HomeMy WebLinkAboutEnviromental Archeological Review Olympic Sunset View Apartments - PLN General - 7/10/2020 150
1220 SW Morrison St,Sure 700
Ibdland,Oregon 97205
kl 503.224.0333 Fox 503.224.1851
,WCA www.swroxom
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS
r sound Scienm.Creative Solutions:
July 10,2020
Tres Kirkebo,Principal
Apex Engineering PLLC
2601 South 351 Street, Suite 200
Tacoma,Washington 98409
Re: Desktop Review for the Olympic Sunset View Apartments Project,Mason County,
Washington/SWCA Project No.62350.00
Dear Mr. Kirkebo,
Apex Engineering, PLLC(Apex)contacted SWCA Environmental Consultants(SWCA)to conduct a
desktop review for the Olympic Sunset View Apartments project area to identify the likelihood of
inadvertently encountering cultural resources during project construction. The project is located on
private land along State Route 3 in Belfair,Mason County,Washington,in Section 28,Township 23
North,Range 01 West,Willamette Meridian(Figure 1). The proposed project involves the construction of
a new apartment complex adjacent to State Route 3 (Figure 2).
REGULATORY CONTEXT
The project is subject to Washington's State Environmental Policy Act(SEPA); for this reason,Apex
must prepare an Environmental Checklist. This checklist helps to determine whether the environmental
impacts of the project are significant and is also helpful in determining if available avoidance,
minimization, or compensatory mitigation measures will address the probable significant impacts. The
Environmental Checklist must be prepared to meet the requirements of the SEPA Statute(Revised Code
of Washington [RCW] 43.21C),the SEPA Rules (Washington Administrative Code [WAC] 197-11), and
the SEPA Model Ordinance(WAC 173-806). Under the SEPA Environmental Checklist,the project
effects must be considered for historic and cultural preservation.
The project is also subject to Washington state laws pertaining to archaeological and cultural resources
including the Archaeological Sites and Resources Act(RCW 27.53) and the Indian Graves and Records
Act(RCW 27.44). The Archaeological Sites and Resources Act(RCW 27.53)prohibits knowingly
excavating or disturbing prehistoric and historical archaeological sites on public or private land without a
permit from the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation(DAHP). The
Indian Graves and Records Act(RCW 27.44)prohibits knowingly destroying American Indian graves
and requires re-interment under supervision of the appropriate Indian tribe following inadvertent
disturbance. To prevent the looting or depredation of sites,any maps,records, or other information
identifying the location of archaeological sites,historic sites, artifacts, or the site of traditional,
ceremonial, or social uses and activities of Indian tribes are exempt from disclosure(RCW 42.56.300).
FA W2700NUM97A9101/
` ! ea e
ASHINGTON-�
1P
►� � lr, r 1
140
Olympic SunsetVie AparCultural tments
•-
Mason County.WA
SWCA
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS
DO
NProject 62350 503.5224 03W330• 2020
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Desktop Review for the Olympic Sunset View Apartments Project, Mason County, Washington
SWCA Project No. 62350
r
F , b f
1
Ye
qe IF r f 0'
t
.;a' ��'' ,.�'� rl Y+•
q�a i 11
VIA
It ie
r J` ry r y 111I11'�� tiT
� P 4# , f `� ' ,•.`.yr Cyr ,!.`� �` r f*: f
All
r '
Legend Olympic Sunset View Apartments
Project Area Cultural Resources Assessment
Mason County,WA
° too 200 SWCA
Feet
O Meters ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS
30 60 a 1220 SW Morrison,Suite
Portland.(N4 97205,2235
Proect 62349 50322C0337 Jul 09,2020
1 503.224.0333 Y
Figure 2. Aerial map showing location of the proposed apartment complex.
3
Desktop Review for the Olympic Sunset View Apartments Project, Mason County, Washington
SWCA Project No. 62350
TRIBAL COORDINATION
SWCA archaeologist Amanda Carroll called Shaun Dinubilo,Archaeologist for the Squaxin Island Tribe,
on July 1,2020,to discuss concerns about cultural resources in or around and the project area, and
methods for meeting the requirements for the cultural component on the SEPA Environmental Checklist.
Ms. Carroll called Kris Miller,Tribal Historic Preservation Officer for the Skokomish Indian Tribe,to ask
if the Skokomish Tribe has concerns about ground disturbance and development in or near the project
area. Ms. Carroll and Apex's Tres Kirkebo also sent emails to all tribal parties with project engineering
drawings. As of July 9,2020, SWCA has not had contact with Ms. Miller. Ms. Carroll also emailed
Dennis Lewarch, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer for the Suquamish Tribe, asking if he or the
Suquamish Tribe had concerns or knowledge of cultural resources near or within the project area. A copy
of this desktop review and attachment will be given to Mr. Dinubilo,Mr. Lewarch,and Ms. Miller for
review.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONTEXT
The project area is within the Puget Lowland region of Washington State on the Kitsap Peninsula. The
Cascade Range and Olympic Mountains mark the eastern and western boundaries of the Puget Lowland
region,whereas the San Juan Islands and south end of Puget Sound mark the northern and southern
boundaries. The Puget Lowland landscape was shaped by scour and fill from the Puget lobe of the
Cordilleran ice sheet and the advance outwash and gravel deposited during several episodes of
Pleistocene glaciation(Armstrong et al. 1965; Brook 1994; Collins and Montgomery 2011). The most
recent of these glaciation episodes was the Vashon Stade of the Fraser glaciation(Armstrong et al. 1965).
Locally,Union River is 0.7 mile west from the project area and empties into Hood Canal.An unnamed
creek connects to Union River adjacent to State Route 300,0.3 mile south from the project area.
Flora and Fauna
Before Euro-American settlement and cultivation,vegetation in the Puget Sound ecoregion was
dominated by coniferous forests made up of Douglas-fir(Pseudotsuga menziesii),western hemlock
(Tsuga heterophylla), and western red cedar(Thuja plicata)(DellaSala et al.2001). The project area lies
within a wet and mild portion of the Puget Sound ecoregion(Franklin and Dryness 1973). Old forests
near the project area are characterized by old Douglas-fir and western hemlock stands that have hemlock
dwarf mistletoe(Phoradendron spp.)present on old-growth trees and have branches greater than 10
centimeters(cm)in diameter(Washington State Department of Natural Resources [WSDNR] 2020).
Western hemlock branches greater than 10 cm in diameter are rare since Euro-American settlement
(WSDNR 2020).
These forested areas in the Puget Sound ecoregion support wildlife such as racoon(Procyon lotor), sea
otter(Enhydra lutris),mink(Mustela vison),coyote(Canis latrans), and black-tailed deer(Odocoileus
hemionus) (DellaSala et al. 2001). Riparian forest ecosystems within the Puget Sound ecoregion provide
spawning areas for salmonids(Oncorhynchus spp.)and homes for amphibians and snails,while also
providing roosts for bats and nesting spots for birds including turkey vulture(Cathartes aura),bald eagle
(Haliaeetus leucocephalus), and dusky grouse(Dendragapus obscurus) (DellaSala et al. 2001).
Additional birds in the ecoregion include various types of seabirds,shorebirds, and waterfowl (DellaSala
et al. 2001).
PRE-CONTACT ARCHAEOLOGY
Oral traditions of Pacific Northwest tribes place them in the area since time immemorial. Thousands of
years of taphonomic processes acting on materials people left behind throughout history have left
4
Desktop Review for the Olympic Sunset View Apartments Project, Mason County, Washington
SWCA Project No. 62350
archaeological evidence of the deep past in the Pacific Northwest rare and isolated. The archaeological
evidence that has been discovered in the Puget Lowland region shows people have been successfully
thriving and subsisting on this landscape for thousands of years since the late Pleistocene.Archaeological
evidence in the Puget Sound region shows that a variety of projectile point types were used from the late
Pleistocene to the early Holocene including early stemmed,lanceolate, fluted, and even osseous projectile
points. However,no fluted project points have been identified within a datable context(Croes et al.2008).
The earliest of these projectile points within a datable context and also the earliest archaeological
evidence of human occupation in Washington comes in association with late Pleistocene big game
hunting and includes a unique style of projectile point.An early site in Washington that is debated for its
dating methods is the Manis Mastodon Site(45CA218). The Manis site consists of extinct megafauna
remains from the late Pleistocene including a single male mastodon(Mammut americanum)and extinct
bison(Bison antiquus)bones(Gustafson et al. 1979; Waters et al.2011). Archaeologists identified a
purported osseous projectile point tip embedded in a single disarticulated mastodon rib dating to 11,960 f
17 radiocarbon years before present(B.P.), suggesting evidence of big game hunting in western
Washington during the late Pleistocene(Waters et al.2011). The Ayer Pond Site(45SJ454), located on
Orcas Island,also provides possible evidence for big game hunting in the late Pleistocene with
radiocarbon dates of 11,990 f 25 B.P. and 11,760 f 70 B.P. on extinct bison bones(Kenady et al. 2010).
The Ayer site lacks artifacts but shows indirect evidence of human butchering on the bones themselves
(Kenady et al.2010).Additionally,archaeologists at the Bear Creek Site(45KI839)in Redmond,
Washington, found large concave,unfluted projectile point bases beneath a peat layer dated to 12,820 to
8,420 B.P. (Kopperl et al.2010).
The archaeological record during the early to mid-Holocene in the Puget Sound region consists of a
distinctive stone tool assemblage known as the Olcott assemblage,emphasizing big game hunting tools
(Croes et al.2008). The assemblage consists of cobble and flake tools made on fine-grained volcanic rock
with a projectile point assemblage of large,leaf-shaped and stemmed points and sometimes microblade
technology(Croes et al.2008;Kirk and Daugherty 2007). Olcott sites are found in a variety of places
along the landscape such as on terraces above lowland streams, subalpine meadows, and near saltwater
shores. Olcott stone tool assemblages are rarely found associated with archaeological features or animal
bone, shell,or plant material. This could be because of the deterioration of these organic elements over
time(Kirk and Daugherty 2007).
After the mid-Holocene,the archaeological record shows an increase in human population based on
evidence of structures and a more diverse array of subsistence resources,including marine resources,
being exploited,which suggests a complex socioeconomic organization(Ames and Maschner 1999).
However,it is important to note that evidence for subsistence resources is subject to a variety of
taphonomic processes and deterioration. Consequently,people's subsistence resources in the past are less
understood the farther back in time the original deposition of those resources happened.
The late Holocene in the Puget Sound region shows an increase in specialization and a concentration of
wealth in ever-growing complex societies(Ames and Maschner 1999). Characteristic archaeological
materials of this timeframe include large shell middens,a variety of subsistence and carving tools, and
bone harpoons,and there was also a dramatic increase in art and status ornaments.
ETHNOHISTORY SUMMARY
The project area lies in the traditional territory of the Skokomish(Twana), Squaxin, and Suquamish,
among others. These tribes are part of the southern Coast Salish people, speaking a dialect of
Lushootseed,belong to the Salishan language family.
5
Desktop Review for the Olympic Sunset View Apartments Project,Mason County, Washington
SWCA Project No. 62350
The Skokomish Indian Tribe and their relatives in particular speak the Twana language(Crespin 2006).
This tribe occupied the shores of Hood Canal and river drainages that flow into the canal, such as the
Skokomish and Union Rivers. The Skokomish were hunter-gatherers and fisherman whose major
settlements were located along important waterways and littoral shores and rivers. The large Skokomish
winter villages were established in areas where major watercourses like the Skokomish River connected
with Hood Canal and smaller seasonally occupied camps for hunting, fishing,and gathering shellfish and
plant resources were located along the canal and other smaller waterways(Suttles and Lane 1990). Fish,
especially salmon,were their primary food resource, along with deer, elk, sea mammals,waterfowl,
shellfish, and plant resources such as roots,nuts, and berries. Along with their settlements,they also had a
series of overland trails that connected them with important resource gathering areas as well as with
relatives and local allies. The Skokomish were very skilled woodworkers and constructed cedar canoes
for transportation on Hood Canal and nearby rivers. Cedar was also used to construct large plank
longhouses,boxes, and many other smaller utilitarian items,Cedar bark and other plant fibers were used
to make clothing,nets,cordage,and baskets(Suttles and Lane 1990). Economic,political, and social
affiliation for the Skokomish was focused on local lineal groups,or extended families,which were based
in the individual winter villages. Three broad categories of social standing existed in Skokomish society:
nobles or upper class freemen,commoners or lower class freemen,and slaves. Family groups appear to
have existed at all three levels of social standing,with only limited potential to move between the classes
(Suttles and Lane 1990:493-494).Marriage patterns revolved around local group exogamy with a wife
normally changing residence to her husband's village. These relations created a broad network of social
ties between families and villages that supported a significant amount of economic and ceremonial
exchange(Suttles and Lane 1990).
The Squaxin Island Tribe traditionally lived along the shores and watersheds of the seven southern inlets
of the Puget Sound region(Squaxin Island Tribe 2020). Their traditional food resources favored aquatic
subsistence with focus on salmon in addition to a variety of fish(Indian Leadership for Indian Health
[NPAIHB] 2020).Wild fruits and berries in the forested areas surrounding the shores and watersheds
were abundant and represented main food sources. The Squaxin were known for their basketry and wood
carvings made from western red cedar. Western red cedar takes a prominent role in their traditional
culture. Baskets,boxes,dishes, eating utensils, clothing,mats,furnishings,and rope were all made by the
Squaxin Island Tribe from components of the western red cedar. Their traditional social structure
consisted of a slave class,middle-class, and hereditary nobility,which all were involved or practiced
potlach traditionally(NPAIHB 2020).
The Suquamish traditionally lived on the western shores of Puget Sound,along portions of the Kitsap
Peninsula,Blake Island,and Whidbey Island. Before Euro-American contact,the Puget Sound region was
one of the most populated areas north of Mexico City(Suquamish Tribe 2020). Like many Northwest
Coast tribes,the Suquamish relied on fishing in local rivers,creeks,and the Puget Sound for food
(Elfendhal 1997). The Suquamish settled along waterways and at the heads of embayments, living
together in large villages of plank longhouses during the winter and widely dispersed in small camps
while hunting,fishing, and gathering in the summer(Haeberlin and Gunther 1930). During the summer
and fall,they stored and smoked berries,plants,and fish for winter consumption. Their resource gathering
areas,mainly along beaches and estuaries, supplied five species of salmon, clams,terrestrial mammals,
berries,roots, and medicines. They had close ties to the Duwamish and the Puyallup, intermarrying and
visiting them frequently(Waterman 2001). The Suquamish also had a large trade network,which they
used to obtain resources that were unavailable to them in return for smoked salmon and dried clams.
Notable characteristics of Suquamish life included extensive use of storage, seasonal use of specialized
resource locations, ascribed social status, and art. Storage may have been associated with aggregated
population growth and a ranked society,which became regionally expressed by 1,800 years ago(Ames
and Maschner 1999).
6
Desktop Review for the Olympic Sunset View Apartments Project, Mason County, Washington
S WCA Project No. 62350
Twana speakers resided along Hood Canal and its drainages,and Southern Lushootseed speakers lived
along the western and southern shores of Puget Sound.Further,the town of Belfair lies on the linguistic
boundary between the Squaxin(on the east side)and the Duhlelap Tahuya(on the west side) (Suttles and
Lane; 1990). According to Wilma(2006),the Coast Salish who made their homes along the watershed of
the upper Hood Canal lived in permanent winter villages along the Skokomish River,near Hoodsport,
Tahuya,Vance Creek, and Port Gamble Bay.A tribe called the Duhlalan, a branch of the Twana,had a
permanent settlement at the mouth or Mission Creek,where Belfair State Park is now. They used Mission
Creek and the Union River for food gathering areas and depended greatly on the salmon and wild berries
in season,gathered and dried for winter use(Davis 1993).
The arrival of Euro-American settlers in the late-eighteenth century led to a period of rapid cultural
change and demographic shifts in the Native American population(Boyd 1999). Between 1854 and 1856,
territorial governor Isaac Stevens negotiated treaties with Pacific Northwest tribes in an attempt to free up
lands for Euro-American settlement.The Point No Point Treaty of 1855 forcibly relocated the Skokomish
Tribe onto a reservation near the mouth of the Skokomish River on Hood Canal. The 1854 Treaty of
Medicine Creek assigned the members of several politically autonomous groups of southwest Puget
Sound,including the Squaxin,to the Squaxin Island Indian Reservation. The island is small and lacked
suitable agricultural land,however, and was not occupied. Some Squaxin moved to the Skokomish
reservation. The Suquamish were likewise moved from their ancestral land to the Port Madison
reservation following the 1855 Point Elliott Treaty(Ruby and Brown 1992). The Suquamish Tribe signed
the 1855 Point Elliott Treaty, establishing their reservation at Port Madison on the Kitsap Peninsula
(Ruby and Brown 1992).Many Suquamish people moved on the reservation;however, some decided to
stay on their traditional lands near Silverdale and Bremerton. The Suquamish continued their traditional
lifestyle, acquiring food resources in the traditional ways while finding employment at sawmills and
logging companies around Bainbridge Island through the twentieth century(Rink 2009; Ruby and
Brown 1992).
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
George Vancouver of the British Royal Navy is credited as the first Euro-American to map portions of
Hood Canal during a 1792 survey and was the earliest explorer who came as far as the Skokomish River
delta in 1792(Wilma 2006). The Wilkes Expedition by the U.S.military conducted a mapping and survey
expedition in the Puget Sound area in 1841,led by Lieutenant Augustus Case,which resulted in the
mapping of the eastern portion of Hood Canal(Davis 1993). The Hudson's Bay Company sent traders into
this region in the 1830s,and they may have established a trading post near Union City during this time.
Euro-American settlement of the Hood Canal area specifically began in the 1840s,typically close to
major waterways. Sawamish County,later named Mason County,was originally carved from Thurston
County in 1854,to facilitate the many settlers filing claims in the region(Crespin 2006). The Union River
and Belfair areas were first settled in the late 1850s when Moses Kirkland(or"Kirtland" [sic]),Franklin
Purdy,and possibly others were traveling for timber(Davis 1993). The 1857 and 1860 censuses for the
county in the Skokomish Post Office area notes F. C.Purdy to be a 32-year-old farmer,originally from
Pennsylvania(Kozy and Crews 2003;Holland 1998). In 1860,M. Kirkland, a farmer and a 54-year-old
patriarch,brought his family from Louisiana to the Oakland vicinity(Holland 1998a). Purdy first settled
in the Union City area, 16 miles to the west of Union and on the south side of Hood Canal,where he first
patented lands in 1864, according to Bureau of Land Management(BLM)General Land Office(GLO)
database; Purdy continued to reside here at least into the 1870s, according to the 1870 census(Holland
n.d. [2007]). The Kirkland family primarily patented property toward the Grays Harbor area,according to
GLO records. In the Belfair/Clifton area"the first recorded settler was Thomas Griffith,who in 1865
settled on the land west of the river's mouth ...Most of this land was later acquired by the Beard family
end descendants still own parts of it"(Davis 1993). The 1870 census is the first to find the Griffith(or
7
Desktop Review for the Olympic Sunset View Apartments Project, Mason County, Washington
S WCA Project No. 62350
"Griffin" [sic])family in the area(Holland n.d. [2007]). Griffith was a 37-year-old with a Native
American wife from Washington, and children born as early as 1864(Holland n.d. [2007]). The 1871
census (with correct spelling)notes that Griffith is from Scotland(Holland 1998b). Griffith was at the
mouth of the river on the west side of Hood Canal, and Alfred Jones settled the east side in 1866(Davis
1993). The 1870 census also finds Jones, a 40-year-old,who relocated with his wife from Pennsylvania
(Holland n.d. [2007]). GLO records indicate that Jones patented his lands at the end of Hood Canal
(Lynch Cove)in 1876.
Alfred Jones served as the first Clifton postmaster in 1880 after John McReavy inspired intensive
settlement at the mouth of the Union River,forming the town of Clifton(Davis 1993).Jones sold out to
the Puget Mill Company in 1882 and soon left the area(Davis 1993). By the 1910 census,Alfred Jones is
in an old soldiers'home in Pierce County(Washington State Genealogical Society [WSGS]2003). In
1925,the town of Clifton was renamed to Belfair by Mrs.Murray to alleviate confusion. Mrs. Murray
was the postmaster at the time, and it is reported she was inspired by an Elizabeth Barrett Browning poem
for the name Belfair(Explore Hood Canal 2020).
By the mid-nineteenth century,Mason County attracted timber interests along the shores of the numerous
waterways and inlets. Commercial logging began as early as 1859,and by the following year,lumber cut
near Arcadia was being shipped up to the mill at Port Blakely. Logging became significant for
communities along Hood Canal through the late-nineteenth through early twentieth century in Mason
County. The area drew lumbermen to the seemingly endless stands of timber,the clearance of which
provided lumber for homestead cabins,barns, and fences.The clearcutting also created land for small-
scale farming. In areas where transport by water facilitated moving timber out to other markets,various
individuals set up sawmills.Residents along Hood Canal are noted as envisioning the current town of
Union,located 15 miles southwest from the current project area,as the terminus for the Union Pacific
Railroad. Boosters touted the town as the Venice of the Pacific,but no progress took hold due to the Panic
of 1893,which also forced the closure of many lumber mills(Wilma 2006). In 1926,however,the
Northern Pacific Railroad made its way to Shelton,Mason County's economic center. It was around this
time that the logging industry resumed rampant growth in the county,which it maintained until the Great
Depression from 1929 to 1939. Starting in 1920s and picking back up after the Great Depression,tourism
developed in the Hood Canal area. After World War 11 numerous "auto camps," vacation homes, and
resorts dotted the region(Crespin 2006).
Project Area Land Use
SWCA archaeologists reviewed historical documents,GLO maps,other historical maps, and aerial
imagery to better understand the history of land use within and near the project area. The project area has
remained undeveloped for over a century according to historical and contemporary documentation. A
1927 Cadastral Survey plat map shows the Oakland Trail and Seaback Trail intersection approximately 1
mile west from the project area but shows no features within the current project area(Figure 3). The 1955
Metsker Map shows the current project area lot labeled with the owner in 1955,Hubert E. Overton
(Metsker Maps 1955). Hubert E. Overton's father Eugene Edwin Overton had a strong economic presence
in the Puget Sound region in the early twentieth century.Eugene E. Overton established a shingle mill in
salmon bay,then sold the company and invested in buying property and a sawmill company located near
Littlerock, Washington. The sawmill company, Salmon Creek Lumber Co.,moved to Orting,
Washington, as timber resources were exhausted in the Littlerock area.Hubert E. Overton joined his
father in 1922 and purchased property in the Puget Sound region for logging and eventually replanting for
Christmas tree farms. Hubert's son Peter E. Overton took over the Christmas tree farm business after
1958,and the Overton family continued this business until 1990. Currently,Eugene E. Overton's
8
Desktop Review for the Olympic Sunset View Apartments Project, Mason County, Washington
S WCA Project No. 62350
J' •r •.fd�'. S •,fi w. �` ✓.s.•it e- .s •
— - -- _ 'fe
- o
v d0 L
�11 ,
v 6 0 6 p o
8 . 60
d io z
9f 1Zr0
� J990 v"
of .3 21
,• . G �o4406 0
I
2
I
i
1
Legend Olympic Sunset View Apartments
r--1 Project Area Cultural Resources Assessment
Mason County,WA
o 1,000 2,000 SWCAFeet
0
Meters ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS
0 300 600 1220 SW Manson Suite 700
GLO.1 j27 e Portla` 5 20&2235
Pr01ed 62349 501224.0333 July 09,2020
Figure 3. Cadastral survey map, showing project area location (GLO 1927).
9
Desktop Review for the Olympic Sunset View Apartments Project, Mason County, Washington
S WCA Project No. 62350
_ Ja II
�L,--i I�"f
�rwa A M42Ra 111,
14
1 _ _
i) ewvia+ �. 22
rj it u� �� * a �E.of
RLi7 W
91 INl l ! C7J9R
}iN� w. O aJu►C G it M
Al got
At1 /ail, f r C�YN
.rr
,f k wiM1iG� a a• 1 at
�rf R �,. t TV17�,11
NN
i t•II RI�a0�t4 �# ,�� {I1 �
I►; Aa44R �� _ ', roc• �' is
wu l I ' COdSLtT � �'� LaNO
L (J
..r EL M ia'r t0.M
k et L
l� iL iTtR ,� 11L � r1,■ .,4t,R
�tAIR9 i a w, 11.ro If.o ryF[r•
i! � ti� � • a� �e 1
7lrt J, �~
not A h N 4 t l Rt t o. R7 t
� ra M��4rl t � J Mtt1.V�0
u
C1 6411"
L �
is
Legend Olympic Sunset View Apartments
G Project Area Cultural Resources Assessment
Mason County,WA
0 1,000 2.000 SWCA
0 Feet
0 Meters ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS
0 300 600 1220 SIN Morrison.Suite 700
Metsker,1955. a Portland., W( 2235
Project 62349 503.224 a333 Juty 09.2020
Figure 4. Metsker map, depicting landownership in 1955(Metsker Maps 1955).
10
Desktop Review for the Olympic Sunset View Apartments Project, Mason County, Washington
S WCA Project No. 62350
descendant now focus on sustainable yield forestry under the company name E.E. Overton(E.E. Overton
2020).
Aerial satellite imagery and photography show the project area undisturbed from urban development
through time,but according to Neil (2008a:15), "the area has been logged at least twice." Sometime
between 1990 and 2005,tree removal and dirt roads appear adjacent to and southwest of the project area.
Also visible is a cleared-out narrow path through the project area,which was created for the main water
line extension for the Belfair Water District's proposed interconnection pressure zones (Neil 2008a). The
aerial photography also shows an adjacent railroad designated as the Northern Pacific Railroad on the
1955 Metsker map (Figure 4); this railroad was constructed sometime before 1951. The railroad is now
owned by Burlington Norther Inc.,who merged with Northern Pacific Railroad in 1970 (BNSF Railway
2020).
PREVIOUS ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS
A review of the records on file with DAHP's Washington Information System for Architectural and
Archaeological Records Data(WISAARD) online database revealed 13 cultural resources investigations
have been conducted within approximately 1 mile of the project area (Table 1).
Table 1. Previous Cultural Resource Investigations Within Approximately 1 Mile of the Project Area
NADB Survey Distance from Resources Within 1
No. Methods Citation Project Area Mile of Project Area
1339600 Literature review, A Cultural Resources Survey of the Washington 1 mile 35MS106
pedestrian survey, State Department of Wildlife's Belfair Wetlands southwest
subsurface testing Project, Near Belfair,Mason County,Washington
Luttrell 1995
1339606 Literature review, A Cultural Resources Survey of the Washington Adjacent and None
pedestrian survey, State Department of Transportation's SR 3: west
subsurface Belfair to Lake Flora Road Safety Improvements,
scraping Mason County,Washington
Robinson 1996
1339607 Literature review, Cultural Resources Study for Cascade Natural 1 mile None
Pedestrian survey Gas Corporation's Proposed Phase 2 Kitsap southeast
Lateral Upgrade Project,Mason And Kitsap
Counties,Washington
Naoi Goetz 1996
1339611 Literature review, A Cultural Resources Survey of the Washington 1 mile None
pedestrian survey, State Department of Transportation's SR 300: southeast
subsurface testing Sand Hill Road Intersection Project,Mason
County
Hartmann 1998
1341003 Section 106 Mason County Belfair Bypass No Adverse Effect Adjacent and None
compilation Report-Belfair Vicinity Improvements,SR 3, west
Mileposts.23.52 TO 28.79
Naoi Goetz 2002
1350738 Literature review, Memo to Jeff Sawyer RE:A Cultural Resources 1 mile None
pedestrian survey, Survey for a State Highways Safety Project,XL southwest
subsurface testing 2645
Bundy 2007
1351674 Literature review, Archaeological Investigations of the Cascade 0.75 mile 35MS160,35MS161
pedestrian survey, Land Conservancy Restoration Project on the southwest
subsurface testing Irene Davis River Preserve
Neil and Baldwin 2008
11
Desktop Review for the Olympic Sunset View Apartments Project,Mason County, Washington
SWCA Project No. 62350
NADB Methods Survey Distance from Resources Within 1
No. Citation Project Area Mile of Project Area
1351725 Literature review, Archaeological Investigations of Belfair Water Overlaps None
pedestrian survey, Districts Proposed Pressure Zones
subsurface testing Interconnection Project
Neil 2008a
1353263 Literature review, Memo to Mason County RE:Cultural Resources 0.2 mile None
Pedestrian survey for the Belfair Wastewater and Water Reclamation southeast
Facilities
Bard and Sharpe 2009
1682186 Literature review, Archaeological Investigation for the Belfair 0.45 mile None
pedestrian survey, Community Center Project southwest
subsurface testing Baldwin and Neil 2012
1684752 Literature review, Cultural Resources Survey for the WSDOTs SR 0.9 mile None
pedestrian survey, 3,Belfair Widening and Safety Improvements southwest
subsurface testing Project,Mason County,Washington
Emerson and McKenney 2011
1685036 Literature review, Cultural Resources Survey Addendum,Pond C, 1 mile None
pedestrian survey, SR 3 Belfair Area Widening and Safety southwest
subsurface testing Improvements Project,Mason County,
Washington
Kiers 2014
1692743 Literature review, Cultural Resource Survey of the Cady Tree Farm 0.65 mile None
pedestrian survey, Property,Belfair,Mason County,Washington southwest
subsurface testing Ned 2018
Most cultural resources surveys in the area were conducted for Washington State Department of
Transportation(WSDOT)improvement projects(Bard and Sharpe 2009;Bundy 2007; Emerson and
McKenney 2011; Kiers 2014;Naoi Goetz 2002;Robinson 1996).None of these surveys for WSDOT
projects encountered cultural resources. Instead,the previously conducted surveys within 1 mile of the
project area that identified archaeological resources were surveys conducted for restoration and wetlands
projects for the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife and Cascade Land Conservancy(Luttrell
1995;Neil and Baldwin 2008)
Only one previously conducted cultural resources survey overlaps the project area(Neil 2008).Neil
(2008) conducted an archaeological survey for Belfair Water District's proposed pressure zones
interconnection project.Neil's(2008a)survey consisted of a pedestrian survey and the excavation of
seven shovel probes,which yielded no evidence of archaeological resources.
PREVIOUSLY RECORDED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES
The WISAARD records search shows there are three archaeological sites within 1 mile of the project
(Table 2).No archaeological sites overlap with the project area.
Table 2.Archaeological Sites Within Approximately 1 Mile of the Project Area
Resource Type Name/Description NRHP Eligibility Distance from the
No. Project Area
45MS106 Pre-contact site Union River Cedar Campsite Unevaluated 1 mile southwest
45MS160 Historic site McReavy Homestead Potentially eligible 1 mile southwest
45MS161 Historic site Union River Logging Camp Potentially eligible 0.7 mile southwest
12
Desktop Review for the Olympic Sunset View Apartments Project, Mason County, Washington
S WCA Project No. 62350
Note:NRHP=National Register of Historic Places.
Site 45MS106 was recorded in 1995 by Archaeological and Historical Services at Eastern Washington
University on Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife property in the Union River Wildlife Area,
and is located 1 mile southwest from the project area(Luttrell 1995). This site is a precontact campsite
featuring ground stone tools, shell deposits,bone fragments,fire-cracked rock,and a hearth. This site's
eligibility for the National Register of Historic Places(NRHP)has not been evaluated(Luttrell 1996).
Site 45MS160 was identified during an archaeological resources survey for the Cascade Land
Conservancy's proposed forest and riparian restoration project along the Irene David Union River
Preserve(Neil and Baldwin 2008). Site 45MS160 is a historical homestead and farm located on a
floodplain of the Union River. The site consists of a cement pad,likely the foundation of a milk barn, and
associated metal and glass fragments.The site is located within the homestead originally claimed by John
McReavy in 1868,who then sold his farm to the Puget Mill Company in the 1880s (Neil 2008b). Site
45MS 160 is currently potentially eligible for the NRHP.
Site 45MS 161 was also identified during an archaeological resources survey for the Cascade Land
Conservancy's proposed forest and riparian restoration project along the Irene David Union River
Preserve(Neil and Baldwin 2008). The site consists of a historical logging camp containing three
springboard-notched stumps, one snap with chop marks, and a metal stove. The site likely dates to
between 1850 to 1900,though the specific site use date is unknown(Neil 2008c). The site is currently
potentially eligible for the NRHP.
ARCHAEOLOGICAL EXPECATIONS
Based on the background research conducted for this project,the probability of encountering
archaeological materials during project-related construction is low. The local area near Hood Canal,
located over one mile southwest from the project area,has a higher probability for archaeological
resources, a stark contrast to the current project area.However,the project area has a steep incline and,
according to Neil (2008:15a)"The area has been logged at least twice and these activities may have
disturbed pre-contact sites."The DAHP predictive model concurs with Neil's field observations for the
majority of the project area and the background research.According to the predicative model,the
likelihood of encountering archaeological resources within the project area is"low"to"moderate".
(Figure 5).
13
Desktop Review for the Olympic Sunset View Apartments Project, Mason County, Washington
SWCA Project No. 62350
r i
e
Y!4
.i ry
I.
Legend Olympic Sunset View Apartments
0 Project Area Cultural Resources Assessment
Probability for Archaeological Resources Mason County,WA
_ Survey Contingent Upon Project Parameters:
Low Risk 0 100 200 SWCA
Survey Contingent Upon Project Parameters: 0 Feet
Moderately Low Risk oMeters
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS
Survey Recommended: Moderate Risk 0 30 60 a 1220 SW Monism,State 700
Portland.OR 97205-2235
www.w com
Project 62349 503.2240333 July 10.2020
Figure 5. Probability for archaeological resources in the project area.
14
Desktop Review for the Olympic Sunset View Apartments Project Mason County, Washington
SWCA Project No. 62350
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
SWCA conducted a desktop review for the Olympic Sunset View Apartments project. Based on the
background research conducted for this project and the DAHP predictive model,the probability of
encountering archaeological materials during project-related construction is considered low. However,
because the project is partially in a developed area that is considered"moderate",an archaeological
discovery is possible(either in a disturbed context or as an inadvertent discovery). SWCA has drafted an
inadvertent discovery plan(IDP) and has included this as Attachment A to this letter. The IDP outlines
information on what to do if there is an inadvertent discovery as a result of project-related activities.
Further, SWCA recommends an experienced archaeologist facilitate a pre-construction meeting to discuss
information on the legal context of cultural resources protection and on the pre-contact, ethnographic, and
historical cultural resources that may be present in the construction area.
Sincerely,
C52� T
Amanda Carroll,M.A. RPA
Archaeologist
15
Desktop Review for the Olympic Sunset View Apartments Project,Mason County, Washington
SWCA Project No. 62350
REFERENCES CITED
Ames, Kenneth M., and Herbert D. G. Maschner
1999 Peoples of the Northwest Coast, Their Archaeology and Prehistory. Thames and Hudson,
New York.
Armstrong,J.E., Crandell,Dwight,R.,Easterbrook,J.Donald,and J.B.Noble
1965 Late Pleistocene Stratigraphy and Chronology in Southwestern British Columbia and
Northwestern Washington. GSA Bulletin 76(3):321-330.
Baldwin,Garth L., and Stephanie L.Neil
2012 Archaeological Investigation for the Belfair Community Center Project. Drayton
Archaeological Research,Blaine,Washington.
Bard,James C., and James J. Sharpe
2009 Memo to Mason County RE: Cultural Resources for the Be fair Wastewater and Water
Reclamation Facilities. CH2M Hill,Bellevue,Washington.
BNSF Railway
2020 History and Legacy. The History of BNSF: A Legacy for the 21'Century.Available at: h
https://www.bnsf.com/about-bnsf/our-railroad/pdf/History_and_Legacy.pdf.Accessed July 8,
2020.
Boyd,Robert T.
1999 The Coming of the Spirit of Pestilence:Introduced Infectious Diseases and Population
Decline among Northwest Coast Indians, 1774-1874. University of Washington Press,
Seattle,Washington.
Brook,Derek B.
1994 Glaciofluvial infilling and scour of the Puget Lowland,Washington,during ice-sheet
glaciation. Geology 22(8):695-698.
Bundy,Barbara
2007 Memo to Jeff Sawyer RE:A Cultural Resources Survey for a State Highways Safety Project,
XL 2645. Washington State Department of Transportation, Olympic,Washington.
Collins,Brian D., and David R. Montgomery
2011 The legacy of Pleistocene glaciation and the organization of lowland alluvial process domains
in the Puget Sound region. Geomorphology 126(1):174-185.
Crespin,Bruce
2006 Cultural Resources Report of the Lynch Cove Revegetation Project. Prepared for U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service,Region 1. Bureau of Land Management, Oregon State Office,Portland,
Oregon.
Croes,Dale R.,Williams, Scott,Ross,Larry, Collard,Mark,Dennler,Carolyn,and Barbara Vargo
2008 The Projectile Point Sequences in the Puget Sound Region. In Projectile Point Sequences in
Northwestern North America, edited by Roy L. Carlson and Martin P.R. Magne,pp. 105-
130.America Archaeology Press Publication 35. Simon Fraser University,Burnaby,B.C.
16
Desktop Review for the Olympic Sunset View Apartments Project, Mason County, Washington
SWCA Project No. 62350
Davis, Irene
1993 History of the Union River. Available at
http://www.thelercenter.orgireadtextfile.php?File=Irene%20DavisHistory%2Oof%2Othe%20
Union%20River.txt.Accessed October 17, 2007.
DellaSala,D., Orians,G.,Kavanagh,K., and M. Sims
2001 Puget lowland forest.World Wildlife Fund.Available at: https://www.worldwildlife.org/
ecoregions/na0524#:—:text=The%2OPuget%2OLowland%2OForests%20occupy,River%2Oalo
ng%20the%200regon%20border. Accessed July 7,2020.
Elfendahl,Gerald W.
1997 Streams of Bainbridge Island:Names, History,Folklore& Culture. Salmonberry Press,
Bainbridge Island,Washington.
E. E. Overton
2020 About Us.Available at:https://www.eeoverton.com/.Accessed July 8,2020.
Emerson, Stephen and Pamela McKenney
2011 Cultural Resources Survey for the WSDOT's SR 3, Belfair Widening and Safety Improvements
Project, Mason County, Washington. Archaeological and Historical Services,Eastern
Washington University,Cheney,Washington.
Explore Hood Canal
2020 Belfair and South Kitsap Peninsula.Available at: https://web.archive.org/web/2014
0826171618/http://www.explorehoodcanal.com/belfair.htm.Accessed July 6,2020.
Franklin,Jerry F., and C. T.Dymess
1973 Natural Vegetation of Oregon and Washington.Report No.PNW-8.USDA Forest Service
General Technical Report.Available at: https://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/pnw_gtr008.pdf.
Accessed October 24, 2019.
General Land Office
1927 Cadastral Survey Plat Map Township 23 North Range 1 West. Available at: https://www.blm.
gov/or/landrecords/survey/yPlatViewl-2.php?path=PWA&name=t23OnOlOw-001 jpg.
Accessed July 2,2020.
Gustafson, Carl E.,D.W. Gilbow,and Richard D.Daugherty
1979 The Manis Mastodon site: early man on the Olympic Peninsula. Canadian Journal of
Archaeology 3:157-164.
Holland, G.,transcriber
1998a 1860 Federal Census. Sawamish County. Washington Territory(now Mason County).
Available at ftp://ftp.rootsweb.comlpub/usgenweb/walmasonlcensus/60sc.txt.Accessed
October 17,2007.
1998b 1871 Territorial Census for Mason County,Washington Territory[extract).Available at the
Mason County,Washington webpage of the U.S. GenWeb website,
http://www.rootsweb.coml-wamasonhnason 1879.txt.Accessed October 17,2007.
n.d. [2007] 1870 Mason County Washington Federal Census.Available at ftp://ftp.rootsweb.com/—
wamason/1870Mason.txt. Accessed October 17,2007.
17
Desktop Review for the Olympic Sunset View Apartments Project, Mason County, Washington
SWCA Project No. 62350
Haeberlin,H., and E. Gunther
1930 The Indians of Puget Sound. University of Washington Publications in Anthropology 4(1):1-
84.
Hartmann,Glenn D.
1998 A Cultural Resources Survey of the Washington State Department of Transportation's SR
300: Sand Hill Road Intersection Project, Mason County. Archaeological and Historical
Services Eastern Washington University,Cheney,Washington.
Indian Leadership for Indian Health
2020 Squaxin Island Tribe.Available at: http://www.npaihb.org/member-tribes/squaxin-island-
tribe/. Accessed July 7, 2020.
Kenady, Stephen M.,Wilson,Michael C., Schalk, Randall F.,and Robert R. Mierendorf
2010 Late Pleistocene butchered Bison antiguus from Ayer Pond, Orcas Island, Pacific Northwest:
Age confirmation and taphonomy. Quaternary International 130:1-12.
Kiers,Roger
2014 Cultural Resources Survey Addendum, Pond C, SR 3 Belfair Area Widening and Safety
Improvements Project, Mason County, Washington. Washington State Department of
Transportation, Olympia,Washington.
Kirk,Ruth, and Richard D.Daugherty
2007 Archaeology in Washington. University of Washington Press, Seattle,Washington.
Kopperl,Robert E., Christian J.Miss, and Charles M.Hodges
2010 Results of Testing at the Bear Creek, Site 45-KZ--839, Redmond, King County, Washington.
Northwest Archaeological Associates, Inc., Seattle,Washington. Major,Maurice.
Kozy,M. K. and J. Crews,transcribers
2003 1857 Mason County Census. Available at https://www.digitalarchives.wa.gov/. Accessed
October 17,2007.
Luttrell,Charles T.
1995 A Cultural Resources Survey of the Washington State Department of Wildlife's Belfair
Wetlands Project, Near Belfair,Mason County, Washington. Archaeological and Historical
Services Eastern Washington University,Cheney,Washington.
1996 45MS106,Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form. On file at Washington State
Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation,Olympia,Washington.
Metsker Maps
1955 Mason County Page 005.Available at: http://www.historicmapworks.com/Map/US/29616/
Page+005/Mason+County+1955/Washington/.Accessed July 2,2020.
Naoi-Goetz,Linda C.
1996 Cultural Resources Study for Cascade Natural Gas Corporation's Proposed Phase 2 Kitsap
Lateral Upgrade Project,Mason And Kitsap Counties, Washington. Historical Research
Associates Inc., Seattle, Washington.
2002 Mason County Belfair Bypass No Adverse Effect Report-Belfair Vicinity Improvements, SR 3,
Mileposts. 23.52 TO 28.79. Historical Research Associates Inc., Seattle, Washington.
18
Desktop Review for the Olympic Sunset View Apartments Project, Mason County, Washington
SWCA Project No. 62350
Neil, Stephanie L.
2008a Archaeological Investigations of Belfair Water District's Proposed Pressure Zones
Interconnection Project. Drayton Archaeological Research,Blaine,Washington.
2008b 45MS160,Archaeological Site Inventory Form. On file at Washington State Department of
Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Olympia,Washington.
2008c 45MS161,Archaeological Site Inventory Form. On file at Washington State Department of
Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Olympia,Washington.
2018 Cultural Resource Survey of the Cady Tree Farm Property, Belfair,Mason County,
Washington. Stephanie Neil,Belfair, Olympia.
Neil, Stephanie L. and Gath L. Baldwin
2008 Archaeological Investigations of the Cascade Land Conservancy Restoration Project on the
Irene Davis River Preserve, Washington. Drayton Archaeological Research,Blaine,
Washington.
Rinck,Brandy
2009 Cultural Resources Survey of the Stern Property on Blakley Harbor, Bainbridge Island,
Kitsap County, Washington. Prepared for Anne Stern.Northwest Archaeological Associates,
Inc., Seattle,Washington.
Robinson,Joan M.
1996 Mason County Belfair Bypass No Adverse Effect Report-Belfair Vicinity Improvements, SR 3,
Mileposts. 23.52 TO 28.79. Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation,Olympia,
Washington.
Ruby,Robert H., and John A. Brown
1992 A Guide to the Indian Tribes of the Pacific Northwest.University of Oklahoma Press,
Norman,Oklahoma.
Sqauxin Island Tribe
2020 Who We Are.Available at: https:Hsquaxinisland.org/govermnent/who-we-are/. Accessed
July 7,2020.
Suquamish Tribe
2020 History and Culture.Available at: https://suquamish.nsn.us/home/about-us/history-culture/.
Accessed July 5,2020.
Suttles,Wayne, and Barbara Lane
1990 Southern Coast Salish. In Handbook of North American Indians Vol. 7.Northwest Coast,
edited by Wayne Suttles,pp.485-502. Smithsonian Institute,Washington,D.C.
Washington State Department of Natural Resources(WSDNR)
2020 Western hemlock(Tsuga heterophylla).Available at: https://www.dnr.wa.gov/publications/
lm hcp_west_oldgrowth_guide_wh_hires.pdf. Accessed July 6,2020.
Washington State Genealogical Society(WSGS),transcriber
2003 1910 Federal Census. Available at http://www.digitalarchives.wa.gov.Accessed October 17,
2007.
19
Desktop Review for the Olympic Sunset View Apartments Project, Mason County, Washington
SWCA Project No. 62350
Waterman,T.T.
2001 Puget Sound Geography. Reprint. Edited with additional material from Vi Hilbert,Jay Miller,
and Zamlai Zahir. Lutshootseed Predd and Zahir Consulting Services, Federal Way,
Washington.
Waters,M., Stafford,Thomas W.,McDonald, Gregory H., Gustafson, Carl,Rasmussen,Morten,
Cappellini,Enrico, Olsen,Jasper V., Szklarczyk,Damian,Jensen,Lars J., Gilbert,Thomas M.,Eske
Willerslev
2011 Pre-Clovis Mastodon Hunting 13,800 Years Ago at the Manis Site,Washington. Science
334(6054):351-353.
Wilma,David
2006 Mason County-Thumbnail History. HistoryLink File No. 7730. Available at https://www.history
link.org/File/7730. Accessed July 6,2020.
20
ATTACHEMENT A
Inadvertent Discovery Plan
Traffic Impact Analysis
and
1
luation
Olympic Ridge Residential Subdivision and
Olympic Sunset View Apartments
Belfair, Washington
Prepared For:
Sterling Griffin, President
Harbor Custom Development, Inc.
Prepared By:
SG Alliance
8730 Tallon Lane NE, Suite 200
Lacey, WA 98516
360.352.146E
June 2020 SC.J ALLIANCE
CONSULTING SERVICES
Project Information
Project: Olympic Ridge Residential Subdivision and
Olympic Sunset View Apartments
Prepared for: Sterling Griffin, President
Harbor Custom Development, Inc.
11505 Burnham Dr.Suite 301
Gig Harbor, WA 98332
Office (253) 649-0636
mobile (253) 686-3562
www.harborcustomdev.com
Reviewing Agency
Jurisdiction: WSDOT
Project Representative
Prepared by: SCJ Alliance
8730 Tallon Lane NE, Suite 200
Lacey, WA 98516
360.352.1465
scjalliance.com
Contact: Aaron Knight, PE, Project Manager
Project Reference: SCJ #3333.01
Path:N:\Projects\3333 Harbor Custom Development,
Inc\3333.01 Belfair SR3 Apartment
Development\TIA\Report\Traffic Impact Analysis&ICE
2020-0611.docx
� r
Traffic Impact Analysis and Intersection Control Evaluation
Olympic Ridge Residential Subdivision and Olympic Sunset View Apartments
Signature
The technical material and data contained in the Traffic Impact Analysis were prepared under the
supervision and direction of the undersigned, whose seal, as a professional engineer licensed to practice
as such, is affixed below.
Prepared by Ryan Shea, PTP, Senior Transportation
Planner
Approved by Eric Johnston, PE, Principal
Traffic Impact Analysis and Intersection Control Evaluation
Olympic Ridge Residential Subdivision and Olympic Sunset View Apartments
Table of Contents
Part 1: Traffic Impact Analysis
1 Introduction...............................................................................................................4
1.1 Project Overview...................................................................................................................4
1.2 Study Context........................................................................................................................4
2 Project Description.....................................................................................................5
2.1 Development Proposal..........................................................................................................5
3 Existing Conditions.....................................................................................................8
3.1 Area Land Uses......................................................................................................................8
3.2 Roadway Inventory................................................................................................................8
3.3 Traffic Volume Data...............................................................................................................9
3.4 Crash History.......................................................................................................................12
3.5 Transit..................................................................................................................................12
4 Project Traffic Characteristics ...................................................................................13
4.1 Site-Generated Traffic Volumes..........................................................................................13
4.2 Site Traffic Distribution and Assignment.............................................................................13
5 Future Traffic Conditions..........................................................................................15
5.1 Roadway Network Improvements.......................................................................................15
5.2 Future Traffic Volumes........................................................................................................15
6 Traffic Operations Analysis.......................................................................................18
6.1 Level of Service.................................................................................................................... 18
6.2 Intersection Analysis ...........................................................................................................19
7 Summary and Conclusions........................................................................................21
Part 2: Intersection Control Evaluation
8 Intersection Control Evaluation ................................................................................24
8.1 Step 1—Background and Project Need...............................................................................24
8.2 Step 2—Intersection Feasibility Analysis............................................................................26
8.3 Step 3—Operational and Safety Performance Analysis......................................................28
8.4 Step 4—Alternatives Evaluation..........................................................................................32
8.5 Step 5—Selection................................................................................................................32
SG Alliance June 2020 1 Page 1
I 1
Traffic Impact Analysis and Intersection Control Evaluation
Olympic Ridge Residential Subdivision and Olympic Sunset View Apartments
List of Tables
Table 1. Existing Crash Severity by Study Intersection .......................................................................... 12
Table 2. PM Peak Hour Trip Generation Characteristics........................................................................ 13
Table 3. Project Trip Generation............................................................................................................ 13
Table 4. Level of Service Criteria for Intersections ................................................................................ 18
Table 5. PM Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service ............................................................................ 19
Table 6. PM Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service Results................................................................30
List of Figures
Figure1. Site Vicinity Map ........................................................................................................................4
Figure 2. Preliminary Apartment Site Plan................................................................................................6
Figure 3. Preliminary Single-Family Residential Site Plan.........................................................................7
Figure 4. Existing Channelization and Intersection Control.................................................................... 10
Figure 5. Existing 2020 PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes.......................................................................... 11
Figure 6. Site-Generated PM Peak Hour Volumes.................................................................................. 14
Figure 7. Projected 2022 PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Without Project............................................ 16
Figure 8. Projected 2022 PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes with Project.................................................. 17
Figure 9. ICE Study Intersection..............................................................................................................24
Figure 10. Projected 2022 and 2040 PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes.....................................................29
List of Appendices
Appendix A Traffic Volume Counts
Appendix B Traffic Volume Calculation Worksheets
Appendix C Capacity Analysis Worksheets
Appendix D ICE Intersection Alternative Conceptual Layouts
Appendix E ICE Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis Results
Appendix F ICE Traffic Volume Forecast
Appendix G ICE Capacity Analysis Worksheets
SO Alliance June 2020 1 Page 2
Traffic Impact Analysis and Intersection Control Evaluation
Olympic Ridge Residential Subdivision and Olympic Sunset View Apartments
Part 1
Traffic Impact Analysis
SO Alliance June 2020 1 Page 3
Traffic Impact Analysis and Intersection Control Evaluation
Olympic Ridge Residential Subdivision and Olympic Sunset View Apartments
1 Introduction
1.1 Project Overview
Harbor Custom Development, Inc. plans to construct the Olympic Ridge Residential Subdivision and
Olympic Sunset View Apartments (Belfair Apartments and Single-Family Residential Development) east
of State Route 3 (SR 3) and north of NE Ridgepoint Boulevard in Belfair, WA.The project will consist of
246 apartment units, a 3,500 square foot clubhouse building and 142 single family homes.
This document integrates the Traffic Impact Analysis(TIA) with the Intersection Control Evaluation (ICE)
as a replacement for the typical recommendations section of a TIA.
Figure 1 illustrates the site vicinity and the transportation network serving the project area.
Figure 1.Site Vicinity Map
(sf&,,cf , o N
A
NF
i
S.y,Afto Project Site
F
at .
g
a Mt�w
;
�* «t WA woZ
.f $
t
1.2 Study Context
This report has been prepared to provide the traffic analysis and project information for the Washington
State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) in reviewing the development proposal.The report
describes the existing and forecasted operation of the following intersections:
• NE Creelman Lane at NE Ridgepoint Boulevard
• SR 3 at NE Ridgepoint Boulevard
• Old Clifton Road at SR 3
• Old Belfair Highway at SR 3
• Old Belfair Highway at SR 300/Old Clifton Road
SCJ Alliance June 2020 1 Page 4
Traffic Impact Analysis and Intersection Control Evaluation
Olympic Ridge Residential Subdivision and Olympic Sunset View Apartments
Operational analysis has been prepared for existing 2020 PM peak hour conditions and forecasted 2022
PM peak hour conditions with and without completion of the development.
2 Project Description
2.1 Development Proposal
Harbor Custom Development, Inc. plans to construct the Belfair Apartments and Single-Family
Residential Development, on approximately 65 acres of undeveloped land in Belfair, WA.The proposed
project will be located east of SR 3 and north of NE Ridgepoint Boulevard.The project will consist of 246
apartment units with 418 parking stalls, a 3,500 square foot clubhouse building for apartment residents
use and 142 single family homes. It is anticipated that the single-family homes will be built in two
phases, with Phase 1 consisting of 50 homes and Phase 92 consisting of the remaining 92 homes. The
BelfairApartments and Single-Family Residential Development has a target opening date of 2022. Only
the full build-out of the project will be evaluated in this report.
Direct SR 3 access for the project will be provided at the intersection of SR 3 at NE Ridgepoint Boulevard.
All adjacent roadways are private, with NE Ridgepoint Boulevard and NE Creelman Lane being owned by
the subject parcel.
The preliminary site plans are provided on Figure 2 and Figure 3.
SO Alliance June 2020 1 Page 5
' o
�
alai it
UJI
ap
Cn
LLI
RYE(
Ell
Fi{�U�� �
RelfairApartrnent5 and -
PrelinninaryApartrnent
- Single-Family Residential Development Site Plan
����J ALLIANCE
.~..~~~..~~~~~.,,,~~,~ Traffic Impact Analysis
•V.+�...,•� N asq m OL9 wing ad
x � I yIIdo` W
r:MIJ
lea
,,
J �♦ I
Cc
LU
A
z . '.
W i � ♦ tF
k
1 ter`, ti, !' ' gg [[ S*yyy � 9 •cYl;r,.,+
ZI
J ' � ,1 ,I' ry, ij'l! //� Sr�FpRa3 �Ry� �• t �����,•-aF��6j
A*liM�f1
Ut
Uc �.♦ /y'
Figure 3
Belfair Apartments and Preliminary Single Family
SCJ ALLIANCE Single-Family Residential Development Residential Site Plan
.��,��=EA1 Traffic Impact Analysis
Traffic Impact Analysis and Intersection Control Evaluation
Olympic Ridge Residential Subdivision and Olympic Sunset View Apartments
3 Existing Conditions
3.1 Area Land Uses
The Belfair Apartments and Single-Family Residential Development project will be located northeast of
the intersection of SR 3 and NE Ridgepoint Boulevard.The site is currently undeveloped.The adjacent
land uses largely includes undeveloped land to the east,west and north,with a mix of commercial,
office and residential properties to the south.
3.2 Roadway Inventory
3.2.1 State Route 3 (SR 3)
In the vicinity of the project site, SR 3 is classified by WSDOT as a NHS principal rural arterial (R1) and is a
Highway of Statewide Significance, under Class 2 managed access control. In the project vicinity SR 3 is a
three-lane roadway providing one travel lane in each direction with a two-way- left-turn-lane (TWLTL).
The roadway has curb, gutter, sidewalks, and street lighting with a posted speed limit of 35 mph. SR 3
links Belfair to Shelton to the south and Bremerton to the north.
3.2.2 State Route 300 (SR 300)
SR 300 is an approximately 3.5-mile state highway in Mason County that serves as a connector from
Belfair State Park to SR 3 in Belfair. In the project vicinity SR 300 is a two-lane roadway providing one
travel lane in each direction.The roadway has paved shoulders with a posted speed limit of 30 mph.
3.2.3 Old Belfair Highway
In the study area, Old Belfair Highway is a three-lane roadway providing one travel lane in each direction
with a TWLTL.The roadway provides street lighting and curb and gutter along the southbound lane and
paved shoulder along the northbound lane with a posted speed limit of 25 mph.
3.2.4 Old Clifton Road
Old Clifton Road is a three-lane roadway providing one travel lane in each direction with a TWLTL.The
roadway provides sidewalk, curb and gutter along the southbound lane and paved shoulder along the
northbound lane with a posted speed limit of 25 mph.
3.2.5 NE Ridgepoint Boulevard
NE Ridgepoint Boulevard is private roadway owned by the subject parcel.This roadway provides one
travel lane in each direction and provides driveway access to adjacent commercial parcels.There are no
sidewalks, curb and gutter or shoulders provided along this roadway.
3.2.6 NE Creelman Lane
NE Creelman Lane is private roadway owned by the subject parcel.This roadway provides one travel
lane in each direction and provides driveway access to adjacent commercial parcels. This roadway
provides sidewalks along the northbound travel lane.
A summary of the existing intersection channelization and control type for each of the study
intersections is provided in Figure 4.
SO Alliance June 2020 1 Page 8
Traffic Impact Analysis and Intersection Control Evaluation
Olympic Ridge Residential Subdivision and Olympic Sunset View Apartments
3.3 Traffic Volume Data
Traffic Count Consultants, Inc. (TC2), a transportation data collection service, provided evening turning
movement counts for the study area intersections.The counts were conducted between 4:00 pm and
6:00 pm on January Sth, 2020 at the following locations:
• NE Creelman Lane/ NE Ridgepoint Boulevard
• SR 3/ NE Ridgepoint Boulevard
• Old Clifton Road/SR 3
• Old Belfair Highway/SR 3
• Old Belfair Highway/SR 300/Old Clifton Road
The existing 2020 traffic volumes for the study intersections for the PM peak hour are presented in
Figure 5.
The turning movement count diagrams and daily count data are provided in Appendix A
SG Alliance June 2020 1 Page 9
N
WrOm
lift mr,
Ridgepoint Blvd F
d
m ,
O
qa
A S
Q° r
,y m
h�
0
1)Ridegepoint Blvd at 2)SR 3 at
55 7X Creelman Ln Ridgepoint Blvd
I�
LEGEND
Traffic Signal
111111, Stop Sign
Travel Lane/Channelization
Figure 4
Belfair Apartments and Existing 2020 Channelization
SCJ ALLIANCE Single-Family Residential Development
ENGINEEA,NGIND PLANNING S-110Es Traffic Impact Analysis
z
P
2 I
SAW -,",
Z , , 1-00
� t
Z {
Z po a u+ L 115
s 245
9 Old Belfair Hwy
80 1351
I � S9S 10 5 N r
p —1 N oLn
p p QUO
V
00 pti o°
60,
fD d R
Ell
Cif and
D
L
n 3
rD
.+ �.
LA
al Q �o
`< (D d SR3 2•
LA <
U; rD Q w
O O n
Cree%dn(n N
t
u' Z
X (D w N E—670
X D fD ' Vf 'r-20
C O ;a
X. T (D 140
p o' w
LAlQ Q• 3 -C 65 � vvi vvi
n X (D a -
rD W •
O_ to (ID (D o
C O cu Oq
3 N = (D x (D
O O
m l :3 n a
LA l Q o p A r L
to o 15
aj m °°
rD �—5
rD 3 fD 3 0
o cu
(D � 45—�'_ z (o 5 y
0 3CD ^ a
d
Traffic Impact Analysis and Intersection Control Evaluation
Olympic Ridge Residential Subdivision and Olympic Sunset View Apartments
3.4 Crash History
The Washington Department of Transportation provides crash data for study area roadways.The data
was collected over the five-year span between January 1, 2015 and December 31, 2019 and reviewed
for the study area intersections.The total crashes by severity are provided in Table 1.
Table 1. Existing Crash Severity by Study Intersection
Property
Intersection Fatal Serious Minor Possible Damage Unknown Total
Injury Injury Injury
Only
NE Creelman Lane/NE Ridgepoint 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Boulevard
SR 3 a/NE Ridgepoint Boulevard 0 0 1 4 18 0 23
Old Clifton Road/SR 3 0 0 0 5 16 0 21
Old Belfair Highway/SR 3 0 0 0 0 7 0 7
Old Belfair Highway/SR 300/01d 0 0 0 2 15 0 17
Clifton Road
Total Crashes 0 0 1 11 56 0 68
Overall, approximately 80%of all the reported crashes were classified as property damage only(no
apparent injury). Only one crash was reported with a suspected minor injury.There were no fatal or
serious injury crashes reported.
3.5 Transit
Mason Transit Authority currently operates a transit stop located at in front of the Post Office on
NE Creelman Lane, near the project site frontage.This transit stop is served by Route 4 (Belfair Loop)
which provides connections to several locations within Belfair including Bill Hunter Park, Belfair State
Park, the Post Office, and the Belfair Timberland library branch.This route typically runs from
approximately 8:00 am to 4:00 pm on weekdays only. Mason County Transit also operates several
routes with service outside of Belfair.These routes include Route 1 with service between Shelton and
Belfair along SR 3, Route 2 with service between Shelton and Belfair along SR 106 and Route 3 with
service between Belfair and Bremerton.
SCJ Alliance June 2020 1 Page 12
Traffic Impact Analysis and Intersection Control Evaluation
Olympic Ridge Residential Subdivision and Olympic Sunset View Apartments
4 Project Traffic Characteristics
The project-related characteristics having the most effect on area traffic conditions are peak hour trip
generation and the directional distribution of traffic volumes on the surrounding roadway network.
4.1 Site-Generated Traffic Volumes
Vehicle trip generation was estimated using the trip generation rates contained in the 101h edition of the
Trip Generation Manual by the Institute of Transportation Engineers(ITE).The land-use category
"Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise)" (land-use code 221) and "Single Family Lots" (land-use code 210)were
used.
Table 2 shows the trip generation characteristics for Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise) and Single Family
lots for the PM peak period.
Table 2. PM Peak Hour Trip Generation Characteristics
ITE Land Use(LU) Unit Trip Rate Enter% Exit%
Multifamily Housing(Mid-Rise) Dwelling Units(DU's) 0.44 61% 39%
Single-Family Lots Dwelling Units(DU's) 0.99 63% 37%
The total trip generation expected from this project is calculated by applying the unit measure for each
land use category to the appropriate trip generation rate.The trip generation for the proposed Belfair
Apartments and Single-Family Residential Development is shown in Table 3 below.
Table 3. Project Trip Generation
Land Use Dwelling Total Trips Enter Exit
Units
Apartments 246 108 66 42
Single-Family Residential—Phase 1 50 50 31 19
Single-Family Residential—Phase 2 92 91 57 34
Total Trips - 249 154 95
4.2 Site Traffic Distribution and Assignment
For this study,the regional distribution of traffic to and from the proposed project was estimated based
on the locations of employment centers, schools,commercial/shopping centers, and regional travel
patterns.
Because Cokelet Lane is a private road,titled to an adjacent parcel, and rights do not exist for the
subject parcel to use the road, all traffic has been routed via NE Ridgepoint Boulevard and any required
off site improvement will be performed to encourage this movement.
The resultant traffic distribution percentages and PM peak hour site traffic assignments on the existing
roadway network are shown on Figure 6.
SO Alliance June 2020 1 Page 13
N
65%
5%
d
Ridgepoint Blvd
s
v
m
v
O
O
mo -
�i
00 yq y
Y �
5 0,
$ c� ar/� 5 o1
?Q,
00
S�3 'tip, 1 �o
1 64
5%
163 —►
3?' Ln
2)SR 3 at 1)Ridegepoint Blvd at
Ridgepoint Blvd Creelman Ln
LEGEND
XX--# Site-Generated Trips
20% XX% Distribution Percentage
Project Trips
Inbound Outbound Total
163 99 262
Figure 6
-ON-.� Belfair Apartments and Site Site PM Peak Hour
SCJ ALLIANCE Single-Family Residential Development Traffic Volumes
E��,�EEaNa--..N,N.=, Traffic Impact Analysis
Traffic Impact Analysis and Intersection Control Evaluation
Olympic Ridge Residential Subdivision and Olympic Sunset View Apartments
5 Future Traffic Conditions
5.1 Roadway Network Improvements
There are two network improvement plans within the study area:
5.1.1 Belfair Bypass/SR 3 Freight Corridor
A bypass route to alleviate existing congestion on SR 3 through Belfair has been planned for many years.
The ongoing Belfair Freight Corridor study and design has an estimated opening year of 2025. Given this
opening year the improvement will not be in place when the proposed Belfair Apartments and Single-
Family Residential Development project is completed and was therefore not considered in the
operational analysis.
5.1.2 Belfair Mobility Plan
The Belfair Mobility Plan, published in 2018, makes recommendations about transportation projects and
strategies over the next several years to support the community vision, adopted land use plans, and
growth strategy for Belfair.The mobility plan recommends improvements throughout Belfair, including
intersections within the study area for the proposed Belfair Apartments and Single-Family Residential
Development project. The plan identifies the need to improve the operational efficiency at the Old
Belfair Highway/SR 300/Old Clifton Road intersection, recommending a conversion of the all-way stop
intersection to a single lane roundabout. The plan did not identify a timeline for this conversion, and it
was assumed to not be in place prior to completion of the proposed Belfair Apartments and Single-
Family Residential Development project.
5.2 Future Traffic Volumes
Traffic volume forecasts were prepared for PM peak hour conditions for the 2022 opening year.The
future traffic volume forecast includes non-specific background traffic growth, pipeline development
traffic and estimated traffic generated by the proposed Belfair Apartments and Single-Family Residential
Development project.
For the non-specific background traffic growth, a 1.0 percent annual growth rate (non-compounded)
was used.This growth rate was identified in the Belfair Bypass project.
There are no other known major development "pipeline" projects,therefore no additional traffic from
other projects were included in the volume forecasts.
The projected 2022 traffic volumes without Belfair Apartments and Single-Family Residential
Development are shown on Figure 7. The projected 2022 traffic volumes with the project are shown on
Figure 8.
The traffic volume calculations for the study intersections are included in Appendix B.
SO Alliance June 2020 1 Page 15
N
Ridgepoint Blvd -
2
d
fL
O
Qa 1
�o
Ln o o L 75 Q ,� m
'�4'a .._255 hq F
rJ 1 j-120 c`Q
U�
50
215--' `� r %
S
Boa 150—1 o �1 ago
5� 1
to :40 m
45 l
'1 ma' s 1P 10s � T
e0 � 45- Ln Lm
�l 2)SR 3 at 1)Ridegepoint Blvd at
O �O Ridgepoint Blvd Creelman Ln
0
0
lr
ti�a� o
Note:Volumes rounded to the nearest 5.
See Appendix B for exact volumes
Legend
XX-# PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes
Figure 7
Belfair Apartments and Projected 2022 PM Peak Hour
SCJ ALLIANCE Single-Family Residential Development Traffic Volumes Without Projec
ENG-E-ING110P—,-=Eq Traffic Impact Analysis
I U)
00
4K
30,
v�N V1 L 115
O O to O .—250 .�<
S S Old Belfair Hwy
135
d0 S 100 —' N
pOfr 75--j o oLn
o Q'o
N aQ�O O v o2 JOB.
J�u o�
S ��sS
3 L
D
v (D .+
n D
a
.r m
d v+ v
`< rD d Sq3 3.
L^ < =
N' rD CL m
O O a
rD CrQQ/man�h N
Z z
X � N 1—680
X > �o a z 125
� � T1 -0 <
co
O lQ rrDD ° 550
G - rD W n "'c
r
N � OQ
_ m (D
rD l'J
U) N ° 15
rr < ^ � � l � �-0
o � m w
m E m m
D (D 3 0
� fD < ( D = � 501 '1tr
O o m m 05
rD ono
o
' _ 3 `a 0 Z o
,n+ 0 vim, ui
Traffic Impact Analysis and Intersection Control Evaluation
Olympic Ridge Residential Subdivision and Olympic Sunset View Apartments
6 Traffic Operations Analysis
Traffic analyses were conducted to identify any deficiencies within the study area for the PM peak hour
in the 2020 base year and the 2022 project opening year.
6.1 Level of Service
The acknowledged source for determining overall capacity for arterial segments and independent
intersections is the current edition of the Highway Capacity Manual(HCM) published by the
Transportation Research Board (TRB).
Intersection analysis was performed using the Synchro software package.This software implements the
methods of the 6ch Edition HCM. Capacity analysis results are described in terms of Level of Service
(LOS). LOS is a qualitative term describing operating conditions a driver will experience while traveling
on a street or highway during a specific time interval. LOS ranges from A (very little delay)to F (long
delays and congestion).
WSDOT identifies a Level of Service C standard for State Route 3 and State Route 300.
6.1.1 Intersection Operations
For signalized intersections,the overall LOS grade represents the weighted average of all movements at
the intersection. For intersections under minor street stop-sign control, the LOS of the most difficult
movement(typically the minor street left turn) represents the intersection level of service.The
LOS/delay criteria for stop sign-controlled intersections are different than for signalized intersections
because driver expectation is that a signalized intersection is designed to carry higher traffic volumes
and experience greater delay.Table 4 shows the Level of Service criteria for stop-controlled
intersections and signalized intersections.
Table 4. Level of Service Criteria for Intersections
Level of Signalized Intersection Average Stop-Controlled Intersection Average
Service Control Delay(seconds/vehicle) Control Delay(seconds/vehicle)
A <_ 10 <_ 10
B >10-20 >10-15
C >20-35 >15-25
D >35-55 >25-35
E >55-80 >35-50
F >80 >50
6.1.2 WSDOT Operational Analysis Protocol
WSDOT publishes protocols for intersection operational analysis. As of the start of this analysis, WSDOT
Synchro and SimTraffic protocols were used for this analysis.Among the analysis inputs included in the
protocol is the intersection peak hour factor.The observed peak hour factor is used for the existing
conditions analysis, but all future forecast volume horizons use a factor of 1.00.This can occasionally
result in future analysis results showing a small improvement, as the overall analysis volumes may
decrease as the peak hour factor increases.
SO Alliance June 2020 1 Page 18
Traffic Impact Analysis and Intersection Control Evaluation
Olympic Ridge Residential Subdivision and Olympic Sunset View Apartments
6.2 Intersection Analysis
The analysis was conducted for the following scenarios:
• Existing 2020 traffic volumes
• Projected 2022 background traffic volumes without the Belfair Apartments and Single-Family
Residential Development project
• Projected 2022 traffic volumes with the Belfair Apartments and Single-Family Residential
Development project
The operational analysis results of the study intersections for the PM peak hour are provided in Table S.
The LOS analysis worksheets are included in Appendix C.
Table S. PM Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service
Projected 2022
Base Year
2020 Without With
Project Project
Intersection Control LOS LOS(Delay) LOS(Delay) LOS(Delay)
Type Standard
1 NE Creelman Lane/NE Ridgepoint TWSCI C A(5.2) A(4.5) B(11.2)
Boulevard
2 SR 3/NE Ridgepoint Boulevard TWSCI C C(19.8) C(16.6) D(25.6)
3 Old Clifton Road/SR 3 Signal C C(20.2) B(18.8) B(19.5)
4 Old Belfair Highway/SR 3 TWSCI C F(143.0) F(175.4) F(227.1)
5 Old Belfair Highway/SR 300/Old AWSC2 C D(31.8) D(32.8) E(35.3)
Clifton Road
1. Two-Way Stop-Control
2. All-Way-Stop-Control
6.2.1 NE Creelman Lane/NE Ridgepoint Boulevard
This intersection currently operates as a tee intersection with stop control for the southbound approach
and no control for the eastbound and northbound approaches. Given this configuration the standard
Highway Capacity Manual methodologies do not provide an intersection delay result.To assess the
operational delay of this intersection the SimTraffic simulation delay was used. Each approach provides
one travel lane. With completion of the project,this intersection will become a four-way intersection
that will operate under stop control for the northbound and southbound approaches.
During the PM peak hour, this intersection operates at LOS A during existing 2020 and 2022 without the
project. For the 2022 horizon with the Belfair Apartments and Single-Family Residential Development,
the intersection is projected to operate at LOS B.
SCJ Alliance June 2020 1 Page 19
Traffic Impact Analysis and Intersection Control Evaluation
Olympic Ridge Residential Subdivision and Olympic Sunset View Apartments
6.2.2 SR 3/ NE Ridgepoint Boulevard
This intersection operates under stop-sign control for the westbound approach.The southbound
approach provides a through lane and left-turn lane, the northbound approaches provide a through lane
and right-turn lane and the westbound approach provides a single approach lane.
During the PM peak hour,the intersection operates at LOS C during existing 2020 and 2022 horizon
without project. With the project,the intersection is projected to operate at LOS D.
Given the LOS D result with completion of the project, which falls below the current level of service
standard, it is understood that the intersection will require improvements. Since this intersection is on a
state route any intersection control change will require an Intersection Control Evaluation (ICE).The
Intersection Control Evaluation for this intersection is contained in Section 8 of this report.
Currently SR 3 experiences congestion during the PM peak period through the community of Belfair.
Between the traffic signal at SR 3/SR 106,the signalized pedestrian crossing across SR 3 at Belfair
Elementary, and the traffic signal at SR 3/Old Clifton Road traffic has been observed travelling below the
posted speed limit. This congestion has reportedly been observed extending north of the SR 3/ NE
Ridgepoint Boulevard intersection.
6.2.3 Old Clifton Road/SR 3
This intersection operates under traffic signal-control.The eastbound, northbound, and southbound
approaches each have two travel lanes,with each approach providing a shared through-right-turn lane
and a left-turn lane.The westbound approach provides three lanes, with one right-turn lane, one
through lane and one left-turn lane.
During the PM peak hour this intersection operates at LOS C during the existing 2020 scenario. With a
peak hour factor change from 0.92 to 1.00 the intersection is projected to operate at LOS B in 2022
horizon with and without project.
6.2.4 Old Belfair Highway/SR 3
This intersection operates under stop-sign control for the southbound approach.The eastbound and
westbound approaches provide a through lane and left-turn lane, and the southbound approach
provides a right-turn lane and left-turn lane.
During the PM peak hour this intersection currently operates at LOS F and remains LOS F during the
2022 horizon with and without project. This intersection was evaluated in the Belfair Mobility Plan and
shown to operate at LOS F for the existing 2017 and projected 2040 horizons. No improvement was
identified or recommended at this location.
6.2.5 Old Belfair Highway/SR 300/Old Clifton Road
This intersection operates under all-way-stop-sign control.The northbound and southbound approaches
provide a shared through right-turn lane and left-turn lane.The eastbound approach provides three
travel lanes, a through lane, right-turn lane, and left-turn lane and the westbound approach provides a
shared through right-turn lane and left-turn lane.
During the PM peak hour,the intersection operates at LOS D during the existing 2020 scenario,with an
average delay of 31.8 seconds. For the 2022 horizon without the project the delay is projected to
SO Alliance June 2020 1 Page 20
Traffic Impact Analysis and Intersection Control Evaluation
Olympic Ridge Residential Subdivision and Olympic Sunset View Apartments
increase by 1.0 seconds to 32.8 seconds and remain at LOS D. With the project the intersection delay is
projected to increase by 2.5 seconds and operate at LOS E.
The Belfair Mobility Plan, recommends constructing a single-lane roundabout at SR 300/Old Belfair
Highway/Clifton Lane.
7 Summary and Conclusions
Harbor Custom Development, Inc. plans to construct the Belfair Apartments and Single-Family
Residential Development east of State Route 3 (SR 3) and north of NE Ridgepoint Boulevard, in Belfair,
WA.The project will consist of 246 apartment units, a 3,500 square foot clubhouse building and 142
single family homes.
At full occupancy and operation, the project is estimated to generate approximately 262 trip ends during
the PM peak hour. This report has been prepared to provide the traffic analysis and project information
for WSDOT to use in review of the project.
Based on the analysis described in this report,three intersections are currently or are projected to
operate below the WSDOT LOS C standard.Two of these intersections, SR 300/SR 3 and Old Belfair
Highway/SR 300/01d Clifton Road, are currently operating below this standard.The Belfair Mobility Plan
evaluated both intersections, with the same operational results.The plan did not identify or recommend
an improvement for the SR 300/SR 3 intersection.The plan identified a single-lane roundabout for the
Old Belfair Highway/SR 300/Old Clifton Road intersection. No mitigation is proposed for these
intersections.
The Ridgepoint Boulevard/SR 3 intersection currently operates at LOS C and is projected to operate at
LOS D with completion of the project. It is anticipated that intersection control improvements will be
required.To identify the appropriate intersection control, an Intersection Control Evaluation will be
performed.This evaluation is contained in Section 8 of this report.
SO Alliance June 2020 1 Page 21
Traffic Impact Analysis and Intersection Control Evaluation
Olympic Ridge Residential Subdivision and Olympic Sunset View Apartments
Part 2
Intersection Control Evaluation
SO Alliance June 2020 1 Page 22
Traffic Impact Analysis and Intersection Control Evaluation
Olympic Ridge Residential Subdivision and Olympic Sunset View Apartments
State Route 3 (SR 3) and
NE Ridgepoint Boulevard
SR 3 MP 26.8 - 26.9
Intersection Control Evaluation (ICE)
June 2020
Prepared By:
Aaron Knight, P.E. Date
SCJ Alliance
Region Traffic Engineer Approval:
Steve Kim, P.E. Date
Olympic Region Traffic Engineer
HQ Traffic Approval:
Brian Walsh, P.E. Date
State Traffic Design & Operations Manager
SO Alliance June 2020 Page 23
Traffic Impact Analysis and Intersection Control Evaluation
Olympic Ridge Residential Subdivision and Olympic Sunset View Apartments
8 Intersection Control Evaluation
8.1 Step 1 - Background and Project Need
As determined in Section 7, it is anticipated that additional control at the intersection of SR 3 and
Ridgepoint Boulevard will be required to accommodate the site traffic.This Section will address the five
steps of the Intersection Control Evaluation process as outlined in Section 1300.05(1) of the WSDOT
Design Manual (M 22-01.18), December 2019 edition.
8.1.1 Study Area
The Study Area includes the intersection of SR 3 (State Highway) and NE Ridgepoint Boulevard (Private
Road) in Belfair, Mason County, Washington.
Figure 9. ICE Study Intersection
r
J
/V
� �, .• epoiht _, _
4
,' ^.�;.
4Z*
SO Alliance June 2020 1 Page 24
Traffic Impact Analysis and Intersection Control Evaluation
Olympic Ridge Residential Subdivision and Olympic Sunset View Apartments
8.1.2 Existing Conditions
The existing conditions for the SR 3/ NE Ridgepoint Boulevard, and the surrounding area, are described
above, in Section 3.
8.1.3 Intersection Control Alternatives
The SR 3/NE Ridgepoint Boulevard intersection currently operates under stop control for the
NE Ridgepoint Boulevard approach.
This section will include an evaluation of the following intersection control alternatives:
Roundabout Control
The roundabout control alternative will include evaluation of opening year and long-range
channelization needs.
Traffic Signal Control
The traffic signal control alternative will include evaluation of opening year and long-range
channelization needs
Minor Street Stop Control
The minor street stop control alternative will be an assessment of the intersection under existing traffic
control, with the minor street approach of NE Ridgepoint Boulevard operating under stop control.
8.1.4 Initial Alternatives Evaluation
8.1.4.1 Roundabout Control
An intersection Control Evaluation was recently completed for the SR 3/Log Yard Road intersection,
located approximately one mile north of the study intersection. Roundabout control was the
recommended control type at that location, suggesting roundabout control would be consistent at this
location.
The west side of SR 3 at the study intersection has a very steep roadway side slope, with existing
guardrail.This presents challenges with constructing roundabout control. Additionally, reported
observations indicate that during PM peak conditions, southbound queuing on SR 3 extends north
through the study intersection. Congestion through an intersection can be more problematic for
roundabout control than traffic signal control.
This alternative will be advanced to Step 2.
8.1.4.2 Traffic Signal Control
With an existing traffic signal located approximately a quarter mile south, at SR 3/01d Clifton Highway, a
traffic signal would be consistent with the downtown Belfair control types. Initial discussions with
WSDOT about a traffic signal control alternative have determined that a "continuous green tee" (green-
tee)traffic signal design would be preferred at this location.The green-tee traffic signal would not
restrict southbound traffic on SR 3 and allow left turning traffic off of NE Ridgepoint Boulevard to merge
into the southbound lane, south of the intersection.
A standard traffic signal and a green-tee traffic signal will both be advanced to Step 2.
SO Alliance June 2020 1 Page 25
Traffic Impact Analysis and Intersection Control Evaluation
Olympic Ridge Residential Subdivision and Olympic Sunset View Apartments
8.1.4.3 Minor Street Stop Control
The minor street stop control alternative will assess the existing control to confirm there is still a need
for intersection control improvements in long-range horizon.
This alternative will be advanced to Step 2.
8.2 Step 2 — Intersection Feasibility Analysis
This report evaluates the following intersection alternatives:
• Roundabout—This alternative evaluates a single lane roundabout for both horizon years,
identifying if/when more than a single lane roundabout is necessary.
• Two-Way Stop Control—This alternative evaluates stops on the minor leg approach (WB
NE Ridgepoint Boulevard) and no control for SR 3.
• Traffic Signal Control (Standard)—This alternative evaluates a standard traffic signal control,
which would include a protected southbound left-turn movement.
• Traffic Signal Control (Green-Tee) -This alternative evaluates a green-tee traffic signal, which
will provide free-flow movement for southbound SR 3. A second southbound receiving lane
would be constructed for the westbound left-turn volume and then merged with the
southbound through movement prior to the traffic signal at SR 3/01d Clifton Highway.
8.2.1 Right of Way
Approximate locations of the existing right of way is shown on the site sketches for each the traffic
signal control and roundabout control alternatives. NE Ridgepoint Boulevard is a private road and is
included in the parcel that will developed with the Project. Therefore, it is assumed that area within the
property limits of NE Ridgepoint Boulevard will also be utilized for construction of the proposed
intersection. There are two separate parcels that abut the intersection east of the project limits and will
be the subject of any required additional right of way needs.There is more existing right of way to the
west of the project intersection, however due to a substantial slope, it is impractical to construct west of
the southbound edge line and impacts to right of way on the west side of the intersection are not
feasible.
The two-way stop control and traffic signal control (standard or green-tee) would not require any
additional property outside of WSDOT right of way or the limits of the subject parcel's property.
The east leg of the roundabout, specifically the sidewalks, are anticipated to impact the two existing
(Napa Auto Parts and McDonald's) parcels north and south of the intersection.These impacts are shown
on the Conceptual sketches in Appendix D. The conceptual layout of the roundabout was discussed with
WSDOT staff during a meeting and further refined for the attached concept. Multiple iterations were
completed of the roundabout, balancing truck turning with speeds and every option included either
insufficient truck turning, excessive speeds, or private property impacts.
8.2.2 Environmental
All of the proposed intersection control alternatives are not anticipated to have any adverse
environmental impacts.There are no existing documented critical areas within the project's immediate
vicinity.
SO Alliance June 2020 1 Page 26
Traffic Impact Analysis and Intersection Control Evaluation
Olympic Ridge Residential Subdivision and Olympic Sunset View Apartments
SR 3 within the project vicinity has an existing grade of approximately 5%.There is a substantial existing
slope west of the intersection with an approximately 2:1 slope.
8.2.3 Context/Sustainability
The existing SR 3/ NE Ridgepoint Boulevard intersection currently serves multiple commercial
properties and has been designed as a primary access point for property east of SR 3. Continuing to
utilize this intersection as the primary access point for properties east of SR 3 is consistent with current
Belfair planning.
To determine if traffic signal control is appropriate at this intersection a traffic signal warrant analysis
was performed for the existing conditions. Daily traffic volumes were collected from Tuesday,January
7"through Thursday, January 9tn for each approach of the SR 3/NE Ridgepoint Boulevard intersection,
which overlapped with the PM peak period turning movement counts, collected Wednesday,January
8tn Generally turning movement counts are considered more accurate than tube count data, so the PM
peak period count volumes were compared to the tube count data to evaluate how similar the results
were. For traffic on SR 3 the tube count data was very similar to the turning movement data. On
NE Ridgepoint Boulevard the tube count volumes were substantially higher than the turning movement
volumes, To account for this a 65% reduction was applied to the tube count volumes for NE Ridgepoint
Boulevard.
After applying the adjustment factor to the NE Ridgepoint Boulevard volumes, the three-day average
tube count volumes were evaluated for the eight-hour, four-hour and peak hour traffic signal warrants.
The results of the analysis are presented in Appendix E.
Based on this analysis the existing 2020 traffic volume support the installation of traffic signal control.
8.2.4 Feasibility Conclusion
The two-way stop control and two traffic signal control intersection control alternatives are considered
feasible and will be advanced to Step 3.
The roundabout would require property acquisition from two parcels.The subject project is part of a
private development; therefore the developer cannot compel the parcel owners to sell for the purposes
of the intersection improvement. This would add a substantial burden to the developer, for which they
have no means of control,therefore the roundabout will not be advanced to Step 3.
SO Alliance June 2020 1 Page 27
Traffic Impact Analysis and Intersection Control Evaluation
Olympic Ridge Residential Subdivision and Olympic Sunset View Apartments
8.3 Step 3 — Operational and Safety Performance Analysis
This section documents Step 3 analysis for each of the intersection alternatives, focusing on a discussion
of traffic operations, off-peak operations, corridor continuity and driver expectation, safety effects and
multimodal transportation.
8.3.1 Analysis Methods
8.3.1.1 Analysis Times and Years
Analysis of the intersection traffic control alternatives has been conducted for two horizon years and
one time period. Horizon years include 2022, which is the expected Opening Year for the intersection
improvements and the 2040 Horizon Year.Analysis has been performed for the study area's PM peak
hour.
8.3.1.2 Traffic Forecasting Approach
The opening year 2022 volume forecasts are described above, in Section 5.To prepare a 2040 volume
forecast for the long-range horizon,the volume forecasts from the recent SR3 Freight Corridor Study
were used. The SR 3 Freight Corridor project began in 2019 and is ongoing. Early in the project volume
forecasts were prepared that assessed the 2040 long-range horizon with and without the freight
corridor bypass. For this ICE,the 2040 volume forecasts that include the bypass corridor were used.The
SR 3/ NE Ridgepoint Boulevard intersection was not included in the freight corridor study so the
volumes south of SR 3/ Log Yard Road were uses as the throughput volumes on SR 3.That study
identified a global 1% annual growth rate, which was used to grow the turning movement volumes on
NE Ridgepoint Boulevard.The volume forecast calculations for the ICE are included in Appendix F.
The freight corridor study also prepared 2040 volume forecasts with local connectors between SR 3 and
the bypass corridor, which included an assumed increase in development around those connectors.This
analysis does not include those forecast elements.
8.3.1.3 Traffic Operational Analysis Tools
Analysis of traffic operating performance at the study intersection was conducted as a part of Step 3.
This analysis is based on projected 2022 and 2040 peak hour traffic volumes, and complies with
WSDOT's traffic operations analysis policies and protocols as of the date of this report using the
following software packages:
• The Synchro Version 10.0 software package was used to analyze operations for the signalized
and stop-control intersection alternatives. Output from this package included average vehicle
delay, level of service(LOS),and volume-to-capacity (v/c) ratios.
• The SimTraffic software was used to produce simulations of the signalized and stop-control
intersection alternatives.These simulations were used to calculate 95th percentile queues at
each intersection. The average of five simulations was reported.
Analysis was conducted for the opening year of 2022 and the long-range horizon year of 2040 for the
PM peak hour.
SO Alliance June 2020 1 Page 28
Traffic Impact Analysis and Intersection Control Evaluation
Olympic Ridge Residential Subdivision and Olympic Sunset View Apartments
8.3.2 Forecasted Traffic Volumes
The discussion in this section focuses on documenting projected 2022 and 2040 AM and PM peak hour
traffic volumes for the study intersection.These volumes are shown in Figure 10.
Figure 10. Projected 2022 and 2040 PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes
2022 2040
T N 'C- 100 �; '� 120
Lo r80 � 95
0 0 Ln o
k � rl
8.3.3 Operational and Queuing Analysis Methodology
Capacity analysis results are described in terms of Level of Service (LOS). Level of Service calculations for
intersections determine the amount of"control delay" (in seconds)that drivers will experience while
proceeding through an intersection. Control delay includes all deceleration delay, stopped delay, and
acceleration delay caused by the traffic control device.The LOS is directly related to the amount of delay
experienced.
For intersections under minor street stop-control,the LOS of the most difficult movement(typically the
minor street left-turn) represents the intersection Level of Service. For each intersection alternative, the
LOS grade is provided for each approach and the intersection as a whole. Table 4 in Section 6 shows the
Level of Service criteria for the different control types assessed in this report.The capacity analysis
worksheets for the ICE are provided in Appendix G.
WSDOT identifies a Level of Service C standard for State Route 3.
In this analysis,the 95th percentile maximum back of queue has been estimated for each control
alternative.The 95th percentile queue value reflects the queue length (in feet)that has only a 5-percent
probability of being exceeded during the peak hour.The 95th percentile queue is a useful parameter for
determining the appropriate length of turn pockets but is not typical of what the average driver would
experience.
8.3.4 Operational and Queuing Analysis Results
Operational analysis was completed for the SR 3/ NE Ridgepoint Boulevard intersection with two-way
stop control on the minor street approach, a standard traffic signal control, and the green-tee traffic
signal.The analysis results are provided in Table 6.
SG Alliance June 2020 1 Page 29
Traffic Impact Analysis and Intersection Control Evaluation
Olympic Ridge Residential Subdivision and Olympic Sunset View Apartments
Table 6. PM Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service Results
Opening Year(2022) Horizon Year(2040)
LOS 95th LOS 95th
Approach (delay) V/C Ratio Percentile (delay) V/C Ratio Percentile
Queue Queue
Two-Way Stop Control
WB D(25.6) 0.51 185 feet F(73.1) 0.88 1,000+feet
NB A(0.0) - 10 feet A(0.0) - 20 feet
SB A(9.5) 0.13 60 feet B(10.7) 0.19 85 feet
Intersection* D - F -
Traffic Signal Control-Standard
WB B(19.9) 0.76 105 feet C(25.5) 0.79 150 feet
NB B(10.6) 0.76 195 feet B(13.5) 0.82 330 feet
SB A(7.3) 0.70 170 feet B(10.5) 0.78 315 feet
Intersection B(10.0) - B(13.2) -
Traffic Signal Control-Green-Tee
WB C(22.9) 0.52 115 feet C(26.6) 0.61 135 feet
NB A(9.3) 0.61 180 feet B(12.6) 0.76 270 feet
SB A(4.0) 0.56 95 feet A(6.2) 0.52 115 feet
Intersection A(8.2) - B(10.7) -
*Intersection level of service is that of the most difficult movement.
The existing stop-control is projected to operate at LOS D in the opening 2022 horizon and fall to LOS F
in the long-range 2040 horizon, both of which fall below the LOS C standard for the intersection.
Both signalized intersection control improvements are projected to operate at LOS A/B during both
volume horizons.The standard traffic signal is projected to operate with the most average delay and
produce the longest 95th percentile queues, over 300 feet projected for both approaches of SR 3 during
the 2040 horizon.The green-tee traffic signal, with a continuous southbound movement, is projected to
have much shorter southbound queues, associated only with the southbound left-turn movement.
8.3.5 Off-Peak Traffic Circulation Issues
During both horizon years each of the intersection control improvement alternatives provide an
acceptable level of service and would be expected to operate acceptably during the off-peak hours.The
green-tee traffic signal would provide minimal impacts to the southbound through volume during all
hours of the day.
8.3.6 Corridor Effects and Driver Expectations
Congestion has been observed extending north of the SR 3/ NE Ridgepoint Boulevard intersection
southbound during the PM peak hour. This congestion originates in Belfair and extends north along SR 3,
including blocking of the project intersection.This congestion is not easily defined or modeled within the
standard approach for a traffic impact analysis or intersection control evaluation, therefore, the
operational results require additional context.
SCJ Alliance June 2020 1 Page 30
Traffic Impact Analysis and Intersection Control Evaluation
Olympic Ridge Residential Subdivision and Olympic Sunset View Apartments
Southbound traffic has been observed operating as a rolling queue as far south as SR 106 and as far
north as approximately 2000 feet north of NE Ridgepoint Boulevard.This rolling queue decreases
throughput and increases delay along the corridor, however it also reduces speeds. Furthermore,
observations have shown drivers along southbound SR 3 yielding and allowing drivers exiting
NE Ridgepoint Boulevard to merge into the queue.This type of driver behavior was the origin of the
green-tee traffic signal concept.This project is not anticipating to relieve the congestion through Belfair,
but should integrate into the existing corridor with minimal impact.
With an existing traffic signal a quarter mile south, at SR 3/01d Clifton Road, either of the traffic signal
alternatives will be consistent for the type of control local drivers experience. A green-tee traffic signal
would minimize impacts to the southbound movement of the corridor.
8.3.7 Safety Effect/Conflict Areas
Given the long-range operational projections for the existing stop-control alternative at
SR 3/ NE Ridgepoint Boulevard, the addition of traffic signal control should provide a safer opportunity
for traffic on NE Ridgepoint Boulevard to turn onto SR 3.The green-tee traffic signal alternative would
minimize the intersection conflict points by eliminating the southbound through/westbound left-turn
conflict point.This intersection control option would include a merge point south of the intersection,
prior to the existing traffic signal at SR 3/01d Clifton Road.
8.3.8 Bike/Pedestrian Safety and Operations
Recent upgrades to the SR 3 corridor through downtown Belfair included sidewalks along both sides of
SR 3.The northbound sidewalk, located on the east side of SR 3, extend north to the NE Ridgepoint
Boulevard intersection. In the southbound direction, on the west side of SR 3,the existing grade limited
the extension of the sidewalk to the Belltowne Square driveway.There are no bike lanes on SR 3, but
shoulders are provided in both directions.
SO Alliance June 2020 1 Page 31
Traffic Impact Analysis and Intersection Control Evaluation
Olympic Ridge Residential Subdivision and Olympic Sunset View Apartments
8.4 Step 4 — Alternatives Evaluation
8.4.1 Alternatives Evaluation
Each of the two traffic signal alternatives are feasible and meet the operational requirement for the SR 3
corridor.The costs for each are nearly equal, approximately$600,000
It is anticipated that the completion of the improvements will occur concurrently with the development
project.
8.4.2 Public Outreach
The intersection improvements will be included as part of the development project's environmental
permitting through Mason County and will be subject to public comment.
8.5 Step 5 — Selection
8.5.1 Recommendation
The evaluation in Steps 2-4 show a traffic signal control is the preferred intersection control
configuration.The traffic signal is the only feasible alternative, given the site constraints, that also meets
the operational requirements of the SR 3 corridor.
Of the two traffic signal control alternatives,the "continuous green-tee"traffic signal configuration is
recommended because it provides protected left turning movements from NE Ridgepoint Boulevard
while maintaining continuous traffic flow on southbound SR 3.
As was discussed throughout this report, PM queuing on southbound SR 3 has a significant impact on
this intersection. A rolling queue often extends along SR 3, originating in Belfair and extending north of
the project intersection. During both the traffic counting and a subsequent site visit, driver behavior was
observed. Drivers exiting NE Ridgepoint Boulevard we observed staging in the TWLTL,where
southbound drivers were witnessed yielding and allowing them to merge.The green-tee simulates this
existing operation, but provides additional protection to the left turning movement off of NE Ridgepoint
Boulevard by providing a stop condition for northbound traffic.
SC1 Alliance June 2020 1 Page 32
Appendix A
Traffic Volume Counts
O
C N w^ D S
m y
n c a
-
A
z Z2 � I^ LAS o A r �
o o O "' O _ _ o --
� O 10 O J 01 N P fOJ N�
Z m y u O
o A C o
w�,wC
1O
7 J
o c Q ti r�
0 0 0 0 0 o c o --3
o
^ I I rc
n
0 000000000000 (—�- v n p 8
n
_ _ m a n
y to
0 m
n w
m y r' b O Ot N O O O O O O O O - O O
2 p
O - w H N 00 A RI A O O O O a N G N
O O O
O x E
b G a
^ y J J J O O O O = b OWo A P N O 1
C _m
Prepared for: SCJ AltianCe
Traffic Count Consultants,Ina
LLZ Phone:(253)770-1407 FAX:(253)770-1411 E-Mail:Team@TC2inc.com
WBE/DBE
Intersection: SR-3&NF Ritippoint Blvd Date of Count: Wed 1/08/2020
Location: Belfair,WA Checked By: Jen
Time From North on(SB) From South on(NB) From East on(VIfB) From West on(EB) Interval
Interval SR-3 SR-3 NE Ridg int Blvd 0 Total
Ending at T L S R T L S R T L S R T L S R
4:15 P 0 4 77 0 5 0 161 16 0 12 0 7 0 0 0 0 277
4:30 P 2 4 122 0 3 0 156 14 1 12 0 8 0 0 0 0 316
4:45 P 4 8 221 0 2 0 135 19 1 14 0 7 0 0 0 0 404
5:00 P 5 4 166 0 3 0 110 13 1 0 5 0 11 0 0 0 0 309
5:15 P 7 5 159 0 3 0 137 19 0 15 0 11 0 0 0 0 346
5:30 P 1 9 147 0 1 0 109 13 0 15 0 11 0 0 0 0 304
5:45 P 2 6 200 0 2 0 93 7 0 8 0 5 0 0 0 0 319
6:00 P 1 6 162 0 1 0 81 17 1 11 0 6 0 0 0 0 283
6:15P 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
6:30P 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
6:45P 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7:00P 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total
Surve 22 46 1254 0 20 0 982 118 3 92 0 66 0 0 0 0 2558
q
Peak Hour: 4:15 PM to 5:15 PM
Total 18 21 668 0 11 0 538 65 2 46 0 37 0 0 0 0 1375
Approach 689 603 83 0 1 1375
%HV 28% 1.8% 2.4% Na 2.3%
PHF 0.75 0.89 0.80 Na 0.85
SR-3
11 1264
7 O 575
�7 0 'Bike
j� 6" 1 21 L 0 1Ped NE Rideepoint Blvd
37
0 93
0 46 169
0 1 0 lBike
0 4:15 PM to 5:15 PM E0 1Pcd
0 (----''-'-'�
PED. N S E W Ped( 0 538 65 1616 1.0 PHF Peak How Volmne
A—.
INT 01 0 Bikel__0—_I PHF Y.HV
INT 02 0 EB n/a n/a
INT 03 0 714 603 Check WB 0.80 2.4%
INT 04 0 In: 1375 NB 0.89 1.8%
INT 05 0 1317 Out: 1375 SB 0.75 2.6%
INT 06 0 SR-3 Tlet 0.85 2.3%
INT 0 _ 0 Bicycles From: N S E IN Conditions:
INT 08 0 INT 01 0
INT _ 0 INT 02 _ �~ 0
INT 1 0 INr 03 0
INT 11 0 INT 04 0
INT 1 0 INT 05 0
0 INT 0e 0
Special Notes INT 07 _ 0
INT De 0
INT 09 0
INT 10 0
INT 11 0
INT 12 .._.__. _. 0
01 01 0 00
SCJ20001TM 02P
Lk
Prepared lor. SCJ Alliance
Traffic Count Consultants, Inc.
Phone:(253)770-1407 FAX:(253)770-1411 E-Mail: Team@TC2inc.com
WBE/DBE
Intersection: NU Old Clifton Rd&SR-3 Date of Count: Wed 110812020
Location: Belfair,WA Checked By: 3en
Time From North on(SB) From South on(NB) From East on(WB) From West on(EB) Interval
Interval NE Old Clifton Rd NE Old Clifton Rd SR-3 SR-3 Total
Ending at T I L S R T L S R T L S R T L S R
4:15 P 1 80 12 27 0 7 8 1 1 0 55 28 6 22 109 4 353
430 P 1 86 4 34 0 4 5 5 1 0 88 33 2 22 96 5 382
4:45 P 1 72 2 26 0 5 6 1 6 7 137 94 2 32 104 5 491
5.00 P 2 68 6 31 0 8 11 7 5 0 130 74 1 28 87 5 455
5:15 P 1 82 10 61 0 4 11 2 5 2 116 69 3 16 104 3 480
530 P 1 57 2 38 0 5 2 2 3 3 100 37 0 31 81 1 359
5:45 P 0 55 7 25 0 4 9 3 0 1 141 1 64 I 1 15 65 3 392
6:00 P 2 43 6 26 0 6 5 4 0 4 112 60 0 15 69 5 395
6:15P 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
6:30P 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
6:45P 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7:00P 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total
Surve 9 143 49 268 0 1 43 57 25 21 17 919 459 15 181 715 31 3307
Peak Hour: 4:15 PM to 5:15 PM
Total 5 1 309 22 152 0 21 33 15 17 9 471 2-0 S 98 391 19 1808
Approach 48' 69 750 507 1808
",II\ 1.0°1 Na 2.3% 1.6% 1.7%
Pill 0.79 0.66 0.79 0.90 0.92
NE Old Clifton Rd
LL 883
1a2 /01
—0— (Bike
SR-3 ts2 22 MS I �Ped SR-3
—� 270
I—I Pedl 2 I 411 750
Bikes 0Y 9 1464
1151 9a ( 0 113ike
L.0 507 I 391 4:15 P51 m 5:15 PM -]Ped 714
18
BEM N S E W Ped I 2 1 21 33 15 1964 10 PHF Peak Hour Volume
Aeras: ---
INT01 0 0 0 0 0 Bike-_0_ PHF°/.HV
INT 02 0 0 0 0 0 ER 0.90 1.6%
INT 03 1 2 0 2 5 49 M14 Check WB 0.79 2.3%
INT 04 0 0 0 0_ 0 In: 1808 NB 0.66 n/a
INT 05 0 0 0 0 0 118 Out: 1808 SB 0.79 1.0%
INT 06 0 1 0 0 1 NE Old Clifton Rd T Ina 0.92 1.7%
INT 07 1 0 0 0 1 Bicycles From: N I S E W Conditions:
INT 08 0 1 0 1 2 INT 01 No Bicycles 0
INT 09 0 INT 02 _ 0
INT 10 0 INT 03 _ _ 0
INT I 0 INT 04 _ 0
INT 12 0 INT 05 0
9 INT 06 0
Special Notes INT 07 0
INT 09 - -- 0
INT 09 0
INT 10 0
INT 11 0
INT 12 _._ ...--- 0
0 0 01 00
SCJ20001TM 03P
L_�Liz
Prepared for: SCJ Alliance
Traffic Count Consultants,Inc.
Phone:(253)770-1407 FAX:(253)770-1411 E-Mail: Team@TC2inc.com
WBE/DBE
Intersection: NE Old Belfair Hwy&SR-3 Date of Count: Wed 1/08/2020
Location: Belfair,WA Checked By: Jen
Time From North on(SB) From South on(NB) From East on(WB) From West on(EB) Interval
Interval NE Old Belfair Hwy 0 SR-3 SR-3 Total
Ending at T L S R T L S R T L S R T L S R
4:15 P 0 0 0 67 0 0 0 0 1 0 72 1 6 64 144 0 348
4:30 P 2 1 0 104 0 0 0 0 0 0 123 0 2 64 136 0 428
4:45 P 5 1 0 99 0 0 0 0 2 0 165 3 2 46 114 0 428
5:00 P 3 0 0 91 0 0 0 0 5 0 168 6 1 2 55 108 0 428
5:15 P 3 2 0 106 0 0 0 0 6 0 137 5 3 58 121 0 429
5:30 P 2 0 0 95 0 0 0 0 2 0 128 0 2 46 97 0 366
5:45 P 0 1 0 97 0 0 0 0 1 0 157 2 1 41 74 0 372
6:00 P 1 1 0 83 0 0 0 0 3 0 182 6 0 47 77 0 396
6:15P 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
6:30P 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0
6:45P 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
7:00P 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total
Survey 16 6 0 742 0 0 0 0 20 0 1132 23 18 421 871 0 3195
Peak Hour: 4:15 PM to 5:15 PM
Total 13 4 0 400 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 13 0 593 14 9 223 479 0 1713
Approach 404 0 607 702 1713
IWIV 3.2% Na 2.1% 1.3% 2.0%
PHF 0.94 n/a 0.87 0.88 1.00
Lk NE Old Belfair Hwy
641
237
__-O---Bike
SR-3 400 4 �Ped SR-3
u
C 993 I Ped' U 1 593 EfhE
Bike- 0
1695 223 1 0 (Bike
702 I 14" 4:15 PM to 5:15 PM MPed
PED.A 171 N S E W 6 1.0 PHF Peak Hour Volume
INT 01 0 0 0 0 0 PHF %HV
INT 02 2 0 0 0 2 EB 0.88 1.3%
INT 03 0 0 0 0 0 Check WB 0.87 2.1%
INT 04 0 0 0 0 0 In: 1713 NB n/a n/a
INT 05 0 _ 0 0 0 0 Oat: 1713 SB 0.94 3.2
IN7 OB 0 1 0 0 1 T Int. 1.00 2.0
IN7 07 1 0 0 0 1 Bicycles From: N S E W Conditions:
INT 08 0 0 0 0 0 INT 01 No Bicycles_ 0
INT 09 0 INr 02 0
INT 10 _ 0 INT 03 0
INT 11 0 INT 04 0
INT 12 0 INT 05 0
4 INT 09 0
Special Notes INT 07 0
INT 09 0
INr 09 0
INT 10 0
:INT 11 0
NWT i2 ,_.._._.- _. 0
0 0 0 00
SCJ20001TM NP
Lk
Prepared for: SCJ Alliance
Traffic Count Consultants, Inc.
Phone:(253)770-1407 FAX:(253)770-1411 E-Mail: Team@TC2ine.com
WBE/DBE
Intersection: NE Old Belfair Hwy&NE Old Clifton Rd(SR-300) Date of Count: w cd 1 09 2020
Location: Belfair,WA Chocked By: Jcn
Time From North on(SB) From South on(NB) From East on(WB) From West on(EB) Interval
Interval NE Old Belfair Hwy NE Old Belfair Hwy NE Old Clifton Rd NE Old Clifton Rd(SR-300) Total
Ending at T I L S R T L S R T L S R T L S R
4:15 P 0 34 60 34 0 35 23 23 1 36 40 12 2 20 56 36 409
4:30 P 1 22 63 30 0 32 22 17 1 35 56 19 2 13 58 38 405
445 P 2 22 54 24 0 33 27 20 2 33 70 26 3 8 54 33 404
5:00 P 2 27 69 27 1 34 26 15 1 16 82 18 3 8 44 40 406
5:15 P 0 33 59 32 0 37 20 20 0 27 71 15 2 7 54 33 408
5:30 P 0 22 66 31 2 32 13 22 0 24 57 21 0 10 42 31 371
5:45 P 0 27 64 24 0 27 21 16 0 27 78 22 0 10 35 33 384
6:00 P 0 14 47 23 2 29 15 13 1 16 72 12 2 8 51 22 322
6:15P 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
6:30P 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
6:45P 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
7:00P 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0
Total
Survey 5 201 482 225 5 259 167 146 6 1 214 1 526 145 14 84 394 266 3109
Peak Hour: 4:00 PM to 5:00 PM
Total 5 105 246 115 I 134 98 75 5 120 248 75 10 49 212 147 1624
Approach 466 307 443 408 1624
%HV 1.1% 0.3% 1.1% 2.5% 1.3%
Pill 0.91 0.95 0.86 0.91 0.99
LNE Old Belfair Hwy
688
0 zxz
0 'Bike
N E Old Clifton Rd SR-300 Its 2" 105 L-1Ped 1 NE Old Clifton Rd
75
497 I Pcdl 0 218 413
Bike. 0 120 835
905 49 I 0 IBike
10$ I 212 4:00 PM to 5:00 PM L 3--�Ped 392
147
t'Cm N S E W Ped� 2 i 134 98 75 1636
A /.0 PHF Peak Hour Volume
INT01 0 1 0 0 1 Bikel__0 I PHF %HV
INT02 0 1 3 0 4 F.B 0.91 2.5%
INT 03 0 0 0 0 0 513 307 Check WB 0.86 1.1%
INT 04 0 0 0 0 0 In: 1624 NB 0.95 0.3%
INT 05 0 1 0 0 1 820 Out: 1624 SB 0.91 1.1%
INT 06 0 0 0 0 0 NE Old Belfair Hwy T Int 0.99 1.3%
INT 07 0 0 0 0 0 Bicycles From: N I S E W Conditions:
INT 08 0 2 0 0 2 INT 01 No Bicycles _ 0
tNT 09 0 INT 02 0
INT 10 0 INT 03 __ 0
INT 11 0 INT 04 0
INT 12 0 INT 05 0
$ INT 06 0
Special Notes INT 07 __ 0
INT 08 0
INT 09 0
INT 10 0
INT 11 0
INT 12 O
01
01
01 0
SCJ20001TM 05P
Appendix B
Traffic Volume Calculations Worksheets
Belfair SR 3 Housing and Apartment Development
SCJ ALLIANCE Trip Generation
AM Peak Hour Trip Generation
Site Plan Description LUC ITE Description Variable Value Trip Rate Distribution Total Trips
In Out In Out Total
Apartments 221 Multifamily Housing(Mid-Rise) Units 246.0 0.36 26% 74% 23 66 89
Single Family Lots-Phase 1 210 Single Family Housing Units 50.0 0.74 25% 75% 9 28 37
Single Family Lots-Phase 2 210 Single Family Housing Units 92.0 0.74 25% 75% 17 51 68
Total 49 145 194
PM Peak Hour Trip Generation
Site Plan Description LUC ITE Description Variable Value Trip Rate Distribution Total Trips
In Out In Out Total
Apartments 221 Multifamily Housing(Mid-Rise) Units 246.0 0.44 61% 39% 66 42 108
Single Family Lots-Phase 1 210 Single Family Housing Units 50.0 0.99 63% 37% 31 19 50
Single Family Lots-Phase 2 210 Single Family Housing Units 92.0 0.99 63% 37% 57 34 91
Total I I I 1 1 154 95 249
Daily Trip Generation
Site Plan Description LUC ITE Description Variable Value Trip Rate Distribution Total Trips
In Out In Out Total
Apartments 221 Multifamily Housing(Mid-Rise) Units 246.0 5.44 50% 50% 669 669 1,338
Single Family Lots-Phase 1 210 Single Family Housing Units 50.0 9.44 50% 50% 236 236 472
Single Family Lots-Phase 2 210 Single Family Housing Units 92.0 9.44 50% 50% 434 434 868
Total 1,339 1,339 2,678
Belfair Apartments
SCJ ALLIANCE PM Peak Hour Volumes
Growth Rate: 1%
Full Build
Intersection Movement Existing Background Baseline Site ld 111Projecte-d"I
Growth Volumes Total Amolumes J
L 30 1 0 10 0 10
ES T 1 0 1 154 155
R 45 1 46 0 46
1 L 1 0 1 0 1
NE Creelman Lane WB T 2 0 2 95 97
NE Ridgepoint Blvd R 0 0 0 0 0
L 48 1 49 0 49
TMC Date:0110812020 NB T 3 1 0 3 0 3
R 0 0 0 0 0
4:30-5:30 (. 0 0 0 0 0
PHF:0.84 5B T 2 0 2 0 2
R 15 0 15 0 15
141 129 378
L 0 0 0 0 0
EB T 0 0 0 0 0
R 0 D 0 0 0
2 L 46 1 47 33 80
SR WB T 0 0 0 0 0
NE Ridgepoint Blvd R 37 1 38 62 300
L 0 0 0 0 0
TMC Date:01/08/2020 NB T 538 11 549 0 549
R 65 1 1 66 54 120
4:15-5:15 t. 21 1 0 21 100 121
PHF:0.95 5B T 668 13 681 0 681
R 0 0 0 0 0
_ 1,375 1,402 1,651
L 98 2 100 0 100
EB T 391 8 399 30 429
R 18 0 18 18
3 L 9 0 9 0 9
NE Old Offl on Rd WB T 471 9 490 499
SR 3 R 270 275 4 289
L 21 0 21 0 21
TMC Date:01/08/2020 N8 T 33 1 34 0 134
R 15 0 15 0 1 15
4:15-5:15 L 308 6 314 24 338
PHF:0.92 SR T 22 0 22 0 22
R 152 3 155 0 155
L 223 1 4 227 0 227
EB T 479 10 489 30 519
R 0 0 0 0 0
4 l 0 0 0 0 0
NE Old Belhlr Hwy W B T 593 12 605 19 624
SR 3 R 14 0 14 0 14
L 0 0 0 0 0
TMC Date:01/08/2020 NB T 0 1 0 0 0 0
R 0 0 0 0 0
4:15-5:15 L 4 0 4 0 4
PHF:1.00 SB T 0 0 0 0 0
R 400 8 408 0 408
01111— 1,713 1,747 1,796
L 49 1 50 0 50
EB T 212 1 4 216 9 225
R 147 3 150 0 150
5 L 120 2 122 0 122
NE Old Belfair Hwy WB T 248 5 253 5 258
NE Old Cllfton Rd/SR 300 R 75 2 77 5 82
L 134 3 137 0 137
TMC Date.0110812020 NB T 98 2 1D0 0 100
R 75 2 77 0 77
4:00-5:00 L. 105 2 107 8 115
PHF:0.99 SB T 246 5 251 0 251
R 115 2 117 0 117
1,624 1,657 1,684
Appendix C
Capacity Analysis Worksheets
Existing 2020
SimTraffic Performance Report PM peak hour
1: Creelman Lane & Ridgepoint Blvd Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR All
Denied DelNeh(s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
Total DelNeh(s) 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.0 5.2 2.9 0.6
Belfair Apartments and Single Family Residents SimTraffic Report
SCJ Alliance 05/11/2020
HCM 6th TWSC Existing 2020
2: SR 3 & Ridgepoint Blvd PM peak hour
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.3
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations Y + r +
Traffic Vol,vehlh 45 35 540 65 20 670
Future Vol,veh/h 45 35 540 65 20 670
Conflicting Peds,#/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 350 150 -
Veh in Median Storage,# 0 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 0 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 85 85 85 85 85 85
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 3 3
Mvmt Flow 53 41 635 76 24 788
Major/Minor Minorl Majorl Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1471 635 0 0 711 0
Stage 1 635 - - - -
Stage 2 836 - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 - 4.13 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 - 2.227 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 140 478 - 884 -
Stage 1 528 - - - -
Stage 2 425 - - - -
Platoon blocked,% -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 136 478 - 884 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 273 -
Stage 1 528 - - - -
Stage 2 414 - -
Approach WB NB SIB
HCM Control Delay,s 19.8 0 0.3
HCM LOS C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT
Capacity(veh/h) - - 336 884 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.28 0.027 -
HCM Control Delay(s) - - 19.8 9.2 -
HCM Lane LOS - - C A -
HCM 95th%tile Q(veh) - - 1.1 0.1 -
Belfair Apartments and Single Family Residents Synchro 10 Report
SCJ Alliance 05/11/2020
Lanes, Volumes, Timings Existing 2020
3: SR 3 & NE Old Clifton Rd PM peak hour
� -� �, +mil � � �-► � � � �
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SEL SET SER NWL NWT NWR
Lane Configurations T4 Vi t r Vi to T4
Traffic Volume(vph) 100 390 20 10 470 270 310 20 150 20 35 15
Future Volume(vph) 100 390 20 10 470 270 310 20 150 20 35 15
Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Storage Length(ft) 150 0 150 250 150 0 100 0
Storage Lanes 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0
Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25
Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes
Link Speed(mph) 30 35 25 25
Link Distance(ft) 903 1629 1043 607
Travel Time(s) 20.5 31.7 28.4 16.6
Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm Perm NA Perm NA
Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 6 2
Permitted Phases 8 6 2
Detector Phase 7 4 3 8 8 6 6 2 2
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial(s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Minimum Split(s) 9.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5
Total Split(s) 10.0 26.5 9.5 26.0 26.0 24.0 24.0 24.0 24.0
Total Split(%) 16.7% 44.2% 15.8% 43.3% 43.3% 40.0% 40.0% 40.0% 40.0%
Maximum Green (s) 5.5 22.0 5.0 21.5 21.5 19.5 19.5 19.5 19.5
Yellow Time(s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
All-Red Time(s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Lost Time Adjust(s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time(s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Vehicle Extension(s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Recall Mode None None None None None Max Max Max Max
Walk Time(s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0
Flash Dont Walk(s) 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0
Pedestrian Calls(#/hr) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length:60
Actuated Cycle Length:55.6
Natural Cycle:60
Control Type:Actuated-Uncoordinated
Splits and Phases: 3: SR 3&NE Old Clifton Rd
s 5s .5s
F
06 0 08
S
Belfair Apartments and Single Family Residents Synchro 10 Report
SCJ Alliance 05/11/2020
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Existing 2020
3: SR 3 & NE Old Clifton Rd PM peak hour
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SEL SET SER NWL NWT NWR
Lane Configurations 1� T iff 1 1
Traffic Volume(veh/h) 100 390 20 10 470 270 310 20 150 20 35 15
Future Volume(veh/h) 100 390 20 10 470 270 310 20 150 20 35 15
Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/In 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1885 1885 1885 1900 1900 1900
Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 109 424 22 11 511 293 337 22 163 22 38 16
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 0 0 0
Cap,veh/h 139 689 36 25 611 517 581 68 504 457 446 188
Arrive On Green 0.08 0.39 0.39 0.01 0.33 0.33 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35
Sat Flow,veh/h 1781 1762 91 1781 1870 1585 1361 193 1434 1218 1269 534
Grp Volume(v),veh/h 109 0 446 11 511 293 337 0 185 22 0 54
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/hlln 1781 0 1854 1781 1870 1585 1361 0 1627 1218 0 1804
Q Serve(g_s),s 3.3 0.0 10.7 0.3 14.0 8.5 12.2 0.0 4.6 0.7 0.0 1.1
Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 3.3 0.0 10.7 0.3 14.0 8.5 13.3 0.0 4.6 5.4 0.0 1.1
Prop In Lane 1.00 0.05 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.88 1.00 0.30
Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 139 0 724 25 611 517 581 0 572 457 0 634
V/C Ratio(X) 0.78 0.00 0.62 0.44 0.84 0.57 0.58 0.00 0.32 0.05 0.00 0.09
Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 177 0 736 161 725 615 581 0 572 457 0 634
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(1) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00
Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 25.1 0.0 13.6 27.1 17.3 15.4 16.5 0.0 13.1 15.1 0.0 12.0
Incr Delay(d2),slveh 15.9 0.0 1.5 11.6 7.4 1.0 4.2 0.0 1.5 0.2 0.0 0.3
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),vehlln 1.9 0.0 4.1 0.2 6.4 2.8 4.1 0.0 1.8 0.2 0.0 0.5
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 41.0 0.0 15.1 38.8 24.7 16.4 20.6 0.0 14.6 15.3 0.0 12.3
LnGrp LOS D A B D C B C A B B A B
Approach Vol,veh/h 555 815 522 76
Approach Delay,s/veh 20.2 21.9 18.5 13.1
Approach LOS C C B B
Timer-Assigned Phs 2 3 4 6 7 8
Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 24.0 5.3 26.2 24.0 8.8 22.6
Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 19.5 5.0 22.0 19.5 5.5 21.5
Max Q Clear Time(g_c+11), s 7.4 2.3 12.7 15.3 5.3 16.0
Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.2 0.0 1.9 1.0 0.0 2.1
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 20.2
HCM 6th LOS C
Belfair Apartments and Single Family Residents Synchro 10 Report
SCJ Alliance 05/11/2020
HCM 6th TWSC Existing 2020
4: SR 3 & NE Old Belfair Hwy PM peak hour
Intersection
Int Delay,s/veh 10
Movement SEL SET SER NWL NWT NWR NEL NET NER SWL SWT SWR
Lane Configurations 4 r *T+ 1� I T.
Traffic Vol,veh/h 5 1 400 1 1 1 225 480 1 1 595 15
Future Vol,veh/h 5 1 400 1 1 1 225 480 1 1 595 15
Conflicting Peds,#/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length 250 - 0 - - 150 - - 100 -
Veh in Median Storage,# - 0 - - 0 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Heavy Vehicles, % 3 3 3 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 5 1 400 1 1 1 225 480 1 1 595 15
Major/Minor Minor2 Minorl Majorl Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1537 1536 603 1736 1543 481 610 0 0 481 0 0
Stage 1 605 605 - 931 931 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 932 931 - 805 612 - - - -
Critical Hdwy 7.13 6.53 6.23 7.12 6.52 6.22 4.11 - - 4.12 - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.13 5.53 - 6.12 5.52 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.13 5.53 - 6.12 5.52 - - - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.527 4.027 3.327 3.518 4.018 3.318 2.209 - - 2.218 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 94 115 497 69 115 585 974 - - 1082 - -
Stage 1 483 486 - 320 346 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 318 344 - 376 494 - - - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 76 88 497 11 88 585 974 - - 1082 - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 76 88 - 11 88 - - - - -
Stage 1 371 486 - 246 266 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 243 265 - 73 484 - - - -
Approach SE NW NE SW
HCM Control Delay, s 36.1 143 3.1 0
HCM LOS E F
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NEL NET NERNWLn1 SEW SELn2 SWL SWT SWR
Capacity(veh/h) 974 - 29 78 497 1082
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.231 0.103 0.077 0.805 0.001
HCM Control Delay(s) 9.8 - 143 55 35.8 8.3 -
HCM Lane LOS A F F E A
HCM 95th%tile Q(veh) 0.9 0.3 0.2 7.6 0
Belfair Apartments and Single Family Residents Synchro 10 Report
SCJ Alliance 05/11/2020
HCM 6th AWSC Existing 2020
5: NE Old Belfair Hwy & SR 300/NE Old Clifton Rd PM peak hour
Intersection
Intersection Delay,s/veh 31.8
Intersection LOS D
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations T. 1 1 T.
Traffic Vol,veh/h 50 210 145 120 250 75 135 100 75 105 245 115
Future Vol,veh/h 50 210 145 120 250 75 135 100 75 105 245 115
Peak Hour Factor 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99
Heavy Vehicles, % 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Mvmt Flow 51 212 146 121 253 76 136 101 76 106 247 116
Number of Lanes 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0
Approach EB WB NB SIB
Opposing Approach WB EB SIB NB
Opposing Lanes 2 2 2 2
Conflicting Approach Left SIB NB EB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 2 2 2 2
Conflicting Approach Right NB SIB WB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 2 2 2 2
HCM Control Delay 38.6 29.9 18 36.8
HCM LOS E D C E
Lane NBLn1 NBLn2 EBLn1 EBLn2 WBLn1 WBLn2 SBLn1 SBLn2
Vol Left,% 100% 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% 100% 0%
Vol Thru, % 0% 57% 0% 59% 0% 77% 0% 68%
Vol Right, % 0% 43% 0% 41% 0% 23% 0% 32%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 135 175 50 355 120 325 105 360
LT Vol 135 0 50 0 120 0 105 0
Through Vol 0 100 0 210 0 250 0 245
RT Vol 0 75 0 145 0 75 0 115
Lane Flow Rate 136 177 51 359 121 328 106 364
Geometry Grp 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7
Degree of Util(X) 0.364 0.431 0.13 0.839 0.309 0.775 0.269 0.847
Departure Headway(Hd) 9.614 8.778 9.241 8.424 9.184 8.496 9.141 8.389
Convergence,Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 374 410 388 430 392 427 392 433
Service Time 7.384 6.548 7.003 6.185 6.948 6.26 6.904 6.151
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.364 0.432 0.131 0.835 0.309 0.768 0.27 0.841
HCM Control Delay 17.8 18.1 13.4 42.2 16 35.1 15.3 43.1
HCM Lane LOS C C B E C E C E
HCM 95th-tile Q 1.6 2.1 0.4 8 1.3 6.6 1.1 8.3
Belfair Apartments and Single Family Residents Synchro 10 Report
SCJ Alliance 05/11/2020
Projected 2022 Without Project
SimTraffic Performance Report PM peak hour
1: Creelman Lane & Ridgepoint Blvd Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR All
Denied DelNeh (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
Total DelNeh(s) 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.3 4.5 2.6 0.5
Belfair Apartments and Single Family Residents SimTraffic Report
SCJ Alliance 05/22/2020
HCM 6th TWSC Projected 2022 Without Project
2: SR 3 & Ridgepoint Blvd PM peak hour
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.2
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations Y + r
Traffic Vol,veh/h 45 40 550 65 20 680
Future Vol,veh/h 45 40 550 65 20 680
Conflicting Peds,#/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - 350 150 -
Veh in Median Storage,# 0 0 - - 0
Grade, % 0 0 - 0
Peak Hour Factor 100 100 100 100 100 100
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 3 3
Mvmt Flow 45 40 550 65 20 680
Major/Minor Minorl Majorl Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1270 550 0 0 615 0
Stage 1 550 - - - - -
Stage 2 720 - -
Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 - 4.13
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.227
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 186 535 - - 960 -
Stage 1 578 - -
Stage 2 482 - - -
Platoon blocked, %
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 182 535 960 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 319 - -
Stage 1 578 - -
Stage 2 472 - -
Approach WB NB SIB
HCM Control Delay,s 16.6 0 0.3
HCM LOS C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT
Capacity(veh/h) 394 960
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.216 0.021
HCM Control Delay(s) - 16.6 8.8
HCM Lane LOS C A
HCM 95th%tile Q(veh) - 0.8 0.1
Belfair Apartments and Single Family Residents Synchro 10 Report
SCJ Alliance 05/22/2020
Lanes, Volumes, Timings Projected 2022 Without Project
3: SR 3 & NE Old Clifton Rd PM peak hour
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SEL SET SER NWL NWT NWR
Lane Configurations 1� t if 1 $
Traffic Volume(vph) 100 400 20 10 480 275 315 20 155 20 35 15
Future Volume(vph) 100 400 20 10 480 275 315 20 155 20 35 15
Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Storage Length (ft) 150 0 150 250 150 0 100 0
Storage Lanes 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0
Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25
Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes
Link Speed (mph) 30 35 25 25
Link Distance(ft) 903 1629 1043 607
Travel Time(s) 20.5 31.7 28.4 16.6
Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm Perm NA Perm NA
Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 6 2
Permitted Phases 8 6 2
Detector Phase 7 4 3 8 8 6 6 2 2
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Minimum Split(s) 9.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5
Total Split(s) 10.0 26.5 9.5 26.0 26.0 24.0 24.0 24.0 24.0
Total Split(%) 16.7% 44.2% 15.8% 43.3% 43.3% 40.0% 40.0% 40.0% 40.0°%
Maximum Green(s) 5.5 22.0 5.0 21.5 21.5 19.5 19.5 19.5 19.5
Yellow Time(s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
All-Red Time(s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Lost Time Adjust(s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time(s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Vehicle Extension(s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Recall Mode None None None None None Max Max Max Max
Walk Time(s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0
Flash Dont Walk(s) 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0
Pedestrian Calls(#/hr) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length:60
Actuated Cycle Length:55.1
Natural Cycle:60
Control Type:Actuated-Uncoordinated
Splits and Phases: 3: SR 3&NE Old Clifton Rd
�02
s I ML a 5s
06 -�r ,7 Lip
IRS 46 was
Belfair Apartments and Single Family Residents Synchro 10 Report
SCJ Alliance 05/22/2020
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Projected 2022 Without Project
3: SR 3 & NE Old Clifton Rd ` PM peak hour
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SEL SET SER NWL NWT NWR
Lane Configurations To t r to 1�
Traffic Volume(veh/h) 100 400 20 10 480 275 315 20 155 20 35 15
Future Volume(veh/h) 100 400 20 10 480 275 315 20 155 20 35 15
Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow,veh/hlln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1885 1885 1885 1900 1900 1900
Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 100 400 20 10 480 275 315 20 155 20 35 15
Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 0 0 0
Cap,veh/h 128 661 33 23 590 500 603 67 521 484 457 196
Arrive On Green 0.07 0.37 0.37 0.01 0.32 0.32 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36
Sat Flow,veh/h 1781 1766 88 1781 1870 1585 1366 186 1440 1229 1262 541
Grp Volume(v),vehlh 100 0 420 10 480 275 315 0 175 20 0 50
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1781 0 1854 1781 1870 1585 1366 0 1626 1229 0 1803
Q Serve(g_s),s 3.0 0.0 9.9 0.3 12.7 7.7 10.6 0.0 4.1 0.6 0.0 1.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 3.0 0.0 9.9 0.3 12.7 7.7 11.6 0.0 4.1 4.8 0.0 1.0
Prop In Lane 1.00 0.05 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.89 1.00 0.30
Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 128 0 694 23 590 500 603 0 589 484 0 653
V/C Ratio(X) 0.78 0.00 0.61 0.44 0.81 0.55 0.52 0.00 0.30 0.04 0.00 0.08
Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 182 0 758 165 747 633 603 0 589 484 0 653
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00
Uniform Delay(d),slveh 24.6 0.0 13.6 26.4 17.0 15.3 15.1 0.0 12.3 14.0 0.0 11.3
Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 12.9 0.0 1.2 12.4 5.5 0.9 3.2 0.0 1.3 0.2 0.0 0.2
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.6 0.0 3.7 0.2 5.5 2.5 3.5 0.0 1.6 0.2 0.0 0.4
Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 37.5 0.0 14.8 38.8 22.5 16.2 18.3 0.0 13.6 14.1 0.0 11.5
LnGrp LOS D A B D C B B A B B A B
Approach Vol,veh/h 520 765 490 70
Approach Delay, s/veh 19.2 20.5 16.6 12.3
Approach LOS B C B B
Timer-Assigned Phs 2 3 4 6 7 8
Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc), s 24.0 5.2 24.7 24.0 8.4 21.5
Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 19.5 5.0 22.0 19.5 5.5 21.5
Max Q Clear Time(g_c+l1), s 6.8 2.3 11.9 13.6 5.0 14.7
Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.2 0.0 1.9 1.2 0.0 2.2
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 18.8
HCM 6th LOS B
Belfair Apartments and Single Family Residents Synchro 10 Report
SCJ Alliance 05/22/2020
HCM 6th TWSC Projected 2022 Without Project
4: SR 3 & NE Old Belfair Hwy PM peak hour
Intersection
Int Delay,s/veh 11
Movement SEL SET SER NWL NWT NWR NEL NET NER SWL SWT SWR
Lane Configurations 4 r +T+ T I T
Traffic Vol,veh/h 5 1 410 1 1 1 225 490 1 1 605 15
Future Vol,veh/h 5 1 410 1 1 1 225 490 1 1 605 15
Conflicting Peds,#/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length 250 - 0 - - 150 - - 100 -
Veh in Median Storage,# - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Heavy Vehicles, % 3 3 3 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 5 1 410 1 1 1 225 490 1 1 605 15
Major/Minor Minor2 Minorl Majorl Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1557 1556 613 1761 1563 491 620 0 0 491 0 0
Stage 1 615 615 - 941 941 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 942 941 - 820 622 - - - -
Critical Hdwy 7.13 6.53 6.23 7.12 6.52 6.22 4.11 - - 4.12 - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.13 5.53 - 6.12 5.52 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.13 5.53 - 6.12 5.52 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.527 4.027 3.327 3.518 4.018 3.318 2.209 - 2.218 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 91 112 491 66 112 578 965 - 1072 -
Stage 1 477 481 - 316 342 - - - - -
Stage 2 314 341 - 369 479 - - - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 74 86 491 9 86 578 965 - 1072 - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 74 86 - 9 86 - - - - -
Stage 1 366 481 242 262 - - -
Stage 2 239 262 - 61 479 -
Approach SE NW NE SW
HCM Control Delay, s 39.7 175.4 3.1 0
HCM LOS E F
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NEL NET NERNWLnl SELn1 SELn2 SWL SWT SWR
Capacity(veh/h) 965 - 24 76 491 1072
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.233 - 0.125 0.079 0.835 0.001
HCM Control Delay(s) 9.9 - - 175.4 56.4 39.5 8.4 - -
HCM Lane LOS A F F E A
HCM 95th%tile Q(veh) 0.9 - 0.4 0.2 8.3 0
Belfair Apartments and Single Family Residents Synchro 10 Report
SCJ Alliance 05/22/2020
HCM 6th AWSC Projected 2022 Without Project
5: NE Old Belfair Hwy & SR 300/NE Old Clifton Rd PM peak hour
Intersection
Intersection Delay, slveh 32.8
Intersection LOS D
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations I. T4 I T.
Traffic Vol,veh/h 50 215 150 120 255 75 135 100 75 105 250 115
Future Vol,veh/h 50 215 150 120 255 75 135 100 75 105 250 115
Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Heavy Vehicles, % 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Mvmt Flow 50 215 150 120 255 75 135 100 75 105 250 115
Number of Lanes 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0
EB WB NB SB
Opposing Approach WB EB SIB NB
Opposing Lanes 2 2 2 2
Conflicting Approach Left SIB NB EB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 2 2 2 2
Conflicting Approach Right NB SIB WB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 2 2 2 2
HCM Control Delay 40.7 30.5 18 37.7
HCM LOS E D C E
Lane NBLn1 NBLn2 EBLn1 EBLn2 WBLn1 WBLn2 SBLn1 SBLn2
Vol Left, % 100% 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% 100% 0%
Vol Thru, % 0% 57% 0% 59% 0% 77% 0% 68%
Vol Right, % 0% 43% 0% 41% 0% 23% 0% 32%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 135 175 50 365 120 330 105 365
LT Vol 135 0 50 0 120 0 105 0
Through Vol 0 100 0 215 0 255 0 250
RT Vol 0 75 0 150 0 75 0 115
Lane Flow Rate 135 175 50 365 120 330 105 365
Geometry Grp 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7
Degree of Util(X) 0.362 0.429 0.128 0.855 0.307 0.781 0.267 0.854
Departure Headway(Hd) 9.657 8.82 9.249 8.43 9.209 8.523 9.169 8.42
Convergence,Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 373 408 388 431 390 422 392 431
Service Time 7.429 6.592 7.014 6.194 6.976 6.29 6.931 6.181
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.362 0.429 0.129 0.847 0.308 0.782 0.268 0.847
HCM Control Delay 17.8 18.1 13.4 44.4 16 35.8 15.3 44.2
HCM Lane LOS C C B E C E C E
HCM 95th-tile Q 1.6 2.1 0.4 8.4 1.3 6.7 1.1 8.4
Belfair Apartments and Single Family Residents Synchro 10 Report
SCJ Alliance 05/22/2020
HCM 6th TWSC Projected 2022 with Project
1: Creelman Lane & Ridgepoint Blvd PM peak hour
Intersection
Int Delay,s/veh 2.3
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations 4 .4+ 4� 4�
Traffic Vol,veh/h 10 165 45 1 100 1 50 5 1 1 5 15
Future Vol,veh/h 10 165 45 1 100 1 50 5 1 1 5 15
Conflicting Peds,#/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - - None - - None - None
Storage Length -
Veh in Median Storage,# 0 - - 0 - 0 0
Grade, % 0 0 0 0
Peak Hour Factor 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Heavy Vehicles, % 4 4 4 1 1 1 0 0 0 6 6 6
Mvmt Flow 10 165 45 1 100 1 50 5 1 1 5 15
Major/Minor Majorl Major2 Minorl Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 101 0 0 210 0 0 321 311 188 314 333 101
Stage 1 - - - - - - 208 208 - 103 103 -
Stage 2 - - - - - 113 103 - 211 230 -
Critical Hdwy 4.14 - - 4.11 - - 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.16 6.56 6.26
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.1 5.5 - 6.16 5.56 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.1 5.5 - 6.16 5.56 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.236 - - 2.209 - - 3.5 4 3.3 3.554 4.054 3.354
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1479 - 1367 - - 636 607 859 631 580 943
Stage 1 - - - - - - 799 734 - 893 802 -
Stage 2 - - - - - 897 814 - 782 707 -
Platoon blocked, % - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1479 - 1367 - - 618 602 859 622 575 943
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - 618 602 - 622 575 -
Stage 1 - - 793 728 - 886 801 -
Stage 2 - - - - 876 813 770 701 -
Approach EB WB NB SIB
HCM Control Delay,s 0.3 0.1 11.4 9.6
HCM LOS B A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1
Capacity(veh/h) 620 1479 1367 - 801
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.09 0.007 0.001 - 0.026
HCM Control Delay(s) 11.4 7.5 0 - 7.6 0 - 9.6
HCM Lane LOS B A A - A A A
HCM 95th%tile Q(veh) 0.3 0 - - 0 - - 0.1
Belfair Apartments and Single Family Residents Synchro 10 Report
SCJ Alliance 05/22/2020
HCM 6th TWSC Projected 2022 with Project
2: SR 3 & Ridgepoint Blvd PM peak hour
Intersection
Int Delay,s/veh 4.3
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations Y + r I
Traffic Vol,veh/h 110 75 550 125 125 680
Future Vol,veh/h 110 75 550 125 125 680
Conflicting Peds,#/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - 350 150 -
Veh in Median Storage,# 0 0 - - 0
Grade,% 0 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 100 100 100 100 100 100
Heavy Vehicles,% 2 2 2 2 3 3
Mvmt Flow 110 75 550 125 125 680
Major/Minor Minorl Majorl Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1480 550 0 0 675 0
Stage 1 550 - - - - -
Stage 2 930 - -
Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.13
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.227
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 138 535 - 912 -
Stage 1 578 - -
Stage 2 384 - - -
Platoon blocked, % -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 119 535 912 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 241 - -
Stage 1 578 -
Stage 2 331
Approach WB NB SIB
HCM Control Delay,s 32.4 0 1.5
HCM LOS D
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLnl SBL SBT
Capacity(veh/h) - 310 912
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.597 0.137
HCM Control Delay(s) - 32.4 9.6
HCM Lane LOS - D A
HCM 95th%tile Q(veh) - - 3.6 0.5
Belfair Apartments and Single Family Residents Synchro 10 Report
SCJ Alliance 05/22/2020
Lanes, Volumes, Timings Projected 2022 with Project
3: SR 3 & NE Old Clifton Rd PM peak hour
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SEL SET SER NWL NWT NWR
Lane Configurations to f r '� 1 1
Traffic Volume(vph) 100 430 20 10 500 290 340 20 155 20 35 15
Future Volume(vph) 100 430 20 10 500 290 340 20 155 20 35 15
Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Storage Length (ft) 150 0 150 250 150 0 100 0
Storage Lanes 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0
Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25
Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes
Link Speed(mph) 30 35 25 25
Link Distance(ft) 903 1629 1043 607
Travel Time(s) 20.5 31.7 28.4 16.6
Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm Perm NA Perm NA
Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 6 2
Permitted Phases 8 6 2
Detector Phase 7 4 3 8 8 6 6 2 2
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Minimum Split(s) 9.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5
Total Split(s) 10.0 26.5 9.5 26.0 26.0 24.0 24.0 24.0 24.0
Total Split(%) 16.7% 44.2% 15.8% 43.3% 43.3% 40.0% 40.0°% 40.0% 40.0%
Maximum Green(s) 5.5 22.0 5.0 21.5 21.5 19.5 19.5 19.5 19.5
Yellow Time(s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
All-Red Time(s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Lost Time Adjust(s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time(s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Vehicle Extension(s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Recall Mode None None None None None Max Max Max Max
Walk Time(s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0
Flash Dont Walk(s) 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0
Pedestrian Calls(#/hr) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length:60
Actuated Cycle Length:55.4
Natural Cycle:60
Control Type:Actuated-Uncoordinated
Splits and Phases: 3: SR 3&NE Old Clifton Rd
4s .5s
`, 4-
i 06 7 1 1 03
54S S
Belfair Apartments and Single Family Residents Synchro 10 Report
SCJ Alliance 05/22/2020
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Projected 2022 with Project
3: SR 3 & NE Old Clifton Rd PM peak hour
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SEL SET SER NWL NWT NWR
Lane Configurations 1� t r 1 1�
Traffic Volume(veh/h) 100 430 20 10 500 290 340 20 155 20 35 15
Future Volume(veh/h) 100 430 20 10 500 290 340 20 155 20 35 15
Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow,vehlh/In 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1885 1885 1885 1900 1900 1900
Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 100 430 20 10 500 290 340 20 155 20 35 15
Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 0 0 0
Cap,veh/h 128 678 32 23 605 513 595 66 515 476 451 193
Arrive On Green 0.07 0.38 0.38 0.01 0.32 0.32 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36
Sat Flow,veh/h 1781 1773 82 1781 1870 1585 1366 186 1440 1229 1262 541
Grp Volume(v),vehlh 100 0 450 10 500 290 340 0 175 20 0 50
Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlh/In 1781 0 1856 1781 1870 1585 1366 0 1626 1229 0 1803
Q Serve(g_s),s 3.0 0.0 10.8 0.3 13.5 8.3 12.0 0.0 4.2 0.7 0.0 1.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 3.0 0.0 10.8 0.3 13.5 8.3 13.0 0.0 4.2 4.9 0.0 1.0
Prop In Lane 1.00 0.04 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.89 1.00 0.30
Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 128 0 709 23 605 513 595 0 581 476 0 644
V/C Ratio(X) 0.78 0.00 0.63 0.44 0.83 0.57 0.57 0.00 0.30 0.04 0.00 0.08
Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 180 0 748 163 737 625 595 0 581 476 0 644
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00
Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 24.9 0.0 13.7 26.7 17.0 15.3 15.9 0.0 12.6 14.4 0.0 11.6
Incr Delay(d2), slveh 13.5 0.0 1.6 12.5 6.5 1.0 4.0 0.0 1.3 0.2 0.0 0.2
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 1.7 0.0 4.2 0.2 6.0 2.7 4.0 0.0 1.6 0.2 0.0 0.4
Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),slveh 38.4 0.0 15.4 39.2 23.5 16.3 19.8 0.0 14.0 14.5 0.0 11.8
LnGrp LOS D A B D C B B A B B A B
Approach Vol,veh/h 550 800 515 70
Approach Delay,s/veh 19.6 21.1 17.8 12.6
Approach LOS B C B B
Timer-Assigned Phs 2 3 4 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),s 24.0 5.2 25.4 24.0 8.4 22.1
Change Period(Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax),s 19.5 5.0 22.0 19.5 5.5 21.5
Max Q Clear Time(g_c+ll), s 6.9 2.3 12.8 15.0 5.0 15.5
Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.2 0.0 1.9 1.0 0.0 2.2
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrs Delay 19.5
HCM 6th LOS B
Belfair Apartments and Single Family Residents Synchro 10 Report
SCJ Alliance 05/22/2020
HCM 6th TWSC Projected 2022 with Project
4: SR 3 & NE Old Belfair Hwy PM peak hour
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 11.6
Movement SEL SET SER NWL NWT NWR NEL NET NER SWL SWT SWR
Lane Configurations T r *T+ T. T.
Traffic Vol,vehlh 5 1 410 1 1 1 225 520 1 1 625 15
Future Vol,veh/h 5 1 410 1 1 1 225 520 1 1 625 15
Conflicting Peds,#/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - None
Storage Length 250 0 - 150 - 100
Veh in Median Storage,# - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - 0 - - 0 - 0
Peak Hour Factor 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Heavy Vehicles, % 3 3 3 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 5 1 410 1 1 1 225 520 1 1 625 15
Major/Minor Minor2 Minorl Majorl Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1607 1606 633 1811 1613 521 640 0 0 521 0 0
Stage 1 635 635 - 971 971 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 972 971 - 840 642 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 7.13 6.53 6.23 7.12 6.52 6.22 4.11 - - 4.12 - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.13 5.53 - 6.12 5.52 - - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.13 5.53 - 6.12 5.52 - - - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.527 4.027 3.327 3.518 4.018 3.318 2.209 - - 2.218 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 84 105 478 61 104 555 949 - - 1045 - -
Stage 1 465 471 - 304 331 - - - -
Stage 2 302 330 - 360 469 - - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 68 80 478 7 79 555 949 - 1045 - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 68 80 - 7 79 - - - - - -
Stage1 355 471 - 232 253 - - - - -
Stage 2 229 252 - 51 469 - - -
Approach SE NW NE SW
HCM Control Delay,s 43.5 227.2 3 0
HCM LOS E F
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NEL NET NERNWLn1 SELn1 SELn2 SWL SWT SWR
Capacity(veh/h) 949 - - 19 70 478 1045
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.237 - - 0.158 0.086 0.858 0.001
HCM Control Delay(s) 10 - - 227.2 61.2 43.2 8.4
HCM Lane LOS A - - F F E A
HCM 95th%tile Q(veh) 0.9 - - 0.5 0.3 8.9 0
Belfair Apartments and Single Family Residents Synchro 10 Report
SCJ Alliance 05/22/2020
HCM 6th AWSC Projected 2022 with Project
5: NE Old Belfair Hwy & SR 300/NE Old Clifton Rd PM peak hour
Intersection
Intersection Delay,s/veh 35.3
Intersection LOS E
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations T. T. T T.
Traffic Vol,veh/h 50 225 150 120 260 80 135 100 75 115 250 115
Future Vol,veh/h 50 225 150 120 260 80 135 100 75 115 250 115
Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Heavy Vehicles, % 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Mvmt Flow 50 225 150 120 260 80 135 100 75 115 250 115
Number of Lanes 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0
Appro EB WB NB SIB
Opposing Approach WB EB SIB NB
Opposing Lanes 2 2 2 2
Conflicting Approach Left SIB NB EB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 2 2 2 2
Conflicting Approach Right NB SIB WB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 2 2 2 2
HCM Control Delay 45.6 33.5 18.4 38.9
HCM LOS E D C E
Lane NBLn1 NBLn2 EBLn1 EBLn2 WBLn1 WBLn2 SBLn1 SBLn2
Vol Left,% 100% 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% 100% 0%
Vol Thru, % 0% 57% 0% 60% 0% 76% 0% 68%
Vol Right, % 0% 43% 0% 40% 0% 24% 0% 32%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 135 175 50 375 120 340 115 365
LT Vol 135 0 50 0 120 0 115 0
Through Vol 0 100 0 225 0 260 0 250
RT Vol 0 75 0 150 0 80 0 115
Lane Flow Rate 135 175 50 375 120 340 115 365
Geometry Grp 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7
Degree of Util (X) 0.367 0.435 0.13 0.888 0.31 0.813 0.296 0.865
Departure Headway(Hd) 9.794 8.956 9.34 8.528 9.306 8.613 9.28 8.53
Convergence,Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 367 401 384 424 386 418 388 423
Service Time 7.568 6.73 7.106 6.293 7.075 6.382 7.044 6.294
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.368 0.436 0.13 0.884 0.311 0.813 0.296 0.863
HCM Control Delay 18.2 18.5 13.5 49.9 16.2 39.6 15.9 46.2
HCM Lane LOS C C B E C E C E
HCM 95th-tile Q 1.6 2.1 0.4 9.2 1.3 7.4 1.2 8.6
Belfair Apartments and Single Family Residents Synchro 10 Report
SCJ Alliance 05/22/2020
Appendix D
Conceptual Sketches
/ I �
sill
I It
\ 0 1P q
/ 1 \ SrAE N iHT
a SCJ AcLL1ANCE "' SR 3 AND RIDGEPOINT BLVD
ROUNDABOUT CONCEPT EXHIBIT
BI301NLOM ME WE,WRE 2Pl1 1ACM,WAMW 1 of 1
F v 3i0 M.- i:160351.350D
�Y SCt�LLYYlf1L11
/ - / /:"� � ' r� ` fit/ ,r i't/.♦Mr �j/
// •�gip'�.' ,�%'� ♦ d\ \a ;/ �� i/// �'' ' /t�/ \\
/ / ♦� o
\ / M%EEMMU
d1
SCJ ALL SR 3 AND RIDGEPOINT BLVD
CONTINUOUS GREEN-T INTERSECTION CONCEPT EXHIBIT
E]30 LLLLON WIE MF,SIIf1E]DD,IAEFT,W�91516
E:-- 1d1
rmsy
Appendix E
Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis
Warrants Summary Report
1: SR 3& Ridgepoint
Intersection Information
Major Street Minor Street
Street Name - -
Direction NB/SB WB
Number of Lane: 2 2
Approch Speed 35 25
Warrant Met? Notes
Warrant 1, Eight-Hour Vehicular Volume
Yes
Condition A or B Met' Yes 13 Hours met(8 required)
Condition A and B M( Yes 10 Hours met(8 required)
Warrant 2, Four-Hour Vehicular Volume
Yes 12 Hours met(4 required)
Warrant 3, Peak Hour
Yes
Condition A Met? No 0 Hours met(1 required)
Condition B Met? Yes 10 Hours met(1 required)
Federal 2009 1
Warrant 1: Eight-hour Vehicular Volume
1: SR 3$Ridgepoint
Intersection Information
Major Street Name: -
Major Street Direction: NB/SB
Minor Street Direction: WB
WARRANT 1 MET?
Details:
Condition A Met? 13 Hours met(8 required)
Condition B Met? 10 Hours met(8 required)
Hour Major Street Vehicles High Volume Minor 70%Standard Met? 56%Standard Met?
(Total of Both Approaches) Approach Vehicles Cond.A OR Cond. B Cond. AAND Cond. B
Condition A Condition B Condition A Condition B
70% 70% 56% 56%
Column Column Column Column
00:00 to 01:00 96 0 No No No No
Condition A Volume>=70% No Volume>=70% No
column(420)? column(630)?
Volume>=56% JhL, No Volume—56% No
column(336)? column(504)?
Condition B Volume>=70% ■ No Volume>=70% No
column(630)? column(70)?
Volume>=56% No Volume>=56% NO
column(504)? column(56)?
00:15 to 01:15 77 0 No No No No
Condition A Volume—70% No Volume—70% No
column(420)? column(630)?
Volume>=56% No Volume>=56% No
column(336)? column(504)?
Condition B Volume>=70% ■ No Volume>=70% No
column(630)? column(70)?
Volume>=56% No Volume>=56% No
column(504)? column(56)?
00:30 to 01:30 61 1 No No No No
Condition A Volume—70% No Volume>=70% No
column(420)? column(630)?
Volume—56% No Volume>=56% No
column(336)? column(504)?
Condition B Volume>=70% No Volume>=70% No
column(630)? column(70)?
Volume>=56% No Volume>=56% No
column(504)? column(56)?
00:45 to 01:45 49 3 No No No No
Condition A Volume>=70% No Volume>=70% No
column(420)? column(630)?
Volume>=56% No Volume>=56% No
column(336)? column(504)?
Condition B Volume>=70% NO Volume>=70% No
column(630)? column(70)?
Volume>=56% No Volume>=56% No
column(504)? column(56)?
Federal 2009 2
Warrant 2: Four-hour Vehicular Volume
1: SR 3 & Ridgepoint
Intersection Informatior
Major Street Minor Street
Street Name - -
Direction NB/SB WB
Number of Lane: 2 2
Approch Speed 35 25
Warrant 2 Met? Yes
Details:
Notes 12 Hours met(4 required)
Low populatior Yes
Four-Hour Vehicular Volume
Community Population Less Than 10,000 or Major Street Approach Speed Above 40 mph
a
-Warrantcurve
m ■Wananted
a ---- -- • Unwarranted
1 Mawr.1 Mino--
1 Mapr,2+Mona
- 2-Major,2*Mow
L
Q'
1
,
200 300 400 50o Goo 700 800 900 1000
Major street-Total of Both Approaches(VPH)
Federal 2009 17
Hourly Volumes
Major Street Minor Street
Hour Total All Highest Volume
Approaches(vph) Approach(vph)
00:00:00-01:00:00 96.00 0.00
01:00:00 -02:00:00 58.00 5.00
02:00:00-03:00:00 53.00 1.00
03:00:00-04:00:00 156.00 2.00
04:00:00-05:00:00 521.00 13.00
05:00:00-06:00:00 910.00 61.00
06:00:00-07:00:00 1,118.00 82.00
07:00:00-08:00:00 1,260.00 71.00
08:00:00-09:00:00 1,147.00 153.00
09:00:00- 10:00:00 1,180.00 202.00
10:00:00- 11:00:00 1,092.00 230.00
11:00:00- 12:00:00 1,286.00 296.00
12:00:00- 13:00:00 1,278.00 239.00
13:00:00- 14:00:00 1,258.00 241.00
14:00:00- 15:00:00 1,374.00 163.00
15:00:00- 16:00:00 1,384.00 161.00
16:00:00- 17:00:00 1,253.00 120.00
17:00:00- 18:00:00 1,182.00 120.00
18:00:00- 19:00:00 902.00 80.00
19:00:00-20:00:00 583.00 51.00
20:00:00-21:00:00 518.00 65.00
21:00:00-22:00:00 294.00 27.00
22:00:00-23:00:00 211.00 28.00
23:00:00-00:00:00 160.00 16.00
Federal 2009 18
Warranted Volumes
Hour Major Street Minor Street
Total All Highest Volume
Approaches(vph) Approach(vph)
06:00:00- 07:00:00 1,118.00 82.00
07:15:00-08:15:00 1,230.00 86.00
08:15:00-09:15:00 1,156.00 156.00
09:15:00- 10:15:00 1,186.00 231.00
10:15:00 - 11:15:00 1,123.00 233.00
11:15:00- 12:15:00 1,277.00 304.00
12:15:00- 13:15:00 1,268.00 221.00
13:15:00- 14:15:00 1,285.00 232.00
14:15:00- 15:15:00 1,377.00 162.00
15:15:00- 16:15:00 1,287.00 148.00
16:15:00- 17:15:00 1,340.00 125.00
17:15:00- 18:15:00 1,111.00 100.00
Federal 2009 19
Warrant 3: Peak Hour
1: SR 3& Ridgepoint
Intersection Information
Major Street Minor Street
Street Name - -
Direction NB/SB WB
Number of Lane: 2 2
Approch Speed 35 25
Warrant 3 Met? Yes
Details
Low Population' Yes
Condition A Met' No Condition B Met' Yes
Notes 0 Hours met(1 required) Notes 10 Hours met(1 required)
Minor Approach Time Delay Condition Met? Not Met
Minor Approach Volume Condition Met? Met
Total Entering Intersection Volume Condition Met? Not Met
Peak Hour Vehicular Volume
Community Population Greater Than 10,000 and Major Street Approach Speed Below 40 mph
= 600
Warrant
L 500 — -� —` — ` - ` -' - --` - - �- - Curve
tD r m Warranted r r
n • Unwarranted
400 _ 1 Major,1 Minor
3 1 Major,2+Minor
j300 ----- ; - - - - -..----------- -: ----- - --: - - +- - - '. 2+Major, 1 Minor
r . ' 2+Major,2+Minor
L
200 i_
v1o0 ----I----- -- -------------- - --- ----
C 0 •
400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 ism 1700 1800
Major Street-Taal of Both Approaches(VPH)
Federal 2009 20
Hour Major Street Minor Street
Total All Highest Volume
Approaches(vph) Approach(vph)
0:00 96 0
1:00 58 5
2:00 53 1
3:00 156 2
4:00 521 13
5:00 910 61
6:00 1,118 82
7:00 1,260 71
7:30 1,216 109
8:30 1,141 164
9:30 1,136 236
10:30 1,192 241
11:30 1,294 302
12:30 1,238 210
13:30 1,304 221
14:30 1,376 168
15:30 1,287 126
16:30 1,297 137
17:30 1,099 84
18:30 681 73
19:30 544 49
20:30 430 50
21:30 237 30
22:30 163 23
23:30 145 4
Federal 2009 21
Appendix F
ICE Traffic Volume Calculations Worksheets
Belfair Apartments
SCJ ALLIANCE PM Peak Hour Volumes
I Growth Rate: 1%
Full Build I ICE Forecast
Intersection Movement i �.:
L 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
EB T 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
R 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2 L 46 1 47 33 80 0 0 14 94
SR3 WB T 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
NE Ridgepoint Blvd R 37 1 38 62 100 0 0 18 118
L 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
TMC Date:01/08/2020 NB T 538 11 549 0 549 751 -38 0 713
R 65 1 66 S4 120 0 0 22 142
4:15-5:15 L 21 0 21 100 121 0 0 22 143
PHF:0.85 SB T 668 13 682 0 681 980 -21 0 959
R 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Appendix G
ICE Capacity Analysis Worksheets
HCM 6th TWSC Projected 2022 with Project
2: SR 3 & Ridgepoint Blvd PM peak hour
Intersection
Int Delay,s/veh 3.5
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations ►fir + r
Traffic Vol,veh/h 80 100 550 120 120 680
Future Vol,veh/h 80 100 550 120 120 680
Conflicting Peds,#/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - 350 150 -
Veh in Median Storage,# 0 0 - - 0
Grade, % 0 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 100 100 100 100 100 100
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 3 3
Mvmt Flow 80 100 550 120 120 680
Major/Minor Minor1 Majorl Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1470 550 0 0 670 0
Stage 1 550 - - - - -
Stage 2 920 - -
Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 - - 4.13
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 - 2.227
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 140 535 - - 916
Stage 1 578 - - -
Stage 2 388 - - - -
Platoon blocked, %
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 122 535 - 916
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 245 - -
Stage 1 578 - - -
Stage 2 337 - -
Approach WB NB SIB
HCM Control Delay,s 25.6 0 1.4
HCM LOS D
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT
Capacity(veh/h) 351 916
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.513 0.131
HCM Control Delay(s) - - 25.6 9.5 -
HCM Lane LOS D A -
HCM 95th%tile Q(veh) - - 2.8 0.5 -
Belfair Apartments and Single Family Residents Synchro 10 Report
SCJ Alliance 05/22/2020
Lanes, Volumes, Timings Projected 2022 with Project Standard Signal
2: SR 3 & Ridgepoint Blvd PM peak hour
"r 4- t �' �►
Lane Group WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations y t r I t
Traffic Volume(vph) 80 100 550 120 120 680
Future Volume(vph) 80 100 550 120 120 680
Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Storage Length(ft) 0 0 350 150
Storage Lanes 1 0 1 1
Taper Length(ft) 25 25
Right Turn on Red Yes Yes
Link Speed(mph) 25 35 35
Link Distance(ft) 1416 1629 1593
Travel Time(s) 48.3 31.7 31.0
Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA
Protected Phases 8 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 2
Detector Phase 8 2 2 1 6
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Minimum Split(s) 22.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 22.5
Total Split(s) 22.5 26.5 26.5 11.0 37.5
Total Split(%) 37.5% 44.2% 44.2% 18.3% 62.5%
Maximum Green(s) 18.0 22.0 22.0 6.5 33.0
Yellow Time(s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
All-Red Time(s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Lost Time Adjust(s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time(s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Lead/Lag Lag Lag Lead
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes
Vehicle Extension(s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Recall Mode None Min Min None Min
Walk Time(s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0
Flash Dont Walk(s) 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0
Pedestrian Calls(#/hr) 0 0 0 0
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 60
Actuated Cycle Length:44.9
Natural Cycle:60
Control Type:Actuated-Uncoordinated
Splits and Phases: 2:SR 3t&Ridgepoint Blvd
��51 I 0
is Ss
1 Sao �L53
Belfair Apartments and Single Family Residents Synchro 10 Report
SCJ Alliance 06/04/2020
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Projected 2022 with Project Standard Signal
2: SR 3 & Ridgepoint Blvd PM peak hour
,,,(' 4 t �' �►
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations Y t r I t
Traffic Volume(veh/h) 80 100 550 120 120 680
Future Volume(veh/h) 80 100 550 120 120 680
Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/In 1900 1900 1870 1870 1856 1856
Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 80 100 550 120 120 680
Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 0 2 2 3 3
Cap,veh/h 106 132 728 617 171 1131
Arrive On Green 0.14 0.14 0.39 0.39 0.10 0.61
Sat Flow,veh/h 737 921 1870 1585 1767 1856
Grp Volume(v),veh/h 181 0 550 120 120 680
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1668 0 1870 1585 1767 1856
Q Serve(g_s),s 3.8 0.0 9.3 1.8 2.4 8.2
Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 3.8 0.0 9.3 1.8 2.4 8.2
Prop In Lane 0.44 0.55 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 239 0 728 617 171 1131
V/C Ratio(X) 0.76 0.00 0.76 0.19 0.70 0.60
Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 825 0 1131 958 316 1683
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 15.0 0.0 9.6 7.3 15.9 4.4
Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 4.9 0.0 1.6 0.2 5.2 0.5
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 1.5 0.0 2.7 0.4 1.0 1.1
Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 19.9 0.0 11.2 7.5 21.1 4.9
LnGrp LOS B A B A C A
Approach Vol,veh/h 181 670 800
Approach Delay,s/veh 19.9 10.6 7.3
Approach LOS B B A
Timer-Assigned Phs 1 2 6 8
Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 8.0 18.7 26.7 9.7
Change Period(Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 6.5 22.0 33.0 18.0
Max Q Clear Time(g_c+I1),s 4.4 11.3 10.2 5.8
Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.1 2.9 4.7 0.4
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 10.0
HCM 6th LOS B
Belfair Apartments and Single Family Residents Synchro 10 Report
SCJ Alliance 06/04/2020
Projected 2022 with Project Standard Signal
Queuing and Blocking Report PM peak hour
Intersection: 2: SR 3 & Ridgepoint Blvd
Movement WB NB NB SB SB
Directions Served LR T R L T
Maximum Queue(ft) 142 220 63 150 204
Average Queue(ft) 57 114 30 59 87
95th Queue(ft) 105 193 59 106 169
Link Distance(ft) 1367 1555 1571
Upstream Blk Time(%)
Queuing Penalty(veh)
Storage Bay Dist(ft) 350 150
Storage Blk Time(%) 0 1
Queuing Penalty(veh) 0 1
Belfair Apartments and Single Family Residents SimTraffic Report
SCJ Alliance 06/04/2020
Lanes, Volumes, Timings Projected 2022 with Project Green Tee Signal
2: SR 3 & Ridgepoint Blvd PM peak hour
,#(- ',- T
Lane Group WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations y t r Vi f
Traffic Volume(vph) 80 100 550 120 120 680
Future Volume(vph) 80 100 550 120 120 680
Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Storage Length (ft) 0 0 350 150
Storage Lanes 1 0 1 1
Taper Length(ft) 25 25
Right Turn on Red Yes Yes
Link Speed(mph) 25 35 35
Link Distance(ft) 263 729 1050
Travel Time(s) 7.2 14.2 20.5
Turn Type Prot NA pm+ov Prot NA
Protected Phases 8! 2 8 1 Free!
Permitted Phases 2
Detector Phase 8 2 8 1
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial(s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Minimum Split(s) 10.0 22.5 10.0 9.5
Total Split(s) 13.0 34.0 13.0 13.0
Total Split(%) 21.7% 56.7% 21.7% 21.7%
Maximum Green (s) 8.5 29.5 8.5 8.5
Yellow Time(s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
All-Red Time(s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Lost Time Adjust(s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time(s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Lead/Lag Lag Lead
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes
Vehicle Extension(s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Recall Mode None Min None None
Walk Time(s) 7.0
Flash Dont Walk(s) 11.0
Pedestrian Calls(#/hr) 0
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 60
Actuated Cycle Length:47.2
Natural Cycle:50
Control Type:Actuated-Uncoordinated
! Phase conflict between lane groups.
Splits and Phases: 2:SR 3&Rigepoint Blvd
\001 1 1 02
13s s
008
Belfair Apartments and Single Family Residents Synchro 10 Report
SCJ Alliance 06/04/2020
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Projected 2022 with Project Green Tee Signal
2: SR 3 & Ridgepoint Blvd PM peak hour
'f e Q T
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations Y t r t
Traffic Volume(vph) 80 100 550 120 120 680
Future Volume(vph) 80 100 550 120 120 680
Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time(s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.0
Lane Util.Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.93 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00
Flt Protected 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow(prot) 1686 1863 1583 1752 1845
Flt Permitted 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow(perm) 1686 1863 1583 1752 1845
Peak-hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Adj. Flow(vph) 80 100 550 120 120 680
RTOR Reduction(vph) 77 0 0 48 0 0
Lane Group Flow(vph) 103 0 550 72 120 680
Heavy Vehicles(%) 2% 2% 2% 2% 3% 3%
Turn Type Prot NA pm+ov Prot NA
Protected Phases 8! 2 8 1 Free!
Permitted Phases 2
Actuated Green,G(s) 5.8 23.9 29.7 6.0 49.2
Effective Green,g (s) 5.8 23.9 29.7 6.0 49.2
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.12 0.49 0.60 0.12 1.00
Clearance Time(s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Vehicle Extension(s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap(vph) 198 904 1100 213 1845
v/s Ratio Prot 0.06 c0.30 0.01 0.07 0.37
v/s Ratio Perm 0.04
v/c Ratio 0.52 0.61 0.07 0.56 0.37
Uniform Delay,dl 20.4 9.2 4.0 20.4 0.0
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay,d2 2.5 1.2 0.0 3.4 0.6
Delay(s) 22.9 10.4 4.0 23.8 0.6
Level of Service C B A C A
Approach Delay(s) 22.9 9.3 4.0
Approach LOS C A A
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 8.2 HCM 2000 Level of Service A
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.62
Actuated Cycle Length(s) 49.2 Sum of lost time(s) 13.5
Intersection Capacity Utilization 57.4% ICU Level of Service B
Analysis Period(min) 15
! Phase conflict between lane groups.
c Critical Lane Group
Belfair Apartments and Single Family Residents Synchro 10 Report
SCJ Alliance 06/04/2020
Projected 2022 with Project Green Tee Signal
Queuing and Blocking Report PM peak hour
Intersection: 2: SR 3 & Ridgepoint Blvd
Movement WB NB NB SB
Directions Served LR T R L
Maximum Queue(ft) 146 214 61 119
Average Queue (ft) 62 115 21 51
95th Queue(ft) 116 181 51 93
Link Distance (ft) 187 668
Upstream Blk Time(%)
Queuing Penalty(veh)
Storage Bay Dist(ft) 350 150
Storage Blk Time(%) 0
Queuing Penalty(veh) 0
Belfair Apartments and Single Family Residents SimTraffic Report
SCJ Alliance 06/04/2020
HCM 6th TWSC Projected 2040 with Project Stop Control
2: SR 3 & Ridgepoint Blvd PM peak hour
Intersection
Int Delay,s/veh 7.9
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations Y + r
Traffic Vol,veh/h 95 120 715 140 145 960
Future Vol,vehlh 95 120 715 140 145 960
Conflicting Peds,#/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - - 350 150 -
Veh in Median Storage,# 1 - 0 - - 0
Grade,% 0 - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 100 100 100 100 100 100
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 3 3
Mvmt Flow 95 120 715 140 145 960
Major/Minor Minorl Majorl Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1965 715 0 0 855 0
Stage 1 715 - - - - -
Stage 2 1250 - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 - - 4.13 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.227
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver —69 431 - 781 -
Stage 1 485 - -
Stage 2 270 - - -
Platoon blocked, % -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver —56 431 - 781 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 159 - - - -
Stage 1 485 - - - - -
Stage 2 220 - - -
Approach WB NB SIB
HCM Control Delay,s 73.1 0 1.4
HCM LOS F
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT
Capacity(veh/h) - 245 781
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - 0.878 0.186
HCM Control Delay(s) - 73.1 10.7 -
HCM Lane LOS - F B
HCM 95th%tile Q(veh) - 7.3 0.7
Notes
-:Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +:Computation Not Defined ':All major volume in platoon
Belfair Apartments and Single Family Residents Synchro 10 Report
SCJ Alliance 05/22/2020
Lanes, Volumes, Timings Projected 2040 with Project Standard Signal
2: SR 3 & Ridgepoint Blvd PM peak hour
'4 t �► �►
Lane Group WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations y t r t
Traffic Volume(vph) 95 120 715 140 145 960
Future Volume(vph) 95 120 715 140 145 960
Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Storage Length(ft) 0 0 350 150
Storage Lanes 1 0 1 1
Taper Length(ft) 25 25
Right Turn on Red Yes Yes
Link Speed(mph) 25 35 35
Link Distance(ft) 1415 1629 1593
Travel Time(s) 38.6 31.7 31.0
Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA
Protected Phases 8 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 2
Detector Phase 8 2 2 1 6
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial(s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Minimum Split(s) 22.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 22.5
Total Split(s) 22.5 39.5 39.5 13.0 52.5
Total Split(%) 30.0% 52.7% 52.7% 17.3% 70.0%
Maximum Green (s) 18.0 35.0 35.0 8.5 48.0
Yellow Time(s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
All-Red Time(s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Lost Time Adjust(s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time(s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Lead/Lag Lag Lag Lead
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes
Vehicle Extension(s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Recall Mode None Min Min None Min
Walk Time(s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0
Flash Dont Walk(s) 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0
Pedestrian Calls(#/hr) 0 0 0 0
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length:75
Actuated Cycle Length:62.2
Natural Cycle:75
Control Type:Actuated-Uncoordinated
Splits and Phases: 2: SIR
}3&Ridgepoint Blvd
�0 1 I rJ�
Is 5 s
7 06 �G8
Belfair Apartments and Single Family Residents Synchro 10 Report
SCJ Alliance 06/04/2020
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Projected 2040 with Project Standard Signal
2: SR 3 & Ridgepoint Blvd PM peak hour
#'- 4- t
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations Y t r t
Traffic Volume(veh/h) 95 120 715 140 145 960
Future Volume(veh/h) 95 120 715 140 145 960
Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/In 1900 1900 1870 1870 1856 1856
Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 95 120 715 140 145 960
Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 0 2 2 3 3
Cap,veh/h 121 152 871 738 186 1223
Arrive On Green 0.16 0.16 0.47 0.47 0.11 0.66
Sat Flow,veh/h 733 926 1870 1585 1767 1856
Grp Volume(v),veh/h 216 0 715 140 145 960
Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlh/In 1667 0 1870 1585 1767 1856
Q Serve(g_s),s 6.3 0.0 16.9 2.6 4.1 18.6
Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 6.3 0.0 16.9 2.6 4.1 18.6
Prop In Lane 0.44 0.56 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 274 0 871 738 186 1223
V/C Ratio(X) 0.79 0.00 0.82 0.19 0.78 0.78
Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 588 0 1283 1087 294 1746
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 20.5 0.0 11.8 8.0 22.2 6.1
Incr Delay(d2), s/veh 5.0 0.0 2.8 0.1 6.9 1.6
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 2.7 0.0 5.8 0.7 1.9 3.9
Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 25.5 0.0 14.6 8.1 29.2 7.7
LnGrp LOS C A B A C A
Approach Vol,veh/h 216 855 1105
Approach Delay,s/veh 25.5 13.5 10.5
Approach LOS C B B
Timer-Assigned Phs 1 2 6 8
Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 9.9 28.3 38.1 12.9
Change Period(Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 8.5 35.0 48.0 18.0
Max Q Clear Time(g_c+11), s 6.1 18.9 20.6 8.3
Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.1 4.9 8.6 0.5
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 13.2
HCM 6th LOS B
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement.
Belfair Apartments and Single Family Residents Synchro 10 Report
SCJ Alliance 06/04/2020
Projected 2040 with Project Standard Signal
Queuing and Blocking Report PM peak hour
Intersection: 2: SR 3 & Ridgepoint Blvd
Movement WB NB NB SB SB
Directions Served LR T R L T
Maximum Queue(ft) 181 405 151 174 394
Average Queue(ft) 83 175 37 90 162
95th Queue(ft) 150 330 94 164 317
Link Distance(ft) 1367 1556 1570
Upstream Blk Time(%)
Queuing Penalty(veh)
Storage Bay Dist(ft) 350 150
Storage Blk Time(%) 1 0 1 6
Queuing Penalty(veh) 1 0 5 9
Belfair Apartments and Single Family Residents SimTraffic Report
SCJ Alliance 06/04/2020
Lanes, Volumes, Timings Projected 2040 with Project Green Tee Signal
2: SR 3 & Ridgepoint Blvd PM peak hour
f T
Lane Group WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations y t r Vi t
Traffic Volume(vph) 95 120 715 140 145 960
Future Volume(vph) 95 120 715 140 145 960
Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Storage Length (ft) 0 0 350 150
Storage Lanes 1 0 1 1
Taper Length(ft) 25 25
Right Turn on Red Yes Yes
Link Speed(mph) 25 35 35
Link Distance(ft) 263 729 1050
Travel Time(s) 7.2 14.2 20.5
Turn Type Prot NA pm+ov Prot NA
Protected Phases 8! 2 8 1 Free!
Permitted Phases 2
Detector Phase 8 2 8 1
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial(s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Minimum Split(s) 10.0 22.5 10.0 9.5
Total Split(s) 12.0 35.8 12.0 12.2
Total Split(%) 20.0% 59.7% 20.0% 20.3%
Maximum Green(s) 7.5 31.3 7.5 7.7
Yellow Time(s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
All-Red Time(s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Lost Time Adjust(s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time(s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Lead/Lag Lag Lead
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes
Vehicle Extension(s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Recall Mode None Min None None
Walk Time(s) 7.0
Flash Dont Walk(s) 11.0
Pedestrian Calls(#/hr) 0
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 60
Actuated Cycle Length:52.9
Natural Cycle:60
Control Type:Actuated-Uncoordinated
! Phase conflict between lane groups.
Splits and Phases: 2: SR 3&RRiidgepoint Blvd
%*01 102
2s a
�D3
Belfair Apartments and Single Family Residents Synchro 10 Report
SCJ Alliance 06/04/2020
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Projected 2040 with Project Green Tee Signal
2: SR 3 & Ridgepoint Blvd PM peak hour
'e- ',- t
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations Y t r Vi T
Traffic Volume(vph) 95 120 715 140 145 960
Future Volume(vph) 95 120 715 140 145 960
Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time(s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.92 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00
Fit Protected 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow(prot) 1685 1863 1583 1752 1845
Fit Permitted 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow(perm) 1685 1863 1583 1752 1845
Peak-hour factor,PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Adj. Flow(vph) 95 120 715 140 145 960
RTOR Reduction(vph) 75 0 0 50 0 0
Lane Group Flow(vph) 140 0 715 90 145 960
Heavy Vehicles(%) 2% 2% 2% 2% 3% 3%
Turn Type Prot NA pm+ov Prot NA
Protected Phases 8! 2 8 1 Free!
Permitted Phases 2
Actuated Green, G (s) 7.3 27.1 34.4 5.8 53.7
Effective Green, g (s) 7.3 27.1 34.4 5.8 53.7
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.14 0.50 0.64 0.11 1.00
Clearance Time(s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Vehicle Extension(s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap(vph) 229 940 1146 189 1845
v/s Ratio Prot 0.08 c0.38 0.01 0.08 0.52
v/s Ratio Perm 0.05
v/c Ratio 0.61 0.76 0.08 0.77 0.52
Uniform Delay,dill 21.9 10.7 3.7 23.3 0.0
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 4.8 3.7 0.0 16.9 1.1
Delay(s) 26.6 14A 3.7 40.2 1.1
Level of Service C B A D A
Approach Delay(s) 26.6 12.6 6.2
Approach LOS C B A
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 10.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service B
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.80
Actuated Cycle Length(s) 53.7 Sum of lost time(s) 13.5
Intersection Capacity Utilization 70.2% ICU Level of Service C
Analysis Period (min) 15
! Phase conflict between lane groups.
c Critical Lane Group
Belfair Apartments and Single Family Residents Synchro 10 Report
SCJ Alliance 06/04/2020
Projected 2040 with Project Green Tee Signal
Queuing and Blocking Report PM peak hour
Intersection: 2: SR 3 & Ridgepoint Blvd
Movement WB NB NB SB
Directions Served LR T R L
Maximum Queue(ft) 159 307 73 131
Average Queue(ft) 78 159 26 69
95th Queue(ft) 134 271 59 117
Link Distance(ft) 187 668
Upstream Blk Time(%) 0
Queuing Penalty(veh) 0
Storage Bay Dist(ft) 350 150
Storage Blk Time(%) 0 0
Queuing Penalty(veh) 0 1
Belfair Apartments and Single Family Residents SimTraffic Report
SCJ Alliance 06/04/2020