Laserfiche WebLink
Yaee-t <br /> Table 5 —Existing Interchange Traffic Volumes <br /> Facility Se2111e11t No. of 1 Two Wa} Two Way <br /> Lanes Peak Hous I-ah Hour <br /> Volume Volume <br /> i <br /> Behind j Ahead <br /> State Route 33 Junction—State 2 160 X40 <br /> Route 132 <br /> State Route 33 Junction— 2 290 n/a — <br /> Interstate 5 <br /> State Route 132 Junction—State 2 1900 1900 _ <br /> Route 33 <br /> Interstate 5 Junction—State 4 4750 4700 <br /> Route 33 <br /> SR 132 / SR 33 Interchange—This interchange is a modified Type L-11 configuration. The _ <br /> interchange functions adequately without visible queuing or other operational problems. The <br /> project traffic would not add additional traffic to any of the turning movements at this <br /> interchange, but would travel through the interchange via the existing over-crossing <br /> structure. This should not adversely affect the capacity or level of service of this interchange <br /> and is considered a non-significant impact. <br /> Interstate 5 / SR132 Interchange — This interchange functions as a partial cloverleaf and <br /> currently operates without visible queuing or other operational problems. The project would <br /> contribute approximately 153 inbound and 153 outbound peak hour truck trips to the _ <br /> interchange. Based on the existing volumes presented in Table 5, the additional project truck <br /> trip traffic would not be considered a significant impact, nor would any mitigations to the <br /> existing interchange be necessary. The two-way peak hour volumes on SR 33 are relatively _ <br /> low and will contribute very few ramp trips. The outbound trips would be making right turns <br /> onto the I-5 north on ramp and should not be a significant impact on ramp traffic. The <br /> inbound trips will contribute trips to the southbound I-5 left turn movements onto SR 33, _ <br /> however, due to the low volumes on SR 33, the movement should exhibit acceptable levels <br /> of service. <br /> Based on the results of this analysis, Haul Route 3 would not pose a significant traffic impact <br /> and mitigations to the existing roadway network would not be required. <br /> Q�pFE <br /> O <br /> Prepared by: David Peters, PE .2 1 <br /> EW 6 ;o Ob <br /> �OFCIU <br />