ratio 001 070 0 70 0 03 0 72 0.1 4 1.00 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 30 30 30 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 20 2459 1100 56 2552 192 1568 vis Ratio Prat 0.01 0.25 c0.01 c0.51 vis Ratio Perm 0.05 c0.10 c0.01 vie Rat io 0 .55 0.36 0.08 0.29 0.70 0.73 0.01 Uniform Delay, d 1 59.0 7.2 5.6 56.8 9.4 49.3 0 .0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.33 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 28.9 0.4 0 .1 2 .2 1.3 13.5 0.0 Delay (s) 87.9 7.6 5.8 58.9 4 .4 62.9 00 Level of Service F A A E A E A Approach De lay (s) 8.2 4.9 58.3 Af>proach LO S A A E Ern....._ HCM Average Control Delay 9 .1 HCM Level of Service A HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.67 Actuated Cycle Leng th (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 10.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 67.7% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 C Critical Lane Group M:\07\07367 T riton T owers Renton Expansion\Analysis\Traffic Operations\AM Existin g.sy7 9117/2008 The Transpo Group Triton Towers 2008 Existing AM .... l ., HI,; 88T 88R 4, 1900 1900 1900 5.0 1.00 ~ 093 0.98 _J 1102 0.92 1036 10 5 15 0.92 0.92 092 11 5 16 0 14 0 0 18 0 58% 58% 58% Penn 4 4 17 0 17.0 0.14 5.0 30 147 0.02 0.12 45.0 1.00 0 .4 45.4 D 4 5 .4 D -, ------ ---------- Synchro 6 Re port Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capaci ty A nalysis 2: Grad~ W~ & Shattuck Av S ..> -• • -" ~ t ~ MIMnlall Iii!. m • JS Wlfr-WIIIR .-Nit~ Lane Configurations 11 ++ f 11 +t-11 4ft Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width 12 11 11 12 11 12 12 11 12 Grade(%) 0% 0% 1% Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Utll . FaclOr 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0 .9 1 0.91 Frt 1.00 1 .00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.96 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0 .97 Satd. Flow (pro t) 1770 3421 1531 1770 3407 16 18 3085 Flt Permitted 0 .95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0 .95 0.97 Satd. Flow !perm) 1770 3421 1531 1770 3407 16 18 3085 Volume (vph ) 10 645 125 20 1420 40 130 25 30 Peak-hour fa ctor, P HF 0 .92 0 92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj . Flow (vph) 11 70 1 136 22 1543 43 141 27 33 RTOR Red u ct ion (vph) 0 0 5 1 0 1 0 0 27 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 11 70 1 85 22 1585 0 71 103 0 Heavt Vehicles(%) 2% 2% 2'% 2% 2% /O/o 1% 1% 1% Turn Type Prat Perm Pro t Split Protected Ph ases 1 6 5 2 3 3 Perm itted Phases 6 Aclualed Green. G (s) 1 2 75 1 75 1 4 1 78.0 11.5 1 1 .5 Effective Green, g (s) 1.2 75.1 75.1 4.1 78.0 11.5 11 .5 Acluated g/C Ratio 001 0 63 0 63 0 03 065 0.10 0 10 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Ve h icle Extension !S) 3.0 5.0 5.0 3.0 5.0 4 .0 4 .0 La ne Gtp Cap (vph) 18 21 4 1 958 60 2215 155 296 vis Ratio P rat 0.01 c0.20 0.01 c0.47 c0.04 0.03 vis Ratio Penn 0.06 vie Ratio 0.61 0.33 0.09 0.37 0.72 0 .46 0 .35 Uniform Delay, d1 59.2 10.6 8.9 58.7 13.7 51.3 50.7 Progression Factor 0.83 0 5 1 0 14 1.20 0.42 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 46.9 0 .4 0.2 3.0 1.6 2.9 1.0 Delay (s) 96.0 5.7 1.4 71.3 7.4 54.2 51.7 Level of Service F A A E A D D Approach Delay (s) 6.2 82 52.6 Approach LOS A A -D - HCM Average Control Delay 11.8 HCM Level of Service -------8 -HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 061 Actuated Cycle length (s) 120.0 Sum of loat time (s) -15.0 In tersec tion Capacity Uti li zation 59.1% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 C Critical Lane Group M :107\07367 Triton Towers Re nto n Expansion\Analysis\Traffi c Operations\AM Exist ing.sy7 9117i2008 Th e Transpo G roup Triton Towers 2008 Existing AM .... l ., -----11 .. 1900 1900 1900 12 11 12 5 .0 1.00 1.00 0.9 5 1530 0.95 1530 1421 15 15 20 0.92 0 .92 0 .92 16 16 22 0 20 0 16 18 0 18% 18% 18% Split 4 4 9 .3 93 9 .3 9.3 0 08 0 08 5.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 11 9 110 0 .01 c0 .0 1 0 .13 0 .16 51 .8 51 .7 1.00 1.00 0.7 0.9 52 .3 52.6 D D 52 5 D Synchro 6 Report Page 2 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Tri ton Towers 3 : G rady_ Wy_ & North Rite Aid Driveway_ 2008 Existing AM -..... " -~ ,;. Dr~EIR W8L W8T NIL N8R i Lane Configurati ons tit 'I tt V Sign Control Free Free Stop ---------··-Grade 0% 0% 0% VOiume (velv'h) 570 35 85 1505 0 30 -~----------Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 096 096 0.96 0 96 Hourly now rale (vph) 594 36 89 1568 0 31 Pedestrian s --------- Lane Width (ft) --------------------------Walking Speed (fUs) Percent Blockage Right turn fiare (veh ) Median type -None -----------Median storage veh ) Upslream signal (ft) 408 562 --------pX, p latoon unblocked 0.92 091 092 vC , conflicting volume 630 1573 315 vC 1 , stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, u nblocked vol 515 1275 174 tC, single (s) 4.1 6 .8 6.9 I C, 2 stage (s) tf (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 pO Queue free % 91 100 96 cM capacity (veh/h) 966 133 780 1 WB2 WB3 Nl1 j VOiume Total 396 234 89 784 784 31 ----------Volu me Left 0 0 89 0 0 0 Volume Right 0 36 0 0 0 31 cSH 1700 1700 966 1700 1700 780 Volume lo Capacity 0 .23 0.14 0.09 0.46 0.46 0.04 --Queue L ength 95th (ft) 0 0 8 0 0 3 Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 9.1 0 .0 0.0 9.8 --Lane LOS A A Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0 .5 9.8 ----------Approach LOS A iirats1!!!!1 ...... Y -j Average Delay 0 .5 Intersection Capacity Utilizalion 53.3% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 M:107\07367 Trito n T owers Ren ton Expansion\Analysis\T raffic Operations\AM Existing.sy7 9/1712008 Syn chro 6 Report Page 3 The Transpo Group \ HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: Grady_ Wy_ & North Driveway_ -Tower 3 -..... " -~ ,;. MMnall E8T E8R Lane Configurations tlt Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Volume (vehlh) 580 35 0 1525 0 5 Peak Hour Factor 0 .97 0 .97 0 .97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Hourly flow rate (vph) 598 36 0 1572 0 5 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) ----Walking Speed (IVs) Percent Blockage -------Right t urn fiare (veh) Median type ---None Median storage veh) Upslream signal (ft) 649 321 pX, platoon unblocked 0.94 0.89 0.94 vC, conflicting volume 634 1402 317 11C 1. stag e 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu , unbl ocked vol 554 1139 218 tC , sin gle (s) 4 .2 6 .8 6 .9 tC. 2 stage (s ) t F (s) 2.2 3 .5 3 .3 pO queue free c;o 100 100 99 cM capacity (veh/h) 950 176 748 DnciaiL Y!!!! t ~1 ~H Ml ~U !IP Volume Total 399 235 786 786 5 Volume Left 0 0 0 0 0 Volume Right 0 36 0 0 5 cSH 1700 1700 1700 1700 748 Volume lo Capacity 0.23 0.14 0.46 0.46 0 .01 Queue Length 95th (It) 0 0 0 0 1 Control Delay (s) o.o 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 9.8 Lane LOS A Approach Delay (s) 0.0 -0 .0 9.8 Approach LOS A iii Average Delay 0.0 lnlefsection Capacity Ulilizalion 46.3% IC U Level of Service Analysis Period (m in) 15 M :\07107367 Triton Towers Renton Expansion\Analysis\Traffic Operations\AM Existing .sy7 9/17/2008 The Transpo Group Triton Towers 2008 Existing AM Synchro 6 Report Page 4 • HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 5: G rad~ Wot. & Talbot ..> -" • -' "' t ,.. MlwMill Ell YI U! W8L !l!~~--NIT~NBR Lane Configurations .., ++ (' ..,., +to ..,.., tt- Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 T otal Lost time (s) 3 .0 3.0 3 .0 3.0 3.0 3 .0 3.0 ~ Util. Factor 1.00 0 .95 1.00 0 .97 0.95 0 .97 0 .95 Frt 1.00 1.00 0 .85 1.00 0.99 1.00 0 .97 Flt Prc4ected 0 .95 1.00 1.00 0 .95 1.00 0 .95 1.00 Said. Flow (prot ) 1687 3374 1509 3400 3468 3467 3470 Flt Pennilled 0 .95 1.00 1.00 0 .95 1.00 0 .95 1.00 Satd. Flow (~rm) 1687 3374 1509 3400 3468 3467 3470 Volume (vph} 35 340 200 205 595 45 890 725 175 Peak-hour factor. PHF 0.96 0.96 0 .96 0.96 0 .96 0.96 0 .96 0 .96 0.96 Adj . Flow (vph} 36 354 208 2 14 620 47 927 755 182 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 145 0 4 0 0 18 0 ~ Group Flow (vph) 36 354 63 214 663 0 927 9 19 0 Heavl Veh icles (%) 7% 7% 7% 3% 3% 3% 1 % 1% 1% Tum Type Prot Penn Prol Prol Protected P hases 2 6 5 1 3 8 P ermitled Phases 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 36 35 5 35.6 12.6 43 5 41.4 52.5 Effective Green, g (s) 5.6 36.5 36.5 14.6 45.5 43.4 53.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 005 0 .30 0 30 0 12 0 38 0 36 0.45 Clearance Time (s) 5 .0 4.0 4.0 5.0 5 .0 5.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 40 4.0 4.0 3.0 4 0 5 .0 5.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 79 1026 459 414 1315 1254 1547 vis Ra t io Prol 0 .02 c0.10 0.06 c0.19 c0.27 c0.26 vis Ratio Perm 0.04 vie Ratio 0.46 0.35 0.14 052 0.50 0.74 0.59 Uniform Delay, dl 55.7 32.5 30.3 49.4 28.6 33.4 25.1 P rogression Factor 0.75 0.67 0.60 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 5 .4 0 .9 0 .6 1.1 1.4 2.8 0.9 Delay (s) 47.5 22.7 18.9 50 5 30.0 36.2 26.0 Level ol Service 0 C B 0 C 0 C Approach Delay (s) 22.9 35.0 311 Approach LOS C C C -Iii liilllmliw HCM Average Control Delay 31 .7 HCM Level ol Sefvice C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.59 Actuated Cyde Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utili.t.alion 65.2% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 C Critical Lane Group M:\07107367 T rito n T owers Renton Expansion\Analysis\Traffic Operations\AM Existi ng.sy7 9/17/2008 The T ranspo Group T riton Towers 2008 Existing AM '. l ~ 88L 88T SM .., ++ r' 1900 1900 1900 30 3.0 3 .0 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0 .95 1.00 1.00 1770 3539 1583 0.95 1.00 1.00 1770 3539 1583 20 125 30 096 0 .96 0 .96 21 130 31 0 0 28 21 130 3 2% 2% 2% Prot Perm 7 4 4 24 11 5 11 5 3 .4 13.5 13 5 O.Q3 0 .11 0 11 4.0 5.0 5 .0 30 50 50 50 398 178 c0.01 0.04 0 .00 0 .42 0.33 0 .02 57 .3 49.1 47.4 1.00 1 00 1 .00 5.6 1.0 0 .1 62.9 50.1 47.5 E D D 51 1 D --, Synchro 6 Report Page 5 I HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6 : East Orivewai-Tower 3 & SR 515/Talbot ..> " "' t l ~ Lane Configurations Sign Control Slop Grade 0% 0% 0% Volume (vehlh) 0 5 0 1865 465 Peak Hour Factor 0 .94 0 .94 0.94 0.94 0 .94 Hourly flow rate (vph} 0 5 0 1984 495 P edestrians Lane Wldlh (fl} Walking Speed (!Us) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None -Median storage veh) Upstream signal (fl} 681 538 pX, platoon unblocked 0 .70 1.00 1.00 vC, conflicting volume 1487 247 537 vC 1, slage 1 conr vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu. unbl ocked vol 1257 245 535 IC, sin gle (s) 6.8 6.9 4 .1 tC 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 pO queue free % 100 99 cM capacity (veh/h) 1 16 761 Dnciliiii:'!.ii • E81 NB1 rtli 1111 112 :J.13 Volume T olal 5 992 992 247 247 43 Volume Left 0 0 0 0 0 0 Volume Right 5 0 0 0 0 43 cSH 76 1 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0 .01 0.58 0.58 0 .15 0 .15 0 .03 Queue Length 95th (ft ) 1 0 0 0 0 0 Control Delay (8) 9.8 0.0 0 .0 0 .0 0.0 0 .0 Lane LOS A Approach Delay (s} 9 .8 0 .0 0 .0 Approach LOS A Average Delay 0 .0 tnterseclion Capacity Utilization 55.7% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 M ·\07107367 Triton Towers Renton Expansion\Analysis\Traffic Operalions\AM Exisling.sy7 9/17/2008 The Trans po Group T ri ton Towers 2008 Existing AM Synchro 6 Report Page 6 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Triton Towers 7: East Drivewa~ -Tower 2 & SR 515/Talbot 2008 Existing AM .,> ..... ~ t 1 ~ _.._..._ --.-EIR~Na r§!-88T~88R :, Lane Configuration s .,, .tt tr. Sign Control Slop Free Free Grade 0% 0% -----0% VOiume (vehlh) 0 5 5 1970 375 35 ---. --Peak Hour Factor 0 .95 0.95 0.95 0 .95 0 .95 0.95 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 5 5 2074 395 37 Pedestrians --------- Lane Width (ft) -Walking Speed (fVs) PercentBIOckage Right turn flare (veh) --------- Median type None -Median storage veh) Upstream signal (fl) 293 926 pX, platoon unblocked 0 .16 vC , conftictlng volume 1461 216 432 vC 1. stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 0 2t6 432 tC, single (s) 6.8 6 .9 4 .1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2 .2 pO queue free %1 100 99 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 166 795 1132 IJncllll .. !.I!!!! • E81 NB1 NB2 §!1 S82 Volume Total 5 696 1382 263 168 Volume Left 0 5 0 0 0 Volume Right 5 0 0 0 37 cSH 795 11 32 1700 1700 1700 VOiume lo Capacity 0 .01 0 .00 0 .81 0 .15 0 .10 -------~ Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 Control Delay (s) 9 .6 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 ---------Lane LOS A A Approach Delay (S) 9 .8 0 .0 0.0 --A pproach LOS A • iii 18iima11 l Average Delay 0 .1 Intersection Capacity Utilization 62.1% ICU Level of Service B -~ ----Analysis Period (min) 15 M :10710 7367 T riton Towers Renton Expansion\Analysis\Traftic Operations\AM Existing.sy7 9/17/2008 Synchro 6 Report Page 7 The Transpo Group I i HCM Unsi gnalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 8: S Renton Vitta 9e PL & Theater Drivewa~ .,> -..... # -' ~ t ~ MD.en•ll E8L E8T E8R WIL W8T WBR NIL N8T NIIR Lane Configurations • • • Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade -1% 0% 0% Volume (veh/h) 0 15 10 5 20 20 0 5 0 Peak Hour Factor 0 .90 0.69 0 .69 0 .69 0.69 090 069 0 .90 0.69 Hourly now rate (vph) 0 22 14 7 29 22 0 6 0 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (fUs) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 51 36 97 95 29 vC 1, s lage 1 con f vol vC2, stag e 2 conf vol vCu. unblocked vol 5 1 36 97 95 29 tC, single (s) 4.1 4.1 7 .1 6 .5 6 .2 tC, 2 stage (s) IF (s) 2.2 2 .2 3 .5 4.0 3.3 pO queue free % 100 100 100 99 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 1555 1575 ---863 792 1052 Volume Left 0 7 0 11 Volume Right 14 22 0 0 cSH 1555 1575 792 821 Volume to Capacity 0 .00 0.00 0 .01 0.05 Queue Length 95th (ft ) 0 0 1 4 Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.9 9.6 9 .6 L ane LOS A A A Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0 .9 9 .6 9.6 Approach LOS A A b! Average Delay 35 Intersection Capacity Utilization 23.6% ICU Level of Service A nalysis Period (min) 15 M :107107367 Triton Towers Renton Expansion\Analysis\Traffic Operations\AM Existin g .sy7 9/17/2008 The Transpo Group - Triton Towers 2008 Existing AM '-. 1 ~ 118: !!I! 88A • Stop 0% 10 25 0 090 0 .90 0 .90 11 28 0 None 88 91 40 86 91 40 7 .1 6 .5 6 .2 3 .5 4.0 3.3 99 97 100 892 796 1031 Synchro 6 Report Page 8 L HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Triton Towers 9: S Renton V illa9e PL & West Drivewal -Tower 1 2008 Existing AM -• (' -' ~ ~EiR--...-wsT !!I!!: N8R ! Lane Configurations ft 4 V Sign Control Free Free Stop ------------- Grade -1% 0% 0% 50 20 28 85 5 5 Volume (vehlh) --------- Peak Hour Factor 0 .8 1 0 .81 0.81 0 .8 1 0 81 0.81 Hour1y flow rate (vph) 62 25 35 80 6 6 Pedestrian s Lane Wld1h (ft) -Wal ki ng Speed (Ws) Percent Blockage --Righi tum flare (veh) Me<ian type None Median storage veh) Upstteam signel (ft) -. 969 pX, platoon unblocked vC . conflicting volume 86 223 74 vC 1 , stage 1 conf vol vC2. stage 2 cont vol vCu unblock ed vol 86 223 74 tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2 tC , 2 stage (s) IF (s) 2 .2 3.5 3.3 pO q ueue free % 98 99 99 cM capacity (veh/h) 151 6 752 993 EB1 WB1 .. , Volume Total 86 11 5 12 Volume Left 0 35 6 Volume Righi 25 0 6 ---cSH 1700 1516 856 Volume to Capacity 0.05 0.02 0 .01 -------Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 2 1 Control Delay (S) 0.0 2.4 9.3 Lane LOS A A Approach Delay (s) 0.0 2.4 9.3 Approach LOS A .... l!!I!! .. •••• Average Delay 1.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 23.3% ICU Level or service A Analysis Period (min) 15 M:\07\07367 Triton T owers Renton Expansion\Analysis\Traffic Operations\AM Exis ling.sy7 9/17/2008 T he T ranspo Group ------' . -- ------ ---- ---------~ ---~ ----- -" ! ----- Synchro 6 Report Page 9 J_ HCM Unsignaliz ed Intersection Capacity Analysis 1 0: S Renton V illa9e P L & West R ite A id Drivewal ~ --'-'. ~ iiiMnll!ll ~ E8T lane Configuralions 4 Sign Control -Free G rade -1% 0% 0% Volume (veh/h) 1 55 65 130 40 Peak Hou r Factor 0.8 1 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 Hourly flow rate (vph) 1 68 80 160 49 Pedestrians Lane Wodlh (ft) Walking Speed (IVs) Percent Blockage Right tu rn flare (veh) Medan type ---None Median storag e veh ) Upstream signal (ft) 892 pX. platoon unblocked vC. conflicting volume 241 231 160 vC 1. stage 1 co nf vo l vC2 . stage 2 cont vol vCu unblocked vol 241 23 1 160 lC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2 tC. 2 s lage (s) tF (s) 2 .2 3.5 3.3 pO q ue u e free 0/o 100 94 96 cM capacity (veh/h) 133 2 761 890 Volume Left 1 Volume Righi 0 cSH 1332 Volume to capacity 0.00 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 Control Delay (s) 0.1 Lane LOS A A Approach Delay (s) 0.1 0 .0 10.0 Approach LOS A !*I! 11iiiin 8iiiiiiini Average Delay 2.2 Intersection capacity Utilization 23.8% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (m in) 15 M :107107367 Tri ton To wers Re nt on Ex pansion\Analysis\Traffic Operations\AM Exi sting.sy7 9/17/2008 The T ranspo Grou p Trit on Tow ers 2008 Existing AM Synchro 6 Report Page 10 I HCM Unsignalized Intersecti on Capacity Analysis Tri ton Towers 11 : S Renton Villase PL & Rite Aid/East Drivewal -Tower 1 2008 Existing AM / -• ., -' ' t ,.. '-. l ~ Ma-It Ell E8T E8R W8L WIT\WR ... NIIT---..R-Sill.~Sifr~~ Lane Configuralions .;. .;. .;. 4t Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade -1% 0% 0% 0% Volume (vehlh) 5 65 30 30 185 10 5 5 5 5 0 5 Peak Hour Factor 0.82 0.82 0.82 0 82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0 .82 0 .82 0 .82 0 .82 0.82 Hourly flow rate (vph) 6 79 37 37 226 12 6 6 6 6 0 6 Pedestrians Lane Width (II) Walking Speed (tVs) -------------- Percent Blockage ----Rig ht turn nare (veh) Median type None None -" Median storage veh) Upstrum signal (II) 738 pX, platoon unblocked vC, conllicllng volume 238 116 421 421 98 424 433 232 vC1 . stage 1 cent vol vC2 , s1age 2 cent vol vCu unblocked vol 238 116 421 421 98 424 433 232 tC, single (s) 4 .1 4.1 7.2 6.6 6.3 7.1 6.5 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2 .2 2.2 3 .6 4 .1 3.4 3.5 4.0 3.3 pO queue free %, 100 98 99 99 99 99 100 99 cM capacity (veh /h) 1341 1479 509 493 929 524 504 812 DINGIIIIL._..J El--rM 1 te1 881 ---::J V<>klme Total 122 274 18 12 ----------Volume Left 6 37 6 6 V<>klme Right 37 12 6 6 ---------------- cSH 1341 1479 592 637 Volume lo Capacity 0.00 0.02 0 .03 0.02 --Queue Length 95th (fl) 0 2 2 1 Control Delay (s) 0 .4 1.2 11.3 10.8 --------' Lane LOS A A B B Approach Delay (s) 0 .4 1.2 11 .3 10.8 -----Approach LOS B B ....,......._ ! Average Delay 1.7 lnlersection Capacity utilization 30.3% ICU Level of Service A ----" Analysis Period (min) 15 M ·\07\07367 Triton Towers Renton Expansion\Analysis\Traffic Operations\AM Existing.sy7 911712008 The Transpo Group Synchro 6 Repcrt Page 11 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 12: S Renton Villase PL & Southwest Dri vewa~ -Tower 2 / --' '-. ~ MaiiMin1tln& i:m.---EBT WIT W8R • 88R Lane Configurations 4 lo V Sign Conlrol Free Free Slop Grade -1% 0% 0% Volume (vehlh) 15 55 220 15 5 5 Peak Hour Factor 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 Hourly now rate (vph) 18 65 262 18 6 6 Pedestrians Lane Width (fl) Walking Speed (t Vs) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median lypa ---None -Median storage veh) Upstream signal (fl) 626 pX, platoon unblocked vC, confticling volume 280 372 271 vC1. stage 1 cont vol vC2, stage 2 cent vol vCu, unblocked vol 280 372 271 IC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6 .2 t C. 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 pO Queue free %, 99 cM capacity (veh/h) 1289 Volume Left 18 Volume Right 0 cSH 1289 Volume to Capacity 0.01 Queue Length 95th (ft) 1 0 1 Control Delay (s) 1.8 0.0 10.3 Lane LOS A B Approach Delay (s) 1.8 0 .0 10.3 Approach LOS B iii Average Delay 0.7 Intersection Capaci1y Utilization 27.6% ICU Level of Setvice Analysis Period (min) 15 M :\07\07367 Triton Towers Renton Expansion\Analysis\Traffic Opera ti ons\AM Existing .sy7 9117/2008 The Transpo Gro up Triton Towers 2008 Existing AM Synchro 6 Report Page 12 HCM Unsigna lized Intersection Capacity Analysis 13: S Renton Villai;j e PL & South Drivewal-Tower 2 ~ -'), • -'-~ t ~ lotDl-ll E8L m EIR -WIT WIR NIL N8T NBR Lane Co nfigura lJOns • • • Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade -1% 0% 0 % Volume (vehlh ) 10 45 5 20 230 60 0 0 0 Peak Ho ur Factor 090 090 0 .90 090 0.90 0 90 090 0 90 0 90 Hourty flow rate (vph) 11 50 6 22 256 67 0 0 0 Pedestrians Lane Wldlh (ft) Wal king Speed (IVs) PercenlBlockage Right turn nare (veh) Median type None Median s torage veh) Upetream signal (fl) 443 pX, plat oon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 322 56 417 442 53 vC 1, stage 1 con ! vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu unblocked vol 322 56 4 17 442 53 tC, single (s) 4 1 4 .1 7 .1 6 .5 6.2 tC. 2 s l age (s) tF (s) 2 .2 22 3 .5 4 .0 3 .3 pO queue free % 99 99 100 100 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 1 238 1556 531 501 1020 llnallal. 1.1!!1 I ea1 m11 te1 181 Volume Tolal 67 344 0 17 Volume Left 11 22 0 6 Volume Righi 6 67 0 6 --cSH 1238 1556 1700 553 Volume to Capacity 0 .01 0 .01 0 .00 0 .03 ---Queue Len g lh 951h (ft) 1 1 0 2 Control Delay (s) 1.4 0.6 0 .0 11.7 Lan e LOS A A A B App,oach Delay (8) 1.4 0 .6 0 .0 11 .7 Approach LOS A B iii! !!!I ..... Average Delay 1.2 Intersection Capacity Ulilizalion 30.4% ICU Level ot Service A Analysis Pe riod (min) 15 M:10710736 7 Trilon Towers Renton Expansion\AnalysislTraffic Operation s\AM Exisbng sy7 9/1712008 The Tra nspo Group Triton Towers 2008 Existing AM '. ! ~ 88L HI 88R • S top 0% 5 5 5 0 .90 090 0 .90 6 6 6 None 408 411 28 9 408 411 289 7 .3 6 .7 6 4 3.7 4 2 35 99 99 99 510 4 90 705 ----- --- j --- Synchro 6 Report Page 13 I I I HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 14 : S Renton Villai;j e PL & East Drivewal -T ower 1 -'), • -~ ~ lotDl-11 E8T EIR WIL MI Lan e Configurabons to 4 Sign Conlrol Free Free Grade -1% 0% Volume {vehlh) 40 5 20 300 0 5 Peak Hour Facto.-0.85 0.85 0.85 0 .85 085 0 85 Hour1y flow rale (vph) 47 6 24 353 0 6 Pedestrians Lane Widlh (fl) Walking Speed (IVs) Percenl Blockage Right turn nare (veh) Median type _ _____._ --.--None Median s to rage veh ) Upstream signal (fl ) ---272 pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume --53 450 50 vC 1. stage 1 conr vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu. unblocked vol 53 4~0 50 tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2 tC . 2 s1age (s) tF (s) 22 3 .5 3.3 pO Queue rrce % 98 100 99 cM capacity (veh/h) 1559 562 10 24 Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 951h (ft) 0 1 Control Delay (s ) 0 .0 0 .6 Lane LOS A Approach Dele y (S) 0 .0 0 .6 Approach LOS A -Average Delay 0 .6 lnlelseclion Gapacity Utilization 35 2% ICU Level ol Se,vice --A Analysis Period (min) 15 M 107107367 Triton Towers Renton Expansion\AnalysislTraffic Operauons\AM Existing sy7 9/17/2008 Th e Transpo Group T riton Towe rs 2008 Existing A M Synchro 6 Report Page 14 l _J HCM S ignalized Intersection Capaci ty Analys is 15: Renton Villa9e Pl. & SR 515 ...> • .... t i ~ EIR MIL NIT S8T-88R Lane Co nfigura tions ' ,, ' ++ tt- Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost lime (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 30 3.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 Frt 1 .00 0 .85 1.00 1.00 0 .98 Ftt Protected 0 .95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd . Flow (prol ) 1752 1568 1787 3574 3450 Flt Permilled 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (eerm) 1752 1568 1787 3574 3450 Volume (vph) 5 30 275 1960 340 40 Peak-hour/actor , P HF 0 .97 0 .97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 5 31 284 2021 351 41 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 29 0 0 6 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 5 2 284 2021 386 0 Heavl Vehicles (%) 3% 3% 1% 1% 3% 3% Tum Type Perm Prot Pro te cted Phases 4 1 6 2 Penmllted Phases 4 Actuated Green. G (s) 4.2 4 2 17 5 68 5 47 0 Effective Green, g (s) 5.2 5.2 18.5 69.5 48.0 Actuated g/C Rat,o 006 0 .06 0 .23 0 86 0 59 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4 .0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 4.0 4 0 4 0 80 80 Lane G rp Ca p (vph) 11 3 101 41 0 3078 2052 vi s Ratio Prat c0 .00 cO 16 c0.57 0 .11 vis Ratio Perm 0.00 vi e Ratio 0.04 0.02 0.69 0 .66 0 .19 Unilonn Delay, d 1 35.4 35.4 28 .5 1.8 7.5 Prog ress ion Fa ctor 1.00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.2 0 .1 5.4 1.1 0.2 De lay (s) 35.6 35.5 33 9 2.9 7.7 Level of Service D D C A A Approach Delay (s) 35.5 6.7 7.7 Approach LOS D A A ·-•a.._ - HCM Average Control Delay 7.2 HCM Level of Sefvice A HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0 .62 Actuated Cyde Lenglh (s) 80.7 Sum of lost time (s) 6.0 Intersecti on Capacity Utilizati on 65.0% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 C Critical Lane Group M :\07\07367 Triton Tow ers Renton Expansion\Analysis\Tra tlic Operalions\AM Existing.sy7 9i 17i 2008 The T ranspo Group Triton Towers 2008 Exi sting A M Synchro 6 Report Page 15 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: Gradl Wl & Lake Ave S ~ -• ., -'-~ t ~ •••• Ell E8T EBR W8L WBT WBR ... MI N8R Lane Configurations 'I tt ,, 'I +t. 'I + .,, Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5 .0 5.0 50 50 5 .0 5 .0 5.0 Lane util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0 .95 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1 00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Proleded 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1787 3574 1599 1770 3530 1770 1863 1583 Flt Pennilted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.66 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (eerm) 1787 3574 1599 1770 3530 1237 1863 1583 Volume (vph) 25 1330 150 20 1175 20 220 1 30 Peak-hour fa cto r, PHF 0 .92 0.92 0.92 0.92 092 0 .92 0 .92 0 .92 0 .92 Adj . Flow (vph) 27 1446 163 22 1277 22 239 1 33 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 57 0 1 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 27 1446 106 22 1298 0 239 1 33 Heav l Vehicles(%) 1% 1% 1% 2 % 2% 2% 2 % 2% 2% Tum Type Prot Penn Prot Penn Free Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 4 Permitted Phases 2 4 Free Actua ted Green. G (s) 4.7 75.3 75.3 36 74.2 26 1 ?6 1 1,0 o Effective Green, g (s) 4.7 75.3 75.3 3.6 74.2 26.1 26.1 120.0 Actuated g/C Rat,o 004 0 63 0 63 0 03 0 62 0 22 0 .22 1 00 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5 .0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 30 30 30 3.0 30 30 Lane Gnp Cap (vph) 70 2243 1003 53 2183 269 405 1583 vis Ralio Prot 0 .02 c0.40 0.01 c0.37 0.00 v/s Ratio Penn 0.07 c0.19 0 .02 vie Ratio 0 .39 0.64 0 .11 0.42 0 .59 0.89 0.00 0 .02 Unifonn Delay, d 1 56.2 14 .0 8.9 57.2 13.8 45 .5 36 .8 0.0 Prog ression Factor 1.00 1.00 1 00 0 76 0 .65 1.00 1.00 1 .00 Incremental Delay, d2 3.5 1.4 0.2 4.8 0.4 27 .7 0 .0 0.0 Delay (s) 59.7 15.4 9 .1 48.4 9.4 73.3 36 8 0 .0 Level of Service E B A D A E D A Approach Delay (s) 15.5 10.1 64 .3 Approach LOS B B E ljfimlan 8ulnmlij HCM Average Control Delay 18.0 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity rat io 0 .69 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost lime (s) 10.0 Intersecti on Capacity Utilization 64.0% ICU L evel of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 C C ritical Lane Group M:107\07367 Triton Towers Renton Expansion\Analysis\Trafftc Opera lions\PM Exis ting sy7 9 i 17/2008 The T ran spo Group Triton Towers 2008 Exis ting PM '-. ! ~ S8l.~S8T-g 4- 1900 1900 1900 5.0 1.00 ~ 0.89 0.99 1370 0.96 1330 15 5 70 0 .92 0.92 0.92 16 5 76 0 59 0 0 38 0 23% 23% 23% Penn 4 4 26 1 26.1 0 22 5.0 30 289 0.03 0 .13 37.8 1.00 0.2 38.0 D 380 D --' ::J --- ----· ----- Synchro 6 Report Page 1 I HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: G radl Wl & Shattuck Av S ~ -• ., -'-~ t ~ MMn-111 E8L m ~ WBL MI W8R Nlil. 'le! NBR Lane Config urations 'I tt ,, 'I +t. 'I ,ff. Ideal Flaw (vphpt) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width 12 11 11 12 11 12 12 11 12 Grade(%) 0% 0% 1% To tal Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5 .0 5 .0 5 .0 5 .0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.9 1 0.91 Fri 1.00 1.00 085 1.00 099 1.00 0 .93 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.98 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3421 1531 1770 3402 1634 3041 Flt Pennitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.98 Satd. Flo w (perm) 1770 3421 1531 1770 3402 1634 3041 Volume (vph) 20 1425 155 75 900 35 185 30 95 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0 .95 0 .95 0 .95 0 .95 0 .95 0.95 095 0 .95 0 .95 Adj. Flow (vph) 21 1500 163 79 947 37 195 32 100 RTOR Redu ct ion (vph) 0 0 6 1 0 2 0 0 89 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 21 1500 102 79 962 0 102 136 0 Heavt Vehicles(%) 2% 2 °,.'a 2%, 2% 2% 2% 0%, 0% 0% T urn Type Prot Perm P rot Split Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 8 8 Permitted Phases 6 Actuated Green. G (s) 28 63 9 63.9 9.2 70.3 13.1 131 Effective Green. g (s) 2 .8 63.9 63.9 9.2 70.3 13.1 13.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.02 0 53 0 53 008 059 0 1 1 0 1 1 Clearance Time (s) 5 .0 5 .0 5.0 5.0 5 .0 5 .0 5 .0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3 .0 5 .0 5 .0 3.0 5.0 4 .0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 41 1822 815 136 1993 178 332 vis Ratio Prot 0 .0 1 c0.44 c0.04 0.29 c0.06 0.04 vis Ratio Penn 0.07 vi e Ratio 0 51 0 .82 0 .13 0 .58 0 .49 0.57 0 .41 Uniform Delay, d1 57.9 23.3 14.1 53.5 14.5 50.8 49.8 Progression Fa ctor 0 .8 2 0.45 0.03 0.61 0.54 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay. d2 8.9 3.7 0.3 5.2 0.7 5.3 1.1 Delay (s) 56.2 14 .1 0.8 37.7 8 .5 56.1 5 1 .0 Level of Service E B A D A E D Approach Dela y (s) 13 .4 10.7 52.6 Approach LOS B B -D ~·lunlnllY HCM Average Control Delay 19.2 HCM Le\181 of Serviee B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.74 Actuated Cycle Length (S) 120.0 Sum of lost lime (s) -20.0 ln lerseclion Capacity Utilization 73 0% ICU Leve l of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 C Critical Lane Group M :107107367 Triton T owers Renton Expansion\Analysis\T rafftc Operations\PM Existing sy7 9i17i2008 The T ranspo Group Triton Towers 2008 Existing PM '-. ' ~ !!lb HI SIR 'I lo 1900 1900 1900 12 11 12 0% 5 .0 5 .0 1.00 1.00 1 .00 0 96 0.95 1.00 1656 1612 0.95 1.00 1656 1612 105 75 30 0 .95 0 95 095 111 79 32 0 12 0 111 99 0 9% 9" " 9" " Split 4 4 13.8 13.8 13.8 13.8 0 12 012 5.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 190 185 c0.07 006 0 .58 0.53 50.4 50.1 1.00 1.00 5.3 3.7 55.7 53.8 E D Synchro 6 Report Page 2 HCM Unsigna lized Intersection Capacity Analys is Triton Towers 3: Gradl Wl & North Rite Aid Drivewal 2008 Existing PM -~ • -.... ~ E8T EiiR WIL WIT NIL NBR ---, Lane Configurations tft "I ++ V Sign ContrOI Free Free Slop -----Grade 0% 0% 0% VOiume (velvh) 1265 5 55 980 1 60 -Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0 .94 0 .94 0.94 Hour1y flow rate (vph) 1346 5 59 1043 1 64 Pedestrians ----------- Lane Width (ft) --~ ---- Walking S p eed (fVs) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None ------Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 420 562 -----pX, platoon u nblocked 0 .65 0 .71 065 vC, conflicting volume 1351 1987 676 -vC 1. stage 1 cont vol vC2, stage 2 cont vol vCu, unblocked vol 1008 1531 0 tC, single (s) 4 .1 6.8 6 .9 IC, 2 stage (s) IF (s) 2 .2 3.5 3.3 pO queue free % 87 98 91 cM capacity (veh/h) 447 67 714 DnallolL !:!!!! W82 WU ~1 Volume Total 897 4~ 59 521 521 65 Volume Left 0 0 59 0 0 1 VOiume Right 0 5 0 0 0 64 -----cSH 1700 1700 447 1700 1700 617 Volume to Capacity 0.53 0 .27 0 .13 0.31 0.31 0 .11 ---Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 11 0 0 9 Control Delay (s) 0 .0 0.0 14.3 0.0 0.0 11.5 Lane LOS B B Approach Delay (s) 0 .0 0.8 --11.5 ---Approach LOS B ~ ..... y ----l Average Delay 0.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization ~.7% ICU Level of Ser.ice A -Analysis Period (min) 15 M :107107367 Trilon To wers Renton Expansion\Analysis\Traffic Operations\PM E xisting.sy7 9/17/2008 Synchro 6 Repcrt Page 3 The Transpo Group HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capac ity Analysis 4 : Gradl Wl & No rth Drivewa ~ -Tower 3 -~ • -.... ~ -..nt Lane Configurations Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% VOiume (velvh) 1275 5 0 1020 0 30 Peak Hour Factor 0 .95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly flow rate (vph) 1342 5 0 1074 0 32 Pedestrians lane Width (ft) Walkin g Speed (fVs) Percent Blockage Righi lurn flare (veh) Median type ---None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 661 321 pX, platoon unblocked 0.67 0.73 0.67 vC, confticling volume 1347 1882 674 vC 1, s lage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 cont vol vCu, unblocked vo l 1033 1360 35 tC, single (s) 42 6 .8 6 .9 tC. 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 3 .5 3.3 pO queue free c/0 100 100 95 cM capacity (veh/h) 447 104 700 Volume Left Volume Righi cSH 1700 VOiume to Capacity 0.53 Queue Length 95th (ft ) 0 0 0 0 4 Control Delay (s) 0.0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 10.4 Lane LOS B Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0 .0 10.4 Approach LOS B iii Average Delay 0 .1 Intersection Capacity Utilization 47.1% ICU Level of Service Analysis Period (min) 15 M .107107367 Triton T owers Renton Expansion\Analysis\Traffic Operations\PM Existing.sy7 9/17/2008 The Transpo Group Tri to n Towers 2008 Exis ting PM Syn chro 6 Report Page 4 HCM Signalized In ter section Capacit y Analysis 5: Grad~ W~ & Talbot .,J -..... (' -' .... t ~ g!, E8T EIR--wll WIT ~ NBC NlilliiR "I ++ ' '' +t-"111 +t- 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 30 3.0 3 .0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 0.97 0.95 1.00 1 .00 0 .85 1.00 0.99 1 .00 0 .92 0 .95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Said. Flow (prot) 1770 3539 1583 3433 3487 3467 3281 Ftt Permitted 0 .95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (eerm) 1770 3539 1583 3433 3487 3467 3281 VOiume lvph) 50 480 730 345 575 20 465 170 205 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0 .90 0 .90 0.88 097 0 .97 0 .97 0 .97 0.97 Adj. FIOw (vph) 56 533 811 392 593 21 479 175 211 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 239 0 2 0 0 147 0 Lane Group Flow (vph ) 56 533 572 392 612 0 479 239 0 Heavi Vehicles(%) 2% 2% 2% 2% 3% 3% 1% 1% 1% Tum Type Prot Perm Prot Prot P rotected Phases 2 6 5 1 3 8 Permitted Phases 6 Actu aled Green , G (s ) 9 .6 40.7 40.7 18 5 48 6 18 8 35.4 Effective Green, g (s) 11.6 41 .7 41 .7 20.5 50.6 20.8 36.4 Actuated g/C Rat,o 0 10 0 .35 0.35 0.1 7 0 42 0.17 0 30 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 4 .0 Vehicle Extension ~s) 4.0 4 0 4 0 30 4 0 50 5 .0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 171 1230 550 586 1470 601 995 vis Ratio Prat O.Q3 0.15 c0.11 0.18 c0.14 0.07 vis Ratio Perm c0.36 vie Ralio 0.33 0.43 1.04 0 .67 0 .42 0.80 0.24 Uniform Delay, d1 50.6 30.1 39.2 46.6 24.3 47 .6 31 .4 Progression Factor 0 .88 0.82 1.09 1 .00 1.00 0.92 0.79 lncramentat Delay, d2 1.1 0.8 43.2 2.9 0.9 8 .1 0 .3 Delay (s) 45.7 25.5 860 495 25.2 51 7 251 Level of Service D C F D C D C Approach Delay (s) 61.4 34.7 398 Approach LOS E C D HCM Average Conlrol Delay 49.9 HCM Level of Sefvlce D HCM Volume 10 Capacity rat io 0.89 Actuated Cyde Lenglh (s) 120.0 Sum of lost lime (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacily Ulilization 83.3% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 C Critical Lane Group M:107107367 Triton Towers Renlon Expansion\Analysis\Traffic Operations\PM Existing.sy7 9/17/2008 T he T ranspo Group Triton Towers 2008 Existing PM '. ' ~ 881. HI saR "I ++ ' 1900 1900 1900 3.0 30 3.0 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.95 1.00 1.00 1805 3610 1615 0.95 1.00 1.00 1805 3610 1615 65 660 30 0.97 0.97 0.97 67 680 31 0 0 25 67 680 6 0% 0% 0% Prot Perm 7 4 4 8 4 23 0 230 9 .4 25.0 25.0 0 08 0 2 1 0 21 4 .0 5.0 5.0 30 5.0 5 .0 141 752 336 004 c0.19 0.00 0.48 0.90 0 .02 52.9 46.3 37.8 1 .00 1.00 1.00 2.5 15.1 0.0 55.5 61.4 37.8 E E D 60.0 E ------ Synchro 6 Report Page 5 I HCM Unsignalized Int ersect ion Capacity Analysis 6 : East Drivewa~ -Tower 3 & S R 515fTalbot .,J ..... .... t ' ~ Lane Configurations Sign Control Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% VOiume (veMt) 0 15 0 805 1745 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0 .94 0 .94 Hourty llow rate (vph) 0 16 0 856 1856 Pedestrians Lane Wldlh (ft) Walking Speed (!Us) PercentBk>ckege Right tum flare (veh) Median type None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 673 538 pX, platoon unblocked 0.84 0.82 0.82 vC , conflicting volume 2285 928 1867 vC 1 . stage 1 con( vol vC2, stage 2 cont vol vC u , unb locked vol 2 18 6 690 18 38 IC, single (s) 6 .8 6 .9 4.1 IC 2 slage (s) IF (s) 3 .5 3 .3 2.2 pO queue fr ee % 100 % 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 34 321 271 rxr.c... Lane. E81 .. Volume Total 16 428 428 928 928 11 Volume Left 0 0 0 0 0 0 Volume Right 16 0 0 0 0 11 cSH 321 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Volume to capacity 0.05 0.25 0.25 0.55 0.55 0.01 Queue Length 95th (ft) 4 0 0 0 0 0 Control Delay (s) 16.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 .0 Lane LOS C Approach Delay (s) 16.8 0.0 0.0 Approach LOS C Average Delay 0.1 ln18'S8Clion Capacity Ulilizalion 59.9% ICU Level of Service Analysis Period (min) 15 M:\07\07367 Triton T owers Renton Expansion\Analysis\Traffic Operations\PM Existing.sy7 9 /17/2008 The Transpo Group T riton Towers 2008 Existing PM Synchro 6 Report Page 6 H C M U nsign a l ized Intersect ion Capacit y A n alysis Triton Towers 7: E ast Drivewal -Tower 2 & S R 5 15/Talbot 2008 Existing PM ..> " "' t ~ ~ DL EIR tllL NBT 88T 88R j Lane Configurations f .r+ +to Sign Control Slop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Volume (vehlh) 0 5 0 835 1730 5 ------Peak Hour Factor 0 .97 0 .97 0.97 0.97 097 0 .97 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 5 0 861 1784 5 ----P edestrian s Lane Width (fl) Walking Speed (fUs) Percent Bloc:kage --Right t um flare (veh ) --------- Median type None Median s torage veh) Upstream Signal (fl) 285 926 ---------pX, p latoon unblocked 0 .86 0.83 0.83 vC , conflicting volume 2216 894 1789 vC 1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 oonf v ol vCu, unblocked vol 2051 671 1746 tC, single (s) 6.8 6.9 4.1 tC 2 stage (s ) IF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 pO queue free 1%) 100 98 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 42 336 299 .... EB1 Nii NB2 881 SB2 ! Volume Total 5 287 574 1189 600 Volume L eft 0 0 0 0 0 -- Volume Right 5 0 0 0 5 -cSH 336 299 1700 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.02 0.00 0 .34 0 .70 0 .35 Qu eue Leng th 95th (ft) 1 0 0 ---------0 0 Control Delay (s) 15.9 0 .0 0 .0 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS C --- Approach Delay (s) 15.9 0 .0 0.0 Approach LOS C !j ...... 11 lummllY :::::, Average Delay 0 .0 lnterseclion Capacity Utilization 59.6% ICU Level o( Setvice B An alysis Period (min) 15 M :\07\07367 Triton Towers Renton Expansion\Analysis\Traffic Operations\PM Existing.sy7 9/17/2008 T he Transpo Group - Synch ro 6 Report Page 7 HCM Unsign a l ized Intersection Capacity Analysi s 8: S Rent on Villa ~e PL & T hea ter D riv ewal ..> -" • -' "' t ~ M!Mmall §1,, EST E8R W8L !!!IT WIR NIL N8T !ti!! L ane Configurations .;. ... 4- Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade -1% 0% 0% Volume (vehlh) 5 40 1 5 25 30 5 15 10 Peak Hour Facto r 086 0.86 0.86 0 86 0 .86 0.86 0 .86 0.86 0.86 Hourly llow rate (vph) 6 47 1 6 29 35 6 17 12 Pedest rians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (IVs) Percent Blockage Right t um flare (veh) Median type None Median storage veh ) Upstream Signal (fl) pX, platoon unb locked vC. oonflicling volume 64 48 126 134 47 vC 1 . stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 oon f vol vCu . unblocked vol 64 48 126 134 47 tC , sin gle (s) 4 .1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6 .2 IC. 2 s ta ge (s) IF (s) 2 .2 2.2 3.5 4 .0 3.3 pO queue free % 100 100 99 98 99 cM capacity (veh/h) 1538 1560 832 749 1019 DnGlai ...... ~ E81 WB1 .. 1 881 Volume Total 53 70 35 ,47 Volume Left 6 6 6 35 Volume Right 1 35 12 6 cSH 1538 1560 837 826 Volume to Capacity 0 .00 0 .00 0 .04 0.06 Queue Length 95th (f t) 0 0 3 4 Control Delay (S) 0 .8 0.6 9.5 9.6 Lan e LOS A A A A Approach Delay (s) 0 .8 0.6 9.5 9.6 Approach LOS A A I!!!! Average De lay 4.2 lnt8fS8Clion Capacity Utilization 20.1% ICU Level Of Sefvice Analysis Period (min) 15 M :107\07367 Triton T owers Renton E xpansion\Analysis\Traffic Operations\PM Existing .sy7 9/17/2008 The T ranspo Group Tri<oa To~. . .. :008 :isling ~M .::WIii! SIA ... Stop 0% 30 5 5 0.86 0.86 0 .86 35 6 6 None 137 117 47 137 117 47 7 .1 6 .5 6.2 3.5 4 .0 3.3 96 99 99 809 771 1029 Synchro 6 Report Page 8 HCM Unsignalized Intersecti on Capacity Analysis Triton Towers 9: S Ren ton Vi lla~e PL & West Drivewa~ • Tower 1 2008 Existing PM -..... • -~ ~ ---· EBT E8R ~~ ' Lane Configurations J, .f V Sign Control Ftee Free Stop Grade -1% 0% 0% Volume (vehlh) 125 15 15 85 10 30 Peak Hour Fact o r 0 .94 0.94 0 .94 -----~------- 0 .94 0.94 0 .94 Hour1y flow rate (vph) 133 16 16 90 11 32 --Pedestrians lsM Width (II) Walking Speed (fUs) Parcenl Blockage Right turn flare (veh) ---. Median type None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (II) -965 ------ pX, platoon unblocked vC, conNctlng volume 149 263 141 -vC1 . stage 1 co nf vo l vC2 , stage 2 cont vol vCu unblock ed vol 149 263 14 1 tC , single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2 IC, 2 stage (s) IF (s) 2.2 3.5 3 .3 p O queue free % 99 99 96 cM capacity (veh/h) 1439 718 907 ..... Volume Total 149 106 43 Volume Left 0 16 11 Volume Right 16 0 32 cSH 1700 1439 851 Volume to Capacity 0 .09 0.01 0.05 -----Queue Length 95th (fl) 0 1 4 Control Delay (a) 0.0 1.2 9.5 --------Lane LOS A A Approach Delay (s) 0.0 1.2 9.5 -----Approac h L OS A .~lllmall 1 Average Delay 1 .8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 28.6% ICU Level of Service A -----Analysis P eriod (min) 15 M:\07107367 Triton Towers Renton Expansion\Analysis\T raffic Operal ions\PM Exisling.sy7 911 712008 Synchro 6 Re port Page 9 The Transpo Group I I HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10: S Renton Villa~e PL & West Rite Aid Drivewa~ ~ --" '.. ,I -ea: Q!•WBT •WIR -W SIR Lane Configurations .f f. Sign Control Free Free Grade -1% 0 % Volume (veh/h) 10 145 85 65 155 15 Peak Hour Factor 0 .94 0 .94 0 .94 0.94 0 .94 0 .94 Hour1y flow rate (vph ) 11 154 90 69 165 16 Pedestrians Lane Width (II) Walking Speed (fUs ) Pen:ant Bk>ckaga Right tum flare (veh) Median type ----~--Nona Median storage veh) Upstream signal (II) 900 pX, platoon unblocked vC, oonftieling volume 160 ------ 301 125 vC1 stage 1 conf vol vC2 , stage 2 cont vol vCu u nblo cked vol 160 301 125 IC , single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2 I C, 2 stage (s) IF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 pO Queue free '% 99 76 98 cM capacity (veh/h) 1426 688 928 Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (fl) 1 0 Control Delay (a) 0 .5 0.0 Lane LOS A Approach Delay (s) 0 .5 0.0 Approach LOS iii Average De lay 4.4 Intersection Capacity Utilization 33 .7% ICU Level of Service Analysis Period (min) 15 M:\07\07367 Triton Towers Renton Expansion\Analysis\Traffic Operalions\PM Existing.sy7 9117/2008 The T ranspo Group T riton Towers 2008 Existing PM Synchro 6 Report Page 10 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Triton T owers 11 : S Renton Villal:je PL & Rite Aid/East Drivewai:: -Tower 1 2008 Existing PM ..> -"'\ # -' ~ t ~ '.. ~ ~ -ll Ell E8T EIR W8L W8T WBR RIil HIT~§IB Lane Configurations ... ... ... Sign Conlrol Free Free Stop Grade ·1% 0% 0% Volume (veh/h) 1 285 10 20 140 10 15 5 20 Peak Hour Factor 097 0 .97 0.97 0 .97 0 .97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Hourly flow rate (vph) 1 294 10 21 144 10 15 5 21 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (IVs) Percen1 Blockage Right turn nare (veh) Median type None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 734 pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 155 304 493 497 299 vC 1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 con! vol vCu, unblocked vol 155 304 493 497 299 IC, single (s) 4.1 4.1 7.1 6 .5 6 .2 IC 2 stage (s) IF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4 .0 3 .3 pO queue free % 100 98 97 99 97 cM capacity (veh/h) 1432 1262 477 465 738 Dnililal .. !:I!!! ' El-,W81 te1 881 --- Volume Total 305 175 4 1 18 Volume Left 1 21 15 15 Volume Right 10 10 21 1 cSH 1432 1262 577 465 Volume lo Capacity 0.00 0.02 0 .07 0 .04 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 1 6 3 Conlrol Delay (s ) 0.0 1.1 11.7 13.0 --Lane LOS A A B B Approach Delay (S ) 0.0 1.1 11 .7 13.0 Ap proach LOS B B i1iitt!s!1!!!1 &umm.w Average Delay 1 .7 lntetsection Capacity Utilization 35.2% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 M :\07107367 Triton T owers Renton Expansion\Analysis\Traffic Operalions\PM Existing sy7 9117/2008 The T ranspo Group ,t. Stop 0% 15 1 1 0 97 0.97 097 15 1 1 - None 515 497 149 515 497 149 7 .1 6.5 6.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 97 100 100 450 469 902 -, ------ -------- I Synchro 6 Report Page 11 i- H CM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 12: S Renton Villal:je PL & Southwest D rivewa;r: -Tower 2 ..> --' '.. ~ Mowmmll Ell EST ml WBR • 88R Lane Configuration s 4 .. V Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade ·1% 0% 0% Volume (veh/h) 5 320 140 1 5 20 Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0 .96 0 .96 0.96 0 .96 0.96 Hourly flow rate (vph) 5 333 146 1 5 21 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (IVs) Percent Blockage Righi t urn flare (veh) Median type None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 622 pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volu me 147 -----490 146 vC 1 , stage 1 conr vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 14 7 490 146 IC, single (s) 4 .1 6.4 6.2 tC 2 stage (s) IF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 pO Queue lree % 100 99 98 cM capacity (veh/h) 1441 539 906 Volume Left 5 0 5 Volume Right 0 1 21 cSH 144 1 1700 797 Volume lo Capacity 0 .00 0.09 0.03 Queue Len gth 95th (ft) 0 0 3 Conlrol Delay (s) 0.1 0.0 9.7 Lane LOS A A Approach Delay (s) 0.1 0.0 9.7 Approach LOS A k!!!! Average Delay 0.6 lnt11111ection Capacity UUlizalion 32.5% ICU Level of Service Analysis Period (min) 15 M :107107367 Triton Towers Renlon Expansion\Analysis\Traffic Operations\PM Existing.sy7 9117/2008 T he T ranspo Group Triton Towers 2008 Existing PM Synchro 6 Report Page 12 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Ana lysis Triton Towers 13: S Renton Villa!;je PL & South Drivewa~ -T ower 2 2008 Existi ng PM .,> -l' (' -' ~ t /' '-. i ./ M!Mnall E8L E8T E8R WEil w&T~m!!! NBL~N8T~NIR~88LW H! -Lane Configurations 4t 4t • • Sign Control Free Free Stop Slop Grade -1% 0 % 0% 0% Volume (vehlh) 5 315 0 0 115 5 0 1 20 45 1 25 Peak Hour Factor 0.89 0 .89 0 .89 0.89 0 .89 0.89 0 .89 089 089 089 0 .89 0 .89 Hour1y now rate (vph) 6 354 0 0 129 6 0 1 22 51 1 28 Pedestrians Lane Width (fl) -Walking Speed (!Us) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type ----None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 439 p X, platoon unblocked ve. oonflictlng volume 135 354 526 500 354 520 497 132 vC1 stage 1 con f vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu u nblocked vol 135 354 526 500 354 520 497 132 t C, single (s) 4 .1 4.1 7 .1 6 .5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6 .2 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (S) 2 .2 2.2 3 .5 4.0 3 .3 3.5 4 .0 33 pO queue f ree 010 100 100 100 100 97 89 100 97 cM capacity (veh/h) 1456 1210 449 474 694 451 474 920 Diiiiifiiii:'Ci,-1:BTWB-r-Ne,--~ ---, Volume Total 360 135 24 80 Volume Left 6 0 0 51 Volume Right 0 6 22 28 ------cSH 1456 1210 679 550 Volume to Capacity 0 .00 0 .00 0.03 0.15 ------------Queue Length 95th (fl) 0 0 3 13 Control Delay (S) 0.2 0.0 10.5 12.7 ------------------ Lane LOS A B B Approach Delay (s) 0.2 0.0 10.5 12.7 Approach L OS B B ~aun-v Average Delay 2.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 39.7% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 M :\07\07367 Triton Towers Renton Expansion\Analysis\Traffic Operati ons\PM Existing.sy7 9/17/2008 The Transpo Group i ----- Synchro 6 Report Page 13 I I HCM Unsignalized Intersect ion Capacity Analysis 14 : S Renton Villa!;je PL & East Drivewa:z:-Tower 1 -l' (' -~ /' M!Mnaii-E8T EBR WBL W8T ~ NBR Lane Configurations 1-of V Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade -1% 0% 0% Volume (veh/h) 380 1 0 110 5 10 Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0 .97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Hout1y flow rate (vph) 392 1 0 113 5 10 Pedestrians Lane Width (fl) Walking Speed (fUs) Percent Blockage Right tum flare (veh) Median type -------None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 268 pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 393 506 392 vC 1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked v ol 393 506 392 tC , single (s) 4 .1 6 .5 6 .3 IC 2 s lagc (s) tF (s) 2.2 3 .6 3 .4 pO queue rree %, 100 99 98 cM capacity (veh/h) 1171 518 646 Dncilal1. lw' 1:81 "'WB 1 !!I 1 Volume Total 393 113 15 Volume Left 0 0 5 Volume Right 1 0 10 cSH 1700 1171 596 Volume lo Capacity 0 .23 0.00 0.03 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 2 Control Delay (s) 0 .0 0.0 11 .2 Lane LOS B Approach Delay (S) 0 .0 0.0 11 .2 Approach LOS B ~ Average Delay 0 .3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 31.7% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min ) 15 M:\07\07367 T riton Towers Renton Expansion\Analysis\Traffic Operations\PM Existing.sy7 9/1712008 The T rans po Group T riton Towers 2008 Existing PM Synchro 6 Report Page 14 HCM Sig nalized In ter section Capacity Analysis 15: Ren ton Villa~e Pl. & SR 5 15 ..> • ~ t ' ~ MD,_ll -EIIL"EIR------f:!l!~Sli Lane Configurations 'I ,, 'I +t + Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 T otal Lost t ime (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt 1.00 FIi Protected 0.95 Said. Flow (prot) 1 787 1599 1787 3574 3570 FIi Pennilled 0.95 1.00 0 .95 1.00 1.00 Said. Flow (e!;rm ) 1787 1599 1787 3574 3570 Volume (vph) 55 330 95 780 1715 15 Peak-hour factor. PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj . Flow (vph) 58 347 100 82 1 1805 16 RT OR Reduction (vph) 0 164 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph ) 58 183 100 821 1821 0 Heavl Vehicles \%) 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% Tum Type Perm Prot Protected Phases 4 1 6 2 Permi lled Phases 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 16 9 16 9 11 .9 95.1 79 2 Effective Green, g (s) 17 .9 17.9 12.9 96.1 80 2 Actuated glC Ratio 0.15 0.15 0 11 0.80 0.67 Clearance Time (s) 4 .0 4 .0 4 .0 4.0 4 .0 Vehicle Extension (s) 4 0 40 40 8.0 80 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 267 239 192 2862 2386 v/s Ratio Prat 0.03 c006 0.23 c0.51 v/s Ratio Perm c0 .1 1 v/c Ratio 0.22 0.76 0 .52 0.29 0.76 Uniform Delay, d1 44 .9 49.0 50.6 3.1 13.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1 .00 1.00 1.00 0.72 Incremental Delay, d2 0 .6 14.3 3.3 0 .3 1.1 Delay (s) 45 4 634 53.9 3.3 10 .8 Level of Service 0 E 0 A B Approach Delay (s) 60.8 8.8 10.8 Approach LOS E A B iiliiiiiill m ..._. HCM Average Control Delay 16.7 HCM Level of Service H CM Volume t o Capacity ratio 0.74 Actuated Cycle Lenglh (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 9.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 75.0% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 C Crilical Lane Group M :107107367 Triton Towers Renton Expansion\Analysis\Traffic Operations\PM Exisling.sy7 9/17/2008 The Transpo Group Triton Tower s 2008 Existing PM Synch ro 6 Report Page 15 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: Gradl Wl & Lake Ave S ..> -• • -'-.... t ,,. -· EIL YI E8R waa: WBT WBR NIL NBT NBR Lane Configurations 'I ++ ,, 'I +to 'I + .,, Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost Lime (s) 5.0 5 .0 5 .0 5 .0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5 .0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 Fri 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0 .95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1752 3505 1568 1770 3533 1752 1845 1568 Flt Pennltled 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.78 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (eerrn) 1752 3505 1568 1770 3533 1438 1845 1568 Volume (vph) 20 750 180 30 17-40 20 140 1 10 Peak-hour factor. PHF 0 .92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0 .92 0.92 0.92 092 0 .92 Adj. Flow (vph) 22 8 15 196 33 1891 22 152 1 11 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 71 0 1 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 22 815 125 33 1912 0 152 1 11 Heavt Vehicles(%) 3% 3% 3% 2% 2% 2% 3% 3% 3% TLm Type Prot Penm Prot Perm Free Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 4 Permitted Phases 2 4 Free Actuated Green G (s) 60 83 0 83 0 60 83.0 26 0 26 0 1300 Effective Green, g (s) 6.0 83.0 83.0 6.0 83.0 26.0 26.0 130.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0 .05 0 64 0 64 0 05 0 64 0 20 0 .20 1.00 Clearance Time (s) 5 .0 5 .0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5 .0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 81 2238 1001 82 2256 286 369 1568 vis Ratio Prot 0 .01 0.23 c0.02 c0.54 0.00 vis Ratio Perm 0 .08 c0.11 0 0 1 vie Ratio 0.27 0.36 0 .13 0 .40 0.85 0.53 0.00 0.01 Unifo rm Delay. d 1 59.9 11 .1 9 .2 60.3 18.5 46.5 41 .6 0.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.82 0.08 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 8.1 0 .5 0 .3 4.8 1.4 6 .8 0 .0 0.0 Oelay(S) 68.0 11.5 9.5 54.0 2.9 53.3 41 .6 0.0 Level o r Service E B A D A D D A Approach Delay {s) 12.3 3.8 49.6 Approa ch LOS B A D _.,,11111nllfflllM HCM Average Control Delay 9.5 HCM Level or Service A HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.75 A ctuated Cycle Length (s) 130.0 Sum of lost lime (s) 15.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 7 1.5% ICU Level of Service C A nalysis Period (min) 15 C Critical Lane Group M:107107367 Triton Towers Renton Expansion\Analysis\Tratfic Operations\AM Baseline.sy7 9/1712008 The Trans po Group Triton Towers 2014 Baseline AM '-. ! ~ 88l. 88T S8R .;. 1900 1900 1900 50 1.00 ~ 090 0 .99 1070 0.95 1031 10 1 30 0 .92 0.92 0 .92 11 1 33 0 26 0 0 19 0 58% 58% 58% Perm 4 4 26.0 26.0 0.20 5 .0 206 0 .02 0.09 42.4 1.00 0.9 43.2 D 43.2 D , ~--- Synchro 6 Report Page 1 I HCM S ignal ized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Gradl Wl & Shattuck Av S ..> -• • -'-.... t ,,. ~-EIL m: E8R -!JI! WIR .. ~ .. Lane Configurations 'I ++ .,, 'I tt-'I off. Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Wid lh 12 11 1 1 12 11 12 12 11 12 Grade(%) 0% 0% 1% Total Lost t im e (s) 5 .0 5 .0 5.0 5.0 5 .0 50 5.0 Lane Utll. Factor 1.00 0 .95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0 .91 0 .91 Fri 1 .00 1.00 0 .85 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.95 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.98 Satd Flow (p rot) 1770 3421 153 1 1770 3377 1618 3057 Flt Penmitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0 .98 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3421 1531 1770 3377 1618 3057 Volume (vph) 30 680 80 50 1600 150 1-40 30 50 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0 .92 0.92 0.92 0 .92 0 .92 0 .92 0 .92 Adj . Flow (vph) 33 717 87 54 1739 163 152 33 54 RTOR Reducti on (vph) 0 0 41 0 5 0 0 44 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 33 717 46 54 1897 0 78 117 0 Heavz: Vehicles (%) 2% ?('1/o ,.. ,. 2'% 2% 2% 1% 1% 1% Turn Type Prat Perm Prot Split Prot ected Phases 1 6 5 2 3 3 Permitted Phases 6 Act ua ted Green . G (s) 60 69.0 69.0 9 .0 720 16 0 16 0 Effective Green, g (s) 6 .0 69.0 69.0 9 .0 72.0 16 .0 16.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0 05 0 53 0 53 0 0 7 0 .55 0 12 0.12 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5 .0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 82 1816 8 13 123 1870 199 376 vis Ratio Prot 0.02 c0.21 0.03 c0.56 c0.05 0.04 vis Ratio Perm 0.03 vie Ratio 0.40 0.39 0.06 0.44 1.01 0 .39 0.31 Uniform Delay. dl 60.3 18.1 14 .8 58.1 29.0 52.5 52.0 Progression Factor 0.82 0.41 0.15 1.14 0.35 1.00 1.00 Incremental De lay . d2 13.4 0 .6 0 .1 6.7 19.8 5.7 2.2 Delay (s) 62.6 8 .0 2.3 72.8 30.0 58.2 54.1 Level of Service E A A E C E D Approach Delay {s) 9.6 3 1.2 55.5 -Approach LOS A C E HCM Average Control De lay 28.3 HCM Level o r Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.75 -Actuated Cycle Lenglh (s) 1300 Sum of los1 time (s) 15.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 67.9% ICU Level of Service C A nalysis Period (min ) 15 C Critical Lane Group ----·-- M·\07107367 T rito n Towers Renton Expansio n\Ana lysis\Traffic OperaLi onslAM Baselin e.sy7 9/1712008 The Transpo Group T riton Towers 2014 Baseline A M '-. ' ~ -~HI • 'I lo 1900 1900 1900 12 11 12 0% 5 .0 5 .0 1.00 1.00 1.00 0 .91 0.95 1.00 1530 141 2 0.95 1.00 1530 1412 40 30 50 0.92 0 .92 0 .92 43 33 54 0 46 0 43 41 0 18% 18% 18% Split 4 4 16 0 16 0 16 .0 16.0 0 12 0 12 5.0 5.0 188 174 0.03 c0.03 0.23 0.24 51.4 51.5 1.00 1.00 2 .8 3 .2 54.2 54 .7 D D 54.5 D Syn chro 6 Report Page 2 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capac ity Analysis T riton Towers 3 : Grad~ W~ & North Rite Aid Drivewa~ 2014 Baseline AM -' • -~ ~ EBT E8R WIL W8T IIIL NBR , Lane Configurations tt, 'I tt V Sign Control Free Free Slop -------- Grade 0% 0% 0% Volume (veh/h) 670 35 85 1735 0 30 ---------______ .. - Peak Hour Factor 0 .96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0 .96 0.96 Hourly flow rate (vph) 898 38 89 1807 0 31 ---------- Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) -Wa lking Speed (fUs) Percent Bk>c:kage Right t u m flare (veh) Median type None -------' Median storage veh) Upslleam signal (ft) 408 562 ---- p X, platoon unblocked 0.89 0.86 0 .89 vC, oonllicting volume 734 1797 367 vC 1 , stage 1 coot vol vC2, stage 2 coot vol vCu. unblocked vo l 573 1369 158 tC, single (s) 4 .1 6.8 6 .9 tC , 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2 .2 3.5 3.3 pO queue free % 90 100 96 cM capacity (veh/h) 883 109 767 • -~ut-02 Wit W82 W83 Nit Volume Total 465 269 89 904 904 31 Volume L eft 0 0 89 0 0 0 Volume Right 0 36 0 0 0 31 ------------ cSH 1700 1700 883 1700 1700 767 Volume to Capacity 0.27 0.16 0.10 0 .53 0 .53 0.04 ---- Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 8 0 0 3 Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 9.5 0 .0 0.0 9.9 --__ J Lane LOS A A Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.4 --9.9 --------- Approach L OS A • II!!! II 8lffinllY -! Average Delay 0.4 Intersection Capacity Utilization 59.6% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 M:\07107367 T riton Towers Renton Expansion\Analysis\Traffic Operations\AM Baseline.sy7 9117/2008 The Transpo Group ----- Synchro 6 Report Page 3 I HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4 : Grad~ W~ & North Drivewa:i::-Tower 3 -' • -~ ~ ---ar--EBR--wat. WBT ta. ,al{ Lane Configurations tt, tt ,, Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Volume (veh/h) 665 35 0 1820 0 5 Peak Hour Factor 0 .97 097 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Hourly flow rate (vph) 686 38 0 1876 0 5 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (tus) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh ) Median type None -Median storage veh) Upslleam signal (ft) 649 321 pX, platoon unblocked 0.90 0.84 0 .90 vC, conflicting volume 722 1642 361 vC 1 , stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 cont vol vCu unblocked vol 581 1223 181 tC, single (s) 4 .2 6.8 6 .9 tC , 2 stage (s) IF (s) 2.2 3.5 3 .3 pO queue free % 100 100 99 cM capacity (vetvh) 885 14 7 754 Dnc:lialL loll!! I EB1 EB2 W81 W82 Nl1 Volume Total 457 265 938 938 5 Volume Left 0 0 0 0 0 Volume Right 0 38 0 0 5 cSH 1700 1700 1700 1700 754 Volume to Capacity 0.27 0 .16 0 .55 0.55 0.01 Queue Leng th 95th (ft) 0 0 0 0 1 Control Delay (s) 0 .0 0 .0 0.0 0.0 9.8 Lane L OS A Approach Delay (s) 0 .0 0.0 9.8 Approach LOS A ~!!Jlllull ... !f - Average Delay 0 .0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 54 .5% ICU Level of Service -· A Analysis P eriod (min) 15 M:\07\07367 T riton Towers Renton Expansion\Analysis\Traffic Operations\AM Baseline.sy7 9/1712008 The Transpo Group Triton Towers 2014 Baseline AM Synchro 6 Report Page 4 HCM Signa lized Intersection Capacity Analys is 5: Grad:l'. W:l'. & SR 515/Talbot ...> -.. • -'-~ t ~ MIMll•il EIL EIT~EIR~Wll.--wifr WIR .. N8T NIR Lane Configurations 'I tt 'f 'l'I tt-'l'I +t- Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Grade(%) 0% ·1% 0% Total Loat time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 L ane U til. Faclor 1.00 095 1.00 0.97 095 0 .97 095 Frt 1.00 1.00 0 .85 1.00 0.99 1.00 0 .97 Flt Protected 0 .95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0 .95 1 .00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1687 3374 1509 3417 3480 3467 3458 Flt P ermitled 0.95 1 .00 1 00 0 .95 1.00 0 .95 1 .00 Said. Flow !e!rm) 1687 3374 1509 3417 3480 3467 3458 Volume (vph ) 40 440 190 280 690 60 1070 1 150 320 Peak-hour laclor, PHF 0.96 0 .96 0 .96 0.96 0.96 0 .96 0 .96 0 .96 0 .96 Adj . Flow (vph) 42 458 198 292 7 19 62 111 5 1 198 333 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 68 0 5 0 0 19 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 42 458 130 292 776 0 1 115 1512 0 Heavi Vehieles \%) 7 % 7% 7% 3% 3% 3% 1% 1% 1% Turn Type Prot pm.+ov Prol Prot Protected Phases 1 6 3 5 2 3 8 Permitted P hases 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 5.3 24 .6 69.1 15.1 34.4 44.5 66.7 Effective Green, g (s) 53 24 6 69.1 15.1 3 4 4 44 5 66 7 Actuated glC Ratio 0.04 0 .19 0 .53 0 .12 0 .26 0 .34 0 .51 Clearance T ,me (s) 50 50 50 50 50 50 5 0 Vehide Extension !s) 4 .0 4 .0 4 .0 4.0 4.0 4 .0 4 .0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 69 638 802 397 921 11 87 1774 vis Ratio Prot 0.02 c0 .14 0.06 0 .09 c0.22 c0.32 c0 .44 vis Ratio Perm 0 .03 vie Ratio 0.61 0 .72 0.16 0.74 0.84 0.94 0.85 Uniform Delay, d1 61 .3 49.4 15 .6 55.5 45.2 41 .4 27.4 Progression Factor 0.81 0.95 0 .50 1.00 1.00 1.02 0 .75 Incremental Delay, d2 15.6 6 .5 0 .1 7.4 9.2 7.7 2.1 Oetay(s) 65.0 53 .6 7 .9 62.9 54.5 49.9 22.6 Level of Seniice E D A E D D C Approach Delay (s) 41 .3 56.8 34.1 Approach LOS D E C ~-08'1n1M!t - HCM Average Control Delay 4 1 .1 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.87 Act uated Cycle Length (s) 130.0 Sum of lost time (s) 15.0 lnlefseclion Capacity utilization 89.7% ICU Level ol Service E Analysis Period (m in) 15 C Critical Lane Group M:\0710 7367 T rito n T owers Renton Expansion\Analysis\T ra ffic Operation s\AM Baseline.sy7 911712008 T he Transpo Group Triton Towers 201 4 Baseline AM .... l ~ 88L S8T SIR 'I ++ ,. 1900 1900 1900 1% 5.0 5.0 5.0 1 00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0 .95 1.00 1.00 1761 3522 1575 0 .95 1.00 1.00 1761 3522 1575 20 200 60 0 .96 0.96 0.96 2 1 208 62 0 0 50 2 1 208 12 2% 2% 2% Pro l Perm 7 4 4 3.6 25.8 25.8 3 .6 25.8 25.8 0 .03 0 .20 0 .20 5.0 50 5 .0 3.0 3.0 3.0 49 699 3 13 0 .01 0 .06 0 .01 0 .43 0.30 0.04 62.2 44.4 42.1 1.00 1.00 1.00 5.9 0.2 0.1 68.1 44.6 42.1 E D D 45.8 D ------ Synchro 6 Report Page 5 I H CM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6 : East Drivewa:l'.-T ower 3 & SR 515/Talbot ...> .. ~ t l ~ MMn1*il EliC L ane Configurations Sign Control Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Volume (vehlh) 0 5 0 2555 675 40 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0 .94 0 .94 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 5 0 2718 718 43 Pedestrians Lane Width (fl) Walking Speed (ftis) Percent Blockage Right lurn flare (veh) Median type None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 681 538 pX, platoon unblocked 0.31 0.97 0.97 vC, conflicting volume 2077 359 761 vC1, s lage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vC1J, unblocked vol 1941 305 720 t C, single (s) 6 .8 6 .9 4 .1 tC, 2 stage (s) IF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 pO queue free ~'IJ 100 99 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 18 675 856 Dncial~ ..... 1EB11it-rH11~ssrm::2 §83 Volume T oll Volume Left Volume Right cSH 675 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.01 0.80 0.80 0.21 0.21 0 .03 Queue Length 95th (ft) 1 0 0 0 0 0 Control Delay (s ) 10.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 .0 0 .0 Lane LOS B Approach Delay (s) 10.4 0.0 0 .0 Approach LOS B Average Delay 0 .0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 74.8 % ICU Level ol Setvice Analysis Period (min) 15 M:\07\07367 Triton Towe rs Renton Expansion\Analysis\Tralfic Operalions\AM Baseline.sy7 911712008 The Transpo Group Tri ton Towers 2014 Baseline AM Synchro 6 Report Page 6 HCM Unsignalized Inter section Capacity Analysis Trit on Towers 7 : East Drivewal -Tower 2 & SR 5 1 SfTalbot 2014 Baseline AM ~ • "' t ' ./ ___.EIR .... IIIT SIT~88R j Lane Configurations ,, ot+ +to Sign Conltol Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Volume (veh/h) 0 5 5 2555 645 35 ----------Peak Hour Factor 095 0 .95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0 .95 HOUl1y flow rate (vph ) 0 5 5 2689 679 37 ----------Pedestrians Lane Width (fl) ---Walking Speed (fVs) Percent Blockage ------------- Right tum flare (veh) Median type None ---Median storage veh) Upslnlam signal (ft) 293 926 pX, p latoon unblocked 0.29 0.99 0.99 vC , conflicting volume 2053 358 716 --vC 1 , st age 1 conf vol vC2, st age 2 cont vol vCu, unblocked v o l 2124 349 709 tC, single (s) 6 .8 6.9 4.1 IC. 2 stag e (s) tF (s) 3 .5 3.3 2.2 pO queue free u10 100 99 99 cM capaci ty (veh /h) 13 650 888 Id!!!•-E81rll,---N8 2 881 S82 :::, Volume T otal 5 902 1793 453 263 --------- Volume Left 0 5 0 0 0 Volume Right 5 0 0 0 37 cSH 650 888 1700 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0 .01 0 .01 1.05 0.27 0.15 ----~- Queue Length 9 5th (ft) 1 0 0 0 0 Control Delay (s) 10.6 0.2 0.0 0 .0 0 .0 ------L ane LOS B A Approach Dalay (s) 10.6 0.1 0 .0 -Approach LOS B jjjlt1:lllfl&wmwv Average Delay 0.1 Intersection capacity utilization 78.3% ICU Level of Sel'\'ice D -Analysis Period (min) 15 M :\07\07367 Triton Towers Renton Expansion\Analysis\Traffic Operations\AM Baseline.sy7 9/17/2008 Synchro 6 Report Page 7 The Transpo Group HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacit y Analysis Trit on Towers 8: S Renton Villaiie PL & Theater Drivewa~ 2014 Ba seline AM ~ -• " -'-~ t ~ '. ' ./ Mo.en•• Ea Y!~EIR m& WBT-WIR----!!fi-NIR~SIIL Si1'-w La ne Configurations Sign Control Grade -1% 0% 0% Volume (vehlh) 0 95 10 5 35 20 0 5 0 10 25 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.69 0 .69 0.69 0.69 0.90 0.69 0.90 0.69 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly flow rate (vph ) 0 138 14 7 51 22 0 6 0 11 28 0 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (fUs) Percent Blockage Right t um flare (veh ) None None Median type ----------------Median s torage v eh ) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon u nblocked vC , conflicting volume 73 ---152 ---235 232 145 vC 1 , stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 cont vol vCu, unblocked vol 73 152 235 232 145 tC , sin gle (s) 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 IC 2 s tage (s) IF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 pO queue free 0/o 100 99 100 99 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 1527 1429 698 664 908 DlreGllai1. Law • E81 W81 NB1 881 Volume Total 152 80 6 39 Volume Left 0 7 0 11 Volume Right 14 22 0 0 cSH 1527 1429 664 683 Volume to Capacity 0.00 O.D1 0 .01 0 .06 Queue Length 95th (fl) 0 0 1 5 Conltol Delay (s) 0.0 0 .7 10.5 10.6 Lan e LOS A B B Approach Delay (s) 0 .0 0 .7 10.5 10.6 Approach L OS B B ~~-SlarllWY Average Delay 1 9 lnle"'8clion Capacity Utilization 24 .3% ICU Level of Service A Analysis P eriod (min) 15 M :107107367 Triton To wers Renton Expansion\Analysis\Trattic Operations\AM Baseline.sy7 9/1712008 The Transpo Group 224 229 62 224 229 62 7.1 6 .5 6.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 98 96 100 724 668 1003 Synchro 6 Report Page 8 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Triton Towers 9: S Renton Villa9e PL & West Drivewa;i;: -Tower 1 2014 Baseline AM -,. " -~ ,;. WBT NIL NIR j Lane Configurations f. .f V Sign Conlrol Free Free Stop -------Grade -1% 0% 0% Volume (veh/h) 85 20 30 55 5 5 Peak Hour Factor ------------------ 0.81 0 .8 1 0.81 0.81 0.8 1 0 .81 Hourly flow rate (vph) 105 25 37 68 6 6 ----·----Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) ----------Walking Speed (fUs) Percent Blockage Right tum flare (veh) --------- Median type None Median storage veh) ------- Upstream signal (fl) 969 -pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 130 259 117 vC 1, slage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu . unblocked vol 130 259 117 IC, single (s) 4 .1 6.4 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s ) tF (s) 2 .2 3.5 3.3 pO queue free % 97 99 99 cM capacity (veh/h) 1462 7 15 940 ..... EB.--WS1 N8 ! Volume Total 130 105 12 Volume Left 0 37 6 Volume Righi 25 0 6 ---cSH 1700 1462 8 12 Volume to Capacity 0.08 0.03 0 .02 --------------Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 2 1 Conlrol Delay (s) 0.0 2.8 9.5 ----Lane LOS A A Approach Delay (S) 0 .0 2.8 9 .5 --~-----Approach L OS A --· * 1 lilmwv Average Delay 1.7 Intersection Capacity Utilization 22.9% ICU Level ot Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 M:\07107367 Triton Towers Renton Expansion\Analysis\Traffic Operations\AM Baseline.sy7 9/1712008 The Transpo Group i ----- Synchro 6 Report Page9 I HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10: S Renton Villa9e PL & West Rite Aid Drivewa:i:: ..> --' '. ~ ~ E8l E8T W8T WIR HI: SIR Lane Configurations .f 1" V Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade -1% 0% 0% Volume (vehlh) 5 85 55 130 40 Peak Hour Factor 0.81 081 0.81 0 8 1 0 .81 Hourly flow rate (vph) 6 105 68 160 49 Pedestrians Lane Width (II) Walking Speed (fUs) Percent Blockage Right t urn flare (veh) Median type ---None Median storage veh) Upstream signel (ft) 892 pX, platoon unblocked vC, oonflicting volume 228 -----265 148 vC 1, stage 1 conf vol vC2. stage 2 oonf vol vCu, unblocked vol 228 265 148 tC, single (s) 4 .1 6.4 6.2 IC 2 slilgc (s ) tF (s) 2 .2 3.5 3.3 pO queue fr ee 0fc. 100 93 96 cM capacity (veh/h) 1346 725 904 Dlrlc:llaii. YI!!! • 1:81 WB1 S81 Volume Total 111 228 86 Volume Left 6 0 49 Volume Right 0 160 37 cSH 1346 1700 792 Vol ume to Capacity 0 .00 0.13 0.11 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 9 Control Delay (s) 0.5 0.0 10.1 Lane LOS A B Approach Delay (s) 0.5 0.0 10.1 Approach LOS B Average Delay 2.2 lntersectlon Capacity Utilization 23.3% ICU Level of Sefvice . --A Analysis Period (mi n) 15 M .\07107367 Triton T owers Renton Expansion\Analysis\Traffic Operations\AM Baseline.sy7 9/17/2008 The Transpo Group Triton Towers 2014 Baseline AM Synchro 6 Report Page 10 HC M Unsigna lized Intersection Capacity Analysis 11: S Renton Villa9e PL & Rite Aid/East Drivewa~ -Tower 1 ..> -• "' -'-..,. t ,,. Ma-It Ell EBT-E8R ~-w.R NIL NIT tllR Lane Configurati ons • • • Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade -1% 0% 0% Volume (vehlh ) 5 90 30 30 175 10 5 5 5 Peak Hour Factor 0.82 0.82 0 .82 0 .82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 Hourty flow rate (vph) 6 110 37 37 213 12 6 6 6 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walkin g Speed (IVs) P8lC81ll Blockage ---Righi turn Oare (veh) Median type None Med ian storage veh) Upslr1lam signal (ft) 738 pX, platoon unblocked vC, conltictlng VOiume 226 146 439 439 128 vC1 stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu unblocked v ol 226 146 439 439 128 tC, single (s) 4 .1 4.1 7 .2 6 .6 6 .3 tC, 2 slage (s) tF (s) 2 .2 2.2 3.6 4.1 3.4 pO queue free %1 100 97 99 99 99 cM capacity (veh/h) 1355 1442 494 481 893 l:illlcloll1.a..., EBT WB~ 1-u 1 Volume Total 152 262 18 12 Volu me Left 6 37 6 6 Volume Right 37 12 6 6 ----cSH 1355 1442 574 629 Volume lo Capacity 0 .00 0 .03 0.03 0.02 -Queue Lenglh 95th (ft) 0 2 2 1 Conlrol Delay (s) 0.3 1.2 11.5 10.8 ----Lane LOS A A B B Approach Delay (s) 0.3 1.2 11 .5 10.8 --Approach LOS B B -----Average Delay 1.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization 29.8% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 M:\07107 367 T riton Towers Renton Expansion\Analysis\T raffic Operations\AM Ba seline.sy7 9/17/2008 The Transpo Group Tr iton Towers 2014 Baseline AM '. i ., 88L 88T 88R • Slop oo;Q 5 0 5 0.82 0.82 0.82 6 0 6 --- None 442 45 1 220 44? 451 220 7 .1 6.5 6.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 99 100 99 509 492 825 ---- j Synchro 6 Report Page 1 1 HCM Uns ignalized Intersect ion Capacity Ana lysis 12 : S Renton Villa9e PL & West Dri vew a~ -Tower 2 ..> --'-'. ., Lane Configurations 4 lo ¥ Sign Control Free Free Slop G rade -1% 0% 0% Volume (vehlh) 15 85 210 15 5 5 Peak Hou r Factor 0 .8 4 0 .84 0.84 0 .84 0 .84 0 84 Hourly flow rate (vph) 16 10 1 250 18 6 6 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Wa lki ng Speed (IVs) Percent Blockage Righi t urn Oare (veh) Medlen type -------None Median sto rage veh) Upstream signal (ft ) 626 pX, p latoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 266 ---396 259 vCl . stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu . unblo cked vol 268 396 259 tC, sing le (s) 4 .1 6.4 6.2 tC . 2 s lage (s) tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3 .3 pO queue free '% 99 99 99 cM capacity (veh/h) 1302 605 785 Volume Left Volume Righ t cSH 1302 1700 683 Vol ume to Capacity 0 .01 0.16 0 .02 Queue Length 95th (ft) 1 0 1 Control Delay (s) 1.3 0.0 10.4 Lane LOS A B Approach Delay (s) 1.3 0 .0 10.4 Approach LOS B ~ A v erage De lay 0 .7 Intersection Capacity Util izalion 28.9% ICU Level of Serv ice -A Analysis Period (min) 15 M:107107367 Triton Towers Renton Expansion\Analysis\Traffic Operations\AM Baseline .sy7 9/17/2008 The Trans po Group Triton Towers 2014 Base li ne AM Synchro 6 Report Page 12 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analys is 13: S Renton Villa~e PL & East Dri vewal -Tower 2 .,> -• • -' .... t ~ ........ !ii!. !!ll!-EIR~wa&: WIT WBR MIL teT NBA Lane Configurations 4, 4, 4, Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade ·1% 0% 0% Volume (veh/h) 10 75 5 20 220 60 0 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 0 .90 0 .90 0.90 0.90 0 .90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly flow rate (vph) 11 83 6 22 244 67 0 0 0 Pedestrians Lane Width (II) ----------Walking Sp eed (IVs) Percent Blockage -Right turn flare (veh) Median type None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (fl) 443 pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting 110lume 311 89 439 464 86 vC 1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu. ,mblocked vol 311 69 439 464 66 IC, single (s) 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6 .2 tC , 2 stage (s) IF (s) 2.2 2.2 3 .5 40 33 pO queue free % 99 99 100 100 100 cM cap acity (veh/h) 1249 1513 514 487 978 Diiiiiiil:'Lw f E81 W81 NB1 S81 --- Volume T olal 100 333 0 17 --- Volume Left 11 22 0 6 Volume Right 6 67 0 6 cSH 1249 1513 1700 542 Volume to Capacity 0.01 0.01 0 .00 0 .03 -Queue Length 95th (ft) 1 1 0 2 Control Delay (s) 0 .9 0 .6 0 .0 11 .8 ---------Lane LOS A A A B Approach Delay (S) 0 .9 0 .6 0 .0 11 .8 Approach LOS A B Average Delay 1.1 lnletsection Capacity Utilizalion 31 .0% ICU Level of Sel'lice A Analysis Period (min) 15 M ·\07\07367 Triton Towers Renton Expansion\Analysis\Traffic Operations\AM Baseline.sy7 9/17/2008 The Transpo Group Triton Towers 2014 Baseline AM '-. + ~ 88L HI ~ 4, Stop 0% 5 5 5 0.90 0.90 0 .90 6 6 6 ------ None - 431 433 278 431 433 278 7.3 6.7 6.4 3.7 4.2 3.5 99 99 99 493 475 7 16 ) - ------- -- --- ---- Synchro 6 Report Page 13 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Ana lysis 14 : S Renton Vi lla~e PL & East Drivewa~ -Tower 1 -..... • -.... ~ Lane Configurat ions Sign Control Grade ·1% 0% 0% Volume (vehlh) 75 5 20 300 0 5 Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0 85 0 .85 0 .85 0.85 0.85 Hourty flow rate (vph) 88 6 24 353 0 6 Pedestrians Lane Wodlh (ft) Walking Sp eed (IVs) Percent Blockage Righi t urn flare (veh) Median type --None Median storage veh) Upslream signal (II) 272 pX , platoon unblocked vC, conflicting 1/0lume --94 491 vC 1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu. unbl ocked vol 94 491 91 tC , sin gle (s) 4.1 6.4 6 .2 IC 2 stage (s) IF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 pO queue fr ee ::;o 98 100 99 cM capacity (veh/h) 1506 532 972 Dnalai. bl!!! ' E81 WB1 N81 Volume Total 94 376 6 Volume Left 0 24 0 Volume Right 6 0 6 cSH 1700 1506 972 Volume to Capacity 0 .06 0.02 0.01 Queue Leng th 95th (rt) 0 1 0 Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.6 8.7 Lane LOS A A Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.6 8.7 Approach LOS A ~..._w Average Delay 0.6 lnteniection Capacity Utilization 35.2% ICU Level of Setvice Analysis Period (min) 15 M:107107367 T ri ton Towers Renlon Expansion\Analysis\Traffic Operations\AM Baseline.sy7 9117 /2008 The T ranspo Group Triton Towers 2014 Baseline AM Synchro 6 Report Page 14 HCM Signa lized Intersection Capacity Analysis 15: Renton Place & SR 515/Ta lbot ./' -~ # -'-~ t ~ 11o-11 EIIL-EBT-EIR W8L WIT W8R N8L ieT left Lane Co nfigurations 'I .,, '111 t .,, 'I tt Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Grade(%) -1 % 0% -3°/o Tolal Lost time (a) 5.0 5 .0 5 .0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 0.97 1 .00 1.00 1.00 0.95 Frt 1.00 0 .85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 Flt Protected 0 .9 5 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Said. Flow (prot) 1761 1576 3502 1900 1615 1814 3628 Flt Permilled 0.95 1 .00 0 95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Said. Flow !!!!rm) 1761 1576 3502 1900 1615 1814 3628 Volu me (vph) 40 0 40 230 10 190 250 2330 0 Peak-hour facior, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0 .97 0 .97 Adj. Flow (vph) 41 0 41 237 10 196 258 2 402 0 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 36 0 0 16 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 41 0 5 237 10 180 258 2 402 0 Hea~ Vehicles j%) 3% 3% 3% 0% 0 % 0% 1% 1% 1% T urn Type P rot custom Prol Perm Prol Protected Phases 7 3 8 5 2 Perm,lled Phases 8 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 3.2 17.4 25.6 17 4 17.4 29.0 94.4 Effective Green g (s) 32 17 .4 25.6 17 4 17 .4 29 0 94.4 Actuated giC Ratio 0.02 0 .13 0.20 0.13 0.13 0 .22 0 .73 Clearance Time (s) 50 5 .0 5.0 50 50 50 50 Vehicle Extension (s) 3 .0 3.0 3.0 3 .0 3.0 4 .0 6 .0 Lane Grp Cap (vph ) 43 21 1 690 254 216 405 2634 vis Ratio Pro! c0.02 0.07 0.01 0 .14 c0.66 vis Ratio Perm 0.0 0 c0.11 vie Ratio 0 .95 0.03 0.34 0.04 0 .84 0 .64 0.91 Uniform Delay, d1 63.3 48.9 45.0 49 .0 54.9 45.7 14.4 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0 .95 0.90 Incremental Delay, d2 118.5 0 .1 03 0 1 23.4 1.7 3.0 Delay (s) 181 .8 49.0 45.3 49.1 78.3 45.1 16.0 Level of Service F D D D E D B Approach Delay (s) 115.4 60.0 18.9 Approach L OS F E B llilnrrai, HCM Average Control Delay 28.7 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.90 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 130.0 Sum of lost time (s) 15.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 92.0% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15 C Critical Lane Group ---- M:\07107367 Triton Towers Renton Expansion\Analysis\T raffic Operations\AM Baseline.sy7 9/17/2008 The Transpo Group Triton Towers 2014 Baseline AM ..... ' ~ S8l S8T SIB +to 1900 1900 1900 0% 5.0 --0.95 0 .99 1.00 3456 1.00 3456 0 590 60 0 .97 0.97 0.97 0 608 62 0 6 0 0 664 0 3% 3% 3% 6 60.4 60 4 0 .46 50 6 .5 1606 0.19 0.41 23.1 1.54 0 .7 36.3 D 36.3 D i ~----- Synchro 6 Report Page 15 HCM Sig nal ized Intersection Capacity Analys is 16: 1-405 NB On-Rame & SR 515/Talbot # '-t ~ ..... ' ~ WBL W8R !!II .. S8l 88T Lane Configurations tt .,, 'I tt Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Grade(%) 0% -3% 6% Total Lost time (s ) 5 .0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 FIi Protected 1.00 1.00 0 .95 1.00 Sa1d. Flow (prol) .. -3628 1623 1700 3400 Flt Permitted 1 .00 1 .00 0 .95 1.00 Said. Flow !I!!!!!!! 3628 1623 1700 3400 Volume (vph) 0 0 2580 460 90 760 Peak-hour factof, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 2660 474 93 784 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vp h ) 0 0 2660 474 93 784 Hea~ Vehicles !%) 0% 0% 1% 1% 3% 3% Turn Type Free Pro! Protecte d Phases 2 1 6 Pernlitled Phases Free A ctualed Green, G (s) 109.4 130.0 10.6 130.0 Effectwe Green, g (s) 109 4 130.0 10.6 130.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.84 1.00 0 .08 1.00 Clearance Time (s) 50 50 5 .0 Veh icle E xtension j s) 3 .0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 3053 1623 139 3400 vis Ratio Prot c0.73 c0.05 0.23 vis Ratio Perm 0 29 vie Ratio ----0.87 0.29 0.67 0.23 Uniform De lay, d1 6 .1 0.0 58.0 0.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.89 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 37 0.5 10 .9 0.1 Delay (a) -9.9 0.5 62.3 0 .1 Level of Service A A E A Approach Delay (s) 0 .0 8.4 6.7 A pproach LOS A A A ~. HCM Average Control Delay 8 .1 HCM Le ve l of Service A HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.85 -A ctuated Cycle Length (s) 130.0 Sum o f lost time (s) 10.0 lnlenlection Capacity Utilization 79.0% ICU Level of Se,vice D Analysis Period (m in) 15 C Critical Lane Group M:\07\07367 Triton Towers Renton Expansion\Analysis\Traffi c Operations\AM Baseli ne.sy7 9/17i2008 The Transpo Group Triton Towers 2014 Base li ne AM Synch ro 6 Report Pa ge 16 HCM Si gnalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1 : Gra d~ W~ & Lake Ave S .,> -• ., -'-"' t ~ lliivuall ESL E8T E8R WBL WBT--w&ft NIL NIT N8R Lane Confi gurations 'I ++ .,, 'I +to "'I + .,, Ideal FIOw (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5 .0 5 .0 5.0 5.0 5 .0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 FIi Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Said. Flow (prot) 1787 3574 1599 1770 3531 1770 1863 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.67 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (eerm) 1787 3574 1599 1770 3531 1240 1863 1583 Volume (vph) 40 1550 140 50 1240 20 250 1 50 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0 .92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0 .92 0 .92 0 .92 0 .92 0.92 Adj . Flow (vph) 43 1685 152 54 1348 22 272 1 54 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 50 0 1 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 43 1685 102 54 1369 0 272 1 54 Heavl Vehicles (%) 1% 1% 1% 2 % 2% 2% 2 % 2% 2% Tum Type Prot Perm Prat Perm Free Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 4 Permitted Phases 2 4 Free Actu ate d Green G (s) 63 71 2 7 1 2 48 69 7 29 0 29 0 120.0 Effective Green, g (s) 6 .3 71.2 71 .2 4 .8 69.7 29.0 29.0 120 .0 Actuate d g/C Ratio 0 05 0 59 0 5 9 0 04 o 58 0 24 0 24 1 00 Clearance Time (s) 5 .0 5.0 5 .0 5.0 5.0 50 5 .0 Vehicle Exlen s,on (s) 30 3.0 30 3 0 30 30 30 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 94 2121 949 71 2051 300 450 1583 vi s Ratio P rat 0.02 c0.47 0 03 c0.39 0 .00 vis Ratio Perm 0.06 c0.22 0.03 vie Rati o 0 .4 6 0 .79 0 .1 1 0 .76 0 .67 0 .9 1 0 .00 0 .03 Uniform Delay, d1 55 .2 18.8 10.6 57.0 17.2 44 .2 34.5 0.0 Progression Fact or 1 .00 1.00 1 .00 0.67 0 .35 1.00 1.00 1.00 111C1'9111ental Delay, d2 3.5 3.2 0.2 29.8 0.6 29.0 0.0 0.0 Delay (s) 58.7 21 .9 10.8 68.1 6 .7 73.2 34.5 0.0 Level of Service E C 8 E A E C A Approach Delay (s) 2 1.9 9 .0 61 .0 Approach L OS C A E piiiiiillii ..... HCM Average Control Delay 20.8 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.80 Actuated Cyde Length (a) 120.0 Su m of lost time (s) 10.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 7 1.7% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 C Critical Lane Group M:107107367 T riton Towers Renton Expansion\Analysis\Traffic Operations\PM Baseline.sy7 9/18/2008 The Transpo Group Triton Towers 2014 Baseline PM '-. ! ~ 88l S8T 88R 4, 1900 1900 1900 5 .0 1.00 0.92 0.98 1393 0.89 1267 40 1 60 0.92 0.92 0 .92 43 1 65 0 47 0 0 62 0 23% 23% 23% Perm 4 4 290 290 0 24 5.0 3.0 306 0.05 0 .20 36.3 1.00 0.3 36.6 D 36.6 D -1 ·----- Synch ro 6 Report P age 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Grad~ W~ & Shattuck Av S .,> -• ., -'-"' t ~ MIMmalll E8L E8T E8R WBL !M,!T WBR ~ Lane Configurati ons 'I ++ .,, 'I +to "'I 4ft Ideal Flow (vpllpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width 12 11 11 12 11 12 12 11 12 Grade(%) 0% 0% 1% Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5 .0 5 .0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5 .0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0 .95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.91 0.91 Frt 1.00 1 .00 0 .85 1 00 0 .99 1.00 0.91 FIi Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.99 Satd. F low (prot) 1770 3 421 1531 1770 3387 1634 3007 FIi Permll1ed 0 .95 1.00 1.00 0 .95 1.00 0.95 0.99 Satd. F low (eerm) 1770 3421 1531 1770 3387 1634 3007 Volume (vph) 40 1480 120 110 1120 80 120 50 120 Peak-h our factor, PHF 0 95 0 95 0 .95 0 .95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj . Flow (vph) 42 1558 126 116 1179 84 126 53 126 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 o 49 0 4 0 0 11 3 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 42 1558 77 116 1259 0 92 100 0 He avl V ehicles (%) 2% 2% 2% 2°,o 2°/o 2% 0% 0% 0% Turn T ype Pra t P erm Prot Split Protected Pha se s 1 6 5 2 8 8 Permitted Phases 6 Actua te d Green. G (s) 56 59 2 59 2 10 0 63 6 12 8 12.8 Effective Green, g (s) 5 .6 59.2 59.2 10.0 63.6 12.8 12.8 Actuated g/C Ra t,o 0 05 0.49 0.49 0.08 0 .5 3 0.11 0 11 Clearance Time (s) 5 .0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5 .0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (•! 3.0 5.0 5.0 30 5.0 4 0 4 .0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 83 1688 755 148 1795 174 321 v i s Ratio Prat 0 .02 c0.46 c0.07 0.37 c0.06 0.03 vis Ratio Perm 0.05 vie Ratio 051 0 .92 0 .10 0 .78 0 .70 0 .53 0 .3 1 Uniform Delay, d 1 55.8 28.3 16.2 53.9 21 .1 50 .7 49.5 Progression Factor 0 .75 0.35 0.06 1.04 0.85 1 .00 1 .00 Incremental Delay , d2 3 .1 6 .8 0 .2 19.4 1.9 3.7 0.8 Delay (s) 44.8 16.7 1 .1 75.8 19.8 54 .5 503 Level of Service D B A E 8 D D Approach Delay (s ) 16.2 24 .5 5 1.6 Approach LOS B C D ~-' ... _. HCM A verage Control Delay _ 28.0 HCM Level of Service C H CM Volume to Capacity ratio 0 .86 Acluated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 20.0 Intersecti on Capacity Utilizalion 81 .7% ICU Level o f Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 C Critical Lane Group M :10710 7367 Triton Towers Renton Expansion\Analysis\Traffic Operations\PM Baseline.sy7 9/18/2008 The Transpo Group Triton Towers 2014 Baseline PM '-. ! ~ SB[ ---"'I ft 1900 1900 1900 12 11 12 0% 5 .0 5 .0 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.93 0.95 1.00 1656 1567 0.95 1.00 1656 1567 220 80 70 0.95 0.95 0 .95 232 84 74 0 26 o 232 132 0 9% 9% 9'% Split 4 4 18.0 18 .0 18.0 18 .0 0 15 o 15 5 .0 5.0 4.0 4 .0 248 235 c0.14 008 0.94 0 .56 50.4 47.3 1.00 1.00 40.0 3 .7 90.4 51 .0 F D Synchro 6 Report Page 2 H CM Unsi g na lized Intersec tion Capacity Analysis Triton T owers 3 : G rad:z: W:z: & North Rite Aid Drivewa:z'. 2014 Baseline PM -• (' -' ~ ....... YI E8R WBL W8T NIL N8R ! Lane Co nfigurations tf. ' ++ V Sign Conltol Free Free Stop ------------ Grade 0% 0% 0% Volume (veh/h) 1715 5 55 1205 1 60 ~ -------- Peak Hour Factor 0 .94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0 .94 Hour1y flow rate (vpll) 1824 5 59 1282 1 64 Pedest ria ns Lane Width (fl) -Walking Speed (tus) Percent Blockage -------Right t um flare (ve h) Median type None -~----Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 420 562 --pX , platoon unbl ocked 0.57 0.64 0 .57 vC , conflicting volume 1830 2585 915 ----------~ vC 1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, u n blocked vol 170 1 2195 9 1 IC, single (s) 4 .1 6.8 6.9 IC . 2 stage (s) IF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 pO queue free % 72 94 88 cM capacity (veh /h) 2 11 18 543 !!a ..... EB1 EB2 WB1 WB2 WB3 NI 1 :::, Volume Total 1216 613 59 641 641 65 Volume Left 0 0 59 0 0 1 Volume Right 0 5 0 0 0 64 cSH 1700 1700 2 11 1700 1700 370 Volume to Capacity 0 .72 0 .36 0.28 0.38 0.38 0 .18 -Queue Length 95th (fl) 0 0 27 0 0 16 Conlrol Delay (S) 0 .0 0.0 28.6 0 .0 0 .0 16.8 Lane LOS D C Approach Delay (a) 0 .0 1.2 16.8 --Approach LOS C hi 1111!!! .... Y -! Average Delay 0.9 Intersection Capacity Utilization 59.7% ICU Level of Sel'llioe B Analys is P eriod (min) 15 M :\07107367 Triton Towers Renton Expansion\Analysis\Traffic Operations\P M B ase line.sy7 9/18/2008 Synchro 6 Report Page 3 The Transpo Group HC M U nsig nalized In tersec tion Capa ci ty Analysis 4: G rad:z: W:z'. & No rth Drive wa:z:-Towe r 3 -• (' -' ~ Miiiimllil La ne Con figurations Sign Control Free Free Stop G rade 0 % 0% 0% Volume (veMl) 1770 5 0 1260 0 30 Peak Hour F aclor 0.95 0 .95 0 .95 0 9 5 0 .95 0.95 Hourly flow rate (vph) 1863 5 0 1326 0 32 P edesltians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (!Us) Percent Blockage Right t um flare (veh) Median type None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 661 321 pX, platoon unblocked 0.57 0 .65 0.57 vC , conflicting volume 1868 2529 934 vC 1 stage 1 co nf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu u nblocked vol 1 /68 2068 122 IC, single (s) 4 .2 6.8 6.9 IC, 2 slage (s) IF (s) 2 .2 3.5 3.3 p O que ue fre e % 100 100 94 cM capacity (veh/h) 195 3 1 5 18 Dliicilol .. !:iii I g -rg2 m lWB i Bl] Volume Total 1242 626 663 663 32 -Volume Left 0 0 0 0 0 VOiume Right 0 5 0 0 32 cSH 1700 1700 1700 1700 518 Volume to Capacity 0.73 0.37 0.39 0 .39 0 .06 Queue Length 95th (fl) 0 0 0 0 5 Conltol Delay (s) 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 12.4 Lane LOS B Approach Delay (s) 0 .0 0 .0 12.4 Approach LOS B iii Average Delay 0 .1 Intersection capacity Utilization 60.8% ICU Level of Setvioe Analysis P eriod (min) 15 M .\07107367 Triton To wers Renton Expansion\Analysis\Traffic Operat ions\P M B aseline.sy7 9/18/2008 The Transpo Group Triton Towe rs 20 14 Base line PM Synchro 6 Report Page 4 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 5: G radl Wl & SR 515/Talbot ..> -.. f -'-4\ t ~ MIMmllll EIL. E8T E8R !II:: MT WIR NIL NIT N8R Lane Configurations ' +t ' " +to '' +to Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Grade(%) 0% -1% 0 % Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Faclor 1.00 0 .95 1.00 0.97 0.95 0.97 0 .95 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0 .99 1.00 0.94 Flt P rotected 0 .95 1 00 1.00 0 .95 1 00 0 .95 1.00 Said . Flow (pro I) 1770 3539 1583 3450 3493 3467 3357 Fil Permitted 0.95 1 .00 1.00 0 .95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Said. Flow (perm) 1770 3539 1583 3450 3493 3467 3357 Volume (vph) 70 890 840 430 670 40 550 470 320 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0 .90 0 .90 0 .90 0 .88 0 .97 0 .97 0 .97 0 .97 0 .97 Adj . Flow (vph ) 78 989 933 489 691 41 567 485 330 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 4 0 4 0 0 100 0 Lane G roup Flow (vph) 78 989 929 489 728 0 567 7 15 0 Heavi Vehicles !%! 2% 2% 2% 2% 3% 3% 1% 1% 1% Turn Type Pro! pm+ov Prol P rot P rotected Phases 1 6 3 5 2 3 8 Permitted Phases 6 Actuated G reen , G (s) 8 .5 35.0 59.0 18.0 44 .5 24.0 39.2 Effective Green. g (s) 85 35 0 59 0 18 0 44 5 24 0 39 2 A ctuated g/C Ratio O.D7 0 .29 0 .49 0 .15 0.37 0.20 0 .33 Clearance T ,me (s) 50 5.0 5 .0 5.0 5.0 5 .0 5 .0 Vehide Extension (s) 4.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 5 .0 5 .0 Lane G rp Cap (vph) 12 5 1032 844 5 18 1295 693 1097 vis Ratio Prot 0 .04 0 .28 c0.22 c0.14 0.21 0.16 0.21 0.37 0 .62 0 .96 1.10 0.94 0.56 0.82 0.65 54 .2 41 .8 30.5 50.5 30.0 45 .9 34.6 0.85 0.70 0 .55 1.00 1.00 0.79 0.68 6 .3 13.5 56.4 26.3 1.8 7.7 1.7 52.3 42 .9 73.2 76.8 31 .8 44.0 25.3 D D E E C D C 57.4 49.8 32.9 -E D C 57 .9 HCM Level of Service E 1.08 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 15.0 972% ICU Level of Service F 15 M:\07\07367 Triton T owers Renton Expansion\Analysis\Traffic Operations\PM Baseline sy7 9/18/2008 The T ran sp o Group Triton Towers 2014 Baseli ne PM '. + ~ SIL HI 8llf! ' ++ ' 1900 1900 1900 1% 5.0 5 .0 5 .0 1.00 0.95 1 .00 1.00 1.00 0 .85 0 .95 1.00 1 00 1796 3592 1607 0.95 1.00 1.00 1796 3592 1607 80 740 40 0 .97 0 .97 0.97 82 763 4 1 0 0 2 1 82 763 20 0 % 0% 0% P rat Perm 7 4 4 7.8 23.0 23.0 7 8 2 3 0 23 0 0.06 0.19 0 .19 5 .0 50 50 3.0 3 .0 3 .0 117 688 308 0.05 c0.21 0 .0 1 0.70 1.11 0 .06 55.0 485 39.7 1.00 1.00 1.00 17.3 68 2 0 .1 72.2 116.7 39 .8 E F D 109.0 F :::I ------ Synchro 6 Report Page 5 I HCM Uns ignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: East Drivewal -Tower 3 & SR 515/Talbot ..> .. 4\ t l ~ ....... EIL. EM L ane Configurations ' Sign Conlrol Slop Grade 0 % 0% 0% Volume (vehlh) 0 15 0 1280 2025 10 P eak Hour F a clo r 0.94 0 .94 0.94 0.94 0 .94 0.94 Hou,ty llow rate (vph) 0 16 0 1362 2154 11 P edestrian s La ne Width (ft) Walking Speed (fVs) Percent Blockage Right tum flare (veh) Median type None Median slorage veh ) Upstream signal (ft) 673 538 p X, platoon unblocked 0.89 0.82 0.82 vC, conflicting volume 2835 1077 2165 vC 1 . stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 cent vol vCu. unbloc ked vol 2445 869 2202 IC, single (s) 6.8 6.9 4 .1 t C. 2 slage (s) I F (s) 3 .5 3.3 2 .2 pO queue free '% 100 93 100 cM capaci ty (veh/h) 24 2 44 195 Rmlal" Lini ,-g 1-NB 1-,e2 881 §12 883 Volume Total 16 681 681 ,on 1077 11 Volume Left 0 0 0 0 0 0 Volume Right 16 0 0 0 0 11 cSH 244 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Volume 10 Capacily 0.07 0.40 0.40 0 .63 0 .63 0 .01 Queue Length 95th (ft) 5 0 0 0 0 0 Conlrol Delay (s) 20.8 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 Lane LOS C Approach Delay (S) 20.8 0.0 0 .0 Approa ch LOS C Average Delay 0 .1 Intersection Capacity Utilization 67.6% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 M:\07\07367 Triton T owers Ren ton Expansion\Analysis\Traffic Operations\PM Baseline.sy7 9 /18/2008 T he T ranspo Group Triton Towers 2014 Baseline PM Synchro 6 Report Page 6 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Triton Towers 7: East Dri vewa~ • Tower 2 & SR 5 15/Talbot 2014 Ba seline PM ...> l' "' t ' ~ tel' 88T 88R i Lane Configurations ,, .ft tJ. Sign Control Stop Free Free ---------Grade 0% 0% 0% VOiume (vehlh) 0 5 0 1280 2035 5 ---Peak Hour Factor 0 .97 0 .97 0 .97 0.97 0 .97 0.97 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 5 0 1320 2098 5 Pedestrians Lane Width (fl) ______ __, Walking Speed (fUs) Percent Bloci<age Right tum flare (veh) ---. ---- Median type None ----- Median storage veh) ----- Upstream signal (fl) 285 926 pX, platoon unblocked 0 .89 0.82 0 .82 vC, conflicting volume 2760 1052 2103 -vC 1, stage 1 con! vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unbloc ked vol 2364 84 1 2 125 IC, single {s) 6.8 6.9 4 .1 IC 2 stage (s) IF (s) 3 .5 3 .3 2.2 pO queue free c>;c, 100 98 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 27 255 211 S81 S82 Volume Total 5 440 880 1399 704 Volume Left 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 5 VOiume Right ----------cSH 255 211 1700 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.02 0.00 0.52 0 .82 0.41 Queue Length 95th (ft) 2 0 0 0 0 Control Delay {S) 19.4 0 .0 0 .0 0.0 0.0 ·---------Lane LOS C Approach Delay (a) 19.4 0 .0 0.0 Approach LOS C i*' lilll 18umnlv Average Delay 00 Intersection Capacity Utilization 68.1% ICU Level of Sel'olice C Analysis Period (min) 15 M:\07\07367 Triton Towers Renton Expansion\A!lalysis\Trattic Operalions\PM Baseline.sy7 9/18/2008 T he Transpo Group - j --__ __J Synchro 6 Report Page 7 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Ca pa city Analysis 8: S Renton Villa9e PL & T heater Drivewa~ ...> -l' f -'-"' t ~ Mo.iilWll Iii!,; m gs M!bn!m!! !I& !!!I!! NIR Lan e Configurations • • • Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade -1% 0% 0% V Oiume (vehlh) 5 71 5 5 124 30 5 15 10 Peak Hour Factor 086 0 .86 0 .86 0 .86 0.86 0 .86 0.86 0.86 0 .86 Hourly flow rate (vph) 6 83 6 6 144 35 6 17 12 Pedestrians Lane Width (11) Walking Speed (fUs) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (fl) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 179 --88 279 288 85 vC 1, stage 1 con! vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unbl ocked vol 1/9 88 279 288 85 IC, single (s) 4.1 4 .1 7 .1 6 .5 6 .2 tC, 2 stage (s ) IF (s) 2 .2 2.2 3 .5 4.0 3.3 pO queue fre e % 100 100 99 97 99 cM capacity {veh/h) 1397 1507 658 615 971 Volume Lett 6 6 6 35 VOiume Right 6 35 12 6 cSH 1397 1507 7 10 662 Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.07 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 4 6 Control Delay (S) 0.5 0 .3 10.3 10.9 Lane LOS A A B B Approach Delay (s) 0.5 0.3 10.3 10.9 Approach LOS B B ii Average Delay 2 .7 Intersection Capacity Utilization 25.6% ICU Level of Service --A Analysis Period (min) 15 M :\07\07367 Triton Towers Renton Expansion\Analysis\Traffic Operations\PM Baseline.sy7 9/18/2008 The T ranspo G ro up T ri ton Towers 201 4 Baseline PM '. ' ~ 88L II! .• • Stop 0 % 30 5 5 0.86 0.86 0 .86 35 6 6 None 291 273 162 291 273 162 7 .1 6 .5 6 .2 3.5 4.0 3.3 95 99 99 639 632 889 Synchro 6 Report Page 8 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Triton Towers 9: S Renton Villa9e PL & West Dirvewa~ -Tower 1 2014 Baseline PM -'\-f -~ r m -!i!! W8I. W8T ti!!: NBR j Lane Configurations ft .f V Sign Control Free Free Stop -Grade -1% 0% 0% Volume (veMI) 96 15 15 149 10 30 -------Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 094 094 0.94 Hourly flow rale (vph) 102 16 16 159 11 32 Pedestrians ---------- Lane Width (ft) -Walking Speed (rvs) --------______ _J PeR:enl Blockage Right turn flare (veh ) ----------' Median type ------None -------Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 965 pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting wlume 118 301 110 vC 1. stage 1 con! vol vC2, stage 2 cont vol vCu unblocked vol 1 18 301 1 10 tC, single (s) 4 .1 6.4 6.2 tC. 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 pO queue free % 99 98 97 cM capacity (veh/h) 14 76 684 943 N81 j 174 43 -Volume Left 0 16 11 --- Volume Right 16 0 32 ---------·· --cSH 1700 1476 861 Volume to Capacity 0 .07 O.G1 0 .05 Queue Length 95th (fl) 0 1 4 Control Delay (s) 0 .0 0.8 9.4 --------- Lane LOS A A Approach Delay (s) 0 .0 0.8 9.4 Approach LOS A n!l!!§!!cln 8wM*Y I Average Delay 1.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization 27.0% ICU Level of Service A ---Analysis Period (min) 15 M:107107367 Triton Towers Renton Expansion\Analysis\Traffic Operations\PM Baseline.sy7 9/18/2008 The Transpo Group ---- Synchro 6 Report Page 9 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10 : S Renton Villa9e PL & West Rite Aid Drivewa~ ..> --' '. ~ '*--" E8L EBT m !I! .. SIR Lane Configurations .f ft V Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade -1% 0% 0% Volume (veMI) 10 116 149 65 155 15 Peak Hour Factor 0 .94 0 .94 0 .94 0 .94 0.94 0.94 Hourly flow rale (vph) 11 123 159 69 165 16 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (IVs) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh ) Median type -~-None Median storage veh ) Upstream signal (ft) 900 pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 228 -----338 193 vC 1, stage 1 con! vol vC2, stage 2 cont vol vCu . unbloc ked vol 228 338 193 IC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6 .2 tC , 2 stage (s ) IF (s) 2.2 3.5 3 .3 pO queue free % 99 7 5 98 cM capacity (veh/h) 1347 655 851 Dnclllal .. Y!!!! • y1 WB1 881 Volume Total 134 228 181 Volume Left 11 0 165 Volume Righi 0 69 16 cSH 1347 1700 668 Volume to Capacity 0.01 0.13 0.27 Queue Length 95th (fl) 1 0 27 Control Delay (s) 0 .7 0 .0 12.4 Lane LOS A B Approach Delay (S) 0 .7 0 .0 12.4 Approach LOS B bl! Average Delay 4.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 32.2% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 M :107107367 Triton Towers Renton Expansion\Analysis\T raffic Operations\PM Baseline.sy7 9/18/2008 The Transpo Group Triton Towers 2014 Baseline PM Synchro 6 Report Page 10 HCM Unsignalized I ntersection Capacity Analysis 11 : S Renton Villa9e PL & Rite A id/E ast Drivewal -T ower 1 .> -~ • -'-~ t ~ Ma···" ~~~Wlfl'--wllR~NBL---iirr~ Lane Configurations 4, 4, .;. Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade ~ 1 °/o 0% 0% Volume (vehlh) 5 256 10 20 194 10 15 5 20 Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0 .97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Houny flow rate (vph) 5 264 10 21 200 10 15 5 21 Pedestrians i.-Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blod<age Right turn flare (veh) Median type -None -Median storage veh) Upslream signal (ft) 734 pX, platoon unblocked vC, oontlicting volume 210 274 534 531 269 vC1. stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu. unblocked vol 210 274 53 4 531 269 tC, single (s) 4.1 4.1 7 .1 6 .5 6 .2 tC, 2 stage (s) IF (s) 2.2 2.2 3 .5 40 3 .3 pO queue free % 100 98 97 99 97 cM capacity (veh/h) 1366 1295 442 444 767 Dliicicw. Y!!! • EB1 ws1-.rt1 1 Volume Total 279 231 41 26 --Volume Left 5 21 15 15 VOiume Right 10 10 21 5 cSH 1366 1295 56 1 479 Volume lo Capacity 0.00 0.02 0.07 0 .05 ---Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 1 6 4 Control Delay (S) 0 .2 0 .8 11.9 12.9 --Lane LOS A A B B Approach Delay (8) 0 .2 0 .8 11 .9 12.9 Approach LOS B B ~..._y Average Delay 1.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 33 .6% ICU Level of Setvice A Analysis Period (min) 15 M :\07\07367 Triton Towers Renlon Expansion\Analysis\Traffic Operations\PM Baseline .sy7 9/18/2008 The T ranspo Group Triton Towers 2014 Baseline PM \. l ./ SIL 88T -.;. Stop 0% 15 5 5 0 .97 0.97 0.97 15 5 5 None - 549 531 205 54 9 03 1 205 7.1 6.5 6.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 96 99 99 427 448 841 j ----' -- -- ____ _J :, Synchro 6 Report Page 11 HCM Unsignalized I ntersection Capacity Analysis 12: S Renton Villa9 e PL & Southwest Drivewal -Tower 2 .> --'-\. ./ w-n.i& E8L E8T WBT WIR HI: 88R Lane Configurations of to V Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade -1% 0% 0% VOiume (vehlh) 5 286 204 1 5 20 Peak Hour F actor 0 .96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0 .96 Hourly flow rate (vph) 5 298 212 1 5 21 Pedestrians Lane Width (11) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh ) Median type ---None Median storage veh ) Upstream signal (ft) 622 pX, platoon unblocked vC, oonfllcting volume 2 14 --521 213 vC1 . slage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu , unbloc ked vol 214 521 213 IC, sin gle (s) 4.1 64 62 IC, 2 stage (S J IF (s) 2.2 3 .5 3 .3 µO queue free % 100 99 97 cM capacity (veh/h) 1363 517 832 DnGllal. I.!!!! ,---g 1 WI 1 881 VOiume T olal 303 214 26 Volume Left 5 0 5 Volume Righi 0 1 21 cSH 1363 1700 742 VOiume to Capacity 0.00 0.13 0.04 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 3 Control Delay (s) 0.2 0.0 10.0 Lane LOS A B Approach Delay (s) 0.2 0 .0 10.0 Approach LOS B Hi!! Average Delay 0.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization 30.7% ICU Level of Service Analysis Period (mi n) 15 M:107107367 Triton T owers Renton Expansion\Analysis\Traffic Operalions\PM Baseli ne .sy7 9118/2008 The T ranspo Group Triton Towers 2014 Baseline PM Synchro 6 Report Page 12 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Ana lysis Triton Towers 13: S Renton Vi llas e PL & South Drivewa:i: -Tower 2 2014 Baseline PM .> -" f -' ~ t ~ '. ' ~ ....... ----!il!~EIR W8l WIT WBR NIL N8T NIR 88t. S8T -Lane Configurations .;. .;. .;. 4, Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade -1% 0% 0% 0% Volume (vehlh) 5 286 0 0 180 5 0 1 20 45 1 25 Peak Hour Facto r 0.89 0.89 069 069 0 .69 0.69 0 69 0 89 0 .89 0.89 0.89 0.89 Hourty now rate (vph) 6 321 0 0 202 6 0 1 22 51 1 28 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) -· ------ Walking Speed (IVs) PetcenlBlockage ----------Right tum flare (veh) Median lype None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 439 pX, platoon unb locked IIC, conflicting votume 208 321 566 540 321 vC 1, st age 1 con! vol vC2, stage 2 cont vol vCu, u nblocked vol 208 321 566 540 321 tC , single (s) 4 1 4 .1 7.1 6.5 6.2 tC. 2 s tage (s) tF (s) 2 .2 2.2 3 .5 4 .0 3 .3 pO queue free % 100 100 100 100 97 cM capacity (veh/h) 1369 1244 421 449 724 DniilliiiL .... ' E81 WB1 N81 S81 --- Volume Total 327 208 24 80 ------------ Volume Le fl 6 0 0 51 Volume Righi 0 6 22 28 ----cSH 1369 1244 704 5 14 Volume to Capadly 0 .00 0.00 0.03 0 .16 Queue Length 95th (11) 0 0 3 14 Control Delay (1) 0.2 0 .0 10.3 13.3 ------- Lane LOS A B B Approach Delay (s) 0.2 0.0 10.3 13.3 Approach LOS B B 1111111!11!! n lklllnwY Average Delay 2 .1 Intersection Capadly Utilization 38.1 % ICU Level of Service -. A Analysis Period (min) 15 M:\07107367 T rito n T owers Renton Expansion\Analysis\Traffic Operations\PM Baseline.sy7 9/18/2008 The Transpo Group None 561 538 205 561 538 205 7.1 6 .5 6 .2 35 4 .0 3 .3 88 100 97 424 4 50 838 ' --_____ _J ------ -----' i ---.....I Synchro 6 Report Page 13 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analys is 14 : S Renton Villase PL & East Drivewa;i:-T ower 1 -" f -~ ~ MDI 1111111l EIT E8R ml: !!!II ta. NIR Lane Configurations t, .. V Sign Conlrol Free Free Slop Grade -1% 0% 0% Volume (veh/h) 350 1 0 180 5 10 Peak Hour Fact or 0 .97 0 .97 0 .97 0.97 0 .97 0 .97 Hourly flow ra1e (vph) 361 1 0 186 5 10 Pedestrians Lane WICllh (ft) Walking Speed (I Vs) Pe,centBkx:kage Right turn flare (veh) Median lype None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) ---268 pX, platoon unblocked vC , conflicting volume 362 547 361 vC1 stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 cont vol vCu unblock ed vol 362 547 36 1 tC, single (s) 4 .1 6.5 6.3 tC, 2 s lage (s) tF (s) 22 3 .6 3 .4 pO qt1eue free % 100 9 9 98 cM capacity (veh/h) 1202 490 672 Dnallal. Y!!! ' EB1 wa1 ,e 1 Volume Total 362 -186 15 Volume Left 0 0 5 Volume Right 1 0 10 cSH 1700 1202 598 Volume to Capacity 0.21 0.00 0 .03 Queue Length 95th (fl) 0 0 2 Control Delay (s) 0 .0 0 .0 112 Lane LOS B Approac:tl Delay (s) 0.0 0 .0 11.2 Approach LOS B iii Average Delay 0.3 Intersection Capecily Utilization 30.1% ICU Level of Service Analysis Period (min) 15 M :107107367 T ri ton Towers Rento n Expansion\Analysis\Traffic Operations\PM Baseline.sy7 9/18/2008 The Trans po Group T ri ton Towers 2014 Baseline PM Synchro 6 Report Page 14 HCM Signalized Int ersection Capacity Analysis 15: S R enton V illa9e PL & S R 515/Talbot ..> -• • -' .... t ~ ..... It -.--e:ar--OR--w&L WBT WBR N8L NBT NBR Lane Configurations 'I .,, " + .,, 'I ++ Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Grade(%) -1% 0 % -3% Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 -Lane Util. Factor 1 .00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1 00 1.00 0.95 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 Flt Protected 0 .95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Said . Flow (prot) 1796 1607 3502 1900 1615 1814 3628 Flt Permitted 0 .95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Said . Flow !e!rm) 1796 1607 3502 1900 1615 1814 3628 Volume (vph ) 70 0 290 620 10 170 120 1040 0 Peak-how factor, PHF 0 .95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 74 0 305 653 11 179 126 1095 0 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 87 0 0 108 0 0 0 lane Group Flow (vph) 74 0 2 18 653 11 71 126 1095 0 Hea~ Vehicles!%) 1% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 1% Tum Type Pro l cu slo m P rat Perm Prot Protected Phases 7 3 8 5 2 Permitted Phases 8 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 6.3 18.1 29.4 18.1 18.1 7.0 80.6 Fffcctive Green. g (s) 63 18 1 29 4 18.1 18.1 7.0 80 6 Actuated gi C Ratio 0 .05 0 .1 5 0.24 0 .15 0.15 0.06 0.67 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 50 50 50 50 50 50 Vehicle E xtension js) 3.0 3 .0 3 .0 3.0 3.0 4.0 6 .5 Lane Grp Cap (vph ) 94 242 858 287 244 106 2437 vis Ratio Prot 0.04 c0.19 O.Q1 c0.07 0.30 vis Ratio Perm c0.1 4 0.04 vie Ratio 0.79 0 .90 0 .76 0.04 0.29 1.19 0.45 Uniform Delay, d 1 56.2 50.1 42.0 43.5 45.3 56.5 9 .3 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.88 0 .58 In crem ental Delay , d2 34.1 33.0 4 .0 O.t 0 .7 14 2 0 0 .5 Delay (s) 90.3 83.1 46.1 43.6 45.9 191 .7 5.9 Level of Service F F D D D F A Approach Delay (s) 84 .5 46.0 25.1 Approach LOS F D C l!!l!!!llllllan&unn.11 HCM Average Control Delay 49.4 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.99 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost lime (s) 15.0 lnlefsec:tion Capacity Utilization 104.7% ICU Level of Service G Analysis Period (min) 15 C Critical Lane Group M :\07\07367 Triton Towers Renton Expansion\Analysis\Traffic Operati ons\PM Baseline.sy7 9/18/2008 T he T ranspo Group T rit on Towers 2014 Baseline PM '. + .,, 88L 8! S8R +l> 1900 1900 1900 0% 5.0 0.95 1.00 100 3561 1 00 3561 0 1990 50 0.95 0 .95 0 .95 0 2095 53 0 1 0 0 2147 0 1% 1% 1% 6 68.6 68 6 0 .57 5.0 6.5 2036 c0.60 1.05 25.7 1.26 25.9 58.3 -E 58.3 E --, ------- -- Synchro 6 Report Page 15 I I HCM Signalized I n t e rsection Capacity Analysis 16: 1-405 N B On-Rame & SR 5 15/Talbot • ' t ~ '. + Lane Configurations Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 Grade(%) 0% -3% 6 % Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 0 .95 1.00 1.00 0.95 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 ----Flt Protect ed 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd . Flow (prot) 3592 1607 1717 3433 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Said . Flow !eerm) 3592 1607 1717 3433 Volume (vph) 0 0 1160 280 170 2730 Peak-hourfactor, PHF 0 .92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph ) 0 0 126 1 304 185 2967 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Groue Flow (vph) 0 0 126 1 304 185 2967 Tum Type Free Prot Protected Phases 2 , 6 Permitted Phases Free Ac tuated Green, G (s) 88.0 120.0 22.0 120 0 Effective Green, g (s) 88.0 120.0 22.0 120.0 Actua ted g/C Ratio 0 13 1.00 0.18 1 00 C learance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5 .0 Vehicle [xlension ~s! 3 0 30 30 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 2634 1607 315 3433 vi s Ratio Prot 0 .35 0.11 c0.86 vis Ratio Penn 0.19 -----v/c Ratio 048 0.19 0.59 0 .86 Uniform Delay, d 1 6.6 0.0 44.8 0.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.97 1 .00 Incremental Delay, d2 --0.6 0 .3 0.9 1.1 Delay (s) 7.2 0.3 44 .5 1 .1 Level of Service A A 0 A Ap proach Delay (s) 0.0 5.9 3 .6 Approaeh LOS A A A HCM Average Control Delay 4 .4 HCM Level of Service A HCM Volume to Cap acity ra tio 0.86 Actuated Cycle Langlh (a) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 0.0 Intersection Capacity Utilizati on 796% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 C Critical Lane Group M :\07\07367 Triton T owers Ren ton Expans ion \An alysis\Traffic Operations\PM Baseline sy7 9/18/2008 The T ranspo Group Trit o n T ower s 2014 Baseline PM Synchro 6 Report Page 16 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis T riton Towe rs 1: Grad:z'. Wl & L ake Ave S 201 4 With Proj ec t AM .,> -• " -' .... t ~ '-' ~ ./ ~· E8L m E8R W8L WIT WBR NBL N8T N8R 881.-1!!~- Lane Configurations 11 ++ ' 11 ti. 11 t ' .;. Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5 .0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5 .0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Fri 1.00 1.00 0 .85 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 085 0 .90 Flt Prolecled 0.95 1.00 1.00 0 .95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0 .99 Satd . Flow (prot) 1752 3505 1568 1770 3533 1752 1845 1568 1070 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0 .95 1.00 0.78 1.00 1.00 0 .95 Satd . Flow !eerm) 1752 3505 1568 1770 3533 1438 1845 1568 1031 Volume (vph) 20 1081 230 30 1766 20 167 1 10 10 1 30 Peak-hou r fa ctor , PHF 0.92 0.92 0 .92 092 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.9 2 0 .92 0 .92 0 .92 Adj. Flow (vph) 22 1175 250 33 1920 22 182 1 11 11 1 33 RTOR Reduction (v ph) 0 0 90 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 26 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 22 1175 160 33 1941 0 182 1 11 0 19 0 Heavl Vehicles {%) 3% 3% 3% 2% 2% 2% 3 % 3% 3 % 58% 58% 58% Tum Type Prol Perm Prot Perm Free Perm Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 4 4 Permitted Phases 2 4 Free 4 Ac lualcd Green . G (s) 60 83 0 83.0 6 .0 83.0 26 0 26 0 ~30 .0 26 0 Effective Green, g (s) 6.0 83.0 83.0 6.0 83.0 26 .0 26 0 130.0 26.0 Ac tuated g/C Ratio 0 05 0 64 0 64 0 05 0 .64 0.20 0 20 1 00 0.20 Clearance Time {s ) 5.0 5 .0 5 .0 5.0 5.0 5 .0 5 .0 5.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph ) 81 2238 1001 82 2256 288 369 1568 206 vi s Ratio Prot 0.0 1 0 .34 c0.02 c0.55 0 .00 vi s Ratio Perm 0 .10 c0.13 0 .01 0 .02 v/c Ratio 0.27 0.53 0 .16 0.40 0.86 0.63 0 .00 0 .01 0 .09 Unifonn Delay, d1 59 .9 12.8 9.5 60.3 18.9 47.6 416 0.0 42.4 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.83 0.09 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 8 1 09 0.3 4.8 1.6 10 .1 0 .0 0.0 0.9 Delay (1) 68 .0 13.7 9.8 54.9 3.3 57.7 4 1.6 0.0 43.2 Level of Service E B A D A E D A D Approach Delay (s) 13.8 4.1 54.4 43.2 -Approach LOS B A D D fSE--llao, 8un'l1WY -, HCM Average Control Delay 11.1 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Gapacity ratio 0.79 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 130.0 Sum of lost time (s) 15.0 lnt81S8Ction Capacity Utillz.alion 73.7% ICU Level of Service D . -Analysis Period (min ) 15 C Critical Lane Group ----- M :\07\07367 Triton Towers Renton Expansion\Analysis\Traffic Operations\AM With Project-rev tSpmi et~j>i'Re porl 9/26i 2008 Page 1 The Transpo Group I HCM Signalized I ntersecti on Capacity Analysis Triton Towers 2: G rad:z'. W:t & S h attuck Av S 2014 With Project AM .,> -• " -' .... t ~ '-' ~ ./ MIMmall E8L m E8R ma. WBT W8R !Ill, fill ---.;-w. 116 Lane Configurations 11 ++ ' 11 ti. 11 on. 11 to Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width 12 11 11 12 11 12 12 11 12 12 11 12 Grade(%) 0% 0% 1% 0% Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5 .0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5 0 5 .0 5 .0 Lane Utll. Factor 1.00 0 .95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0 .91 0.91 1.00 1.00 Fri 1.00 1.00 0 .85 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.95 1.00 0 .91 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0 .98 0 .95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3421 1531 1770 3377 1618 3053 1530 1412 Flt Permitted 0 .95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0 .95 0 .98 0 .95 1.00 Satd . Flow !eerm) 1770 34 21 1531 1770 3377 1618 3053 1530 1412 Volume (vph) 30 896 176 50 1600 150 166 30 57 40 30 50 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0 .9 2 0 .92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0 .92 0 .92 0 92 0 .92 0 .92 0 .92 Adj. Flow (vph) 33 974 191 54 1739 163 180 33 62 43 33 54 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 90 0 5 0 0 43 0 0 46 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 33 974 101 54 1897 0 90 142 0 43 41 0 He av~ Vehicles(%) 2 % 2 a,'ti 2% 2 % 2 % 2 °/o 1% 1% 1% 18% 18 % 18% T um Type Prot Perm Prot Split Splil Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 3 3 4 4 Permitted Phases 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 6 0 69.0 69 0 9 0 72 0 16 0 16 .0 16.0 16.0 Effective Green, g (s) 6.0 69.0 69.0 9 .0 72 .0 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 Actu ated g/C Rati o 0 05 0 53 05 3 0 .07 0 55 0 1? 012 0 12 0 12 Clearance Time {s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lan e Grp Cap (vph) 82 1816 813 123 1870 199 376 188 174 vis Ratio Prot 0 .02 c0.28 0.03 c0.56 c0.06 0 .05 0.03 c0.03 vis Ratio Perm 0.07 v/c Ratio 0 .40 0 .54 0.12 0 .44 1.01 0 .45 0 .38 0.23 0.24 Uniform Delay, d 1 60.3 20.0 15.3 58 1 29 .0 52 9 52.4 51.4 51.5 Progression Factor 0 .79 0 .38 0.14 1.14 0.41 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 12.3 1.0 0.3 7 .1 20 .3 7 .3 2.9 2.8 3.2 Delay(&) 59.7 8.5 2.5 73 .5 32.2 60.2 55.3 54.2 54.7 Level of Service E A A E C E E D D Approach Delay (s) 9.0 33.3 56.9 -54.5 Approach LOS A C E D HCM Average Control Delay 27.7 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Gapacity ratio 0 .77 Actuated Cycle Length (s ) 130.0 Sum of lost time (s) 15.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 68.6% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 C Critical Lane Group M :\07\07367 T ri ton To wers Rent on Expansion\Analysis\Traffic Operations\AM With Project-rev lflpmiet~j>i'Reporl 9/26/2008 Page 2 The Transpo Group HCM Unsig nali zed Intersection Capacity Analysis T ri ton Tow ers 3: Gra d~ W~ & North Ri te Aid Drivewa~ 2014 With ProJeCI A M -" {' -..... ~ NIL N8R i Lane Configura ti ons +1-11 ++ V Sign Control Free Free Stop -------------- Grade 0% 0% 0% Volume (veh/h) 770 177 132 1735 0 43 ----------Peak Hour Factor 0 .96 0 .96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Hour1y now rate (vph) 802 184 138 1807 0 45 ---------~ Pedestrians L-Width(ft) ------- Walking Speed (ft/s) Pen:entBlockage ---Righi turn flare (veh) Median type None Median storage v eh ) Upslnlam signal (ft) 408 562 p X, platoon unblocked 0.82 0.89 0.82 vC, conflicling volume 986 2073 493 -vC1 , stage 1 conf vol vC2, st age 2 conf vol vC u, unblock ed vol 765 1475 164 IC, single (5) 4 .1 6.8 6.9 IC . 2 stag e (s) IF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 pO queue free 0/o 80 100 94 cM capacity (veh/h) 693 85 704 Dlt ...... !.I!!!. E81 EB i WB--,--WB2 WB i N81 1 Volume Total 535 452 138 904 904 45 Volume Left 0 0 138 0 0 0 Volume Rlghl 0 184 0 0 0 45 ------ cSH 1700 1700 693 1700 1700 704 Volume to Capaciey 0.31 0.27 0.20 0 .53 0 .53 0.06 --Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 18 0 0 5 Control Delay (s) 0.0 0 .0 11 .5 0 .0 0.0 10.5 Lane LOS B B Approach Delay (s) 0 .0 0 .8 -10 .5 ------------Approach LOS B !!l.!!lunmlnl -! Average Delay 0 .7 Intersection Capacity Utilization 59.6% ICU Level o f Service B --Analysis Period (min) 15 M:\07107367 Tri ton Towers Renton Expansion\Analysis\Traffic Operat1ons\AM W ith P roject-rev 11!11"Ebtcs fl7R eport 9/2612008 Page 3 The Transpo Group HCM Un signalized In tersection Capacity An alysis Triton Towers 4: Grad~ W~ & North Drivewa~ -Tow er 3 2014 W ith P ro1ect AM -" {' -..... ~ M!Mmall m §8 WIL mil !'l!b N8R L ane Confi gurations +1-++ f Sign Conlrol Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Volume (veh/h) 684 128 0 1867 0 10 Peak Hour Factor 0 .97 0 .97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Houny flow rate (vph) 705 132 0 1925 0 10 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) . --------Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage ----------· Righ t tum flare (veh) Median type None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 649 321 pX, platoon unblocked 0.86 0.85 0.86 vC , oonflictlng volume --837 1734 419 vC 1 , st age 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 cont vol vCu, unblock ed vol 64 6 11 92 158 IC, single (5) 4.2 6.8 6.9 IC. 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 35 33 pO queue free (!10 100 100 99 cM capacity (veh/h) 798 156 743 Dnclai .. I.!!!!! I Iii 1 EBi wa1 mure1 Volume Total 470 367 962 962 10 Volume Left 0 0 0 0 0 Volume Righi 0 132 0 0 10 cSH 1700 1700 1700 1700 743 Volume to Capacity 0 .28 0.22 0.57 0.57 0.01 Queue Le ngth 95th (fl) 0 0 0 0 1 Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 .0 9 .9 Lane LOS A Approadl Delay (s) 0.0 -0 .0 -9.9 Approach LOS A -Avera ge Delay 0.0 Intersection Gapadty UUliZation 55.8% ICU Level of Service B Analysis P eriod (min) 15 M:107107367 Triton Towers Renton Expansion \Analysis\Traffic Operations\AM W ith Proiect-rev ll!pnlilllcsfl7Report 9/2612008 Page 4 T he Transpo Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Triton Towers 5: Grad;i: W~ & SR 515/Talbot 2014 With Project AM .,> -.. (" -' "' t ~ '-. ! ~ MIMlnmtl §!I, Y!-§18 g WIT rl!B .,..._--NBT NBR~SII. HI S8R L ane Configurations 'I tt ' 'l'I +lo 'l'I +t. 'I tt ' Ideal Flow (vpllpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Grade(%) 0% -1 % 0% 1% Tolal Lo&I time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5 .0 5 .0 5.0 Lane Ulil. Factor 1 00 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.95 1 .00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1 .00 0.95 1.00 095 1.00 1.00 Said. Flow (prol) 1687 3374 1509 3417 3483 3467 3458 1761 3522 1575 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1 00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1 .00 Said. Flow !!!!rm) 1687 3374 1509 3417 3483 3467 3458 1761 3522 1575 Volume (vph) 40 465 190 421 737 60 1070 1 150 320 20 200 60 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.96 0.96 0.96 0 .96 0 .96 0.96 0.96 0 .96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Adj . Flow (vph) 42 484 198 439 768 62 1 115 1198 333 21 208 62 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 57 0 4 0 0 19 0 0 0 52 Lane Group Flow (vph) 42 484 141 439 826 0 1115 1512 0 21 208 10 He~ Vehicles!%) 7% 7% 7% 3% 3% 3% 1% 1% 1% 2% 2% 2% Turn Type Prat pm+ov Prat P rot Prot Perm Protected Phases 1 6 3 5 2 3 8 7 4 Permitted Phases 6 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 5.3 27.8 74 .7 15.0 37.5 46.9 63.6 3 .6 20.3 20.3 Effective Green, g (s) 5.3 27.8 74 7 15 0 37.5 46 9 63 6 3 6 20 3 20 3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.04 0.21 0.57 0 .1 2 0 29 0.36 0 .49 0.03 0.16 0.16 Clea rance T ,me (s) ~-0 5.0 50 5 0 5 .0 50 5.0 50 50 5 0 Vehicle Exlension !s) 4.0 4.0 4 .0 4 .0 4.0 4 .0 4 .0 3 .0 3 .0 3.0 lane Grp Cap (vph) 69 722 867 394 1005 1251 1692 49 550 246 vis Ratio Prot 0.02 c0.14 0.06 c0.13 c0.24 c0.32 c0.44 0 .01 0.06 vis Ratio Perm 0.03 0.01 VIC Ratio 0.61 0.67 0.16 1.11 0.82 0.89 0.89 0 .43 0 .38 0 .04 Uniform Delay, d1 61 .3 46.9 13.0 57 .5 431 39.1 30.1 62.2 49.2 46.6 Progression Factor 0.77 0.92 0.92 1.00 1.00 0.90 0.68 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay. d2 14 .7 4.4 0 .1 80 0 7.5 4 .3 3.3 5 .9 0.4 0.1 Delay (a) 61.7 47.4 12.1 137.5 50.7 39.4 23.7 68.1 49.6 46.6 Level of SeNice E D B F D D C E D D Approach Delay (8) 38.6 80.7 30.3 50.3 Approach LOS D F C 0 HCM Average Control Delay 45.7 HCM Level of Sel\lioe D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.96 Actuated Cycle Length (s ) 130.0 Sum of lost time (s) 25.0 Intersection Capacity Utiizalion 91 .0% ICU Level of Service E Analysis P eriod (min) 15 C Critical Lane Group M :\07107367 Triton Towers Renton Expansion\Analysis\Traffic Operations\AM With Project-rev ISiJlllil!tcsjii'Report 9/26/2008 Page 5 The Transpo Group H CM Unsignallzed lnlerseclion Capacity Analysis T r iton Towers 6: East O rivewa;i: -Tower 3 & SR 5 1 5/Talbot 2014 w,th Proiect AM .,> • "' t l ~ Lane Configurations Sign Control Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Volume (vehlh) 0 24 0 2555 722 134 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0 .94 0 .94 0 .94 0 .94 Hourly now rate (vph) 0 26 0 2718 768 143 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right tum flare (veh) Median type None ---Median storage veh) Upslream signal (ft) 681 538 pX. platoon unblocked 0 .3 1 0 .9 7 0.97 vC. conflicting volume 2127 384 911 vC 1 stage 1 conf vol vC2. stage 2 conf vol vCu unblocked vol 2 165 342 882 tC , single (s) 6 .8 6.9 4.1 IC. 2 stag e (s ) tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 pO q ueue free % 100 96 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 13 643 749 Volume Left Volume Right cSH 643 1700 1700 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.04 0.80 0.80 0.23 0.23 Queue Length 95th (ft) 3 0 0 0 0 Control Delay (s) 10.8 0.0 o.o 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS B Approach Delay (s) 10.8 0.0 0.0 -Approach LOS B ._. 1SUnlmllw Average Delay 0.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization 74.8% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 M :\07107367 Trito n Towers Renton Expansion\.Analysis\T raffic Operations\AM With Project-rev t8iJ(ltiBtcsjii'Re port 9126/2008 Page 6 The Tran spo Group ~M Uosigoali,ed '"""'"'° Capacity Analy•s -- Triton Towers 7: East Drivewal-Tower 2 & SR 51 5fTalbot 2014 Wit h Project AM ~ ..... "' t ' ./ E8L ~ NBL HI! §IT SM 1 Lane Configurations ,, .rt ti. Sign Control Stop Free Free --------Grade 0% 0% 0% Volume (vehlh) 0 24 5 2555 664 81 Peak Hour Factor 0 .95 0 .95 0 .95 ------------- 0.95 0.95 0 .95 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 25 5 2689 699 85 ----Pedestrians -- l-Wldth(II) --Walkin g Speed (fVs) ------ Pen:entBlockage Right turn flare (veh ) ------- Median type None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 293 926 pX. platoon unblocked 0.29 vC, conflicting volume 2097 392 784 vC1 , stage 1 cont vol -- vC2, stage 2 cont vol vCu , unblocked vol 2340 392 784 IC , single (s) 6.8 6.9 4.1 ,c 2 slage (s) IF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p O queue rree % 100 96 99 cM capacity (veh/h) 9 613 837 8if1S82 I Volume Total 25 902 1793 466 318 ----------------~ Volume L eft 0 5 0 0 0 Volume Right 25 0 0 0 85 --------cS H 6 13 837 1700 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0 .04 0 .01 1.05 0 .27 0.19 Queue Len gth 95th (ft) 3 0 0 0 0 Control Delay (s) 11.1 0 .2 0 .0 a.a 0.0 Lane L OS B ----------- A App,oach Delay (s) 11 .1 0 .1 0.0 --Approach LOS B lanlklnmpY 1 Average Delay 0.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization 78.3% ICU Level of Ser;ice D Analysis Period (min) 15 ---- M :\07\07367 Triton Towers Renton Expansio n\Analysis\Traffic Operati ons\AM With Project-rev tSpnlieta;jllReport 9/26/2008 Page 7 The Transpo Group --. HCM Unsignalized Intersecti on Capacity Analysis Triton Towers 8 : S Renton Vi lla9 e PL & Theater D rivewal 2014 With Proj ect AM ~ -..... 'f -' "' t ~ '-. ' ./ MIMmn g,; Ii!! ~ -Y!'I! WIR NIL !!I! N8R §!b w ll[ -Lane Configurallons .;. .;. .;. .;. Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade -1% 0'% 0% 0% Volume (veh/h) 0 95 10 5 41 20 6 5 0 10 25 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.69 0.69 0 .69 0 .69 0 .90 0 .69 0.90 0.69 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 138 14 7 59 22 9 6 0 11 28 0 Pedestrians Lane Width (II) Walking Speed (fVs) Pen:entBlocl<.age Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC . conflicting volume 62 152 244 241 145 233 237 71 vC 1 stage 1 con! vol vC2, stage 2 cont vol vCu unblock ed vol 82 152 244 241 145 233 237 7 1 tC , s ingle (s) 4.1 4.1 7.1 6 .5 6 .2 7 .1 6.5 6.2 IC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4 .0 3.3 3 .5 4 .0 3 .3 pO queue free % 100 99 99 99 100 98 96 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 1516 1429 689 657 908 715 660 992 Diiii:ilan. bl!!! I EB1 m11 !II] 111 Volume T olal 152 89 14 39 Volume Left 0 7 9 11 Volume Right 14 22 0 0 cSH 1516 1429 676 675 Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.06 Queue Length 95th (fl) 0 0 2 5 Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.7 10.4 10.7 Lane L OS A B B Approach Delay (S) 0.0 0 .7 10.4 10.7 Approach LOS B B iii Average Delay 2.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization 19.4% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 M :\07\07367 Trit on Towers Renton Expan sion\Analysis\Tra ffic Operation s\AM With Project-rev tSpraieta;jllReport 9/26/2008 Page 8 The Transpo Group HCM Unsignalized Intersect ion Capacity Analys is Triton Towers 9 : S Renton V illa9e PL & West D rivewal -T ower 1 20 14 With Project AM -~ • -' ~ E8R W8L MI !!II.!., ~ Lane Config urations i. .f V Sign Control Free Free Stop -Grade ·1% 0% 0% Volume (veh/h) 85 20 124 61 5 8 ~---~ -__ ____) Peak Hour Factor 0.81 0.81 0.81 0 .81 0.81 0.81 Hour1y now rate (vph) 105 25 153 75 6 10 --Pedestrians Lane Wtdlh (ft) --Walking Speed (!Us) Percenl Blockage --Right turn flare (veh) Median lype None -------Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 969 -------- pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 130 499 117 vC 1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 130 499 1 17 IC , single (s) 4 .1 6.4 6 .2 IC, 2 stage (s ) tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 pO queue free 1% 90 99 99 cM capacity (veh/h) 1462 479 940 1 W81 NB1 Volume T Olal 130 228 18 Volume Left 0 153 6 Volume Righi 25 0 10 -----------cSH 1700 1462 686 Volume lo Capacily 0.08 0 .10 0 .0 2 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 9 2 Conlrol Delay (s) 0.0 5.5 10.4 Lane LOS A B Approaeh Delay (a) 0.0 5.5 10.4 Approach LOS B Average Delay 3 .8 lnlerseclion Capacily UtiliZation 28.4% ICU Level of Service A ----Analysis Period (min) 15 M:\07107367 Tnton Towers Renton Expansion\Analysis\Traffic Operat,ons\AM W ith Project-rev ISpnilllta;f,Report 9/26/2008 Page 9 The Transpo Group I H C M Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Triton Towers 1 0: S Renton Vill a9e PL & West R i te A id Drivewal 2014 With Project AM _,. --~ '. ~ Lane Config urat ions <f i. Sign Control Free Free Grade -1% 0% Volume (vehlh ) 5 88 155 130 40 30 Pea k Hour Factor 0.8 1 0 .81 0.81 0.81 0 .81 0 .81 Hourly flow rale (vph) 6 109 191 160 49 37 Pe destrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percenl Blockage Righi turn flare (veh) Median lype None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (It) 892 pX, platoon unblocked vC , conflicting volume 352 ___ _.._ 393 272 vC 1, stag e 1 con! vol vC2 , stage 2 cont vol vCu. unb locke d vol 352 393 27? I C, single (s) 4 .1 6 .4 6.2 tC 2 stage (s) I F (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 pO queue fre e % 99 92 95 cM capacity (veh/h) 12 13 613 772 Vo lume Left Volume Righi cSH Volume lo Capacily Queue Length 951h (f t) 0 0 11 ConlrOI Delay (a) 0.5 0.0 11.1 La ne LOS A B Approaeh Delay (s) 0 .5 0 .0 11 .1 App roach LOS B P!IWCICJfl 8ulMwY Average Delay 1 .8 lntersec;tion Capacily Utilization 28.5% ICU Level of Service ---A Analysis Penod (min) 15 M :107\07367 Triton To wers Renton Expansion\Analysis\Traffic Operations\AM W ith Project-rev ISjlrdilltcsf,Re port 9/26/2008 Page 10 T he Transpo Group HCM Un signalized Intersecti o n Capa city Analysis Triton Tow e rs 11 : S Renton Vill a9e PL & R ite Aid /Eas t Driv ew al -Tow er 1 2014 With Project AM ~ -~ # -..... ~ t ~ '. l ~ .... --Ell~EIT-EIR W8L WIT W8R !!& NIT N8R !I!& S8T SIR Lane Configurations ,t. ,t. ,t. ,t. Sign Control Free Free Stop Slop G ra de -1% 0% 0% 0% Volume (veh/h) 20 73 35 164 264 120 11 5 9 13 0 10 Peak Hour Facior 0.82 0 .82 0 .82 0.82 0.82 0 .82 0 .82 0 .82 0 .82 0.82 0.82 0.82 Hourly flow rate (vph) 24 89 43 200 322 146 13 6 11 16 0 12 Pedestrians L-Width(ft) ------------- Walkin g Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage ----- Right turn fl are (veh) Median type --None None Median storage veh ) Upstream signal (ft) 738 p X, p latoon u nblocked 0.97 0 .97 0 .97 0.97 0.97 0.97 VC, conlllcllng volume 468 132 966 1027 110 968 976 395 vC1, stage 1 cont vol vC2. stage 2 conf vol vCu. unblocked vol 452 132 965 1028 '10 967 9/~ 377 tC, sin gle (s) 4.1 4.1 7.2 6 .6 6.3 7.1 6.5 6 .2 tC, 2 st age (s) t F (s) 2.2 2.2 3 .6 4 .1 3.4 3.5 4.0 3.3 pO queue free c;a 98 86 93 97 99 92 100 98 cM cap acity (veh/h ) 1086 1460 187 183 914 194 208 654 Eiliiiiiiiii7lA I! EB1 WB1 N81 S81 ---I Volume Total 158 688 30 28 Volume Left 24 200 13 16 Volume Right 43 146 11 12 -c SH 1086 1460 261 279 0.02 0 .14 0 .12 0.10 Volume to Capacity ------------- Q ueue Len gth 95th (ft) 2 12 10 8 Control Delay (s) 1 .5 3.4 20.6 19.3 Lane LOS A A C C Approach Delay (s) 1 .5 3.4 20.6 19.3 Ap proach LOS C C IIIISunll•Y j Average Del ay 4 .2 Intersection Capacity Udlization 48.6 % ICU Level of Service A ----- Analysis Period (min) 15 M:107107367 Triton Towers Renton Expansion\Analysis\Traffic Operat ,ons\AM With Project-rev t!!pniietcsji7Report 9/2612008 Page 11 The Transpo Group HC M Unsignallzed In tersection C apacity A nalysis T riton T owers 13: S Re nton Vill a9e PL & East Drivewa ~ -Tower 2 201 4 With Projeci A M ~ --..... '. ~ MIMn•tl E8L EBT WBT WBR HI. SIR lane Configuratio n s .f lo 'V Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade -1% 0% 0% Volume (veh/h) 10 85 542 154 8 5 P eak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0 90 0 90 0 .90 0 90 Hourly flow rate (vph) 11 94 602 171 9 6 P edestrian s Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ftis) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh ) Median type ---None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 443 pX, platoon unblocked 0.93 0 .93 0 .93 vC, conllic:ting volume 773 804 688 vC 1. s tage 1 conr vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vC u . unblocked vol IS!J 189 663 I C, single (s) 4.1 6 .6 6 .4 tC. ? stage (s) I F (s) 2.2 3.7 3 .5 µO queue free % 99 97 99 cM capacity (veh/h) 793 304 397 Dll'lcllan. Lani ,, §1 WB1 g1 Volume Total 106 773 14 Volume Left 11 0 9 Volume Righi 0 171 6 cSH 793 1700 334 Volume lo Capacity 0.01 0.45 0.04 Queue Len gth 95th (ft) 1 0 3 Control Delay (s) 1.1 0 .0 16 .3 L ane LOS A C Approach Delay (s) 1 .1 0 .0 16 .3 Approach LOS C -Average Del ay 0.4 lnlersection Capacity Udlization 49.6% ICU Level of Service Analysis Period (min) 15 M:107107367 Triton To wers Renton Expansion \Analys,s\Traffic Operat ,ons\AM W ith Project -rev t!!prnilltcsji7Report 9/2612008 P age 12 T he Transpo Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Triton Towers 1 5 : S Renton Villa9e PL & SR 515/Talbot 2014 With Project AM .,> -• • -'-'\ t I' '. + ~ --· -m -!I& Witt mB !§ tel teR !!I. HI SBA Lane Configurations ' .,, '111 t .,, 11 tt ti. Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Grade(%) -1% 0% -3% 0% Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5 .0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5 .0 5 .0 5.0 Lane Util. F actor 1.00 1.00 0 .97 1.00 1 .00 1.00 0.95 0 .95 Fri 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0 .85 1.00 1.00 0 .99 Fl t Protected 0.95 1 .00 0 .95 1.00 --1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Said. Flow (prot) 1761 1576 3502 1900 1615 1814 3628 3459 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 095 1.00 1 .00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Said. Flow !!!!rm) 1761 1576 3502 1900 1615 1814 3628 3459 Volume (vph) 40 0 53 230 150 190 486 2330 0 0 630 60 Peak-hour factor. PHF 0 .97 0.97 0 .97 0.97 0.97 0 .97 0 .97 0 .97 0 .97 0 .97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 4 1 0 55 237 155 196 501 2402 0 0 649 62 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 48 0 0 16 0 0 0 0 5 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 41 0 7 237 155 180 501 2402 0 0 706 0 Hea~ Vehides !%) 3% 3% 3% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 1% 3% 3% 3% Turn T ype Prat custom Prot Perm Prat Protected Phases 7 3 8 5 2 6 Perm1lled Phases 8 8 Actuated Green , G ( s) 3.2 17.4 25.6 17.4 17.4 29.0 94.4 60.4 Effective Green. g (s) 32 17 4 25 6 1/ 4 17.4 29.0 94 .4 60.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.02 0 .13 0.20 0.1 3 0 .13 0 .22 0 .73 0.46 Clearance Time (s) 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 Vehide Extension !s) 3 .0 3.0 3.0 3 .0 3.0 4.0 6 .0 6.5 L ane Grp Cap tvph) 43 211 690 254 216 4 05 2634 1607 vis Ratio Prol c0.02 0.07 0.08 c0.28 c0.66 0.20 v/s Ratio Perm 0 .00 c0.11 vie Ratio 0 .95 0.03 0.34 0.61 0 .84 1.24 0 .91 0.44 Uniform De lay, d1 63.3 49.0 45.0 53.1 54.9 50.5 14.4 23.4 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0 .97 1.00 0.48 Incremental Delay , d2 118.5 0.1 0 .3 4 .3 23.4 113.7 2.2 0 .6 Delay (s) 181.8 49.1 45.3 57.4 78.3 162.7 16.6 12.0 Level of Service F D D E E F B B Approach Delay (s) 105.8 59.5 4 1.8 12.0 Approach LOS F E D B -rtnliiriii :::, HC M Average Control Delay 40.7 HCM Level of Service D HCM VOiume to Capacity ratio 1.01 Actuated Cycle L ength (s) 1300 Sum or lost time (s) 20.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 92.0% ICU Level of Safvice F Analysis P eriod (min) 15 C Critical Lane Group - M:107107367 Triton Towers Renton Expansion\Analysis\Trattic Operations\AM With Project-rev IBpnlieta;filReport 9/26/2008 Page 13 The Transpo Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Triton Towers 16: 1-405 NB On-Rame & SR 5 15rfalbol 2014 Wit h Project AM • '-t I' '. + Lane Configurations Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 Grade(%) 0% -3% 6% Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5 .0 5 .0 5.0 Lane Ubl. Factor 0.95 1.00 1.00 0 .95 Fri 1.00 -~--0.85 1.00 1.00 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1 .00 Said . Flow (prot) ----3628 1623 1700 3400 Flt Permilted 1.00 1.00 0 .95 1 .00 Said. Flow !~l 3628 1623 1700 3400 Volume (vph) 0 0 2804 460 11 0 792 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0 .97 0 .97 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 2891 474 113 816 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flo w (vph) 0 0 2891 474 113 816 Hea~ Vehides !%) 0% 0% 1% 1% 3% 3 % T urn Type Free Prat Protected Phases 2 1 6 Perrrn lted Ph ases Free Actuated Green, G (s) 108.6 130.0 11 .4 130.0 EHecllve Green. g (s) 1086 1300 11.4 130.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.64 1.00 0 .09 1.00 Clearance Time (s) 50 50 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 3031 1623 149 3400 v/s Ratio PrOI --c0.80 c0.07 0.24 vis Ra tio Perm 0 .29 vie Ratio 0.95 0 .29 0 .76 0.24 ----Uniform De lay. d 1 87 00 58.0 0.0 Progression Factor ---1.00 1.00 0 .81 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 8 .7 0 .5 18.4 0.2 Delay (s ) 17.3 0 .5 65.4 0.2 Level of Service B A E A Approach Delay (s) 0 .0 14.9 8.1 Approach LOS A B A ,.. rr 111 &iiiiiiij HCM Average Control Delay 13.5 H CM L evel of Service HCM Volume to capacity ratio 0 .94 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 130.0 Sum of lost time (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization 91.9% ICU Level of Service Analysis Period (min) 15 C Critical Lane Group M :\07\07367 Triton Towers Renton Expansion\Analysis\Traffic Operations\AM With Project-rev IBpnlieta;filReport 9/26/2008 Page 14 The Transpo Group ---- HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Triton Towers I HCM Signa lized Intersection Capacity Analysis Triton Towers 1 : Grad~ Wt. & Lake Ave S 2014 With Pro,ecl PM I 2 : Grad~ W~ & Shattuck Av S 2014 With Project PM ~ -• f -'-~ t ~ '-. I ~ ~ -• f -'-~ t ~ '-. I ~ --· lilli HI 118 WC !I! ml!! • NIT -l!b III I!!! I lilota:•11-· -... III II! -!I! DB • IE !I!! .. IICW Lane Configurations 11 tt ' 11 tf. 11 t ,, .f+ Lane Configura tions 11 tt ,, 11 tf. 11 oft-11 f. Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 I Ideal Flow (IIJ)hpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost bme (s) 5.0 5 0 5.0 5.0 5.0 50 50 5.0 5.0 Lane Width 12 11 1 1 12 11 12 12 11 12 12 1 1 12 i.-Util . Faclor 1.00 0 .95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Grade(%) 0% 0% 1% 0% Frt 1 00 1 .00 0 .85 1.00 1 00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0 .92 I Total Los! time (s) 5.0 5 .0 5 .0 5.0 5.0 5 .0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Flt Prolected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0 .95 1.00 1.00 0 .98 L-Util. Factor 1.00 0 .95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0 .91 0.91 1.00 1.00 Said. Flo w (pro!) 1787 3574 1599 1 770 3522 177 0 1863 1583 1393 Frt 1 00 1 00 085 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.93 1.00 0 93 Flt Pennilted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.68 1.00 1.00 0.90 I Fh Protected 0 .95 1.00 1.00 0 .95 1.00 0 .95 0.98 0 .95 1.00 Satd . Flow (~rm) 1787 3574 1599 1770 3522 1259 1863 1583 1272 Said. Flow (prot) 1770 3421 1531 1770 3387 1634 3039 1656 1567 Volume (vph) 40 1623 151 20 1447 50 459 1 50 40 1 60 Flt Permitted 0 .95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0 .95 0 .98 095 1.00 Peak-hour factor. PHF 0.92 0 .92 0 .92 092 0.92 0 .92 0 .92 0 .92 0 92 0.92 0.92 0 .92 I Said. Flow (eerm) 1770 3421 1531 1770 3387 1634 3039 1656 1567 Adj. Flow (vph) 43 1764 164 22 1573 54 499 1 54 43 1 65 Volume (vph) 40 1533 141 110 1120 80 327 50 172 220 80 70 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 54 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 44 0 I Peak -hour factor PHF 0 .95 0 .95 0 .95 0 .95 0.95 0.95 0 95 095 0 95 0 95 0 95 0 .9 5 Lane Group Flow (vph) 43 1764 110 22 1625 0 499 1 54 0 65 0 Adj . Flow (vph) 42 1614 148 116 1179 84 344 53 181 232 84 74 Hea~ Vehicles(%) 1% 1% 1% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 23% 23% 23% RTOR Red uction (vph ) 0 0 58 0 4 0 0 114 0 0 26 0 Tum Type Prot Perm Prot Perm Free Perm I Lane Group Flow (vph) 42 1614 90 116 1259 0 174 290 0 232 132 0 Prolecied Phases 5 2 1 6 4 4 Hc;ivt Vehicles (%1 2% 2% 2 % 2% 2% 2% 0% 0% 0% 9% 9% 9°/ii Permilted Phases 2 4 Free 4 Turn Type Pro! Perm Pro! Split Split Actuated Green G (s) 62 68 6 68 6 24 64 8 34 0 340 1200 34 0 Protected Pha ses 1 6 5 2 8 8 4 4 Effective Green, g (s) 62 686 68 6 2.4 64 8 34.0 34 .0 120.0 34 .0 Perm,tted Phases 6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0 05 0 !>7 0 57 0 02 0 54 0 28 0 28 1 00 0 28 Aclualed Green G (s) !;, 6 56 6 56 6 tO o 61 0 i!> 4 ~o 4 18 0 18 0 Clearance T ime (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 EffectJve Green, g (s) 5 .6 56 .6 56.6 10.0 61.0 15.4 15.4 18.0 18.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 Actualcd g /C Rat,o 005 0 47 0 47 008 0 51 0.13 013 0 15 0 15 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 92 2043 914 35 1902 357 528 1583 360 Clearance T ime ( s) 5.0 5.0 5 .0 50 50 5 .0 5 .0 5.0 5.0 I vis Ra tio Prot 0.02 c0.49 0.01 c0.46 000 I Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 5 .0 50 3.0 5.0 4 .0 4 .0 4 .0 4 .0 v/s Ratio Penn 0.07 c0.40 0.03 0 .05 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 83 1614 n2 148 1722 210 390 248 235 _J v/c Ratio 0 47 0 .86 0 .12 063 085 1.40 0 .00 003 0 .1 8 I vis Rabo Prol 0 02 c0.47 c0 .07 0 37 c0 11 0.10 c0.14 0 .08 Uniform Delay, d1 55 .3 21 .7 11 .8 58.4 23 .6 43.0 30.8 0.0 32.5 v/s Ratio Perm 0.06 -, ...J Progression Factor 1.00 100 1.00 0.72 0.43 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 v/c Rabo 0 51 1 00 012 0 .78 0.73 0.83 0.74 0 94 0 56 lnaemental Delay, d2 3.7 5.1 0.3 21.8 2.8 195.2 0.0 0 .0 0.2 I Unifonn Delay, d 1 55.8 31.7 17.8 53.9 23.1 51.0 50.4 50.4 47.3 J Delay (s) 59.0 26.9 12.1 64 .1 12.8 238.2 30.8 0.0 32 .7 Progression Fac tor 0.71 0.41 0.06 1.05 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Level of SeNice E C 8 E B F C A C Incremental Delay, d2 2 .8 17.1 0.2 19.4 2.3 23.7 7 .9 40.0 3 .7 J Approach De lay (s) 26 .3 13 .5 214 6 32.7 I Delay (s) 42 .6 30.1 1.2 76 1 21 8 74 .7 58.3 90 .4 5 1.0 I Approach LOS C B F C Level of Service D C A E C E E F D J liiii ........ J I Approach Delay (s) 28.0 26 3 63 3 74.4 I Approach LOS C C -E E HCM Awrage Control Delay 45.9 HCM Level ol Service D ~ HCM Volume lo Capacity ralio 1.01 Actuated Cyde Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 10.0 ------I HCM AV9rage Control Delay 36.7 HCM Level of Service D I lnlersect ,on Capacity Utilization 85 .3% ICU Level o f Service E HCM Volume lo Capacity ratio 0 .94 ----Analysis Period (min) 15 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (•) 20.0 C Crit ical Lane Group I Inte rsecti on Capacity Utilization 88 .3% ICU Level of Service E I Analysis Period (min) 15 --~-~ .. C Cntical Lane Group I I M:\07107367 Triton Towers Renton Expansion\Analysis\Traff,c Operat1ons\PM w,th ProJect· rev 18prmeta.fl7Re port I M 107107367 Trit on Towers Renton Expans,on\Analysis\Traffic Operat,ons\PM With ProJecl· rev 18pniJBtcsfl7Re port I 9/26 /2008 Page 1 9/2612008 Pa ge 2 The Transpo Group I The Transpo Group I ---------------------~ -------J H C M U n signalized Intersecti on Capa cit y A na l ysis T riton Towers 3: G ra d :z'. Wl & N orth R i te Aid D rivewal 2014 W ith PrOJeCt PM -• " -" ~ WBT N8L N8R 1 Lane Configurations +to ' ++ V Sign Control Free Free stop ----Grade 0% 0% 0% Volume (veh/h) 1788 37 66 1205 1 163 ---Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Hourly now rate (vph) 1902 39 70 1282 1 173 Pedestrians Lane Wadlh (fl) ----------Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Righ t tum fl are (veh) Median type ---None ---------Med ian storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 420 562 pX, platoon unblocked 0.54 0.62 0 .54 vC , conflicting volume 1941 2703 971 vC 1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu. unblock ed vol 1892 2381 95 tC , single (s) 4.1 6 .8 6.9 IC, 2 stage (s) IF (s) 2.2 3 .5 3.3 pO queue f ree % 58 90 66 cM capacity (veh/h) 169 11 513 Dll .... 1.!.!!!1# E81 ~2 W81 !M12 WB3 NB1 i Volume T olal 1268 673 70 641 641 174 Volume Left 0 0 70 0 0 1 Volume Righi 0 39 0 0 0 173 --cSH 1700 1700 169 1700 1700 398 Volume to Capacity 0 .75 0.40 0.42 0 .38 0.38 0 .44 -----Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 47 0 0 54 Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 40.8 0 .0 0 .0 20.9 --------Lane LOS E C Approach Delay (s) 0.0 2.1 20.9 Approach LOS C 111t11 llllan SUmi,•v 1 Average Delay 1.9 Intersection Capacity Utilization 73.3% ICU Level ot Se,vice 0 ------- Analysis Period (min) 15 M:\07\07367 Triton Towers Renton Expansion\Analys is\Traffic Operations\PM With Project-rev 1811'Uillt~ji7Repcrt 9/26/2008 Page 3 The Transpo Group H CM U nsignalized Inters ection Capacit y A n alysis T r it on T o w ers 4: G rad:z'. W:z'. & North D rive wal -Tower 3 2014 W ith Project PM -• " -" ~ ~-Iii! §18 ml!: !!II I!& -Lan e Configurations +to ++ ., Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Volume (veMl) 1926 26 0 1271 0 81 Peak Hour Factor 095 095 095 095 095 095 Hourly flow rate (vph) 2027 27 0 1338 0 85 Pedestrians Lane Width (fl) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right t um flare (veh) Median type ---None Med ian storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 661 321 pX, platoon unblocked 0 .55 0.63 0.55 vC . oonfticting volume 2055 27 10 1027 vC 1 , stage 1 con f vol vC2 , stage 2 conf vol vCu unblocked vol 2 100 2340 230 IC, single (s) 4.2 6.8 6.9 IC, 2 stage (s) IF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 pO queue free % 100 100 80 cM capacity (veh/h) 140 20 428 DINclcilL Iii!!! # E81 EBj! m!1 Mi! !fl l ! Volume Total 1352 703 669 669 85 Vo lume Left 0 0 0 0 0 Volume Righi 0 27 0 0 85 cSH 1700 1700 1700 1700 428 Volume to Capacity 0.80 0 .41 0 .39 0 .39 0 .20 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 0 0 18 Control Delay (s) 0 .0 0.0 0 .0 0.0 15.5 Lane LOS C Approach Delay (s) 0 .0 0.0 15.5 Approach LOS C ii Average Delay 0.4 lntersectlon Capacity Utilization 67.4% ICU Level ot Sefvlce C Analysis Period (min) 15 M ·\07\07367 T riton Towers Rent on Expansion\Jlnalysis\Traffic Operations\PM With Project-rev 18imtillt~ji7Report 9/26/2008 Page 4 The Transpo Group HCM Signa lized Intersection Capacity Analysis Triton Towers 5: Gradl Wl & SR 515/Talbot 2014 With Proiect PM .,> -• ('° -'-.... t ~ '. ' ~ §!l. Iii! E8R ml: mJ:-WBR ti!!:: NBT N8R a HI SBA Lane Configurations 11 +t .,, 'f'I tlt 1111 tlt 11 +t .,, Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Grade(%) 0% -1% 0% 1% Total Lost tlme (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5 .0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Ulil. Faclor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0 .97 0 .95 0.97 0 .95 1 00 0 .95 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 1.00 0 .94 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1 .00 0 .95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0 .95 1.00 100 Said . Flow (pro!) 1770 3539 1583 3450 3493 3467 3357 1796 3592 1607 Fil Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0 .95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0 .95 1.00 1.00 Said . Flow !I!!!!!!) 1770 3539 1583 3450 3493 3467 3357 1796 3592 1607 Volume (vph) 70 1097 840 462 681 40 550 470 320 80 740 40 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0 .90 0 .88 0.97 0 .97 0 .97 0 .97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph ) 76 1219 933 525 702 41 567 485 330 82 763 41 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 3 0 3 0 0 100 0 0 0 21 Lane Group Flow (vph) 78 1219 930 525 740 0 567 715 0 82 763 20 Hea~ Vehicles !"-l 2% 2% 2% 2% 3% 3% 1% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% T urn Type Prol pm..-ov Prot Pro! Prat Pe rm Protected Phases 1 6 3 5 2 3 8 7 4 Permitted Phases 6 4 Actuated Green. G ( s) 8 .6 35.0 59.0 18.0 44.4 24.0 39.2 7.8 23.0 23.0 Effeclivc Green. g (s ) 86 35.0 59.0 16.0 44 4 24 0 39 2 7 8 23 0 23 0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.07 0 .29 0 .49 0.15 0.37 0 .20 0.33 0.06 0.19 0.19 Clearance Time (s) 5 .0 5.0 50 50 50 5.0 5.0 5.0 50 50 Vehide Exlension (s) 4 .0 4.0 5.0 4.0 4 .0 5.0 5.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 127 1032 644 518 1292 693 1097 117 688 308 via Ratio Prot 0 .04 c0.34 c0.22 c0.15 0.21 0.16 0.21 0.05 c0.21 vis Ratio Perm 0.37 0.01 vie Ratio 0.61 1.18 1.10 1.01 0.57 0.82 0.65 0.70 1.11 0 .06 Uniform Delay, d1 54.1 42.5 30.5 51.0 30.2 45.9 34.6 55.0 485 39.7 Progression Factor 0.89 0.71 0.54 1.00 1.00 0.79 0.68 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 5.7 67.6 56.6 43.0 1.8 7.7 1 .7 17 .3 66.2 0.1 Delay (S) 53.6 117,8 73.1 94.0 32.1 43.8 25.2 72.2 116.7 39.8 Level of Service D F E F C D C E F D Approach Delay (a) 96.9 57.7 32.8 109.0 Approach LOS F E C F - 74 .6 H CM Level of Service E 1 .11 -~~----------' 1200 Sum oflosl time (s) 15.0 98.1% ICU Level of Service F 15 M:\07\07367 Triton Towers Renton Expansion\Analysis\Traffic Operat1ons\PM With Project-rev 18Jjlf'liista;yi7Report 912612006 Page 5 The Transpo Group HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Ana lysis Triton Towers 6: East Drivewal -Tower 3 & SR 5 15/Talbot 2014 With Project PM .,> • .... t ' ~ Lane Configurations Sign Control Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Volume (vehlh) 0 168 0 1280 2036 30 Peak Hour Factor 0 94 0 .94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 179 0 1362 2166 32 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) --Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (II) 673 538 pX, platoon unblocked 089 0.82 0.82 ve. oonllicting volume 2847 1083 2198 vC 1. slage 1 conf vol vC2. slage 2 cont vol vC u. unblocked vol 2450 876 2242 t C, single (s) 6.6 6.9 4 .1 tC, 2 stage (s) t F (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 pO queue free % 100 26 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 23 242 166 Volume Total 179 Volume Lett 0 Volume Right 179 cSH 242 Volume to Capacity 0 .74 Queue L ength 95th (ft) 129 0 Controt Delay (s) 53.0 0 .0 Lane LOS F Approach Delay (s) 53.0 0.0 0.0 Approach LOS F ~Ill 18ura•v ., Average Delay 2.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 75.0% ICU Level of Service D Analysis P eriod (min) 15 M:\07\07367 Triton Towers Renton Expansion\Analysis\Traffic Operations\PM With ProJect-rev 18prnillta;yi7Report 9126/2006 Page 6 The Transpo Group HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Anal ysis Tri ton Towe rs 7: East Drivewa~ -Tower 2 & SR 515fTalbot 2014 With Pro,ect PM .> ~ "\ t ! ~ MIMlllmll Ell §!! ~ !!!II HI SilR ! Lane Configurations .,, 4+ +i. Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Volume (vehlh) 0 160 0 1280 2180 16 ----Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 097 097 0.97 HOl.fly flow rate (vph) 0 165 0 1320 2247 16 Pedestrians Lane Width (fl) ------------Walking Speed (ftis) Percent Blockage ---Right tu rn flare (veh) Median type None -Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 285 926 pX, platoon unblocked 0.90 0.82 0.82 vC , conflicting volume 2915 1132 2264 -vC 1. stage t con! vol vC2, stage 2 oonf vol vCu , unblocked vol 2529 944 2321 IC, single (s) 6.8 6 .9 4 .1 tC 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 pO queue tree % 100 25 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 21 219 176 ea1-NB1 -NB2 -sa1 S82 :::, 165 440 880 1498 766 Volume Left 0 0 0 0 0 Volume Right 165 0 0 0 16 ------------cSH 219 176 1700 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.75 0 .00 0 .52 0 .88 0.45 Queue Length 95th (ft) 129 0 0 0 0 Control Delay (s) 58.7 0 .0 0.0 0.0 0.0 --------Lane LOS F Approach Delay (s) 58 .7 0 .0 0.0 -Approach LOS F l!!i!.'ll'i!! I a..rm.v i Average Delay 2 .6 Intersection Capacity Utilization 79 .0 % ICU Level of Service D Analysis Peri od (min) 15 M:\07\07367 Triton Towers Renton Expansion\Analysis\Traffic Operat ions\PM With Project-rev t8prtiietcsti7Re pon 912612008 Page 7 The Transpo Group HCM U nsignalized Inter section Capacity Analysis Triton Towers 8: S Renton Villa9e PL & Theater Drivewa~ 2014 With Project PM .> -~ " -' "\ t ,.. '-. ! ~ Mowinanl EBL m §!!! g. WBT ~ !!!.: !!!I! ~ !!II: !II! 111B Lane Configurations • • 4o • Sign Control Free Free Slop Stop Grade ·1% 0% 0% 0% Volume (vehlh) 5 71 5 5 176 30 58 15 10 30 5 5 Peak Hour Factor 0 .86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0 .86 0 .86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 Hourly flow rate (vph) 6 83 6 6 205 35 67 17 12 35 6 6 Pedestrians Lane Width (fl) Walking Speed (11/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh ) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (fl) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 240 -88 -340 348 85 351 334 222 vC 1, stage 1 con! vol vC2, stage 2 con! vol v Cu, unblocked vol 240 88 340 348 85 351 334 222 tC, single (s) 4.1 4.1 7 .1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 tC 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 2 .2 3 .5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 pO queue free % '00 100 89 91 99 94 99 99 cM capacity (veh/h) 1327 1507 600 569 971 582 585 822 bncloi .. !.I!!! • EB1 MP !IU §11 Volume Tolal 94 245 97 47 Volume Left 6 6 67 35 Volume Righi 6 35 12 6 cSH 1327 1507 622 605 Volume to Capacity 0 .00 0.00 0.16 0 .08 Queue Length 95th (fl) 0 0 14 6 Control Delay (s) 0.5 0 .2 11 .8 11 .4 Lane LOS A A B B Approach Delay (s) 0.5 0.2 11 .8 11 .4 Approach LOS B B Iii Average Delay 3 .7 Intersection Capacity UtiliZation 25.9% ICU Level Of service A Analysis Period (min) 15 M:\07\07367 Triton Towers Rent on Expansion\Analysis\Traffic Operat ions\PM With Project-rev tSprtiistcsfil'Report 912612008 Page 8 The Transpo Group H CM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis T r iton Towers 9: S R enton Villa1;1e PL & West Dirvewal -T ower 1 201 4 W ith Project PM -\' ' -~ ~ m E8R g WIT NIIL teR I Lane Configurations to .f V Sign Control Free Free Stop ____ .J Grade -1% 0% 0% Volume (118h/h) 96 15 36 201 10 52 -Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0 .94 0.94 0.94 Hour1y flow rate (vph) 102 16 38 Pedestrians 214 11 55 ---- Lane Width (II) Walking Speed (fVs) Percent Blockage Right turn fl are (veh) Median type None Median storage ve h) Upstream signal (fl) 965 pX , platoon unblocked vC , conflicting volume 118 401 110 vC1 . stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf v ol vCu, unbloc ked vol 1 '8 401 110 IC, single (s ) 4 .1 6.4 6 .2 IC. 2 st ag e (s) tF (s) 2 .2 3 .5 3.3 pO q u eue free 0/o 97 98 94 cM capacity (vehlh) 1476 590 943 W81 NB1 :::::J Volume Total 118 252 66 --Volume Left 0 38 11 Volume Righi 16 0 55 --·--- cSH 1700 1476 860 Volume lo Capacity 0 .07 0 .03 0 .08 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 2 6 Control Delay (s) 0 .0 1.3 9.5 Lane LOS A ----------- A Approach Delay (s) 0 .0 1.3 9.5 Ap proach LOS A iii ¢n811111WY i Average Delay 2.2 Intersection capacity utilization 31 .3% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 M:107107367 Triton To wers Renton Expansion\Analysis\Traffic Operations\PM With ProJect-rev t!!pra,eta;jii'Report 9/2612008 Page 9 The Transpo Group HCM Unsignaliz ed Intersection Capacity Analysis Triton Towers 10: S Renton Villa1;1e PL & West Rite Aid Drivewal 2014 With Project PM ...> --' ~ ., .._._. E8L m m )'.!I!! -SM Lane Configurations .f to V Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade -1% 0 % 0% Volume (118hlh) 10 138 222 65 155 15 Peak Hour Factor 0 .94 0.94 0 .94 0.94 0.94 0.94 HoUl1y flow rate (vph) 11 147 236 69 165 16 Pedestrians Lane Width (fl) Walking Speed (fVs) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 900 pX , platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 305 439 271 vC 1. sta ge 1 conf vol v C2, stage 2 conf vol vCu , unblocked vol 305 439 271 tC, singl e (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2 tC , 2 stage (s) IF (s) 2.2 3.5 33 pO quelie fr ee % 99 11 98 cM capacity (veh/h) 1261 572 770 Dlrec:llali. ~ • §11 !MP 111 Volume T otat 157 305 181 Volume Left 11 0 165 Volume Right 0 69 16 cSH 1261 1700 586 Volume to Capacity 0.01 0.18 0 .31 Queue Leng th 95th (ft) 1 0 33 Control Delay (s) 0 .6 0 .0 13 .9 Lane LOS A B Approach Delay (s) 0 .6 0 .0 13.9 Approach LOS B iii Average Delay 4 .0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 33.5% ICU Le\181 of SeMce Analysis Period (min ) 15 M:107107367 Triton Towers Renton Expansion\Analysis\Traffic Operations\PM With Proi ec t-rev 18prmeta;ji7Report 9/26/2008 Page 1 O The Transpo Group HCM Un si gnalized In tersection Capacity Analysis T riton Towers 11 : S Re nton Village PL & R ite Aid /East Orivewal -Tower 1 2014 With PrOj eCt PM ..> -.. <' -' .... t ~ '-. + ~ ---!Iii!,; U! EM W8L !II W8R II!!:: N8T !!I! HI: HI SIR Lane Configurations • • ... • Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade -1% 0% 0% 0% Volume (veh/h) 10 282 1 41 195 32 67 5 60 41 5 25 Peak Hour Factor 0 .97 0 .97 0.97 0.97 0 .97 0.97 0 .97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0 .97 Hourty flow rate (vph) 10 291 1 42 201 33 69 5 62 42 5 26 Pedestnans Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (IVs) Percent Blockage Right t urn fla re (ve h) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 734 pX , platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 234 292 642 630 291 678 614 218 vC 1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 cont vol vCu, unblocked vol 234 292 642 630 29 ' 678 6 14 21 8 IC , single (s) 4. 1 4 .1 7.1 6.5 6 .2 7 .1 6.5 6.2 IC 2 stage (s) IF (s) 2.2 2 .2 3.5 4.0 3 .3 3.5 4.0 3.3 pO queue fre e % 99 97 8 1 99 9? 87 99 97 cM capacity (veh/h) 1339 1276 358 381 746 324 393 827 Diiiilliii: !di!! i g~·wa1 te1 881 ---, Volume TOlal -302 276 136 73 --' Volume Left 10 42 69 42 Volume Righi 1 33 62 26 ---------_ _J cSH 1339 1276 470 419 VOiume lo Capacity 0.01 0.03 0 .29 0 .17 ----- Queue Length 95th (ft) 1 3 30 16 Control Delay (s) 0.3 1.5 15.7 15.4 -----Lane LOS A A C C Approach Delay (s) 0.3 1.5 15.7 15.4 -----------~----·----' Approach LOS C C iliiillile Average Delay 4 .8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 48.3% ICU Level of Serviee A ----Analysis Period (min) 15 M:107107367 Triton Towers Renton Expansion\J\nalysis\Traffic Operations\PM With Project-rev 1Spmieta;ji7Report 9/26 /2008 Page 11 The Transpo Group H CM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Ana lys is Triton Towers 13 : S Renton Village PL & South Drivewal -Tower 2 20 14 With Project PM ..> --' '-. ., McMmall __._EIL WBT WIIL:1111.":: 188 Lane Configurations Sign Control Grade -1 % 0% 0% VOiume (veMl) 5 378 244 26 66 25 Peak Hour Factor 0 .89 0 .89 089 0.89 0.89 0.89 Hourly flow rate (vph) 6 425 274 29 74 28 Pedestrians Lane Wl<lth (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s ) Percent Blockage Right t urn flare (veh) Me<ian type ----None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 439 pX , platoon unblocked vC , conflicting volume 303 ---725 289 vC 1 , stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 cont vol vCu , unblocked v ol 303 725 289 IC, single (s) 4 .1 6.4 6 .2 IC , 2 s lage (s) IF (s) 2 .2 3.5 3.3 pO queu e fre e %. 100 81 96 cM capacit y (veh/h) 1263 392 753 Dnalaii. !.I!!! I 1!11 MP sa1 Volume Total 430 303 102 Volume Left 6 0 74 VOiume Right 0 29 28 cSH 1263 1700 451 Volume to Capacity 0.00 0 .1 8 0 .23 Queue Length 95th (ft ) 0 0 22 Control Delay (s) 0 .1 0 .0 15.3 Lane LOS A C Approach Delay (s) 0 .1 0 .0 15.3 Approach LOS C Average Delay 1.9 Intersection Capacity Utilization 37.4% ICU Level of Service Analysis Period (min) 15 M:107107367 Triton Towers Renton Expansion\Analysis\Traffic Operations\PM W ith Project-rev IS(l(1D8t<Sji7Re port 9/26/2008 Page 12 The Transpo Group H CM Sign a l i zed Intersection C apacit y A n a lysis Triton T owers 1 5 : S R enton Villa9e PL & S R 5 1 5/Ta lbot 2014 W ith Project PM .> -• (" -' .... t ~ '. + .,, Mo.••• Y!. m DB WISC WBT WBR !I!!. !Ill ~ .. II! 811A Lane Configurations 11 ' 1111 t ' 'I tt ti. Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Grade(%) -1% 0% -3 % 0% Tolal Lost time (a) 5 .0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5 .0 5.0 Lane Ut il. Factor 1 .00 1.00 0.97 1.00 -1 .00 1.00 0 .95 0 .95 Fri 1.00 0 .85 1.00 1.00 0 .85 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flt Protected 0 .95 1.00 0.95 1.00 -1 .00 095 1.00 1.00 Said. Flow (prot) 1796 1607 3502 1900 1615 1814 3628 3563 Flt P ermitted 0 .95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1 .00 0 .95 1.00 1.00 Said. Flow !e!!.!!!l 1796 1607 3502 1900 1615 1814 3628 3563 Volume (vph) 70 0 394 620 42 170 173 1040 0 0 2260 so 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 (vp h) 74 0 415 653 44 179 182 1095 0 0 2379 53 RTOR Reductlon (vph) 0 0 83 0 0 107 0 0 0 0 1 0 L ane Group Flow (vph) 74 0 332 653 44 72 182 1095 0 0 2431 0 Hea~ Vehicles(%! 1% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% Turn Ty pe Prat cu stom P rot Perm Prot Protected Phases 7 3 8 5 2 6 P ermitted Phases 8 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 6.0 19.0 30 .0 19 .0 19.0 7.0 80.0 68 .0 Effective Green, g (s) 6.0 19 0 30 0 190 19 0 70 80 0 68 0 Actuated glC Ratio 0.05 0.16 0.25 0.1 6 0.16 0.06 0.67 0.57 Clearance Ti me (s) so 50 so 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 50 Vehicle Extension !S) 3.0 3.0 3 .0 3.0 3.0 4.0 6.5 6 .5 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 90 254 876 301 256 106 2419 2019 via Ratio Prot 0.04 c0.19 0 .02 c0.10 0.30 c0.68 vis Ratio Perm c021 0 .04 vie Ratio 0.82 1.31 0 .7 5 0.15 0.28 1.72 0.45 1.20 ---Uniform Delay, d1 56.5 50.5 41 .5 43.5 44 .5 56.5 95 260 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.88 0.58 1.19 Incremental Delay. d2 42 .9 163.1 3.5 0.2 0.6 355.1 0 .5 93.6 Delay (s) 99.3 213 .6 45.0 43.7 45.1 404 .8 6 .1 124.6 -Level of Service F F D D D F A F Approach Delay (s) 196.3 44.9 62.9 124.6 Approach LOS F D E F ==i 102.2 H CM Level of Service F 1.19 -----· . 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 15.0 118.6% ICU Level of Service H ---~ 15 M:107107367 Triton Towers Renton Expansion\Analysis\Tralfic Operations\PM With Project-rev 18 praietcs j;i'Report 912612008 Page 13 T he Transpo Group I HCM Sign a l ized In tersect ion Capacity Analysi s Triton T owers 16 : 1-4 0 5 NB On-Rame & SR 5 1 5/Talbot 2014 With Project PM (" ' t ~ '. + Lane Confi gurations Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 Grade(%) 0% -3% 6% TOlal Lost time (s) 5.0 5 .0 5 .0 5 .0 Lane Ubl. Factor 0.95 1.00 1 00 095 Fri 1.00 0 .85 1.00 1.00 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Said. Flow (prot) ----3592 1607 1717 3433 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Said. Flow !e!!!!!l 3592 1607 1717 3433 Volume (vph) 0 0 1210 280 324 2989 Peak-hour factor. PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0 .92 0 .92 0 .92 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 1315 304 352 3249 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Groue Flow (veh! 0 0 1315 304 352 3249 Tum Type Free Prot Protected Phases 2 1 6 Permrtted Phases Free Act uat ed Green, G (s) 880 1200 22 0 120 0 Effective Green. g (s) 88 .0 120.0 22.0 120.0 Act uated g/C Ratio 0 13 1 00 0 18 1.00 Clearance Time (s) 5 .0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (S! 30 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 2634 1607 315 3433 --vis Ratio Prot 0 .37 0 .21 c0.95 vis Ratio Perm 0.19 ----vie Ratio 0 .50 0.19 1.12 0.95 Unijorm Delay. d 1 6.7 0.0 49.0 0.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0 .96 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.7 0.3 57.4 0.8 Delay (s) 7.4 0.3 104.4 0.8 Level of Service A A F A Approach Delay (s) 0 .0 6 .1 10.9 Approach LOS A -A B HCM Average Control Delay 9.4 HCM Level of Service A HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0 .95 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) -0 .0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 86.8% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (nin) 15 -C Cri ti cal Lane Group M:107107367 Triton Towers Renton E xpansion\Analysis\Traffic Operations\PM With Pro1ect-rev 181JrlDBl1Sj;i'Report 912612008 P age 14 The Tra nspo Group