HomeMy WebLinkAboutApplication APPLICANT 12/12/20222425 HARVEST LANE
Springfield, Oregon
ZONE CHANGE ANALYSIS
December 9, 2022
160 Madison Street, Suite A SANDOW
Eugene, Oregon ENGINEERING
541.513.3376.3376
Traffic Impact Analysis
NCC Zone Change
OREGON
Y R. St'
RENEWAL 06/30/24
Springfield, Oregon
December 9, 2022
Kelly Sandow PE
SANDOW
ENGINEERING
160 Madison Street, Suite A
Eugene Oregon 97402
541.513.3376
sa ndowengi neeri ng.com
project # 6009
SANDOW
ENGINEERING
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report provides the analysis and findings prepared for the proposed zone change located at 2425
Harvest Lane in Springfield, Oregon. The subject site is located at the northeast corner of Hayden
Bridge Road and Harvest Lane at Tax Lot 200 of Assessors Map 17-03-24-33. The site is approximately
2.64 acres and is zoned Residential R-1. The applicant is proposing a zone change for Neighborhood
Commercial NC.
As per Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR)660-0-12-0060, the Transportation Planning Rule (TPR), zone
changes are required to demonstrate that the proposed zone change will not have a significant effect
on the surrounding transportation system.
FINDINGS
• The worst-case development scenario for the proposed zone change will generate significantly
more trips than the existing zoning. Requiring an evaluation of impacts to the adjacent
infrastructure.
• The applicant is proposing a PM peak hour trip cap of 100 vehicle trips. The evaluation
contained in this report considers the impacts of the proposed trip cap of 100 trips.
• The 100 trips will increase PM peak hour traffic volumes by more than 20 trips at the
intersection of Hayden Bridge at Harvest Lane. All other intersections will receive fewer than 20
trips.
• The intersection of Hayden Bridge at Harvest Lane will meet the applicable performance
standards through the TSP planning horizon.
• No offsite mitigation is triggered for the proposed zone change.
• The proposed zone change meets the Transportation Planning Rule criteria for approval
12.9.2022 NCC Zone Change 1
SANDOW
ENGINEERING
CONTENTS
1.0 BACKGROUND.....................................................................................................................4
2.0 SCOPE OF WORK.................................................................................................................4
3.0 EXISTING ROADWAY CONDITIONS.....................................................................................4
3.1 STREET NETWORK.............................................................................................................................
4
TABLE 1: ROADWAY CHARACTERISTICS WITHIN STUDY AREA...........................................................
5
3.2 INTERSECTION CRASH EVALUATION.................................................................................................
5
FIGURE 1 -VICINITY MAP AND SITE LOCATION...................................................................................
6
FIGURE 2—INTERSECTION CONTROLAND LANE CONFIGURATION....................................................
7
4.0 DEVELOPMENT TRIP GENERATION AND DISTRIBUTION....................................................8
4.1 TRIP GENERATION EXISTING ZONING...............................................................................................
8
TABLE 2: PM PEAK HOURTRIP GENERATION -RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ....................................
10
TABLE 3: PM PEAK HOURTRIP GENERATION -EXISTING USE............................................................
11
4.2TRIP GENERATION POTENTIALZONING..........................................................................................
11
TABLE 4: PM PEAK HOURTRIP GENERATION -PROPOSED NCZONING.............................................
12
4.3 PROPOSED TRIP CAP.......................................................................................................................
12
4.4TRIP DISTRIBUTION.........................................................................................................................
12
FIGURE 3: PM PEAK HOURTRIP DISTRIBUTION................................................................................
13
5.0 TRAFFICVOLUMES............................................................................................................
14
5.1 INTERSECTION COUNTS..................................................................................................................
14
5.2 FUTURE YEAR BACKGROUND VOLUMES.........................................................................................
14
5.3 PEAK HOUR VOLUMES....................................................................................................................
14
FIGURE 4 —YEAR 2022 PEAK HOUR BACKGROUND TRAFFIC VOLUMES ...........................................
15
FIGURE 5—YEAR 2035 PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES.............................................................
16
6.0 INTERSECTION ANALYSIS..................................................................................................
17
6.1 PERFORMANCE MEASURES............................................................................................................
17
6.2 INTERSECTION PERFORMANCE.......................................................................................................
17
TABLE 5: INTERSECTION PERFORMANCE: WITH ZONE CHANGE ......................................................
17
6.3 QUEUING ANALYSIS........................................................................................................................
17
TABLE 6: INTERSECTION QUEUING: AM PEAK HOUR DEVELOPMENT IMPACTS ..............................
18
7.0 TRANSPORTATION PLANNING RULE FINDINGS................................................................
18
8.0 CONCLUSION.....................................................................................................................
19
12.9.2022 NCCZone Change 2
SANDOW
ENGINEERING
LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX A: SCOPE OF WORK
APPENDIX B: TRAFFIC VOLUMES
APPENDIX C: SYNCHRO OUTPUTS
APPENDIX D: QUEUING OUTPUTS
12.9.2022 NCCZone Change 3
SANDOW
ENGINEERING
91 [SIN F-04 Tff 5101 o,
The following provides an analysis consistent with the Transportation Planning Rule criteria for the
proposed zone change at 2425 Harvest Lane in Springfield, Oregon. The subject site is located at the
northeast corner of the Hayden Bridge Road and Harvest Lane intersection at Tax Lot 200 of Assessors
Map 17-03-24-33. The site is approximately 2.64 acres and is zoned Residential R-1. The site is currently
occupied by a 21,000 -square -foot building used for the Northwood Christian Church and daycare
facility.
The applicant is proposing a zone change to Neighborhood Commercial NC.
For this analysis, the only access to the site is assumed via the existing access connection at Harvest
Lane.
2.0 SCOPE OF WORK
The traffic study is performed in accordance with the City of Springfield and Lane County criteria. The
scope of work is provided in Appendix A.
The zone change requires an evaluation consistent with the OAR 660-012-0060 Transportation Planning
Rule to determine if the impacts associated with the zone change are consistent with the City of
Springfield Transportation System Plan. The zone change evaluation is prepared for the PM peak hour
for the existing conditions, year 2022, and the year 2035, City of Springfield TSP horizon year.
The evaluation includes the following locations:
• Hayden Bridge at Harvest Lane
• Harvest Lane at site access
The evaluation includes:
• Level of Service
• Volume to Capacity
• Queuing
• Crash Evaluation
• Transportation Planning Rule Compliance
3.0 EXISTING ROADWAY CONDITIONS
3.1 STREET NETWORK
Streets included within the study are Hayden Bridge Road and Harvest Lane. The roadway
characteristics within the study area are included in Table 1. Figure 1 illustrates the site location and
study area. Figure 2 illustrates the study area intersection geometry and access control.
12.9.2022 NCCZone Change 4
SANDOW
ENGINEERING
1/-11114iN:U7a1HtD/-VIII:/-11:7-1191g8RIIWILTITIIN: IILIFiPlBYWA1. dal
3.2 INTERSECTION CRASH EVALUATION
A crash investigation was performed for the study area intersections. The analysis investigates crashes
that have been reported to the state for the most recent 5 years, 1/01/2016-12/31/2020, to determine
the crash rate in crashes per million vehicles on the roadway and the types of crashes that occurred.
Crash data is provided by ODOT. There were no reported crashes in the past 5 years at the intersection
of Hayden Bridge Road and Harvest Lane.
12.9.2022 NCCZone Change 5
Hayden Bridge
Harvest
Characteristic
Road
Lane
Jurisdiction
Lane County
Lane County
Functional
Major
Classification
Collector
Local
Posted Speed
35 mph
25 mph
Lanes per Direction
1
1
Center Left Turn
lane
None
None
Restrictions in the
Median
No
No
Bikes Lanes Present
None
None
Sidewalks Present
Yes
Site Frontage
Only
Transit Route
Yes
No
On -Street Parking
None
Yes
3.2 INTERSECTION CRASH EVALUATION
A crash investigation was performed for the study area intersections. The analysis investigates crashes
that have been reported to the state for the most recent 5 years, 1/01/2016-12/31/2020, to determine
the crash rate in crashes per million vehicles on the roadway and the types of crashes that occurred.
Crash data is provided by ODOT. There were no reported crashes in the past 5 years at the intersection
of Hayden Bridge Road and Harvest Lane.
12.9.2022 NCCZone Change 5
z
-09K
!!\\]o
2
ca
\ \}ƒ}/
`
{
ca
\
}
\
a
Co
)
\
!
j
!
�~
,
«+
\
�
%
J
§
LU§
�
o
)
L
a)§
/
/i
®
e
\
\
SANDOW
ENGINEERING
4.0 DEVELOPMENT TRIP GENERATION AND DISTRIBUTION
Asper Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR)660-0-12-0060, the Transportation Planning Rule (TPR), zone
changes are required to evaluate conditions under the reasonable worst-case development potential of
the proposed zoning. The following describes the process for determining the reasonable worst-case
development potential pm peak hour trip generation for both the existing and proposed zoning.
4.1 TRIP GENERATION EXISTING ZONING
The reasonable worst-case development potential fort he existing zoning is evaluated using two
development scenarios. Scenario 1 is the worst-case development potential of the outright allowed
residential uses under the code. Scenario 1 is the trip generation for the existing use of the site as a
church and daycare facility, permitted as a discretionary use.
Scenario 1
The site is approximately 2.62 acres and zoned Residential R-1. As per SDC 3.2.215, the following
densities apply to R-1.
Single Family lots= 6-14/acre
30,000 sf minimum lot
Duple = 6 or more units/acre
3,000 sf minimum lot
Triplex and Fourplex = 6 or more units/acre
5,000 or 7,000 sf minimum lot
The images below provide a hypothetical layout for the number of 3,000 sf, 5,000 sf, and 7,000 sf lots
that can be placed on the site, given the need for a 50 -foot public street right of way for public access
to the lots.
12.9.2022 NCCZone Change 8
SANDOW
ENGINEERING
7000 sf Fourplex Lots
The maximum number of residential units and the PM peak hour development trips are illustrated in
Table 2 below. The PM peak hour trips are estimated using the most closely matched land use and trip
rates within the ITE Trip Generation Manuals 11t° Ed.
TABLE 2: PM PEAK HOUR TRIP GENERATION -RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
Development Potential
ITE Code
Rate
Trips
28- Single Family Units
210 -Single Family
Ln(T)=0.941n(x)+0.27
30
Detached
56- Duplex Units
215- Single Family
T=0.60(X)-3.93
30
Attached
54- Triplex Units
220 -Multi -Family
T=0.43(x)+20.55
44
Low -Rise
56-Fourplex Units
220 -Multi -Family
T=0.43(x)+20.55
45
Low -Rise
As demonstrated in Table 2, the reasonable worst-case development potential is 56 fourplex style units
generating 45 PM peak hour Trips.
12.9.2022 NCC Zone Change 10
SANDOW
ENGINEERING
Scenario 2
Existing use of the site as a 21,000-sf church with a daycare facility. The daycare is permitted for up to
60 kids. Table 3 provides the trip calculations for the existing allowed use.
TABLE 3: PM PEAK HOUR TRIP GENERATION -EXISTING USE
ITE Code Size Rate Trips
560- Church
20* ksf T=0.36(x)+4.7
565- Day Care Center 60 students Ln(T)=0.871n(x)+0.29
TOTAL
-1,000 sf of building for the daycare fadlity
The max development potential is the existing zoning generates 59 trips.
12
41
59
4.2 TRIP GENERATION POTENTIAL ZONING
The proposed zoning is Neighborhood Commercial (NC). As per SDC 3.2.320, the highest vehicle trip -
generating uses allowed within this zone are:
• Commercial Center
• Restaurant with drive through
• Restaurant without drive through
• Drinking Establishment/Taproom
• Offices and Clinics
The building area is 2.62 acres or 114,125 square feet
• Building area is 39% of the site: 44,500 square feet
• 45% of the site is parking, drive aisles, and loading areas
• 16% is landscaped areas, walkways, and other
• 25% reduction in required parking spaces
At 44,500 sf of total building area, the site will likely be constructed as a multi -tenant retail center. This
center could contain an out parcel of a drive-through coffee shop or restaurant within the total square
footage. ITE Land Use Code 821 Shopping Plaza (40-150 Ksf) is the most closely matched land use for
this size of a retail plaza. The shopping plaza land use takes into consideration the internal trip capture
that occurs between land uses and provides a rate that averages out the higher trip generators, such as
a restaurant, and the lower trip generators, such as insurance offices. The reasonable worst-case PM
peak hour trip generation is provided in Table 4.
12.9.2022 NCC Zone Change 11
SANDOW
ENGINEERING
TABLE 4: PM PEAK HOUR TRIP GENERATION -PROPOSED NC ZONING
Development Potential ITE Code Rate Trips
44,500 sf retail plaza 821 -Shopping Plaza (40- 5.19 trips/ksf 231
150 ksf)
The proposed zoning will have a reasonable development potential of 44,500 sf shopping plaza
generating 231 PM peak hour trips.
4.3 PROPOSED TRIP CAP
The proposed zoning will have a significantly higher trip generation than the existing zoning. However,
the applicant is going to request a trip cap of 100 trips during the PM peak hour.
4.4 TRIP DISTRIBUTION
The trip cap of 100 PM peak hour trips will have an increase in vehicle trips to the site of 41 over the
existing trip generation. As the site is currently occupied by the reasonable worst-case development
scenario, the evaluation considers just the increase in trips.
The splits entering/exiting are assumed to be the same as a shopping plaza at 48% entering/52%
exiting.
• 20 entering
• 21 exiting
The trip distribution follows the existing travel patterns based on the traffic count at the intersection of
Hayden Bridge at Harvest Lane. Figure 3 provides the PM peak hour trip distribution.
12.9.2022 NCC Zone Change 12
SANDOW
ENGINEERING
5.0 TRAFFICVOLUMES
5.1 INTERSECTION COUNTS
As part of the analysis, a PM peak hour turning movement count was collected at the study area
intersections on November 30th, 2022. Traffic counts were performed for the weekday peak period of
4:00 PM to 6:00 PM. The turning movement counts illustrate that the weekday peak hours occur from
4:45-5:45 PM.
The traffic volumes are included in Appendix B.
5.2 FUTURE YEAR BACKGROUND VOLUMES
Consistent with the traffic impact analysis criteria, the intersections were evaluated for the year of
completion, the year 2022, and the City of Springfield TSP horizon year 2035. The growth rate for
roadways within the study area was determined using the standard City of Springfield 2% growth rate.
The calculations are included in Appendix B.
5.3 PEAK HOUR VOLUMES
The existing traffic volumes were adjusted according to the methodology described above. The
development trips are added to the background trips to develop the total traffic volumes. The following
Figures provide the traffic volume calculations
• Figure 4 illustrates the year 2022 PM background traffic volumes
• Figure 5 illustrates the year 2035 PM traffic volumes
12.9.2022 NCC Zone Change 14
E
0
E
Y
(0
N
a
oa
o
O
Y
U
G
co
m
N
N
O
£
m
a
N
$
rn
i
LL
15 4141
d
Nrl
JG
G
c
a¢
0
Z
W
W
o
Z
o
15 415
w
r°$ o
L2N
a
Z
m
W
\
s
O
'Fitm
C
.1
w y
u
q
O
ZJ
Q
m
bZ�
U
Z
■
a ^
z
Q
U)
O N Eo
U M O E u
E m L f NI I?
0
v v U
t ^ m SlJ I NN Z�
2 0
3 �f�
Y
(6
a
co
o
N
(0 w
N
r
� dy
N E
� 5
rn
a FL �
a $
L
}
15 4141
d
Nrl
JG
G
c
a¢
Z
LU
LU
LU
o Z
o
15415 v � a Z
m
L£ A) w
<-0 IM
o zm y �0 >
^a f fl 0
l7 vt m 2 0 U
w y u T f
Cf)
■ 0£� U Z
R_ z Q
oi
SANDOW
ENGINEERING
6.0 INTERSECTION ANALYSIS
6.1 PERFORMANCE MEASURES
Lane County uses the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) defined Level of Service (LOS) and Volume to
Capacity ratio (v/c) as the intersection measure of performance. The volume -to -capacity ratio describes
the capability of an intersection to meet volume demand based on the maximum number of vehicles
that could be served in an hour. V/C is the threshold for which
TLOS is a concept developed to quantify the degree of comfort (including such elements as travel time,
number of stops, total amount of stopped delay, and impediments caused by other vehicles) afforded
to drivers as they travel through an intersection or along a roadway segment. It was developed to
quantify the quality of service of transportation facilities.
Asper Lane Code LC15.696, signalized intersections have a standard of LOSE and v/c 0.85. There are no
performance standards that are applied to private driveways on Lane County roadways.
For this study, the level of service and volume to capacity intersection analysis was completed
according to the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM6) method implemented in SYNCHRO Version 10.
6.2 INTERSECTION PERFORMANCE
The results for the intersection analysis are provided in Table 5. Appendix C includes the Synchro
outputs.
1/a1:3�iY�1711�:i.YS91 W 7�9q:i7al:iu/_1R�IAtDlll.r4Llo[�17/_1Belo
As demonstrated in Table 5, the intersection will meet the standards through the planning horizon with
the proposed zone change.
6.3 QUEUING ANALYSIS
A queuing analysis was conducted for the studied intersection and access. The analysis was performed
using SimTraffic, a microsimulation software tool that uses the HCM-defined criteria to estimate the
queuing of vehicles within the study area. The average 951h percentile queuing results are illustrated in
Table 6. All results are rounded to 25 feet to represent the total number of vehicles in the queue, as
one vehicle typically occupies 25 feet of space. The SimTraffic outputs are provided in Appendix D.
12.9.2022 NCC Zone Change 17
Mobility Standard
2022
2035
2035
Intersection
V/C / LOS
Background
Background
Build
Hayden Bridge
LOS E
A
A
A
at Harvest Lane
v/c 0.85
0.43
0.53
0.55
Harvest Lane at
N/A
N/A
A
Site Access
0.02
As demonstrated in Table 5, the intersection will meet the standards through the planning horizon with
the proposed zone change.
6.3 QUEUING ANALYSIS
A queuing analysis was conducted for the studied intersection and access. The analysis was performed
using SimTraffic, a microsimulation software tool that uses the HCM-defined criteria to estimate the
queuing of vehicles within the study area. The average 951h percentile queuing results are illustrated in
Table 6. All results are rounded to 25 feet to represent the total number of vehicles in the queue, as
one vehicle typically occupies 25 feet of space. The SimTraffic outputs are provided in Appendix D.
12.9.2022 NCC Zone Change 17
SANDOW
ENGINEERING
TABLE 6: INTERSECTION QUEUING: AM PEAK HOUR DEVELOPMENT IMPACTS
7.0 TRANSPORTATION PLANNING RULE FINDINGS
The following elaborates on how this proposed zone change is consistent with the Transportation
Planning Rule TPR OAR 660-012-0060.
1) If an amendment to o functional plan, an acknowledged comprehensive plan, ora land use regulation
(including a zoning map) would significantly affect an existing orplanned transportation facility, then
the local government must put in place measures as provided in section (1) of this rule, unless the
amendment is allowed under section (3), (9) or (10) of this rule. A plan or land use regulation
amendment significantly affects a transportation facility if it would:
(a) Change the functional classification of an existing or planned transportation facility (exclusive of
correction of map errors in an adopted plan),
The types and levels of traffic generated by this proposed zone change are consistent with the existing
functional classification of the adjacent streets. The functional classification does not need to change to
facilitate the level of trips from the zone change.
(b) Change standards implementing o functional classification system; or
The types and levels of traffic generated by this proposed zone change are consistent with the existing
functional classification of the adjacent streets. The standards implementing the functional
classification system do not need to change to facilitate the level of trips from the zone change.
(c) Result in any of the effects listed in paragraphs (A) through (C) of this subsection. If a local
government is evaluating a performance standard based on projected levels of motor vehicle
traffic, then the results must be based on projected conditions measured at the end of the
planning period identified in the adopted TSP. As part of evaluating projected conditions, the
amount of traffic projected to be generated within the area of the amendment may be reduced
if the amendment includes an enforceable, ongoing requirement that would demonstrably limit
traffic generation, including, but not limited to, transportation demand management. This
reduction may diminish or completely eliminate the significant effect of the amendment.
The analysis is prepared for the end of the City of Springfield's TSP planning horizon, the year 2035.
12.9.2022 NCC Zone Change 18
2022
2035
2035
Available
Background
Background
Build
Storage
(Feet)
(Feet)
(Feet)
Intersection
(Feet)
951h Average
951h Average
95^h
Average
EB
LTR
190
75 25
125 50
150
75
Hayden Bridge
WB
LTR
775
s0 25
50 25
75
25
@ Harvest
NBR
100
25 25
25 25
25
25
SBLTR
840
50 25
50 25
50
25
Harvest @ Site
WB
LR
200
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
50
25
Access
I LT
570
�N/A N/A
N/A N/A
25
25
7.0 TRANSPORTATION PLANNING RULE FINDINGS
The following elaborates on how this proposed zone change is consistent with the Transportation
Planning Rule TPR OAR 660-012-0060.
1) If an amendment to o functional plan, an acknowledged comprehensive plan, ora land use regulation
(including a zoning map) would significantly affect an existing orplanned transportation facility, then
the local government must put in place measures as provided in section (1) of this rule, unless the
amendment is allowed under section (3), (9) or (10) of this rule. A plan or land use regulation
amendment significantly affects a transportation facility if it would:
(a) Change the functional classification of an existing or planned transportation facility (exclusive of
correction of map errors in an adopted plan),
The types and levels of traffic generated by this proposed zone change are consistent with the existing
functional classification of the adjacent streets. The functional classification does not need to change to
facilitate the level of trips from the zone change.
(b) Change standards implementing o functional classification system; or
The types and levels of traffic generated by this proposed zone change are consistent with the existing
functional classification of the adjacent streets. The standards implementing the functional
classification system do not need to change to facilitate the level of trips from the zone change.
(c) Result in any of the effects listed in paragraphs (A) through (C) of this subsection. If a local
government is evaluating a performance standard based on projected levels of motor vehicle
traffic, then the results must be based on projected conditions measured at the end of the
planning period identified in the adopted TSP. As part of evaluating projected conditions, the
amount of traffic projected to be generated within the area of the amendment may be reduced
if the amendment includes an enforceable, ongoing requirement that would demonstrably limit
traffic generation, including, but not limited to, transportation demand management. This
reduction may diminish or completely eliminate the significant effect of the amendment.
The analysis is prepared for the end of the City of Springfield's TSP planning horizon, the year 2035.
12.9.2022 NCC Zone Change 18
SANDOW
ENGINEERING
The applicant is proposing a Trip Cap of 100 PM peak hour trips. The trip cap will limit the size and type
of development that can be on site. The trip cap is an ongoing enforceable development requirement
that will limit the development trips.
(A) Types or levels of travel or access that are inconsistent with the functional
classification of an existing or planned transportation facility,•
The types and levels of vehicle trips to be generated by the site under the proposed zoning will typically
be passenger cars with a few delivery vehicles. The trip levels and types of vehicles are consistent with
the Major Collector and Local Street classifications.
(8) Degrade the performance of an existing or planned transportation facility such that
it would not meet the performance standards identified in the TSP or comprehensive
plan, or
All studied intersections meet the applicable intersection performance standards at the end of the
planning horizon with the proposed zone change.
(C) Degrade the performance of an existing or planned transportation facility that is
otherwise projected to not meet the performance standards identified in the TSP or
comprehensive plan.
All intersections meet the performance standards at the end of the planning horizon.
As demonstrated above, the proposed zone change meets the standards of OAR 660-012-0060,
Transportation Planning Rule, through the end of the City of Springfield's TSP planning horizon, the
year 2035.
8.0 CONCLUSION
The following conclusions and recommendations are based on the analysis contained within this
report.
• The worst-case development scenario for the proposed zone change will generate significantly
more trips than the existing zoning. Requiring an evaluation of impacts to the adjacent
infrastructure.
• The applicant is proposing a PM peak hour trip cap of 100 vehicle trips. The evaluation
contained in this report considers the impacts of the proposed trip cap of 100 trips.
• The 100 trips will increase PM peak hour traffic volumes by more than 20 trips at the
intersection of Hayden Bridge at Harvest Lane. All other intersections will receive fewer than 20
trips.
• The intersection of Hayden Bridge at Harvest Lane will meet the applicable performance
standards through the TSP planning horizon.
• No offsite mitigation is triggered for the proposed zone change.
12.9.2022 NCCZone Change 19
SANDOW
ENGINEERING
• The proposed zone change meets the Transportation Planning Rule criteria for approval
12.9.2022 NCCZone Change 20
v
NCC Zone Change Q�
O
LL
0
W
CL
0
U
V)
Q
X
0
Z
LU
CL
CL
all
SANDOW ENGINEERING
SANDOWENGINEERING
160 MADISON STREET, SUITE A • EUGENE, OREGON 97402 541.513.3376
TECH MEMO
DATE: December 6,2022
TO: Michael LIEBLER PE
City of Springfield
FROM: Kelly Sandow P.E.
Sandow Engineering
RE: Zone Change 2425 Harvest Lane
The following provides the trip generation estimate and proposed Scope of Work for the
proposed zone change at 2425 Harvest Lane in Springfield.
TRIP GENERATION
Existing Zoning Trio Generation
The existing zoning is Residential R-1.
Option 1- Residential use as allowed in the zoning. The max development potential is
56-fourplex units generating 45 pm peak hour trips. Table 1 provides the trip
calculation. The detailed calculations for how the maximum units were derived will be
provided in the final report.
TABLE 1: TRIP GENERATION OPTION 1
Development Potential ITE Code Rate Trips
28- Single Family Units 210 -Single Family Detached Ln(T)=0.941n(x)+0.27 30
56 -Duplex Units 215- Single Family Attached T=0.60(X)-3.93 30
54- Triplex Units 220- Multi -Family Low -Rise T=0.43(x)+20.55 44
56-Fourplex Units 220- Multi -Family Low -Rise T=0.43(x)+20.55 45
Option 2- Existing use of the site as a 21,000-sf church with a day care facility. This is
the currently allowed use on site. The daycare is permitted for up to 60 kids. Table 2
provides the trip calculations.
Date: 12.6.2022
Re: Trip Generation Zone Change- 2425 Harvest Lane
Page 2
TABLE 2: TRIP GENERATION OPTION 2
In Code Size Rate Trips
560 -Church 20*ksf T=0.36(x)+4.7 12
565 -Day Care Center 60 students Ln(T)=0.871n(x)+0.29 41
TOTAL 59
*1,000 sf of building for the day care facility
The max development potential is the existing zoning generates 59 trips.
Potential Zonine
The proposed zoning will have a reasonable development potential of 44,500 sf shopping plaza
generating 231 PM peak hourtrips.
The proposed zoning is Neighborhood Commercial (NC). As perSDC 3.2.320, the highest
vehicle trip -generating uses allowed within this zone are:
• Commercial Center
• Restaurantwith drivethrough
• Restaurant without drivethrough
• Drinking Establishment/Tap room
• Offices and Clinics
The building area is 2.62 acres or 114,125 square feet
• Building area is 39% of the site: 44,500 square feet
• 45% of the site is parking, drive aisles, and loading areas
• 16% is landscaped areas, walkways, and other
• 25% reduction in required parking spaces
At 44,500 sf of total building area, the site will likely be constructed as a multi -tenant retail
center. This center could contain an out parcel of a drive-through coffee shop or restaurant
within the total square footage. ITE Land Use Code 821 Shopping Plaza (40-150 Ksf) is the most
closely matched land use for this size of a retail plaza. The shopping plaza land use takes into
consideration the internal trip capture that occurs between land uses and provides a rate that
averages out the higher trip generators, such as a restaurant, and the lower trip generators,
such as insurance offices. The reasonable worst-case PM peak hour trip generation is provided
in Table 2.
SANDOW
ENGINEERING
Date: 12.6.2022
Re: Trip Generation Zone Change- 2425 Harvest Lane
Page 3
TABLE 2: PM PEAK HOUG --'P GENERATION -PROPOSED NC ZONING
Development Potential ITE Code Rate Trips
44,500 sf retail plaza 821 -Shopping Plaza (40- 5.19 trips/ksf 231
150 ksf)
Trip Cap
The proposed zoning will have a significantly higher trip generation than the existing zoning.
However, the applicant is going to request a trip cap of 100 trips during the PM peak hour.
Trip Distribution
The trip cap of 100 trips will have an increase in vehicle trips to the site of 51. The splits
entering/exiting are assumed to be the same as a shopping plaza at 48% entering/52% exiting.
• 25 entering
• 26exiting
The trip distribution follows the existing travel patterns based on the traffic count at the
intersection of Hayden Bridge at Harvest Lane.
SANDOW
ENGINEERING
Harvest Lane
L z
2
24 Driveway
r
23
-1 to residential
1 t--- 1 9 115
2 ~ 2 Hayden Bridge
11—•Ir
3
+1 from residential
5th St
The intersection of Hayden Bridge at Harvest lane and Hayden Bridge at 5'^ Street is
anticipated to have 20 or more development trips added. Hayden Bridge at Harvest Lane is
the only intersection with 25 or more trips.
Analysis Parameters
• Years
2022- Existing
2035 -TSP Horizon
• PM Peak Period 4-6 pm
• Intersections to be studied
Hayden Bridge at Harvest Lane
Harvest Lane at Site Access
12.6.2022
V)
LU
NCC Zone Change 37
J
0
U
LL
QLL
d
H
cm
X
0
Z
LU
CL
CL
Q
SANDOW ENGINEERING
swwury nuFcrea ewe wv
ix.v®x.,eaueaw
Mur F—
Ilz
Meem
rv..r BwM a,v. ao
au
au
NCC Zone Change
SANDOW ENGINEERING
V)
J
Q
Z
Q
0
U
Z
U
X
0
Z
LU
CL
CL
Q
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
3: Hayden Bridge & Harvest 12/09/2022
� � � 'r ~ '1- 4% t � `W 1 �v
Movement
0.92
0.92
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
Lane Configurations
1
4.
0
0
4.
2
0
•T
jr
0
4.
0
Traffic Volume (vph)
40
431
1
0
282
10
0
0
2
2
0
24
Future Volume (vph)
40
431
1
0
282
10
0
0
2
2
0
24
Ideal Flow(vphpl)
1750
1750
1750
1750
1750
1750
1750
1750
1750
1750
1750
1750
Total Lost time (s)
Protected Phases
4.0
4
4.0
2
4.0
6
4.0
Permitted Phases
Lane Util. Factor
1.00
8
2
1.00
2
1.00
Actuated Green, G (s)
1.00
27.8
Frt
27.8
1.00
0.7
1.00
0.7
Effective Green, g (s)
0.85
28.3
0.87
28.3
Flt Protected
1.00
0.7
1.00
Actuated g1C Ratio
0.68
1.00
0.68
1.00
Satd. Flow(prot)
1726
Clearance Time (s)
1742
4.5
4.5
1488
1525
Flt Permitted
0.96
4.0
1.00
4.0
1.00
1.00
Satd. Flow Germ)
1662
1182
1742
24
1488
1525
Peak -hour factor, PHF
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92 0.92 0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
Adj. Flow (vph)
43
468
1
0 307 11
0
0
2
2
0
26
RTOR Reduction (vph)
0
0
0
0 1 0
0
0
2
0
28
0
Lane Group Flow (vph)
0
512
0
0 317 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Heavy Vehicles (41j
0%
1%
0%
0% 0% 0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
Tum Type
Perm
NA
NA
Perm
Split
NA
Protected Phases
4
8
2
6
6
Permitted Phases
4
8
2
2
Actuated Green, G (s)
27.8
27.8
0.7
0.7
Effective Green, g (s)
28.3
28.3
0.7
0.7
Actuated g1C Ratio
0.68
0.68
0.02
0.02
Clearance Time (s)
4.5
4.5
4.0
4.0
Vehicle Extension (s)
4.0
4.0
2.5
2.5
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
1127
1182
24
25
Ws Ratio Prot
0.18
c0.00
Ws Ratio Perm
:0.31
c0.00
We Ratio
0.4�
0.27
0.00
0.02
Uniform Delay, d1
3.1
2.6
20.2
20.2
Progression Factor
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Incremental Delay, d2
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.2
Delay (s)
3.5
2.8
20.2
20.4
Level of Service
A
A
C
C
Approach Delay (s)
3.5
2.8
20.2
20.4
Approach LOS
A
A
C
C
Intersection Summary
9W
HCM 2000 Control Delay
3.8
HCM 2000 Level of Service
A
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity
ratio
0.43
Actuated Cycle Length (s)
41.7
Sum of lost time (s)
12.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization
58.9%
ICU Level of Service
B
Analysis Period (min)
15
c Critical Lane Group
6009 Northwood Christian Church 12/06/2022 2022 Background Synchro 10 Report
Page 1
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
3: Hayden Bridge & Harvest 12/09/2022
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s
4.1
18.9
5.2
18.9
Change Period (Y+Rc), s
4.0
4%
t
/M�
`w
1
24.5
Movement
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NOT
NOR
SBL
SBT
SBR
Lane Configurations
4.
4.
•T
jr
4.
Traffic Volume (veWh)
40
431
1
0
282
10
0
0
2
2
0
24
Future Volume (velYh)
40
431
1
0
282
10
0
0
2
2
0
24
Initial Q (Qb), veh
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT)
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Parking Bus, Adj
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Work Zone On Approach
No
No
No
No
Adj Sat Flow, veWn
1750
1736
1750
1750
1750
1750
1750
1750
1750
1750
1750
1750
Adj Flow Rate, velYh
43
468
1
0
307
11
0
0
2
2
0
26
Peak Hour Factor
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
Percent Heavy Veh, %
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Cap, veWh
174
858
2
0
888
32
0
6
5
4
0
58
Arrive On Green
0.51
0.53
0.53
0.00
0.53
0.53
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.04
0.00
0.04
Sat Flow, veWh
68
1622
3
0
1679
60
0
1750
1483
107
0
1388
Grp Volume(v), velYh
512
0
0
0
0
318
0
0
2
28
0
0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/Mn
1693
0
0
0
0
1739
0
1750
1483
1495
0
0
Q Serve(g_s), s
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.5
0.0
0.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s
5.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.5
0.0
0.0
Prop In Lane
0.08
0.00
0.00
0.03
0.00
1.00
0.07
0.93
Lane Grp Cap(c), veWh
1004
0
0
0
0
920
0
6
5
63
0
0
V/C Ratio(X)
0.51
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.35
0.00
0.00
0.38
0.45
0.00
0.00
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h
1595
0
0
0
0
1543
0
559
474
477
0
0
HCM Platoon Ratio
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Upstream Filter(I)
1.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.00
0.00
0.00
1.00
1.00
0.00
0.00
Uniform Delay (d), srveh
4.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.8
0.0
0.0
14.0
13.2
0.0
0.0
Incr Delay (d2), sAreh
0.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.0
0.0
30.3
3.7
0.0
0.0
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
%le BackOfQ(50-A,vehAn
0.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.0
0.0
Unsig. Movement Delay, s1veh
LnGrp Delay(d),sfveh
5.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
4.1
0.0
0.0
44.3
16.8
0.0
0.0
LnGrp LOS
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
D
B
A
A
Approach Vol, veWh
512
318
2
28
Approach Delay, stveh
5.0
4.1
44.3
16.8
Approach LOS
A
A
D
B
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s
4.1
18.9
5.2
18.9
Change Period (Y+Rc), s
4.0
4.5
4.0
4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s
9.0
24.5
9.0
24.5
Max Q Clear Time (g_cd1), s
2.0
7.6
2.5
5.0
Green Ext Time (p c), s
0.0
6.8
0.0
4.2
Intersection Summa
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 5.2
HCM 6th LOS A
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.
6009 Northwood Christian Church 12/0 6120 22 2022 Background Synchro 10 Report
Page 2
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
3: Hayden Bridge & Harvest 12/99(2922
� � � 'r ~ '1- 4% t � `► 1 �v
Movemen
0.92
0.92
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
aBT
SBR
Lane Configurations
54
595
1
0
4.
14
0
.T
jr
3
4.
33
Traffic Volume (vph)
50
547
1
0
355
13
0
0
3
3
0
30
Future Volume (vph)
50
547
1
0
355
13
0
0
3
3
0
30
Ideal Flow(vphpl)
1750
1750
1750
1750
1750
1750
1750
1750
1750
1750
1750
_
Total Lost time (s)
Perm
4.0
4.7
HCM 2000 Level of Service
4.0
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio
4.0
Split
4.0
Lane Util. Factor
1.00
Sum of lost time (s)
12.0
1.00
Intersection Capacity Utilization
2
1.00
6
1.00
_
Frt
4
1.00
8
1.00
2
0.85
0.88
Flt Protected
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Sold. Flow (Prot)
1727
1742
1488
1527
Flt Permitted
0.95
1.00
1.00
1.00
Sold. Flow (Dern
1644
1742
1488
1527
Peak -hour factor, PHF
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
Adj. Flow (vph)
54
595
1
0
386
14
0
0
3
3
0
33
RTOR Reduction (vph)
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
3
0
35
0
Lane Group Flow (vph)
0
650
0
0
399
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
Heavy Vehicles (9A
0%
1%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
Turn Type
Perm
NA
4.7
HCM 2000 Level of Service
NA
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio
Perm
Split
NA
Protected Phases
4
Sum of lost time (s)
12.0
8
Intersection Capacity Utilization
2
ICU Level of Service
6
M 6
Analysis Period (min)
Permitted Phases
4
8
2
2
Actuated Green, G (s)
31.5
31.5
0.8
La -
Effective Green, g (s)
32.0
32.0
0.8
1.8
Actuated grC Ratio
0.69
0.69
0.02
0.04
Clearance Time (s)
4.5
4.5
4.0
4.0
Vehicle Extension (s)
4.0
4.0
2.5
2.5
Ws Ratio Prot
0.23
c0.00
Ws Ratio Perm
:0.40
:0.00
We Ratio
0.58
0.33
0.00
0.02
Uniform Delay, d1
3.8
3.0
22.5
21.6
Progression Factor
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Incremental Delay, d2
0.9
0.2
0.0
0.1
Delay (s)
4.6
3.2
22.5
21.7
Level of Service
A
A
C
C
Approach Delay (s)
4.6
3.2
22.5
21.7
Approach LOS
A
A
C
C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay
4.7
HCM 2000 Level of Service
A
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio
0.53
Actuated Cycle Length (s)
46.6
Sum of lost time (s)
12.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization
70.5%
ICU Level of Service
= C
Analysis Period (min)
15
c Critical Lane Group
6009 Northwood Christian Church 12/062022 2035 Background Synchro 10 Report
Page 1
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
3: Hayden Bridge & Harvest 12/09/2022
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s
4.2
24.5
5.7
24.5
Change Period (Y+Rc), s
4.0
4.5
4.0
4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s
9.0
29.5
9.0
29.5
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
S&
=&n
ovemen
Lane Configurations
4.
4.
.T
jr
4.
Traffic Volume (veh/h)
50
547
1
0
355
13
0
0
3
3
0
30
Future Volume (veh/h)
50
547
1
0
355
13
0
0
3
3
0
30
Initial Q (Qb), veh
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Ped -Bike Adj(AybT)
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Parking Bus, Adj
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Work Zone On Approach
No
No
No
No
Adj Sat Flow, veh4Yln
1750
1736
1750
1750
1750
1750
1750
1750
1750
1750
1750
1750
Adj Flow Rate, vehyh
54
595
1
0
386
14
0
0
3
3
0
33
Peak Hour Factor
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
Percent Heavy Veh,%
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Cap, veh/h
156
958
2
0
1000
36
0
9
7
6
0
70
Arrive On Green
0.58
0.60
0.60
0.00
0.60
0.60
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.05
0.00
0.05
Sat Flow, vehYh
72
1607
3
0
1678
61
0
1750
1483
125
0
1372
Grp Volume(v), veh/h
650
0
0
0
0
400
0
0
3
36
0
0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh4Yln
1682
0
0
0
0
1739
0
1750
1483
1497
0
0
Q Serve(g_s), s
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
4.2
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.8
0.0
0.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s
8.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
4.2
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.8
0.0
0.0
Prop In Lane
0.08
0.00
0.00
0.03
0.00
1.00
0.08
0.92
Lane Gip Cap(c), vehYh
1091
0
0
0
0
1036
0
9
7
76
0
0
WC Rabo(X)
0.60
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.39
0.00
0.00
0.41
0.47
0.00
0.00
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h
1540
0
0
0
0
1515
0
457
387
391
0
0
HCM Platoon Ratio
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Upstream Filter(I)
1.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.00
0.00
0.00
1.00
1.00
0.00
0.00
Uniform Delay (d), sAfeh
4.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.7
0.0
0.0
17.1
15.9
0.0
0.0
Incr Delay (d2), sMh
0.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.0
0.0
25.1
3.4
0.0
0.0
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
°tile BackOfQ(50-A,veMn
1.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.3
0.0
0.0
Unsig. Movement Delay, srveh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh
5.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
4.0
0.0
0.0
42.2
19.3
0.0
0.0
LnGrp LOS
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
D
B
A
A
Approach Vol, vehYh
650
400
3
36
Approach Delay, stveh
5.3
4.0
42.2
19.3
Approach LOS
A
A
D
B
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s
4.2
24.5
5.7
24.5
Change Period (Y+Rc), s
4.0
4.5
4.0
4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s
9.0
29.5
9.0
29.5
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s
2.1
10.5
2.8
6.2
Green Ext Time (p c), s
0.0
9.6
0.0
6.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 5.4
HCM 6th LOS A
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.
6009 Northwood Christian Church 12/062022 2035 Background Synchro 10 Report
Page 2
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
3: Hayden Bridge & Harvest 12/69(2622
� � � 'r ~ '1- 4% t � `► 1 �v
Movemen
0.92
0.92
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
Lane Configurations
1
0 386 22
0
0
4.
16
0
.T
jr
0
4.
0
Traffic Volume (vph)
61
547
1
0
355
20
0
0
3
15
0
37
Future Volume (vph)
61
547
1
0
355
20
0
0
3
15
0
37
Ideal Flow(vphpl)
1750
1750
1750
1750
1750
1750
1750
1750
1750
1750
1750
_
Total Lost time (s)
Protected Phases
4.0
4
4.0
2
4.0
6
4.0
Permitted Phases
Lane Util. Factor
1.00
8
2
1.00
2
1.00
Actuated Green, G (s)
1.00
_
Frt
30.9
1.00
0.9
0.99
3.0
Effective Green, g (s)
0.85
31.4
0.90
31.4
Flt Protected
1.00
3.0
1.00
Actuated grC Ratio
0.66
1.00
0.66
0.99
Sold. Flow (Prot)
1725
Clearance Time (s)
1737
4.5
4.5
1488
1559
Flt Permitted
0.93
4.0
1.00
4.0
1.00
0.99
Sold. Flow (Dern
1618
1153
1737
28
1488
1559
Peak -hour factor, PHF
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92 0.92 0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
Adj. Flow (vph)
66
595
1
0 386 22
0
0
3
16
0
40
RTOR Reduction (vph)
0
0
0
0 2 0
0
0
3
0
52
0
Lane Group Flow (vph)
0
662
0
0 406 0
0
0
0
0
4
0
Heavy Vehicles (9A
0%
1%
0%
0% 0% 0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
Turn Type
Perm
NA
NA
Perm
Split
NA
Protected Phases
4
8
2
6
6
Permitted Phases
4
8
2
2
Actuated Green, G (s)
30.9
30.9
0.9
3.0
Effective Green, g (s)
31.4
31.4
0.9
3.0
Actuated grC Ratio
0.66
0.66
0.02
0.06
Clearance Time (s)
4.5
4.5
4.0
4.0
Vehicle Extension (s)
4.0
4.0
2.5
2.5
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
1074
1153
28
98
Ws Ratio Prot
0.23
c0.00
Ws Ratio Perm
:0.41
:0.00
We Ratio
0.62
0.35
0.00
0.04
Uniform Delay, d1
4.5
3.5
22.8
20.8
Progression Factor
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Incremental Delay, d2
1.2
0.3
0.0
0.1
Delay (s)
5.7
3.7
22.8
20.9
Level of Service
A
A
C
C
Approach Delay (s)
5.7
3.7
22.8
20.9
Approach LOS
A
A
C
C
Intersection Summary
-
HCM 2000 Control Delay
5.8
HCM 2000 Level of Service
A
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity
ratio
0.55
Actuated Cycle Length (s)
47.3
Sum of lost time (s)
12.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization
71.6%
ICU Level of Service
=
C
Analysis Period (min)
15
c Critical Lane Group
6009 Northwood Christian Church 12/062022 2035 Build Synchro 10 Report
Page 1
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
3: Hayden Bridge & Harvest 12/09/2022
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s
4.2
25.3
6.6
25.3
Change Period (Y+Rc), s
4.0
4.5
4.0
4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s
9.0
29.5
9.0
29.5
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
W
ovemen
Lane Configurations
4.
4.
.T
jr
4.
Traffic Volume (veh/h)
61
547
1
0
355
20
0
0
3
15
0
37
Future Volume (veh/h)
61
547
1
0
355
20
0
0
3
15
0
37
Initial Q (Qb), veh
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Ped -Bike Adj(AybT)
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Parking Bus, Adj
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Work Zone On Approach
No
No
No
No
Adj Sat Flow, veh4Yln
1750
1736
1750
1750
1750
1750
1750
1750
1750
1750
1750
1750
Adj Flow Rate, vehyh
66
595
1
0
386
22
0
0
3
16
0
40
Peak Hour Factor
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
Percent Heavy Veh,%
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Cap, veh/h
165
927
1
0
969
55
0
9
7
31
0
78
Arrive On Green
0.58
0.59
0.59
0.00
0.59
0.59
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.07
0.00
0.07
Sat Flow, vehYh
93
1569
3
0
1640
93
0
1750
1483
437
0
1094
Grp Volume(v), veh/h
662
0
0
0
0
408
0
0
3
56
0
0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh4Yln
1665
0
0
0
0
1733
0
1750
1483
1531
0
0
Q Serve(g_s), s
0.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
4.5
0.0
0.0
0.1
1.3
0.0
0.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s
9.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
4.5
0.0
0.0
0.1
1.3
0.0
0.0
Prop In Lane
0.10
0.00
0.00
0.05
0.00
1.00
0.29
0.71
Lane Gip Cap(c), vehYh
1070
0
0
0
0
1024
0
9
7
109
0
0
WC Rabo(X)
0.62
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.40
0.00
0.00
0.41
0.51
0.00
0.00
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h
1459
0
0
0
0
1442
0
437
370
382
0
0
HCM Platoon Ratio
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Upstream Filter(I)
1.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.00
0.00
0.00
1.00
1.00
0.00
0.00
Uniform Delay (d), sAfeh
4.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.9
0.0
0.0
17.9
16.1
0.0
0.0
Incr Delay (d2), sMh
0.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.4
0.0
0.0
25.1
2.7
0.0
0.0
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
°tile BackOfQ(50-A,veMn
1.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.6
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.5
0.0
0.0
Unsig. Movement Delay, srveh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh
5.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
4.3
0.0
0.0
43.0
18.9
0.0
0.0
LnGrp LOS
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
D
B
A
A
Approach Vol, vehYh
662
408
3
56
Approach Delay, stveh
5.8
4.3
43.0
18.9
Approach LOS
A
A
D
B
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s
4.2
25.3
6.6
25.3
Change Period (Y+Rc), s
4.0
4.5
4.0
4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s
9.0
29.5
9.0
29.5
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s
2.1
11.3
3.3
6.5
Green Ext Time (p c), s
0.0
9.5
0.1
6.1
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 6.0
HCM 6th LOS A
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.
6009 Northwood Christian Church 12/062022 2035 Build Synchro 10 Report
Page 2
NCC Zone Change
SANDOW ENGINEERING
V)
J
Q
z
Q
z
Z)
LU
Z)
a
0
x
0
z
LU
CLCLa
Queuing and Blocking Report
Baseline 12/0672022
Intersection: 3: Hayden Bridge & Harvest, Interval #1
EB
WB
SB
WB
SB
LTR
LTR
Directions Served
LTR
LTR
LTR
Maximum Queue (ft)
80
34
31
Average Queue (ft)
36
10
21
95th Queue (ft)
88
37
44
Link Distance (ft)
331
370
212
upstream Blk Time (9/4
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (N
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 3: Hayden Bridge & Harvest, Interval #2
Moveme�
EB
WB
SB
Directions Served
LTR
LTR
LTR
Maximum Queue (ft)
84
56
31
Average Queue (ft)
26
9
17
95th Queue (ft)
69
37
42
Link Distance (ft)
331
370
212
upstream Blk Time (9/4
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time M
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 3: Hayden Bridge & Harvest, All Intervals
Network Su
Network wide Queuing Penalty, Interval #I: 0
Network wide Queuing Penalty, Interval 42: 0
Network wide Queuing Penalty, All Intervals: 0
6009 Northwood Christian Church SimTraffc Report
Page 1
Directions Served
LTR
LTR
LTR
Maximum Queue (ft)
96
61
31
Average Queue (ft)
29
9
18
95th Queue (ft)
74
37
42 -
Link Distance (ft)
331
370
212
upstream Blk Time (9/4
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time M
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Network Su
Network wide Queuing Penalty, Interval #I: 0
Network wide Queuing Penalty, Interval 42: 0
Network wide Queuing Penalty, All Intervals: 0
6009 Northwood Christian Church SimTraffc Report
Page 1
Queuing and Blocking Report
2035 Background 12/0972022
Intersection: 3: Hayden Bridge & Harvest, Interval #1
Intersection: 3: Hayden Bridge & Harvest, Interval #2
Mover
EB
MWB
NB
SB
Directions Served
LTR
LTR
R
LTR
Maximum Queue (ft)
134
38
18
31
Average Queue (ft)
63
11
4
17
95th Queue (ft)
140
36
22
42
Link Distance (ft)
332
371
251
upstream Blk Time (9/4
-
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
50
Storage Blk Time (N
0
Queuing Penalty (veh)
0
Intersection: 3: Hayden Bridge & Harvest, Interval #2
Mover
EB
MWB
NB
SB
Directions Served
LTR
LTR
R
LTR
Maximum Queue (ft)
135
77
30
40
Average Queue (ft)
40
16
5
21
95th Queue (ft)
93
52
23
46
Link Distance (ft)
332
371
251
upstream Blk Time (9/4
-
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
50
Storage Blk Time M
0
Queuing Penalty (veh)
0
Intersection: 3: Hayden Bridge & Harvest, All Intervals
Network Su
Network wide Queuing Penalty, Interval #I: 0
Network wide Queuing Penalty, Interval 42: 0
Network wide Queuing Penalty, All Intervals: 0
6009 Northwood Christian Church SimTraffc Report
Page 1
EB
WB
NB
SB 7
Directions Served
LTR
LTR
R
LTR
Maximum Queue (ft)
149
77
30
40
Average Queue (ft)
46
15
5
20
95th Queue (ft)
108
49
23
45
Link Distance (ft)
332
371
251
upstream Blk Time (9/4
-
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
50
Storage Blk Time M
0
Queuing Penalty (veh)
0
Network Su
Network wide Queuing Penalty, Interval #I: 0
Network wide Queuing Penalty, Interval 42: 0
Network wide Queuing Penalty, All Intervals: 0
6009 Northwood Christian Church SimTraffc Report
Page 1
Queuing and Blocking Report
2035 Build 12/0972022
Intersection: 3: Hayden Bridge & Harvest, Interval #1
LTR
LTR
WB
SB
Directions Served
LTR
LTR
LTR
Maximum Queue (ft)
115
60
35
Average Queue (ft)
70
24
27
95th Queue (ft)
144
61
46
Link Distance (ft)
332
370
253
upstream Blk Time (9/4
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Blk Time M
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Blk Time (N
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 3: Hayden Bridge & Harvest, Interval #2
Directions Served
LTR
LTR
LTR
Maximum Queue (ft)
218
68
46
Average Queue (ft)
63
18
25
95th Queue (ft)
151
52
48
Link Distance (ft)
332
370
253
upstream Blk Time (9/4
332
370
253
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time M
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 3: Hayden Bridge & Harvest, All Intervals
6009 Northwood Christian Church SimTraffc Report
Page 1
Directions Served
LTR
LTR
LTR
Maximum Queue (ft)
218
71
46
Average Queue (ft)
64
20
26
95th Queue (ft)
150
55
47 —
Link Distance (ft)
332
370
253
upstream Blk Time (9/4
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (N
Queuing Penalty (veh)
6009 Northwood Christian Church SimTraffc Report
Page 1
Queuing and Blocking Report
2035 Build
Intersection: 6: Harvest, Interval #1
Directions Served
LR
Maximum Queue (ft)
31
Average Queue (ft)
17
95th Queue (ft)
42
Link Distance (ft)
293
upstream Blk Time (9/4
0
Queuing Penalty (veh)
41
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Link Distance (ft)
Storage Blk Time (N
178
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 6: Harvest, Interval #2
12/09/2022
M
WB
SB
Directions Served
LR
LT
Maximum Queue (ft)
36
6
Average Queue (ft)
15
0
95th Queue (ft)
41
5
Link Distance (ft)
293
178
upstream Blk Time (9/4
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (N
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 6: Harvest, All Intervals
Directions Served
LR
LT
Maximum Queue (ft)
36
6
Average Queue (ft)
16
0
95th Queue (ft)
41
4
Link Distance (ft)
293
178
upstream Blk Time (9/4
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (N
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Network Summary
Network wide Queuing Penalty, Interval #I: 0
Network wide Queuing Penalty, Interval 42: 0
Network wide Queuing Penalty, All Intervals: 0
6009 Northwood Christian Church SimTraffc Report
Page 2
SANDOW
ENGINEERING
160 Madison Street, Suite A
Eugene, Oregon 97W2
541.513.3376
sandowengineering.com
■