U.S. 62/ohio 661 Study

District 5 Highway Safety Program
Safety Study: LIC-62-14.93

US 62 at SR 661
2013 Safety Analyst #53, Rural Intersections
Study
Location
Licking
Completed By: District 5 Planning and Engineering

Completion Date: March, 2015
ODOT Highway Safety Program

Safety 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

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

March 2015
One Page Project Summary

March 2015
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 SR
661 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 daily
traffic (ADT) on US 62 was 6,140 vehicles per day (vpd). SR 661 is classified as a rural major collector (FC
07). In 2012, the estimated ADT on SR 661 was 3,700 vpd. The posted speed limit for the study area on
both 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 city
of 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 a
four legged approach; each approach has two travel lanes (one shared through-left-right lane). The traffic
control 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 SR
661 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 62
and SR 661 and determine what countermeasures, if any, can be implemented to mitigate crashes
occurring at the intersection. This location was identified for formal study based on crash data from 2011
to 2013 and ranks 53rd in ODOTs 2013 safety analyst listing for rural intersection locations.
Overview of Possible Causes
Based on the crash diagram and crash data analysis, 7 of the 9 angle crashes have occurred when
motorists on SR 661 are failing to yield right of way to vehicles traveling on US 62. Upon review of the
crash reports, drivers are coming to a stop on SR 661, but are proceeding to pull out into the intersection
in front of oncoming US traffic. Further review of the OH-1 crash reports show that the drivers cited as at
fault for the crash was not local to the area. This suggests that drivers are either confused with the traffic
control at the intersection or theyre becoming impatient due to delay experienced while stopped the
intersection. When therere insufficient gaps in traffic, drivers will become more aggressive in their decision
making 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 the
intersection and the addition of left turn lanes on US 62. Signalization of the intersection will provide a
common traffic control devices used at intersection along the corridor and mitigate the number of injury
angle crashes occurring at the intersection. This alternative can be constructed in one and half years within
existing right of way with a construction cost of $840,813.

March 2015
Purpose and Need

The purpose of this safety study is to evaluate the existing safety conditions at the intersection of US 62
and SR 661 and determine what countermeasures, if any, can be implemented to mitigate crashes
occurring at the intersection. This location was identified for formal study based on crash data from 2011
to 2013 and ranks 53rd in ODOTs 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, recommended
countermeasures, and estimated costs for a safety engineering study at the intersection of US 62 and SR
661 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 daily
traffic (ADT) on US 62 was 6,140 vehicles per day (vpd). SR 661 is classified as a rural major collector (FC
07). In 2012, the estimated ADT on SR 661 was 3,700 vpd. The posted speed limit for the study area on
both 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 city
of 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 a
four legged approach; each approach has two travel lanes (one shared through-left-right lane). The traffic
control 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 SR
661 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 pavement
markings. 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 treated
shoulders. SR 661 has a pavement width of 20 feet with 4 foot treated shoulders. Rumble strips have
been cut into the travel lanes on both SR 661 approaches to the intersection. All approaches to the
intersection have been signed to warn motorists of the upcoming conditions as the approach the
intersection. US 62 has dual intersection ahead warning signs along with overhead yellow flashing beacons
on both approaches. SR 661 has dual stop ahead warning signs and overhead red flashing beacons to
warn motorists of the upcoming stop condition. Both approaches of SR 661 have oversized 48 inch dual
stop 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,
2

March 2015
14 intersection related crashes were observed within the study area. A complete analysis of the crash data
can be found in Appendix B. The following tables provide a brief overview of the crash data:
Table 1: Crashes Observed by Year
TRAFFIC_CRASH_YEAR
2011
2012
2013
Number TRAFFIC_CRASH_YEAR
3
7
4
Grand Total
14
2011
2012
2013
21.4%
50.0%
28.6%
Grand Total
100.0%
Table 2: Crashes Observed by Type

TYPE_OF_CRASH
ANGLE
REAR END
SIDESWIPE - PASSING
Grand Total
Number TYPE_OF_CRASH
9
4
1
14
ANGLE
REAR END
SIDESWIPE - PASSING
64.3%
28.6%
7.1%
Grand Total
100.0%
Table 3: Crashes Observed by Severity

CRASH_SEVERITY
FATAL CRASH
INJURY CRASH
PROPERTY DAMAGE CRASH
Grand Total
Number CRASH_SEVERITY
1
6
7
14
FATAL CRASH
INJURY CRASH
7.1%
42.9%
50.0%
Grand Total
100.0%
Collision Diagram
A crash diagram showing the location, severity, date, time, pavement condition, and contributing factor of
each 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 angle
crashes was failure to yield. The common contributing factor for the rear end crashes was failure to provide
assured 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 observed
crash data to be 6.85 crashes per year. The safety performance report for the existing site conditions are
located in Appendix C.
Based on the crash diagram and crash data analysis, 7 of the 9 angle crashes have occurred when
motorists on SR 661 are failing to yield right of way to vehicles traveling on US 62. Upon review of the
crash reports, drivers are coming to a stop on SR 661, but are proceeding to pull out into the intersection
in front of oncoming US traffic. Further review of the OH-1 crash reports show that the drivers cited as at
fault for the crash was not local to the area. This suggests that drivers are either confused with the traffic
3

March 2015
control at the intersection or theyre becoming impatient due to delay experienced while stopped the
intersection. When therere insufficient gaps in traffic, drivers will become more aggressive in their decision
making 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 term
countermeasures are identified and recommended. Low cost countermeasures can be implemented in a
short period of time and have the ability to mitigate crashes within the study area without developing a
project to construct an expensive countermeasure. Record plans for the intersection show that low cost
countermeasures have been used at the intersection since the late 1970s when dual stop ahead warning
signs and rumble stripes were installed on both approaches of SR 661. Record plans also indicate that
dual stop signs and the overhead flashing beacons were present at the intersection during this time. The
most recent low cost countermeasure upgrades at the intersection include work performed in 2012 and
2013 as part of statewide systematic intersection sign upgrade project. Dual warning signs on all
approaches were installed or replaced with new fluorescent yellow warning signs.
The continued injury and fatal angle crashes observed at the intersection indicate that low cost
countermeasures are not having an effect on mitigating these type of crashes. Potential long term
countermeasures for reducing injury and fatal angle crashes include the removal of the existing overhead
flashing beacons, installation of a traffic signal with smart sensor detection or construction of a rural
roundabout.
Removal of Overhead Flashing Beacons
Removal of the existing overhead flashing beacons would likely reduce confusion regarding the traffic
control at the intersection, but maintaining a two way stop control condition will not reduce the side road
delay on SR 661 during peak periods. A signal warrant analysis using turning movement count data
collected in September, 2014 showed that the intersection met the 4 hour signal warrant condition and the
peak hour signal warrant condition. A summary of the signal warrant analysis is highlighted can be found
in 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. This
countermeasure 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 signal
at the intersection are that it can operate in free mode for most of day, minimizing delay on US 62 and SR
661. A traffic signal is an easily understood traffic control device and should eliminate any confusion as to
right of way at the intersection. In addition to the work outlined above, minor profile correction will also be
performed on the southbound approach of SR 661. This countermeasure along with left turn lanes on US
62 can be constructed within the existing right of way allowing for design and construction within one and
a 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 the
intersection. In addition to slowing drivers down, roundabouts have been shown to significantly reduce all
crash types and crash severities. This type of countermeasure can also accommodate larger business and
commercial vehicles, but must be designed with a larger inscribed circle. Concerns with installing this type
of countermeasure in a rural area are that its not a common countermeasure at rural intersection and would
4

March 2015
be an unexpected condition along the route, allowing continuous traffic flow at the intersection from two
high speed routes, and the need to install intersection lighting to illuminate the roundabout. The final
construction 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 traffic
signal at the intersection. No additional right of way would need to be purchased to construct this
countermeasure. With immediate funding, design and construction can be completed with one and a half
years.
Rural Roundabout
Several curves and concrete splitter islands will be needed on each approach requiring alignment changes
of 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 2
years 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 the
intersection 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 the
predicted crash frequency if the countermeasures are constructed. The predicted crash frequency after
the traffic signal is constructed was found to be 7.07 crashes per year with a reduction of 1.18 injury crashes
per year. The countermeasure will reduce 0.94 crashes per year at the intersection. The net present value
of 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 year
with a reduction of 2.37 injury crashes per year. The countermeasure will reduce 5.30 crashes per year at
the intersection. The net present value of safety benefits was found to be $4,007,260 and the net present
value 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 the
predicted number of crashes for the intersection under the existing site conditions will result in 8.01 crashes
per year. Based on the observed crashes at the intersection, the expected number of crashes per year are
6.85. The safety performance review indicates that of the expected 6.85 crashes per year, 2.71 crashes
will result in injury. A review of the OH-1 crash reports showed that from 2011 to 2013 that there were 14
crashes at the intersection, including 9 angle crashes. The most common contributing circumstance for the
angle crashes was failure to yield and further review of the crash reports showed that drivers appeared to
stop at the intersection and pull out into oncoming traffic. These behaviors indicate possible confusion with
the 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 warranted
for 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
5

March 2015
intersection. With the intersection meeting signal warrants, removal of the existing overhead flashing
beacons is not considered a viable alternative as it may cause additional confusion at the intersection. A
traffic signal and roundabout provide the greatest potential to reduce the number of angle crashes occurring
at the intersection. A safety performance review of the proposed countermeasures show that a traffic signal
will reduce 0.94 crashes per year at the intersection and reduce 1.18 injury crashes per year at the
intersection. 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 benefit
cost ratio of the roundabout alternative is 1.68.
The recommended countermeasure to reduce the number of injury angle crashes is signalization of the
intersection and the addition of left turn lanes on US 62. This alternative can be constructed in one and
half years within existing right of way with a construction cost of $840,813.

March 2015
Proposed Conditions Diagram

March 2015
Summary of Supplemental Traffic Studies

A turning movement count at the intersection was performed in September, 2014. Traffic data for the study
area was collected in 2011. The average daily traffic on this section of US 62 is 6,140 vpd. The average
daily 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 Traffic
Engineering Manual Section 402-3. PC Warrants was used to perform the Signal Warrant analysis. The
analysis determined that this location, based on the number of existing lanes and turning movement count
data 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 collected
in 2014 to determine if there are any operational issues existing at the intersection. Using Synchro traffic
software to produce a HCM 2010 operations report, an analysis of the existing TWSC condition at the
intersection shows that the both approaches of SR 661 operate at a Level-of-Serve (LOS) C during the PM
peak period. In addition to evaluating the existing operations at the intersection, both proposed
countermeasures were evaluated. Both the traffic signal and roundabout alternatives were found to operate
at a LOS A during the PM peak period at the intersection. Table 4 below shows a summary of the
operational analyses for each of the conditions evaluated and the reports for each condition are located in
Appendix G.
Table 4 - Summary of Operational Analyses
Traffic Control
TWSC
Signalization
Roundabout
NB
C
A
A
Approach Delay LOS

SB
EB
C
A
B
A
B
Intersection Delay (sec/veh) / LOS

WB
B
A
9
7.6 / A
8.5 / A
Countermeasure Recommendations and Implementation Plan

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

Appendix A: Existing Conditions Diagram
March 2015

Appendix B: Crash Data and Crash Diagram
March 2015
LIC-62-14.93
Total
Number
14
CRASH_SEVERITY
FATAL CRASH
INJURY CRASH
Grand Total
Number
%
1
7.1%
6
42.9%
7
50.0%
14
100.0%
DAY_OF_WEEK
FRIDAY
MONDAY
SATURDAY
WEDNESDAY
THURSDAY
TUESDAY
Grand Total
Number
%
4
28.6%
3
21.4%
3
21.4%
2
14.3%
1
7.1%
1
7.1%
14
100.0%
HOUR_OF_DAY
08
09
10
11
12
13
14
15
17
18
19
Grand Total
Number
%
1
7.1%
1
7.1%
1
7.1%
1
7.1%
1
7.1%
1
7.1%
2
14.3%
1
7.1%
2
14.3%
2
14.3%
1
7.1%
14
100.0%
TRAFFIC_CRASH_YEAR
2011
2012
2013
Grand Total
Number
%
3
21.4%
7
50.0%
4
28.6%
14
100.0%
TYPE_OF_CRASH
ANGLE
REAR END
SIDESWIPE - PASSING
Grand Total
Number
%
9
64.3%
4
28.6%
1
7.1%
14
100.0%
LIC-62-14.93
WEATHER_CONDITION
NO ADVERSE WEATHER CONDITION
Grand Total
Number
%
14
100.0%
14
100.0%
ROAD_CONDITION
ROAD - DRY
ROAD - WET
Grand Total
LIGHT_CONDITION
DAYLIGHT
DARK - NO LIGHTS
Grand Total
Number
%
13
92.9%
1
7.1%
14
100.0%
NUMBER_OF_VEHICLES
LOCATION
INTERSECTION
NON-INTERSECTION
Grand Total
Number
%
12
85.7%
2
14.3%
14
100.0%
ROAD_CONTOUR
STRAIGHT - LEVEL
Grand Total
Number
%
14
100.0%
14
100.0%
SPECIAL_AREA
SPECIAL AREA - NOT STATED
Grand Total
Number
%
14
100.0%
14
100.0%
Number
%
13
92.9%
1
7.1%
14
100.0%
2
3
Number
%
11
78.6%
3
21.4%
14
100.0%
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
12
Grand Total
Number
%
1
7.1%
1
7.1%
3
21.4%
3
21.4%
1
7.1%
1
7.1%
1
7.1%
3
21.4%
14
100.0%
ANIMAL_TYPE
ANIMAL NOT STATED
Grand Total
Number
%
14
100.0%
14
100.0%
Grand Total
CRASH_MONTH_NBR
LIC-62-14.93
ACTION1
GOING STRAIGHT
TURNING LEFT
TURNING RIGHT
PARKING/UNPARKING
Grand Total
Number
%
11
78.6%
1
7.1%
1
7.1%
1
7.1%
14
100.0%
OBJECT_STRUCK1
OBJECT NOT STATED
NOTHING STRUCK
UTILITY POLE
Grand Total
Number
%
7
50.0%
6
42.9%
1
7.1%
14
100.0%
DRIVER_ALCOHOL1
NO ALCOHOL DETECTED
HBD - ABILITY IMPAIRED
Grand Total
CONTRIBUTING_FACTOR1
FAILURE TO YIELD
FOLLOWING TOO CLOSE
RAN STOP SIGN OR YIELD SIGN
DROVE OFF ROAD-REASON UNKNOWN
Grand Total
Number
%
7
50.0%
5
35.7%
1
7.1%
1
7.1%
14
100.0%
TRAFFIC_CONTROL1
STOP SIGN
PAVEMENT MARKINGS
TRAFFIC FLASHERS
Grand Total
Number
%
10
71.4%
2
14.3%
2
14.3%
14
100.0%
DRIVER_DRUGS1
NO DRUGS DETECTED
Grand Total
Number
%
14
100.0%
14
100.0%
Number
%
13
92.9%
1
7.1%
14
100.0%
LIC-62-14.93
DIRECTION_FROM1
NORTH
SOUTH
WEST
EAST
SOUTHWEST
Grand Total
Number
%
5
35.7%
5
35.7%
2
14.3%
1
7.1%
1
7.1%
14
100.0%
DIRECTION_TO1
NORTH
SOUTH
EAST
WEST
NORTHEAST
Grand Total
Number
%
5
35.7%
4
28.6%
2
14.3%
2
14.3%
1
7.1%
14
100.0%
POSTED_SPEED1
POSTED 55
Grand Total
Number
%
14
100.0%
14
100.0%
ESTIMATED_SPEED1
SPEED 20 AND UNDER
SPEED 26-35
VEHICLE SPEED NOT STATED
SPEED 56-65
Grand Total
Number
%
10
71.4%
2
14.3%
1
7.1%
1
7.1%
14
100.0%
VEHICLE_TYPE1
OTHER VEHICLE
MID-SIZE
TRACTOR SEMI TRAILER
PICKUP TRUCK
COMPACT
Grand Total
Number
%
4
28.6%
4
28.6%
2
14.3%
2
14.3%
2
14.3%
14
100.0%
VEHICLE_TYPE2
MID-SIZE
PICKUP TRUCK
TRACTOR SEMI TRAILER
FULL-SIZE
STRAIGHT TRUCK TRAILER
COMPACT
MOTORCYCLE - 351CC-750CC
OTHER VEHICLE
Grand Total
Number
%
4
28.6%
2
14.3%
2
14.3%
2
14.3%
1
7.1%
1
7.1%
1
7.1%
1
7.1%
14
100.0%

March 2015
Appendix C: Safety Performance Review (ECAT Analysis of Existing Site

Conditions)
Project Safety Performance Report

General Information
Project Name
Project Description
LIC-62-14.93
Traffic Signal
Reference Number
Analyst
Agency/Company
John Ryan
ODOT District 5
Contact Email
Contact Phone
jonathan.ryan.dot.state.oh.us
740-323-5274
Date Performed
Analysis Year
10/21/2014
2014
Summary of Anticipated Safety Performance of the Project (average crashes/year)

10.0
Existing Conditions
Predicted Average Crash
Frequency
8.0
8.0
6.9
6.0
5.1
4.1
Existing Conditions
Expected Average Crash
Frequency
4.0
2.0
1.4
0.6
1.3
0.9
0.6
0.9
0.0
0.0
KA
-0.1
-0.1
Total
-0.9
Project and Site Conditions Information
2.0
-1.2
Existing Condtions
Potential for Safety
Improvement
Project Summary Results (Without Animal Crashes)

KA
Total
Npredicted - Existing Conditions
0.5843
1.4161
0.9431
5.0682
8.0117
Nexpected - Existing Conditions
0.5568
1.2854
0.8849
4.1309
6.8580
Npotential for improvement - Existing Conditions
-0.0275
-0.1307
-0.0582
-0.9373
-1.1537
Existing Conditions Project Element Predicted Crash Summary (Without Animal Crashes)
Project Element ID
Common Name
KA
US 62 & SR 661
US62; 14.93
B
0.5843
Crash Severity Level

C
1.4161
0.9431
Total
5.0682
8.0117
Existing Conditions Project Element Expected Crash Summary (Without Animal Crashes)
Project Element ID
Common Name
KA
US 62 & SR 661
US62; 14.93
B
0.5568

C
1.2854
0.8849
Total
4.1309
6.858
Existing Conditions Project Element Potential for Safety Improvement Summary (Without Animal Crashes)
Project Element ID
US62; 14.93
Common Name
KA
US 62 & SR 661
B
-0.0275

C
-0.1307
-0.0582
Summary by Crash Type

Crash Type
Unknown
Head On
Rear End
Backing
Sideswipe - Meeting
Sideswipe - Passing
Angle
Parked Vehicle
Pedestrian
Animal
Train
Pedalcycles
Other Non-Vehicle
Fixed Object
Other Object
Overturning
Other Non-Collision
Left Turn
Right Turn
Predicted Crash
Frequency
0.0261
0.0567
1.4101
0.2654
0.1917
0.2983
2.5177
0.2347
0.0322
0.0000
0.0011
0.0242
0.0005
1.1067
0.0386
0.0667
0.0875
0.2398
0.0000
Existing
Expected Crash
Frequency
0.0259
0.0564
1.2074
0.2510
0.1882
0.2860
2.0912
0.2246
0.0320
0.0000
0.0011
0.0242
0.0005
0.9714
0.0382
0.0664
0.0863
0.2348
0.0000
Created by the Office of Systems Planning and Program Management
Proposed
Expected Crash
Frequency
PSI
-0.0002
-0.0003
-0.2027
-0.0144
-0.0035
-0.0123
-0.4265
-0.0101
-0.0002
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
-0.1353
-0.0004
-0.0003
-0.0012
-0.0050
0.0000
Total
-0.9373
-1.1537

Appendix D: Cost Estimates
March 2015
LIC-62
Roundabout at State Route 661
Preliminary Construction Cost Estimates
PID: N/A
Revised: 08/01/2013
Single Lane Roundabout
Measurement
Roadway Pavement
Quantity
Unit
Total
Cost
Quantity
Unit
Total
Cost
7,800
$45.00
$351,000
7,100
$45.00
$319,500
Ft.
1,200
$40.00
$48,000
980
$40.00
$39,200
Sq. Yds.
1,100
$45.00
$49,500
420
$45.00
$18,900
Excavation
Cu. Yds.
6,400
$10.00
$64,000
8,100
$10.00
$81,000
Embankment
Cu. Yds.
4,700
$8.00
$37,600
8,800
$8.00
$70,400
Concrete Median
Roundabout Lighting
Lump
$50,000
Other Construction Costs *

Right of Way
Utility Relocation (%)
Inflation for Year ** :
SR 661
Sq. Yds.
Curb & Gutter
Earthwork
US 62
Quantity
Feature
2015
5.0%
8%
Estimated Cost (Rounded Up)
$121,000
$106,000
$2,000
$1,600
$37,000
5.0%
$360,000
$1,130,000
$32,000
$320,000
$989,000
Total Estimated Cost
$2,119,000
Total Estimated Cost Current Year
$1,439,000
* 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.
LIC-US 62 Cost Matrix.xls
Costs

March 2015
Appendix E: Proposed Countermeasure Review (ECAT Analysis of

Proposed Countermeasures)

General Information
Project Name
Project Description
LIC-62-14.93
Traffic Signal
Reference Number
Analyst
Agency/Company
John Ryan
ODOT District 5
Contact Email
Contact Phone
jonathan.ryan@dot.state.oh.us
740-323-5274
Date Performed
Analysis Year
2/4/2014
2016

10.0
8.0
8.0
7.1
6.9
6.0
Existing Conditions
Frequency
5.3
5.1
4.1
4.0
2.0
1.4
0.6
0.6
0.0
0.0
1.3
0.7
0.2
0.9
0.9
B -0.1
KA
Existing Condtions
Improvement
0.9
C -0.1
Total
-0.9
2.0
Existing Conditions
Frequency
-1.2
Proposed Conditions
Frequency

KA
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
Npredicted - Proposed Conditions
0.1654
0.7034
0.8892
5.3134
7.0714
Project Element ID
US62; 14.93
Common Name
KA
US 62 & SR 661
B
0.5843

C
1.4161
0.9431
Total
5.0682
8.0117
Project Element ID
Common Name
KA
US 62 & SR 661
US62; 14.93
B
0.5568

C
1.2854
0.8849
Total
4.1309
6.858
Project Element ID
US62; 14.93
Common Name
KA
US 62 & SR 661
B
-0.0275
-0.1307

C
-0.0582
Total
-0.9373
-1.1537
Proposed Conditions Project Element Predicted Crash Summary (Without Animal Crashes)
Project Element ID
US62; 14.93
Common Name
KA
US 62 & SR 661
B
0.1654

C
0.7034
0.8892

Crash Type
Unknown
Head On
Rear End
Backing
Sideswipe - Meeting
Sideswipe - Passing
Angle
Parked Vehicle
Pedestrian
Animal
Train
Pedalcycles
Other Non-Vehicle
Fixed Object
Other Object
Overturning
Other Non-Collision
Left Turn
Right Turn
Predicted Crash
Frequency
0.0081
0.0517
3.1150
0.3368
0.1430
0.4872
1.4305
0.2637
0.0656
0.0000
0.0000
0.0435
0.0000
0.4498
0.0143
0.0282
0.0403
0.5934
0.0000
Existing
Expected Crash
Frequency
0.0081
0.0515
2.5868
0.3253
0.1417
0.4668
1.3265
0.2576
0.0655
0.0000
0.0000
0.0434
0.0000
0.4368
0.0144
0.0282
0.0403
0.5769
0.0000
PSI
0.0000
-0.0002
-0.5282
-0.0115
-0.0013
-0.0204
-0.1040
-0.0061
-0.0001
0.0000
0.0000
-0.0001
0.0000
-0.0130
0.0001
0.0000
0.0000
-0.0165
0.0000
Proposed
Expected Crash
Frequency
0.0081
0.0517
3.1150
0.3368
0.1430
0.4872
1.4305
0.2637
0.0656
0.0000
0.0000
0.0435
0.0000
0.4498
0.0143
0.0282
0.0403
0.5934
0.0000
Total
5.3134
7.0714

General Information
Project Name
Project Description
LIC-62-14.93
Rural Roundabout Alternative
Reference Number
Analyst
Agency/Company
John Ryan
ODOT District 5
Contact Email
Contact Phone
jonathan.ryan@dot.state.oh.us
740-323-5274
Date Performed
Analysis Year
10/21/2014
2014

10.0
Existing Conditions
Frequency
8.0
8.0
6.9
6.0
Existing Conditions
Frequency
5.1
4.1
4.0
2.0
1.4
0.6
0.6
0.0
0.0
1.3
0.9
0.2
0.1
B -0.1
KA
Existing Condtions
Improvement
0.1
C -0.1
Total
-0.9
2.0
1.6
1.2
0.9
-1.2
Proposed Conditions
Frequency

KA
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
Nexpected - Proposed Conditions
0.0724
0.1671
0.1150
1.1980
1.5525
Project Element ID
US62; 14.93
Common Name
KA
US 62 & SR 661
B
0.5843

C
1.4161
0.9431
Total
5.0682
8.0117
Project Element ID
Common Name
KA
US 62 & SR 661
US62; 14.93
B
0.5568

C
1.2854
0.8849
Total
4.1309
6.858
Project Element ID
US62; 14.93
Common Name
KA
US 62 & SR 661
B
-0.0275
-0.1307

C
-0.0582
Total
-0.9373
-1.1537
Proposed Conditions Project Element Expected Crash Summary (Without Animal Crashes)
Project Element ID
US62; 14.93
Common Name
KA
US 62 & SR 661
B
0.0724

C
0.1671
0.115

Crash Type
Unknown
Head On
Rear End
Backing
Sideswipe - Meeting
Sideswipe - Passing
Angle
Parked Vehicle
Pedestrian
Animal
Train
Pedalcycles
Other Non-Vehicle
Fixed Object
Other Object
Overturning
Other Non-Collision
Left Turn
Right Turn
Predicted Crash
Frequency
0.0261
0.0567
1.4101
0.2654
0.1917
0.2983
2.5177
0.2347
0.0322
0.0000
0.0011
0.0242
0.0005
1.1067
0.0386
0.0667
0.0875
0.2398
0.0000
Existing
Expected Crash
Frequency
0.0259
0.0564
1.2074
0.2510
0.1882
0.2860
2.0912
0.2246
0.0320
0.0000
0.0011
0.0242
0.0005
0.9714
0.0382
0.0664
0.0863
0.2348
0.0000
PSI
-0.0002
-0.0003
-0.2027
-0.0144
-0.0035
-0.0123
-0.4265
-0.0101
-0.0002
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
-0.1353
-0.0004
-0.0003
-0.0012
-0.0050
0.0000
Proposed
Expected Crash
Frequency
0.0064
0.0105
0.2830
0.0707
0.0423
0.0721
0.4301
0.0611
0.0050
0.0000
0.0002
0.0042
0.0001
0.2326
0.0104
0.0126
0.0228
0.0503
0.0000
Total
1.198
1.5525

Appendix F: Proposed Conditions Diagram
March 2015

Appendix G: Supplemental Traffic Data and Studies
March 2015
661
2012 Annual Average Daily Traffic

0 to 5000
5000 to 10000
4130
0
74
3700
657
HARTFORD
Ohio Department of Transportation

Office of Technical Services
Traffic Monitoring Section
10000 to 20000
5440
62
4370
6720
13
80
8150
BENNINGTON
421
586
HARTFORD
40
30000 to 40000
13
2230
61
20000 to 30000
FALLSBURY
UTICA
BURLINGTON
79
490
40000 to 50000
EDEN
00
11
60
66
WASHINGTON
50000 to 63000
62
Other Roads
90
75
MONROE
70
10
344
0
Municipalities
720
37
90
87
LIBERTY
Townships
70
NEWTON
24 70
JOHNSTOWN
586
8060
30
54
62
0
31
12
Municipalities
0
204
MCKEAN
00
80
169
1320
SAINT LOUISVILLE
41
12
2250
657
Townships
PERRY
80
28
MARY ANN
GRANVILLE
37
ALEXANDRIA
161
0
435
82
50
6810
6510
NEWARK
7980
SAINT ALBANS
0
30
13
3299
0
10100
7180
8730
122
80
29250
0
32 74
44
50
757
10 900
16
1908
22440
146 5890
90
34
HANOVER
11190
122
64
20
8560
26700
6840
37640
26330
34750
0
40 95
10250
3429
0
33870
30
MADISON
7220
13 23
0
16
342
90
70
75
7390
23
59
0
37
70
97
310
HEATH
9240
HARRISON
17
11 400
LICKING
HOPEWELL
HEBRON
49020
10000
43 580
79
37
95
60
3580
158
9000
4170
79
0
301
1130
50
86
BUCKEYE LAKE
13
34320
324
90
0.0
0.3
0.6
0.9
1.2
Miles
BOWLING GREEN
1050
Licking County Annual Average Daily Traffic 2012
4020
70
668
360
40
40790
13100
310
6990
51540
0
40 2
29 90
0
195
0
10
11
40
32
5480
GRATIOT
7720
1323
70
6190
16140
50
22
15690
4380
40
9090
12700
3680
3010
11 56
3220
11420
61180
64
20
80
ETNA
40
151
KIRKERSVILLE
8560
FRANKLIN
340
UNION
1090
0
684
16
12080
3475
50
409
10250
26700
19150
9400
PATASKALA
80
28920
13
79
7180
8730
29250
90
138
37
12210
0
13 89
27200
70
10400
28920
248
4
9600
29020
16
79
0
1437
161
HANOVER
GRANVILLE
6190
33130
NEWARK
0
10 80
NEWARK
JERSEY
Newark
80
43
13
661
Miles
3010
0
14 16
57
60
310
ODOT.Traffic.Counts@dot.state.oh.us
614-466-3728

District 5 - Planning & Engineering
9600 Jacksontown Road
Jacksontown, OH 43030
740-323-4400
File Name
Site Code
Start Date
Page No
Southbound Approach
From North
Thru
Left U-Turn
9
0
0
11
1
0
14
0
0
6
0
0
40
1
0
Start Time
06:00 AM
06:15 AM
06:30 AM
06:45 AM
Total
Right
26
35
31
24
116
07:00 AM
07:15 AM
07:30 AM
07:45 AM
Total
31
33
21
24
109
14
22
20
19
75
0
2
0
0
2
08:00 AM
08:15 AM
08:30 AM
08:45 AM
Total
27
28
15
19
89
21
8
16
11
56
09:00 AM
09:15 AM
09:30 AM
09:45 AM
Total
18
11
13
17
59
10:00 AM
10:15 AM
10:30 AM
10:45 AM
Total
Groups Printed- Lights - Other Vehicles

Westbound Approach
Northbound Approach
From East
From South
Thru
Left U-Turn App. Total
Right
Thru
Left U-Turn
85
5
0
90
0
6
1
0
77
9
0
86
2
11
1
0
74
12
0
86
2
7
3
0
77
6
0
83
3
12
0
0
313
32
0
345
7
36
5
0
35
47
45
30
157
Right
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
45
57
41
43
186
0
1
0
1
2
56
54
57
39
206
11
15
10
8
44
0
0
0
0
0
67
70
67
48
252
4
4
10
4
22
17
15
28
12
72
3
0
0
1
4
0
0
1
2
3
0
0
0
0
0
48
36
32
32
148
2
1
0
1
4
50
38
33
32
153
13
4
3
7
27
0
0
0
0
0
65
43
36
40
184
7
3
7
6
23
20
11
13
12
56
17
9
15
15
56
1
1
0
1
3
0
0
0
0
0
36
21
28
33
118
0
0
1
0
1
26
24
26
20
96
4
12
6
6
28
0
0
0
0
0
30
36
33
26
125
4
3
4
2
13
9
16
11
8
44
9
12
11
10
42
1
1
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
19
29
22
18
88
0
1
1
0
2
31
21
21
23
96
3
5
7
2
17
0
0
0
0
0
34
27
29
25
115
11:00 AM
11:15 AM
11:30 AM
11:45 AM
Total
8
13
13
12
46
13
9
6
13
41
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
21
22
19
26
88
1
2
2
1
6
26
18
21
20
85
3
1
3
3
10
0
0
0
0
0
12:00 PM
12:15 PM
12:30 PM
12:45 PM
Total
9
16
9
13
47
7
9
4
15
35
1
0
1
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
17
25
14
28
84
2
0
1
1
4
27
23
22
25
97
6
0
4
6
16
01:00 PM
11
18
24
App. Total
: LIC-62_&_SR-661_TMC_178415_09-10-2014
:
: 9/10/2014
:1
Eastbound Approach
From West
Thru
Left U-Turn
6
3
0
4
10
0
10
13
0
15
22
0
35
48
0
7
14
12
15
48
Right
1
1
0
0
2
10
15
23
37
85
Int. Total
142
162
166
165
635
0
0
0
0
0
24
19
38
17
98
0
1
1
0
2
18
20
19
21
78
9
13
25
29
76
0
0
0
0
0
27
34
45
50
156
163
180
191
158
692
0
0
2
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
27
14
22
18
81
0
0
1
0
1
25
22
24
16
87
24
16
24
15
79
0
0
0
0
0
49
38
49
31
167
189
131
139
121
580
20
13
17
9
59
2
0
0
1
3
0
0
0
0
0
26
16
21
12
75
1
0
0
0
1
21
17
21
20
79
11
12
16
12
51
0
0
0
0
0
33
29
37
32
131
125
102
119
103
449
5
3
5
3
16
5
9
9
5
28
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
10
13
14
8
45
0
1
0
2
3
23
17
18
27
85
15
12
8
11
46
0
0
0
0
0
38
30
26
40
134
101
99
91
91
382
30
21
26
24
101
4
9
3
3
19
15
9
9
12
45
0
2
1
1
4
0
0
0
0
0
19
20
13
16
68
0
0
0
1
1
19
13
29
19
80
10
6
10
13
39
0
0
0
0
0
29
19
39
33
120
99
82
97
99
377
0
0
0
0
0
35
23
27
32
117
8
4
8
3
23
6
14
8
7
35
0
1
0
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
14
19
16
11
60
0
0
1
0
1
20
21
28
24
93
12
11
11
7
41
0
0
0
0
0
32
32
40
31
135
98
99
97
102
396
27
13
17
26
10
36
98
App. Total
App. Total

740-323-4400
File Name
Site Code
Start Date
Page No
Southbound Approach
From North
Thru
Left U-Turn
7
0
0
10
0
0
11
2
0
35
2
0
Start Time
01:15 PM
01:30 PM
01:45 PM
Total
Right
7
22
16
56
02:00 PM
02:15 PM
02:30 PM
02:45 PM
Total
15
9
17
14
55
15
9
11
14
49
0
3
0
1
4
03:00 PM
03:15 PM
03:30 PM
03:45 PM
Total
15
25
19
28
87
9
9
18
24
60
04:00 PM
04:15 PM
04:30 PM
04:45 PM
Total
18
29
27
23
97
05:00 PM
05:15 PM
05:30 PM
05:45 PM
Total
Grand Total
Apprch %
Total %
Lights
% Lights
Other Vehicles
% Other Vehicles
Groups Printed- Lights - Other Vehicles

Westbound Approach
Northbound Approach
From East
From South
Thru
Left U-Turn App. Total
Right
Thru
Left U-Turn
29
4
0
36
5
11
0
0
26
4
0
33
3
5
2
0
22
5
0
28
3
8
1
0
101
15
0
124
15
37
3
0
14
32
29
93
Right
3
3
1
8
0
0
0
0
0
30
21
28
29
108
0
0
2
0
2
29
23
30
22
104
4
6
8
1
19
0
0
0
0
0
33
29
40
23
125
5
5
9
10
29
9
10
6
9
34
0
1
0
2
3
2
0
0
1
3
0
0
0
0
0
26
34
37
53
150
0
0
2
1
3
32
21
41
19
113
5
7
6
5
23
0
0
0
0
0
37
28
49
25
139
8
4
2
15
29
14
11
14
12
51
16
17
28
16
77
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
34
47
55
39
175
2
0
0
0
2
38
25
24
23
110
5
6
8
4
23
0
0
0
0
0
45
31
32
27
135
5
17
9
6
37
28
31
32
20
111
23
29
23
20
95
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
51
60
56
40
207
0
1
0
0
1
20
24
18
21
83
3
3
6
9
21
0
0
0
0
0
23
28
24
30
105
916
57.2
13.6
817
89.2
99
10.8
661
41.3
9.8
608
92
53
8
25
1.6
0.4
22
88
3
12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1602
35
1.9
0.5
31
88.6
4
11.4
1557
83.4
23.2
1366
87.7
191
12.3
275
14.7
4.1
254
92.4
21
7.6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1867
App. Total
23.9
1447
90.3
155
9.7
27.8
1651
88.4
216
11.6
: LIC-62_&_SR-661_TMC_178415_09-10-2014
:
: 9/10/2014
:2
Eastbound Approach
From West
Thru
Left U-Turn
28
8
0
34
9
0
25
14
0
113
41
0
16
10
12
55
Right
2
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
14
16
15
21
66
1
2
2
2
7
18
36
27
32
113
10
19
14
20
63
0
1
1
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
22
16
17
27
82
1
1
0
0
2
39
42
50
47
178
15
16
20
20
71
1
0
0
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
21
33
29
27
110
1
3
0
0
4
5
12
10
9
36
20
28
26
17
91
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
25
40
36
27
128
269
29.4
4
246
91.4
23
8.6
615
67.1
9.2
565
91.9
50
8.1
32
3.5
0.5
29
90.6
3
9.4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
916
App. Total
13.6
840
91.7
76
8.3
38
43
39
156
Int. Total
104
118
108
428
0
0
0
0
0
29
57
43
54
183
106
123
126
127
482
21
23
32
28
104
0
0
0
0
0
61
66
82
75
284
146
144
185
180
655
58
61
67
70
256
27
40
38
38
143
0
0
0
0
0
86
104
105
108
403
186
215
221
201
823
0
0
2
0
2
61
75
57
58
251
36
32
31
22
121
0
0
0
0
0
97
107
90
80
374
196
235
206
177
814
28
1.2
0.4
24
85.7
4
14.3
1448
62.2
21.6
1263
87.2
185
12.8
852
36.6
12.7
762
89.4
90
10.6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2328
6713
34.7
2049
88
279
12
5987
89.2
726
10.8
App. Total

740-323-4400
File Name
Site Code
Start Date
Page No
: LIC-62_&_SR-661_TMC_178415_09-10-2014
:
: 9/10/2014
:3
Southbound Approach
Out
In
Total
1358
1447
2805
144
155
299
1502
3104
1602
9/10/2014 06:00 AM
9/10/2014 05:45 PM
Lights
Other Vehicles
Left
Thru Right U-Turn
29
565
246
0
3
50
23
0
32
615
269
0
886
840
1726
78
76
154
964
916
1880
Out
In
Total
Northbound Approach
254
0
21
0
275
0
Left U-Turn
0
24 1263
0
4
185
0
28 1448
U-Turn Right Thru
North
Westbound Approach
Out
In
Total
1531
1651
3182
211
216
427
1742
1867
3609
762
90
852
Left
22
0
3
0
25
0
Left U-Turn
31 1366
4
191
35 1557
Right Thru
Eastbound Approach
Out
In
Total
2212
2049
4261
293
279
572
2505
2328
4833
817
608
99
53
916
661
Right Thru

District 5
9600 Jacksontown Rd, Jacksontown, OH 43030
Study Name : LIC-62-14.93 Signal Warrant Analysis
Signal Warrants - Summary

Major Street Approaches
Minor Street Approaches
Eastbound: Eastbound Approach

Number of Lanes: 1
Northbound: Northbound Approach

Number of Lanes: 1
85% Speed > 40 MPH.

Total Approach Volume: 2,328
Westbound: Westbound Approach
Number of Lanes: 1
Total Approach Volume: 916

Southbound: Southbound Approach
Number of Lanes: 1
85% Speed > 40 MPH.

Warrant Summary
(Rural values apply.)
Warrant 1 - Eight Hour Vehicular Volumes ...........................................................................................................................
Not Satisfied
Warrant 1A - Minimum Vehicular Volume .........................................................................................Not Satisfied

Required volumes reached for 6 hours, 8 are needed
Warrant 1B - Interruption of Continuous Traffic ..............................................................................Not Satisfied
Warrant 1 A&B - Combination of Warrants ......................................................................................Not Satisfied
Warrant 2 - Four Hour Volumes .............................................................................................................................................
Satisfied
Number of hours (4) volumes exceed minimum >= minimum required (4).
Warrant 3 - Peak Hour .............................................................................................................................................................
Satisfied
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 Evaluated
Warrant 5 - School Crossing ..................................................................................................................................................
Not Evaluated
Warrant 6 - Coordinated Signal System ................................................................................................................................
Not Satisfied
No adjacent coordinated signals are present

Warrant 7 - Crash Experience ................................................................................................................................................
Not Satisfied
Number of accidents (3) is less than minimum (5). Volume minimums are met.
Warrant 8 - Roadway Network ...............................................................................................................................................
Not Satisfied
Major Route conditions not met. No volume requirement met.

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

District 5
9600 Jacksontown Rd, Jacksontown, OH 43030
Study Name : LIC-62-14.93 Signal Warrant Analysis
Signal Warrants - Summary

700
Minor Street - Higher Volume Approach (VPH)
Warrant Curves
600
Peak Hour Warrant

Four Hour Warrant
[Rural, 1 major lane and 1 minor lane curves used]
500
400
300
10:30
01:00
200
02:00
03:00
08:30
07:30
03:30
07:45
08:00
07:15
08:15
03:15
07:00
06:45
04:00
06:00
06:30
100
00:00
09:30
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
Major Street - Total of Both Directions (VPH)
Analysis of 8-Hour Volume Warrants:

War 1A-Minimum Volume
War 1B-Interruption of Traffic

Min
Hour
Major
Min
Hour
Major
350
105
Begin
Total
Vol
Dir
Yes
Yes
10:00
538
175
SB
525
53
Begin
Total
Vol
Dir
420
84
Yes
Yes
10:00
538
175
SB
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
09:45
503
189
SB
Yes
Yes
09:30
497
171
SB
No
Yes
11:00
479
207
SB
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
00:00
430
157
SB
Yes
SB
Yes
Yes
11:00
479
207
Yes
SB
No
Yes
01:15
428
189
SB
Yes
Yes
117
SB
Yes
Yes
09:15
456
148
SB
Yes
Yes
00:45
430
158
SB
No
Yes
09:00
423
150
SB
Yes
Yes
173
SB
No
Yes
01:00
408
186
SB
No
344
104
SB
No
No
00:00
Yes
430
157
SB
No
Yes
08:45
400
126
SB
No
08:00
308
108
SB
No
Yes
Yes
01:15
428
189
SB
No
Yes
08:30
352
117
SB
No
07:45
298
108
SB
No
Yes
Yes
00:30
427
177
SB
No
Yes
08:15
344
104
SB
No
07:30
291
112
SB
Yes
No
Yes
00:15
424
167
SB
No
Yes
08:00
308
108
SB
No
07:00
280
93
Yes
SB
No
No
09:00
423
150
SB
No
Yes
02:15
300
136
SB
No
07:15
279
Yes
105
SB
No
Yes
01:00
408
186
SB
No
Yes
07:45
298
108
SB
No
Yes
06:45
06:30
276
92
SB
No
No
01:30
405
168
SB
No
Yes
07:30
291
112
SB
No
Yes
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
Hour
Major
Minor
Begin
Total
Vol
Dir
10:30
527
205
SB
09:30
497
171
SB
00:00
430
157
SB
01:00
408
186
08:30
352
02:00
351
08:15
Maj
War 1C-Combination of Warrants
Minor
Maj
Minor
Maj
Min
HCM 2010 TWSC

3:
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh
Movement
Vol, veh/h
Conflicting Peds, #/hr
Sign Control
RT Channelized
Storage Length
Veh in Median Storage, #
Grade, %
Peak Hour Factor
Heavy Vehicles, %
Mvmt Flow
3/4/2015
9
EBL EBT EBR
143 256
4
0
0
0
Free Free Free
- None
0
1
92
92
92
11
13
14
155 278
4
Major/Minor
Conflicting Flow All
Stage 1
Stage 2
Critical Hdwy
Critical Hdwy Stg 1
Critical Hdwy Stg 2
Follow-up Hdwy
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2
Platoon blocked, %
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2
Major1
122
4.21
2.299
1411
-
Approach
HCM Control Delay, s
HCM LOS
EB
2.8
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt

Capacity (veh/h)
HCM Lane V/C Ratio
HCM Control Delay (s)
HCM Lane LOS
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)
1411
-
0
-
NBLn1 EBL
322 1411
0.371 0.11
22.6
7.9
C
A
1.7
0.4
0
-
WBL WBT WBR

23 110
2
0
0
0
Free Free Free
- None
0
3
92
92
92
8
12
11
25 120
2
Major2
283
4.18
2.272
1246
1246
-
0
-
0
-
WB
1.4
NBL NBT NBR

2
71
37
0
0
0
Stop Stop Stop
- None
0
2
92
92
92
9
8
9
2
77
40
SBL SBT SBR

1
77
97
0
0
0
Stop Stop Stop
- None
0
2
92
92
92
12
8
11
1
84 105
Minor1
856 763 280
591 591
265 172
7.59 6.98 6.49
6.59 5.98
6.59 5.98
3.581 4.072 3.381
246 301 731
451 454
704 731
-
Minor2
821 764 121
171 171
650 593
7.62 6.98 6.51
6.62 5.98
6.62 5.98
3.608 4.072 3.399
258 300 901
793 732
411 453
-
144
144
392
537
NB
22.6
C
256
256
395
715
731
-
167
167
690
272
255
255
716
394
901
-
SB
20.4
C
EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1

- 1246
- 421
- 0.02
- 0.452
0
7.9
0
- 20.4
A
A
A
C
0.1
2.3
LIC-62-14.93 Safety Study 2/6/2015 Existing Condition

John Ryan
Synchro 8 Report
Page 1
HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary

3:
Movement
Lane Configurations
Volume (veh/h)
Number
Initial Q (Qb), veh
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT)
Parking Bus, Adj
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h
Adj No. of Lanes
Peak Hour Factor
Percent Heavy Veh, %
Cap, veh/h
Arrive On Green
Sat Flow, veh/h
Grp Volume(v), veh/h
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln
Q Serve(g_s), s
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s
Prop In Lane
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h
V/C Ratio(X)
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h
HCM Platoon Ratio
Upstream Filter(I)
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh
LnGrp LOS
Approach Vol, veh/h
Approach Delay, s/veh
Approach LOS
Timer
Assigned Phs
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s
Change Period (Y+Rc), s
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s
Green Ext Time (p_c), s
Intersection Summary
HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay
HCM 2010 LOS
2/12/2015
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
143
5
0
1.00
1.00
171.2
155
1
0.92
11
731
0.47
1162
155
1162
2.8
4.1
1.00
731
0.21
1466
1.00
1.00
5.9
0.1
0.0
0.9
6.0
A
256
2
0
4
12
0
1.00
1.00
190.0
4
0
0.92
13
11
0.47
24
282
1677
3.4
3.4
0.01
795
0.35
1856
1.00
1.00
5.3
0.3
0.0
1.5
5.5
A
23
1
0
1.00
1.00
175.9
25
1
0.92
8
608
0.47
1032
25
1032
0.5
3.9
1.00
608
0.04
1260
1.00
1.00
6.5
0.0
0.0
0.1
6.5
A
110
6
0
2
16
0
1.00
1.00
190.0
2
0
0.92
12
13
0.47
28
122
1692
1.3
1.3
0.02
802
0.15
1872
1.00
1.00
4.7
0.1
0.0
0.6
4.8
A
2
7
0
1.00
1.00
190.0
2
0
0.92
8
118
0.21
10
119
1650
0.0
1.9
0.02
461
0.26
896
1.00
1.00
10.6
0.3
0.0
0.9
10.9
B
71
4
0
37
14
0
1.00
1.00
190.0
40
0
0.92
8
116
0.21
555
0
0
0.0
0.0
0.34
0
0.00
0
1.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1
3
0
1.00
1.00
190.0
1
0
0.92
8
115
0.21
3
190
1577
0.0
3.4
0.01
445
0.43
862
1.00
1.00
11.2
0.7
0.0
1.6
11.9
B
77
8
0
97
18
0
1.00
1.00
190.0
105
0
0.92
8
183
0.21
872
0
0
0.0
0.0
0.55
0
0.00
0
1.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.00
168.1
278
1
0.92
13
784
0.47
1653
0
0
0.0
0.0
0
0.00
0
1.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
437
5.7
A
1.00
169.7
120
1
0.92
12
789
0.47
1664
0
0
0.0
0.0
0
0.00
0
1.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
147
5.1
A
2
2
20.0
5.0
35.0
6.1
4.4
4
4
11.6
5.0
15.0
3.9
1.8
1.00
175.4
77
1
0.92
8
227
0.21
1085
0
0
0.0
0.0
0
0.00
0
1.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
119
10.9
B
6
6
20.0
5.0
35.0
5.9
4.4
1.00
173.2
84
1
0.92
8
147
0.21
703
0
0
0.0
0.0
0
0.00
0
1.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
190
11.9
B
8
8
11.6
5.0
15.0
5.4
1.7
7.6
A
LIC-62-14.93 Safety Study 2/6/2015 Build Condition

John Ryan
Synchro 8 Report
Page 1
HCM 2010 Roundabout

3:
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh
Intersection LOS
8.5
A
Approach
Entry Lanes
Conflicting Circle Lanes
Adj Approach Flow, veh/h
Demand Flow Rate, veh/h
Vehicles Circulating, veh/h
Vehicles Exiting, veh/h
Follow-Up Headway, s
Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h
Ped Cap Adj
Approach Delay, s/veh
Approach LOS
Lane
Designated Moves
Assumed Moves
RT Channelized
Lane Util
Critical Headway, s
Entry Flow, veh/h
Cap Entry Lane, veh/h
Entry HV Adj Factor
Flow Entry, veh/h
Cap Entry, veh/h
V/C Ratio
Control Delay, s/veh
LOS
95th %tile Queue, veh
2/12/2015
EB
1
1
437
491
119
253
3.186
0
1.000
10.3
B
WB
1
1
147
163
257
359
3.186
0
1.000
6.6
A
NB
1
1
119
129
487
123
3.186
0
1.000
7.8
A
SB
1
1
190
209
163
257
3.186
0
1.000
6.4
A
Left
LTR
LTR
Left
LTR
LTR
Left
LTR
LTR
Left
LTR
LTR
1.000
5.193
491
1003
0.890
437
893
0.489
10.3
B
3
1.000
5.193
163
874
0.900
147
786
0.187
6.6
A
1
1.000
5.193
129
694
0.921
119
640
0.186
7.8
A
1
1.000
5.193
209
960
0.910
190
874
0.218
6.4
A
1
LIC-62-14.93 Safety Study 2/6/2015 Roundabout Build Condition

John Ryan
Synchro 8 Report
Page 1
Turn Lane Length Worksheet

Project ID:
Date:
E-W Road:
US 62 Johnstown-Utica Road
N-S Road:
JAR
Metric (y,n):
Analyst:
2/4/2015
SR 661
Input Values:
AM Peak Hour Volume (vehicles)
Eastbound
Left
76
Left
Through
80
Through
Right
Right
Westbound
44
Left
208
Through
Right
Northbound
4
Left
94
Through
Right
Southbound
2
75
109
PM Peak Hour Volume (vehicles)

Eastbound
Left
143
Left
Through
260
Through
Right
Right
Westbound
23
Left
112
Through
Right
Northbound
2
Left
108
Through
Right
Southbound
1
77
97
Intersection Geometry - Number of Lanes (Use 0 if Turn Lane is Shared, i.e., Not Exclusive)
Left
Through
Right
Offset Left ? (y,n)
Offset Dist. (ft.)
Design Speed
Eastbound
60
Eastbound
1
1
0
n
0
Left
Through
Right
Offset Left ? (y,n)
Offset Dist. (ft.)
Westbound
1
1
0
n
0
Left
Through
Right
Offset Left ? (y,n)
Offset Dist. (ft.)
Northbound
1
1
0
n
0
Left
Through
Right
Offset Left ? (y,n)
Offset Dist. (ft.)
in mph
Cycle Length
AM (sec)
PM (sec)
Westbound
60
Northbound
60
Southbound
60
60
60
Analysis Results:
Turn Lane Length and Through Storage
in feet
Eastbound
Westbound
Left
345
Through
Right
200
0
FALSE
Left
345
Through
Right
175
0
Northbound
Southbound
Left
345
Left
345
Through
Right
100
0
Through
Right
100
345
3/26/201511:19 AM
FALSE
Southbound
1
1
1
n
0

U.S. 62/ohio 661 Study

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

U.S. 62/ohio 661 Study

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

District 5 Highway Safety Program

Safety Study: LIC-62-14.93

Completed By: District 5 Planning and Engineering

ODOT Highway Safety Program

ODOT Highway Safety Program

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

ODOT Highway Safety Program

One Page Project Summary

ODOT Highway Safety Program

ODOT Highway Safety Program

Purpose and Need

ODOT Highway Safety Program

Table 2: Crashes Observed by Type

Table 3: Crashes Observed by Severity

ODOT Highway Safety Program

ODOT Highway Safety Program

ODOT Highway Safety Program

ODOT Highway Safety Program

Proposed Conditions Diagram

ODOT Highway Safety Program

Summary of Supplemental Traffic Studies

Approach Delay LOS

Intersection Delay (sec/veh) / LOS

Countermeasure Recommendations and Implementation Plan

ODOT Highway Safety Program

Appendix A: Existing Conditions Diagram

ODOT Highway Safety Program

Appendix B: Crash Data and Crash Diagram

ODOT Highway Safety Program

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

Project Safety Performance Report

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

Project and Site Conditions Information

Project Summary Results (Without Animal Crashes)

Npredicted - Existing Conditions

Nexpected - Existing Conditions

Npotential for improvement - Existing Conditions

Crash Severity Level

Crash Severity Level

Crash Severity Level

Summary by Crash Type

Created by the Office of Systems Planning and Program Management

ODOT Highway Safety Program

Appendix D: Cost Estimates

Other Construction Costs *

Curb & Gutter

Estimated Cost (Rounded Up)

Total Estimated Cost

Total Estimated Cost Current Year

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

LIC-US 62 Cost Matrix.xls

ODOT Highway Safety Program

Appendix E: Proposed Countermeasure Review (ECAT Analysis of

Project Safety Performance Report

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

Project and Site Conditions Information

Project Summary Results (Without Animal Crashes)

Npredicted - Existing Conditions

Nexpected - Existing Conditions

Npotential for improvement - Existing Conditions

Npredicted - Proposed Conditions

Crash Severity Level

Crash Severity Level