#76place - Part 1 - Traffic Impact Study and Appendix A Through D

Part 1
Traffic Impact Study and

Appendix A through D
Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................1
Project Description ....................................................................................................................1
Study Area.................................................................................................................................2
Scope of Study ..........................................................................................................................4
DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING CONDITIONS...............................................................................6
Roads ........................................................................................................................................6
Intersections............................................................................................................................10
Existing Traffic and Pedestrian Volumes .................................................................................18
Existing Transit Facilities .........................................................................................................18
Existing Parking Facilities ........................................................................................................19
..............................................................................................................19
No-Build Traffic and Pedestrian Volumes ................................................................................20
Proposed Site Access .............................................................................................................20
Trip Generation........................................................................................................................21
Trip Distribution and Assignments ..........................................................................................26
Build Traffic and Pedestrian Volumes......................................................................................27
ANALYSIS OF TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ....................................................................................28
Traffic Level of Service Criteria ...............................................................................................28
Analysis Assumptions .............................................................................................................29
Traffic Capacity Analysis..........................................................................................................30
Queue Analysis .......................................................................................................................32
ANALYSIS OF PEDESTRIAN OPERATIONS ............................................................................33
Pedestrian Level of Service Criteria ........................................................................................33
Analysis Assumptions .............................................................................................................34
Pedestrian Capacity Analysis...................................................................................................35
ANALYSIS OF TRANSIT OPERATIONS ...................................................................................39
SEPTA Regional Rail................................................................................................................40
SEPTA Broad Street Line ........................................................................................................40
SEPTA Broad-Ridge Spur Line.................................................................................................41
SEPTA Market-Frankford Line .................................................................................................41
SEPTA Trolley Lines – Routes 10, 11, 13, 34 & 36 .................................................................41
SEPTA Bus Lines.....................................................................................................................42
ANALYSIS OF PARKING OPERATIONS...................................................................................43
CONCLUSIONS..........................................................................................................................44
List of Tables
Table 1: Existing Roadway Classification Summary
Table 2: Arena Mode Split and Average Vehicle Occupancy Comparison
Table 3: Arena-Generated Person and Vehicle Trip Summary
Table 4: Residential-Generated Trip Mode Split
Table 5: Residential-Generated Trip Calculation Summary
Table 6: Residential-Generated Person and Vehicle Trip Summary
Table 7: Total Site-Generated Person and Vehicular Trip Summary
Table 8: Level of Service Criteria for Signalized Intersections
Table 10: Level of Service Criteria for Sidewalk/Walkway LOS
Table 11: Level of Service Criteria for Corner and Crosswalk LOS
List of Figures
Figure 1: Site Location
Appendices
Appendix A - Site Plan
Appendix B - Study Area Locations
Appendix C - Intersection Aerials and Google Street View Photographs
Appendix D - Existing Traffic Signal Permit Plans
Appendix E - Traffic and Pedestrian Volume Maps
Appendix F - Manual Traffic and Pedestrian Count Data
Appendix G - Parking Survey
Appendix H -
Appendix I - Growth Rate Table
Appendix J - Trip and Parking Generation
Appendix K - Traffic Capacity Analysis
Appendix L - Pedestrian Capacity Analysis
Appendix M - Transportation Event Management Plan
INTRODUCTION
Langan Engineering and Environmental Services, Inc. (Langan) has prepared this study to assess
the transportation impacts associated with the proposed development of 76 Place located in
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Project Description
The project site is bordered by Cuthbert Street to the north, 10th Street to the east, Market Street
to the south and 11th Street to the west, as shown on Figure 1. The project site is currently
occupied by a portion of the Fashion District Philadelphia shopping mall and the Center City
Greyhound Bus Station. The shopping mall portion of the project site is bordered by Filbert Street
to the north, 10th Street to the east, Market Street to the south and 11th Street to the west and
the Greyhound Bus Station portion is bordered by Cuthbert Street to the north, 10th Street to the
east, Filbert Street to the south and a parking facility to the west.
Figure 1: Site Location
Existing access to the shopping mall is available through multiple retail store entrances along the
Market Street, 11th Street and Filbert Street frontages and a mall main entrance on 10th Street.
Additionally, access to the mall is available via pedestrian bridges from other portions of the mall
to the east and a parking garage to the north, as well as from SEPTA’s Jefferson Station beneath
the mall. Truck access to the mall is provided by an underground ramp leading from the south
side of Arch Street between 8th Street and 9th Street. Vehicular access to the Greyhound Bus
1
Station is available via driveways along Cuthbert Street, 10th Street and Filbert Street and
pedestrian access is from Filbert Street.
As part of the proposed project, the portion of the shopping mall within the project site will be
demolished, the Greyhound Bus Station will be demolished, and new development consisting of
an 18,500 seat arena will be constructed (see site plan in Appendix A). Due to existing zoning on
the site allowing for residential uses, the potential exists for a future overbuild, on top of the
arena. To be conservative, the demand of a future development of up to 395 residential dwelling
units is accounted for in the TIS. The proposed arena will serve as the home of the Philadelphia
76ers NBA basketball team as well as host concerts, other sports games, and other events.
Filbert Street between 10th and 11th streets will be permanently closed to vehicular traffic to
accommodate development of the project. Pedestrian access will be maintained through the
proposed building corridors. The proposed project will also include renovations to Jefferson
Station to provide direct access to the arena from public transportation facilities. Additionally,
new and upgraded pedestrian bridges are proposed to connect the arena to adjacent parking
garages and to the remaining portion of the mall. Proposed site access to the project site is
further described below in the Estimate of Future Conditions – Proposed Site Access section.
Study Area
To assess the impact of the proposed project on the surrounding roadway network, we
conducted capacity analyses at the following intersections (see study area map Appendix B –
Figure B-1):
1. Callowhill Street and 8th Street;

2. 8th Street and Vine Street;
3. N Franklin Street and Vine Street;
4. 8th Street and E Vine Street Expressway;
5. 8th Street and W Vine Street Expressway;
6. Vine Street and 15th Street;
7. Vine Street and Broad Street;
8. Race Street and Broad Street;
9. Race Street and 8th Street;
12. Arch Street and Broad Street;
13. Arch Street and 13th Street;
2
19. Cuthbert Street and 11th Street;
22. Filbert Street and 13th Street;
28. Market Street and 12th Street;
34. Vine Street and 12th Street; and,
35. Vine Street and 10th Street.
Furthermore, to access the impact of the proposed project on the surrounding pedestrian
network, we conducted capacity analyses of pedestrian elements (sidewalks, crosswalks and
corner reservoirs) at the following locations (see study area map Figure B-2 in Appendix B):

6. Market Street and 10th Street; and,
7. Market Street and Juniper Street.
An inventory of the study area conditions is presented in the section Description of Existing
Conditions.
3
Based on discussions with Philadelphia Streets Department and other stakeholders, the following
additional intersections will undergo pedestrian capacity analysis and will be included in
subsequent revisions of the TIS (see study area map Figure B-2 in Appendix B):

11. Filbert Street and 12th Street; and,
12. Filbert Street and 9th Street.
Scope of Study
Langan undertook the following steps to prepare this study in accordance with standard accepted
methodologies:
1. Conducted a field examination of the site and surrounding road network to inventory
physical and regulatory conditions including the number of lanes, lane assignments,
channelization, traffic-control devices, lateral clearances and other factors that limit traffic
capacity. Intersection aerials and Google Street View photographs are provided in
Appendix C.
2. Reviewed the site plan with respect to the proposed site access.
3. Conducted a series of manual turning movement traffic counts at the intersections
identified in the previous section and a series of pedestrian counts at the pedestrian
elements identified in the previous section. We conducted the counts on a typical Friday
and Saturday from 4:00 PM to 11:00 PM to correspond with the typical pre- and post-
event times of the Philadelphia 76ers. We then identified the following five (5) existing
peak hour time periods for analysis based on the traffic and pedestrian volumes collected:
Friday PM commuter, Friday pre-event, Friday post-event, Saturday pre-event and
Saturday post-event.
4. Conducted an off-street parking survey to determine the available supply of parking
spaces in the study area during typical game days and times.
5. Established future 2031 No-Build traffic and pedestrian volumes utilizing a growth rate of
0.12% per year, which is currently recommended by PennDOT’s Bureau of Planning and
Research. The resulting No-Build traffic and pedestrian volumes were further increased
by an additional 5% to account for other large projects that may arise in the area by 2031.
6. Prepared trip generation estimates for the proposed project using information provided in
transportation studies for comparable arena developments, as well as using data
compiled by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) as contained in their
publication Trip Generation, 11th Edition.
4
7. Arena trip distributions were based on historical ticket data of the Philadelphia 76ers fans
attending games at the existing Wells Fargo Center. Residential trip distributions were
based on U.S. Census Bureau Journey-To-Work Origin/Destination (O/D) patterns.
8. Assigned the new site-generated auto trips to the surrounding road network based on
likely travel routes motorists will use to and from available parking spaces surveyed at
nearby off-street parking facilities.
9. Established future 2031 Build traffic volumes by adding the new site-generated trips to
the 2031 No-Build traffic volumes.
10. Performed intersection capacity analyses for the Friday PM commuter, Friday pre-event,
Friday post-event, Saturday pre-event and Saturday post-event peak hours using Synchro
Version 11 software.
11. Performed pedestrian element capacity analyses for the Friday PM commuter, Friday pre-
event, Friday post-event, Saturday pre-event and Saturday post-event peak hours using
methodologies detailed in Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 2010.
12. Developed proposed improvement measures to mitigate potential significant traffic and
pedestrian impacts to the study area.
13. Prepared this summary report describing our findings.
5
DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING CONDITIONS
This section describes the roads, traffic volumes and pedestrian volumes near the site. As
previously discussed, the project site is bordered on the east by 10th Street, the west by 11th
Street, the north by Cuthbert Street and the south by Market Street. The following is a description
of the roads and intersections within the study area located in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Roads
Callowhill Street
Callowhill Street has a functional classification of principal arterial and smart transportation
roadway typology of urban core-regional arterial. Callowhill Street is a city street that runs in a
general east-west direction and provides two travel lanes within the study area. This street is
limited to one-way flow in the westbound direction with sidewalks available on both sides of the
street. Parking is permitted on the north side of the street. There is no posted speed limit along
the street. The assumed speed limit is 35 mph.
Vine Street (SR 2676)
Vine Street has a functional classification of minor arterial and is under PennDOT jurisdiction. Vine
Street has a smart transportation roadway typology of urban core-community arterial. The road
runs in a general east-west direction and provides three travel lanes within the study area. This
street is limited to one-way flow in the eastbound direction. Sidewalk is available on the south
side of the street. The posted speed limit is 25 mph.
Race Street
Race Street has a functional classification of minor arterial and smart transportation roadway
typology of urban core-community arterial. Race Street is a city street that runs in a general east-
west direction and provides two travel lanes within the study area. This street is limited to one-
way flow in the eastbound direction with sidewalks available on both sides of the street. Parking
is permitted on the south side of the street. There is no posted speed limit along the street. The
assumed speed limit for this study is 25 mph.
Arch Street (SR 3007)
Arch Street (SR 3007) has a functional classification of minor arterial and is under PennDOT
jurisdiction. Arch Street (SR 3007) has a smart transportation roadway typology of urban core-
community arterial. The road runs in a general east-west direction and provides two travel lanes
within the study area. This street is limited to one-way flow in the westbound direction. Sidewalk
and parking are available on both sides of the street. The posted speed limit is 25 mph.
6
Cuthbert Street
Cuthbert Street is a local city street that runs in a general east-west direction. Within the study
area, Cuthbert Street provides access to the bus stations and parking garages along this street.
There is no posted speed limit along the street. The assumed speed limit is 25 mph.
Filbert Street
Filbert Street is a city road that runs in a general east-west direction and provides one lane for
each travel direction within the study area. To the east of 11th Street, Filbert Street is limited to
one-way flow in the eastbound direction with sidewalks available on both sides of the street. To
the east of 9th Street, Filbert Street is limited to one-way flow in the westbound direction. To the
east of 8th Street, Filbert Street is limited to one-way flow in the eastbound direction. Parking is
permitted on this street. On some segments, parking is restricted to one side of the street. There
is no posted speed limit along the street. The assumed speed limit is 25 mph.
Market Street (SR 2004)
Market Street (SR 2004) has a functional classification of principal arterial and is under PennDOT
jurisdiction. Market Street (SR 2004) has a smart transportation roadway typology of urban core-
regional arterial. The street runs in a general east-west direction and provides two travel lanes for
the eastbound direction and one lane for the westbound direction with turn lanes provided at
some intersections. Sidewalks are available on both sides of the street. Parking is permitted on
some segments of the road. The posted speed limit is 25 mph.
15th Street (SR 3029)
15th Street (SR 3029) has a functional classification of minor arterial and is under PennDOT
jurisdiction. 15th Street (SR 3029) has a smart transportation roadway typology of urban core-
community arterial. The street runs in a general north-south direction and provides three travel
lanes within the study area. This street is limited to one-way flow in the southbound direction
with sidewalks available on both sides of the street. Parking is permitted on the west side of the
street. There is no posted speed limit along the street. The assumed speed limit is 25 mph.
Broad Street (SR 611)
Broad Street (SR 611) has a functional classification of principal arterial and is under PennDOT
jurisdiction. Broad Street (SR 611) has a smart transportation roadway typology of urban core-
regional arterial. The street runs in a general north-south direction and provides three travel lanes
for each travel direction within the study area. Sidewalks are available on both sides of the street.
Parking is permitted on some segments of the street. There is no posted speed limit along the
street. The assumed speed limit is 25 mph.
7
13th Street
13th Street has a functional classification of collector road and smart transportation roadway
typology of urban core-community collector. 13th Street is a city street that runs in a general
north-south direction and provides two travel lanes. This street is limited to one-way flow in the
northbound direction with sidewalks available on both sides of the street. Parking is permitted
on the east side of the street. There is no posted speed limit along the street. The assumed
speed limit for this study is 25 mph.
12th Street
12th Street has a functional classification of minor arterial and smart transportation roadway
typology of urban core-community arterial. 12th Street is a city street that runs in a general north-
south direction and provides two travel lanes within the study area. This street is limited to one-
way flow in the southbound direction with sidewalks available on both sides of the street. Parking
is permitted on the west side of the street. There is no posted speed limit along the street. The
11th Street
11th Street has a functional classification of minor arterial and smart transportation roadway
typology of urban core-community arterial. 11th Street is a city street that runs in a general north-
way flow in the northbound direction with sidewalks available on both sides of the street. Parking
is permitted on the east side of the street. There is no posted speed limit along the street. The
10th Street
typology of urban core-community collector. 10th Street is a city street that runs in a general
north-south direction and provides two travel lanes. This street is limited to one-way flow in the
southbound direction with sidewalks available on both sides of the street. Parking is permitted
on the west side of the street. There is no posted speed limit along the street. The assumed
speed limit for this study is 25 mph.
9th Street
typology of urban core-community collector. 9th Street is a city street that runs in a general north-
south direction and provides two travel lanes. This street is limited to one-way flow in the
northbound direction with sidewalks available on both sides of the street. On some segments
8
along the street, parking is permitted on the east side of the street. There is no posted speed
limit along the street. The assumed speed limit for this study is 25 mph.
8th Street
way flow in the southbound direction with sidewalks available on both sides of the street. On
some segments along the street, parking is permitted on the west side of the street. There is no
posted speed limit along the street. The assumed speed limit for this study is 25 mph.
7th Street
way flow in the northbound direction with sidewalks available on both sides of the street. Parking
is permitted on the west side of the street to the south of Race Street. There is no posted speed
limit along the street. The assumed speed limit for this study is 25 mph.
6th Street (SR 2005)
6th Street (SR 2005) has a functional classification of principal arterial and is under PennDOT
jurisdiction. 6th Street (SR 2005) has a smart transportation roadway typology of urban core-
regional arterial. The street runs in a general north-south direction and provides three lanes within
the study area. The street is limited to one-way flow in the southbound direction. Sidewalks are
available on both sides of the street. Parking is permitted to the north of Race Street. There is no
posted speed limit along the street. The assumed speed limit is 25 mph.
Franklin Street
Franklin Street is a city road that runs in a general north-south direction. The road provides two
travel lanes within the study area. This street is limited to one-way flow in the northbound
direction. Sidewalks are available on both sides of the road. Parking is permitted on the west side
of the street to the south of Vine Street eastbound. There is no posted speed limit along the
street. The assumed speed limit is 25 mph.
The study area roadway characteristics are summarized in Table 1.
9
Table 1: Existing Roadway Classification Summary
Road Name Designation Functional Classification # of Lanes Lane Widths Speed Limit ADT
Callowhill Street City Principal Arterial 2 12' Assumed: 35mph 29911
Vine Street (SR 2676) State Road Minor Arterial 3 10' 25mph 6,963-7,572
Race Street City Minor Arterial 2 10' Assumed: 25mph 7004
Arch Street (SR 3007) State Road Minor Arterial 2 10' 25mph 9756
Cuthbert Street City Local 1 12' Assumed: 25mph 300
Filbert Street City Local 1 10' Assumed: 25mph 300
Market Street (SR 2004) State Road Principal Arterial 3 10' 25mph 6553
15th Street (SR 3029) State Road Minor Arterial 3 11' Assumed: 25mph 21273
Broad Street (SR 611) State Road Principal Arterial 6 10' Assumed: 25mph 8449
13th Street City Collector 2 9' Assumed: 25mph 5705
12th Street City Minor Arterial 2 10' Assumed: 25mph 9213
6th Street (SR 2005) State Road Principal Arterial 3 10' Assumed: 25mph 8771
Franklin Street City Local 2 12' Assumed: 25mph 300
Callowhill Street City Principal Arterial 2 12' Assumed: 35mph 29911
Vine Street (SR 2676) State Road Minor Arterial 3 10' 25mph 6,963-7,572
Race Street City Minor Arterial 2 10' Assumed: 25mph 7004
Arch Street (SR 3007) State Road Minor Arterial 2 10' 25mph 9756
Cuthbert Street City Local 1 12' Assumed: 25mph 300
Filbert Street City Local 1 10' Assumed: 25mph 300
Market Street (SR 2004) State Road Principal Arterial 3 10' 25mph 6553
15th Street (SR 3029) State Road Minor Arterial 3 11' Assumed: 25mph 21273
Broad Street (SR 611) State Road Principal Arterial 6 10' Assumed: 25mph 8449
Franklin Street City Local 2 12' Assumed: 25mph 300
Intersections
Callowhill Street and 8th Street (Intersection #1)
The intersection of Callowhill Street and 8th Street is a four-legged signalized intersection with a
cycle length of 90 seconds. The westbound approach along Callowhill Street consists of one
exclusive left-turn lane and two exclusive through lanes. The southbound approach along 8th
Street consists of one exclusive through lane and one shared through and right turn lane. A copy
of the traffic signal permit plan for this intersection has been included in Appendix D.
Vine Street (SR 2676) and 8th Street (Intersection #2)
The intersection of Vine Street (SR 2676) and 8th Street is a five-legged signalized intersection
with a cycle length of 90 seconds. The westbound approach along Vine Street consists of two
exclusive left-turn lanes to 8th Street, two exclusive through lanes to the ramp to Vine Street
Expressway, and two exclusive through lanes to Vine Street. The southbound approach along 8th
10
Street consists of two exclusive through lanes and one shared through and right turn lane. A copy
I-676/ Vine Street and Franklin Street (Intersection #3)
The intersection of I-676 and Vine Street and Franklin Street is a four-legged signalized
intersection with a cycle length of 90 seconds. The westbound approach along I-676 consists of
five exclusive through lanes and one exclusive right turn lane. The northbound approach along
Franklin Street consists of two exclusive left-turn lanes, and three exclusive through lanes. A
copy of the traffic signal permit plan for this intersection has been included in Appendix D.
Vine Street Off-Ramp/Vine Street and 8th Street (Intersection #4 and 5)
The intersection of Vine Street Off-Ramp/Vine Street and 8th Street is a five-legged signalized
intersection with a cycle length of 90 seconds. The eastbound approach along Vine Street
consists of two exclusive through lanes, and two exclusive right-turn lanes. The northeast-bound
approach along Vine Street off-Ramp consists of one shared through and right-turn lane, and one
exclusive right-turn lane. A copy of the traffic signal permit plan for this intersection has been
included in Appendix D.
Vine Street (SR 2676)/ Vine Street off Ramp and 15th Street (SR 3029) (Intersection #6)
The intersection of Vine Street (SR 2676) and 15th Street (SR 3029) is a five- legged signalized
intersection with a cycle length of 90 seconds. The eastbound approach along Vine Street (SR
2676) consists of two exclusive through lanes. The eastbound approach along Vine Street Off
Ramp consists of two exclusive through lanes, and two exclusive right-turn lanes. The
southbound approach along 15th Street (SR 3029) consists of one exclusive left-turn lane, and
three exclusive through lanes. A copy of the traffic signal permit plan for this intersection has
been included in Appendix D.
Broad Street (SR 611) and Vine Street (SR 2676) (Intersection #7)
The intersection of Broad Street (SR 611) and Vine Street (SR 2676) is a four-legged signalized
intersection with a cycle length of 90 seconds. The eastbound approach along Vine Street (SR
2676) consists of one shared left-turn and through lane, two exclusive through lanes, and one
shared through and right-turn lane. The northbound approach along Broad Street (SR 611)
consists of two exclusive through lanes, and one shared through and right-turn lane. The
southbound approach along Broad Street (SR 611) consists of one exclusive left-turn lane, and
two exclusive through lanes. A copy of the traffic signal permit plan for this intersection has been
11
Broad Street (SR 611) and Race Street (Intersection #8)
The intersection of Broad Street (SR 611) and Race Street is a four-legged signalized intersection
with a cycle length of 60 seconds. The eastbound approach along Race Street consists of one
exclusive left-turn lane, one shared through and right-turn lane. The northbound approach along
Broad Street (SR 611) consists of two exclusive through lanes, and one shared through and right-
turn lane. The southbound approach along Broad Street (SR 611) consists of one exclusive left-
turn lane, and three exclusive through lanes. A copy of the traffic signal permit plan for this
intersection has been included in Appendix D.
Race Street and 8th Street (Intersection # 9)
The intersection of Race Street and 8th Street is a four-legged signalized intersection with a cycle
length of 60 seconds. The eastbound approach along Race Street consists of two exclusive
through lanes, and one exclusive right-turn lane. The southbound approach along 8th Street
consists of one exclusive left-turn lane, and two exclusive through lanes. A copy of the traffic
signal permit plan for this intersection has been included in Appendix D.
Race Street and 7th Street (Intersection #10)
length of 60 seconds. The eastbound approach along Race Street consists of one shared left-turn
and through lane, and two exclusive through lanes. The northbound approach along 7th Street
consists of two exclusive through lanes, and one exclusive right-turn lane. A copy of the traffic
signal permit plan for this intersection has been included in Appendix D.
Race Street and 6th Street (SR 2005) (Intersection #11)
length of 60 seconds. The eastbound approach along Race Street consists of two exclusive left-
turn lanes, two exclusive through lanes, and one exclusive right-turn lane. The southbound
approach along 6th Street (SR 2005) consists of one shared left-turn and through lane, and two
exclusive through lanes. A copy of the traffic signal permit plan for this intersection has been
Broad Street (SR 611) and Arch Street (SR 3007) (Intersection #12)
The intersection of Broad Street (SR 611) and Arch Street (SR 3007) is a four-legged signalized
intersection with a cycle length of 60 seconds. The westbound approach along Arch Street (SR
3007) consists of one shared left-turn and through lane, one exclusive through lane, and one
exclusive right-turn lane. The northbound approach along Broad Street (SR 611) consists of three
exclusive through lanes. The southbound approach along Broad Street (SR 611) consists of two
12
exclusive through lanes, and one shared through and right-turn lane. A copy of the traffic signal
permit plan for this intersection has been included in Appendix D.
Arch Street (SR 3007) and 13th Street (Intersection #13)
The intersection of Arch Street and 13th Street is a four-legged signalized intersection with a cycle
length of 60 seconds. The westbound approach along Arch Street (SR 3007) consists of one
exclusive through lane, and one shared through and right-turn lane. The northbound approach
along 13th Street consists of one exclusive left-turn lane, and one exclusive through lane. A copy
shared left-turn and through lane, and one exclusive through lane. The southbound approach
along 12th Street consists of one exclusive through lane, and one shared through and right-turn
lane. A copy of the traffic signal permit plan for this intersection has been included in Appendix
D.
along 11th Street consists of one shared left-turn and through lane, and one exclusive through
D.
along 10th Street consists of one exclusive through lane, and one shared through and right-turn
D.
13
along 9th Street consists of one exclusive left-turn lane, and two exclusive through lanes. A copy
along 8th Street consists of two exclusive through lanes, and one exclusive right-turn lane. A copy
11th Street and Cuthbert Street (Intersection #19)
The intersection of 11th Street and Cuthbert Street is a four-legged unsignalized intersection with
stop sign controls along the Cuthbert approach. The eastbound approach along Cuthbert Street
consists of one shared left-turn and through lane. The northbound approach along 11th Street
consists of one exclusive through lane, and one shared through and right-turn lane.
The intersection of 10th Street and Cuthbert Street is a four-legged unsignalized intersection with
stop sign controls along the Cuthbert approaches. The eastbound approach along Cuthbert Street
consists of one exclusive right turn lane. The westbound approach Cuthbert Street consists of
exclusive left-turn lane. The southbound approach along 10th Street consists of one shared left-
turn and through lane, and one exclusive through lane.
The intersection of 9th Street and Cuthbert Street is a three-legged unsignalized intersection with
stop sign control along the Cuthbert approach. The eastbound approach along Cuthbert Street
consists of one exclusive left-turn lane. The northbound approach along 9th Street consists of one
shared left-turn and through lane, and one exclusive through lane.
13th Street and Filbert Street (Intersection #22)
The intersection of 13th Street and Filbert Street is a four-legged signalized intersection with a
cycle length of 60 seconds. The eastbound approach along Filbert Street consists of one shared
left-turn and through lane. The westbound approach along Filbert Street consists of one exclusive
right-turn lane. The northbound approach along 13th Street consists of one exclusive through lane,
and one exclusive right-turn lane. A copy of the traffic signal permit plan for this intersection has
14
The intersection of 12th Street and Filbert Street is a four-legged signalized intersection with a
cycle length of 60 seconds. The eastbound approach along Filbert Street consists of one shared
through and right-turn lane. The southbound approach along 12th Street consists of one shared
left-turn and through lane, and one shared through and right-turn lane. A copy of the traffic signal
The existing intersection of 11th Street and Filbert Street is a four-legged signalized intersection
with a cycle length of 60 seconds. The eastbound approach along Filbert Street consists of one
shared left-turn and through lane. The northbound approach 11th Street consists of one exclusive
through lane, and one shared through and right turn lane. A copy of the traffic signal permit plan
for this intersection has been included in Appendix D.
In the build conditions, the intersection of 11th Street and Filbert Street will be a three-legged
signalized intersection with a cycle length of 60 seconds. The eastbound approach along Filbert
Street will consist of one exclusive left turn lane. The northbound approach 11th Street will
consist of two exclusive through lanes.
The existing intersection of 10th Street and Filbert Street is a four-legged signalized intersection
with a cycle length of 60 seconds. The eastbound approach along Filbert Street consists of one
shared through and right-turn lane. The southbound approach along 10th Street consists of one
shared left-turn and through lane, and one exclusive through lane. A copy of the traffic signal
In the build conditions, the intersection of 10th Street and Filbert Street will be a three-legged
signalized intersection with a cycle length of 60 seconds. The southbound approach will consist
of one shared left-turn and through lane, and one exclusive through lane.
The intersection of 9th Street and Filbert Street is a four-legged unsignalized intersection with
stop sign controls along the Filbert Street approaches, and the northbound approach along 9th
Street. The eastbound approach along Filbert Street consists of one exclusive left-turn lane. The
westbound approach along Filbert Street consists of one exclusive right-turn lane. The
northbound approach along 9th Street consists of two exclusive through lanes.
15
The intersection of 8th Street and Filbert Street is a four-legged unsignalized intersection. The
southbound approach along 8th Street consists of one shared left-turn and through lane, and one
shared through and right-turn lane.
Market Street (SR 2004) and 12th Street (Intersection #28)
The intersection of Market Street (SR 2004) and 12th Street is four-legged signalized intersection
with a cycle length of 60 seconds. The eastbound approach along Market Street (SR 2004)
consists of two exclusive through lanes, and one exclusive right-turn lane. The westbound
approach along Market Street (SR 2004) consists of one exclusive right-turn lane. The
southbound approach along 12th Street consists of one shared left-turn and through lane, and one
shared through and right-turn lane. A copy of the traffic signal permit plan for this intersection
has been included in Appendix D.
consists of two exclusive through lanes. The westbound approach along Market Street (SR 2004)
consists of one exclusive through lane, and one exclusive right-turn lane. The northbound
approach along 11th Street consists of one shared left-turn and through lane, and one shared
through and right-turn lane. A copy of the traffic signal permit plan for this intersection has been
approach along Market Street (SR 2004) consists of one exclusive through lane. The southbound
approach along 10th Street consists of one exclusive left-turn lane, one exclusive through lane,
16
approach along Market Street (SR 2004) consists of one exclusive through lane. The southbound
approach along 13th Street consists of one exclusive left-turn lane, one exclusive through lane,
The intersection of Vine Street (SR 2676) and 12th Street is four-legged signalized intersection
with a cycle length of 90 seconds. The eastbound approach along Vine Street (SR 2676) consists
of two exclusive through lanes, and one shared through and right-turn lane. The southbound
approach along 12th Street consists of one exclusive left-turn lane, and one exclusive through
D.
The intersection of Vine Street (SR 2676) and 10th Street is four-legged signalized intersection
with a cycle length of 90 seconds. The eastbound approach along Vine Street (SR 2676) consists
of two exclusive through lanes, and one shared through and right-turn lane. The southbound
approach along 10th Street consists of one exclusive left-turn lane, and one exclusive through
D.
17
Existing Traffic and Pedestrian Volumes
To examine traffic conditions near the site, manual turning movement traffic and pedestrian
counts were conducted by Tri-State Traffic Data Inc. during the typical Friday and Saturday pre-
and post-event time periods at the study intersections. Specifically, both manual turning
movement and pedestrian counts were conducted at the study intersections and pedestrian
elements on Friday, May 13, 2022, Saturday, May 14, 2022, Friday, September 9, 2022 and
Saturday, September 10, 2022 from 4:00 PM to 11:00 PM.
The counts identify distinct times during the Friday PM commuter, Friday pre-event, Friday post-
event, Saturday pre-event and Saturday post-event time periods when traffic experienced its
highest levels. To be conservative, we used the peak hour of each individual intersection to
determine the peak hour traffic and pedestrian volumes rather than use a common peak hour for
all of the intersections.
Appendix E – Figures E-1 through E-3 illustrates the existing Friday PM commuter, Friday pre-
event, Friday post-event, Saturday pre-event and Saturday post-event peak hour traffic volumes.
The manual traffic and pedestrian counts used for this Transportation Impact Study are located
in Appendix F. Manual traffic counts are summarized in 15-minute and peak hour intervals and
include classification by passenger cars, heavy vehicles, buses, bicycles and pedestrians.
Pedestrian counts are summarized in 15-minute and peak hours intervals and include bi-
directional volumes on each pedestrian element.
Existing Transit Facilities
Multiple modes of public transportation operated by the Southeastern Pennsylvania

Transportation Authority (SEPTA) and the Port Authority Transit Corporation (PATCO) currently
serve the Project Site. SEPTA bus routes with nearby stops include Nos. 4, 9, 12, 16, 17, 21, 23,
27, 31, 32, 33, 38, 38, 42, 44, 45, 47, 47M, 48, 61, 61, 62, 124, and 125. The Project Site is also
served by five (5) trolley lines, which include trolley route Nos. 10, 11, 13, 34 and 36 trolley lines,
located approximately 0.2 miles to the west at the City Hall Station. The Project Site is also served
by three (3) SEPTA subway lines, which include the Broad Street Line located approximately 0.2
miles to the west at the City Hall Station, Broad Ridge-Spur Line located approximately 0.2 miles
to the east at the 8th Street Station and the Market-Frankford Line located immediately south of
the Project Site at the 11th Street Station. The Project Site is also served by thirteen (13) Regional
Rail lines, including the Airport, Chestnut Hill East, Chestnut Hill West, Fox Chase, Glenside,
Lansdale Doylestown, Manayunk Norristown, Media Wawa, Paoli Thorndale, Trenton,
Warminster, West Trenton and Wilmington Newark lines. These lines have a station directly
beneath the project site (Jefferson Station) and another station 0.5 miles to the west (Suburban
18
Station). The Project Site is also served by the Port Authority Transit Corporation (PATCO)
Speedline located approximately 0.2 miles to the east at the 8th and Market Street Station, 0.3
miles to the south at that 9th/10th Street and Locust Street Station and 0.5 miles to the south at
the 12th/13th and Locust Street Station.
Existing Parking Facilities
To examine the public parking utilization, parking surveys were conducted during the typical
Friday and Saturday pre-event time periods at off-street parking facilities near the project site.
Specifically, the parking surveys were conducted across multiple Friday and Saturdays between
5:30 PM and 7:30 PM in May and June 2022.
A total of 31 parking facilities were included in the survey, of which 29 are within a ½ mile walking
distance of the project site (see Appendix G – Figure G-1). As summarized in Table G-1, these 31
parking facilities have a combined capacity of 10,991 spaces and operate at 34% and 42%
utilization, with 7,295 and 6,405 available parking spaces during the Friday and Saturday pre-event
time periods, respectively. Note that only spaces open to public were surveyed; therefore, any
parking spaces able to be identified as having restrictions (monthly, employee, reserved, etc.)
were excluded from the survey.
19
ESTIMATE OF FUTURE CONDITIONS
This section of the report covers background traffic and pedestrian growth, site-generated trips,
trip distribution, and future traffic volumes.
No-Build Traffic and Pedestrian Volumes
The proposed project is expected to be operational by the end of 2031. The Friday PM commuter,
Friday pre-event, Friday post-event, Saturday pre-event and Saturday post-event peak hour
volumes were expanded to the year 2031 at a growth rate of 0.12% per annum, based on the
currently recommended rates by PennDOT’s Bureau of Planning and Research. The growth rate
table used for this Transportation Impact Study is included in Appendix I. The resulting
compounded No-Build traffic and pedestrian volumes were further increased by an additional 5%
(not compounded annually) to account for other large potential developments that may arise in
the area by 2031. We have utilized this approach for other projects within the city when providing
estimates for background growth. Note that most of the potential future developments would
likely generate the majority of their trips outside of the typical peak hours for the arena, therefore,
the additional 5% added to the 0.12% per year compounded annually provides a conservative
estimate of traffic.
The future 2031 No-Build traffic and pedestrian volumes are illustrated in Appendix E – Figures
E-9 through E-16.
Proposed Site Access
The as part of the proposed development of the project, new and upgraded pedestrian access
will be provided for the proposed project. Pedestrian bridges connecting to the Convention
Center Parking Garage, located northwest of the project site, and to the Fashion District Shopping
mall, located east of the project site, will be upgraded to accommodate the projected site-
generated pedestrian traffic accessing the project site. An additional pedestrian bridge is
proposed to be constructed to connect the existing Autopark at the Fashion District parking
facility, located northeast of the project site, to accommodate the projected site-generated
pedestrian traffic accessing the project site. Street level pedestrian access will be available on all
four (4) frontages of the site: Market Street, Cuthbert Street, 10th Street and 11th Street. The main
entrance to the arena is proposed to be located on Market Street with additional entrances along
the other three frontages. Specifically, two entrances each on 10th Street and 11th Street between
Cuthbert Street and Market Street and one entrance on Cuthbert Street between 10th Street and
11th Street. The main entrance to the potential future residential land use would be located on
Cuthbert Street between 10th Street and 11th Street. Pedestrian access from public transit
20
services at Jefferson Station is proposed to be upgraded as part of the proposed project to
accommodate the projected site-generated pedestrian traffic accessing the project site.
Vehicular access to the site will be limited as there is no proposed on-site parking facility. On
event days, two designated taxi/rideshare drop-off/pick-up locations will be in place to minimize
the traffic around the project site. One event-day drop-off/pick-up location will be located on 12th
Street between Filbert Street and Market Street and the second will be located on 9th Street
between Filbert Street and Market Street. Truck access to the proposed project is expected to
use the same underground ramp entrance as the shopping mall, leading from the south side of
Arch Street between 8th Street and 9th Street.
Trip Generation
Arena
A trip generation analysis was conducted for the arena based on a seating capacity of 18,500
spectators. Two trips per spectator (one inbound and one outbound trip) was assumed for the
arena land use. Additionally, based on historical ticket scans of the existing Wells Fargo Center
and completed studies of similar land uses, 7 percent, 58 percent and 75 percent of fans are
expected to arrive and depart during the commuter, pre-event and post-event peak hour
respectively.
A comparison of modal splits used on projects with similar land uses is shown in Table 2. Based
on the comparison, our project will assume a modal split of 40 percent auto, 10 percent
taxi/rideshare, 40 percent public transportation and 10 percent walk-only/other and vehicle
occupancies of 2.5 for both auto and taxi/rideshare.
21
Table 2: Arena Mode Split and Average Vehicle Occupancy Comparison
Arena-Generated-Trip Mode Split
Madison Square
USTA Billie Jean Chase Center Chase Center
Barclays Center Garden
Travel Mode King Weekday Sports Weekend Average of Proposed Arena
Weekend Weeknight
National Tennis Event Sports Event Existing (Philadelphia,
Sports Event Sports Event
Center (San Francisco, (San Francisco, Facilities PA)
(Brooklyn, NY)1 (Manhattan,
2 (Queens, NY)3 CA)4 CA)4
NY)
Auto 32.1% 33.7% 25 9% 40.0%

54.3% 53.3% 45.4%
Taxi or Rideshare 6.4% 9.6% 11 9% 10.0%
Public Transit 49.8% 46.5% 54.4% 40.0%
Charter Bus 2.2% 0 0% 4.2% 45.7% 46.7% 54.6% 0.0%
Walk-Only/Other 9.5% 10.2% 3.6% 10.0%
Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Travel Mode Arena-Generated-Trip Average Vehicle Occupancy

Auto 3.22 2.20 2 01 2.48 2.50
N/A N/A
Taxi or Rideshare 2.82 2.50 1.67 2.33 2.50
Notes:
(1) Barclays Center patron surveys at three weekend evening Nets games in January and February 2013, as reported in the Barclays Center TDM Plan .
(2) Madison Square Garden travel surveys conducted by Sam Schwartz in 2003 as part of the Hudson Yards FGEIS .
(3) USTA patron surveys in 2010 and 2011 and other documents as reported in the USTA Billie Jean King National Tennis Center Strategic Vision FEIS .
(4) Auto and non-auto mode share as presented in the 2019-2020 Chase Center Annual Transportation Reporting document.
Based on the trip generation assumptions above and shown in Table 3, the arena is expected to
generate the following approximate person trips: 518 auto, 130 taxi/rideshare, 518 public transit,
and 130 walk-only/other during the commuter peak hour, 4,292 auto, 1,073 taxi/rideshare, 4,292
public transit, and 1,073 walk-only/other during the pre-event peak hour and 5,550 auto, 1,388
taxi/rideshare, 5,550 public transit, and 1,388 walk-only/other during the post-event peak hour.
Furthermore, the arena is expected to generate the following approximate vehicle trips: 207 auto
and 52 taxi/rideshare during the same commuter peak hour, 1,717 auto and 429 taxi/rideshare
during the same pre-event peak hour and 2,220 auto and 555 taxi/rideshare during the same post-
event peak hour.
22
Table 3: Arena-Generated Person and Vehicle Trip Summary
Arena-Generated Person and Vehicle Trip Estimates
1 2 3 4
Travel Mode Total Commuter Peak Hour Pre-Event Peak Hour Post-Event Peak Hour
Persons Vehicles Persons Vehicles Persons Vehicles Persons Vehicles
Auto 7,400 2,960 518 207 4,292 1,717 5,550 2,220
Taxi or Rideshare 1,850 740 130 52 1,073 429 1,388 555
Public Transit 7,400 0 518 0 4,292 0 5,550 0
Charter Bus 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Walk-Only/Other 1,850 0 130 0 1,073 0 1,388 0
Total 18,500 3,700 1,295 259 10,730 2,146 13,875 2,775
Notes:
(1) Total number arena-generated-trips both arriving to and departing the project site on the day of an event.
(2) Number of arena-generated-trips arriving to the project site during the PM commuter peak hour.
(3) Number of arena-generated-trips arriving to the project site in the hour before an event begins.
(4) Number of arena-generated-trips departing the project site in the hour after an event ends.
It is expected that many fans will arrive to the area surrounding the project site more than one
hour before the start of an event to take advantage of nearby restaurants and retail. As such,
while we have assumed that 58 percent of fans will arrive to the arena during the pre-event peak
hour, for the purposes of the detailed pedestrian analysis, we have assumed that a total of 75
percent of fans (13,875 pedestrians) will enter the arena building during that time. This higher
percentage accounts for fans who arrived in the area more than one hour before the event, made
a stop at a nearby destination (restaurant/retail), and then made their way to the arena doors
closer to the event start time.
Residential
Trip-generation analysis was also conducted for a potential residential overbuild of up to 395
dwelling units, which may be part of a future development. To develop peak-hour person trip
estimates for the residential dwelling units, data from the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2016-2020
American Community Survey (ACS) database in conjunction with total vehicle trip-generation
information from the ITE Trip Generation Handbook, 11th Edition.
Trip rates of 0.38 vehicles per dwelling unit for the weekday PM and 0.40 vehicles per dwelling
unit for the Saturday peak hours were obtained from the ITE Trip Generation Handbook, 11th
Edition. A modal split of 26% by auto, 1% by taxi or rideshare, 24% by public transit and 49% by
walk-only or other (e.g. bicycle, scooter, etc.) and a vehicle occupancy of 1.07 were obtained
from the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2016-2020 ACS Journey-to-Work data for the study area census
tracts. The residential travel-mode split and vehicle occupancy are summarized in Table 4.
23
Pedestrian
All pedestrian trips were assigned to the closest project site entrance based on their route to and
from the project site. Auto person trips were assigned to and from the off-street parking facilities.
Taxi/rideshare person trips were assigned to routes leading to and from the proposed pick-
up/drop-off areas to the project site. Public transit person trips were assigned to routes to and
from the various transit stations located on their respective bus routes and stations detailed in
the section titled Existing Transit Facilities. Note that due to the underground Regional Rail,
subway and trolley line passageways/connections between stations and the project site, a
percentage of transit person trips were assumed not to use street-level pedestrian elements to
travel to and from the project site. Walk-only/other pedestrian trips were assigned evenly around
the project-site.
Build Traffic and Pedestrian Volumes
Using the traffic and pedestrian trip distributions patterns, site-generated trips were assigned to
the study area intersections and pedestrian elements for the Friday PM commuter, Friday pre-
event, Friday post-event, Saturday pre-event and Saturday post-event peak hours (Appendix E –
Figures E-17 through E-24).
As part of the proposed development, Filbert Street between 10th Street and 11th Street will be
closed off to vehicular traffic. Therefore, No-Build traffic volumes were re-configured onto
adjacent roadways. The re-configuration volumes are illustrated in Appendix E – Figures E-25
through E-27.
The 2031 Build volumes were derived by layering the site-generated trips with the 2031 No-Build
volumes and re-configured 2031 No-Build volumes. The 2031 Build volumes are illustrated in
Appendix E – Figures E-28 through E-35.
27
ANALYSIS OF TRAFFIC OPERATIONS
This section describes the capacity analyses that were conducted to assess traffic operations for
the Existing, No-Build and Build conditions. Capacity analysis provides an indication of the
adequacy of road facilities to serve traffic demand.
Traffic Level of Service Criteria
Traffic Level of Service (LOS) is the term used to denote the different operating conditions that
occur on a given road segment under various traffic volume demands. LOS is a qualitative
measure that considers a number of factors including road geometry, speed and travel delay.
LOS provides an index to the operational qualities of a road segment or an intersection. LOS
designations range from A to F, with LOS A representing the best operating conditions and LOS
F representing the worst operating conditions. Based on guidelines outlined in PennDOT’s
Policies and Procedures for Transportation Impact Studies and Philadelphia Streets Department’s
Traffic Engineering Standards, the generally accepted overall intersection LOS is D or better for
urban areas. LOS capacity analyses were conducted for the intersections within the study area
using the Synchro software. This software is based on methodologies contained within the
Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition (HCM), published by the Transportation Research Board
(TRB).
For signalized intersections, LOS is based upon the average delay experienced by stopped
vehicles and the operation is graded between A (least delay) and F (most delay). The following
table describes the LOS gradation criteria for signalized intersections:
28
Level of Service Expected Traffic Delay Average Total Delay
(LOS) (seconds/vehicle)
A Very low or no delays, very good progression, < 10
most vehicles do not stop at all.
B Short delay, good progression and/or short cycle > 10 And < 20
lengths, more vehicles stop than with LOS A.
C Average delay, fair progression and/or longer cycle > 20 And < 35
lengths, a significant number of vehicles stop at
the intersection.
D Longer delays, unfavorable progression, long cycle > 35 And < 55
lengths or high v/c ratios, most vehicles stop at
intersection.
E Longer delays (Maximum Capacity), considered to > 55 And < 80
be the limit of acceptable delay, poor progression,
long cycle lengths and high v/c ratios
F Worst delays (Over saturated), poor progression, > 80
long cycle lengths and high v/c ratios.
The traffic operation for unsignalized intersections is classified based upon the LOS and delay
experienced by critical movements, which correspond to any minor street movements or left-
turns from a major street. The following table describes the LOS gradation criteria for unsignalized
intersections:

Level of Service Expected Traffic Delay Average Total Delay
(LOS) (seconds/vehicle)
A Very low or no delays < 10
B Short delays > 10 And < 15
C Average delays > 15 And < 25
D Long delays > 25 And < 35
E Long delays (Maximum Capacity) > 35 And < 50
F Worst delays (Over saturated) > 50
Analysis Assumptions
Below is a list of the assumptions used in our technical analyses:

PennDOT default values were used as described in Publication 46 for the saturation flow
rates and signal control calibration parameters assuming an urban core location.
The Central-Business-District (CBD) calibration in Synchro was utilized at the applicable
intersections within the network.
Included adjacent parking lanes within the calibration settings, where applicable.
Synchro does not model bus lanes. To be conservative, Market Street (SR 2004) is
modeled to show one through lane westbound and two through lanes eastbound, with
29
right-turn lanes where applicable. The actual field conditions allow buses to travel in the
dedicated bus lane, avoiding vehicle traffic. This approach was similarly utilized for the
approved Transportation Impact Study for the Fashion Outlets of Philadelphia Mall project.
All signal timings used in the analyses are based off of the most recent signal plans and
timing directives provided by the Philadelphia Streets Department.
The Synchro Percentile Delay methodology was utilized for the capacity analysis results.
This was done in order to represent a consistent roadway network and not utilizing
different analysis methods at adjacent intersections. This is a similar approach that has
been used on other projects within Philadelphia.
Traffic Capacity Analysis
We conducted traffic capacity analyses for the intersections in the study area for the five peak
hour analysis scenarios. The following are discussions pertaining to each of the intersections
analyzed for the project. Note that all capacity analyses worksheets are contained in Appendix K.
The corresponding levels of service and delays for each condition are summarized in Appendix K
– Table A and Figures K-1 through K-4.
Existing and No-Build Conditions
Traffic capacity analyses were conducted for the 35 intersections in the study area. Based on the
analyses, all intersections operate within PennDOT and Philadelphia Streets Department’s criteria
of acceptable service conditions (overall LOS D or better) in both the Existing and No-Build
Condition for all five peak hour analysis scenarios. In addition, all specific movements operate at
LOS D or better with the exception of the following that operate at LOS E or F during at least
one of the peak hour analysis scenarios:
Northbound through movement at Intersection #3

Eastbound through movement at Intersection #5
Eastbound right-turn movement at Intersection #5
Southbound left-turn movement at Intersection #7
The intersections with deficient LOS identified above are generally confined to the Vine Street
frontage road corridor.
30
Build Condition
Site generated traffic was added to the network and traffic capacity analyses were conducted for
the build conditions. Based on the analyses, the majority of intersections will continue to operate
at overall LOS D or better, with the exception of the following:
Overall intersection LOS E or F at Intersections #4/5

Overall intersection LOS E at Intersection #9
Overall intersection LOS E at Intersection #23
Overall intersection LOS E or F at Intersection #30
In addition to the overall intersection LOS deficiencies noted above, there are multiple specific
movements that have deficient LOS E or F.
Build Condition with Proposed Improvements
In order to mitigate the traffic impacts to the surrounding road network, the following
improvements are proposed:
Closure of 10th Street and 11th Street between Market Street and Filbert Street on game
days.
Implement an all-pedestrian phase at the intersection of Market Street and 10th Street.
With the closure of southbound 10th Street, an all-pedestrian phase can be created during
game day operations (because southbound will not need green time) that will help
facilitate the pedestrian traffic through this intersection.
Implement an all-pedestrian phase at the intersection of Filbert Street and 10th Street
during game day operations when 10th Street is closed.
Implement an all-pedestrian phase at the intersection of Filbert Street and 11th Street
during game day operations when 11th Street is closed.
Install a traffic signal at the intersection of Filbert Street and 9th Street.
Implement traffic signal timing modifications at multiple intersections by providing
additional green time to movements that will experience an increase in vehicular traffic
specifically on game days. Signal timing modifications are proposed at Intersections 2, 3,
4, 5, 7, 9, 14, 18, 23 and 28.
With the above identified intersection improvements in place, all study area intersections will
operate within PennDOT and Philadelphia Streets Department’s criteria of acceptable service
conditions (overall LOS D or better) for all five peak hour analysis scenarios. In addition, all specific
deficient movement LOS E or F will be mitigated with the exception of the following:
31
Southbound through/right movement at Intersection #2
Northbound through movement at Intersection #3
Eastbound through movement at Intersection #4/5
Eastbound right-turn movement at Intersection #4
Southbound left-turn movement at Intersection #7
Similar to the Existing and No-Build Condition, the deficient LOS identified above are generally
confined to the Vine Street frontage road corridor. With the signal timing modifications in place,
some of the deficient movement delays will improve over the existing/no-build conditions,
specifically at intersections 3 and 7.
For the intersections above that continue to have specific deficient movement LOS E or F, the
applicant has agreed to construct traffic signal upgrades, where applicable, including GridSmart
cameras with Performance Plus software and Emergency Vehicle Preemption (EVP)/Transit
Signal Priority (TSP). These upgrades would be installed at Intersections 2, 3, 4, 5 and 7.
In addition to the signal upgrades, the applicant has agreed to install EVP/TSP at the traffic signals
along the potential re-route of ambulances for Jefferson Hospital when 10th Street is closed. We
envision adding the preemption equipment at approximately 9 intersections. We will coordinate
with Jefferson Hospital and the city.
Additional potential traffic improvement measures are detailed in Appendix M – Transportation

Event Management Plan.
Queue Analysis
We conducted a queue analysis for the intersections in the study area. The corresponding
Synchro 95th percentile queues for each condition are summarized in Appendix K – Table B. The
majority of queues are not significantly impacted by the proposed development. The
improvements identified above are anticipated to help the traffic operations and queuing during
the times when arena traffic is at the peak.
32
ANALYSIS OF PEDESTRIAN OPERATIONS
This section describes the pedestrian capacity analyses that were conducted to assess
pedestrian operations for the Existing, No-Build and Build conditions. Capacity analysis provides
an indication of the adequacy of pedestrian elements to serve pedestrian demand.
Pedestrian Level of Service Criteria
Pedestrian Level of Service (LOS) is the term used to denote the different operating conditions
that occur on a pedestrian element under various pedestrian volume demands. LOS is a
qualitative measure that considers a number of factors including pedestrian element geometry,
walking speed and signal timing. LOS provides an index to the operational qualities of pedestrian
elements. LOS designations range from A to F, with LOS A representing the best operating
conditions and LOS F representing the worst operating conditions. Consistent with the traffic
LOS guidelines outlined in PennDOT’s Policies and Procedures for Transportation Impact Studies
and Philadelphia Streets Department’s Traffic Engineering Standards, the generally accepted
pedestrian element LOS is D or better for urban areas. Level of service (LOS) capacity analyses
were conducted for the intersections within the study area using methodologies contained within
the Highway Capacity Manual 10th Edition (HCM), published by the Transportation Research
Board (TRB).
Sidewalk elements are analyzed in terms of pedestrian space, expressed as square feet per
pedestrian (ft2/p) and the HCM 2010 methodology for platoon flow should be used. Table 10
describes the LOS gradation criteria for sidewalks based on HCM methodology:
Table 10: Level of Service Criteria for Sidewalk/Walkway LOS

Level of Service Expected Sidewalk LOS Condition Average Pedestrian
(LOS) Space (ft2/p)
A Ability to move in desired path, no need to alter > 530
movements
B Occasional need to adjust path to avoid conflicts > 90 – 530
C Frequent need to adjust path to avoid conflicts > 40 – 90
D Speed and ability to pass slower pedestrians > 23 – 40
restricted
E Speed restricted, very limited ability to pass slower > 11 – 23
pedestrians
F Speeds severely restricted, frequent contract with 11
other users.
Crosswalks and street corners are not easily measured in terms of free pedestrian flow, as they
are influenced by the effects of traffic signals. Street corners must be able to provide sufficient
space for a mix of standing pedestrians (queued to cross a street) and circulating pedestrians
33
(crossing the street or moving around the corner). The HCM methodologies apply a measure of
time and space availability based on the area of the corner, the timing of the intersection signal
and the estimated space used by circulating pedestrians.
The total “time-space” available for these activities, expressed in square feet-second, is
calculated by multiplying the net area of the corner (in square feet) by the signal’s cycle length.
The analysis then determines the total circulation time for all pedestrian movements at the corner
per signal cycle (expressed as pedestrians per second). The ratio of net time-space divided by
the total pedestrian circulation volume per signal cycle provides the LOS measurement of square
feet per pedestrian (ft2/p).
Crosswalk LOS is also a function of time and space. Similar to the street corner analysis,
crosswalk conditions are first expressed as a measurement of the available area (the crosswalk
width multiplied by the width of the street) and the permitted crossing time. This measure is
expressed in square feet-second. The average time required for a pedestrian to cross the street
is calculated based on the width of the street and an assumed walking speed. The ratio of time-
space available in the crosswalk to the total crosswalk pedestrian occupancy time is the LOS
measurement of available square feet per pedestrian. The LOS analysis also accounts for
vehicular turning movements that traverse the crosswalk. Table 11 describes the LOS gradation
criteria for crosswalks and corner areas based on HCM methodology:
Table 11: Level of Service Criteria for Corner and Crosswalk LOS
Level of Service Expected Corner and Crosswalks LOS Average Pedestrian Space
(LOS) Condition (ft2/p)
A Ability to move in desired path, no need to alter > 60
movements
B Occasional need to adjust path to avoid conflicts > 40 – 60
C Frequent need to adjust path to avoid conflicts > 24 – 40
D Speed and ability to pass slower pedestrians > 15 – 24
restricted
E Speed restricted, very limited ability to pass > 8 – 15
slower pedestrians
F Speeds severely restricted, frequent contract 8
with other users.
Analysis Assumptions
Below is a list of the assumptions used in our technical analyses:

All signal timings used in the analyses are based off of the most recent signal plans and
timing directives provided by the Philadelphia Streets Department.
All sidewalks elements were assumed to have platoon flow in the City of Philadelphia.
34
Pedestrian Capacity Analysis
Existing and No-Build Conditions
Pedestrian capacity analyses were conducted for the pedestrian elements in the study area.
Based on the analyses, all pedestrian elements would operate at acceptable service conditions
(LOS D or better) in both the Existing and No-Build Condition.
Build Condition
As part of the proposed development, the roadway of Filbert Street between 10th Street and 11th
Street will be closed off to vehicular traffic. Therefore, the following pedestrian elements were
not analyzed as part of the Build Condition:
Filbert Street and 10th Street

o West Crosswalk;
o Northwest Corner;
o Southwest Corner;
o North Sidewalk between 10th Street and 11th Street; and,
o South Sidewalk between 10th Street and 11th Street.

o East Crosswalk;
o Northeast Corner;
o Southeast Corner;
o North Sidewalk between 10th Street and 11th Street; and,
o South Sidewalk between 10th Street and 11th Street.
Pedestrian capacity analyses were conducted for the remaining pedestrian elements in the study
area for the build conditions. Of the twenty-seven (27) crosswalk in the study area, the following
five (5) are projected to operate worse than LOS D in the at least one peak hour:
The north crosswalk at the intersection of Filbert Street and 11th Street, which would:
o Drop from LOS A to LOS E with an average space of 13.3 ft2/p during the Friday
pre-event peak hour, a decrease of 70.0 ft2/p relative to the No-Build Condition.
o Drop from LOS A to LOS E with an average space of 13.9 ft2/p during the Saturday
post-event peak hour, a decrease of 176.5 ft2/p relative to the No-Build Condition.
The south crosswalk at the intersection of Filbert Street and 11th Street, which would:
35
post-event peak hour, a decrease of 128.8 ft2/p relative to the No-Build Condition.
The north crosswalk at the intersection of Market Street and 11th Street, which would:
o Drop from LOS B to LOS E with an average space of 14.1 ft2/p during the Friday
o Drop from LOS B to LOS E with an average space of 13.8 ft2/p during the Saturday
The east crosswalk at the intersection of Market Street and 11th Street, which would:
o Drop from LOS D to LOS F with an average space of 7.5 ft2/p during the Friday
o Drop from LOS C to LOS E with an average space of 8.7 ft2/p during the Saturday
The west crosswalk at the intersection of Market Street and 10th Street, which would:
Of the twenty-six (26) corner elements in the study area, only the northwest corner at the
intersection of Filbert Street and 11th Street would operate worse than LOS D in at least one peak
hour. Specifically, it will drop from LOS A to LOS E with an average an average space of 13.1
ft2/p during the Friday pre-event peak hour, a decrease of 73.1 ft2/p relative to the No-Build
Condition and drop from LOS A to LOS E with an average an average space of 10.2 ft2/p during
the Saturday pre-event peak hour, a decrease of 53.7 ft2/p relative to the No-Build Condition.
Build Condition with Proposed Improvements
As discussed in the section above, Pedestrian Capacity Analysis – Build Condition, the proposed
project would result in six (6) pedestrian elements operating worse than LOS D in at least one
peak hour. As discussed below, these pedestrian element operations can be improved to
acceptable service conditions (LOS D or better) with traffic engineering measures, including the
modification of traffic signal timings, implementation of an all-pedestrian phase, and/or crosswalk
width widening.
36
Proposed Event Day Street Closure
As part of the proposed traffic improvement measure, there would be event day closures of 10th
Street and 11th Street between Filbert Street and Market Street. These closures would cause an
additional four (4) crosswalks would to operate at worse than LOS D in at least one peak hour:
The west crosswalk at the intersection of Arch Street and 10th Street, which would:
The west crosswalk at the intersection of Market Street and 11th Street, which would:
o Drop from LOS A to LOS E with an average space of 13.4ft2/p during the Saturday
The north crosswalk at the intersection of Market Street and 10th Street, which would:
The east crosswalk at the intersection of Market Street and 10th Street, which would:
Proposed improvements to improve the pedestrian operation service conditions to acceptable

conditions are as follows:
Arch Street and 10th Street
In the Friday Saturday pre-event peak hours, the west crosswalk would operate at acceptable
service conditions with an increase of crosswalk width from 15.1-ft to 18.5-ft.
37
In the Friday pre-event and Saturday post-event peak hours, the north crosswalk would operate
at acceptable service conditions with the addition of an all-pedestrian phase. In the Friday and
Saturday pre-event peak hours, the northwest corner and in the Saturday post-event peak hour,
the south crosswalk would operate at acceptable service conditions with the addition of an all-
pedestrian phase and shift 8 seconds from the all-traffic phase to the all-pedestrian phase. Note
that the all-pedestrian phase is already a traffic improvement measure.
Market Street and 11th Street
In the Friday and Saturday pre-event peak hours, the north crosswalk would operate at acceptable
service conditions with the addition of all-pedestrian phase. In the Friday and Saturday pre-event
peak hours, the east and west crosswalks would operate at acceptable service conditions with
an increase of crosswalk width from 15.0-ft to 28.5-ft and 15.0-ft to 18.0-ft, respectively. Note
that the all-pedestrian phase is already a traffic improvement measure.
Market Street and 10th Street
In the Friday and Saturday pre-event peak hours, the west crosswalk would operate at acceptable
service conditions with the addition of an all-pedestrian phase. In the Friday and Saturday pre-
event peak hours, the north and east crosswalks would operate at acceptable service conditions
with an increase of crosswalk width from 18.0-ft to 20.0-ft and 14.8-ft to 18.0-ft, respectively.
Note that the all-pedestrian phase is already a traffic improvement measure.
With the implementation of the recommended improvement measures detailed above, all
pedestrian elements analyzed as part of project will operate at acceptable service conditions (LOS
D or better) and are not expected to be significantly impacted. The full pedestrian capacity
analysis LOS results are summarized in Appendix L.
Note that implementation of the recommended improvement measures are subject to review
and approval by Philadelphia Streets Department and these measures will be further evaluated
with the development of the project. Additional pedestrian improvement measures are detailed
in Appendix M – Transportation Event Management Plan.
38
ANALYSIS OF TRANSIT OPERATIONS
The proposed arena would be situated directly above the existing Jefferson Station, which is
served by 12 regional rail lines. Additionally, the proposed arena is located close to other
neighborhood transit stations serving SEPTA subway lines and trolley lines and the PATCO
Speedline to/from New Jersey, as detailed below, as well as more than 20 bus routes:
The 11th Street Station, which provides access to the Market-Frankford Line subway.
The 8th Street Station, which provides access to Broad-Ridge Spur Line, PATCO, and
Market-Frankford Line subways.
The City Hall Station, which provides access to the Broad Street Line subway.
The 13th Street Station, which provides access to five trolley lines and the Market-
Frankford Line subway.
Overall, the location of the proposed arena with respect to the available transit service at the
neighborhood’s transit stations allows for a direct, one-seat ride to/from over 200 other regional
rail and subway stations, along with a multitude of trolley stations and curbside stops.
Access to the nearby transit stations from street level are provided along Market Street at the
intersections of Broad Street, 13th Street, 11th Street and 8th Street and along Filbert Street at
the intersections of 12th Street, 11th Street, 10th Street and 8th Street. Pre-COVID-19 pandemic,
access and travel between these stations was also possible using the underground pedestrian
concourses connecting nine transit stations in the Center City area. However, sections of the
passageways have been closed due to the pandemic and reduced transit ridership. Full access
to the underground concourses would be beneficial during the pre- and post-game peak hours,
as it would allow public-transit users of the proposed arena to efficiently travel between the arena
and transit stations without affecting the pedestrians at street level. Increasing the access would
require coordination between the arena, SEPTA, PATCO, Philadelphia Police Department, the
Fashion District mall, and other private property owners to open the underground concourses
fully during game days.
Based on the trip-generation, it is expected that the proposed arena will generate approximately
4,292 transit trips during the pre-game peak hour and 5,500 transit trips during the post-game
peak hour. The following sections describe the qualitative analyses that were conducted to
assess the transit capacity for the Existing and Build Conditions. Existing transit data for regional
39
rail, subway, trolley and bus service were obtained from SEPTA and additional potential future
infrastructure and capacity improvements for transit are summarized below.
SEPTA Regional Rail
Current service levels are approximately hourly in the off-peak until around midnight. SEPTA has
not needed to run additional Regional Rail trains to accommodate events in the stadium district,
but has occasionally added additional cars to existing trains as needed. The geographic distributed
nature of the Regional Rail system is expected to be able to accommodate the anticipated
ridership from the Proposed Project. As the design of the Project progresses (including for the
proposed improvements at Jefferson Station), SEPTA will be examining the passenger flows
from arena entry/exit points, to the station head houses, and through the stations to ensure that
platforms and facilities are not overcrowded, particularly near and within the fare control lines at
Jefferson Station and Suburban Station.
SEPTA Broad Street Line
The Broad Street Line (BSL) subway currently operates 5-car trains with a peak load capacity of
525 passengers per train. Normal weekday local service in the pre-game period is 7-minute
headways, resulting in approximately 8 trains per hour in each direction (16 total). Express service
runs approximately every 12 minutes until 6:15 pm. Normal weekday local service in the post-
game period is approximately 12-minute headways, resulting in approximately 5 trains per hour
in each direction (10 total). Normal weekend local service is 15-minute headways or better,
resulting in approximately 4 trains per hour in each direction (8 total).
SEPTA usually runs 4 extra local trains after 76ers games at the Wells Fargo Center. SEPTA
expects the BSL to be able to handle the higher public transit ridership expected for the new
arena, considering that after Eagles games the line carries 10,000 to 12,000 passengers in a 2-
hour period via 10 extra express trains. While NRG Station at the Wells Fargo Center is specially
designed to accommodate large influxes of crowds, City Hall Station near the new arena is
physically constrained, though the walking time to City Hall station will help distribute loads. As
the design of the Project progresses, we will work with SEPTA and various consultants to
conduct passenger flow modelling, including estimating travel time to City Hall Station to project
crowding levels. To reduce the post-game demand at City Hall Station, some of the passengers
looking to go north on the Broad Street Line could instead use the 8th Street Station of the
Broad-Ridge Spur Line (see below).
40
SEPTA Broad-Ridge Spur Line
The Broad-Ridge Spur (BRS) subway provides service directly to 8th Street Station (which is the
end of the Spur line) near the new arena from the northern end of the BSL, and currently operates
2-car trains with a peak load capacity of 210 passengers per train. Normal weekday service in the
pre-game period is 10-minute headways or better, resulting in approximately 6 trains per hour.
From 7:00 – 9:00 pm headways are increased to 15-minutes, resulting in approximately 4 trains
per hour. After 9:15 pm, the BRS currently does not operate. Normal weekend service in the pre-
game period is 20-minute headways, resulting in approximately 3 trains per hour, and there is no
service after 9:00 pm.
To handle the higher public transit ridership expected for the new arena, the BRS could be
expanded to 5-car trains with a peak load capacity of 525 passengers per train. In addition, up to
3 trains per hour could be added during the post-game period when the BRS currently does not
operate.
SEPTA Market-Frankford Line
The Market-Frankford Line (MFL) subway currently operates 6-car trains with a peak load capacity
of 630 passengers per train. Normal weekday service in the pre-game period is 8-minute
headways, resulting in approximately 7 trains per hour in each direction (14 total), and in the post-
game period is 12-minute headways, resulting in approximately 5 trains per hour in each direction
(10 total). Normal weekend service in the pre-game period is 10-minute headways, resulting in
approximately 6 trains per hour in each direction (12 total), and in the post-game period is 15-
minute headways or better, resulting in approximately 4 trains per hour in each direction (8 total).
SEPTA is in the process of procuring an entirely new railcar fleet for the MFL and designing a
new signal system; both are slated to be in service by 2030. These investments will provide
increased capacity (more passengers in each train and potential for increased frequency of
service) and more reliable service along the line, all of which would help to accommodate the
higher public transit ridership expected for the new arena. The existing stations at 11th Street
and 13th Street feature relatively narrow platforms. As the design of the Project progresses,
SEPTA will be examining passenger flows and crowding levels at these stations.
SEPTA Trolley Lines – Routes 10, 11, 13, 34 & 36
The five trolley routes that operate through the tunnel and serve the stations near the new arena
use single-car trains with a peak load capacity of 85 passengers each. Normal weekday service
in the pre-game period is 3 to 5-minute headways (approximately 10-minute headways per line),
and in the post-game period is 3 to 7-minute headways (approximately 20-minute headways per
41
line). Weekend service is generally similar, except that in the pre-game period there are
approximately 15-minute headways per line.
SEPTA is in the process of procuring new trolley cars that will be in service by 2030 for these
routes. These new vehicles, along with development of new station facilities along the routes,
will result in faster trips, greater capacity (more passengers per vehicle and more frequent
service), and more reliable service, all of which would help to accommodate the higher public
transit ridership expected for the new arena. The 13th Street Trolley Station has a relatively large
platform area, but it must be accessed through the MFL 13th Street Station platform, which is
relatively narrow. As the design of the Project progresses, SEPTA will be examining passenger
flows and crowding levels at this station and other nearby trolley stations.
SEPTA Bus Lines
SEPTA currently operates the following bus routes in the area of the new arena:
Bus Routes 4, 16, 23, 27, 31, 32, 45, 47, 47M, 61, 124, and 125, which operate on the
north-south streets (8th, 9th, 11th, 12th, 13th, Broad).
Bus Routes 17, 33, 38, 44, and 62, which operate on Market Street.
Bus Routes 9, 12, 21, 38, and 42, which operate on Chestnut Street and Walnut Street.
Bus Routes 48 and 61, which operate on Arch Street.
SEPTA’s bus network carries approximately 50% of the system’s ridership. As such, event
management traffic control around the arena must maintain efficient bus flow through this area,
not just to this area, to avoid constraining service. SEPTA is currently completely redesigning the
bus network, with implementation of a new bus system set to begin in 2024, well in advance of
opening date for the arena. As the design of the new Arena progresses, the new bus service,
and associated transit priority investments, will be incorporated into the transportation planning.
Based on data provided by SEPTA and on-going coordination discussions, the project is not
expected to result in significant operational impacts to the regional rail, subway, trolley and bus
lines. Additional potential transit improvement measures for event days are detailed in Appendix
M – Transportation Event Management Plan.
42
ANALYSIS OF PARKING OPERATIONS
Based on the trip-generation assessment, the expected parking demand for fans at a fully sold-
out game at the proposed arena would be approximately 2,960 spaces. In comparison, the
existing arena at the Sports Complex had an average parking demand of 5,232 parking spaces
across 112 regular season games during the 2017/2018, 2018/2019 and 2019/2020 seasons. The
parking demand at a sold-out game at the proposed arena would be approximately 2,000 spaces
lower than the existing arena. This drop in parking demand between the existing and proposed
arenas would be a result of an increase in the public transit mode share for fans traveling to/from
the new arena.
Additionally, based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Parking Generation, 5th
Edition, the potential future residential dwelling units are expected to generate a parking demand
for up to 182 parking spaces during the peak overnight period. Although the period of the
residential peak parking demand is not expected to overlap with game times, to be conservative
for this study, we have assumed that it would; thus, a total of 3,142 available spaces on both
Friday and Saturday evenings would be required to satisfy the event-day parking demand from
the proposed arena and potential future residential uses.
Based on the existing parking utilization (see Appendix G – Table G-1), there is sufficient capacity
to accommodate the projected parking demand of the project site. With the addition of the project
parking demand, the parking utilization of the twenty-nine (29) parking facilities located within a
½ mile walk (10 to 15 minute walk) of the project site will increase from 37% to 72% and 47%
to 82% during the Friday and Saturday evening event times respectively (see Appendix H - Table
G-2).
Note that there are additional parking facilities available outside of the ½ radius, including the
Circa Centre and Cira South parking facilities, which can handle any additional parking overflow
that the arena may experience and further distribute the parking demand generated by the
proposed project. Additional event day improvement measures will be detailed in the Appendix
M – Transportation Event Management Plan.
43
CONCLUSIONS
Langan has concluded that the estimate of additional site-generated traffic and pedestrian trips
will have noticeable impacts on the operations at certain study area intersections and along the
pedestrian facilities mainly adjacent to the proposed arena during the build condition. However,
with the implementation of proposed traffic and pedestrian improvements as part of the project,
a majority of the impacts can be mitigated.
With the improvements in place, all study area intersections will operate at acceptable overall
LOS D or better for all five peak hour analysis scenarios, which meets the requirements for urban
areas as described in the PennDOT Policies and Procedures for Transportation Impact Studies.
In addition, all pedestrian elements will operate with acceptable service conditions (LOS D or
better) with the implementation of signal timing modifications and/or crosswalk widening.
Public transit facilities are expected to accommodate the project event day riders through
upgrades to the existing infrastructure and adding additional capacity on game days. Additionally,
based on the estimated parking utilization with event day traffic, the existing parking facilities are
expected to accommodate the additional event day vehicles.
An Transportation Event Management Plan (TEMP) has been proposed in addition to the planned
improvements to further mitigate any potential significant impacts during event days that
otherwise cannot be evaluated or modeled using the traffic analysis software. The TEMP will be
made in coordination with local agencies (Philadelphia Streets Department, SEPTA, PATCO,
Philadelphia Police Department, etc.) to maintain safe and efficient event day operations.
\\langan.com\data\PHL\data5\220173501\Project Data\_Discipline\Traffic\Reports\TIS\76 Place TIS.docx
44
$SSHQGL[ $
6LWH 3ODQ
$SSHQGL[ %
6WXG\ $UHD /RFDWLRQV

$SSHQGL[ &
,QWHUVHFWLRQ $HULDOV
DQG *RRJOH 6WUHHW 9LHZ 3KRWRJUDSKV
&DOORZKLOO 6WUHHW DQG WK 6WUHHW t (DVWERXQG ,QWHUVHFWLRQ
&DOORZKLOO 6WUHHW DQG WK 6WUHHW t :HVWERXQG ,QWHUVHFWLRQ

&DOORZKLOO 6WUHHW DQG WK 6WUHHW t 1RUWKERXQG ,QWHUVHFWLRQ
&DOORZKLOO 6WUHHW DQG WK 6WUHHW t 6RXWKERXQG ,QWHUVHFWLRQ

9LQH 6WUHHW 65 DQG WK 6WUHHW t (DVWERXQG ,QWHUVHFWLRQ
9LQH 6WUHHW 65 DQG WK 6WUHHW t :HVWERXQG ,QWHUVHFWLRQ

9LQH 6WUHHW 65 DQG WK 6WUHHW t 1RUWKERXQG ,QWHUVHFWLRQ
9LQH 6WUHHW 65 DQG WK 6WUHHW t 6RXWKERXQG ,QWHUVHFWLRQ

, 9LQH 6WUHHW DQG )UDQNOLQ 6WUHHW t (DVWERXQG ,QWHUVHFWLRQ
, 9LQH 6WUHHW DQG )UDQNOLQ 6WUHHW t (DVWERXQG ,QWHUVHFWLRQ

, 9LQH 6WUHHW DQG )UDQNOLQ 6WUHHW t 1RUWKERXQG ,QWHUVHFWLRQ
, 9LQH 6WUHHW DQG )UDQNOLQ 6WUHHW t 6RXWKERXQG ,QWHUVHFWLRQ

9LQH 6WUHHW 2II5DPS9LQH 6WUHHW DQG WK 6WUHHW t(DVWERXQG
,QWHUVHFWLRQ
9LQH 6WUHHW 2II5DPS9LQH 6WUHHW DQG WK 6WUHHW t :HVWERXQG

,QWHUVHFWLRQ
9LQH 6WUHHW 2II5DPS9LQH 6WUHHW DQG WK 6WUHHW t 1RUWKERXQG
,QWHUVHFWLRQ
9LQH 6WUHHW 2II5DPS9LQH 6WUHHW DQG WK 6WUHHW t 6RXWKERXQG

,QWHUVHFWLRQ
9LQH 6WUHHW 65 9LQH 6WUHHW RII 5DPS DQG WK 6WUHHW 65
(DVWERXQG ,QWHUVHFWLRQ
:HVWERXQG ,QWHUVHFWLRQ
1RUWKERXQG ,QWHUVHFWLRQ
6RXWKERXQG ,QWHUVHFWLRQ
%URDG 6WUHHW 65 DQG 9LQH 6WUHHW 65 t (DVWERXQG
,QWHUVHFWLRQ
%URDG 6WUHHW 65 DQG 9LQH 6WUHHW 65 t :HVWERXQG

,QWHUVHFWLRQ
%URDG 6WUHHW 65 DQG 9LQH 6WUHHW 65 t 1RUWKERXQG
,QWHUVHFWLRQ
%URDG 6WUHHW 65 DQG 9LQH 6WUHHW 65 t 6RXWKERXQG

,QWHUVHFWLRQ
%URDG 6WUHHW 65 DQG 5DFH 6WUHHW t (DVWERXQG ,QWHUVHFWLRQ
%URDG 6WUHHW 65 DQG 5DFH 6WUHHW t :HVWERXQG ,QWHUVHFWLRQ

%URDG 6WUHHW 65 DQG 5DFH 6WUHHW t 1RUWKERXQG ,QWHUVHFWLRQ
%URDG 6WUHHW 65 DQG 5DFH 6WUHHW t 6RXWKERXQG ,QWHUVHFWLRQ

5DFH 6WUHHW DQG WK 6WUHHW t (DVWERXQG ,QWHUVHFWLRQ
5DFH 6WUHHW DQG WK 6WUHHW t :HVWERXQG ,QWHUVHFWLRQ

5DFH 6WUHHW DQG WK 6WUHHW t 1RUWKERXQG ,QWHUVHFWLRQ
5DFH 6WUHHW DQG WK 6WUHHW t 6RXWKERXQG ,QWHUVHFWLRQ

5DFH 6WUHHW DQG WK 6WUHHW t (DVWERXQG ,QWHUVHFWLRQ
5DFH 6WUHHW DQG WK 6WUHHW t :HVWERXQG ,QWHUVHFWLRQ

5DFH 6WUHHW DQG WK 6WUHHW t 1RUWKERXQG ,QWHUVHFWLRQ
5DFH 6WUHHW DQG WK 6WUHHW t 6RXWKERXQG ,QWHUVHFWLRQ

5DFH 6WUHHW DQG WK 6WUHHW 65 t (DVWERXQG ,QWHUVHFWLRQ
5DFH 6WUHHW DQG WK 6WUHHW 65 t :HVWERXQG ,QWHUVHFWLRQ

5DFH 6WUHHW DQG WK 6WUHHW 65 t 1RUWKERXQG ,QWHUVHFWLRQ
5DFH 6WUHHW DQG WK 6WUHHW 65 t 6RXWKERXQG ,QWHUVHFWLRQ

%URDG 6WUHHW 65 DQG $UFK 6WUHHW 65 t (DVWERXQG
,QWHUVHFWLRQ
%URDG 6WUHHW 65 DQG $UFK 6WUHHW 65 t :HVWERXQG

,QWHUVHFWLRQ
%URDG 6WUHHW 65 DQG $UFK 6WUHHW 65 t 1RUWKERXQG
,QWHUVHFWLRQ
%URDG 6WUHHW 65 DQG $UFK 6WUHHW 65 t 6RXWKERXQG

,QWHUVHFWLRQ
$UFK 6WUHHW 65 DQG WK 6WUHHW t (DVWERXQG ,QWHUVHFWLRQ
$UFK 6WUHHW 65 DQG WK 6WUHHW t :HVWERXQG ,QWHUVHFWLRQ

$UFK 6WUHHW 65 DQG WK 6WUHHW t 1RUWKERXQG ,QWHUVHFWLRQ


$UFK 6WUHHW 65 DQG WK 6WUHHW t 6RXWKERXQG ,QWHUVHFWLRQ









WK 6WUHHW DQG &XWKEHUW 6WUHHW t (DVWERXQG ,QWHUVHFWLRQ
WK 6WUHHW DQG &XWKEHUW 6WUHHW t :HVWERXQG ,QWHUVHFWLRQ

WK 6WUHHW DQG &XWKEHUW 6WUHHW t 1RUWKERXQG ,QWHUVHFWLRQ
WK 6WUHHW DQG &XWKEHUW 6WUHHW t 6RXWKERXQG ,QWHUVHFWLRQ

WK 6WUHHW DQG &XWKEHUW 6WUHHW t :HVWERXQG ,QWHUVHFWLRQ

WK 6WUHHW DQG &XWKEHUW 6WUHHW t6RXWKERXQG ,QWHUVHFWLRQ


WK 6WUHHW DQG &XWKEHUW 6WUHHW t 6RXWKERXQG ,QWHUVHFWLRQ
WK 6WUHHW DQG )LOEHUW 6WUHHW t (DVWERXQG ,QWHUVHFWLRQ
WK 6WUHHW DQG )LOEHUW 6WUHHW t :HVWERXQG ,QWHUVHFWLRQ

WK 6WUHHW DQG )LOEHUW 6WUHHW t 1RUWKERXQG ,QWHUVHFWLRQ
WK 6WUHHW DQG )LOEHUW 6WUHHW t 6RXWKERXQG ,QWHUVHFWLRQ


WK 6WUHHW DQG )LOEHUW 6WUHHW t1RUWKERXQG ,QWHUVHFWLRQ
WK 6WUHHW DQG )LOEHUW 6WUHHW t6RXWKERXQG ,QWHUVHFWLRQ



WK 6WUHHW DQG )LOEHUW 6WUHHW t:HVWERXQG ,QWHUVHFWLRQ





0DUNHW 6WUHHW 65 DQG WK 6WUHHW t (DVWERXQG ,QWHUVHFWLRQ
0DUNHW 6WUHHW 65 DQG WK 6WUHHW t :HVWERXQG ,QWHUVHFWLRQ

0DUNHW 6WUHHW 65 DQG WK 6WUHHW t 1RUWKERXQG ,QWHUVHFWLRQ
0DUNHW 6WUHHW 65 DQG WK 6WUHHW t 6RXWKERXQG ,QWHUVHFWLRQ















$SSHQGL[ '
([LVWLQJ 7UDIILF 6LJQDO

3HUPLW 3ODQV

#76place - Part 1 - Traffic Impact Study and Appendix A Through D

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

#76place - Part 1 - Traffic Impact Study and Appendix A Through D

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Part 1

Traffic Impact Study and

Figure 1: Site Location

1. Callowhill Street and 8th Street;

1. Arch Street and 11th Street;

8. Market Street and 13th Street;

Vine Street (SR 2676)

Arch Street (SR 3007)

Market Street (SR 2004)

15th Street (SR 3029)

Broad Street (SR 611)

6th Street (SR 2005)

The study area roadway characteristics are summarized in Table 1.

Callowhill Street and 8th Street (Intersection #1)

Vine Street (SR 2676) and 8th Street (Intersection #2)

I-676/ Vine Street and Franklin Street (Intersection #3)

Vine Street Off-Ramp/Vine Street and 8th Street (Intersection #4 and 5)

Race Street and 8th Street (Intersection # 9)

Race Street and 7th Street (Intersection #10)

Race Street and 6th Street (SR 2005) (Intersection #11)

Arch Street (SR 3007) and 13th Street (Intersection #13)

Arch Street (SR 3007) and 12th Street (Intersection #14)

Arch Street (SR 3007) and 11th Street (Intersection #15)

Arch Street (SR 3007) and 10th Street (Intersection #16)

Arch Street (SR 3007) and 9th Street (Intersection #17)

Arch Street (SR 3007) and 8th Street (Intersection #18)

11th Street and Cuthbert Street (Intersection #19)

10th Street and Cuthbert Street (Intersection #20)

9th Street and Cuthbert Street (Intersection #21)

13th Street and Filbert Street (Intersection #22)

11th Street and Filbert Street (Intersection #24)

10th Street and Filbert Street (Intersection #25)

9th Street and Filbert Street (Intersection #26)

Market Street (SR 2004) and 12th Street (Intersection #28)

Market Street (SR 2004) and 11th Street (Intersection #29)

Market Street (SR 2004) and 10th Street (Intersection #30)

Market Street (SR 2004) and 9th Street (Intersection #31)

Market Street (SR 2004) and 8th Street (Intersection #32)

Market Street (SR 2004) and 13th Street (Intersection #33)

Vine Street (SR 2676) and 12th Street (Intersection #34)

Vine Street (SR 2676) and 10th Street (Intersection #35)

Existing Transit Facilities

Multiple modes of public transportation operated by the Southeastern Pennsylvania

Existing Parking Facilities

No-Build Traffic and Pedestrian Volumes

Proposed Site Access

Auto 32.1% 33.7% 25 9% 40.0%

Travel Mode Arena-Generated-Trip Average Vehicle Occupancy

Build Traffic and Pedestrian Volumes

Traffic Level of Service Criteria

Table 9: Level of Service Criteria for Signalized Intersections

Below is a list of the assumptions used in our technical analyses:

Traffic Capacity Analysis

Existing and No-Build Conditions

Northbound through movement at Intersection #3

Overall intersection LOS E or F at Intersections #4/5

Build Condition with Proposed Improvements

Additional potential traffic improvement measures are detailed in Appendix M – Transportation

Pedestrian Level of Service Criteria

Table 10: Level of Service Criteria for Sidewalk/Walkway LOS

Below is a list of the assumptions used in our technical analyses:

Existing and No-Build Conditions

Filbert Street and 10th Street

&DOORZKLOO 6WUHHW DQG WK 6WUHHW t :HVWERXQG ,QWHUVHFWLRQ

&DOORZKLOO 6WUHHW DQG WK 6WUHHW t 6RXWKERXQG ,QWHUVHFWLRQ

9LQH 6WUHHW 65 DQG WK 6WUHHW t :HVWERXQG ,QWHUVHFWLRQ

9LQH 6WUHHW 65 DQG WK 6WUHHW t 6RXWKERXQG ,QWHUVHFWLRQ

, 9LQH 6WUHHW DQG )UDQNOLQ 6WUHHW t (DVWERXQG ,QWHUVHFWLRQ

, 9LQH 6WUHHW DQG )UDQNOLQ 6WUHHW t 6RXWKERXQG ,QWHUVHFWLRQ

9LQH 6WUHHW 2II5DPS9LQH 6WUHHW DQG WK 6WUHHW t :HVWERXQG

9LQH 6WUHHW 2II5DPS9LQH 6WUHHW DQG WK 6WUHHW t 6RXWKERXQG

%URDG 6WUHHW 65 DQG 9LQH 6WUHHW 65 t :HVWERXQG

%URDG 6WUHHW 65 DQG 9LQH 6WUHHW 65 t 6RXWKERXQG

%URDG 6WUHHW 65 DQG 5DFH 6WUHHW t :HVWERXQG ,QWHUVHFWLRQ

%URDG 6WUHHW 65 DQG 5DFH 6WUHHW t 6RXWKERXQG ,QWHUVHFWLRQ

5DFH 6WUHHW DQG WK 6WUHHW t :HVWERXQG ,QWHUVHFWLRQ

5DFH 6WUHHW DQG WK 6WUHHW t 6RXWKERXQG ,QWHUVHFWLRQ

5DFH 6WUHHW DQG WK 6WUHHW t :HVWERXQG ,QWHUVHFWLRQ

5DFH 6WUHHW DQG WK 6WUHHW t 6RXWKERXQG ,QWHUVHFWLRQ

5DFH 6WUHHW DQG WK 6WUHHW 65 t :HVWERXQG ,QWHUVHFWLRQ

5DFH 6WUHHW DQG WK 6WUHHW 65 t 6RXWKERXQG ,QWHUVHFWLRQ

%URDG 6WUHHW 65 DQG $UFK 6WUHHW 65 t :HVWERXQG

%URDG 6WUHHW 65 DQG $UFK 6WUHHW 65 t 6RXWKERXQG

$UFK 6WUHHW 65 DQG WK 6WUHHW t :HVWERXQG ,QWHUVHFWLRQ

$UFK 6WUHHW 65 DQG WK 6WUHHW t (DVWERXQG ,QWHUVHFWLRQ

$UFK 6WUHHW 65 DQG WK 6WUHHW t :HVWERXQG ,QWHUVHFWLRQ

$UFK 6WUHHW 65 DQG WK 6WUHHW t 6RXWKERXQG ,QWHUVHFWLRQ

$UFK 6WUHHW 65 DQG WK 6WUHHW t :HVWERXQG ,QWHUVHFWLRQ

$UFK 6WUHHW 65 DQG WK 6WUHHW t 6RXWKERXQG ,QWHUVHFWLRQ

$UFK 6WUHHW 65 DQG WK 6WUHHW t :HVWERXQG ,QWHUVHFWLRQ

$UFK 6WUHHW 65 DQG WK 6WUHHW t 6RXWKERXQG ,QWHUVHFWLRQ

$UFK 6WUHHW 65 DQG WK 6WUHHW t :HVWERXQG ,QWHUVHFWLRQ

$UFK 6WUHHW 65 DQG WK 6WUHHW t 6RXWKERXQG ,QWHUVHFWLRQ

$UFK 6WUHHW 65 DQG WK 6WUHHW t :HVWERXQG ,QWHUVHFWLRQ

$UFK 6WUHHW 65 DQG WK 6WUHHW t 6RXWKERXQG ,QWHUVHFWLRQ

WK 6WUHHW DQG &XWKEHUW 6WUHHW t :HVWERXQG ,QWHUVHFWLRQ

WK 6WUHHW DQG &XWKEHUW 6WUHHW t 6RXWKERXQG ,QWHUVHFWLRQ

WK 6WUHHW DQG &XWKEHUW 6WUHHW t :HVWERXQG ,QWHUVHFWLRQ

WK 6WUHHW DQG &XWKEHUW 6WUHHW t6RXWKERXQG ,QWHUVHFWLRQ

WK 6WUHHW DQG &XWKEHUW 6WUHHW t 1RUWKERXQG ,QWHUVHFWLRQ

WK 6WUHHW DQG )LOEHUW 6WUHHW t :HVWERXQG ,QWHUVHFWLRQ

WK 6WUHHW DQG )LOEHUW 6WUHHW t 6RXWKERXQG ,QWHUVHFWLRQ

WK 6WUHHW DQG )LOEHUW 6WUHHW t :HVWERXQG ,QWHUVHFWLRQ

WK 6WUHHW DQG )LOEHUW 6WUHHW t6RXWKERXQG ,QWHUVHFWLRQ

WK 6WUHHW DQG )LOEHUW 6WUHHW t :HVWERXQG ,QWHUVHFWLRQ

WK 6WUHHW DQG )LOEHUW 6WUHHW t 6RXWKERXQG ,QWHUVHFWLRQ

WK 6WUHHW DQG )LOEHUW 6WUHHW t:HVWERXQG ,QWHUVHFWLRQ

WK 6WUHHW DQG )LOEHUW 6WUHHW t 6RXWKERXQG ,QWHUVHFWLRQ

WK 6WUHHW DQG )LOEHUW 6WUHHW t :HVWERXQG ,QWHUVHFWLRQ

WK 6WUHHW DQG )LOEHUW 6WUHHW t 6RXWKERXQG ,QWHUVHFWLRQ

WK 6WUHHW DQG )LOEHUW 6WUHHW t 1RUWKERXQG ,QWHUVHFWLRQ

0DUNHW 6WUHHW 65 DQG WK 6WUHHW t :HVWERXQG ,QWHUVHFWLRQ

0DUNHW 6WUHHW 65 DQG WK 6WUHHW t 6RXWKERXQG ,QWHUVHFWLRQ

0DUNHW 6WUHHW 65 DQG WK 6WUHHW t :HVWERXQG ,QWHUVHFWLRQ

0DUNHW 6WUHHW 65 DQG WK 6WUHHW t 6RXWKERXQG ,QWHUVHFWLRQ

0DUNHW 6WUHHW 65 DQG WK 6WUHHW t :HVWERXQG ,QWHUVHFWLRQ

0DUNHW 6WUHHW 65 DQG WK 6WUHHW t 6RXWKERXQG ,QWHUVHFWLRQ

0DUNHW 6WUHHW 65 DQG WK 6WUHHW t :HVWERXQG ,QWHUVHFWLRQ

0DUNHW 6WUHHW 65 DQG WK 6WUHHW t 6RXWKERXQG ,QWHUVHFWLRQ

0DUNHW 6WUHHW 65 DQG WK 6WUHHW t :HVWERXQG ,QWHUVHFWLRQ