Loading...
19-100523 (2)YTRAFFIC OA TA GA THHHIA10 TURNING MOVEMENTS DIAGRAM 4:00 PM - 6:00 PM PEAK HOUR: 4:45 PM TO 5:45 PM HV = Heavy Vehicles PHF = Peak Hour Factor S 344th Way @ Weyerhaeuser Way S Federal Way, WA COUNTED BY: TDG DATE OF COUNT: Thu. 10/18/18 REDUCTION DATE: Tue. 10/23/18 TIME OF COUNT: 4:00 PM - 6:00 PM L`ii�s: TRAFF/C OATA GATHER/NG INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENTS REDUCTION SHEET LOCATwN. pi ea+lrecoW. iwMY Wit WR TIME Oi OOUNT. GATE OF REONCTION: i■■n�r�wa� �r■�wdRwwwt�w�wr�n ww�wtew es wwtwt �ws s �� �+�ww� !■AdSA�I R��dQddl�l�fees■'fAi�i7e s©a �w�reiawQewa�wtwt n ad erA iwe�rerr�re�r nr�wr ide�erna� �A enww �■wtwtnnAw�■�edsewwtwtwtwsewr� �w sedQ s�ewnnd■�■■�rRa■eNAAdAr�w<Rarieausr�w, �ww��wws dA■e■nnn�!�rwte�w�n�se�nw�wtw�r�ww�� �_ ewNn®n n n ease s A d nwtdl ddddll�dr�Eidd� �w�iia�e�dnwwlsedas�sw�a�wawwswtesad�a ��w■c��se�wnsw��Aweaww�■�■asww■�wfwt�a■we�d�.� �©�rA��e�we�r�r•�sr�ne�ewwlwtasnw wt '�■eeir�ws ■�n�sn�� ��wssew©ews■�wlniwdawtie■wtwew�■� ��w�teir niwmwwwt w �n©wwwtse sw wes �e n Qs e eweeeeeeeeaie ee®eeeeeee ®eases e e �� ®� Q��■■ �wr■t�■■rr�■■w rwwf PHP=Peak—,—, 4:00 PM- 6:00 P M PEAK HOUR: t4EPM SO old AA6 ROLLING HOUR COUNT �lddd �Al1!'�eddd dl"1�l�fddd !i dtdddl� �ldt�fR'�R�R��dEAdd!#dEd♦, �!'!!!1d�lfddd�dr d1dR�d �MR'■lll7dl�d�fl�!'fdR'id�d•; d�Nd�dfds7�fdl� eddd�l��1lfddddll�ilfddd!!i d d•d<dt�'1i71' d w�■dtd dd Al��ldd dd d dd<Ad d dd�' ddtdfR7R�d !d■�!10i�dd�11�■drdddd"dtdrdrddd!s �'�7'-'I� d S!! ■7l�dd d!�!•f dtdn d d �! drl�d dd d dwl� drdd d � is�7dt�fC3fmd��llSddkllt!1l�dtw�f®d�f ddAR:*�ddd� Rm dd fMON dt�fAd�OR�d1R�s®d®d�flP■©di�d� CE'L'�Rswmd "mr-smllddtdfdAdddd"R�mmdmm mSddd�! Rmmmwm NMinddldt�id�llYf!■�����©��� �dQl�Q��ldeedfOd®d0 m ®®�0��00a00®®Dov00m0®v000v00 TTRAFFIC DATA GATHERING TURNING MOVEMENTS DIAGRAM 4:00 PM - 6:00 PM PEAK HOUR: 4:00 PM TO 5:00 PM Military Road S @ S 342nd Street Federal Way, WA COUNTED BY: TDG REDUCTION DATE- Sat. 9/8/18 HV PHF SB 2.1% 0.95 NB 2.0% 0.92 EB 2.9% 0.92 INTRS. 2.2% 0.98 HV = Heavy Vehicles PHF = Peak Hour Factor DATE OF COUNT: Wed. 8/29/18 TIME OF COUNT: 4:00 PM - 6:00 PM Li � � TRAFF/G OATA GATHER/NG INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENTS REDUCTION SHEET CaATWI: wm.•..�ssf vwn _ pxT[pl rnYwh COUNMD BY' i [p WWt: CAn oXX�VC�I�: �a� �esne���■�es�■n�s�end�rn���nnna_ �®©es�s ��is s ens A �■e�ser e��i �r��st�R,aa�� a i�ig�■ns®��A�an�nA��es®®���i■ i�©new■ � � ■�i a�r��ea+e+i ��i�i� �r�� �■�� iss�s�e ���s��� �r� � ��n e�u�A■�■aAA �rar�� Ks esse��■i■�is a®s©�� ��e ■■as �®■�sAsd�s�s � dn��®�■ s Q©�er��.� �eeese eee eee®eee eeeeeeee eeee �•Xn•IY�.lwtw tgj Ps @A VM PlAlt HD1jM 1 4.PM TO 500 PM ROLLING HOUR COUNT �� �ee�r��rrre�r��e��re�ir�!�r r�'ii�eie��e�■a�i��i�■e®ai i��®E� A����!'�ls�f�ll�fop �1�1����1�1f1Q�lE■l���i i�"�1�9*S'r�l�l7��ftf�fe��f��tfAtf ���7R�ElARIRl�fl�f QSS�=�I AL"� l� �� d���1 ��� elf �'!� R�!'1!�■7l'1 �f A e'f E��! ■� �5��� � �� R�Aoe lie!'! Q0��1 A S!!en!'f !!!� ��►1 � ���o �A�l,'■��!!!efl��■•����R�:�RR�����!!!Z!lf���70Llf tl�� �0l�1��tf �Allf l� ■7lRl�l��Rwl�lElEl�l"��!!fllll'f ll��!'f Rl Al��"� � ���! ammt!! RS SO�dOml�l�l�� lSl�flill<��7�dlfa �y0�00®®00®00�0®00000000®�®Om® HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4469: Military Rd S & S 342 St 02I1312019 --I � * I I i Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Vil r Vi t I Traffic Volume (veh/h) 58 184 25 279 1203 54 Future Volume (Veh/h) 58 184 25 279 1203 54 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.95 0.95 Hourly flow rate (vph) 63 200 27 303 1266 57 Pedestrians 10 10 10 Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 Walking Speed (ft/s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 Percent Blockage 1 1 1 Right turn flare (veh) Median type None TWLTL Median storage veh) 2 Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 1672 1314 1333 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 1304 vC2, stage 2 conf vol 367 vCu, unblocked vol 1672 1314 1333 tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) 5.4 tF (s) . 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free % 73 0 95 cM capacity (veh/h) 236 189 513 Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 NB 1 NEI 27 913.1 Volume Total 63 200 27 303 1323 Volume Left 63 0 27 0 0 Volume Right 0 200 0 0 57 cSH 236 189 513 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.27 1.06 0.05 0.18 0.78 Queue Length 95th (ft) 26 235 4 0 0 Control Delay (s) 25.7 134.2 12.4 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS D F B Approach Delay (s) 108.2 1.0 0.0 Approach LOS F Intersection Summary Average Delay 15.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 87.6% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 Description: 2008 or before 2018 TMC Synchro 7 - Report PW - SL Page 1 _ I;*- CL N N 300 PL 1 U 1 ST Q o Julio PL -S�"D� J r CL N r r �''.-=N�fn 3�2raC S� SW SW a 303 N 302 Q 303 cn S T ST Q N pp > 7. (D ST J IL J > ?: M r N Q J N U) SW 304 PL SW SW 304 ST r a S 304 PL '41305 PL 305 ST SW 305 ST 306 �' 306 ST ay ai � cn ST �.� 3 307 ¢ Q °a r- J > iL 307 ST Q r� ST ro co GO SW 307 > cCn U)i CO W 307 > Cn CO cn SW 308 ST ST z > > > PL M a Q J > > Q� Y � I N SW 308 ST Lake 3 09 U) `� Cn J Grave (n W 310 ST PL > aQa ¢ � Eiem. > a N 7 sw Q ST 3106 Sw r S 3�g 310 ST CO 0) _...... > � :Sw (n ST r o 311th CT SW 312 ST ~ M 313ST Q SW312 s1 �P�� �° � Mirror M N 't- PL > Lake 313LN � < SW 313 5T cn SW 314 PL > N a J �� French a < Swr r r CO CO 'Pill Lake Park M CO 316 ST 316 SW 316 ST 315 ST a� SW316PL LN SW316ST S316PL 317 $T r J 316 J a ,N7 CT CT S\ m � 7 PL g 3� 18 ST 12A fir? PL as SW 317 PL ,- U 318PL 318ST S319LN > N 31a PL - c¢v 319 PL CO = z SW 320 ST M N N S 320 ST c2 > SW 320_----- PL > 320 PL a� Q� a� QCO � �i Uj CA m U] N CA _� ` ildwood Attendance Area S 74'/1k ST > S 282 H ST S".0 PL 5 2BTTH PL 5 282TH PL .. 529ei11 ST ti leMHST S 288TH ST m S 2a RTH PL rO 5 atn' OL AVALON PL C( N ¢ 5 299TH PL 5 2B9TH ST +rt pFZHVa S 289TH ST 5�91f1 KIND 0 �Or S ZY25i P>, y F a I4 N S 293RD ST rj�� S 293RD n XrS z 3 A PA1N1E0. NEB' P p Y N GIfo S295TH PL m579jTH SIR WRETk OR S T'g6tNp� ➢L �i3 S2SeSk Si CAMtho RT DR a C n �u uNi 'C 529aTH PL ip0 ~ Y y •�� ` 5rlgfiyr C N yM� s�Inuft 9 HOH ST m S.cej.— Park 5 299TH PL 5 299TH Sf ^m+ 5 299TH ST 5 Zp9T . PL S 300TH ST 5 3D0TH ST 5 301ST ST c s 301sr Sr Hrys�p,ppyjVJPyM . S 3Y35? 5f 5302ND ST WILLY AB;Y A3O15T LN S 303RD ST slo?No c % 302 ND pl N 5 302ND PL e 1]ryt jLp 22N0 crs IEr * n S 309TH ST S 30BTH ST S 30BTH LN F.iNttf iliO � .. 5 313TH ST y y hra Q e�L.fkr Pal. S M5TH ST w. S ]1LTHST s 31 nH 51 O y ti 1 53OoXft 6 ]04TH 31 i k 5 3a Bin Ci 5 1„PLH ST i 51LLIH WL n 'S 31�iN Fi S 716fX Si 3—H PL S32—s1' 5320T`STm F O 5 C9N.YDHS £ 0 53OCTk Lk Steel Lake Park N' 5 31pTIl5T 'A t1 5 311TH ST ST 5 31AN IN 531 UN LN sm1 5T 5 CA", PLAZA 'KF ,➢1AZA S 319TH PL N S2NTH 5T m 57i1Si ST S2f ISTSP S 292ND ST Z m S 293RD PL m c S 294TH ST S 294TH PL �4 m S 79SPH ST y b ,ay F 2967H i'L� �q�Y Y �' S 298TH ST o S 298TH PL 52951HO 5�9yiH PL 5 300, eL J Vr i S 3015T PL % S 302ND PL ^ m m y s 3a.rH sT ti 53i3TX ST S312TH LN J S712TH O. 77T h 3. i 3�6tN 5l m 5 5 321ST ST m Date: 6/22/16 0 0.05 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 Miles HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4469: Military Rd S & S 342 St --v t Movernent ESL EBR NBL NOT SBT SBR Lane Configurations r t T., Traffic Volume (veh/h) 58 184 25 279 1203 54 Future Volume (Veh/h) 58 184 25 279 1203 54 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 092 0.92 0.95 0.95 Hourly flow rate (vph) 63 200 27 303 1266 57 Pedestrians 1 10 10 Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 Walking Speed (ft/s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 Percent Blockage 0 1 1 Right turn flare (veh) 20 Median type None TWLTL Median storage veh) 2 Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 1662 1306 1324 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 1296 vC2, stage 2 conf vol 367 vCu, unblocked vol 1662 1306 1324 tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) 5.4 tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free % 74 0 95 cM capacity (veh/h) 241 193 521 01 ion; CO - EB 1�B 2 SB 1 Volume Total 263 27 303 1323 Volume Left 63 27 0 0 Volume Right 200 0 0 57 cSH 254 521 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 1.03 0.05 0.18 0.78 Queue Length 95th (ft) 262 4 0 0 Control Delay (s) 100.7 12.3 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS F B Approach Delay (s) 100.7 1.0 0.0 Approach LOS F interseCtion SUnlmar Average Delay 14.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 86.5% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 Description: 2008 or before PW SL 2018 Existing PM Peak Executive Sur ma y This report analyzes transit bus axle weight issues that have evolved over the past few decades with changes in regulations, bus design and construction, and operations. These changes have resulted in certain transit buses exceeding applicable axle weight limits. This report provides information to help decision -makers identify options to reduce bus weight, mitigate the negative impacts of transit buses exceeding weight limits, and address competing regulations in this area. These options, which can be implemented individually or in combination, include various changes to (1) transit bus design and manufacturing, (2) transit operations, (3) pavement design and engineering, and (4) regulations. This research reviewed findings from literature and other documentation published over the past decade and gathered current knowledge from relevant stakeholders regarding: 1) Relevant national and state laws and regulations pertaining to transit bus weight, 2) The weight of transit buses while in service, 3) The impacts of transit buses on pavement, and 4) Options to mitigate negative impacts on pavement, transit systems, and communities. Commercial motor vehicles —including transit buses —are subject to regulations established by federal, state, and municipal authorities to support safe, efficient, and equitable transit service while controlling infrastructure and environmental impacts. Regulations are dynamic and respond to changes in industry characteristics, technological advancements, user requirements, and a host of societal norms. Consequently, regulations occasionally have requirements that compete with one another and create an impractical or unenforceable regulatory environment, as is currently the situation for the transit industry. Both federal and state regulations limit axle weights for transit buses (and other commercial motor vehicles) to help protect highway infrastructure, among other objectives. In 1974, federal weight limits for single and tandem axles for all commercial motor vehicles, including transit buses, were set at 20,000 and 34,000 pounds, respectively. rr rr� iRn�:cPCR`: f.7:Cn CCnSu.i?hG Based on available transit bus test data, fewer than half of all transit bus models comply with a 20,000 pound single axle weight limit when empty (i.e., at curb weight) and nearly all rear axles on transit buses longer than 35 feet exceed 24,000 pounds. The transit bus manufacturing industry has undertaken significant research and development activities directed at decreasing the curb weight of transit buses. Future opportunities to reduce transit bus curb weight include the use of lighter weight materials and alternative manufacturing techniques, but any weight reductions are expected to be costly for the manufacturing industry. Alternative axle arrangements (such as adding a tag axle) may reduce the pavement deterioration caused by transit buses by redistributing the weight of the bus in a more favorable manner. Simultaneous with efforts to reduce bus weights, some transit operators have seen increasing passenger loading and demand for better on -board service amenities (such as air conditioning, bike racks, information systems, and surveillance equipment). These developments increase the curb -and operating weight of transit buses —sometimes beyond axle weight limits —and offset weight reduction efforts. Transit Bus � Veight Impactson s:- - Transit buses that operate above legal weight limits may pose problems associated with pavement design and road maintenance. These problems are particularly relevant for low functional road classes (e.g., collectors, local streets), which are less able to withstand transit bus axle loads than high functional road classes (e.g., Interstate highways, major arterials). All axle loads contribute to pavement deterioration. However, the literature review revealed sparse and disparate results on the proportion of pavement deterioration and maintenance expenditures attributable to transit buses. Ultimately, deterioration depends on the number of transit buses operating on a route, the intensity of axle loads of those buses (which varies spatially and temporally), the structure of pavement on the route, and numerous environmental factors. While there is evidence from information about the physical characteristics of transit buses that certain buses exceed axle weight limits (indeed, certain bus models exceed these limits without any passengers on board) and mostly anecdotal indications of the concomitant impacts on pavement, there is relatively little empirical substantiation of these impacts. A lack of in-service transit bus weight data precludes definitive quantification of MTr f rr 1-{ �{ ;I(AWSPOVAVON CONSUOiNG IV ORANGE = INSIDE WHEEL TRACK�.� WHEELS DC OVER C TRANSIST A IN W" I\ F BUSSES DO NOT HIT WHEELS DO NOT TRACK OVER CURS OF TRANSISTION PANEL i -� ,I C RED = OUTSIDE WHEEL TRACK BUS DOES NOT TRACK INTO TWLTL i BUS MODELLED UTILIZES A 23' WHEEL BASE PER DATA PROVIDED BY CITY VEHICLE OVERHANG (GREEN LINE)