Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout20210244 19 Washington St. Development Site Plan Traffic Study Impact Letter C+IAm July 10,2013 Ms.Kate Maynard Principal Planner City of Saratoga Springs City Hall 474 Broadway Saratoga Springs,New York 12866 RE: Rip Van Dam Hotel Redevelopment—Traffic Impact Study CHA Project No.: 25173 Dear Ms.Maynard: On behalf of Presidian Saratoga Hospitality Group, LLC, CHA Consulting, Inc. (CHA) is pleased to submit twelve copies of the Traffic Impact Study(TIS)for the redevelopment of the Rip Van Dam property located at the southwest corner of Broadway and Washington Street. CHA has completed the TIS in accordance with the scope of work developed by the City and Creighton Manning Engineering (CME). It is our understanding that the City will hire CME to review the TIS. Please let us know what the City's requirements are with respect to the review fee escrow,traffic count data needed,additional copies of the report,etc... We are respectfully requesting to be placed on the agenda to continue our SEQR and Site Plan review with you and the Planning Board at the July 24th meeting. Thank you, and if you have any questions,please call me at 518- 453-3927. Very truly yours, iff ,- „ Anthony P. Stellato,Jr. PE Vice President cc: Presidian Saratoga Hospitality Group Partners Corrina Green,Powers Brown Architecture Christina Doughney, CHA V:\Projects\ANY\K3\25173\Permitting\Traffic Study\rip van dam TIS submission 130710.docx "Satisfying Our Clients with Ill Winners Circle, P.O.Box 5269,Albany, NY 12205-0269 Dedicated People Committed to Total Quality” T 518.453.4500 • F 518,458.1735 • www.chacompanies.com Rip Van Dam Hotel Redevelopment Project Saratoga Springs, NY TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY July 2013 Prepared for: Presidian Saratoga Hospitality Group, LLC 353 Broadway Saratoga Springs, NY 12866 Prepared by: CHtt 3 Winners Circle Albany, NY 12205 CHA File: 25173 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION 1 II. EXISTING CONDITIONS 1 A. STREET NETWORK 1 B. TRAFFIC VOLUMES 1 C. VEHICLE QUEUES 2 D. PARKING 3 1. On-Street Parking 3 2. Off-Street Parking 3 III. NO-BUILD TRAFFIC VOLUMES 3 IV. PROPOSED CONDITIONS 4 A. PARKING 4 B. TRIP GENERATION 6 1. Hotel 6 2. Banquet Facility 6 C. VALET OPERATIONS 7 D. SITE TRIP DISTRIBUTION 7 E. FUTURE BUILD VOLUMES 9 F. TRUCK ACCOMODATIONS 9 G. EMPLOYEES 10 H. PEDESTRIAN ACCOMMODATIONS 11 V. CAPACITY ANALYSIS 11 A. VEHICLE QUEUES 12 VI. CONCLUSION 13 LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A: Figures Appendix B: Site Layout Plan Appendix C: Traffic Counts Appendix D: Level of Service Criteria Appendix E: Capacity Analysis Worksheets C, 1/T Rip Van Dam Redevelopment Project—Traffic Impact Study Page i LIST OF TABLES 1 Peak Hour Queue Observations 2 2 Valet Parking Demand Estimates 5 3 Peak Hour Trip Generation 6 4 Hotel Staffing Schedule 10 5 LOS Summary: Weekday PM Peak Hour 12 6 LOS Summary: Saturday Midday Peak Hour 12 LIST OF EXHIBITS 1 2013 Existing Traffic Volumes 2 2 2015 No-Build Traffic Volumes 4 3 Hotel Guest Trips 8 4 Valet Trips 8 5 2015 Build Traffic Volumes 9 C, 1/T Rip Van Dam Redevelopment Project—Traffic Impact Study Page ii I. INTRODUCTION The proposed renovation and expansion at the Rip Van Dam Hotel will provide 176 new guest rooms along with a banquet facility that will accommodate up to 200 guests. The existing Maestro's restaurant will continue to operate at its current capacity. The hotel will operate a valet service from a porte cochere (structure over the driveway to shelter the loading/unloading of vehicles)on Washington Street where guests will drop off and unload their vehicles. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the traffic operations and vehicles queues at the project site, delivery truck access, parking demand and valet operations. II. EXISTING CONDITIONS A. STREET NETWORK The site is located at 353 Broadway in Saratoga Springs, NY. Access to the site will be provided via a one-way horseshoe driveway on Washington Street. There is also a service driveway on Washington Street to allow for deliveries. Washington Street is approximately 40 feet wide,with on-street parking (two-hour, 9am to 6pm) on the south side of the street, a signed loading zone on the north side of the street adjacent to Starbucks and one 12 foot travel lane in each direction. Washington Street intersects Broadway at a signal controlled T-intersection. The same signal controller also controls the intersection with Broadway&Spring Street. Pedestrian "walk" indications operate concurrently with adjacent moving vehicular traffic. The Washington Street approach to the signal has a no turn on red restriction. B. TRAFFIC VOLUMES Traffic counts were conducted at the intersection of Broadway & Washington Street to identify the volumes and turning movement patterns for the following periods: • Weekday PM (4 pm to 6 pm) • Saturday Midday(11 am to 1 pm) This data was collected on Thursday June 20, 2013 and Saturday June 22, 2013, with the data recorded in 15-minute increments to identify the volume and vehicle classification of each movement. This traffic count data is included in Appendix C. The peak hours were identified from the data collected as 4:30 to 5:30 pm on the weekday and 12:00 to 1:00 pm on Saturday. The 2013 Existing Traffic Volumes for the studied peak hours at the studied intersections are shown on Exhibit 1. CH/T- Rip Van Dam Redevelopment Project-Traffic Impact Study Page 1 ii 165(132) 105(77) Washington Street 41 1ca) ur LEGEND o40 v o XXX(XXX)=PM(SAT) ~ m Exhibit 1: 2013 Existing Traffic Volumes C. VEHICLE QUEUES During the peak hour traffic counts, queue observations were also conducted for the eastbound approach of Washington Street. The observations noted the number of vehicles in the queue at the start of green for the approach and also at the end of yellow. The raw queue observation data is provided in Appendix C. Since Washington Street is designated as no turn on red at the signal,these observations capture the maximum queue on the approach and also the remaining queue when the signal phase is terminated. Table 1 notes the average and maximum queues observed. Table 1: Peak Hour Queue Observations Weekday PM Saturday Midday Start of End of Start of End of Green Yellow Green Yellow Average 5 1 4 1 Maximum 12 9 10 7 Queue provided in number of vehicles. The back of the average queues end in the vicinity of the existing easternmost driveway to the Rip Van Dam parking lot. Most often,the entire queue did clear during the signal phase. The end-of-yellow queue typically was a result of additional vehicles arriving during the yellow time. Occurrences that caused an impediment of vehicles progressing through the signal during the green indication were drivers yielding to pedestrians in the crosswalk and an occasional parking maneuver. The maximum end-of-yellow queue of seven vehicles during the Saturday midday period occurred due to a driver yielding-- to pedestrians crossing against the "hand" signal (i.e.they were crossing Washington). C, A Rip Van Dam Redevelopment Project-Traffic Impact Study Page 2 D. PARKING 1. On-Street Parking In the vicinity of the site, there is existing on-street parking (two-hour, 9am to 6pm)on the south side of Washington Street. There is a signed loading zone on the north side of Washington Street adjacent to Starbucks. Parking maneuvers sometime impede traffic approaching the signal at Broadway and unloading trucks at Starbucks encroach into the westbound travel lane (see 4.0.F. for additional discussion on truck accommodations). 2. Off-Street Parking The development of the hotel will occur on the existing parking lot which has accommodated 40 +/- vehicles in the past. The main use for this lot was to provide parking for the tenants and guests of tenants in the Rip Van Dam office building. These tenants have vacated the property for the most part as a necessary precursor to the hotel project. Consequently, the current usage is by Maestro's management (six spaces) and an additional four +/- spaces used by associates of the Rip Van Dam owners on a month to month basis. Some patrons of Maestro's do use the lot during evening hours but, for the most part, the patrons of this restaurant walk there after parking on-street or in public lots/garages as do the patrons of other restaurants and retail stores. III. NO-BUILD TRAFFIC VOLUMES The anticipated year of completion of the Rip Van Dam Hotel redevelopment is 2015. In order to assess the project's traffic impacts, the traffic volumes at the study intersection were adjusted to represent traffic conditions in this design year without the project(No-Build Condition). Based on a review of historic traffic volumes on Washington Street (NY 29) and Broadway (US 9), a conservative 1.0% per year background growth rate was applied to establish the background 2015 No- Build Traffic Volumes. The 2015 No-Build volumes are shown on Exhibit 2 for the Weekday PM and Saturday midday peak hours. CH/T Rip Van Dam Redevelopment Project-Traffic Impact Study Page 3 A N m N � ,n m .-1 h V { 168(135) '- 107(79) Washington Street I oa al no LEGEND o m o XXX(XXX)=PM(SAT) `n Exhibit 2: 2015 No-Build Traffic Volumes IV. PROPOSED CONDITIONS A. PARKING On-site parking was not considered for the redevelopment; height restrictions in the City and soil conditions would make building parking levels above or below ground unfeasible. Parking supply for the hotel (no self-parking, valet only)will be provided in a proposed parking garage on Hamilton Street,to be constructed on the site of an existing parking lot(currently 72 spaces). The garage will house 207 parking spaces,with the ability to add another parking deck(78 spaces) in the future if necessary. The existing lot on Hamilton Street is used by Palio Communications,who utilizes approximately 40 spaces. They will be provided 40 spaces in the new parking structure during their business hours (Monday through Friday, 9am to 5pm). Those 40 spaces will be utilized by the hotel in the evening and on weekends. There will be no designated employee parking for the hotel; employees will utilize public parking,walk or use transit. As mentioned previously,the existing 44-space parking lot behind the Rip Van Dam will be removed as part of the site demolition. There is no plan to replace the six spaces that are currently used by Maestro's restaurant; restaurant staff and patrons will continue to utilize public parking like all other restaurants on Broadway. The current plan is that the valet parking will not be available to restaurant customers. It is anticipated that employees and patrons utilizing public parking garages/lots would use those on Putnam Street, Railroad Place and Woodlawn Avenue, or on-street. CH/T- Rip Van Dam Redevelopment Project-Traffic Impact Study Page 4 The average parking supply necessary to support the hotel and banquet facility was estimated based on occupancy rates and valet usage estimated based on STAR reports for similar types of hotels and those in Saratoga Springs. STAR reports are an industry reporting standard for hotel performance data. It is estimated that the average hotel occupancy rate will be 57% in year one, 65% in year two and normalize at 72% in year three. For"non-resident" banquet events (i.e. primarily not hotel guests), the owners' experience is that one valet ticket is generated for every 2.3 banquet attendees. Average parking demand estimates are presented in Table 2. Parking demand estimates were also calculated using assumptions on public parking and transit use. It can be assumed that a small proportion of hotel guests will not use the valet service and will park their vehicles themselves in public parking, and some may arrive via taxi or public transportation. A 10% reduction in parking demand was applied to account for these situations,which are typical in urban settings. It is likely that a higher proportion of banquet and conference guests will not use the valet service because they live locally or are staying at another hotel. They would also be willing to walk longer distances to/from parking since they would not be traveling with luggage like the hotel guests. A 25%discount was applied to the average parking demand for banquet guests. Table 2: Valet Parking Demand Estimates Average Parking Demand Average Parking Demand with 100%valet use with self-park/walk/transit discounts Total Supply 207 Total Supply 207 Hotel Guests (176 rooms * 0.72 avg occ.) -127 Hotel Guests (176 rooms * 0.72 avg occ. * -114 0.90 valet use) Non-resident event(200 max/2.3 -87 Non-resident event((200 max/2.3 -65 passengers per vehicle) passengers per vehicle) * 0.75 valet use) Parking supply surplus/deficit in Hamilton St -7 Parking supply surplus/deficit in Hamilton St +28 Garage(evenings&weekends) Garage(evenings&weekends) Palio employees (weekdays daytime only) -40 Palio employees (weekdays daytime only) -40 Parking supply surplus/deficit in Hamilton St -47 Parking supply surplus/deficit in Hamilton St -12 Garage(weekdays daytime) Garage(weekdays daytime) In the evenings and on weekends,when it is most likely that maximum capacity banquets would occur, it is estimated that there will be sufficient supply in the proposed Hamilton Street garage. Even if 100% use the valet service,the deficit would be only seven spaces and valet staff can double park vehicles in the garage to accommodate the demand (the supply of 207 spaces is based on "self-park" dimensioned spaces). Therefore,with the garage properly managed by the valet staff, the garage will have sufficient capacity for the typical hotel and banquet demand. When large, non-resident events are projected to coincide with full hotel occupancy, hotel management would make arrangements with local parking lot owners to lease space as needed. The Rip Van Dam owners have existing relationships with lot owners with space between Washington Street and Congress Street and would initiate it on a case-by-case basis. With the nature of hotel operations, management would always know in advance of the event if additional parking is needed and could make arrangements accordingly. C1-1;1V—.--Rip Van Dam Redevelopment Project-Traffic Impact Study Page 5 B. TRIP GENERATION 1. Hotel An estimation of trip generation for the proposed hotel was conducted using the data published in Trip Generation, 9th Edition by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). The estimate was made for the Weekday PM peak hour of adjacent street traffic and the Saturday peak hour of the generator based on the average number of occupied rooms (127 rooms based on an average 72%occupancy). Information from the project owner indicates that the typical peak of arriving guests is 1 to 2 pm and the peak of departing guests is 10 to 11 am, as these are related to the periods of guest check-in and check-out. Table 3 summarizes the estimated trip generation for the Weekday PM and Saturday peak hours. It can be assumed that a portion of guests will not use the valet service and will park their vehicles themselves in public parking, and some may arrive via taxi or public transportation. Like the parking demand estimates, a 10% reduction in site trips was applied to account for these situations. The trip patterns in Trip Generation are based on on-site parking situations, so the entering and exiting trips for this site have been combined to reflect the trips related to valet operations (i.e. a guest entering trip also results in a valet exiting trip to park the vehicle). It is anticipated that valet staff will walk between the garage and hotel, so there are no additional vehicular trips anticipated related to transporting valet staff back and forth. Table 3: Peak Hour Trip Generation Weekday PM Saturday Total Entering Exiting Total Entering Exiting Hotel (Land Use Code 310) 89 44 45 110 62 48 127 occupied rooms -10%for self-parking/transit use 9 5 4 11 6 5 80 39 41 99 56 43 Total entering and exiting 160 80 80 198 99 99 due to valet operations It is worth noting that the studies that the Trip Generation estimates are based on Hotel land uses that are outside of central business districts in suburban areas where most, if not all, trips are made by vehicle. The exiting trips during the peak hour are likely related to hotel guests leaving for dinner or other events. This trip pattern will be different at the Rip Van Dam, as hotel guests will likely walk to restaurants and establishments within the downtown area. This would therefore also result in a lower exiting trip rate than shown and this estimate is likely to be conservative. 2. Banquet Facility The proposed banquet facilities will host events and conferences for up to 200 people(160 max for sit- down event, 200 max for stand-up event). It is anticipated that 80 percent of the annual banquet events will serve"residential" purposes (i.e. attendees are primarily hotel guests) and 20 percent will be "non- residential," such as weddings, fundraisers and other local events. So for most banquets and conferences, the facility will not generate additional traffic beyond that of the hotel. CH/T- Rip Van Dam Redevelopment Project-Traffic Impact Study Page 6 For"non-resident" banquet events, the peak periods for arriving and departing guests are likely to occur at different time periods than the hotel check-in/check-out peak and would not be compounded with those trips. It is also likely that a higher proportion of banquet and conference guests will not use the valet service because they live locally or are staying at another hotel. The ITE Trip Generation data for the Hotel land use includes sample studies of hotels that contain restaurants and banquet/conference facilities, implying that the peak hour trip generation estimates made for the hotel may include restaurant and banquet activities as well. However, if an estimate of trip generation for a maximum capacity banquet were to be made, it would be similar to the parking demand estimate for a "non-resident" event presented in IV.A. For a 200-person event, 65 valet parking spaces were estimated. If as a worst-case condition, they all arrived within one hour, it would result in 65 entering guest trips and 65 exiting valet trips. Since "non-resident" events only account for 20% of anticipated banquet activity and the peak periods are not likely to coincide with the hotel peaks,the future build volumes and analyses are based on the average hotel occupancy trip generation. C. VALET OPERATIONS All guests that wish to park their vehicle through the valet service at the Rip Van Dam Hotel will pull into the horseshoe driveway off of Washington Street into the porte corche. While valet operations increase the trips in and out of the site driveway(as described in Trip Generation),the parking operation is much more efficient. Drivers that would normally be circulating through city streets searching for parking are now directed to one location and their vehicle is efficiently parked by valet staff. The site plan provides enough storage for approximately eight vehicles to park in the driveway to load/unload while still leaving the circulatory lane open. If needed,vehicles could be stored between the parking lanes in the circulatory lane, which would allow standing room for another three vehicles. With this storage capacity and the additional 50 feet of the entering driveway length between the porte cochere and Washington Street, there should be ample on-site storage so that vehicles do not spill out onto Washington Street. The on-site storage capacity will also dictate the valet turnover rate that is to be achieved. Based on the trip generation of the hotel and the vehicle storage capacity, enough valet staff will be provided to turnover vehicles in 4 1/2 to 6 1/2 minutes,where turnover equates to unloading and parking for an arriving guest or retrieving a vehicle and loading for a departing guest. Valet staff will walk as a means to get back and forth between the garage and the hotel (approx. 900 feet). This walking trip may be impacted slightly during inclement weather. But the valet operations will also use the most efficient means possible to reduce the number of walking trips, having some staff at each the hotel and the parking garage. D. SITE TRIP DISTRIBUTION The estimated site generated trips related to arriving/departing guests were distributed based on traffic patterns at the intersection of Broadway&Washington Street and likely regional routes for hotel guests. CH/T- Rip Van Dam Redevelopment Project-Traffic Impact Study Page 7 It is assumed that 50% will come from/to Broadway to the south, 30% from/to Broadway to the north and 20%from/to Washington to the west. The distributed site trips are shown on Exhibit 3. W � ^'' tL N 32(45) 4J i 7(11) — 12(13)—r 7(11) 33(35) _—. 21(22) Washington Street , f Ea`+ a LEGEND 6. Ca XXX(XXX)=PM(SAT) Exhibit 3: Hotel Guest Trips Valet related trips were distributed based on the assumed route to the Hamilton Street parking garage using Federal Street and Congress Street,which is shown on Figure 1 in Appendix A. The valet trips were distributed to the site driveways and are shown on Exhibit 4. A N a 0 m 41(43) " J 41(43),1) - Washington Street 'I I LEGENDCa o XXX(XXX)=PM(5AT) Exhibit 4: Valet Trips CH/T- Rip Van Dam Redevelopment Project-Traffic Impact Study Page 8 E. FUTURE BUILD VOLUMES The site generated traffic (guest and valet trips) was combined with the 2015 No-Build volumes to represent the estimated future volume conditions for the site. The future 2015 Build volumes are shown on Exhibit 5. 0o .1- .7( ry d IL d- mqq w oo Ct ) — 179(209) 32(45) —179(209) 48(54) — 180(148) 323(268) 308(249) — 128(101)'-- Washington Street a 3 N LEGENDN 0 XXX(XXX)=PM(SAT) Exhibit 5: 2015 Build Traffic Volumes F. TRUCK ACCOMODATIONS The corner curb in the northwest quadrant of the intersection of Broadway&Washington Street (Starbucks corner) is proposed to be modified to better accommodate heavy vehicles,which currently mount the curb when making a right-turn movement from Broadway. Approximately 20 square feet of sidewalk area will be removed along the curb line. The curb is being cut back at a maximum of two feet, which would add less than a second to pedestrian walk time to cross. The fact that trucks will no longer mount the curb is a safety benefit to pedestrians. Delivery vehicles will use the service driveway to the west of the horseshoe driveway,which accesses the loading dock and trash compactor enclosure. Maestro's restaurant receives two to three daily deliveries in single-unit box trucks in the early morning, outside of peak traffic periods. Since Maestro's kitchen will also be handling the catering of the banquet events, it is not expected that the number of deliveries will increase;they will just receive larger shipments from the same vendors. The Adelphi Hotel will also be accepting their deliveries from this service driveway, but the management of both hotels will be working together to coordinate and consolidate the deliveries. All laundry will be done in house at the hotel, so the only additional expected delivery truck would be to accept soap and dry goods once per week. CH/T- Rip Van Dam Redevelopment Project-Traffic Impact Study Page 9 The delivery route of these vehicles is unknown as it depends on their other deliveries downtown. A turning template for a 30-foot delivery vehicle backing into the service entrance is included in the site plan submission and also attached in Appendix B. The only known tractor-trailer deliveries are for Starbucks on Washington Street utilizing the signed loading zone. They currently receive deliveries two times per week, at different times of the day. The tractor trailer parks curbside on Washington Street to unload and does impede on the westbound travel lane during those times. This existing condition is not anticipated to change as a result of the project. Garbage pickup will be done on-street, as the collection trucks cannot maneuver into and out of the service driveway. Hotel staff will wheel the trash compactor bins to the curb when the garbage removal truck arrives. Two other residential buildings Downtown use a similar roll-off compactor system. The pickups will be scheduled with Waste Management as needed and will occur late morning/midday, outside of peak traffic periods. G. EMPLOYEES The hotel management provided employment estimates for hotel operations. It is expected that some of the staff levels will increase for the first three years as the average occupancy of the hotel grows (housekeeping,valet and kitchen). The shifts and number of staff are provided in Table 4. Table 4: Hotel Staffing Schedule Staff Position Shift Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 General Manager 6:00 AM—6:00 PM 1 Front Office Manager 6:00 AM—6:00 PM 1 Director of Sales 8:00 AM—6:00 PM 1 Director of Engineering 7:00 AM—4:30 PM 1 Executive Housekeeper 7:00 AM—4:30 PM 1 Sales Manager 8:00 AM—6:00 PM 1 Front Desk 7:00 AM—3:00 PM 2 3:00 PM —11:00 PM 2 11:00 PM—7:00 AM 1 Housekeepers 7:00 AM—3:30 PM 11 13 15 Valet 7:00 AM—3:00 PM 3 4 5 3:00 PM —11:00 PM 2 3 4 11:00 PM—7:00 AM 1 Maintenance 7:00 AM—3:00 PM 1 3:00 PM —11:00 PM 1 Accounting 8:00 AM—5:00 PM 1 Human Resources 8:00 AM—5:00 PM 1 Maestro's 6:00 AM—9:00 AM 8 9 10 11:00 AM—2:00 PM 12 14 15 5:00 PM —11:00 PM 20 22 23 C1-1/1V—.--Rip Van Dam Redevelopment Project-Traffic Impact Study Page 10 The shifts outlined show that very few shift changes occur during the peak hour of adjacent street traffic. By year three, at most 27 employees will be arriving or departing during the PM peak hour. For scheduled banquet events, it is anticipated that one server would be provided per 20 attendees and one bartender per 30 attendees. The existing kitchen staff will also require supplemental personnel, depending upon the menu. Generally, one additional person is required on the kitchen staff per 30 attendees. One valet is needed per 20 attendees,for 30 minutes before and after the start of the event and for the end of the event. So for the maximum 200 person event, approximately 33 additional staff is required. As noted previously, a sufficient number of valet staff will be provided to meet the hotel's needs;valet staff projections provided here are an estimate. As described in the Parking section,there will be no designated employee parking for the facility. Like most other businesses Downtown, employees will utilize public parking,walk or use transit. H. PEDESTRIAN ACCOMMODATIONS The entrance to the hotel on Washington Street provides pedestrian access with heated sidewalks along both sides of the horseshoe driveway and a stamped concrete entrance from a landscaped area between the driveways. The site plan includes one additional curb cut compared to the existing condition for the service driveway, but the activity will be low and most deliveries will occur early morning. Drivers exiting the horseshoe driveway will have sufficient sight lines to pedestrians at the sidewalk ramps. V. CAPACITY ANALYSIS Traffic operations at the intersection of Broadway & Washington Street was analyzed for the 2013 Existing, 2015 No-Build and 2015 Build conditions. The site driveways were also evaluated for the 2015 Build condition. The analyses were completed using Synchro 7 software and the methodologies of the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual. The procedures describe operating conditions in terms of Level of Service (LOS). In general, "A" represents the best operating condition and "F" represents the worst. Descriptions of LOS and the associated performance measures set forth in the HCM 2000 are provided in Appendix D. The capacity analysis worksheets are provided in Appendix E. Summaries of the analyses are shown in Tables 5 and 6 for the Weekday PM and Saturday Midday Peak Hours, respectively. These analyses show that the traffic generated by the development will have an insignificant impact on traffic operations at the studied intersections. The traffic signal timings were optimized for the Weekday PM peak hour, which assigned three additional seconds to the Washington Street approach. The LOS for the intersection approaches and overall intersection will be the same as in the No-Build conditions. C+14--T Rip Van Dam Redevelopment Project-Traffic Impact Study Page 11 Table 5: LOS Summary—Weekday PM Peak Hour EXISTING No-Build Build Intersection Approach (2013) (2015) (2015) LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay EB C 30.9 C 31.3 C 30.1 NB B 14.7 B 14.9 B 18.7 Broadway&Washington Street SB B 11.2 B 11.2 B 13.1 OVERALL B 16.6 B 16.8 B 19.1 Washington Street& Exit Driveway SB - - - - B 11.6 Washington Street& Enter Driveway EB - - - - A 1.4 LOS:Level of Service Delay:average delay per vehicle(seconds) Table 6: LOS Summary—Saturday Midday Peak Hour EXISTING No-Build Build Intersection Approach (2013) (2015) (2015) LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay EB C 29.3 C 29.6 C 32.5 NB B 15.1 B 15.5 B 17.1 Broadway&Washington Street SB B 11.8 B 11.9 B 12.0 OVERALL B 16.0 B 16.2 B 17.8 Washington Street& Exit Driveway SB - - - - B 12.3 Washington Street& Enter Driveway EB - - - - A 1.8 LOS:Level of Service Delay:average delay per vehicle(seconds) A. VEHICLE QUEUES As described previously,the existing average queue on Washington Street is four to five vehicles during the peak hours. Based on the site plan, there is approximately 65 feet between the stopbar and the entry driveway to the hotel,which is enough storage space for two to three vehicles. So if the average maximum queue at the signal is greater than the vehicle storage available,vehicles entering the site from the west will have to wait in queue for the green signal phase for the queue to clear to enter the driveway. Most exiting trips from the site turn right onto Washington Street and will not be affected by the eastbound queue at the traffic signal. There is approximately 150 feet of storage between the stopbar and the exit driveway,which is enough storage for approximately six vehicles. Therefore when the C, �/ - Rip Van Dam Redevelopment Project-Traffic Impact Study Page 12 average queue at the signal is compounded with any vehicles waiting to turn left into the site, the queue will block the driveway. Exiting hotel guests making a left-turn out of the driveway may have to wait for the queue to clear during the signal green phase. To allow for efficient exiting of vehicles from the driveway, it is recommended that the exit is limited to right-turns out only. This will eliminate the impact that the queue on Washington Street has on blocking the driveway and vehicles exiting the site will not compound the eastbound queue. Patrons that are destined for Broadway can easily get there via Congress Street or Division Street. VI. CONCLUSION The proposed renovation and expansion at the Rip Van Dam Hotel will provide 176 new guest rooms and a banquet facility that will accommodate up to 200 guests. The hotel will operate a valet service from a porte cochere (structure over the driveway to shelter the loading/unloading of vehicles) on Washington Street where guests will drop off and unload their vehicles. Storage to park vehicles from the valet service will be provided in a proposed parking garage on Hamilton Street,which will house 207 spaces. Employees and existing restaurant patrons of Maestro's restaurant will continue to utilize public parking. Parking demand estimates were made based on average hotel occupancy, non-resident banquet event estimates and assumptions on public parking and transit use. It is estimated that the proposed garage on Hamilton Street will have sufficient supply to support the hotel and banquet parking demand. When large, non-resident events are projected to coincide with full hotel occupancy, hotel management would make arrangements with local parking lot owners to lease space as needed. Trip generation estimates for the hotel were made for the Weekday PM and Saturday peak hours, utilizing data published in Trip Generation, 9th Edition (ITE). Since a valet service is being utilized, each entering guest trip estimated also creates one exiting valet trip to park the vehicle. Likewise, each exiting guest trip results in an entering valet trip to retrieve the vehicle. As a result, it is estimated that the site will generate 160 trips (80 in, 80 out) during the Weekday PM peak hour and 198 trips (99 in, 99 out) during the Saturday peak hour. It is noted that the Trip Generation data is based on Hotel land uses that are outside the central business district,where most, if not all,trips are made by vehicle. The trip pattern will be different at the Rip Van Dam, as guests will likely walk to restaurants and other establishments Downtown. Therefore, the trip generation estimate is believed to be conservative and the exiting trip rate during the peak hours is likely to be lower. The proposed banquet facilities will host events and conferences for up to 200 people(160 max for sit- down event, 200 max for stand-up event). It is anticipated that 80 percent of the annual banquet events will serve"residential" purposes (i.e. attendees are primarily hotel guests) and 20 percent will be "non- residential," such as weddings, fundraisers and other local events. So for most banquets and conferences, the facility will not generate additional traffic beyond that of the hotel. Additionally, the ITE Trip Generation data for the Hotel land use includes sample studies of hotels that contain restaurants and banquet/conference facilities, implying that the peak hour trip generation estimates made for the hotel may include restaurant and banquet activities as well. CH/T- Rip Van Dam Redevelopment Project-Traffic Impact Study Page 13 Based on the trip generation of the hotel and the vehicle storage capacity within the site horseshoe driveway, enough valet staff will be provided to turnover vehicles in 4 1/2 to 6 1/2 minutes, where turnover equates to unloading and parking for an arriving guest or retrieving a vehicle and loading for a departing guest. Valet staff will walk as a means to get back and forth between the garage and the hotel (approx. 900 feet). The estimated guest and resulting valet trips into and out of the site were distributed to the roadway network to analyze the Build condition operations of the site driveway intersections and the intersection of Broadway &Washington Street. Evaluations show that the site driveways are estimated to operate at LOS B or better and that the operations of the intersection of Broadway& Washington Street will remain the same with the site traffic, at an overall LOS B. Existing queue observations were conducted on Washington Street during the same peak hours evaluated for the capacity analysis exercise. The average eastbound queue on Washington Street at the Broadway signal is four to five vehicles during the peak hours. This queue length is longer than the storage capacity between the signal and the entering driveway, so vehicles entering the site from the west will have to wait for the queue to clear during the green signal phase. When the existing average queue on Washington Street of four to five vehicles is compounded with any vehicles waiting to turn left into the site, the queue will block the exiting driveway. It is recommended that the exit driveway be restricted to right-turn out only to provide the most efficient exiting operations at the site driveway. CH/T- Rip Van Dam Redevelopment Project-Traffic Impact Study Page 14 Appendix A Figures CI- — Rip Van Dam Redevelopment Project-Traffic Impact Study • , t , jr Y rti- , ,,,r ... , r,.., P ,, i . • ,, r _� a � r.. :. r I WASHING •��T J i /2 11 ; •I. j }� -Mrf.+— I ', �• , y 1 1.1 cn •' ' Vi —I - 1 .a 0 II re a nu.. i [•1 _ w ` , + a ■ . e Y r vs - s" . t + Fri- a to O• .�. • ,rrg, TT Pt Int • T7. rA low jrrr � ' PS \ • t+s• w� • r� r—n-Pa r l ,5 , . , rTil Ir. .-ii - il . ' ! 'FT'17° r EN � 3i-lga .ii' 0 a • _ i �' F ' OON'-' • i'MirrlirtrISaIa•s N▪ y • �) - � -• _ ' _ .0 cillip / I •IT r/ I r-,-) ,,-• *ea 6 • ' '7 1 - -----)eoil‘ .''''' ?I r (CO rift (!1 h �a •lam �;�, •,� J [+ - , '� - C / ice- '� 'T il{5 PROPOSEa if D' `'lirFt ll �*+ _ 9 ` ,h C PARKIKG ' " rr 44fti 17 207 VEHICLES T r' i,4 Q \1 r ' Y I rr.p 'a is .. Y, a- . i • P t r, r > • a J/ Q Drawing Copyright®2013 PROJECT N0. cn w OFF-SITE PARKING & VALET ROUTE 25173 a C+I[A III Winners Gide.PO Box 5269 Albany,NY 12205-0269 RIP VAN DAM HOTEL DATE: 07�05�13 Main:(518)453-4500-www.chammpaniee.com SARATOGA SPRINGS, NY FIGURE 1 Y Appendix B Concept Site Plan CI- — Rip Van Dam Redevelopment Project-Traffic Impact Study I I 2 3 4 --FIA— v Cent -' 2. III Wnnere circle.PO Box 5269=Albany,NY 121050289 N Bank of $ snnral• 0 II r Mem:(sial dfiSdfiao wrrx.cM1ecwnperiamn pmnlevnw.8 —I �,s,„., aa ��m Belma PROJECT TITLE ® cea„e,/n Bb•�g ® D. VAN DAM HOTEL Lege Therapy 353 BROADWAY A.b4 1 TE m SARATOGA SPRINGS,NY 12866 ,..w,...,,..w,..., Cale r Preeerveean P . Boni a A PROJECT FOR Weshvlpton SI Washington St S .ton's, PRESIDIAN SARATOGA c Fa"L" D — HOSPITALITY GROUP LLC 353 BROADWAY S Spmmst ® 0 SARATOGA SPRINGS,NY 12866 1 EXISTING RIP VAN DAM BUILDING TO REMAIN Srn°Oecanry GENERAL NOTES Am Cance r FeeEx ......11Oge AA SITE LOCATION 06, s'� (SCALE:NOT TO SCALE) = w� 7 CI N NOTES CAPPED Ron ROD �7 ir _ q n�� �A„T - ne \ \\\� 8.81-8 1. ALL SIDEWALKS AND DRIVEWAY PAVEMENTS ARE TO BE HEATED x. 11.2 r .a (UNLESS OTHERIMSE I TEt I (til• 550' A cl L I.e;-1 rt -iu7 I TRASHCELOSE 1 esPuP "880 _ ante � SIDEWALK IY WITH(2)12'WIDE SWING GATES 'i' ,,. . ill ✓ ✓�/7/f 777 / I 1 ca i ✓.'� /', ,' �; I sae EE RED SIDEWABRICK .A10.0' r.� :. el I��, ✓ �® 1 gots I y {' �'vk°$' BOLLARDS(TYP.) 1. //� /�S R /� _ 299 3 g PROPOSED HOTEL �-- 1 - a EXPANSION(T1P.) 6 I / _;1 _ _ /'// '� '� Ig ZONING T-6. TRANSECT ZONE fi URBAN CORE _ m ������//�/ /jyy�i////��2 �� Iz PERMITTED USE W/SITE PLAN APPROVAL. HOTEL/MOTEL W S 0. �. _./ ---- 1 -- -- --� ��� 1 I ' SITE STATISTICS TABLE 6”CONCRETE PAVEMENT(TYP.J �� � s rag 10 T-6 — URBAN CORE � A ( - /j�' PERMITTED PROPOSED 6 1 n e" e A I \, 1�—REFER TO ENLARGED NrOR SITE PL N d #- FOR DETAILED IN�ORMADON STORIES 2 6 /// ,,1 Z96 ase3 MAX.HEIGHT 70' ® • ///A-,1/////` f MIN.LOT W1DTH 18' 214' EXISTING STARBUCKS BUILDING TO R.MAIN � / �I '` MIN.BUILD OUT ALONG 80% 100% 6"CON4TE CURB(TYP.) 7 / _ . A 5 1/ FRONTAGE PROPOSE SERVICE 7t3 ✓ �� �' E� es rzn BUILD—TO DISTANCE FROM 0—12' 0 ENTRANCE DOOR TYP. nE // �) FRONT LOT LINE I �� LIGH3 POLE BASE em SIDE SETBACK 0' r 1 REAR SETBACK 0 0 d AVM 44444• a� ��� m¢ 8'CONCRf SIDEWALK(TYP.) - - / ///�„ ij_" � MAX.BLOCK 120 N/A AAA/AAA,iiiiiiii/�I_. ®.� oY. — '� ® --�:. ]I .�. WAV ,�.__ /// L//�1 '� I BUILDING TYPE COMMONWALLCOMMON WALL oNE RETAINING "// k_ 36.0' . j � 1 " \,! 1 CROSS YOLK FRONTAGE TYPE FORECOURT FORECOURT 3oTa �� � � � * n� A_ _I/� L_� DISTANCE TO NEAREST FIRE HYDRANT: 103'3 FLUSH cuae 70' — N.. ",,--T- 412— z R-10.0' R-10.0--- a R-10.0' 0 er DATE PREVISION =-Ia- U AQP E,Uoy SSW, Q 04-10-13 SITE PLAN SUBMISSION __ ____ ___ .z a saN�T e,sEwEa .ID-U — -- R=70.0' -'D I NOT----TA:\ NFLS R UB =13) 8 06-26-13 RESUBMIT TO CITY - - R=1@&'- -— - _ ,. _ /"= WATER(RECORD) r. "_ — �wl: ------.-- -N ,---_- _.—______— _ — _ _ .I (25 ----,- PROPOSED LIGHT(TYPA4)-,-----WASHIN6I ON TREXT t CONCRETE toes rc niaa " '- sm LIMITS OF ASPT PAVEMENT REFER TO ENLARGED SITE PIAN CONCRETE CURB(R=13) a� \ REPLACEMENTj(T1P) „ T ��, 000011Y cures Ill fOR DETAILED INFORMA SON - see �Iy�, T OPENED U 0 APPROM,FE R.O.W. 2 0 is e r I' 1FLySH CONCRETE CURB ,,d PROJECT NO: 251/3 9 r RC ? DRAWN BY: JEC CHECKED BY: APs SHEET 11TLE 1 SITE PLAN 1 / 285 2,56 A I20 00 SEAL SHEET NUMBER rD-D 7,1I SU...... reel Planning Board File No. 13.031 OF.NEis. .i. Approved by the Saratoga Springs Planning Board under authority of a resolution adapted d rIgi .� �,1£ v7' C-1 00 Chairperson: Date ®rp Os51 O8 �� Essig 0, I M 2 —F 3 —F 4 I— 1 2 3 4 1.. 1 ‘ ,, • POMME!: C—HA 1J . n b I i!ilia Mi!i!, 1 in Winners Code.Po Box zse-Albany,NY12205-0269 Mem:(s1B)41400.vow do p..a�cenk V 1\ - ' I_ 1 \ PROJECTLE b __ �� �� �� RIP VAN DAM HOTEL '1-'' A A A A A 4 I )>, 1, 353 BROADWAY (--,--- 1 - All SARATOGA SPRINGS,NY 12866 0 1. %• III A PROJECT FOR �" "' o PRESIDIAN SARATOGA D HOSPITALITY GROUP LLC 353 BROADWAY GENERAL NOO�A SPRINGS,NY 12866 L IH 7 \\\\\\\\ ,liii 177A PZ m 17221 i I L\\\\\ ONE N ' _JJ �. 1 ' _ WAY � -2 -) a 0 13-0_�_0-61�ID-0_�_0-0�JD—A�o _0_0 O O 1 3 \N______\____ � a 1 1 WASHINGT` STREET CONCRETE CURB •i PPR°x'M""R°1 XHOTEL ACCESS DRIVE '11 SERVICE DRIVE ACCESS (19' PASSENGERDVEHICLE/VAN) _ 1 (19' PASSENGER VEHICLE/VAN) I _ °i scale m reet 1„=20' 0 scale m reel C Z Z mom. 5 � h. + 1+L_l a , 1 L_ Ham, 1 ® 1 l �� 1 Sikh � � 1 imp;;' m 1 1 � �1 \ I D B liF 1 {l DATE OREVISION /. /,,yl Q 04-10-13 SITE PLAN SUBMISSION — -� , 4 `� — �� /� � Q 06-26-13 RESUBMIT TO CITY ��u I PROJECT NO: 25173 6 E. E. DRAWN BY: JEC CHECKED BY: APS 1 1 1 1 SHEET 11TLE SERVICE DRIVE ACCESS E D VEHICLE TURNING I X24' AMBULANCE/VAN) l _ J 1 X30' STRAIGHT DELIVERY TRUCK BACKIN1 I _ J MOVEMENTS r'=20' 1-=20' scare reer scare��teer s A SEAL SHEET NUMBER E RI Planning Board File No. 13.031 OF.Nf� Approved by the Saratoga Springs Planning Board under authority of a resolution % a f=!-ts adopted l,. 1 ! .. 103 Chairperson: Date1. p06 roe Essip g :0, L 1 T 2 T 3 T 4 T Appendix C Traffic Counts CI- — Rip Van Dam Redevelopment Project-Traffic Impact Study - vi o _ •s7u \ 2 & au ƒ % 7 = 7 \ 7 vi a) 2 § G ƒ / / ° o = c / \ / $ m cu _ C0 \ e CD 7 & \ $ { \ t c 0_ E § 3 / 0 / U •• k / = e -0 LE - % s $ 0 > a) ¢ \ cc 4- / § — a) +4 > > ® / > > a 7 — > 0 g 8 e H � = o o » = # 3 0 0 g ƒ > ± ., = t « 1 4- 2 m m> =.7 e e = a)E \ CV Nj \E \ k 2 = / /ƒ § ° ^ o_ g o> \ t e e ƒ o g 7 2 E \ ro E J \ / / \ e o0 o / / / / CO % e > / / 9.. 2 o s e e s 2 > o o E _ _ a a a m / 0.0 C / / / / k \ \ q l q q \ & & 3 > ■ ra ■ ■ W % @ E — 4-. k k k 8 w a) a) e > a a a ° ° c E / / 0 cu ca # a CO U Q m m m % oa % 0 0 0 � -1:3 2 E \ _ -0 / / / Lr) ƒ M 7 ■ ■ ■ ■ CU t E CI CI 0 .� 4 v _ £ CO13 Z 0 V � ) - N \ ] § c c c o§ § § § J 0 2 8 N \ N cu - -, § co a co zLU J §[ - « e « m «/ o \ o / / ® « - « c « c « 2 / § % 01 Z1 � a, _ 0 0 N c fm c « c = c = c : gooc cil CU LLI ce - / - « - « c 0 c 0 - \ / §o z < r « » « r \/ < / e e e - e : _ tO _ , = § 0 ccccco c« « « « « t 0 rn ,—I c c ° §= = 3 _ : \ I- \ ( ° « e « e « - « § \ /o / n « m « e - j« « ) / z • r N r ; 2 / \ _ CL k y \ 2 c « = c = = c = o c a e 3 o \ \ \ ]I— • ^ ® «/ _ r ‘-i f / rrr < - - c c< = = = = , c E o & & E • \ / m >. xroi © x x _ x _ ƒ 2 j % 7 ` } ` i ` ` 2 `To \ 12 e CO E j 0 0 u - 0- ~ • \ 0 }0 \ \ Ch_ rn.3 iri LA 0. E I / 7 » 7 ° § \ 00 .--1 N N V1 67 l0 Y_ O .may CO V O W CO V 1 L vi u V 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O o 0 0 0 0 0 N O Y 1.-) Nal OL.' m o o a o o W o o a CO CO CO CO CO CO .1 z Lu .1 z LU •FP `° ' m e 7 e Lo e O e ON1 m CO ' N a e c-I e e Cr 07 ,� o o r1 m O .-i .� ^� o .-I 'y 0 aa -I O 0 � O 0 .y ' y .y O 00 - N Oo Oo O N m ,y ' --I p m , p - co L.rt an e — Dl LO 7 N N ti O '" r1 '',may 01 O? - O LO Al ti N '0" `-I '" Al ti N W fn .-I m 0 N p N m 0 N p MI C 3 2, m O ' O ' O ' O ' 'OO O : C : : 0 N CO W J N Ln 7 '• N '• O '9' O ' N CO N N '9' N '9' c-I '9' N '9' M 01 .-I m m r, o o N p c-I m 'y 'y 'y - e-0 O NN ao p OO ` Wo o o ti N ^ -1 , Oo0or1 ti N O °1 O V O O Dl m m ti O ' N 0 N ', O W 0 O W lD ti O '0 V1 ti i--I o' N W o' 7 m o 0 0 in p m Ln m 0 0 ul p m N N VD aai N O O m 0 ^ '-1 l0 6 'CO lD co Al 'y O 0 '-1 m O l0 Cr 6 a MI O O S O e Ln -0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 g o 0 0 c-I o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o N N t O t 0 Z JO 0 0 '00 '00 ' 0 'o0 W Lnmr1 ti0 ' O ' O ' W n cy o 0 0 0 o crt O O co Ln r LLn W N ' c-I ' m ti N ti LOO W W 7 ti o Ln ' m ti N Ol Ln 01 in p Ln 01 0 '" in p O N LO ti m ' m I, ti ON1 C o LO � LO ti N ' LO ' V1 ti 0O0 C W m 0 0 W O vi LO m o '" W p a U° n — a^-I W Al ti c-I ' m ti N ' N W W N n Dl N O ' Ln - O ' AlV W e Ln m 0 0 ul p m Ln m 0 0 ul p m MI a - 0 0 -000 O ',' 0 '=" 0 ','' O '=" 0 ', 00 0 '8'. 0 '8'. 0 '8" 0 '8" 0 '8'. 00 O 0 t o000000000 3 0 m m ul Lro 0 0 F cr a m ti 0 o N o c-I o a W Lro 7 m Ln ti 0 o Ln ' O o mgi. W N N O O O ry N rsi ce mO \ \ O ai N Oi . - ` ' ` ' crtouo ,-i aO oO O No p E 3 7 fB 0 co0 0 > >. E T e E T • co N i 7 > tO N 19 LL U i 7 > tO N 19 LL U E N �j -o e e Cli m e e 2 o m e o ' m e e ' •'' 2 0 cc H In NE -0Q - Q G7 G7 G7 G7 E f6 f6 0 a a Z O O U N '6 0 O m 0 .2 O f0 O O .� O cu O O N o -0 Y LL Y in L CU Y d cN-I : cN-I Y d cI c-I 3 CA 11) Q a w x a0_ 0-x £ w ooN 0 ooN 0 N c-I c-I N N Study Name Rip Van Dam Start Date Thursday,June 20,2013 4:00 PM End Date Saturday,June 22,2013 1:00 PM Site Code 25173 Road Volumes TMV Movement Southbound Southbound Tc Northbound Northbound Tc Eastbound Eastbound To•Grand Total Interval R T U T U L R U L 6/20/2013 16:00 20 125 0 145 127 0 23 150 22 0 39 61 356 Car 19 121 0 140 122 0 22 144 22 0 39 61 345 Medium 1 3 0 4 1 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 6 Heavy 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bus 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 Pedal Bike(Road) 0 1 0 1 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 3 6/20/2013 16:15 23 102 0 125 126 0 15 141 23 0 40 63 329 Car 19 96 0 115 124 0 13 137 21 0 39 60 312 Medium 2 3 0 5 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 3 8 Heavy 2 1 0 3 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 4 Bus 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 Pedal Bike(Road) 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 3 6/20/2013 16:30 19 103 0 122 144 0 27 171 26 0 45 71 364 Car 18 102 0 120 137 0 27 164 25 0 45 70 354 Medium 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 3 Heavy 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 Bus 0 1 0 1 4 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 5 Pedal Bike(Road) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6/20/2013 16:45 24 98 0 122 131 0 33 164 31 0 37 68 354 Car 23 96 0 119 128 0 33 161 31 0 36 67 347 Medium 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 Heavy 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 2 0 0 1 1 4 Bus 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Pedal Bike(Road) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6/20/2013 17:00 15 113 0 128 147 0 26 173 24 0 44 68 369 Car 15 107 0 122 143 0 26 169 24 0 44 68 359 Medium 0 3 0 3 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 5 Heavy 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Bus 0 2 0 2 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 Pedal Bike(Road) 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 6/20/2013 17:15 14 96 0 110 141 0 18 159 24 0 39 63 332 Car 14 89 0 103 137 0 17 154 23 0 38 61 318 Medium 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 2 Heavy 0 1 0 1 2 0 0 2 1 0 1 2 5 Bus 0 3 0 3 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 4 Pedal Bike(Road) 0 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 6/20/2013 17:30 20 95 0 115 151 0 20 171 14 0 40 54 340 Car 19 90 0 109 147 0 20 167 14 0 39 53 329 Medium 1 3 0 4 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 5 Heavy 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 2 Bus 0 1 0 1 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 3 Pedal Bike(Road) 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 6/20/2013 17:45 18 90 0 108 164 0 27 191 29 0 31 60 359 Car 17 88 0 105 160 0 27 187 29 0 31 60 352 Medium 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 3 Heavy 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Bus 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 Pedal Bike(Road) 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 6/22/2013 11:00 23 106 0 129 162 0 20 182 19 0 32 51 362 Car 23 104 0 127 159 0 20 179 18 0 32 50 356 Medium 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 Heavy 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 Bus 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 Pedal Bike(Road) 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 2 6/22/2013 11:15 29 125 0 154 135 0 26 161 22 0 28 50 365 Car 29 123 0 152 132 0 26 158 22 0 24 46 356 Medium 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 2 2 3 Heavy 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 Bus 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 Pedal Bike(Road) 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 6/22/2013 11:30 29 100 0 129 139 0 30 169 15 0 30 45 343 Car 28 100 0 128 133 0 30 163 15 0 28 43 334 Medium 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 Heavy 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bus 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 3 Pedal Bike(Road) 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 4 6/22/2013 11:45 15 99 0 114 132 0 27 159 15 0 37 52 325 Car 13 97 0 110 131 0 27 158 15 0 37 52 320 Medium 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 Heavy 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Bus 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pedal Bike(Road) 1 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 6/22/2013 12:00 26 104 0 130 142 1 26 169 19 0 30 49 348 Car 26 101 0 127 138 1 25 164 17 0 28 45 336 Medium 0 2 0 2 3 0 1 4 1 0 1 2 8 Heavy 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bus 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 3 Pedal Bike(Road) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 6/22/2013 12:15 24 113 0 137 130 0 21 151 15 0 37 52 340 Car 20 109 0 129 129 0 21 150 15 0 36 51 330 Medium 4 1 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 Heavy 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bus 0 3 0 3 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 4 Pedal Bike(Road) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 6/22/2013 12:30 25 91 0 116 135 0 15 150 26 0 34 60 326 Car 25 90 0 115 128 0 15 143 26 0 32 58 316 Medium 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 Heavy 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 Bus 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 3 Pedal Bike(Road) 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 3 0 0 1 1 4 6/22/2013 12:45 34 126 0 160 145 0 34 179 18 0 33 51 390 Car 34 124 0 158 145 0 34 179 18 0 31 49 386 Medium 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 Heavy 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 Bus 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Pedal Bike(Road) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total 358 1686 0 2044 2251 1 388 2640 342 0 576 918 5602 Crosswalk Volumes Movement Southbound Southbound It Northbound Northbound Tc Eastbound Eastbound To'Grand Total Interval PCCW PCW PCCW PCW PCCW PCW 4:00 PM 26 13 39 7 7 14 42 33 75 128 People 26 13 39 7 7 14 42 30 72 125 Pedal Bike(Crosswa 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 3 4:15 PM 7 21 28 4 6 10 49 31 80 118 People 7 21 28 4 6 10 49 31 80 118 Pedal Bike(Crosswa 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:30 PM 12 20 32 4 10 14 37 26 63 109 People 12 20 32 4 10 14 37 26 63 109 Pedal Bike(Crosswa 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:45 PM 3 14 17 4 7 11 45 24 69 97 People 3 14 17 4 7 11 45 24 69 97 Pedal Bike(Crosswa 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:00 PM 18 22 40 5 1 6 31 38 69 115 People 18 22 40 5 1 6 31 38 69 115 Pedal Bike(Crosswa 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:15 PM 5 11 16 10 6 16 25 39 64 96 People 5 11 16 10 6 16 25 39 64 96 Pedal Bike(Crosswa 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:30 PM 8 15 23 1 6 7 33 28 61 91 People 8 15 23 1 6 7 33 28 61 91 Pedal Bike(Crosswa 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:45 PM 1 19 20 5 3 8 24 22 46 74 People 1 19 20 5 3 8 24 22 46 74 Pedal Bike(Crosswa 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11:00 AM 9 14 23 4 16 20 27 29 56 99 People 9 14 23 4 16 20 27 29 56 99 Pedal Bike(Crosswa 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11:15 AM 7 15 22 5 12 17 59 50 109 148 People 7 15 22 5 12 17 59 50 109 148 Pedal Bike(Crosswa 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11:30 AM 15 16 31 0 22 22 22 35 57 110 People 15 16 31 0 22 22 22 35 57 110 Pedal Bike(Crosswa 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11:45 AM 12 23 35 8 27 35 29 36 65 135 People 12 23 35 8 27 35 29 36 65 135 Pedal Bike(Crosswa 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12:00 PM 18 10 28 8 8 16 40 40 80 124 People 18 10 28 8 8 16 40 40 80 124 Pedal Bike(Crosswa 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12:15 PM 15 19 34 1 10 11 34 33 67 112 People 15 19 34 1 10 11 34 33 67 112 Pedal Bike(Crosswa 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12:30 PM 15 10 25 18 17 35 31 29 60 120 People 15 10 25 18 17 35 31 29 60 120 Pedal Bike(Crosswa 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12:45 PM 8 10 18 9 11 20 44 38 82 120 People 8 10 18 9 11 20 44 38 82 120 Pedal Bike(Crosswa 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total 179 252 431 93 169 262 572 531 1103 1796 Appendix D Level of Service Criteria CI— — Rip Van Dam Redevelopment Project-Traffic Impact Study From the Highway Capacity Manual 2000 published by the Transportation Research Board: Signalized Intersections LOS CRITERIA FOR SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS LOS Control Delay per Vehicle(s/veh)* A < 10 B > 10-20 C >20-35 D >35-55 E >55-80 F > 80 Highway Capacity Manual 2000 *s/veh=seconds per vehicle LOS A describes operations with low control delay, up to 10 s/veh. This LOS occurs when progression is extremely favorable and most vehicles arrive during the green phase. Most vehicles do not stop at all. Short cycle lengths may tend to contribute to low delay values. LOS B describes operations with control delay greater than 10 and up to 20 s/veh. This level generally occurs with good progression, short cycle lengths, or both. More vehicles stop than with LOS A, causing higher levels of delay. LOS C describes operations with control delay greater than 20 and up to 35 s/veh. These higher delays may result from only fair progression, longer cycle lengths, or both. Individual cycle failures may begin to appear at this level. Cycle failure occurs when a green phase does not serve queued vehicles, and overflows occur. The number of vehicles stopping is significant at this level, though many still pass through the intersection without stopping. LOS D describes operations with control delay greater than 35 and up to 55 s/veh. At LOS D, the influence of congestion becomes more noticeable. Longer delays may result from some combination of unfavorable progression, long cycle lengths, or high volume-to-capacity (v/c) ratios. Many vehicles stop, and the proportion of vehicles not stopping declines. Individual cycle failures are noticeable. LOS E describes operations with control delay greater than 55 and up to 80 s/veh. These high delay values generally indicate poor progression, long cycle lengths, and high v/c ratios. Individual cycle failures are frequent. LOS F describes operations with delay in excess of 80.0 s/veh. This level, considered unacceptable to most drivers, often occurs with over-saturation, that is, when arrival flow rates exceed the capacity of lane groups. It may also occur at high v/c ratios with many individual cycle failures. Poor progression and long cycle lengths may also be contribute significantly to high delay levels. Often, vehicles do not pass through the intersection in one signal cycle. CI—k— Rip Van Dam Redevelopment Project-Traffic Impact Study Unsignalized Intersections The level of service criteria for an unsignalized intersection differs from that of a signalized intersection because of the expectation that signalized intersections encounter more traffic and therefore greater delays. The thresholds for the levels of service of unsignalized intersections are as follows: LOS CRITERIA FOR UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS LOS Control Delay per Vehicle(s/veh) A < 10 B > 10-15 C > 15-25 D >25-35 E >35-50 F >50 Highway Capacity Manual 2000 *s/veh=seconds per vehicle C, �/T Rip Van Dam Redevelopment Project-Traffic Impact Study Appendix E Capacity Analysis Worksheets CI— — Rip Van Dam Redevelopment Project-Traffic Impact Study HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Washington St & Broadway7/1/2013 f tII Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations 11'r 44' l Volume(vph) 165 105 104 562 407 72 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 Frpb, ped/bikes 0.97 1.00 0.90 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.96 1.00 Frt 0.94 1.00 0.97 Flt Protected 0.97 0.99 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 1662 3165 3085 Flt Permitted 0.97 0.72 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 1662 2308 3085 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.85 0.79 0.96 0.91 0.75 Adj. Flow(vph) 179 124 132 585 447 96 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 0 0 0 20 0 Lane Group Flow(vph) 303 0 0 717 523 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 105 47 265 265 Heavy Vehicles(%) 1% 2% 1% 3% 3% 3% Parking (#/hr) 0 0 0 Turn Type Perm Protected Phases 4 2 6 Permitted Phases 2 Actuated Green, G(s) 28.0 50.0 50.0 Effective Green,g(s) 28.0 50.0 50.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.31 0.56 0.56 Clearance Time(s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 517 1282 1714 v/s Ratio Prot c0.18 0.17 v/s Ratio Perm c0.31 v/c Ratio 0.59 0.56 0.31 Uniform Delay,dl 26.1 12.9 10.7 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,d2 4.8 1.8 0.5 Delay(s) 30.9 14.7 11.2 Level of Service C B B Approach Delay(s) 30.9 14.7 11.2 Approach LOS C B B Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 16.6 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.57 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 90.0 Sum of lost time(s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 65.6% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period(min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Rip Van Dam Redevelopment Synchro 7- Report Exist PM Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Washington St & Broadway7/1/2013 f tII Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations 11'r 44' l Volume(vph) 132 77 96 549 434 109 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width 11 11 12 12 12 12 Total Lost time(s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 Frpb, ped/bikes 0.94 1.00 0.88 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.96 1.00 Frt 0.94 1.00 0.97 Flt Protected 0.97 0.99 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 1549 3210 3012 Flt Permitted 0.97 0.68 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 1549 2212 3012 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.91 0.75 0.72 0.95 0.86 0.80 Adj. Flow(vph) 145 103 133 578 505 136 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 0 0 0 27 0 Lane Group Flow(vph) 248 0 0 711 614 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 105 82 289 289 Heavy Vehicles(%) 4% 1% 1% 2% 2% 4% Parking (#/hr) 0 0 0 Turn Type Perm Protected Phases 4 2 6 Permitted Phases 2 Actuated Green, G(s) 28.0 50.0 50.0 Effective Green,g(s) 28.0 50.0 50.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.31 0.56 0.56 Clearance Time(s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 482 1229 1673 v/s Ratio Prot c0.16 0.20 v/s Ratio Perm c0.32 v/c Ratio 0.51 0.58 0.37 Uniform Delay,dl 25.4 13.1 11.2 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,d2 3.9 2.0 0.6 Delay(s) 29.3 15.1 11.8 Level of Service C B B Approach Delay(s) 29.3 15.1 11.8 Approach LOS C B B Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 16.0 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.56 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 90.0 Sum of lost time(s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 65.2% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period(min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Rip Van Dam Redevelopment Synchro 7- Report Exist Sat Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Washington St & Broadway7/1/2013 f tII Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations 11'r 44' l Volume(vph) 168 107 106 573 415 73 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 Frpb, ped/bikes 0.97 1.00 0.90 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.96 1.00 Frt 0.94 1.00 0.97 Flt Protected 0.97 0.99 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 1663 3168 3088 Flt Permitted 0.97 0.72 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 1663 2293 3088 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.85 0.79 0.96 0.91 0.75 Adj. Flow(vph) 183 126 134 597 456 97 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 0 0 0 20 0 Lane Group Flow(vph) 309 0 0 731 533 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 105 47 265 265 Heavy Vehicles(%) 1% 2% 1% 3% 3% 3% Parking (#/hr) 0 0 0 Turn Type Perm Protected Phases 4 2 6 Permitted Phases 2 Actuated Green, G(s) 28.0 50.0 50.0 Effective Green,g(s) 28.0 50.0 50.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.31 0.56 0.56 Clearance Time(s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 517 1274 1716 v/s Ratio Prot c0.19 0.17 v/s Ratio Perm c0.32 v/c Ratio 0.60 0.57 0.31 Uniform Delay,dl 26.2 13.0 10.7 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,d2 5.0 1.9 0.5 Delay(s) 31.3 14.9 11.2 Level of Service C B B Approach Delay(s) 31.3 14.9 11.2 Approach LOS C B B Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 16.8 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.58 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 90.0 Sum of lost time(s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 66.3% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period(min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Rip Van Dam Redevelopment Synchro 7- Report No Build PM Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Washington St & Broadway7/1/2013 f tII Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations 11'r 44' l Volume(vph) 135 79 98 560 443 111 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width 11 11 12 12 12 12 Total Lost time(s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 Frpb, ped/bikes 0.94 1.00 0.88 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.96 1.00 Frt 0.94 1.00 0.97 Flt Protected 0.97 0.99 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 1549 3213 3011 Flt Permitted 0.97 0.67 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 1549 2188 3011 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.91 0.75 0.72 0.95 0.86 0.80 Adj. Flow(vph) 148 105 136 589 515 139 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 0 0 0 27 0 Lane Group Flow(vph) 253 0 0 725 627 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 105 82 289 289 Heavy Vehicles(%) 4% 1% 1% 2% 2% 4% Parking (#/hr) 0 0 0 Turn Type Perm Protected Phases 4 2 6 Permitted Phases 2 Actuated Green, G(s) 28.0 50.0 50.0 Effective Green,g(s) 28.0 50.0 50.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.31 0.56 0.56 Clearance Time(s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 482 1216 1673 v/s Ratio Prot c0.16 0.21 v/s Ratio Perm c0.33 v/c Ratio 0.52 0.60 0.37 Uniform Delay,dl 25.5 13.3 11.2 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,d2 4.0 2.2 0.6 Delay(s) 29.6 15.5 11.9 Level of Service C B B Approach Delay(s) 29.6 15.5 11.9 Approach LOS C B B Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 16.2 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.57 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 90.0 Sum of lost time(s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 65.8% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period(min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Rip Van Dam Redevelopment Synchro 7- Report No Build Sat Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Washington St & Broadway7/2/2013 f tII Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations 11'r 44' l Volume(vph) 180 128 126 573 415 85 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width 11 11 12 12 12 12 Total Lost time(s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 Frpb, ped/bikes 0.96 1.00 0.89 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frt 0.94 1.00 0.97 Flt Protected 0.97 0.99 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 1599 3152 3035 Flt Permitted 0.97 0.69 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 1599 2195 3035 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.85 0.79 0.96 0.91 0.75 Adj. Flow(vph) 196 151 159 597 456 113 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 0 0 0 24 0 Lane Group Flow(vph) 347 0 0 756 545 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 105 47 265 265 Heavy Vehicles(%) 1% 2% 1% 3% 3% 3% Parking (#/hr) 0 0 0 Turn Type Perm Protected Phases 4 2 6 Permitted Phases 2 Actuated Green, G(s) 31.0 47.0 47.0 Effective Green,g(s) 31.0 47.0 47.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.34 0.52 0.52 Clearance Time(s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 551 1146 1585 v/s Ratio Prot c0.22 0.18 v/s Ratio Perm c0.34 v/c Ratio 0.63 0.66 0.34 Uniform Delay,dl 24.7 15.7 12.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,d2 5.4 3.0 0.6 Delay(s) 30.1 18.7 13.1 Level of Service C B B Approach Delay(s) 30.1 18.7 13.1 Approach LOS C B B Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 19.1 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.65 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 90.0 Sum of lost time(s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 69.5% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period(min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Rip Van Dam Redevelopment Synchro 7- Report Build PM Page 1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: Washington St & Enter Dwy 7/2/2013 Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations 4 Volume(veh/h) 48 308 179 32 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.85 0.85 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate(vph) 53 342 211 38 0 0 Pedestrians Lane Width(ft) Walking Speed(ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare(veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 157 pX, platoon unblocked vC,conflicting volume 248 678 229 vC1,stage 1 conf vol vC2,stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 248 678 229 tC,single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2 tC,2 stage(s) tF(s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 p0 queue free°A) 96 100 100 cM capacity(veh/h) 1329 401 810 Direction, Lane# EB 1 WB 1 Volume Total 396 248 Volume Left 53 0 Volume Right 0 38 cSH 1329 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.04 0.15 Queue Length 95th(ft) 3 0 Control Delay(s) 1.4 0.0 Lane LOS A Approach Delay(s) 1.4 0.0 Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.9 Intersection Capacity Utilization 36.9% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period(min) 15 Rip Van Dam Redevelopment Synchro 7- Report Build PM Page 2 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9: Washington St & Exit Dwy 7/2/2013 Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations 4' 4' 11'r Volume(veh/h) 0 323 179 0 33 47 Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.90 0.85 0.92 0.80 0.80 Hourly flow rate(vph) 0 359 211 0 41 59 Pedestrians Lane Width(ft) Walking Speed(ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare(veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 212 pX, platoon unblocked vC,conflicting volume 211 569 211 vC1,stage 1 conf vol vC2,stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 211 569 211 tC,single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2 tC,2 stage(s) tF(s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 p0 queue free°A) 100 92 93 cM capacity(veh/h) 1360 487 835 Direction, Lane# EB 1 WB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 359 211 100 Volume Left 0 0 41 Volume Right 0 0 59 cSH 1700 1700 645 Volume to Capacity 0.21 0.12 0.16 Queue Length 95th(ft) 0 0 14 Control Delay(s) 0.0 0.0 11.6 Lane LOS B Approach Delay(s) 0.0 0.0 11.6 Approach LOS B Intersection Summary Average Delay 1.7 Intersection Capacity Utilization 28.4% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period(min) 15 Rip Van Dam Redevelopment Synchro 7- Report Build PM Page 3 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Washington St & Broadway7/2/2013 f tII Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations 11'r 44' l Volume(vph) 148 101 126 560 443 128 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width 11 11 12 12 12 12 Total Lost time(s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 Frpb, ped/bikes 0.94 1.00 0.87 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.96 1.00 Frt 0.94 1.00 0.96 Flt Protected 0.97 0.99 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 1537 3186 2952 Flt Permitted 0.97 0.64 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 1537 2078 2952 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.91 0.75 0.72 0.95 0.86 0.80 Adj. Flow(vph) 163 135 175 589 515 160 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 0 0 0 33 0 Lane Group Flow(vph) 298 0 0 764 642 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 105 82 289 289 Heavy Vehicles(%) 4% 1% 1% 2% 2% 4% Parking (#/hr) 0 0 0 Turn Type Perm Protected Phases 4 2 6 Permitted Phases 2 Actuated Green, G(s) 28.0 50.0 50.0 Effective Green,g(s) 28.0 50.0 50.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.31 0.56 0.56 Clearance Time(s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 478 1154 1640 v/s Ratio Prot c0.19 0.22 v/s Ratio Perm c0.37 v/c Ratio 0.62 0.66 0.39 Uniform Delay,dl 26.5 14.1 11.4 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,d2 6.0 3.0 0.7 Delay(s) 32.5 17.1 12.1 Level of Service C B B Approach Delay(s) 32.5 17.1 12.1 Approach LOS C B B Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 17.8 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.65 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 90.0 Sum of lost time(s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 69.0% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period(min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Rip Van Dam Redevelopment Synchro 7- Report Build Sat Page 1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 5: Washington St & Enter Dwy 7/2/2013 Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations 4 Volume(veh/h) 54 249 209 45 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.80 0.80 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate(vph) 64 293 261 56 0 0 Pedestrians Lane Width(ft) Walking Speed(ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare(veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 159 pX, platoon unblocked vC,conflicting volume 318 709 289 vC1,stage 1 conf vol vC2,stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 318 709 289 tC,single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2 tC,2 stage(s) tF(s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 p0 queue free°A) 95 100 100 cM capacity(veh/h) 1254 380 750 Direction, Lane# EB 1 WB 1 Volume Total 356 318 Volume Left 64 0 Volume Right 0 56 cSH 1254 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.05 0.19 Queue Length 95th(ft) 4 0 Control Delay(s) 1.8 0.0 Lane LOS A Approach Delay(s) 1.8 0.0 Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay 1.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 36.5% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period(min) 15 Rip Van Dam Redevelopment Synchro 7- Report Build Sat Page 2 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 8: Washington St & Exit Dwy 7/2/2013 Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations 4' 4' 11'r Volume(veh/h) 0 268 209 0 35 64 Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.85 0.80 0.92 0.80 0.80 Hourly flow rate(vph) 0 315 261 0 44 80 Pedestrians Lane Width(ft) Walking Speed(ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare(veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 214 pX, platoon unblocked vC,conflicting volume 261 577 261 vC1,stage 1 conf vol vC2,stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 261 577 261 tC,single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2 tC,2 stage(s) tF(s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 p0 queue free°A) 100 91 90 cM capacity(veh/h) 1303 482 782 Direction, Lane# EB 1 WB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 315 261 124 Volume Left 0 0 44 Volume Right 0 0 80 cSH 1700 1700 641 Volume to Capacity 0.19 0.15 0.19 Queue Length 95th(ft) 0 0 18 Control Delay(s) 0.0 0.0 12.0 Lane LOS B Approach Delay(s) 0.0 0.0 12.0 Approach LOS B Intersection Summary Average Delay 2.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization 26.6% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period(min) 15 Rip Van Dam Redevelopment Synchro 7- Report Build Sat Page 3