U.S. 62/Ohio 661 study

8/9/2019 U.S. 62/Ohio 661 study

1/43

District 5 Highway Safety Program

Safety Study: LIC-62-14.93

US 62 at SR 661

2013 Safety Analyst #53, Rural Intersections

Completed By: District 5 Planning and Engineering

Completion Date: March, 2015

Licking

Study

Location

8/9/2019 U.S. 62/Ohio 661 study

2/43

ODOT Highway Safety ProgramSafety Section – LIC-62-14.93 March 2015

Table of Contents

One Page Project Summary ......................................................................................................................... 1

Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................................... 1

Background ............................................................................................................................................. 1

Purpose and Need .................................................................................................................................. 1

Overview of Possible Causes ................................................................................................................. 1

Recommended Countermeasures & Related Costs .............................................................................. 1

Purpose and Need ........................................................................................................................................ 2

Existing Conditions ........................................................................................................................................ 2

Background ............................................................................................................................................. 2

Conditions Diagram ................................................................................................................................ 2

Physical Condition Write-up ................................................................................................................... 2

Crash Data .................................................................................................................................................... 2

Crash Data Summaries .......................................................................................................................... 2

Collision Diagram.................................................................................................................................... 3

Crash Analyses....................................................................................................................................... 3

Identification of Potential Countermeasures ........................................................................................... 4

Removal of Overhead Flashing Beacons ........................................................................................ 4

Installation of Traffic Signal .............................................................................................................. 4

Rural Roundabout ............................................................................................................................ 4

Design Evaluation ................................................................................................................................... 5

Installation of Traffic Signal .............................................................................................................. 5

Rural Roundabout ............................................................................................................................ 5

Proposed Countermeasure Evaluation .................................................................................................. 5

Conclusions ............................................................................................................................................ 5

Proposed Conditions Diagram ................................................................................................................ 7

Summary of Supplemental Traffic Studies ............................................................................................. 8

Countermeasure Recommendations and Implementation Plan ............................................................. 8

8/9/2019 U.S. 62/Ohio 661 study

3/43


List of Tables

Table 1: Crashes Observed by Year ............................................................................................................. 3

Table 2: Crashes Observed by Type ............................................................................................................ 3

Table 3: Crashes Observed by Severity ....................................................................................................... 3

Table 4 - Summary of Operational Analyses ................................................................................................ 8

List of Appendices

Appendix A: Existing Conditions Diagram

Appendix B: Crash Data and Crash Diagram

Appendix C: Safety Performance Review (ECAT Analysis of Existing Site Conditions)

Appendix D: Cost Estimates

Appendix E: Proposed Countermeasure Review (ECAT Analysis of Proposed Countermeasures)

Appendix F: Proposed Conditions Diagram

Appendix G: Supplemental Traffic Data and Studies

8/9/2019 U.S. 62/Ohio 661 study

4/43


1

One Page Project Summary

8/9/2019 U.S. 62/Ohio 661 study

5/43


1

Executive Summary

Background

The following sections provide an overview of the purpose and need, possible causes, recommended

countermeasures, and estimated costs for a safety engineering study at the intersection of US 62 and SR661 in Burlington Township, Licking County, Ohio.

This section of US 62 is classified as a rural major collector (FC 07). In 2012, the estimated average dailytraffic (ADT) on US 62 was 6,140 vehicles per day (vpd). SR 661 is classified as a rural major collector (FC07). In 2012, the estimated ADT on SR 661 was 3,700 vpd. The posted speed limit for the study area onboth US 62 and SR 661 is 55 miles per hour (mph). US 62 serves as a connector between the city of New Albany, the village of Johnstown and the village of Utica. SR 661 provides a connection between the cityof Mt. Vernon and the village of Granville.

The study area is focused on the intersection of US 62 and SR 661. The lane use at the intersection is afour legged approach; each approach has two travel lanes (one shared through-left-right lane). The trafficcontrol at the intersection is a two way stop control (TWSC) condition with both approaches of SR 661

stopping for US 62. There are overhead flashing beacons at the intersection flashing red towards both SR661 approaches and flashing yellow towards both US 62 approaches.

Purpose and Need

The purpose of this safety study is to evaluate the existing safety conditions at the intersection of US 62and SR 661 and determine what countermeasures, if any, can be implemented to mitigate crashesoccurring at the intersection. This location was identified for formal study based on crash data from 2011to 2013 and ranks 53rd in ODOT’s 2013 safety analyst listing f or rural intersection locations.

Overview of Possible Causes

Based on the crash diagram and crash data analysis, 7 of the 9 angle crashes have occurred whenmotorists on SR 661 are failing to yield right of way to vehicles traveling on US 62. Upon review of thecrash reports, drivers are coming to a stop on SR 661, but are proceeding to pull out into the intersectionin front of oncoming US traffic. Further review of the OH-1 crash reports show that the drivers cited as atfault for the crash was not local to the area. This suggests that drivers are either confused with the trafficcontrol at the intersection or they’re becoming impatient due to delay experienced whi le stopped theintersection. When there’re insufficient gaps in traffic, drivers will become more aggressive in their decisionmaking to travel through the intersection, increasing the chance for an accident to occur at the intersection.

Recommended Countermeasures & Related Costs

The recommended countermeasure to reduce the number of injury angle crashes is signalization of theintersection and the addition of left turn lanes on US 62. Signalization of the intersection will provide acommon traffic control devices used at intersection along the corridor and mitigate the number of injuryangle crashes occurring at the intersection. This alternative can be constructed in one and half years withinexisting right of way with a construction cost of $840,813.

8/9/2019 U.S. 62/Ohio 661 study

6/43


2

Purpose and Need

The purpose of this safety study is to evaluate the existing safety conditions at the intersection of US 62and SR 661 and determine what countermeasures, if any, can be implemented to mitigate crashesoccurring at the intersection. This location was identified for formal study based on crash data from 2011

to 2013 and ranks 53rd

in ODOT’s 2013 safety analyst listing for rural intersection locations.

Existing Conditions

The physical, operational, and traffic conditions for the study area are described in the following sections.

Background

The following sections provide an overview of the purpose and need, possible causes, recommendedcountermeasures, and estimated costs for a safety engineering study at the intersection of US 62 and SR661 in Burlington Township, Licking County, Ohio.

This section of US 62 is classified as a rural major collector (FC 07). In 2012, the estimated average dailytraffic (ADT) on US 62 was 6,140 vehicles per day (vpd). SR 661 is classified as a rural major collector (FC07). In 2012, the estimated ADT on SR 661 was 3,700 vpd. The posted speed limit for the study area onboth US 62 and SR 661 is 55 miles per hour (mph). US 62 serves as a connector between the city of New Albany, the village of Johnstown and the village of Utica. SR 661 provides a connection between the cityof Mt. Vernon and the village of Granville.

The study area is focused on the intersection of US 62 and SR 661. The lane use at the intersection is afour legged approach; each approach has two travel lanes (one shared through-left-right lane). The trafficcontrol at the intersection is a two way stop control (TWSC) condition with both approaches of SR 661stopping for US 62. There are overhead flashing beacons at the intersection flashing red towards both SR661 approaches and flashing yellow towards both US 62 approaches.

Conditions Diagram

The existing conditions diagram presented in Appendix A shows existing lane usage, signs and pavementmarkings. The street names are noted on the diagram as well.

Physical Condition Write-up

Both US 62 and SR 661 are rural two lane roads. US 62 has a 24 foot pavement width with 4 foot treatedshoulders. SR 661 has a pavement width of 20 feet with 4 foot treated shoulders. Rumble strips havebeen cut into the travel lanes on both SR 661 approaches to the intersection. All approaches to theintersection have been signed to warn motorists of the upcoming conditions as the approach theintersection. US 62 has dual intersection ahead warning signs along with overhead yellow flashing beaconson both approaches. SR 661 has dual stop ahead warning signs and overhead red flashing beacons towarn motorists of the upcoming stop condition. Both approaches of SR 661 have oversized 48 inch dualstop signs with cross traffic does not stop warning plaques installed below the stop signs.

Crash Data

Crash Data Summaries

Crash data from 2011-2013 was compiled and reviewed as part of this report. During this three year period,

8/9/2019 U.S. 62/Ohio 661 study

7/43


3

14 intersection related crashes were observed within the study area. A complete analysis of the crash datacan be found in Appendix B. The following tables provide a brief overview of the crash data:

Table 1: Crashes Observed by Year

Table 2: Crashes Observed by Type

Table 3: Crashes Observed by Severity

Collision Diagram

A crash diagram showing the location, severity, date, time, pavement condition, and contributing factor ofeach accident can be found in Appendix B.

Crash Analyses

A review of the 14 OH-1 crash reports shows that there were 9 angle crashes (64.3%), 4 rear end crashes(28.6%), and 1 sideswipe-passing crash (7.11%). Of the 9 angle crashes that occurred at the intersection,4 of those were injury crashes and 1 was a fatal crash. The contributing factor common to 7 of the 9 anglecrashes was failure to yield. The common contributing factor for the rear end crashes was failure to provideassured clear distance ahead. An existing conditions analysis indicates that the predicted average crash

frequency for intersection to be 8.01 crashes per year and the expected crash frequency based on observedcrash data to be 6.85 crashes per year. The safety performance report for the existing site conditions arelocated in Appendix C.

Based on the crash diagram and crash data analysis, 7 of the 9 angle crashes have occurred whenmotorists on SR 661 are failing to yield right of way to vehicles traveling on US 62. Upon review of thecrash reports, drivers are coming to a stop on SR 661, but are proceeding to pull out into the intersectionin front of oncoming US traffic. Further review of the OH-1 crash reports show that the drivers cited as atfault for the crash was not local to the area. This suggests that drivers are either confused with the traffic

TRAFFIC_CRASH_YEAR Number TRAFFIC_CRASH_YEAR %

2011 3 2011 21.4%

2012 7 2012 50.0%

2013 4 2013 28.6%

Grand Total 14 Grand Total 100.0%

TYPE_OF_CRASH Number TYPE_OF_CRASH %

ANGLE 9 ANGLE 64.3%

REAR END 4 REAR END 28.6%

SIDESWIPE - PASSING 1 SIDESWIPE - PASSING 7.1%Grand Total 14 Grand Total 100.0%

CRASH_SEVERITY Number CRASH_SEVERITY %

FATAL CRASH 1 FATAL CRASH 7.1%

INJURY CRASH 6 INJURY CRASH 42.9%

PROPERTY DAMAGE CRASH 7 PROPERTY DAMAGE CRASH 50.0%

Grand Total 14 Grand Total 100.0%

8/9/2019 U.S. 62/Ohio 661 study

8/43


4

control at the intersection or they’re becoming impatient due to delay experienced while stopped theintersection. When there’re insufficient gaps in traffic, drivers will become more aggressive in their decisionmaking to travel through the intersection, increasing the chance for an accident to occur at the intersection.

Identification of Potential Countermeasures

Typically, when evaluating potential safety countermeasures, low cost short term and long termcountermeasures are identified and recommended. Low cost countermeasures can be implemented in ashort period of time and have the ability to mitigate crashes within the study area without developing aproject to construct an expensive countermeasure. Record plans for the intersection show that low costcountermeasures have been used at the intersection since the late 1970’s when dual stop ahead warningsigns and rumble stripes were installed on both approaches of SR 661. Record plans also indicate thatdual stop signs and the overhead flashing beacons were present at the intersection during this time. Themost recent low cost countermeasure upgrades at the intersection include work performed in 2012 and2013 as part of statewide systematic intersection sign upgrade project. Dual warning signs on allapproaches were installed or replaced with new fluorescent yellow warning signs.

The continued injury and fatal angle crashes observed at the intersection indicate that low costcountermeasures are not having an effect on mitigating these type of crashes. Potential long termcountermeasures for reducing injury and fatal angle crashes include the removal of the existing overheadflashing beacons, installation of a traffic signal with smart sensor detection or construction of a ruralroundabout.

Removal of Overhead Flashing Beacons

Removal of the existing overhead flashing beacons would likely reduce confusion regarding the trafficcontrol at the intersection, but maintaining a two way stop control condition will not reduce the side roaddelay on SR 661 during peak periods. A signal warrant analysis using turning movement count datacollected in September, 2014 showed that the intersection met the 4 hour signal warrant condition and thepeak hour signal warrant condition. A summary of the signal warrant analysis is highlighted can be foundin the Summary of Supplemental Traffic Studies located in this report.

Installation of Traffic Signal

Based on a signal warrant analysis covered in the Summary of Supplemental Traffic Studies of this report,a traffic signal is warranted for 4 hours during the day and during the peak hour of the day. Thiscountermeasure has been used to reduce injury and fatal angle crashes at the intersections of SR 310 &Morse Road in Licking County and SR 37 & SR 664 in Fairfield County. Benefits to installing a traffic signalat the intersection are that it can operate in free mode for most of day, minimizing delay on US 62 and SR661. A traffic signal is an easily understood traffic control device and should eliminate any confusion as toright of way at the intersection. In addition to the work outlined above, minor profile correction will also beperformed on the southbound approach of SR 661. This countermeasure along with left turn lanes on US62 can be constructed within the existing right of way allowing for design and construction within one anda half years. The final construction cost of the countermeasure is $840,813 and the cost estimate is located

in Appendix D.

Rural Roundabout

A roundabout would allow for continuous traffic flow, while slowing drivers down as they approach theintersection. In addition to slowing drivers down, roundabouts have been shown to significantly reduce allcrash types and crash severities. This type of countermeasure can also accommodate larger business andcommercial vehicles, but must be designed with a larger inscribed circle. Concerns with installing this typeof countermeasure in a rural area are that it’s not a common countermeasure at rural intersection and would

8/9/2019 U.S. 62/Ohio 661 study

9/43


5

be an unexpected condition along the route, allowing continuous traffic flow at the intersection from twohigh speed routes, and the need to install intersection lighting to illuminate the roundabout. The finalconstruction cost of the countermeasure is $2,119,000 and the cost estimate is located in Appendix D.

Design Evaluation

Installation of Traffic Signal

The existing right of way at the intersection allows for construction of left turn lanes on US 62 and a trafficsignal at the intersection. No additional right of way would need to be purchased to construct thiscountermeasure. With immediate funding, design and construction can be completed with one and a halfyears.

Rural Roundabout

Several curves and concrete splitter islands will be needed on each approach requiring alignment changesof the existing intersection approaches. These additional items will cost more than signalizing the

intersection and require right of way to be purchased. Purchasing additional right of way can take up to 2years to complete and add additional costs to the project.

Proposed Countermeasure Evaluation

In addition to evaluating the existing safety conditions and potential for safety improvement at theintersection using the existing site conditions, the installation of a traffic signal with left turn lanes on U.S.62 and a rural roundabout were analyzed using the Economic Crash Analysis Tool to determine thepredicted crash frequency if the countermeasures are constructed. The predicted crash frequency afterthe traffic signal is constructed was found to be 7.07 crashes per year with a reduction of 1.18 injury crashesper year. The countermeasure will reduce 0.94 crashes per year at the intersection. The net present valueof safety benefits was found to be $2,569,675 and the net present value of the project was found to be$1,028,313 with a benefit cost ratio of 2.50. A summary of the proposed countermeasure evaluation can

be found in Appendix E and the proposed conditions diagram can be found in Appendix F.

The predicted crash frequency after the roundabout is constructed was found to be 1.55 crashes per yearwith a reduction of 2.37 injury crashes per year. The countermeasure will reduce 5.30 crashes per year atthe intersection. The net present value of safety benefits was found to be $4,007,260 and the net presentvalue of the project was found to be $2,385,000 with a benefit cost ratio of 1.68.

Conclusions

A safety performance review of the intersection of US 62 & SR 661 located in Appendix C shows that thepredicted number of crashes for the intersection under the existing site conditions will result in 8.01 crashesper year. Based on the observed crashes at the intersection, the expected number of crashes per year are6.85. The safety performance review indicates that of the expected 6.85 crashes per year, 2.71 crasheswill result in injury. A review of the OH-1 crash reports showed that from 2011 to 2013 that there were 14crashes at the intersection, including 9 angle crashes. The most common contributing circumstance for theangle crashes was failure to yield and further review of the crash reports showed that drivers appeared tostop at the intersection and pull out into oncoming traffic. These behaviors indicate possible confusion withthe traffic control at the intersection or excessive delay on the stop controlled approaches at the intersection.Using turning movement counts taken in September of 2013, it was found that a traffic signal is warrantedfor four hours of the day and during the peak hour of the day.

Three alternatives were evaluated as possible countermeasures to the angle crashes occurring at the

8/9/2019 U.S. 62/Ohio 661 study

10/43


6

intersection. With the intersection meeting signal warrants, removal of the existing overhead flashingbeacons is not considered a viable alternative as it may cause additional confusion at the intersection. Atraffic signal and roundabout provide the greatest potential to reduce the number of angle crashes occurringat the intersection. A safety performance review of the proposed countermeasures show that a traffic signalwill reduce 0.94 crashes per year at the intersection and reduce 1.18 injury crashes per year at theintersection. The benefit cost ratio for the countermeasure was found to be 2.50. The roundabout

alternative will reduce 5.30 crashes per year with a reduction of 2.37 injury crashes per year. The benefitcost ratio of the roundabout alternative is 1.68.

The recommended countermeasure to reduce the number of injury angle crashes is signalization of theintersection and the addition of left turn lanes on US 62. This alternative can be constructed in one andhalf years within existing right of way with a construction cost of $840,813.

8/9/2019 U.S. 62/Ohio 661 study

11/43


7

Proposed Conditions Diagram

8/9/2019 U.S. 62/Ohio 661 study

12/43


8

Summary of Supplemental Traffic Studies

A turning movement count at the intersection was performed in September, 2014. Traffic data for the studyarea was collected in 2011. The average daily traffic on this section of US 62 is 6,140 vpd. The averagedaily traffic on SR 661 was 3,700 vpd. The turning movement count along with the 2012 Traffic Survey

Map are shown in Appendix G.

A Signal Warrant analysis was performed using guidance from the OMUTCD Chapter 4C and TrafficEngineering Manual Section 402-3. PC Warrants was used to perform the Signal Warrant analysis. Theanalysis determined that this location, based on the number of existing lanes and turning movement countdata meets the signal warrant requirements for Warrant 2 (Four Hour Volumes) and Warrant 3 (Peak Hour)for the 70% rural values. The Signal Warrant summary report from PC Warrants is presented in Appendix G.

Traffic operations were analyzed using the existing site conditions and turning movement counts collectedin 2014 to determine if there are any operational issues existing at the intersection. Using Synchro trafficsoftware to produce a HCM 2010 operations report, an analysis of the existing TWSC condition at theintersection shows that the both approaches of SR 661 operate at a Level-of-Serve (LOS) C during the PMpeak period. In addition to evaluating the existing operations at the intersection, both proposedcountermeasures were evaluated. Both the traffic signal and roundabout alternatives were found to operateat a LOS A during the PM peak period at the intersection. Table 4 below shows a summary of theoperational analyses for each of the conditions evaluated and the reports for each condition are located inAppendix G.

Table 4 - Summary of Operational Analyses

Countermeasure Recommendations and Implementation Plan

Design of the left turn lanes and traffic signal will be performed by ODOT District 5 and can begin oncefunding is approved for the project. No right of way is needed to construct the countermeasure and theestimated start of construction for the project is in the summer of 2016.

Intersection Delay (sec/veh) / LOS

Traffic Control NB SB EB WB

TWSC C C 9

Signalization A A B B 7.6 / A

Roundabout A A B A 8.5 / A

Approach Delay LOS

8/9/2019 U.S. 62/Ohio 661 study

13/43


Appendix A: Existing Conditions Diagram

8/9/2019 U.S. 62/Ohio 661 study

14/43

8/9/2019 U.S. 62/Ohio 661 study

15/43


Appendix B: Crash Data and Crash Diagram

8/9/2019 U.S. 62/Ohio 661 study

16/43

8/9/2019 U.S. 62/Ohio 661 study

17/43

LIC-62-14.93

Number

Total 14

CRASH_SEVERITY Number % TRAFFIC_CRASH_YEAR Number %

FATAL CRASH 1 7.1% 2011 3 21.4%

NJURY CRASH 6 42.9% 2012 7 50.0%

PROPERTY DAMAGE CRASH 7 50.0% 2013 4 28.6%Grand Total 14 100.0% Grand Total 14 100.0%

DAY_OF_WEEK Number %

FRIDAY 4 28.6%

MONDAY 3 21.4%

SATURDAY 3 21.4%

WEDNESDAY 2 14.3%

THURSDAY 1 7.1%

TUESDAY 1 7.1%

Grand Total 14 100.0%

HOUR_OF_DAY Number % TYPE_OF_CRASH Number %

08 1 7.1% ANGLE 9 64.3%

09 1 7.1% REAR END 4 28.6%

10 1 7.1% SIDESWIPE - PASSING 1 7.1%

11 1 7.1% Grand Total 14 100.0%

12 1 7.1%

13 1 7.1%

14 2 14.3%

15 1 7.1%

17 2 14.3%

18 2 14.3%

19 1 7.1%


8/9/2019 U.S. 62/Ohio 661 study

18/43

LIC-62-14.93WEATHER_CONDITION Number % ROAD_CONDITION Number %

NO ADVERSE WEATHER CONDITION 14 100.0% ROAD - DRY 13 92.9%

Grand Total 14 100.0% ROAD - WET 1 7.1%


LIGHT_CONDITION Number % NUMBER_OF_VEHICLES Number %

DAYLIGHT 13 92.9% 2 11 78.6%

DARK - NO LIGHTS 1 7.1% 3 3 21.4%

Grand Total 14 100.0% Grand Total 14 100.0%

LOCATION Number % CRASH_MONTH_NBR Number %

NTERSECTION 12 85.7% 3 1 7.1%

NON-INTERSECTION 2 14.3% 4 1 7.1%

Grand Total 14 100.0% 5 3 21.4%

6 3 21.4%

8 1 7.1%

9 1 7.1%

10 1 7.1%

12 3 21.4%


ROAD_CONTOUR Number %

STRAIGHT - LEVEL 14 100.0%


SPECIAL_AREA Number % ANIMAL_TYPE Number %

SPECIAL AREA - NOT STATED 14 100.0% ANIMAL NOT STATED 14 100.0%


8/9/2019 U.S. 62/Ohio 661 study

19/43

LIC-62-14.93ACTION1 Number % CONTRIBUTING_FACTOR1 Number %

GOING STRAIGHT 11 78.6% FAILURE TO YIELD 7 50.0%

TURNING LEFT 1 7.1% FOLLOWING TOO CLOSE 5 35.7%

TURNING RIGHT 1 7.1% RAN STOP SIGN OR YIELD SIGN 1 7.1%

PARKING/UNPARKING 1 7.1% DROVE OFF ROAD-REASON UNKNOWN 1 7.1%


OBJECT_STRUCK1 Number %

OBJECT NOT STATED 7 50.0%

NOTHING STRUCK 6 42.9%

UTILITY POLE 1 7.1%


TRAFFIC_CONTROL1 Number %

STOP SIGN 10 71.4%

PAVEMENT MARKINGS 2 14.3%

TRAFFIC FLASHERS 2 14.3%


DRIVER_ALCOHOL1 Number %

NO ALCOHOL DETECTED 13 92.9%

HBD - ABILITY IMPAIRED 1 7.1%


DRIVER_DRUGS1 Number %

NO DRUGS DETECTED 14 100.0%


8/9/2019 U.S. 62/Ohio 661 study

20/43

LIC-62-14.93DIRECTION_FROM1 Number % DIRECTION_TO1 Number %

NORTH 5 35.7% NORTH 5 35.7%

SOUTH 5 35.7% SOUTH 4 28.6%

WEST 2 14.3% EAST 2 14.3%

EAST 1 7.1% WEST 2 14.3%

SOUTHWEST 1 7.1% NORTHEAST 1 7.1%


POSTED_SPEED1 Number % ESTIMATED_SPEED1 Number %

POSTED 55 14 100.0% SPEED 20 AND UNDER 10 71.4%

Grand Total 14 100.0% SPEED 26-35 2 14.3%

VEHICLE SPEED NOT STATED 1 7.1%

SPEED 56-65 1 7.1%


VEHICLE_TYPE1 Number % VEHICLE_TYPE2 Number %

OTHER VEHICLE 4 28.6% MID-SIZE 4 28.6%

MID-SIZE 4 28.6% PICKUP TRUCK 2 14.3%

TRACTOR SEMI TRAILER 2 14.3% TRACTOR SEMI TRAILER 2 14.3%

PICKUP TRUCK 2 14.3% FULL-SIZE 2 14.3%

COMPACT 2 14.3% STRAIGHT TRUCK TRAILER 1 7.1%

Grand Total 14 100.0% COMPACT 1 7.1%

MOTORCYCLE - 351CC-750CC 1 7.1%

OTHER VEHICLE 1 7.1%


8/9/2019 U.S. 62/Ohio 661 study

21/43

8/9/2019 U.S. 62/Ohio 661 study

22/43

KA B C O Total

0.5843 1.4161 0.9431 5.0682 8.0117

0.5568 1.2854 0.8849 4.1309 6.8580

-0.0275 -0.1307 -0.0582 -0.9373 -1.1537

KA B C O Total

US62; 14.93 US 62 & SR 661 0.5843 1.4161 0.9431 5.0682 8.0

KA B C O Total

US62; 14.93 US 62 & SR 661 0.5568 1.2854 0.8849 4.1309 6

KA B C O Total

US62; 14.93 US 62 & SR 661 -0.0275 -0.1307 -0.0582 -0.9373 -1.1

Proposed

Predicted Crash

Frequency

Expected Crash

FrequencyPSI

Expected Crash

Frequency

Unknown 0.0261 0.0259 -0.0002

Head On 0.0567 0.0564 -0.0003

Rear End 1.4101 1.2074 -0.2027

Backing 0.2654 0.2510 -0.0144

Sideswipe - Meeting 0.1917 0.1882 -0.0035

Sideswipe - Passing 0.2983 0.2860 -0.0123 Angle 2.5177 2.0912 -0.4265

Parked Vehicle 0.2347 0.2246 -0.0101

Pedestrian 0.0322 0.0320 -0.0002

Animal 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Train 0.0011 0.0011 0.0000

Pedalcycles 0.0242 0.0242 0.0000

Other Non-Vehicle 0.0005 0.0005 0.0000

Fixed Object 1.1067 0.9714 -0.1353

Other Object 0.0386 0.0382 -0.0004

Overturning 0.0667 0.0664 -0.0003

Other Non-Collision 0.0875 0.0863 -0.0012

Left Turn 0.2398 0.2348 -0.0050

Right Turn 0 .0000 0.0000 0.0000

Common Name

Contact Email

Contact Phone

Date Performed

Analysis Year

Project Description

Reference Number

Traffic Signal

Project Name LIC-62-14.93 jonathan.ryan.dot.state.oh.us

740-323-5274

10/21/2014

2014

Common NameCrash Severity Level

Analyst

Agency/Company

John Ryan

ODOT District 5

Summary of Ant icipated Safety Performance of t he Project (average crashes/year)

Existing Conditions Project Element Predicted Crash Summary (Without Animal Crashes)Crash Severity Level

Project Summary Results (Without Anim al Crashes)

Npredicted - Existing Conditions

Nexpected - Existing Conditions

Npotential for improvement - Existing Conditions

Project Element ID

Existing

Crash Type

P r o j e c t a n d S i t e C o n d i t i o n s I n f o r m a t i o n

Summary by Crash Type

Existing Conditions Project Element Potential for Safety Improvement Summary (Without Animal Crashes)

Project Element ID Common NameCrash Severity Level

General Information

Project Safety Performance Report

Existi ng Conditi ons Project Element Expected Crash Summary (Without Animal Crashes)

Project Element ID

0.6

1.40.9

5.1

8.0

0.6

1.30.9

4.1

6.9

0.0

-0.1 -0.1

-0.9-1.2

‐2.0

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

KA B C O Total

Existing ConditionsPredicted Average CrashFrequency

Existing ConditionsExpected Average CrashFrequency

Existing CondtionsPotential for SafetyImprovement

Created by the Offic e of Syst ems Planning and Program Management

8/9/2019 U.S. 62/Ohio 661 study

23/43

8/9/2019 U.S. 62/Ohio 661 study

24/43

Quantity

Measurement Quantity Unit Total Quantity Un

Cost $ Co

Roadway Pavement Sq. Yds. 7,800 $45.00 $351,000 7,100 $45

Curb & Gutter Ft. 1,200 $40.00 $48,000 980 $40

Concrete Median Sq. Yds. 1,100 $45.00 $49,500 420 $45

Earthwork Excavation Cu. Yds. 6,400 $10.00 $64,000 8,100 $10

Embankment Cu. Yds. 4,700 $8.00 $37,600 8,800 $8

Roundabout Lighting Lump $50,000

Other Construction Costs * $121,000

$2,000

Utility Relocation (%) 5.0% $37,000 5.0

Inflation for Year ** : 2015 8% $360,000

Estimated Cost (Rounded Up)

* Other Construction Costs determined from roadway quantities times the following percentage: 20%

Other construction costs include traffic, maintenance of traffic, drainage, etc.

Utility Costs determined from the quantities above less Right of Way times the percentage shown

** Inflation (% per year from 2013) times sum of all costs.

Total Estimated Cost Current Year

Feature

Single Lane Roundabout

$1,439,000

$1,130,000

Right of Way

$9

Total Estimated Cost $2,119,000

LIC-62

Roundabout at State Route 661

Preliminary Construction Cost EstimatesPID: N/A

Revised: 08/01/2013

SUS 62

LIC-US 62 Cost Matrix.xls

8/9/2019 U.S. 62/Ohio 661 study

25/43

8/9/2019 U.S. 62/Ohio 661 study

26/43

8/9/2019 U.S. 62/Ohio 661 study

27/43

8/9/2019 U.S. 62/Ohio 661 study

28/43


Appendix E: Proposed Countermeasure Review (ECAT Analysis of

Proposed Countermeasures)

8/9/2019 U.S. 62/Ohio 661 study

29/43

KA B C O Total

0.5843 1.4161 0.9431 5.0682 8.0117

0.5568 1.2854 0.8849 4.1309 6.8580

-0.0275 -0.1307 -0.0582 -0.9373 -1.1537

0.1654 0.7034 0.8892 5.3134 7.0714

KA B C O Total

US62; 14.93 US 62 & SR 661 0.5843 1.4161 0.9431 5.0682 8.0117

KA B C O Total

US62; 14.93 US 62 & SR 661 0.5568 1.2854 0.8849 4.1309 6.858

KA B C O Total

US62; 14.93 US 62 & SR 661 -0.0275 -0.1307 -0.0582 -0.9373 -1.1537

KA B C O Total

US62; 14.93 US 62 & SR 661 0.1654 0.7034 0.8892 5.3134 7.0714

Proposed

Predicted Crash

Frequency

Expected Crash

FrequencyPSI

Expected Crash

Frequency

Unknown 0.0081 0.0081 0.0000 0.0081

Head On 0.0517 0.0515 -0.0002 0.0517

Rear End 3.1150 2.5868 -0.5282 3.1150

Backing 0.3368 0.3253 -0.0115 0.3368

Sideswipe - Meeting 0.1430 0.1417 -0.0013 0.1430

Sideswipe - Passing 0.4872 0.4668 -0.0204 0.4872

Angle 1.4305 1.3265 -0.1040 1.4305

Parked Vehicle 0.2637 0.2576 -0.0061 0.2637

Pedestrian 0.0656 0.0655 -0.0001 0.0656

Animal 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Train 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Pedalcycles 0.0435 0.0434 -0.0001 0.0435

Other Non-Vehicle 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Fixed Object 0.4498 0.4368 -0.0130 0.4498

Other Object 0.0143 0.0144 0.0001 0.0143

Overturning 0.0282 0.0282 0.0000 0.0282

Other Non-Collision 0.0403 0.0403 0.0000 0.0403

Left Turn 0.5934 0.5769 -0.0165 0.5934

Right Turn 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Existing

Crash Type



Existing Condit ions Project Element Potential for Safety Improvement Summary (Without Animal Crashes)


Proposed Conditions Project Element Predicted Crash Summary (Without Animal Crashes)


General Information


Existing Condit ions Project Element Expected Crash Summary (Without Animal Crashes)


Analyst

Agency/Company

John Ryan

ODOT District 5

Summary of Anticipated Safety Performance of the Project (average crashes/year)

Existing Conditi ons Project Element Predicted Crash Summary (Without Animal Crashes)Crash Severity Level

Project Summary Results (Without Animal Crashes)



Npredicted - Proposed Conditions


Project Element ID

[email protected]

740-323-5274

2/4/2014

2016

Common Name

Contact Email

Contact Phone

Date Performed

Analysis Year

Project Description

Reference Number

Traffic Signal

Project Name LIC-62-14.93

0.6

1.40.9

5.1

8.0

0.6

1.30.9

4.1

6.9

0.0

-0.1 -0.1

-0.9-1.2

0.20.7 0.9

5.3

7.1

‐2.0

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

KA B C O Total

Existing ConditionsPredicted Average Crash

Frequency



Proposed ConditionsPredicted Average CrashFrequency

Created by the Office of Systems Planning and Program Management

8/9/2019 U.S. 62/Ohio 661 study

30/43

KA B C O Total

0.5843 1.4161 0.9431 5.0682 8.0117

0.5568 1.2854 0.8849 4.1309 6.8580

-0.0275 -0.1307 -0.0582 -0.9373 -1.1537

0.0724 0.1671 0.1150 1.1980 1.5525

KA B C O Total

US62; 14.93 US 62 & SR 661 0.5843 1.4161 0.9431 5.0682 8.0117

KA B C O Total

US62; 14.93 US 62 & SR 661 0.5568 1.2854 0.8849 4.1309 6.858

KA B C O Total

US62; 14.93 US 62 & SR 661 -0.0275 -0.1307 -0.0582 -0.9373 -1.1537

KA B C O Total

US62; 14.93 US 62 & SR 661 0.0724 0.1671 0.115 1.198 1.5525

Proposed

Predicted Crash

Frequency

Expected Crash

FrequencyPSI

Expected Crash

Frequency

Unknown 0.0261 0.0259 -0.0002 0.0064

Head On 0.0567 0.0564 -0.0003 0.0105

Rear End 1.4101 1.2074 -0.2027 0.2830

Backing 0.2654 0.2510 -0.0144 0.0707

Sideswipe - Meeting 0.1917 0.1882 -0.0035 0.0423

Sideswipe - Passing 0.2983 0.2860 -0.0123 0.0721

Angle 2.5177 2.0912 -0.4265 0.4301

Parked Vehicle 0.2347 0.2246 -0.0101 0.0611

Pedestrian 0.0322 0.0320 -0.0002 0.0050

Animal 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Train 0.0011 0.0011 0.0000 0.0002Pedalcycles 0.0242 0.0242 0.0000 0.0042

Other Non-Vehicle 0.0005 0.0005 0.0000 0.0001

Fixed Object 1.1067 0.9714 -0.1353 0.2326

Other Object 0.0386 0.0382 -0.0004 0.0104

Overturning 0.0667 0.0664 -0.0003 0.0126

Other Non-Collision 0.0875 0.0863 -0.0012 0.0228

Left Turn 0.2398 0.2348 -0.0050 0.0503

Right Turn 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Common Name

Contact Email

Contact Phone

Date Performed

Analysis Year

Project Description

Reference Number

Rural Roundabout Alternative

Project Name LIC-62-14.93 [email protected]

740-323-5274

10/21/2014

2014

Common NameCrash Severity Level

Analyst

Agency/Company

John Ryan

ODOT District 5

Summary of Anticipated Safety Performance of the Project (average crashes/year)

Existing Conditi ons Project Element Predicted Crash Summary (Without Animal Crashes)Crash Severity Level

Project Summary Results (Without Animal Crashes)



Nexpected - Proposed Conditions


Project Element ID

Existing

Crash Type



Existing Condit ions Project Element Potential for Safety Improvement Summary (Without Animal Crashes)


Proposed Conditions Project Element Expected Crash Summary (Without Anim al Crashes)


General Information


Existing Condit ions Project Element Expected Crash Summary (Without Animal Crashes)

Project Element ID

0.6

1.40.9

5.1

8.0

0.6

1.30.9

4.1

6.9

0.0

-0.1 -0.1

-0.9-1.2

0.1 0.2 0.1

1.2 1.6

‐2.0

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

KA B C O Total

Existing ConditionsPredicted Average Crash

Frequency



Proposed ConditionsExpected Average CrashFrequency

Created by the Office of Systems Planning and Program Management

8/9/2019 U.S. 62/Ohio 661 study

31/43


Appendix F: Proposed Conditions Diagram

8/9/2019 U.S. 62/Ohio 661 study

32/43

8/9/2019 U.S. 62/Ohio 661 study

33/43


Appendix G: Supplemental Traffic Data and Studies

8/9/2019 U.S. 62/Ohio 661 study

34/43

40

16

310

161

310

161

15837

79

360

40

16

37

37

62

310

37

37

661

62

657 661

79

13

79

13

79

16

13

657

13

62

SAINT ALBANS

HARRISON

UNION

JERSEY

MONROE

HARTFORD

GRANVILLE

MCKEAN

LIBERTY

BENNINGTON

BURLINGTON

LICKING

BOWLI

FRANKLIN

ETNA

MADIS

NEWARK

NEWTON

WASHINGTON

MA

EDE

HARTFORD

KIRKERSVILLE

HEBRON

GRANVILLE

JOHNSTOWN

ALEXANDRIA

HEATH

NEWARK

PATASKALA

SAINT LOUISVILLE

UTICA

BUCKEYE LAKE

70

12700

1 2 0 8 0

11420

51540

61180

29020

1 1

4 0 0

7 2

2 0

19 15 0

15690

5480 6 9

9 0

2 2 5 0

4170

1 5 1 8 0

4 3 8 0

4 35 8 0

6190

8 6 5 0

9 2 4 0

6 1 9 0

4 3 5 0

2 4 8 4 0 8 2 5 0

1 6 9 7

0

1 2 3 1

0

130

3 4 4 0

8 0 0 0

8 7 9 0

1 2 4 1 0

7 5 9 0

2 4 7 0

5 7 6 0

5 4 3 0

3 0 1 0

4370

2 2 3 0

7 4 0

1 1 0 0

1 0 7

0

3 7 0 0

6 1 4 0

9 6

0 0

1 3 3 0

0

3 2 9 9 0

4 4 5 0

1 01 00

7980

3 3 87 0

2 7 2 0 0 12 210

9 7 7 0

3 5 8 0

3220

3010

3 2 4 0

49020

3 0 1 0

10 0 0 0

1 1 1 0

0

9 5 6 0

3680

1130

1 6

1 4

0

9 0 9 0

900040790

1 1 5 6 0

3 2 7 4 0

2 3 5 9

0

3 7 6 4 0

1 7 3 4 0

9 4 0 0

4 1

3 0

5 4

4 0

4 2 1 0

6 6 6 0

2 0 4 0

2250

2 8 8 0

4 3 8 0

8 0 6 0

1 0 8 0 0

1 4 3 7 0

1 0 4 0 0

1 2 2 8 0

7 1 8 0

8 7 3 0

4 0 9 5 0

10 9 0 0

34750

7720

1 3 1 0 0

7 3 9 0

1 3 2 3 0

3 4 2 9 0

6 8 4 0

7 5 7 0

2 8

9 2

0

2 6 7

0 0

6 4 2 0 8 5 6 0

1 0 2 5 0

6 8

1 0

2 63 3 0

1 1 1 9 0

1 3 8 9 0

34320

2 9 9 0

2 2 4 4 029250

6 7 2 0

1 4 1 6 0

8 1 5 0

Ohio DeparOffice of TeTraffic Mon

Licking County Annual Average Daily Traffic 2012

8/9/2019 U.S. 62/Ohio 661 study

35/43

8/9/2019 U.S. 62/Ohio 661 study

36/43

File Name : LIC-62_&_SR-661_TMC_178415_09Site Code :Start Date : 9/10/2014Page No : 2

Groups Printed- Lights - Other VehiclesSouthbound Approach

From NorthWestbound Approach

From EastNorthbound Approach

From SouthEastbound Approach

From Westtart Time Right Thru Left U-Turn App. Total Right Thru Left U-Turn App. Total Right Thru Left U-Turn App. Total Right Thru Left U-Turn App. Tota01:15 PM 7 7 0 0 14 3 29 4 0 36 5 11 0 0 16 2 28 8 0 3801:30 PM 22 10 0 0 32 3 26 4 0 33 3 5 2 0 10 0 34 9 0 4301:45 PM 16 11 2 0 29 1 22 5 0 28 3 8 1 0 12 0 25 14 0 39

Total 56 35 2 0 93 8 101 15 0 124 15 37 3 0 55 2 113 41 0 156

02:00 PM 15 15 0 0 30 0 29 4 0 33 5 9 0 0 14 1 18 10 0 2902:15 PM 9 9 3 0 21 0 23 6 0 29 5 10 1 0 16 2 36 19 0 5702:30 PM 17 11 0 0 28 2 30 8 0 40 9 6 0 0 15 2 27 14 0 4302:45 PM 14 14 1 0 29 0 22 1 0 23 10 9 2 0 21 2 32 20 0 54

Total 55 49 4 0 108 2 104 19 0 125 29 34 3 0 66 7 113 63 0 183

03:00 PM 15 9 2 0 26 0 32 5 0 37 8 14 0 0 22 1 39 21 0 6103:15 PM 25 9 0 0 34 0 21 7 0 28 4 11 1 0 16 1 42 23 0 6603:30 PM 19 18 0 0 37 2 41 6 0 49 2 14 1 0 17 0 50 32 0 8203:45 PM 28 24 1 0 53 1 19 5 0 25 15 12 0 0 27 0 47 28 0 75

Total 87 60 3 0 150 3 113 23 0 139 29 51 2 0 82 2 178 104 0 284

04:00 PM 18 16 0 0 34 2 38 5 0 45 5 15 1 0 21 1 58 27 0 8604:15 PM 29 17 1 0 47 0 25 6 0 31 17 16 0 0 33 3 61 40 0 10404:30 PM 27 28 0 0 55 0 24 8 0 32 9 20 0 0 29 0 67 38 0 10504:45 PM 23 16 0 0 39 0 23 4 0 27 6 20 1 0 27 0 70 38 0 108

Total 97 77 1 0 175 2 110 23 0 135 37 71 2 0 110 4 256 143 0 403

05:00 PM 28 23 0 0 51 0 20 3 0 23 5 20 0 0 25 0 61 36 0 97

05:15 PM 31 29 0 0 60 1 24 3 0 28 12 28 0 0 40 0 75 32 0 10705:30 PM 32 23 1 0 56 0 18 6 0 24 10 26 0 0 36 2 57 31 0 9005:45 PM 20 20 0 0 40 0 21 9 0 30 9 17 1 0 27 0 58 22 0 80

Total 111 95 1 0 207 1 83 21 0 105 36 91 1 0 128 2 251 121 0 374

and Total 916 661 25 0 1602 35 1557 275 0 1867 269 615 32 0 916 28 1448 852 0 2328Apprch % 57.2 41.3 1.6 0 1.9 83.4 14.7 0 29.4 67.1 3.5 0 1.2 62.2 36.6 0

Total % 13.6 9.8 0.4 0 23.9 0.5 23.2 4.1 0 27.8 4 9.2 0.5 0 13.6 0.4 21.6 12.7 0 34.7Lights 817 608 22 0 1447 31 1366 254 0 1651 246 565 29 0 840 24 1263 762 0 2049

% Lights 89.2 92 88 0 90.3 88.6 87.7 92.4 0 88.4 91.4 91.9 90.6 0 91.7 85.7 87.2 89.4 0 88 Vehicles 99 53 3 0 155 4 191 21 0 216 23 50 3 0 76 4 185 90 0 279

er Vehicles 10.8 8 12 0 9.7 11.4 12.3 7.6 0 11.6 8.6 8.1 9.4 0 8.3 14.3 12.8 10.6 0 12

Ohio Department of TransportationDistrict 5 - Planning & Engineering

9600 Jacksontown RoadJacksontown, OH 43030

740-323-4400

8/9/2019 U.S. 62/Ohio 661 study

37/43

8/9/2019 U.S. 62/Ohio 661 study

38/43

Ohio Department of TransportationDistrict 5

9600 Jacksontown Rd, Jacksontown, OH 43030Study Name : LIC-62-14.93 Signal Warrant Analysis

Signal Warrants - Summ ary

Major Street Approaches Minor Street Approaches

Eastbound: Eastbound Approach

Number of Lanes: 1

85% Speed > 40 MPH.

Total Approach Volume: 2,328

Northbound: Northbound Approach

Number of Lanes: 1

Total Approach Volume: 916

Westbound: Westbound Approach

Number of Lanes: 1

85% Speed > 40 MPH.


Southbound: Southbound Approach

Number of Lanes: 1


Warrant Summary (Rural values apply.)

Warrant 1 - Eight Hour Vehicular Volumes ................................................................................ ........................................... Not Satisfie

Warrant 1A - Minimum Vehicular Volume .................................................................................... .....Not SatisfiedRequired volumes reached for 6 hours, 8 are needed

Warrant 1B - Interruption of Continuous Traffic ............................................................................ ..Not Satisfied

Required volumes reached for 1 hours, 8 are needed

Warrant 1 A&B - Combination of Warrants ................................................................................ ......Not Satisfied

Required volumes reached for 5 hours, 8 are needed

Warrant 2 - Four Hour Volumes ........................................................................................ ..................................................... Satisfie

Number of hours (4) volumes exceed minimum >= minimum required (4).

Warrant 3 - Peak Hour ........................................................................................ ..................................................................... Satisfie

Warrant 3A - Peak Hour Delay ........................................................................................ ...................Satisfied

Number of hours (6) volumes exceed minimum >= required (1). Delay data not evaluated.

Warrant 3B - Peak Hour Volumes ...................................................................................... ................Not Satisfied

Volumes do not exceed minimums for any hour.

Warrant 4 - Pedestrian Volumes ..................................................................................... ....................................................... Not Evaluate

Warrant 5 - School Crossing ..................................................................................... ............................................................. Not Evaluate

Warrant 6 - Coordinated Signal System .............................................................................. .................................................. Not Satisfie

No adjacent coordinated signals are present

Warrant 7 - Crash Experience ........................................................................................ ........................................................ Not Satisfie

Number of accidents (3) is less than minimum (5). Volume minimums are met.

Warrant 8 - Roadway Network ...................................................................................... ......................................................... Not Satisfie

Major Route conditions not met. No volume requirement met.

Warrant 9 - Intersection Near a Grade Crossing ............................................................................. ..................................... Not Evaluate

8/9/2019 U.S. 62/Ohio 661 study

39/43

Ohio Department of TransportationDistrict 5

9600 Jacksontown Rd, Jacksontown, OH 43030Study Name : LIC-62-14.93 Signal Warrant Analysis

Signal Warrants - Summ ary

200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

Major Street - Total of Both Directions (VPH)

M i n

o r S t r e e t - H i g h e r V o l u m e A p p r o a c h ( V P H

)

Warrant Curves

Peak Hour WarrantFour Hour Warrant

[Rural, 1 major lane and 1 minor lane curves used]

10:30

09:3000:00

01:00

08:30

02:00

08:1508:0007:4507:3007:0007:1506:45

06:30

03:1503:3003:0006:0004:00

Analysis of 8-Hour Volume Warrants:War 1A-Minimum Volume War 1B-Interruption of Traffic War 1C-Combination of Warrants

Hour Major Minor Maj Min Hour Major Minor Maj Min Hour Major Minor Maj Min

Begin Total Vol Dir 350 105 Begin Total Vol Dir 525 53 Begin Total Vol Dir 420 84

10:30 527 205 SB Yes Yes 10:00 538 175 SB Yes Yes 10:00 538 175 SB Yes Yes

09:30 497 171 SB Yes Yes 09:45 503 189 SB No Yes 11:00 479 207 SB Yes Yes




02:00 351 148 SB Yes Yes 00:45 430 173 SB No Yes 01:00 408 186 SB No Yes

08:15 344 104 SB No No 00:00 430 157 SB No Yes 08:45 400 126 SB No Yes

08:00 308 108 SB No Yes 01:15 428 189 SB No Yes 08:30 352 117 SB No Yes











04:00 249 88 SB No No 08:15 344 104 SB No Yes 06:30 267 74 SB No No






8/9/2019 U.S. 62/Ohio 661 study

40/43

8/9/2019 U.S. 62/Ohio 661 study

41/43

HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary

3: 2/12/2015

LIC-62-14.93 Safety Study 2/6/2015 Build Condition Synchro 8 Report

John Ryan Page1

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

Lane Configurations

Volume (veh/h) 143 256 4 23 110 2 2 71 37 1 77 97

Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 7 4 14 3 8 18

Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 171.2 168.1 190.0 175.9 169.7 190.0 190.0 175.4 190.0 190.0 173.2 190.0

Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 155 278 4 25 120 2 2 77 40 1 84 105

Adj No. of Lanes 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0

Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92

Percent Heavy Veh, % 11 13 13 8 12 12 8 8 8 8 8 8

Cap, veh/h 731 784 11 608 789 13 118 227 116 115 147 183

Arrive On Green 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21

Sat Flow, veh/h 1162 1653 24 1032 1664 28 10 1085 555 3 703 872

Grp Volume(v), veh/h 155 0 282 25 0 122 119 0 0 190 0 0Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1162 0 1677 1032 0 1692 1650 0 0 1577 0 0

Q Serve(g_s), s 2.8 0.0 3.4 0.5 0.0 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 4.1 0.0 3.4 3.9 0.0 1.3 1.9 0.0 0.0 3.4 0.0 0.0

Prop In Lane 1.00 0.01 1.00 0.02 0.02 0.34 0.01 0.55

Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 731 0 795 608 0 802 461 0 0 445 0 0

V/C Ratio(X) 0.21 0.00 0.35 0.04 0.00 0.15 0.26 0.00 0.00 0.43 0.00 0.00

Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1466 0 1856 1260 0 1872 896 0 0 862 0 0

HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00

Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 5.9 0.0 5.3 6.5 0.0 4.7 10.6 0.0 0.0 11.2 0.0 0.0

Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0

Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.9 0.0 1.5 0.1 0.0 0.6 0.9 0.0 0.0 1.6 0.0 0.0LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 6.0 0.0 5.5 6.5 0.0 4.8 10.9 0.0 0.0 11.9 0.0 0.0

LnGrp LOS A A A A B B

Approach Vol, veh/h 437 147 119 190

Approach Delay, s/veh 5.7 5.1 10.9 11.9

Approach LOS A A B B

Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Assigned Phs 2 4 6 8

Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 20.0 11.6 20.0 11.6

Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0

Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 35.0 15.0 35.0 15.0

Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 6.1 3.9 5.9 5.4

Green Ext Time (p_c), s 4.4 1.8 4.4 1.7

Intersection Summary

HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 7.6

HCM 2010 LOS A

8/9/2019 U.S. 62/Ohio 661 study

42/43

8/9/2019 U.S. 62/Ohio 661 study

43/43

Project ID: Date:

E-W Road: N-S Road:

Analyst: Metric (y,n): n

Input Values:

AM Peak Hour Volume (vehicles)

Left 76 Left 44 Left 4 Left 2

Through 80 Through 208 Through 94 Through 75

Right Right Right Right 109

PM Peak Hour Volume (vehicles)



Right Right Right Right 97

Intersection Geometry - Number of Lanes (Use 0 if Turn Lane is Shared, i.e., Not Exclusive)



Right 0 Right 0 Right 0 Right 1

Offset Left ? (y,n) n Offset Left ? (y,n) n Offset Left ? (y,n) n Offset Left ? (y,n) n

Offset Dist. (ft.) 0 Offset Dist. (ft.) 0 Offset Dist. (ft.) 0 Offset Dist. (ft.) 0

Design Speed in mph

Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

60 60 60 60

Cycle Length

AM (sec) 60

PM (sec) 60

Analysis Results:

Turn Lane Length and Through Storage in feet

Left 345 Left 345

Through 200 Through 175

Right 0 FALSE Right 0 FALSE

Left 345 Left 345

SouthboundNorthbound


Eastbound Westbound


SouthboundNorthboundWestboundEastbound

JAR

SR 661

Turn Lane Length Worksheet

2/4/2015

US 62 Johnstown-Utica Road

U.S. 62/Ohio 661 study

Documents

Transcript of U.S. 62/Ohio 661 study