Hearings Officer Packet - 10/23/1995•
CITY OF TIGARD
HEARING'S OFFICER
OCTOBER 23,1995 - 7:00 P.M.
13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD
TIGARD, OR 97223
CITY OF TIGARD
OREGON
---0,5o' c4nyone wishing to speak on an
agenda item should sign on the
appropriate sig"4n sheet(s).
PUBLIC NOTICE:
Assistive Listening Devices are available for persons with impaired
hearing and should be scheduled for Planning Commission meetings
by noon on the Monday prior to the meeting. Please call (503) 639-
4171, Ext. 320 (voice) or (503) 684-2772 (TDD - Telecommunications
Devices for the Deaf). Upon request, the City will also endeavor to
arrange for the following services:
? Qualified sign language interpreters for persons with
speech or hearing impairments; and
? Qualified bilingual interpreters.
Since these services must be scheduled with outside service providers, it is
important to allow as much lead time as possible. Please notify the City of
your need(s) by 5:00 p.m. on the Wednesday preceding the meeting date at
the same phone numbers as listed above.
[OVER FOR MEETING AGENDA ITEMW
TIGARD HEARINGS OFFICER - 9/25/95 PAGE t OF 2
h:Uogin\patty\agendho9.25
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. PUBLIC HEARING
•
CITY OF TIGARD
HEARINGS OFFICER
OCTOBER 23, 1995 - 7:00 P.M.
AGENDA
2.1 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) 95-0006
>DURHAM ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EXPANSION4
A request for conditional use permit approval to expand the Durham Elementary
School for a student capacity of 600 students. The total expansion is 39,135 square
feet. LOCATION: 8048 SW Shaffer Lane (WCTM 2S1 13BA and 13B, tax lot 400
and 300). ZONE: R-12 (Residential, 12 Units per acre). The R-12 zone allows
single-family attached/detached residential units, multiple-family residential units,
residential care facilities, mobile home parks and subdivision, public support
services, family day care, home occupation, temporary use, residential fuel tank,
and accessory structures. Civic uses such as elementary schools are also permitted
within the R-12 zoning district subject to conditional use permit approval.
APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters
18.54, 18.82, 18.96, 18.100, 18.106, 18.108, 18.114, 18.116, 18.130, 18.150 and
18.164.
2.2 SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (SDR) 95-0017/SENSITIVE LANDS REVIEW
(SLR) 95-0011 SNYDER/RANDALL REALTY
? BONITA COURT APTS. 4
The applicant has requested approval of the following development applications:
1.) Site Development Review approval to construct a 5 building, 36 unit multi-family
apartment complex; and
2.) Sensitive Lands Review to allow the construction of a storm drainage system
within the 100- year floodplain and wetland area. LOCATION: 7775 SW Bonita
Road (WCTM 2S1 12BA, tax lot 400).
ZONE: R-12 (Residential, 12 Units per acre). The R-12 zone allows single-family
attached/detached residential units, multiple-family residential units, residential care
facilities, mobile home parks and subdivision, public support services, family day care,
home occupation, temporary use, residential fuel tank, and accessory structures.
APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Sections 18.54,
18.84, 18.92, 18.96, 18.100, 18.102, 18.106, 18.108, 18.116, 18.120, 18.150 and
18.164. Comprehensive Plan Policies 2.1.1, 3.1.1, 3.2.1 and 3.2.2.
3. OTHER BUSINESS
4. ADJOURNMENT
TIGARD HEARINGS OFFICER - 9/25/95 PAGE 2 OF 2
h:Uogin\patty\agendho9.25
COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS, INC.
P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (503) 684.0360
BEAVERTON, OREGON 97075
Legal Notice Advertising
• City of Tigard • ? Tearsheet NoticE
13125 SW Hall Blvd.
• Tigard,Oregon 97223-8199 • ? Duplicate Affidav
*Accounts Payable-Terry •
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
STATE OF OREGON, )
COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, )s'-
1, .7tudit-h Knphler
being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the Advertising
Director, or his principal clerk, of theTi crawl-T„a 1 at i n Times
a newspaper of general circulation as defined in ORS 193.010
and 193.020; published at Ti Bard in the
aforesaid county and state; that the
Hearing:SDR 95-0017fSTR 95-nni i Bonita Ctr.
a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in thAepts .
entire issue of said newspaper for ONE successive and
consecutive in the following issues:
October 12.1995
Subscribed and sworn to oore me th?is!2th day of October
Notary P c for Oregon
My Commission Expires:
AFFIDAVIT-
Legal
Notice TT 8 3 3 2
The following will be considered by the Tigard Hearings Officer on Mon-
day, October 23. 1995, at 7:00 P.M., at Tigard Civic Center - Town Hall,
13125 S.W. Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon. Both public, oral and written
testimony is invited. The public hearing on this matter will be conducted
in accordance with the rules of Chapter 18.32 of the Tigard Municipal
Code, and rules and procedures of the Hearings Officer. Failure to raise an
issue in person or by letter accompanied by statements or evidence suffi-
cient to allow the hearing's authority and all parties to respond precludes
an appeal, and failure to specify the criterion from the Community
Development Code or Comprehensive Plan at which a comment is
directed precludes an appeal based on that criterion. Further information
may be obtained from the Planning Division at 13125 S.W. Hall
Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon 97223, or by calling (503) 6394171.
PUBLIC HEARING:
SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (SDR) 95-00171
SENSITIVE LANDS REVIEW (SLR) 95-0011
SYNDER/RANDALL REALTY BONITA COURT APTS.
The applicant has requested approval of the following development ap-
plications: 1.) Site Development Review approval to construct a 5 build-
ing, 36 unit multi-family apartment complex; and 2.) Sensitive Lands
Review to allow the construction of a storm drainage system within the
100-year floodplain and wetland area. LOCATION: 7775 S.W. Bonita
Road (WCTM 2S 112BA, tax lot 400). ZONE: R-12 (Residential, 12 units
per acre). The R-12 zone allows single-family attached/detached residen-
tial units, multiple-family residential units, residential care facilities,
mobile home parks and subdivision, public support services, family day
care, home occupation, temporary use, residential fuel tank, and accessory
structures. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Develop-
ment Code Sections 18.54, 18.84, 18.92, 18.100, 18.102, 18.106, 18.108,
18.116, 18.120, 18.150 and 18.164.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) 95-0006
DURHAM ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EXPANSION
A request for conditional use permit approval to expand the Durham
Elementary School for a student capacity of 600 students. The total ex-
l pansion is 39,135 square feet. LOCATION: 8048 S.W. Shaffer Lane
C Q, (WCTM 2S1 13BA and 1311, tax lot 400 and 300). ZONE: R-12
(Residential, 12 units per acre). The R-12 zone allows single-family at-
Oil residential units, multiple-family residential units,
residential care facilities, mobile home parks and subdivision, public sup-
port services, family day care, home occupation, temporary use, residen-
tial fuel tank, and accessory structures. Civic uses such as elementary
schools are also permitted within the R-12 zoning district subject to condi-
tional use permit approval. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Com-
munity Development Code Chapters 18.54, 18.96, 18.100, 18.106,
18.108, 18.114, 18.116, 18.130, 18.150 and 18.164.
TT8332 -Publish 0=2o er 12,
CITY OF TIGARD
OREGON
PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE
THE CITY OF TIGARD HEARING'S OFFICER,
AT A MEETING ON MONDAY, OCTOBER 23, 1995 AT 7:00 PM,
IN THE TOWN HALL OF THE TIGARD CIVIC CENTER,
13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD, TIGARD, OREGON 97223
WILL CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING APPLICATION:
FILE NO: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) 95-0006
FILE TITLE: DURHAM ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EXPANSION
APPLICANT: Tigard-Tualatin School District OWNER:
13137 SW Pacific Highway
Tigard, OR 97223
(503) 684-2235
REQUEST > A request for conditional use permit approval to expand the
Durham Elementary School for a student capacity of 600
students. The total expansion is 39,135 square feet.
LOCATION: 8048 SW Shaffer Lane (WCTM 2S1 13BA and 13B, tax lot 400 and 300).
Same
APPLICABLE
REVIEW Community Development Code Sections 18.54, 18.96, 18.100, 18.106, 18.108, 18.114,
18.116,
CRITERIA: 18.130, 18.150 and 18.164.
ZONE: R-12 (Residential, 12 Units per acre). The R-12 zone allows single-family
attached/detached residential units, multiple-family residential units, residential care
facilities, mobile home parks and subdivision, public support services, family day care,
home occupation, temporary use, residential fuel tank, and accessory structures.
Schools and related uses are also permitted subject to conditional use permit approval.
THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS MATTER WILL BE CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RULES
OF CHAPTER 18.32 OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE AND RULES OF PROCEDURE
ADOPTED BY THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL AND AVAILABLE AT CITY HALL, OR RULES OF
PROCEDURE SET FORTH IN CHAPTER 18.30.
ASSISTIVE LISTENING DEVICES ARE AVAILABLE FOR PERSONS WITH IMPAIRED HEARING. THE
CITY WILL ALSO ENDEAVOR TO ARRANGE FOR QUALIFIED SIGN LANGUAGE INTERPRETERS AND
QUALIFIED BILINGUAL INTERPRETERS UPON REQUEST. PLEASE CALL (503) 639-4171, EXT. 320
(VOICE) OR (503) 684-2772 (TDD - TELECOMMUNICATIONS DEVICES FOR THE DEAF) NO LESS
THAN ONE WEEK PRIOR TO THE HEARING TO MAKE ARRANGEMENTS.
CUP 95-0006/ DURHAM ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EXPANSION NOTICE OF 10/23/95 HEARING'S OFFICER PUBLIC HEARING
0 0
ANYONE WISHING TO PRESENT WRITTEN TESTIMONY ON THIS PROPOSED ACTION MAY DO SO
IN WRITING PRIOR TO OR AT THE PUBLIC HEARING. ORAL TESTIMONY MAY BE PRESENTED AT
THE PUBLIC HEARING. AT THE PUBLIC HEARING, THE HEARINGS OFFICER WILL RECEIVE A
STAFF REPORT PRESENTATION FROM THE CITY PLANNER; OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING; AND
INVITE BOTH ORAL AND WRITTEN TESTIMONY. THE HEARINGS OFFICER MAY CONTINUE THE
PUBLIC HEARING TO ANOTHER MEETING TO OBTAIN ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, OR CLOSE THE
PUBLIC HEARING AND TAKE ACTION ON THE APPLICATION. IF A PERSON SUBMITS EVIDENCE IN
SUPPORT TO THE APPLICATION AFTER OCTOBER 2. 1995 ANY PARTY IS ENTITLED TO REQUEST
A CONTINUANCE OF THE HEARING. IF THERE IS NO CONTINUANCE GRANTED AT THE HEARING,
ANY PARTICIPANT IN THE HEARING MAY REQUEST THAT THE RECORD REMAIN OPEN FOR AT
LEAST SEVEN (7) DAYS AFTER THE HEARING.
INCLUDED IN THIS NOTICE IS A LIST OF APPROVAL CRITERIA APPLICABLE TO THE REQUEST
FROM THE TIGARD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE AND THE TIGARD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL OF THE REQUEST BY THE HEARINGS OFFICER WILL BE BASED
UPON THESE CRITERIA AND THESE CRITERIA ONLY. AT THE HEARING IT IS IMPORTANT THAT
COMMENTS RELATING TO THE REQUEST PERTAIN SPECIFICALLY TO THE APPLICABLE CRITERIA
LISTED.
FAILURE TO RAISE AN ISSUE IN PERSON OR BY LETTER ACCOMPANIED BY STATEMENTS OR
EVIDENCE SUFFICIENT TO ALLOW THE HEARINGS AUTHORITY AND ALL PARTIES TO RESPOND,
PRECLUDES AN APPEAL AN APPEAL AND FAILURE TO SPECIFY THE CRITERION FROM THE
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE OR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AT WHICH A COMMENT IS
DIRECTED PRECLUDES AN APPEAL BASED ON THAT CRITERION.
ALL DOCUMENTS AND APPLICABLE CRITERIA IN THE ABOVE-NOTED FILE ARE AVAILABLE FOR
INSPECTION AT NO COST OR COPIES CAN BE OBTAINED FOR TWENTY-FIVE CENTS PER PAGE.
AT LEAST SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE HEARING, A COPY OF THE STAFF REPORT WILL BE
AVAILABLE FOR INSPECTION AT NO COST, OR A COPY CAN BE OBTAINED FOR TWENTY-FIVE
CENTS PER PAGE.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION PLEASE CONTACT THE STAFF PLANNER MARK ROBERTS AT
(503) 639-4171, TIGARD CITY HALL, 13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD, TIGARD, OREGON.
CUP 95-0006/ DURHAM ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EXPANSION NOTICE OF 10/23/95 HEARING'S OFFICER PUBLIC HEARING
TIGARD 0
HEARINGS OFFICER xi?K
CITY OF TIGARD
OREGON
NOTICE: ALL PERSONS DESIRING TO SPEAK ON ANY ITEM MUST SIGN THEIR NAME AND NOTE
THEIR ADDRESS ON THIS SHEET ...(Please PRINT)
AGENDA ITEM #: 2.1 DATE OF HEARING: 10/23/95 Page 1 of 2
CASE NUMBER(S)/NAME(S): CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) 95-0006
DURHAM ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EXPANSION
OWNER/APPLICANT: TIGARD-TUALATIN SCHOOL DISTRICT
LOCATION: 8048 SW SHAFFER LANE
MAP(S) & TAX LOT(S) NO(S). 2S1 13BA, TAX LOT 400 & 2S1 13B, TAX LOT 300
PLEASE PRINT YOUR NAME, ADDRESS, AND INCLUDE YOUR ZIP CODE
PROPONENT (For the proposal) OPPONENT (Against the proposal)
(Print Name/Address/Zip & Affiliation) (Print Name/Address/Zip & Affiliation)
/ 3 / 3 1 SSA/
Name: Name:
Address: Address:
City: State: Zip: City: State: Zip:
Name: Name:
Address: Address:
City: State: Zip: City: State: Zip:
Name: Name:
Address: Address:
City: State: Zip: City: State: Zip:
Name: Name:
Address: Address:
City: State: Zip: City: State: Zip:
TIGARD 0
HEARINGS OFFICER
CITY OF TIGARD
OREGON
NOTICE: ALL PERSONS DESIRING TO SPEAK ON ANY ITEM MUST SIGN THEIR NAME AND NOTE
THEIR ADDRESS ON THIS SHEET ...(Please PRINT)
AGENDA ITEM #: 2.1 DATE OF HEARING: 10/23/95 11 Page 2 of 2
CASE NUMBER(S)/NAME(S): CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) 95-0006
DURHAM ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EXPANSION
OWNER/APPLICANT: TIGARD-TUALATIN SCHOOL DISTRICT
LOCATION: 8048 SW SHAFFER LANE
MAP(S) & TAX LOT(S) NO(S). 2S1 13BA, TAX LOT 400 & 2S1 13B, TAX LOT 300
PLEASE PRINT YOUR NAME, ADDRESS, AND INCLUDE YOUR ZIP CODE
PROPONENT (For the proposal) OPPONENT (Against the proposal)
(Print Name/Address/Zip & Affiliation) (Print Name/Address/Zip & Affiliation)
Name: Name:
Address: Address:
City: State: Zip: City: State: Zip:
Name: Name:
Address: Address:
City: State: Zip: City: State: Zip:
Name: Name:
Address: Address:
City: State: Zip: City: State: Zip:
Name: Name:
Address: Address:
City: State: Zip: City: State: Zip:
Name: Name:
Address: Address:
City: State: Zip: City: State: Zip:
BEFORE THE LAND USE HEARINGS OFFICER
FOR THE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
Regarding an application for a conditional use ) FINAL ORDER
permit to enlarge the Durham Elementary School )
in the R-12 zone at 8048 SW Shaffer Lane ) CUP 95-0006
in the City of Tigard, Oregon ) (Durham Elementary School)
1. SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST
The applicant requests approval of a conditional use permit to add 39,135 square feet to an
existing 23,830 square foot building at the Durham Elementary School, replacing two
modular classrooms that were approved in 1990 and adding nine new parking spaces. The
additional space is being provided north and south of the existing school building. The
additional parking spaces are situated along the west edge of the existing parking and
maneuvering area. The applicant will remove about 22 existing trees over six inches in
diameter to accommodate the new structures and parking.
II. FINDINGS ABOUT SITE, SURROUNDINGS AND PUBLIC FACILITIES
The hearings officer incorporates by reference the findings about the site and
surroundings in Section II of the City of Tigard Staff Report, and the NPO and agency
comments in Sections IV and V of the City of Tigard Staff Report.
III. APPLICABLE APPROVAL STANDARDS
The hearings officer incorporates by reference the approval standards in Section III
of the City of Tigard Staff Report.
IV. PUBLIC RECORD
Tigard Hearings Officer Larry Epstein (the "hearings officer") received testimony at
the public hearing about this application on October 23, 1995. A record of that testimony is
included herein as Exhibit A (Parties of Record), Exhibit B (Taped Proceedings), and
Exhibit C (Written Testimony). These exhibits are filed at the Tigard City Hall. The
following testimony was offered at the hearing:
1. City planner Mark Roberts testified for the City. He summarized the staff report
and recommendation. He further recommended deleting condition of approval 1, because a
4-foot wide sidewalk already exists along Durham Road. He also testified that monies
have been budgeted from the city's capital facilities fund to partially pay for a traffic signal
at the intersection of 79th Avenue and Durham Road. He testified that the school
expansion does not cause signal warrants to be exceeded, therefore staff did not
recommend a condition requiring the applicant to contribute toward funding for that signal.
Nevertheless the school board is meeting to consider making such a contribution in the
interest of enhancing pedestrian safety and responding to community concerns.
2. Ron Hudson appeared for the applicant. He accepted the staff report and
recommendation as amended at the hearing.
3. Sally Christensen testified in writing about the need for a traffic signal and
crosswalk at the intersection of 79th Avenue and Durham Road, and recommending the use
of traffic impact fees for this purpose. She attached a traffic study to her letter.
Hearings Oricer Final Order
CUP 95-0006 (Durham Elementary School) Page 1
V. EVALUATION OF REQUEST
The hearings Officer incorporates by reference the responsive findings about
compliance with the Community Development Code and Comprehensive Plan in Section III
of the City of Tigard Staff Report.
VI. SITE VISIT BY HEARINGS OFFICER
The hearings officer visited the site and surrounding area.
VII. CONCLUSION AND DECISION
1. The hearings officer concludes that the proposed conditional use permit
complies with the applicable criteria and standards of the Community Development Code,
provided development that occurs after this decision complies with applicable local, state,
and federal laws and with conditions of approval warranted to ensure such compliance
occurs.
2. In recognition of the findings and conclusions contained herein, and
incorporating the Staff Report and other reports of effect agencies and public testimony and
exhibits received in this matter, the hearings officer hereby approves CUP 95-0006, subject
to conditions of approval 2.a through 2.d in Section VI of the City of Tigard Staff Report.
ATEIA this 31st day of October, 1995.
Larry Ep in AI
City of igar H ngs Officer
Hearings Officer Final Order
CUP 95-0006 (Durham Elementary School) Page 2
AGENDA ITEM: 2.1
BEFORE THE LAND USE HEARINGS OFFICER
FOR THE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
Regarding an application by the
Tigard/Tualatin School District
for a 39,135 square foot addition
to a newer existing building of the
Durham Elementary School Site.
1. SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST
CASE: Conditional Use Permit CUP 95-0006
STAFF REPORT
CUP 95-0006
SUMMARY: The applicant requests Conditional Use approval to allow construction of a
39,135 square foot addition to the Durham Elementary School to add
classrooms and related school facilities.
APPLICANT: Tigard/Tualatin School District OWNERS: same
13137 SW Pacific Highway
Tigard, OR 97223
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Public Institutional(Pub-Ins)
ZONING DESIGNATION: Medium Density Residential 12 units per acre (R-12)
LOCATION: 8048 SW Shaffer Lane (WCTM 2S 1 1313A, tax lot 400, 2S 1 1313, tax lot 300).
APPLICABLE LAW: Community Development Code Chapters 18.54, 18.82, 18.96, 18.100,
18.106, 18.108, 18.114, 18.116, 18.130, 18.150 and 18.164.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
? Approval subject to conditions Q
HEARING'S OFFICER CUP 95-0006 - DURHAM ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EXPANSION PAGE 1
0 •
1. FINDINGS ABOUT SITE AND SURROUNDINGS
A. Background Information:
On August 22, 1988, the City Council approved 1) a plan amendment from Light Industrial
to Public Institutional for 2.89 acres of the adjacent Hambach property and the 20-foot wide
accessway of the PGE property (CPA 88-03); and 2) a zone change from I-L (Light
Industrial) for those portions of these two properties and also for the Durham School
property from I-P (HD) (Industrial Park, Historic District Overlay) to R-12 (HD) (ZC 88-
08).
On October 27, 1988, the Historic Sites and Districts Committee and the Hearings Officer
reviewed a proposal to construct a new classroom building of 23,830 square feet on the
southern portion of the site of the Durham Elementary School (CUP 88-08, HD 88-01).
Access to the new classroom building was to be developed from SW 85th Avenue through
the Unified Sewerage Agency's Durham Road Wastewater Treatment Plant. The proposed
expanded school use of the site contained use of the two existing school buildings with no
changes to those buildings or to the developed portion of the site. The proposal was
approved subject to conditions of approval. The new classroom building was occupied in
September 1989.
In January, 1990 the Hearings Officer approved Conditional Use Permit 89-06 which
allowed installation of two temporary modular classroom buildings at the Durham
Elementary School. These modular classrooms were proposed to be used until June 1992.
B. Site size and shave:
The gross property acreage is 8.48 acres and rectangular in shape with dimension of 274
feet along SW Durham Road and 873 feet of depth. An additional rectangular area
developed as a playground adjoins a portion of the school site to the east. This playground
measures 243 feet along SW Durham Road and has a depth of 519 feet.
C. Existing; uses and structures:
The majority of the site is developed with the existing elementary school and related
playground uses. The site is relatively level and contains no existing vegetation.
HEARING'S OFFICER CUP 95-0006 - DURHAM ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EXPANSION PAGE 2
C?
Surrounding land uses:
•
The properties immediately to the west, south and east of the site are zoned Planned
Industrial (I-P). To the north of the site are residential areas which are also zoned R-12
which are developed primarily with detached single family residences.
III. APPLICABLE APPROVAL STANDARDS
A. Community Development Code:
1. Section 18.54 (Development Standards) allows schools subject to approval of a
Conditional Use Permit. The Development Code defines a school as a use which is
conditionally permitted within the site's R-12 Zoning Designation.
The development standards set forth for residential development in Section 18.54
are partially superseded by the Conditional Use Permit standard set forth in Section
18.130 which are reviewed elsewhere. A maximum height of 35 feet is permitted
for habitable structures. Based on the limited topographic change around the
proposed structure and the use of a flat roof, the addition does not exceed a height
of 27 feet which complies with the building height limitation.
Section 18.54 specifies that the minimum landscaping requirement shall be 15
percent. The site plan indicates that the total site area is 8.48 acres. Landscaping a
minimum of 15% of the site is 55,408 square feet. Presently 261,701 square feet of
the site is landscaped. With this addition the landscaped area would be reduced to
218,281 square feet primarily play ground areas which would continue to meet
minimum landscape standards.
Section 18.82 (Historic Overlay District) provides standards for development review
for development or alteration of a site which has been designated as a historic
feature. The original Durham Elementary School was developed in 1921 and is the
only remaining historic institutional landmark in the southeastern portion of Tigard.
As a condition of approval of development of the proposed expansion it is required
that the Historic Sites and Districts Committee conduct a Public Hearing and
determine that this addition is not detrimental to this historic resource.
2. Section 18.100 (Landscaping and Screening) provides standards for landscaping and
screening for between uses of varying intensity. This section does not provide
specific land use buffers between a school use and the adjoining industrial uses so
this section is found to be inapplicable.
HEARING'S OFFICER CUP 95-0006 - DURHAM ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EXPANSION PAGE 3
• •
3. Section 18.102 (Visual Clearance) requires that a visual clearance area be
maintained along the intersections of all public and private right-of-ways. Because
no site improvements are proposed at the intersection of the access easement to this
site and the existing and proposed expanded parking lot area no structures have been
proposed which would interfere with a motorist's vision entering or exiting the site.
4. Section 18.106 (Parking) specifies a parking ratio for elementary schools of one and
a half spaces for every employee. The applicant has indicated that a total of 50 staff
will be on-site. Therefore a minimum of 75 parking spaces are required. The
applicant has proposed to maintain 66 existing spaces and add nine new parking
spaces which would comply with the minimum standard.
Section 18.106 (Bicycle Facilities) requires one bicycle parking space for each new
classroom. The site plan does not currently indicate the provision for bicycle
facilities. Based on the floor plan which was provided it appears that another 27
classrooms are being added therefore an additional 54 parking spaces are required.
The applicant has been required to either provide information concerning the
numbers of existing bicycle facilities or revise the site plan to add a minimum of 54
bicycle parking spaces.
5. Section 18.108 (Pedestrian Circulation) requires that a pedestrian walkway extend
from the ground floor entrances from commercial, industrial and institutional
development to the streets which provide pedestrian access and egress. A condition
of approval has been recommended that the school district revise the plan to provide
a continuous six foot minimum width walkway system from the new addition to
SW Durham Road to connect with a future sidewalk to be constructed along SW
Durham Road as part of the planned SW Durham Road widening project. This
would allow access to the site which would avoid the use parking lot areas, graveled
or landscaped areas.
Section 18.108.080 (Access) requires that a minimum of a 30 foot access easement
with 24 feet paved be provided to serve a development which requires up to 99
parking spaces. The existing access easement road is of sufficient width to serve the
expanded use of the site given its design and the limited use by other adjoining land
uses.
6. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Became effective on January 26,
1992. The act requires three disabled person parking spaces if 51 to 75 parking
spaces are required. The applicant has provided two handicapped parking spaces.
The site plan is required to be revised to provide a minimum of one additional
handicapped accessible parking space.
HEARING'S OFFICER CUP 95-0006 - DURHAM ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EXPANSION PAGE 4
• •
7. Section 18.114 (Signage) states that one freestanding sign up to 32 square feet per
face may be permitted in the Commercial-Professional zone. Wall signs are limited
to five (5) percent of the size of the wall which the sign is to be mounted on. No
signs have been proposed as a part of this application. Sign permits must be
obtained prior to the installation of any sign on the premises.
8. Section 18.116 (Waste and Recycling Enclosures) provides a range of methods of
compliance with trash and recycling enclosure design requirements. The applicant
has provided a trash enclosure which appears to meet the minimum size standards
set forth within this section. Due to potential ongoing problems with site servicing
it is recommended that the applicant obtain approval from the site's franchised
hauler for the proposed enclosure location. The enclosure shall also be provided
with a six foot tall solid screen around the enclosure.
9. Section 18.130.040 (Conditional Use Permits) contains the following general
approval criteria for a Conditional Use:
1) The site size and dimensions provide:
a. Adequate area for the needs of the proposed use; and
b. Adequate area for aesthetic design treatment to mitigate possible
adverse effects from the use on surrounding properties and uses.
2) The characteristics of the site are suitable for the proposed use considering
size, shape, location, topography, and natural features.
3) All required public facilities have adequate capacity to serve the proposal.
4) The applicable requirements of the zoning district are met except as
modified by this chapter.
5) The supplementary requirements set forth in Chapter 18.114 (Signs) and
Section 18.120.180 Site Development Review are met.
6) The use will comply with the applicable policies of the Comprehensive Plan.
Criteria 1 and 2 are addressed because this school site is established facility the addition
intends to expand the use of the facility from 400 to 600 students. In terms of the
architectural design and site use issues the addition has been designed to be complementary
with the existing school facility.
HEARING'S OFFICER CUP 95-0006 - DURHAM ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EXPANSION PAGE 5
0 •
Criteria 3 has been reviewed elsewhere within this report. Public facilities are available or
can be made available to serve this addition.
Criteria 4 has been addressed through this Conditional Use Permit application. Section
18.130.150 (C)(9) provides development standards for schools uses. A school use partially
supersedes the development standards of the underlying R-12 Zoning Designation. This
section identifies no minimum lot size standard for school uses. The proposed addition
maintains a 30 foot front yard setback requirement. The rear yard setback maintains a 20
foot setback. This addition most closely, adjoins a sideyard setback area. The addition
appears to meet the 20 foot setback requirement, however the applicant shall demonstrate
that the addition will meet this standard.
Criteria 5 refers to the criteria contained within Section 18.114 (Signage) and 18.120 (Site
Development Review) and are addressed elsewhere within this report. or are deemed to be
inapplicable because this addition is not a multiple family residential development.
Criteria 6 has been addressed because the Comprehensive Plan presently designates this site
for a Public Institutional use.
Tree Removal: Section 18.150.020(E) requires a permit for removal of trees having a trunk
six inches or more in diameter measured four feet above the ground level. A permit for tree
removal must comply with the following criteria as specified in Section 18.150.030(A):
1. The trees are diseased, present a danger to property, or interfere with utility
service or traffic safety;
2. The trees have to be removed to construct proposed improvements or to
otherwise utilize the applicant's property in a reasonable manner;
3. The trees are not needed to prevent erosion, instability, or drainage problems;
4. The trees are not needed to protect nearby trees as windbreaks or as a
desirable balance between shade and open space;
5. The aesthetic character in the area will not be visually adversely affected by the
tree removal; and
6. New vegetation planted by the applicant, if any, will replace the aesthetic value
of trees to be cut.
Section 18.150 requires that the number of trees over six inches in diameter that will be
removed during construction be minimized. The proposed construction of streets, utilities,
and residences as well as related grading will require the removal of trees. A detailed tree
survey plan was submitted as part of this application. Based on a reconnaissance of the site
HEARING'S OFFICER CUP 95-0006 - DURHAM ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EXPANSION PAGE 6
0 •
the building addition location will require removal of seven trees to develop the site given
the site constraints.
Criteria 1 and 2 are addressed because requiring all of the trees to be left in place would
limit the size and extent of parking and building additions which could be developed on this
site. Adding onto the existing school facility allows for the development of a more efficient
and compact school facility.
Criteria 3 is addressed because has a slope of approximately one percent. The trees which
are proposed to be removed are not needed for soil erosion control because they do not
provide soil stability on a sloping portions of the site.
Criteria 4 has been addressed because the trees which are proposed to be removed and
consist of two small groups which are not a part of forested area.
Criteria 5 has been addressed the aesthetic character of the larger area is not visually
impacted because the site is not visually prominent due to the topography of the area.
Criteria 6 has been addressed because of the site constraints such as the types of
improvements which are existing classrooms, parking lots and playground areas and the
remaining areas left to be developed provide no other alternatives which would allow
parking and building additions to take place without acquiring additional property or
remodeling other existing site improvements. It does not appear to be feasible to plant
replacement trees on this site given the location and type of other property improvements
which are developed. The largest potential area is the athletic field which must be kept
clear for athletic uses.
9. Section 18.164 (Streets and Utilities) contains development standards for streets and
utilities.
a. Section 18.164.030(A) requires streets within and adjoining a development
to be dedicated and improved based on the classification of the street.
b. Section 18.164.030(E) requires a Minor Collector street to have a minimum
60 feet of right-of-way, a 40 feet minimum roadway width, and 2-3 moving
lanes.
C. Section 18.164.070(A) requires sidewalks adjoining both sides of a major
collector streets.
d. Section 18.164.090 requires sanitary sewer service.
e. Section 18.164.100 requires adequate provisions for storm water runoff and
dedication of easements for storm drainage facilities.
HEARING'S OFFICER CUP 95-0006 - DURHAM ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EXPANSION PAGE 7
•
The Engineering Department has reviewed the street and public utility needs for this site.
Because this facility will not directly adjoin or access a public street no conditions of
approval have been recommended concerning street or sidewalk improvements. The
applicant has also not proposed to extend utility services to the site.
IV. OTHER STAFF COMMENTS
FINDINGS:
1. TRAFFIC:
The applicant has submitted a traffic report entitled "Transportation Analysis for Durham
School Expansion", dated August 30, 1995, as prepared by Associated Transportation
Engineering & Planning (ATEP). The report includes traffic counts along SW Durham
Road at the intersections of SW Hall Boulevard and SW 79th Avenue, together with
estimates of the projected traffic generated by the school with the completed expansion.
The report concludes that the increase of school traffic to 1995 traffic will not unduly affect
either intersection. The report does not include traffic projections beyond 1995.
In addition, the report indicates that traffic warrants to justify a traffic signal at SW Durham
Road and SW 79th Avenue are not satisfied. This proposed signal has been the subject of
local community discussion and has been recommended by the South Citizens Involvement
Team (CIT). In particular, with the proposed construction of SW Durham Road as a part of
the Washington County MSTIP program, it was the desire of the both the School District
and the local community to include the traffic signal with the work scheduled for 1996.
Although the traffic report does not make any recommendations for pedestrian
improvements, it is the recommendation of the Engineering Department that the site plan be
revised to include a six foot wide sidewalk across the school site from the proposed new
building addition to the new sidewalk to be constructed in SW Durham Road.
2. STREETS:
The site currently takes access from SW Shaffer Street, a local street located on the
contiguous Unified Sewerage Agency (USA) property which connects to the southerly
extension of SW Hall Boulevard known as SW 85th Avenue. The existing street has been
improved and no changes are proposed.
The new site plan shows the construction of the building addition only, utilizing the existing
on-site parking lot improvements and the existing single driveway onto SW Shaffer Street.
3. SEWER:
The existing school building is presently connected to the public sewer located on USA
property and no changes are proposed.
HEARING'S OFFICER CUP 95-0006 - DURHAM ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EXPANSION PAGE 8
• •
4. STORM DRAIN:
The site currently drains toward the contiguous USA property and an existing underground
storm drain system upstream of the nearby Fanno Creek. The site plan does not propose
any changes to the existing parking lot. However, the impervious area will be increased by
the additional building coverage and the roof drainage should be directed to the existing
underground storm drain system.
In addition, the project should incorporate an on-site water quality facility as prescribed by
the requirements of the Unified Sewerage Agency. The Unified Sewerage Agency has
established and the City has agreed to enforce (Resolution and Order No. 91-47) Surface
Water Management Regulations requiring the construction of on-site water quality facilities
or fees in-lieu of their construction. The applicant should re-design the site plan to include a
water quality facility that would be maintained by the School District.
V. CIT & AGENCY COMMENTS
The South Citizen Involvement Team was notified of the proposed Conditional Use
Permit. No comments or objections to this development were received. In addition,
applicant conducted a neighborhood meeting regarding this request.
2. No other comments were received by the Planning Division.
VI. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Division concludes that the Conditional Use request for this existing site will promote
the general welfare of the City and will not be significantly detrimental nor injurious to surrounding
properties provided that development which occurs after this decision complies with applicable
local state and federal laws.
In recognition of the findings staff recommends APPROVAL of Conditional Use Permit
proposal CUP 95-0006 subject to the conditions which follow.
PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS
SHALL BE SATISFIED OR FINANCIALLY SECURED:
1. The applicant shall re-design the site plan to include a six foot wide sidewalk from the new
building addition, adjacent to the existing parking lot, to connect the existing walk to the
proposed sidewalk in SW Durham Road. STAFF CONTACT: John Hagman, Engineering
Department.
2. The applicant shall include an on-site water quality facility as a part of the final site plan
and shall provide a drainage report for approval of the Engineering Department. STAFF
CONTACT: Greg Berry, Engineering Department.
HEARING'S OFFICER CUP 95-0006 - DURHAM ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EXPANSION PAGE 9
• •
3. The applicant shall submit revised site and landscaping plans or obtain approval of the
following: STAFF CONTACT: Mark Roberts, Planning Division.
a. The applicant shall either provide information concerning the numbers of existing
bicycle facilities or revise the site plan to add a minimum of 54 bicycle parking
spaces
b. The site plan is required to be revised to provide a minimum of one additional
handicapped accessible parking space.
C. The applicant shall apply for and receive approval from the City's Historic Sites and
Districts Committee conduct a Public Hearing and determine that this addition is not
detrimental to this historic resource.
d. The applicant shall obtain approval from the site's franchised hauler for the
proposed location. The enclosure shall also be provided with a six foot tall solid
screen around the enclosure.
CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL SHALL BE VALID FOR EIGHTEEN
MONTHS FROM THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS DECISION.
- 1 WA ? 4OZ?
Prepared By: Mark Roberts Date
Associate Planner
Approved By: Dick Bewersdorff Date
Senior Planner
HEARING'S OFFICER CUP 95-0006 - DURHAM ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EXPANSION PAGE 10
00 00
P
9 P
of
VICINITY
EXHIBIT" MAP
1n
ii
W
V
Z
Z
z
a
J
a.
Q
L
J
CASE NO.
CUP 95-0006
MIS 95-0018
DURHAM ELEMEMMY SCHOOL EXPI
h
06
SW DURHAM ROAD
I
E
1
L--------- j---4 )
---------------
Ml AAWSAAW.W"t
_
N
a
w
0
V
Z
-
z
z
a
J
CL
0
a
0
LL
O
H
U
PLOT PLAN
EXHIBIT MAP
CASE NO.
CUP 95-0006
MIS 95-0018
DURHAM ELEmMAu SCHOOL
0
5G '-G4-Y -W-w YJIlJ • JO rKLR*i 1 1 UMKL-1 Uh ILH 1 11V Jld7 L 101 l u
w. au w nu. ...•r. w...... .., a....n. .... ..... ..v..w ......- oil
0
D
-o
a
7004 f C7 f r . YJG
ADDITIONS AT
CU.I DURHAM ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
imnsr9a s tG E/RUZ A
----• .? - 1i- ¦s.. 11 -
Pr4PEM LINE l -
DURHAM ROAD
m TiRBM
x
IV /F N f
I
1 ?
?D?jCO
N6wNap
9?0-Lou?
r,
r
A
-IM
O
246fol' PROPERTY LINE
I I I O
I I I I
I
I
I I
I
I I I
II
I I
?I
0
?i.
oo??
Z?
I
I
- - 2,3.'1
SIN DURHAM ROAD
ADDITIONS AT DURHAM ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
v 1=XIRT. SITE PLAN
?f - ---- s , i
fir; ? _ • _ r_, ?'
I y .•
"Ivx
I ,
I
I
Y t`• •, j •
I ?a
I
p)
I
I
I
I
I
I
I N
J6
l
I '
I
I
I I I
cA m
Z ! r. b I I
I
i
61 9c
I ? 6
I
I
I
I
1
I - LINE
I.y y l
m • .,'
""t
b..
A
SELIG,/LEE/RUEDA
? m O s t T O T• i ! Z. A X x s M
ne s-V-A.e ew.t Rum R01 - PwU-S& 0"em 9T"4 (eon) e2.-0173
I
i•,
I
I '
r
\I
( RR -,
ApXE rD?
? m D
D DD
DD
v?
0 (A
6,19 -04
- D x_rr 0 D ca
W
?u cp
_ z
m
(P
itl
z
E O
g ?
D ?
i '
246.61
PROPERTY LINE
O I E
I
I I
I I
? I
a?
m
g
242b1' PRO PERTY LINE _
m
x
211:1' PROPERTY LINE
E • ??
.\ \. Do \ \? to
\ h . Z•.
X\• •\X\\\?i ?? r ^? // / • fir.'
L
Y," x
.A
- ----------
-- - -----------
? III
04
1-- C
Z7? 21:
SW DURHAM ROAD
ADDITIONS AT DURHAM ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
.aa mr. xffum AM
PROPomm
OSED SITE PLAN
m
x
1)
?m
c?
0
I HIM
0
0 6
SELIG4LEE/RUEDA
A n O! Z T O T• • ! L• W W f A•
etn av. Ya suNl mmm sot - ?e.u.ea ores m v"" teen) si4-01"
ni
R -
I
,A
W
A
s °
a
? 0 w
O C7X ?
(P
O
U3
s r Na
r
'D
D
Z
z
m
v
s
a -
S
e
9
m
E
a
I
I 8 I
I I
ADDITIONS AT DURHAM ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 9ELIGrL.EE/RVEDA
• la#? ?a0 aIT O T/ r ! L?!1 ?1 a?•
FLOOR PLAN •? •• ?° •?? •?°? •°' - ''^`°` °?° ^•°? 1.a,1 b•-CIA
a
a
is
i
i?
4
r
c
4 -a
m
a
v?
D
?g
r
I
ADDITIONS AT DURH" ZLS"NTARY SCHOOL
.w. 1/. iyul sELIC?`L.?E/RVED/a
R
a O! I T O T/ • ! L A K X¦ a/
glum & • BU IL IN G ELEVATIONS lEsw •• `° .. "" - o'"_ low) a._Di"
?1-
r
?- b
v 0
EXHIBIT B
T,)-.A T I LJ
TP:P
r
Co/3E/°5
• •
TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS
DURHAM SCHOOL EXPANSION
TIGARD, OREGON
PREPARED FOR
TIGARD SCHOOL DISTRICT
TIGARD, OREGON
OR_.rON
v.
=X°. ^'o/3E/QO
PREPARED BY
ASSOCIATED TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING & PLANNING, (ATEP)
4040 DOUGLAS WAY
LAKE OSWEGO, OREGON 97035
95-666 August 30, 1995
•
TABLE OF CONTENTS
•
INTRODUCTION ............................................... 1
REPORT METHODOLOGY ....................................... 3
ASSUMPTIONS .......................................... 3
INTERSECTION ANALYSIS ASSUMPTIONS ..................... 3
INTERSECTION ANALYSIS PROCEDURE ....................... 4
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ........................................ 4
SCENARIO I - EXISTING CONDITIONS ............................... 4
EXISTING ROADWAYS ..................................... 5
PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND OPERATIONS .............. 5
EXISTING LEVELS OF SERVICE .............................. 6
SCENARIO 2 - EXISTING + CURRENT LAND USES .................... 12
TRIP GENERATION ....................................... 13
TRIP DISTRIBUTION ....................................... 14
TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS ............................. 21
CONCLUSIONS ............................................... 27
• •
TABLES
1. Level of Service Definitions (Signalized Intersections) .................. 9
2. Criteria for Signalized Intersections ............................... 10
3. Level of Service Definitions (Unsignalized Intersections) ................ 11
4. Existing Levels of Service at Critical Intersections ..................... 12
5. Projected Trip Generation for Existing Land Uses ..................... 13
6. Scenario 2 Levels of Service at Critical Intersections .................. 18
FIGURES
1. Vicinity Map ............................................... 2
2. Existing AM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ............................ 6
3. Existing PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ........................... 7
4. Scenario 2 - Site Generated Trips AM Peak Hour .................... 14
5. Scenario 2 - Site Generated Trips PM Peak Hour .................... 15
6. Scenario 2 - Total Traffic Volumes AM Peak Hour .................... 16
7. Scenario 2 - Total Traffic Volumes PM Peak Hour .................... 17
0
TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS
DURHAM SCHOOL EXPANSION
LOCATED I N
TIGARD, OREGON
INTRODUCTION This impact analysis has been conducted to identify and evaluate the
existing and future traffic operational impact to the City of Tigard's
transportation system of expanding the student population of the
Durham Elementary School from 400 to 600 students. The Durham Elementary School is
located on Shaffer Lane east of Hall Blvd., in Tigard, Oregon. (See Figure 1).
The theme of this transportation analysis is to assess the transportation impacts from the
proposed development on the surrounding street network based on two different scenarios:
• First, the current conditions within the study area;
• Second, the impact of development of the property with the proposed school expansion.
The format used in this report was established during meetings with City of Tigard Staff.
Specific traffic related issues discussed in this report include:
• Traffic analysis for the study area
• Existing land use and traffic conditions in the project area
• Proposed land use and future traffic conditions in the project area
• Trip Generation estimates for the proposed school expansion.
• Site access locations and operations
• Safety considerations at the site access locations including, but not limited to sight distance
analysis, turn lane and channelization.
DURHAM SCHOOL EXPANSION TRAFFIC ANALYSIS PAGE 1 - August 30, 1995
-C T. u)
L--
U ROSS RD. 1) Qti?
t)1
III
17
TIGARED
Pop. 23,335 ^i
L
HAMLET T. HAMLE1-1
AVON GF; ?c:'(-
y ?
??.S, -f I. AVON S
\ 1
\1 p ISTRATFOR GT
n
ui
TIGARD >
NIGH SGH. a
X
r
cA
DURHAM
HWY.
SHAFFER LANE 1;%//[?1LLLL1
SEWAGE
TREATMENT
PLANT
G G \
0 0 \
\
> 1 I I I
- SITE -
?Y
CJ ? r
I- -
^' y
"Y
/?? \ \ ? ,off . (1???
\ \ J
a
\ M.P. 1 .85
V?
Z EAST RD.
KAELE ST
TIGARD
Pop23,335
Z \\vr?
'rte
'> 1
a 1
I_ a
I? -- L - -
\ \7
1? 111 ??
3 a a a
? U
JQi
I (yj - ?? FRG=T 5T_
!!11 I .?
Q
ROSEWOOD \`,
Figure EDUR14A1'`'I 5C,1400L EXPANSION
I VICINITY MAF
U S T. o
c` u
U
(LY BRADBU
a
ATE F
DURHAM SCHOOL EXPANSION TRAFFIC ANALYSIS PAGE - 2 August 30, 1995
`n 0
O L N.
??,?'G ) O
7
C.
PL. t--
_j A5HFOR ST.
?UU
rIl
U -
F CHUIRCHI
(? a w
- BON ST.
1-
U) ?I-
11111) .1:
•
•
REPORT METHODOLOGY his report was prepared using the latest land use and
transportation data available from the City of Tigard
(hereafter referred to as City), and the Oregon
Department of Transportation (ODOT). Traffic counts supplied by ODOT indicated that the
evening peak hour was from 4:30 to 5:30 p.m. and the critical peak hour would be the a.m.
peak hour due to the hours of operation of the Durham Elementary School.
The operating characteristics at each of the key signalized and unsignalized intersections during
the peak periods were examined using the methods outlined in the 1994 Highway Capacity
Manua/ utilizing the Oregon Department of Transportation Software SigcaQ. The operating
characteristics examined included the volume to capacity (v/c) ratio, level of service, and
estimated queue length.
The criteria used for the intersection analysis included the guidelines set forth by the City of
Tigard. These guidelines state that each signalized intersection analyzed should operate at a
Level of Service (LOS) D with a volume to capacity (v/c) ratio of 0.90 or less (See tables 1-4).
ASSUMPTIONS
Site Access Points
The school is located on Shaffer Lane south of Durham Road and east of Hall Blvd., the access
to the site will continue to be from Shaffer Lane.
INTERSECTION ANALYSIS ASSUMPTIONS
In order to analyze each intersection, there were certain common assumptions made. These
assumptions, in general, are as follows:
1. Peak hour factors used based on existing traffic counts were 0.9 to 0.95 for the p.m.
peak and 0.9 for the a.m. peak.
2. Truck percentages used in the analysis were based on the truck counts performed during
turning movement counts
DURHAM SCHOOL EXPANSION TRAFFIC ANALYSIS PAGE 3 - August 30, 1995
0 0
INTERSECTION ANALYSIS PROCEDURE
The analysis of the key intersections included two different traffic scenarios for the p.m. peak
periods. These scenarios include:
• Existing Conditions
• Existing Conditions with the proposed development.
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
Based on the analysis found later in this report, the following findings are made:
• The expansion of the Durham Elementary School can be accommodated and is shown
by computer analysis to operate at a good level of service.
The intersections of Durham Road at Hall Blvd., currently operates at acceptable levels
of service without the development and will continue to operate at acceptable levels of
service after the proposed school expansion.
• The intersection of Durham Road and 79th Avenue does not meet warrants for the
installation of a traffic signal.
SCENARIO 1 - EX/STING TRAFFIC
EXISTING ROADWAYS
Hall Blvd is a major north/south link through the City of Tigard and is described as an arterial
street in the Tigard Transportation Plan. It serves as the major route for access to Pacific
Highway and Durham Road both from the north and the south and as the primary north/south
roadway west of 1-5. Hall Blvd in this area is constructed to a 2-lane section with one through
lane in each direction and left turn pockets at major intersections.
Durham Road is a designated arterial street though this area connecting the residential areas
DURHAM SCHOOL EXPANSION TRAFFIC ANALYSIS PAGE 4 - August 30, 1995
0 0
north and south of Durham Road to the arterial streets system to the east and west.
PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC. VOLUMES AND OPERATIONS
Traffic counts taken at Durham Road and 79th Avenue were provided by ODOT and counts
taken at Durham and Hall Blvd were provided by the Traffic Smithy. Since the peak hours of
operation for the elementary school are usually during the morning peak hours, both the am
and pm peak hours were evaluated. No adjustments to the volumes have been made to
account for seasonal variations in traffic volumes. Figures 2 and 3 show the peak hour traffic
volumes at the key intersections in the study area.
LEVEL OF SERVICE
The peak hour traffic operations, in terms of levels of service, at the key intersections in the
study area were examined with procedures described in the 1994 Highway Capacity Manual
(Reference 2). Level of Service (LOS) is a concept that was developed to measure the amount
of delay experienced by the driver and the conditions surrounding them as they travel through
a signalized intersection or roadway segment. This delay includes such elements as travel
time, number of stops, total amount of stopped delay, and impedances caused by other
vehicles. As originally defined by the 1965 Highway Capacity Manual six grades are used to
denote the various LOS; these grades are shown in Table 1. Using this definition, it is
generally agreed that "D" LOS is the minimum acceptable for an urban area.
For the purposes of this analysis, the assumed relationship between the calculated stopped
time delay per vehicle and the associated LOS for signalized intersections is given in Table 2.
Unsignalized intersections require a somewhat different approach to determine the capacity of
the intersection. The 1994 Highway Capacity Manual offers the concept of " Total Delay per
Vehicle" as the guideline for measuring the capacity.
Total Delay per Vehicle is defined as " the total elapsed time from when a vehicle stops at the
end of the queue until the vehicle departs from the stop line; This includes the time required
for the vehicle to travel from the last-in-queue position to the first-in-line position.. This
determination is made after all approaches are analyzed and the LOS determined is usually that
approach that typifies the "Worst Case" condition or worst Level of Service. A description of
DURHAM SCHOOL EXPANSION TRAFFIC ANALYSIS PAGE 5 - August 30, 1995
(66 R055 RDA a > 122 N LN.L 251 (oo (YKAE3LE 5T. n V j 45HFOR 5T. K A LE L
DORBURN _PL_
_ _? ----- - j U
1 j - C
T. 01
l) r ?Y ? 111
? J
u, UI Ili CHUB 'HILL -I* ,O ?> Q
; u Q WAY i rf?? 11 ,
1 _ - BON I__-- S _-1
7 ----I V 5TRATF0 I GT.
LP_ n I DURHAMIIIJJJ------ ?? I Q
----'---
RD.
\ i
42-
HIGH SCH. \\`(y
5EWAGE
TREATMENT Q 1001-> t- 412
I PLANT \
1- t'tP. l.?S
w (3 J O -- -
I U
Figures DURHAM 1 SCk-1001- EXFANSION rz
2 EXISTING TRAFFIC voLUMES
AM FE AID. HOUR
A--E-J
DURHAM SCHOOL EXPANSION TRAFFIC ANALYSIS PAGE - 6 August 30, 1995
In <?+
110 2-10
422 10S
1 '?? ,r- 19
qtr
I- r- y
\ -(1In
1
I
i
j I D STRATFO
lln J [--J.-
RD.
TIGARO '1
HIGH SC-H. 14
W
III
_ ROSS _ _ RD. _ >
_ LN.
y O R T H '"F
r
DORBURN PL. _i ASHFOR ST.
-- _= u u
:r '-
6T Y
U r- ?
lU ?_r 111 CHURCHILL 0?
r _
l7 U Q WAY
BON ST.
CT. uj??U r
IIJJ ?-
DURHAM J ?
HWY.
u/
5HAFFER LANE
SEWAGE -- ??
TRFL ATMENT
PLANT AN T /
KA LE LN
f
?I -
r
Q
M.P_185
_I
1
I I I I `- \\
O \\T
L
-KLOBLE ST.
I
'U
-W.
'Z
?G n q
t-
2 2-A IP?
c?
?t
D U R I--I AM SC,1--4 00l- E X PAN 51 CAN Q
Fi ure
g EXISTING TRAFFIC, VCJI-I.MES
ISM PE Aid. [A-OUR A T E >=
DURHAN SCHOOL EXPANSION TRAFFIC ANALYSIS PAGE - 7 August 30, 1995
the levels of service relating *e Total Delay per Vehicle is shoo in Tables 3 & 4.
Past experience with the unsignalized analysis procedure indicates that this methodology is very
conservative in that it tends to overestimate the magnitude of any potential problems that might
exist. Therefore, the results of, any unsignalized intersection analysis should be reviewed with this
thought in mind. Within the City of Tigard, LOS D is considered to be the minimum acceptable
standard for an unsignalized intersection.
LOS analyses presented in this report were performed in accordance with the procedures
described above. For each intersection, these analyses estimate the overall intersection LOS
during the peak hour flow.
DURHAM SCHOOL EXPANSION TRAFFIC ANALYSIS PAGE 8 - August 30, 1995
Table 1 - Level Of ServiWefinitions (Signalized Intersiions)
Level of
Service Traffic Flow Characteristics
A Very low delay, less than 5.0 seconds per vehicle. This occurs when progression
extremely favorable, and most vehicles arrive during, the green phase. Most vehicles
not stop at all. Short cycle lengths may also contribute to low delay.
B Average delay in the range of 5.1 to 15.0 seconds per vehicle. This generally occurs w
good progression and/or short cycle lengths. More vehicles stop than for LOS A, Causi
higher levels of average delay.
C Average delay in the range of 15.1 to 25.0 seconds per vehicle. These higher delays m,
result from fair progression and/or longer cycle lengths. Individual cycle failures may beg
to appear in this level. The number of vehicles stopping is significant at this level, althouc
may still pass through the intersection without stopping..
D Average delay in the range of 25.1 to 40.0 seconds per vehicle At LOS D, the influem
of congestion becomes more noticeable. Longer delays may result from some combinatic
of unfavorable progression, longer cycle lengths,. or high. v/c rations. Many vehicles sto
and. the proportion of vehicles not stopping declines. Individual cycle failures are noticeabl
Frequent signal cycle failures and associated congestion..
E Average delay in the range of 40.1 to 60 seconds per vehicle: This is considered to be
limit of acceptable delay. These high delay values generally indicate poor progression,. I
cycle lengths, and high v/c ratios. Individual cycle failures are frequent occurrences.
F Forced flow, with average delay in excess of 60.0 seconds per vehicle. This is considerE
to be unacceptable to most drivers.. This condition often occurs with over saturation, i.E
when arrival flows rates exceed the capacity of the intersection. It may also occur at hi(
v/c ratios below 1.00 with may individual cycle. failures. Poor progression and long cyc
lengths may also be major contributing causes to such delay levels.
Note: A signal cycle failure is considered to occur when one or more vehicles are for
to wait through more than one green signal indication. for a particular approach.
Source: Transportation Research Board. "Highway Capacity Manual", Special Report-209 (198
DURHAM SCHOOL EXPANSION TRAFFIC ANALYSIS PAGE 9 - August 30, 1995
•
Table 2 - Criteria For Signalized Intersections
•
Stopped
LOS delay per
vehicle (seconds)
A .00-5.00
B 5.1- 1.5.0
C 15.1-25.0
D 25.1- 40.0
E 40.1- 60.0
F >60.0:
Source: Transportation Research Board.
Report 209 (.1985).
"Highway- Capacity: Manual":': Special.
DURHAM SCHOOL EXPANSION TRAFFIC ANALYSIS PAGE 10 - August 30, 1995
• •
Table 3 - Level Of Service Definitions (Unsignalized Intersections)
Level of
Service Traffic Flow Characteristics
A Average delay per vehicle between 0 and 5 seconds
Free-flowing with no congestion. Very few vehicles waiting in a queue.
B Average delay per vehicle between 5 and 10 seconds. Slight delay to
vehicles little or no vehicles in queue.
C Average delay per vehicle 10 to 20 seconds. Occasional delay and
congestions, more than one vehicle in queue.
D Average delay per vehicle 20 to 30 seconds. Frequent delay and
congestion, more than one vehicle per queue.
E Average delay per vehicle in excess of 30 to 45 seconds. This condition
exists when the demand is near or equal to the capacity of the
intersection. or movement. Unstable flow which includes: almost
continuous vehicles in the queue..
F Forced flow, with average delay per vehicle in excess of 45 seconds.
Queue is extensive
Source: Transportation Research Board. "Highway Capacity Manual", Special Report
209 (1985).
DURHAM SCHOOL EXPANSION TRAFFIC ANALYSIS PAGE 11 - August 30, 1995
Ah A
Table 5 - Level of Service for 1995 without Durham School Expansion
Intersection AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR
LOS DELAY V/C
Ratio LOS Delay VIC
Ratio
Durham Road at Hall Blvd D 32.7 0.86 D 27.5 0.82
Durham Road at 79th Avenue D 28.9 E 31.8
Table 5 indicates that the intersections within the study boundary currently operate at acceptable
levels of service during peak hours.
SCENARIO 2 - EX/STING W/EXPANS/ON
Scenario two includes the expansion of the student population from 400 to 600 students: (refer to
Table 6 )
TRIP GENERATION
Estimates of total daily a.m. and p.m. peak hour driveway volumes for the existing uses were
developed from empirical observations at many similar-sized facilities located throughout the United
States. These empirical observations are summarized in a standard reference manual published
by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, and are supported by additional independent studies
conducted by both the California Department of Transportation and the Arizona Department of
Transportation.
Estimating the number of vehicle trip ends that will be generated by the proposed development is
of prime importance in order to accurately assess the impacts of development on the road network.
Two basic procedures are available to traffic engineers for estimating the number of driveway
vehicle trips generated by a proposed but not yet existing development:
1. Apply averages observed through field studies conducted at other similar facilities located
throughout the United States. A number of sources are available for this information including Trip
Generation Manual (5th Edition) 1994, which is published by the Institute of Transportation
Engineers (ITE); and summary trip generation reports prepared by the California Department of
Transportation, the Arizona Department of Transportation, and other public transportation agencies.
DURHAM SCHOOL EXPANSION TRAFFIC ANALYSIS PAGE 12 - August 30, 1995
All of these sources provide ellent guidance in estimating the t generation rates for various
land uses, but obviously do t take into account the effects o ocal conditions and unique
characteristics of the proposed land use.
2. Observe through field studies the actual trip generation characteristics of other similar and
existing developments within the local area.
Procedure one above was used in the development of this report. Table 6 shows the expected
number of vehicle trip ends to be generated by the proposed development on a daily a.m. and p.m.
peak hour basis based on the mathematical regression equations developed based on trip
generation rates at similar sites throughout the United States and found in Section 520 of the Trip
Generation Manua/ (5th Edition).
Based on information provided by the Tigard School District, approximately 66 percent of the
students attending this school will be transported by school bus. The number of trips shown in
Table 6 are the total number of trips generated including busses.
Table 6 - Trip Generation For The Durham School Expansion.
Land Use Size Daily
Volumes AM Peak Hour
Volumes:.. PM' Peak Hour
Volumes
Total. : In Out -Total in Out
Existing School 400 436 120 72 48 6 3 3
Expanded School 600 654 180 108 72 9 5 4
Total additional
trips 218 60 36 24 3 2 1
TRIP DISTRIBUTION
The distribution of generated trips onto the roadway system within the site area is based on the
existing study area distributions. This distribution was determined by field observation and review
of the existing traffic movements within the study area.
Figures 4 and 5 show the estimated site-generated traffic distributed to the surrounding road
system. The site-generated traffic shown in Figures 4 and 5 was combined with the existing traffic
volumes shown in Figures 2 and 3 to arrive at the total traffic for the Durham Elementary School
Expansion. Total traffic volumes are shown in Figures 6 and 7.
DURHAM SCHOOL EXPANSION TRAFFIC ANALYSIS PAGE 13 - August 30, 1995
c? 1
14 13
I
of 0I
J)
_I
0
p STRATFO
j I
<
/L P: 1 -"in-j 1- - - _- -
%_G III
TIGARD
HIGH SCH. Q
_ ROSS _ RD.
---- ---J V ?f'
r 1
If - NORTH LO LN. I \ y?
DORBURN PL. _i ASHFOR ST.
------------ C I-
1
U 01
CHURCHILL
_,` U1AY
W BON ° T.
??
l7 ---?,
I- I
CT.
JJJ
DURHAM
SIIAFFER LANE
SEWAGE
_ TREATMENT
1. PLANT
i-
` O
O 0
,Y
U
-1'
V
r-
O?
M.P. 1.85
9
T
V
/?
F??
c'v
2
12
DURIAAM SC,N00L EXP4NSI0N ?l
Figure 51TE CiENERATECD TRAFFIC VOLU EG,
4
AM ICE A< 1-1 OUR
? 1 I I I
<ABLE ST.
KA L E L
I,
?- n fy
lY l)
lY
?- 11
•
ATE'.
DURHAM SCHOOL EXPANSION TRAFFIC ANAL YSIS PAGE - 14 August 30, 1995
I
\
:n
41
Ire
5TRATFO
- < ---")
TIGAFcCi r>
NIGH 5Ci-4, <I
-C
i-
lit
8055 --- RD.
IZINO TH? l n LN. I , `?i (1
7
DORBURN FL_ _? ASIIFOR ST.
-(
lit v
i! ui \ CHURCHILL
?
W.-..n Y
r -- --- -` BGN S T. l
GT-
--- --- ?ci _ ICI _-------? r?
GURHAf'I ?
r
"WY
/ 1/Tl .. ;
__SN=PEER LANE__ ??
SEWAGE
TREATMENT
Go FLANT f1.F
rte-
IV -1
ui t
i-
I-
i
yl
<= ELE ST.
K LE LIP,
`I 1
_ R I- 41`1 . -C N r ? L ( ? * F- *
Figure S
5 ITE ?LE1N,\1ERATEF-----) TArFlc
7,<1 D?
,;ur
lit i7
00 `
(Y
IY
IY_
1 -
<< u
I I
--- u
?';I1?'?II l 0 r/
\VOLUrIE
F-M FEAR, k]0-u
TCF
DURHAM SCHOOL EXPANSION TRAFFIC ANALYSIS PAGE - 15 August 31, 1995
i
Ill ` \ ROSS _ RD. I>
J tf l -- --J ?a 1 I I I --
cl
2C?? ?- I'' ,- NORTH ''] O LN.I ?•??f
251
1- ?n Fi
25 -13 -K-ELE ST.
7
f_ 1
1
?,\ U !111 i ASNFOR ST. K- )
DORBURN PL. ( LE LP?
`? ?. - / -- - - -- - 00
//--- -- --
I i-
ui CZ?/\\, x/
m > WAY _t , EON ST. I%` \ / Ili -lil_
I> 5TRATFO I CT. d)I (?' -- j
DURHAM
---- ---
10
Lul
HIGH aC;H.
SL44FFER LANE i // / / ? - - ?• ? ? ?
" ?? / ?•?? ? I 111
TREATMENT 4
;(1 ?1 PLANT M.P. 1.c5 ill
cj C, .
U
i-- RI I tit I 7 •
Figure I-01-4L TRAFFIC VOLUME,
AI" 1 PEA< HOIJF
tTF
DURHAM SCHOOL EXPANSION TRAFFIC ANALYSIS PAGE - 16 August 31, 1995
c n c' ?
J-la-
?q
4
-? ?-
21 1 wr?l
rlcd
A)
5TR4TF0
iIG?RD l>iIG?RD I?
HIGH 5GH. `T
l
8055
1.
r
1-
RD. I>
J q
NORTH\':'] p LN.I
(Y ?J
73
DOREURN FL. _1 ASHFOR 5T.
T
AFF
(Yr T CHILL
?UI:aY
ll ke-,O'N"'j
J)J II-' -
u)I ill-? ?1.
w Y,
SEWAGE
TREATMENT
PLANT
?? 00
,?-t
4
(?• it
I
r
<
V
l l
LE
IL
i
1 I I 1 •-
111
Z
, `'Nl-
K,4ELE 5T. 1
• l)
1-
?,
?5? ? . - IDS
Figure
TOTAL T AFF 1 C VO- L U E S ?
FrI FE A< 1- 1 0U 1
7E1
DURHAM SCHOOL EXPANSION TRAFFIC ANALYSIS PAGE - 17 August 31, 1995
Table 6 - Level oforvice for 1995 with Durham ool Expansion
Intersection AM`PEAK . HOUR.: PM PEAK HOUR.
LOS: Delay. V/C:
Ratio LOS Delay V/C
Ratio
Durham Road at Hall Blvd C 18.7 0.77 C 22.6 0.86
Durham Road at 79th Avenue D 28.9 E 31.8
Table 6 indicates that the proposed expansion of the Durham Elementary School will not impact the
surrounding street system.
TRAFFIC SIGNAL. WARRANT ANALYSIS:
As part of this analysis, the existing intersection of Durham Road and 79th Avenue was investigated
for traffic signal warrants.
The eleven approved traffic signal warrants as described by the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control
Devices (MUTCD) Page 4C-3, were used to evaluate the intersection for signal warrants.
The intersection currently does not meet any of the eleven approved traffic signal warrants for the
installation of a traffic signal. See attached warrant analysis.
CONCLtlSLONS'
1. The expansion of the Durham Elementary School from 400 students to 600 students can be
accommodated without changes in the current level of service at the surrounding
intersections.
2. The intersection of Durham Road and 79th Avenue does not meet warrants for the installation
of a traffic signal.
DURHAM SCHOOL EXPANSION TRAFFIC ANALYSIS PAGE 18 - August 31, 1995
•
? OCIATED
NSP OR TA TION
.INEERING &
NNING (ATEP)
PPENDIX
ATEP TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT COMPARIPON
-SATE 8/30/95
Intersection: Durham Road at 79th Avenue
surly Volumes on Major Street - 7-8 am 8-9 am 11-12 am 12-1 pm 1-2 pm 3-4 pm 4-5 pm 5-6 pm
Any 8 Hours. (Total of Both 1450 1222 1174 1287 1138 1420 1674 1826
3proaches)
Hourly Minor Street Volumes - ° 65 55 20 32 29 28 33 37
ame 8 Hrs. (Highest Hourly
3lumes From Either Approach)
ourty Pedestrian Volumes Across 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
ajor Street- Same 8 Hours
(Highest Volume Crosswalk)
Warrants
Date of Traffic Counts
6/14/95
Minimum Volume Number of Hours
Warrant Warrant is Met
(8 Required)
i. Accident Experience: #6
Preventable Accidents
12 Month Period
Minimum Warrant
- Minimum Vehicular Volume #1
Major Street
Minor Street
3. Interruption of Continuous Traffic: #2
Major Street
Minor Street
Combination of Warrants (At least 2 o1
larrants 1,2, or 3 are met using 80%
of their values):
Warrant No. 1
Warrant No. 2
Warrant No. 3
5 0
500 8
150 0
750 8
75 0
Major Street 400 8
Minor Street 120 0
Major Street 600 8
Minor Street 60 1
Vehicular Volume 500 8
Pedestrian Volume 190 0
Page 1
ATEPCFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT COARISON
5. Systems Warrant (If Applicable):
Entering Volume (Weekday Peak Hour) 1863
Minimum Warrant 1000
6. Four - Hour Volume: (Attached Graph)
7. Peak Hour Delay (Any four consecutive 15- minute periods.):
1. Total Delay on Minor Street. .29 hrs
Minimum Warrant 5 hrs
2. Volume on Minor Street ( One Direction Only) 37
Minimum Warrant 100
3. Total Entering Volume 1863
Minimum Warrant 650
8. Peak Hour Volume: (See Attached Graph)
XXXX Standard Warrants Used.
70 percent of standard warrants used due to 85th percentile
speed in excess of 40 MPH or isolated community with
population less than 10,000.
N/A
0
0
8
Page 2
8/10/95 OREGON DEPARTMENT OF,TRANSPORTATION - TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT PAUL 1
ACCIDENT SUMMARIES BY YEAR
TIGARD HIGHWAY 141, BEAVERTON- TUALAT IN
WASHINGTON DURHAM RD AT 79TH AVE. 01/01/90 TO 12/31/94
NON- PROP.
FATAL FATAL DAMAGE TOTAL PEOPLE PEOPLE DRY WET INTER- OFF-
YEAR COLL ISION TYPE ACDTS ACDTS ONLY ACDTS KILLED INJURED TRUCKS SURF SURF DAY DARK SECTION ROAD
1990 TURNING MOVEMENTS 1 3 4 1 2 2 4 4
YEAR TOTAL 1 3 4 1 2 2 ? 4
1991 REAR-END 1 i 2 3
1991 TURNING MOVEMENTS 2 2 2 2
YEAR TOTAL 1 3 4 3 3 4 4
1992 REAR-END 3 3 3 2 1 _ 3
1992 TURNING MOVEMENTS 2 2 2 2 2
YEAR TOTAL 3 2 5 3 to 1 2 5
1993 REAR-END 2 1 3 3 2 1 3
YEAR TOTAL 2 1 3 3 2 i 3 3
1994 REAR-END 2 2 2 2 2
1994 TURNING MOVEMENTS 1 1 1 i 1
YEAR TOTAL 2 1 3 2 3 _ 3
FINAL TOTALS 9 10 15 12 14 1; 1 2 19
REPORT EZSUMSI
LAI
FIGURE 4-5. PEAK HOUR VOLUME WARRANT
i 600
f- v 500
wQ
W
cc 400
CL
w 300
o
z 2i 200
J
0
>
100
C7
2 OR M ORE LAN ES Er 2 O R MO RE L ANES
2 OR MORE LA NES £r 1 LANE
1 LANE £t 1 LANE
= 400 600 800
MAJOR STREET -
1000 1200 1400 1600 1800
TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES - VPH
*NOTE: 150 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET
APPROACH WITH TWO OR MORE LANES AND 100 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER
THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACHING WITH ONE LANE.
14 HOER ruWHAL n 45crpl?sr_wy w?NT
SW 3LRIfAM RDAO AT SW 74th AVE. OREGON DEP!RTHENT OF TRANSPORTA7ICN
14 HOUR MAWAL CLASSIFICATION Site loCe : 00000695
REOIpV 1, TRAFFIC oASFATIO,vs Start Date: 06114/ h
'4EAT4ER:CLOID-RAIN SHOVERS 1995
MART COUNTER $ M4 Me :.0. : DURHM4)0
CARS & PICKUPS, SMALL TRUCKS. LARGE TRU Page : 1
Fray north fFran East
I ron South
(From West !
1
F?da
.GY?r
Ri
ht
Th I S
r 1 P,., ? I Vials 1
Date 06/
14/95 - g
ru Left 14*m
Right
_-------------------------- Thai
----- Left I O"r Right
------- Thru Left I nibw Right Thru Left I Total
06:00 0 0 0 5( 1 1 34 O I 0 0 0 a I 0 a 4
06:15
0
0
D
a 1
0
0
42
0 1
0 0
0
0 1
0
0 9
3 a 1 136
06:30
0
2
0
13 1
0
0
55
0 1
0 0
0
a 1
a
0 1
1 0 1 113T
06:45
a
2
0
18 1
a
4
T1
O i
D 0
0 199 3 J 2:2
Hr TotaL
0
4
0
45 J
1
5
Z02
0 1
0 0
a 0 1
a j 2
2 0
0 215
63 O 1 312
9 3{ 9a1
07:00
07:15 1 Z 0 18 0 1 61 0{ 0 0 0 O I 0 0 226 2 1 311
07:30 0
3 6
6 0
D 11 1
15 1 1
0 2
2 109
113 0( a 0 0 0 1 0 17 239 3 1. 388
07.45
a
1
}
6 0 1 0 0 0 0( a 0 m 2 1 412
Hr Tor3L
4
15
a
50 f 0
; 1
6 129
4TZ 0
0 1 0 0
0 a
0
O l
?
0
265
2
4pb ?
0 0 1 0 17 1061 9 1 1515 V
08:00 0 5 0 13 f 0 4 110 0( 0 0 0 D J 0 0 219 3 1 355
08:15
38
30 0 9 0 6( 0 2 85 0 1 0 0 0 a I 0 6 210 3 1 323
:
08-45 0
0 12 0 8 j 2 4 720 0( 0 0 0 0( 0 0 163 6 1 315
1 0 8 I 0 3 115 0 a a 0 0 0 0 165
Hr Totot 0 28 a 37 { 2 13 430 Q( 0 0 0 0 1 0 6 757 t4 1 1287
L
09:00 a 2 0 12 j 0 4 92 0 1 0 a 0 0 I 0 0 124 4 1 2'38
09:15 0 3 O 9( 0 0 96 0 j 0 0 0 0 j a 0 112 3 1 223
09:30
- 1 0 0 3 1 0 0 85 0 1 D a 0 0( 0 0 146 4 I 239
09
45 0 S 0 2 1 0 3 724 0 f 0 0 a 0 1 1 0 123 1 1 2S9
Hr Total 1 10 0 26 1 0 7 397 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 a 505 12 I 959
10:60 0 2 a 7 1 1 6 108 0 1 0 0 0 0( 0 0 T20 3 1 247
10:15 0 1 0 4 1 0 5 Tao 0( 0 a 0 0 1 0 0 124 6 1 244
10:30 0 0 0 0 1 0 D 0 0 1 0 0 a a 1 0 0 2 0 1 2
10:45 7 0 -1 D 0 a 0 ] 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0
Hr TotaL a 3 3 11 1 1 11 212 a 1 0 3 0 a 1 0 0 246 9 J 493
11:00 0 4 a 4 1 0 4 136 0 I 0 a 0 0 1 1 0 130 a j 279
11:15 0 1 0 4 j 0 3 134 0 J 0 0 0 a 1 0 0 159 2 J 303
11:30 0 0 0 2 1 0 7 152 a I 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 149 1 311
11:45 a 1 0 4 a 7 139 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 145 5 30
Hr TotaL a 6 0 14 1 D 2i 561 0 1 a 0 0 0 1 1 0 583 8 1 1194 ?
12:00 0 2 0 3 1 6 156 0( 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 131 5 I 304 `
12:15 0 4 0 9 1 0 10 167 0 J 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 175 3 1 366
12:30 0 2 0 5( 0 9 146 0 1 a 0 0 a 1 0 0 164 5 J 332
12:45 0 4 0 3 0 7 159 1 1 0 0 0 D I 0 0 138 4 1 316
1r Total 0 12 0 21 I _1 32 625 1 a D a 0{ a 0 608 17 1 1320t/
Post-ie Fax Note 7671 oaae 7- mes
Ole Ora
GMJneL c& v 0T _ i2 ifo .
Phone _ -3 Phone # / ^0.;k S-
Fax# - ?_ LS9
.
0 0
14 HOUR MANUAL CLASSIFICATICR COUNT
SW 7URHAN ROAD AT SW 74th .AVF-. OREGON CEPARTMENT OF rRANSPORTAT:ON
14 HOUR MANUAL CLASSIFICAT114 REGION 1, TRAF=IC OPERATIONS
WEATHER: CLOUD-MAIN SH(rdERS 1;95
.VARY COLNTER 4 784
CARS & P!Cx'JPS, SMALL TRUCKS, LARGE TRU
Sita rode : OQOOC695
Start !Sate: 06/14; i5
File I.D.
DLRIIAM)0
Page 2
From worth
IFrcm Fast ___
From South ---__- -_---i `-
)From Nest _- -
D
t
06 Other
1 Right Thru Left ( Other Right Thru Left Other Right Thru Left Other Right Thru Left J Total
a
e
1 4/95 - ------ ---- ---- -- -- -------- ----- ---
13:00 O 0 0 3( 0 92 55 0( a 0 0 0) 0 0 91
13:15
0
2
0
9 1
0
125
20
0)
0
0
0
0(
0
0
154 ) 247
13:30
.
0
3
0
9
3
9
1Z9
0)
0
0
0
a)
1
3
149 l J
) 312
305
45
13 0 3 0 0 0 < 125 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Hr Total
0
8
' 65 3 300
0 21 J a 231 329 0 J 0 a 0 0( 1 3
559 9 J 716)
14:00 0 2 0 5 J 0 1 117 0 J 0 0 0 0( 0 0 121 3 1 249•/
14:15 0 1 A 0( 0 3 142 0( 0 0 0 0) 1 0 132 2 281
14:30
6 0 5 0 8 J 0 4 156 0( 0 0 0 0( 0 0 128 2 ?03
:45
1 0 4 0 6 0 6 149 a 0 0 a 0 4 0 137 3 309
Mr Total 0 12 a 19 J 0 14 564 a J 0 0 0 a( 5 0 518 10 ( 1142
15:00 0 4 0 3 J 0 13 187 0 J 0 0 0 0( 0 0 139 12 ( 358
15:15 0 1 0 5) 0 8 195 0( 0 0 0 0 J 2 2 149 5 J 368
15:30 0 2 0 4 0 10 161 •0 a 0 0 O J 5 0 155 3 J 340
15:45 0 2 0 7 I 1 10 189 0 a 0 0 a l t 0 171 1 3812
Hr TotaL 0 9 0 19 J 1 41 732 0 0 0 0 a 8 2 614 22 ( 74481--
16:00 0 2 0 6 f 1 17 216 a 0 0 0 0( 1 0 183 4 J 430
16:15 0 3 0 8( 0 17 212 0( 0 0 0 0) 0 0 162 4 406
16:30 0 3 0 4 J 3 16 224 0) 0 0 0 0 0 0 167 4 421
16:45 D 0 0 T 0 15 243 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 181 2 1 450
Hr Total 0 8 0 25 J 4 65 895 O J 0 0 0 a( 3 0 693 14 ( 1707
17:00 0 3 a 3) a 28 254 O J 0 0 0 D J a 0 171 8 467
17:76 0 3 a 2) 1 30 282 a( a 0 0 0( 2 2 167 3 j 492
17:30 a 7 0 4) 1 :6 255 O J 0 0 0 O J 0 0 i69 4) 466
17:45 0 7 0 3 2? 240 0 0 0 0 0 a 149 T 438
Mr TctaL 0 20 0 17 5 106 1031 a J 0 0 0 a J 4 2 656 22 ( 1863 r
18:00 0 9 0 7 J 0 24 239 o f 0 0 0 0 J D 0 141 9) 429/
18:15 0 0 0( 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0( 0 0 1 0( 5
18:30 a 0 0 J a 0 a 0) 0 0 0 O J 0 0 0 O J 0
18:45 0 4 0 1 t 112 0 a 0 0 D 0 0 126 3 262
Hr Total 0 13 0 1t ( 1 36 355 O J 0 0 0 0 J 0 a 268 12 J 696
19:00 0 2 0 5 1 14 150 O J 0 0 0 a 1 0 117 5 J 295
19:15 0 2 O 4 a 8 106 a J 0 0 0 0) 0 t 80 5 J 206
19:30 0 4 0 1 J 0 14 123 0) 0 a 0 0) 1 0 74 2( 219
19:45 a s D 4 1 13 120 0( 0 0 0 0 1 0 a 79 3 1 228
it Total 0 16 0 14 J 2 49 499 a J 0 0 0 0) 2 1 350 15 J 948
0 0
14 HOUR MANUAL CL1SSIFIWION COUvT
sw DURHAM ROAO AT SW 79th AVE. (,RXM DEPARTMENT OF i'tWlSPORTATION
1: HOUR MNUAL CLASSIFICATION S.te Code : 06114i95
ac?IOR 1, TZAFFIC OPERAT70NS Start Date: 06/14/95
UEATHER:CL.OUD-RAIN SHCWMs 1995 Fite I.D. : DURHAM)0
MARY CQUKTER # 764
Page ; 3
CARS & PICKUPS, SMALL TRUCKS, LARGE TRU
f ? f
From North lFrom East Fran Scuth From West
Other Right Thru Left Ottier Right Thru Left Other Right Thru i-ett Other Right Thru Left Total
Date 06114/95 -----r --------------- --------
- -------- - - - - --------- - - - - - - - - - -
`TOTAL' 5 164 Q 330 f 19 637 7247 1 0 0 0 0 27 31 7997 175 1 rr16634.
• 0
?v.wTY?:'k• .f': `!•.- r. .•? tom. !? .-/?i.?:hY.M.•• ;.t`i? LMYY Lti
;y ` ! .?•• SW ,I?LTR?RQ.?"?i'?',•'o5'W?,?r, LL;>?? ??I?I-,I[??_ ,r r,.. ..._ ,•
? ^' •J.`! ?? L= ?t.s?. ? 910- ?ti' u??,!Y??r??:?;} i ?5'•ai?ti:e•:l?.?i. _,t+ :F.
:r; v? .L ,a : i31 ..Q :r < ,•rY.•• -,:p.n,);.?`?•. .t•....??, ? - Tue•. w ,•,/ . . r: :r, .
Q. i'.?: f 11L?
_•' », ?' ryz q';?. ;', ._ • rTIME'' SfiAE?TED s 06 ::45 ?;. t;... t
;A. R lt' '''f.., :r•.- - r.-. ;Y.j.;d 1 yr«:ce •ti+?,. .r_.:?`T, :r!y.Y°: •jfi. ,,,.
.i:- _:?•. ,? ,„?'. ,,,.;::: ,..?;:.T. ";ENAID== :45
?} 1 y1r. is :
Il .:.t--416• ? ? -':,: :'?i, .r''+:•e .Y.tC ;^.y-.r?• _ •-i,_:?;.?.'•iivA•... !M ?i:x•'^: ?:ar sj.rWl:.'y.-PS.i
' c . •C7•.w. -r",. .,1 • .' > 71•?? • i :;-.. ,,,i n e.. .iyn
•.:1... •.
..266 FAli .
of - .,?:-.. .o.,...: `'•T .y ?Aw?'??vou
?':16
T? 3'. 23
638 ':',:.. .?•: - -
q =.933 .880 P t K i _ r ??•?,y y
0' s TI?TOTAL..`y.l, LGME,
RR
'
1 11 ?. •. T=s'1"RIIeKS BYE; APP
? ? r.r p=FHF'..B`r'?PPFcOACH r ? a? :
3 4 33 . Peak Hour •• ,
. Smith
llQ6 07; 05=08 05 Traffic y
T='! 2.9°s' P-. 58 8 . 4. ,TEV :185 $ Traffic': Survey Ser?mce:
- qb BAD:. NORTa'. Bomm WEST•'.BOiJN'D''.
TIME r' FaAST EGiiF? }
,? >'
CD
SRI
-? . c .
cM -
v.
l Y ??LirJ
a F 5..: 13 d 0` : '0 6 9` T 11'y
06-45-06 8 17 5
: t 1 114
06:50-06.55 1 46 15' 13 .. ''0 Q 1 5'
06 :55 07 :D0 2 61 7 X1•':..__ ' 2` .';. 11 :2 1 0 . 9 ' 12 .? ..3:.121 ..
07 :OQ-07 05 0 54 7 5:: 19. 0' " 0: 3 6. 3 1Q.
07:05-07:10 2 74 24 9. 4`.: 2T .. d 0' 9 13':3'•' -
07:10-07:15.;iG•' (} 59 12 TQ: 0.. 24. d fl`- 1 6 a:l
T . Q7;15.-07:20 0 53 21 14 4. 24. 0 0. 2 10 22 : 'I53'
07:2Q-Q'1::25 0 63 15 . 10. 4 21 0 1 3 4 1? 1Q'. 3S0 '
.ri• 07:25-07: 30 .> 2 52 19 15 3 22 .0 2 2 7. -.343
07;3007:35 i'. 2 51'. 19 8..'' 3:. 31 0 - 1 2 3 156.;
• .. 07:35-07;.44 2 49 23 :.4- • 3` 22. 4 Q 3 4 7 8. + 13: 151 r
{ 07:40-07:4. .0 57 29' 132' 18 0 0` 1 ' -.21, 1?. 1d0-
0. _ 43.. 31 17 22': 22 24 3 0 1 6. 2.: 1.? _.: 10- 156
07:.45-07:50'..: ';:. 6. 3a.:r}; '-2 172
07; 50-07.:55 2 55 25
0.7:55-08:00 0 45 30 1 22 0 0 : 6= 6. 2k 9 155
18: 0 1• 5 1 23 L14 150
68":00-08 ;05 . 1 37 .18 2 t ;
08; 05-08':10 2 37 26 11 }; 28 0 4'. 7' .3. 22- 9. 154; ,
08.:•10-08:15 ::.. 3 34 25 21: ... 4:.: 16 l t. ' 4 2
' 08 :15-08 -20 0 34 16 15 5..:' 17 2- :. 2 3' 1..::20.; r 6 121
0. 7 7: 4 28 10' 143
' 08:20-08:25r . ': 1 33 22 18 2
:.. 08:25-=08:; ...: Q. 35' 11 7.. ...7. 15 4 Et 9 4:.:';'•19.,` .: :.... 1.6 .,_•i
s 'ts 08:30-08:35 3 47 9 16 :' 2 S 6. 9 i6,, lal. r
08.:35=08:40 ::.. 1 27 10 6 2. 20' = 6 14 9 4 14: 11 124
08::$0-08,:45:. 0 44 14 3 4... .11 2. 6 4 2'. ' . 2215-..:: 1i 7
;.;
t:-
1 , a E.' - .. - i r' v i•
i,4s'6 :: 28'3396; `.;.'
y ,Total S xv.. 3.0 1138 " 445 269:":YQ ,''-466 22 49 84-.-1
46 86 77 .72 .8.: .9 '25 .5. ' 63 .6 84 7.6 949
-??}: % :Trucks 3-.3 1.8 .6.7 6'.' 4.9 4.1 9.1 12.2 14.3. 6: 7.6. 6 6
F: r:e`, Busks' 0 11 0. .0 0
0 3 0 O IS 0 a
t _ hourly Z`ctals
:;.06:45-07:45.•.; 17 667. 208 121 39 239 2 19 :.'72 19,. 11 1822
07r.00-08:00. 10- 655 255 144.. 34 ' 270 3 3:,. _3'1 66 234
07 6. 281 175_ ~ 44. 268 = '4 8 40 ' Sl- 26126 1854
? . : 15-08: 15 14 57
0730-08.:30. 13 51Q' 275 T68: 5.2 251: :10 22. 52• 44 269 127 793
g 45 249 222
.
' 07;.45.=08.:45. 13 471 2_17 148 63 227 20 46 65 1,106
_ a r [ '
.?VP•I??'l•[t9?Lt?
..LT7y{?t?T ,T 7Td
' A1 1 'i'ti'.LL••::+:: PRO
R' Klit]L!? .ILCv!
77
v?.4 rte' ,.:1?. •'t."y 1 .K rt:t. ? +:1?:_ ? ???1: ' .??.'O':!•.?:?IY ?. i`.
O• ..Y h..,''?. li•I'r ,-?Tl yA'r ?'+t ?t, ?41?= ?}t, .N ,T.TM
R''-`'?'' ? .; 28?,?` 3 •ws;eyyl;?t208? :, i t,:,?.?' TIbA
4 ,F-••8.9,4. ?,
1.228
398 -?<
P:,:. 951:
=
856 s
1 16` TEV
?:. T=k
P=P'.
' 638 -?
555.
'=>:. Peak' Hour
;. I6..:... 25 32 16 30-17 :30
1.3% P= 2035:
.869 73:' -
: BC
NCRTH
SOZTTf:i
.. -• ::, FAST ' BCUND 4'
T+pIMyE F 220D A A Ly
15:7.5 16:20 0 29 = 17 22 0 1,1 6
16:2'0. 16:25 1 31 18 22 0 10 0
16:2516 : 30 : ;.. • 0 26 8 . 19 0 14 Z
16:30=16:35 = 0 39. 1? 16 0 12 1
6:40 r .! 0 36 9 23 0' 20 2
J.6:35-1 4
::.;...16.:40=16:.45 1 38'' ..4 18 0' 16
6:45•.-16:50. ` - !.. 0. 38 .11 21 0 22 2
1'0:50-.1.6:55.:'': 0 40 16 18. p 10 0
•16 : 55 -17 , OO i0. 31 13 23' . 3 12 1 1
17:00-]:7:05 > ,.. U 32 13 19 0 10 3
31- 12 36 1 3.2
16 2
17:10 1,7:15' 0 28 16 a9: 0 16
s 17:15-1'x.:20 '' ° .. 0. 37. 11 29: 0 12. 1
17:20:-17:25 b 33 20' 32 3. 23 3
17:25 0 1.5 7 23
17:30--:i7-35;":: ` 0 23 17 13' 0 13 2
:3•-17:40`.0 21. 9 23 1 20 2
1'x.:;40-17.:.45; 30 14 11 0 17 . 5
1745=:17.:50. ..0 33_ 18 14 0 13 1
4..' 17.:50-17::55_?; 0 29 10 18... 0 . 19 . 1
17.:55-1800: o 3 a? 11 13 :. 0 11 0
18:00-18:05 8.:. 1 17 1
1
1805=18:10. 0 2S 5 14 0.. 15
. 0 IO 1
'..': •1810-X8_:15;;'. 0 34 . 16 16-
.
3^• j
744 327 430 10 378 37
Total.?rve 2
Y;. . 25 86 86 76 .5 ' .87 .8
r
PH7 0 1.3- 2.4 T-7. 0 :3 0 1.-
4
5. TnzG?cs r .. 0 0 . 0 0.
Stogy SuseS ` 0 0 0 0 0 p
Pees 0 1 0 0 ,
` : F:?cii?rly • -Total's. .. .
a 16:15=17:15: 2 399 171 266- 4: 185 19
16:30-17;30 1 398 166 28? 8 20816
0
210-
16x5-17450 359 159 277:; 9' 221
17:00=18:•00 0 350. 165 260= 6 209 20
.'. 170 34.5 156 .214.. 6' 293. 19
'f: t 1
ll" 1r•
Iy•-s, s's ?? ti r r, I
_ a
16 15
q
?
Y ?SZ.a ?,•r ? .f • , ?•eC` it ?`.
-TO!TAL...ENI'RY VOLDN? `. r
TDTT("IrC - AV'" ?17ARC}ACN' 1•' `..? •
j:
? A
a 5?_ •., ?s ,
1.1 rr
.
0.. 40 , : 1..17...-;l;53
2
.
5 59. -2
1°7, ;166 :.°.
. ..1 5? 24' ..7,78' .
1'::?)•
.2 .
3 '... 0
. : 3 - A3. ? 27: • i 1-53
-2 . :?:
1 .
1 67. : 2l' X770
1 ' .', 22 x85,
2 i 46
,
.' : ? -..: 3. f ,? 56= 22 ....! 173• ,
Q'
1
0' ' 3
''3. a
0' S7 , 12 " 183
l? 04 113: ` 155
1 '4 2, 49; ?5 139
6
7
`
:
Q l Y '
:- 99 7 9 X
2:!:,
!
t. .: .
::1 9':.?,z45
:2::
-.'':45
.
.
;27.0.
67
'.3 0=':.59 19 ,142
a. ,
1
- 0:: ' :.;57. • . ? ' 16 1 X51 : ? .? :
- i
2- '68 2711::443.. 3842 .
316
3 .
.8 .
67 - 92 88 37$ . '
4
1
'
9 1,.5 :•;.
2.3
3.3 1;1 .:
0. .':. Q:.- 0 3 0,
'7' ; 40 1 g 5,39 225 t 1965 ::. .
3 228 2035 j
23; :29 3.
' .649
!
T97
.::..
27;9
15678
23
15: 7' :
2
28 7.
:.
. a
;
12 672 228 ? 7_$2• .,
3
6
I
2
2
3
2
2
5
6
0 0
t 7 .K••n ?a^•?h,? ?' yr? p;i.
•t t ???'L+.T• #y rC?.?t?i????,p??(??r]??_ ?r?!?.?..J7„,,?'?.i ?• REP
n l ' ? t - - ?.a7!c. {J?uu?!; rti..?? ;?Ti...... ?ar-• . `' e' ty-r 0 , "'+ ,?i'.t: •4i •
- .°y..- •-t .. 11'r?T'' r-:?T:"?:i: '•?/?= V2r`;.t t' ?''.. ?t•?.•'n ;•s•.???L.a ..W:" .:i:, .r ,:;?'?? _
E ar...yy
..,:. L+I°. ''?? ,•ai t. .) .til'l' .i.t:t., +`, t-,'•' rt•
- ,, - ,? 'r .. ..a.,?.?;,????3.: .:r•;, ..} :??x't• ••Q?:•:?'S:..r?:.'•??Y:v.ri;•.,.;.,?,
0: -40 57*
24;'
.• .? -'i' ?: ?';?y-5i.'?rs:'???,;. •.tyta ..?1?,:,,.> 1. iV:Q ;'?• '.,1 ?.. f,:. .? ^ a.. . ? ? ?? l•L_:"?:
W
tT •0 •' ?;?y. r?': ?? ?i::..?•k+,=, ?.,,,:- .N:t ? ` .•t.+ ..?:.,r,. e. ,.r• ff;,?., •:x
• ;: .?' ? '-? "ti; _ ,.r?,,?:?; r.'' ?',? .n ???•, ,:r,? ?r f':t"F! ', Qt„?. y.. Yt ..r..: > i ? • 0- -52. 0
141: 3 ?, !:,;.. ! r.•:,?'?.,..r;*. ?:r. L`:
988 JkA.
;;:? :`'- •,. :, ? ?p=; 592: .. ,- ,,;.,•. ? A:?.,::. ;a:
a_ p_ ' 875 .' .. TEV =TOTAL' F?1'I12Y OLtTM
TATRUCKS' B`#• AP
1 p 0 . :? `p :.x15 08 :15 YTraffi S zehy 'Sexy
`,.? .,; ;:: ';•' 0: TL'V=??7.' •1: 1 is '.
Ctfi? 'BGL?-\ID•:'i.j:;,. -1_
NE)l
EVAs
B(jUPIQ; SC
At Z:
TIME F..RS _ f.
0 27
t 06c45-06:50, _ 0 64 0 0 f3 &
y
06 :50-06:55 ., 0 , 55. 0:. a 5 Q 0 ' 0 a; 0 34.: l; 102 '
06-55=07,:00: °•" 0 62' 0 3
p Q
19
07:00-07.: a5. 0 - 74' 0 0; 0 7 1 y
? 07:05-'07':10: 0 s4 0 0 6 0 0.
t k/
07:10-07 :15 0 v6 0 ' 8 . p. 0 0 0.•_ -3 2.:;.141
07 ;15=07: 20 '' .:. 0 92 0. 0.. fl 0 133
0:20-'07:
7= 0 7 :25 :30. 0 0 91 102 1 Q . 1 4 .. 6 0 0 0 0' , 38 1 148
Q7 :25.
0
0 79 .".0. . , .: 7.. b 0
4 . 0 p '.0. 42 126
07: 35-07 40 : - 0 7f 2 1 O. 4 . 0 0 0.,; ;: Q,.:_":36.:.,,..: ' 2...' 134
2 .0 0 (; 0- _38 ? In8
Q7.40-07:45 0 87. 0' 4D ..'' ? : .:. 0
1 128
07:45-07 -50 0 96 :-0 2 o 39
07:50-D7 :55 0 83 2 2 ; 0 0 :141;- _•::.4-::;;:133 ,-.
5
j:
?.'t. 07':55=03.:00 0 78 3 . 0 3 n 0 0., is 52:"
?'- 0&:00-08:OS:`66 1 Q-_
0.. . 3 .10' 0
0, p•.. .. Q.,.: ' a '.:r: q;:?.aOS -,
08'. a5=as :10 :'.. '` 0 78 2: 6: ?.
08 :'10.=08:15:;' ' 0 60 0.., 3': 0. 2 ' 0 0 0. >?3 ': '.Q •; ' 90
OS:15=08:20::' ' 0 59 1 . i. 0: '6 p; p 0 Or: `}`.39::
`.' 08 :20-08:25. • 0
08 :25.=08 :300 54 T :. 3 70 5. . :0 0 . 0 0:.:::30
08 :30;-08 :35... :. 0 65 3 6 :..0 2 :0 0 , - 0 '0 .. 23 1 166 r
0. ,.,.145
08.:35-08:'40 p 62 0
-p.. ..0 0 p 0 Q $.:
08140=08 33 2. `,
is -
D 0': j..:839
1731 „ .29 '27:73'
;. 27 4f}= 0 106; p
;
Sti?c? ry 71 0 0: 0'. 25 3' . 935
,..Total 0
"9 0 0 0Op 3 8' 0 3.
Pte' ?!r 0 287 S
'r isk's _ 0 .7 7.4 r0 1. ; 0 0 0 0.
Stvbped ' Btsges 0 0 0 0 ` 0. p. 0 0 0 Q fi, d•` p.:
o o• 0
Haiirly To
0 5-07:45"';-- 0 932 6 10 . 6a 0 0
6:4 t'' :427 19:;1304
4 CD Q745-0845. 0 799 27. 2.8 0 42 0 0 0? i 1 442 1350
a? :,00=q8 : 00 Q 1008 13. I4 0 62 : 0 0 0 1 47? :;1'57.5..:
;•: 0T:.1S-08:15. ' 0 988 14 2 a 57 0 0 Q:' . 16
i ? t - it ?. ._ ? •, ,
0 0
•?
'1i'
.. ?h.lr,Ul?la
??.rcl?:.•"=i•14uv:1,r?N.'/=+?'µa?`??
i' `,I• .
QF: ?CL7NT: Y
N34
; •? - I :r
bPiTL
DAY GF WEEK:-,'T_?iii
r,
`
'
'
'
?
O
R 10 d 24 ; .,
E ; TIME
TI 1b •,
I
rAR
-
,„?.d
S
EDIDF Z 1. t ,.F• ,.
,
H X999 4 406
„• 7
?
?
i1
?, 1 ii `
,? ,
'
19
vt 7
-•989. ?.
r .891
P
1
_
,.0 E . 904
ad ?+
TEV=TOTAL EATPRY V .
o-TRUGK$ BY ?1PPR s
T= `
'
'"
P=PHF BY rPPR(lAC3i'y
. ?
}
.: b3-a'' -?.
.' 0
0
0 -
. P eak Hour
0-1't:50
16:5 -
ith-F'- 1. ;,.
ZYafc:S?ni '':.;:'•
; ll ( ,
T 2739 afzc: 5uY`Ye? ' Sew}ce
EA ST BOLA : -G ? `: N QRTI` BOU Nf? WE$T°.BG3i3ND
TIME $ERIOD
z 1 FROM.
TO
-?
3
,
T.
2
0 1 0 a 65'
'
16-:15=1620 0 45 _ 0
2
2
4
0
0 0 .
144
1: 8
6
0
0
:30
16
2
16 0
a Sl
52 3 :
0. 2 0'
`?' :
'
0. _.0:;'';
77::
.
•
-
.:
'
'
42
1
1
0 1
0
0
.
X18
`
> .
.
:3016.35
16 1 -
0
0'.
2.
2 o
:•
a o 62
'` 16 :35-16 :40 : 0 .
•
; 50 0
0
0
0
0 0
.. 5 :•: X38_.:. ;•..
0 0:
..
':. .16:40-Zn :45 0 55 0 0 ., : 0 . 0 .
... a. ;:13..5.'
0. ..7.7°: '
0
:45-15:50 :
Z6 0 51
' 2 0 3 0 0 0 o' •71:: 6
16,:50-? 0':55. 1 Sl 1 2 Q, : 0 Q Q 0 0 : .. 8Q: :.
16:55-17:00'
55 0 65' 0 1 .. 0 4 0
0 0 0' : : ?1:..:' ;.. A
17:05:
17 : 0 57 4 :.
l .
Q'
1
0 0 0
0': .•;.83
0 52..
54 .1
a
1 .
0_ 1 0 0 10
0 0 '
0
2
0
'
0 3 0 0 : .;
.
' ..
'
17.:15-],7 :20 .!,
• . 0
0
50.
45
.
3
-
1.
:..
0
2
0 0
`
^ :: 55
9 g.
132
0 1
0 ;
17-20 - 1725.
! 3 3 2 • 0; 2 0 0 ,
.8
2
.
'
..: r . 17 25=17 :3.o-.: 0 3 1 d .
2 a 0 x;.56 ..
...
0: a g2.:.... -
•
.._.:. 17:30=17:35 ; 0 54 0 0 0 •
1 0 0 7
0. ::7 `..
-:40
17:3s 17 0 47 2 1 0 .
Y 0 0 0
7
8`
'
1
8
17:40-17•:45.. 0 57
3 0
1 0 .
0 4 0 0 ;.
-
3 . .::
0:
....
0 :.
4
17.:45=17:50:: 0 •..
5 3 4 3 0 0 :.
0 0;54..0'. ; 12-
17.50-17•:55., 0 57 1 3 . a
6 i4 `
:::. -18:00.
'17;55 0 43 3 Q 0 0 a p,
. .
:
• 0 35• .2 1
Q
5
0 0
0 : 0° 6,7; 9;,:.113 °....
:.; . 18:,05-1$:lo.:: 0 33 3
a 2
0 .:
0 1 0 0 62` l , ?' .. 13 5
18':1Q-18 :15 : 0 45 . ..
a 1
Total` Survey . 2 1179 36
25
.
0-..
42
2 0
0
0° 0 1S
?5 ,3951
.
0
0: ?
:.
.
PHF 25 : 89 .59- . 63
. 0::.. :$6
0 0
Q
0 .
.
.
"
.... .
Trucks Q 2 0
0 8
0 0
a:: 2.4
0
0 0 Q
0.: 0
.. 1 ;.0 .. ;
,:_; Sto pfd Buses
Pe :..: 0
0 0
T
0
0
0.
p
0. p 0
0 0
;.:..
.;. ,
Houriy: Totals
:.
2
627
16
11
0.
16
Z. 0
0.. 44.;:::: 6
168.0
'
_
16:15.x1.7-::15.: . 9 0 20 ' Z Q :
SE
S' ;.
`. 16:3Q=2i;3C::
16::45-17:45 2
1 607
618 19
20
:
10
14
:
0,:
4
.
21
26
0 . 0
0 0 73
0 959: .:.;:82:,7E}5 ::•.;
4 -.18:00
17
:Q Q 602 22 .
6 0 0
Boa s3 19.5
0
.
.
:15-18:15
17 0 552 20 14.. 0 c -
,
17-.?
0
S 0 CIA TED
4NSPOR TA TION
GINEERING &
4NNING A TEP )
PPENDIX A
URRENT LEVELS
OF
VICE CALCULATIONS
--SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION OSIGCAP-- VERS(05JAN92) 0/29/1995 7:25:58
INTERSECTION: TIGARD - DURHAM AND HALL BLVD
VOLUMES: EXISTING AM PEAK HOUR
METRO SIZE: 100,000 TO 500,000 ANALYST:
FILE NAME:
!PHASE !PHASE !PHASE !PHASE !PHASE !PHASE !
C= 90 G= 74 Y= 16
************************
* *
* SERVICE LEVEL D-E
* SATURATION 860
* *
************************
! APPROACH LANE GEOMETRY
! SOUTH NORTH WEST EAST !
LANE ! MOVE WIDTH MOVE WIDTH MOVE WIDTH MOVE WIDTH !
-----!----------------------------------------------------------
1 ! RTL 12.0 RT. 12.0 RT. 12.0 RT. 12.0 !
2 ! ... .0 L.. 12.0 L.. 12.0 T.. 12.0 !
3 ! .0 ... .0 ... .0 L.. 12.0 !
! MOVEMENT VOLUMES ! MOVE SATURATION ! MOVEMENT LOS !
APPR ! L T R TOT ! L T R! L T R!
------!------------------------ !------------------ !---------------!
SOUTH ! 3 4 35 42 ! 42% 4201 42% ! A A A !
NORTH ! 285 35 162 482 ! 8611 63% 63% ! D-E B B !
WEST ! 266 676 11 953 ! 86% 866 86% ! D-E D-E D-E !
EAST 1 60 251 122 433 ! 53% 42a 42% ! B A A !
APPR! TRKS! !X-WLK!PEDS? NO! ! PHASING !
---- ! ----- ! ! ----- !---------- ! ---------------------------------
S ! 5.0a! ! S ! -- ! ! !
N ! 5.0k! ! N ! -- ! !N/S-DIRECTION SEPARATION (C-4)!
W ! 5.0%! ! W ! -- ! !E/W-TURN PHASE WITH OVERLAP (C-3)!
E ! 5.0%! ! E ! __ ! ! !
! APPROACH V/C VALUES !
MOVE ! SOUTH NORTH WEST EAST !
------ ----------------------------------------
LTR ! .023 .000 .000 .000 !
TR ! .022 .109 .382 .104 !
LT ! .004 .000 .000 .000 !
R ! .019 .090 .006 .068 !
T ! .002 .019 .376 .070 !
L ! .002 .164 .153 .034 !
N-S V/C=.230 E-W V/C=.448 TOTAL AMBER=.178 MINIMUM V/C=.067
! LEG VOLUME ! ! TIME AVAIL (SECS)! MOVE STORAGE !
LEG ! AT LOS C ! APPR ! L T R ! L T R !
------!------------! ------ !------------------ !---------------!
SOUTH ! 126 ! SOUTH ! 7.3 7.3 7.3 ! 0 48 0 !
NORTH ! 749 ! NORTH ! 17.9 17.9 17.9 ! 286 197 0 !
WEST ! 1174 ! WEST ! 16.7 41.6 41.6 ! 271 462 0 !
EAST ! 1225 ! EAST ! 7.3 32.2 32.2 ! 69 150 0 !
HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSE&ON SUMMARY Version 2.4 • 08-29-1995
Associated Transportion Engineering & Planning, (ATEP)
Streets: (E-W) DURHAM ROAD -----------------
(N-S) HALL BLVD -----
Analyst: DW File Name:
Area Type: Other 8-29-95 AM PEAK
Comment: EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES
Ea
stbound ------------------------
Westbound Northbound Southbound
L
---- T R
---- ---- L T R
---- ---- ---- L T R
-- L T R
No. Lanes
1
1<
1 1 1 -- ---- ----
> 1 < ---- ----
> 1 ----
1
Volumes 176 422 1 19 789 278 17 27 34 220 8 304
Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0
RTOR Vols 0 0 0 0
Lost Time
------------ 3.00
----- 3.00 3.00
---------- 3.00 3.00 3.00
-------- 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00
-------------------------------
Signal Operations -----
Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
EB Left * NB Left
Thru * Thru
Right * Right
Peds * Peds
WB Left * SB Left
Thru * Thru
Right * Right
Peds * Peds
NB Right EB Right
SB Right WB Right
Green 11 .0A 39.OA Green 20.OA 8.OA
Yellow/AR 3 .0 3.0 Yellow/AR 3.0 3.0
Cycle Length: 90 secs Pha se combination order: #1 #2 #5 #6
----------------- ----------
Intersec ----------------------------------------
tion Performance Summary ----
Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c g/C Approach:
Mvmts Cap
----- ---- Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS
EB L 216 -------
1770 ----- ----- ----- --- -----
0.855 0.122 43.4 E 21.9 ---
C
TR 807 1863 0.551 0.433 12.9 B
WB L 216 1770 0.092 0.122 22.7 C 38.7 D
T 807 1863 1.029 0.433 48.6 E
R 686 1583 0.427 0.433 11.7 B
NB LTR 138 1549 0.596 0.089 30.3 D 30.3 D
SB LT 395 1777 0.608 0.222 22.3 C 33.0 D
R 352 1583 0.910 0.222 41.0 E
In tersection Delay = 32.7 sec/veh Intersection LOS = D
Lost Time/Cycle,
----------------- L = 12.0
---------- sec Critical v/c(x) = 0.930
----------------------------------------
----
--SIGNALIZED
INTERSECTION:
VOLUMES:
METRO SIZE:
FILE NAME:
• •
INTERSECTION --SIGCAP-- VERS(05JAN92) 8/29/1995 7:26:51
TIGARD - DURHAM AND HALL BLVD
EXISTING PM PEAK HOUR
100,000 TO 500,000 ANALYST:
!PHASE !PHASE !PHASE !PHASE !PHASE !PHASE !
! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! !
C= 90 G= 74 Y= 16
************************
* *
* SERVICE LEVEL D
* SATURATION 820
* *
************************
! APPROACH LANE GEOMETRY
! SOUTH NORTH WEST EAST !
LANE !
-----!-- MOVE WIDTH
--------------- MOVE WIDTH
-------------- MOVE WIDTH
------ MOVE WIDTH !
1 !
RTL 12.0
RT. 12.0 -----
RT. 12.0 --------
RT. --------
12.0 !
2 ! ... .0 L.. 12.0 L.. 12.0 T.. 12.0 !
3 ! ... .0 .. .0 ... .0 L.. 12.0 !
! MOVEMENT VOLUMES ! MOVE SATURATION ! MOVEMENT LOS !
APPR !
------ !-- L T R
--------------- TOT ! L
------- !-- T R ! L T R!
SOUTH !
17 27 34 ----
78 ! 590 ------------
590 59% !------
! B ---------!
B B !
NORTH ! 220 8 304 532 ! 6401; 82% 820 ! B D D !
WEST ! 176 422 1 599 ! 820 680 680 ! D C C !
EAST ! 19 789 278 1086 ! 25% 82% 82% ! A D D !
APPR! TRKS!
!
! !X-WLK!PEDS?
! NO! !
! PHASING !
----
-----
S ! 5.0111! ----- !------
! S ! -- ----
-----
! ! ------------ ------- ---------
!
N ! 5.0%! ! N ! -- ! !N/S-D IRECTION SEPARATION (C-4)!
W ! S.Oo! ! W ! -- ! !E/W-TURN PHASE WITH OVERLAP (C-3)!
E ! 5.0%! ! E ! -- ! ! !
! APPROACH V/C VALUES !
MO VE ! SOUTH NORTH WEST EAST !
?
--
LT ----- ! ---------
R ! .043 --------------
.000 ------------
.000 -------
.000 !
TR ! .034 .173 .235 .296 !
LT ! .024 .000 .000 .000 !
R ! .019 .169 .001 .154 !
T ! .015 .004 .234 .219 !
L ! .010 .126 .101 .011 !
N-S V/C=. 240 E-W V/C=. 398 TOTAL AMBER=.178 MINIMUM V/C=.067
! L EG VOLUME ! ! TIME AVAIL (SECS) ! MOVE STORAGE !
LEG !
! AT LOS C !
! APPR ! L
! T R ! L
! T R !
!
------
--
SOUTH ! ----------
97 ! ------
------
SOUTH ! 7.7 ------------
7.7 7.7 ------
! 0 ---------
89 0 !
NORTH ! 926 ! NORTH ! 20.1 20.1 20.1 ! 214 303 0 !
WEST ! 1562 ! WEST ! 11.7 34.4 34.4 ! 191 327 0 !
EAST ! 1609 ! EAST ! 11.7 34.4 34.4 ! 21 412 0 !
HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSE0ON SUMMARY Version 2.4 • 08-29-1995
Associated Transportion Engineering & Planning, (ATEP)
Streets: (E-W) DURHAM ROAD --- -----------------------------
(N-S) HALL BLVD -----
Analyst: DW File Name:
Area Type: Other 8-29-95 AM PEAK
Comment: EXISTING
Eastbound -------------------------
Westbound Northbound Southbound
L T R
---- ---- ---- L T
---- ---- R
---- L T R
- L T R
No. Lanes
1 1<
1 1
1 --- ---- ----
> 1 < ---- ----
> 1 ----
1
Volumes 266 676 11 60 251 122 3 4 55 285 35 162
Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0
RTOR Vols 0 0 0 0
Lost Time
------------ 3.00 3.00 3.00
--------------- 3.00 3.00
---------- 3.00
--- 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00
Signal Ope ---------------------------
rations ----
Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
EB Left * * NB Left
Thru * * Thru
Right * * Right
Peds * Peds
WB Left * SB Left
Thru * Thru
Right * Right
Peds * Peds
NB Right EB Right
SE Right WB Right
Green S.OA 14.OA 20.OA Green 20.OA 16.0A
Yellow/AR 3.0 3.0 3.0 Yellow/AR 3.0 3.0
Cycle Length: 90 secs Pha se combina tion order: #1 #2 #3 #5 #6
---------------------------
Intersec ----------
tion Perfo ------------------------------
rmance Summary ----
Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c g/C Approach:
Mvmts Cap Flow
----- -
- Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS
---
------
EB L 433 1770 -----
0.647 ----- ----- --- -----
0.244 22.1 C 29.1 ---
D
TR 763 1857 0.948 0.411 31.8 D
WB L 98 1770 0.641 0.056 35.7 D 23.6 C
T 414 1863 0.638 0.222 22.8 C
R 352 1583 0.364 0.222 19.4 C
NB LTR 258 1449 0.252 0.178 20.7 C 20.7 C
SB LT 396 1783 0.851 0.222 32.8 D 28.7 D
R 352 1583 0.486 0.222 20.6 C
Intersection Delay = 27.5 sec/veh Intersection LOS = D
Lost Time/Cycle, L = 12.0
--------------------------- sec Crit
---------- ical v/c(x) = 0.761
------------------------------
----
• •
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 1
File-Name ................
Streets: (N-S) 79th Avenue
Major Street Direction....
Length of Time Analyzed...
knalyst ...................
Date of Analysis..........
Other Information.........
(E-W) Durham Road
EW
60 (min)
DW
8/28/95
EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES
Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection
---------------
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
No. Lanes
Stop/Yield
Volumes
PHF
wade
WIC's (%)
SU/RV's M
.-V I s M
PCEIs
------------
0> 1 0
N
9 1001
.95 .95
0
0 0
0 0
0 0
1.1
----- 1.1
----------
0 1< 0
NI
412 6'
.95 .95
0
0 0
0 0
0 0
1.1
------------ 1.1
----
Adjustment Factors
0 0 0
------- 0
-----
----
0> 0< 0
45 15
.95 .95
0
0 0
0 0
0 0
1.1
•------ 1.1
---------
Vehicle Critical Follow-up
Maneuver Gap (tg)
----------------- Time (tf)
--------------
--------------------------------
Left Turn Major Road ---
5.00 2.10
Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60
Through Traffic Minor Road 6.00 3.30
Left Turn Minor Road 6.50 3.40
• •
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 3
****************************************************************
Intersection Performance Summary
F1owRate MoveCap SharedCap Avg.Total Delay
Movement v(pcph) Cm(pcph) Csh(pcph) Delay LOS By App
-------- ------ ------ ------ ------------ ------ ---------
SB L 52 153 > > >
194 28.9 D 28.9
SB R 18 853 > > >
EB L 10 1084 3.4 A 0.0
Intersection Delay = 1.2
UNSIGNALIZED - T - I,*SECTION CAPACITY CALCULAAN FORM
FILE NAME:
8/28/1995 9:36:25
CITY: TIGARD ANALYST: DW
INTERSECTION: DURHAM AND 79TH
ALTERNATE: EXISTING AM PEAK METRO SI ZE: 20,000 TO 10 0,000
COUNT: TYPE OF CONTROL: STOP
LOCATION PLAN:
APPROACH CODES ARE
LANE 1 2 3 4 ------------ ------------- ---------------- -----
A 4 A B
B 6 ------------ ------ ------------- -----
C 7 GRADE= .Oo - GRADE= .Oo
GRADE= .0
SPEED: 35 MPH C
RESTRICTED SIGHT CODE IS 2
MINOR STREET ADJUSTMENTS -
ACCELERATION LANE? NO
CURB RADIUS OR TURN ANGLE? NO
-------
--------------------
I APPROACH I A
--------------------------- -------------
I B
----- ----------------
I C --------
MOVE AT AR --------
BL ----------------
BT CL --------
CR
VOLUME 412 6 9 1001 45 15
PCH 10 50 17
LANES 1
--------------------------- 1
------------- 1
----------------
--------
STEP 1 RIGHT TURN FROM C CR
CONFLICTING FLOWS = MH = 415. VPH
CRITICAL GAP = TG = 5.5 SECS
POTENTIAL CAPACITY = M1 = 684. PCH
SHARED LANE - SEE STEP 3
NO SHARED LANE DEMAND = 0 PCH
AVAILABLE RESERVE = 0. PCH
DELAY & LOS =
-------------------------------------------- N/A
-------------
-------
STEP 2 LEFT TURN FROM B BL
CONFLICTING FLOWS = MH = 418. VPH
CRITICAL GAP = TG = 5.0 SECS
POTENTIAL CAPACITY = M2 = 778. PCH
DEMAND = BL = 10 PCH
CAPACITY USED = 1.28 06
IMPEDANCE FACTOR = P2 = .992
AVAILABLE RESERVE = 768. PCH
DELAY & LOS =
------------ I ------------------------------- A
-------------
-------
STEP 3 LEFT TURN FROM C CL
CONFLICTING FLOWS = MH = 1425. VPH
CRITICAL GAP = TG = 6.0 SECS
POTENTIAL CAPACITY = M3 = 142. PCH
ADJUSTING FOR IMPEDANCE = M3 = 141. PCH
•
•
STEP 3 CONTINUED CL
NO SHARED LANE DEMAND = 0 PCH
AVAILABLE RESERVE = 0. PCH
DELAY & LOS = N/A
SHARED LANE DEMAND = 67 PCH
POTENTIAL CAPACITY = M13 = 176. PCH
AVAILABLE RESERVE = 109. PCH
DELAY & LOS = D
----------------------------------------------------------------
LOS C VOLUMES: LEG C
VEHICLES PER HOUR 56.
----------------------------------------------------------------
VER 03/93
• •
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 1
****************************************************************
File Name ................
Streets: (N-S) 79th Avenue
Major Street Direction....
Length of Time Analyzed...
Analyst ...................
Date of Analysis..........
Other Information.........
(E-W) Durham Road
EW
60 (min)
DW
8/28/95
EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES PM PEAK
Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection
-----------------
Eastbound westbound Northbound Southbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
No. Lanes
Stop/Yield
Volumes
PHF
Grade
MC 's (o)
SU/RV's (o)
CV's (o}
PCE's
------------
0> 1 0
N
22 656
.95 .95
0
0 0
0 0
0 0
1.1
------ 1.1
---------
0 1< 0
N
1031 106
.95 .95
0
0 0
0 0
0 0.
Adjustment Factors
0 0 0
------- 0
-----
----
0> 0< 0
17 20
.95 .95
0
0 0
0 0
0 0
1.1
------- 1.1
---------
Vehicle Critical Follow-up
Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf)
--------------------------------
Left Turn Major Road --------------------
5.00 --------------
2.10
Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60
Through Traffic Minor Road 6.00 3.30
Left Turn Minor Road 6.50 3.40
•
•
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 2
****************************************************************
WorkSheet for TWSC Intersection
-----------------------------------------------
Step 1: RT from Minor Street NB
---
-
---- ---------
SB
----
-
-
---------------------------------
Conflicting Flows: (vph) ---------
1084
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 391
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 391
Prob. of Queue-free State: 0.94
-----------------------------------------------
Step 2: LT from Major Street WB ---------
EB
-----------------------------------------------
Conflicting Flows: (vph) ---------
1137
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 492
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 492
Prob. of Queue-free State: 0.95
TH Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700
RT Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl)
Major LT Shared Lane Prob.
of Queue-free State:
- 0.91
---
--------------------------------------------
Step 4: LT from Minor Street NB --------
SB
------------------------------------------------
Conflicting Flows: (vph) --------
1762
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 101
Major LT, Minor TH
Impedance Factor: 0.91
Adjusted Impedance Factor: 0.91
Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements 0.91
Movement Capacity: (pcph)
------------------------------------------------ 92
--------
• •
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 3
****************************************************************
Intersection Performance Summary
F1owRate MoveCap SharedCap Avg.Total Delay
Movement v(pcph) Cm(pcph) Csh(pcph) Delay LOS By App
-------- ------ ------ ------ ------------ ------ ---------
SB L 20 92 > > >
156 31.8 E 31.8
SB R 23 391 > > >
EB L 25 492 7.7 B 0.3
Intersection Delay = 0.7
UNSIGNALIZED - T - IN&SECTION CAPACITY CALCULA16-iN FORM
FILE NAME:
8/28/1995 9:37:22
CITY: TIGARD ANALYST: DW
INTERSECTION: DURHAM AT 79TH
ALTERNATE: EXISTING METRO SI ZE: OVER 100,000
COUNT: PM PEAK HOUR TYPE OF CONTROL: STOP
LOCATION PLAN:
APPROACH CODES ARE
LANE 1 2 3 4 ------------ ------------- ---------------- -----
A 4 A B
B 6 ------------ ------ ------------- -----
C 7 GRADE= .Oo - GRADE= 0*
GRADE= 0%
SPEED: 35 MPH C
RESTRICTED SIGHT CODE IS 2
MINOR STREET ADJUSTMENTS -
ACCELERATION LANE? NO
CURB RADIUS OR TURN ANGLE? NO
---------------------------
i APPROACH I A
--------------------------- -------------
I B
-- ----------------
I C --------
I
MOVE AT AR -----------
BL ----------------
BT CL --------
CR
VOLUME 1031 106 22 656 17 20
PCH 24 19 22
LANES 1
--------------------------- 1
------------- 1
----------------
--------
STEP 1 RIGHT TURN FROM C CR
CONFLICTING FLOWS = MH = 1084. VPH
CRITICAL GAP = TG = 5.0 SECS
POTENTIAL CAPACITY = Ml = 359. PCH
SHARED LANE - SEE STEP 3
NO SHARED LANE DEMAND = 0 PCH
AVAILABLE RESERVE = 0. PCH
DELAY & LOS =
-------------------------------------------- N/A
------------
--------
STEP 2 LEFT TURN FROM B BL
CONFLICTING FLOWS = MH = 1137. VPH
CRITICAL GAP = TG = 4.5 SECS
POTENTIAL CAPACITY = M2 = 407. PCH
DEMAND = BL = 24 PCH
CAPACITY USED = 5.90
IMPEDANCE FACTOR = P2 = .960
AVAILABLE RESERVE = 383. PCH
DELAY & LOS =
-------------------------------------------- B
------------
--------
STEP 3 LEFT TURN FROM C CL
CONFLICTING FLOWS = MH = 1762. VPH
CRITICAL GAP = TG = 5.5 SECS
POTENTIAL CAPACITY = M3 = 121. PCH
ADJUSTING FOR IMPEDANCE = M3 = 117. PCH
•
STEP 3 CONTINUED CL
NO SHARED LANE DEMAND = 0 PCH
AVAILABLE RESERVE = 0. PCH
DELAY & LOS = N/A
SHARED LANE DEMAND = 41 PCH
POTENTIAL CAPACITY = M13 = 183. PCH
AVAILABLE RESERVE = 142. PCH
DELAY & LOS = D
----------------------------------------------------------------
LOS C VOLUMES: LEG C
VEHICLES PER HOUR 130.
----------------------------------------------------------------
VER 03/93
•
S 0 CIA TED
4NSPOR TA TION
GINEERING &
4NNING (ATEP)
DPE'NDIX B
PROPOSED
AND USE DATA
CALCULATIONS
01 AM PEAK
ASSOCIATED TRANSPORTATION TRIP GENERATION PROGRAM
PROJECT: DURHAM SCHOOL EXPANSION
DATE: 09-Aug-95
LAND USE # 520
TYPE OF LAND USE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
TIME PERIOD: AM PEAK
VALUE OF 400
VALUE OF 0.3
VALUE OF 0
BUS % 66.00%
%IN 60.00%
% OUT 40.00%
EQUATION (T) = A (X)
(T) _
TOTAL TRIPS =
VEHICLE IN =
VEHICLES OUT =
120 BUS TRIPS VEHICLE TRIPS
120 79 41
72 48 24
48 32 16
Page 1
TRIP GENERATION BY EQUATIONS LISTED IN 5TH EDITION
PROJECT: DURHAM SCHOOL EXPANSION
DATE: 09-Aug-95
LAND USE #
TYPE OF LAND USE
TIME PERIOD:
VALUE OF X = 400
VALUE OF A = 1.09
VALUE OF B = 0
BUS % 66.00%
%IN 50.00%
% OUT 50.00%
EQUATION 2 (T) = A (X)
(T) _
TOTAL TRIPS =
VEHICLE IN =
VEHICLES OUT =
520
ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
WEEKDAY
436 BUS TRIP VEHICLE TRIPS
436 288 148
218 144 74
218 144 74
•
• PM PEAK •
ASSOCIATED TRANSPORTATION TRIP GENERATION PROGRAM
PROJECT DURHAM SCHOOL EXPANSION
DATE: 09-Aug-95
LAND USE # 520
TYPE OF LAND USE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
TIME PERIOD: PM PEAK
VALUE 0 400
VALUE 0 0.015
VALUE 0 0
BUS % 66.00%
%IN 50.00%
% OUT 50.00%
EQUATIO (T) = A (X)
(T) = 6 BUS TRIP VEHICLE TRIPS
TOTAL TRIPS = 6 4 2
VEHICLE IN = 3 2
VEHICLES OUT = 3 2
Page 2
• PM OF GEN
ASSOCIATED TRANSPORTATION TRIP GENERATION PROGRAM
PROJECT DURHAM SCHOOL EXPANSION
DATE: 09-Aug-95
LAND USE # 520
TYPE OF LAND USE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
TIME PERIOD: PM PEAK OF GENERATOR
VALUE 0 400
VALUE 0 0.23
VALUE 0 0
BUS % 66.00%
%IN 42.00%
% OUT 58.00%
EQUATIO (T) = A (X)
(T) = 92 BUS TRIP VEHICLE TRIPS
TOTAL TRIPS = 92 61 31
VEHICLE IN = 39 26 13
VEHICLES OUT = 53 35 18
Page 3
•
TRIP GENERATION BY EQUATIONS LISTED IN 5TH EDITION
PROJECT: DURHAM SCHOOL EXPANSION
DATE: 09-Aug-95
LAND USE #
TYPE OF LAND USE
TIME PERIOD:
VALUE OF X = 600
VALUE OF A = 1.09
VALUE OF B = 0
BUS % 66.00%
%IN 50.00%
% OUT 50.00%
EQUATION 2 (T) = A (X)
(T) _
TOTAL TRIPS =
VEHICLE IN =
VEHICLES OUT =
520
ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
WEEKDAY
654 BUS TRIP VEHICLE TRIPS
654 432 222
327 216 111
327 216 111
•
• AM PEAK
ASSOCIATED TRANSPORTATION TRIP GENERATION PROGRAM
PROJECT: DURHAM SCHOOL EXPANSION
DATE: 09-Aug-95
LAND USE # 520
TYPE OF LAND USE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
TIME PERIOD: AM PEAK
VALUE OF 600
VALUE OF 0.3
VALUE OF 0
BUS % 66.00%
%IN 60.00%
% OUT 40.00%
EQUATION (T) = A (X)
(T) _
TOTAL TRIPS =
VEHICLE IN =
VEHICLES OUT =
180 BUS TRIPS VEHICLE TRIPS
180 119 61
108 71 37
72 48 24
•
Page 1
• PM PEAK •
ASSOCIATED TRANSPORTATION TRIP GENERATION PROGRAM
PROJECT DURHAM SCHOOL EXPANSION
DATE: 09-Aug-95
LAND USE # 520
TYPE OF LAND USE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
TIME PERIOD: PM PEAK
VALUE 0 600
VALUE 0 0.015
VALUE 0 0
BUS % 66.00%
%IN 50.00%
% OUT 50.00%
EQUATIO (T) = A (X)
(T) = 9 BUS TRIP VEHICLE TRIPS
TOTAL TRIPS = 9 6 3
VEHICLE IN = 5 3 2
VEHICLES OUT = 5 3 2
Page 2
• PM OF GEN •
ASSOCIATED TRANSPORTATION TRIP GENERATION PROGRAM
PROJECT DURHAM SCHOOL EXPANSION
DATE: 09-Aug-95
LAND USE # 520
TYPE OF LAND USE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
TIME PERIOD: PM PEAK OF GENERATOR
VALUE 0 600
VALUE 0 0.23
VALUE O 0
BUS % 66.00%
%IN 42.00%
% OUT 58.00%
EQUATIO (T) = A (X)
(T) = 138 BUS TRIP VEHICLE TRIPS
TOTAL TRIPS = 138 91 47
VEHICLE IN = 58 38 20
VEHICLES OUT = 80 53 27
Page 3
•
> OCIATED
NSPOR TA TION
'INEERING &
NNhVG (ATEP)
D PEIVCIX C
S CENARIO 2
TEL OF SER VICE
,AL C ULA TIONS
HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSEOO N SUMMARY Version 2.4 • 08-29-1995
Associated Transportion Engineering & Planning, (ATEP)
Streets: (E-W) DURHAM ROAD - -----------------
(N-S) HALL BLVD -----
Analyst: DW File Name:
Area Type: Other 8-29-95 AM PEAK
Comment: TOTAL TRAFFIC W/EX PANSION
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
L T R
---- ---- ---- L T
---- ---- R
---- L T R
---- - L T R
No. Lanes
1 1<
1 1
1 --- ----
> 1 < ---- ----
> 1 ----
1
Volumes 266 676 25 73 251 122 26 10 43 285 44 162
Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0
RTOR Vols 0 0 0 0
Lost Time 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00
--------------------------- ----------------------------------------
Signal Operations ----
Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
EB Left * * NB Left
Thru * * Thru
Right * * Right
Peds * Peds
WB Left * SB Left
Thru * Thru
Right * Right
Peds * Peds
NB Right EB Right
SE Right WB Right
Green 7.OA 16.OA 26.OA Green 18.0A 8.OA
Yellow/AR 3.0 3.0 3.0 Yellow/AR 3.0 3.0
Cycle Length: 90 secs Pha se combina tion order: #1 #2 #3 #5 #6
---------------------------
Intersec ----------
tion Perfo ------------------------------
rmance Summary ----
Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c g/C Approach:
Mvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS
----- ---- -------
EB L 511 1770 -----
0.548 ----- ----- --- -----
0.289 18.4 C 16.3 ---
C
TR 926 1852 0.797 0.500 15.5 C
WB L 138 1770, 0.559 0.078 29.6 D 19.2 C
T 538 1863;', 0.491 0.289 17.7 C
R 457 1583' 0.280 0.289 16.1 C
NB LTR 135 1516 0.616 0.089 31.2 D 31.2 D
SB LT 357 1785 0.969 0.200 52.3 E 42.4 E
R 317 1583 0.540 0.200 22.3 C
Intersection 'Delay = 24.0 sec/veh Intersection LOS = C
Lost Time/Cycle, L = 12.0
--------------------------- sec Crit
---------- ical v/c(x) = 0.797
------------------------------
----
--SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION --SIGCAP-- VERS(05JAN92) 8/29/1995 7:27:44
INTERSECTION: TIGARD - DURHAM AND HALL BLVD
VOLUMES: TOTAL TRAFFIC AM PEAK W/EXPANSION
METRO SIZE: 100,000 TO 500,000 ANALYST:
FILE NAME:
!PHASE !PHASE !PHASE !PHASE !PHASE !PHASE !
! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! !
I I I I I I I
C= 90 G= 74 Y= 16
************************
* *
* SERVICE LEVEL D-E
* SATURATION 860
************************
! APPROACH LANE GEOMETRY
! SOUTH NORTH WEST EAST !
LANE ! MOVE WIDTH MOVE WIDTH MOVE WIDTH MOVE WIDTH !
----------------------------------------------------------- f
1 ! RTL 12.0 RT. 12.0 RT. 12.0 RT. 12.0 !
2 ! .0 L.. 12.0 L.. 12.0 T.. 12.0 !
3 ! .0 ... .0 ... .0 L.. 12.0 !
! MOVEMENT VOLUMES ! MOVE SATURATION ! MOVEMENT LOS !
APPR ! L T R TOT ! L T R! L T R!
------!------------------------ !------------------ !---------------!
SOUTH ! 26 10 43 79 ! 630 630 630 ! B B B !
NORTH ! 28S 44 162 491 ! 860 660 660 ! D-E C C !
WEST ! 266 676 25 967 ! 860 860 860 ! D-E D-E D-E !
EAST ! 73 251 122 446 ! 610 410 410 ! B A A !
APPR! TRKS! !X-WLK!PEDS? NO! ! PHASING !
---- ! ----- ! ! ----- !---------- ! ---------------------------------
S ! 5.00! ! S ! __ ! ! !
N ! 5.00! ! N ! -- ! !N/S-DIRECTION SEPARATION (C-4)!
W ! 5.00! ! W ! -- ! !E/W-TURN PHASE WITH OVERLAP (C-3)!
E ! 5.00! ! E ! __ ! ! !
! APPROACH V/C VALUES !
MOVE ! SOUTH NORTH WEST EAST !
------ ----------------------------------------
LTR ! .044 .000 .000 .000 !
TR ! .029 .114 .389 .104 !
LT ! .020 .000 .000 .000 !
R ! .024 .090 .014 .068 !
T ! .006 .024 .376 .070 !
L ! .015 .164 .153 .042 !
N-S V/C=.230 E-W V/C=.456 TOTAL AMBER=.178 MINIMUM V/C=.067
! LEG VOLUME ! ! TIME AVAIL (SECS)! MOVE STORAGE !
LEG ! AT LOS C ! APPR ! L T R ! L T R !
------ ------------? ------ ------------------ ---------------
SOUTH ! 186 ! SOUTH ! 7.2 7.2 7.2 ! 0 91 0 !
NORTH ! 753 ! NORTH ! 17.7 17.7 17.7 ! 286 207 0 !
WEST ! 1192 ! WEST ! 16.5 42.0 42.0 ! 272 468 0 !
EAST ! 1229 ! EAST ! 7.2 32.7 32.7 ! 84 148 0 !
HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSEOO N SUMMARY Version 2.4 • 08-29-1995
Associated Transportion Engineering & Planning, (ATFP)
Streets: (E-W) DURHAM ROAD (N-S) HALL BLVD
Analyst: DW File Name:
Area Type: Other 8-29-95 PM PEAK
Comment: TOTAL TRAFFIC W/EXPANSION
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
L T R
---- ---- ---- L T
---- ---- R
---- L T R
---- - L T R
No. Lanes
1 1<
1 1
1 --- ---
> 1 < - ---- ----
> 1 ----
1
Volumes 176 422 1 20 789 278 18 27 34 220 9 304
Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0
RTOR Vols 0 0 0 0
Lost Time
---- 3.00 3.00 3.00
----
----- 3.00 3.00
-
- 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00
--------
-----
- -
-------
Signal Ope ------------------
rations ----------- -----
Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
EB Left * NB Left
Thru * Thru
Right * Right
Peds * Peds
WB Left * SB Left
Thru * Thru
Right * Right
Peds * Peds
NB Right EB Right
SB Right WB Right
Green 11.0A 39.OA Green 20.OA 8.OA
Yellow/AR 3.0 3.0 Yellow/AR 3.0 3.0
Cycle Length: 90 secs Pha se combina tion order: #1 #2 #5 #6
---------------------------
Intersec ----------
tion Perfo ------------------
rmance Summary ------------ ----
Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c g/C Approach:
Mvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS
----- ---- -------
EB L 216 1770 -----
0.855 ----- ----- -
0.122 43.4 -- -----
E 21.9 ---
C
TR 807 1863 0.551 0.433 12.9 B
WB L 216 1770 0.097 0.122 22.7 C 38.7 D
T 807 1863 1.029 0.433 48.6 E
R 686 1583 0.427 0.433 11.7 B
NB LTR 138 1551 0.602 0.089 30.5 D 30.5 D
SB LT 395 1777 0.610 0.222 22.3 C 33.0 D
R 352 1583 0.910 0.222 41.0 E
Intersection Delay = 32.7 sec/veh Intersection LOS = D
Lost Time/Cycle, L = 12.0
--------------------------- sec Crit
---------- ical v/c(x) = 0
------------------ .930
------------
----
--SIGNALIZED
INTERSECTION
VOLUMES:
METRO SIZE:
FILE NAME:
s •
INTERSECTION --SIGCAP-- VERS(05JAN92) 8/29/1995 7:28:31
TIGARD - DURHAM AND HALL BLVD
TOTAL TRAFFIC PM PEAK HOUR W/EXPANSION
100,000 TO 500,000 ANALYST:
!PHASE !PHASE !PHASE !PHASE !PHASE !PHASE !
! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! !
C= 90 G= 74 Y= 16
************************
* *
* SERVICE LEVEL D
* SATURATION 820
* *
************************
! APPROACH LANE GEOMETRY
! SOUTH NORTH WEST EAST !
LANE ! MOVE WIDTH MOVE WIDTH MOVE WIDTH MOVE WIDTH !
-----!----------------------------------------------------------
1 ! RTL 12.0 RT. 12.0 RT. 12.0 RT. 12.0 !
2 ! .0 L.. 12.0 L.. 12.0 T.. 12.0 !
3 ! .0 ... .0 ... .0 L.. 12.0 !
! MOVEMENT VOLUMES ! MOVE SATURATION ! MOVEMENT LOS !
APPR ! L T R TOT ! L T R! L T R!
------ !------------------------ !------------------ !---------------!
SOUTH ! 18 27 34 79 ! 600 600 600 ! B B B !
NORTH ! 220 9 304 533 ! 640 820 820 ! B D D !
WEST ! 176 422 1 599 ! 820 680 680 ! D C C !
EAST ! 20 789 278 1087 ! 250 820 820 ! A D D !
APPR! TRKS! !X-WLK!PEDS? NO! ! PHASING !
---- ! ----- ! ! ----- !---------- ? ---------------------------------
S ! 5.00! ! S ! -- ! ! !
N ! 5.00! ! N ! -- ! !N/S-DIRECTION SEPARATION (C-4)!
W ! 5.00! ! W ! -- ! !E/W-TURN PHASE WITH OVERLAP (C-3)!
E ! 5.00! ! E ! -- ! ! !
! APPROACH V/C VALUES !
MOVE ! SOUTH NORTH WEST EAST !
------ ----------------------------------------
LTR ! .044 .000 .000 .000 !
TR ! .034 .174 .235 .296 !
LT ! .025 .000 .000 .000 !
R ! .019 .169 .001 .154 !
T ! .015 .005 .234 .219 !
L ! .010 .126 .101 .011 !
N-S V/C=.241 E-W V/C=.398 TOTAL AMBER=.178 MINIMUM V/C=.067
! LEG VOLUME
LEG ! AT LOS C
SOUTH ! 99 !
NORTH ! 926 !
WEST ! 1560 !
EAST ! 1609 !
! TIME AVAIL (SECS)! MOVE STORAGE !
APPR ! L T R!
! L T R!
!
------
SOUTH !-----
! 7.7 -------
7.7 ------
7.7 ! ------
0 -----
90 ----
0 !
NORTH ! 20.2 20.2 20.2 ! 213 304 0 !
WEST ! 11.7 34.4 34.4 ! 191 327 0 !
EAST ! 11.7 34.4 34.4 ! 22 412 0 !
• •
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 1
****************************************************************
File Name ................
Streets: (N-S) 79th Avenue
Major Street Direction....
Length of Time Analyzed...
Analyst ...................
Date of Analysis..........
Other Information.........
(E-W) Durham Road
EW
60 (min)
DW
8/28/95
TOTAL TRAFFIC VOLUMES AM PEAK
Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection
----------------
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
No. Lanes
Stop/Yield
Volumes
PHF
Grade
MCIs (%)
SU/RVIs (%)
CV's (%)
PCEIs
------------
0> 1 0
N
11 1008
.95 .95
0
0 0
0 0
0 0
1.1
----- 1.1
----------
0 1< 0
N
423 6
.95 .95
0
0 0
0 0
0 0
1.1
------------ 1.1
----
Adjustment Factors
0 0 0
------- 0
-----
---
0> 0< 0
45 17
.95 .95
0
0 0
0 0
0 0
1.1
------- 1.1
---------
Vehicle Critical Follow-up
Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf)
--------------------------------
Left Turn Major Road --------------------
5.00 --------------
2.10
Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60
Through Traffic Minor Road 6.00 3.30
Left Turn Minor Road 6.50 3.40
• •
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 2
****************************************************************
WorkSheet for TWSC Intersection
-----------------------------------------------
Step 1: RT from Minor Street NB
--------- ---------
SB
---------------------------------------
Conflicting Flows: (vph) --------
426
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 842
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 842
Prob. of Queue-free State:
------- 0.98
-----------------------------------------
Step 2: LT from Major Street WB
--- --------
EB
---------------------------------------------
Conflicting Flows: (vph) --------
429
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1071
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1071
Prob. of Queue-free State: 0.99
TH Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700
RT Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl)
Major LT Shared Lane Prob.
of Queue-free State:
--------- 0.96
---------------------------------------
Step 4: LT from Minor Street NB
--- --------
SB
---------------------------------------------
Conflicting Flows: (vph) --------
1445
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 154
Major LT, Minor TH
Impedance Factor: 0.96
Adjusted Impedance Factor: 0.96
Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements 0.96
Movement Capacity: (pcph)
------------------------------------------------ 148
--------
0 •
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 3
****************************************************************
Intersection Performance Summary
F1owRate MoveCap SharedCap Avg.Total Delay
Movement v (pcph) Cm (pcph) Csh (pcph) Delay LOS By App
-------- ------ ------ ------ ------------ ------ ---------
SB L 52 148 > > >
192 29.9 D 29.9
SB R 20 842 > > >
EB L 13 1071 3.4 A 0.0
Intersection Delay = 1.3
UNSIGNALIZED - T - INOSECTION CAPACITY CALCULAI& FORM
FILE NAME:
8/28/1995 9:38:55
CITY: TIGARD ANALYST: DW
INTERSECTION: DURHAM AT 79TH
ALTERNATE: TOTAL TRAFFIC METRO SIZE: OVER 100,000
COUNT: AM PEAK HOUR TYPE OF CONTROL: STOP
LOCATION PLAN:
APPROACH CODES ARE
LANE 1 2 3 4 ------------ ---------------------- ------- -----
A 4 A 3
B 6 ------------ ------ ------ ------- -----
C 7 GRADE= .0% - GRADE= 0%
GRADE= .0%
SPEED: 35 MPH C
RESTRICTED SIGHT CODE IS 2
MINOR STREET ADJUSTMENTS -
ACCELERATION LANE? NO
CURB RADIUS OR TURN ANGLE? NO
---------------------------
I APPROACH I A
---------------------
- ----------------------
I B I -------
C --------
-
----
MOVE AT AR ----------------------
BL BT -------
CL --------
CR
VOLUME 423 6 11 1008 45 17
PCH 12 50 19
LANES 1
--------------------------- 1
---------------------- 1
-------
--------
STEP 1 RIGHT TURN FROM C CR
CONFLICTING FLOWS = MH = 426. VPH
CRITICAL GAP = TG = 5.0 SECS
POTENTIAL CAPACITY = M1 = 772. PCH
SHARED LANE - SEE STEP 3
NO SHARED LANE DEMAND = 0 PCH
AVAILABLE RESERVE = 0. PCH
DELAY & LOS =
-------------------------------------------- N/A
-------------
-------
STEP 2 LEFT TURN FROM B BL
CONFLICTING FLOWS = MH = 429. VPH
CRITICAL GAP = TG = 4.5 SECS
POTENTIAL CAPACITY = M2 = 866. PCH
DEMAND = BL = 12 PCH
CAPACITY USED = 1.39 06
IMPEDANCE FACTOR = P2 = .991
AVAILABLE RESERVE = 854. PCH
DELAY & LOS =
-------------------------------------------- A
-------------
-------
STEP 3 LEFT TURN FROM C CL
CONFLICTING FLOWS = MH = 1445. VPH
CRITICAL GAP = TG = 5.5 SECS
POTENTIAL CAPACITY = M3 = 188. PCH
ADJUSTING FOR IMPEDANCE = M3 = 187. PCH
STEP 3 CONTINUED CL
NO SHARED LANE DEMAND = 0 PCH
AVAILABLE RESERVE = 0. PCH
DELAY & LOS = N/A
SHARED LANE DEMAND = 69 PCH
POTENTIAL CAPACITY = M13 = 236. PCH
AVAILABLE RESERVE = 167. PCH
DELAY & LOS = D
----------------------------------------------------------------
LOS C VOLUMES: LEG C
VEHICLES PER HOUR 65.
----------------------------------------------------------------
VER 03/93