Post on 01-Jun-2018
transcript
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
ODOT Highway Safety ProgramSafety Section – LIC-62-14.93 March 2015
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
ODOT Highway Safety ProgramSafety Section – LIC-62-14.93 March 2015
1
One Page Project Summary
8/9/2019 U.S. 62/Ohio 661 study
5/43
ODOT Highway Safety ProgramSafety Section – LIC-62-14.93 March 2015
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
ODOT Highway Safety ProgramSafety Section – LIC-62-14.93 March 2015
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
ODOT Highway Safety ProgramSafety Section – LIC-62-14.93 March 2015
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
ODOT Highway Safety ProgramSafety Section – LIC-62-14.93 March 2015
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
ODOT Highway Safety ProgramSafety Section – LIC-62-14.93 March 2015
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
ODOT Highway Safety ProgramSafety Section – LIC-62-14.93 March 2015
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
ODOT Highway Safety ProgramSafety Section – LIC-62-14.93 March 2015
7
Proposed Conditions Diagram
8/9/2019 U.S. 62/Ohio 661 study
12/43
ODOT Highway Safety ProgramSafety Section – LIC-62-14.93 March 2015
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
ODOT Highway Safety ProgramSafety Section – LIC-62-14.93 March 2015
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
ODOT Highway Safety ProgramSafety Section – LIC-62-14.93 March 2015
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%
Grand Total 14 100.0%
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%
Grand Total 14 100.0%
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%
Grand Total 14 100.0%
ROAD_CONTOUR Number %
STRAIGHT - LEVEL 14 100.0%
Grand Total 14 100.0%
SPECIAL_AREA Number % ANIMAL_TYPE Number %
SPECIAL AREA - NOT STATED 14 100.0% ANIMAL NOT STATED 14 100.0%
Grand Total 14 100.0% Grand Total 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%
Grand Total 14 100.0% Grand Total 14 100.0%
OBJECT_STRUCK1 Number %
OBJECT NOT STATED 7 50.0%
NOTHING STRUCK 6 42.9%
UTILITY POLE 1 7.1%
Grand Total 14 100.0%
TRAFFIC_CONTROL1 Number %
STOP SIGN 10 71.4%
PAVEMENT MARKINGS 2 14.3%
TRAFFIC FLASHERS 2 14.3%
Grand Total 14 100.0%
DRIVER_ALCOHOL1 Number %
NO ALCOHOL DETECTED 13 92.9%
HBD - ABILITY IMPAIRED 1 7.1%
Grand Total 14 100.0%
DRIVER_DRUGS1 Number %
NO DRUGS DETECTED 14 100.0%
Grand Total 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%
Grand Total 14 100.0% Grand Total 14 100.0%
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%
Grand Total 14 100.0%
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%
Grand Total 14 100.0%
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
ODOT Highway Safety ProgramSafety Section – LIC-62-14.93 March 2015
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
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 Condit ions Project Element Potential for Safety Improvement Summary (Without Animal Crashes)
Project Element ID Common NameCrash Severity Level
Proposed Conditions Project Element Predicted Crash Summary (Without Animal Crashes)
Project Element ID Common NameCrash Severity Level
General Information
Project Safety Performance Report
Existing Condit ions Project Element Expected Crash Summary (Without Animal Crashes)
Project Element ID 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)
Npredicted - Existing Conditions
Nexpected - Existing Conditions
Npredicted - Proposed Conditions
Npotential for improvement - Existing Conditions
Project Element ID
jonathan.ryan@dot.state.oh.us
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
Existing ConditionsExpected Average CrashFrequency
Existing CondtionsPotential for SafetyImprovement
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 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 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 - Existing Conditions
Nexpected - Existing Conditions
Nexpected - Proposed 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 Condit ions Project Element Potential for Safety Improvement Summary (Without Animal Crashes)
Project Element ID Common NameCrash Severity Level
Proposed Conditions Project Element Expected Crash Summary (Without Anim al Crashes)
Project Element ID Common NameCrash Severity Level
General Information
Project Safety Performance Report
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
Existing ConditionsExpected Average CrashFrequency
Existing CondtionsPotential for SafetyImprovement
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
ODOT Highway Safety ProgramSafety Section – LIC-62-14.93 March 2015
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
ODOT Highway Safety ProgramSafety Section – LIC-62-14.93 March 2015
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.
Total Approach Volume: 1,867
Southbound: Southbound Approach
Number of Lanes: 1
Total Approach Volume: 1,602
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
00:00 430 157 SB Yes Yes 09:30 497 171 SB No Yes 00:00 430 157 SB Yes Yes
01:00 408 186 SB Yes Yes 11:00 479 207 SB No Yes 01:15 428 189 SB Yes Yes
08:30 352 117 SB Yes Yes 09:15 456 158 SB No Yes 09:00 423 150 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
07:45 298 108 SB No Yes 00:30 427 177 SB No Yes 08:15 344 104 SB No Yes
07:30 291 112 SB No Yes 00:15 424 167 SB No Yes 08:00 308 108 SB No Yes
07:00 280 93 SB No No 09:00 423 150 SB No Yes 02:15 300 136 SB No Yes
07:15 279 105 SB No Yes 01:00 408 186 SB No Yes 07:45 298 108 SB No Yes
06:45 276 92 SB No No 01:30 405 168 SB No Yes 07:30 291 112 SB No Yes
06:30 267 74 SB No No 08:45 400 126 SB No Yes 02:30 284 121 SB No Yes
03:15 265 101 SB No No 01:45 378 159 SB No Yes 07:00 280 93 SB No Yes
03:30 257 109 SB No Yes 11:15 359 156 SB No Yes 07:15 279 105 SB No Yes
03:00 256 118 SB No Yes 08:30 352 117 SB No Yes 06:45 276 92 SB No Yes
06:00 252 84 SB No No 02:00 351 148 SB No Yes 02:45 269 117 SB No Yes
04:00 249 88 SB No No 08:15 344 104 SB No Yes 06:30 267 74 SB No No
06:15 248 85 SB No No 08:00 308 108 SB No Yes 03:15 265 101 SB No Yes
05:45 246 82 SB No No 02:15 300 136 SB No Yes 03:30 257 109 SB No Yes
05:30 244 87 SB No No 07:45 298 108 SB No Yes 03:00 256 118 SB No Yes
03:45 242 103 SB No No 07:30 291 112 SB No Yes 06:00 252 84 SB No Yes
04:15 236 90 SB No No 02:30 284 121 SB No Yes 04:00 249 88 SB No Yes
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)
Left 143 Left 23 Left 2 Left 1
Through 260 Through 112 Through 108 Through 77
Right Right Right Right 97
Intersection Geometry - Number of Lanes (Use 0 if Turn Lane is Shared, i.e., Not Exclusive)
Left 1 Left 1 Left 1 Left 1
Through 1 Through 1 Through 1 Through 1
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 Northbound Southbound
Eastbound Westbound
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
SouthboundNorthboundWestboundEastbound
JAR
SR 661
Turn Lane Length Worksheet
2/4/2015
US 62 Johnstown-Utica Road