mmm group limited - west vancouver · 2018. 10. 12. · mmm group | november 24, 2010 | 5010001-016...

COMMUNITIES

TRANSPORTATION

BUILDINGS

INFRASTRUCTURE

MMM Group Limited

Traffic Impact Study

(Rezoning Application)

PARC Residence

West Vancouver, BC

Prepared for: Pacific Arbour Four

Residences

November 2010

5010001-016

STANDARD LIMITATIONS

This report was prepared by MMM Group (MMM) for the account of Pacific Arbour Four

Residences (the Client). The disclosure of any information contained in this report is the sole

responsibility of the Client. The material in this report reflects MMM's best judgment in light of the

information available to it at the time of preparation. Any use which a third party makes of this

report, or any reliance on or decisions to be made based on it, are the responsibility of such third

parties. MMM accepts no responsibility for damages, if any, suffered by a third party as a result

of decisions made or actions based on this report.

PARC Residence – West Vancouver, BC | Traffic Impact Study (Rezoning Application)

MMM Group | November 24, 2010 | 5010001-016 i 501000116-REP-001-Rev9.doc

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................. 1

2. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ............................................................. 1

3. METHODOLOGY ................................................................................. 4

4. FINDINGS ............................................................................................ 6

4.1 Existing Road Network ............................................................................... 6

4.2 Existing Traffic Volumes ............................................................................. 6

4.3 Site-Generated Traffic Volumes ................................................................. 8

4.4 Trip Distribution and Traffic Assignment ..................................................... 9

4.5 Future Traffic Volumes ............................................................................... 9

4.6 Operational Analysis ................................................................................ 12

4.7 Driveway Spacing..................................................................................... 13

4.8 Parking ..................................................................................................... 13

4.9 Pedestrian Connectivity ............................................................................ 15

5. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ........................... ......................... 16

ii

ii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.1 – Site Location ............................................................................................................ 2

Figure 2.2 – Proposed Site Plan .................................................................................................. 3

Figure 4.1 – Existing (2010) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ............................................................ 7

Figure 4.2 – Comparison of Existing and Future Site-Generated Traffic .................................... 9

Figure 4.3 – Site-Generated Traffic Volumes ............................................................................ 10

Figure 4.4 – Future (2015) Total Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ................................................... 11

Figure 4.5 – Existing Pedestrian Crossing on 22nd Street ......................................................... 15

LIST OF TABLES

Table 4.1 – Vehicle Trips Generated by the Proposed Development ......................................... 8

Table 4.2 – Trip Distribution ......................................................................................................... 9

Table 4.3 – Existing and Future 2015 PM Peak Hour Traffic Conditions .................................. 12

Table 4.4 – By-law Parking Requirements ................................................................................ 13

Table 4.5 – Parking Rate Comparisons ..................................................................................... 14

APPENDICES

Appendix A – Results of Operational Analysis


MMM Group | November 24, 2010 | 5010001-016 1

501000116-REP-001-Rev9.doc

1. INTRODUCTION

Pacific Arbour is proposing an independent living facility (PARC Residence) at 2203 Marine Drive

in West Vancouver. As part of its Rezoning and Development Permit application, the District

requires that a Traffic Impact Study (TIS) be submitted that evaluates the impact of the proposal

on the surrounding road network. This letter report presents our methodology, findings,

recommendations and conclusions regarding this traffic study.

Notable items considered in the study include, in no particular order:

» Trip generation and parking generation rates.

» Spacing between the proposed site driveways and the Marine Drive intersection.

» Location of the pedestrian crossing on 22nd Street connecting PARC Residence with the

West Vancouver community centre.

» Impact on traffic and parking (loss of 50 temporary West Vancouver Community Centre

parking stalls) on the surrounding road network.

2. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

PARC Residence, a 125,329 sq.ft. independent living facility is proposed at the northwest

quadrant of Marine Drive and 22nd Street in West Vancouver (see Figure 2.1 ). Currently

occupied by Wetmore Motors, a single-family dwelling unit, and a parking lot that serves the

adjacent West Vancouver Community Centre, the site is bounded by 22nd Street to the east,

Marine Drive to the south, John Richardson Park to the west and Tudor Gardens (an independent

living facility for seniors) to the north. PARC Residence will comprise of 130 apartment units and

about 8,000 sq.ft. of commercial space geared to seniors’ needs. Access to the two levels of

underground parking is proposed off 22nd Street as is the entrance to the off-street, at-grade pick-

up / drop-off area. An on-street loading bay seeks to address the need to facilitate deliveries by

Single Unit Trucks to the commercial retail units located at the southeast corner of the site.

Smaller delivery vans would be accommodated in the Class A loading space underneath the

building. PARC would require delivery vehicles to use the on-site circular driveway for delivery

trucks to turn around with a view to preventing trucks from either turning around on 22nd Street

north of Marine Drive or driving through the residential neighbourhood. Specific delivery hours

and "Loading Zone" signage would be implemented to eliminate the probability that the on-street

loading bay would not be available for Single Unit Trucks because customers of the coffee shop

that may be located in the southeast corner of the building park in the on-street loading bay, "run

in" for their cup of coffee, and then "run out" to continue their journey. Figure 2.2 illustrates the

proposed site plan.

2

2

Figure 2.1 – Site Location



501000116-REP-001-Rev9.doc

Figure 2.2 – Proposed Site Plan

22nd Street

Marine Drive

Shuttle Parking

Ramp to Underground Parking

Parking Pull Out

Resident Main Entrance

Pedestrian Connection across

22nd Street

On-Street Loading Space

Loading Dock

Source: L1.1 - Landscape Plan – Render (Vancouver: PWL Partnership, August 30, 2010)

4

4

3. METHODOLOGY

In order to address the District’s requirements, MMM Group completed the following work

program:

» Visited the site and surroundings on Wednesday, April 28, 2010 to clearly understand the

study area in terms of current access, street laning, parking, pedestrian and cyclist

facilities, transit, and traffic control measures.

» Conducted weekday morning (7:00 – 9:00 a.m.) and afternoon (4:00 – 6:00 p.m.) peak

period traffic counts on Wednesday, April 28, 2010 and a Saturday afternoon (12:00 – 2:00

p.m.) peak period count on May 8, 2010 to collect vehicle, pedestrian and cyclist volumes

at the following locations:

♦ Marine Drive / 22nd Street intersection.

♦ Wetmore Motors driveways.

♦ Existing single-family home driveway.

♦ Recreational centre parking lot driveways.

» Estimated the weekday morning and weekday/Saturday afternoon peak hour traffic

generation of the proposed development:

♦ Seniors` Independent Living Facility - Trip rates were developed from data collected

at The Mulberry Retirement Residences located at 7230 Acorn Avenue in Burnaby,

BC12. The Mulberry and the PARC Residence are similar in that both consist of

seniors’ independent living facilities with a small commercial component attached.

Furthermore, both seniors’ facilities are within walking distance to seniors and

community centres, parks, shopping, and churches. Thirdly, both facilities are also

easily accessible by transit and are or will be served by a seniors’ shuttle.

♦ Commercial Retail - Trip rates were estimated based on rates published in the

Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation, 8th Edition. The

commercial component of this development will be geared towards the resident

seniors and will most likely consist of land uses such as a hair salon, café, post

secondary college (e.g. Eldercollege), etc. The trip rate used in this study

represents a blend of published rates.

» Quantified the traffic generated by existing uses (i.e. Wetmore Motors, single-family home,

and the recreational centre parking lot).

1 Saturday Trip Rate Verification – Wetmore Independent Living Facility (Vancouver; MMM Group, May 28, 2010)

2 Mulberry Trip Generation & Parking Study (Vancouver; Bunt & Associates, June 15, 2009)



501000116-REP-001-Rev9.doc

» Quantified the amount of new site-generated vehicular traffic that will be added to the

adjacent road at build-out (= proposed development – existing uses) for the weekday AM

and PM and Saturday peak hours.

» Documented the distribution and assignment of site-generated traffic using the existing

road network for the three time periods using the analogy method given that the proposed

seniors’ residential facility is expected to have the same site traffic distribution as the

surrounding residential land uses.

» Estimated future (2015) weekday AM and PM and Saturday peak hour traffic volumes at

the study area intersections. The future background traffic volumes incorporated a 2%

annual growth rate provided by District staff.

» Analyzed intersection operation performance (i.e. delays, queues, etc.) at study area

intersections for the following scenarios:

♦ Existing (2010) weekday PM peak hour.

♦ Future (2015) weekday PM peak hour without the development.

♦ Future (2015) weekday PM peak hour with the development.

Note that the operational analysis was limited to the weekday PM peak hour because traffic

volumes at Marine/22nd were measured to be at least 5% higher during the evening

commuter peak hour than during either the morning peak or during the Saturday peak.

Therefore if weekday PM hour traffic impacts of the proposed development are within

accepted limits then traffic impacts during the lower volume weekday morning and Saturday

peaks should also be acceptable.

» Reviewed the number of parking spaces required by the District of West Vancouver. It

was assumed that the age of the residents at the PARC Residence will be 75 years or

older.

» Reviewed pedestrian connections at the following locations:

♦ Marked and signed crosswalk on 22nd Street

♦ Traffic signal at Marine Drive and 22nd Street

6

6

4. FINDINGS

4.1 Existing Road Network

The existing road network consists of the following:

» Marine Drive is a major east-west arterial that connects West Vancouver and North

Vancouver. In the study area, Marine Drive has a four-lane cross-section with sidewalks

on both sides, a posted speed limit of 50km/hr. On-street parking is only permitted on the

south side west of 22nd Street. Eastbound far side and westbound near side bus stops are

provided on Marine Drive just east of 22nd Street. Currently, two driveways to Wetmore

Motors are provided onto Marine Drive.

» 22nd Street is a north-south collector road. In the study area, 22nd Street has a two-lane

cross section, a posted speed limit of 50km/hr, and parking is permitted on both sides of

the street. Sidewalks are provided on both sides of the street in most of the study area,

excluding a section between Marine Drive and the existing community centre parking lot

access on the west side of the street. Currently, four driveways are provided onto 22nd

Street from the proposed site: one driveway to Wetmore Motors, one to the single family

residential home, and two (= one inbound + one outbound) to the community centre

parking lot. A marked and signed crosswalk provides a pedestrian connection between

the existing parking lot on the west and the community centre to the east.

The intersection of Marine Drive and 22 nd Street , located just southeast of the site, is signalized

and crosswalks are provided on all four approaches. The land uses in the four quadrants of the

intersection consist of:

» Northeast – West Vancouver Community Centre which includes an aquatic centre and a

seniors’ centre

» Southeast – Petro Canada Gas Station

» Southwest – Residential condominiums

» Northwest – Wetmore Motors

4.2 Existing Traffic Volumes

Existing weekday and Saturday peak hour traffic volumes in the study area are illustrated in

Figure 4.1 .



501000116-REP-001-Rev9.doc

Figure 4.1 – Existing (2010) Peak Hour Traffic Volu mes

8

8

4.3 Site-Generated Traffic Volumes

The trip generation rates for the proposed development and site-generated traffic volumes are

presented in Table 4.1 .

Table 4.1 – Vehicle Trips Generated by the Proposed Development

Trip Rate Inbound Outbound (vph per unit) Inbound Outbound Total

Weekday AM Peak HourApartment Units 130 DU 62% 38% 0.21 17 10 27 1Commercial 8 1000 sq.ft. 75% 25% 5.24 32 10 42 3TOTAL 49 20 69Weekday PM Peak HourApartment Units 130 DU 47% 53% 0.17 10 12 22 1Commercial 8 1000 sq.ft. 45% 55% 5.05 18 22 40 3TOTAL 28 34 62SaturdayApartment Units 130 DU 46% 54% 0.28 16 20 36 2Commercial 8 1000 sq.ft. 49% 51% 6.86 27 27 54 3TOTAL 43 47 90

Notes: 1. Mulberry Trip Generation & Parking Study (Vancouver; Bunt & Associates, June 15, 2009)

2. Saturday Trip Rate Verification – Wetmore Independent Living Facility (Vancouver; MMM Group, May 28, 2010)

vph - vehicles per hour

DU - dw elling unit

Time of DayIndependent

VariableDirectional Distribution Trip Generation (vph)

3. Blended rate developed from Land Uses 918 (Hair Salon), 540 (Junior College) and 932 (High-Turnover Sit-dow n Restaurant) published in Trip Generation, 8th Edition (Washington, DC: ITE, 2008)

Unit Source

When completed, the development is expected to generate 69 vehicle trips (= 49 entering + 20

exiting) during the weekday AM peak hour of adjacent street traffic, 62 vehicle trips (= 28 entering

+ 34 exiting) during the PM peak hour, and 90 vehicle trips (= 43 entering + 47 exiting) during the

Saturday peak hour. In addition, a shuttle service will be provided for residents to go on outings

and keep appointments. Vehicle trips attributed to this mode are incorporated in the site-generated

traffic volumes.

Note that the development would be expected to generate less traffic than presented in Table 4.1

since the commercial component would be geared to the seniors’ needs residing in the

development (i.e. more pedestrian trips would be expected as opposed to vehicle trips). The

traffic volumes generated by the commercial component are conservative (or high) given that

they are typical ITE rates as opposed to rates specifically associated with seniors’ facilities such

as PARC Residence.

Figure 4.2 compares the traffic generated by the existing land uses (i.e. parking lot, single family

dwelling unit, and Wetmore Motors) with traffic generated by the proposed form of development.

Key findings include:

» Site-generated traffic is expected to decrease by approximately 30% during the AM peak

hour and by 39% during the PM peak hour with the proposed PARC Residence – i.e. the

net resulting trips in and out of the proposed site would be a negative value for many of the

movements.

» Site-generated traffic is expected to increase by 109% with the proposed PARC Residence

during the Saturday peak hour. However, this amount of traffic would be less than that

generated by the existing land uses during either the weekday AM or PM peak hours.



501000116-REP-001-Rev9.doc

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

AM PM Saturday

Sit

e G

en

era

ted

Tra

ffic

(Ve

hic

le T

rip

s p

er

Ho

ur)

Peak Hour

Existing (2010)

Future (2015)

Figure 4.2 – Comparison of Existing and Future Site -Generated Traffic

4.4 Trip Distribution and Traffic Assignment

As illustrated in Table 4.2 , most site-generated traffic is expected to travel to/from the east and

west on Marine Drive.

Table 4.2 – Trip Distribution

Inbound Outbound Inbound Outbound Inbound Outbound22nd Street to/from the North 18% 8% 13% 11% 11% 6%22nd Street to/from the South 5% 8% 6% 7% 5% 5%Marine Drive to/from the East 32% 51% 46% 37% 46% 44%Marine Drive to/from the West 45% 33% 35% 45% 38% 45%Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

DirectionAM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Saturday Peak Hour

The assignment of site-generated traffic to the roadway network is illustrated in Figure 4.3 .

4.5 Future Traffic Volumes

Total weekday AM and PM peak and Saturday peak hour traffic volumes for the 2015 horizon

year are illustrated in Figure 4.4 . Existing traffic generated by the current land uses (i.e.

temporary parking lot, single family residence, and Wetmore Motors) was not subtracted from the

22nd / Marine intersection volumes for the future 2015 scenario resulting in conservative (or high)

traffic projections. Figure 6 indicates that the weekday PM peak hour traffic entering 22nd /

Marine is at least 5% greater than the amount of traffic entering this intersection during the

weekday AM or Saturday peak hours.

10

10

Figure 4.3 – Site-Generated Traffic Volumes



501000116-REP-001-Rev9.doc

Figure 4.4 – Future (2015) Total Peak Hour Traffic Volumes

12

12

4.6 Operational Analysis

The results of the intersection capacity and queuing analyses are summarized in Table 4.3 for

the following scenarios:

» Existing (2010) weekday PM peak hour.

» Future (2015) weekday PM peak hour without the development.

» Future (2015) weekday PM peak hour with the development.

Reported measures of traffic performance include volume to capacity (v/c) ratio and a delay-

based traffic Level of Service (LOS) indicator ranging from LOS A (ideal) to LOS F (over-

saturated) conditions. Typical peak hour urban conditions are in the LOS C to LOS D range with

average delays ranging from 20 to 55 seconds per vehicle at signalized intersections and 15 to

35 seconds per vehicle at unsignalized intersections. As a target for design parameters, LOS D

for individual approaches is considered appropriate for the study area. The results are based

upon the Highway Capacity Manual (Washington DC: Transportation Research Board, 2000)

intersection capacity reports generated by the TRAFFIX software. For analysis purposes, all site-

generated traffic was assumed to use a single point of access from 22nd Street.

Table 4.3 – Existing and Future 2015 PM Peak Hour T raffic Conditions

LOSv/c

RatioLOS

v/c Ratio

LOSv/c

RatioIntersection B 0.34 B 0.37 B 0.40

NB C 0.16 C 0.18 B 0.17SB C 0.39 C 0.43 C 0.47EB A 0.31 B 0.35 B 0.38WB B 0.38 B 0.43 B 0.45NB A 0.12 A 0.13 A 0.13SB A N/A A N/A A N/AEB A 0.06 B 0.06 A 0.04

2015 Peak with Development

Existing PM Peak MovementLocation

22nd Street / Marine Drive

22nd Street / Parking Lot Access / Site

Access

2015 Peak without Development

Notes: NB = Northbound etc.

LOS = Level of Service

v/c Ratio = Volume to Capacity Ratio


» 22nd Street / Marine Drive : This signalized intersection is currently operating at LOS C or

better. In the future, all approaches at this intersection are expected to operate at LOS C

or better with or without the development during the PM peak hour. Consequently, no

geometric or signal phasing improvements appear to be required.

» 22nd Street and Parking Lot/Site Access : The existing temporary parking lot driveway on

22nd Street operates at LOS A or better. In the future, all approaches to the future site



501000116-REP-001-Rev9.doc

driveway is expected to operate at LOS B or better with or without development during the

weekday PM peak hour.

4.7 Driveway Spacing

The edge of westbound traveled way on Marine Drive is located about 35m south of the driveway

to the proposed underground parkade. An analysis of southbound queues at the intersection of

22nd Street / Marine Drive indicates that the 95th percentile queue is expected to extend 29.5m

back from Marine Drive. Consequently, southbound vehicle queues are not expected to block the

entrance to the underground parkade and no geometric or signal phasing improvements appear

to be required to facilitate entry or exit from the parkade driveway.

4.8 Parking

Given that this development will have Comprehensive Development (CD) zoning, the District has

directed that the minimum site-specific parking requirements apply:

» “For residents, staff and guests there shall be one parking stall for every two residential

suites

» There shall be one parking stall for every 400 square feet of retail and Eldercollege space

» Twenty additional parking stalls shall be provided for public parking during normal

business…”

As summarized in Table 4.4 , the District’s requirements yield a need for at least 105 vehicle

parking spaces for the PARC Residence. A review of the proposed site plan indicates that this

requirement will be met.

Table 4.4 – By-law Parking Requirements

Component Parking Rate UnitsParking Spaces

Residential 1 space for every multiple of 2 dwelling units 130 DU 65Commercial 1 space for every 400 square feet 8,000 sq.ft. 20Public parking - 20Total 105

Parking usage / needs have been reviewed at PARC’s two existing facilities – The Mulberry in

Burnaby and The Summerhill in North Vancouver. Table 4.5 compares parking rates from the

ITE Parking Generation, 3rd Edition, the existing PARC facilities, and the proposed Wetmore

facility.

14

14

Table 4.5 – Parking Rate Comparisons

Component Units ITE *The

MulberryThe

SummerhillPARC

Residence

Residential Units Dwelling Units 91 146 108 130Stalls Provided** Parking stalls 127 52 49 65Occupied parking stalls*** Occupied parking stalls 30 47 35 --Utilization Rate Percent of parking supply 24% 90% 71% --Parking Demand Rate parking stalls per dwelling unit 0.33 0.32 0.32 --Parking Supply Rate parking stalls per dwelling unit 1.40 0.36 0.45 0.50

Notes:

* Institute of Transportation Engineers Parking Generation, 3rd Edition - Land Use 252 (Senior Adult Housing - Attached)

** - Includes all residential, visitor, and staff parking stalls

*** - Assumes that all staff and visitor stalls are occupied


» At comparable independent living facilities, the typical parking demand varies from 0.32 to

0.33 parking stalls per DU and the typical parking supply exceeds the parking demand

» At 0.50 parking stalls per DU, the proposed parking supply at PARC Residence exceeds

the typical parking demand at comparable facilities (i.e. 0.32 to 0.33 parking stalls per DU)



501000116-REP-001-Rev9.doc

4.9 Pedestrian Connectivity

Crosswalk across 22 nd Street - a signed and marked crosswalk connects the temporary 50-

space parking lot on the west side of 22nd Street with the West Vancouver Community Centre on

the east – see Figure 4.5 . A review of the Pedestrian Crossing Control Manual for British

Columbia, 2nd Edition (Victoria, BC Ministry of Transportation, April 1994) indicates that the

existing signed and marked crosswalk exceeds the required pedestrian crossing control. This

marked crosswalk would be integrated into site’s pedestrian network with a pathway connecting

to the front entrance and another path connecting to John Richardson Park.

22nd Street and Marine Drive Intersection - A review of the District’s traffic signal timing sheet

indicates that the pedestrian clearance times account for the walking speeds of senior citizens

who live or frequent the area. Pedestrian push buttons were provided at all four corners to initiate

the pedestrian phase. Consequently, no changes to signal timing are recommended at this time;

however, consideration should be given to installing audible pedestrian signals and countdown

timers at this signal. This would assist the increased number of senior pedestrians that will be

using the intersection in the future.

Figure 4.5 – Existing Pedestrian Crossing on 22 nd Street

16

16

5. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

A 124,329 sq.ft. independent living facility is proposed for the northwest corner of Marine Drive

and 22nd Street in West Vancouver and would comprise of 130 apartment units and

approximately 8,000 sq.ft. of commercial space geared to seniors’ needs. The site is currently

occupied by Wetmore Motors, a single-family dwelling unit, and a parking lot that serves the

adjacent West Vancouver Community Centre.

» When completed, the development is expected to generate 69 vehicle trips (= 49 entering

+ 20 exiting) during the weekday AM peak hour of adjacent street traffic, 62 vehicle trips (=

28 entering + 34 exiting) during the PM peak hour, and 90 vehicle trips (= 43 entering + 47

exiting) during the Saturday peak hour. In addition, a shuttle service will be provided for

residents to go on outings and keep appointments. Vehicle trips attributed to this mode are

incorporated in the site-generated traffic volumes.

» The proposed development is expected to generate less traffic than currently generated by

the existing land uses during the weekday AM and PM peak hours.

» Operations during the weekday PM peak hour represent the worst case scenario given

that weekday PM peak hour traffic volumes at the intersection of 22nd Street and Marine

Drive are 5% greater than the weekday AM and Saturday peak hour volumes.

» An operational analysis indicated that the study area intersections to operate at acceptable

levels (i.e. LOS C or better) with or without the proposed development. Consequently,

intersection improvements do not appear to be required.

» At 35m, the proposed spacing between the driveway to the underground parkade and

Marine Drive appears to be sufficient.

» The proposed parking supply (=105 spaces) exceeds demand observed at comparable

facilities and meets District requirements.

» The proposed on-site pedestrian network connects the west side of the existing pedestrian

crossing of 22nd Street with the front entrance of the building as well as John Richardson

Park.

» Audible pedestrian signals and countdown timers should be considered at the existing 22nd

Street / Marine Drive traffic signal.



501000116-REP-001-Rev9.doc

AP

PE

ND

IX A

— R

esults of Operational A

nalysis

2015 PM Peak Without Development

Control Type TWSC

Average Delay 1.64

Worst Case Delay 10.11

Worst Case LOS B

Intersection PHF 0.92

Approach

Movement T R1 L1 T L1 R1

Existing Traffic 145 20 25 130 15 30

Future Growth Adjustment Factor1.100 1.000 1.000 1.100 1.000 1.000

Future Growth Volume 160 20 25 143 15 30

In Process Volume 0 0 0 0 0 0

Site Volume 0 0 0 0 0 0

Pass-by Volume 0 0 0 0 0 0

Other Volume 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total Volume 160 20 25 143 15 30

PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92

Analysis Volume 173.91 21.74 27.17 155.43 16.30 32.61

Approach

Flow Vx (Ped/hr)

Lane Width

Walking Speed

Percent Blockage

Approach


Rank 1 1 2 1 3 2

Volume 27.17 16.30 32.61

Conflicting Volume 195.65 394.57 184.78

Potential Capacity 1383.27 614.10 862.67

Capacity 1383.27 600.82 862.67

Approach


Tc,base 4.10 7.10 6.20

Tc,hv 1.00 1.00 1.00

Phv

Tc,G 1.00 0.20 0.10

G

T3,lt 0.00 0.70 0.00

Tc 4.11 6.40 6.20

Tf,base 2.20 3.50 3.30

Tf,hv 0.90 0.90 0.90

Tf 2.21 3.50 3.30

Approach


Volume 173.91 21.74 27.17 155.43 16.30 32.61

Capacity 1383.27 600.82 862.67

V / C 0.02 0.03 0.04

Delay 7.65 10.11 10.11

LOS A B B

Approach Delay

Approach LOS

Rank 1 Delay

Approach N (Major) S (Major) W

Lane Lane 1 Lane 1 Lane 1

Movements T, R1 L1, T L1, R1

Volume 195.65 182.61 48.91

Capacity 1383.27 753.24

V / C 0.13 0.06

95% Queue Length 0.45 0.21

Delay 7.65 10.11

LOS A B

Approach Delay 0.00 1.14 10.11

Approach LOS A A B

0.00 0.17

Delay and Level of Service by Lane

0.00 1.14 10.11

A A B

0 0 0

Delay and Level of Service by Movement

N (Major) S (Major) W

Critical Gap and Follow Up Time


1 1 0

0.00 0.00 0.00

Capacity of Movements below Rank 1


12.00 12.00 12.00

0.00 0.00 0.00


0 0 0

Node 1: Site Access and 22nd

Volume and Adjustments


Pedestrians

Fri May 28 11:45:18 2010

2015 PM Peak Without Development

Control Type Signalized

Average Delay 13

Average LOS B

Intersection PHF 0.92

V/C 0.37

Loss Time 0

Approach

Movement SBL SBT SBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR EBL EBT EBR

Existing Traffic 80 40 55 25 550 65 20 40 20 45 415 25

Future Growth Adjustment Factor1.100 1.100 1.100 1.100 1.100 1.100 1.100 1.100 1.100 1.100 1.100 1.100

Future Growth Volume 88 44 61 28 605 72 22 44 22 50 457 28

In Process Volume 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Site Volume 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Pass-by Volume 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Other Volume 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total Volume 88 44 61 28 605 72 22 44 22 50 457 28

RTOR Reduction 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Hourly Volume 88 44 61 28 605 72 22 44 22 50 457 28

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

Peak 15 Volume 24 12 17 8 164 20 6 12 6 14 124 8

Analysis Volume 96 48 66 30 658 78 24 48 24 54 497 30

Approach N E S W

Lane Group C C C C

ID 60 56 67 63

Lanes LTR LT, RT LTR LT, RT

Control Type Perm Perm Perm Perm

Volume 210 766 96 582

Proportion Left Turns 0.46 0.04 0.25 0.09

Proportion Right Turns 0.32 0.10 0.25 0.05

Approach N E S W

Lane Group 60 56 67 63


Base Saturation Flow Rate 1900 1900 1900 1900

Number of Lanes 1 2 1 2

Lane Width Adjustment 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

HV Adjustment 0.990 0.980 1.000 0.971

Grade Adjustment 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

Parking Adjustment 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

Bus Blocking Adjustment 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

Area Type Adjustment 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

Lane Utilization Adjustment 1.000 0.952 1.000 0.952

Left Turn Adjustment 0.856 0.925 0.933 0.850

Right Turn Adjustment 0.957 0.985 0.966 0.992

Left Turn Ped. Adjustment 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

Right Turn Ped. Adjustment 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

Saturation Flow Rate 1541 3231 1714 2963

Approach N E S W



Volume 209.78 766.3 95.65 581.52

Saturation Flow Rate 1541 3231 1714 2963

Capacity 489 1801 544 1652

Green / Cycle 0.32 0.56 0.32 0.56

Volume / Capacity 0.43 0.43 0.18 0.35

Uniform Delay 21.57 10.27 19.73 9.74

Delay Calibration, k 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50

Incremental Delay, d2 2.73 0.74 0.70 0.59

Initial Queue Delay, d3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Platoon Ratio, Rp 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Proportion Arriving on Green, P0.32 0.56 0.32 0.56

Progression Factor, PF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Delay 24.30 11.01 20.44 10.34

LOS C B C B

Approach Delay 24.30 11.01 20.44 10.34

Approach LOS C B C B

Intersection Delay

Intersection LOS

Volume and Adjustments by Lane Group

Saturation Flow Rate

Capacity, Control Delay, and Level of Service Determination

13

B

Node 2: Marine Drive and 22ns Street

Volume and Adjustments by Movement

N E S W

Fri May 28 11:45:18 2010

Approach N E S W



Subject is Single(S) or Multi(M) S M S M

Opposed by Single(S) or Multi(M)S M S M

Cycle Length 80.00 80.00 80.00 80.00

G(s), Actual GT 25.40 44.60 25.40 44.60

g(s), Eff. perm. GT 25.40 44.60 25.40 44.60

go(s), Opposing Eff. GT 25.40 44.60 25.40 44.60

No, Number Lanes in Opposing 1 2 1 2

N, Number Left Lanes 1.00 2.00 1.00 2.00

VLT, Adj. LT Flow Rate 95.65 30.43 23.91 54.35

PLT, Proportion LT in Lane Group0.46 0.04 0.25 0.09

PLTo, Proportion LT in Opposing0.25 0.09 0.46 0.04

LT Volume per Cycle 2.13 0.68 0.53 1.21

Opposing Flow, Vo 95.65 581.52 209.78 766.30

Adjusted Opposing Flow, Volc 2.13 6.79 4.66 8.94

FLUo, Opposing Lane Utilization1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95

Rpo, Opposing Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

gf 6.38 22.91 14.25 16.25

qro, Opposing Queue Ratio 0.68 0.44 0.68 0.44

gq 5.85 7.23 10.65 10.19

gu 19.02 21.69 11.15 28.35

PL 0.46 0.09 0.25 0.23

de facto caused by PL >= 1.0

EL1 1.52 2.56 1.72 3.10

EL2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

gdiff 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

fm 0.86 0.94 0.93 0.79

flt 0.86 0.93 0.93 0.85

Left Turn Adjustment Factors for Permitted Phasing

Fri May 28 11:45:18 2010

2015 PM Peak With Development

Control Type TWSCAverage Delay 1.38Worst Case Delay 9.48Worst Case LOS AIntersection PHF 0.92

ApproachMovement T R1 L1 T L1 R1Existing Traffic 145 0 0 130 0 0Future Growth Adjustment Factor1.100 1.000 1.000 1.100 1.000 1.000Future Growth Volume 160 0 0 143 0 0In Process Volume 0 0 0 0 0 0Site Volume 0 3 25 0 3 30Pass-by Volume 0 0 0 0 0 0Other Volume 0 0 0 0 0 0Total Volume 160 3 25 143 3 30PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92Analysis Volume 174 3 27 155 3 33

ApproachFlow Vx (Ped/hr)Lane WidthWalking SpeedPercent Blockage

ApproachMovement T R1 L1 T L1 R1Rank 1 1 2 1 3 2Volume 27 3 33Conflicting Volume 177 385 176Potential Capacity 1405 622 873Capacity 1405 608 873

ApproachMovement T R1 L1 T L1 R1Tc,base 4.10 7.10 6.20Tc,hv 1.00 1.00 1.00PhvTc,G 1.00 0.20 0.10GT3,lt 0.00 0.70 0.00Tc 4.11 6.40 6.20

Tf,base 2.20 3.50 3.30Tf,hv 0.90 0.90 0.90Tf 2.21 3.50 3.30

ApproachMovement T R1 L1 T L1 R1Volume 174 3 27 155 3 33Capacity 1405 608 873V / C 0.02 0.01 0.04Delay 7.61 9.48 9.48LOS A A AApproach DelayApproach LOSRank 1 Delay

Approach N (Major) S (Major) WLane Lane 1 Lane 1 Lane 1Movements T, R1 L1, T L1, R1Volume 177 183 36Capacity 1405 840V / C 0.13 0.0495% Queue Length 0.45 0.13Delay 7.61 9.48LOS A AApproach Delay 0.00 1.13 9.48Approach LOS A A A

0.00 0.16

Delay and Level of Service by Lane

0.00 1.13 9.48A A A

0 0 0

Delay and Level of Service by MovementN (Major) S (Major) W

Critical Gap and Follow Up TimeN (Major) S (Major) W

1 1 0

0.00 0.00 0.00

Capacity of Movements below Rank 1N (Major) S (Major) W

12.00 12.00 12.000.00 0.00 0.00

N (Major) S (Major) W0 0 0

Node 1: Site Access and 22nd

Volume and AdjustmentsN (Major) S (Major) W

Pedestrians

Wed Nov 03 16:05:56 2010

2015 PM Peak With Development

Control Type SignalizedAverage Delay 14.05Average LOS BIntersection PHF 0.92V/C 0.4Loss Time 0

ApproachMovement SBL SBT SBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR EBL EBT EBRExisting Traffic 80 40 55 25 550 65 20 40 20 45 415 25Future Growth Adjustment Factor1.100 1.100 1.100 1.100 1.100 1.100 1.100 1.100 1.100 1.100 1.100 1.100Future Growth Volume 88 44 61 28 605 72 22 44 22 50 457 28In Process Volume 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Site Volume 12 3 15 0 0 13 0 2 0 10 0 0Pass-by Volume 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Other Volume 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Total Volume 100 47 76 28 605 85 22 46 22 60 457 28RTOR Reduction 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Hourly Volume 100 47 76 28 605 85 22 46 22 60 457 28PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92Peak 15 Volume 27 13 21 8 164 23 6 13 6 16 124 8Analysis Volume 109 51 83 30 658 92 24 50 24 65 497 30

Approach N E S WLane Group C C C CID 18 14 25 21Lanes LTR LT, RT LTR LT, RTControl Type Perm Perm Perm PermVolume 242 780 98 592Proportion Left Turns 0.45 0.04 0.24 0.11Proportion Right Turns 0.34 0.12 0.24 0.05

Approach N E S WLane Group 18 14 25 21Control Type Perm Perm Perm PermBase Saturation Flow Rate 1900 1900 1900 1900Number of Lanes 1 2 1 2Lane Width Adjustment 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000HV Adjustment 0.990 0.980 1.000 0.971Grade Adjustment 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000Parking Adjustment 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000Bus Blocking Adjustment 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000Area Type Adjustment 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000Lane Utilization Adjustment 1.000 0.952 1.000 0.952Left Turn Adjustment 0.852 0.925 0.930 0.826Right Turn Adjustment 0.954 0.982 0.967 0.992Left Turn Ped. Adjustment 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000Right Turn Ped. Adjustment 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000Saturation Flow Rate 1529 3223 1709 2878

Approach N E S WLane Group 18 14 25 21Control Type Perm Perm Perm PermVolume 242 780 98 592Saturation Flow Rate 1529 3223 1709 2878Capacity 520 1724 581 1540Green / Cycle 0.34 0.53 0.34 0.53Volume / Capacity 0.47 0.45 0.17 0.38Uniform Delay 20.71 11.41 18.48 10.89Delay Calibration, k 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50Incremental Delay, d2 2.99 0.86 0.63 0.73Initial Queue Delay, d3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Platoon Ratio, Rp 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Proportion Arriving on Green, P0.34 0.53 0.34 0.53Progression Factor, PF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Delay 23.70 12.27 19.11 11.62LOS C B B BApproach Delay 23.70 12.27 19.11 11.62Approach LOS C B B BIntersection DelayIntersection LOS

Volume and Adjustments by Lane Group

Saturation Flow Rate

Capacity, Control Delay, and Level of Service Determination

14.05B

Node 2: Marine Drive and 22ns Street

Volume and Adjustments by MovementN E S W

Wed Nov 03 16:05:56 2010

Approach N E S WLane Group 18 14 25 21Control Type Perm Perm Perm PermSubject is Single(S) or Multi(M) S M S MOpposed by Single(S) or Multi(M)S M S MCycle Length 80.00 80.00 80.00 80.00G(s), Actual GT 27.20 42.80 27.20 42.80g(s), Eff. perm. GT 27.20 42.80 27.20 42.80go(s), Opposing Eff. GT 27.20 42.80 27.20 42.80No, Number Lanes in Opposing 1 2 1 2N, Number Left Lanes 1.00 2.00 1.00 2.00VLT, Adj. LT Flow Rate 108.70 30.43 23.91 65.22PLT, Proportion LT in Lane Group0.45 0.04 0.24 0.11PLTo, Proportion LT in Opposing0.24 0.11 0.45 0.04LT Volume per Cycle 2.42 0.68 0.53 1.45Opposing Flow, Vo 97.83 592.39 242.39 780.43Adjusted Opposing Flow, Volc 2.17 6.91 5.39 9.11FLUo, Opposing Lane Utilization1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95Rpo, Opposing Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00gf 6.08 21.98 15.26 13.54qro, Opposing Queue Ratio 0.66 0.47 0.66 0.47gq 5.75 7.77 11.48 10.97gu 21.12 20.82 11.94 29.26PL 0.45 0.09 0.24 0.28de facto caused by PL >= 1.0EL1 1.53 2.59 1.77 3.14EL2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00gdiff 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00fm 0.85 0.94 0.93 0.74flt 0.85 0.93 0.93 0.83

Left Turn Adjustment Factors for Permitted Phasing

Wed Nov 03 16:05:56 2010

mmm group limited - west vancouver · 2018. 10. 12. · mmm group | november 24, 2010 | 5010001-016...

Documents