08/14/2017 - PacketPLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA – August 14, 2017
City of Tigard | 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 | 503-639-4171 | www.tigard-or.gov | Page 1 of 2
City of Tigard
Planning Commission Agenda
MEETING DATE: August 14, 2017 - 7:00 p.m.
MEETING LOCATION: City of Tigard – Town Hall
13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223
1. CALL TO ORDER 7:00 p.m.
2. ROLL CALL 7:00 p.m.
3. COMMUNICATIONS 7:02 p.m.
4. CONSIDER MINUTES 7:04 p.m.
5. PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED FROM JULY 17 7:05 p.m.
RIVER TERRACE WEST MODIFICATION
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (PDR) 2016-00014
REQUEST: The applicant requests to revise portions of the street section on SW Jean Louise
Road, a city collector and SW Sabrina Avenue, a neighborhood route, to remove dedicated bike
lanes and convert them to shared travel lanes with the addition of parking on both sides. Through
the planned development process, the applicant has the ability under Section 18.350.070.C.8, to
modify the street standards with the City Engineer’s approval. The applicant requests this change
in order to respond to the lack of available parking in this phase of development and the high
demand for parking. Additionally, the average daily traffic counts for both streets are low enough
to warrant shared travel lanes. LOCATION: Westside of SW Roy Rogers Road approximately
1,000 feet north of SW Bull Mountain Road; Right-of-way located on SW Jean Louise Road and
SW Sabrina Avenue. ZONES: R-7 and R-25, Medium, and Medium-High Density Residential
Designations. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code
Chapters 18.350, 18.390, 18.430, 18.510, 18.660, 18.705, 18.715, 18.725, 18.745, 18.765, 18.775,
18.785, 18.790, 18.795 and 18.810.
6. PUBLIC HEARING 7:35 p.m.
FIELDS PROPERTY PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (PDR) 2017-00001
REQUEST: The applicant requests a Planned Development Review for Concept Plan only for
proposed development of 264 units of multifamily “workforce” housing, affordable to those
earning 60 percent of median family income, a clubhouse and associated parking, and
approximately 75,000 to 100,000 square feet of office to support a minimum of 280 jobs on a
24.18-acre site. LOCATION: The subject property is located on the south side of SW Oak Street
opposite SW 90th Avenue at 8900, 8950, 8960, 8980, and 9000 SW Oak Street; comprised of
Washington County Tax Map 1S1 35AC Tax Lots 4000, 4100, 4200, 4300, and 4400 and
Washington County Tax Map 1S1 35AD Tax Lot 1303. ZONE: MUE: mixed-use employment.
(PD) Planned Development Overlay.
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA – August 14, 2017
City of Tigard | 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 | 503-639-4171 | www.tigard-or.gov | Page 2 of 2
APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters: 18.350;
18.390.050; 18.520; 18.705; 18.715; 18.730; 18.745; 18.755; 18.765; 18.790; 18.795; and 18.810.
7. OTHER BUSINESS 9:05 p.m.
8. ADJOURNMENT 9:15 p.m.
August 14, 2017 Page 1 of 15
CITY OF TIGARD
PLANNING COMMISSION
Minutes, August 14, 2017
Location: Tigard Civic Center
Town Hall, 13125 SW Hall Blvd.
CALL TO ORDER
President Fitzgerald called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present: President Fitzgerald
Commissioner Hu
Commissioner Jackson
Commissioner Lieuallen
Commissioner McDowell
Commissioner Middaugh
Absent: Vice President Feeney; Alt. Commissioner Mooney; Commissioner Fahr;
Commissioner Schmidt
Staff Present: Tom McGuire, Assistant Community Development Director;
Doreen Laughlin, Executive Assistant; Monica Bilodeau, Associate Planner;
Gary Pagenstecher, Associate Planner; Buff Brown; Associate Planner;
Khoi Le, Principal Engineer
COMMUNICATIONS Commissioner Hu let the commissioners know they’re recruiting for
more CERT (Community Emergency Response Team) members.
CONSIDER MINUTES
July 17, 2017 Meeting Minutes: President Fitzgerald asked if there were any additions, deletions,
or corrections to the July 17 minutes; there being none, President Fitzgerald declared the
minutes approved as submitted.
PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED FROM JULY 17 - RIVER TERRACE WEST
MODIFICATION PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (PDR) 2016-00014
REQUEST: The applicant requests to revise portions of the street section on SW Jean Louise
Road, a city collector and SW Sabrina Avenue, a neighborhood route, to remove dedicated bike
lanes and convert them to shared travel lanes with the addition of parking on both sides. Through
the planned development process, the applicant has the ability under Section 18.350.070.C.8 to
modify the street standards with the City Engineer’s approval. The applicant requests this change
in order to respond to the lack of available parking in this phase of development, and the high
demand for parking. Additionally, the average daily traffic counts for both streets are low enough
to warrant shared travel lanes. LOCATION: West side of SW Roy Rogers Road approximately
August 14, 2017 Page 2 of 15
1,000 feet north of SW Bull Mountain Road; Right-of-way located on SW Jean Louise Road and
SW Sabrina Avenue. ZONES: R-7 and R-25, Medium, and Medium-High Density Residential
Designations. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code
Chapters 18.350, 18.390, 18.430, 18.510, 18.660, 18.705, 18.715, 18.725, 18.745, 18.765, 18.775,
18.785, 18.790, 18.795 and 18.810.
OPEN PUBLIC HEARING
President Fitzgerald opened the public hearing.
QUASI-JUDICIAL HEARING STATEMENTS
President Fitzgerald read the required statements and procedural items from the quasi-judicial
hearing guide. There were no abstentions; there were no challenges of the commissioners for
bias or conflict of interest. Ex-parte contacts: None. Site visitations: Commissioners Middaugh,
McDowell, and Fitzgerald. No one in the audience wished to challenge the jurisdiction of the
commission.
STAFF REPORT
Associate Planner Monica Bilodeau reminded them that at the July 17 meeting the
commissioners had directed staff to look at three different options for the street sections Jean
Louise and Sabrina. Staff met with the engineering department and the planning department and
reviewed the three options. The memo she sent out in the packets summarizes staff’s findings
on those. Ultimately, staff supports option number three, which was no parking on a portion of
Jean Louise, parking west of Sabrina on Jean Louise, and parking throughout Sabrina. They
supported this option because it adds the most parking to these street sections. They feel that
ultimately creates safety for the pedestrians. The other two options created some confusion and
inconsistency with other street sections in Tigard. They believe this is the best alternative
although the city still supports the original proposal that they brought to the commission on July
17 that included parking throughout both of those street sections; however, if the
commissioners wish to move forward with one of the alternatives, they support number three.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Planning Commission move forward with the original proposal to add
parking along both Jean Louise Road and Sabrina Avenue. If the Planning Commission wishes
to approve one of the options listed in the memo, staff recommends option three – (parking
only west of Sabrina on Jean Louise and parking on Sabrina). If and when SW Jean Louise Road
is extended west of SW Fairchild Avenue and the traffic volumes along the street increase, it
must be restriped to include bike lanes. Therefore, the removal of bike lanes along SW Jean
Louise Road is appropriate on an interim basis only.
QUESTIONS OF STAFF – None.
DELIBERATION
President Fitzgerald asked the commissioners to give their thoughts on the options.
Out of the three additional options, I support option three. It has the most parking and
flows the best.
August 14, 2017 Page 3 of 15
I’m on many boards and I have a habit of looking outside organizations for answers. So
many times in organizations, I get the answer “it’s never been done, it can’t be done.” As
soon as I look outside the organization, I oftentimes get answers that say the exact
opposite. So on number two I’m not happy with the city’s answer. They said it’s never
been done at the City of Tigard, but that doesn’t tell me if it can be done, it doesn’t tell
me if it’s successful in other communities – so I don’t think I have full information to
approve the options that were given.
I am still in support of the original proposal – parking along both sides of Jean Louise
and the bottom part of Sabrina. I would support alternative option three; but if it were
my choice, I would choose the original proposal. As it is now, families with a third car
need to park quite a ways away - or feel they need to park illegally. Because of that
oversight, there is a real need. I visited and saw the street - it is wide and it does support
well. I think because of the need, we should provide the parking.
I was the one who proposed option three, so obviously I will support it. I think it’s a
good compromise. I think if the HOA starts enforcing its garage-parking rule more, they
may find a satisfactory solution to their problem.
I would support either the original or the alternative option number three.
Option three meets my concerns and the needs of the neighborhoods. It’s what they’re
asking for.
MOTION
Commissioner Hu made the following motion: “In the matter of PDR2016-00014, I move for
approval of staff’s alternative option No. 3, which is parking only west of Sabrina on
Jean Louise and parking on Sabrina, and adoption of the findings and condition of
approval contained in the staff report.
Commissioner McDowell seconded the motion.
VOTE
Those in favor: Commissioners Jackson, Hu, Fitzgerald, and McDowell
Those who oppose: Commissioners Lieuallen and Middaugh
RESULT
Motion to approve alternative option number three passes 4 – 2.
OPEN PUBLIC HEARING
President Fitzgerald opened the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING – FIELDS PROPERTY PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
(PDR) 2017-00001 REQUEST: The applicant requests a Planned Development Review for
Concept Plan only for proposed development of 264 units of multifamily “workforce” housing,
affordable to those earning 60 percent of median family income, a clubhouse and associated
parking, and approximately 75,000 to 100,000 square feet of office to support a minimum of
280 jobs on a 24.18-acre site. LOCATION: The subject property is located on the south side
of SW Oak Street opposite SW 90th Avenue at 8900, 8950, 8960, 8980, and 90 00 SW Oak
Street; comprised of Washington County Tax Map 1S1 35AC Tax Lots 4000, 4100, 4200, 4300,
August 14, 2017 Page 4 of 15
and 4400 and Washington County Tax Map 1S1 35AD Tax Lot 1303. ZONE: MUE: mixed-use
employment. (PD) Planned Development Overlay. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA:
Community Development Code Chapters: 18.350; 18.390.050; 18.520; 18.705; 18.715; 18.730;
18.745; 18.755; 18.765; 18.790; 18.795; and 18.810.
STAFF REPORT
Associate Planner Gary Pagenstecher went over some historical milestones regarding this
property and then went over the staff report. (Staff reports are available online on the City website one
week before each hearing.) Staff finds that there are more opportunities for mixed-use development
with this proposal – showing a significant area identified for office use – staff agrees it could
accommodate the 280 jobs that are required on the condition of approval for a mixed-use zone
change. It protects a significant number of trees and improves walkability substantially across
the hill through the Varns Street connection and the open space pathways. This is the concept
plan and will go forward on its own; the detailed plan will be taken later. A comment letter from
Mr. & Mrs. Bishop (Exhibit A) was distributed to the commissioners for consideration; it had
been received August 9 - after the packets for the commissioners had already been mailed out.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the proposed Planned Development
Concept Plan with clear direction to the applicant for preparation of a detailed plan, as
determined through the public hearing process.
QUESTIONS OF STAFF
From Commissioner Hu: What is the definition of a street plug? I don’t have a formal
definition for it. I have the resolution, which includes the language. I believe it means that the
street will not continue; it will terminate. Is that consistent with emergency vehicle access?
That question should be addressed robustly tonight. It sounds like a legal question, so I
don’t know how a discussion will help. The purpose of the plug might indicate its definition.
There was a neighborhood petition in 1979 against thru traffic occurring because of the ramp
being opened on Hwy 217. The neighbors imagined there would be through traffic, and they
wanted to prevent that as a shortcut should the road be extended. My understanding is
vehicular traffic would be prohibited; how can you prevent regular traffic and not
emergency vehicle passage? What kind of design? It is common to limit regular traffic and
allow emergency vehicles by using a locked bollard or gate so emergency vehicles have access
when they need it, but it’s not provided to general traffic. The purpose of the street plug would
not be violated by emergency access.
APPLICANT’S PRESENTATION – Planner Li Alligood from OTAK thanked Gary for
presenting the staff report and said he had done a good job addressing the zone change and the
conditions. She noted they are here for the first of two public hearings before the commission.
She said tonight they are addressing the Concept Plan and they will return with the Detailed
Development Plan later; any direction or recommendations the commission provides tonight
will be addressed at that time. She went over the first portion of a PowerPoint that gave an
overview of the project (Exhibit B). She showed them an aerial view photo of existing
conditions and noted the site is located west of the Tigard Triangle, south of Hunziker Road,
east of the Wall Street Road and north of the railroad tracks and the future Wall Street
August 14, 2017 Page 5 of 15
extension. She explained the site is the eastern portion of the larger Fred Fields site – currently
undeveloped. She noted there is tree cover and some apparent pathways on the site that indicate
it’s being accessed in some way, but that at this time there is no formal development. To the east
is the Rolling Hills neighborhood, and to the west is the recently approved Wall Street Industrial
project. She noted that Varns Street terminates at the eastern boundary of the site.
OTAK’s Urban designer and landscape architect Steve Dixon continued the presentation
on the concept plan. Regarding the grading, he noted the site terraces as it moves up the hill.
The buildings are graded on a flat situation so there’s parking, buildings, and then more parking.
He said they’ve created outdoor amenity space between the buildings whenever possible. He
went over site cross sections taken in three locations - the first section AA is through the
proposed office buildings that overlook the future extension of Wall Street. The proposal is for
three-story office buildings in that area with parking above and below. Section BB represents the
center of the site – the proposed four-story multi-family buildings with interior corridors and
elevators. The buildings have parking distributed around them with open space accessible
amenities between them and adjacent to them as much as possible. He noted the parking is not
too excessive at this point. Section CC in the northern portion of t he site shows the four-story
building centered between the top and bottom of the slope in that area. Those buildings are
being accessed on the uphill side from the second floor (10 feet below the upper level of
parking) to minimize the cut into the slope and to maximize the apparent height of those
buildings adjacent to the single-family homes. He said they had taken some measurements and
the office building closest to the single family is approximately 100’ from the property line. The
upper building in section BB is 200’ from the existing property line and the next building over is
approximately 150’. He said the building in question is the building in Section CC and on the
plan adjacent to the last lot off Varns. That building currently sits 50’ off the property line and
the drive aisle that goes around it on the south side is 15’ to 20’ from the property line - so it is
close.
Mr. Dixon went over the open space/landscape concept. He noted the light green areas
represent those areas that are usable for both passive and active uses. He said, “the trail on the
upper edge of the site that runs over from what now is the emergency access to Varns, it runs
down to Wall Street. The intent is that it runs along the top of the cut slope for our site. There’s
a significant usable open space up along SW 76th Ave. At this point, we have not shown any
connections to the neighborhood, they certainly could be made, but we’re trying to be sensitive
that that could actually just be buffered, if that’s the desire. The concept is to provide sufficient
usable open space for these 264 units.”
Li Alligood went over the various site perspectives. The multi-family building perspective is
their preference, and is what they are planning to go forward with unless they hear otherwise
from the commissioners. She said they’d had a neighborhood meeting, and since that March 15
meeting they had made the following revisions. 1) Location of office & residential buildings on
site (exchanged); 2) Height of residential buildings (from 3 to 4 stories); 3) Height of office
buildings (from 2 to 3 stories); and 4) had further discussions with the City regarding the
proposed emergency/pedestrian/bike access from SW Varns Street. Li said they initially
removed that access; (it is now back in there as an emergency ped/bike access point) but they
want to acknowledge that the neighbors had shared with them that they did not want to see that
August 14, 2017 Page 6 of 15
happen. They also wanted the neighbors to know that they know about the resolution that was
adopted by Council that prevents it from going through as a vehicular street. She said they are
definitely aware of that. Regarding the location of the office and residential buildings on site –
initially the office buildings were going to be on the northern portion of the site and residential
on the southern. Due to some changes, it makes more sense now to have the employment use
on the south end and to bring the development into the center of the site and minimize impacts
to the surrounding properties. Moving the residential buildings to the north and increasing them
from three to four stories allows them to retain more of the site as open space. They had
responded to the neighbor concerns. The next steps will be a detailed development plan
submittal – additional site information will provide more detail. There will be a neighborhood
meeting on September 7. They hope to submit the detailed plan in late September or early
October.
QUESTIONS FROM COMMISSIONERS
So you said your original submittal didn’t have emergency or pedestrian access to
Varns? Correct. So the City planners came back to you and asked you to install that
walking and emergency access? The City has criteria for these planned developments and
one of them is about access and circulation, so their position was that Varns Street provided a
means to meet that criteria. Did you get any feedback from the Fire Dept. on your initial
concept? It didn’t go to the referral process because it wasn’t a complete application at that
time.
Will there be any retaining walls to address the slope? Steve Dixon answered, “This is
conceptual at this point. We anticipate we will have probably 5 feet at the highest – and they
would probably be rockery.”
How much improvement are you looking at for Hunziker Street? Are you thinking about
complete streets? Li Alligood answered, “We will be dedicating right of way to Hunziker Street
to make it wider and then we will be building the cross section for an arterial street; so that does
include bike lanes, planter strips, sidewalks, etc., I think that’s what you’re meaning by ‘complete
streets.’ I don’t know if there’s parking on the arterial – the city’s standard cross section applies
here, so that’s what we’ve been asked to build.”
Could you explain why we couldn’t push all of these buildings to the south and to the
west? In other words, move parking to the other side entirely? Steve Dixon answered, “We
can’t move our development any further to the west, because that edge represents a dedicated
slope easement in favor of the industrial development. The approved industrial development sits
roughly 20 to 25’ below this site; so they are actually cutting up into our site. As such, that pretty
much defines that we have 5…6… 7 feet beyond that simply from a structural point to stay off
the top of that slope.” Is that true also on the south side? Along Wall Street – those buildings
sit up significantly higher. We can investigate trying to lower them a little bit, as we get
topography that is more accurate. I would like to retain as much buffer as we can on the
east side – anything you can look at to maintain more buffer would help.
President Fitzgerald commented: “To lower the two buildings at “CC” down to three-
stories – or to shorten them to locate the drive aisle further away from that property and
get a little more buffer; one of those two options I think would be a happy medium for
the neighbors and make the property itself more inviting. It’s the same with Section
August 14, 2017 Page 7 of 15
“BB” – the top of the BB building of the section – that one too has popped up quite
high – that might be an opportunity to lower that down to three stories.”
Is there any possibility of parking structures or something like that? A standard parking
space is $10,000 now – it’s too expensive.
At this point, President Fitzgerald realized she had inadvertently failed to read the required
quasi-judicial statements, so she did that immediately for the record.
QUASI-JUDICIAL HEARING STATEMENTS
President Fitzgerald read the required statements and procedural items from the quasi-judicial
hearing guide. There were no abstentions; there were no challenges of the commissioners for
bias or conflict of interest. Ex-parte contacts: None. Site visitations: Commissioners Fitzgerald,
Middaugh, Lieuallen, and McDowell. No one in the audience wished to challenge the
jurisdiction of the commission.
TESTIMONY IN FAVOR – None.
TESTIMONY IN OPPOSITION
Martin Stewart 7570 SW Cherry Drive, Tigard 97223 is unclear on the connection to Wall
Street to Tech Center Drive. His property is right at the end. The railyard is also right there. He
said if they remove all of the sound protection to put that connection in, he would like to see
some noise buffer and protection (from the train noise) for the south end of that development
between the road that’s supposed to access Tech Center Drive. He reiterated that it’s hard to see
Varns remaining closed once they give access to emergency vehicles. It’s very difficult to trust
that that would remain closed. He wants to make sure the street doesn’t go through.
John Vanderburg 7590 SW Cherry Drive – said he lives right behind the corner of a blue
office building that goes to the neighborhood to the east. He noted there’s lots of homeless
traffic through there as well as dirt-bikes and four-wheel drive trucks. He said there are informal
trails established on dirt roads back there. He noted there was a land-clearing event that took
place this week that wiped out a bunch of trees and brush already. His concern is about the tree
grove, the natural growth, and the wildlife that exists. He realizes they will be displaced. He
believes they can mitigate that displacement by the buffer zone being left in place.
President Fitzgerald commented that the tree grove is something that would be considered in
the detailed plan. They can’t really weigh in on that issue until a full tree report is done. This
issue will be addressed at that time. As it stands now, they do have a 50-foot buffer along that
east edge where his property is.
Mr. Vanderburg verified where his house actually sits. He’s concerned about the trees that have
been taken out already. He noted there are trees being damaged at this time. He also wonders
what the buffer consists of – trees and dirt? Trees and bushes? What does it mean? Now it’s a
buffer and the trees are there but in the future what? Who maintains it? He’s concerned about
people eventually living back there in tents.
August 14, 2017 Page 8 of 15
Michael and Wendy Jeffords 7630 SW Cherry Drive are concerned about the trees. Mr.
Jeffords said just recently they brought in machines and ripped down bushes and saplings. He’s
concerned that there aren’t many big trees left there. They purchased their house because of the
trees and the wildlife. He said the deer won’t have a place to live with the trees gone. He’s
concerned about parking; concerned about traffic. 72nd is not equipped for any more traffic.
Craig Hopkins – 7430 SW Varns Street – shares the concerns already stated. He believes
allowed use within a given zone does not equate to a good fit for that area. This is not a good
fit. So far as this particular proposal is concerned, traffic management must be the primary issue
affecting any kind of proposed development. Fix the already existing and anticipated congestion
problems first, especially before any residential development takes place; emergency access to
the site from Varns is not acceptable. It’s the “camel’s nose under the tent” as far as any future
removal of the plug is concerned.
Eric Lea 7530 SW Varns Street, Tigard says the traffic study does not meet the code for
approval per city code 18.350.050. He read portions of the traffic impact study and noted that
from that same study the entrance and exit to his neighborhood has already been identified as a
“critical hazard.” He noted, “It is boldly stated that no measures have been identified to reduce
the accident rate. How can the city justify approval of a project that contributes to an already
unsafe environment? Shouldn’t public safety come first? Shouldn’t it at least be in the forefront
of the conversation?! Page 19 of the same report – table six – there are numerous intersections
within this plan identified as exceeding ODOT or City of Tigard thresholds. They measure this
threshold in a V/C – that’s volume over capacity – ratio. He highlighted that westbound
Hunziker – in the AM is claimed to have a V/O ratio .81. He does not believe this is empirically
supported. If you sit there and watch the intersection, you would not think it is well beneath
capacity! But after the gold standard, it is projected to be significantly worse – in a V/C ratio .95.
This demonstrates the system is at capacity, and intersection changes do nothing but shuffle the
problem – they do not solve it. The northbound Hall intersection is currently listed at a V/C
ratio of 1.3. That’s 30% over what is allowed currently. The right in /right out solution reduces
it to a .95; however, the only contribution to this traffic impacted by right in/right out is from
Scoffins. This is a very minor contribution – would not account for a V/C ration reduction of
.35. It passes no reasonable common sense check and needs to be reassessed. Furthermore, the
traffic study presumes that the Tech Center Drive connection will be completed. This is
uncertain. He said, “I will finalize by saying – remediation of the non-compliant intersections all
seem to be deemed as financially constrained. If financial constraint is justification for inaction
on these known issues, it must too be reasonable for denying the project until such time as
solutions are financially feasible. How does the city plan to address all the concerns as outlined
in the traffic study?”
Nick Frezza 13275 SW 76th Ave., Tigard four-year resident of Rolling Hills is very much
against any traffic going through at all. He said the homeowners of Rolling Hills want to voice
their extreme opposition to creating any pedestrian or emergency access via SW Varns. The staff
reports that interested parties say that we have consistently expressed the desire to limit
vehicular traffic from the adjoining property. We have never said “limit” – we have always said
“NO” traffic from the adjoining property. We have been consistently sending that message for
years (since 1979). The City of Tigard, in Resolution 16 -13 was adopted in April 2016 and
August 14, 2017 Page 9 of 15
eliminated vehicular traffic to and from the Field’s Trust property to SW Varns. The Concept
Plan shows three access points to the development, one off Hunziker, and two off Wall Street.
Current TVF&R fire code requires two access points to multi-family housing developments with
more than 200 units. The proposed plan has three access points, not including Varns Street.
There is absolutely no requirement for a fourth knock down, bollard style gate – whatever.
There’s not ANY requirement for a fourth access point at the plugged end of SW Varns Street
for emergency access. Of equal concern is the combination of a walking path that has been
referred to on the development site and its connection to a proposed pedestrian access on SW
Varns. The proposed path and stairway would allow unrestricted and very much undesired
access to the homes in our neighborhood. Unrestricted access severely compromises the safety
and security of our neighborhood. The TIS concludes pedestrian trips are likely to be accessing
the transit center and nearby commercial areas along Hwy 99W. Pedestrian trips are more likely
to be connections to two nearby bus stops which service the Tigard Transit Center and nearby
commercial areas. There is no mention in the TIS of a need for pedestrian access to Rolling
Hills. There is no reason to create access to the Rolling Hills neighborhood. We have no
sidewalks; we have ever-increasing vehicular traffic exacerbated by the Albertina Kerr Center,
which has numerous trips in and out of there every day. They park along the corners of SW 76th
and SW Fir eliminating the sight distance there. I myself had a very near accident with people
streaming in and out of there at high speeds.” Mr. Frezza expressed concern that the apartment
dwellers will use the streets of Rolling Hills as a convenient overflow parking area because the
number of parking spaces at the site is at the minimum requirement. He said, “throughout this
long process, no representative of the Field’s Trust nor has any of the various developers ever
expressed a desire for pedestrian access to Rolling Hills via Varns. Equally, no resident of
Rolling Hills has ever expressed interest in access to the Potso Dog Park. Why then is there
pedestrian access to Rolling Hills included in the proposal. It is unnecessary; serves no one;
deteriorates the safety and livability of the neighborhood; and is most strongly opposed by the
homeowners of Rolling Hills.”
Ray Pirkl, 7745 SW Varns Street, Tigard. He said, “We’ve been in our house for 49 years and
now find out there will be a 4-story building behind us and a 4-story building to our left. We’ll
be in a box; that makes no sense. In addition, a roadway will be right on the borderline. There’s
no buffer – it just shows the road right up against the back line of our property! They said, ‘we
could leave some trees’ – well, leaving some trees that are Firs that are only green 100 feet up
isn’t really a good buffer. I know that because we have 12 trees like that. I say to the Planning
Department - a plug is a plug, darn it! The council was very clear in 1979 and said we will
CLOSE that; it will not be allowed to be opened. Now there’s a proposal to open it? If they
pave it, put sidewalks and curbs – it’s not going to be very long before the Planning Dept comes
back to you folks and says – look we should put the street through. It’s already paved, it’s ready
to go. You’ll be hard pressed to say no; so let’s say no now.”
Mr. Pirkl passed around a 2016 resolution [the commissioners had this in their packets]. He said ,
“this resolution shows that the council in 2016 voted again to reaffirm what they did before, and
the wording is identical. So they didn’t mince any words. I think by opening this up we are going
against the policy, intent, and spirit by which the council ruled. I think we’re going backwards.
It’s been reaffirmed that it stay closed.” He passed some photos around to the commissioners
[but did not leave them for the record]. He talked about two buffers that affect the Varns Street
August 14, 2017 Page 10 of 15
houses on the south and on the north. He said, “on the north side in back of the houses, is a
berm 7’ high, a chain link fence that’s halfway down the berm, and a line of trees right on top of
the berm.” He went on to talk about the different types of berms. He said the berm on Hilltop
is particularly good, and beautiful. He doesn’t want a 4-story building across from him with no
buffer. He said, “my wife and I spend our whole summer sitting on the deck having breakfast,
lunch and dinners. Now there will be guests from the fourth floors of those apartments! Let’s
get that down to three floors or two – like originally proposed. Do something else – maybe
another building, or whatever. We would like to see a two-story behind us and a three-story at
maximum beside us; NOT four on both sides. It makes no sense. Varns Street does not need to
be open - and the buffer - we need better buffers. That roadway that shows on the map behind
our place is right ON the property line. Who is going to guarantee that they buffer that so that
we don’t see all that traffic, and hear all that noise? There has to be something between us and
that street - and the next property and the street – the second one up from the end – we’re the
end one.”
Rose Marie Pirkl – 7745 SW Varns Street said she’s been thinking about the 49 years they’ve
been in their house and how they’ve enjoyed the best of both worlds – the country behind and
the City at the end of Varns & 72nd. She loves the neighborhood. She said if the city opens
Varns Street, it will ruin the neighborhood. She would like to see Varns Street remain closed and
would like to see the street that is to go into the apartment building behind them eliminated. It
goes into a Fir grove of trees that are probably 75 to 100 years old. If they could put the office
complexes at two stories, why can’t they put apartments at two-stories? She said, “I’m sure they
can find someplace else to add another story somewhere – preferably on some other piece of
property! We would like to have a buffer behind us – fenced and bermed – so that it can be
secured. These trees back there have protected us from all kinds of pollution that comes in from
Hwy 217, Hunziker, Hall… all of these streets. It comes directly behind us. We would like to
have some protection for our house that we’ve had for 49 years. I’m asking tha t you keep the
road closed and protect our trees, and lower the buildings to two stories. You have already taken
out most of the foliage and undergrowth buffer – they came in this last week – they mowed it all
down to the dirt. Ours in the back on the west side, and ours on the north side – we are down
to dirt. What happened with the 50’ buffer? Tigard touts itself as the “City of Trees” and “Tree
City, USA” – we’ve seen that written many times. We feel like it’s time to protect our trees, our
neighborhood, and let the apartments look for another way - without pushing us into the
ground. We are proud to live in Tigard and want to keep living in Tigard.”
Jim Barbour 7380 SW Varns Street says it’s a bad idea for Varns to be opened up. He said he
agrees with all that the Pirkl’s and Nick Frezza said. Varns has to remain closed. With two
points of access to these apartments, he sees no need for emergency access to Varns. He
wonders if there will be a traffic signal at Hunziker and 72nd off Tech Center Drive. He’s
concerned about the height of buildings. There’s no buffer whatsoever at Crestview – people
living there will be looking right at 3-story apartment buildings. He’s also concerned about the
sewer and water lines. Will the sewer go down Varns Street to access the buildings? This is
something he would like to know.
Jan Barbour 7380 SW Varns Street – is concerned about parking on Varns. People park in
front of their houses in that neighborhood. They are the third house from the corner on the
August 14, 2017 Page 11 of 15
south side of Varns Street. People from the office complexes park there daily because it’s easy
access. They pull off Varns onto 72nd – it’s an easy right hand turn because it’s impossible to
make a left-hand turn onto 72nd to go south. She’s concerned about traffic – there are many near
accidents. The traffic needs to be addressed before any development, especially residential, goes
in. Why now are they considering opening up Varns for emergency vehicles? The other
proposal didn’t have it open. She wonders if this is city driven for future uses. She wants to
know who’s driving that and what’s the reason for it since they didn’t have it back in March, but
it’s in now. They have three entrances into the apartment complex – only two are required.
April Frezza 13275 SW 76th Ave. doesn’t believe it benefits the neighborhood to be open to
the dog park. She knows many people on Varns Street have dogs and they are not supporting
Varns Street being open so they can take the easy way to walk down that path to walk their dog.
That’s lame. She implores them to make sure that doesn’t happen. She thinks it’s incredibly sad
and horrific what this plan does to that street and to the Pirkl’s property.
Louise Trotti – 7705 SW Cherry Drive wanted to bring up the point that it’s a proposed
development of 264 units of multi-family workforce housing. That would likely be two cars per
unit– or 528 cars. And then they said it would bring a minimum of 280 jobs… so that would be
280 more cars on top of the 528 coming in and out of this area. Also – she wonders if there is
any proposal to connect Varns with Hunziker and Crestview Drive. She doesn’t want people to
come off Hunziker right down Crestview and up Varns to the light and onto the freeway – that
would ruin the neighborhood.
STAFF REBUTTAL
Gary Pagenstecher said he wanted to clarify a couple of points. He read the language in the
resolution verbatim and said it’s very clear that the resolution says the purpose of the “street
plug” is to eliminate “thru-traffic.” There’s nothing mentioned about pedestrians or limited
emergency access. Also, the Declaration of Development buffer regarding the 50’ tree buffer on
the west side of the Rolling Hills neighborhood – it was asked – what does this mean? It reads
“There shall be a non-exclusive professional forested buffer on, over, and across the portion of
the property to provide undeveloped area between future development of the property and the
abutting single family residential properties. The buffered area shall remain in a natural state
with the existing trees remaining in place. Regarding emergency access - we don’t know until the
Detailed Plan Review whether or not emergency access thru Varns will be deemed necessary or
desirable. We don’t have the information; neither do you. Whether or not that will be beneficial
for responding to your neighborhood or through your neighborhood to the proposed
development. It’s prudent for a planner to not preclude that from happening even before
knowing whether or not it’s beneficial. Pedestrian connection through Varns relates to the city’s
strategic plan to become the most walkable city in the Pacific NW. It would be hard to support
closure for pedestrians in the situation that Varns represents and believe that we’re meeting the
Strategic Plan. We don’t have gated communities in this city and we wouldn’t want to start that
either – by gating the Rolling Hills neighborhood from access by pedestrians. Rolling Hills
neighborhood is on a public street. The traffic capacity issue is a serious issue – it’s well known
and documented that there is limited capacity at the Hwy 217/Hunziker interchange. The
Traffic Impact Study is not required for the commission to make a decision tonight on the
Concept Plan criteria – but it is useful to hear not only the documentation that you were citing
August 14, 2017 Page 12 of 15
about capacity issues for the detailed plan. Additional information will be available during the
Detailed Plan review. Additionally – regarding the Potso Dog Park, there might be somebody in
your neighborhood that might want to use that park. If no one this year, or living there now –
would you preclude it in the future for other people?
APPLICANT REBUTTAL/COMMENT
Don Hanson with OTAK Design Team – said the spotlight has been very vivid this evening
and the Rolling Hills neighbors have given them some great feedback. He thinks the Pirkl’s
summarized a lot of the points quite well. So far as the clearing – he wanted to make clear that
OTAK had gone in and brushed out the area to survey the trees. They are the ones who
authorized that work – not the City. The tree buffer typically is for trees and they want to make
sure they can document them and survey the size, location, and condition of the trees.
Regarding the connection to Varns Road – they are neutral on that. They thought it was smart
to make a sewer connection up the hill. They in no way want a road connection up there. They
typically deal with this in the details – there’s a crash gate – a plug is a crash gate – along there
that emergency vehicles can operate and use when they need to. They typically record a “non-
access” strip that goes on the plat. If that’s an acceptable approach with the City, they might
propose that here. That might help alleviate the neighbor’s concern that that might evolve in
change – because it would have to go through a public process to “vacate” that non-access strip.
“Just thoughts, he said; “moving forward.”
They will go back and look at the 4-story vs 3-story building. He said he knows they will not do
2-story buildings. They’re trying to do workforce housing which is geared towards people that
are at 60% median income. They have to be careful how they do it. The 4-story buildings work
very well because they can condense the development footprint. Having a trail there might be
alarming to some of the neighbors but is a really good amenity; it’s good to have access in there,
and having activity will keep people from camping out. He said that’s been his experience on a
lot of other projects.
He ended by saying they intend to incorporate as many of the neighbor’s comments as they can.
One thing – the access road they have that’s adjacent to the Pirkl’s property – they think they
can revise that and create more of a buffer in that area moving forward – so that’s one of the
items that they would look at to come up with a more detailed solution that would work there.
As to compressing the footprint as Commissioner Lieuallen mentioned – they will also look into
that.
Steve Dixon said he believes at this point it’s reasonable to assume that the driveway behind the
Pirkl’s property can go away – between the last building and their property. He thinks they will
look to reduce the apparent height of the buildings (Cross-Section BB & the ones in the
northern end) by moving them down the slope i.e. through site grading. So far as the buildings
on the northern end of the site – especially those closest to the Pirkl’s – there’s an opportunity
to reconfigure the circulation and the parking so those buildings can actually move further away
from the Pirkl’s property – because it is very close as shown on the plan. But he believes
through a combination of refining the site plan now with more accurate topography they can
look more closely at the site grading and how that can help alleviate some of those concerns.
August 14, 2017 Page 13 of 15
What kind of barriers are you thinking of creating along the whole property between the
existing neighborhood and the new proposed development? Once we survey the trees and
understand which ones clearly can be maintained after the site grading – we would propose infill
planting of more trees and perhaps more understory trees and some evergreens to beef up that
tree preserve.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
DELIBERATION
President Fitzgerald asked the commissioners to let the group know what their take is on this
concept plan.
Commissioner McDowell – there are a few things he wants to see addressed before saying yes to
the concept plan. He is a “neutral” to a “no” at this point. Areas of concern are traffic, barrier
issue, the whole trees buffered, and wildlife issue. He realizes the neighborhoods need to
integrate but would like to ensure existing neighborhoods don’t lose their character, cultural
heritage and basic “flavor.” He believes there is value in preservation. He would like emergency
access explored further. He perhaps has a preference to not opening it.
Commissioner Lieuallen - likes it generally. He doesn’t want to see the pressure from this
development spill into that neighborhood. He likes the concept of preserving the character of
neighborhoods. He realizes we can’t completely protect the views and wildlife they’ve had but
we can protect the pedestrian and vehicle traffic. He would not approve of this Concept Plan
unless he sees zero connection between that neighborhood and this development – with the
only exception being if the Fire Department says it’s the only way anything can be built on this
property – then he would allow fire access. If there’s any other way to do it, he is not for
allowing fire or pedestrian access. He very much likes the idea of doing something about getting
rid of the road behind the Perkl’s property if that’s possible.
Commissioner Middaugh – his biggest concern is with the traffic – he struggles with plugging a
street; plugging a street cuts the flow of traffic and isolates. He believes there’s a balance. We
don’t want to be isolated but don’t want a bunch of congestion either. Is it possible to approve
the concept plan and deal with traffic in the detailed plan? For now, he is open to the concept
plan, but thinks the real issue is the traffic and safety. He’d like to see that dealt with in the
detailed plan.
Commissioner Hu – wants more detailed information regarding traffic on Hunziker. He would
like to see a “complete street” on Hunziker - at least between the two bus stops. Secondly –
buffering – he’s concerned about the units in the north area where there’s no 50’ buffer. Would
like to see better buffering and perhaps see them build three stories instead of four in that area.
Regarding Varns Street – he still is not sure of the City Council’s definition of a “street plug” –
does it preclude emergency access? He still doesn’t know. He realizes that whether the
commission supports it or not, if the Council does not allow it, we cannot override their wishes.
He just doesn’t know about the emergency access issue. However, he can see pedestrian access
as allowed.
August 14, 2017 Page 14 of 15
Commissioner Jackson – regarding whether the overall concept plan is workable. He leans
towards yes. He would want to push very hard to increase buffering. Regarding Varns Street
access – he is neutral – has no problem either way. From his reading of the Resolution it says
“through traffic.” To his thinking “through traffic” does not include pedestrian access and
emergency vehicles. He realizes the neighborhood is very much against it, but he would support
it if it went through - or if it were blocked off - either way.
President Fitzgerald – believes the concept plan is organized well. Her first concern was for the
building heights – especially at the north end of the site and at Sections CC and BB – that needs
to be looked at. The access road behind the Pirkl’s residence has already been addressed by the
developer, so she doesn’t consider that an issue and will hold the developers to that when it
comes back to the detailed plan. She would like to see the plug honored. Regarding traffic – she
would want to wait for the traffic impact study at the detailed plan point and discuss it then.
Buffering is a concern – it’s the spirit of the language, not the technicalities of the code. The
developer has already eluded that they are willing to address the under-canopy. She would like
that addressed as well as the area that would be buffered behind the properties on Varns Street.
She can support the Concept Plan, but she believes they need to give them direction as to what
they’d like to see.
THOUGHTS ON WHAT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED IN THE DETAILED PLAN
Commissioner McDowell - Traffic should be addressed – Buffer issue more natural
integration – access – emergency vehicle – need a concept that addresses that staying
closed. Wants to see the plan keep it plugged unless the emergency vehicle access is
needed.
Commissioner Lieuallen – two resolutions say there will be no connection. I will not vote
for anything that connects Varns Street (other than sewer) unless I know for sure
whether it’s a requirement of the Fire Department.
Commissioner Hu – Direct the city to ask whether that connection is necessary to
emergency vehicles.
Commissioner Jackson – I would want minimal impact to the neighborhood. Increase
the buffering. Decrease the disruption to the neighborhood.
President Fitzgerald – Reduction of the stories on the four-story apartment buildings that are at
sections “BB” & “CC” on the slide (Exhibit C). Look at reducing them or “pushing them
down” to three stories. Regarding the access road behind the Pirkl’s – this has already been
addressed. I’m less concerned about maintaining the plug at Varns because the developer has
already made a verbal commitment to that. That respects the resolution that was put on the
table and addresses some of the concerns from the other commissioners. I don’t think that
connection needs to happen at all, but in lieu of that there needs to be a demonstration of
walkability and connection in other ways for this property to meet the intent of the City
mandate for a “walkable city.”
EXHIBIT A
The Fields
Planned Unit Development
Concept Plan
Presentation to Tigard Planning Commission
August 14, 2017
EXHIBIT B
Project Team
Applicant: Skip Grodahl
Otak Team:
Don Hanson, Principal
Li Alligood, AICP, Planner
Steve Dixon, PLA, Urban Design
Matt Neish, RA, Architect
Rose Horton, PE, Stormwater Design
Kyle Childers, PE, Civil Engineer
Kaitlin North, PLA, Landscape Architect
Christina Kwiecienski, Architectural Designer
Site Vicinity
Aerial Photo
SCHOLLS FERRY ROADSTROBEL ROAD
Existing Conditions
Site Development Concept
Urban Forestry Plan
Grading Concept
Site Cross Sections Concept
Building Placement Concept
Open Space/Landscape Concept
Pedestrian Circulation Concept
Vehicular Circulation Concept
Parking Concept
Site Utility Concept
Stormwater Concept
Site Perspectives
Site Perspectives
Site Perspectives
Site Perspectives
Multi-Family Building Perspective
Office Building Perspective
Revisions Since March 15th Neighborhood Meeting
•Location of office and residential buildings on site
(exchanged)
•Height of residential buildings (from 3 to 4 stories)
•Height of office buildings (from 2 to 3 stories)
•Further discussion regarding the emergency/ped/bike
access from SW Varns St
Initial Site Development Concept
Neighbor Concerns
•Building height relative to existing homes
•Proximity of northern drive aisle to existing homes
•Emergency/ped/bike access from SW Varns St
•Traffic impacts
•Tree removal
View from Existing Homes
Current: Cherry Drive and Varns Street Future: Cherry Drive and Varns Street
View from Existing Homes
Current: Fir Street and Cherry Drive Future: Fir Street and Cherry Drive
View from Existing Homes
Current: Cherry Drive Future: Cherry Drive
Next Steps
•Detailed Development Plan Submittal
–Additional site information will provide more
detail
–Neighborhood Meeting on September 7
–Submittal late September/early October
Thank You
The Fields
Planned Unit Development
Concept Plan
Site Cross Sections Concept EXHIBIT C
City of Tigard
Memorandum
To: Planning Commissioners
From: Monica Bilodeau, Associate Planner
Re: River Terrace West Street Modification
Date: August 7, 2017
I. Summary
On July 17, 2017 the Planning Commission heard Case Number PDR2016-00014, River Terrace
West Street Modification. The result of the hearing was for staff to go back and look at three
options and report back to the Planning Commission on August 14, 2017.
II. Staff’s Response to the three recommended street options:
1. Restricted Parking during certain hours of the day.
Staff looked at this option and found it not feasible. This option would ultimately result in the loss
of the bike lanes and confusion for drivers and cyclist when lanes are used for each. This also
resulted in additional policing efforts to enforce the restriction. This method had not been used
elsewhere in the City and was therefore not recommended.
2. Parking on one side and bike on the other side.
Staff looked at this option and found it not feasible. This method had not been used elsewhere in
the City and was therefore not recommended.
3. Parking only west of Sabrina on Jean Louise and parking on Sabrina.
Staff looked at this option and supports this proposal. The attached parking plan shows parking
along Sabrina Avenue located in West and Northwest River Terrace Planned Developed
Communities with the addition of sharrow symbols to be included in the road way. Lean Louise is
shown as having parking west of Sabrina Avenue and no parking east of Sabrina Avenue. This will
allow the higher volume portion of Jean Louise to retain the bike lanes. The staff report before you
contains a condition that will require the applicant to prepare a signage and striping plan along Jean
Louise Road and Sabrina Avenue.
III. Conclusion and Recommendation
In conclusion, staff recommends the Planning Commission move forward with the original proposal
to add parking along both Jean Louise Road and Sabrina Avenue. If the Planning Commission
wishes to approve one of the options listed above, staff recommends option three. If and when SW
Jean Louise Road is extended west of SW Fairchild Avenue and the traffic volumes along the street
increase, it must be restriped to include bike lanes. Therefore, the removal of bike lanes along SW
Jean Louise Road is appropriate on an interim basis only.
Attachments:
1. Parking Plan
SW GIDEON AVENUESW ANNA GRACE AVENUESW SHADOW TRAIL STREET
SW AMELIA STREET
SW SABRINA AVENUE
SW CLEMENTINE STREET SW PUMPKIN VALLEY TERRACESW AUBERGINE TERRACESW AUBERGINE TERRACESW SABRINA AVENUESW SATSUMA AVENUESW APPLE GROVETERRACESW APPLE GROVE TERRACESW H
O
L
L
Y
RI
D
G
E
L
A
N
ESW BEACH
PLUM
TERRACE
SW GRANITA LANE
SW CALABASH
TERRACE
SW RUSTIC VIEW LANE
SW UMBER SPRINGS LANE
SW JEAN LOUISE ROADSW FAIRCHILD AVENUESW KATIE SCARLETT AVENUESW ROY ROGERS ROADSW ROC
K
Y
RAMBLE
L
A
N
E
SW SILENT FOX TERRACESW FOREST HOLLOW STREET
FUTURE
DEVELOPMENT
96 LOTS
WEST RIVER
TERRACE
137 LOTS
NORTHWEST
RIVER TERRACE
215 LOTS
Pacific
Community
Design
W EST R IVER TERRACE / NORTH W EST R IVER TERRACE Parking Plan
www.PolygonHomes.com POLYGON NORTHWEST COMPANY
C2
A
C
SHARROW SYMBOLS
TO BE PROVIDED ON
PORTIONS OF
SW SABRINA AVE
WITH PARKING
SHARROW SYMBOLS
TO BE PROVIDED ON
PORTIONS OF
SW JEAN LOUISE RD
WITH PARKING
STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PDR2107-00001 FIELDS CONCEPT PAGE 1 OF 10
Agenda Item: 6
Hearing Date: August 14, 2017 Time: 7:00 PM
STAFF REPORT TO THE
PLANNING COMMISSION
FOR THE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
120 DAYS = 11/17/17
SECTION I. APPLICATION SUMMARY
FILE NO.: Planned Development Review (PDR) 2017-00001
FILE TITLE: FIELDS PROPERTY PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (CONCEPT
PLAN ONLY)
APPLICANT: DBG Properties
c/o Skip Grodahl
2164 SW Park Place
Portland, OR 97204
OWNER: Fred W. Fields
Revocable Living Trust
c/o Miller Nash Graham & Dunn LLP
3400 U.S. Bankcorp Tower
111 SW Fifth Ave
Portland, OR 97204
REQUEST: The applicant requests a Planned Development Review for Concept Plan only for
proposed development of 264 units of multifamily “workforce” housing, affordable
to those earning 60 percent of median family income, a clubhouse and associated
parking, and approximately 75,000 to 100,000 square feet of office to support a
minimum of 280 jobs on a 24.18-acre site.
LOCATION: The subject property is located south of Hunziker Road and east of Wall Street;
Washington County Tax Map 2S10100 Tax Lot 1600
COMP PLAN
DESIGNATION/
ZONING
DISTRICT: MUE: mixed-use employment.
APPLICABLE
REVIEW
CRITERIA:
Community Development Code Chapter 18.350
STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PDR2107-00001 FIELDS CONCEPT PAGE 2 OF 10
SECTION II STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission APPROVE the proposed Planned Development Concept
Plan with clear direction to the applicant for preparation of a detailed plan, as determined through the public
hearing process.
SECTION III BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Project History
The site was previously part of a larger 42.5-acre property owned by the Fields Trust, which was designated
Industrial IL and zoned I-P, Industrial Park. The development community expressed an interest in the site over
the years, but the significant grade change on the site from west to east posed a significant challenge to potential
industrial users. In addition to topographical challenges, a number of transportation, access, and environmental
challenges posed issues for interested industrial developers. The primary obstacles to development identified by
Mackenzie in a 2014 development analysis included:
• Slope and configuration of majority of the site not suitable for market-scale development allowed under the I-
P zoning
• Slope of SW Hunziker Road not adequate for truck access on the north side of site
• Transportation System Plan (TSP) designation and width of SW Wall Street (private) between adjacent
development and rail spur not wide enough for City collector standards
The secondary obstacles identified by Mackenzie included:
• A wetland area in the flattest portion of the site
• Remaining trees along the eastern property line
• Limited access to site for some uses
• Possible noise from adjacent railroad switching yard
In light of the site, transportation, and topographical constraints on the site, City Council approved a
Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change for the eastern portion of the site on October 13, 2015
(Case No. CPA2015-00004, ZON2015-00005), which changed the Comprehensive Plan designation and zoning
on the subject site to Mixed Use Employment MUE and applied a Planned Development PD overlay.
The City Council Final Order included four conditions of approval, two of which have been met requiring a PD
overlay on the subject rezoned site and the recording of a restrictive covenant to preserve a 50-foot forested
buffer between the site and the Rolling Hills neighborhood to the east. The other two conditions require future
development to include a minimum of 280 non-retail jobs consistent with the City’s 2011 Economic
Opportunities Analysis and satisfaction of a trip cap, consistent with the Transportation Planning Rule. Both of
these conditions are addressed in the applicant’s narrative.
Project Description
The site is 24.18 acres in area and consists of one parcel, which is vacant. The site is located within the Tigard
Triangle neighborhood, west of the intersection of Hwy 217 and 72nd Avenue. See Sheets P0.0 Cover Sheet and
P1.0 Existing Conditions Plan for details.
The proposed development includes two components: employment development designed to accommodate at
least 280 employees is located in the southern portion of the site adjacent to Wall Street; and 264 units of
multifamily residential housing in the northern portion of the site. These units will be “workforce housing,”
meaning they will be affordable to those earning 60% of median family income.
STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PDR2107-00001 FIELDS CONCEPT PAGE 3 OF 10
The site contains slopes of 9-25% in the northern, eastern, and southeastern sections of the site. A wetland
delineation has been completed and verified the presence of small wetland areas in the southwestern corner of
the site (see Impact Study A). The wetlands are proposed for removal and offsite mitigation, and a Natural
Resources Assessment (NRA) is being completed for submittal to Clean Water Services (CWS) for review. The
site contains Lower Value Habitat areas; a stand of trees along the eastern edge of the site provides a buffer
between the site and residential development to the east; a 50-foot forested development buffer was established
during the zone change process and is protected within a tract.
The area to the north of the site is zoned I-L and developed with light industrial uses; the site to the northeast is
zoned C-P, Commercial Professional and is developed with office and multifamily residential uses; the area to
the east/southeast is zoned R-3.5, Residential and is developed with single-family dwellings; the site to the
southeast is zoned I-P and is developed with flex space/light industrial buildings; the site to the south is zoned
PR, Parks and Recreation and is a nature reserve; and the site to the west is zoned I-P and is expected to develop
with industrial uses.
The site has frontage on Hunziker Street to the north and will dedicate Wall Street public right-of-way to the
south. The site also has frontage on 76th Avenue and Varns Street, but the applicant is not proposing vehicular
access from either of these streets. Primary access to the residential portion of the site is proposed from
Hunziker Street; primary access to the office portion of the site is proposed from the future Tech Center
Drive/Wall Street extension along the southern boundary of the site. The City of Tigard has received grant
funding to extend Tech Center Drive from its intersection with the Pacific Railroad ROW to the southeast of
the subject site to the eastern boundary of the project site, which will complete the transportation connection
between Tech Center Drive and Hunziker Street to the north. The proposed site plan shows this public project
to take advantage of the access it will provide to the office portion of the site.
SECTION IV. APPLICABLE CRITERIA, FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
18.350 PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS
18.350.010 Purpose
A. The purposes of the planned development overlay zone
The applicant provided findings for the purposes of the planned development overlay zone on page three
through page six of their narrative.
18.350.040 Concept Plan Submission Requirements
The applicant provided findings for the Concept Plan submission requirements on page seven through
eleven of their narrative and in various concept plan sheets.
18.350.050 Concept Plan Approval Criteria
A. The concept plan may be approved by the commission only if all of the following criteria are
met:
1. The concept plan includes specific designations on the concept map for areas of open
space, and describes their intended level of use, how they relate to other proposed uses on
the site, and how they protect natural features of the site.
STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PDR2107-00001 FIELDS CONCEPT PAGE 4 OF 10
The concept plan includes specific designations on the concept map for areas of open space, and describes
their intended level of use, how they relate to other proposed uses on the site, and how they protect natural
features of the site as described by the applicant in the applicant’s statement:
Sheet P4.0 shows the types of proposed structures and their general arrangement on the site, and Sheet P5.0
shows the designated open space within the site. The designated conceptual open space includes both
passive and active open space, which are designated on the concept by different colors. Generally, active
open spaces will consist of play areas for children and recreational area for children and adults, and passive
open spaces will allow for quiet contemplation and observation of natural areas on the site. The proposed
open spaces incorporate the forested area along the eastern boundary of the site. Open spaces provide a
buffer between the multifamily residential development to the north and the existing development to the
east, as well as between the northernmost residential building and SW Hunziker Street.
This criterion is met.
2. The concept plan identifies areas of trees and other natural resources, if any, and identifies
methods for their maximized protection, preservation, and/or management.
Applicant’s Statement:
Sheet P5.0 shows the designated open space within the site. The subject site contains a significant tree grove
along the eastern boundary of the site and across the northern portion of the site. A non-significant wetland
and associated CWS vegetated corridor is located in the southwest corner of the site. There is no mapped
floodplain on site. The significant tree grove will be protected within an established 50-foot forested buffer
along the eastern boundary of the site and is shown on the concept plan. Due to the site topography,
significant grading will be required and it is possible that trees outside of the forested buffer area will need
to be removed. A more detailed urban forestry plan will be submitted with the Detailed Development Plan
review and will address methods for maximizing the protection, preservation, and/or management of the
trees on site. The non-significant wetland is proposed for removal as part of the development, and will be
mitigated through the purchase of off-site mitigation credits subject to CWS approval.
Staff Response:
The applicant’s narrative does not specifically identify methods for maximizing protection, preservation and
management of the existing tree grove outside of the required 50-foot development buffer adjacent to the
Rolling Hills neighborhood. The area of trees is approximately 100 feet in width, overall. However, the
Open Space and Landscape Concept (P5.0) does show that this marginal area of trees incorporated in the
site’s passive open space concept plan, which presumably would be managed for passive recreation. The
Commission may wish to provide direction to the applicant for the development of their detailed plan that
addresses more specifically the development and management of this forested edge. For example, staff
recommends that the trail be placed within a public pedestrian access easement. And, neighbors have
expressed concern about how new activity will affect their back yards.
This criterion is met.
3. The concept plan identifies how the future development will integrate into the existing
neighborhood, either through compatible street layout, architectural style, housing type, or
by providing a transition between the existing neighborhood and the project with
compatible development or open space buffers.
Applicant’s Statement:
The site is adjacent to existing office, multifamily, and single-family residential development to the east, light
industrial to the north, and a vacant site proposed for light industrial development to the west. Sheet P2.0
STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PDR2107-00001 FIELDS CONCEPT PAGE 5 OF 10
illustrates how the proposed development will integrate into the adjacent neighborhood. Sheets P6.0 and
P7.0 show that the proposed street layout includes a pedestrian and emergency vehicle connection from
Varns Road to the east, which will connect with the proposed pedestrian connection through the Wall
Street Industrial site to the west and provide access to the dog park to the west of Wall Street.
Generally, surface parking lots and landscaping have been located to the east of the proposed building to
provide additional buffering between existing residential development and the proposed buildings. A 50-
foot development buffer was established along much of the eastern boundary of the site and is densely
forested. The proposed buildings are located between 100 and 200 feet from the eastern property line to
provide additional privacy and buffering.
The subject site elevation increases from approximately 200 feet on the western boundary to 230+ feet on
the eastern boundary, and grade changes between the site and development to the east ranges from 10 to 20
feet. These elevation changes provide both opportunities and challenges. The elevation of the site provides
territorial views to the west and south from the residential portion, and provides a both a visual and auditory
buffer between proposed development and the higher-elevation neighborhoods to the east.
The proposed multifamily residential development is located adjacent to existing office and multifamily
residential development in the northeast corner. The proposed housing type is 4-story buildings oriented
north-south. The existing multifamily development is oriented north-south along the subject site boundary
and is at an elevation between 10 and 15 feet higher than the proposed multifamily buildings. Due to grade
differences, the final height of the proposed buildings will be similar to the existing buildings. The
orientation of the buildings will allow for territorial views to the west due to the significant topographical
changes.
The Rolling Hills and Rolling Hills No. 2 subdivisions are located to the east of the site, roughly south of
Varns Street. Varns Street stubs at the eastern property line of the subject property and is not intended to
continue as a vehicular street. However, sewer and water lines will be extended through Varns Street to the
subject site which will necessitate removal of existing trees and paving of the unpaved portion of Varns
Street. The Rolling Hills neighborhood is zoned R-3.5 and is developed with small-lot single-family homes.
The homes adjacent to the site are 1- to 2-story single-family homes set back 40 to 170 feet from the subject
property. In addition, the proposed buildings will be 10 to 20 feet lower than the existing buildings, which
will minimize visual impacts.
The proposed office development is located in the southern portion of the site, adjacent to the Rolling Hills
No. 2 subdivision, the future Wall Street, and the heavy rail lines. The location of the office building is
intended to act as a buffer between the noise impacts of the railroad and the residential development to the
north and northeast. The proposed office buildings are 3 stories and are separated by the residential area to
the east by approximately 20 feet in elevation.
Staff Response:
The applicant’s concept plan identifies how the future development will integrate into the existing
neighborhood by proposing, at minimum, a pedestrian, bike, and utility connection to the residential area
to the east and to surrounding streets and by preservation of much of the existing tree grove. However,
neighbors have identified potential impacts with the close proximity of the northern parking lot access road
and the loss of existing mature trees to accommodate it. At this point, the site topography does little to
mitigate the height of the proposed four-story apartment building particularly when removing the forested
buffer with the access road. The Commission may wish to provide direction to the applicant for the
development of their detailed plan that addresses this potential conflict with compatible development and
open space buffers.
STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PDR2107-00001 FIELDS CONCEPT PAGE 6 OF 10
This criterion is met.
4. The concept plan identifies methods for promoting walkability or transit ridership, such
methods may include separated parking bays, off street walking paths, shorter pedestrian
routes than vehicular routes, linkages to or other provisions for bus stops, etc.
Applicant’s Statement:
Sheet P6.0 illustrates a proposed pedestrian circulation system and nearby transit stops. The proposed
Hunziker Road improvements will include sidewalks, and the on-site pedestrian network connects
pedestrians from the northern and southern frontages to each building, and between buildings, through
pathways throughout the site. Pedestrian connections are proposed from Varns Street and will connect with
the proposed Wall Street Industrial pedestrian path to the west. A walking path is also proposed along the
eastern boundary of the site.
Transit service near the site is provided by the 78 bus, which provides service to the Tigard Transit
Center/WES stop located approximately a mile southwest of the site. Though the WES runs along the
southern edge of the site, there is no direct pedestrian access to the nearest stop. Existing bus stops are
located to the east and west of the site; no stops are located along the site frontage.
Staff Response:
The applicant demonstrates this criterion is met with the Pedestrian Circulation Concept Plan showing
pedestrian walkways throughout the site, connection to nearby bus stops, and offsite pedestrian connections
to Varns Street to the east and Wall Street to the west that provides a shorter pedestrian route than vehicular
route. However, Staff recommends that the pedestrian connections through the site be within a public
pedestrian access easement for the benefit of use by the Rolling Hills neighbors as well as the general public.
The Commission may wish to provide direction to the applicant for the development of their detailed plan
that promotes walkability in the community by providing a public pedestrian access easement across the site.
This criterion is met.
5. The concept plan identifies the proposed uses, and their general arrangement on site. In the
case of projects that include a residential component, housing type, unit density, or
generalized lot sizes shall be shown in relation to their proposed location on site.
Applicant’s Statement:
Sheet P4.0 Building Placement Concept shows the proposed location of the structures and proposed
housing type and unit density. The structure locations will exceed the required setbacks. The buildings will
be separated as required by the provisions of 18.350 Planned Development.
Per Table 18.520.1 footnote 21, the maximum residential density in the MUE zone is 25 units per gross
acre; per 18.510.040, the minimum residential density is 80% of the maximum residential density, or 20 units
per acre. Per 18.715, minimum density is calculated by net acre rather than gross acre, and net acreage
calculations are used here.
The proposed housing types consist of one-, two-, and three-bedroom units to accommodate individuals,
couples or roommates, and families. The proposed residential density for the overall site is 23 dwelling units
per acre, less than the maximum. The applicant plans to submit a partition plat application with the Detailed
Development Plan application, which would reduce the residential portion of the site to 14.57 acres.
STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PDR2107-00001 FIELDS CONCEPT PAGE 7 OF 10
Staff Response:
Although the applicant does not show their calculation to determine net development acreage, it is likely
that the proposed density can be accommodated given the various site factors listed in Chapter 18.715. This
will be definitively demonstrated by the applicant in the detailed plan.
This criterion is met.
6. The concept plan must demonstrate that development of the property pursuant to the plan
results in development that has significant advantages over a standard development. A
concept plan has a significant advantage if it provides development consistent with the
general purpose of the zone in which it is located at overall densities consistent with the
zone, while protecting natural features or providing additional amenities or features not
otherwise available that enhance the development project or the neighborhood.
Applicant’s Statement:
The purpose statement of the commercial zones (including the MUE zone) is stated in 18.520.010:
A. Provide range of commercial services for city residents. One of the major purposes of the regulations
governing development in commercial zoning districts is to ensure that a full range of retail and office uses are
available throughout the city so that residents can fulfill all or most of their needs within easy driving and,
ideally within easy walking and/or biking distance of their homes. The location of land within each
commercial district must be carefully selected and design and development standards created to minimize the
potential adverse impacts of commercial activity on established residential areas. At the same time, it is
important to create more opportunities for mixed use, including residential, commercial and institutional
activities, in new and re-developing commercial areas.
B. Facilitate economic goals. Another purpose of these regulations is to ensure that there is a full range of
economic activities and job opportunities within the city limits, in compliance with the economic goals of the
City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan.
The concept plan provides development consistent with the purpose of the commercial zones in the
following ways:
• It provides opportunities for employment and workforce housing in an area of the city that includes
a full range of land uses. The proposed development will meet the design and development
standards of the MUE zone and minimizes impacts on the employment activities and on the
established residential areas to the east through the use of vegetation and open space buffers.
• Enhance the range of economic activities within city limits by providing additional employment
adjacent to the new Wall Street extension, a significant economic development project being
constructed by the City. In addition, the development advances the City’s economic goals by
providing for the development of 280 jobs. See Appendix E.
The proposed density of residential uses is consistent with the density range of the MUE zone (20 to 25
dwelling units per acre), and the proposed density of employment uses meets the 280-job density required
by the zone change approval for the site.
Development of the site as a standard development would be subject to a Type II Site Development Review
(SDR) process. SDR establishes requirements for building location; stormwater management; building
design; buffering; and open space requirements for residential and nonresidential development. Many of
these requirements are also contained in the Planned Development Detailed Development Plan
requirements, which will be applicable to development on this site.
STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PDR2107-00001 FIELDS CONCEPT PAGE 8 OF 10
Table 1 provides a comparison of the required and proposed amenities. Overall, the clustering of
development permitted through the PD process allows for additional buffering between the proposed
development and established neighborhoods, as well as additional on-site amenities for residents and
employees.
Staff Response:
Bringing the Fields property to market has been a common goal of both the Fields Trust and the City of
Tigard in a collaborative effort to address the various site constraints of the site, including slope, access, and
permitted uses. The proposed concept plan creates more opportunities for mixed use development,
including offices sufficient to employ a minimum of 280 non-retail jobs and multi-family residential at 23
units per acre consistent with the general purpose and density of the MUE zone. In addition, the proposed
development would protect a significant number of existing trees on site including those within the 50-foot
development buffer adjacent to the Rolling Hills Neighborhood and provide improved walkability that
enhances the development project and the neighborhood.
This criterion is met.
FINDING: As shown in the analysis above, the concept plan approval criteria are met
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the proposed Concept Plan,
subject to the Commission’s direction to the applicant to supplement their findings on the
approval criteria, as determined through the public hearings process.
SECTION V. ADDITIONAL CITY STAFF COMMENTS
The City of Tigard’s Development Services Division (Engineering) provided comments addressing
streets and utilities to inform the development of the detailed plan. These comments are attached to this
staff report to the Commission.
Public Works Department had an opportunity to review this proposal and had no objections.
SECTION VI. OUTSIDE AGENCY COMMENTS
The following agencies/jurisdictions had an opportunity to review this proposal and did not respond:
Washington County Department of Land Use and Transportation, Oregon Department of
Transportation, Portland and Western Railroad, and Tigard Tualatin School District.
Clean Water Services provided a comment letter dated August 1, 2017 regarding public storm and
sanitary sewer and grading and erosion control.
Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue reviewed the concept plan proposal and provided a comment letter
dated August 3, 2017 addressing basic approval standards. Additional opportunities for substantive
comment will be provided with application for a Detailed Development Plan.
STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PDR2107-00001 FIELDS CONCEPT PAGE 9 OF 10
SECTION VII. INTERESTED PARTIES COMMENTS
The applicant held a neighborhood meeting on March 15, 2017. Documentation is provided in Appendix C
of the application. Approximately 18 attendees discussed the proposed planned development concept plan.
Issues discussed included buffers from and impacts to adjacent Rolling Hills Neighborhood, traffic and
parking impacts, and preservation of trees.
On August 3, 2017, staff received written comments (included in Commissioner packets) from Rolling Hills
neighbors Nick and April Frezza and earlier met with Ray and Marie Pirkl regarding the proposed concept
plan. They raised three issues of particular concern:
Varns Street:
Currently, the SW Varns Street right-of-way is stubbed to the subject property line from the east. The
neighborhood has consistently expressed their desire to limit vehicular traffic from the adjoining property
and successfully lobbied City Council to pass an affirming resolution of an existing resolution to prohibit
vehicular traffic during the hearing process for the Comp Plan and Zone Change on the subject property in
2015. Now, however, neighbors want to additionally prohibit emergency vehicle and pedestrian access to
Varns from the subject property.
Staff believes it is prudent for public safety purposes to allow for emergency access if it should be required
by emergency providers. Staff also believes that prohibiting pedestrian access from the subject property to
Varns, a public street, would not be equitable and is in direct conflict with the City’s Strategic Plan. In
addition, permitting emergency and pedestrian access is literally a two-way street that could benefit Rolling
Hills neighbors with a third emergency access point and pedestrian access to Patso Dog Park through a
public access easement across the subject property and the Wall Street Industrial Park adjacent to Wall
Street to the west.
Traffic Impact Study:
Neighbors are concerned about the effects of increased traffic on already constrained ODOT facilities and
the adjacent street network. A Traffic Impact Analysis dated July 17, 2017, provided in the application,
demonstrates that the proposed project can be developed while maintaining acceptable levels of service and
safety at the study intersections. Additional study may be required with application for a detailed plan based
on public testimony and comments from agencies.
Tree preservation:
Neighbors are concerned that the tree buffer required by the Comprehensive Plan and Zone change,
effectuated with a recorded easement on the subject property, and shown on the Concept Plan as a
development buffer, will not sufficiently buffer neighbors from the proposed four-story apartment
buildings.
The Open Space and Landscape Concept (Sheet P5.0) shows that the applicant intends to preserve
substantially more than the 50-feet required. However, the buffer was not required at the terminus of Varns
because of anticipated emergency access and pedestrian connections through to Varns. Comments suggest
there are mature fir trees adjacent to properties but outside of the buffer that should be retained where the
impact of the proposed four story apartments may be greatest.
SITE AERIAL PERSPECTIVE ‘A’ FROM NORTHWEST
A1.0
N
SITE AERIAL PERSPECTIVE ‘B’ FROM SOUTHWEST
A1.1
N
SITE AERIAL PERSPECTIVE ‘C’ FROM WEST
A1.2
N
SITE AERIAL PERSPECTIVE ‘D’ FROM SOUTHWEST
A1.3
N
RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PERSPECTIVE
A2.0
OFFICE BUILDING PERSPECTIVE
A2.1
ENGINEERING COMMENTS PAGE 1
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
DATE: August 3 2017
TO: Gary Pagenstecher
FROM: Khoi Le, Principal Engineer
PROJECT: PDR2017-00001,
FIELDS PROPERTY PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
18705.030. General Provision
18.705.30.H Access Management
1. An access report shall be submitted with all new development proposals which verifies
design of driveways and streets are safe by meeting adequate stacking needs, sight distance
and deceleration standards as set by ODOT, Washington County, the City and AASHTO
(depending on jurisdiction of facility)
2. Driveways shall not be permitted to be placed in the influence area of collector or arterial
street intersections. Influence area of intersections is that area where queues of traffic
commonly form on approach to an intersection. The minimum driveway setback from a
collector or arterial street intersection shall be 150 feet, measured from the right-of-way line
of the intersecting street to the throat of the proposed driveway. The setback may be greater
depending upon the influence area, as determined from City Engineer review of a traffic
impact report submitted by the applicant’s traffic engineer. In a case where a project has
less than 150 feet of street frontage, the applicant must explore any option for shared access
with the adjacent parcel. If shared access is not possible or practical, the driveway shall be
placed as far from the intersection as possible.
3. The minimum spacing of driveways and streets along a collector shall be 200 feet. The
minimum spacing of driveways and streets along an arterial shall be 600 feet.
4. The minimum spacing of local streets along a local street shall be 125 feet.
The Application is for the proposed concept plan for the Fields Property Planned Development that
consists of approximately 77,500 to 100,000 square feet of office and multifamily residential unit
development.
The proposed development is located on a 24.18-acre site south of SW Hunziker Rd and east of
future SW Wall St under Tax Lot 2S10100AC16000. SW Hunzier Rd is classified as a Collector
Street. Once connects, SW Wall St will be classified as a Collector Street.
A Transportation Impact Study (TIS) prepared by Kittelson & Associates dated July 14 2017 is
submitted with the Application. The TSI includes the sight distance evaluation at the proposed
driveway on both SW Hunziker St and future SW Wall St. The sight distance found adequate on
both driveways. Additionally, the TIS includes a recommendation to provide a minimum of 50’ of
storage on the westbound left turn lane on SW Hunziker Rd adjacent to the proposed development
as per DKS Associates recommendation on the Memo dated June 8 2017.
ENGINEERING COMMENTS PAGE 2
There is an approved land use decision issued on July 25, 2017 on the Wall Street Industrial Park
development located directly west of the proposed development under case file SDR2017-00002.
The Wall Street Industrial Park development also proposed a driveway on SW Hunziker St and the
driveway is shown to be located directly across from the SW 77th Place. The Applicant shall ensure
that proposed driveway on SW Hunziker St is going to meet the driveway spacing requirement on a
Collector as indicated above.
The site plans also shows two driveways on SW Wall St. They are approximately 200’ apart.
The design of the streets and driveways including location and spacing, and the TIS including the
sight distance shall be reviewed again by the Engineering Division in the future when the Detailed
Development Plan is submitted. Additional information and revised TIS to address concerns raise
during the Concept Plan process will be required at the time of the Detailed Development Plan
submittal.
18.810.030 Streets
A. Improvements.
1. No development shall occur unless the development has frontage or approved access to a
public street.
2. No development shall occur unless streets within the development meet the standards of
this chapter.
3. No development shall occur unless the streets adjacent to the development meet the
standards of this chapter, provided, however, that a development may be approved if the
adjacent street does not meet the standards but half-street improvements meeting the
standards of this title are constructed adjacent to the development.
4. Any new street or additional street width planned as a portion of an existing street shall meet
the standards of this chapter.
5. If the city could and would otherwise require the applicant to provide street improvements,
the city engineer may accept a future improvements guarantee in lieu of street improvements if
one or more of the following condition exist:
a. A partial improvement is not feasible due to the inability to achieve proper design
standards;
b. A partial improvement may create a potential safety hazard to motorist or pedestrians;
c. Due to the nature of existing development on adjacent properties it is unlikely that
street improvements would be extended in the foreseeable future and the improvement
associated with the project under review does not, by itself, provide a significant
improvement to street safety or capacity;
d. The improvement would be in conflict with an adopted capital improvement plan;
e. The improvement is associated with an approved land partition on property zoned
residential and proposed land partition does not create any new streets; or
f. Additional planning work is required to define the appropriate design standards for the
street and the application is for a project which would contribute only a minor portion
of the anticipated future traffic on the street.
The Applicant’s site plans show a 52’ right of way dedication along the proposed development frontage
on the future SW Wall St. Similarly, a 25’ right of way dedication along SW 76th Ave is shown. The site
plans also show right of way dedication along the proposed development frontage on SW Hunziker St.
However, no dimension is provided. The Applicant’s narrative indicates that right of way dedication and
public facility improvements will be addressed at the time of Detailed Plan submittal.
Right of way dedication and street improvements including pavement for travel and bike lanes (where
applicable), curb, planter, sidewalk, and driveways shall be required and submitted to Engineering
Division for review and approval at the time of the Detailed Plan Development submittal. Street
ENGINEERING COMMENTS PAGE 3
improvements shall also include streetlights and street trees. Right of way dedication must be wide
enough to meet the Collector Street cross section. Street improvements shall be designed and
constructed in accordance with the City of Tigard Development Codes and Public Works Design and
Construction Standards.
B. Creation of rights-of-way for streets and related purposes. Rights-of-way shall be created
through the approval of a final subdivision plat or major partition; however, the council may
approve the creation of a street by acceptance of a deed, provided that such street is deemed
essential by the council for the purpose of general traffic condition.
1. The council may approve the creation of a street by deed of dedication without full
compliance with the regulations applicable to subdivisions or major partitions if any one or
more of the following conditions are found by the council to be present:
a. Establishment of a street is initiated by the council and is found to be essential for the
purpose of general traffic circulation, and partitioning or subdivision of land has an
incidental effect rather than being the primary objective in establishing the road or
street for public use; or
b. The tract in which the road or street is to be dedicated is an isolated ownership of one
acre or less and such dedication is recommended by the commission to the council
based on a finding that the proposal is not an attempt to evade the provisions of this
title governing the control of subdivisions or major partitions.
c. The street is located within the downtown mixed use central business district and has
been identified on Figure 5-14A through 5-14L of the City of Tigard 2035 Transportation
System Plan as a required connectivity improvement.
2. With each application for approval of a road or street right-of-way not in full compliance with
the regulations applicable to the standards, the proposed dedication shall be made a condition
of subdivision and major partition approval.
a. The applicant shall submit such additional and justification as may be necessary to
enable the commission in its review to determine whether or not a recommendation for
approval by the council shall be made.
b. The recommendation, if any, shall be based upon a finding that the proposal is not in
conflict with the purpose of this title.
c. The commission in submitting the proposal with a recommendation to the council may
attach conditions which area necessary to preserve the standards of this title.
3. All deeds of dedication shall be in a form prescribed by the city and shall name “the public”
as grantee.
The Application is for the proposed concept plan for a mixed-use development and not a subdivision.
The Application’s site plans show right of way dedication along SW Hunziker Rd, SW Wall St, and SW
76th Ave. The right of way dedication shall be reviewed for compliance and approval at the time of
Detailed Planned Development submittal. The right of way dedications shall be recorded via dedication
deed.
C. Creation of access easement. The approval authority may approve an access easement
established by deed without full compliance with this title provided such an easement is the
only reasonable method by which a lot large enough to develop can be created.
1. Access easements shall be provided and maintained in accordance with the Uniform Fire
Code, Section 10.207.
ENGINEERING COMMENTS PAGE 4
2. Access shall be in accordance with 18.705.030.H and I.
The Applicant’s site plans and narrative do not indicate that an access easement is proposed. When a
partition occurs, crossover access easement shall be required.
D. Street location, width and grade. Except as noted below, the location, width and grade of all
streets shall conform to an approved street plan and shall be considered in their relation to
existing and planned streets, to topographic conditions, to public convenience and safety, and
in their appropriate relation to the purposed use of the land to be served by such streets:
1. Street grades shall be approved by the city engineer in accordance with subsection N of this
section; and
2. Where the location of a street is not shown in an approved street plan, the arrangement of
streets in a development shall either:
a. Provide for the continuation or appropriate projection of existing streets in the
surrounding areas, or
b. Conform to a plan adopted by the commission, if it is impractical to conform to existing
street pattern because of particular topographical or other existing conditions of the
land. Such a plan shall be based on the type of land use to be served, the volume of
traffic, the capacity of adjoining streets and the need for public convenience and safety.
The proposed development is adjacent to SW Hunziker St and the future SW Wall St. SW Hunziker St
is an existing street therefore the location and grade will remain unchanged. The Applicant will be
required to widen Hunziker Rd along the project frontage to meet the Collector St cross section.
The future SW Wall St along the proposed development is not established at this time. The Wall St
portion adjacent to Tax Lots 2S101CA00800, 2S101CA00100, and 2S1010001100 will be improved as
part to the Wall Street Industrial Park development under case file SDR2017-00002.
The location, width, and grade of SW Wall St along the frontage of the proposed development shall be
designed and constructed to meet the City of Tigard Community Development Code and Public Works
Design and Construction Standards.
The location, width, and grade of SW Wall Street along the frontage of the proposed development shall
be submitted to Engineering Division for review and approval at the time of the Detailed Plan
Development submittal.
E. Minimum Rights-of-Way and Street Widths: Unless otherwise indicated on an approved
street plan, or as needed to continue an existing improved street or within the Downtown
District, street right-of-way and roadway widths shall not be less than the minimum width
described below. Where a range is indicated, the width shall be determined by the decision-
making authority based upon anticipated average daily traffic (ADT) on the new street
segment. (The City Council may adopt by resolution, design standards for street
construction and other public improvements. The design standards will provide guidance for
determining improvement requirements within the specified ranges.) These are presented in
Table 18.810.1
1. The decision-making body shall make its decision about desired right-of-way width and
pavement width of the various street types within the subdivision or development after
consideration of the following:
ENGINEERING COMMENTS PAGE 5
a. The type of road as set forth in the comprehensive plan transportation chapter-
functional street classification.
b. Anticipated traffic generation.
c. On-street parking needs.
d. Sidewalk and bikeway requirements.
e. Requirements for placement of utilities.
f. Street lighting.
g. Drainage and slope impacts.
h. Street tree location.
i. Planting and landscape areas.
j. Safety and comfort for motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians.
k. Access needs for emergency vehicles.
The Applicant’s site plans show a 52’ right of way dedication along the proposed development frontage
on the future SW Wall St. Similarly, a 25’ right of way dedication along SW 76th Ave is shown. The site
plans also show right of way dedication along the proposed development frontage on SW Hunziker St.
However, no dimension is provided. The Applicant’s narrative indicates that right of way dedication and
public facility improvements will be addressed at the time of Detailed Plan submittal.
Right of way dedication along all the streets adjacent to the proposed development shall be wide enough
to include pavement for travel and bike lanes (where applicable), curb, planter, and sidewalk as per the
appropriate street classifications and cross sections that are indicated in the City of Tigard Community
Development Code and Public Works Design and Construction Standards. Right of way dedication
shall be submitted to Engineering Division for review and approval at the time of the Detailed Plan
Development submittal.
F. Future street plan and extension of streets.
1. A future street plan shall:
a. Be filed by the applicant in conjunction with an application for a subdivision or
partition. The plan shall show the pattern of existing and proposed future streets from
the boundaries of the proposed land division and shall include other parcels within 530
feet surrounding and adjacent to the proposed land division. At the applicant’s request,
the city may prepare a future streets proposal. Costs of the city preparing a future streets
proposal shall be reimbursed for the time involved. A street proposal may be modified
when subsequent subdivision proposals are submitted.
The Application is for the proposed concept plan for a mixed-use development and not a subdivision.
The Applicant’s site plans indicate a 52’ wide strip along the southwest property will be dedicated to the
City for the future SW Wall St. The site plans however do not show the future SW Wall St extension to
connect to SW Tech Center Dr.
Right of way dedication and street improvements including pavement for travel and bike lanes (where
applicable), curb, planter, sidewalk, and driveways shall be required and submitted to Engineering
Division for review and approval at the time of the Detailed Plan Development submittal. Street
improvements also shall include streetlights and street trees. Right of way dedication must be wide
enough to meet the Collector Street cross section. Street improvements shall be designed and
constructed in accordance with the City of Tigard Development Codes and Public Works Design and
Construction Standards. SW Wall St extension to connect to SW Tech Center Dr will be required.
The Applicant’s site plans also indicate a 25’ right of way dedication along the proposed development
frontage on SW 76th Ave will be provided for the connection between SW Crestview St and SW Varns
St. The street shall be improved to include pavement for travel lanes, curb, planter, and sidewalk as per
ENGINEERING COMMENTS PAGE 6
the Local Street cross section that is indicated in the City of Tigard Community Development Code and
Public Works Design and Construction Standards.
b. b. Identify existing or proposed bus routes, pullouts or other transit facilities, bicycle
routes and pedestrian facilities on or within 530 feet of the site.
Bus route number 76 was identified along Hunziker Rd with no bus stop along the proposed
development. Bus route was not identified along Wall St.
2. Where necessary to give access or permit a satisfactory future division of adjoining land,
streets shall be extended to the boundary lines of the tract to be developed, and
a. These extended streets or street stubs to adjoining properties are not considered to be
cul-de-sac since they are intended to continue as through streets at such time as the
adjoining property is developed.
b. A barricade shall be constructed at the end of the street by the property owners which
shall not be removed until authorized by the city engineer, the cost of which shall be
included in the street construction cost.
c. Temporary hammerhead turnouts or temporary cul-de-sac bulbs shall be constructed
for stub street in excess of 150 feet in length.
The Application is for the proposed concept plan for a mixed-use development and not a
subdivision. There is no future division of adjoining land identified. The standards are not
applicable.
H. Street alignment and connections.
1. Full street connections with spacing of no more than 530 feet between connections is
required except where prevented by barriers such as topography, railroads, freeways, pre-
existing developments, lease provisions, easements, covenants or other restrictions existing
prior to May 1, 1995 which preclude street connections. A full street connection may also be
exempted due to a regulated water feature if regulations would not permit construction.
2. All local, neighborhood routes and collector streets which abut a development site shall be
extended within the site to provide through circulation when not precluded by
environmental or topographical constraints, existing development patterns or strict
adherence to other standards in this code. A street connection or extension is considered
precluded when it is not possible to redesign or reconfigure the street pattern to provide
required extensions. Land is considered topographically constrained if the slope is greater
than 15% for a distance of 250 feet or more. In the case of environmental or topographical
constraints, the mere presence of a constraint is not sufficient to show that a street
connection is not possible. The applicant must show why the constraint precludes some
reasonable street connection.
3. Proposed street or street extensions shall be located to provide direct access to existing or
planned transit stops, commercial services, and other neighborhood facilities, such as
schools, shopping areas and parks.
4. All developments should provide an internal network of connecting streets that provide
short, direct travel routes and minimize travel distances within the development.
The Applicant’s site plans indicate a 52’ wide strip along the southwest property line will be dedicated to
the City for the future SW Wall St. The street shall be improved to include pavement for travel and bike
lanes (where applicable), curb, planter, and sidewalk as per the Collector St cross section that is indicated
ENGINEERING COMMENTS PAGE 7
in the City of Tigard Community Development Code and Public Works Design and Construction
Standards. The street will be extended to connect to Tech Center Dr.
The Applicant’s site plans also indicate a 25’ right of way dedication along the proposed development
frontage on SW 76th Ave will be provided. The street shall be improved to include pavement for travel
lanes, curb, planter, and sidewalk as per the Local Street cross section that is indicated in the City of
Tigard Community Development Code and Public Works Design and Construction Standards.
Although the Applicant’s site plans also indicate that, a pedestrian and emergency access from the site to
SW Varns St is proposed. Restriction of vehicular access from the site to SW Varns St will preclude the
development from providing short, direct travel routes and minimizing travel distance within the
development.
SW Varns St is currently a stub street. Stub street is typical only permitted to be constructed when there
is a potential for extension in the future. When the opportunity for a street extension is no longer
desired or precluded, the permanent dead end street typical should be constructed with a cul-de-sac or an
equivalent facility.
The Applicant shall demonstrate the reasons SW Varns St cannot be extended and a cul-de-sac is
precluded.
I. Intersection angles. Street shall be laid out so as to intersect at an angle as near to a right
angle as practical, except where topography requires a lesser angle, but in no case shall the
angle be less than 75° unless there is special intersection design, and:
No new intersection is proposed or deemed necessary.
1. Streets shall have at least 25 feet of tangent adjacent to the right-of-way intersection unless
topography requires a lesser distance;
No new street is proposed or deemed necessary.
2. Intersections which are not at right angles shall have a minimum corner radius of 20 feet
along the right of way line of the acute angles;
No new intersection is proposed or deemed necessary.
3. Right-of-way lines intersection with arterial streets shall have a corner radius of not less
than 20 feet.
The proposed development is adjacent to Hunziker Rd and Wall St, both Collector Streets. This
standard is not applicable.
J. Existing rights-of-way. Whenever existing rights-of-way adjacent to or within a tract are less
than standard width, additional rights-of-way shall be provided at the time of subdivision or
development.
Dedication of right of way along the proposed development frontage on Hunziker Rd, Wall St, and 76th
Ave are required.
Right of way dedication along all the streets adjacent to the proposed development shall be wide enough
to include pavement for travel and bike lanes (where applicable), curb, planter, and sidewalk as per the
appropriate street classifications and cross sections that are indicated in the City of Tigard Community
Development Code and Public Works Design and Construction Standards. Right of way dedication
ENGINEERING COMMENTS PAGE 8
shall be submitted to Engineering Division for review and approval at the time of the Detailed Plan
Development submittal.
K. Partial street improvements. Partial street improvements resulting in a pavement width of
less than 20 feet, while generally not acceptable, may be approved where essential to reasonable
development when in conformity with the other requirements of these regulations, and when it
will be practical to require the improvement of the other half when adjoining property
developed.
No partial street improvement is proposed. SW 76th Ave is currently partially improvement.
Improvement to bring the entire street up to current standards will be required.
Street improvements including pavement for travel and bike lanes (where applicable), curb, planter,
sidewalk, and driveways shall be required and submitted to Engineering Division for review and
approval at the time of the Detailed Plan Development submittal. Street improvements also shall
include streetlights and street trees. Street improvements shall be designed and constructed in
accordance with the City of Tigard Development Codes and Public Works Design and Construction
Standards.
L. Cul-de-sac
No cul-de-sac is proposed. SW Varns St is currently a stub street. Stub street is typical only permitted to
be constructed when there is a potential for extension in the future. When the opportunity for a street
extension is no longer desired or precluded, the permanent dead end street typical should be constructed
with a cul-de-sac or an equivalent facility.
The Applicant shall demonstrate the reasons SW Varns St cannot be extended and a cul-de-sac is
precluded.
M. Street name. No street name shall be used which will duplicate or be confused with the
names of existing streets in Washington County, except for extensions of existing streets. Street
names and numbers shall conform to the established pattern in the surrounding area and as
approved by the city engineer.
No new street name is proposed. The standard is not applicable.
N. Grades and curves.
1. Grades shall not exceed 10% on arterials, 12% on collector streets, or 12% on any other
street (except that local or residential access streets may have segments with grades up to
15% for distances of no greater than 250 feet); and
2. Centerline radii of curves shall be as determined by the city engineer.
The future SW Wall St is going to be improved to meet the Collector Street standards with less than
12% grade. The design of the future SW Wall St shall be submitted to Engineering Division for
review and approval at the time of the Detailed Plan Development submittal.
O. Curbs, curb cuts, ramps, and driveway approaches. Concrete curbs, curb cuts, wheelchair,
bicycle ramps and driveway approaches shall be constructed in accordance with standards
specified in this chapter and Section 15.04.080, and:
1. Concrete curbs and driveway approaches are required; except:
2. Where no sidewalk is planned, an asphalt approach may be constructed with city engineer
approval; and
ENGINEERING COMMENTS PAGE 9
3. Asphalt and concrete driveway approaches to the property line shall be built to city
configuration standards.
Line works of the curbs, curb cuts, ramps, and driveway approaches are shown on the submitted site
plans.
Street improvements including pavement for travel and bike lanes (where applicable), curb, planter,
sidewalk, and driveways shall be required and submitted to Engineering Division for review and
approval at the time of the Detailed Plan Development submittal. Street improvements also shall
include streetlights and street trees. Street improvements shall be designed and constructed in
accordance with the City of Tigard Development Codes and Public Works Design and Construction
Standards.
P. Street adjacent to railroad right-of-way.
Railroad is located across from the proposed development on Wall St.
Q. Access to arterials and collectors. Where a development abuts or is traversed by an
existing or proposed arterial or collector street, the development design shall provide
adequate protection for residential properties and shall separate residential access and
through traffic, or if separation is not feasible, the design shall minimize the traffic conflicts.
The design shall include any of the following:
1. A parallel access street along the arterial or collector;
2. Lots of suitable depth abutting the arterial or collector to provide adequate buffering with
frontage along another street;
3. Screen planting at the rear or side property line to be contained in a nonaccess reservation
along the arterial or collector; or
4. Other treatment suitable to meet the objectives of this subsection;
5. If a lot has access to two streets with different classifications, primary access should be
from the lower classification street.
The proposed development abuts Hunziker Rd and Wall St, both Collector Streets. No street
connections are proposed between the Collectors and residential properties. The proposed
connection of Wall St to Tech Center Dr will continue to separate industrial traffic from residential
sites.
R. Alleys, public or private.
The proposed development does not propose any alleys, public or private. This standard is not
applicable.
S. Survey monuments. Upon completion of a street improvement and prior to acceptance
by the city, it shall be the responsibility of the developer’s registered professional land
surveyor to provide certification to the city that all boundary and interior monuments shall
be reestablished and protected.
Survey monument on the future SW Wall Stand SW 76th Ave shall be required to set accordingly.
Survey monument shall be required and submitted to Engineering Division for review and approval
at the time of the Detailed Plan Development submittal.
T. Private streets.
ENGINEERING COMMENTS PAGE 10
1. Design standards for private streets shall be established by the city engineer; and
2. The city shall require legal assurances for the continued maintenance of private streets,
such as a recorded maintenance agreement.
3. Private streets serving more than six dwelling units are permitted only within planned
developments, mobile home parks, and multi-family residential developments.
No private street is proposed. The standard is not applicable.
U. Railroad Crossing.
The proposed site is not adjacent to railroad crossing. This standard is not applicable.
V. Street Signs. The city shall install all street signs, relative to traffic control and street
names, as specified by the city engineer for any development. The cost of signs shall be the
responsibility of the developer.
Street and traffic control device signs along the proposed development frontage on SW Hunziker Rd,
SW Wall St, SW 76th Ave, and SW Varns St will be required and installed by the Applicant.
Street and traffic control device signs shall be required and submitted to Engineering Division for
review and approval at the time of the Detailed Plan Development submittal.
W. Mail Boxes. Joint mailbox facilities shall be provided in all residential developments,
with each joint mailbox serving at least two dwelling units.
1. Joint mailbox structures shall be placed adjacent to road curbs;
2. Proposed locations of joint mailboxes shall be designed on a copy of the preliminary plat
or development plan, and shall be approved by the city engineer/U.S. post office prior to
final plan approval; and
3. Plans for the joint mailbox structures to be used shall be submitted for approval by the
city engineer/U.S. post office prior to final approval.
No new mailbox is shown on the site plans.
Mailbox location shall be required and submitted to Engineering Division for review and approval at
the time of the Detailed Plan Development submittal.
X. Traffic Signal. The location of traffic signals shall be noted on approval street plans.
Where a proposed street intersection will result in an immediate need for a traffic signal, a
signal meeting approval specifications shall be installed. The cost shall be included as a
condition of development.
No traffic signal is required. This standard is not applicable.
Y. Streetlight standards. Streetlights shall be installed in accordance with regulations
adopted by the city’s direction.
At the time of the Detailed Plan Development submittal, the Applicant shall provide Engineering
Division a photometric analysis for the review and approval. If new streetlights are required based
on the photometric analysis, the Applicant shall submit plan showing the location of streetlights to
Engineering for review and approval. Type and color of pole and light fixture shall also be included
on the plan for review and approval.
ENGINEERING COMMENTS PAGE 11
Z. Street name signs. Street name signs shall be installed at all street intersections. Stop
signs and other signs may be required.
Street and traffic control device signs along the proposed development frontage on SW Hunziker Rd,
SW Wall St, SW 76th Ave, SW Varns St will be required and installed by the Applicant.
Street and traffic control device signs shall be required and submitted to Engineering Division for
review and approval at the time of the Detailed Plan Development submittal.
AA. Street cross-section. The final lift of asphalt concrete pavement shall be placed on all
new constructed public roadways prior to final city acceptance of the roadway and within
one year of the conditional acceptance of the roadway unless otherwise approved by the city
engineer. The final lift shall also be placed no later than when 90% of the structures in the
new development are completed or three years from the commencement of initial
construction of the development, whichever is less.
1. Sub-base and leveling course shall be of select crushed rock;
2. Surface material shall be of Class C or B asphalt concrete;
3. The final lift shall be place on all new construction roadways prior to final city acceptance
of the roadway; however, no before 90%of the structures in the new development are
completed unless three years have elapsed since initiation of construction in the
development.;
4. The final lift shall be Class C asphalt concrete as defined by A.P.W.A. standards
specifications; and
5. No lift shall be less than 1-1/2 inches in thickness.
The Applicant’s site plan shows the frontage of the proposed development being improved along
both Hunziker Rd and Wall St.
Street cross-section including base rock, leveling course, and asphalt concrete pavement on SW
Hunziker Rd, SW Wall St, and SW 76th Ave shall be built in accordance with its classification and the
City of Tigard Public Improvement Design Standards.
The Applicant shall submit to Engineering Division the proposed cross section of all the streets
adjacent to the proposed development for review and approval at the time of the Detailed Plan
Development submittal.
BB. Traffic calming. When, in the opinion of the city engineer, the proposed development
will create negative traffic condition on existing neighborhood streets, such as excessive
speeding, the developer may be required to provide traffic calming measures. These
measures may be required within the development and/or offsite as deemed appropriate. As
an alternative, the developer may be required to deposit funds with the city to help pay for
traffic calming measures that become necessary once the development is occupied and the
city engineer will determine the amount of funds required, and will collect said funds from
the developer prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, or in the case of subdivision,
prior to the approval of the final plat. The funds will be held by the city for a period of five
years from the date of issuance of certificate of occupancy, or in the case of a subdivision,
the date of final plat approval. Any funds not used by the city within the five-year time
period will be refunded to the developer.
No traffic calming measures are proposed or deemed necessary. The standard is not applicable.
CC. Traffic Study.
ENGINEERING COMMENTS PAGE 12
1. A traffic study shall be required for all new or expanded uses or developments under any
of the following circumstances:
a. When they generate a 10% or greater increase in existing traffic to high collision
intersections identified by Washington County.
b. Trip generation from development onto the city street at the point of access and the
existing ADT fall within th following ranges:
Existing ADT ADT to be added by development
0-3000 vpd 2,000 vpd
3,001-6,000 vpd 1,000 vpd
>6,000 vpd 500 vpd or more
c. If any of the following issues become evident to the city engineer:
i. High traffic volumes on the adjacent roadway that may affect movement into or
out of the site.
ii. Lack of existing left-turn lanes onto the adjacent roadway at the prosed access
drive(s).
iii. Inadequate horizontal or vertical sight distance at access points.
iv. The proximity of the proposed access to other existing drives or intersections is a
potential hazard.
v. The proposal requires a conditional use permit or involves a drive through
operation.
vi. The proposed development may result in excessive traffic volumes on adjacent
local streets.
2. In addition, a traffic study may be required for all new or expanded uses or developments
under any of the following circumstances:
a. When the site is within 500 feet of an ODOT facilities; and/or
b. Trip generation from a development adds 300 or more vehicle trips per day to an
ODOT facility; and/or
c. Trip generation from a development adds 50 or more peak hour trips to an ODOT
facility.
A Transportation Impact Study (TIS) prepared by Kittelson & Associates dated July 14 2017 is
submitted with the Application.
Recommendations per the TIS dated July 14 2017 shall be addressed and showed on the site plans as
appropriate at the time of the Detailed Plan Development submittal. Any significant increase in trip
generations in comparison to the ones indicated in the TIS dated Jul 14 2017 will require updates.
Updates shall require review and approval from Engineering Division.
Additional information and revised TIS to address concerns raise during the Concept Plan process
will be required at the time of the Detailed Development Plan submittal.
18.810.050 Easements
A. Easements. Easements for sewers, drainage, water mains, electric lines or other public
utilities shall be either dedicated or provided for in the deed restrictions, and where a
development is traversed by a watercourse or drainage way, there shall be provided a
stormwater easement or drainage right-of-way conforming substantial with the lines of the
watercourse.
ENGINEERING COMMENTS PAGE 13
The Applicant’s site plans all public utilities to be placed in the streets. However, the site plans show
a public storm drainage and sanitary sewer extensions to SW Crestview Dr and SW Varns St to be
located onsite. A public storm drainage and sanitary sewer easements shall be required.
The development is traversed by a watercourse or drainage way.
The design and location of the proposed public utilities and associated easements shall be submitted
to Engineering Division for review and approval at the time of the Detailed Plan Development
submittal. Public utilities and easements (if required) shall be designed in accordance with the City of
Tigard Community Development Code, Public Works and CleanWater Services Design and
Construction Standards.
B. Utility Easements. A property owner proposing a development shall make arrangement
with the city, the applicable district, and each utility franchise for the provision and
dedication of utility easements necessary to provide full services to the development. The
city’s standard width for public main line utility easements shall be 15 feet unless otherwise
specified by the utility company, applicable district, or city engineer.
The Applicant’s site plans do not show a public easement (PUE) along the proposed development
frontage on SW Hunziker Rd or SW Wall St.
8’ PUE shall be provided along the proposed development frontage on all adjacent streets. Utility
easement width and location shall be submitted to Engineering Division for review and approval at the
time of the Detailed Plan Development submittal.
18.810.70 Sidewalk.
A. All industrial streets and private streets shall have sidewalks meeting city standards along
at least one side of the street. All other streets shall have sidewalks meeting the city
standards along both sides of the street. A development may be approved if an adjoining
street has sidewalks on the side adjoining the development, even if no sidewalk exists on the
other side of the street.
The Applicant’s site plan shows the frontage of the proposed development being improved with
sidewalk along SW Hunziker Rd and SW Wall St. However, the site plans do not show improvement
along 76th Ave and SW Varns St.
Sidewalk shall be required along the proposed development frontage on all adjacent streets.
B. Requirement of developers.
1. As part of any development proposal, or change in use resulting in an additional 1,000
vehicle trips or more per day, an applicant shall be required to identify direct, safe (1.25 x the
straight line distance) pedestrian route within ½ mile of their site to all transit facilities and
neighborhood activity centers (schools, parks, libraries, etc.). In addition, the developer may
be required to participate in the removal of any gaps in the pedestrian system off-site if
justified by the development.
2. If there is an existing sidewalk on the same side of the street as the development within
300 feet of a development site in either direction, the sidewalk shall be extended from the site
to meet the existing sidewalk, subject to rough proportionality (even if the sidewalk does not
serve a neighborhood activity center).
The Applicant site plans include a Pedestrian Circulation Concept plan. The Circulation plan identify
a pedestrian route from the site to the existing bus stops on SW Hunziker Rd. However, there is no
sidewalk currently in place between the site and the existing bus stops on SW Hunziker Rd. The
ENGINEERING COMMENTS PAGE 14
Applicant must demonstrate how pedestrian can safely get from the site to the bus stops and vice
versa. The Applicant may be required to provide sidewalk improvements including filling gap or
adding sidewalk beyond the development frontage to provide a safe pedestrian route to all public
transits as indicated in requirements above.
Although the TIS identifies more than 3,000 trips will be generated from the proposed development,
the Applicant do not include narratives or site plans identifying a safe pedestrian route with ½ mile
of their site to existing neighborhood activity centers. The Tigard Library is located less than ½ mile
from the proposed development to the west. The Applicant shall provide narrative and site plans
identifying safe pedestrian route to all the transit facilities and neighborhood activity centers at the
time of Detailed Development Plan submittal. In addition, the Applicant shall identify improvement
associated with the pedestrian safe route if inadequacy is found.
C. Planter strip requirements. A planter strip separation of at least five feet between the
curb and the sidewalk shall be required in the design of streets, except where the following
conditions exist: There is inadequate right-of-way; the curbside sidewalks already exist on
predominant portions of the street; it would conflict with utilities; there are significant
natural features (large trees, water features, significant habitat areas, etc.) that would be
destroyed if the sidewalk were located as required; or where there are existing structures in
close proximity to the street (15 feet or less) or where the standards in Table 18.810.1 specify
otherwise. Additional consideration of exempting the planter strip requirement may be
given on a case-by-case basis if a property abuts more than one street frontage.
The Applicant’s site plan shows the frontage of the proposed development being improved with
planter along SW Hunziker Rd and SW Wall St. However, the site plans do not show improvement
along 76th Ave and SW Varns St.
Planter shall be required along the proposed development frontage on all adjacent streets.
D. Maintenance. Maintenance of sidewalks, curbs, and planter strips is the continuing
obligation of the adjacent property owner.
The Applicant should understand it is their obligation to maintain the adjacent sidewalks, curbs and
planter strips.
E. Application for permit and inspection. If the construction of a sidewalk is not included
in the performance bond of an approved subdivision or the performance bond has lapsed,
then every person, firm or corporation desiring to construct sidewalks as provided by this
chapter, shall be before entering upon the work or improvement, apply for a street opening
permit to the Engineering Department to so build or construct:
1. An occupancy permit shall not be issued for a development until the provision of this
section is satisfied.
2. The city engineer may issue a permit and certificate allowing temporary noncompliance
with the provision of this section to the owner, builder or contractor when, in his or her
opinion, the construction of the sidewalk is impractical for one or more of the following
reasons:
a. Sidewalk grades have not and cannot be established for the property in question
within a reasonable length of time.
b. Forthcoming installation of public utilities or street paving would be likely to cause
severe damage to the new sidewalk.
c. Street right-of-way is insufficient to accommodate a sidewalk on one or both sides of
the street; or,
ENGINEERING COMMENTS PAGE 15
d. Topography or elevation of the sidewalk base area makes construction of sidewalk
impractical or economically infeasible.
3. The city engineer shall inspect the construction of sidewalks for compliance with the
provision set forth in the standard specifications manual.
A Public Facility Improvement Permit is required for construction and improvement within the
public right of way adjacent to the proposed development. Design and construction of public
improvement shall be reviewed and inspected by Engineering for compliance.
F. Council initiation of construction. In the event one or more of the following situations
are found by the council to exist, the council may adopt a resolution to initiate construction
of a sidewalk in accordance with city ordinances:
1. A safety hazard exists for children walking to or from school and sidewalks are necessary
to eliminate the hazard;
2. A safety hazard exists for pedestrians walking to or form a public building, commercial
area, place of assembly or other general pedestrian traffic, and sidewalks are necessary to
eliminate the hazard;
3. Fifty percent or more of the area in a given block has been improved by the construction
of dwellings, multiple dwellings.
4. A criteria which allowed noncompliance under this section no longer exists and a
sidewalk could be constructed in conformance with city standards (Ord. 12-13 §1; Ord. 06-
20; Ord. 02-33, Ord. 99-22)
The Applicant’s site plan shows the frontage of the proposed development being improved with
sidewalk along SW Hunziker Rd and on SW Wall St. Improvement including sidewalk along the
project frontage on SW 76th Ave and SW Varns St will also be required.
18.810.090 Sanitary Sewers
A. Sewers required. Sanitary sewers shall be installed to serve each new development and to
connect developments to existing mains in accordance with the provisions set forth in
Design and Construction Standards for Sanitary and Surface Water Management (as
adopted by the Unified Sewerage Agency in 1996 and including any future revisions or
amendments) and the adopted policies of the comprehensive plan.
B. Sewer plan approval. The city engineer shall approve all sanitary sewer plans and
proposed systems prior to issuance of development permits involving sewer service.
C. Over-sizing. Proposed sewer systems shall include consideration of additional
development within the area as projected by the comprehensive plan.
D. Permit Denied. Development permits may be restricted by the commission or hearing officer where a deficiency exists in the existing sewer system or portion thereof which cannot be rectified within the development and which if not rectified will result in a threat to public health or safety, surcharging of existing mains, or violations of state or federal standards pertaining to operation of the sewage treatment system. The Applicant’s site plans indicates that sanitary sewer services of the proposed development will be connected to the existing public sanitary sewer main located on SW Hunziker Rd and SW Wall St. Additionally, sanitary sewer extension to SW Crestview Dr and SW Varns St will also be provided. Public sanitary sewer improvements including new main, extension, service laterals, and associated easement shall be required and submitted to Engineering Division for review and approval at the time of the Detailed Plan Development submittal. Public sanitary sewer improvements shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the City of Tigard Development Codes and Public Works and CleanWater Service Design and Construction Standards.
ENGINEERING COMMENTS PAGE 16
The Applicant shall also coordinate with the Wall Street Industrial Park development to construct a public sanitary sewer main crossing the site in a public easement for a connection on SW Wall St. A.810.100 Storm Drainage A. General provisions. The director and city engineer shall issue a development permit only where adequate provisions for stormwater and floodwater runoff have been made, and: 1. The storm water drainage system shall be separate and independent of any sanitary sewerage system; The Applicant’s site plans and narratives indicate that the onsite and offsite storm drainage system are separate and independent from sanitary sewer system. 2. Where possible, inlets shall be provided so surface water is not carried across any intersection or allowed to flood any street; and The Applicant’s site plans and storm drainage report indicate that an onsite storm system including catch basins, water quality and detention facilities are proposed to ensure that run-off is detained and released properly and in accordance with stormwater management regulations. The Applicant’s site plans call out public underground detention on SW Hunziker and SW Wall St where street improvements are going to take place. However, underground detention facilities are not permitted in the public right of way. Public storm drainage improvements shall be required and submitted to Engineering Division for review and approval at the time of the Detailed Plan Development submittal. Public storm drainage improvements shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the City of Tigard Community Development Code, Public Works and CleanWater Services Design and Construction Standards. 3. Surface water drainage patterns shall be shown on every development proposal plan. The Applicant’s site plans show an onsite storm system is proposed including pipe, basin, treatment, and detention facility locations. Run-off generated by the proposed development will be captured, conveyed, detained and treated prior to releasing the offsite public system on Hunziker Rd and on Wall St. B. Easement. Where a development is traversed by a watercourse, drainageway, channel or stream, there shall be provided a stormwater easement or drainage right-of-way conforming substantially with the lines of such watercourse and such further width as will be adequate for conveyance and maintenance.
The site is not traversed by a watercourse, drainageway, channel or stream. However, the Applicant
will be required to provide storm drainage extension to SW Crestview Dr and SW Varns St. A public
storm drainage easement will be required.
Proposed storm drainage extension design, location, and associated easement shall be submitted to Engineering Division for review and approval at the time of the Detailed Plan Development submittal. Public utilities and easements (if required) shall be designed in accordance with the City of Tigard Community Development Code, Public Works and CleanWater Services Design and Construction Standards. C. Accommodation of upstream drainage. A culvert or other drainage facility shall be large enough to accommodate potential runoff from its entire upstream drainage area, whether inside or outside the development, and the city engineer shall approve the necessary size of the facility, based on the provisions of Design and Construction Standards for Sanitary and Surface Water Management (as adopted by the Unified Sewerage Agency in 1996 and including any future revisions or amendments).
ENGINEERING COMMENTS PAGE 17
There is a large developed area north of the proposed development without known public storm drainage system. Storm drainage improvement may be required of this area in the future. The Applicant’s narrative indicates that storm drainage extension to SW Crestview Dr and SW Varns St will be provided. Proposed storm drainage extension design, location, and associated easement shall be submitted to Engineering Division for review and approval at the time of the Detailed Plan Development submittal. Public utilities and easements (if required) shall be designed in accordance with the City of Tigard Community Development Code, Public Works and CleanWater Services Design and Construction Standards. D. Effect on downstream drainage. Where it is anticipated by the city engineer that the additional runoff resulting from the development will overload an existing drainage facility, the director and engineer shall withhold approval of the development until provisions have been made for improvement of the potential condition or until provisions have been made for storage of additional runoff caused by the development in accordance with the Design and Construction Standards for Sanitary and Surface Water Management (as adopted by the Unified Sewerage Agency in 1996 and including any future revisions or amendments).
A Preliminary Storm Drainage Report was included in the submittal package addressing onsite storm
drainage. The report indicates that LIDA, vegetated and detention chamber systems will be used to
address water quality and quantity, respectively.
The Applicant shall submit a revised storm drainage report to Engineering for review and approval at
the time of the Detailed Plan Development submittal. The report shall be prepared in accordance
with Clean Water Services (CWS) Design and Construction Standards and shall include evidences
how stormwater run-off from the proposed development including run-off associated with street
improvement is going to be captured, conveyed, treated and detained.
The Applicant shall also coordinate with the Wall Street Industrial Park development to construct a
public storm main crossing the site in a public easement for a connection on SW Wall St.
In accordance with the Wetland Delination Report prepared by Pacific Habitat Services dated May 9
2017, there are wetlands present at the proposed development and will need to be filed for
development purposes. Therefore, the stormwater design must meet applicable Federal (SLOPS V)
Standards as required by the wetlands fill permit issued by the CORPS and mitigation measures as
required by CleanWater Services.
18.810.110 Bikeways and Pedestrian Pathways A. Bikeway extension. 1. As a standard, bike lanes shall be required along all arterial and collector routes and where identified on the city’s adopted bicycle plan in the transportation system plan (TSP). Bike lane requirements along collectors within the downtown urban renewal district shall be determined by the city engineer unless specified in Table 18.810.1. 2. Developments adjoining proposed bikeways identified on the city’s adopted pedestrian/bikeway plan shall include provisions for the future extension of such bikeways through the dedication of easements or rights-of-way, provided such dedication is directly related to and roughly proportional to the impact of the development. 3. Any new street improvement project shall include bicycle lanes as required in this document and on the adopted bicycle plan. The proposed development is adjacent to Hunziker Rd and Wall St, both Collector Streets and require bike lanes. Right of way dedication along all the streets adjacent to the proposed development shall be wide enough to include pavement for travel and bike lanes (where applicable), curb, planter, and sidewalk as per the appropriate street classifications and cross sections that are indicated in the City of Tigard Community
ENGINEERING COMMENTS PAGE 18
Development Code and Public Works Design and Construction Standards. Right of way dedication and street improvement shall be submitted to Engineering Division for review and approval at the time of the Detailed Plan Development submittal.
18.810.120 Utilities
A. Underground utilities. All utility lines including, but not limited to those required for
electric, communication, lighting and cable television services and related facilities shall be
placed underground, except for surface mounted transformers, surface mounted connection
boxes and meter cabinets which may be placed above ground, temporary utility service
facilities during construction, high capacity electric lines operating at 50,000 volts or above,
and:
1. The developer shall make all necessary arrangements with the serving utility to provide the
underground services;
2. The city reserves the right to approve location of all surface mounted facilities;
3. All underground utilities, including sanitary sewers and storm drains installed in streets by
the developer, shall be constructed prior to the surfacing of the streets; and
4. Stubs for service connections shall be long enough to avoid disturbing the street
improvements when service connections are made.
B. Information on development plans. The applicant for a development shall show on the
development plan or in the explanatory information, easements for all underground facilities,
and:
1. Plans showing the location of all underground facilities as described herein shall be
submitted to the city engineer for review and approval;
2. Care shall be taken in all cases to ensure that above ground equipment does not obstruct
vision clearance areas for vehicular traffic.
There are existing overhead utilities along the project frontage on SW 76th Ave. Additionally, there
existing overhead utilities located across the right of way on SW Hunziker Rd and SW Wall St.
The Applicant shall submit site plans showing existing overhead utilities along the project frontage
on SW 76th Ave being placed underground at the time of the Detailed Plan Development submittal.
C. Exception to undergrounding requirement.
1. The developer shall pay a fee in-lieu of undergrounding costs when the development is
proposed to take place on a street where existing utilities which are not underground will
serve the development and the approval authority determines that the cost and technical
difficulty of under-grounding the utilities outweighs the benefit of undergrounding in
conjunction with the development. The determination shall be on a case-by-case basis. The
most common, but not the only, such situation is a short frontage development for which
undergrounding would result in the placement of additional poles, rather than the removal of
above-ground utilities facilities.
2. An applicant for a development which is served by utilities which are not underground and
which are located across a public right-of-way from the applicant’s property shall pay the fee
in-lieu of undergrounding.
3. Properties within the CBD zoning district shall be exempt from the requirements for
undergrounding of utility lines and from the fee in-lieu of undergrounding.
4. The exceptions in paragraphs 1 through 3 of this subsection C shall apply only to existing
utility lines. All new utility lines shall be placed underground.
D. Fee in-lieu of undergrounding.
ENGINEERING COMMENTS PAGE 19
1. The city engineer shall establish utility service areas in the city. All development which
occurs within a utility service area shall pay a fee in-lieu of undergrounding for utilities if the
development does not provide underground utilities, unless exempted by this code.
2. The city engineer shall establish the fee by utility service area which shall be determined
based upon the estimated cost to underground utilities within each service area. The total
estimated cost for undergrounding in a service area shall be allocated on a front-foot basis to
each party within the service area. The fee due from any developer shall be calculated based
on a front-foot basis.
3. A developer shall receive a credit against the fee for costs incurred in the undergrounding
of existing overhead utilities. The city engineer shall determine the amount of the credit,
after review of cost information submitted by the applicant with the request for credit.
4. The funds collected in each service area shall be used for undergrounding utilities within
the city at large. The city engineer shall prepare and maintain a list of proposed
undergrounding projects which may be funded with the fees collected by the city. The list
shall indicate the estimated timing and cost of each project. The list shall be submitted to
the city council for their review and approval annually.
There existing overhead utilities located across the right of way on SW Hunziker Rd and SW Wall St.
The Applicant shall pay the fee in lieu for the overhead utilities located across the right of way on SW
Hunziker Rd or SW Wall St or demonstrate that exemptions are met.
The Applicant shall submit narratives and site plans address existing overhead utility requirements at
the time of the Detailed Plan Development submittal.
www.tvfr.com
Training Center
12400 SW Tonquin Road
Sherwood, Oregon
97140-9734
503-259-1600
South Operating Center
8445 SW Elligsen Road
Wilsonville, Oregon
97070-9641
503-259-1500
Command & Business Operations Center
and North Operating Center
11945 SW 70th Avenue
Tigard, Oregon 97223-9196
503-649-8577
August 3, 2017
Gary Pagenstecher
Associate Planner
City of Tigard
13125 SW Hall Blvd.
Tigard OR 97223
Re: Fields Property Planned Development PDR 2017-00001 Hunziker / Wall
Tax Lot I.D: 2S10100 Lot 1600
Thank you for the opportunity to review the proposed site plan surrounding the above named development
project. These notes are provided in regards to the plans received July 20, 2017. There may be more or less
requirements needed based upon the final project design, however, Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue will endorse
this proposal predicated on the following criteria and conditions of approval.
FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS:
1. FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS ROAD DISTANCE FROM BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES: Access roads shall be within
150 feet of all portions of the exterior wall of the first story of the building as measured by an approved route around the
exterior of the building or facility. An approved turnaround is required if the remaining distance to an approved
intersecting roadway, as measured along the fire apparatus access road, is greater than 150 feet. (OFC 503.1.1))
2. AERIAL FIRE APPARATUS ROADS: Buildings with a vertical distance between the grade plane and the highest roof
surface that exceeds 30 feet in height shall be provided with a fire apparatus access road constructed for use by aerial
apparatus with an unobstructed driving surface width of not less than 26 feet. For the purposes of this section, the
highest roof surface shall be determined by measurement to the eave of a pitched roof, the intersection of the roof to
the exterior wall, or the top of the parapet walls, whichever is greater. Any portion of the building may be used for this
measurement, provided that it is accessible to firefighters and is capable of supporting ground ladder placement. (OFC
D105.1, D105.2)
3. AERIAL APPARATUS OPERATIONS: At least one of the required aerial access routes shall be located within a
minimum of 15 feet and a maximum of 30 feet from the building, and shall be positioned parallel to one entire side of
the building. The side of the building on which the aerial access road is positioned shall be approved by the Fire Marshal.
Overhead utility and power lines shall not be located over the aerial access road or between the aerial access road and
the building. (D105.3, D105.4)
4. FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS ROAD WIDTH AND VERTICAL CLEARANCE: Fire apparatus access roads shall have
an unobstructed driving surface width of not less than 20 feet (26 feet adjacent to fire hydrants (OFC D103.1)) and an
unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than 13 feet 6 inches. (OFC 503.2.1 & D103.1)
5. NO PARKING SIGNS: Where fire apparatus roadways are not of sufficient width to accommodate parked vehicles and
20 feet of unobstructed driving surface, “No Parking” signs shall be installed on one or both sides of the roadway and
in turnarounds as needed. Signs shall read “NO PARKING - FIRE LANE” and shall be installed with a clear space above
Commercial/Multi-Family 3.3.1 – Page 2
grade level of 7 feet. Signs shall be 12 inches wide by 18 inches high and shall have red letters on a white reflective
background. (OFC D103.6)
6. NO PARKING: Parking on emergency access roads shall be as follows (OFC D103.6.1-2):
1. 20-26 feet road width – no parking on either side of roadway
2. 26-32 feet road width – parking is allowed on one side
3. Greater than 32 feet road width – parking is not restricted
Note: For specific widths and parking allowances, contact the local municipality.
7. PAINTED CURBS: Where required, fire apparatus access roadway curbs shall be painted red (or as approved) and
marked “NO PARKING FIRE LANE” at 25 foot intervals. Lettering shall have a stroke of not less than one inch wide by
six inches high. Lettering shall be white on red background (or as approved). (OFC 503.3)
8. FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS ROADS WITH FIRE HYDRANTS: Where a fire hydrant is located on a fire apparatus
access road, the minimum road width shall be 26 feet and shall extend 20 feet before and after the point of the hydrant.
(OFC D103.1)
9. SURFACE AND LOAD CAPACITIES: Fire apparatus access roads shall be of an all-weather surface that is easily
distinguishable from the surrounding area and is capable of supporting not less than 12,500 pounds point load (wheel
load) and 75,000 pounds live load (gross vehicle weight). Documentation from a registered engineer that the final
construction is in accordance with approved plans or the requirements of the Fire Code may be requested. (OFC
503.2.3)
10. TURNING RADIUS: The inside turning radius and outside turning radius shall not be less than 28 feet and 48 feet
respectively, measured from the same center point. (OFC 503.2.4 & D103.3)
11. ACCESS ROAD GRADE: Fire apparatus access roadway grades shall not exceed 15%. Alternate methods and
materials may be available at the discretion of the Fire Marshal (for grade exceeding 15%).
12. ANGLE OF APPROACH/GRADE FOR TURNAROUNDS: Turnarounds shall be as flat as possible and have a
maximum of 5% grade with the exception of crowning for water run-off. (OFC 503.2.7 & D103.2)
13. ANGLE OF APPROACH/GR ADE FOR INTERSECTIONS: Intersections shall be level (maximum 5%) with the
exception of crowning for water run-off. (OFC 503.2.7 & D103.2)
14. AERIAL APPARATUS OPERATING GRADES: Portions of aerial apparatus roads that will be used for aerial
operations shall be as flat as possible. Front to rear and side to side maximum slope shall not exceed 10 %.
15. GATES: Gates securing fire apparatus roads shall comply with all of the following (OFC D103.5, and 503.6):
1. Minimum unobstructed width shall be not less than 20 feet (or the required roadway surface width).
2. Gates shall be set back at minimum of 30 feet from the intersecting roadwa y or as approved.
3. Electric gates shall be equipped with a means for operation by fire department personnel
4. Electric automatic gates shall comply with ASTM F 2200 and UL 325.
16. ACCESS DURING CONSTRUCTION: Approved fire apparatus access roadways shall be installed and operational
prior to any combustible construction or storage of combustible materials on the site. Temporary address signage shall
also be provided during construction. (OFC 3309 and 3310.1)
17. TRAFFIC CALMING DEVICES: Shall be prohibited on fire access routes unless approved by the Fire Marshal. (OFC
503.4.1).
Commercial/Multi-Family 3.3.1 – Page 3
FIREFIGHTING WATER SUPPLIES:
18. COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS – REQUIRED FIRE FLOW: The minimum fire flow and flow duration shall be determined in
accordance with OFC Table B105.2. The required fire flow for a building shall not exceed the available GPM in the water
delivery system at 20 psi residual. (OFC B105.3)
Note: OFC B106, Limiting Fire-Flow is also enforced, except for the following:
The maximum needed fire flow shall be 3,000 GPM, measured at 20 psi residual pressure.
Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue does not adopt Occupancy Hazards Modifiers in section B105.4-B105.4.1
19. FIRE FLOW WATER AVAILABILITY: Applicants shall provide documentation of a fire hydrant flow test or flow test
modeling of water availability from the local water purveyor if the project includes a new structure or increase in the floor
area of an existing structure. Tests shall be conducted from a fire hydrant within 400 feet for commercial projects, or
600 feet for residential development. Flow tests will be accepted if they were performed within 5 years as long as no
adverse modifications have been made to the supply system. Water availability information may not be required to be
submitted for every project. (OFC Appendix B)
20. WATER SUPPLY DURING CONSTRUCTION: Approved firefighting water supplies shall be installed and operational
prior to any combustible construction or storage of combustible materials on the site. (OFC 3312.1)
FIRE HYDRANTS:
21. FIRE HYDRANTS – COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS: Where a portion of the building is more than 400 feet from a
hydrant on a fire apparatus access road, as measured in an approved route around the exterio r of the building, on-site
fire hydrants and mains shall be provided. (OFC 507.5.1)
This distance may be increased to 600 feet for buildings equipped throughout with an approved automatic sprinkler
system.
The number and distribution of fire hydrants required for commercial structure(s) is based on Table C105.1,
following any fire-flow reductions allowed by section B105.3.1. Additional fire hydrants may be required due to
spacing and/or section 507.5 of the Oregon Fire Code.
22. FIRE HYDRANT(S) PLAC EMENT: (OFC C104)
Existing hydrants in the area may be used to meet th e required number of hydrants as approved. Hydrants that
are up to 600 feet away from the nearest point of a subject building that is protected with fire sprinklers may
contribute to the required number of hydrants. (OFC 507.5.1)
Hydrants that are separated from the subject building by railroad tracks shall not contribute to the required number
of hydrants unless approved by the Fire Marshal.
Hydrants that are separated from the subject building by divided highways or freeways shall not contribute to the
required number of hydrants. Heavily traveled collector streets may be considered when approved by the Fire
Marshal.
Hydrants that are accessible only by a bridge shall be acceptable to contribute to the required number of hydrants
only if approved by the Fire Marshal.
23. PRIVATE FIRE HYDRANT IDENTIFICATION: Private fire hydrants shall be painted red in color. Exception: Private fire
hydrants within the City of Tualatin shall be yellow in color. (OFC 507)
24. FIRE HYDRANT DISTANCE FROM AN ACCESS ROAD: Fire hydrants shall be located not more than 15 feet from
an approved fire apparatus access roadway unless approved by the Fire Marshal. (OFC C102.1)
25. REFLECTIVE HYDRANT MARKERS: Fire hydrant locations shall be identified by the installation of blue reflective
markers. They shall be located adjacent and to the side of the center line of the access roadway that the fire hydrant
Commercial/Multi-Family 3.3.1 – Page 4
is located on. In the case that there is no center line, then assume a center line and place the reflectors accordingly.
(OFC 507)
26. PHYSICAL PROTECTION: Where fire hydrants are subject to impact by a motor vehicle, guard posts, bollards or
other approved means of protection shall be provided. (OFC 507.5.6 & OFC 312)
27. CLEAR SPACE AROUND FIRE HYDRANTS: A 3 foot clear space shall be provided around the circumference of fire
hydrants. (OFC 507.5.5)
28. FIRE DEPARTMENT CONNECTION (FDC) LOCATIONS: FDCs shall be located within 100 feet of a fire hydrant (or
as approved). Hydrants and FDC’s shall be located on the same side of the fire apparatus access roadway or drive
aisle, fully visible, and recognizable from the street or nearest point of the fire department vehicle access or as otherwise
approved. (OFC 912.2.1 & NFPA 13)
Fire department connections (FDCs) shall normally be located remotely and outside of the fall -line of the building
when required. FDCs may be mounted on the building they serve, when approved .
FDCs shall be plumbed on the system side of the check valve when sprinklers are served by underground lines
also serving private fire hydrants.
BUILDING ACCESS AND FIRE SERVICE FEATURES
29. EMERGENCY RESPONDER RADIO COVERAGE: In new buildings where the design reduces the level of radio
coverage for public safety communications systems below minimum performance levels, a distributed antenna
system, signal booster, or other method approved by TVF&R and Washington County Consolidated Communications
Agency shall be provided. (OSSC 915.1, OFC 510.1, and Appendix F)
http://www.tvfr.com/DocumentCenter/View/1296.
a. Emergency responder radio system testing and/or system installation is required for this building. Please
contact me (using my contact info below) for further information including an alternate means of
compliance that is available. If the alternate method is preferred, it must be requested from TVF&R prior
to issuance of building permit.
30. KNOX BOX: A Knox Box for building access may be required for stru ctures and gates. See Appendix B for further
information and detail on required installations. Order via www.tvfr.com or contact TVF&R for assistance and
instructions regarding installation and placement. (OFC 506.1)
31. FIRE PROTECTION EQUIPMENT IDENTIFICATION: Rooms containing controls to fire suppression and detection
equipment shall be identified as “Fire Control Room.” Signage shall have letters with a minimum o f 4 inches high with
a minimum stroke width of 1/2 inch, and be plainly legible, and contrast with its background. (OFC 509.1)
32. PREMISES IDENTIFICATION: New and existing buildings shall have approved address numbers; building numbers
or approved building identification placed in a position that is plainly legible and visible from the street or road fronting
the property, including monument signs. These num bers shall contrast with their background. Numbers shall be a
minimum of 4 inches high with a minimum stroke width of 1/2 inch. (OFC 505.1)
If you have questions or need further clarification, please feel free to contact me at 503-259-1504.
Sincerely,
John Wolff
John Wolff
Deputy Fire Marshal II
Commercial/Multi-Family 3.3.1 – Page 5
Email
John.Wolff@tvfr.com
Cc: TVF&R File
http://www.tvfr.com/DocumentCenter/View/1296
Fields Property Planned Development
Tigard, Oregon
Request for
Planned Development Review - Concept Plan
Prepared for
DBG Properties, LLC
Prepared by
Otak, Inc.
Resubmitted July17, 2017
March 21, 2017
Otak Project No. 17502
Fields Property Planned Development ii
L:\Project\17000\17052\Planning\2017-07-14 Concept Plan Resubmittal\2017-07-13 Revised Narrative.docx otak
REQUESTS
Planned Development Concept Plan approval is requested for the proposed Fields Property
Planned Development, which includes approximately 77,500 to 100,000 square feet of employment
development in three buildings, 264 multifamily residential units in five buildings, and a clubhouse.
The employment component of the project will support at least 280 jobs. The residential
component of the project will be affordable to renters earning 60% of median family income (MFI).
SITE INFORMATION
SUBJECT
PROPERTY:
No address (Tax Lot ID 2S1010001600)
24.18 acres
COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN DESIGNATION:
Mixed Use Employment MUE
ZONING
DESIGNATION:
Mixed Use Employment MUE
Planned Development PD Overlay
APPLICANT/PROPERTY OWNER
APPLICANT(S): DBG Properties, LLC
2164 SW Park Place
Portland, OR 97205
Contact: Walter “Skip” Grodahl
503.807.6279
sgrodahl@dbgpropertiesllc.com
OWNER(S): Fred W. Fields Revocable Living Trust
c/o Thede Culpepper Moore Munro & Silliman LLP
3675 U.S. Bancorp Tower
111 S.W. Fifth Avenue
Portland, OR 97204
Contact: David M. Munro
503.416.6126
dave.munro@thede-culpepper.com
Fields Property Planned Development iii
L:\Project\17000\17052\Planning\2017-07-14 Concept Plan Resubmittal\2017-07-13 Revised Narrative.docx otak
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT TEAM
APPLICANT’S
REPRESENTATIVE:
Otak, Inc.
808 SW Third Avenue, Suite 300
Portland, OR 97204
Contact: Li Alligood, AICP
503.415.2384
li.alligood@otak.com
CIVIL ENGINEER: Contact: Kyle Childers, PE
503.415.2408
Kyle.Childers@otak.com
STORMWATER
ENGINEER:
Contact: Tamara Connolly, PE, CWRE
503.415.2373
tammi.connolly@otak.com
LANDSCAPE
ARCHITECT:
Contact: Kaitlin North, PLA
503.415.2429
Kaitlin.North@otak.com
TRAFFIC
ENGINEER:
Kittelson and Associates, Inc.
610 SW Alder, Suite 700
Portland, OR 97205
Contact: Marc Butorac, PE, PTOE
503. 535.7419
MBUTORAC@kittelson.com
NATURAL
RESOURCES:
Pacific Habitat Services
9450 SW Commerce Circle, Suite 180
Wilsonville, OR 97070
Contact: Amy Hawkins, PWS
503.570.0800 ext. 315
ah@pacifichabitat.com
Fields Property Planned Development iv
L:\Project\17000\17052\Planning\2017-07-14 Concept Plan Resubmittal\2017-07-13 Revised Narrative.docx otak
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I. Requests .................................................................................................................................... 1
II. Project Background and Description ....................................................................................... 1
III. Compliance with Applicable City of Tigard Community Development Code Provisions ...... 3
A. Chapter 18.350 - Planned Developments ......................................................................................... 3
B. Chapter 18.520 – Commercial .......................................................................................................... 15
C. Chapter 18.705 - Access, Egress and Circulation .......................................................................... 16
D. Chapter 18.715 - Density Computations ........................................................................................ 16
E. Chapter 18.720 - Design Compatability Standards ....................................................................... 16
F. Chapter 18.745 - Landscaping and Screening ................................................................................ 16
G. Chapter 18.765 - Off-Street Parking and Loading Requirements ............................................... 18
H. Chapter 18.790 - Urban Forestry Plan ............................................................................................ 18
I. Chapter 18.810 - Street And Utility Improvement Standards ..................................................... 19
J. Neighborhood Meetings ................................................................................................................... 20
IV. Conclusion .............................................................................................................................. 20
V. Appendix
A. Preliminary Title Report dated March 14, 2017, by WFG National Title Insurance
Company
B. Pre-Application Conference Notes from November 17, 2016
C. Documentation of March 15, 2017, Neighborhood Meeting
D. Conditions of Approval from Casefile No. CPA2015-00004, ZON2015-00005
E. Memorandum “Market Study and Financial Feasibility Analysis of Employment Uses on a
Site in Tigard, Oregon,” dated July 14, 2017, by Johnson Economics
VI. Impact Studies
A. Wetland Delineation dated May 9, 2017, by Pacific Habitat Services
B. Memorandum “Trip Cap Compliance,” dated March 10, 2017
Memorandum “Transportation Impact Analysis” dated July 13, 2017, by Kittelson
Associates, Inc.
C. Urban Forestry Plan dated July 20, 2017, by Otak, Inc.
D. Impact Study dated July 13, 2017, by Otak, Inc.
E. Conceptual Storm Drainage Analysis dated July 19, 2017, by Otak, Inc.
VII. Plan Sheets
P0.0 Cover Sheet
P1.0 Existing Conditions Plan
P1.1 Urban Forestry Plan
P2.0 Overall Site Development Concept
Fields Property Planned Development v
L:\Project\17000\17052\Planning\2017-07-14 Concept Plan Resubmittal\2017-07-13 Revised Narrative.docx otak
P3.0 Grading Concept
P3.1 Site Cross Sections
P4.0 Building Placement Concept
P5.0 Open Space/ Landscaping Concept
P6.0 Pedestrian Circulation Concept
P7.0 Vehicular Circulation Concept
P8.0 Parking Concept
P9.0 Site Utility Concept
P10.0 Stormwater Concept
Architectural Elevations
Note: All plan sheets are also separately bound in a larger format within the development
application submittal.
Fields Property Planned Development 1
L:\Project\17000\17052\Planning\2017-07-14 Concept Plan Resubmittal\2017-07-13 Revised Narrative.docx otak
I. REQUESTS
Planned Development Concept Plan approval is requested for the proposed Fields Property
Planned Development, which includes approximately 77,500 to 100,000 square feet of office
development in three buildings, 264 multifamily residential units in five buildings, and a
clubhouse. The office component of the project will support between at least 280 jobs. The
residential component of the project will be affordable to renters earning 60% of median family
income (MFI).
II. PROJECT BACKGROUND and DESCRIPTION
Background
The site was previously part of a larger 42.5-acre property owned by the Fields Trust, which was
designated IL and zoned I-P (see Figure 1). The development community expressed a great deal
of interest in the site over the years, but the significant grade change on the site from west to
east posed a significant challenge to the industrial users permitted by the I-P zone. In addition to
topographical challenges, a number of transportation, access, and environmental challenges
posed issues for industrial developers.
The primary obstacles to development identified by Mackenzie in a 2014 development analysis1
included:
• Slope and configuration of majority of the site not suitable for market-scale development
allowed under the I-P zoning
• Slope of SW Hunziker Road not adequate for truck access on the north side of site
• Transportation System Plan (TSP) designation and width of SW Wall Street (private)
between adjacent development and rail spur not wide enough for City collector standards
The secondary obstacles identified by Mackenzie included:
• A wetland area in the flattest portion of the site
• Remaining trees along the eastern property line
• Limited access to site for some uses
• Possible noise from adjacent railroad switching yard
In light of the site, transportation, and topographical constraints on the site, City Council
approved a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change for the eastern portion of the
site on October 13, 2015 (Case No. CPA2015-00004, ZON2015-00005), which changed the
Comprehensive Plan designation and zoning on the subject site to Mixed Use Employment
MUE and applied a Planned Development PD overlay. See Figure 2 below.
The City Council Final Order included four conditions of approval, two of which have been met
and two of which are outstanding (see Appendix D). The two outstanding conditions of
approval, #2 and #3 are addressed with this submittal.
1 Fields Property Development Analysis and Opportunity Study, dated February 13, 2014
Fields Property Planned Development 2
L:\Project\17000\17052\Planning\2017-07-14 Concept Plan Resubmittal\2017-07-13 Revised Narrative.docx otak
Figure 1. Previous Site Boundary Figure 2. Current Site Boundary
The current proposal is for the site boundary shown in Figure 2 above. An industrial
development has been proposed for lower-elevation site to the west.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The site is 24.18 acres in area and consists of one parcel, which is vacant. The site is located
within the Tigard Triangle neighborhood, west of the intersection of Hwy 217 and 72nd Avenue.
See Sheets P0.0 Cover Sheet and P1.0 Existing Conditions Plan for details.
The proposed development includes two components: employment development designed to
accommodate at least 280 employees is located in the southern portion of the site adjacent to
Wall Street; and 264 units of multifamily residential housing in the northern portion of the site.
These units will be “workforce housing,” meaning they will be affordable to those earning 60%
of median family income. The applicant has a successful track record of affordable housing
development, and has completed developments throughout the Portland metropolitan area,
including Beaverton, Gresham, Hillsboro, Portland, Tualatin, and Vancouver, WA.
The site contains slopes of 9-25% in the northern, eastern, and southeastern sections of the site.
A wetland delineation has been completed and verified the presence of small wetland areas in
the southwestern corner of the site (see Impact Study A). The wetlands are proposed for
removal and offsite mitigation, and a Natural Resources Assessment (NRA) is being completed
for submittal to Clean Water Services (CWS) for review. The site contains Lower Value Habitat
areas; a stand of trees along the eastern edge of the site provides a buffer between the site and
Fields Property Planned Development 3
L:\Project\17000\17052\Planning\2017-07-14 Concept Plan Resubmittal\2017-07-13 Revised Narrative.docx otak
residential development to the east; a 50-foot forested development buffer was established
during the zone change process and is protected within a tract.
The area to the north of the site is zoned I-L and developed with light industrial uses; the site to
the northeast is zoned C-P and is developed with office and multifamily residential uses; the area
to the east/southeast is zoned R-3.5 and is developed with single-family dwellings; the site to the
southeast is zoned I-P and is developed with flex space/light industrial buildings; the site to the
south is zoned PR and is a nature reserve; and the site to the west is zoned I-P and is expected
to develop with industrial uses.
The site has frontage on Hunziker Street to the north and will dedicate Wall Street public right-
of-way to the south. The site also has frontage on 76th Avenue and Varns Street, but no
vehicular access is proposed from either of these streets. Primary access to the residential
portion of the site is from Hunziker Street; primary access to the office portion of the site will
be from the future Tech Center Drive/Wall Street extension along the southern boundary of the
site. The City of Tigard has received grant funding to extend Tech Center Drive from its
intersection with the Pacific Railroad ROW to the southeast of the subject site to the eastern
boundary of the project site, which will complete the transportation connection between Tech
Center Drive and Hunziker Street to the north. The proposed site plan has been revised to
reflect this public project and to take advantage of the access it will provide to the office portion
of the site.
The pre-application submittal and the concept plan discussed at the neighborhood meeting
included an emergency vehicle and pedestrian connection to Varns Street from the site.
However, as a response to the near unanimous opposition to the connection voiced at the
neighborhood meeting, that connection was been removed. Per City comments, the emergency
vehicle and pedestrian connection from Varns Street through the site has been re-established
with this submittal.
Land use application approvals are anticipated in 2017, and site improvements are planned for
spring 2018. Building construction is intended to begin in fall 2018. Infrastructure and site
development for the entire site (including both the residential and office portions) will be
constructed together. Completion of all site improvements is planned for summer 2019.
Completion of residential and office buildings are anticipated in fall 2019/winter 2010.
III. COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE CITY OF TIGARD COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT CODE PROVISIONS
A. CHAPTER 18.350 - PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS
Response: The subject site is located within the Planned Development Overlay. As such, the
proposed development is subject to the City of Tigard’s Planned Development application
process and the standards of Chapter 18.350.
18.350.010 Purpose
A. The purposes of the planned development overlay zone are:
Fields Property Planned Development 4
L:\Project\17000\17052\Planning\2017-07-14 Concept Plan Resubmittal\2017-07-13 Revised Narrative.docx otak
1. To provide a means for property development that is consistent with Tigard’s Comprehensive Plan
through the application of flexible standards which consider and mitigate for the potential impacts to the
city; and
Response: The proposed concept plan for the Fields planned development is consistent
with Tigard’s Comprehensive Plan, which calls for a range of uses on the site, including
employment and residential. The concept plan provides employment uses in close proximity
to workforce housing and the commercial services of the Tigard Triangle, which meets the
City’s objectives for complete neighborhoods.
The flexibility allowed by the planned development overlay allows for creative site design,
including a curvilinear vehicular and pedestrian circulation system, a common “green”
among the buildings, and the ability to site the buildings in a way that responds to the
significant topography of the site.
Potential impacts to the City include transportation and utility infrastructure impacts, which
are addressed in Impact Study D.
2. To provide such added benefits as increased natural areas or open space in the city, alternative building
designs, walkable communities, preservation of significant natural resources, aesthetic appeal, and other
types of assets that contribute to the larger community in lieu of strict adherence to many of the rules of
the Tigard Community Development Code; and
Response: The planned development will include a forested buffer area to the east of the
site and attractive open space for the use of residents and employees, including play areas,
walking trails, benches, and areas for repose. The proposed residential buildings are 4 stories
in height in order to minimize building footprints on the site and preserve open areas. The
northern portion of the site, which will be visible from SW Hunziker Road, includes a
landscaped buffer to soften the edges of the frontage improvements and provide aesthetic
appeal.
3. To achieve unique neighborhoods (by varying the housing styles through architectural accents, use of open
space, innovative transportation facilities) which will retain their character and city benefits, while
respecting the characteristics of existing neighborhoods through appropriate buffering and lot size
transitioning; and
Response: The design respects the characteristics of the existing residential neighborhood
to the east by including wide buffers along the site perimeter and “stepping” buildings
toward the west with the grade of the site, which minimizes the visual impact of the
buildings on properties to the east. The open space has been thoughtfully located to provide
central gathering areas for residents of the multifamily site. There will be two or three
different residential building types, which will be differentiated through architectural accents
and unit mix. The forested buffer on site has been incorporated into the concept, and
additional trees are proposed for retention to provide an additional buffer to the east.
4. To preserve to the greatest extent possible the existing landscape features and amenities (trees, water
resources, ravines, etc.) through the use of a planning procedure (site design and analysis, presentation of
alternatives, conceptual review, then detailed review) that can relate the type and design of a development
to a particular site; and
Response: The site currently contains two areas of trees: a stand of trees in the lower-
elevation northern portion of the site, and a forested area along the southeastern boundary
Fields Property Planned Development 5
L:\Project\17000\17052\Planning\2017-07-14 Concept Plan Resubmittal\2017-07-13 Revised Narrative.docx otak
of the site. There is also a non-significant wetland in the low area in the southwest corner of
the site. The site slopes significantly from east to west, which presents challenges in terms of
building siting, stormwater management, fire department requirements related to access and
maximum slopes, and ADA requirements for on-site walkways and building access.
The proposed design is the result of site design and analysis and a discussion of alternatives,
which have now been submitted to the city for conceptual review. Various approaches to
site design were discussed early in the process, with various conceptual site layouts
responding to ideal solar access orientation (buildings oriented east-west); various open
space concepts (a “commons” in the center, various activity areas); and pedestrian access.
Ultimately, those concepts were discarded for numerous reasons: the solar concept required
buildings to be oriented against the slope and required significant grading; the “commons”
concept did not allow for adequate vehicular circulation and parking or for the inclusion of
stormwater facilities; and construction of those concepts would require very costly
construction methods, rendering the site undevelopable.
5. To consider an amount of development on a site, within the limits of density requirements, which will
balance the interests of the owner, developer, neighbors, and the city; and
Response: To determine whether the interests of the owner, developer, neighbors, and the
city have been balanced, it is necessary to identify those interests. In the transfer and
development of property, many considerations come into play: the cost of the land; the
relative difficulty of developing that land (environmental constraints, permitting challenges,
etc.); and achievable rents or sales prices of future development on the land.
It is assumed that the owner’s interest is to sell the property at a price that provides an
appropriate return to a purchaser that will develop an attractive, high-quality project.
The developer’s interest is to determine whether the zoning on the site permits a
development program that is financially feasible and supported by the City, as indicated
through the land use review and entitlement process. Specifically, DBG, LLC’s interest is in
providing sufficient employment to support the City’s desire for jobs, while providing
workforce housing that meets DBG’s mission to provide housing to lower-income residents.
There are many challenges related to development of the site, including sight distance, traffic
generation, and significant topography, each of which introduce an element of uncertainty
into the process.
During the neighborhood meeting held by the project team, neighbors indicated that their
primary interest is to protect the livability of their neighborhood, and have identified the
restriction of pedestrian and vehicular access to their neighborhood via Varns Road as a
primary method for doing so. Additional concerns voices by neighbor are related to the
retention of trees and adequate buffering (including fencing) along the eastern site boundary
to protect the peace and privacy of existing residential properties along that boundary.
The City has expressed its interests through the adoption of the MUE zone for the site to
allow residential and commercial development, while conditioning that action on the
provision of a level of employment equal to the previous I-P zoning.
The proposed development attempts to balance these various, and at times conflicting,
interests in the following ways:
Fields Property Planned Development 6
L:\Project\17000\17052\Planning\2017-07-14 Concept Plan Resubmittal\2017-07-13 Revised Narrative.docx otak
• Proposing a development type, mix, and density that provides a return on the investment required to
develop the site. The market study submitted as Appendix E has evaluated potential uses
for this site and determined that multifamily residential and office uses are the highest
and best uses for the site given its location and topography. The inclusion of office and
residential uses on the site is intended to meet the owner’s, developer’s, and City’s goals
for the site. The proposed office development will provide a buffer between the active
heavy rail tracks to the south and the proposed and existing residential development to
the northeast.
• Providing substantial buffers along the eastern portion of the site. The proposed buffers along the
eastern portion of the site is well above and beyond the existing 50-foot development
buffer, and is intended to provide privacy to existing residents to the east and provide a
natural experience to future residents and employees of the site.
• Providing pedestrian connectivity to and through the site. Though the neighbors to the east object
to a pedestrian connection through Varns Road, the City has indicated strong support
for the connection and the connection is required to meet the City’s connectivity
requirements.
6. To provide a means to better relate the built environment to the natural environment through sustainable
and innovative building and public facility construction methods and materials.
Response: The natural environment on the site includes grassy areas throughout; forested
areas along the eastern property line; and significant changes in topography from west to
east. Although the buildings are conceptual at this point, the project team is committed to
incorporating sustainable features into the buildings and the site.
Public facilities (stormwater, water, sewer, and streets) will be constructed to City of Tigard
standards, which detail the required construction methods and materials to be used.
18.350.020 Process
A. Applicable in all zones. The planned development designation is an overlay zone applicable to all zones. An
applicant may elect to develop the project as a planned development, in compliance with the requirements of
this chapter, or in the case of a commercial or industrial project an approval authority may apply the
provisions of this chapter as a condition of approving any application for the development.
Response: The Tigard City Council approved application of the PD Overlay Zone to the site
through casefiles CPA2015-00004 and ZON2015-00005. See Appendix D for conditions of
approval related to the zone change.
B. Elements of approval process. There are three elements to the planned development approval process, as
follows:
1. The approval of the planned development concept plan;
2. The approval of the detailed development plan; and
3. The approval of the planned development overlay zone.
Response: The current proposal is for approval of a Planned Development Concept Plan. A
Detailed Development Plan will be submitted separately. City Council approved application of
the PD Overlay Zone to the site through casefile ZON2015-00005.
Fields Property Planned Development 7
L:\Project\17000\17052\Planning\2017-07-14 Concept Plan Resubmittal\2017-07-13 Revised Narrative.docx otak
C. Decision-making process.
1. The concept plan shall be processed by means of a Type III-PC procedure, as governed by Section
18.390.050, using approval criteria contained in Section 18.350.050.
Response: The Fields site planned development Concept Plan is being submitted for review
and approval through a Type III-PC procedure.
2. The detailed development plan shall be reviewed by a means of a Type III-PC procedure, as governed by
Section 18.390.050, to ensure that it is substantially in compliance with the approved concept plan.
Response: A Detailed Development Plan will be submitted separately, and will be reviewed
by means of a Type III-PC procedure.
3. The planned development overlay zone will be applied concurrently with the approval of the detailed plan.
Response: The PD Overlay Zone was applied to the site through casefile ZON2015-00005.
18.350.030 Administrative Provisions
A. Time limit on filing of detailed development plan. The concept plan approval expires after 1-1/2 years unless
an application for detailed development plan and, if applicable, a preliminary plat approval or request for
extension is filed.
Response: An application for detailed development plan approval and a preliminary plat
approval for a two-lot partition will be submitted within 1-1/2 years of concept plan approval.
Submittal is anticipated in spring/summer 2017.
18.350.040 Concept Plan Submission Requirements
A. General submission requirements. The applicant shall submit an application containing all of the general
information required for a Type III-PC procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.050 and the additional
information required by subsection B of this section. In addition, the applicant shall submit the following:
Response: This application contains all of the general information required for a Type III-PC
procedure, as specified by Section 18.390.050 plus the additional information required by
subsection B of this section.
1. A statement of planning objectives to be achieved by the planned development through the particular
approach proposed by the applicant. This statement should include:
a. A description of the character of the proposed development and the rationale behind the assumptions
and choices made by the applicant;
Response: The applicant’s objective is to develop a site that combines well-designed,
complementary buildings connected with attractive open spaces and pedestrian
pathways. The character of the office portion of the planned development will be
flexible to allow for a broad range of users. The character of the residential portion of
the planned development will be family-friendly, attractive, and convenient to nearby
employment and services.
The assumptions and choices made in the concept design of the development include:
• There is a strong demand for both multi-family residential and office development in
the subject area, as described in the market study prepared by Johnson Economics
and included as Appendix E.
Fields Property Planned Development 8
L:\Project\17000\17052\Planning\2017-07-14 Concept Plan Resubmittal\2017-07-13 Revised Narrative.docx otak
• The office site at the southern end of the site will reinforce the City’s significant
investment in the Tech Center/Wall Street extension and will provide noise
attenuation for the residential development to the north and northeast.
• The residential units have been accommodated in fewer buildings of greater height
to maximize open space opportunities and provide greater flexibility in façade
design. The mix of residential units and types of open spaces, which are envisioned
to include community gardens, play areas, and passive areas for relaxation, are
intended to appeal to a range of residents, from individuals to families with children
to seniors.
• The market study indicates that nearby highly-leased office properties have a parking
ratio of 1.5 to 4.0 spaces per 1,000 square feet of space. The target parking ratio of
3.1 to 4 spaces per 1,000 for the office portion of the site is based on this data as well
as data provided by commercial brokers specializing in suburban office development.
b. An explanation of the architectural style, and what innovative site planning principles are utilized
including any innovations in building techniques that will be employed;
Response: The architectural style is being refined in preparation for Detailed
Development Plan submittal, but it is anticipated that the office buildings will be modern
in design, in keeping with nearby office developments, while the multifamily residential
buildings will be more traditional in design, also in keeping with nearby residential
developments. Examples of building massing and architectural elevations are attached.
Innovative site planning principles and techniques include the mixing of building types
and uses in a coordinated development plan, distribution of open space throughout the
site, and mitigation of site slopes through a curvilinear site access design. Accessible
pedestrian pathways provide north/south linkages throughout the site and between
buildings and commons spaces. As shown in the grading concept, proposed site grading
will preserve the predominant southwestern trending slope of the site while minimizing
the need for significant retaining walls along site boundaries.
c. An explanation of how the proposal relates to the purposes of the planned development chapter as
expressed in Section 18.350.010; and
Response: The purpose statement of the planned development chapter is addressed
above.
d. An explanation of how the proposal utilized the “Planning Commission[er]’s Toolbox.”
Response: The plan submittal requirements and suggested regulations contained in the
“Planning Commission’s Toolbox” have been codified in the Tigard Community
Development Code, specifically in Chapter 18.350 Planned Development. Compliance
with the standards of these chapters is addressed throughout this narrative. The
remainder of the document provides guidance for Planning Commissions as they review
planned development proposals.
The document further describes the desired character of retaining walls, sidewalks,
fixtures, open spaces, and paving materials. These suggestions will be considered during
detailed development plan review.
Fields Property Planned Development 9
L:\Project\17000\17052\Planning\2017-07-14 Concept Plan Resubmittal\2017-07-13 Revised Narrative.docx otak
2. A general development schedule indicating the approximate dates when construction of the planned
development and its various phases are expected to be initiated and completed.
Response: Land use application approvals are anticipated in 2017, and site improvements
are planned for spring 2018. Building construction is intended to begin in fall 2018.
Infrastructure and site development for the entire site (including both the residential and
office portions) will be constructed together. Completion of all site improvements is planned
for summer 2019. Completion of residential and office buildings are anticipated in fall
2019/winter 2010.
3. A statement of the applicant’s intentions with regard to the future selling or leasing of all or portions of
the planned development. In the case where a residential subdivision is proposed, the statement shall
include the applicant’s intentions whether the applicant will build the homes, or sell the lots to other
builders.
Response: The applicant, DBG, also has a development branch and a property
management branch. Infrastructure and site development for the entire site will be
conducted by DBG in preparation for building construction. It is the intent of the applicant
to develop the multifamily residential component of the site through its development branch
and to divide the site into two parcels with a subsequent application and coordinate
construction of the office buildings on the site with another entity. Any subsequent land
developer will be required to develop the site consistent with the proposed concept plan, or
to submit revisions to the approved plans.
B. Additional information. In addition to the general information described in subsection A of this section, the
concept plan, data, and narrative shall include the following information, the detailed content of which can be
obtained from the director:
1. Existing site conditions;
Response: Existing site conditions are illustrated on Sheet P1.0. The site is currently
vacant.
2. A site concept including the types of proposed land uses and structures, including housing types, and their
general arrangement on the site;
Response: An overall site concept is included as Sheet P2.0. The concept plan proposes 3-
story office development in three buildings and associated surface parking; 4-story
multifamily attached residential housing in five buildings and associated surface parking; a
clubhouse in the center of the multifamily portion of the site; and a variety of open spaces
throughout the site. The multifamily residential portion of the site will be located in the
northern portion and will be primarily accessed from Hunziker Road. The office portion of
the site will be located in the northern portion and will be primarily accessed from the
portion of Wall Street to be constructed by the applicant.
3. A grading concept;
Response: A grading concept is included as Sheets P3.0 and P3.1. The site is proposed to
be graded in a manner that will preserve the naturally gentle slope of the site while allowing
for development that meets accessibility and parking requirements and minimizes the need
for significant retaining walls. The grading concept for the site is intended to provide
maximum flexibility for the office development on the site, which will be marketed to a
broad range of office users.
Fields Property Planned Development 10
L:\Project\17000\17052\Planning\2017-07-14 Concept Plan Resubmittal\2017-07-13 Revised Narrative.docx otak
4. A landscape concept indicating a percentage range for the amount of proposed open space and
landscaping, and general location and types of proposed open space(s);
Response: An Open Space and Landscape Concept is included as Sheet P5.0. The site
includes a 50-foot development buffer along the eastern property line; landscaped buffers
around the perimeter of the site; usable open space in a “central courtyard” and in more
natural areas of the site; and a clubhouse with amenity space. The proposed landscaping
comprises 20% of the site, and additional private and shared open space will be provided on
the multifamily portion of the site.
Tigard Maps indicates the presence of a significant tree grove along the eastern boundary of
the site crossing the northern portion of the site and entering the Wall Street Industrial site
to the west. The majority of this grove on site is within the recorded 50-foot development
buffer, but portions are located outside of it.
5. An urban forestry plan consistent with Chapter 18.790;
Response: A conceptual urban forestry plan is included as Impact Study C. A more detailed
urban forestry plan consistent with Chapter 18.790 will be provided with the Detailed
Development Plan submittal.
6. Parking concept;
Response: A Parking Concept is included as Sheet P8.0. The proposed parking ratio is 4.0
spaces per 1,000 square feet for the office uses, and 1.5 spaces per dwelling unit. In addition,
visitor parking and ADA-compliant parking spaces are indicated for a total of 738 spaces.
The minimum parking ratio target for the employment/office portion of the site is 3.1
spaces per 1,000 square feet. This number is less than similar office development within the
Tigard Triangle area, so the higher ratio shown is preferable.
7. A sign concept;
Response: No signs are proposed at this time. Future signage will be subject to the
standards of the Tigard Development Code.
8. A streets and utility concept; and
Response: A pedestrian circulation concept is included as Sheet P6.0; a vehicular circulation
concept is included as Sheet P7.0; an overall utility concept is included as Sheet P9.0, and an
overall stormwater concept is included as Sheet P10.0.
The site will dedicate right-of-way to the future SW Wall Street to the south and construct
street improvements along the Wall Street frontage. Right-of-way will be dedicated for the
future SW 76th Avenue and it will be graded for future construction. Right-of-way will be
dedicated to SW Hunziker Street and street improvements will be constructed. Two site
accesses are proposed: a northern vehicular and pedestrian access to SW Hunziker Road and
a southern vehicular and pedestrian access to SW Wall Street. See Impact Study B Traffic
Impact Analysis for an evaluation of site distance.
Sanitary sewer, water, and storm sewer connections are available in SW Hunziker Street and
will be available from the future Wall Street.
Fields Property Planned Development 11
L:\Project\17000\17052\Planning\2017-07-14 Concept Plan Resubmittal\2017-07-13 Revised Narrative.docx otak
9. Structure setback and development standards concept, including the proposed residential density target if
applicable.
Response: Sheet P4.0 Building Placement Concept shows the proposed location of the
structures. The structure locations will exceed the required setbacks. The buildings will be
separated as required by the provisions of 18.350 Planned Development.
The applicant anticipates submitting a partition plat application with the Detailed
Development Plan application, which would reduce the residential portion of the site to
14.57 gross acres. The maximum residential density in the MUE zone is 25 units per gross
acre and the minimum residential density is 80% of the maximum residential density, or 20
units per net acre. The gross area of the residential portion of the site is 14.57 acres, and
maximum residential density is 364 units. After subtracting slopes over 25% (0.66 ac.), right-
of-way dedication (0.16 ac.), the development buffer (1.07 ac.), and private drives (1.58 ac.),
the site area is reduced to 11.1 net acres, which results in a minimum residential density of
222 dwelling units at 20 dwelling units per net acre.
The proposed residential density is 264 units, or 23 dwelling units per net acre, less than the
maximum of 364 units and more than the minimum of 222.
C. Allowable uses.
1. In residential zones. In all residential zones, an applicant with a planned development approval may
develop the site to contain a mixture of uses subject to the density provisions of the underlying zone and
the density bonus provisions of 18.350.070.A.3.c. The following uses are allowed with planned
development approval:
a. All uses allowed outright in the underlying zoning district;
b. Single-family detached and attached residential units;
Response: The proposed development will include 4 office buildings, 9 multifamily residential
buildings, and a clubhouse. “Household Living” (specifically, multifamily residential at a
maximum density of 25 units/acre) and “Office” uses are permitted uses the MUE zone per
table 18.520.1 of the Community Development Code.
18.350.050 Concept Plan Approval Criteria
A. The concept plan may be approved by the commission only if all of the following criteria are met:
1. The concept plan includes specific designations on the concept map for areas of open space, and describes
their intended level of use, how they relate to other proposed uses on the site, and how they protect natural
features of the site.
Response: Sheet P4.0 shows the types of proposed structures and their general arrangement
on the site, and Sheet P5.0 shows the designated open space within the site. The designated
conceptual open space includes both passive and active open space, which are designated on
the concept by different colors. Generally, active open spaces will consist of play areas for
children and recreational area for children and adults, and passive open spaces will allow for
quiet contemplation and observation of natural areas on the site.
The proposed open spaces incorporate the forested area along the eastern boundary of the
site. Open spaces provide a buffer between the multifamily residential development to the
north and the existing development to the east, as well as between the northernmost
residential building and SW Hunziker Street. This criterion is met.
Fields Property Planned Development 12
L:\Project\17000\17052\Planning\2017-07-14 Concept Plan Resubmittal\2017-07-13 Revised Narrative.docx otak
2. The concept plan identifies areas of trees and other natural resources, if any, and identifies methods for
their maximized protection, preservation, and/or management.
Response: Sheet P5.0 shows the designated open space within the site. The subject site
contains a significant tree grove along the eastern boundary of the site and across the
northern portion of the site. A non-significant wetland and associated CWS vegetated
corridor is located in the southwest corner of the site. There is no mapped floodplain on
site.
The significant tree grove will be protected within an established 50-foot forested buffer
along the eastern boundary of the site and is shown on the concept plan. Due to the site
topography, significant grading will be required and it is possible that trees outside of the
forested buffer area will need to be removed. A more detailed urban forestry plan will be
submitted with the Detailed Development Plan review and will address methods for
maximizing the protection, preservation, and/or management of the trees on site.
The non-significant wetland is proposed for removal as part of the development, and will be
mitigated through the purchase of off-site mitigation credits subject to CWS approval.
This criterion is met.
3. The concept plan identifies how the future development will integrate into the existing neighborhood, either
through compatible street layout, architectural style, housing type, or by providing a transition between the
existing neighborhood and the project with compatible development or open space buffers.
Response: The site is adjacent to existing office, multifamily, and single-family residential
development to the east, light industrial to the north, and a vacant site proposed for light
industrial development to the west. Sheet P2.0 illustrates how the proposed development
will integrate into the adjacent neighborhood.
Sheets P6.0 and P7.0 show that the proposed street layout includes a pedestrian and
emergency vehicle connection from Varns Road to the east, which will connect with the
proposed pedestrian connection through the Wall Street Industrial site to the west and
provide access to the dog park to the west of Wall Street.
Generally, surface parking lots and landscaping have been located to the east of the
proposed building to provide additional buffering between existing residential development
and the proposed buildings. A 50-foot development buffer was established along much of
the eastern boundary of the site and is densely forested. The proposed buildings are located
between 100 and 200 feet from the eastern property line to provide additional privacy and
buffering.
The subject site elevation increases from approximately 200 feet on the western boundary to
230+ feet on the eastern boundary, and grade changes between the site and development to
the east ranges from 10 to 20 feet. These elevation changes provide both opportunities and
challenges. The elevation of the site provides territorial views to the west and south from the
residential portion, and provides a both a visual and auditory buffer between proposed
development and the higher-elevation neighborhoods to the east.
The proposed multifamily residential development is located adjacent to existing office and
multifamily residential development in the northeast corner. The proposed housing type is 4-
Fields Property Planned Development 13
L:\Project\17000\17052\Planning\2017-07-14 Concept Plan Resubmittal\2017-07-13 Revised Narrative.docx otak
story buildings oriented north-south. The existing multifamily development is oriented
north-south along the subject site boundary and is at an elevation between 10 and 15 feet
higher than the proposed multifamily buildings. Due to grade differences, the final height of
the proposed buildings will be similar to the existing buildings. The orientation of the
buildings will allow for territorial views to the west due to the significant topographical
changes.
The Rolling Hills and Rolling Hills No. 2 subdivisions are located to the east of the site,
roughly south of Varns Street. Varns Street stubs at the eastern property line of the subject
property and is not intended to continue as a vehicular street. However, sewer and water
lines will be extended through Varns Street to the subject site which will necessitate removal
of existing trees and paving of the unpaved portion of Varns Street. The Rolling Hills
neighborhood is zoned R-3.5 and is developed with small-lot single-family homes. The
homes adjacent to the site are 1- to 2-story single-family homes set back 40 to 170 feet from
the subject property. In addition, the proposed buildings will be 10 to 20 feet lower than the
existing buildings, which will minimize visual impacts.
The proposed office development is located in the southern portion of the site, adjacent to
the Rolling Hills No. 2 subdivision, the future Wall Street, and the heavy rail lines. The
location of the office building is intended to act as a buffer between the noise impacts of the
railroad and the residential development to the north and northeast. The proposed office
buildings are 3 stories and are separated by the residential area to the east by approximately
20 feet in elevation.
4. The concept plan identifies methods for promoting walkability or transit ridership, such methods may
include separated parking bays, off street walking paths, shorter pedestrian routes than vehicular routes,
linkages to or other provisions for bus stops, etc.
Response: Sheet P6.0 illustrates a proposed pedestrian circulation system and nearby transit
stops. The proposed Hunziker Road improvements will include sidewalks, and the on-site
pedestrian network connects pedestrians from the northern and southern frontages to each
building, and between buildings, through pathways throughout the site. Pedestrian
connections are proposed from Varns Street and will connect with the proposed Wall Street
Industrial pedestrian path to the west. A walking path is also proposed along the eastern
boundary of the site.
Transit service near the site is provided by the 78 bus, with provides service to the Tigard
Transit Center/WES stop located approximately a mile southwest of the site. Though the
WES runs along the southern edge of the site, there is no direct pedestrian access to the
nearest stop. Existing bus stops are located to the east and west of the site; no stops are
located along the site frontage. This criterion is met.
5. The concept plan identifies the proposed uses, and their general arrangement on site. In the case of projects
that include a residential component, housing type, unit density, or generalized lot sizes shall be shown in
relation to their proposed location on site.
Response: Sheet P4.0 Building Placement Concept shows the proposed location of the
structures and proposed housing type and unit density. The structure locations will exceed
the required setbacks. The buildings will be separated as required by the provisions of 18.350
Planned Development.
Fields Property Planned Development 14
L:\Project\17000\17052\Planning\2017-07-14 Concept Plan Resubmittal\2017-07-13 Revised Narrative.docx otak
Per Table 18.520.1 footnote 21, the maximum residential density in the MUE zone is 25
units per gross acre; per 18.510.040, the minimum residential density is 80% of the maximum
residential density, or 20 units per acre. Per 18.715, minimum density is calculated by net acre
rather than gross acre, and net acreage calculations are used here.
The proposed housing types consist of 1-, 2-, and 3-bedroom units to accommodate
individuals, couples or roommates, and families. The proposed residential density for the
overall site is 23 dwelling units per acre, less than the maximum. The applicant plans to
submit a partition plat application with the Detailed Development Plan application, which
would reduce the residential portion of the site to 14.57 acres.
6. The concept plan must demonstrate that development of the property pursuant to the plan results in
development that has significant advantages over a standard development. A concept plan has a
significant advantage if it provides development consistent with the general purpose of the zone in which it
is located at overall densities consistent with the zone, while protecting natural features or providing
additional amenities or features not otherwise available that enhance the development project or the
neighborhood.
Response: The purpose statement of the commercial zones (including the MUE zone) is
stated in 18.520.010:
A. Provide range of commercial services for city residents. One of the major purposes of the regulations
governing development in commercial zoning districts is to ensure that a full range of retail and office
uses are available throughout the city so that residents can fulfill all or most of their needs within
easy driving and, ideally within easy walking and/or biking distance of their homes. The location of
land within each commercial district must be carefully selected and design and development standards
created to minimize the potential adverse impacts of commercial activity on established residential
areas. At the same time, it is important to create more opportunities for mixed use, including
residential, commercial and institutional activities, in new and re-developing commercial areas.
B. Facilitate economic goals. Another purpose of these regulations is to ensure that there is a full range
of economic activities and job opportunities within the city limits, in compliance with the economic
goals of the City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan.
The concept plan provides development consistent with the purpose of the commercial
zones in the following ways:
• It provides opportunities for employment and workforce housing in an area of the city
that includes a full range of land uses. The proposed development will meet the design
and development standards of the MUE zone and minimizes impacts on the
employment activities on the established residential areas to the east through the use of
vegetation and open space buffers.
• Enhance the range of economic activities within city limits by providing additional
employment adjacent to the new Wall Street extension, a significant economic
development project being constructed by the City. In addition, the development
advances the City’s economic goals by providing for the development of 280 jobs. See
Appendix E.
The proposed density of residential uses is consistent with the density range of the MUE
zone (20 to 25 dwelling units per acre), and the proposed density of employment uses meets
the 280-job density required by the zone change approval for the site.
Fields Property Planned Development 15
L:\Project\17000\17052\Planning\2017-07-14 Concept Plan Resubmittal\2017-07-13 Revised Narrative.docx otak
Development of the site as a standard development would be subject to a Type II Site
Development Review (SDR) process. SDR establishes requirements for building location;
stormwater management; building design; buffering; and open space requirements for
residential and nonresidential development. Many of these requirements are also contained
in the Planned Development Detailed Development Plan requirements, which will be
applicable to development on this site.
Table 1 provides a comparison of the required and proposed amenities. Overall, the
clustering of development permitted through the PD process allows for additional buffering
between the proposed development and established neighborhoods, as well as additional on-
site amenities for residents and employees.
Table 1. Required and proposed amenities
Amenity Required by SDR Proposed Notes
Buffering between
adjacent uses
Level “C” buffer along
eastern boundary (6 to 10
feet in width) – met by
established 50-foot
development buffer
100 to 200 feet in width Exceeds requirements
Private outdoor area for
multifamily use
48 sq. ft. per unit 48 sq. ft. per unit Meets requirements
Shared outdoor
recreation areas • Studio and 1BR =
200 sq. ft. per unit
• 3+ BR = 300 sq. ft.
per unit
• Total = 56,000 sq. ft.
~70,000 Exceeds requirements
B. CHAPTER 18.520 – COMMERCIAL
18.520.010 Purpose
A. Provide range of commercial services for city residents. One of the major purposes of the regulations governing
development in commercial zoning districts is to ensure that a full range of retail and office uses are available
throughout the city so that residents can fulfill all or most of their needs within easy driving and, ideally
within easy walking and/or biking distance of their homes. The location of land within each commercial
district must be carefully selected and design and development standards created to minimize the potential
adverse impacts of commercial activity on established residential areas. At the same time, it is important to
create more opportunities for mixed use, including residential, commercial and institutional activities, in new
and re-developing commercial areas.
B. Facilitate economic goals. Another purpose of these regulations is to ensure that there is a full range of
economic activities and job opportunities within the city limits, in compliance with the economic goals of the
City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan.
18.5 20.030 Uses
Response: The site is zoned MUE, which is a commercial designation. Table 18.520.1 of the
Community Development lists permitted, restricted, conditional, and prohibited uses in the
commercial zones. “Household Living” and “Office” are listed as a permitted uses in the MUE
zone.
Table 18.520.2 provides a tabulation of minimum development standards for each of the
commercial districts. The MUE zone development standards incorporate the standards of the
C-G zone for commercial and office uses, and the R-25 zone for residential uses. Some of these
Fields Property Planned Development 16
L:\Project\17000\17052\Planning\2017-07-14 Concept Plan Resubmittal\2017-07-13 Revised Narrative.docx otak
standards are superseded by the standards of section 18.660.070. At the concept plan level, the
specific calculations for each of these standards have not been completed. The detailed
development plan and site development applications will comply with all applicable standards of
the MUE Zone.
These standards are met.
C. CHAPTER 18.705 - ACCESS, EGRESS AND CIRCULATION
18.705.020 Applicability of Provisions
Response: The proposal is for concept plan approval, and does not constitute development.
These provisions are not applicable to this application. They will be addressed with future
Detailed Development Plan and Site Plan review applications. However, the concept plan has
been designed to conform with these standards.
D. CHAPTER 18.715 - DENSITY COMPUTATIONS
18.715.020 Density Calculation
Response: The Fields property planned development is entirely within the MUE zone. The
standards of the R-25 zone apply to residential development in the MUE zone. Per Table
18.520.1, multifamily residential development is permitted in the MUE zone at a maximum
density of 25 units per gross acre. This chapter establishes a minimum density calculation based
on net acre. The concept plan application proposes 264 multifamily units, which results in a
density of 23 dwelling units per acre, within the required density range of 20 to 25 dwelling units
per acre.
E. CHAPTER 18.720 - DESIGN COMPATABILITY STANDARDS
18.720.020 Applicability of Provisions
A. When provisions apply. These provisions apply to all multi-family and attached single-family residential
projects in zoning districts R-4.5 through R-40 that abut property zoned for single-family residential
development.
Response: The proposed multifamily development site is zoned MUE and abuts property
zoned R-3.5, I-H, and C-G to the east; I-P to the west; I-L to the north; and PR to the south.
None of the abutting properties are zoned for single-family residential development. The
provisions of this chapter are not applicable.
F. CHAPTER 18.745 - LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING
18 .745.020 Applicability
A. Applicability. The provisions of this chapter shall apply to all development that requires a Type I conditional
use minor modification, a Type I site development review minor modification, any Type II land use review or
any Type III land use review unless otherwise specified in any of the sections below.
Response: Although the proposed concept plan is subject to Type III land use review, the level
of detail required by the concept plan application does not address the provisions of this chapter
beyond a conceptual level. Detailed landscaping and screening plans will be submitted with the
Planned Development Detailed Development Plan application. These standards are not
applicable.
Fields Property Planned Development 17
L:\Project\17000\17052\Planning\2017-07-14 Concept Plan Resubmittal\2017-07-13 Revised Narrative.docx otak
18.745.040 Street Tree Standards
A. Street trees shall be required as part of the approval process for conditional use (Type III), downtown design
review (Type II and III), minor land partition (Type II), planned development (Type III), site development
review (Type II) and subdivision (Type II and III) permits.
Response: Although the proposed concept plan is subject to Type III planned development
review, the level of detail required by the concept plan application does not address the
provisions of this chapter beyond a conceptual level. These standards are not applicable.
18.745.050 Buffering and Screening
A. General provisions.
1. It is the intent that these requirements shall provide for privacy and protection and reduce or eliminate the
adverse impacts of visual or noise pollution at a development site, without unduly interfering with the view
from neighboring properties or jeopardizing the safety of pedestrians and vehicles.
2. Buffering and screening is required to reduce the impacts on adjacent uses which are of a different type in
accordance with the matrices in this chapter (Tables 18.745.1 and 18.745.2). The owner of each
proposed development is responsible for the installation and effective maintenance of buffering and
screening. When different uses would be abutting one another except for separation by a right-of-way,
buffering, but not screening, shall be required as specified in the matrix.
3. In lieu of these standards, a detailed buffer area landscaping and screening plan may be submitted for the
director’s approval as an alternative to the buffer area landscaping and screening standards, provided it
affords the same degree of buffering and screening as required by this code.
Response: The site is located to adjacent residential, commercial, and industrial zones. Detailed
buffering and screening plans will be submitted with the Planned Development Detailed
Development Plan application.
B. Screening: special provisions.
1. Screening and landscaping of parking and loading areas:
a. Screening of parking and loading areas is required…The specifications for this screening are as
follows:
i. Landscaped parking areas shall include special design features which effectively screen the
parking lot areas from view. These design features may include the use of landscaped berms,
decorative walls and raised planters;
ii. Landscape planters may be used to define or screen the appearance of off-street parking areas
from the public right-of-way;
iii. Materials to be installed should achieve a balance between low lying and vertical shrubbery and
trees;
iv. All parking areas, including parking spaces and aisles, shall be required to achieve at least
30% tree canopy cover at maturity directly above the parking area in accordance with the
parking lot tree canopy standards in the Urban Forestry Manual.
Response: The concept plan includes a parking concept (Sheet P8.0). A detailed screening
and landscaping plan for the proposed parking and loading areas will be submitted with the
Planned Development Detailed Development Plan application.
2. Screening of service facilities. Except for one-family and two-family dwellings, any refuse container or
disposal area and service facilities such as gas meters and air conditioners which would otherwise be
visible from a public street, customer or resident parking area, any public facility or any residential area
shall be screened from view by placement of a solid wood fence or masonry wall between five and eight feet
in height. All refuse materials shall be contained within the screened area.
3. Screening of swimming pools. All swimming pools shall be enclosed as required by the state building code.
Fields Property Planned Development 18
L:\Project\17000\17052\Planning\2017-07-14 Concept Plan Resubmittal\2017-07-13 Revised Narrative.docx otak
4. Screening of refuse containers. Except for one- and two-family dwellings, any refuse container or refuse
collection area which would be visible from a public street, parking lot, residential or commercial area, or
any public facility such as a school or park shall be screened or enclosed from view by placement of a solid
wood fence, masonry wall or evergreen hedge. All refuse shall be contained within the screened area.
Response: These requirements will be addressed at the time of Detailed Development Plan
submittal.
C. Buffer matrix.
1. The buffer matrices contained in Tables 18.745.1 and 18.745.2 shall be used in calculating widths of
buffering/screening and required improvements to be installed between proposed uses and abutting uses or
zoning districts.
Response: The subject site is zoned Mixed Use Employment MUE. Existing/abutting uses
to the northeast are C-G zoned and 5+ attached multifamily units; existing/abutting uses to
the southeast are detached single units; the property to the west is vacant and zoned I-P; and
the property to the north is zoned C-G. It is anticipated that buffer combinations A and C
apply and will be addressed at the time of Detailed Development Plan submittal.
G. CHAPTER 18.765 - OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING
REQUIREMENTS
18.765.020 Applicability of Provisions
A. New construction. At the time of the erection of a new structure within any zoning district, off-street vehicle
parking will be provided in accordance with Section 18.765.070.
Response: The proposal is for conceptual approval of a planned development. These
provisions are not applicable at this time.
H. CHAPTER 18.790 - URBAN FORESTRY PLAN
18.790.020 Applicability
The requirements of this chapter apply to the following situations:
A. The following land use reviews:
1. Conditional use (Type III);
2. Downtown design review (Type II and III);
3. Minor land partition (Type II);
4. Planned development (Type III);
5. Sensitive lands review (Type II and III);
6. Site development review (Type II); and
7. Subdivision (Type II and III).
Response: This application is subject to Type III Planned Development review, and an Urban
Forestry Plan is a stated requirement. However, the review is for a concept plan, which does not
yet include the level of detail required to prepare an urban forestry plan. A conceptual urban
forestry plan is included as Impact Study C; a detailed urban forestry plan in compliance with
this chapter will be submitted with a subsequent Type III Planned Development – Detailed
Development Plan submittal.
18.790.030 Urban Forestry Plan Requirements
A. Urban forestry plan requirements. An urban forestry plan shall:
Fields Property Planned Development 19
L:\Project\17000\17052\Planning\2017-07-14 Concept Plan Resubmittal\2017-07-13 Revised Narrative.docx otak
1. Be coordinated and approved by a landscape architect (the project landscape architect) or a person that is
both a certified arborist and tree risk assessor (the project arborist), except for minor land partitions that
can demonstrate compliance with effective tree canopy cover and soil volume requirements by planting
street trees in open soil volumes only;
2. Meet the tree preservation and removal site plan standards in the Urban Forestry Manual;
3. Meet the tree canopy site plan standards in the Urban Forestry Manual; and
4. Meet the supplemental report standards in the Urban Forestry Manual.
B. Tree canopy fee. If the supplemental report demonstrates that the applicable standard percent effective tree
canopy cover will not be provided through any combination of tree planting or preservation for the overall
development site (excluding streets) or that the 15% effective tree canopy cover will not be provided through
any combination of tree planting or preservation for any individual lot or tract in the R-1, R-2, R-3.5, R-4.5
and R-7 districts (when the overall development site meets or exceeds the standard percent effective tree canopy
cover), then the applicant shall provide the city a tree canopy fee according to the methodology outlined in the
tree canopy fee calculation requirements in the Urban Forestry Manual.
C. Tree canopy fee use. Tree canopy fees provided to the city shall be deposited into the urban forestry fund and
used as approved by council through a resolution. (Ord. 12-09 §1)
Response: A conceptual urban forestry plan prepared by a landscape architect is included as
Impact Study C; a detailed urban forestry plan in compliance with this chapter will be submitted
with a subsequent Type III Planned Development – Detailed Development Plan submittal.
I. CHAPTER 18.810 - STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENT STANDARDS
18.810.020 General Provisions
A. When standards apply. Unless otherwise provided, construction, reconstruction or repair of streets, sidewalks,
curbs and other public improvements shall occur in accordance with the standards of this title. No
development may occur and no land use application may be approved unless the public facilities related to
development comply with the public facility requirements established in this section and adequate public
facilities are available. Applicants may be required to dedicate land and build required public improvements
only when the required exaction is directly related to and roughly proportional to the impact of the
development.
Response: This application is for concept plan approval rather than development, and the
standards of this title do not apply. The adequacy of public facilities is addressed below; public
facility requirements, right-of-way dedication, and required public improvements will be
addressed at the time of Detailed Development Plan submittal.
18.810.030 Streets
Response: Per 18.810.030.CC and the pre-application notes provided by City of Tigard staff, a
traffic study is required for the proposal. Kittelson and Associates, Inc., have prepared a
Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA), which is attached as Impact Study B. The TIA identifies
mitigation measures to offset the impacts of the development of the site on the transportation
network. These mitigation measures will be addressed in more detail during the Detailed
Development Plan application review.
18.810.040 Blocks
Response: The on-site circulation is provided by access aisles; no streets are proposed. This
standard is not applicable.
Fields Property Planned Development 20
L:\Project\17000\17052\Planning\2017-07-14 Concept Plan Resubmittal\2017-07-13 Revised Narrative.docx otak
18.810.090 Sanitary Sewers
Response: City staff has indicated that sanitary sewer service will be provided by the City of
Tigard. An 8-in. sanitary sewer line is located in SW Hunziker Street and will serve the proposed
development. City of Tigard staff notes that the applicant will be required to extend the public
sewer line to Crestview and Varns streets.
18.810.100 Storm Drainage
Response: This section requires all storm water runoff to be conveyed to an approved public
drainage system. A proposed storm drainage plan will be proposed for the site and submitted
with the Detailed Development Plan application. Per City of Tigard staff, a 36-in. public storm
line is located downstream on SW Hunziker Street. Off-site easements may be required. City of
Tigard staff also notes that the Hunziker Street storm drain can only serve approximately half of
the site, and that the applicant will be required to extend the public storm drain to Crestview and
Varns streets.
Per Clean Water Services regulations, storm water quality will be addressed at the time of
Detailed Development Plan approval. The facilities will meet the regulations for on-site water
quality facilities.
18.810.120 Utilities
Response: This section requires the undergrounding of utilities and provides a fee in-lieu of
undergrounding in certain situations. Per Sheet P9.0, the on-site utilities will be undergrounded.
J. NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGS
A neighborhood meeting was held on March 15, 2017, regarding the preliminary plans for the
project. A copy of the letter, mailing labels, affidavit of posting and mailing, and meeting notes is
provided in Appendix C to this report.
IV. CONCLUSION
The request for Planned Development Concept Plan approval to develop 55,000 square feet of
employment use and 264 multifamily residential units has been shown to be consistent with the
applicable standards of the City of Tigard Community Development Code. The applicant,
therefore, respectfully requests approval of these applications.
Fields Property Project #: 20974
July 14, 2017 Page 2
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Portland, Oregon
Recommendations
The applicant TDT contribution should be directed to the financially constrained SW Hall
Boulevard/SW Hunziker Street/SW Scoffins Street intersection TSP improvement to address the
existing and future needs of this intersection.
Prior to construction of the financially constrained TSP project, the City may consider requiring
the developer to install a raised median on SW Hall Boulevard and remove the signal at SW
Scoffins Street. This potential interim improvement restricting SW Scoffins Street to right-
in/right-out movements would improve capacity to acceptable conditions.
The proposed site driveways located on SW Hunziker Street and SW Wall Street should be
controlled with MUTCD compliant stop signs and stop bars.
A westbound left-turn lane, with a minimum of 50 feet of storage, should be constructed in
conjunction with the proposed SW Hunziker Street driveway.
On-site landscaping and any above ground utilities should be located and maintained to
provide adequate intersection sight distance at the site driveways in conjunction with site
development.
INTRODUCTION
DBG Properties LLC is proposing to construct a residential and office development on SW Hunziker
Street in Tigard. The site is bounded by SW Hunziker Street to the north, residential land uses to the
east, a Portland and Western rail line to the south and by SW Wall Street and a vacant property to the
west. Figure 1 illustrates the site vicinity and Figure 2 illustrates the preliminary site development plan.
As shown in Figure 2, the site will be served by two driveways onto SW Wall Street and a single
driveway onto SW Hunziker Street.
Fields Property Project #: 20974
July 14, 2017 Page 5
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Portland, Oregon
Study Intersections
Based on collaboration with City of Tigard and Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) Region 1
staff, the following intersections were identified for inclusion in the transportation impact analysis:
Highway 99W/SW Hall Boulevard
SW Hall Boulevard/ SW Hunziker Street/SW Scoffins Street1
SW 72nd Avenue/Southbound Highway 217 Ramp Intersection
Southbound Ramp Terminal of the Highway 217/99W interchange
Southbound Ramp Terminal of the I-5/Highway 217 interchange
SW 72nd Avenue/SW Tech Center Drive
SW Hunziker Street/SW Wall Street
SW Hunziker Street/SW 72nd Avenue
SW 72nd Avenue/Northbound Highway 217 Ramp Intersection
Scope of the Memorandum
Per City and ODOT requirements, the enclosed transportation impact analysis documents:
Existing land-use and transportation system conditions within the site vicinity during the
weekday a.m. and p.m. peak periods
Planned developments and transportation improvements in the study area
Year 2018 background traffic conditions (future build-out year without the proposed
project) during the weekday a.m. and p.m. peak periods, including in-process/approved
developments and regional growth
Trip generation, distribution, and assignment estimates for the proposed development
Year 2018 total traffic conditions (future build-out year with the proposed project)
assuming full build-out of the site during the weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hours
Site access and site circulation analysis
Conclusions and recommendations
ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY
All level of service analyses described in this report were performed in accordance with the procedures
stated in the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (Reference 1). A description of level of service and the
criteria by which they are determined is presented in Appendix “A”. Appendix “A” also indicates how
level of service is measured and what is generally considered the acceptable range of level of service.
1 The SW Hall Boulevard/SW Hunziker Street and SW Hall Boulevard/SW Scoffins Street intersections operate on a
single signal controller and effectively operate as a 5-leg intersection.
Fields Property Project #: 20974
July 14, 2017 Page 6
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Portland, Oregon
Synchro 9 software was used for analysis at all intersections and SimTraffic microsimulation was used
to further evaluate the SW Hall Boulevard/SW Hunziker Street/SW Scoffins Street intersection and the
SW 72nd Avenue/OR 217 Interchange Area (the SW 72nd Avenue/Northbound OR 217 Ramp, SW
Hunziker Street/SW 72nd Avenue, and SW 72nd Avenue/Southbound Highway OR 217 Ramp
intersections). These three intersections are all within 800 feet of each other and the interactions are
better accounted for with SimTraffic.
To ensure that this analysis was based on a reasonable worst-case scenario, the peak 15-minute flow
rate during the peak hour analysis periods was used in the evaluation of all intersection levels of
service. For this reason, the analysis reflects conditions that are only likely to occur for 15 minutes out
of each average peak hour. Traffic conditions during other weekday hours and throughout the
weekend will likely be better than those described in this report.
Traffic Operational Standards
The acceptable levels of service for the study intersections are based on the road’s jurisdiction and the
operating standards established by the respective jurisdictional authority. Intersections with OR 99W,
OR 217, I-5 and SW Hall Boulevard are required to meet Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT)
Standards, while the remaining study intersections are required to meet City of Tigard Standards.
Per the Oregon Highway Plan updated mobility policy (Reference 2), the following standards apply to
the ODOT intersections:
The ODOT study intersections along OR 99W, I-5, and OR 217 are required to operate with an
overall intersection peak hour volume-to-capacity ratio (v/c) that does not exceed 0.99.
City of Tigard intersection operating standards identified by city staff require intersections to operation
with a v/c ratio of 0.95 or less with no movements over capacity.
Queuing
Queuing analyses presented in this report were conducted using 95th percentile queue lengths forecast
by the Synchro 9 software, except at the SW 72nd Avenue/OR 217 interchange area where SimTraffic
microsimulation was used.
Fields Property Project #: 20974
July 14, 2017 Page 7
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Portland, Oregon
EXISTING TRAFFIC CONDITIONS
The existing conditions analysis identifies site conditions and the current operational and geometric
characteristics of roadways within the study area. The purpose of this section is to create a basis of
comparison to future conditions.
Transportation Facilities
Table 1 summarizes the characteristics of the primary transportation facilities in the site vicinity. Figure
3 shows the existing lane configurations and traffic control devices at the study intersections.
Table 1 Existing Transportation Facilities and Roadway Designations
Roadway Classification
Number of
Lanes
Posted
Speed Median Sidewalks
Bicycle
Lanes
On-Street
Parking
OR 217 Statewide
Highway (ODOT) 6 lanes 50 - 55 MPH Divided No No No
OR 99W Statewide
Highway (ODOT) 5 lanes 35 MPH TWLTL Yes Yes No
I-5 Interstate
Highway (ODOT) 6 lanes 55 MPH Divided No No No
SW Hall Boulevard Statewide
Highway (ODOT) 2-3 lanes 30 MPH
TWLTL (north of
SW Hunziker
Street)
Yes Yes No
SW 72nd Avenue Arterial (T) 2-4 lanes 30 MPH TWLTL Partial Partial No
SW Hunziker
Street Collector (T) 2-3 lanes 35 MPH None Partial Partial No
SW Wall Street Collector (T) 2 lanes
Not Posted
(Assumed 25
MPH)
None No No No
SW Tech Center
Drive Local (T) 2 lanes
Not Posted
(Assumed 25
MPH)
None Partial No Yes
SW Scoffins Street Collector/Local
(T) 2 lanes Not Posted
TWLTL
(Northwestern
portion only)
Partial No No
(ODOT) = ODOT jurisdiction
(T) = City of Tigard jurisdiction
MPH = miles per hour
TWLTL = two-way left turn lane
Transit Service
TriMet operates public transit service within the City of Tigard. The proposed site is located
approximately 0.9 miles from the Tigard Transit Center. Further, TriMet Bus Route #78 runs along SW
Hunziker Street with 2 stops within a 0.25 mile of the development site. Route #78 provides transit
service between the Beaverton Transit Center, the Washington Square Transit Center, the Tigard
Transit Center and Legacy Meridian Park Hospital.
Fields Property Project #: 20974
July 14, 2017 Page 9
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Portland, Oregon
Existing Traffic Volumes and Operations
Manual turning movement counts were conducted at the study intersections in February 2017. All
counts were conducted on a typical mid-week day during the morning (7:00 to 9:00 a.m.) and evening
(4:00 to 6:00 p.m.) peak periods. Appendix “B” contains the traffic count worksheets used in this study.
A system peak hour was established for the study area to identify the time period of highest volume
during each peak period on the overall network. This system peak hour may be slightly different than
the individual peak hour at any one particular intersection and may not directly match the individual
peak volumes. However, the system peak provides the highest volumes on the overall system and does
represent the critical system wide peak for evaluating transportation operations. Based on the counts
conducted, the weekday a.m. system peak hour occurred between 7:40 and 8:40 a.m. whereas the
p.m. peak hour occurred between 4:30 and 5:30 p.m. The turning movement counts from the weekday
a.m. and p.m. peak hours are summarized in Figure 4.
SW Hall Boulevard/SW Hunziker Street and SW Hall Boulevard/SW Scoffins Street are closely spaced
and operate on a single controller. The pair effectively behaves as a 5-leg intersection (including a
signalized approach from an apartment complex). The northbound and southbound signal phases are
timed so that vehicles will not queue between the intersections.
Figure 4 also summarizes operations at the study intersections under existing conditions during the
peak hours. Under existing conditions all of the study intersections operate within the applicable ODOT
and City of Tigard standards during the weekday a.m. peak hour and p.m. peak hours with the
exception the SW Hall Boulevard/SW Hunziker St/SW Scoffins Street intersection. During the weekday
a.m. peak hour, the overall intersection meets the City’s V/C standard, but the northbound through
movement at SW Hall Boulevard/SW Scoffins Street is over capacity. During the weekday p.m. peak
hour, all of the study intersections operate within the applicable ODOT and City of Tigard standards.
Appendix “C” contains the existing conditions operational analysis worksheets.
Fields Property Project #: 20974
July 14, 2017 Page 11
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Portland, Oregon
Intersection Crash History
Washington County maintains a Safety Priority Index System (SPIS) list to identify existing hazardous
intersections for potential safety improvements. Intersections are included in the SPIS list if they have
three or more crashes or if they have one or more severe injury or fatal crashes within three
consecutive years. No study intersections appear on the most recent Washington County SPIS list
(2011-2013) (Reference 4).
Historical crash data for the study intersections was reviewed in an effort to identify potential existing
intersection safety issues. Crash data for the study intersections was obtained from ODOT for the five-
year period on record (January 1, 2010 through December 31, 2014). Table 2 identifies the reported
crashes at each of the intersections during this five-year period. Appendix “D” contains the historical
traffic safety data provided by ODOT.
Table 2 Intersection Crash History (January 1, 2010 through December 31, 2014)
Intersection
Crash Type Crash Severity
Rear-End Turning Angle Ped Other Property Damage Only Injury Fatal
OR 99W/Southbound OR 217
Ramps 27 9 3 3 22 20 -
Highway OR 99W/
SW Hall Boulevard 40 11 3 1 5 25 35 -
SW Hall Boulevard/SW Hunziker
Street/ SW Scoffins Street 2 6 - 1 - 4 5 -
SW Hunziker Street/
SW Wall Street - - - - 1 - - 1
SW 72nd Avenue/Northbound
OR 217 Ramp Intersection 8 4 - - 4 9 7 -
SW Hunziker Street/
SW 72nd Avenue 1 1 - 1 - 2 1 -
SW 72nd Avenue/Southbound
Highway OR 217 Ramp
Intersection-SW Varns
7 6 1 1 - 8 7 -
Southbound Ramp Terminal of
the I-5/OR 217 interchange 24 12 - - 1 22 15 -
SW 72nd Avenue/
SW Tech Center Drive - - 1 - 2 2 1 -
As shown in Table 2, one fatality occurred near the SW Hunziker Street/SW Wall Street intersection in
which a driver experienced illness, ran off the road, and struck a utility pole. No other crashes were
reported at this intersection.
Critical crash rates were calculated for each of the study intersections following the analysis
methodology presented in ODOT’s SPR 667 Assessment of Statewide Intersection Safety Performance
(Reference 5). SPR 667 provided average crash rates at a variety of intersection configurations in
Oregon based on number of approaches and traffic control types. The average crash rate represents
the approximate number of crashes that are “expected” at a study intersection. Additionally, this
Fields Property Project #: 20974
July 14, 2017 Page 12
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Portland, Oregon
average crash rate was used to calculate the critical crash rate for each study intersection, based on the
Highway Safety Manual methodology (Reference 6). The critical crash rate is calculated for each
intersection based on the average crash rate for each facility and serves as a threshold for further
analysis.
Table 3 summarizes the critical crash rate for each intersection and compares those values to the
observed crash rate. Per ODOT, if the observed crash rate at the study location exceeds the critical
rate, it is a possible indication that the location is exceeding average crash rates.
Table 3 Intersection Crash Rate Assessment
Location
Total
Crashes
Critical
Crash Rate
by
Intersection
Critical
Crash Rate
by
Volume
Observed
Crash Rate
at
Intersection
Observed
Crash
Rate>Critical
Crash Rate?
OR 99W/Southbound OR 217 Ramps 42 0.38 0.47 0.55 yes
Highway OR 99W/SW Hall Boulevard 60 0.61 0.47 0.71 yes
SW Hall Boulevard/ SW Hunziker Street 9 0.69 0.45 0.28 no
SW Hunziker Street/SW Wall Street 1 0.30 0.41 0.06 no
SW 72nd Avenue/Northbound OR 217 Ramps 16 0.42 0.52 0.37 no
SW Hunziker Street/SW 72nd Avenue 3 0.42 0.43 0.07 no
SW 72nd Avenue/Southbound OR 217 Ramps -SW Varns 15 0.44 0.45 0.45 yes
Southbound I-5 Ramps/ OR 217 37 0.39 0.48 0.58 yes
SW 72nd Avenue/SW Tech Center Drive 3 0.27 0.37 0.12 no
As shown in Table 3, the observed crash rate at the Highway OR 99W/Southbound OR 217 Ramps,
Highway OR 99W/SW Hall Boulevard, SW 72nd Avenue/Southbound OR 217 Ramps-SW Varns, and
Southbound I-5 Ramps/OR 217 intersections exceed the critical crash rate. At the Highway OR
99W/Southbound OR 217 Ramps, Highway OR 99W/SW Hall Boulevard, and Southbound I-5 Ramps/OR
217 intersections, about 65% of crashes were rear-end crashes. At the SW 72nd Avenue/Southbound
OR 217 Ramps-SW Varns intersection, 47% of crashes were rear-end crashes. The rear-end crash
pattern is common for signalized intersections in congested areas, where the effect of signal cycles
create stop-and-go conditions. No measures were identified reduce the potential for this type of crash
at this location. No patterns were identified in the remaining crashes at this intersection.
Fields Property Project #: 20974
July 14, 2017 Page 13
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Portland, Oregon
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
The traffic impact analysis identifies how the study area’s transportation system will operate upon
build out of the proposed site development. The impact of site-generated weekday a.m. and p.m. peak
hour trips were examined as follows:
Planned developments and transportation improvements in the site vicinity were identified and
reviewed;
Year 2018 background traffic conditions (build-out year of the proposed development without
site-generated traffic) were analyzed at the study intersections;
Future peak hour site-generated trips were estimated for build-out of the site;
A trip distribution pattern was prepared;
Forecast year 2018 total traffic conditions were analyzed during the weekday a.m. and p.m.
peak hours with build-out of the site; and
On-site circulation and site-access operations were evaluated.
Planned Developments and Transportation Improvements
Wall Street Industrial Park
The proposed Wall Street Industrial Park is immediately west of the proposed Fields Property
development. The development would generate additional traffic in the study area with proposed
access via two driveways on SW Wall Street and one driveway on SW Hunziker Street.
SW Tech Center Drive Extension
The City of Tigard plans to extend SW Tech Center Drive from its western terminus, providing
connection to SW Wall Street’s southern terminus. This connection would allow access to the proposed
development via SW Tech Center Drive. In addition, the proposed Wall Street Industrial Park
development immediately west of the site may also access via SW Tech Center Drive. This extension
was assumed in the analysis of 2018 background and total traffic conditions, and in-process and site-
generated trips were distributed accordingly.
SW Hall Boulevard/SW Hunziker Street/SW Scoffins Street Realignment
The intersection is identified as a financially constrained realignment project in the City of Tigard
Transportation System Plan (TSP) (Reference 3) to alleviate congestion and safety issues. The project
would align SW Hunziker Street and SW Scoffins Street at SW Hall Boulevard, creating a four-leg
intersection. This would allow for more efficient signal operations.
Fields Property Project #: 20974
July 14, 2017 Page 14
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Portland, Oregon
SW 72nd Avenue Widening: Dartmouth to Hunziker
The Tigard TSP has identified widening SW 72nd Avenue (currently one lane in the southbound
direction) to 4-5 lanes, two lanes in each direction and left-turn lanes, as a financially constrained
project.
Year 2018 Background Traffic Conditions
The year 2018 background traffic analysis identifies how the study area’s transportation system will
operate prior to the development of the proposed residential and office park development. This
analysis accounts for traffic attributed to planned developments within the study area and includes
general growth in the region, but does not include traffic from the proposed development. A 2%
annual growth rate was used to account for background traffic growth. Existing traffic traveling
between SW 72nd Avenue (south of the study area) and SW Hall Boulevard was reassigned to account
for half of these trips expected to use the SW Wall Street extension. Additionally, in-process trips
associated with the proposed Wall Street Industrial Park located immediately west of the proposed
development were accounted for at the study intersections. Appendix “E” contains the in-process trip
assignment and existing traffic reassignment at the study intersections.
Figure 5 illustrates the forecast 2018 weekday a.m. and p.m. peak-hour turning-movement volumes as
well as operations at the study intersections under background traffic conditions during the peak
hours. Under background conditions all of the study intersections operate acceptably during the
weekday a.m. peak hour with the exception of the SW Hall Boulevard/SW Hunziker Street/SW Scoffins
Street intersection. During the weekday a.m. peak hour, the SW Hall Boulevard/SW Hunziker Street
intersection exceeds the City’s overall intersection V/C standard and the SW Hall Boulevard/SW
Scoffins Street intersection’s northbound movement operates over capacity. During the weekday p.m.
peak hour all of the study intersections continue to operate acceptably with the exception of the SW
Hall Boulevard/SW Hunziker Street intersection where the westbound through/left movement
operates over capacity. The SW Hall Boulevard/SW Hunziker Street/SW Scoffins Street realignment
identified in the Tigard TSP alleviates queuing and capacity issues at the intersection. Appendix “F”
contains the background traffic analysis worksheets.
Proposed Development Plan
DBG Properties LLC is proposing to construct an office and residential development on SW Hunziker
Street, consisting of three office buildings with a total square footage of 100,000 and five apartment
buildings with a total of 264 dwelling units. Figure 2 illustrates the conceptual site plan and site-
driveway locations. The proposed development site will include 50’ right-of-way dedication on the
southern edge of the site for the future SW Wall Street extension to SW Tech Center Drive. As shown in
Figure 2, two driveways are proposed on SW Wall Street and a single driveway is proposed on SW
Hunziker Street. Figure 6 illustrates the assumed traffic control devices and lane configurations at the
study intersections and site driveways with the proposed development.
Fields Property Project #: 20974
July 14, 2017 Page 17
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Portland, Oregon
Trip Generation
Trip generation for the proposed development was calculated based on the rates from the Trip
Generation Manual, 9th Edition (Reference 7). Table 4 shows the trip generation estimate for the
proposed development.
Table 4 Trip Generation Estimate
Land Use Category ITE Code Size Total Daily Trips
Weekday AM Peak Hour Weekday PM Peak Hour
Total In Out Total In Out
Apartment 220 264 units 1,723 133 27 106 163 106 57
General Office Building 710 100,000 SF 1,313 191 168 23 190 32 158
TOTAL 3,036 324 195 129 353 138 215
Bicycle and pedestrian trip estimates were derived from the Metro/Washington County 2010 Regional
Travel Demand Model (RTDM). RTDM bicycle and pedestrian trips were compared to auto trips to
determine bicycle trips per vehicle trip rate and pedestrian trips per vehicle trip rate. The trip
generation from Table 4 was then multiplied by the rates to produce bicycle and pedestrian trip
estimates for the proposed development. Table 5 shows the model’s travel demand outputs and
bicycle and pedestrian trip estimates for the proposed development.
Table 5 Bicycle and Pedestrian Trip Generation Estimate
Mode
Average
Weekday Trips
2010 RTDM
Output
Trips Per
Vehicle
Trip Rate
Total Daily Trips Weekday AM Peak
Hour
Weekday PM Peak
Hour
Vehicle Trips Vehicle Trips Vehicle Trips
Auto 3,610,591 1
3,036
3,036
324
324
353
353
Bicycle 35,383 0.0098 30 3 3
Pedestrian 171,716 0.0476 145 15 17
Pedestrian trips are likely to be accessing the Tigard Transit Center and nearby commercial areas along
OR 99W. As these amenities are located approximately one mile from the project site, pedestrian trips
are more likely to be first-mile, last-mile connections to the two nearby bus stops for TriMet Bus Route
#78, which services the Tigard Transit Center and nearby commercial areas. Sidewalks are provided
along the northern edge of SW Hunziker Street for access to these bus stops.
Bicycle trips are also likely to access the Tigard Transit Center and nearby commercial areas. Bicycle
facilities are provided along the majority of SW Hunziker Street, SW Hall Boulevard, and OR99W to
access these key areas.
Fields Property Project #: 20974
July 14, 2017 Page 18
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Portland, Oregon
Trip Distribution
The distribution of site-generated trips onto the study area roadway system was estimated based on a
select zone analysis for the proposed site prepared by Metro using the 2010 weekday p.m. peak period
travel demand model. Figure 7 shows the site-generated trip distribution and assignment to study
intersections during the peak hours.
Year 2018 Total Traffic Conditions
The total traffic conditions analysis forecasts how the study area’s transportation system will operate
with the traffic generated by the proposed site development. The estimated site-generated traffic
volumes (Figure 7) were added to the estimated year 2018 background traffic volumes (Figure 5) to
arrive at the total traffic volumes. Figure 8 summarizes the forecast volumes at the study intersections
and site driveways under total traffic conditions.
Figure 8 also summarizes operations at the study intersections under total traffic conditions during the
peak hours. Under total traffic conditions all of the study intersections continue to operate acceptably
during the weekday a.m. peak hour with the exception of the SW Hall Boulevard/SW Hunziker Street
intersection where the overall intersection operates over the City’s V/C standard, and at the SW Hall
Boulevard/SW Scoffins Street intersection where the northbound through movement operates over
capacity. During the weekday p.m. peak hour all intersections continue to operate acceptably with the
exception the SW Hall Boulevard/SW Hunziker Street intersection where the westbound through/left
movement operates over capacity. The site development results in seven additional seconds of average
delay in 2018. The SW Hall Boulevard/SW Hunziker Street/SW Scoffins Street realignment project
identified in the Tigard TSP was analyzed in Synchro 9 under 2018 total traffic conditions and confirmed
that the planned improvements will resolve capacity and improve queuing issues at the intersections.
Appendix “G” contains the year 2018 total traffic operations worksheets. Appendix “H” includes the
2018 total traffic conditions with planned improvements.
Operations at the intersection of SW Hall Boulevard/SW Hunziker Street/SW Scoffins Street were also
evaluated under the existing intersection configuration with alternative signal timing, under an
alternative configuration restricting SW Scoffins Street to right-in/right-out movement and removing
the signal, and with alternative four-leg alignment as described in the City of Tigard TSP. Table 6
summarizes the intersection operations under each of these alternatives for the weekday a.m. and
p.m. peak hours.
Fields Property Project #: 20974
July 14, 2017 Page 19
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Portland, Oregon
Table 6: Intersection Operations - SW Hall Boulevard/SW Hunziker Street/SW Scoffins Street
Approach
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Existing Background Total Total with Retime Total with RIRO Total with TSP Project Existing Background Total Total with Retime Total with RIRO Total with TSP Project Southbound –
SW Hall
Boulevard
LOS: D
V/C:
0.90
Delay:
54.7
LOS: E
V/C:
0.98
Delay:
64.2
LOS: E
V/C:
1.06
Delay:
75.2
LOS: E
V/C:
1.06
Delay:
76.9
LOS: D
V/C:
0.95
Delay:
48.2
LOS: D
V/C:
0.91
Delay:
44.5
LOS: D
V/C:
0.84
Delay:
50.1
LOS: D
V/C:
0.86
Delay:
52.2
LOS: D
V/C:
0.88
Delay:
53.9
LOS: E
V/C:
0.93
Delay:
63.3
LOS: C
V/C:
0.58
Delay:
28.6
LOS: C
V/C:
0.63
Delay:
27.8
Eastbound –
Private
Apartment
Access
LOS: D
V/C:
0.00
Delay:
44.1
LOS: D
V/C:
0.00
Delay:
43.6
LOS: D
V/C:
0.00
Delay:
43.0
LOS: D
V/C:
0.00
Delay:
41.7
LOS: D
V/C:
0.00
Delay:
51.3
N/A
LOS: A
V/C:
0.00
Delay:
0
LOS: A
V/C:
0.00
Delay:
0
LOS: A
V/C:
0.00
Delay:
0
LOS: A
V/C:
0.00
Delay:
0
LOS: A
V/C:
0.00
Delay:
0
N/A
Eastbound –
SW Scoffins
Street
LOS: D
V/C:
0.49
Delay:
42.0
LOS: D
V/C:
0.53
Delay:
43.4
LOS: D
V/C:
0.58
Delay:
45.3
LOS: D
V/C:
0.55
Delay:
43.4
N/A
LOS: E
V/C:
0.69
Delay:
67.1
LOS: D
V/C:
0.30
Delay:
42.9
LOS: D
V/C:
0.32
Delay:
43.1
LOS: D
V/C:
0.37
Delay:
43.5
LOS: D
V/C:
0.42
Delay:
45.5
N/A
LOS: D
V/C:
0.55
Delay:
52.3
Westbound –
SW Hunziker
Street
LOS: E
V/C:
0.76
Delay:
55.0
LOS: E
V/C:
0.77
Delay:
55.6
LOS: E
V/C:
0.81
Delay:
57.2
LOS: D
V/C:
0.76
Delay:
52.3
LOS: E
V/C:
0.92
Delay:
78.7
LOS: F
V/C:
0.95
Delay:
82.5
LOS: E
V/C:
0.99
Delay:
56.1
LOS: E
V/C:
1.05
Delay:
66.0
LOS: E
V/C:
1.10
Delay:
75.5
LOS: D
V/C:
0.99
Delay:
52.8
LOS: C
V/C:
0.88
Delay:
34.6
LOS: D
V/C:
0.87
Delay:
43.7
Northbound –
SW Hall
Boulevard
LOS: F
V/C:
1.24
Delay:
159.2
LOS: F
V/C:
1.28
Delay:
176.2
LOS: F
V/C:
1.30
Delay:
184.0
LOS: F
V/C:
1.39
Delay:
225.6
LOS: D
V/C:
0.95
Delay:
41.5
LOS: D
V/C:
0.90
Delay:
40.4
LOS: D
V/C:
0.79
Delay:
45.5
LOS: D
V/C:
0.81
Delay:
47.3
LOS: D
V/C:
0.84
Delay:
49.5
LOS: E
V/C:
0.89
Delay:
57.5
LOS: C
V/C:
0.72
Delay:
34.4
LOS: C
V/C:
0.59
Delay:
29.0
As shown in Table 6, the SW Hall Boulevard/SW Hunziker Street/SW Scoffins Street intersection
operates over the City’s v/c standard under existing, 2018 background and 2018 total traffic conditions.
The intersection does not function adequately with signal timing changes alone (recent signal timing
upgrades at the intersection have optimized operations). However, under an alternative configuration
restricting SW Scoffins Street to right-in/right-out movement and removing the signal, or with the
alternative four-leg alignment as described in the City of Tigard TSP, the intersection operates
acceptably during the weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hours. It is recommended that the applicant TDT
contribution be directed to the financially constrained SW Hall Boulevard/SW Hunziker Street/SW
Scoffins Street intersection TSP improvement to address the existing and future needs of this
intersection. Prior to construction of the financially constrained TSP project, the City may consider
requiring the developer to install a raised median on SW Hall Boulevard and remove the signal at SW
Scoffins Street. This potential interim improvement would address the existing and future capacity
issues.
Fields Property Project #: 20974
July 14, 2017 Page 22
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Portland, Oregon
QUEUING ANALYSIS
Queuing was evaluated under background and total traffic conditions at critical intersection
approaches using Synchro 9 or SimTraffic microsimulation as previously discussed. Queue lengths
described in this section have been rounded to 25-foot increments. Queuing analysis worksheets for
signalized intersections are provided in Appendices “C”, “F”, and “G”.
SW 72nd Avenue/OR 217 Interchange Area
The intersections of SW 72nd Avenue/OR 217 NB Ramps, SW 72nd Avenue/Hunziker Street, and SW 72nd
Avenue/OR 217 SB Ramps are located within 800 feet of each other. To better understand how these
three signalized intersections operate as a system, SimTraffic microsimulation was used to evaluate the
queuing in this area.
During existing peak periods, this area operates under flow conditions that are metered by the existing
traffic signals. Under existing conditions, at times, southbound queues were observed extending north
of the SW 72nd Avenue/SW Beveland Street intersection. No spillbacks to OR 217 were observed and
adequate queue storage is currently provided at both the northbound and southbound OR 217 off-
ramps.
A SimTraffic model was calibrated to approximate existing queueing under weekday p.m. peak hour
conditions. This calibrated model was used to evaluate queuing during the background and total traffic
conditions. Table 7 summarizes the 95th percentiles queues at key intersection approaches in the SW
72nd Avenue/OR 217 Interchange Area under forecast background and total traffic conditions.
Table 7: 95th Percentile Queuing - SW 72nd Avenue/OR 217 Interchange Area
Approach/Intersection
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Available
Storage
Is Storage
Adequate?
Background
Traffic Total Traffic
Background
Traffic Total Traffic
Westbound - SW 72nd Avenue/OR 217
Northbound Off-Ramps 325 350 350 300 925 feet Yes
Eastbound - SW 72nd Avenue/Hunziker
Street 225 275 200 150 1800 feet Yes
Westbound - SW 72nd Avenue/OR 217
Southbound Off-Ramps-SW Varns Road 300 275 150 175 525 feet Yes
Northbound - SW 72nd Avenue/OR 217
Southbound Off-Ramps-SW Varns Road 125 150 325 350 1000 feet1 Yes
1To SW Cherry Street.
SW Hall Boulevard/SW Hunziker Street/SW Scoffins Street Intersection
During two site visits, the westbound Hunziker Street approach was observed to operate over capacity
during the weekday p.m. peak hour. The westbound through/left-turn queue regularly spills back into
the right-turn lane resulting in queues extending beyond the Western Partitions building approximately
Fields Property Project #: 20974
July 14, 2017 Page 23
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Portland, Oregon
800 feet to the east. In many instances, vehicles were observed needing more than two full cycles to
clear this queue.
Synchro 9 was used to evaluate forecast 95th percentile queues under forecast background and total
traffic conditions. In addition, queuing was evaluated under the existing intersection configuration with
alternative signal timing, under an alternative configuration restricting SW Scoffins Street to right-
in/right-out movement and removing the signal, and with alternative four-leg alignment as described in
the City of Tigard TSP. Table 8 summarizes the 95th percentiles queues forecast for the weekday a.m.
and p.m. peak hours. The site development results in an additional 50 feet of westbound queue in
2018.
Table 8: 95th Percentile Queuing - SW Hall Boulevard/SW Hunziker Street & SW Hall Boulevard/SW Scoffins Street
Approach
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Available
Storage /
Distance to
Next Public
Intersection
Is Storage
Adequate? Existing Background Total Total with Retime Total with RIRO Total with TSP Project Existing Background Total Total with Retime Total with RIRO Total with TSP Project Southbound
– SW Hall
Boulevard
250 275 300 300 300 300 550 575 575 600 350 500 600 feet1 Yes
Eastbound –
Private
Apartment
Access
<25 <25 <25 <25 <25 N/A <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 N/A 50 feet Yes
Eastbound –
SW Scoffins
Street
200 225 250 275 N/A 175 100 125 125 125 N/A 75 450 feet Yes
Westbound –
SW Hunziker
Street
200 200 225 200 275 275 575 600 650 600 625 400 400 feet No
Northbound
– SW Hall
Boulevard
1000 1025 1050 1075 1100 950 500 525 525 550 425 500 625 feet No
1The SW Hall Boulevard/SW Knoll Drive intersection is located approximately 300 feet north of the SW Hall Boulevard/SW Hunziker Street
intersection. Because SW Knoll Drive is a one-way eastbound street, northbound queues do not block intersection movements.
As shown in Table 8, southbound and eastbound queues at the SW Hall Boulevard/SW Hunziker
Street/SW Scoffins Street intersection are within the provided storage length. Northbound queues
exceed available storage in all scenarios, and westbound queues exceed available storage in all
scenarios with the exception of the TSP alternative in the PM peak hour. Queues are improved by the
TSP project which will realign SW Hall Boulevard/SW Hunziker Street/SW Scoffins Street to a four-leg
intersection.
OR 99W/OR 217 Southbound Ramps
Synchro 9 was also used to evaluate forecast 95th percentile queues on the southbound off-ramp at the
OR 217 Ramps/OR 99W intersection under forecast background and total traffic conditions. Table 9
summarizes the 95th percentiles queues for the weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hours.
Fields Property Project #: 20974
July 14, 2017 Page 24
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Portland, Oregon
Table 9: 95th Percentile Queuing - OR 217 Off-Ramp
Approach
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Available
Storage
Is Storage
Adequate?
Background
Traffic Total Traffic
Background
Traffic Total Traffic
OR 217 Southbound Off-Ramp/OR 99W 375 feet 375 feet 400 feet 400 feet 625 feet Yes
I-5 Southbound Ramps/OR 217
Synchro 9 was also used to evaluate forecast 95th percentile queues on the southbound off-ramp at the
I-5 Southbound Ramps/OR 99W intersection under forecast background and total traffic conditions.
Table 10 summarizes the 95th percentiles queues for the weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hours.
Table 10: 95th Percentile Queuing - OR 217 Off-Ramp
Approach
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Available
Storage
Is Storage
Adequate?
Background
Traffic Total Traffic
Background
Traffic Total Traffic
I-5 Southbound Off-Ramp/OR 217 350 350 175 250 1,100 feet Yes
ON-SITE CIRCULATION AND OPERATIONS
Internal circulation was evaluated to ensure that the site provides sufficient on-site circulation for
pedestrian movements and internal traffic. Figure 2 illustrates the proposed development plan. All site
driveways should be designated with MUTCD compliant stop signs and stop bars.
On-site Queuing Analysis
Estimated 95th percentile queues at the proposed site driveways were obtained from the Synchro 9
analyses for 2018 total traffic conditions. All forecast 95th percentile queues at the site driveways are
forecast to be less than 50 feet in length and can be accommodated by the proposed site layout.
Synchro 9 queuing results for the proposed site driveways are included in the total traffic operations
worksheets (Appendix “G”).
Traffic Calming
In order to minimize the number of office employees cutting through the apartments, traffic calming
measures (i.e. speed bumps) should be installed along the north-south drive aisle within the apartment
areas to lower speeds such that Wall Street becomes a more attractive route to the office parking area.
Fields Property Project #: 20974
July 14, 2017 Page 25
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Portland, Oregon
Sight Distance
Intersection sight distance (ISD) was evaluated in the field at the proposed site driveway locations
shown in site plan. ISD was calculated and measured based on guidance from the American Association
of State Highway and Transportation Officials’ A Policy on Geometric Design of Highway Streets
(Reference 8). ISD for the proposed driveway on SW Hunziker Street was calculated assuming the
driveway would be located along the western edge of the site, as shown in Figure 2.
Table 11 summarizes the required intersection sight distance at each of the proposed site driveways
and the estimated available sight distance.
Table 11: ISD at Proposed Site Driveways
Access Design Speed
Required
Intersection Sight
Distance
Preliminary
Intersection Sight
Distance
Intersection Sight
Distance
Adequate?
North Site Driveway/SW Hunziker Street 40 MPH 445 feet 460 feet Yes
SW Wall Street/South Site Driveways1 30 MPH 425 feet >500 feet Yes
1Applies to the two driveways that will serve the site from SW Wall Street
As shown above, adequate sight distance can be provided at all site driveways. Additionally, on-site
landscaping, signage and any above-ground utilities should be provided appropriately to ensure that
adequate sight distance is provided and maintained.
Left Turn Lane Warrants
Left-turn lane warrants were evaluated at the proposed driveways on SW Hunziker Street and SW Wall
Street based Harmelink’s Volume Warrants for Left-Turn Storage Lanes at Unsignalized Grade
Intersections (Reference 9). At SW Hunziker Street, a left-turn lane is warranted based on the forecast
weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hour total traffic conditions. The forecast 95th percentile queues at this
left turn movement are less than 25 feet, and storage for at least one vehicle is needed in the left-turn
lane. At SW Wall Street, the driveways were analyzed as one and a left-turn lane is not warranted
based on the forecast total traffic conditions. Analyzing both driveways separately based on the
forecast total traffic conditions will result in a left-turn lane not being warranted. Left-turn lane
warrant analysis work sheets are provided in Appendix “I”.
Fields Property Project #: 20974
July 14, 2017 Page 26
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Portland, Oregon
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the results of this transportation impact analysis, the proposed Fields Project can be
developed while maintaining acceptable levels of service and safety at the study intersections. The
primary findings and recommendations of this study are summarized below.
Findings
The proposed residential and office park development is estimated to generate 324 weekday
a.m. peak hour trips and 353 weekday p.m. peak hour trips.
All study intersections, with the exception of the SW Hall Boulevard/SW Hunziker Street/SW
Scoffins Street intersection, operate within applicable ODOT and City standards under existing
conditions, 2018 background conditions and 2018 total conditions. The site development
results in seven additional seconds of average delay and an additional 50 feet of westbound
queue in 2018 at this intersection. As identified in the Tigard TSP, the financially constrained
project to realign SW Hall Boulevard/SW Hunziker Street/SW Scoffins Street to a four-leg
intersection addresses the existing and future capacity and queuing issues within the study
area.
The existing OR 217 and I-5 off-ramps within the study area are forecast to continue to provide
adequate queue storage assuming buildout of the site in 2018.
Recommendations
The applicant TDT contribution should be directed to the financially constrained SW Hall
Boulevard/SW Hunziker Street/SW Scoffins Street intersection TSP improvement to address the
existing and future needs of this intersection.
Prior to construction of the financially constrained TSP project, the City may consider requiring
the developer to install a raised median on SW Hall Boulevard and remove the signal at SW
Scoffins Street. This potential interim improvement restricting SW Scoffins Street to right-
in/right-out movements would improve capacity to acceptable conditions.
The proposed site driveways located on SW Hunziker Street and SW Wall Street should be
controlled with MUTCD compliant stop signs and stop bars.
A westbound left-turn lane, with a minimum of 50 feet of storage, should be constructed in
conjunction with the proposed SW Hunziker Street driveway.
On-site landscaping and any above ground utilities should be located and maintained to
provide adequate intersection sight distance at the site driveways in conjunction with site
development.
Please contact us if you have any questions regarding this study or the findings and recommendations
presented.
Fields Property Project #: 20974
July 14, 2017 Page 27
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Portland, Oregon
References
1. Transportation Research Board. 2000 Highway Capacity Manual. 2000.
2. Oregon Department of Transportation. Oregon Highway Plan. Revised 2011.
3. City of Tigard. Transportation System Plan. 2010.
4. Washington County, Oregon. Safety Priority Index System (SPIS). 2011-2013.
5. Oregon Department of Transportation Research Section. SPR 667 Assessment of Statewide
Intersection Safety Performance. June 2011.
6. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Highway Safety Manual.
2010.
7. Institute of Transportation Engineers. Trip Generation, 9th Edition. 2012.
8. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. A Policy on Geometric
Design of Highway Streets. 2011.
9. Harmelink, Milton D. "Volume warrants for left-turn storage lanes at unsignalized grade
intersections." Highway Research Record. 1967.
Type of peak hour being reported: Intersection Peak Method for determining peak hour: Total Entering Volume
Report generated on 2/14/2017 2:24 PM SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) 1-877-580-2212
LOCATION:SW Hall Blvd -- SW Pacific Hwy QC JOB #:14120301
CITY/STATE:Tigard, OR DATE:Tue, Feb 07 2017
5-Min Count
Period
Beginning At
SW Hall Blvd
(Northbound)
SW Hall Blvd
(Southbound)
SW Pacific Hwy
(Eastbound)
SW Pacific Hwy
(Westbound)
Total Hourly
Totals
Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U
7:00 AM 3 8 18 0 9 10 4 0 3 156 3 0 8 66 2 1 291
7:05 AM 2 10 25 0 12 8 3 0 10 142 3 0 23 52 2 3 295
7:10 AM 6 6 32 0 11 12 5 0 5 148 3 0 12 61 10 3 314
7:15 AM 0 8 13 0 10 23 8 0 5 149 3 0 17 74 10 2 322
7:20 AM 6 10 22 0 14 23 14 0 8 136 4 0 12 62 10 2 323
7:25 AM 3 14 14 0 10 19 12 0 9 157 2 0 14 62 6 3 325
7:30 AM 2 24 22 0 8 17 3 0 11 148 4 0 11 63 7 3 323
7:35 AM 8 14 19 0 27 24 10 0 11 124 1 0 18 54 16 1 327
7:40 AM 3 13 29 0 13 24 8 0 20 151 6 0 15 73 10 1 366
7:45 AM 8 13 21 0 14 22 10 0 20 149 5 0 18 86 3 1 370
7:50 AM 9 17 20 0 16 19 14 0 15 181 11 0 19 92 9 4 426
7:55 AM 5 11 15 0 16 16 8 0 13 176 7 0 14 65 9 1 356 4038
8:00 AM 3 12 20 0 14 21 12 0 20 157 7 0 24 65 6 1 362 4109
8:05 AM 7 27 27 0 14 22 9 0 12 155 1 0 13 76 10 1 374 4188
8:10 AM 8 13 24 0 17 9 11 0 15 151 4 0 17 55 13 1 338 4212
8:15 AM 3 16 22 0 11 15 8 0 20 121 9 0 16 72 4 2 319 4209
8:20 AM 5 11 15 0 7 18 10 0 15 169 2 0 13 83 3 2 353 4239
8:25 AM 3 13 20 0 10 10 9 0 12 149 1 1 4 77 12 2 323 4237
8:30 AM 4 16 21 0 10 8 5 0 7 148 1 0 10 67 9 1 307 4221
8:35 AM 3 13 19 0 6 10 10 0 10 153 4 0 10 77 2 5 322 4216
8:40 AM 7 21 20 0 13 19 16 0 6 187 5 0 10 58 7 0 369 4219
8:45 AM 8 9 13 0 24 14 6 0 10 134 4 1 14 69 4 3 313 4162
8:50 AM 0 13 18 0 14 12 11 0 27 108 6 0 17 82 6 6 320 4056
8:55 AM 4 14 19 0 8 15 6 0 17 124 4 2 20 75 13 6 327 4027
Peak 15-Min Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound
TotalFlowratesLeftThruRightULeftThruRightULeftThruRightULeftThruRightU
All Vehicles 80 172 280 0 172 260 128 0 220 1924 88 0 208 1004 88 24 4648
Heavy Trucks 4 0 40 0 8 0 16 88 0 36 60 0 252
Pedestrians 4 4 16 0 24
Bicycles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Railroad
Stopped Buses
Comments:
Peak-Hour: 7:25 AM -- 8:25 AM
Peak 15-Min: 7:40 AM -- 7:55 AM
64 185 248
167226115
181
1839
59 213
846
96
497
508
2079
1155
462
477
2275
1025
0.91
12.5 2.7 8.9
3.02.22.6
6.6
4.3
5.1 6.1
8.4
0.0
7.0
2.6
4.5
7.3
3.7
4.4
4.7
8.0
7
5
8 2
0 0 0
100
0
2
0 0
1
0
NA
NA
NA NA
NA
NA
NA NA
Type of peak hour being reported: Intersection Peak Method for determining peak hour: Total Entering Volume
Report generated on 2/14/2017 2:24 PM SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) 1-877-580-2212
LOCATION:SW Hall Blvd -- SW Pacific Hwy QC JOB #:14120302
CITY/STATE:Tigard, OR DATE:Tue, Feb 07 2017
5-Min Count
Period
Beginning At
SW Hall Blvd
(Northbound)
SW Hall Blvd
(Southbound)
SW Pacific Hwy
(Eastbound)
SW Pacific Hwy
(Westbound)
Total Hourly
Totals
Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U
4:00 PM 6 19 20 0 16 13 18 0 15 92 2 0 17 125 11 1 355
4:05 PM 6 21 14 0 20 25 21 0 12 98 2 0 17 128 8 0 372
4:10 PM 16 27 28 0 16 18 5 0 11 94 6 0 24 100 2 2 349
4:15 PM 3 18 21 0 16 22 15 0 15 93 3 0 21 127 6 1 361
4:20 PM 10 20 9 0 15 23 19 0 11 110 2 0 20 159 16 1 415
4:25 PM 15 21 17 0 11 14 12 0 15 82 3 0 19 143 15 1 368
4:30 PM 7 14 22 0 12 24 11 0 7 88 0 0 11 143 7 1 347
4:35 PM 14 19 17 0 23 17 17 0 9 85 0 0 23 134 8 1 367
4:40 PM 16 28 18 0 20 29 21 0 10 84 3 0 20 123 9 0 381
4:45 PM 16 29 21 0 21 20 13 0 17 81 0 0 6 137 8 2 371
4:50 PM 9 25 28 0 10 26 19 0 18 94 2 0 20 139 7 2 399
4:55 PM 11 9 18 0 14 17 24 0 10 94 4 0 17 145 13 3 379 4464
5:00 PM 12 18 19 0 8 14 15 0 16 116 4 0 20 143 12 1 398 4507
5:05 PM 9 20 15 0 16 19 14 0 9 117 0 0 15 145 9 4 392 4527
5:10 PM 11 20 23 0 20 31 17 0 11 99 3 0 22 129 14 0 400 4578
5:15 PM 15 29 15 0 19 33 17 0 11 90 0 0 18 113 7 2 369 4586
5:20 PM 20 23 25 0 18 18 16 0 15 107 0 0 22 126 13 0 403 4574
5:25 PM 10 22 17 0 14 20 21 0 16 95 4 0 20 143 10 3 395 4601
5:30 PM 9 21 13 0 13 19 12 0 13 83 3 0 19 149 8 0 362 4616
5:35 PM 8 21 17 0 11 22 16 0 11 96 1 0 8 152 8 1 372 4621
5:40 PM 11 18 17 0 10 17 20 0 10 91 1 0 17 150 10 1 373 4613
5:45 PM 12 22 16 0 17 25 27 0 12 86 2 0 19 138 6 1 383 4625
5:50 PM 16 24 15 0 17 16 11 0 16 77 0 0 20 130 8 1 351 4577
5:55 PM 17 28 21 0 7 15 13 0 13 74 0 0 15 136 5 1 345 4543
Peak 15-Min Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound
TotalFlowratesLeftThruRightULeftThruRightULeftThruRightULeftThruRightU
All Vehicles 128 232 228 0 176 256 184 0 144 1328 28 0 228 1668 140 20 4760
Heavy Trucks 0 4 12 0 0 0 4 36 8 4 32 0 100
Pedestrians 0 8 12 0 20
Bicycles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 2
Railroad
Stopped Buses
Comments:
Peak-Hour: 4:50 PM -- 5:50 PM
Peak 15-Min: 5:00 PM -- 5:15 PM
137 248 223
170261218
152
1168
24 235
1672
117
608
649
1344
2024
517
502
1579
2027
0.97
1.5 0.8 3.1
0.61.91.4
0.7
2.9
12.5 5.1
1.9
0.0
1.8
1.4
2.8
2.1
0.6
4.0
2.7
1.8
3
3
10 1
0 2 0
020
0
1
0 1
0
0
NA
NA
NA NA
NA
NA
NA NA
Type of peak hour being reported: Intersection Peak Method for determining peak hour: Total Entering Volume
Report generated on 2/14/2017 2:24 PM SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) 1-877-580-2212
LOCATION:SW 72nd Ave -- SW Varns St/OR 217 Ramps QC JOB #:14120303
CITY/STATE:Portland, OR DATE:Tue, Feb 07 2017
5-Min Count
Period
Beginning At
SW 72nd Ave
(Northbound)
SW 72nd Ave
(Southbound)
SW Varns St/OR 217 Ramps
(Eastbound)
SW Varns St/OR 217 Ramps
(Westbound)
Total Hourly
Totals
Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U
7:00 AM 0 18 4 0 1 23 0 0 1 0 1 0 22 0 18 0 88
7:05 AM 0 24 2 0 4 19 0 0 0 0 1 0 17 0 16 0 83
7:10 AM 1 29 2 0 11 24 2 0 0 1 1 0 7 0 20 0 98
7:15 AM 0 27 1 0 8 24 0 0 1 0 0 0 21 0 14 0 96
7:20 AM 0 31 6 0 10 31 0 0 2 1 0 0 15 0 17 0 113
7:25 AM 0 26 5 0 4 26 1 0 2 0 0 0 17 0 21 0 102
7:30 AM 0 30 2 0 7 25 0 0 2 0 2 0 22 0 24 0 114
7:35 AM 0 25 4 0 11 23 0 0 1 0 0 0 13 0 19 0 96
7:40 AM 0 32 2 0 14 31 0 0 0 0 1 0 15 0 14 0 109
7:45 AM 0 40 6 0 11 28 1 0 3 1 0 0 28 0 20 0 138
7:50 AM 0 36 3 0 16 53 0 0 3 1 0 0 26 0 30 0 168
7:55 AM 0 28 3 0 14 53 0 0 1 0 0 0 25 0 26 0 150 1355
8:00 AM 0 21 5 0 8 56 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 0 20 0 138 1405
8:05 AM 0 31 3 0 14 51 0 0 1 0 0 0 8 1 21 0 130 1452
8:10 AM 0 29 4 0 12 41 2 0 0 0 0 0 24 0 19 0 131 1485
8:15 AM 0 24 3 0 17 29 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 14 0 102 1491
8:20 AM 0 34 5 0 16 35 1 0 0 0 0 0 19 0 21 0 131 1509
8:25 AM 0 23 4 0 16 41 1 0 2 1 1 0 18 0 22 0 129 1536
8:30 AM 0 29 6 0 13 31 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 19 0 113 1535
8:35 AM 0 27 12 0 11 28 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 20 0 109 1548
8:40 AM 0 28 10 0 7 20 1 0 0 0 0 0 18 0 24 0 108 1547
8:45 AM 0 26 7 0 7 27 0 0 1 0 0 0 9 0 19 0 96 1505
8:50 AM 0 30 7 0 11 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 24 0 105 1442
8:55 AM 0 30 8 0 8 34 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 1 23 0 122 1414
Peak 15-Min Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound
TotalFlowratesLeftThruRightULeftThruRightULeftThruRightULeftThruRightU
All Vehicles 0 416 48 0 164 536 4 0 28 8 0 0 316 0 304 0 1824
Heavy Trucks 0 48 0 36 8 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 100
Pedestrians 8 0 16 0 24
Bicycles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Railroad
Stopped Buses
Comments:
Peak-Hour: 7:40 AM -- 8:40 AM
Peak 15-Min: 7:45 AM -- 8:00 AM
0 354 56
1624775
10
3
2 232
1
246
410
644
15
479
610
711
221
6
0.85
0.0 9.0 14.3
11.15.20.0
0.0
0.0
100.0 2.2
0.0
0.8
9.8
6.7
13.3
1.5
5.6
4.5
11.8
0.0
4
0
12 0
0 0 0
000
0
0
0 0
0
0
NA
NA
NA NA
NA
NA
NA NA
Type of peak hour being reported: Intersection Peak Method for determining peak hour: Total Entering Volume
Report generated on 2/14/2017 2:24 PM SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) 1-877-580-2212
LOCATION:SW 72nd Ave -- SW Varns St/OR 217 Ramps QC JOB #:14120304
CITY/STATE:Portland, OR DATE:Tue, Feb 07 2017
5-Min Count
Period
Beginning At
SW 72nd Ave
(Northbound)
SW 72nd Ave
(Southbound)
SW Varns St/OR 217 Ramps
(Eastbound)
SW Varns St/OR 217 Ramps
(Westbound)
Total Hourly
Totals
Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U
4:00 PM 0 58 19 0 22 29 0 0 0 0 1 0 12 0 4 0 145
4:05 PM 0 45 19 0 20 37 1 0 3 0 0 0 13 0 6 0 144
4:10 PM 1 47 10 0 16 44 1 0 1 0 0 0 16 0 8 0 144
4:15 PM 0 48 13 0 11 43 1 0 1 0 0 0 12 0 9 0 138
4:20 PM 0 41 14 0 15 38 2 0 1 1 0 0 16 0 8 0 136
4:25 PM 1 33 10 0 15 35 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 0 5 0 115
4:30 PM 0 60 16 0 14 41 1 0 1 0 0 0 10 2 9 0 154
4:35 PM 0 77 11 0 15 53 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 1 10 0 174
4:40 PM 0 60 9 0 15 35 1 0 2 0 1 0 16 0 2 0 141
4:45 PM 0 55 4 0 18 27 2 0 1 0 0 0 3 0 6 0 116
4:50 PM 0 60 9 0 13 40 3 0 2 0 0 0 8 0 8 0 143
4:55 PM 1 62 12 0 21 34 0 0 0 0 1 0 12 0 9 0 152 1702
5:00 PM 0 73 14 0 21 36 2 0 1 1 0 0 10 0 9 0 167 1724
5:05 PM 0 72 12 0 25 34 1 0 2 0 0 0 11 0 8 0 165 1745
5:10 PM 0 74 16 0 23 42 2 0 3 0 1 0 10 0 7 0 178 1779
5:15 PM 0 77 9 0 22 38 0 0 3 1 1 0 12 0 8 0 171 1812
5:20 PM 0 58 6 0 17 45 4 0 2 0 0 0 8 0 4 0 144 1820
5:25 PM 0 34 11 0 13 38 2 0 1 0 1 0 14 1 7 0 122 1827
5:30 PM 0 66 12 0 11 44 1 0 2 0 1 0 10 0 10 0 157 1830
5:35 PM 0 66 13 0 26 47 1 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 7 0 170 1826
5:40 PM 1 63 14 0 17 28 1 0 5 0 0 0 2 0 4 0 135 1820
5:45 PM 0 59 9 0 11 35 0 0 1 1 0 0 3 1 8 0 128 1832
5:50 PM 0 45 7 0 10 35 3 0 1 1 0 0 3 0 3 0 108 1797
5:55 PM 0 49 5 0 17 29 1 0 4 0 0 0 8 2 12 0 127 1772
Peak 15-Min Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound
TotalFlowratesLeftThruRightULeftThruRightULeftThruRightULeftThruRightU
All Vehicles 0 892 148 0 280 456 12 0 32 4 8 0 132 0 92 0 2056
Heavy Trucks 0 12 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 4 0 4 24
Pedestrians 0 0 12 0 12
Bicycles 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Railroad
Stopped Buses
Comments:
Peak-Hour: 4:50 PM -- 5:50 PM
Peak 15-Min: 5:05 PM -- 5:20 PM
2 764 137
22046117
22
3
5 110
2
89
903
698
30
201
875
576
360
21
0.89
0.0 1.6 2.2
1.81.15.9
0.0
0.0
20.0 2.7
0.0
2.2
1.7
1.4
3.3
2.5
1.6
1.6
1.9
4.8
2
3
9 0
0 1 0
000
0
0
0 0
0
0
NA
NA
NA NA
NA
NA
NA NA
Type of peak hour being reported: Intersection Peak Method for determining peak hour: Total Entering Volume
Report generated on 2/14/2017 2:24 PM SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) 1-877-580-2212
LOCATION:OR 217 SB Ramps -- SW Pacific Hwy QC JOB #:14120305
CITY/STATE:Portland, OR DATE:Tue, Feb 07 2017
5-Min Count
Period
Beginning At
OR 217 SB Ramps
(Northbound)
OR 217 SB Ramps
(Southbound)
SW Pacific Hwy
(Eastbound)
SW Pacific Hwy
(Westbound)
Total Hourly
Totals
Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U
7:00 AM 0 0 0 0 39 0 22 0 0 160 29 0 3 69 0 0 322
7:05 AM 0 0 0 0 31 0 19 0 0 152 27 0 1 58 0 0 288
7:10 AM 0 0 0 0 41 0 17 0 0 176 23 0 0 58 0 0 315
7:15 AM 0 0 0 0 33 0 24 0 0 152 21 0 3 81 0 0 314
7:20 AM 0 0 0 0 36 0 19 0 0 158 25 0 4 81 0 0 323
7:25 AM 0 0 0 0 37 0 12 0 0 166 36 0 3 73 0 0 327
7:30 AM 0 0 0 0 39 0 14 0 0 155 26 0 3 81 0 0 318
7:35 AM 0 0 0 0 38 0 14 0 0 142 24 0 3 76 0 0 297
7:40 AM 0 0 0 0 33 0 20 0 0 157 44 0 12 78 0 1 345
7:45 AM 0 0 0 0 33 0 16 0 0 148 38 0 5 102 0 0 342
7:50 AM 0 0 0 0 23 0 6 0 0 166 40 0 3 88 0 0 326
7:55 AM 0 0 0 0 23 0 15 0 0 170 54 0 3 85 0 0 350 3867
8:00 AM 0 0 0 0 34 0 15 0 0 153 41 0 2 88 0 0 333 3878
8:05 AM 0 0 0 0 49 0 14 0 0 153 40 0 1 80 0 0 337 3927
8:10 AM 0 0 0 0 39 0 14 0 0 155 30 0 1 75 0 0 314 3926
8:15 AM 0 0 0 0 50 0 11 0 0 139 28 0 6 79 0 0 313 3925
8:20 AM 0 0 0 0 40 0 16 0 0 160 20 0 3 90 0 0 329 3931
8:25 AM 0 0 0 0 47 0 16 0 0 159 33 0 3 67 0 0 325 3929
8:30 AM 0 0 0 0 41 0 13 0 0 160 22 0 3 83 0 0 322 3933
8:35 AM 0 0 0 0 46 0 22 0 0 152 27 0 1 75 0 0 323 3959
8:40 AM 0 0 0 0 52 0 10 0 0 143 28 0 3 76 0 0 312 3926
8:45 AM 0 0 0 0 58 0 20 0 0 129 36 0 6 67 0 0 316 3900
8:50 AM 0 0 0 0 29 1 16 0 0 119 35 0 6 97 0 0 303 3877
8:55 AM 0 0 0 0 43 1 11 0 0 126 23 0 4 89 0 0 297 3824
Peak 15-Min Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound
TotalFlowratesLeftThruRightULeftThruRightULeftThruRightULeftThruRightU
All Vehicles 0 0 0 0 424 0 176 0 0 1904 540 0 24 1012 0 0 4080
Heavy Trucks 0 0 0 16 0 16 0 76 36 0 112 0 256
Pedestrians 4 0 4 0 8
Bicycles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1
Railroad
Stopped Buses
Comments:
Peak-Hour: 7:40 AM -- 8:40 AM
Peak 15-Min: 7:55 AM -- 8:10 AM
0 0 0
4580178
0
1872
417 44
990
0
0
636
2289
1034
0
460
2331
1168
0.97
0.0 0.0 0.0
2.60.06.2
0.0
4.8
5.3 4.5
9.9
0.0
0.0
3.6
4.8
9.7
0.0
5.2
4.3
9.3
1
6
6 0
0 0 0
000
0
1
0 0
0
0
NA
NA
NA NA
NA
NA
NA NA
Type of peak hour being reported: Intersection Peak Method for determining peak hour: Total Entering Volume
Report generated on 2/14/2017 2:24 PM SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) 1-877-580-2212
LOCATION:OR 217 SB Ramps -- SW Pacific Hwy QC JOB #:14120306
CITY/STATE:Portland, OR DATE:Tue, Feb 07 2017
5-Min Count
Period
Beginning At
OR 217 SB Ramps
(Northbound)
OR 217 SB Ramps
(Southbound)
SW Pacific Hwy
(Eastbound)
SW Pacific Hwy
(Westbound)
Total Hourly
Totals
Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U
4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 43 0 20 0 0 116 18 0 4 125 0 0 326
4:05 PM 0 0 0 0 54 0 25 0 0 110 23 0 6 136 0 0 354
4:10 PM 0 0 0 0 39 0 23 0 0 121 25 0 7 119 0 0 334
4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 40 0 19 0 0 117 19 0 1 142 0 0 338
4:20 PM 0 0 0 0 51 0 29 0 0 120 19 0 6 154 0 0 379
4:25 PM 0 0 0 0 55 0 22 0 0 107 20 0 3 146 0 0 353
4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 46 0 19 0 0 104 19 0 3 154 0 0 345
4:35 PM 0 0 0 0 36 0 17 0 0 113 14 0 3 152 0 0 335
4:40 PM 0 0 0 0 57 0 25 0 0 104 19 0 3 124 0 0 332
4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 51 0 9 0 0 105 31 0 5 139 0 0 340
4:50 PM 0 0 0 0 45 0 22 0 0 108 13 0 5 148 0 0 341
4:55 PM 0 0 0 0 42 0 26 0 0 112 20 0 4 153 0 0 357 4134
5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 47 0 18 0 0 124 19 0 5 150 0 0 363 4171
5:05 PM 0 0 0 0 50 0 18 0 0 127 27 0 4 154 0 0 380 4197
5:10 PM 0 0 0 0 42 1 34 0 0 120 26 0 3 139 0 0 365 4228
5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 52 1 20 0 0 109 17 0 6 130 0 0 335 4225
5:20 PM 0 0 0 0 48 0 23 0 0 121 25 0 2 122 0 0 341 4187
5:25 PM 0 0 0 0 51 0 26 0 0 131 14 0 7 155 0 0 384 4218
5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 40 0 22 0 0 98 17 0 3 151 0 0 331 4204
5:35 PM 0 0 0 0 43 0 18 0 0 109 17 0 3 142 0 0 332 4201
5:40 PM 0 0 0 0 43 0 15 0 0 110 19 0 1 164 0 0 352 4221
5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 54 0 29 0 0 95 18 0 1 139 0 1 337 4218
5:50 PM 0 0 0 0 55 0 29 0 0 99 19 0 6 138 0 0 346 4223
5:55 PM 0 0 0 0 40 0 26 0 0 95 19 0 1 154 0 0 335 4201
Peak 15-Min Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound
TotalFlowratesLeftThruRightULeftThruRightULeftThruRightULeftThruRightU
All Vehicles 0 0 0 0 556 4 280 0 0 1484 288 0 48 1772 0 0 4432
Heavy Trucks 0 0 0 4 0 12 0 36 4 0 32 0 88
Pedestrians 0 8 4 0 12
Bicycles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1
Railroad
Stopped Buses
Comments:
Peak-Hour: 4:15 PM -- 5:15 PM
Peak 15-Min: 5:00 PM -- 5:15 PM
0 0 0
5621258
0
1361
246 45
1755
0
0
821
1607
1800
0
292
1923
2013
0.95
0.0 0.0 0.0
0.70.03.1
0.0
2.5
2.0 4.4
2.3
0.0
0.0
1.5
2.4
2.4
0.0
2.4
2.0
2.4
4
6
3 0
0 0 0
000
0
2
0 0
0
0
NA
NA
NA NA
NA
NA
NA NA
Type of peak hour being reported: Intersection Peak Method for determining peak hour: Total Entering Volume
Report generated on 2/14/2017 2:24 PM SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) 1-877-580-2212
LOCATION:I- 5 SB Ramps -- Kruse Way/OR 217 Ramps QC JOB #:14120307
CITY/STATE:Tigard, OR DATE:Tue, Feb 07 2017
5-Min Count
Period
Beginning At
I- 5 SB Ramps
(Northbound)
I- 5 SB Ramps
(Southbound)
Kruse Way/OR 217 Ramps
(Eastbound)
Kruse Way/OR 217 Ramps
(Westbound)
Total Hourly
Totals
Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U
7:00 AM 0 0 0 0 39 0 17 0 0 95 0 0 15 81 0 0 247
7:05 AM 0 0 0 0 35 0 10 0 0 71 0 0 15 73 0 0 204
7:10 AM 0 0 0 0 36 0 7 0 0 93 0 0 19 81 0 0 236
7:15 AM 0 0 0 0 36 0 7 0 0 95 0 0 15 103 0 0 256
7:20 AM 0 0 0 0 41 0 13 0 0 87 0 0 15 76 0 0 232
7:25 AM 0 0 0 0 45 0 8 0 0 82 0 0 19 94 0 0 248
7:30 AM 0 0 0 0 42 0 11 0 0 84 0 0 15 93 0 0 245
7:35 AM 0 0 0 0 35 0 17 0 0 86 0 0 13 100 0 0 251
7:40 AM 0 0 0 0 41 0 16 0 0 106 0 0 18 100 0 0 281
7:45 AM 0 0 0 0 64 0 7 0 0 116 0 0 25 83 0 0 295
7:50 AM 0 0 0 0 67 0 13 0 0 118 0 0 16 115 0 0 329
7:55 AM 0 0 0 0 61 0 14 0 0 129 0 0 16 115 0 0 335 3159
8:00 AM 0 0 0 0 56 0 13 0 0 90 0 0 15 105 0 0 279 3191
8:05 AM 0 0 0 0 63 0 8 0 0 102 0 0 23 103 0 0 299 3286
8:10 AM 0 0 0 0 53 0 11 0 0 108 0 0 13 97 0 0 282 3332
8:15 AM 0 0 0 0 67 0 8 0 0 125 0 0 16 94 0 0 310 3386
8:20 AM 0 0 0 0 50 0 5 0 0 80 0 0 12 95 0 0 242 3396
8:25 AM 0 0 0 0 59 0 9 0 0 112 0 0 23 98 0 0 301 3449
8:30 AM 0 0 0 0 45 0 14 0 0 103 0 0 18 100 0 0 280 3484
8:35 AM 0 0 0 0 61 0 18 0 0 96 0 0 17 96 0 0 288 3521
8:40 AM 0 0 0 0 53 0 15 0 0 96 0 0 14 111 0 0 289 3529
8:45 AM 0 0 0 0 54 0 23 0 0 112 0 0 17 95 0 0 301 3535
8:50 AM 0 0 0 0 37 0 19 0 0 101 0 0 19 87 0 0 263 3469
8:55 AM 0 0 0 0 58 0 17 0 0 91 0 0 15 78 0 0 259 3393
Peak 15-Min Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound
TotalFlowratesLeftThruRightULeftThruRightULeftThruRightULeftThruRightU
All Vehicles 0 0 0 0 736 0 160 0 0 1348 0 0 188 1340 0 0 3772
Heavy Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 40 0 16 12 0 80
Pedestrians 0 0 0 0 0
Bicycles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Railroad
Stopped Buses
Comments:
Peak-Hour: 7:50 AM -- 8:50 AM
Peak 15-Min: 7:50 AM -- 8:05 AM
0 0 0
6890151
0
1271
0 200
1224
0
0
840
1271
1424
0
200
1960
1375
0.94
0.0 0.0 0.0
1.70.06.0
0.0
2.9
0.0 3.5
2.3
0.0
0.0
2.5
2.9
2.5
0.0
3.5
2.5
2.7
0
0
0 0
0 0 0
000
0
0
0 0
0
0
NA
NA
NA NA
NA
NA
NA NA
Type of peak hour being reported: Intersection Peak Method for determining peak hour: Total Entering Volume
Report generated on 2/14/2017 2:24 PM SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) 1-877-580-2212
LOCATION:I- 5 SB Ramps -- Kruse Way/OR 217 Ramps QC JOB #:14120308
CITY/STATE:Tigard, OR DATE:Tue, Feb 07 2017
5-Min Count
Period
Beginning At
I- 5 SB Ramps
(Northbound)
I- 5 SB Ramps
(Southbound)
Kruse Way/OR 217 Ramps
(Eastbound)
Kruse Way/OR 217 Ramps
(Westbound)
Total Hourly
Totals
Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U
4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 38 1 14 0 0 136 0 0 13 95 0 0 297
4:05 PM 0 0 0 0 35 0 23 0 0 118 0 0 15 120 0 0 311
4:10 PM 0 0 0 0 35 0 15 0 0 135 1 0 14 117 0 0 317
4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 48 0 17 0 0 121 1 0 18 116 0 0 321
4:20 PM 0 0 0 0 43 1 18 0 0 110 0 0 12 120 0 0 304
4:25 PM 0 0 0 0 48 0 22 0 0 121 0 0 11 112 0 0 314
4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 33 0 24 0 0 125 0 0 10 99 0 1 292
4:35 PM 0 0 0 0 39 0 16 0 0 104 0 0 11 122 0 0 292
4:40 PM 0 0 0 0 33 1 15 0 0 107 0 0 14 122 0 0 292
4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 62 3 11 0 0 95 0 0 14 116 0 0 301
4:50 PM 0 0 0 0 32 0 12 0 0 105 0 0 17 110 0 0 276
4:55 PM 0 0 0 0 35 0 24 0 0 109 0 0 18 116 0 0 302 3619
5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 27 0 21 0 0 106 2 0 20 100 0 0 276 3598
5:05 PM 0 0 0 0 53 0 16 0 0 116 1 0 13 129 0 0 328 3615
5:10 PM 0 0 0 0 46 1 12 0 0 114 0 0 9 99 0 0 281 3579
5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 42 0 17 0 0 123 1 0 12 101 0 0 296 3554
5:20 PM 0 0 0 0 34 0 17 0 0 93 0 0 13 99 0 0 256 3506
5:25 PM 0 0 0 0 41 0 17 0 0 118 0 0 6 95 0 0 277 3469
5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 29 0 13 0 0 111 0 0 16 124 0 0 293 3470
5:35 PM 0 0 0 0 30 0 16 0 0 109 0 0 19 111 0 0 285 3463
5:40 PM 0 0 0 0 34 2 15 0 0 119 0 0 18 120 0 0 308 3479
5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 31 1 18 0 0 88 0 0 21 112 0 0 271 3449
5:50 PM 0 0 0 0 46 0 14 0 0 93 1 0 16 105 0 0 275 3448
5:55 PM 0 0 0 0 23 0 13 0 0 107 0 0 12 128 0 0 283 3429
Peak 15-Min Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound
TotalFlowratesLeftThruRightULeftThruRightULeftThruRightULeftThruRightU
All Vehicles 0 0 0 0 472 0 220 0 0 1496 8 0 188 1412 0 0 3796
Heavy Trucks 0 0 0 4 0 4 0 8 0 0 24 0 40
Pedestrians 0 0 0 0 0
Bicycles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Railroad
Stopped Buses
Comments:
Peak-Hour: 4:00 PM -- 5:00 PM
Peak 15-Min: 4:05 PM -- 4:20 PM
0 0 0
4816211
0
1386
2 168
1365
0
0
698
1388
1533
0
175
1868
1576
0.95
0.0 0.0 0.0
0.60.03.8
0.0
0.9
0.0 0.6
1.9
0.0
0.0
1.6
0.9
1.8
0.0
0.6
0.9
2.2
0
0
1 0
0 0 0
000
0
0
0 0
0
0
NA
NA
NA NA
NA
NA
NA NA
Type of peak hour being reported: Intersection Peak Method for determining peak hour: Total Entering Volume
Report generated on 2/14/2017 2:24 PM SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) 1-877-580-2212
LOCATION:SW 72nd Ave -- SW Tech Center Dr QC JOB #:14120309
CITY/STATE:Tigard, OR DATE:Tue, Feb 07 2017
5-Min Count
Period
Beginning At
SW 72nd Ave
(Northbound)
SW 72nd Ave
(Southbound)
SW Tech Center Dr
(Eastbound)
SW Tech Center Dr
(Westbound)
Total Hourly
Totals
Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U
7:00 AM 4 24 0 0 0 32 8 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 69
7:05 AM 2 34 0 0 0 19 6 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 64
7:10 AM 3 34 0 0 0 19 4 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 64
7:15 AM 4 30 0 0 0 33 5 0 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 76
7:20 AM 5 27 0 0 0 30 5 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 71
7:25 AM 2 37 0 0 0 21 2 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 64
7:30 AM 12 32 0 0 0 29 5 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 80
7:35 AM 2 29 0 0 0 27 8 0 5 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 77
7:40 AM 3 37 0 0 0 24 3 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 68
7:45 AM 4 47 0 0 0 31 6 0 4 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 93
7:50 AM 4 35 0 0 0 39 13 0 2 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 96
7:55 AM 5 33 0 0 0 40 6 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 86 908
8:00 AM 5 28 0 0 0 52 10 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 99 938
8:05 AM 5 32 0 0 0 34 3 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 77 951
8:10 AM 8 30 0 0 0 23 2 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 66 953
8:15 AM 10 33 0 0 0 32 6 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 89 966
8:20 AM 8 35 0 0 0 21 6 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 73 968
8:25 AM 3 35 0 0 0 25 5 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 71 975
8:30 AM 4 35 0 0 0 25 6 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 73 968
8:35 AM 4 32 0 0 0 18 7 0 6 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 74 965
8:40 AM 4 33 0 0 0 21 6 0 1 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 69 966
8:45 AM 3 33 0 0 0 18 3 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 62 935
8:50 AM 5 34 0 0 0 20 7 0 1 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 73 912
8:55 AM 8 33 0 0 0 20 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 67 893
Peak 15-Min Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound
TotalFlowratesLeftThruRightULeftThruRightULeftThruRightULeftThruRightU
All Vehicles 56 384 0 0 0 524 116 0 24 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 1124
Heavy Trucks 0 44 0 0 12 4 8 0 8 0 0 0 76
Pedestrians 0 0 8 0 8
Bicycles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Railroad
Stopped Buses
Comments:
Peak-Hour: 7:30 AM -- 8:30 AM
Peak 15-Min: 7:50 AM -- 8:05 AM
69 406 0
037773
32
0
18 0
0
0
475
450
50
0
438
395
0
142
0.87
8.7 8.1 0.0
0.05.88.2
21.9
0.0
22.2 0.0
0.0
0.0
8.2
6.2
22.0
0.0
9.1
6.6
0.0
8.5
0
0
7 0
0 0 0
001
0
0
0 0
0
0
NA
NA
NA NA
NA
NA
NA NA
Type of peak hour being reported: Intersection Peak Method for determining peak hour: Total Entering Volume
Report generated on 2/14/2017 2:24 PM SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) 1-877-580-2212
LOCATION:SW 72nd Ave -- SW Tech Center Dr QC JOB #:14120310
CITY/STATE:Tigard, OR DATE:Tue, Feb 07 2017
5-Min Count
Period
Beginning At
SW 72nd Ave
(Northbound)
SW 72nd Ave
(Southbound)
SW Tech Center Dr
(Eastbound)
SW Tech Center Dr
(Westbound)
Total Hourly
Totals
Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U
4:00 PM 3 48 0 0 0 44 0 0 7 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 110
4:05 PM 3 37 0 0 0 51 1 0 12 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 108
4:10 PM 0 48 0 0 0 60 0 0 5 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 121
4:15 PM 1 38 0 0 0 60 0 0 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 103
4:20 PM 1 42 0 0 0 50 1 0 5 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 103
4:25 PM 1 33 0 0 0 45 1 0 6 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 91
4:30 PM 2 49 0 0 0 46 2 0 6 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 110
4:35 PM 1 67 0 0 0 59 0 0 4 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 136
4:40 PM 1 52 0 0 0 48 4 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 110
4:45 PM 0 42 0 0 0 39 0 0 2 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 89
4:50 PM 1 60 0 0 0 49 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 112
4:55 PM 0 49 0 0 0 57 0 0 4 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 113 1306
5:00 PM 0 43 0 0 0 46 0 0 7 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 108 1304
5:05 PM 0 62 0 0 0 64 1 0 10 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 139 1335
5:10 PM 1 58 0 0 0 48 0 0 6 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 119 1333
5:15 PM 1 77 0 0 0 45 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 127 1357
5:20 PM 0 34 0 0 0 49 3 0 2 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 94 1348
5:25 PM 0 40 0 0 0 64 0 0 4 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 111 1368
5:30 PM 0 42 0 0 0 33 1 0 3 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 84 1342
5:35 PM 0 63 0 0 0 45 3 0 5 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 117 1323
5:40 PM 0 61 0 0 0 55 0 0 4 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 124 1337
5:45 PM 0 49 0 0 0 37 1 0 4 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 93 1341
5:50 PM 0 41 0 0 0 33 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 74 1303
5:55 PM 1 45 0 0 0 38 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 87 1277
Peak 15-Min Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound
TotalFlowratesLeftThruRightULeftThruRightULeftThruRightULeftThruRightU
All Vehicles 8 788 0 0 0 628 4 0 72 0 40 0 0 0 0 0 1540
Heavy Trucks 0 8 0 0 8 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 20
Pedestrians 0 0 4 0 4
Bicycles 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Railroad
Stopped Buses
Comments:
Peak-Hour: 4:30 PM -- 5:30 PM
Peak 15-Min: 5:05 PM -- 5:20 PM
7 633 0
061410
54
0
50 0
0
0
640
624
104
0
687
664
0
17
0.89
42.9 1.7 0.0
0.01.60.0
0.0
0.0
6.0 0.0
0.0
0.0
2.2
1.6
2.9
0.0
1.6
2.0
0.0
17.6
0
0
6 1
0 1 0
020
0
0
0 0
0
0
NA
NA
NA NA
NA
NA
NA NA
Type of peak hour being reported: Intersection Peak Method for determining peak hour: Total Entering Volume
Report generated on 2/14/2017 2:24 PM SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) 1-877-580-2212
LOCATION:SW Wall St -- SW Hunziker St QC JOB #:14120311
CITY/STATE:Tigard, OR DATE:Tue, Feb 07 2017
5-Min Count
Period
Beginning At
SW Wall St
(Northbound)
SW Wall St
(Southbound)
SW Hunziker St
(Eastbound)
SW Hunziker St
(Westbound)
Total Hourly
Totals
Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U
7:00 AM 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 2 0 2 15 0 0 39
7:05 AM 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 0 0 3 17 0 0 41
7:10 AM 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 1 0 0 16 0 0 40
7:15 AM 1 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 0 0 0 21 0 0 54
7:20 AM 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 0 0 2 25 0 0 46
7:25 AM 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 1 0 1 17 0 0 38
7:30 AM 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 2 0 2 20 0 0 49
7:35 AM 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 34 0 0 0 19 0 0 55
7:40 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 2 0 3 27 0 0 60
7:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 44 1 0 1 31 0 0 77
7:50 AM 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 46 4 0 2 33 0 0 87
7:55 AM 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 47 2 0 3 19 0 0 73 659
8:00 AM 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 51 4 0 1 24 0 0 81 701
8:05 AM 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 42 4 0 2 24 0 0 76 736
8:10 AM 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 42 0 0 2 20 0 0 67 763
8:15 AM 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 37 0 0 2 14 0 0 54 763
8:20 AM 2 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 51 0 0 2 24 0 0 83 800
8:25 AM 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 36 1 0 4 14 0 0 59 821
8:30 AM 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 35 0 0 2 12 0 0 51 823
8:35 AM 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 0 0 3 16 0 0 42 810
8:40 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 2 0 1 24 0 0 50 800
8:45 AM 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 4 0 2 22 0 0 53 776
8:50 AM 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 0 0 0 22 0 0 46 735
8:55 AM 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 27 0 0 0 21 0 0 49 711
Peak 15-Min Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound
TotalFlowratesLeftThruRightULeftThruRightULeftThruRightULeftThruRightU
All Vehicles 8 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 576 40 0 24 304 0 0 964
Heavy Trucks 4 0 4 0 0 0 0 24 0 8 20 0 60
Pedestrians 0 0 0 0 0
Bicycles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Railroad
Stopped Buses
Comments:
Peak-Hour: 7:35 AM -- 8:35 AM
Peak 15-Min: 7:50 AM -- 8:05 AM
9 0 18
000
0
493
18 24
261
0
27
0
511
285
0
42
511
270
0.85
22.2 0.0 22.2
0.00.00.0
0.0
5.1
0.0 16.7
6.1
0.0
22.2
0.0
4.9
7.0
0.0
9.5
5.7
6.7
0
1
0 0
0 0 0
000
0
0
0 0
0
0
NA
NA
NA NA
NA
NA
NA NA
Type of peak hour being reported: Intersection Peak Method for determining peak hour: Total Entering Volume
Report generated on 2/14/2017 2:24 PM SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) 1-877-580-2212
LOCATION:SW Wall St -- SW Hunziker St QC JOB #:14120312
CITY/STATE:Tigard, OR DATE:Tue, Feb 07 2017
5-Min Count
Period
Beginning At
SW Wall St
(Northbound)
SW Wall St
(Southbound)
SW Hunziker St
(Eastbound)
SW Hunziker St
(Westbound)
Total Hourly
Totals
Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U
4:00 PM 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 0 0 0 40 0 0 58
4:05 PM 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 1 0 2 52 0 0 70
4:10 PM 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 27 0 0 50
4:15 PM 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 0 0 0 32 0 0 46
4:20 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 0 0 0 55 0 0 71
4:25 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 0 1 38 0 1 55
4:30 PM 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 3 0 2 49 0 0 79
4:35 PM 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 0 0 0 48 0 0 73
4:40 PM 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 0 1 53 0 0 67
4:45 PM 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 1 63 0 0 77
4:50 PM 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 0 0 0 51 0 0 68
4:55 PM 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 0 0 0 52 0 0 71 785
5:00 PM 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 0 0 1 67 0 0 90 817
5:05 PM 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 1 0 0 65 0 0 88 835
5:10 PM 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 0 0 0 58 0 0 87 872
5:15 PM 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 2 57 0 0 84 910
5:20 PM 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 1 0 1 53 0 0 75 914
5:25 PM 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 0 0 2 51 0 0 73 932
5:30 PM 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 1 0 0 58 0 0 81 934
5:35 PM 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 0 0 0 52 0 0 72 933
5:40 PM 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 56 0 0 69 935
5:45 PM 1 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 36 0 0 50 908
5:50 PM 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 54 0 0 66 906
5:55 PM 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 0 0 0 48 0 0 69 904
Peak 15-Min Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound
TotalFlowratesLeftThruRightULeftThruRightULeftThruRightULeftThruRightU
All Vehicles 12 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 272 4 0 4 760 0 0 1060
Heavy Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 16 0 20
Pedestrians 0 4 0 0 4
Bicycles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Railroad
Stopped Buses
Comments:
Peak-Hour: 4:45 PM -- 5:45 PM
Peak 15-Min: 5:00 PM -- 5:15 PM
6 0 18
000
0
218
3 7
683
0
24
0
221
690
0
10
236
689
0.88
0.0 0.0 0.0
0.00.00.0
0.0
3.2
0.0 42.9
1.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.2
2.2
0.0
30.0
3.0
1.7
1
3
0 0
0 0 0
000
0
0
0 0
0
0
NA
NA
NA NA
NA
NA
NA NA
Type of peak hour being reported: Intersection Peak Method for determining peak hour: Total Entering Volume
Report generated on 2/14/2017 2:24 PM SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) 1-877-580-2212
LOCATION:SW 72nd Ave -- SW Hunziker St QC JOB #:14120313
CITY/STATE:Tigard, OR DATE:Tue, Feb 07 2017
5-Min Count
Period
Beginning At
SW 72nd Ave
(Northbound)
SW 72nd Ave
(Southbound)
SW Hunziker St
(Eastbound)
SW Hunziker St
(Westbound)
Total Hourly
Totals
Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U
7:00 AM 1 35 0 0 0 17 15 0 8 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 84
7:05 AM 5 37 0 0 0 16 14 0 5 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 85
7:10 AM 7 44 0 0 0 20 17 0 9 0 17 0 0 0 0 0 114
7:15 AM 2 37 0 0 0 18 21 0 10 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 104
7:20 AM 13 40 0 0 0 26 20 0 13 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 123
7:25 AM 7 42 0 0 0 26 17 0 10 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 107
7:30 AM 10 45 0 0 0 24 19 0 14 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 120
7:35 AM 4 42 0 0 0 20 20 0 16 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 117
7:40 AM 6 39 0 0 0 24 29 0 11 0 23 0 0 0 0 0 132
7:45 AM 16 47 0 0 0 25 24 0 18 0 18 0 0 0 0 0 148
7:50 AM 16 51 0 0 0 36 25 0 12 0 30 0 0 0 0 0 170
7:55 AM 3 48 0 0 0 35 20 0 21 0 31 0 0 0 0 0 158 1462
8:00 AM 15 36 0 0 0 36 16 0 17 0 28 0 0 0 0 0 148 1526
8:05 AM 7 43 0 0 0 36 21 0 20 0 27 0 0 0 0 0 154 1595
8:10 AM 8 42 0 0 0 33 13 0 18 0 25 0 0 0 0 0 139 1620
8:15 AM 2 35 0 0 0 16 25 0 14 0 23 0 0 0 0 0 115 1631
8:20 AM 7 45 0 0 0 22 24 0 17 0 31 0 0 0 0 0 146 1654
8:25 AM 10 38 0 0 0 28 12 0 16 0 29 0 0 0 0 0 133 1680
8:30 AM 1 48 0 0 0 29 19 0 17 0 18 0 0 0 0 0 132 1692
8:35 AM 4 41 0 0 0 28 18 0 20 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 119 1694
8:40 AM 9 44 0 0 0 26 19 0 9 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 112 1674
8:45 AM 8 40 0 0 0 21 26 0 19 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 124 1650
8:50 AM 4 47 0 0 0 23 20 0 11 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 117 1597
8:55 AM 7 46 0 0 0 38 19 0 14 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 130 1569
Peak 15-Min Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound
TotalFlowratesLeftThruRightULeftThruRightULeftThruRightULeftThruRightU
All Vehicles 140 584 0 0 0 384 276 0 204 0 316 0 0 0 0 0 1904
Heavy Trucks 12 36 0 0 8 8 12 0 36 0 0 0 112
Pedestrians 0 0 8 0 8
Bicycles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Railroad
Stopped Buses
Comments:
Peak-Hour: 7:40 AM -- 8:40 AM
Peak 15-Min: 7:45 AM -- 8:00 AM
95 513 0
0348246
201
0
291 0
0
0
608
594
492
0
714
639
0
341
0.89
4.2 5.8 0.0
0.05.74.9
3.5
0.0
10.3 0.0
0.0
0.0
5.6
5.4
7.5
0.0
5.2
7.8
0.0
4.7
0
0
6 0
0 0 0
000
0
0
0 0
0
0
NA
NA
NA NA
NA
NA
NA NA
Type of peak hour being reported: Intersection Peak Method for determining peak hour: Total Entering Volume
Report generated on 2/14/2017 2:24 PM SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) 1-877-580-2212
LOCATION:SW 72nd Ave -- SW Hunziker St QC JOB #:14120314
CITY/STATE:Tigard, OR DATE:Tue, Feb 07 2017
5-Min Count
Period
Beginning At
SW 72nd Ave
(Northbound)
SW 72nd Ave
(Southbound)
SW Hunziker St
(Eastbound)
SW Hunziker St
(Westbound)
Total Hourly
Totals
Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U
4:00 PM 10 46 0 0 0 30 35 0 11 0 21 0 0 0 0 0 153
4:05 PM 12 44 0 0 0 42 37 0 7 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 156
4:10 PM 7 55 0 0 0 40 22 0 7 0 22 0 0 0 0 0 153
4:15 PM 11 48 0 0 0 42 24 0 2 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 138
4:20 PM 9 35 0 0 0 39 53 0 5 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 156
4:25 PM 11 30 0 0 0 41 20 0 8 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 121
4:30 PM 10 62 0 0 0 37 43 0 10 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 177
4:35 PM 10 74 0 0 0 50 35 0 9 0 24 0 0 0 0 0 202
4:40 PM 10 49 0 0 0 40 36 0 11 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 155
4:45 PM 20 49 0 0 0 32 44 0 8 0 13 0 0 0 0 0 166
4:50 PM 11 62 0 0 0 38 41 0 5 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 173
4:55 PM 6 60 0 0 0 47 46 0 6 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 176 1926
5:00 PM 10 70 0 0 0 40 42 0 6 0 23 0 0 0 0 0 191 1964
5:05 PM 18 71 0 0 0 37 42 0 12 0 18 0 0 0 0 0 198 2006
5:10 PM 13 68 0 0 0 44 48 0 7 0 21 0 0 0 0 0 201 2054
5:15 PM 15 72 0 0 0 42 38 0 13 0 21 0 0 0 0 0 201 2117
5:20 PM 16 53 0 0 0 47 28 0 12 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 171 2132
5:25 PM 4 39 0 0 0 38 51 0 5 0 19 0 0 0 0 0 156 2167
5:30 PM 14 54 0 0 0 47 36 0 5 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 170 2160
5:35 PM 12 62 0 0 0 49 37 0 11 0 17 0 0 0 0 0 188 2146
5:40 PM 19 60 0 0 0 37 35 0 8 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 170 2161
5:45 PM 11 63 0 0 0 33 41 0 7 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 165 2160
5:50 PM 10 38 0 0 0 44 38 0 6 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 142 2129
5:55 PM 9 54 0 0 0 32 37 0 12 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 159 2112
Peak 15-Min Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound
TotalFlowratesLeftThruRightULeftThruRightULeftThruRightULeftThruRightU
All Vehicles 184 844 0 0 0 492 512 0 128 0 240 0 0 0 0 0 2400
Heavy Trucks 12 0 0 0 8 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 32
Pedestrians 0 0 12 0 12
Bicycles 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Railroad
Stopped Buses
Comments:
Peak-Hour: 4:30 PM -- 5:30 PM
Peak 15-Min: 5:05 PM -- 5:20 PM
143 729 0
0492494
104
0
205 0
0
0
872
986
309
0
833
697
0
637
0.90
4.2 1.0 0.0
0.01.23.0
1.9
0.0
2.4 0.0
0.0
0.0
1.5
2.1
2.3
0.0
1.1
1.6
0.0
3.3
0
0
8 0
0 1 0
010
0
0
0 0
0
0
NA
NA
NA NA
NA
NA
NA NA
Type of peak hour being reported: Intersection Peak Method for determining peak hour: Total Entering Volume
Report generated on 2/14/2017 2:24 PM SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) 1-877-580-2212
LOCATION:SW 72nd Ave -- OR 217 NB Ramps QC JOB #:14120315
CITY/STATE:Tigard, OR DATE:Tue, Feb 07 2017
5-Min Count
Period
Beginning At
SW 72nd Ave
(Northbound)
SW 72nd Ave
(Southbound)
OR 217 NB Ramps
(Eastbound)
OR 217 NB Ramps
(Westbound)
Total Hourly
Totals
Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U
7:00 AM 0 39 5 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 0 11 0 86
7:05 AM 0 33 9 0 5 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 15 0 93
7:10 AM 0 41 13 0 2 26 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 16 0 110
7:15 AM 0 33 12 0 1 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 17 0 102
7:20 AM 0 32 11 0 3 29 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 0 20 0 116
7:25 AM 0 47 13 0 0 29 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 27 0 130
7:30 AM 0 52 6 0 1 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 33 0 123
7:35 AM 0 42 9 0 1 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 0 26 0 122
7:40 AM 0 34 14 0 4 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 0 24 0 130
7:45 AM 0 61 10 0 0 29 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 0 20 0 139
7:50 AM 0 50 9 0 0 33 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 0 30 0 152
7:55 AM 0 64 10 0 3 34 0 1 0 0 0 0 20 0 29 0 161 1464
8:00 AM 0 42 3 0 6 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 0 29 0 131 1509
8:05 AM 0 67 9 0 4 33 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 0 26 0 165 1581
8:10 AM 0 53 8 0 2 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 0 28 0 139 1610
8:15 AM 0 40 7 0 1 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 0 27 0 112 1620
8:20 AM 0 53 12 0 3 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 0 15 0 130 1634
8:25 AM 0 44 9 0 2 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 0 24 0 117 1621
8:30 AM 0 47 13 0 3 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 0 23 0 138 1636
8:35 AM 0 57 9 0 4 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 0 23 0 140 1654
8:40 AM 0 41 8 0 5 26 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 27 0 127 1651
8:45 AM 0 46 11 0 2 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 0 31 0 134 1646
8:50 AM 0 47 9 0 2 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 0 24 0 126 1620
8:55 AM 0 47 9 0 3 26 0 1 0 0 0 0 30 0 27 0 143 1602
Peak 15-Min Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound
TotalFlowratesLeftThruRightULeftThruRightULeftThruRightULeftThruRightU
All Vehicles 0 692 88 0 52 376 0 4 0 0 0 0 280 0 336 0 1828
Heavy Trucks 0 32 8 8 4 0 0 0 0 12 0 4 68
Pedestrians 0 0 0 0 0
Bicycles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Railroad
Stopped Buses
Comments:
Peak-Hour: 7:40 AM -- 8:40 AM
Peak 15-Min: 7:55 AM -- 8:10 AM
0 612 113
333090
0
0
0 289
0
298
725
342
0
587
911
598
145
0
0.90
0.0 3.6 14.2
9.13.60.0
0.0
0.0
0.0 7.3
0.0
2.7
5.2
4.1
0.0
4.9
3.3
5.4
13.1
0.0
0
0
1 0
0 0 0
000
0
0
0 0
0
0
NA
NA
NA NA
NA
NA
NA NA
Type of peak hour being reported: Intersection Peak Method for determining peak hour: Total Entering Volume
Report generated on 2/14/2017 2:24 PM SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) 1-877-580-2212
LOCATION:SW 72nd Ave -- OR 217 NB Ramps QC JOB #:14120316
CITY/STATE:Tigard, OR DATE:Tue, Feb 07 2017
5-Min Count
Period
Beginning At
SW 72nd Ave
(Northbound)
SW 72nd Ave
(Southbound)
OR 217 NB Ramps
(Eastbound)
OR 217 NB Ramps
(Westbound)
Total Hourly
Totals
Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U
4:00 PM 0 36 17 0 15 46 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 13 0 141
4:05 PM 0 23 23 0 25 53 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 0 17 0 165
4:10 PM 0 26 36 0 12 46 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 0 24 0 165
4:15 PM 0 32 23 0 15 55 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 27 0 163
4:20 PM 0 26 14 0 12 56 0 0 0 0 0 0 34 0 31 0 173
4:25 PM 0 23 16 0 19 46 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 0 25 0 148
4:30 PM 0 37 34 0 15 60 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 0 20 0 192
4:35 PM 0 45 35 0 13 62 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 23 0 198
4:40 PM 0 29 27 0 17 48 0 0 0 0 0 0 32 0 28 0 181
4:45 PM 0 33 31 0 17 51 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 0 29 0 178
4:50 PM 0 36 33 0 9 53 0 0 0 0 0 0 34 0 24 0 189
4:55 PM 0 33 35 0 13 52 0 0 0 0 0 0 38 0 19 1 191 2084
5:00 PM 0 46 26 0 18 45 0 0 0 0 0 0 34 0 23 0 192 2135
5:05 PM 0 42 45 0 22 70 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 0 19 1 217 2187
5:10 PM 0 39 44 0 19 45 0 0 0 0 0 0 32 0 41 1 221 2243
5:15 PM 0 47 30 0 26 54 0 1 0 0 0 0 29 0 25 0 212 2292
5:20 PM 0 38 27 0 18 62 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 0 32 0 195 2314
5:25 PM 0 35 19 0 9 67 0 0 0 0 0 0 29 0 25 0 184 2350
5:30 PM 0 34 20 0 6 34 0 0 0 0 0 0 43 0 32 0 169 2327
5:35 PM 0 33 24 0 20 53 0 1 0 0 0 0 29 0 42 0 202 2331
5:40 PM 0 48 31 0 11 57 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 29 1 192 2342
5:45 PM 0 43 31 0 15 42 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 0 33 0 204 2368
5:50 PM 0 31 17 0 13 38 0 1 0 0 0 0 39 0 29 2 170 2349
5:55 PM 0 28 26 0 10 38 0 0 0 0 0 0 34 0 38 0 174 2332
Peak 15-Min Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound
TotalFlowratesLeftThruRightULeftThruRightULeftThruRightULeftThruRightU
All Vehicles 0 512 476 0 268 676 0 4 0 0 0 0 316 0 340 8 2600
Heavy Trucks 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 12
Pedestrians 0 8 0 0 8
Bicycles 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Railroad
Stopped Buses
Comments:
Peak-Hour: 4:50 PM -- 5:50 PM
Peak 15-Min: 5:05 PM -- 5:20 PM
0 474 365
1886340
0
0
0 363
0
344
839
822
0
707
820
993
555
0
0.91
0.0 0.8 1.6
0.01.10.0
0.0
0.0
0.0 1.9
0.0
1.2
1.2
0.9
0.0
1.6
1.0
1.4
1.1
0.0
0
2
1 0
0 1 0
000
0
0
0 0
0
0
NA
NA
NA NA
NA
NA
NA NA
Start TimeRight to Dwy Right Thru Left U-Turns RightThru to Dwy Thru Left U-Turns Right ThruLeft to Dwy Left U-Turns Right Thru LeftLeft to Dwy U-TurnsRight to SW Scoffins StRight to SW Hall BlvdThru to SW Hunziker StLeft to SW Hall Blvd U-Turns07:00 AM 0 0 11 8 0 7 0 0 7 0 11 32 0 1 0 5 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 007:05 AM 0 0 19 4 0 4 0 1 10 0 11 34 0 0 0 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 007:10 AM 0 1 19 7 0 5 0 1 4 0 6 37 0 0 0 3 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 007:15 AM 0 1 22 7 0 4 1 2 6 0 18 31 0 0 0 4 9 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 007:20 AM 1 0 30 14 0 11 0 1 3 0 7 38 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 007:25 AM 0 0 18 5 0 6 0 2 4 0 12 36 0 0 0 1 5 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 007:30 AM 0 0 15 8 0 8 0 2 5 0 11 32 0 0 0 1 9 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 007:35 AM 0 0 28 8 0 4 0 1 5 0 18 48 0 0 0 1 7 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 007:40 AM 0 0 26 12 0 13 0 1 10 0 12 31 0 0 0 1 10 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 007:45 AM 0 0 22 13 0 12 0 0 4 0 28 38 0 0 0 1 8 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 007:50 AM 0 2 17 19 0 18 0 13 17 0 25 22 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 007:55 AM 0 1 28 23 0 5 0 4 10 0 21 29 0 0 0 1 16 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 008:00 AM 0 1 30 8 0 12 0 2 8 0 30 37 0 0 0 1 11 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 008:05 AM 0 1 11 11 0 12 0 2 9 0 24 32 0 0 0 3 14 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 008:10 AM 0 2 13 5 0 6 0 9 2 0 27 39 0 0 0 2 9 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 008:15 AM 0 0 14 16 0 3 0 1 7 0 20 31 0 0 0 2 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 008:20 AM 0 1 18 6 0 12 0 6 7 0 27 29 1 1 0 1 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 008:25 AM 0 0 11 10 0 9 0 2 6 0 22 49 0 2 0 1 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 008:30 AM 0 0 6 3 0 9 0 3 5 0 16 36 0 0 0 4 13 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 008:35 AM 0 1 14 2 0 7 0 0 9 0 15 37 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 008:40 AM 0 2 11 8 0 13 0 3 4 0 16 21 0 0 0 5 6 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 008:45 AM 0 0 20 7 0 19 0 1 2 0 12 29 0 1 0 1 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 008:50 AM 0 0 21 7 0 13 0 5 4 0 12 32 0 2 0 4 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 008:55 AM 0 1 20 6 0 6 0 4 4 0 14 37 0 1 0 1 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Total 1 14 444 217 0 218 1 66 152 0 415 817 1 8 0 47 177 22 0 0 2 0 0 2 0Location: SW Hall Blvd & SW Hunziker StStart Date: 2/7/2017Site Code: 14120317SW Hall BlvdSouthboundSW Hunziker StWestboundSW Hall BlvdNorthboundSW Scoffins StEastboundDwySoutheastbound
Start TimeRight to Dwy Right Thru Left U-Turns RightThru to Dwy Thru Left U-Turns Right ThruLeft to Dwy Left U-Turns Right Thru LeftLeft to Dwy U-TurnsRight to SW Scoffins StRight to SW Hall BlvdThru to SW Hunziker StLeft to SW Hall Blvd U-Turns04:00 PM 0 1 23 0 0 11 0 9 19 0 6 34 0 2 0 6 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 004:05 PM 0 0 34 4 0 14 0 7 24 0 6 29 0 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 004:10 PM 0 1 45 6 0 19 0 10 19 0 3 31 0 0 0 3 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 004:15 PM 0 0 26 2 0 16 0 10 8 0 6 27 0 5 0 5 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 004:20 PM 0 1 48 2 0 20 0 11 20 0 9 27 0 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 004:25 PM 0 1 36 5 0 12 0 11 20 0 6 33 0 1 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 004:30 PM 0 2 28 5 0 17 0 14 21 0 8 22 0 0 0 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 004:35 PM 0 2 40 3 0 16 0 10 23 0 6 30 0 0 0 4 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 004:40 PM 0 4 43 1 0 20 0 6 17 0 7 43 0 2 0 4 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 004:45 PM 0 2 19 3 0 26 0 16 31 0 4 37 0 2 0 5 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 004:50 PM 0 0 25 5 0 19 0 14 27 0 4 19 0 1 0 5 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 004:55 PM 0 0 42 5 0 18 0 13 20 0 5 24 1 0 0 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 005:00 PM 2 1 37 2 0 28 0 17 18 0 6 36 0 2 0 8 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 005:05 PM 0 0 31 2 0 31 0 13 32 0 6 20 0 1 0 7 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 005:10 PM 0 1 40 9 0 29 0 18 23 0 8 27 0 1 0 5 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 005:15 PM 1 1 35 6 0 23 0 15 17 0 7 28 0 1 0 4 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 005:20 PM 0 2 46 6 0 21 0 12 23 0 5 39 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 005:25 PM 0 0 22 4 0 22 0 14 23 0 5 25 0 0 0 4 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 005:30 PM 0 3 37 8 0 28 0 16 23 0 5 15 0 2 0 2 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 005:35 PM 0 3 32 3 0 14 0 6 14 0 12 29 0 0 0 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 005:40 PM 0 1 36 3 0 28 0 14 24 0 6 32 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 005:45 PM 0 1 32 3 0 22 0 9 24 0 6 30 0 1 0 8 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 005:50 PM 0 0 22 4 0 29 0 11 16 0 4 19 0 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 005:55 PM 0 1 34 4 0 18 0 5 13 0 7 19 0 0 0 2 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Total 3 28 813 95 0 501 0 281 499 0 147 675 1 25 0 96 63 10 0 0 0 0 0 1 014120318SW Hall BlvdSouthboundSW Hunziker StWestboundSW Hall BlvdNorthboundSW Scoffins StEastboundDwySoutheastboundLocation: SW Hall Blvd & SW Hunziker StStart Date: 2/7/2017Site Code:
Fields Project 2017 Existing Traffic Conditions, Weekday AM Peak Hour
1: OR 217 SB Ramps & SW Pacific Hwy 03/14/2017
Fields Project 02/07/2017 2017 Existing Traffic Conditions, Weekday AM Peak Hour Synchro 9 Report
Page 1
Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT SBL SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 1930 430 45 1021 236 236 184
v/c Ratio 0.85 0.39 0.46 0.41 0.87 0.87 0.47
Control Delay 16.3 1.1 80.1 4.3 85.1 85.1 12.2
Queue Delay 8.3 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 24.5 1.1 80.1 4.4 85.1 85.1 12.2
Queue Length 50th (ft) 225 1 40 92 218 218 8
Queue Length 95th (ft) 326 m11 82 120 #344 #344 76
Internal Link Dist (ft) 621 612 328
Turn Bay Length (ft) 320 200 200
Base Capacity (vph) 2283 1102 116 2502 310 310 419
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 349 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 338 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.99 0.39 0.39 0.47 0.76 0.76 0.44
Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal.
Fields Project 2017 Existing Traffic Conditions, Weekday AM Peak Hour
1: OR 217 SB Ramps & SW Pacific Hwy 03/14/2017
Fields Project 02/07/2017 2017 Existing Traffic Conditions, Weekday AM Peak Hour Synchro 9 Report
Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 0 1872 417 44 990 0 0 0 0 458 0 178
Future Volume (vph) 0 1872 417 44 990 0 0 0 0 458 0 178
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width 11 11 11 12 12 12 12 12 12 11 11 11
Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 5.0 5.0 5.0
Lane Util. Factor 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 0.95 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 3323 1452 1719 3282 1609 1609 1445
Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 3323 1452 1719 3282 1609 1609 1445
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97
Adj. Flow (vph) 0 1930 430 45 1021 0 0 0 0 472 0 184
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 106 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 145
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 1930 324 45 1021 0 0 0 0 236 236 39
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 6 1 1 6 6 6
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 1
Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 5% 5% 5% 10% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3% 0% 6%
Turn Type NA Perm Prot NA Perm NA Perm
Protected Phases 2 1 6 4
Permitted Phases 2 4 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 95.4 95.4 6.9 106.8 23.7 23.7 23.7
Effective Green, g (s) 95.4 95.4 6.9 106.8 23.7 23.7 23.7
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.68 0.68 0.05 0.76 0.17 0.17 0.17
Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 5.0 5.0 5.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 4.8 4.8 2.5 6.6 2.3 2.3 2.3
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 2264 989 84 2503 272 272 244
v/s Ratio Prot c0.58 c0.03 0.31
v/s Ratio Perm 0.22 c0.15 0.15 0.03
v/c Ratio 0.85 0.33 0.54 0.41 0.87 0.87 0.16
Uniform Delay, d1 17.0 9.1 65.0 5.7 56.6 56.6 49.7
Progression Factor 0.75 0.23 1.04 0.64 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 2.3 0.5 4.7 0.5 23.6 23.6 0.2
Delay (s) 14.9 2.6 72.1 4.1 80.2 80.2 49.8
Level of Service B A E A F F D
Approach Delay (s) 12.7 7.0 0.0 71.7
Approach LOS B A A E
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 20.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service C
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.84
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 140.0 Sum of lost time (s) 14.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 75.6% ICU Level of Service D
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Fields Project 2017 Existing Traffic Conditions, Weekday AM Peak Hour
2: SW Hall Blvd & SW Pacific Hwy 03/14/2017
Fields Project 02/07/2017 2017 Existing Traffic Conditions, Weekday AM Peak Hour Synchro 9 Report
Page 3
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 198 2044 64 214 1075 67 192 278 163 213 125
v/c Ratio 0.84 0.86 0.09 0.84 0.46 0.59 0.92 0.69 0.87 0.69 0.23
Control Delay 86.5 35.7 0.4 83.7 15.4 83.8 105.6 17.8 99.6 68.9 7.3
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 86.5 35.7 0.4 83.7 15.4 83.8 105.6 17.8 99.6 68.9 7.3
Queue Length 50th (ft) 176 583 0 161 193 60 ~188 10 148 190 10
Queue Length 95th (ft) #280 672 2 #264 232 #124 #349 108 #274 #322 48
Internal Link Dist (ft) 526 621 383 464
Turn Bay Length (ft) 240 30 440 230 230 230 200
Base Capacity (vph) 271 2389 751 295 2350 122 208 401 195 311 572
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.73 0.86 0.09 0.73 0.46 0.55 0.92 0.69 0.84 0.68 0.22
Intersection Summary
~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
Fields Project 2017 Existing Traffic Conditions, Weekday AM Peak Hour
2: SW Hall Blvd & SW Pacific Hwy 03/14/2017
Fields Project 02/07/2017 2017 Existing Traffic Conditions, Weekday AM Peak Hour Synchro 9 Report
Page 4
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 180 1860 58 195 888 90 61 175 253 148 194 114
Future Volume (vph) 180 1860 58 195 888 90 61 175 253 148 194 114
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width 11 11 11 12 12 12 11 11 11 11 11 11
Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.5
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.99
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1616 4821 1401 1687 4677 1586 1783 1422 1694 1801 1484
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1616 4821 1401 1687 4677 1586 1783 1422 1694 1801 1484
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91
Adj. Flow (vph) 198 2044 64 214 976 99 67 192 278 163 213 125
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 33 0 9 0 0 0 233 0 0 72
Lane Group Flow (vph) 198 2044 31 214 1066 0 67 192 45 163 213 53
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 5 7 7 5 6 3 3 6
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 1 1
Heavy Vehicles (%) 8% 4% 7% 7% 10% 0% 10% 3% 8% 3% 2% 4%
Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA Perm Prot NA pm+ov
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4 5
Permitted Phases 2 8 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 20.4 68.6 68.6 21.2 69.4 8.8 17.2 17.2 15.5 23.9 44.3
Effective Green, g (s) 20.4 68.6 68.6 21.2 69.4 8.8 17.2 17.2 15.5 23.9 44.3
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.15 0.49 0.49 0.15 0.50 0.06 0.12 0.12 0.11 0.17 0.32
Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.5
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.3 4.2 4.2 2.3 4.2 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 235 2362 686 255 2318 99 219 174 187 307 469
v/s Ratio Prot 0.12 c0.42 c0.13 0.23 0.04 c0.11 c0.10 0.12 0.02
v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 0.03 0.02
v/c Ratio 0.84 0.87 0.05 0.84 0.46 0.68 0.88 0.26 0.87 0.69 0.11
Uniform Delay, d1 58.2 31.6 18.6 57.7 23.1 64.2 60.4 55.6 61.3 54.6 33.9
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.01 0.66 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 22.5 4.6 0.1 19.3 0.6 14.6 29.6 0.5 32.5 5.8 0.1
Delay (s) 80.8 36.2 18.7 77.6 15.8 78.8 90.0 56.1 93.8 60.4 34.0
Level of Service F D B E B E F E F E C
Approach Delay (s) 39.5 26.0 71.0 64.7
Approach LOS D C E E
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 42.1 HCM 2000 Level of Service D
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.86
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 140.0 Sum of lost time (s) 17.5
Intersection Capacity Utilization 80.2% ICU Level of Service D
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Fields Project 2017 Existing Traffic Conditions, Weekday AM Peak Hour
3: SW Hall Blvd & SW Hunziker St 03/14/2017
Fields Project 02/07/2017 2017 Existing Traffic Conditions, Weekday AM Peak Hour Synchro 9 Report
Page 5
Lane Group EBT WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 3 156 134 1 961 156 270
v/c Ratio 0.01 0.76 0.39 0.00 0.96 0.90 0.42
Control Delay 0.0 71.7 10.3 58.0 19.2 101.8 32.1
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 24.6 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 0.0 71.7 10.3 58.0 43.8 101.8 32.1
Queue Length 50th (ft) 0 121 0 1 205 126 162
Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 179 47 m1 m105 #236 227
Internal Link Dist (ft) 21 1895 25 862
Turn Bay Length (ft)140
Base Capacity (vph) 403 267 407 663 1002 175 644
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 534 91 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.01 0.58 0.33 0.01 1.05 0.89 0.42
Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal.
Fields Project 2017 Existing Traffic Conditions, Weekday AM Peak Hour
3: SW Hall Blvd & SW Hunziker St 03/14/2017
Fields Project 02/07/2017 2017 Existing Traffic Conditions, Weekday AM Peak Hour Synchro 9 Report
Page 6
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 2 0 1 134 0 115 1 433 394 134 232 0
Future Volume (vph) 2 0 1 134 0 115 1 433 394 134 232 0
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.95 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.93 1.00 1.00
Flt Protected 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1756 1641 1468 1805 1636 1752 1759
Flt Permitted 0.89 0.76 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1614 1306 1468 1805 1636 1752 1759
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86
Adj. Flow (vph) 2 0 1 156 0 134 1 503 458 156 270 0
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 3 0 0 0 113 0 24 0 0 0 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 0 0 156 21 1 937 0 156 270 0
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)1 1
Confl. Bikes (#/hr)5 1
Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 0% 0% 10% 0% 10% 0% 9% 4% 3% 8% 0%
Turn Type Perm NA Perm NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA
Protected Phases 4 4 5 8 2 8 1 6
Permitted Phases 4 4 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 19.7 19.7 19.7 45.7 74.4 12.4 45.6
Effective Green, g (s) 19.7 19.7 19.7 45.7 74.4 12.4 45.6
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.37 0.60 0.10 0.37
Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 4.5
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 255 206 232 662 977 174 644
v/s Ratio Prot 0.00 c0.57 c0.09 0.15
v/s Ratio Perm 0.00 c0.12 0.01
v/c Ratio 0.00 0.76 0.09 0.00 0.96 0.90 0.42
Uniform Delay, d1 44.1 50.1 44.8 25.0 23.6 55.4 29.5
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.92 0.90 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.0 13.7 0.1 0.0 3.1 39.5 2.0
Delay (s) 44.1 63.8 44.9 47.9 24.3 94.9 31.5
Level of Service D E D D C F C
Approach Delay (s) 44.1 55.0 24.3 54.7
Approach LOS D E C D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 37.4 HCM 2000 Level of Service D
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.91
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 124.5 Sum of lost time (s) 18.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 75.7% ICU Level of Service D
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Fields Project 2017 Existing Traffic Conditions, Weekday AM Peak Hour
4: SW Hall Blvd & SW Scoffins St 03/14/2017
Fields Project 02/07/2017 2017 Existing Traffic Conditions, Weekday AM Peak Hour Synchro 9 Report
Page 7
Lane Group EBL NBL NBT SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 179 3 805 427
v/c Ratio 0.49 0.04 1.24 0.45
Control Delay 47.5 54.3 154.7 1.6
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.4
Total Delay 47.5 54.3 155.9 2.0
Queue Length 50th (ft) 123 2 ~804 4
Queue Length 95th (ft) 198 11 #977 0
Internal Link Dist (ft) 192 405 25
Turn Bay Length (ft) 50
Base Capacity (vph) 365 136 651 1037
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 234
Spillback Cap Reductn 3 0 98 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.49 0.02 1.46 0.53
Intersection Summary
~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
Fields Project 2017 Existing Traffic Conditions, Weekday AM Peak Hour
4: SW Hall Blvd & SW Scoffins St 03/14/2017
Fields Project 02/07/2017 2017 Existing Traffic Conditions, Weekday AM Peak Hour Synchro 9 Report
Page 8
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 136 18 3 692 314 53
Future Volume (vph) 136 18 3 692 314 53
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width 10 10 12 12 12 12
Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.98
Flt Protected 0.96 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1564 1357 1776 1701
Flt Permitted 0.96 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1564 1357 1776 1701
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86
Adj. Flow (vph) 158 21 3 805 365 62
RTOR Reduction (vph) 4 0 0 0 5 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 175 0 3 805 422 0
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 1 1
Confl. Bikes (#/hr)1
Heavy Vehicles (%) 6% 11% 33% 7% 10% 4%
Turn Type Prot Prot NA NA
Protected Phases 8 5 2 4 6
Permitted Phases
Actuated Green, G (s) 28.8 12.4 45.6 69.8
Effective Green, g (s) 28.8 12.4 45.6 69.8
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.23 0.10 0.37 0.56
Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.3 3.0 4.5
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 361 135 650 953
v/s Ratio Prot c0.11 c0.00 c0.45 c0.25
v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio 0.49 0.02 1.24 0.44
Uniform Delay, d1 41.4 50.6 39.5 16.0
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.02
Incremental Delay, d2 0.6 0.1 120.2 0.2
Delay (s) 42.0 50.6 159.6 0.4
Level of Service D D F A
Approach Delay (s) 42.0 159.2 0.4
Approach LOS D F A
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 96.4 HCM 2000 Level of Service F
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.76
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 124.5 Sum of lost time (s) 18.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 52.9% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Fields Project 2017 Existing Traffic Conditions, Weekday AM Peak Hour
5: SW Wall St & SW Hunziker St 03/14/2017
Fields Project 02/07/2017 2017 Existing Traffic Conditions, Weekday AM Peak Hour Synchro 9 Report
Page 9
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 481 18 27 258 10 16
Future Volume (Veh/h) 481 18 27 258 10 16
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Grade 0% -7% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84
Hourly flow rate (vph) 573 21 32 307 12 19
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 594 954 584
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 594 954 584
tC, single (s) 4.2 6.6 6.3
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s)2.3 3.7 3.4
p0 queue free % 97 95 96
cM capacity (veh/h) 921 257 494
Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 WB 2 NB 1
Volume Total 594 32 307 31
Volume Left 0 32 0 12
Volume Right 21 0 0 19
cSH 1700 921 1700 364
Volume to Capacity 0.35 0.03 0.18 0.09
Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 3 0 7
Control Delay (s) 0.0 9.0 0.0 15.8
Lane LOS A C
Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.9 15.8
Approach LOS C
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 0.8
Intersection Capacity Utilization 36.4% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
Fields Project 2017 Existing Traffic Conditions, Weekday AM Peak Hour
8: SW 72nd Ave & OR 217 NB Ramps 03/14/2017
Fields Project 02/07/2017 2017 Existing Traffic Conditions, Weekday AM Peak Hour Synchro 9 Report
Page 10
Lane Group WBL WBR NBT SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 321 331 806 37 343
v/c Ratio 0.80 0.53 0.40 0.32 0.28
Control Delay 50.9 6.5 12.1 50.6 8.1
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 50.9 6.5 12.1 50.6 8.1
Queue Length 50th (ft) 193 0 118 23 79
Queue Length 95th (ft) 269 62 224 54 148
Internal Link Dist (ft) 797 466 320
Turn Bay Length (ft) 670 190
Base Capacity (vph) 441 655 2013 264 1259
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.73 0.51 0.40 0.14 0.27
Intersection Summary
Fields Project 2017 Existing Traffic Conditions, Weekday AM Peak Hour
8: SW 72nd Ave & OR 217 NB Ramps 03/14/2017
Fields Project 02/07/2017 2017 Existing Traffic Conditions, Weekday AM Peak Hour Synchro 9 Report
Page 11
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 289 298 612 113 33 309
Future Volume (vph) 289 298 612 113 33 309
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.5
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.85 0.98 1.00 1.00
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1687 1568 3340 1656 1827
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1687 1568 3340 1656 1827
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Adj. Flow (vph) 321 331 680 126 37 343
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 253 12 0 0 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 321 78 794 0 37 343
Heavy Vehicles (%) 7% 3% 4% 14% 9% 4%
Turn Type Prot Prot NA Prot NA
Protected Phases 4 4 6 5 2
Permitted Phases
Actuated Green, G (s) 23.7 23.7 58.4 4.9 67.3
Effective Green, g (s) 23.7 23.7 58.4 4.9 67.3
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.24 0.24 0.58 0.05 0.67
Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.5
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.3 2.3 6.2 2.3 6.2
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 399 371 1950 81 1229
v/s Ratio Prot c0.19 0.05 c0.24 c0.02 0.19
v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio 0.80 0.21 0.41 0.46 0.28
Uniform Delay, d1 36.0 30.6 11.4 46.3 6.6
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.94 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 10.8 0.2 0.6 2.4 0.6
Delay (s) 46.7 30.8 11.3 48.6 7.1
Level of Service D C B D A
Approach Delay (s) 38.7 11.3 11.2
Approach LOS D B B
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 21.0 HCM 2000 Level of Service C
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.52
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0 Sum of lost time (s) 13.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 50.7% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Fields Project 2017 Existing Traffic Conditions, Weekday AM Peak Hour
9: SW 72nd Ave & SW Hunziker St 03/14/2017
Fields Project 02/07/2017 2017 Existing Traffic Conditions, Weekday AM Peak Hour Synchro 9 Report
Page 12
Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 236 328 107 579 396 276
v/c Ratio 0.76 0.62 0.59 0.23 0.37 0.29
Control Delay 54.7 9.4 69.1 2.1 13.9 6.3
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 54.7 9.4 69.1 2.3 13.9 6.3
Queue Length 50th (ft) 144 0 71 22 158 68
Queue Length 95th (ft) 212 68 124 34 209 m41
Internal Link Dist (ft) 358 206 466
Turn Bay Length (ft) 210 50
Base Capacity (vph) 402 590 243 2513 1062 943
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 1104 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 2 0 0 14 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.59 0.56 0.44 0.41 0.38 0.29
Intersection Summary
m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal.
Fields Project 2017 Existing Traffic Conditions, Weekday AM Peak Hour
9: SW 72nd Ave & SW Hunziker St 03/14/2017
Fields Project 02/07/2017 2017 Existing Traffic Conditions, Weekday AM Peak Hour Synchro 9 Report
Page 13
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 210 292 95 515 352 246
Future Volume (vph) 210 292 95 515 352 246
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.5 4.5 4.5
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1752 1468 1736 3406 1792 1486
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1752 1468 1736 3406 1792 1486
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89
Adj. Flow (vph) 236 328 107 579 396 276
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 270 0 0 0 62
Lane Group Flow (vph) 236 58 107 579 396 214
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 6 6
Heavy Vehicles (%) 3% 10% 4% 6% 6% 5%
Turn Type Prot Perm Prot NA NA Perm
Protected Phases 8 1 6 2
Permitted Phases 8 2
Actuated Green, G (s) 17.7 17.7 10.5 73.8 59.3 59.3
Effective Green, g (s) 17.7 17.7 10.5 73.8 59.3 59.3
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.18 0.18 0.10 0.74 0.59 0.59
Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.5 4.5 4.5
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.3 2.3 2.3 4.6 4.1 4.1
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 310 259 182 2513 1062 881
v/s Ratio Prot c0.13 c0.06 0.17 c0.22
v/s Ratio Perm 0.04 0.14
v/c Ratio 0.76 0.22 0.59 0.23 0.37 0.24
Uniform Delay, d1 39.1 35.3 42.7 4.1 10.6 9.7
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.34 0.41 1.05 1.01
Incremental Delay, d2 9.9 0.3 3.5 0.2 0.9 0.6
Delay (s) 49.0 35.5 60.7 1.9 12.1 10.4
Level of Service D D E A B B
Approach Delay (s) 41.2 11.1 11.4
Approach LOS D B B
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 20.0 HCM 2000 Level of Service C
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.48
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.5
Intersection Capacity Utilization 45.8% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Fields Project 2017 Existing Traffic Conditions, Weekday AM Peak Hour
10: SW 72nd Ave & SW Varns St/OR 217 Ramps 03/14/2017
Fields Project 02/07/2017 2017 Existing Traffic Conditions, Weekday AM Peak Hour Synchro 9 Report
Page 14
Lane Group EBT WBT WBR NBT SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 18 274 289 482 191 567
v/c Ratio 0.05 0.80 0.31 0.35 0.62 0.48
Control Delay 22.2 50.7 6.1 20.7 43.0 7.1
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.4
Total Delay 22.2 50.7 6.1 20.7 43.6 7.5
Queue Length 50th (ft) 8 163 41 101 119 66
Queue Length 95th (ft) 21 209 63 155 181 146
Internal Link Dist (ft) 409 297 788 206
Turn Bay Length (ft) 115
Base Capacity (vph) 552 528 947 1393 308 1182
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 15 229
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.03 0.52 0.31 0.35 0.65 0.59
Intersection Summary
Fields Project 2017 Existing Traffic Conditions, Weekday AM Peak Hour
10: SW 72nd Ave & SW Varns St/OR 217 Ramps 03/14/2017
Fields Project 02/07/2017 2017 Existing Traffic Conditions, Weekday AM Peak Hour Synchro 9 Report
Page 15
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 10 3 2 232 1 246 0 354 56 162 477 5
Future Volume (vph) 10 3 2 232 1 246 0 354 56 162 477 5
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width 12 12 12 15 12 15 12 12 12 12 12 12
Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.5
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.98 1.00 0.85 0.98 1.00 1.00
Flt Protected 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1625 1763 1759 3224 1626 1807
Flt Permitted 0.82 0.71 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1378 1322 1759 3224 1626 1807
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85
Adj. Flow (vph) 12 4 2 273 1 289 0 416 66 191 561 6
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 1 0 0 0 91 0 10 0 0 0 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 17 0 0 274 198 0 472 0 191 567 0
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 4 4 12 12
Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 0% 100% 2% 0% 1% 0% 9% 14% 11% 5% 0%
Turn Type Perm NA Perm NA pm+ov Prot NA Prot NA
Protected Phases 8 4 5 1 6 5 2
Permitted Phases 8 4 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 26.1 26.1 45.1 42.9 19.0 65.4
Effective Green, g (s) 26.1 26.1 45.1 42.9 19.0 65.4
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.26 0.26 0.45 0.43 0.19 0.65
Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.5
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.5 2.5 2.3 4.6 2.3 4.6
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 359 345 863 1383 308 1181
v/s Ratio Prot 0.04 0.15 c0.12 c0.31
v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 c0.21 0.07
v/c Ratio 0.05 0.79 0.23 0.34 0.62 0.48
Uniform Delay, d1 27.6 34.4 16.8 19.1 37.2 8.7
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.91 0.56
Incremental Delay, d2 0.0 11.5 0.1 0.7 2.9 1.3
Delay (s) 27.7 46.0 16.9 19.8 36.9 6.1
Level of Service C D B B D A
Approach Delay (s) 27.7 31.0 19.8 13.9
Approach LOS C C B B
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 20.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service C
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.61
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.5
Intersection Capacity Utilization 56.7% ICU Level of Service B
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Fields Project 2017 Existing Traffic Conditions, Weekday AM Peak Hour
11: SW 72nd Ave & SW Tech Center Dr 03/14/2017
Fields Project 02/07/2017 2017 Existing Traffic Conditions, Weekday AM Peak Hour Synchro 9 Report
Page 16
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 32 21 63 412 364 73
Future Volume (Veh/h) 32 21 63 412 364 73
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86
Hourly flow rate (vph) 37 24 73 479 423 85
Pedestrians 7
Lane Width (ft) 12.0
Walking Speed (ft/s) 4.0
Percent Blockage 1
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type TWLTL TWLTL
Median storage veh) 2 2
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 1098 472 515
vC1, stage 1 conf vol 472
vC2, stage 2 conf vol 625
vCu, unblocked vol 1098 472 515
tC, single (s) 6.6 6.6 4.2
tC, 2 stage (s) 5.6
tF (s) 3.7 3.6 2.3
p0 queue free % 91 95 93
cM capacity (veh/h) 395 521 1024
Direction, Lane # EB 1 NB 1 NB 2 SB 1
Volume Total 61 73 479 508
Volume Left 37 73 0 0
Volume Right 24 0 0 85
cSH 437 1024 1700 1700
Volume to Capacity 0.14 0.07 0.28 0.30
Queue Length 95th (ft) 12 6 0 0
Control Delay (s) 14.6 8.8 0.0 0.0
Lane LOS B A
Approach Delay (s) 14.6 1.2 0.0
Approach LOS B
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 1.4
Intersection Capacity Utilization 40.5% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
Fields Project 2017 Existing Traffic Conditions, Weekday AM Peak Hour
12: I- 5 SB Ramps & Kruse Way/OR 217 Ramps 03/14/2017
Fields Project 02/07/2017 2017 Existing Traffic Conditions, Weekday AM Peak Hour Synchro 9 Report
Page 17
Lane Group EBT WBL WBT SBL SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 1397 230 1305 373 374 148
v/c Ratio 0.67 0.81 0.58 0.85 0.85 0.32
Control Delay 25.9 63.7 12.6 53.4 53.7 12.8
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 25.9 63.7 12.6 53.4 53.7 12.8
Queue Length 50th (ft) 265 145 243 236 237 25
Queue Length 95th (ft) 338 #269 335 340 341 72
Internal Link Dist (ft) 253 507 663
Turn Bay Length (ft) 380 550 550
Base Capacity (vph) 2095 284 2256 518 518 522
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.67 0.81 0.58 0.72 0.72 0.28
Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
Fields Project 2017 Existing Traffic Conditions, Weekday AM Peak Hour
12: I- 5 SB Ramps & Kruse Way/OR 217 Ramps 03/14/2017
Fields Project 02/07/2017 2017 Existing Traffic Conditions, Weekday AM Peak Hour Synchro 9 Report
Page 18
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 0 1285 0 212 1201 0 0 0 0 687 0 136
Future Volume (vph) 0 1285 0 212 1201 0 0 0 0 687 0 136
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width 11 11 11 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12
Total Lost time (s) 6.0 4.5 6.0 4.5 4.5 4.5
Lane Util. Factor 0.91 1.00 0.95 0.95 0.95 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 4868 1752 3539 1698 1698 1490
Flt Permitted 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 4868 1752 3539 1698 1698 1490
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph) 0 1397 0 230 1305 0 0 0 0 747 0 148
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 72
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 1397 0 230 1305 0 0 0 0 373 374 76
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)1 1
Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 3% 0% 3% 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 7%
Turn Type NA Prot NA Split NA Perm
Protected Phases 2 1 6 4 4
Permitted Phases 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 43.7 16.5 64.7 26.3 26.3 26.3
Effective Green, g (s) 43.7 16.5 64.7 26.3 26.3 26.3
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.43 0.16 0.64 0.26 0.26 0.26
Clearance Time (s) 6.0 4.5 6.0 4.5 4.5 4.5
Vehicle Extension (s) 4.8 2.3 4.8 2.3 2.3 2.3
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 2095 284 2255 439 439 386
v/s Ratio Prot c0.29 c0.13 0.37 0.22 c0.22
v/s Ratio Perm 0.05
v/c Ratio 0.67 0.81 0.58 0.85 0.85 0.20
Uniform Delay, d1 23.1 41.0 10.6 35.7 35.7 29.4
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 1.7 15.0 1.1 13.9 14.4 0.1
Delay (s) 24.8 56.0 11.7 49.6 50.1 29.5
Level of Service C E B D D C
Approach Delay (s) 24.8 18.3 0.0 46.5
Approach LOS C B A D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 27.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service C
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.75
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 101.5 Sum of lost time (s) 15.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 68.3% ICU Level of Service C
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
SimTraffic Performance Report
Existing Traffic Conditions, Weekday AM Peak Hour 03/08/2017
SimTraffic Report
Page 1
8: SW 72nd Ave & OR 217 NB Ramps Performance by approach
Approach WB NB SB All
Denied Del/Veh (s) 2.1 0.0 0.0 0.8
Total Del/Veh (s) 17.9 13.7 11.4 14.7
9: SW 72nd Ave & SW Hunziker St Performance by approach
Approach EB NB SB All
Denied Del/Veh (s) 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.5
Total Del/Veh (s) 22.8 11.1 6.8 13.1
10: SW 72nd Ave & SW Varns St/OR 217 Ramps Performance by approach
Approach EB WB NB SB All
Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.1 2.2 0.1 0.0 0.8
Total Del/Veh (s) 30.1 22.1 12.1 11.9 15.4
113: SW Hall Blvd & SW Hunziker St Performance by approach
Approach SW All
Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s) 3.1 3.1
Total Network Performance
Denied Del/Veh (s) 1.5
Total Del/Veh (s) 34.7
Queuing and Blocking Report
Existing Traffic Conditions, Weekday AM Peak Hour 03/08/2017
SimTraffic Report
Page 2
Intersection: 8: SW 72nd Ave & OR 217 NB Ramps
Movement WB WB NB NB NB SB SB
Directions Served L R T T > L T
Maximum Queue (ft) 314 93 296 258 58 95 209
Average Queue (ft) 164 18 153 109 36 32 75
95th Queue (ft) 267 67 241 211 68 77 155
Link Distance (ft) 1003 491 491 849
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 750 25 225
Storage Blk Time (%) 20 4 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 23 13 0
Intersection: 9: SW 72nd Ave & SW Hunziker St
Movement EB EB NB NB NB SB SB
Directions Served L R L T T T R
Maximum Queue (ft) 232 289 168 121 119 271 148
Average Queue (ft) 130 91 75 48 44 83 20
95th Queue (ft) 213 204 138 101 95 186 102
Link Distance (ft) 1113 236 236 236 491
Upstream Blk Time (%) 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 210 50
Storage Blk Time (%) 2 0 14 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 5 1 35 0
Intersection: 10: SW 72nd Ave & SW Varns St/OR 217 Ramps
Movement EB WB WB NB NB SB SB
Directions Served LTR LT R T TR L TR
Maximum Queue (ft) 66 298 225 155 205 211 208
Average Queue (ft) 13 143 74 73 67 98 55
95th Queue (ft) 42 239 177 134 139 179 141
Link Distance (ft) 804 718 1920 1920 236 236
Upstream Blk Time (%)0 0
Queuing Penalty (veh)0 1
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 200
Storage Blk Time (%) 3 0 19
Queuing Penalty (veh) 7 0 0
Fields Project 2017 Existing Traffic Conditions, Weekday PM Peak Hour
1: OR 217 SB Ramps & SW Pacific Hwy 03/14/2017
Fields Project 02/07/2017 2017 Existing Traffic Conditions, Weekday PM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report
Page 1
Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT SBL SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 1451 257 53 1811 298 301 271
v/c Ratio 0.67 0.25 0.48 0.71 0.85 0.85 0.76
Control Delay 13.2 1.4 78.0 7.8 73.4 74.1 56.0
Queue Delay 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 13.5 1.4 78.0 7.9 73.4 74.1 56.0
Queue Length 50th (ft) 165 7 48 270 275 278 195
Queue Length 95th (ft) 238 m15 m65 m374 368 372 281
Internal Link Dist (ft) 621 612 328
Turn Bay Length (ft) 320 200 200
Base Capacity (vph) 2174 1023 142 2538 445 446 436
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 99 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 261 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.76 0.25 0.37 0.74 0.67 0.67 0.62
Intersection Summary
m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal.
Fields Project 2017 Existing Traffic Conditions, Weekday PM Peak Hour
1: OR 217 SB Ramps & SW Pacific Hwy 03/14/2017
Fields Project 02/07/2017 2017 Existing Traffic Conditions, Weekday PM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report
Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 0 1378 244 50 1720 0 0 0 0 567 2 257
Future Volume (vph) 0 1378 244 50 1720 0 0 0 0 567 2 257
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width 11 11 11 12 12 12 12 12 12 11 11 11
Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 5.0 5.0 5.0
Lane Util. Factor 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 0.95 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 3421 1490 1736 3539 1641 1646 1481
Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 3421 1490 1736 3539 1641 1646 1481
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
Adj. Flow (vph) 0 1451 257 53 1811 0 0 0 0 597 2 271
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 78 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 37
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 1451 179 53 1811 0 0 0 0 298 301 234
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 5 5 5 5 1 1
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 3
Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 2% 1% 4% 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 4%
Turn Type NA Perm Prot NA Perm NA Perm
Protected Phases 2 1 6 4
Permitted Phases 2 4 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 88.1 88.1 7.8 100.4 30.1 30.1 30.1
Effective Green, g (s) 88.1 88.1 7.8 100.4 30.1 30.1 30.1
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.63 0.63 0.06 0.72 0.22 0.22 0.22
Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 5.0 5.0 5.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 4.8 4.8 2.5 6.6 2.3 2.3 2.3
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 2152 937 96 2537 352 353 318
v/s Ratio Prot 0.42 0.03 c0.51
v/s Ratio Perm 0.12 0.18 0.18 0.16
v/c Ratio 0.67 0.19 0.55 0.71 0.85 0.85 0.74
Uniform Delay, d1 16.7 10.9 64.4 11.5 52.7 52.8 51.2
Progression Factor 0.64 0.29 1.09 0.53 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 1.4 0.4 3.4 1.1 16.5 17.4 7.8
Delay (s) 12.0 3.5 73.9 7.2 69.2 70.2 59.1
Level of Service B A E A E E E
Approach Delay (s) 10.7 9.1 0.0 66.4
Approach LOS B A A E
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 20.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service C
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.77
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 140.0 Sum of lost time (s) 14.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 72.0% ICU Level of Service C
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Fields Project 2017 Existing Traffic Conditions, Weekday PM Peak Hour
2: SW Hall Blvd & SW Pacific Hwy 03/14/2017
Fields Project 02/07/2017 2017 Existing Traffic Conditions, Weekday PM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report
Page 3
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 154 1186 21 240 1791 155 264 245 201 276 211
v/c Ratio 0.89 0.62 0.03 0.86 0.78 0.65 0.82 0.53 0.82 0.85 0.43
Control Delay 106.4 35.6 0.1 84.5 23.8 71.2 77.0 11.0 83.6 78.8 18.1
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 106.4 35.6 0.1 84.5 24.0 71.2 77.0 11.0 83.6 78.8 18.1
Queue Length 50th (ft) 141 326 0 191 391 135 236 0 178 244 65
Queue Length 95th (ft) #281 354 0 #327 379 #324 #453 84 #297 342 131
Internal Link Dist (ft) 526 621 1324 464
Turn Bay Length (ft) 240 30 440 230 230 230 200
Base Capacity (vph) 173 2014 632 313 2504 237 320 462 268 380 487
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 193 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.89 0.59 0.03 0.77 0.77 0.65 0.82 0.53 0.75 0.73 0.43
Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
Fields Project 2017 Existing Traffic Conditions, Weekday PM Peak Hour
2: SW Hall Blvd & SW Pacific Hwy 03/14/2017
Fields Project 02/07/2017 2017 Existing Traffic Conditions, Weekday PM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report
Page 4
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 149 1150 20 233 1620 117 150 256 238 195 268 205
Future Volume (vph) 149 1150 20 233 1620 117 150 256 238 195 268 205
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width 11 11 11 12 12 12 11 11 11 11 11 11
Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.5
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.99
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1728 4868 1318 1719 5031 1728 1818 1485 1728 1801 1526
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1728 4868 1318 1719 5031 1728 1818 1485 1728 1801 1526
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97
Adj. Flow (vph) 154 1186 21 240 1670 121 155 264 245 201 276 211
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 13 0 7 0 0 0 202 0 0 59
Lane Group Flow (vph) 154 1186 8 240 1784 0 155 264 43 201 276 152
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 4 3 3 4 5 3 3 5
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 1 3 1
Heavy Vehicles (%) 1% 3% 15% 5% 2% 0% 1% 1% 3% 1% 2% 1%
Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA Perm Prot NA pm+ov
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4 5
Permitted Phases 2 8 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 14.0 55.3 55.3 22.7 64.0 19.3 24.7 24.7 19.8 25.2 39.2
Effective Green, g (s) 14.0 55.3 55.3 22.7 64.0 19.3 24.7 24.7 19.8 25.2 39.2
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.10 0.39 0.39 0.16 0.46 0.14 0.18 0.18 0.14 0.18 0.28
Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.5
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.3 4.2 4.2 2.3 4.2 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 172 1922 520 278 2299 238 320 261 244 324 427
v/s Ratio Prot 0.09 0.24 c0.14 c0.35 0.09 c0.15 0.12 c0.15 0.04
v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 0.03 0.06
v/c Ratio 0.90 0.62 0.02 0.86 0.78 0.65 0.82 0.17 0.82 0.85 0.36
Uniform Delay, d1 62.3 33.9 25.8 57.1 32.0 57.2 55.6 48.9 58.4 55.6 40.3
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.12 0.69 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 39.6 1.5 0.1 17.0 1.9 5.3 15.3 0.2 19.1 18.5 0.3
Delay (s) 101.9 35.4 25.8 80.9 24.0 62.4 70.8 49.1 77.5 74.1 40.6
Level of Service F D C F C E E D E E D
Approach Delay (s) 42.8 30.7 60.9 64.8
Approach LOS D C E E
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 43.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service D
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.84
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 140.0 Sum of lost time (s) 17.5
Intersection Capacity Utilization 82.1% ICU Level of Service E
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Fields Project 2017 Existing Traffic Conditions, Weekday PM Peak Hour
3: SW Hall Blvd & SW Hunziker St 03/14/2017
Fields Project 02/07/2017 2017 Existing Traffic Conditions, Weekday PM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report
Page 5
Lane Group WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 479 305 8 490 59 474
v/c Ratio 0.99 0.43 0.02 0.59 0.45 0.82
Control Delay 76.1 5.2 54.9 7.4 58.8 49.7
Queue Delay 15.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2
Total Delay 91.5 5.2 54.9 7.4 58.8 50.8
Queue Length 50th (ft) 334 0 6 9 41 318
Queue Length 95th (ft) #553 60 m8 101 81 #540
Internal Link Dist (ft) 1895 20 1324
Turn Bay Length (ft)140
Base Capacity (vph) 483 707 501 819 181 577
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 25 0 0 0 0 22
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 1.05 0.43 0.02 0.60 0.33 0.85
Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal.
Fields Project 2017 Existing Traffic Conditions, Weekday PM Peak Hour
3: SW Hall Blvd & SW Hunziker St 03/14/2017
Fields Project 02/07/2017 2017 Existing Traffic Conditions, Weekday PM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report
Page 6
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 0 0 0 441 0 281 7 343 108 54 433 3
Future Volume (vph) 0 0 0 441 0 281 7 343 108 54 433 3
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s)2.3 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)1770 1552 1805 1772 1736 1825
Flt Permitted 0.76 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)1410 1552 1805 1772 1736 1825
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 0 479 0 305 8 373 117 59 471 3
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 207 0 9 0 0 0 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 0 0 479 98 8 481 0 59 474 0
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 4 4 2 2
Confl. Bikes (#/hr)5 1
Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 3% 0% 2% 0% 1% 0% 3% 2% 4% 4% 0%
Turn Type Perm NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA
Protected Phases 4 4 5 8 2 8 1 6
Permitted Phases 4 4 4
Actuated Green, G (s)35.5 35.5 27.1 49.2 7.3 33.9
Effective Green, g (s)37.7 35.5 27.1 49.2 7.3 33.9
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.34 0.32 0.25 0.45 0.07 0.31
Clearance Time (s)4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Vehicle Extension (s)2.3 2.3 2.3 4.5
Lane Grp Cap (vph)483 500 444 792 115 562
v/s Ratio Prot 0.00 c0.27 c0.03 c0.26
v/s Ratio Perm c0.34 0.06
v/c Ratio 0.99 0.20 0.02 0.61 0.51 0.84
Uniform Delay, d1 36.0 26.9 31.4 23.1 49.6 35.6
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.87 0.33 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 38.6 0.1 0.0 0.7 2.4 14.3
Delay (s)74.6 27.1 58.7 8.3 52.0 49.9
Level of Service E C E A D D
Approach Delay (s) 0.0 56.1 9.1 50.1
Approach LOS A E A D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 41.5 HCM 2000 Level of Service D
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.86
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 110.0 Sum of lost time (s) 18.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 63.2% ICU Level of Service B
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Fields Project 2017 Existing Traffic Conditions, Weekday PM Peak Hour
4: SW Hall Blvd & SW Scoffins St 03/14/2017
Fields Project 02/07/2017 2017 Existing Traffic Conditions, Weekday PM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report
Page 7
Lane Group EBL NBL NBT SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 108 14 448 950
v/c Ratio 0.40 0.11 0.77 0.77
Control Delay 30.8 48.1 45.8 4.9
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0
Total Delay 30.8 48.1 46.3 4.9
Queue Length 50th (ft) 41 10 294 8
Queue Length 95th (ft) 95 29 #493 m34
Internal Link Dist (ft) 73 63 20
Turn Bay Length (ft) 50
Base Capacity (vph) 277 188 583 1226
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 16 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.39 0.07 0.79 0.77
Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal.
Fields Project 2017 Existing Traffic Conditions, Weekday PM Peak Hour
4: SW Hall Blvd & SW Scoffins St 03/14/2017
Fields Project 02/07/2017 2017 Existing Traffic Conditions, Weekday PM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report
Page 8
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 46 53 13 412 694 180
Future Volume (vph) 46 53 13 412 694 180
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.93 1.00 1.00 0.97
Flt Protected 0.98 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1701 1805 1845 1793
Flt Permitted 0.98 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1701 1805 1845 1793
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph) 50 58 14 448 754 196
RTOR Reduction (vph) 38 0 0 0 8 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 70 0 14 448 942 0
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1
Confl. Bikes (#/hr)1
Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 0% 0% 3% 3% 1%
Turn Type Prot Prot NA NA
Protected Phases 8 5 2 4 6
Permitted Phases
Actuated Green, G (s) 15.3 7.3 33.9 73.9
Effective Green, g (s) 15.3 7.3 33.9 73.9
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.14 0.07 0.31 0.67
Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.3 3.0 4.5
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 236 119 568 1204
v/s Ratio Prot c0.04 c0.01 0.24 c0.53
v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio 0.30 0.12 0.79 0.78
Uniform Delay, d1 42.5 48.3 34.8 12.5
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.18
Incremental Delay, d2 0.4 0.4 10.6 1.3
Delay (s) 42.9 48.8 45.4 3.6
Level of Service D D D A
Approach Delay (s) 42.9 45.5 3.6
Approach LOS D D A
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 19.1 HCM 2000 Level of Service B
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.69
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 110.0 Sum of lost time (s) 18.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 61.2% ICU Level of Service B
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Fields Project 2017 Existing Traffic Conditions, Weekday PM Peak Hour
5: SW Wall St & SW Hunziker St 03/14/2017
Fields Project 02/07/2017 2017 Existing Traffic Conditions, Weekday PM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report
Page 9
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 222 5 10 667 9 19
Future Volume (Veh/h) 222 5 10 667 9 19
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Grade 0% -7% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88
Hourly flow rate (vph) 252 6 11 758 10 22
Pedestrians 1
Lane Width (ft)12.0
Walking Speed (ft/s)4.0
Percent Blockage 0
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 259 1036 256
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 259 1036 256
tC, single (s) 4.5 6.4 6.2
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s)2.6 3.5 3.3
p0 queue free % 99 96 97
cM capacity (veh/h) 1113 256 787
Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 WB 2 NB 1
Volume Total 258 11 758 32
Volume Left 0 11 0 10
Volume Right 6 0 0 22
cSH 1700 1113 1700 477
Volume to Capacity 0.15 0.01 0.45 0.07
Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 1 0 5
Control Delay (s) 0.0 8.3 0.0 13.1
Lane LOS A B
Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.1 13.1
Approach LOS B
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 0.5
Intersection Capacity Utilization 45.1% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
Fields Project 2017 Existing Traffic Conditions, Weekday PM Peak Hour
8: SW 72nd Ave & OR 217 NB Ramps 03/14/2017
Fields Project 02/07/2017 2017 Existing Traffic Conditions, Weekday PM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report
Page 10
Lane Group WBL WBR NBT SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 367 342 940 219 743
v/c Ratio 0.73 0.49 0.61 0.73 0.64
Control Delay 43.7 6.4 17.0 53.6 14.4
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 43.7 6.4 17.0 53.6 14.4
Queue Length 50th (ft) 206 0 167 134 285
Queue Length 95th (ft) #442 77 213 200 276
Internal Link Dist (ft) 797 466 320
Turn Bay Length (ft) 670 190
Base Capacity (vph) 505 703 1786 354 1363
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.73 0.49 0.53 0.62 0.55
Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
Fields Project 2017 Existing Traffic Conditions, Weekday PM Peak Hour
8: SW 72nd Ave & OR 217 NB Ramps 03/14/2017
Fields Project 02/07/2017 2017 Existing Traffic Conditions, Weekday PM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report
Page 11
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 330 308 460 386 197 669
Future Volume (vph) 330 308 460 386 197 669
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.5
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.85 0.93 1.00 1.00
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1736 1583 3301 1787 1881
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1736 1583 3301 1787 1881
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Adj. Flow (vph) 367 342 511 429 219 743
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 242 176 0 0 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 367 100 764 0 219 743
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 2
Confl. Bikes (#/hr)1
Heavy Vehicles (%) 4% 2% 0% 2% 1% 1%
Turn Type Prot Prot NA Prot NA
Protected Phases 4 4 6 5 2
Permitted Phases
Actuated Green, G (s) 29.1 29.1 41.2 16.7 61.9
Effective Green, g (s) 29.1 29.1 41.2 16.7 61.9
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.29 0.29 0.41 0.17 0.62
Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.5
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.3 2.3 6.2 2.3 6.2
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 505 460 1360 298 1164
v/s Ratio Prot c0.21 0.06 0.23 c0.12 c0.39
v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio 0.73 0.22 0.56 0.73 0.64
Uniform Delay, d1 31.9 26.8 22.5 39.5 12.0
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 4.7 0.1 1.7 8.3 2.7
Delay (s) 36.5 27.0 24.2 47.8 14.7
Level of Service D C C D B
Approach Delay (s) 31.9 24.2 22.2
Approach LOS C C C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 25.6 HCM 2000 Level of Service C
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.70
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0 Sum of lost time (s) 13.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 65.1% ICU Level of Service C
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Fields Project 2017 Existing Traffic Conditions, Weekday PM Peak Hour
9: SW 72nd Ave & SW Hunziker St 03/14/2017
Fields Project 02/07/2017 2017 Existing Traffic Conditions, Weekday PM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report
Page 12
Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 130 228 159 810 548 562
v/c Ratio 0.59 0.58 0.69 0.29 0.47 0.54
Control Delay 52.1 11.2 59.5 3.5 12.8 8.3
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.8 0.5
Total Delay 52.1 11.2 59.5 4.5 13.6 8.7
Queue Length 50th (ft) 82 0 97 56 186 98
Queue Length 95th (ft) 131 62 #230 111 282 199
Internal Link Dist (ft) 358 206 466
Turn Bay Length (ft) 210 50
Base Capacity (vph) 347 493 230 2830 1165 1032
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 1658 329 154
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.37 0.46 0.69 0.69 0.66 0.64
Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
Fields Project 2017 Existing Traffic Conditions, Weekday PM Peak Hour
9: SW 72nd Ave & SW Hunziker St 03/14/2017
Fields Project 02/07/2017 2017 Existing Traffic Conditions, Weekday PM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report
Page 13
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 117 205 143 729 493 506
Future Volume (vph) 117 205 143 729 493 506
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.5 4.5 4.5
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.96
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1583 1736 3574 1881 1506
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1583 1736 3574 1881 1506
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Adj. Flow (vph) 130 228 159 810 548 562
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 200 0 0 0 99
Lane Group Flow (vph) 130 28 159 810 548 463
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 8 8
Confl. Bikes (#/hr)1
Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 2% 4% 1% 1% 3%
Turn Type Prot Perm Prot NA NA Perm
Protected Phases 8 1 6 2
Permitted Phases 8 2
Actuated Green, G (s) 12.7 12.7 13.6 80.8 63.2 63.2
Effective Green, g (s) 12.7 12.7 13.6 80.8 63.2 63.2
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.12 0.12 0.13 0.79 0.62 0.62
Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.5 4.5 4.5
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.3 2.3 2.3 4.6 4.1 4.1
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 220 197 231 2831 1165 933
v/s Ratio Prot c0.07 c0.09 0.23 0.29
v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 c0.31
v/c Ratio 0.59 0.14 0.69 0.29 0.47 0.50
Uniform Delay, d1 42.2 39.8 42.2 2.8 10.4 10.7
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 3.2 0.2 7.2 0.3 1.4 1.9
Delay (s) 45.4 40.0 49.4 3.1 11.8 12.5
Level of Service D D D A B B
Approach Delay (s) 42.0 10.7 12.2
Approach LOS D B B
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 16.0 HCM 2000 Level of Service B
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.54
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 102.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.5
Intersection Capacity Utilization 50.8% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Fields Project 2017 Existing Traffic Conditions, Weekday PM Peak Hour
10: SW 72nd Ave & SW Varns St/OR 217 Ramps 03/14/2017
Fields Project 02/07/2017 2017 Existing Traffic Conditions, Weekday PM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report
Page 14
Lane Group EBT WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 28 140 98 1 1007 244 540
v/c Ratio 0.12 0.67 0.14 0.01 0.55 0.72 0.39
Control Delay 28.4 53.7 6.6 45.0 17.7 51.4 7.6
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.8 2.7
Total Delay 28.4 53.7 6.6 45.0 17.7 55.2 10.3
Queue Length 50th (ft) 12 85 11 1 205 147 95
Queue Length 95th (ft) 33 133 35 6 318 #246 274
Internal Link Dist (ft) 409 322 877 206
Turn Bay Length (ft) 115 35
Base Capacity (vph) 382 352 724 180 1837 339 1371
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 43 692
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.07 0.40 0.14 0.01 0.55 0.82 0.80
Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
Fields Project 2017 Existing Traffic Conditions, Weekday PM Peak Hour
10: SW 72nd Ave & SW Varns St/OR 217 Ramps 03/14/2017
Fields Project 02/07/2017 2017 Existing Traffic Conditions, Weekday PM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report
Page 15
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 18 2 5 121 4 87 1 767 129 217 463 18
Future Volume (vph) 18 2 5 121 4 87 1 767 129 217 463 18
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width 12 12 12 15 12 15 12 12 12 12 12 12
Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.5
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.97 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.99
Flt Protected 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1708 1749 1742 1805 3452 1787 1864
Flt Permitted 0.79 0.71 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1402 1305 1742 1805 3452 1787 1864
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89
Adj. Flow (vph) 20 2 6 136 4 98 1 862 145 244 520 20
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 5 0 0 0 44 0 12 0 0 1 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 23 0 0 140 54 1 995 0 244 539 0
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)11 11
Confl. Bikes (#/hr)1 1
Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 0% 20% 3% 25% 2% 0% 2% 2% 1% 1% 6%
Turn Type Perm NA Perm NA pm+ov Prot NA Prot NA
Protected Phases 8 4 5 1 6 5 2
Permitted Phases 8 4 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 16.1 16.1 38.3 1.0 49.7 22.2 70.4
Effective Green, g (s) 16.1 16.1 38.3 1.0 49.7 22.2 70.4
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.16 0.16 0.38 0.01 0.50 0.22 0.70
Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.5
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.5 2.5 2.3 2.3 4.6 2.3 4.6
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 225 210 736 18 1715 396 1312
v/s Ratio Prot 0.02 0.00 c0.29 c0.14 0.29
v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 c0.11 0.01
v/c Ratio 0.10 0.67 0.07 0.06 0.58 0.62 0.41
Uniform Delay, d1 35.8 39.4 19.6 49.0 17.8 35.1 6.2
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.1 7.0 0.0 0.8 1.4 2.3 1.0
Delay (s) 35.9 46.4 19.6 49.8 19.2 37.3 7.1
Level of Service D D B D B D A
Approach Delay (s) 35.9 35.4 19.3 16.5
Approach LOS D D B B
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 20.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service C
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.61
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.5
Intersection Capacity Utilization 56.0% ICU Level of Service B
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Fields Project 2017 Existing Traffic Conditions, Weekday PM Peak Hour
11: SW 72nd Ave & SW Tech Center Dr 03/14/2017
Fields Project 02/07/2017 2017 Existing Traffic Conditions, Weekday PM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report
Page 16
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 54 50 7 633 614 10
Future Volume (Veh/h) 54 50 7 633 614 10
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89
Hourly flow rate (vph) 61 56 8 711 690 11
Pedestrians 6
Lane Width (ft) 12.0
Walking Speed (ft/s) 4.0
Percent Blockage 1
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type TWLTL TWLTL
Median storage veh) 2 2
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 1428 702 707
vC1, stage 1 conf vol 702
vC2, stage 2 conf vol 727
vCu, unblocked vol 1428 702 707
tC, single (s) 6.4 6.3 4.5
tC, 2 stage (s) 5.4
tF (s) 3.5 3.4 2.6
p0 queue free % 83 87 99
cM capacity (veh/h) 363 430 725
Direction, Lane # EB 1 NB 1 NB 2 SB 1
Volume Total 117 8 711 701
Volume Left 61 8 0 0
Volume Right 56 0 0 11
cSH 392 725 1700 1700
Volume to Capacity 0.30 0.01 0.42 0.41
Queue Length 95th (ft) 31 1 0 0
Control Delay (s) 18.0 10.0 0.0 0.0
Lane LOS C B
Approach Delay (s) 18.0 0.1 0.0
Approach LOS C
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 1.4
Intersection Capacity Utilization 46.0% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
Fields Project 2017 Existing Traffic Conditions, Weekday PM Peak Hour
12: I- 5 SB Ramps & Kruse Way/OR 217 Ramps 03/14/2017
Fields Project 02/07/2017 2017 Existing Traffic Conditions, Weekday PM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report
Page 17
Lane Group EBT WBL WBT SBL SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 1374 165 1363 248 254 210
v/c Ratio 0.60 0.47 0.55 0.74 0.75 0.56
Control Delay 22.6 40.9 9.2 50.4 51.5 23.6
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 22.6 40.9 9.2 50.4 51.5 23.6
Queue Length 50th (ft) 231 94 194 157 162 63
Queue Length 95th (ft) 324 160 322 224 230 123
Internal Link Dist (ft) 253 507 663
Turn Bay Length (ft) 380 550 550
Base Capacity (vph) 2277 348 2473 531 533 541
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.60 0.47 0.55 0.47 0.48 0.39
Intersection Summary
Fields Project 2017 Existing Traffic Conditions, Weekday PM Peak Hour
12: I- 5 SB Ramps & Kruse Way/OR 217 Ramps 03/14/2017
Fields Project 02/07/2017 2017 Existing Traffic Conditions, Weekday PM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report
Page 18
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 0 1315 4 158 1308 0 0 0 0 477 5 202
Future Volume (vph) 0 1315 4 158 1308 0 0 0 0 477 5 202
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width 11 11 11 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12
Total Lost time (s) 6.0 4.5 6.0 4.5 4.5 4.5
Lane Util. Factor 0.91 1.00 0.95 0.95 0.95 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 4962 1787 3539 1715 1721 1530
Flt Permitted 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 4962 1787 3539 1715 1721 1530
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96
Adj. Flow (vph) 0 1370 4 165 1362 0 0 0 0 497 5 210
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 79
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 1374 0 165 1363 0 0 0 0 248 254 131
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)3 3
Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 1% 0% 1% 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 4%
Turn Type NA Prot NA Split NA Perm
Protected Phases 2 1 6 4 4
Permitted Phases 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 45.9 19.5 69.9 19.6 19.6 19.6
Effective Green, g (s) 45.9 19.5 69.9 19.6 19.6 19.6
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.46 0.20 0.70 0.20 0.20 0.20
Clearance Time (s) 6.0 4.5 6.0 4.5 4.5 4.5
Vehicle Extension (s) 4.8 2.3 4.8 2.3 2.3 2.3
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 2277 348 2473 336 337 299
v/s Ratio Prot c0.28 0.09 c0.39 0.14 c0.15
v/s Ratio Perm 0.09
v/c Ratio 0.60 0.47 0.55 0.74 0.75 0.44
Uniform Delay, d1 20.2 35.7 7.4 37.8 37.9 35.4
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 1.2 0.6 0.9 7.5 8.6 0.6
Delay (s) 21.4 36.3 8.3 45.3 46.5 36.0
Level of Service C D A D D D
Approach Delay (s) 21.4 11.3 0.0 43.0
Approach LOS C B A D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 21.4 HCM 2000 Level of Service C
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.63
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0 Sum of lost time (s) 15.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 61.3% ICU Level of Service B
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
SimTraffic Performance Report
PM Existing Traffic Conditions, Weekday PM Peak Hour 03/08/2017
SimTraffic Report
Page 1
8: SW 72nd Ave & OR 217 NB Ramps Performance by approach
Approach WB NB SB All
Denied Del/Veh (s) 2.3 0.0 0.0 0.6
Total Del/Veh (s) 21.2 19.7 41.4 28.3
9: SW 72nd Ave & SW Hunziker St Performance by approach
Approach EB NB SB All
Denied Del/Veh (s) 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.2
Total Del/Veh (s) 23.9 10.6 13.3 13.8
10: SW 72nd Ave & SW Varns St/OR 217 Ramps Performance by approach
Approach EB WB NB SB All
Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.1 1.8 0.2 0.0 0.3
Total Del/Veh (s) 37.8 30.0 16.8 13.9 17.5
113: SW Hall Blvd & SW Hunziker St Performance by approach
Approach SW All
Denied Del/Veh (s) 14.4 14.4
Total Del/Veh (s) 36.5 36.5
Total Zone Performance
Denied Del/Veh (s) 4.3
Total Del/Veh (s) 1951.2
Queuing and Blocking Report
PM Existing Traffic Conditions, Weekday PM Peak Hour 03/08/2017
SimTraffic Report
Page 2
Intersection: 8: SW 72nd Ave & OR 217 NB Ramps
Movement WB WB NB NB NB SB SB B23
Directions Served L R T T > L T T
Maximum Queue (ft) 428 129 392 400 80 250 897 486
Average Queue (ft) 216 17 175 172 49 193 429 87
95th Queue (ft) 363 76 326 333 64 293 903 495
Link Distance (ft) 1003 491 491 849 1157
Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 0 7 1
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 0 0
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 750 25 225
Storage Blk Time (%) 16 33 5 16
Queuing Penalty (veh) 62 76 34 32
Intersection: 9: SW 72nd Ave & SW Hunziker St
Movement EB EB NB NB NB SB SB
Directions Served L R L T T T R
Maximum Queue (ft) 211 203 239 186 224 498 150
Average Queue (ft) 99 69 130 45 64 268 102
95th Queue (ft) 181 139 221 132 168 523 209
Link Distance (ft) 1113 236 236 236 491
Upstream Blk Time (%) 1 0 0 1
Queuing Penalty (veh) 3 0 1 12
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 210 50
Storage Blk Time (%) 1 0 26 1
Queuing Penalty (veh) 1 0 131 3
Intersection: 10: SW 72nd Ave & SW Varns St/OR 217 Ramps
Movement EB WB WB NB NB NB SB SB
Directions Served LTR LT R L T TR L TR
Maximum Queue (ft) 80 226 169 40 353 422 243 230
Average Queue (ft) 25 101 41 2 153 192 134 80
95th Queue (ft) 61 191 103 17 280 345 231 205
Link Distance (ft) 804 718 1920 1920 236 236
Upstream Blk Time (%)1 0
Queuing Penalty (veh)4 1
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 200 50
Storage Blk Time (%) 1 0 1 28
Queuing Penalty (veh) 1 0 2 0
OREGON DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION - TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT DIVISION
TRANSPORTATION DATA SECTION - CRASH ANALYSIS AND REPORTING UNIT
CRASH SUMMARIES BY YEAR BY COLLISION TYPE
PAGE: 1
Hall Blvd (Hwy 141) & SW Hunziker St
January 1, 2010 through December 31, 2014
COLLISION TYPE
FATAL
CRASHES
NON-
FATAL
CRASHES
PROPERTY
DAMAGE
ONLY
TOTAL
CRASHES
PEOPLE
KILLED
PEOPLE
INJURED
DRY
SURF
WET
SURF DAY DARK
INTER-
SECTION
INTER-
SECTION
RELATED
OFF-
ROADTRUCKS
CDS150 02/07/2017
YEAR: 2014
1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1REAR-END
1 3 4 0 2 2 2 2 4 0 0 0 0 1TURNING MOVEMENTS
2014 TOTAL 0 2 3 5 0 3 2 3 2 5 0 0 0 2
YEAR: 2013
1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1REAR-END
0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0TURNING MOVEMENTS
2013 TOTAL 0 1 1 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 1
YEAR: 2011
1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1PEDESTRIAN
2011 TOTAL 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1
FINAL TOTAL 0 4 4 8 0 6 2 6 2 8 0 0 0 4
Disclaimer: A higher number of crashes may be reported as of 2011 compared to prior years. This does not reflect an increase in annual crashes. The higher numbers result
from a change to an internal departmental process that allows the Crash Analysis and Reporting Unit to add previously unavailable, non-fatal crash reports to the annual data file.
Please be aware of this change when comparing pre-2011 crash statistics.
OREGON DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION - TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT DIVISION
TRANSPORTATION DATA SECTION - CRASH ANALYSIS AND REPORTING UNIT
CRASH SUMMARIES BY YEAR BY COLLISION TYPE
PAGE: 1
Hall Blvd (Hwy 141) & SW Scoffins St
January 1, 2010 through December 31, 2014
COLLISION TYPE
FATAL
CRASHES
NON-
FATAL
CRASHES
PROPERTY
DAMAGE
ONLY
TOTAL
CRASHES
PEOPLE
KILLED
PEOPLE
INJURED
DRY
SURF
WET
SURF DAY DARK
INTER-
SECTION
INTER-
SECTION
RELATED
OFF-
ROADTRUCKS
CDS150 02/07/2017
YEAR: 2012
1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1TURNING MOVEMENTS
2012 TOTAL 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1
FINAL TOTAL 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1
Disclaimer: A higher number of crashes may be reported as of 2011 compared to prior years. This does not reflect an increase in annual crashes. The higher numbers result
from a change to an internal departmental process that allows the Crash Analysis and Reporting Unit to add previously unavailable, non-fatal crash reports to the annual data file.
Please be aware of this change when comparing pre-2011 crash statistics.
OREGON DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION - TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT DIVISION
TRANSPORTATION DATA SECTION - CRASH ANALYSIS AND REPORTING UNIT
CRASH SUMMARIES BY YEAR BY COLLISION TYPE
PAGE: 1
Hwy 99W (Hwy 091) & Hall Blvd (Hwy 141)
January 1, 2010 through December 31, 2014
COLLISION TYPE
FATAL
CRASHES
NON-
FATAL
CRASHES
PROPERTY
DAMAGE
ONLY
TOTAL
CRASHES
PEOPLE
KILLED
PEOPLE
INJURED
DRY
SURF
WET
SURF DAY DARK
INTER-
SECTION
INTER-
SECTION
RELATED
OFF-
ROADTRUCKS
CDS150 02/07/2017
YEAR: 2014
1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1ANGLE
7 6 13 0 10 3 9 4 13 0 0 0 0 9REAR-END
1 1 2 0 2 0 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 1SIDESWIPE - OVERTAKING
3 1 4 0 4 0 4 0 4 0 0 0 0 4TURNING MOVEMENTS
2014 TOTAL 0 12 8 20 0 17 3 15 5 20 0 0 0 15
YEAR: 2013
0 2 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0ANGLE
1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1PEDESTRIAN
2 6 8 0 7 1 5 3 8 0 0 0 0 2REAR-END
2 1 3 0 3 0 2 1 3 0 0 0 0 3TURNING MOVEMENTS
2013 TOTAL 0 5 9 14 0 13 1 10 4 14 0 0 0 6
YEAR: 2012
1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 2BACKING
2 1 3 0 2 1 2 1 3 0 0 0 0 2REAR-END
1 1 2 0 1 1 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 2TURNING MOVEMENTS
2012 TOTAL 0 4 2 6 0 4 2 4 2 6 0 0 0 6
YEAR: 2011
10 1 11 0 5 6 10 1 11 0 0 0 0 14REAR-END
2011 TOTAL 0 10 1 11 0 5 6 10 1 11 0 0 0 14
YEAR: 2010
2 3 5 0 1 3 2 2 5 0 0 0 0 2REAR-END
1 1 2 1 0 2 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 1SIDESWIPE - OVERTAKING
1 1 2 0 1 1 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 1TURNING MOVEMENTS
2010 TOTAL 0 4 5 9 1 2 6 4 4 9 0 0 0 4
FINAL TOTAL 0 35 25 60 1 41 18 43 16 60 0 0 0 45
Disclaimer: A higher number of crashes may be reported as of 2011 compared to prior years. This does not reflect an increase in annual crashes. The higher numbers result
from a change to an internal departmental process that allows the Crash Analysis and Reporting Unit to add previously unavailable, non-fatal crash reports to the annual data file.
Please be aware of this change when comparing pre-2011 crash statistics.
OREGON DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION - TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT DIVISION
TRANSPORTATION DATA SECTION - CRASH ANALYSIS AND REPORTING UNIT
CRASH SUMMARIES BY YEAR BY COLLISION TYPE
PAGE: 1
OR 217 Beaverton-Tigard Hwy (144) SB Ramp Terminal & 99W Pacific Hwy (091)
January 1, 2010 through December 31, 2014
COLLISION TYPE
FATAL
CRASHES
NON-
FATAL
CRASHES
PROPERTY
DAMAGE
ONLY
TOTAL
CRASHES
PEOPLE
KILLED
PEOPLE
INJURED
DRY
SURF
WET
SURF DAY DARK
INTER-
SECTION
INTER-
SECTION
RELATED
OFF-
ROADTRUCKS
CDS150 02/08/2017
YEAR: 2014
1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 2ANGLE
0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0FIXED / OTHER OBJECT
4 5 9 0 5 4 6 3 9 0 0 0 0 4REAR-END
1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1TURNING MOVEMENTS
2014 TOTAL 0 6 6 12 0 7 5 6 6 12 0 1 0 7
YEAR: 2013
1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 2ANGLE
1 4 5 0 4 1 4 1 5 0 0 0 0 2REAR-END
0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0SIDESWIPE - OVERTAKING
0 2 2 0 0 2 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0TURNING MOVEMENTS
2013 TOTAL 0 2 7 9 0 6 3 7 2 9 0 0 0 4
YEAR: 2012
2 1 3 0 3 0 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 5REAR-END
1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1SIDESWIPE - OVERTAKING
2012 TOTAL 0 3 1 4 0 4 0 4 0 4 0 0 0 6
YEAR: 2011
3 2 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 0 4REAR-END
2 1 3 1 0 3 2 1 3 0 0 0 0 2TURNING MOVEMENTS
2011 TOTAL 0 5 3 8 1 5 3 7 1 8 0 0 0 6
YEAR: 2010
0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0ANGLE
3 2 5 0 4 1 5 0 5 0 0 0 0 3REAR-END
1 2 3 0 2 1 1 2 3 0 0 0 0 2TURNING MOVEMENTS
2010 TOTAL 0 4 5 9 0 6 3 6 3 9 0 0 0 5
FINAL TOTAL 0 20 22 42 1 28 14 30 12 42 0 1 0 28
Disclaimer: A higher number of crashes may be reported as of 2011 compared to prior years. This does not reflect an increase in annual crashes. The higher numbers result
from a change to an internal departmental process that allows the Crash Analysis and Reporting Unit to add previously unavailable, non-fatal crash reports to the annual data file.
Please be aware of this change when comparing pre-2011 crash statistics.
OREGON DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION - TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT DIVISION
TRANSPORTATION DATA SECTION - CRASH ANALYSIS AND REPORTING UNIT
CRASH SUMMARIES BY YEAR BY COLLISION TYPE
PAGE: 1
OR 217 Beaverton-Tigard Hwy (144) SB Ramp Terminal & I-5 Pacific Hwy (001) SB Ramp
January 1, 2010 through December 31, 2014
COLLISION TYPE
FATAL
CRASHES
NON-
FATAL
CRASHES
PROPERTY
DAMAGE
ONLY
TOTAL
CRASHES
PEOPLE
KILLED
PEOPLE
INJURED
DRY
SURF
WET
SURF DAY DARK
INTER-
SECTION
INTER-
SECTION
RELATED
OFF-
ROADTRUCKS
CDS150 02/08/2017
YEAR: 2014
0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0FIXED / OTHER OBJECT
4 5 9 0 8 1 8 1 9 0 0 0 0 4REAR-END
1 2 3 0 3 0 2 1 3 0 0 0 0 3TURNING MOVEMENTS
2014 TOTAL 0 5 8 13 0 11 2 10 3 13 0 1 0 7
YEAR: 2013
1 2 3 0 3 0 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 1REAR-END
2013 TOTAL 0 1 2 3 0 3 0 3 0 3 0 0 0 1
YEAR: 2012
4 2 6 0 2 4 3 3 6 0 0 0 0 6REAR-END
0 2 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0TURNING MOVEMENTS
2012 TOTAL 0 4 4 8 0 4 4 5 3 8 0 0 0 6
YEAR: 2011
2 1 3 0 1 2 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 3REAR-END
1 1 2 0 1 1 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 1TURNING MOVEMENTS
2011 TOTAL 0 3 2 5 0 2 3 4 1 5 0 0 0 4
YEAR: 2010
1 2 3 0 3 0 2 1 3 0 0 0 0 1REAR-END
1 4 5 0 4 1 5 0 5 0 0 0 0 1TURNING MOVEMENTS
2010 TOTAL 0 2 6 8 0 7 1 7 1 8 0 0 0 2
FINAL TOTAL 0 15 22 37 0 27 10 29 8 37 0 1 0 20
Disclaimer: A higher number of crashes may be reported as of 2011 compared to prior years. This does not reflect an increase in annual crashes. The higher numbers result
from a change to an internal departmental process that allows the Crash Analysis and Reporting Unit to add previously unavailable, non-fatal crash reports to the annual data file.
Please be aware of this change when comparing pre-2011 crash statistics.
OREGON DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION - TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT DIVISION
TRANSPORTATION DATA SECTION - CRASH ANALYSIS AND REPORTING UNIT
CRASH SUMMARIES BY YEAR BY COLLISION TYPE
PAGE: 1
SW 72nd Ave & OR 217 Beaverton-Tigard Hwy (144) NB Ramp Terminal
January 1, 2010 through December 31, 2014
COLLISION TYPE
FATAL
CRASHES
NON-
FATAL
CRASHES
PROPERTY
DAMAGE
ONLY
TOTAL
CRASHES
PEOPLE
KILLED
PEOPLE
INJURED
DRY
SURF
WET
SURF DAY DARK
INTER-
SECTION
INTER-
SECTION
RELATED
OFF-
ROADTRUCKS
CDS150 02/08/2017
YEAR: 2014
0 3 3 0 3 0 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 0REAR-END
2014 TOTAL 0 0 3 3 0 3 0 3 0 3 0 0 0 0
YEAR: 2013
1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1BACKING
1 2 3 0 3 0 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 1REAR-END
0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0SIDESWIPE - OVERTAKING
2013 TOTAL 0 2 3 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 2
YEAR: 2012
0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0BACKING
1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1REAR-END
2 1 3 0 2 1 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 3TURNING MOVEMENTS
2012 TOTAL 0 3 2 5 0 2 3 4 1 5 0 0 0 4
YEAR: 2010
1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1REAR-END
1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1SIDESWIPE - OVERTAKING
0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0TURNING MOVEMENTS
2010 TOTAL 0 2 1 3 0 3 0 3 0 3 0 0 0 2
FINAL TOTAL 0 7 9 16 0 13 3 15 1 16 0 0 0 8
Disclaimer: A higher number of crashes may be reported as of 2011 compared to prior years. This does not reflect an increase in annual crashes. The higher numbers result
from a change to an internal departmental process that allows the Crash Analysis and Reporting Unit to add previously unavailable, non-fatal crash reports to the annual data file.
Please be aware of this change when comparing pre-2011 crash statistics.
OREGON DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION - TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT DIVISION
TRANSPORTATION DATA SECTION - CRASH ANALYSIS AND REPORTING UNIT
CRASH SUMMARIES BY YEAR BY COLLISION TYPE
PAGE: 1
SW 72nd Ave & OR 217 Beaverton-Tigard Hwy (144) SB Ramp/ SW Varns St
January 1, 2010 through December 31, 2014
COLLISION TYPE
FATAL
CRASHES
NON-
FATAL
CRASHES
PROPERTY
DAMAGE
ONLY
TOTAL
CRASHES
PEOPLE
KILLED
PEOPLE
INJURED
DRY
SURF
WET
SURF DAY DARK
INTER-
SECTION
INTER-
SECTION
RELATED
OFF-
ROADTRUCKS
CDS150 02/08/2017
YEAR: 2014
1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 3ANGLE
2 0 2 0 1 1 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 2REAR-END
0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0TURNING MOVEMENTS
2014 TOTAL 0 3 1 4 0 2 2 4 0 4 0 0 0 5
YEAR: 2013
0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0REAR-END
1 1 2 1 2 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 1TURNING MOVEMENTS
2013 TOTAL 0 1 2 3 1 3 0 3 0 3 0 0 0 1
YEAR: 2012
1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1PEDESTRIAN
0 2 2 0 1 1 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0REAR-END
1 1 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 1TURNING MOVEMENTS
2012 TOTAL 0 2 3 5 1 3 2 5 0 5 0 0 0 2
YEAR: 2011
1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 2REAR-END
2011 TOTAL 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 2
YEAR: 2010
0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0REAR-END
0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0TURNING MOVEMENTS
2010 TOTAL 0 0 2 2 0 1 1 2 0 2 0 0 0 0
FINAL TOTAL 0 7 8 15 2 10 5 15 0 15 0 0 0 10
Disclaimer: A higher number of crashes may be reported as of 2011 compared to prior years. This does not reflect an increase in annual crashes. The higher numbers result
from a change to an internal departmental process that allows the Crash Analysis and Reporting Unit to add previously unavailable, non-fatal crash reports to the annual data file.
Please be aware of this change when comparing pre-2011 crash statistics.
OREGON DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION - TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT DIVISION
TRANSPORTATION DATA SECTION - CRASH ANALYSIS AND REPORTING UNIT
CRASH SUMMARIES BY YEAR BY COLLISION TYPE
PAGE: 1
SW 72nd Ave & SW Tech Center Dr
January 1, 2010 through December 31, 2014
COLLISION TYPE
FATAL
CRASHES
NON-
FATAL
CRASHES
PROPERTY
DAMAGE
ONLY
TOTAL
CRASHES
PEOPLE
KILLED
PEOPLE
INJURED
DRY
SURF
WET
SURF DAY DARK
INTER-
SECTION
INTER-
SECTION
RELATED
OFF-
ROADTRUCKS
CDS150 02/08/2017
YEAR: 2013
1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1ANGLE
2013 TOTAL 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1
YEAR: 2012
0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0FIXED / OTHER OBJECT
2012 TOTAL 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0
YEAR: 2010
0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0FIXED / OTHER OBJECT
2010 TOTAL 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0
FINAL TOTAL 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 2 1 3 0 2 0 1
Disclaimer: A higher number of crashes may be reported as of 2011 compared to prior years. This does not reflect an increase in annual crashes. The higher numbers result
from a change to an internal departmental process that allows the Crash Analysis and Reporting Unit to add previously unavailable, non-fatal crash reports to the annual data file.
Please be aware of this change when comparing pre-2011 crash statistics.
OREGON DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION - TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT DIVISION
TRANSPORTATION DATA SECTION - CRASH ANALYSIS AND REPORTING UNIT
CRASH SUMMARIES BY YEAR BY COLLISION TYPE
PAGE: 1
SW Hunziker St & SW 72nd Ave (Hwy 144)
January 1, 2010 through December 31, 2014
COLLISION TYPE
FATAL
CRASHES
NON-
FATAL
CRASHES
PROPERTY
DAMAGE
ONLY
TOTAL
CRASHES
PEOPLE
KILLED
PEOPLE
INJURED
DRY
SURF
WET
SURF DAY DARK
INTER-
SECTION
INTER-
SECTION
RELATED
OFF-
ROADTRUCKS
CDS150 02/08/2017
YEAR: 2013
1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1PEDESTRIAN
2013 TOTAL 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1
YEAR: 2011
0 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0TURNING MOVEMENTS
2011 TOTAL 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0
YEAR: 2010
0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0REAR-END
2010 TOTAL 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0
FINAL TOTAL 0 1 2 3 1 3 0 1 2 3 0 0 0 1
Disclaimer: A higher number of crashes may be reported as of 2011 compared to prior years. This does not reflect an increase in annual crashes. The higher numbers result
from a change to an internal departmental process that allows the Crash Analysis and Reporting Unit to add previously unavailable, non-fatal crash reports to the annual data file.
Please be aware of this change when comparing pre-2011 crash statistics.
OREGON DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION - TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT DIVISION
TRANSPORTATION DATA SECTION - CRASH ANALYSIS AND REPORTING UNIT
CRASH SUMMARIES BY YEAR BY COLLISION TYPE
PAGE: 1
SW Hunziker St & SW Wall St
January 1, 2010 through December 31, 2014
COLLISION TYPE
FATAL
CRASHES
NON-
FATAL
CRASHES
PROPERTY
DAMAGE
ONLY
TOTAL
CRASHES
PEOPLE
KILLED
PEOPLE
INJURED
DRY
SURF
WET
SURF DAY DARK
INTER-
SECTION
INTER-
SECTION
RELATED
OFF-
ROADTRUCKS
CDS150 02/08/2017
YEAR: 2013
0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0FIXED / OTHER OBJECT
2013 TOTAL 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0
FINAL TOTAL 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0
Disclaimer: A higher number of crashes may be reported as of 2011 compared to prior years. This does not reflect an increase in annual crashes. The higher numbers result
from a change to an internal departmental process that allows the Crash Analysis and Reporting Unit to add previously unavailable, non-fatal crash reports to the annual data file.
Please be aware of this change when comparing pre-2011 crash statistics.
Fields Project 2018 Background Traffic Conditions, Weekday AM Peak Hour
1: OR 217 SB Ramps & SW Pacific Hwy 03/21/2017
Fields Project 02/07/2017 2018 Background Traffic Conditions, Weekday AM Peak Hour Synchro 9 Report
Page 1
Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT SBL SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 1970 438 46 1041 240 241 196
v/c Ratio 0.87 0.40 0.47 0.42 0.87 0.87 0.51
Control Delay 17.6 1.2 81.1 4.5 85.1 85.7 15.3
Queue Delay 16.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 33.7 1.2 81.1 4.6 85.1 85.7 15.3
Queue Length 50th (ft) 263 1 40 103 222 223 21
Queue Length 95th (ft) 347 m11 84 123 #351 #353 97
Internal Link Dist (ft) 621 612 328
Turn Bay Length (ft) 320 200 200
Base Capacity (vph) 2276 1098 116 2495 310 310 414
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 328 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 350 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 1.02 0.40 0.40 0.48 0.77 0.78 0.47
Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal.
Fields Project 2018 Background Traffic Conditions, Weekday AM Peak Hour
1: OR 217 SB Ramps & SW Pacific Hwy 03/21/2017
Fields Project 02/07/2017 2018 Background Traffic Conditions, Weekday AM Peak Hour Synchro 9 Report
Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 0 1911 425 45 1010 0 0 0 0 467 0 190
Future Volume (vph) 0 1911 425 45 1010 0 0 0 0 467 0 190
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width 11 11 11 12 12 12 12 12 12 11 11 11
Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 5.0 5.0 5.0
Lane Util. Factor 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 0.95 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 3323 1452 1719 3282 1609 1609 1445
Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 3323 1452 1719 3282 1609 1609 1445
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97
Adj. Flow (vph) 0 1970 438 46 1041 0 0 0 0 481 0 196
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 107 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 139
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 1970 331 46 1041 0 0 0 0 240 241 57
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 6 1 1 6 6 6
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 1
Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 5% 5% 5% 10% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3% 0% 6%
Turn Type NA Perm Prot NA Perm NA Perm
Protected Phases 2 1 6 4
Permitted Phases 2 4 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 94.9 94.9 7.0 106.4 24.1 24.1 24.1
Effective Green, g (s) 94.9 94.9 7.0 106.4 24.1 24.1 24.1
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.68 0.68 0.05 0.76 0.17 0.17 0.17
Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 5.0 5.0 5.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 4.8 4.8 2.5 6.6 2.3 2.3 2.3
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 2252 984 85 2494 276 276 248
v/s Ratio Prot c0.59 0.03 c0.32
v/s Ratio Perm 0.23 0.15 0.15 0.04
v/c Ratio 0.87 0.34 0.54 0.42 0.87 0.87 0.23
Uniform Delay, d1 17.8 9.4 64.9 5.9 56.4 56.5 49.9
Progression Factor 0.77 0.25 1.05 0.65 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 2.6 0.4 5.1 0.5 23.6 24.5 0.3
Delay (s) 16.4 2.8 73.0 4.3 80.0 80.9 50.2
Level of Service B A E A E F D
Approach Delay (s) 13.9 7.2 0.0 71.7
Approach LOS B A A E
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 21.5 HCM 2000 Level of Service C
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.85
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 140.0 Sum of lost time (s) 14.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 76.9% ICU Level of Service D
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Fields Project 2018 Background Traffic Conditions, Weekday AM Peak Hour
2: SW Hall Blvd & SW Pacific Hwy 03/21/2017
Fields Project 02/07/2017 2018 Background Traffic Conditions, Weekday AM Peak Hour Synchro 9 Report
Page 3
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 202 2085 65 227 1097 68 197 286 166 220 127
v/c Ratio 0.85 0.88 0.09 0.86 0.47 0.64 0.95 0.71 0.89 0.70 0.23
Control Delay 87.1 37.6 0.5 84.5 15.9 90.0 110.4 19.8 103.5 68.6 7.9
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 87.1 37.6 0.5 84.5 15.9 90.0 110.4 19.8 103.5 68.6 7.9
Queue Length 50th (ft) 179 616 0 169 201 61 ~198 18 151 198 13
Queue Length 95th (ft) #290 695 3 #313 239 #125 #360 120 #282 #337 52
Internal Link Dist (ft) 526 621 383 464
Turn Bay Length (ft) 240 30 440 230 230 230 200
Base Capacity (vph) 271 2366 745 295 2344 114 208 400 193 317 575
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.75 0.88 0.09 0.77 0.47 0.60 0.95 0.71 0.86 0.69 0.22
Intersection Summary
~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
Fields Project 2018 Background Traffic Conditions, Weekday AM Peak Hour
2: SW Hall Blvd & SW Pacific Hwy 03/21/2017
Fields Project 02/07/2017 2018 Background Traffic Conditions, Weekday AM Peak Hour Synchro 9 Report
Page 4
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 184 1897 59 207 906 92 62 179 260 151 200 116
Future Volume (vph) 184 1897 59 207 906 92 62 179 260 151 200 116
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width 11 11 11 12 12 12 11 11 11 11 11 11
Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.5
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.99
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1616 4821 1401 1687 4677 1586 1783 1422 1694 1801 1484
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1616 4821 1401 1687 4677 1586 1783 1422 1694 1801 1484
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91
Adj. Flow (vph) 202 2085 65 227 996 101 68 197 286 166 220 127
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 33 0 9 0 0 0 232 0 0 68
Lane Group Flow (vph) 202 2085 32 227 1088 0 68 197 54 166 220 59
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 5 7 7 5 6 3 3 6
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 1 1
Heavy Vehicles (%) 8% 4% 7% 7% 10% 0% 10% 3% 8% 3% 2% 4%
Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA Perm Prot NA pm+ov
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4 5
Permitted Phases 2 8 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 20.7 68.0 68.0 21.9 69.2 8.1 17.2 17.2 15.4 24.5 45.2
Effective Green, g (s) 20.7 68.0 68.0 21.9 69.2 8.1 17.2 17.2 15.4 24.5 45.2
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.15 0.49 0.49 0.16 0.49 0.06 0.12 0.12 0.11 0.18 0.32
Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.5
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.3 4.2 4.2 2.3 4.2 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 238 2341 680 263 2311 91 219 174 186 315 479
v/s Ratio Prot 0.13 c0.43 c0.13 0.23 0.04 c0.11 c0.10 0.12 0.02
v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 0.04 0.02
v/c Ratio 0.85 0.89 0.05 0.86 0.47 0.75 0.90 0.31 0.89 0.70 0.12
Uniform Delay, d1 58.1 32.6 18.9 57.6 23.3 64.9 60.5 56.0 61.5 54.3 33.4
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.67 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 23.0 5.6 0.1 22.5 0.6 26.0 34.1 0.6 37.0 5.8 0.1
Delay (s) 81.1 38.3 19.1 79.8 16.3 90.9 94.7 56.6 98.5 60.1 33.5
Level of Service F D B E B F F E F E C
Approach Delay (s) 41.4 27.2 74.4 65.9
Approach LOS D C E E
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 43.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service D
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.89
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 140.0 Sum of lost time (s) 17.5
Intersection Capacity Utilization 81.9% ICU Level of Service D
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Fields Project 2018 Background Traffic Conditions, Weekday AM Peak Hour
3: SW Hall Blvd & SW Hunziker St 03/21/2017
Fields Project 02/07/2017 2018 Background Traffic Conditions, Weekday AM Peak Hour Synchro 9 Report
Page 5
Lane Group EBT WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 3 164 138 1 1000 171 276
v/c Ratio 0.01 0.77 0.39 0.00 1.01 0.98 0.43
Control Delay 0.0 72.6 10.1 53.0 27.8 118.3 32.3
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 33.2 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 0.0 72.6 10.1 53.0 61.0 118.3 32.3
Queue Length 50th (ft) 0 127 0 1 ~246 140 166
Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 188 48 m1 m110 #266 233
Internal Link Dist (ft) 21 1895 25 862
Turn Bay Length (ft)140
Base Capacity (vph) 403 267 410 655 992 175 642
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 527 87 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.01 0.61 0.34 0.01 1.10 0.98 0.43
Intersection Summary
~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal.
Fields Project 2018 Background Traffic Conditions, Weekday AM Peak Hour
3: SW Hall Blvd & SW Hunziker St 03/21/2017
Fields Project 02/07/2017 2018 Background Traffic Conditions, Weekday AM Peak Hour Synchro 9 Report
Page 6
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 2 0 1 141 0 119 1 442 418 147 237 0
Future Volume (vph) 2 0 1 141 0 119 1 442 418 147 237 0
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.95 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.93 1.00 1.00
Flt Protected 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1756 1641 1468 1805 1634 1752 1759
Flt Permitted 0.89 0.76 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1615 1306 1468 1805 1634 1752 1759
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86
Adj. Flow (vph) 2 0 1 164 0 138 1 514 486 171 276 0
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 3 0 0 0 115 0 25 0 0 0 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 0 0 164 23 1 975 0 171 276 0
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)1 1
Confl. Bikes (#/hr)5 1
Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 0% 0% 10% 0% 10% 0% 9% 4% 3% 8% 0%
Turn Type Perm NA Perm NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA
Protected Phases 4 4 5 8 2 8 1 6
Permitted Phases 4 4 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 20.3 20.3 20.3 45.2 73.7 12.5 45.5
Effective Green, g (s) 20.3 20.3 20.3 45.2 73.7 12.5 45.5
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.36 0.59 0.10 0.37
Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 4.5
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 263 212 239 655 967 175 642
v/s Ratio Prot 0.00 c0.60 c0.10 0.16
v/s Ratio Perm 0.00 c0.13 0.02
v/c Ratio 0.00 0.77 0.09 0.00 1.01 0.98 0.43
Uniform Delay, d1 43.6 49.9 44.3 25.3 25.4 55.9 29.7
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.75 0.89 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.0 15.1 0.1 0.0 10.8 60.6 2.1
Delay (s) 43.6 65.0 44.4 44.1 33.5 116.5 31.8
Level of Service D E D D C F C
Approach Delay (s) 43.6 55.6 33.5 64.2
Approach LOS D E C E
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 45.2 HCM 2000 Level of Service D
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.96
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 124.5 Sum of lost time (s) 18.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 78.9% ICU Level of Service D
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Fields Project 2018 Background Traffic Conditions, Weekday AM Peak Hour
4: SW Hall Blvd & SW Scoffins St 03/21/2017
Fields Project 02/07/2017 2018 Background Traffic Conditions, Weekday AM Peak Hour Synchro 9 Report
Page 7
Lane Group EBL NBL NBT SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 192 3 830 439
v/c Ratio 0.54 0.04 1.28 0.45
Control Delay 49.6 54.3 171.5 1.7
Queue Delay 0.1 0.0 1.3 0.4
Total Delay 49.8 54.3 172.8 2.1
Queue Length 50th (ft) 135 2 ~846 4
Queue Length 95th (ft) 214 11 #1019 0
Internal Link Dist (ft) 192 405 25
Turn Bay Length (ft) 50
Base Capacity (vph) 357 136 649 1036
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 228
Spillback Cap Reductn 7 0 105 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.55 0.02 1.53 0.54
Intersection Summary
~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
Fields Project 2018 Background Traffic Conditions, Weekday AM Peak Hour
4: SW Hall Blvd & SW Scoffins St 03/21/2017
Fields Project 02/07/2017 2018 Background Traffic Conditions, Weekday AM Peak Hour Synchro 9 Report
Page 8
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 147 18 3 714 322 56
Future Volume (vph) 147 18 3 714 322 56
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width 10 10 12 12 12 12
Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.98
Flt Protected 0.96 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1566 1357 1776 1701
Flt Permitted 0.96 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1566 1357 1776 1701
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86
Adj. Flow (vph) 171 21 3 830 374 65
RTOR Reduction (vph) 3 0 0 0 6 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 189 0 3 830 433 0
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 1 1
Confl. Bikes (#/hr)1
Heavy Vehicles (%) 6% 11% 33% 7% 10% 4%
Turn Type Prot Prot NA NA
Protected Phases 8 5 2 4 6
Permitted Phases
Actuated Green, G (s) 28.2 12.5 45.5 70.3
Effective Green, g (s) 28.2 12.5 45.5 70.3
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.23 0.10 0.37 0.56
Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.3 3.0 4.5
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 354 136 649 960
v/s Ratio Prot c0.12 c0.00 c0.47 c0.25
v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio 0.53 0.02 1.28 0.45
Uniform Delay, d1 42.4 50.5 39.5 15.8
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.02
Incremental Delay, d2 1.0 0.1 137.1 0.2
Delay (s) 43.4 50.6 176.6 0.5
Level of Service D D F A
Approach Delay (s) 43.4 176.2 0.5
Approach LOS D F A
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 106.1 HCM 2000 Level of Service F
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.79
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 124.5 Sum of lost time (s) 18.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 54.7% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Fields Project 2018 Background Traffic Conditions, Weekday AM Peak Hour
5: SW Wall St & SW Hunziker St 03/21/2017
Fields Project 02/07/2017 2018 Background Traffic Conditions, Weekday AM Peak Hour Synchro 9 Report
Page 9
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 392 143 90 236 43 28
Future Volume (Veh/h) 392 143 90 236 43 28
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Grade 0% -7% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84
Hourly flow rate (vph) 467 170 107 281 51 33
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 637 1047 552
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 637 1047 552
tC, single (s) 4.2 6.6 6.3
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s)2.3 3.7 3.4
p0 queue free % 88 75 94
cM capacity (veh/h) 887 206 515
Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 WB 2 NB 1
Volume Total 637 107 281 84
Volume Left 0 107 0 51
Volume Right 170 0 0 33
cSH 1700 887 1700 269
Volume to Capacity 0.37 0.12 0.17 0.31
Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 10 0 32
Control Delay (s) 0.0 9.6 0.0 24.3
Lane LOS A C
Approach Delay (s) 0.0 2.7 24.3
Approach LOS C
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 2.8
Intersection Capacity Utilization 48.4% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
Fields Project 2018 Background Traffic Conditions, Weekday AM Peak Hour
8: SW 72nd Ave & OR 217 NB Ramps 03/21/2017
Fields Project 02/07/2017 2018 Background Traffic Conditions, Weekday AM Peak Hour Synchro 9 Report
Page 10
Lane Group WBL WBR NBT SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 398 338 834 38 378
v/c Ratio 0.79 0.48 0.46 0.32 0.34
Control Delay 44.4 5.3 16.4 50.7 11.1
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 44.4 5.3 16.4 50.7 11.1
Queue Length 50th (ft) 229 0 154 24 112
Queue Length 95th (ft) 334 60 295 55 177
Internal Link Dist (ft) 797 466 320
Turn Bay Length (ft) 670 190
Base Capacity (vph) 503 704 1821 264 1214
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.79 0.48 0.46 0.14 0.31
Intersection Summary
Fields Project 2018 Background Traffic Conditions, Weekday AM Peak Hour
8: SW 72nd Ave & OR 217 NB Ramps 03/21/2017
Fields Project 02/07/2017 2018 Background Traffic Conditions, Weekday AM Peak Hour Synchro 9 Report
Page 11
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 358 304 630 121 34 340
Future Volume (vph) 358 304 630 121 34 340
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.5
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.85 0.98 1.00 1.00
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1687 1568 3336 1656 1827
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1687 1568 3336 1656 1827
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Adj. Flow (vph) 398 338 700 134 38 378
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 237 14 0 0 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 398 101 820 0 38 378
Heavy Vehicles (%) 7% 3% 4% 14% 9% 4%
Turn Type Prot Prot NA Prot NA
Protected Phases 4 4 6 5 2
Permitted Phases
Actuated Green, G (s) 29.8 29.8 52.2 5.0 61.2
Effective Green, g (s) 29.8 29.8 52.2 5.0 61.2
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.30 0.30 0.52 0.05 0.61
Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.5
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.3 2.3 6.2 2.3 6.2
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 502 467 1741 82 1118
v/s Ratio Prot c0.24 0.06 c0.25 0.02 c0.21
v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio 0.79 0.22 0.47 0.46 0.34
Uniform Delay, d1 32.3 26.3 15.1 46.2 9.5
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.01 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 8.0 0.1 0.9 2.4 0.8
Delay (s) 40.3 26.5 16.1 48.6 10.3
Level of Service D C B D B
Approach Delay (s) 33.9 16.1 13.8
Approach LOS C B B
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 22.2 HCM 2000 Level of Service C
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.58
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0 Sum of lost time (s) 13.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 55.3% ICU Level of Service B
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Fields Project 2018 Background Traffic Conditions, Weekday AM Peak Hour
9: SW 72nd Ave & SW Hunziker St 03/21/2017
Fields Project 02/07/2017 2018 Background Traffic Conditions, Weekday AM Peak Hour Synchro 9 Report
Page 12
Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 254 221 96 590 403 381
v/c Ratio 0.79 0.49 0.55 0.24 0.37 0.39
Control Delay 56.0 8.5 66.3 2.4 10.7 4.8
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 56.0 8.5 66.3 2.6 10.7 4.8
Queue Length 50th (ft) 155 0 63 26 161 85
Queue Length 95th (ft) 228 57 113 38 m149 m21
Internal Link Dist (ft) 358 206 466
Turn Bay Length (ft) 210 50
Base Capacity (vph) 402 507 243 2488 1092 986
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 1095 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 2 0 0 18 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.63 0.44 0.40 0.42 0.38 0.39
Intersection Summary
m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal.
Fields Project 2018 Background Traffic Conditions, Weekday AM Peak Hour
9: SW 72nd Ave & SW Hunziker St 03/21/2017
Fields Project 02/07/2017 2018 Background Traffic Conditions, Weekday AM Peak Hour Synchro 9 Report
Page 13
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 226 197 85 525 359 339
Future Volume (vph) 226 197 85 525 359 339
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.5 4.5 4.5
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1752 1468 1736 3406 1792 1486
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1752 1468 1736 3406 1792 1486
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89
Adj. Flow (vph) 254 221 96 590 403 381
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 180 0 0 0 82
Lane Group Flow (vph) 254 41 96 590 403 299
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 6 6
Heavy Vehicles (%) 3% 10% 4% 6% 6% 5%
Turn Type Prot Perm Prot NA NA Perm
Protected Phases 8 1 6 2
Permitted Phases 8 2
Actuated Green, G (s) 18.4 18.4 8.9 73.1 60.2 60.2
Effective Green, g (s) 18.4 18.4 8.9 73.1 60.2 60.2
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.18 0.18 0.09 0.73 0.60 0.60
Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.5 4.5 4.5
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.3 2.3 2.3 4.6 4.1 4.1
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 322 270 154 2489 1078 894
v/s Ratio Prot c0.14 c0.06 0.17 c0.22
v/s Ratio Perm 0.03 0.20
v/c Ratio 0.79 0.15 0.62 0.24 0.37 0.33
Uniform Delay, d1 38.9 34.2 43.9 4.4 10.2 9.9
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.30 0.45 0.81 0.66
Incremental Delay, d2 11.5 0.2 6.0 0.2 0.8 0.8
Delay (s) 50.4 34.4 63.2 2.2 9.1 7.4
Level of Service D C E A A A
Approach Delay (s) 43.0 10.7 8.3
Approach LOS D B A
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 17.6 HCM 2000 Level of Service B
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.49
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.5
Intersection Capacity Utilization 46.5% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Fields Project 2018 Background Traffic Conditions, Weekday AM Peak Hour
10: SW 72nd Ave & SW Varns St/OR 217 Ramps 03/21/2017
Fields Project 02/07/2017 2018 Background Traffic Conditions, Weekday AM Peak Hour Synchro 9 Report
Page 14
Lane Group EBT WBT WBR NBT SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 18 299 314 467 202 452
v/c Ratio 0.05 0.81 0.32 0.35 0.66 0.39
Control Delay 20.9 50.0 5.5 21.8 43.3 5.9
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.4
Total Delay 20.9 50.0 5.5 21.8 44.0 6.3
Queue Length 50th (ft) 7 177 41 101 127 44
Queue Length 95th (ft) 20 225 62 154 183 98
Internal Link Dist (ft) 409 297 788 206
Turn Bay Length (ft) 115
Base Capacity (vph) 550 528 986 1331 308 1148
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 14 287
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.03 0.57 0.32 0.35 0.69 0.52
Intersection Summary
Fields Project 2018 Background Traffic Conditions, Weekday AM Peak Hour
10: SW 72nd Ave & SW Varns St/OR 217 Ramps 03/21/2017
Fields Project 02/07/2017 2018 Background Traffic Conditions, Weekday AM Peak Hour Synchro 9 Report
Page 15
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 10 3 2 253 1 267 0 333 64 172 379 5
Future Volume (vph) 10 3 2 253 1 267 0 333 64 172 379 5
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width 12 12 12 15 12 15 12 12 12 12 12 12
Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.5
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.98 1.00 0.85 0.98 1.00 1.00
Flt Protected 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1625 1763 1759 3209 1626 1806
Flt Permitted 0.82 0.71 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1373 1321 1759 3209 1626 1806
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85
Adj. Flow (vph) 12 4 2 298 1 314 0 392 75 202 446 6
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 1 0 0 0 98 0 13 0 0 0 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 17 0 0 299 216 0 454 0 202 452 0
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 4 4 12 12
Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 0% 100% 2% 0% 1% 0% 9% 14% 11% 5% 0%
Turn Type Perm NA Perm NA pm+ov Prot NA Prot NA
Protected Phases 8 4 5 1 6 5 2
Permitted Phases 8 4 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 27.9 27.9 46.9 41.1 19.0 63.6
Effective Green, g (s) 27.9 27.9 46.9 41.1 19.0 63.6
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.28 0.28 0.47 0.41 0.19 0.64
Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.5
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.5 2.5 2.3 4.6 2.3 4.6
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 383 368 895 1318 308 1148
v/s Ratio Prot 0.05 0.14 c0.12 c0.25
v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 c0.23 0.08
v/c Ratio 0.04 0.81 0.24 0.34 0.66 0.39
Uniform Delay, d1 26.3 33.6 15.9 20.2 37.5 8.8
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.87 0.47
Incremental Delay, d2 0.0 12.5 0.1 0.7 4.0 1.0
Delay (s) 26.3 46.1 16.0 20.9 36.7 5.1
Level of Service C D B C D A
Approach Delay (s) 26.3 30.7 20.9 14.9
Approach LOS C C C B
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 22.1 HCM 2000 Level of Service C
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.59
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.5
Intersection Capacity Utilization 53.2% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Fields Project 2018 Background Traffic Conditions, Weekday AM Peak Hour
11: SW 72nd Ave & SW Tech Center Dr 03/21/2017
Fields Project 02/07/2017 2018 Background Traffic Conditions, Weekday AM Peak Hour Synchro 9 Report
Page 16
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 40 130 97 392 263 90
Future Volume (Veh/h) 40 130 97 392 263 90
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86
Hourly flow rate (vph) 47 151 113 456 306 105
Pedestrians 7
Lane Width (ft) 12.0
Walking Speed (ft/s) 4.0
Percent Blockage 1
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type TWLTL TWLTL
Median storage veh) 2 2
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 1048 366 418
vC1, stage 1 conf vol 366
vC2, stage 2 conf vol 682
vCu, unblocked vol 1048 366 418
tC, single (s) 6.6 6.6 4.2
tC, 2 stage (s) 5.6
tF (s) 3.7 3.6 2.3
p0 queue free % 88 75 90
cM capacity (veh/h) 382 603 1113
Direction, Lane # EB 1 NB 1 NB 2 SB 1
Volume Total 198 113 456 411
Volume Left 47 113 0 0
Volume Right 151 0 0 105
cSH 530 1113 1700 1700
Volume to Capacity 0.37 0.10 0.27 0.24
Queue Length 95th (ft) 43 8 0 0
Control Delay (s) 15.8 8.6 0.0 0.0
Lane LOS C A
Approach Delay (s) 15.8 1.7 0.0
Approach LOS C
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 3.5
Intersection Capacity Utilization 45.1% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
Fields Project 2018 Background Traffic Conditions, Weekday AM Peak Hour
12: I- 5 SB Ramps & Kruse Way/OR 217 Ramps 03/21/2017
Fields Project 02/07/2017 2018 Background Traffic Conditions, Weekday AM Peak Hour Synchro 9 Report
Page 17
Lane Group EBT WBL WBT SBL SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 1435 235 1361 381 381 190
v/c Ratio 0.69 0.83 0.61 0.86 0.86 0.41
Control Delay 26.6 65.7 13.2 54.1 54.1 16.9
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 26.6 65.7 13.2 54.1 54.1 16.9
Queue Length 50th (ft) 278 149 264 242 242 46
Queue Length 95th (ft) 350 #277 358 348 348 104
Internal Link Dist (ft) 253 507 663
Turn Bay Length (ft) 380 550 550
Base Capacity (vph) 2081 284 2245 518 518 522
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.69 0.83 0.61 0.74 0.74 0.36
Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
Fields Project 2018 Background Traffic Conditions, Weekday AM Peak Hour
12: I- 5 SB Ramps & Kruse Way/OR 217 Ramps 03/21/2017
Fields Project 02/07/2017 2018 Background Traffic Conditions, Weekday AM Peak Hour Synchro 9 Report
Page 18
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 0 1320 0 216 1252 0 0 0 0 701 0 175
Future Volume (vph) 0 1320 0 216 1252 0 0 0 0 701 0 175
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width 11 11 11 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12
Total Lost time (s) 6.0 4.5 6.0 4.5 4.5 4.5
Lane Util. Factor 0.91 1.00 0.95 0.95 0.95 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 4868 1752 3539 1698 1698 1490
Flt Permitted 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 4868 1752 3539 1698 1698 1490
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph) 0 1435 0 235 1361 0 0 0 0 762 0 190
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 72
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 1435 0 235 1361 0 0 0 0 381 381 118
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)1 1
Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 3% 0% 3% 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 7%
Turn Type NA Prot NA Split NA Perm
Protected Phases 2 1 6 4 4
Permitted Phases 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 43.4 16.5 64.4 26.6 26.6 26.6
Effective Green, g (s) 43.4 16.5 64.4 26.6 26.6 26.6
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.43 0.16 0.63 0.26 0.26 0.26
Clearance Time (s) 6.0 4.5 6.0 4.5 4.5 4.5
Vehicle Extension (s) 4.8 2.3 4.8 2.3 2.3 2.3
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 2081 284 2245 444 444 390
v/s Ratio Prot c0.29 c0.13 0.38 c0.22 0.22
v/s Ratio Perm 0.08
v/c Ratio 0.69 0.83 0.61 0.86 0.86 0.30
Uniform Delay, d1 23.6 41.1 11.0 35.7 35.7 30.0
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 1.9 17.1 1.2 14.8 14.8 0.3
Delay (s) 25.5 58.3 12.2 50.4 50.4 30.3
Level of Service C E B D D C
Approach Delay (s) 25.5 19.0 0.0 46.4
Approach LOS C B A D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 27.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service C
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.77
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 101.5 Sum of lost time (s) 15.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 69.6% ICU Level of Service C
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
SimTraffic Performance Report
2018 Background Traffic Conditions, Weekday AM Peak Hour 03/14/2017
Fields Project SimTraffic Report
Page 1
3: SW Hall Blvd & SW Hunziker St Performance by approach
Approach EB WB NB SB All
Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.1 3.5 0.0 189.0 55.9
Total Del/Veh (s) 210.0 147.2 3.6 147.4 71.4
4: SW Hall Blvd & SW Scoffins St Performance by approach
Approach EB NB SB All
Denied Del/Veh (s) 209.0 427.7 1.4 280.5
Total Del/Veh (s) 80.4 84.4 3.4 58.3
Total Zone Performance
Denied Del/Veh (s) 322.8
Total Del/Veh (s) 1844.5
Queuing and Blocking Report
2018 Background Traffic Conditions, Weekday AM Peak Hour 03/14/2017
Fields Project SimTraffic Report
Page 2
Intersection: 3: SW Hall Blvd & SW Hunziker St
Movement EB WB WB NB NB SB SB
Directions Served LTR LT R L TR L TR
Maximum Queue (ft) 37 228 509 13 75 164 674
Average Queue (ft) 5 133 256 2 36 132 385
95th Queue (ft) 24 240 1197 9 68 188 1110
Link Distance (ft) 67 1882 16 16 1372
Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 8 17 28 14
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 22 72 119 0
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 225 140
Storage Blk Time (%) 16 33 8
Queuing Penalty (veh) 18 77 12
Intersection: 4: SW Hall Blvd & SW Scoffins St
Movement EB NB NB SB
Directions Served LR L T TR
Maximum Queue (ft) 253 31 527 62
Average Queue (ft) 157 3 483 21
95th Queue (ft) 261 20 509 69
Link Distance (ft) 236 462 16
Upstream Blk Time (%) 18 67 22
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 82
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 50
Storage Blk Time (%) 1 65
Queuing Penalty (veh) 7 2
Zone Summary
Zone wide Queuing Penalty: 411
SimTraffic Performance Report
2018 Background Traffic Conditions, Weekday AM Peak Hour 03/21/2017
SimTraffic Report
Page 1
8: SW 72nd Ave & OR 217 NB Ramps Performance by movement
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR2 SBL SBT All
Denied Del/Veh (s) 1.3 3.2 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.8
Total Del/Veh (s) 24.4 2.3 19.7 8.2 32.6 11.8 15.9
9: SW 72nd Ave & SW Hunziker St Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s) 3.1 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5
Total Del/Veh (s) 31.2 9.9 40.1 4.1 8.5 4.1 11.7
10: SW 72nd Ave & SW Varns St/OR 217 Ramps Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.1 0.9 3.3 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.8
Total Del/Veh (s) 9.8 35.9 6.9 8.7 5.6 33.7 3.7 2.2 15.4
113: SW Hall Blvd & SW Hunziker St Performance by movement
Movement SWL SWT All
Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s) 3.1 0.8 2.6
Total Network Performance
Denied Del/Veh (s) 1.5
Total Del/Veh (s) 31.3
Queuing and Blocking Report
2018 Background Traffic Conditions, Weekday AM Peak Hour 03/21/2017
SimTraffic Report
Page 2
Intersection: 8: SW 72nd Ave & OR 217 NB Ramps
Movement WB WB NB NB NB SB SB
Directions Served L R T T > L T
Maximum Queue (ft) 264 35 230 216 52 60 171
Average Queue (ft) 182 11 173 133 40 32 103
95th Queue (ft) 322 47 260 244 64 72 212
Link Distance (ft) 1003 491 491 849
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 750 25 225
Storage Blk Time (%) 23 6 2
Queuing Penalty (veh) 28 18 1
Intersection: 9: SW 72nd Ave & SW Hunziker St
Movement EB EB NB NB NB SB SB
Directions Served L R L T T T R
Maximum Queue (ft) 208 104 90 68 71 114 70
Average Queue (ft) 140 59 60 39 38 71 24
95th Queue (ft) 219 112 110 83 84 140 103
Link Distance (ft) 1113 236 236 236 491
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 210 50
Storage Blk Time (%) 3 16 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 5 53 1
Intersection: 10: SW 72nd Ave & SW Varns St/OR 217 Ramps
Movement EB WB WB NB NB SB SB
Directions Served LTR LT R T TR L TR
Maximum Queue (ft) 32 240 159 88 104 177 90
Average Queue (ft) 9 170 83 58 55 111 40
95th Queue (ft) 37 285 203 107 124 186 116
Link Distance (ft) 804 718 1920 1920 236 236
Upstream Blk Time (%)0
Queuing Penalty (veh)1
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 200
Storage Blk Time (%) 5 0 16
Queuing Penalty (veh) 14 0 0
Fields Project 2018 Background Traffic Conditions, Weekday PM Peak Hour
1: OR 217 SB Ramps & SW Pacific Hwy 03/21/2017
Fields Project 02/07/2017 2018 Background Traffic Conditions, Weekday PM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report
Page 1
Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT SBL SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 1488 262 54 1846 304 306 278
v/c Ratio 0.69 0.26 0.49 0.73 0.85 0.85 0.77
Control Delay 14.3 1.5 78.5 8.2 73.4 73.7 56.6
Queue Delay 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 14.7 1.5 78.5 8.3 73.4 73.7 56.6
Queue Length 50th (ft) 176 8 49 292 280 282 200
Queue Length 95th (ft) 246 m16 m66 m389 376 380 290
Internal Link Dist (ft) 621 612 328
Turn Bay Length (ft) 320 200 200
Base Capacity (vph) 2163 1019 142 2526 445 446 436
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 76 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 249 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.78 0.26 0.38 0.75 0.68 0.69 0.64
Intersection Summary
m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal.
Fields Project 2018 Background Traffic Conditions, Weekday PM Peak Hour
1: OR 217 SB Ramps & SW Pacific Hwy 03/21/2017
Fields Project 02/07/2017 2018 Background Traffic Conditions, Weekday PM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report
Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 0 1414 249 51 1754 0 0 0 0 578 2 264
Future Volume (vph) 0 1414 249 51 1754 0 0 0 0 578 2 264
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width 11 11 11 12 12 12 12 12 12 11 11 11
Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 5.0 5.0 5.0
Lane Util. Factor 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 0.95 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 3421 1490 1736 3539 1641 1646 1481
Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 3421 1490 1736 3539 1641 1646 1481
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
Adj. Flow (vph) 0 1488 262 54 1846 0 0 0 0 608 2 278
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 78 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 37
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 1488 184 54 1846 0 0 0 0 304 306 241
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 5 5 5 5 1 1
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 3
Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 2% 1% 4% 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 4%
Turn Type NA Perm Prot NA Perm NA Perm
Protected Phases 2 1 6 4
Permitted Phases 2 4 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 87.7 87.7 7.8 100.0 30.5 30.5 30.5
Effective Green, g (s) 87.7 87.7 7.8 100.0 30.5 30.5 30.5
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.63 0.63 0.06 0.71 0.22 0.22 0.22
Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 5.0 5.0 5.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 4.8 4.8 2.5 6.6 2.3 2.3 2.3
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 2143 933 96 2527 357 358 322
v/s Ratio Prot 0.43 0.03 c0.52
v/s Ratio Perm 0.12 0.19 0.19 0.16
v/c Ratio 0.69 0.20 0.56 0.73 0.85 0.85 0.75
Uniform Delay, d1 17.3 11.1 64.4 11.9 52.6 52.6 51.2
Progression Factor 0.67 0.30 1.10 0.53 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 1.5 0.4 3.8 1.2 17.1 17.3 8.5
Delay (s) 13.0 3.7 74.6 7.5 69.7 70.0 59.7
Level of Service B A E A E E E
Approach Delay (s) 11.6 9.4 0.0 66.6
Approach LOS B A A E
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 21.5 HCM 2000 Level of Service C
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.79
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 140.0 Sum of lost time (s) 14.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 73.3% ICU Level of Service D
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Fields Project 2018 Background Traffic Conditions, Weekday PM Peak Hour
2: SW Hall Blvd & SW Pacific Hwy 03/21/2017
Fields Project 02/07/2017 2018 Background Traffic Conditions, Weekday PM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report
Page 3
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 157 1209 21 247 1826 158 271 259 205 281 215
v/c Ratio 0.93 0.64 0.03 0.87 0.79 0.67 0.84 0.55 0.83 0.86 0.44
Control Delay 115.5 36.3 0.1 84.0 22.7 72.4 79.2 10.9 85.1 79.1 18.6
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 115.5 36.3 0.1 84.0 23.0 72.4 79.2 10.9 85.1 79.1 18.6
Queue Length 50th (ft) 145 332 0 197 391 140 246 0 181 248 68
Queue Length 95th (ft) #289 363 0 m#341 386 #331 #466 86 #307 348 134
Internal Link Dist (ft) 526 621 1324 464
Turn Bay Length (ft) 240 30 440 230 230 230 200
Base Capacity (vph) 168 1999 628 313 2504 236 321 475 267 380 486
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 204 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.93 0.60 0.03 0.79 0.79 0.67 0.84 0.55 0.77 0.74 0.44
Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal.
Fields Project 2018 Background Traffic Conditions, Weekday PM Peak Hour
2: SW Hall Blvd & SW Pacific Hwy 03/21/2017
Fields Project 02/07/2017 2018 Background Traffic Conditions, Weekday PM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report
Page 4
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 152 1173 20 240 1652 119 153 263 251 199 273 209
Future Volume (vph) 152 1173 20 240 1652 119 153 263 251 199 273 209
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width 11 11 11 12 12 12 11 11 11 11 11 11
Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.5
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.99
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1728 4868 1318 1719 5031 1728 1818 1485 1728 1801 1526
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1728 4868 1318 1719 5031 1728 1818 1485 1728 1801 1526
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97
Adj. Flow (vph) 157 1209 21 247 1703 123 158 271 259 205 281 215
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 13 0 7 0 0 0 213 0 0 59
Lane Group Flow (vph) 157 1209 8 247 1819 0 158 271 46 205 281 156
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 4 3 3 4 5 3 3 5
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 1 3 1
Heavy Vehicles (%) 1% 3% 15% 5% 2% 0% 1% 1% 3% 1% 2% 1%
Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA Perm Prot NA pm+ov
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4 5
Permitted Phases 2 8 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 13.7 54.7 54.7 23.1 64.1 19.2 24.8 24.8 19.9 25.5 39.2
Effective Green, g (s) 13.7 54.7 54.7 23.1 64.1 19.2 24.8 24.8 19.9 25.5 39.2
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.10 0.39 0.39 0.17 0.46 0.14 0.18 0.18 0.14 0.18 0.28
Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.5
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.3 4.2 4.2 2.3 4.2 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 169 1901 514 283 2303 236 322 263 245 328 427
v/s Ratio Prot 0.09 0.25 c0.14 c0.36 0.09 c0.15 0.12 c0.16 0.04
v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 0.03 0.07
v/c Ratio 0.93 0.64 0.02 0.87 0.79 0.67 0.84 0.17 0.84 0.86 0.37
Uniform Delay, d1 62.7 34.6 26.1 57.0 32.2 57.4 55.7 48.9 58.5 55.5 40.4
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.11 0.65 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 48.1 1.6 0.1 17.6 2.0 6.0 17.3 0.2 20.7 18.8 0.3
Delay (s) 110.8 36.2 26.2 80.8 22.9 63.4 73.0 49.1 79.2 74.3 40.7
Level of Service F D C F C E E D E E D
Approach Delay (s) 44.5 29.8 61.8 65.4
Approach LOS D C E E
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 43.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service D
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.86
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 140.0 Sum of lost time (s) 17.5
Intersection Capacity Utilization 83.4% ICU Level of Service E
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Fields Project 2018 Background Traffic Conditions, Weekday PM Peak Hour
3: SW Hall Blvd & SW Hunziker St 03/21/2017
Fields Project 02/07/2017 2018 Background Traffic Conditions, Weekday PM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report
Page 5
Lane Group WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 507 323 8 504 62 483
v/c Ratio 1.05 0.45 0.02 0.61 0.47 0.84
Control Delay 90.9 5.2 54.9 8.0 59.2 51.6
Queue Delay 18.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.7
Total Delay 109.7 5.2 54.9 8.0 59.2 53.2
Queue Length 50th (ft) ~391 0 5 11 43 327
Queue Length 95th (ft) #597 62 m8 m106 84 #554
Internal Link Dist (ft) 1895 20 1324
Turn Bay Length (ft)140
Base Capacity (vph) 483 719 501 815 181 574
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 27 0 0 0 0 24
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 1.11 0.45 0.02 0.62 0.34 0.88
Intersection Summary
~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal.
Fields Project 2018 Background Traffic Conditions, Weekday PM Peak Hour
3: SW Hall Blvd & SW Hunziker St 03/21/2017
Fields Project 02/07/2017 2018 Background Traffic Conditions, Weekday PM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report
Page 6
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 0 0 0 466 0 297 7 350 114 57 442 3
Future Volume (vph) 0 0 0 466 0 297 7 350 114 57 442 3
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s)2.3 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)1770 1552 1805 1770 1736 1825
Flt Permitted 0.76 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)1410 1552 1805 1770 1736 1825
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 0 507 0 323 8 380 124 62 480 3
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 219 0 10 0 0 0 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 0 0 507 104 8 494 0 62 483 0
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 4 4 2 2
Confl. Bikes (#/hr)5 1
Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 3% 0% 2% 0% 1% 0% 3% 2% 4% 4% 0%
Turn Type Perm NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA
Protected Phases 4 4 5 8 2 8 1 6
Permitted Phases 4 4 4
Actuated Green, G (s)35.5 35.5 27.3 49.0 7.5 33.7
Effective Green, g (s)37.7 35.5 27.3 49.0 7.5 33.7
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.34 0.32 0.25 0.45 0.07 0.31
Clearance Time (s)4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Vehicle Extension (s)2.3 2.3 2.3 4.5
Lane Grp Cap (vph)483 500 447 788 118 559
v/s Ratio Prot 0.00 c0.28 c0.04 c0.26
v/s Ratio Perm c0.36 0.07
v/c Ratio 1.05 0.21 0.02 0.63 0.53 0.86
Uniform Delay, d1 36.1 27.0 31.2 23.5 49.5 36.0
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.88 0.36 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 54.6 0.1 0.0 0.8 2.7 16.2
Delay (s)90.8 27.2 58.6 9.2 52.2 52.2
Level of Service F C E A D D
Approach Delay (s) 0.0 66.0 9.9 52.2
Approach LOS A E A D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 46.8 HCM 2000 Level of Service D
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.89
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 110.0 Sum of lost time (s) 18.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 65.3% ICU Level of Service C
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Fields Project 2018 Background Traffic Conditions, Weekday PM Peak Hour
4: SW Hall Blvd & SW Scoffins St 03/21/2017
Fields Project 02/07/2017 2018 Background Traffic Conditions, Weekday PM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report
Page 7
Lane Group EBL NBL NBT SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 112 14 459 987
v/c Ratio 0.41 0.11 0.79 0.81
Control Delay 32.2 48.0 47.4 5.4
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0
Total Delay 32.2 48.0 48.1 5.4
Queue Length 50th (ft) 45 10 304 13
Queue Length 95th (ft) 101 29 #512 m31
Internal Link Dist (ft) 73 63 20
Turn Bay Length (ft) 50
Base Capacity (vph) 276 188 580 1222
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 18 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.41 0.07 0.82 0.81
Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal.
Fields Project 2018 Background Traffic Conditions, Weekday PM Peak Hour
4: SW Hall Blvd & SW Scoffins St 03/21/2017
Fields Project 02/07/2017 2018 Background Traffic Conditions, Weekday PM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report
Page 8
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 49 54 13 422 716 192
Future Volume (vph) 49 54 13 422 716 192
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.93 1.00 1.00 0.97
Flt Protected 0.98 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1703 1805 1845 1791
Flt Permitted 0.98 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1703 1805 1845 1791
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph) 53 59 14 459 778 209
RTOR Reduction (vph) 36 0 0 0 8 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 76 0 14 459 979 0
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1
Confl. Bikes (#/hr)1
Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 0% 0% 3% 3% 1%
Turn Type Prot Prot NA NA
Protected Phases 8 5 2 4 6
Permitted Phases
Actuated Green, G (s) 15.3 7.5 33.7 73.7
Effective Green, g (s) 15.3 7.5 33.7 73.7
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.14 0.07 0.31 0.67
Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.3 3.0 4.5
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 236 123 565 1199
v/s Ratio Prot c0.04 c0.01 0.25 c0.55
v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio 0.32 0.11 0.81 0.82
Uniform Delay, d1 42.7 48.1 35.2 13.2
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.18
Incremental Delay, d2 0.5 0.4 12.1 1.4
Delay (s) 43.1 48.5 47.3 3.8
Level of Service D D D A
Approach Delay (s) 43.1 47.3 3.8
Approach LOS D D A
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 19.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service B
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.72
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 110.0 Sum of lost time (s) 18.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 63.3% ICU Level of Service B
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Fields Project 2018 Background Traffic Conditions, Weekday PM Peak Hour
5: SW Wall St & SW Hunziker St 03/21/2017
Fields Project 02/07/2017 2018 Background Traffic Conditions, Weekday PM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report
Page 9
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 160 77 28 623 92 77
Future Volume (Veh/h) 160 77 28 623 92 77
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Grade 0% -7% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88
Hourly flow rate (vph) 182 88 32 708 105 88
Pedestrians 1
Lane Width (ft)12.0
Walking Speed (ft/s)4.0
Percent Blockage 0
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 271 999 227
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 271 999 227
tC, single (s) 4.5 6.4 6.2
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s)2.6 3.5 3.3
p0 queue free % 97 60 89
cM capacity (veh/h) 1101 264 817
Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 WB 2 NB 1
Volume Total 270 32 708 193
Volume Left 0 32 0 105
Volume Right 88 0 0 88
cSH 1700 1101 1700 382
Volume to Capacity 0.16 0.03 0.42 0.51
Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 2 0 69
Control Delay (s) 0.0 8.4 0.0 23.7
Lane LOS A C
Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.4 23.7
Approach LOS C
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 4.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 49.3% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
Fields Project 2018 Background Traffic Conditions, Weekday PM Peak Hour
8: SW 72nd Ave & OR 217 NB Ramps 03/21/2017
Fields Project 02/07/2017 2018 Background Traffic Conditions, Weekday PM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report
Page 10
Lane Group WBL WBR NBT SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 394 349 1022 223 766
v/c Ratio 0.74 0.48 0.68 0.77 0.68
Control Delay 44.2 6.4 18.6 56.9 15.9
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 44.2 6.4 18.7 56.9 15.9
Queue Length 50th (ft) 220 0 200 136 312
Queue Length 95th (ft) #494 78 224 210 278
Internal Link Dist (ft) 797 466 320
Turn Bay Length (ft) 670 190
Base Capacity (vph) 532 727 1788 344 1363
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 62 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.74 0.48 0.59 0.65 0.56
Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
Fields Project 2018 Background Traffic Conditions, Weekday PM Peak Hour
8: SW 72nd Ave & OR 217 NB Ramps 03/21/2017
Fields Project 02/07/2017 2018 Background Traffic Conditions, Weekday PM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report
Page 11
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 355 314 494 426 201 689
Future Volume (vph) 355 314 494 426 201 689
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.5
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.85 0.93 1.00 1.00
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1736 1583 3296 1787 1881
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1736 1583 3296 1787 1881
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Adj. Flow (vph) 394 349 549 473 223 766
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 242 185 0 0 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 394 107 837 0 223 766
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 2
Confl. Bikes (#/hr)1
Heavy Vehicles (%) 4% 2% 0% 2% 1% 1%
Turn Type Prot Prot NA Prot NA
Protected Phases 4 4 6 5 2
Permitted Phases
Actuated Green, G (s) 30.7 30.7 40.0 16.3 60.3
Effective Green, g (s) 30.7 30.7 40.0 16.3 60.3
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.31 0.31 0.40 0.16 0.60
Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.5
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.3 2.3 6.2 2.3 6.2
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 532 485 1318 291 1134
v/s Ratio Prot c0.23 0.07 0.25 c0.12 c0.41
v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio 0.74 0.22 0.63 0.77 0.68
Uniform Delay, d1 31.1 25.8 24.1 40.0 13.3
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 5.1 0.1 2.3 10.7 3.2
Delay (s) 36.1 25.9 26.5 50.7 16.5
Level of Service D C C D B
Approach Delay (s) 31.3 26.5 24.2
Approach LOS C C C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 27.0 HCM 2000 Level of Service C
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.73
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0 Sum of lost time (s) 13.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 69.0% ICU Level of Service C
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Fields Project 2018 Background Traffic Conditions, Weekday PM Peak Hour
9: SW 72nd Ave & SW Hunziker St 03/21/2017
Fields Project 02/07/2017 2018 Background Traffic Conditions, Weekday PM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report
Page 12
Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 196 192 97 827 559 601
v/c Ratio 0.73 0.48 0.61 0.30 0.45 0.56
Control Delay 56.8 9.5 60.8 4.3 11.8 8.2
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.7 0.5
Total Delay 56.8 9.5 60.8 5.4 12.5 8.7
Queue Length 50th (ft) 123 0 61 72 182 106
Queue Length 95th (ft) 191 58 #118 113 290 224
Internal Link Dist (ft) 358 206 466
Turn Bay Length (ft) 210 50
Base Capacity (vph) 347 464 177 2733 1229 1078
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 1578 343 158
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.56 0.41 0.55 0.72 0.63 0.65
Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
Fields Project 2018 Background Traffic Conditions, Weekday PM Peak Hour
9: SW 72nd Ave & SW Hunziker St 03/21/2017
Fields Project 02/07/2017 2018 Background Traffic Conditions, Weekday PM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report
Page 13
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 176 173 87 744 503 541
Future Volume (vph) 176 173 87 744 503 541
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.5 4.5 4.5
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.96
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1583 1736 3574 1881 1506
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1583 1736 3574 1881 1506
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Adj. Flow (vph) 196 192 97 827 559 601
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 163 0 0 0 97
Lane Group Flow (vph) 196 29 97 827 559 504
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 8 8
Confl. Bikes (#/hr)1
Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 2% 4% 1% 1% 3%
Turn Type Prot Perm Prot NA NA Perm
Protected Phases 8 1 6 2
Permitted Phases 8 2
Actuated Green, G (s) 15.5 15.5 8.1 78.0 65.9 65.9
Effective Green, g (s) 15.5 15.5 8.1 78.0 65.9 65.9
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.15 0.15 0.08 0.76 0.65 0.65
Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.5 4.5 4.5
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.3 2.3 2.3 4.6 4.1 4.1
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 268 240 137 2733 1215 972
v/s Ratio Prot c0.11 c0.06 0.23 0.30
v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 c0.33
v/c Ratio 0.73 0.12 0.71 0.30 0.46 0.52
Uniform Delay, d1 41.3 37.4 45.8 3.7 9.1 9.6
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 9.0 0.1 13.7 0.3 1.3 2.0
Delay (s) 50.3 37.5 59.5 4.0 10.3 11.6
Level of Service D D E A B B
Approach Delay (s) 43.9 9.8 11.0
Approach LOS D A B
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 15.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service B
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.57
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 102.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.5
Intersection Capacity Utilization 51.5% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Fields Project 2018 Background Traffic Conditions, Weekday PM Peak Hour
10: SW 72nd Ave & SW Varns St/OR 217 Ramps 03/21/2017
Fields Project 02/07/2017 2018 Background Traffic Conditions, Weekday PM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report
Page 14
Lane Group EBT WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 28 147 104 1 991 284 474
v/c Ratio 0.12 0.69 0.14 0.01 0.55 0.84 0.35
Control Delay 28.1 54.5 5.6 45.0 17.6 61.5 7.2
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.8 2.2
Total Delay 28.1 54.5 5.6 45.0 17.6 73.3 9.4
Queue Length 50th (ft) 12 90 8 1 201 176 82
Queue Length 95th (ft) 33 140 33 6 309 #309 232
Internal Link Dist (ft) 409 322 877 206
Turn Bay Length (ft) 115 35
Base Capacity (vph) 382 352 738 180 1816 339 1363
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 41 724
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.07 0.42 0.14 0.01 0.55 0.95 0.74
Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
Fields Project 2018 Background Traffic Conditions, Weekday PM Peak Hour
10: SW 72nd Ave & SW Varns St/OR 217 Ramps 03/21/2017
Fields Project 02/07/2017 2018 Background Traffic Conditions, Weekday PM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report
Page 15
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 18 2 5 127 4 93 1 719 163 253 404 18
Future Volume (vph) 18 2 5 127 4 93 1 719 163 253 404 18
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width 12 12 12 15 12 15 12 12 12 12 12 12
Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.5
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.97 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.99
Flt Protected 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1708 1749 1742 1805 3428 1787 1861
Flt Permitted 0.79 0.71 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1400 1305 1742 1805 3428 1787 1861
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89
Adj. Flow (vph) 20 2 6 143 4 104 1 808 183 284 454 20
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 5 0 0 0 51 0 17 0 0 1 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 23 0 0 147 53 1 974 0 284 473 0
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)11 11
Confl. Bikes (#/hr)1 1
Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 0% 20% 3% 25% 2% 0% 2% 2% 1% 1% 6%
Turn Type Perm NA Perm NA pm+ov Prot NA Prot NA
Protected Phases 8 4 5 1 6 5 2
Permitted Phases 8 4 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 16.5 16.5 38.7 1.0 49.3 22.2 70.0
Effective Green, g (s) 16.5 16.5 38.7 1.0 49.3 22.2 70.0
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.16 0.16 0.39 0.01 0.49 0.22 0.70
Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.5
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.5 2.5 2.3 2.3 4.6 2.3 4.6
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 231 215 743 18 1690 396 1302
v/s Ratio Prot 0.02 0.00 c0.28 c0.16 0.25
v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 c0.11 0.01
v/c Ratio 0.10 0.68 0.07 0.06 0.58 0.72 0.36
Uniform Delay, d1 35.4 39.3 19.3 49.0 18.0 36.0 6.0
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.1 8.0 0.0 0.8 1.4 5.5 0.8
Delay (s) 35.6 47.2 19.3 49.8 19.4 41.5 6.8
Level of Service D D B D B D A
Approach Delay (s) 35.6 35.7 19.4 19.8
Approach LOS D D B B
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 21.8 HCM 2000 Level of Service C
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.64
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.5
Intersection Capacity Utilization 58.2% ICU Level of Service B
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Fields Project 2018 Background Traffic Conditions, Weekday PM Peak Hour
11: SW 72nd Ave & SW Tech Center Dr 03/21/2017
Fields Project 02/07/2017 2018 Background Traffic Conditions, Weekday PM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report
Page 16
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 86 124 71 583 558 14
Future Volume (Veh/h) 86 124 71 583 558 14
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89
Hourly flow rate (vph) 97 139 80 655 627 16
Pedestrians 6
Lane Width (ft) 12.0
Walking Speed (ft/s) 4.0
Percent Blockage 1
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type TWLTL TWLTL
Median storage veh) 2 2
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 1456 641 649
vC1, stage 1 conf vol 641
vC2, stage 2 conf vol 815
vCu, unblocked vol 1456 641 649
tC, single (s) 6.4 6.3 4.5
tC, 2 stage (s) 5.4
tF (s) 3.5 3.4 2.6
p0 queue free % 71 70 90
cM capacity (veh/h) 329 465 766
Direction, Lane # EB 1 NB 1 NB 2 SB 1
Volume Total 236 80 655 643
Volume Left 97 80 0 0
Volume Right 139 0 0 16
cSH 398 766 1700 1700
Volume to Capacity 0.59 0.10 0.39 0.38
Queue Length 95th (ft) 92 9 0 0
Control Delay (s) 26.4 10.3 0.0 0.0
Lane LOS D B
Approach Delay (s) 26.4 1.1 0.0
Approach LOS D
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 4.4
Intersection Capacity Utilization 56.5% ICU Level of Service B
Analysis Period (min) 15
Fields Project 2018 Background Traffic Conditions, Weekday PM Peak Hour
12: I- 5 SB Ramps & Kruse Way/OR 217 Ramps 03/21/2017
Fields Project 02/07/2017 2018 Background Traffic Conditions, Weekday PM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report
Page 17
Lane Group EBT WBL WBT SBL SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 1445 168 1398 253 259 225
v/c Ratio 0.64 0.48 0.57 0.74 0.76 0.59
Control Delay 23.5 41.2 9.6 50.2 51.4 25.5
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 23.5 41.2 9.6 50.2 51.4 25.5
Queue Length 50th (ft) 250 96 205 161 165 72
Queue Length 95th (ft) 349 162 338 228 233 135
Internal Link Dist (ft) 253 507 663
Turn Bay Length (ft) 380 550 550
Base Capacity (vph) 2263 348 2462 531 533 541
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.64 0.48 0.57 0.48 0.49 0.42
Intersection Summary
Fields Project 2018 Background Traffic Conditions, Weekday PM Peak Hour
12: I- 5 SB Ramps & Kruse Way/OR 217 Ramps 03/21/2017
Fields Project 02/07/2017 2018 Background Traffic Conditions, Weekday PM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report
Page 18
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 0 1383 4 161 1342 0 0 0 0 487 5 216
Future Volume (vph) 0 1383 4 161 1342 0 0 0 0 487 5 216
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width 11 11 11 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12
Total Lost time (s) 6.0 4.5 6.0 4.5 4.5 4.5
Lane Util. Factor 0.91 1.00 0.95 0.95 0.95 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 4963 1787 3539 1715 1721 1530
Flt Permitted 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 4963 1787 3539 1715 1721 1530
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96
Adj. Flow (vph) 0 1441 4 168 1398 0 0 0 0 507 5 225
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 78
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 1445 0 168 1398 0 0 0 0 253 259 147
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)3 3
Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 1% 0% 1% 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 4%
Turn Type NA Prot NA Split NA Perm
Protected Phases 2 1 6 4 4
Permitted Phases 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 45.6 19.5 69.6 19.9 19.9 19.9
Effective Green, g (s) 45.6 19.5 69.6 19.9 19.9 19.9
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.46 0.20 0.70 0.20 0.20 0.20
Clearance Time (s) 6.0 4.5 6.0 4.5 4.5 4.5
Vehicle Extension (s) 4.8 2.3 4.8 2.3 2.3 2.3
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 2263 348 2463 341 342 304
v/s Ratio Prot c0.29 0.09 c0.40 0.15 c0.15
v/s Ratio Perm 0.10
v/c Ratio 0.64 0.48 0.57 0.74 0.76 0.48
Uniform Delay, d1 20.9 35.8 7.6 37.6 37.8 35.5
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 1.4 0.6 1.0 7.8 8.6 0.7
Delay (s) 22.3 36.4 8.6 45.4 46.4 36.2
Level of Service C D A D D D
Approach Delay (s) 22.3 11.6 0.0 42.9
Approach LOS C B A D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 21.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service C
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.66
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0 Sum of lost time (s) 15.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 63.0% ICU Level of Service B
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
SimTraffic Performance Report
2018 Background Traffic Conditions, Weekday PM Peak Hour 03/14/2017
Fields Project SimTraffic Report
Page 1
3: SW Hall Blvd & SW Hunziker St Performance by approach
Approach WB NB SB All
Denied Del/Veh (s) 4.9 0.0 0.8 2.3
Total Del/Veh (s) 69.1 2.6 44.8 44.5
4: SW Hall Blvd & SW Scoffins St Performance by approach
Approach EB NB SB All
Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.1
Total Del/Veh (s) 37.1 26.6 1.9 11.7
Total Zone Performance
Denied Del/Veh (s) 6.2
Total Del/Veh (s) 1850.8
Queuing and Blocking Report
2018 Background Traffic Conditions, Weekday PM Peak Hour 03/14/2017
Fields Project SimTraffic Report
Page 2
Intersection: 3: SW Hall Blvd & SW Hunziker St
Movement WB WB NB NB SB SB
Directions Served LT R L TR L TR
Maximum Queue (ft) 250 1353 22 32 164 628
Average Queue (ft) 237 555 5 10 74 324
95th Queue (ft) 285 1351 18 31 158 566
Link Distance (ft) 1879 6 6 1334
Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 14 8
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 33 18
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 225 140
Storage Blk Time (%) 34 0 0 36
Queuing Penalty (veh) 101 2 2 21
Intersection: 4: SW Hall Blvd & SW Scoffins St
Movement EB NB NB B14 SB
Directions Served LR L T T TR
Maximum Queue (ft) 137 74 188 404 78
Average Queue (ft) 76 21 161 111 41
95th Queue (ft) 130 59 200 277 78
Link Distance (ft) 118 101 687 6
Upstream Blk Time (%) 3 39 17
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 155
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 50
Storage Blk Time (%) 5 50
Queuing Penalty (veh) 20 7
Zone Summary
Zone wide Queuing Penalty: 358
SimTraffic Performance Report
2018 Background Traffic Conditions, Weekday PM Peak Hour 03/21/2017
SimTraffic Report
Page 1
8: SW 72nd Ave & OR 217 NB Ramps Performance by movement
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR2 SBL SBT All
Denied Del/Veh (s) 1.1 3.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6
Total Del/Veh (s) 34.1 2.7 21.9 14.8 47.6 18.9 21.9
9: SW 72nd Ave & SW Hunziker St Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s) 3.4 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3
Total Del/Veh (s) 32.3 8.4 46.8 5.9 13.4 6.8 11.6
10: SW 72nd Ave & SW Varns St/OR 217 Ramps Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.1 0.1 0.5 0.3 3.7 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4
Total Del/Veh (s) 38.0 6.7 44.0 38.1 9.0 15.6 16.6 27.3 4.4 7.9 16.9
113: SW Hall Blvd & SW Hunziker St Performance by movement
Movement SWL All
Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.2 0.2
Total Del/Veh (s) 17.2 17.2
Total Network Performance
Denied Del/Veh (s) 1.2
Total Del/Veh (s) 39.1
Queuing and Blocking Report
2018 Background Traffic Conditions, Weekday PM Peak Hour 03/21/2017
SimTraffic Report
Page 2
Intersection: 8: SW 72nd Ave & OR 217 NB Ramps
Movement WB WB NB NB NB SB SB
Directions Served L R T T > L T
Maximum Queue (ft) 315 74 280 274 56 247 420
Average Queue (ft) 209 24 168 162 51 184 240
95th Queue (ft) 346 81 313 301 57 266 535
Link Distance (ft) 1003 491 491 849
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 750 25 225
Storage Blk Time (%) 18 34 1 9
Queuing Penalty (veh) 77 84 6 18
Intersection: 9: SW 72nd Ave & SW Hunziker St
Movement EB EB NB NB NB SB SB
Directions Served L R L T T T R
Maximum Queue (ft) 181 76 116 130 171 325 150
Average Queue (ft) 113 48 64 57 86 173 77
95th Queue (ft) 186 85 124 143 184 371 194
Link Distance (ft) 1113 236 236 236 491
Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 0 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 1 1
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 210 50
Storage Blk Time (%) 1 21 1
Queuing Penalty (veh) 2 115 5
Intersection: 10: SW 72nd Ave & SW Varns St/OR 217 Ramps
Movement EB WB WB NB NB SB SB
Directions Served LTR LT R T TR L TR
Maximum Queue (ft) 41 111 70 182 300 213 120
Average Queue (ft) 28 86 41 117 173 142 45
95th Queue (ft) 58 127 77 212 311 229 134
Link Distance (ft) 804 718 1920 1920 236 236
Upstream Blk Time (%)2 0
Queuing Penalty (veh)7 0
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 200
Storage Blk Time (%) 29
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0
Appendix G
Total Traffic Operations
Worksheets
Queues
1: OR 217 SB Ramps & SW Pacific Hwy 07/13/2017
Fields Project 02/07/2017 2018 Total Traffic Conditions, Weekday AM Peak Hour Synchro 9 Report
Page 1
Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT SBL SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 1977 438 46 1041 240 241 206
v/c Ratio 0.87 0.40 0.47 0.42 0.87 0.87 0.53
Control Delay 17.9 1.2 81.1 4.5 85.1 85.7 17.0
Queue Delay 17.5 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 35.4 1.2 81.1 4.6 85.1 85.7 17.0
Queue Length 50th (ft) 274 1 40 103 222 223 29
Queue Length 95th (ft) 351 m11 84 123 #351 #353 108
Internal Link Dist (ft) 621 612 328
Turn Bay Length (ft) 320 200 200
Base Capacity (vph) 2276 1098 116 2495 310 310 414
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 328 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 351 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 1.03 0.40 0.40 0.48 0.77 0.78 0.50
Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal.
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
1: OR 217 SB Ramps & SW Pacific Hwy 07/13/2017
Fields Project 02/07/2017 2018 Total Traffic Conditions, Weekday AM Peak Hour Synchro 9 Report
Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 0 1918 425 45 1010 0 0 0 0 467 0 200
Future Volume (vph) 0 1918 425 45 1010 0 0 0 0 467 0 200
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width 11 11 11 12 12 12 12 12 12 11 11 11
Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 5.0 5.0 5.0
Lane Util. Factor 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 0.95 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 3323 1452 1719 3282 1609 1609 1445
Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 3323 1452 1719 3282 1609 1609 1445
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97
Adj. Flow (vph) 0 1977 438 46 1041 0 0 0 0 481 0 206
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 106 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 139
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 1977 332 46 1041 0 0 0 0 240 241 67
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 6 1 1 6 6 6
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 1
Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 5% 5% 5% 10% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3% 0% 6%
Turn Type NA Perm Prot NA Perm NA Perm
Protected Phases 2 1 6 4
Permitted Phases 2 4 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 94.9 94.9 7.0 106.4 24.1 24.1 24.1
Effective Green, g (s) 94.9 94.9 7.0 106.4 24.1 24.1 24.1
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.68 0.68 0.05 0.76 0.17 0.17 0.17
Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 5.0 5.0 5.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 4.8 4.8 2.5 6.6 2.3 2.3 2.3
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 2252 984 85 2494 276 276 248
v/s Ratio Prot c0.59 0.03 c0.32
v/s Ratio Perm 0.23 0.15 0.15 0.05
v/c Ratio 0.88 0.34 0.54 0.42 0.87 0.87 0.27
Uniform Delay, d1 17.9 9.4 64.9 5.9 56.4 56.5 50.3
Progression Factor 0.79 0.25 1.05 0.65 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 2.6 0.4 5.1 0.5 23.6 24.5 0.3
Delay (s) 16.7 2.8 73.0 4.3 80.0 80.9 50.7
Level of Service B A E A E F D
Approach Delay (s) 14.2 7.2 0.0 71.5
Approach LOS B A A E
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 21.8 HCM 2000 Level of Service C
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.86
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 140.0 Sum of lost time (s) 14.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 77.1% ICU Level of Service D
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Queues
2: SW Hall Blvd & SW Pacific Hwy 07/13/2017
Fields Project 02/07/2017 2018 Total Traffic Conditions, Weekday AM Peak Hour Synchro 9 Report
Page 3
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 202 2085 65 238 1097 68 198 293 166 222 127
v/c Ratio 0.85 0.89 0.09 0.88 0.47 0.65 0.94 0.73 0.89 0.70 0.23
Control Delay 87.1 38.5 0.5 85.6 16.1 90.5 109.8 21.2 103.5 68.6 7.8
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 87.1 38.5 0.5 85.6 16.1 90.5 109.8 21.2 103.5 68.6 7.8
Queue Length 50th (ft) 179 621 0 175 202 61 ~200 24 151 200 13
Queue Length 95th (ft) #290 695 3 #336 241 #125 #362 #146 #282 #339 52
Internal Link Dist (ft) 526 621 383 464
Turn Bay Length (ft) 240 30 440 230 230 230 200
Base Capacity (vph) 271 2344 739 295 2341 114 210 401 193 318 577
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.75 0.89 0.09 0.81 0.47 0.60 0.94 0.73 0.86 0.70 0.22
Intersection Summary
~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
2: SW Hall Blvd & SW Pacific Hwy 07/13/2017
Fields Project 02/07/2017 2018 Total Traffic Conditions, Weekday AM Peak Hour Synchro 9 Report
Page 4
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 184 1897 59 217 906 92 62 180 267 151 202 116
Future Volume (vph) 184 1897 59 217 906 92 62 180 267 151 202 116
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width 11 11 11 12 12 12 11 11 11 11 11 11
Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.5
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.99
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1616 4821 1401 1687 4677 1586 1783 1422 1694 1801 1484
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1616 4821 1401 1687 4677 1586 1783 1422 1694 1801 1484
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91
Adj. Flow (vph) 202 2085 65 238 996 101 68 198 293 166 222 127
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 34 0 9 0 0 0 232 0 0 68
Lane Group Flow (vph) 202 2085 31 238 1088 0 68 198 61 166 222 59
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 5 7 7 5 6 3 3 6
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 1 1
Heavy Vehicles (%) 8% 4% 7% 7% 10% 0% 10% 3% 8% 3% 2% 4%
Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA Perm Prot NA pm+ov
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4 5
Permitted Phases 2 8 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 20.7 67.2 67.2 22.5 69.0 8.1 17.4 17.4 15.4 24.7 45.4
Effective Green, g (s) 20.7 67.2 67.2 22.5 69.0 8.1 17.4 17.4 15.4 24.7 45.4
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.15 0.48 0.48 0.16 0.49 0.06 0.12 0.12 0.11 0.18 0.32
Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.5
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.3 4.2 4.2 2.3 4.2 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 238 2314 672 271 2305 91 221 176 186 317 481
v/s Ratio Prot 0.13 c0.43 c0.14 0.23 0.04 c0.11 c0.10 0.12 0.02
v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 0.04 0.02
v/c Ratio 0.85 0.90 0.05 0.88 0.47 0.75 0.90 0.35 0.89 0.70 0.12
Uniform Delay, d1 58.1 33.4 19.4 57.4 23.5 64.9 60.4 56.1 61.5 54.2 33.3
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 0.68 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 23.0 6.2 0.1 24.1 0.6 26.0 33.3 0.7 37.0 6.0 0.1
Delay (s) 81.1 39.6 19.5 80.4 16.6 90.9 93.7 56.8 98.5 60.2 33.3
Level of Service F D B F B F F E F E C
Approach Delay (s) 42.6 28.0 74.0 65.9
Approach LOS D C E E
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 44.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service D
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.89
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 140.0 Sum of lost time (s) 17.5
Intersection Capacity Utilization 82.5% ICU Level of Service E
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Queues
3: SW Hall Blvd & SW Hunziker St 07/13/2017
Fields Project 02/07/2017 2018 Total Traffic Conditions, Weekday AM Peak Hour Synchro 9 Report
Page 5
Lane Group EBT WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 3 179 148 1 1023 185 276
v/c Ratio 0.01 0.81 0.40 0.00 1.04 1.06 0.43
Control Delay 0.0 75.6 9.8 48.0 40.0 137.2 32.3
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 22.5 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 0.0 75.6 9.8 48.0 62.5 137.2 32.3
Queue Length 50th (ft) 0 138 0 1 ~258 ~163 166
Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 205 49 m1 m114 #291 233
Internal Link Dist (ft) 21 1895 25 862
Turn Bay Length (ft)140
Base Capacity (vph) 403 267 418 643 981 175 642
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 513 84 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.01 0.67 0.35 0.01 1.14 1.06 0.43
Intersection Summary
~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal.
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
3: SW Hall Blvd & SW Hunziker St 07/13/2017
Fields Project 02/07/2017 2018 Total Traffic Conditions, Weekday AM Peak Hour Synchro 9 Report
Page 6
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 2 0 1 154 0 127 1 442 438 159 237 0
Future Volume (vph) 2 0 1 154 0 127 1 442 438 159 237 0
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.95 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.93 1.00 1.00
Flt Protected 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1756 1641 1468 1805 1632 1752 1759
Flt Permitted 0.89 0.76 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1614 1306 1468 1805 1632 1752 1759
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86
Adj. Flow (vph) 2 0 1 179 0 148 1 514 509 185 276 0
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 2 0 0 0 123 0 27 0 0 0 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 1 0 0 179 25 1 996 0 185 276 0
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)1 1
Confl. Bikes (#/hr)5 1
Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 0% 0% 10% 0% 10% 0% 9% 4% 3% 8% 0%
Turn Type Perm NA Perm NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA
Protected Phases 4 4 5 8 2 8 1 6
Permitted Phases 4 4 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 21.1 21.1 21.1 44.4 72.9 12.5 45.5
Effective Green, g (s) 21.1 21.1 21.1 44.4 72.9 12.5 45.5
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.36 0.59 0.10 0.37
Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 4.5
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 273 221 248 643 955 175 642
v/s Ratio Prot 0.00 c0.61 c0.11 0.16
v/s Ratio Perm 0.00 c0.14 0.02
v/c Ratio 0.00 0.81 0.10 0.00 1.04 1.06 0.43
Uniform Delay, d1 43.0 49.8 43.7 25.8 25.8 56.0 29.7
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.60 0.84 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.0 18.6 0.1 0.0 23.0 84.0 2.1
Delay (s) 43.0 68.4 43.8 41.2 44.7 140.0 31.8
Level of Service D E D D D F C
Approach Delay (s) 43.0 57.2 44.7 75.2
Approach LOS D E D E
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 54.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service D
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 1.00
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 124.5 Sum of lost time (s) 18.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 81.7% ICU Level of Service D
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Queues
4: SW Hall Blvd & SW Scoffins St 07/13/2017
Fields Project 02/07/2017 2018 Total Traffic Conditions, Weekday AM Peak Hour Synchro 9 Report
Page 7
Lane Group EBL NBL NBT SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 204 3 842 455
v/c Ratio 0.59 0.04 1.30 0.47
Control Delay 52.0 54.3 179.0 2.0
Queue Delay 0.2 0.0 1.3 0.5
Total Delay 52.2 54.3 180.4 2.5
Queue Length 50th (ft) 148 2 ~866 4
Queue Length 95th (ft) 227 11 #1039 0
Internal Link Dist (ft) 192 405 25
Turn Bay Length (ft) 50
Base Capacity (vph) 347 136 649 1035
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 228
Spillback Cap Reductn 9 0 108 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.60 0.02 1.56 0.56
Intersection Summary
~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
4: SW Hall Blvd & SW Scoffins St 07/13/2017
Fields Project 02/07/2017 2018 Total Traffic Conditions, Weekday AM Peak Hour Synchro 9 Report
Page 8
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 157 18 3 724 329 62
Future Volume (vph) 157 18 3 724 329 62
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width 10 10 12 12 12 12
Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.98
Flt Protected 0.96 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1568 1357 1776 1699
Flt Permitted 0.96 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1568 1357 1776 1699
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86
Adj. Flow (vph) 183 21 3 842 383 72
RTOR Reduction (vph) 3 0 0 0 6 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 201 0 3 842 449 0
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 1 1
Confl. Bikes (#/hr)1
Heavy Vehicles (%) 6% 11% 33% 7% 10% 4%
Turn Type Prot Prot NA NA
Protected Phases 8 5 2 4 6
Permitted Phases
Actuated Green, G (s) 27.4 12.5 45.5 71.1
Effective Green, g (s) 27.4 12.5 45.5 71.1
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.22 0.10 0.37 0.57
Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.3 3.0 4.5
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 345 136 649 970
v/s Ratio Prot c0.13 c0.00 c0.47 c0.26
v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio 0.58 0.02 1.30 0.46
Uniform Delay, d1 43.4 50.5 39.5 15.6
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.04
Incremental Delay, d2 1.9 0.1 145.0 0.2
Delay (s) 45.3 50.6 184.5 0.8
Level of Service D D F A
Approach Delay (s) 45.3 184.0 0.8
Approach LOS D F A
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 109.8 HCM 2000 Level of Service F
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.81
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 124.5 Sum of lost time (s) 18.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 55.7% ICU Level of Service B
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
5: SW Wall St & SW Hunziker St 07/13/2017
Fields Project 02/07/2017 2018 Total Traffic Conditions, Weekday AM Peak Hour Synchro 9 Report
Page 9
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 398 169 177 253 47 33
Future Volume (Veh/h) 398 169 177 253 47 33
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Grade 0% -7% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84
Hourly flow rate (vph) 474 201 211 301 56 39
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 675 1298 574
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 675 1298 574
tC, single (s) 4.2 6.6 6.3
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s)2.3 3.7 3.4
p0 queue free % 75 55 92
cM capacity (veh/h) 858 123 500
Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 WB 2 NB 1
Volume Total 675 211 301 95
Volume Left 0 211 0 56
Volume Right 201 0 0 39
cSH 1700 858 1700 179
Volume to Capacity 0.40 0.25 0.18 0.53
Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 24 0 68
Control Delay (s) 0.0 10.6 0.0 46.0
Lane LOS B E
Approach Delay (s) 0.0 4.4 46.0
Approach LOS E
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 5.1
Intersection Capacity Utilization 55.7% ICU Level of Service B
Analysis Period (min) 15
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
6: SW Tech Center Dr & Site Access 07/13/2017
Fields Project 02/07/2017 2018 Total Traffic Conditions, Weekday AM Peak Hour Synchro 9 Report
Page 10
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 113 116 49 27 31 9
Future Volume (Veh/h) 113 116 49 27 31 9
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86
Hourly flow rate (vph) 131 135 57 31 36 10
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 88 470 72
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 88 470 72
tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3
p0 queue free % 91 93 99
cM capacity (veh/h) 1520 508 995
Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 SB 1
Volume Total 266 88 46
Volume Left 131 0 36
Volume Right 0 31 10
cSH 1520 1700 569
Volume to Capacity 0.09 0.05 0.08
Queue Length 95th (ft) 7 0 7
Control Delay (s) 4.1 0.0 11.9
Lane LOS A B
Approach Delay (s) 4.1 0.0 11.9
Approach LOS B
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 4.1
Intersection Capacity Utilization 29.0% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
7: Site Access & SW Hunziker St 07/13/2017
Fields Project 02/07/2017 2018 Total Traffic Conditions, Weekday AM Peak Hour Synchro 9 Report
Page 11
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 423 6 49 454 17 72
Future Volume (Veh/h) 423 6 49 454 17 72
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Grade 7% -7% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84
Hourly flow rate (vph) 504 7 58 540 20 86
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 511 1164 508
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 511 1164 508
tC, single (s) 4.2 6.6 6.4
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s)2.3 3.7 3.5
p0 queue free % 94 89 84
cM capacity (veh/h) 1010 185 535
Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 WB 2 NB 1
Volume Total 511 58 540 106
Volume Left 0 58 0 20
Volume Right 7 0 0 86
cSH 1700 1010 1700 394
Volume to Capacity 0.30 0.06 0.32 0.27
Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 5 0 27
Control Delay (s) 0.0 8.8 0.0 17.5
Lane LOS A C
Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.9 17.5
Approach LOS C
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 1.9
Intersection Capacity Utilization 41.3% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
Queues
8: SW 72nd Ave & OR 217 NB Ramps 07/13/2017
Fields Project 02/07/2017 2018 Total Traffic Conditions, Weekday AM Peak Hour Synchro 9 Report
Page 12
Lane Group WBL WBR NBT SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 489 338 890 38 414
v/c Ratio 0.73 0.41 0.60 0.32 0.44
Control Delay 35.8 4.5 25.3 50.7 16.1
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 35.8 4.5 25.3 50.7 16.1
Queue Length 50th (ft) 264 0 281 24 155
Queue Length 95th (ft) #502 62 294 55 187
Internal Link Dist (ft) 797 466 320
Turn Bay Length (ft) 670 190
Base Capacity (vph) 666 824 1585 264 1214
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.73 0.41 0.56 0.14 0.34
Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
8: SW 72nd Ave & OR 217 NB Ramps 07/13/2017
Fields Project 02/07/2017 2018 Total Traffic Conditions, Weekday AM Peak Hour Synchro 9 Report
Page 13
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 440 304 652 149 34 373
Future Volume (vph) 440 304 652 149 34 373
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.5
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.85 0.97 1.00 1.00
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1687 1568 3315 1656 1827
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1687 1568 3315 1656 1827
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Adj. Flow (vph) 489 338 724 166 38 414
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 204 21 0 0 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 489 134 869 0 38 414
Heavy Vehicles (%) 7% 3% 4% 14% 9% 4%
Turn Type Prot Prot NA Prot NA
Protected Phases 4 4 6 5 2
Permitted Phases
Actuated Green, G (s) 39.5 39.5 42.5 5.0 51.5
Effective Green, g (s) 39.5 39.5 42.5 5.0 51.5
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.40 0.40 0.42 0.05 0.52
Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.5
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.3 2.3 6.2 2.3 6.2
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 666 619 1408 82 940
v/s Ratio Prot c0.29 0.09 c0.26 0.02 c0.23
v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio 0.73 0.22 0.62 0.46 0.44
Uniform Delay, d1 25.8 20.0 22.4 46.2 15.2
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.15 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 3.8 0.1 1.9 2.4 1.5
Delay (s) 29.6 20.1 27.6 48.6 16.7
Level of Service C C C D B
Approach Delay (s) 25.7 27.6 19.4
Approach LOS C C B
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 25.2 HCM 2000 Level of Service C
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.67
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0 Sum of lost time (s) 13.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 60.1% ICU Level of Service B
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Queues
9: SW 72nd Ave & SW Hunziker St 07/13/2017
Fields Project 02/07/2017 2018 Total Traffic Conditions, Weekday AM Peak Hour Synchro 9 Report
Page 14
Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 310 252 119 590 403 510
v/c Ratio 0.86 0.50 0.62 0.24 0.40 0.54
Control Delay 60.4 7.9 68.0 2.9 10.6 5.3
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.2
Total Delay 60.4 8.0 68.0 3.1 10.6 5.5
Queue Length 50th (ft) 187 0 78 32 140 82
Queue Length 95th (ft) #306 60 134 43 152 14
Internal Link Dist (ft) 358 206 466
Turn Bay Length (ft) 210 50
Base Capacity (vph) 402 531 243 2410 999 950
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 1037 0 67
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 6 0 0 46 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.77 0.48 0.49 0.43 0.42 0.58
Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
9: SW 72nd Ave & SW Hunziker St 07/13/2017
Fields Project 02/07/2017 2018 Total Traffic Conditions, Weekday AM Peak Hour Synchro 9 Report
Page 15
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 276 224 106 525 359 454
Future Volume (vph) 276 224 106 525 359 454
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.5 4.5 4.5
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1752 1468 1736 3406 1792 1486
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1752 1468 1736 3406 1792 1486
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89
Adj. Flow (vph) 310 252 119 590 403 510
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 200 0 0 0 122
Lane Group Flow (vph) 310 52 119 590 403 388
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 6 6
Heavy Vehicles (%) 3% 10% 4% 6% 6% 5%
Turn Type Prot Perm Prot NA NA Perm
Protected Phases 8 1 6 2
Permitted Phases 8 2
Actuated Green, G (s) 20.7 20.7 11.0 70.8 55.8 55.8
Effective Green, g (s) 20.7 20.7 11.0 70.8 55.8 55.8
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.21 0.21 0.11 0.71 0.56 0.56
Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.5 4.5 4.5
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.3 2.3 2.3 4.6 4.1 4.1
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 362 303 190 2411 999 829
v/s Ratio Prot c0.18 c0.07 0.17 0.22
v/s Ratio Perm 0.04 c0.26
v/c Ratio 0.86 0.17 0.63 0.24 0.40 0.47
Uniform Delay, d1 38.2 32.6 42.5 5.2 12.6 13.2
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.29 0.49 0.68 0.50
Incremental Delay, d2 17.3 0.2 4.9 0.2 1.0 1.6
Delay (s) 55.6 32.8 59.8 2.8 9.6 8.3
Level of Service E C E A A A
Approach Delay (s) 45.3 12.3 8.8
Approach LOS D B A
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 19.4 HCM 2000 Level of Service B
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.58
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.5
Intersection Capacity Utilization 50.5% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Queues
10: SW 72nd Ave & SW Varns St/OR 217 Ramps 07/13/2017
Fields Project 02/07/2017 2018 Total Traffic Conditions, Weekday AM Peak Hour Synchro 9 Report
Page 16
Lane Group EBT WBT WBR NBT SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 18 323 339 499 234 452
v/c Ratio 0.04 0.83 0.33 0.39 0.76 0.40
Control Delay 19.8 49.5 5.8 22.8 47.8 6.7
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.4
Total Delay 19.8 49.5 5.8 22.8 49.1 7.1
Queue Length 50th (ft) 7 190 48 110 144 49
Queue Length 95th (ft) 19 238 67 166 #232 107
Internal Link Dist (ft) 409 297 788 206
Turn Bay Length (ft) 115
Base Capacity (vph) 548 528 1013 1270 308 1117
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 13 263
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.03 0.61 0.33 0.39 0.79 0.53
Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
10: SW 72nd Ave & SW Varns St/OR 217 Ramps 07/13/2017
Fields Project 02/07/2017 2018 Total Traffic Conditions, Weekday AM Peak Hour Synchro 9 Report
Page 17
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 10 3 2 274 1 288 0 333 91 199 379 5
Future Volume (vph) 10 3 2 274 1 288 0 333 91 199 379 5
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width 12 12 12 15 12 15 12 12 12 12 12 12
Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.5
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.98 1.00 0.85 0.97 1.00 1.00
Flt Protected 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1625 1763 1759 3174 1626 1806
Flt Permitted 0.81 0.71 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1368 1321 1759 3174 1626 1806
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85
Adj. Flow (vph) 12 4 2 322 1 339 0 392 107 234 446 6
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 1 0 0 0 95 0 21 0 0 0 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 17 0 0 323 244 0 478 0 234 452 0
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 4 4 12 12
Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 0% 100% 2% 0% 1% 0% 9% 14% 11% 5% 0%
Turn Type Perm NA Perm NA pm+ov Prot NA Prot NA
Protected Phases 8 4 5 1 6 5 2
Permitted Phases 8 4 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 29.6 29.6 48.6 39.4 19.0 61.9
Effective Green, g (s) 29.6 29.6 48.6 39.4 19.0 61.9
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.30 0.30 0.49 0.39 0.19 0.62
Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.5
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.5 2.5 2.3 4.6 2.3 4.6
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 404 391 925 1250 308 1117
v/s Ratio Prot 0.05 0.15 c0.14 c0.25
v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 c0.24 0.09
v/c Ratio 0.04 0.83 0.26 0.38 0.76 0.40
Uniform Delay, d1 25.1 32.8 15.2 21.6 38.3 9.7
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.82 0.50
Incremental Delay, d2 0.0 13.0 0.1 0.9 8.9 1.0
Delay (s) 25.1 45.8 15.2 22.5 40.3 5.8
Level of Service C D B C D A
Approach Delay (s) 25.1 30.2 22.5 17.6
Approach LOS C C C B
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 23.4 HCM 2000 Level of Service C
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.63
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.5
Intersection Capacity Utilization 54.8% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
11: SW 72nd Ave & SW Tech Center Dr 07/13/2017
Fields Project 02/07/2017 2018 Total Traffic Conditions, Weekday AM Peak Hour Synchro 9 Report
Page 18
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 67 134 103 392 263 111
Future Volume (Veh/h) 67 134 103 392 263 111
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86
Hourly flow rate (vph) 78 156 120 456 306 129
Pedestrians 7
Lane Width (ft) 12.0
Walking Speed (ft/s) 4.0
Percent Blockage 1
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type TWLTL TWLTL
Median storage veh) 2 2
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 1074 378 442
vC1, stage 1 conf vol 378
vC2, stage 2 conf vol 696
vCu, unblocked vol 1074 378 442
tC, single (s) 6.6 6.6 4.2
tC, 2 stage (s) 5.6
tF (s) 3.7 3.6 2.3
p0 queue free % 79 74 89
cM capacity (veh/h) 372 593 1091
Direction, Lane # EB 1 NB 1 NB 2 SB 1
Volume Total 234 120 456 435
Volume Left 78 120 0 0
Volume Right 156 0 0 129
cSH 495 1091 1700 1700
Volume to Capacity 0.47 0.11 0.27 0.26
Queue Length 95th (ft) 62 9 0 0
Control Delay (s) 18.6 8.7 0.0 0.0
Lane LOS C A
Approach Delay (s) 18.6 1.8 0.0
Approach LOS C
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 4.3
Intersection Capacity Utilization 48.5% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
Queues
12: I- 5 SB Ramps & Kruse Way/OR 217 Ramps 07/13/2017
Fields Project 02/07/2017 2018 Total Traffic Conditions, Weekday AM Peak Hour Synchro 9 Report
Page 19
Lane Group EBT WBL WBT SBL SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 1474 235 1399 381 381 241
v/c Ratio 0.71 0.83 0.62 0.86 0.86 0.52
Control Delay 27.0 65.7 13.5 54.1 54.1 22.0
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 27.0 65.7 13.5 54.1 54.1 22.0
Queue Length 50th (ft) 289 149 276 242 242 76
Queue Length 95th (ft) 363 #277 374 348 348 146
Internal Link Dist (ft) 253 507 663
Turn Bay Length (ft) 380 550 550
Base Capacity (vph) 2081 284 2245 518 518 522
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.71 0.83 0.62 0.74 0.74 0.46
Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
12: I- 5 SB Ramps & Kruse Way/OR 217 Ramps 07/13/2017
Fields Project 02/07/2017 2018 Total Traffic Conditions, Weekday AM Peak Hour Synchro 9 Report
Page 20
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 0 1356 0 216 1287 0 0 0 0 701 0 222
Future Volume (vph) 0 1356 0 216 1287 0 0 0 0 701 0 222
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width 11 11 11 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12
Total Lost time (s) 6.0 4.5 6.0 4.5 4.5 4.5
Lane Util. Factor 0.91 1.00 0.95 0.95 0.95 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 4868 1752 3539 1698 1698 1490
Flt Permitted 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 4868 1752 3539 1698 1698 1490
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph) 0 1474 0 235 1399 0 0 0 0 762 0 241
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 72
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 1474 0 235 1399 0 0 0 0 381 381 169
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)1 1
Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 3% 0% 3% 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 7%
Turn Type NA Prot NA Split NA Perm
Protected Phases 2 1 6 4 4
Permitted Phases 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 43.4 16.5 64.4 26.6 26.6 26.6
Effective Green, g (s) 43.4 16.5 64.4 26.6 26.6 26.6
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.43 0.16 0.63 0.26 0.26 0.26
Clearance Time (s) 6.0 4.5 6.0 4.5 4.5 4.5
Vehicle Extension (s) 4.8 2.3 4.8 2.3 2.3 2.3
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 2081 284 2245 444 444 390
v/s Ratio Prot c0.30 c0.13 0.40 c0.22 0.22
v/s Ratio Perm 0.11
v/c Ratio 0.71 0.83 0.62 0.86 0.86 0.43
Uniform Delay, d1 23.9 41.1 11.2 35.7 35.7 31.2
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 2.1 17.1 1.3 14.8 14.8 0.5
Delay (s) 25.9 58.3 12.5 50.4 50.4 31.6
Level of Service C E B D D C
Approach Delay (s) 25.9 19.1 0.0 45.9
Approach LOS C B A D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 28.1 HCM 2000 Level of Service C
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.78
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 101.5 Sum of lost time (s) 15.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 70.3% ICU Level of Service C
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
SimTraffic Performance Report
2018 Total Traffic Conditions, Weekday AM Peak Hour 07/13/2017
SimTraffic Report
Page 1
8: SW 72nd Ave & OR 217 NB Ramps Performance by movement
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR2 SBL SBT All
Denied Del/Veh (s) 1.0 3.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7
Total Del/Veh (s) 27.0 2.2 19.5 7.8 31.2 14.2 16.8
9: SW 72nd Ave & SW Hunziker St Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s) 3.1 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6
Total Del/Veh (s) 31.2 8.0 43.9 5.2 11.5 5.2 13.0
10: SW 72nd Ave & SW Varns St/OR 217 Ramps Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT WBL WBT WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.1 1.1 3.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.8
Total Del/Veh (s) 13.4 36.8 6.1 14.0 6.5 28.6 3.8 16.2
113: SW Hall Blvd & SW Hunziker St Performance by movement
Movement SWL SWT All
Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s) 3.0 0.7 2.3
Total Network Performance
Denied Del/Veh (s) 1.5
Total Del/Veh (s) 32.5
Queuing and Blocking Report
2018 Total Traffic Conditions, Weekday AM Peak Hour 07/13/2017
SimTraffic Report
Page 2
Intersection: 8: SW 72nd Ave & OR 217 NB Ramps
Movement WB WB NB NB NB SB SB
Directions Served L R T T > L T
Maximum Queue (ft) 326 42 264 244 55 51 211
Average Queue (ft) 206 15 187 154 44 25 126
95th Queue (ft) 337 59 289 270 68 60 223
Link Distance (ft) 1003 491 491 849
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 750 25 225
Storage Blk Time (%) 25 8 1
Queuing Penalty (veh) 38 25 0
Intersection: 9: SW 72nd Ave & SW Hunziker St
Movement EB EB NB NB NB SB SB
Directions Served L R L T T T R
Maximum Queue (ft) 229 203 149 84 93 240 116
Average Queue (ft) 155 85 77 44 42 109 44
95th Queue (ft) 258 233 158 102 105 255 153
Link Distance (ft) 1113 236 236 236 491
Upstream Blk Time (%) 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 210 50
Storage Blk Time (%) 5 17 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 11 78 0
Intersection: 10: SW 72nd Ave & SW Varns St/OR 217 Ramps
Movement EB WB WB NB NB SB SB
Directions Served LTR LT R T TR L TR
Maximum Queue (ft) 23 242 190 106 120 192 90
Average Queue (ft) 10 174 88 68 78 118 42
95th Queue (ft) 36 273 215 113 138 213 104
Link Distance (ft) 804 718 1920 1920 236 236
Upstream Blk Time (%)1
Queuing Penalty (veh)2
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 200
Storage Blk Time (%) 6 0 18
Queuing Penalty (veh) 18 0 0
Queues
1: OR 217 SB Ramps & SW Pacific Hwy 07/13/2017
Fields Project 02/07/2017 2018 Total Traffic Conditions, Weekday PM Peak Hour Synchro 9 Report
Page 1
Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT SBL SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 1501 262 54 1846 304 306 285
v/c Ratio 0.69 0.26 0.49 0.73 0.85 0.85 0.79
Control Delay 14.5 1.6 78.5 8.2 73.4 73.7 58.5
Queue Delay 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 15.0 1.6 78.5 8.3 73.4 73.7 58.5
Queue Length 50th (ft) 179 8 49 292 280 282 207
Queue Length 95th (ft) 250 m16 m66 m389 376 380 300
Internal Link Dist (ft) 621 612 328
Turn Bay Length (ft) 320 200 200
Base Capacity (vph) 2163 1018 142 2526 445 446 436
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 76 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 248 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.78 0.26 0.38 0.75 0.68 0.69 0.65
Intersection Summary
m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal.
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
1: OR 217 SB Ramps & SW Pacific Hwy 07/13/2017
Fields Project 02/07/2017 2018 Total Traffic Conditions, Weekday PM Peak Hour Synchro 9 Report
Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 0 1426 249 51 1754 0 0 0 0 578 2 271
Future Volume (vph) 0 1426 249 51 1754 0 0 0 0 578 2 271
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width 11 11 11 12 12 12 12 12 12 11 11 11
Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 5.0 5.0 5.0
Lane Util. Factor 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 0.95 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 3421 1490 1736 3539 1641 1646 1481
Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 3421 1490 1736 3539 1641 1646 1481
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
Adj. Flow (vph) 0 1501 262 54 1846 0 0 0 0 608 2 285
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 77 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 37
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 1501 185 54 1846 0 0 0 0 304 306 248
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 5 5 5 5 1 1
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 3
Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 2% 1% 4% 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 4%
Turn Type NA Perm Prot NA Perm NA Perm
Protected Phases 2 1 6 4
Permitted Phases 2 4 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 87.7 87.7 7.8 100.0 30.5 30.5 30.5
Effective Green, g (s) 87.7 87.7 7.8 100.0 30.5 30.5 30.5
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.63 0.63 0.06 0.71 0.22 0.22 0.22
Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 5.0 5.0 5.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 4.8 4.8 2.5 6.6 2.3 2.3 2.3
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 2143 933 96 2527 357 358 322
v/s Ratio Prot 0.44 0.03 c0.52
v/s Ratio Perm 0.12 0.19 0.19 0.17
v/c Ratio 0.70 0.20 0.56 0.73 0.85 0.85 0.77
Uniform Delay, d1 17.4 11.2 64.4 11.9 52.6 52.6 51.5
Progression Factor 0.67 0.30 1.10 0.53 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 1.6 0.4 3.8 1.2 17.1 17.3 10.3
Delay (s) 13.2 3.7 74.6 7.5 69.7 70.0 61.7
Level of Service B A E A E E E
Approach Delay (s) 11.8 9.4 0.0 67.2
Approach LOS B A A E
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 21.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service C
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.79
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 140.0 Sum of lost time (s) 14.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 73.7% ICU Level of Service D
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Queues
2: SW Hall Blvd & SW Pacific Hwy 07/13/2017
Fields Project 02/07/2017 2018 Total Traffic Conditions, Weekday PM Peak Hour Synchro 9 Report
Page 3
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 157 1209 21 255 1826 158 273 271 205 282 215
v/c Ratio 0.93 0.64 0.03 0.89 0.79 0.67 0.85 0.56 0.83 0.86 0.44
Control Delay 115.5 36.7 0.1 85.1 22.8 72.2 79.2 10.9 85.1 79.3 18.5
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 115.5 36.7 0.1 85.1 23.1 72.2 79.2 10.9 85.1 79.3 18.5
Queue Length 50th (ft) 145 333 0 206 391 140 249 0 181 249 68
Queue Length 95th (ft) #289 363 0 #361 389 #331 #472 88 #307 #350 134
Internal Link Dist (ft) 526 621 1324 464
Turn Bay Length (ft) 240 30 440 230 230 230 200
Base Capacity (vph) 168 1999 628 313 2504 237 322 486 267 380 486
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 205 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.93 0.60 0.03 0.81 0.79 0.67 0.85 0.56 0.77 0.74 0.44
Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
2: SW Hall Blvd & SW Pacific Hwy 07/13/2017
Fields Project 02/07/2017 2018 Total Traffic Conditions, Weekday PM Peak Hour Synchro 9 Report
Page 4
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 152 1173 20 247 1652 119 153 265 263 199 274 209
Future Volume (vph) 152 1173 20 247 1652 119 153 265 263 199 274 209
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width 11 11 11 12 12 12 11 11 11 11 11 11
Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.5
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.99
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1728 4868 1318 1719 5031 1728 1818 1485 1728 1801 1526
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1728 4868 1318 1719 5031 1728 1818 1485 1728 1801 1526
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97
Adj. Flow (vph) 157 1209 21 255 1703 123 158 273 271 205 282 215
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 13 0 7 0 0 0 223 0 0 59
Lane Group Flow (vph) 157 1209 8 255 1819 0 158 273 48 205 282 156
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 4 3 3 4 5 3 3 5
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 1 3 1
Heavy Vehicles (%) 1% 3% 15% 5% 2% 0% 1% 1% 3% 1% 2% 1%
Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA Perm Prot NA pm+ov
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4 5
Permitted Phases 2 8 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 13.7 54.3 54.3 23.4 64.0 19.2 24.9 24.9 19.9 25.6 39.3
Effective Green, g (s) 13.7 54.3 54.3 23.4 64.0 19.2 24.9 24.9 19.9 25.6 39.3
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.10 0.39 0.39 0.17 0.46 0.14 0.18 0.18 0.14 0.18 0.28
Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.5
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.3 4.2 4.2 2.3 4.2 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 169 1888 511 287 2299 236 323 264 245 329 428
v/s Ratio Prot 0.09 0.25 c0.15 c0.36 0.09 c0.15 0.12 c0.16 0.04
v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 0.03 0.07
v/c Ratio 0.93 0.64 0.02 0.89 0.79 0.67 0.85 0.18 0.84 0.86 0.36
Uniform Delay, d1 62.7 34.9 26.4 57.0 32.3 57.4 55.7 48.9 58.5 55.4 40.3
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.10 0.65 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 48.1 1.7 0.1 19.4 2.0 6.0 17.6 0.2 20.7 18.8 0.3
Delay (s) 110.8 36.6 26.5 82.0 23.0 63.4 73.3 49.1 79.2 74.3 40.7
Level of Service F D C F C E E D E E D
Approach Delay (s) 44.8 30.3 61.7 65.4
Approach LOS D C E E
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 44.0 HCM 2000 Level of Service D
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.86
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 140.0 Sum of lost time (s) 17.5
Intersection Capacity Utilization 83.5% ICU Level of Service E
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Queues
3: SW Hall Blvd & SW Hunziker St 07/13/2017
Fields Project 02/07/2017 2018 Total Traffic Conditions, Weekday PM Peak Hour Synchro 9 Report
Page 5
Lane Group WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 530 338 8 519 71 483
v/c Ratio 1.10 0.46 0.02 0.63 0.51 0.85
Control Delay 105.4 5.2 54.3 8.7 60.7 53.0
Queue Delay 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.1
Total Delay 107.0 5.2 54.3 8.7 60.7 55.1
Queue Length 50th (ft) ~425 0 5 11 49 330
Queue Length 95th (ft) #634 63 m7 m103 94 #554
Internal Link Dist (ft) 1895 20 1324
Turn Bay Length (ft)140
Base Capacity (vph) 483 729 501 807 181 566
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 28 0 0 0 0 25
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 1.16 0.46 0.02 0.64 0.39 0.89
Intersection Summary
~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal.
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
3: SW Hall Blvd & SW Hunziker St 07/13/2017
Fields Project 02/07/2017 2018 Total Traffic Conditions, Weekday PM Peak Hour Synchro 9 Report
Page 6
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 0 0 0 488 0 311 7 350 128 65 442 3
Future Volume (vph) 0 0 0 488 0 311 7 350 128 65 442 3
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s)2.3 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)1770 1552 1805 1764 1736 1825
Flt Permitted 0.76 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)1410 1552 1805 1764 1736 1825
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 0 530 0 338 8 380 139 71 480 3
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 229 0 11 0 0 0 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 0 0 530 109 8 508 0 71 483 0
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 4 4 2 2
Confl. Bikes (#/hr)5 1
Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 3% 0% 2% 0% 1% 0% 3% 2% 4% 4% 0%
Turn Type Perm NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA
Protected Phases 4 4 5 8 2 8 1 6
Permitted Phases 4 4 4
Actuated Green, G (s)35.5 35.5 27.7 48.7 7.8 33.3
Effective Green, g (s)37.7 35.5 27.7 48.7 7.8 33.3
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.34 0.32 0.25 0.44 0.07 0.30
Clearance Time (s)4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Vehicle Extension (s)2.3 2.3 2.3 4.5
Lane Grp Cap (vph)483 500 454 780 123 552
v/s Ratio Prot 0.00 c0.29 c0.04 c0.26
v/s Ratio Perm c0.38 0.07
v/c Ratio 1.10 0.22 0.02 0.65 0.58 0.88
Uniform Delay, d1 36.1 27.1 30.9 24.0 49.5 36.4
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.86 0.38 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 70.1 0.1 0.0 1.0 4.8 17.4
Delay (s)106.2 27.3 57.7 10.1 54.3 53.8
Level of Service F C E B D D
Approach Delay (s) 0.0 75.5 10.8 53.9
Approach LOS A E B D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 51.8 HCM 2000 Level of Service D
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.92
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 110.0 Sum of lost time (s) 18.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 67.7% ICU Level of Service C
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Queues
4: SW Hall Blvd & SW Scoffins St 07/13/2017
Fields Project 02/07/2017 2018 Total Traffic Conditions, Weekday PM Peak Hour Synchro 9 Report
Page 7
Lane Group EBL NBL NBT SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 120 14 466 1011
v/c Ratio 0.44 0.11 0.81 0.83
Control Delay 35.4 47.8 49.4 5.8
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.0
Total Delay 35.4 47.8 50.3 5.8
Queue Length 50th (ft) 54 10 313 16
Queue Length 95th (ft) 112 29 #522 m24
Internal Link Dist (ft) 73 63 20
Turn Bay Length (ft) 50
Base Capacity (vph) 272 188 573 1214
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 19 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.44 0.07 0.84 0.83
Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal.
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
4: SW Hall Blvd & SW Scoffins St 07/13/2017
Fields Project 02/07/2017 2018 Total Traffic Conditions, Weekday PM Peak Hour Synchro 9 Report
Page 8
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 56 54 13 429 727 203
Future Volume (vph) 56 54 13 429 727 203
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.93 1.00 1.00 0.97
Flt Protected 0.98 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1711 1805 1845 1790
Flt Permitted 0.98 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1711 1805 1845 1790
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph) 61 59 14 466 790 221
RTOR Reduction (vph) 32 0 0 0 8 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 88 0 14 466 1003 0
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1
Confl. Bikes (#/hr)1
Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 0% 0% 3% 3% 1%
Turn Type Prot Prot NA NA
Protected Phases 8 5 2 4 6
Permitted Phases
Actuated Green, G (s) 15.4 7.8 33.3 73.3
Effective Green, g (s) 15.4 7.8 33.3 73.3
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.14 0.07 0.30 0.67
Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.3 3.0 4.5
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 239 127 558 1192
v/s Ratio Prot c0.05 c0.01 0.25 c0.56
v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio 0.37 0.11 0.84 0.84
Uniform Delay, d1 42.9 47.9 35.8 13.9
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.19
Incremental Delay, d2 0.6 0.4 13.8 1.5
Delay (s) 43.5 48.2 49.6 4.1
Level of Service D D D A
Approach Delay (s) 43.5 49.5 4.1
Approach LOS D D A
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 20.6 HCM 2000 Level of Service C
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.74
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 110.0 Sum of lost time (s) 18.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 64.9% ICU Level of Service C
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
5: SW Wall St & SW Hunziker St 07/13/2017
Fields Project 02/07/2017 2018 Total Traffic Conditions, Weekday PM Peak Hour Synchro 9 Report
Page 9
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 176 83 50 634 117 139
Future Volume (Veh/h) 176 83 50 634 117 139
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Grade 0% -7% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88
Hourly flow rate (vph) 200 94 57 720 133 158
Pedestrians 1
Lane Width (ft)12.0
Walking Speed (ft/s)4.0
Percent Blockage 0
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 295 1082 248
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 295 1082 248
tC, single (s) 4.5 6.4 6.2
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s)2.6 3.5 3.3
p0 queue free % 95 42 80
cM capacity (veh/h) 1077 230 795
Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 WB 2 NB 1
Volume Total 294 57 720 291
Volume Left 0 57 0 133
Volume Right 94 0 0 158
cSH 1700 1077 1700 374
Volume to Capacity 0.17 0.05 0.42 0.78
Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 4 0 162
Control Delay (s) 0.0 8.5 0.0 41.2
Lane LOS A E
Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.6 41.2
Approach LOS E
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 9.2
Intersection Capacity Utilization 55.0% ICU Level of Service B
Analysis Period (min) 15
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
6: SW Tech Center Dr & South Site Access 07/13/2017
Fields Project 02/07/2017 2018 Total Traffic Conditions, Weekday PM Peak Hour Synchro 9 Report
Page 10
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 28 104 68 19 51 87
Future Volume (Veh/h) 28 104 68 19 51 87
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89
Hourly flow rate (vph) 31 117 76 21 57 98
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 97 266 86
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 97 266 86
tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3
p0 queue free % 98 92 90
cM capacity (veh/h) 1509 713 978
Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 SB 1
Volume Total 148 97 155
Volume Left 31 0 57
Volume Right 0 21 98
cSH 1509 1700 860
Volume to Capacity 0.02 0.06 0.18
Queue Length 95th (ft) 2 0 16
Control Delay (s) 1.7 0.0 10.1
Lane LOS A B
Approach Delay (s) 1.7 0.0 10.1
Approach LOS B
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 4.5
Intersection Capacity Utilization 28.5% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
7: North Site Access & SW Hunziker St 07/13/2017
Fields Project 02/07/2017 2018 Total Traffic Conditions, Weekday PM Peak Hour Synchro 9 Report
Page 11
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 329 16 75 679 11 66
Future Volume (Veh/h) 329 16 75 679 11 66
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Grade 7% -7% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88
Hourly flow rate (vph) 374 18 85 772 13 75
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 392 1325 383
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 392 1325 383
tC, single (s) 4.3 6.4 6.2
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s)2.4 3.5 3.3
p0 queue free % 92 92 89
cM capacity (veh/h) 1085 160 669
Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 WB 2 NB 1
Volume Total 392 85 772 88
Volume Left 0 85 0 13
Volume Right 18 0 0 75
cSH 1700 1085 1700 455
Volume to Capacity 0.23 0.08 0.45 0.19
Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 6 0 18
Control Delay (s) 0.0 8.6 0.0 14.8
Lane LOS A B
Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.9 14.8
Approach LOS B
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 1.5
Intersection Capacity Utilization 47.1% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
Queues
8: SW 72nd Ave & OR 217 NB Ramps 07/13/2017
Fields Project 02/07/2017 2018 Total Traffic Conditions, Weekday PM Peak Hour Synchro 9 Report
Page 12
Lane Group WBL WBR NBT SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 459 349 1113 223 792
v/c Ratio 0.89 0.49 0.72 0.77 0.69
Control Delay 57.7 6.6 19.4 58.2 15.7
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 57.7 6.6 19.5 58.2 15.7
Queue Length 50th (ft) 287 0 216 136 293
Queue Length 95th (ft) #590 78 251 213 295
Internal Link Dist (ft) 797 466 320
Turn Bay Length (ft) 670 190
Base Capacity (vph) 517 717 1789 341 1363
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 105 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.89 0.49 0.66 0.65 0.58
Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
8: SW 72nd Ave & OR 217 NB Ramps 07/13/2017
Fields Project 02/07/2017 2018 Total Traffic Conditions, Weekday PM Peak Hour Synchro 9 Report
Page 13
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 413 314 530 472 201 713
Future Volume (vph) 413 314 530 472 201 713
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.5
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.85 0.93 1.00 1.00
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1736 1583 3291 1787 1881
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1736 1583 3291 1787 1881
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Adj. Flow (vph) 459 349 589 524 223 792
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 245 188 0 0 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 459 104 925 0 223 792
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 2
Confl. Bikes (#/hr)1
Heavy Vehicles (%) 4% 2% 0% 2% 1% 1%
Turn Type Prot Prot NA Prot NA
Protected Phases 4 4 6 5 2
Permitted Phases
Actuated Green, G (s) 29.8 29.8 41.0 16.2 61.2
Effective Green, g (s) 29.8 29.8 41.0 16.2 61.2
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.30 0.30 0.41 0.16 0.61
Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.5
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.3 2.3 6.2 2.3 6.2
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 517 471 1349 289 1151
v/s Ratio Prot c0.26 0.07 0.28 0.12 c0.42
v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio 0.89 0.22 0.69 0.77 0.69
Uniform Delay, d1 33.5 26.4 24.2 40.1 13.0
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 16.5 0.1 2.9 11.4 3.4
Delay (s) 50.0 26.5 27.1 51.5 16.4
Level of Service D C C D B
Approach Delay (s) 39.9 27.1 24.1
Approach LOS D C C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 29.6 HCM 2000 Level of Service C
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.79
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0 Sum of lost time (s) 13.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 74.7% ICU Level of Service D
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Queues
9: SW 72nd Ave & SW Hunziker St 07/13/2017
Fields Project 02/07/2017 2018 Total Traffic Conditions, Weekday PM Peak Hour Synchro 9 Report
Page 14
Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 287 243 113 827 559 692
v/c Ratio 0.88 0.50 0.72 0.32 0.49 0.67
Control Delay 68.2 8.5 69.6 5.3 13.9 11.0
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.9 0.8
Total Delay 68.2 8.5 69.6 6.6 14.8 11.7
Queue Length 50th (ft) 181 0 72 88 202 153
Queue Length 95th (ft) #319 64 #150 113 290 286
Internal Link Dist (ft) 358 206 466
Turn Bay Length (ft) 210 50
Base Capacity (vph) 347 505 170 2617 1132 1031
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 1505 310 120
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.83 0.48 0.66 0.74 0.68 0.76
Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
9: SW 72nd Ave & SW Hunziker St 07/13/2017
Fields Project 02/07/2017 2018 Total Traffic Conditions, Weekday PM Peak Hour Synchro 9 Report
Page 15
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 258 219 102 744 503 623
Future Volume (vph) 258 219 102 744 503 623
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.5 4.5 4.5
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.96
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1583 1736 3574 1881 1506
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1583 1736 3574 1881 1506
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Adj. Flow (vph) 287 243 113 827 559 692
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 198 0 0 0 125
Lane Group Flow (vph) 287 45 113 827 559 567
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 8 8
Confl. Bikes (#/hr)1
Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 2% 4% 1% 1% 3%
Turn Type Prot Perm Prot NA NA Perm
Protected Phases 8 1 6 2
Permitted Phases 8 2
Actuated Green, G (s) 18.8 18.8 9.3 74.7 61.4 61.4
Effective Green, g (s) 18.8 18.8 9.3 74.7 61.4 61.4
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.18 0.18 0.09 0.73 0.60 0.60
Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.5 4.5 4.5
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.3 2.3 2.3 4.6 4.1 4.1
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 326 291 158 2617 1132 906
v/s Ratio Prot c0.16 c0.07 0.23 0.30
v/s Ratio Perm 0.03 c0.38
v/c Ratio 0.88 0.15 0.72 0.32 0.49 0.63
Uniform Delay, d1 40.5 34.9 45.1 4.8 11.5 13.0
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 22.7 0.1 12.8 0.3 1.5 3.3
Delay (s) 63.2 35.1 57.9 5.1 13.0 16.2
Level of Service E D E A B B
Approach Delay (s) 50.3 11.4 14.8
Approach LOS D B B
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 20.6 HCM 2000 Level of Service C
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.69
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 102.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.5
Intersection Capacity Utilization 56.8% ICU Level of Service B
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Queues
10: SW 72nd Ave & SW Varns St/OR 217 Ramps 07/13/2017
Fields Project 02/07/2017 2018 Total Traffic Conditions, Weekday PM Peak Hour Synchro 9 Report
Page 16
Lane Group EBT WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 28 164 121 1 1042 336 474
v/c Ratio 0.11 0.72 0.16 0.01 0.59 0.99 0.35
Control Delay 27.6 56.0 6.6 45.0 18.6 88.7 7.5
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 35.2 2.3
Total Delay 27.6 56.0 6.6 45.0 18.6 123.9 9.8
Queue Length 50th (ft) 12 100 14 1 221 216 87
Queue Length 95th (ft) 33 154 42 6 328 #387 232
Internal Link Dist (ft) 409 322 877 206
Turn Bay Length (ft) 115 35
Base Capacity (vph) 380 352 754 180 1777 339 1345
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 40 712
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.07 0.47 0.16 0.01 0.59 1.12 0.75
Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
10: SW 72nd Ave & SW Varns St/OR 217 Ramps 07/13/2017
Fields Project 02/07/2017 2018 Total Traffic Conditions, Weekday PM Peak Hour Synchro 9 Report
Page 17
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 18 2 5 142 4 108 1 719 208 299 404 18
Future Volume (vph) 18 2 5 142 4 108 1 719 208 299 404 18
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width 12 12 12 15 12 15 12 12 12 12 12 12
Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.5
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.97 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.99
Flt Protected 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1708 1750 1742 1805 3404 1787 1861
Flt Permitted 0.79 0.71 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1395 1304 1742 1805 3404 1787 1861
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89
Adj. Flow (vph) 20 2 6 160 4 121 1 808 234 336 454 20
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 5 0 0 0 51 0 24 0 0 1 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 23 0 0 164 70 1 1018 0 336 473 0
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)11 11
Confl. Bikes (#/hr)1 1
Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 0% 20% 3% 25% 2% 0% 2% 2% 1% 1% 6%
Turn Type Perm NA Perm NA pm+ov Prot NA Prot NA
Protected Phases 8 4 5 1 6 5 2
Permitted Phases 8 4 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 17.4 17.4 39.5 1.0 48.5 22.1 69.1
Effective Green, g (s) 17.4 17.4 39.5 1.0 48.5 22.1 69.1
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.17 0.17 0.40 0.01 0.48 0.22 0.69
Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.5
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.5 2.5 2.3 2.3 4.6 2.3 4.6
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 242 226 757 18 1650 394 1285
v/s Ratio Prot 0.02 0.00 c0.30 c0.19 0.25
v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 c0.13 0.02
v/c Ratio 0.10 0.73 0.09 0.06 0.62 0.85 0.37
Uniform Delay, d1 34.7 39.0 19.0 49.0 18.9 37.4 6.4
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.1 10.3 0.0 0.8 1.7 15.8 0.8
Delay (s) 34.8 49.4 19.0 49.8 20.7 53.2 7.2
Level of Service C D B D C D A
Approach Delay (s) 34.8 36.5 20.7 26.3
Approach LOS C D C C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 25.1 HCM 2000 Level of Service C
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.70
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.5
Intersection Capacity Utilization 63.2% ICU Level of Service B
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
11: SW 72nd Ave & SW Tech Center Dr 07/13/2017
Fields Project 02/07/2017 2018 Total Traffic Conditions, Weekday PM Peak Hour Synchro 9 Report
Page 18
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 131 130 75 583 558 29
Future Volume (Veh/h) 131 130 75 583 558 29
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89
Hourly flow rate (vph) 147 146 84 655 627 33
Pedestrians 6
Lane Width (ft) 12.0
Walking Speed (ft/s) 4.0
Percent Blockage 1
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type TWLTL TWLTL
Median storage veh) 2 2
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 1472 650 666
vC1, stage 1 conf vol 650
vC2, stage 2 conf vol 823
vCu, unblocked vol 1472 650 666
tC, single (s) 6.4 6.3 4.5
tC, 2 stage (s) 5.4
tF (s) 3.5 3.4 2.6
p0 queue free % 55 68 89
cM capacity (veh/h) 324 460 754
Direction, Lane # EB 1 NB 1 NB 2 SB 1
Volume Total 293 84 655 660
Volume Left 147 84 0 0
Volume Right 146 0 0 33
cSH 380 754 1700 1700
Volume to Capacity 0.77 0.11 0.39 0.39
Queue Length 95th (ft) 159 9 0 0
Control Delay (s) 40.0 10.4 0.0 0.0
Lane LOS E B
Approach Delay (s) 40.0 1.2 0.0
Approach LOS E
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 7.4
Intersection Capacity Utilization 60.5% ICU Level of Service B
Analysis Period (min) 15
Queues
12: I- 5 SB Ramps & Kruse Way/OR 217 Ramps 07/13/2017
Fields Project 02/07/2017 2018 Total Traffic Conditions, Weekday PM Peak Hour Synchro 9 Report
Page 19
Lane Group EBT WBL WBT SBL SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 1508 168 1424 253 259 259
v/c Ratio 0.67 0.48 0.58 0.74 0.75 0.67
Control Delay 24.2 41.2 9.9 49.6 50.7 30.7
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 24.2 41.2 9.9 49.6 50.7 30.7
Queue Length 50th (ft) 265 96 212 161 165 95
Queue Length 95th (ft) 369 162 349 228 233 165
Internal Link Dist (ft) 253 507 663
Turn Bay Length (ft) 380 550 550
Base Capacity (vph) 2255 348 2456 531 533 541
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.67 0.48 0.58 0.48 0.49 0.48
Intersection Summary
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
12: I- 5 SB Ramps & Kruse Way/OR 217 Ramps 07/13/2017
Fields Project 02/07/2017 2018 Total Traffic Conditions, Weekday PM Peak Hour Synchro 9 Report
Page 20
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 0 1444 4 161 1367 0 0 0 0 487 5 249
Future Volume (vph) 0 1444 4 161 1367 0 0 0 0 487 5 249
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width 11 11 11 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12
Total Lost time (s) 6.0 4.5 6.0 4.5 4.5 4.5
Lane Util. Factor 0.91 1.00 0.95 0.95 0.95 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 4963 1787 3539 1715 1721 1530
Flt Permitted 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 4963 1787 3539 1715 1721 1530
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96
Adj. Flow (vph) 0 1504 4 168 1424 0 0 0 0 507 5 259
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 78
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 1508 0 168 1424 0 0 0 0 253 259 181
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)3 3
Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 1% 0% 1% 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 4%
Turn Type NA Prot NA Split NA Perm
Protected Phases 2 1 6 4 4
Permitted Phases 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 45.4 19.5 69.4 20.1 20.1 20.1
Effective Green, g (s) 45.4 19.5 69.4 20.1 20.1 20.1
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.45 0.20 0.69 0.20 0.20 0.20
Clearance Time (s) 6.0 4.5 6.0 4.5 4.5 4.5
Vehicle Extension (s) 4.8 2.3 4.8 2.3 2.3 2.3
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 2253 348 2456 344 345 307
v/s Ratio Prot c0.30 0.09 c0.40 0.15 c0.15
v/s Ratio Perm 0.12
v/c Ratio 0.67 0.48 0.58 0.74 0.75 0.59
Uniform Delay, d1 21.4 35.8 7.8 37.5 37.6 36.2
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 1.6 0.6 1.0 7.3 8.3 2.2
Delay (s) 23.0 36.4 8.8 44.7 45.8 38.4
Level of Service C D A D D D
Approach Delay (s) 23.0 11.7 0.0 43.0
Approach LOS C B A D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 22.4 HCM 2000 Level of Service C
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.67
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0 Sum of lost time (s) 15.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 64.2% ICU Level of Service C
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
SimTraffic Performance Report
2018 TotalTraffic Conditions, Weekday PM Peak Hour 07/13/2017
SimTraffic Report
Page 1
8: SW 72nd Ave & OR 217 NB Ramps Performance by movement
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR2 SBL SBT All
Denied Del/Veh (s) 1.0 3.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6
Total Del/Veh (s) 38.5 3.6 13.6 12.0 43.6 15.7 18.4
9: SW 72nd Ave & SW Hunziker St Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s) 3.1 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4
Total Del/Veh (s) 21.9 5.9 37.9 10.4 14.9 6.3 12.1
10: SW 72nd Ave & SW Varns St/OR 217 Ramps Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT WBL WBT WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.1 0.1 0.6 0.1 3.3 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4
Total Del/Veh (s) 41.9 1.7 39.1 4.9 7.6 15.2 15.2 20.0 5.8 13.5 16.4
113: SW Hall Blvd & SW Hunziker St Performance by movement
Movement SWL SWT All
Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s) 9.2 0.5 9.1
Total Network Performance
Denied Del/Veh (s) 1.1
Total Del/Veh (s) 33.8
Queuing and Blocking Report
2018 TotalTraffic Conditions, Weekday PM Peak Hour 07/13/2017
SimTraffic Report
Page 2
Intersection: 8: SW 72nd Ave & OR 217 NB Ramps
Movement WB WB NB NB NB SB SB
Directions Served L R T T > L T
Maximum Queue (ft) 277 114 200 231 50 250 352
Average Queue (ft) 247 33 114 142 50 200 258
95th Queue (ft) 280 107 189 261 50 305 421
Link Distance (ft) 1003 491 491 849
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 750 25 225
Storage Blk Time (%) 8 34 10
Queuing Penalty (veh) 40 89 19
Intersection: 9: SW 72nd Ave & SW Hunziker St
Movement EB EB NB NB NB SB SB
Directions Served L R L T T T R
Maximum Queue (ft) 117 68 74 118 165 310 150
Average Queue (ft) 96 40 58 85 145 208 69
95th Queue (ft) 136 66 84 130 173 372 177
Link Distance (ft) 1113 236 236 236 491
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 210 50
Storage Blk Time (%)26 0
Queuing Penalty (veh)160 2
Intersection: 10: SW 72nd Ave & SW Varns St/OR 217 Ramps
Movement EB WB WB NB NB SB SB
Directions Served LTR LT R T TR L TR
Maximum Queue (ft) 31 146 48 152 355 107 153
Average Queue (ft) 15 97 41 102 201 102 72
95th Queue (ft) 37 156 54 161 331 110 152
Link Distance (ft) 804 718 1920 1920 236 236
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 200
Storage Blk Time (%) 30
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0
Appendix H
Mitigated Total Traffic
Operations Worksheets
Queues
3: SW Hall Blvd & SW Hunziker St 07/13/2017
Fields Project 02/07/2017 2018 Total Traffic Conditions, Weekday AM Peak Hour with Retime Synchro 9 Report
Page 1
Lane Group EBT WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 3 179 148 1 1023 185 276
v/c Ratio 0.01 0.76 0.38 0.00 1.07 1.06 0.46
Control Delay 0.0 67.1 8.9 55.0 51.8 137.2 35.1
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.7 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 0.0 67.1 8.9 55.0 65.5 137.2 35.1
Queue Length 50th (ft) 0 138 0 1 ~298 ~163 173
Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 192 46 m1 m117 #291 242
Internal Link Dist (ft) 21 1895 25 862
Turn Bay Length (ft)140
Base Capacity (vph) 479 330 481 665 959 175 600
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 526 82 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.01 0.54 0.31 0.01 1.17 1.06 0.46
Intersection Summary
~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal.
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
3: SW Hall Blvd & SW Hunziker St 07/13/2017
Fields Project 02/07/2017 2018 Total Traffic Conditions, Weekday AM Peak Hour with Retime Synchro 9 Report
Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 2 0 1 154 0 127 1 442 438 159 237 0
Future Volume (vph) 2 0 1 154 0 127 1 442 438 159 237 0
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.95 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.93 1.00 1.00
Flt Protected 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1756 1641 1468 1805 1632 1752 1759
Flt Permitted 0.89 0.76 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1622 1306 1468 1805 1632 1752 1759
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86
Adj. Flow (vph) 2 0 1 179 0 148 1 514 509 185 276 0
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 2 0 0 0 121 0 24 0 0 0 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 1 0 0 179 27 1 999 0 185 276 0
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)1 1
Confl. Bikes (#/hr)5 1
Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 0% 0% 10% 0% 10% 0% 9% 4% 3% 8% 0%
Turn Type Perm NA Perm NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA
Protected Phases 4 4 5 8 2 8 1 6
Permitted Phases 4 4 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 22.6 22.6 22.6 45.9 71.4 12.5 42.5
Effective Green, g (s) 22.6 22.6 22.6 45.9 71.4 12.5 42.5
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.37 0.57 0.10 0.34
Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 4.5
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 294 237 266 665 935 175 600
v/s Ratio Prot 0.00 c0.61 c0.11 0.16
v/s Ratio Perm 0.00 c0.14 0.02
v/c Ratio 0.00 0.76 0.10 0.00 1.07 1.06 0.46
Uniform Delay, d1 41.7 48.3 42.5 24.8 26.5 56.0 32.0
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.78 0.96 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.0 11.9 0.1 0.0 33.2 84.0 2.5
Delay (s) 41.7 60.3 42.6 44.1 58.6 140.0 34.6
Level of Service D E D D E F C
Approach Delay (s) 41.7 52.3 58.6 76.9
Approach LOS D D E E
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 62.1 HCM 2000 Level of Service E
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 1.00
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 124.5 Sum of lost time (s) 18.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 81.7% ICU Level of Service D
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Queues
4: SW Hall Blvd & SW Scoffins St 07/13/2017
Fields Project 02/07/2017 2018 Total Traffic Conditions, Weekday AM Peak Hour with Retime Synchro 9 Report
Page 3
Lane Group EBL NBL NBT SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 204 3 842 455
v/c Ratio 0.56 0.04 1.39 0.48
Control Delay 50.1 54.3 218.6 1.8
Queue Delay 0.2 0.0 1.6 0.3
Total Delay 50.3 54.3 220.2 2.0
Queue Length 50th (ft) 143 2 ~902 4
Queue Length 95th (ft) #260 11 #1075 0
Internal Link Dist (ft) 192 405 25
Turn Bay Length (ft) 50
Base Capacity (vph) 366 136 606 1076
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 198
Spillback Cap Reductn 9 0 114 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.57 0.02 1.71 0.52
Intersection Summary
~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
4: SW Hall Blvd & SW Scoffins St 07/13/2017
Fields Project 02/07/2017 2018 Total Traffic Conditions, Weekday AM Peak Hour with Retime Synchro 9 Report
Page 4
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 157 18 3 724 329 62
Future Volume (vph) 157 18 3 724 329 62
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width 10 10 12 12 12 12
Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.98
Flt Protected 0.96 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1568 1357 1776 1699
Flt Permitted 0.96 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1568 1357 1776 1699
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86
Adj. Flow (vph) 183 21 3 842 383 72
RTOR Reduction (vph) 3 0 0 0 7 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 201 0 3 842 448 0
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 1 1
Confl. Bikes (#/hr)1
Heavy Vehicles (%) 6% 11% 33% 7% 10% 4%
Turn Type Prot Prot NA NA
Protected Phases 8 5 2 4 6
Permitted Phases
Actuated Green, G (s) 28.9 12.5 42.5 69.6
Effective Green, g (s) 28.9 12.5 42.5 69.6
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.23 0.10 0.34 0.56
Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.3 3.0 4.5
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 363 136 606 949
v/s Ratio Prot c0.13 c0.00 c0.47 c0.26
v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio 0.55 0.02 1.39 0.47
Uniform Delay, d1 42.1 50.5 41.0 16.4
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.02
Incremental Delay, d2 1.3 0.1 185.3 0.2
Delay (s) 43.4 50.6 226.3 0.5
Level of Service D D F A
Approach Delay (s) 43.4 225.6 0.5
Approach LOS D F A
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 132.8 HCM 2000 Level of Service F
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.82
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 124.5 Sum of lost time (s) 18.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 55.7% ICU Level of Service B
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Queues
3: SW Hall Blvd & SW Hunziker St 07/14/2017
Fields Project 02/07/2017 2018 Total Traffic Conditions, Weekday AM Peak Hour with Scoffins RIRO Synchro 9 Report
Page 1
Lane Group EBT WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 3 179 148 1 1023 185 276
v/c Ratio 0.01 0.90 0.42 0.02 0.97 0.93 0.20
Control Delay 0.0 98.2 11.5 67.0 44.1 106.6 5.3
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 0.0 98.2 11.5 67.0 44.1 106.6 5.3
Queue Length 50th (ft) 0 160 0 1 820 170 59
Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 #270 53 7 #1085 #295 108
Internal Link Dist (ft) 21 1895 819 862
Turn Bay Length (ft)140
Base Capacity (vph) 336 217 367 53 1058 203 1352
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.01 0.82 0.40 0.02 0.97 0.91 0.20
Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
3: SW Hall Blvd & SW Hunziker St 07/14/2017
Fields Project 02/07/2017 2018 Total Traffic Conditions, Weekday AM Peak Hour with Scoffins RIRO Synchro 9 Report
Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 2 0 1 154 0 127 1 442 438 159 237 0
Future Volume (vph) 2 0 1 154 0 127 1 442 438 159 237 0
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.95 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.93 1.00 1.00
Flt Protected 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1756 1641 1468 1800 1632 1752 1759
Flt Permitted 0.89 0.76 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1608 1306 1468 1800 1632 1752 1759
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86
Adj. Flow (vph) 2 0 1 179 0 148 1 514 509 185 276 0
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 3 0 0 0 126 0 24 0 0 0 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 0 0 179 22 1 999 0 185 276 0
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)1 1
Confl. Bikes (#/hr)5 1
Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 0% 0% 10% 0% 10% 0% 9% 4% 3% 8% 0%
Turn Type Perm NA Perm NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA
Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 4 8 8
Actuated Green, G (s) 21.2 21.2 21.2 0.8 91.2 15.8 106.2
Effective Green, g (s) 21.2 21.2 21.2 0.8 91.2 15.8 106.2
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.01 0.64 0.11 0.75
Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.3 2.3 2.3 3.0 4.5 2.3 4.5
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 240 195 219 10 1050 195 1318
v/s Ratio Prot 0.00 c0.61 c0.11 0.16
v/s Ratio Perm 0.00 c0.14 0.02
v/c Ratio 0.00 0.92 0.10 0.10 0.95 0.95 0.21
Uniform Delay, d1 51.3 59.4 52.0 70.1 23.2 62.5 5.3
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.0 41.3 0.1 4.4 18.2 49.1 0.4
Delay (s) 51.3 100.7 52.1 74.4 41.5 111.6 5.6
Level of Service D F D E D F A
Approach Delay (s) 51.3 78.7 41.5 48.2
Approach LOS D E D D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 49.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service D
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.94
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 141.7 Sum of lost time (s) 13.5
Intersection Capacity Utilization 81.7% ICU Level of Service D
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Queues
3: SW Hall Blvd & SW Hunziker St 07/13/2017
Fields Project 02/07/2017 2018 Total Traffic Conditions, Weekday AM Peak Hour with Realignment Synchro 9 Report
Page 1
Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 94 113 151 176 5 841 185 269
v/c Ratio 0.67 0.59 0.92 0.56 0.09 0.92 0.88 0.23
Control Delay 81.8 64.7 110.9 19.2 67.8 42.9 94.7 9.0
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 81.8 64.7 110.9 19.2 67.8 42.9 94.7 9.0
Queue Length 50th (ft) 77 87 127 22 4 588 154 68
Queue Length 95th (ft) #151 142 #268 82 19 #933 #298 151
Internal Link Dist (ft) 21 1895 819 862
Turn Bay Length (ft) 225 140
Base Capacity (vph) 152 332 164 414 55 912 211 1195
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.62 0.34 0.92 0.43 0.09 0.92 0.88 0.23
Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
3: SW Hall Blvd & SW Hunziker St 07/13/2017
Fields Project 02/07/2017 2018 Total Traffic Conditions, Weekday AM Peak Hour with Realignment Synchro 9 Report
Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 81 78 19 130 24 127 4 363 360 159 199 38
Future Volume (vph) 81 78 19 130 24 127 4 363 360 159 199 38
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.87 1.00 0.93 1.00 0.98
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1805 1845 1641 1532 1801 1631 1752 1734
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1805 1845 1641 1532 1801 1631 1752 1734
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 1.00
Adj. Flow (vph) 94 91 22 151 28 148 5 422 419 185 231 38
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 6 0 0 130 0 0 23 0 0 3 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 94 107 0 151 46 0 5 818 0 185 266 0
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)1 1
Confl. Bikes (#/hr)5 1
Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 0% 0% 10% 0% 10% 0% 9% 4% 3% 8% 0%
Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA
Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases
Actuated Green, G (s) 10.2 13.1 13.0 15.9 0.7 74.6 15.6 89.5
Effective Green, g (s) 10.2 13.1 13.0 15.9 0.7 74.6 15.6 89.5
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.08 0.10 0.10 0.12 0.01 0.56 0.12 0.67
Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 2.3 3.0 2.3 3.0 4.5 2.3 4.5
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 137 180 159 182 9 909 204 1159
v/s Ratio Prot 0.05 c0.06 c0.09 c0.03 0.00 c0.50 c0.11 0.15
v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio 0.69 0.59 0.95 0.25 0.56 0.90 0.91 0.23
Uniform Delay, d1 60.2 57.8 60.1 53.5 66.4 26.3 58.4 8.7
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 13.3 4.0 55.8 0.4 58.1 13.7 37.7 0.5
Delay (s) 73.6 61.8 115.8 54.0 124.5 39.9 96.0 9.1
Level of Service E E F D F D F A
Approach Delay (s) 67.1 82.5 40.4 44.5
Approach LOS E F D D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 52.0 HCM 2000 Level of Service D
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.86
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 133.8 Sum of lost time (s) 17.5
Intersection Capacity Utilization 78.1% ICU Level of Service D
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Queues
3: SW Hall Blvd & SW Hunziker St 07/13/2017
Fields Project 02/07/2017 2018 Total Traffic Conditions, Weekday PM Peak Hour with Retiming Synchro 9 Report
Page 1
Lane Group WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 530 338 8 519 71 483
v/c Ratio 0.99 0.44 0.02 0.69 0.51 0.91
Control Delay 72.3 4.6 56.7 11.8 60.7 61.7
Queue Delay 13.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.4
Total Delay 86.1 4.6 56.7 11.8 60.7 68.0
Queue Length 50th (ft) 368 0 5 12 49 339
Queue Length 95th (ft) #596 59 m7 m104 94 #579
Internal Link Dist (ft) 1895 20 1324
Turn Bay Length (ft)140
Base Capacity (vph) 534 773 484 756 181 532
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 25 0 0 0 0 30
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 1.04 0.44 0.02 0.69 0.39 0.96
Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal.
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
3: SW Hall Blvd & SW Hunziker St 07/13/2017
Fields Project 02/07/2017 2018 Total Traffic Conditions, Weekday PM Peak Hour with Retiming Synchro 9 Report
Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 0 0 0 488 0 311 7 350 128 65 442 3
Future Volume (vph) 0 0 0 488 0 311 7 350 128 65 442 3
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s)2.3 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)1770 1552 1805 1763 1736 1825
Flt Permitted 0.76 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)1410 1552 1805 1763 1736 1825
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 0 530 0 338 8 380 139 71 480 3
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 217 0 11 0 0 0 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 0 0 530 121 8 508 0 71 483 0
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 4 4 2 2
Confl. Bikes (#/hr)5 1
Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 3% 0% 2% 0% 1% 0% 3% 2% 4% 4% 0%
Turn Type Perm NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA
Protected Phases 4 4 5 8 2 8 1 6
Permitted Phases 4 4 4
Actuated Green, G (s)39.5 39.5 25.8 44.7 7.8 31.2
Effective Green, g (s)41.7 39.5 25.8 44.7 7.8 31.2
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.38 0.36 0.23 0.41 0.07 0.28
Clearance Time (s)4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Vehicle Extension (s)2.3 2.3 2.3 4.5
Lane Grp Cap (vph)534 557 423 716 123 517
v/s Ratio Prot 0.00 c0.29 c0.04 c0.26
v/s Ratio Perm c0.38 0.08
v/c Ratio 0.99 0.22 0.02 0.71 0.58 0.93
Uniform Delay, d1 34.0 24.5 32.4 27.2 49.5 38.4
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.85 0.42 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 36.8 0.1 0.0 1.6 4.8 26.2
Delay (s)70.8 24.6 60.0 12.9 54.3 64.6
Level of Service E C E B D E
Approach Delay (s) 0.0 52.8 13.6 63.3
Approach LOS A D B E
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 45.2 HCM 2000 Level of Service D
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.92
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 110.0 Sum of lost time (s) 18.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 67.7% ICU Level of Service C
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Queues
4: SW Hall Blvd & SW Scoffins St 07/13/2017
Fields Project 02/07/2017 2018 Total Traffic Conditions, Weekday PM Peak Hour with Retiming Synchro 9 Report
Page 3
Lane Group EBL NBL NBT SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 120 14 466 1011
v/c Ratio 0.50 0.11 0.87 0.81
Control Delay 39.1 47.8 56.3 5.4
Queue Delay 0.1 0.0 2.3 0.0
Total Delay 39.1 47.8 58.5 5.4
Queue Length 50th (ft) 56 10 322 10
Queue Length 95th (ft) 116 29 #547 m54
Internal Link Dist (ft) 73 63 20
Turn Bay Length (ft) 50
Base Capacity (vph) 241 188 538 1245
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 2 0 22 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.50 0.07 0.90 0.81
Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal.
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
4: SW Hall Blvd & SW Scoffins St 07/13/2017
Fields Project 02/07/2017 2018 Total Traffic Conditions, Weekday PM Peak Hour with Retiming Synchro 9 Report
Page 4
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 56 54 13 429 727 203
Future Volume (vph) 56 54 13 429 727 203
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.93 1.00 1.00 0.97
Flt Protected 0.98 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1711 1805 1845 1790
Flt Permitted 0.98 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1711 1805 1845 1790
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph) 61 59 14 466 790 221
RTOR Reduction (vph) 32 0 0 0 8 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 88 0 14 466 1003 0
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1
Confl. Bikes (#/hr)1
Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 0% 0% 3% 3% 1%
Turn Type Prot Prot NA NA
Protected Phases 8 5 2 4 6
Permitted Phases
Actuated Green, G (s) 13.5 7.8 31.2 75.2
Effective Green, g (s) 13.5 7.8 31.2 75.2
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.12 0.07 0.28 0.68
Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.3 3.0 4.5
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 209 127 523 1223
v/s Ratio Prot c0.05 c0.01 c0.25 c0.56
v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio 0.42 0.11 0.89 0.82
Uniform Delay, d1 44.6 47.9 37.8 12.5
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.20
Incremental Delay, d2 0.8 0.4 20.0 1.4
Delay (s) 45.5 48.2 57.8 3.9
Level of Service D D E A
Approach Delay (s) 45.5 57.5 3.9
Approach LOS D E A
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 23.0 HCM 2000 Level of Service C
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.75
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 110.0 Sum of lost time (s) 18.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 64.9% ICU Level of Service C
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Queues
3: SW Hall Blvd & SW Hunziker St 07/13/2017
Fields Project 02/07/2017 2018 Total Traffic Conditions, Weekday PM Peak Hour with Scoffins RIRO Synchro 9 Report
Page 1
Lane Group WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 530 338 8 519 71 483
v/c Ratio 0.88 0.41 0.08 0.71 0.51 0.54
Control Delay 48.2 4.3 50.6 32.8 60.7 22.3
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 48.2 4.3 50.6 32.8 60.7 22.3
Queue Length 50th (ft) 324 0 6 310 49 227
Queue Length 95th (ft) #606 60 22 407 94 348
Internal Link Dist (ft) 1895 1033 1324
Turn Bay Length (ft)140
Base Capacity (vph) 600 830 188 780 181 895
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.88 0.41 0.04 0.67 0.39 0.54
Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
3: SW Hall Blvd & SW Hunziker St 07/13/2017
Fields Project 02/07/2017 2018 Total Traffic Conditions, Weekday PM Peak Hour with Scoffins RIRO Synchro 9 Report
Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 0 0 0 488 0 311 7 350 128 65 442 3
Future Volume (vph) 0 0 0 488 0 311 7 350 128 65 442 3
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s)2.3 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)1770 1552 1805 1763 1736 1825
Flt Permitted 0.76 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)1410 1552 1805 1763 1736 1825
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 0 530 0 338 8 380 139 71 480 3
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 201 0 13 0 0 0 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 0 0 530 137 8 506 0 71 483 0
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 4 4 2 2
Confl. Bikes (#/hr)5 1
Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 3% 0% 2% 0% 1% 0% 3% 2% 4% 4% 0%
Turn Type Perm NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA
Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 4 8 8
Actuated Green, G (s)44.7 44.7 1.4 44.0 7.8 50.4
Effective Green, g (s)46.9 44.7 1.4 44.0 7.8 50.4
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.43 0.41 0.01 0.40 0.07 0.46
Clearance Time (s)4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Vehicle Extension (s)2.3 2.3 3.0 4.5 2.3 4.5
Lane Grp Cap (vph)601 630 22 705 123 836
v/s Ratio Prot 0.00 c0.29 c0.04 0.26
v/s Ratio Perm c0.38 0.09
v/c Ratio 0.88 0.22 0.36 0.72 0.58 0.58
Uniform Delay, d1 29.0 21.3 53.9 27.8 49.5 22.0
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 14.1 0.1 9.9 6.2 4.8 2.9
Delay (s)43.1 21.4 63.8 34.0 54.3 24.9
Level of Service D C E C D C
Approach Delay (s) 0.0 34.6 34.4 28.6
Approach LOS A C C C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 32.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service C
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.80
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 110.0 Sum of lost time (s) 13.5
Intersection Capacity Utilization 67.7% ICU Level of Service C
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Queues
3: SW Hall Blvd & SW Hunziker St 07/13/2017
Fields Project 02/07/2017 2018 Total Traffic Conditions, Weekday PM Peak Hour with Realignment Synchro 9 Report
Page 1
Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 45 75 414 454 22 459 71 484
v/c Ratio 0.45 0.39 0.87 0.71 0.23 0.57 0.55 0.53
Control Delay 65.2 22.0 56.5 25.4 55.9 29.7 65.2 24.9
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 65.2 22.0 56.5 25.4 55.9 29.7 65.2 24.9
Queue Length 50th (ft) 31 11 274 180 15 240 49 197
Queue Length 95th (ft) 70 50 383 234 42 #489 #112 #488
Internal Link Dist (ft) 108 1895 1033 1324
Turn Bay Length (ft) 225 140
Base Capacity (vph) 101 343 547 835 97 804 136 912
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.45 0.22 0.76 0.54 0.23 0.57 0.52 0.53
Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
3: SW Hall Blvd & SW Hunziker St 07/13/2017
Fields Project 02/07/2017 2018 Total Traffic Conditions, Weekday PM Peak Hour with Realignment Synchro 9 Report
Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 41 15 54 381 107 311 20 309 113 65 346 99
Future Volume (vph) 41 15 54 381 107 311 20 309 113 65 346 99
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.5 4.0 2.3 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.88 1.00 0.89 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.97
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1805 1665 1770 1639 1805 1764 1736 1770
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1805 1665 1770 1639 1805 1764 1736 1770
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph) 45 16 59 414 116 338 22 336 123 71 376 108
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 55 0 0 119 0 0 10 0 0 7 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 45 20 0 414 335 0 22 449 0 71 477 0
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 4 4 2 2
Confl. Bikes (#/hr)5 1
Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 3% 0% 2% 0% 1% 0% 3% 2% 4% 4% 0%
Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA
Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases
Actuated Green, G (s) 5.0 7.8 29.7 32.5 2.3 47.9 7.1 52.7
Effective Green, g (s) 5.0 7.8 29.7 34.7 2.3 47.9 7.1 52.7
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.05 0.07 0.27 0.32 0.02 0.44 0.06 0.48
Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 2.3 3.0 2.3 3.0 4.5 2.3 4.5
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 82 118 477 517 37 768 112 847
v/s Ratio Prot 0.02 0.01 c0.23 c0.20 0.01 0.25 c0.04 c0.27
v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio 0.55 0.17 0.87 0.65 0.59 0.59 0.63 0.56
Uniform Delay, d1 51.4 48.1 38.3 32.4 53.4 23.5 50.2 20.4
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 7.3 0.4 15.3 2.3 23.1 3.2 9.2 2.7
Delay (s) 58.7 48.5 53.6 34.7 76.4 26.8 59.4 23.1
Level of Service E D D C E C E C
Approach Delay (s) 52.3 43.7 29.0 27.8
Approach LOS D D C C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 36.4 HCM 2000 Level of Service D
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.72
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 110.0 Sum of lost time (s) 17.5
Intersection Capacity Utilization 70.2% ICU Level of Service C
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Appendix I
Left-Turn Lane Warrant
Analysis Worksheets
Left-Turn Lane Warrant Analysis
KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC.
Project #: PROJECT# 20974 610 SW Alder, Suite 700
Project Name: Fields Property Portland, Oregon 97205
Analyst: KZP (503) 228-5230
Intersection: North Access/Hunziker Fax: (503) 273-8169
Scenario: AM Peak Hour
Date: 7/13/2017
File:H:\20\20974 - Fields Project\excel\Turn Lane Warrants\[20974 LT Warrant_South_PM.xls]Main
Input Data:
Advancing Volume (vph) = 503
Left-turning Vehicles (vph) = 49
Opposing Volume (vph) = 429
Speed (mph) = 35
Number of Approach Lanes = 1 (not applicable for two lanes)
% Left-Turning Vehicles 10%
Critical Gap (sec) = 5
Maneuver Time (sec) = 3
Exit Time (sec) = 1.9
Utilization Factor = 0.02
* Based on Volume Warrants for Left-Turn Storage Lanes at Unsignalized
Grade Intersections (D. Harmelink)
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200Opposing Volume (vph)Advancing Volume (vph)
Left-Turn Lane Warrant Analysis Results
Required Value
LEGEND:
Actual Value
Left-Turn Lane Warrant Analysis
KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC.
Project #: PROJECT# 20974 610 SW Alder, Suite 700
Project Name: Fields Property Portland, Oregon 97205
Analyst: KZP (503) 228-5230
Intersection: South Access/Tech Center Fax: (503) 273-8169
Scenario: AM Peak Hour
Date: 7/13/2017
File:H:\20\20974 - Fields Project\excel\Turn Lane Warrants\[20974 LT Warrant_South_PM.xls]Main
Input Data:
Advancing Volume (vph) = 229
Left-turning Vehicles (vph) = 113
Opposing Volume (vph) = 76
Speed (mph) = 30
Number of Approach Lanes = 1 (not applicable for two lanes)
% Left-Turning Vehicles 49%
Critical Gap (sec) = 5
Maneuver Time (sec) = 3
Exit Time (sec) = 1.9
Utilization Factor = 0.02
* Based on Volume Warrants for Left-Turn Storage Lanes at Unsignalized
Grade Intersections (D. Harmelink)
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200Opposing Volume (vph)Advancing Volume (vph)
Left-Turn Lane Warrant Analysis Results
Required Value
LEGEND:
Actual Value
Left-Turn Lane Warrant Analysis
KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC.
Project #: PROJECT# 20974 610 SW Alder, Suite 700
Project Name: Fields Property Portland, Oregon 97205
Analyst: KZP (503) 228-5230
Intersection: North Access/Hunziker Fax: (503) 273-8169
Scenario: PM Peak Hour
Date: 7/13/2017
File:H:\20\20974 - Fields Project\excel\Turn Lane Warrants\[20974 LT Warrant_South_PM.xls]Main
Input Data:
Advancing Volume (vph) = 754
Left-turning Vehicles (vph) = 75
Opposing Volume (vph) = 345
Speed (mph) = 35
Number of Approach Lanes = 1 (not applicable for two lanes)
% Left-Turning Vehicles 10%
Critical Gap (sec) = 5
Maneuver Time (sec) = 3
Exit Time (sec) = 1.9
Utilization Factor = 0.02
* Based on Volume Warrants for Left-Turn Storage Lanes at Unsignalized
Grade Intersections (D. Harmelink)
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200Opposing Volume (vph)Advancing Volume (vph)
Left-Turn Lane Warrant Analysis Results
Required Value
LEGEND:
Actual Value
Left-Turn Lane Warrant Analysis
KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC.
Project #: PROJECT# 20974 610 SW Alder, Suite 700
Project Name: Fields Property Portland, Oregon 97205
Analyst: KZP (503) 228-5230
Intersection: South Access/Tech Center Fax: (503) 273-8169
Scenario: PM Peak Hour
Date: 7/13/2017
File:H:\20\20974 - Fields Project\excel\Turn Lane Warrants\[20974 LT Warrant_South_PM.xls]Main
Input Data:
Advancing Volume (vph) = 132
Left-turning Vehicles (vph) = 28
Opposing Volume (vph) = 87
Speed (mph) = 30
Number of Approach Lanes = 1 (not applicable for two lanes)
% Left-Turning Vehicles 21%
Critical Gap (sec) = 5
Maneuver Time (sec) = 3
Exit Time (sec) = 1.9
Utilization Factor = 0.02
* Based on Volume Warrants for Left-Turn Storage Lanes at Unsignalized
Grade Intersections (D. Harmelink)
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200Opposing Volume (vph)Advancing Volume (vph)
Left-Turn Lane Warrant Analysis Results
Required Value
LEGEND:
Actual Value
Memorandum
808 SW 3rd Avenue
Suite 300
Portland, OR 97204
Phone (503) 287-6825
Fax (503) 415-2304
Noise Impacts
The proposed multifamily development is anticipated to have similar types and intensities of noise
impacts as any typical multifamily development in the City of Tigard. Noises which would be
associated with the proposed project include traffic-related noises from vehicles within the
development, laundry exhaust, lawn and other grounds maintenance equipment noise, and
occasional music and other resident-related noises. Construction related noises will be temporary in
nature and will occur during City-mandated hours. The development of employment buildings
adjacent to the heavy rail tracks is expected to minimize existing noise impacts from trains passing
by.
The proposed employment development is anticipated to have similar types and intensities of noise
as nearby office developments. Noises which would be associated with employment uses include
traffic-related noises from vehicles within the development, delivery vehicles, and lawn and other
grounds maintenance equipment noise. Construction related noises will be temporary in nature and
will occur during City-mandated hours.
The proposed development site is separated from existing residential development on neighboring
properties to the east by a 50-foot forested development buffer, landscaped area, and surface
parking. The proposed development abuts existing light industrial development to the north and
proposed light industrial development to the west.
Automobile traffic on Hunziker Road to the north of the multifamily development site provides a
substantial level of ambient noise. The proposed development plan for the multifamily portion of
the site includes a buffer of landscaping between Hunziker Road and the proposed development.
Odors and Air Emissions
Multifamily residential development typically results in odors and emissions such as car exhaust,
laundry exhaust, barbecuing odors, and construction and lawn care equipment exhausts and odors.
To: City of Tigard
From: Li Alligood, AICP, Senior Planner
Date: July 13, 2017
Subject: Impact Study– Fields Planned Development
Concept Plan
City of Tigard Page 2
Impact Study – Fields Planned Development Concept Plan July 13, 2017
L:\Project\17000\17052\Archives\Outgoing\City of Tigard\2017-07-13 Completeness Submittal\Impact Study D_Impact Study.docx
No odor or emission effects are anticipated from recreation and open space components of the
multifamily use on the site under the proposed plan. Recreation and open space uses should be
generally compatible with the adjacent uses.
Employment/office development typically results in odors and emissions such as car exhaust, truck
exhaust, and construction and lawn care equipment exhausts and odors. The final user of the
employment portion of the site is not yet known, but any occupant will be subject to the City’s
ordinances related to emissions.
Lighting Impacts
Typical lighting impacts associated with multifamily residential development are related to interior
residential lighting, building entry lights, outdoor security lighting, and parking lot illumination. The
parking lot illumination will meet City of Tigard standards, which are intended to address
undesirable impacts.
Typical lighting impacts associated with employment/office development are similar to those
associated with multifamily residential development and will likewise meet City of Tigard standards.
Transit Availability
There is a TriMet bus stop approximately 300 ft. east and 850 ft. west of the project site on SW
Hunziker Road. The stop is served by the 78-Beaverton/Lake Oswego line, which serves the Tigard
Transit Center to the southwest, the Lake Oswego Transit Center, and Beaverton Transit Center as
well as points in between. The WES line runs directly south of the site, and a park and ride and
WES stop is located about 1 mile southwest of the site.
Schools
The multifamily site is located within the Tigard-Tualatin School District and will be served by
Metzger/Durham Elementary, Fowler Middle, and Tigard High schools.
Parks
The site will be served by City of Tigard parks. Several parks are located within a mile of the site: the
Brown Natural Area and Fanno Creek Park are directly to the south of the site and is less than 1
mile from the site via Hunziker Rd/Hall Blvd; Potso Dog Park is located approximately 1/10 mile
to the west of the site and will be accessible by a pedestrian pathway from the subject site and
through the Wall Street Industrial site to the west; and Jim Griffith Memorial Skate Park is located
approximately 3/4 mile from the site.
Transportation
See the Transportation Impact Study prepared by Kittelson and Associates, Inc.
City of Tigard Page 3
Impact Study – Fields Planned Development Concept Plan July 13, 2017
L:\Project\17000\17052\Archives\Outgoing\City of Tigard\2017-07-13 Completeness Submittal\Impact Study D_Impact Study.docx
Utilities
Sanitary Sewer: City staff has indicated that sanitary sewer service will be provided by the City of
Tigard. An 8-in. sanitary sewer line is located in SW Hunziker Street and will serve the proposed
development. City of Tigard staff notes that the applicant will be required to extend the public sewer
line to Crestview and Varns streets.
Water: Public water supply for the development will be provided by the City of Tigard. There is a
12-in. public water line in Hunziker Street.
Storm Drainage: A proposed storm drainage plan will be proposed for the site and submitted with
the Detailed Development Plan application. Per City of Tigard staff, a 36-in. public storm line is
located downstream on SW Hunziker Street. Off-site easements may be required. City of Tigard
staff also notes that the Hunziker Street storm drain can only serve approximately half of the site,
and that the applicant will be required to extend the public storm drain to Crestview and Varns
streets.
Per Clean Water Services regulations, storm water quality will be addressed at the time of Detailed
Development Plan approval. The facilities will meet the regulations for on-site water quality
facilities.
DBG Properties - Fields Property, Tigard – Market Analysis
MEMORANDUM
DATE: July 14, 2017
TO: DBG Properties
FROM: JOHNSON ECONOMICS, LLC
SUBJECT: Market and Feasibility Analysis of Employment Uses on a Site in Tigard, Oregon
JOHNSON ECONOMICS conducted an assessment of a site known as the Fields Property in Tigard,
Oregon. The site is Taxlot #2S1010001600 located near the southwest corner of SW Hunziker
Road and SW Wall Street. The analysis considers the feasibility of the site as a location for
employment uses in a business park format.
The Fields property has received approval to change its zoning and comp plan designations to
Mixed Use Employment (MUE). The plan amendment and zone change application was
approved subject to conditions. The conditions include a demonstration that the site can still
accommodate the desired level of employment as it could under the previous zoning (at least
280 non-retail jobs), and a market study and financial feasibility analysis which demonstrate that
development is feasible at this site.
To that end, this analysis considers the conceptual plan for employment uses on a portion of the
site. The analysis examines the feasibility of the business park style development form, and its
ability to house the necessary amount of employment. This memo first discusses the estimated
capacity to house the required non-retail jobs in the planned office space. It then provides
analysis on the market feasibility of the business park use as designed.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Executive Summary ................................................................................... 2
II. Physical Employment Capacity of Site ...................................................... 4
A. Overview of Fields Property and Conceptual Development Plan 4
B. Required Employment Capacity .................................................. 6
C. Estimated Employment Capacity of Conceptual Design Plan ...... 6
D. Findings on Subject Site Employment Capacity ........................... 8
III. Market Feasibility of Conceptual Design .................................................. 9
A. Office Market Trends ................................................................... 9
B. Office Employment Growth ....................................................... 11
C. Office Space Demand ................................................................. 13
D. Office Space Supply .................................................................... 14
E. Viability of Subject Site for Business Park Development ........... 17
IV. Financial Feasibility of Conceptual Design .............................................. 19
A. Pro Forma Valuation .................................................................. 19
V. Conclusions ............................................................................................. 20
July 2017
DBG Properties - Fields Property, Tigard – Market Analysis
2
I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The following is a summary of the findings and conclusions of Johnson Economics, based on the
analysis discussed in this report. Please see the report for more detail on these subjects.
Based upon the analysis included in the City’s amended 2011 Economic Opportunities
Analysis (EOA), the full 24-acre subject site had the capacity to hold 280 non-retail jobs
under the previous zoning designations. As a condition for approval of a comp plan
amendment and zone change, the City seeks a demonstration that under the new
zoning and conceptual design plan, the subject site can still accommodate at least the
full 280 non-retail jobs.
Residential Use Employment: The residential portion of the conceptual design plan is
projected to require six full-time employees to provide management, maintenance and
grounds work at the apartment complex, based on survey data from the National
Apartment Association (NAA).
Office Use Employment: The Conceptual Design Plan describes 77,500 gross s.f. to
100,000 gross s.f. of office space in a business park setting. To accommodate a
minimum of 274 non-retail employees this range would offer an average of 240 net s.f.
to 310 net s.f. per employee.
There is now significant documentation that the average square footage needed per
office employee has been falling for some time. Commercial real estate industry experts
point out that within the past decade the industry rule of thumb was 250 sq.ft. of net
space per employee. The average has now fallen to 150 s.f. of net space, and some
project it may fall as low as 100 s.f., over the next 10 years.
Given the trends discussed here, we conclude that the amount of office space proposed
at the subject site would provide more than enough space capacity to house the
minimum 274 employees in a modern office environment, and likely many more.
If we assume that the office space features average square footage per employee more
in line with modern trends, this development will accommodate much greater than the
minimum 274 employees. For instance, assuming a modern layout offering an
average of 175 net s.f. per employee, the amount of office space proposed at the
subject site could accommodate from 375 to 485 employees at the site.
The flexibility in amount of space per employee will mean that this development could
be suited to a range of potential tenants, from those who require less to more space per
employee.
Office Market Trends: The office market in the Portland Metro area has rebounded
since the recession of 2007-2009, due to a strong jobs recovery. Vacancy rates and rent
levels have now surpassed their pre-recession benchmarks, and office development has
returned in earnest.
July 2017
DBG Properties - Fields Property, Tigard – Market Analysis
3
Employment in Tigard is heavily weighted towards many sectors which primarily use
office space, including professional and business services, financial services, education
and health services. Over the prior 10 years, some of these sectors experienced the
most growth, with employment in professional services growing 26%, and employment
in financial activities growing 13%. Employment in Tigard now exceeds pre-recession
levels by 7% or 3,000 jobs.
Based on the official employment projections from the EOA, and Metro’s Urban Growth
Report process, there is strong projected job growth in Tigard that translates into
continued demand for new office space to accommodate it over the 20-year planning
period. Alternative projections from the Oregon Employment Department support the
EOA forecasts.
The subject site is a good location for office employment uses, including good access to
the regional transportation system, adjacency to a well-established and successful
cluster of professional office uses in the Triangle, SW 72nd Avenue, and east Hunziker
Street, and will be part of a corridor of employment uses through the area. The location
of employment uses on the southern portion of the site will allow two access points
from SW Wall Street and direct connection to a large employment agglomeration via
Tech Center Drive.
The existence of established residential uses to the south and east, and the
development of new multi-family use on the Fields Property site itself, should not
prevent the south portion from remaining a good site for office employment use. The
business park portion will be oriented to the south, and buffered from adjacent
residential uses. Multi-family development on the northern portion will connect to and
grow the residential neighborhood to the east.
Site work across the site (office and MFR portions), including excavation, grading, storm
water improvements, and access roads will be required in phase one of this project.
These costly improvements will incentivize the construction of the office-employment
buildings as quickly as possible. Otherwise these investments represent sunken costs
that provide no return. The proposed construction form of concrete tilt-up buildings on
existing pads will also allow efficient development of the site.
Based on pro forma modeling, Johnson Economics concludes that the business park
development as proposed at the subject site will be a financially viable investment
under current market conditions. The findings are based on conservative assumptions
of achievable rents, development cost, vacancy rates and other parameters that find an
acceptable positive return along a range of measures. The basic cost to income ratio
per square foot will scale to larger footprint buildings, so there is flexibility in size and
configuration without compromising feasibility.
Johnson Economics further concludes that the site and proposed building designs will
easily accommodate the minimum 280 non-retail jobs, and likely many more in a
modern office configuration.
July 2017
DBG Properties - Fields Property, Tigard – Market Analysis
4
II. PHYSICAL EMPLOYMENT CAPACITY OF SITE
A. OVERVIEW OF FIELDS PROPERTY AND CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN
The subject site is a parcel of roughly 24 acres, located to the south of SW Hunziker Street in
central Tigard (See Figure 1, yellow dashed line.)
The site is zoned Mixed Use Employment zone (MUE) which allows a mixture of employment
uses and multi-family residential uses. Figure 1 shows the conceptual design plan which divides
the larger site into areas for multi-family housing to the north, and office employment uses to
the south.
FIGURE 1: FIELDS PROPERTY CONCEPTUAL DESIGN PLAN (PRELIMINARY)
Source: DBG Properties, Otak, Johnson Economics
July 2017
DBG Properties - Fields Property, Tigard – Market Analysis
5
Employment Uses: The conceptual plan includes both employment and residential uses. The
area of the site designated for employment uses is the main focus of this analysis. It is roughly 9
gross acres in size at the south end of the parcel, and adjacent to a planned extension of SW
Wall St. that would be constructed in conjunction with the development.
The conceptual plan calls for three, 3-story professional office buildings in a business park
format, served by surface parking lots. The buildings as laid out would include 77,500 to
100,000 s.f. of gross leasable area (GLA). There are 310 parking spaces planned for a parking
ratio of 3.1 to 4.0 spaces per 1,000 s.f. of GLA.
For the purposes of this analysis, this design is taken as the foundation and general guide for
what employment uses will be located at the subject site.
FIGURE 2: FIELDS PROPERTY CONCEPTUAL DESIGN PLAN (PRELIMINARY)
EMPLOYMENT USES (APPROX. 9 GROSS ACRES)
Source: DBG Properties, Otak, Johnson Economics
Residential Uses: The conceptual plan also includes a proposed multi-family housing
development on the northern portion of the site (roughly 15 gross acres). This development
would include 264 total units, including one, two and three bedroom units, served by surface
parking at a ratio of 1.54 stalls per unit.
July 2017
DBG Properties - Fields Property, Tigard – Market Analysis
6
The residential portion of this development is not the focus of this analysis, except where it
impacts the employment uses on the site. As discussed below, this development is projected to
include a small amount of on-site employment which will also count towards the total
employment on the site.
Land Development: The Fields Property site includes a range of challenges to site development
from topography, storm water management, buffering, access and other considerations. These
issues are only discussed here to the extent that they may impact the successful layout and
functioning of the business park development on SW Wall St.
B. REQUIRED EMPLOYMENT CAPACITY
Based upon the analysis included in the City’s amended 2011 Economic Opportunities Analysis
(EOA), the full 24-acre subject site had the capacity to hold 280 non-retail jobs under the
previous zoning designations.
As a condition for approval of a comp plan amendment and zone change, the City seeks a
demonstration that under the new zoning and conceptual design plan, the subject site can still
accommodate the at least 280 non-retail jobs. Given the planned division of the site into a
multi-family residential development and an office park development, the office park portion of
the site will be required to accommodate the large majority of these jobs. (Management of the
apartment complex is assumed to provide a few additional job opportunities.)
C. ESTIMATED EMPLOYMENT CAPACITY OF CONCEPTUAL DESIGN PLAN
Residential Use Employment: The residential portion of the conceptual design plan is projected
to require six full-time employees to provide management, maintenance and grounds work at
the apartment complex. This estimate is based on the most recent 2016 survey of the National
Apartment Association (NAA) of its members.1 This survey found that complexes of between
200 and 299 units in size, employ an average of one full-time employee for every 41.8 units.
Applied to the proposed 264 units at the subject site, this rounds down to 6 full-time non-retail
employees.
Business Park Employment: The business park portion of the conceptual design plan calls for
77,500 s.f. to 100,000 s.f. of gross floor area in multiple three-story office buildings.
Assuming that the buildings will accommodate at least the minimum required 274 non-retail
employees (280 total – 6 apartment employees), the business park would feature an average of
280 gross s.f. to 364 gross s.f. per employee.
The “efficiency ratio” of a building is defined as the net leasable space divided by the gross floor
area. Low-rise office buildings feature an average efficiency ratio of roughly 85%2, meaning that
15% of the gross space is taken up by building common areas, elevators, stairwells, physical
plant equipment, restrooms, etc.
1 National Apartment Association. “Annual Income and Expenses Survey.” August, 2016.
2 Sev & Ogden. “Space Efficiency in High Rise Office Buildings.” METU Journal of Faculty of Architecture, Feb. 2009.
July 2017
DBG Properties - Fields Property, Tigard – Market Analysis
7
Assuming an efficiency ratio of 85% and 274 employees, the business park would feature 65,000
to 85,000 s.f. net rentable area, and an average of 240 net s.f. to 310 net s.f. per employee.
FIGURE 3: POTENTIAL SQUARE FOOTAGE PER OFFICE EMPLOYEE (MINIMUM EMPLOYMENT)
Gross s.f.Net s.f.Minimum
Empl.
Gross
s.f./Emp.
Net
s.f./Emp.
Low range:77,500 65,875 274 283 240
High range:100,000 85,000 274 365 310
Source: Johnson Economics
Trends in Office Space Utilization: There is now significant documentation that the average
square footage needed per office employee has been falling for some time. Commercial real
estate industry experts point out that within the past decade the industry rule of thumb was 250
sq.ft. of net space per employee. That has now fallen to 150 s.f of net space, and some project
it may fall as low as 100 s.f., over the next 10 years.3
The decline in the average space per worker has been remarkably swift: “By 2017, North
American offices will average 151 square feet per worker, according to real estate data provider
CoreNet Global. That’s down from 176 square feet in 2012 and 225 square feet in 2010.”4
There are multiple factors behind this trend. Perhaps the most important is increasing efficiency
and productivity stemming from new technologies. Employees whose work is substantially
housed inside a computer need less dedicated work space in the office. Similarly, the office
itself needs less space for printers, copiers and other machines which are substantially smaller
and cheaper than they were in the past.
Advancing technologies and the growth of high-tech industries have also led to a shift from
offices divided into multiple private spaces for each employee (i.e. cubicles and offices) to more
open space floorplans and shared work space. This may take the form of smaller work stations
situated along shared tables or a series of common meeting and gathering spots around the
office. These offices often feature small shared conference rooms for those times when
employees do need to collaborate or make a phone call.
Many modern employees are also more mobile and enjoy more flexible work arra ngements
than in the past. This means that many may be traveling or telecommuting at times, or finding
3 CoreNet Global. “Office Space per Employee will drop to 100 square feet or below”, news release, Feb. 2012
CoreNet Global. “Office Space per Worker Shrinks to 150 s.f.”, new release, Aug. 2013.
Newberg, Sam. “The Incredible Shrinking Office Space – Fact or Fiction?”, Urban Land, Aug. 2011.
Scanlon, Don. “What do shrinking tenant space needs mean?” NHBR, Oct. 2013
4 Mehigan, Denis. “What is the average square footage of office space per person?” TMC, Mar. 2016.
July 2017
DBG Properties - Fields Property, Tigard – Market Analysis
8
“third spaces” to work from such as a coffee shop or library. These trends further diminish the
demand for modern offices to provide dedicated personal space to each employee.
Flex Office Space: Along with traditional professional office space, another potential use for
employment space at the subject site would be “flex” office space. Flex space has a range of
definitions, but typically refers to space which combines some elements of industrial space with
office uses. This space type grew out of the conversion of obsolete industrial and warehouse
space to office, often in central cities, which has been taking place for decades. However, it
increasingly applies to newly-built space that shares some these characteristics such as high
exposed ceilings, and an open floor plan.
As the name implies, flex space can be used by a range of tenants. It is often used by the types
of tenants that could use more traditional space but like the open feel of flex space. These
tenants may have the same number of employees as a traditional office user, or in some cases,
accommodate even more employees, as workers use shared spaces and tables as opposed to
segregated cubicle space. Other flex users can use the more open space for some operations
that were more traditionally associated with light industrial space, such as low-impact
manufacturing, warehousing and dock space, or showrooms. These tenants may have fewer
average employees per square foot.
D. FINDINGS ON SUBJECT SITE EMPLOYMENT CAPACITY
Given the trends discussed here, we conclude that the amount of office space proposed at the
subject site would provide more than enough space capacity to house the minimum 274
employees in a modern office environment, and likely many more.
The conceptual design plan allows for up to 310 net s.f. per employee. This is a very realistic
assumption based on recent and continuing trends in office space utilization. If we assume that
the office space features average square footage per employee more in line with modern
trends, this development will accommodate much greater than the minimum 274 employees.
For instance, assuming a modern layout offering an average of 175 net s.f. per employee, the
amount of office space proposed at the subject site could accommodate from 375 to 485
employees at the site.
The flexibility in amount of space per employee will mean that this development could be suited
to a range of potential tenants, from those who require less to more space per employee. For
instance, users such as call centers can accommodate many employees in a closer environment,
whereas flex-space users who combine some elements of light manufacturing, warehousing, or
showroom, may require less space per employee. The typical professional office environment
falls between these extremes.
July 2017
DBG Properties - Fields Property, Tigard – Market Analysis
9
III. MARKET FEASIBILITY OF CONCEPTUAL DESIGN
This section discusses trends in the regional and local office market, including discussion of
supply and demand. It also includes development feasibility analysis of the proposed employee
uses at the subject site. This section focuses on employment uses at the site, and does not
include the proposed residential uses on the site.
A. OFFICE MARKET TRENDS
The Portland Metro Area is among the strongest office markets in the nation, due to rapid job
growth in the region meeting limited new office supply. At the end of 3Q16, the metro-wide
vacancy rate was 7.3%, which is 1% lower than the pre-recession low (2Q08). The decline in the
vacancy rate has been fairly consistent over the past three years, falling 4.5% since the market
bottomed in 2010. Year-over-year rent growth has improved in step with occupancy, fluctuating in
the 4.0-8.0% range over the past year. (More localized trends are discussed in the following
sections.)
The average asking rate (full-service equivalent) is currently $23.50 per square foot, reflecting a
blend of vintages and classes. The increase in asking rates has been accompanied by a reduction in
concessions.
FIGURE 4: OFFICE MARKET VACANCY AND RENT TRENDS, PORTLAND METRO AREA (2008 - 2016)
SOURCE: CoStar, JOHNSON ECONOMICS
Absorption
The decline in vacancy and associated rent increases is a function of new demand outpacing new
supply. This relationship is illustrated by the following chart, which shows how net absorption has
vastly outpaced new deliveries over the past five years. Since 1Q13, when vacancy broke below
10% and most of the excess supply from the downturn had been absorbed, the Metro Area has
absorbed 4.9 million square feet of space (net). In comparison, only 2.7 million square feet of new
supply has been delivered. On this basis, the market is currently short some 2.2 million square feet
of space.
July 2017
DBG Properties - Fields Property, Tigard – Market Analysis
10
FIGURE 5: OFFICE ABSORPTION AND NEW SUPPLY, PORTLAND METRO AREA (2007 - 2016)
SOURCE: CoStar, JOHNSON ECONOMICS
Development Pipeline
Developers began to respond to the increased demand in late 2013, and some of these projects are
now completed. The pipeline has increased since, and we currently track 47 projects with a total of
4.4 million square feet in the development pipeline in the Metro Area. These figures include
owner-user and pre-leased buildings. The majority of the projects are located in Central Portland,
however some new development has begun to occur in suburban markets. In aggregate, the
projects represent an inventory increase of 4.4%, which translates to around 14 months of
employment growth at the current pace.
Considering that most of the pipeline will be delivered within the next two years, we expect net
absorption to continue to outpace new deliveries over the near term, leading to a continued
decline in vacancy and continued rent growth. The following chart shows office space under
construction only (not planned/proposed), based on CoStar data, currently representing 1.5% of
inventory.
July 2017
DBG Properties - Fields Property, Tigard – Market Analysis
11
FIGURE 6: OFFICE SPACE UNDER CONSTRUCTION, PORTLAND METRO AREA (2007 - 2016)
SOURCE: CoStar, JOHNSON ECONOMICS
B. OFFICE EMPLOYMENT GROWTH
The Portland Metro region has experienced one of the strongest recoveries coming out of the
2007-09 recession, in terms of pace and average income levels of new jobs created. After losing an
estimated 6% of employment during the recession, regional employment now surpasses the prior
benchmark, having grown over 11.5% between 2006 and 2016. In Washington County,
employment is now 14% higher than its prior peak. (Figure 7)
FIGURE 7: CURRENT EMPLOYMENT, PORTLAND METRO AND WASHINGTON CO.
0
200,000
400,000
600,000
800,000
1,000,000
1,200,000
1,400,000
Current EmploymentCurrent Employment
Portland Metro
Washington Co.
SOURCE: Oregon Employment Department, JOHNSON ECONOMICS
July 2017
DBG Properties - Fields Property, Tigard – Market Analysis
12
FIGURE 8: ESTIMATED COVERED EMPLOYMENT BY INDUSTRY SECTOR, TIGARD (2014)
Covered
Employment
Agriculture, Forestry 38 0%
Construction 3,349 8%
Manufacturing 2,333 5%
Wholesale Trade 2,596 6%
Retail Trade 7,200 16%
Transport., Warehousing & Utilities 453 1%
Information 1,438 3%
Financial Activities 5,882 13%
Professional & Business Services 11,508 26%
Education Services 1,619 4%
Health Care and Social Services 2,839 6%
Leisure & Hospitality 3,154 7%
Other Services 1,255 3%
Government 474 1%
Total 44,138 100%
Industry Category Share
0%
8%
5%
6%
16%
1%
3%
13%
26%
4%
6%
7%
3%
1%
0%5%10%15%20%25%30%
SOURCE: US Census, JOHNSON ECONOMICS
Figure 8 shows an estimate of covered employment by industry sector in Tigard as of 2014 (the
most recent available from the Census.) Employment in Tigard is heavily weighted towards many
sectors which primarily use office space, including professional and business services, financial
services, education and health services. Over the prior 10 years, some of these sectors
experienced the most growth, with employment in professional services growing 26%, and
employment in financial activities growing 13%.
Figure 9 shows the concentration of employment in the Tigard area. The largest concentration of
local employment is in the immediate vicinity of the subject site, in the Tigard Triangle area at the
nexus of I-5 and Highway 217. The Washington Square area to the north also features a high
concentration of employment.
July 2017
DBG Properties - Fields Property, Tigard – Market Analysis
13
FIGURE 9: CONCENTRATION OF EMPLOYMENT, TIGARD (2014)
SOURCE: US Census, JOHNSON ECONOMICS
C. OFFICE SPACE DEMAND
Tigard’s Economic Opportunities Analysis (EOA), completed in 2011 utilized Metro projections of
employment in Tigard between 2005 and 2035. These figures project that the city would add
over 19,300 jobs between 2005 and 2035. By 2035, a total number of 60,637 jobs was
projected. This projection would indicate that over 16,000 jobs will be added over current
levels.
The EOA used these Metro projections to arrive at shorter-term 20-year projections, in low,
medium, and high growth scenarios. Of the projected new jobs, 58% were projected to be
appropriate for office, flex or business park space. Under the medium growth scenario, this
amounts to a projection of 7,500 new office jobs over the 20-year period, or 375 new office
jobs per year.5 As Tigard has averaged more than 600 total new jobs per year over the last
decade, despite the recession, this remains a plausible projection for office-based jobs.
5 All figures referenced from “Tigard 2011 Economic Opportunities Analysis”, Appendix C.
July 2017
DBG Properties - Fields Property, Tigard – Market Analysis
14
The EOA estimates that this new creation of office employment will result in the need for
990,000 s.f. of new office space over 20 year (after redevelopment land is taken into
consideration.)
Therefore based on the official employment projections from the EOA, and Metro’s Urban
Growth Report process, there is strong projected job growth in Tigard that translates into
continued demand for new office space to accommodate it over the 20-year planning period.
Alternate employment projection: To further test the assumptions of the EOA projection,
Johnson Economics performed an alternative employment projection based on job growth
forecasts from the Oregon Employment Department.
Figure 10 presents a forecast of employment utilizing the 2014 Tigard employment as the
baseline year. The growth rate by industry was derived from Oregon Employment Department
forecasts for the years 2014-2024, for Multnomah and Washington Counties. The industrial
growth rates from this 10-year forecast were extended over a 20-year timeframe.
FIGURE 10: ALTERNATE 20-YEAR EMPLOYMENT PROJECTION, TIGARD (2014-2034)
Baseline Growth Scenario Base Year Change Growth Rate
Employment Sector 2014 2019 2024 2029 2034 2014 - 2034 AAGR
Agriculture, Forestry 38 40 42 45 47 9 1.1%
Construction 3,349 3,720 4,131 4,588 5,096 1,747 2.1%
Manufacturing 2,333 2,420 2,510 2,603 2,700 367 0.7%
Wholesale Trade 2,596 2,760 2,934 3,119 3,315 719 1.2%
Retail Trade 7,200 7,694 8,221 8,785 9,388 2,188 1.3%
T.W.U 453 476 500 526 552 99 1.0%
Information 1,438 1,527 1,621 1,721 1,827 389 1.2%
Financial Activities 5,882 6,068 6,261 6,459 6,664 782 0.6%
Professional & Business Services 11,508 12,849 14,346 16,017 17,883 6,375 2.2%
Education & Health Services 4,458 4,868 5,316 5,805 6,339 1,881 1.8%
Leisure & Hospitality 3,154 3,442 3,757 4,101 4,476 1,322 1.8%
Other Services 1,255 1,332 1,415 1,502 1,595 340 1.2%
Government 474 487 501 516 530 56 0.6%
Total 44,138 47,683 51,554 55,785 60,411 16,273 1.6%
Total Employment by Year
SOURCE: Oregon Employment Department, JOHNSON ECONOMICS
These alternative forecasts result in a somewhat higher overall forecasted growth rate of 1.6%
per year. This is compared to a forecasted rate of 1.3% per year from the 2011 EOA. The 20-
year growth of 16,273 jobs is similar to the “high” growth scenario from the EOA (16,108 jobs.)
As with the EOA, strong growth is projected in office-using sectors including professional and
business services, and education and health services. This alternative forecast bolsters the
findings of the EOA that office-using sectors will continue to demand new space in Tigard
D. OFFICE SPACE SUPPLY
Johnson Economics surveyed a sample of newer office properties in the Tigard Triangle area to
estimate current rent levels, occupancy levels and development norms in the area. The
properties are in the general vicinity of the subject site, with two being adjacent on Hunziker
July 2017
DBG Properties - Fields Property, Tigard – Market Analysis
15
Road, one off of Hwy 217, four being in the Triangle, and one located to the east of I-5 off of
Kruse Way.
FIGURE 11: COMPARABLE OFFICE PROPERTIES, TIGARD TRIANGLE AREA
Building Park Bldg.
Class
Year
Built
No. Of
Stories
Parking
Spaces
Pkg.
Ratio*
Rentable
Area (SF)
Average
Floor Size
Percent
Leased
Avg.
Weighted
Rent
Lease
Type
1 Tigard Triangle Commons A 2007 2 180 4.0 49,716 24,858 100%$28.50 Full Service
2 Red Rock Creek Center B 2017 2 na na 21,000 10,500 na $27.50 Triple Net
3 Triangle Corporate Park A 1999 5 800 4.0 133,099 26,619 100%$22.65 Full Service
4 Pacific Parkway Center A 2001 4 351 4.0 87,857 20,870 88%$24.75 Full Service
5 Five Centerpointe A 1988 6 456 3.7 113,910 18,985 92%$28.00 Full Service
6 6996 SW Varns St C 2007 1 5 0.9 5,850 5,850 43%$24.60 Triple Net
7 Hilltop Business Center B 1985 2-3 251 3.1 80,756 10,447 79%$21.00 Full Service
8 Hunziker Professional Center C 1978 2 42 1.5 28,382 6,069 100%na Full Service
* Parking spaces/ 1,000 s.f. of rentable space
SOURCE: CoStar, JOHNSON ECONOMICS
The properties identified are all business park format of varying age. They typify the type of
office development and rent levels found in this area. The following is a summary of typical
characteristics. (See individual comp sheets in the appendix.)
July 2017
DBG Properties - Fields Property, Tigard – Market Analysis
16
Properties range in year of development from 1978 to 2017. Older properties are
included here due to their proximity to the site, but are not as comparable to a new
office development at the subject site.
The properties range from 2 to 6 stories in height.
They are served by surface parking at a range of ratios, but an average of roughly 4
spaces/1,000 rentable s.f. is typical in the newest centers.
Average lease rates range from $21.00 to $28.50 for full service lease. Examples of
triple net leases range from $24.60 to $27.50.
For the most part, buildings report good occupancy, with five being near 90% leased or
more. The smallest property is only 43% leased while the Hilltop Business Center near
the subject site is roughly 80% leased.
As stated, the newest and most modern business park centers will be most comparable to
potential employment uses at the subject site. The following are some examples of the newer
business park forms. The Hilltop Business Center is near the subject property, but was built in
the 1980’s.
FIGURE 12: EXAMPLES OF BUSINESS PARK DEVELOPMENT, TIGARD TRIANGLE AREA
Tigard Triangle Commons Pacific Parkway Center
Hilltop Business Center Triangle Corporate Center
The real estate company Jones Lang LaSalle tracks a total inventory of 5.1 million s.f. of office
space in the 217 Corridor from Tigard to Beaverton. This office space is in a range of age,
condition and quality. As of the 4th Quarter of 2016, there was an estimated vacancy of 14.9%
across properties and an average asking rent of $22.50.
Among the property classes, Class A space experienced the highest vacancy rate of 17% in this
submarket, while Class B and Class C experienced lower rates of 14% and 10% respectively.
July 2017
DBG Properties - Fields Property, Tigard – Market Analysis
17
Average lease rates range from $24.50 for Class A, $21.00 for Class B, and $14.50 for Class C
space.
These market trends are applied in deriving assumptions for the feasibility analysis discussed
below.
E. VIABILITY OF SUBJECT SITE FOR BUSINESS PARK DEVELOPMENT
Location: The subject location, while not in the official Tigard Triangle boundaries, can be
considered part of the large agglomeration of employment uses in this area. The Triangle to the
east, and the Kruse Way area located further east across the freeway, form one of the largest
clusters of professional office space in the region, second only to central Portland and
comparable to the Sunset Corridor.
The site will also have quick access via SW Wall Street and Tech Center Drive to the
agglomeration of employment users along SW 72nd Avenue which includes a full range of office,
light industrial and warehousing uses.
This area is a proven location for business park development, with employers favoring the
central location and accessibility for employees and clients from across the Metro area. The
location will feature excellent access to and from the highway and freeway system from SW 72nd
Avenue. This route also provides north/south access to the Triangle and other employment
centers to the south. Hunziker Street is a designated collector street, and SW 72nd Avenue is a
designated arterial street.
The subject site is located roughly 0.25 miles from Highway 217 and the “Tigard Triangle” area
to the east. Access to the I-5 freeway is roughly 0.75 miles to the east. Downtown Tigard is
located roughly 0.5 miles north/northwest. Access to Highway 99W is roughly 0.75 miles to the
northwest. The subject site is located roughly 5 miles from central Beaverton, and 10 miles
from central Portland.
Site Size: As designed, roughly 9 acres of the site would be dedicated to office employment
uses. This is sufficient space to accommodate all of the required elements including parking of 3
to 4 spaces/1,000 rentable s.f. This is a viable parking ratio that is common among the office
properties surveyed in the Triangle area.
At 9 acres, the employment use portion of the site will have ample acreage to allow for a range
of building formats and configurations. The proposed office program of 77,500 to 100,000 s.f.
would represent a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of roughly 0.2 to 0.25. This is a very achievable FAR in
a suburban office environment, and implies that the development will have the flexibility to add
additional employment space if needed.
Surrounding Uses: The site is adjacent to a range of uses. Hunziker Street is home to a range of
light industrial, manufacturing and warehousing uses across from the subject site to the north,
and along the street to the west. Directly to the west of the site, another large 18-acre portion
of the Fields Site will remain under the I-P zone and is will house multiple new distribution and
July 2017
DBG Properties - Fields Property, Tigard – Market Analysis
18
light industrial buildings across SW Wall Street. These uses are not incompatible with a new
business park development at the subject site. Office park and light industrial uses often exist in
close proximity.
To the east of the site along Hunziker Street are two older business park developments which
demonstrate the viability of office development in this location, as do the tech office centers
along Tech Center Drive to the southeast. These uses along with the industrial uses to the west
form a continuous zone of employment along the Hunziker Street (and future Wall Street)
corridor from SW 72nd to SW Hall Blvd.
Directly to the east of the northern portion of the site, where the proposed multifamily
development would be located on the Fields Property, there is one existing multi-family
residential property, the Hillcrest Apartments. To the south of this is a low-density residential
neighborhood.
The southern portion of the Fields Site, where office uses are proposed will be partially adjacent
to the residential neighborhood, and partially adjacent to a warehouse property at the west end
of Tech Center Drive. The employment uses at the site will be buffered from these residential
areas as required for approval.
The office park portion of the site will be bordered by the proposed multi-family development
immediately to the north, and freight/commuter heavy rail corridor across Wall Street to the
south.
Topography and Environmental Constraints: It is beyond the scope of this analysis to provide
in-depth analysis of the planning and engineering requirements of preparing this site for
development.
However, in terms of site selection criteria used by developers and companies in selecting
commercial building sites, there are no obvious constraints on this site which would make in
inappropriate for business park development. The applicant proposes to grade approximately 6
acres of the site to allow for an office campus layout upon approval of the application. A flat
grade, or series of limited terraced steps for buildings and parking, allow for feasible office park
construction.
Timing: It is likely that the proposed employment uses would be provided in a quick and
efficient manner as part of this overall mixed-use site plan at this site. This is because site work,
including excavation, grading, storm water improvements, and access roads will take place in
phase one of this project.
The site preparation of the employment use portion, including building pads and parking lots,
will involve significant up-front investment. Making costly improvements up front provides
strong incentive to construct the office-employment buildings as quickly as possible. Otherwise
these investments represent sunken costs that provide no return to the developer. The
proposed construction form of concrete tilt-up buildings on existing pads will also allow efficient
development of the site.
July 2017
DBG Properties - Fields Property, Tigard – Market Analysis
19
Findings on Site Viability: The subject site is a good location for office employment uses,
including good access to the regional transportation system, adjacency to a well-established and
successful cluster of professional office uses in the Triangle, SW 72nd Avenue, and east Hunziker
Street, and will be part of a corridor of employment uses through the area. The location of
employment uses on the southern portion of the site will allow two access points from SW Wall
Street and direct connection to a large employment agglomeration via Tech Center Drive.
The existence of established residential uses to the south and east, and the development of new
multi-family use on the Fields Property site itself, should not prevent the south portion from
remaining a good site for office employment use. The business park portion will be oriented to
the south, and buffered from adjacent residential uses. Multi-family development on the
northern portion will connect to and grow the residential neighborhood to the east.
IV. FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY OF CONCEPTUAL DESIGN
In order to ensure the feasibility of business park development at the site, Johnson Economics
conducted basic pro forma analysis.
A. PRO FORMA VALUATION
Figure 13 presents a model pro forma analysis for the Fields Property, demonstrating the
feasibility of a business park development fitting the parameters of the conceptual design plan.
The pro forma analysis uses a range of assumptions derived from example office properties in
the submarket, as well as a range of industry sources and norms.
The assumptions used are designed to give a conservative view of development viability. These
include an estimate of achievable rents of $24.00/s.f. NNN, efficiency rate of 85%, and a
structural 10% vacancy rate.
Based on the pro forma analysis, Johnson Economics concludes that the business park
development as proposed at the subject site is likely to be a financially viable investment under
current market conditions. As modeled the development shows acceptable measures of return,
including a 111% value/cost, and 7.2% return on cost. The calculated internal rate of return (IRR)
is 15.5%.
Given these modeled parameters and the strength of this area for employment uses, including
business parks, we conclude that this is an economically feasible use of the subject site. This
basic cost-to- income ratio will scale to larger footprint buildings, so there is flexibility in size and
configuration without compromising economic feasibility.
July 2017
DBG Properties - Fields Property, Tigard – Market Analysis
20
FIGURE 13: PRO FORMA ANALYSIS, FIELDS PROPERTY BUSINESS PARK
AREA SUMMARY:CONSTRUCTION LOAN ASSUMPTIONS:
Size Size (SF)392,040 Construction Loan Amount $13,746,968
Building Size (SF)77,500 Interest Rate 7.00%
Efficiency Ratio 85%Term (months)18
Saleable and Leasable Area/Residential (SF)0 Drawdown Factor 0.62
Saleable and Leasable Area/Commercial (SF)65,875 Construction Interest $857,770
Construction Loan Fee (%)1.00%
INCOME SUMMARY:Construction Loan Fee ($)$137,470
Total Avg. Rent Gross
SF /SF NNN Income PERMANENT FINANCING ASSUMPTIONS:
Rental Apartments 0 $0.00 $0 DCR LTV
Offices 65,875 $24.00 $1,581,000 Interest Rate 6.50%6.50%
Restaurant 0 $0.00 $0 Term (Years)25 25
Ground Floor Retail 0 $0.00 $0 Debt-Coverage Ratio 1.25
Vacancy/Collection Loss 10.0%($158,100)Loan-to-Value 75%
TOTAL 65,875 $21.60 $1,422,900 Stabilized NOI (Year 2)$1,392,308 $1,392,308
COST SUMMARY:CAP Rate 6.50%
Per SF Total Supportable Mortgage $13,746,968 $16,065,088
Site Acquisition Cost $15.00 $5,880,600 Annual Debt Service $1,113,846 $1,301,672
Direct Construction Cost $110.00 $8,525,000
Tenant Improvements $45.00 $3,487,500 MEASURES OF RETURN:
Soft Costs $18.00 $1,395,000 Indicated Value @ Stablization $21,420,118
TOTAL $248.88 $19,288,100 Value/Cost 111%
EQUITY ASSUMPTIONS:Return on Cost (ROC)7.2%
Total Development Cost $19,288,100 Internal Rate of Return 15.5%
(-) Permanent Loan ($13,746,968)Modified IRR @ 8% Reinventment 14.0%
Net Permanent Loan Equity Required 28.7%$5,541,132
SOURCE: JOHNSON ECONOMICS
V. CONCLUSIONS
The following is a summary of the findings and conclusions of Johnson Economics, based on the
analysis discussed in this report.
Based upon the analysis included in the City’s amended 2011 Economic Opportunities
Analysis (EOA), the full 24-acre subject site had the capacity to hold 280 non-retail jobs
under the previous zoning designations. As a condition for approval of a comp plan
amendment and zone change, the City seeks a demonstration that under the new
zoning and conceptual design plan, the subject site can still accommodate at least the
full 280 non-retail jobs.
Residential Use Employment: The residential portion of the conceptual design plan is
projected to require six full-time employees to provide management, maintenance and
grounds work at the apartment complex, based on survey data from the National
Apartment Association (NAA).
July 2017
DBG Properties - Fields Property, Tigard – Market Analysis
21
Office Use Employment: The Conceptual Design Plan describes 77,500 gross s.f. to
100,000 gross s.f. of office space in a business park setting. To accommodate a
minimum of 274 non-retail employees this range would offer an average of 240 net s.f.
to 310 net s.f. per employee.
There is now significant documentation that the average square footage needed per
office employee has been falling for some time. Commercial real estate industry experts
point out that within the past decade the industry rule of thumb was 250 sq.ft. of net
space per employee. The average has now fallen to 150 s.f. of net space, and some
project it may fall as low as 100 s.f., over the next 10 years.
Given the trends discussed here, we conclude that the amount of office space proposed
at the subject site would provide more than enough space capacity to house the
minimum 274 employees in a modern office environment, and likely many more.
If we assume that the office space features average square footage per employee more
in line with modern trends, this development will accommodate much greater than the
minimum 274 employees. For instance, assuming a modern layout offering an
average of 175 net s.f. per employee, the amount of office space proposed at the
subject site could accommodate from 375 to 485 employees at the site.
The flexibility in amount of space per employee will mean that this development could
be suited to a range of potential tenants, from those who require less to more space per
employee.
Office Market Trends: The office market in the Portland Metro area has rebounded
since the recession of 2007-2009, due to a strong jobs recovery. Vacancy rates and rent
levels have now surpassed their pre-recession benchmarks, and office development has
returned in earnest.
Employment in Tigard is heavily weighted towards many sectors which primarily use
office space, including professional and business services, financial services, education
and health services. Over the prior 10 years, some of these sectors experienced the
most growth, with employment in professional services growing 26%, and employment
in financial activities growing 13%. Employment in Tigard now exceeds pre-recession
levels by 7% or 3,000 jobs.
Based on the official employment projections from the EOA, and Metro’s Urban Growth
Report process, there is strong projected job growth in Tigard that translates into
continued demand for new office space to accommodate it over the 20-year planning
period. Alternative projections from the Oregon Employment Department support the
EOA forecasts.
The subject site is a good location for office employment uses, including good access to
the regional transportation system, adjacency to a well-established and successful
cluster of professional office uses in the Triangle, SW 72nd Avenue, and east Hunziker
July 2017
DBG Properties - Fields Property, Tigard – Market Analysis
22
Street, and will be part of a corridor of employment uses through the area. The location
of employment uses on the southern portion of the site will allow two access points
from SW Wall Street and direct connection to a large employment agglomeration via
Tech Center Drive.
The existence of established residential uses to the south and east, and the
development of new multi-family use on the Fields Property site itself, should not
prevent the south portion from remaining a good site for office employment use. The
business park portion will be oriented to the south, and buffered from adjacent
residential uses. Multi-family development on the northern portion will connect to and
grow the residential neighborhood to the east.
Site work across the site (office and MFR portions), including excavation, grading, storm
water improvements, and access roads will be required in phase one of this project.
These costly improvements will incentivize the construction of the office-employment
buildings as quickly as possible. Otherwise these investments represent sunken costs
that provide no return. The proposed construction form of concrete tilt-up buildings on
existing pads will also allow efficient development of the site.
Based on pro forma modeling, Johnson Economics concludes that the business park
development as proposed at the subject site will be a financially viable investment
under current market conditions. The findings are based on conservative assumptions
of achievable rents, development cost, vacancy rates and other parameters that find an
acceptable positive return along a range of measures. The basic cost to income ratio
per square foot will scale to larger footprint buildings, so there is flexibility in size and
configuration without compromising feasibility.
Johnson Economics further concludes that the site and proposed building designs will
easily accommodate the minimum 280 non-retail jobs, and likely many more in a
modern office configuration.