Upload
others
View
0
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Interchange Operations Study
SR 315 Southbound Ramps at Olentangy River Road
Columbus, Ohio
Prepared for
Nationwide Realty Investors
By
Trans Associates Engineering Consultants, Inc.
February 11, 2016
NWRIN00 - 06292
Interchange Operations Study
SR 315 Southbound Ramps at Olentangy River Road
Columbus, Ohio
Prepared for
Nationwide Realty Investors
By
Trans Associates Engineering Consultants, Inc. 941 Chatham Lane, Suite 319
Columbus, Ohio 43221 (614) 459-7930
_____________________________________ _____________________________________
Mark I. Mann, P.E. Office Manager/Senior Manager
Angela M. Coates, P.E. 80846 Associate Analyst
February 11, 2016
NWRIN00 - 06292
ii
Trans Associates Engineering Consultants, Inc.
941 Chatham Lane, Suite 319 Columbus, Ohio 43221
614-459-7930 February 11, 2016 Ohio Department of Transportation, District 6 400 East William Street Delaware, Ohio 43015 Attention: Dirk B. Gross, P.E. Transportation Engineer Subject: SR 315 Southbound Off Ramp to Olentangy River Road – Interchange Operations Study Response to Traffic Study Comments
NWRIN00 - 06292 Dear Mr. Gross: Trans Associates submitted a revised Interchange Operations Study for the SR 315 Southbound Off Ramp to Olentangy River Road on November 20, 2015. This study was again reviewed by the Ohio Department of Transportation (District 6 and Central Office) and comments were provided to Trans Associates on January 22, 2016. These review comments were provided in the form of a PDF markup from Gary Harrington, ODOT Central Office. Our responses to these comments are as follows:
1) Page 1, Paragraph 4 – The 18%/16% increase is correct when comparing just the ramp volume; however, as per ODOT’s method, the increases should be about 3.9%/2.7% for AM/PM. Recalculate and revise text as needed.
The comparison of No Build and Build constrained traffic volumes has been changed to accurately reflect the methodology used by ODOT. Our calculations show an increase of 3.9% in the AM and 2.8% in the PM.
2) Page 4, Paragraph 3 – The listed Point #3 reads “Freeway Segment between point 3 and on ramp from ORR”. What is “point 3”?
This point has been updated to read “Freeway Segment between point #2 and on ramp from ORR” --- with point #2 referring to the upstream diverge point (SR 315 southbound off ramp to ORR).
3) Page 6, Paragraph 5 – Generally, the existing signal timing data is not included in an Interchange Study. I noticed the actual passage times were entered into HCS which seem to give better results than using the default of 2.0s. With the oversaturated conditions, it doesn’t seem to make a difference.
This point has been noted.
4) Figure 3 (Page 7)
a) The note at the bottom left of the figure reads “Turn Lane Lengths Do Not Include Diverging Taper”. Do they include deceleration?
The turn lane lengths shown in Figure 3 are the total length (storage and deceleration) excluding taper. To clarify, this point has been change to read “Turn Lane Lengths Include Storage and Deceleration Only (No Diverging Taper)”. Also, the asterisk and note referring to the existing off ramp length has been removed as it is now redundant.
iii
b) To improve this exhibit, consider making the revised improvements in red. Label the turn lane lengths of the off ramp. Add a center-to-center dimension between intersections. Comments apply to all similar exhibits.
As recommended, the proposed improvements have been shown in red. The proposed lengths of the off ramp lanes have also been added to the figure. A center-to-center dimension between intersections was added, as well. These adjustments were carried to other figures in the report as necessary.
5) Figure 4 (Page 8) – The level of service on the southbound through movement at Olentangy River Road and the SR 315 Southbound Ramps should be ‘B’, not ‘A’.
This level of service has been corrected in Figure 4.
6) Table 1 (Page 10) – The delay shown for the westbound right turning movement should be 18.3 sec/veh under the PM Peak Hour, Build condition.
This value has been corrected.
7) Page 11, Paragraph 2 – The appropriate method is to input the actual left and thru volumes. Go to the “Detailed Input Data” tab and change the “Percent Turns in Shared Lane” until the v/c ratios for the left/thru are about equal. The method that was used produces nearly the same results. Revise the AM/PM Build analyses.
The AM and PM Build analyses have been revised using the correct methodology. Figures 4 and 5, as well as Table 2, were updated accordingly. The referenced paragraph was removed from the text.
8) Table 3 (Page 13) – This table and the supporting text should be updated based on the corrected comparison of No Build/Build constrained traffic volumes. See comment #1.
Table 3 and the associated text have been updated based on the corrected comparison of constrained traffic volumes.
9) Page 16, Paragraph 2 – See comments #1 and #8. Revise text to state degradation does not occur for the AM since the downstream weave operates at LOS D/D for the No Build and Build using the demand volumes. Degradation does occur in the PM because the LOS is F/F for the No Build/Build and more than 2% traffic is added based on ODOT’s methodology. The constrained volumes were used to analyze the PM weave as they should be. The weave analyses should have “Constrained” added somewhere to indicate the constrained volumes were used. Also, add text stating that mitigation via a combination of ramp metering and/or geometric constraints are typically implemented, however, this is not an ideal location for ramp metering with the given geometry and downstream weave.
The text has been modified to reflect the corrected comparison of constrained traffic volumes. Text has also been added explaining why mitigative measures are not recommended. A note has been added to the relevant HCS reports indicating that constrained traffic volumes were used at the downstream weave section during the PM peak hour.
10) Appendix B is not needed and should be removed from the report.
Appendix B has been removed.
11) The diverge point was analyzed twice, considering influence from the upstream off ramp and the downstream on ramp separately. In my experience, adding upstream/downstream ramp data has little or no effect on results. Remove all analyses considering influence from the downstream on ramp.
These analyses have been removed from the Appendix.
12) Reanalyze the weave section using the demand volumes in the AM peak hour since possible degradation does not occur, i.e. the No Build/Build LOS is D/D using the demand traffic. No Build analysis should equal the Build.
The No Build AM peak analysis for the weave section has been modified to reflect demand volumes instead of constrained on ramp volumes. The results in Table 4 have also been updated.
iv
13) Typically, queuing/storage for the No Build condition is not calculated. This can either be removed or left here as the Build condition shows an improvement.
This point has been noted. The No Build queue length computations have been kept in the Appendix just to show that Build improvements do improve queues.
14) The label on the concept plan contained in the Appendix should be SR 315 instead of interstate 315.
The concept plan has been modified to show SR 315.
Additionally, there has been an ongoing discussion in regards to the calculation of the westbound right turn on red volume at the intersection of Olentangy and Goodale, as referenced on page 11 of the report. This issue has been addressed to the satisfaction of the reviewers. The study has been revised based on our responses to these comments. Should you have any questions, please call me. Sincerely,
Mark I. Mann, PE Office Manager/Senior Manager
v
Interchange Operations Study, SR 315 Southbound Ramps at Olentangy River Road
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................... 1
Background ................................................................................................................................... 2
Previous Studies ....................................................................................................................... 2
Purpose and Need ........................................................................................................................ 4
Study Area .................................................................................................................................... 4
Analysis Years .............................................................................................................................. 4
Alternatives Considered ................................................................................................................ 4
Existing and Proposed Conditions ................................................................................................ 6
Traffic Volumes ............................................................................................................................. 6
Traffic Analyses ............................................................................................................................ 6
Olentangy River Road Corridor Analyses ................................................................................. 6
SR 315 Southbound Freeway Analyses .................................................................................. 12
Queuing Analyses ....................................................................................................................... 14
Conclusions ................................................................................................................................ 16
Recommendations ...................................................................................................................... 17
vi
Interchange Operations Study, SR 315 Southbound Ramps at Olentangy River Road
List of Tables
Table 1. 2037 Level of Service (Delay, sec/veh), Olentangy River Road at SR 315 Southbound Ramps ............................................................ 10
Table 2. 2037 Level of Service (Delay, sec/veh), Olentangy River Road at Goodale Boulevard/Twin Rivers Drive ............................................. 11
Table 3. Comparison of 2037 Traffic Volumes, SR 315 Southbound, Downstream of Merge Point (veh) ......................................................... 12
Table 4. 2037 Capacity Analysis Results, SR 315 Southbound ................................................. 13
Table 5. Summary of 2037 Queue Lengths, ODOT L&D Manual ............................................... 14
Table 6. Summary of 2037 Off Ramp Storage Length Requirements, Build Condition .............. 15
List of Figures
Figure 1. Project Location ............................................................................................................. 3
Figure 2. Study Area Map ............................................................................................................. 5
Figure 3. Existing and Proposed Lane Usages ............................................................................. 7
Figure 4. 2037 AM Levels of Service ............................................................................................ 8
Figure 5. 2037 PM Levels of Service ............................................................................................ 9
Appendices
Appendix A. Certified Traffic Volumes
Appendix B. Capacity Analysis Results, Olentangy River Road
Appendix C. Capacity Analysis Results, SR 315 Southbound
Appendix D. Queuing Analysis Results
Appendix E. Concept Drawing
vii
Interchange Operations Study, SR 315 Southbound Ramps at Olentangy River Road
Executive Summary
The Grandview Yard development is currently under construction, and its effects on the adjacent roadway system are being investigated. The development is located on the eastern edge of the City of Grandview Heights and adjacent to downtown Columbus, Ohio as shown in project location map found in Figure 1. A large portion of the trips made to this development will be served by the southbound SR 315 interchange at Olentangy River Road, which operates under signal control.
The existing off ramp consists of one shared left/right lane. Due to the expected volume increase, the potential for adding two lanes of storage to the off ramp has been considered. This “build” alternative would provide for dual left turns and an exclusive right turn lane at the off ramp. Additionally, the “build” alternative includes modified lane usages on the southbound approach of Olentangy River Road at Goodale, converting the exclusive through lane to a shared through/left turn lane. Along with a three-lane off ramp, this modification is expected to significantly improve operating conditions on the Olentangy River Road corridor.
The purpose of this study is to quantify the impacts of the proposed lane usages on queuing at the off ramp and on the total volume entering southbound SR 315. Additionally, the impacts of the proposed lane usages on the operations of southbound SR 315 as well as adjacent signals on Olentangy River Road were investigated.
Analyses performed at the signals on Olentangy River Road show that adding two lanes to the off ramp allows this signal to operate at a better level of service compared to the “no build” alternative. Even still, operating criteria cannot be met at the intersection. Calculation of constrained traffic volumes shows that the total volume on southbound SR 315 could increase by 3.9% during the AM peak hour and 2.8% during the PM peak hour as a result of these modifications. While this increase is slightly larger than what is typically deemed acceptable, the modifications do not adversely impact operations on SR 315 southbound or significantly degrade levels of service beyond “no build” conditions.
Simulation shows that the expected queues at the off ramp will consistently back up onto southbound SR 315 during both the AM and PM peak hours if the current lane usages are maintained. As expected, the proposed “build” modifications nearly eliminate queuing issues at the off ramp.
1
Interchange Operations Study, SR 315 Southbound Ramps at Olentangy River Road
Background
The southbound SR 315 off ramp to Olentangy River Road has slightly more than 1,000 feet of deceleration and storage. This single-lane off ramp intersects Olentangy River Road about 580 feet north of Goodale Street and about 1,300 feet south of an access drive serving Time Warner and the OSU Eye and Ear Institute. All three intersections on Olentangy River Road are currently under traffic signal control.
With only a single lane on the ramp, traffic signal operations at its intersection with Olentangy River Road are somewhat inefficient – and queues begin to form on the ramp. As traffic volumes continue to increase, it is possible that queues could extend back to the mainline of SR 315. In order to better accommodate these queues, it is suggested that consideration be given to widening the off ramp to create more storage capacities.
Since widening the off ramp could allow more green time to be allocated to traffic entering the freeway, an interchange operations study has been requested by ODOT District 6 and the City of Columbus to ensure that the proposed modification does not degrade operations on SR 315 southbound. Certified traffic volumes were requested and provided by ODOT District 6 to assist in the completion of the analyses presented herein.
The purpose of this study is to prove that the proposed modification is essential to preventing queue spill back onto the freeway and to improving operating conditions at the traffic signals located on Olentangy River Road. Additionally, the goal is to demonstrate that potential signal timing modifications accompanying the widening do not allow a significantly larger volume of traffic to enter the freeway at this location, effectively maintaining the safety and operation of SR 315 southbound.
Previous Studies
Some of the traffic volume increases likely to take place on the area roadway system can be attributed to development at Grandview Yard. The development, which is currently under construction, is located on the eastern edge of the City of Grandview Heights and adjacent to downtown Columbus, Ohio (see Figure 1). As planning for the development has taken place over the past several years, traffic studies have been performed to help define a long-range roadway system that best accommodates potential development on the site. These studies have addressed potential build-out of Grandview Yard – with assumed development packages likely exceeding what actually may be ultimately constructed. The certified traffic volumes utilized in this study are based upon the material established in prior traffic studies completed for Grandview Yard.
2
3
Interchange Operations Study, SR 315 Southbound Ramps at Olentangy River Road
Purpose and Need
The purpose of this project is to enhance the safety of the SR 315 southbound interchange at Olentangy River Road. Excessive off ramp queuing is potentially dangerous as the required deceleration distance may not be available to vehicles exiting the freeway. What’s more, queues spilling back into freeway lanes could result in high speed rear-end crashes. Widening the off ramp should effectively decrease queue lengths, providing enough distance for vehicles to safely decelerate and preventing spill back into freeway lanes.
Traffic flow along the Olentangy River Road corridor is also inhibited due to the signal operations at the location of the off ramp. In particular, southbound left turn queues regularly exceed the available storage length and block adjacent through lanes. Northbound queues may also back up to the upstream intersection at Goodale Boulevard. This project will improve the capacity of the off ramp intersection, allowing more green time to be provided to the approaches of Olentangy River Road and improving the progression of northbound and southbound through traffic.
Study Area
The study area for this project was defined by ODOT District 6 and is shown in Figure 2. It includes the following locations on mainline SR 315 southbound:
1. Freeway Segment upstream of off ramp to Olentangy River Road 2. Diverge (off ramp to Olentangy River Road (ORR)) 3. Freeway Segment between point #2 and on ramp from ORR 4. Weave (between entrance ramp from ORR to I-670 WB exit)
Additionally, the following signalized intersections will be analyzed:
1. Olentangy River Road at OSU Eye & Ear Institute/Time Warner 2. Olentangy River Road at SR-315 SB Ramps 3. Olentangy River Road at Goodale Blvd
Analysis Years
The expected opening year for this project is 2017. The design year has been defined as 2037, twenty years beyond project opening. Consideration will be given to both the AM and PM peak hours for the design year of 2037.
Alternatives Considered
Both “no build” and “build” alternatives were considered in this study. The “no build” scenario assumes that the existing SR 315 southbound off ramp to Olentangy River Road is maintained in its current condition and that no other changes are made throughout the study area. The preferred “build” condition includes widening the off-ramp to three lanes, providing for dual left turns and an exclusive right turn lane. Additionally, the “build” alternative includes changing the lane usages on the southbound approach of Olentangy River Road at Goodale Boulevard by converting the exclusive through lane to a shared through/left turn lane.
4
5
Interchange Operations Study, SR 315 Southbound Ramps at Olentangy River Road
Existing and Proposed Conditions
The existing lane usages and traffic control throughout the study area are shown in Figure 3. This figure also shows the “build” alternative at the intersections of Olentangy River Road with the SR 315 southbound ramps and Goodale Boulevard.
Traffic Volumes
Current and projected traffic volumes throughout the study area were submitted to ODOT on November 4, 2014 along with a request for certification. In an email dated February 25, 2015, 2017/2037 AM and PM Design Hour Volumes were received from ODOT. A copy of the request for certified traffic volumes along with email correspondence from ODOT is contained in Appendix A.
Two sets of traffic volumes were provided by ODOT, both with and without site generated traffic from the Grandview Yard development. For the purposes of this study, the traffic volumes with site trip generation were applied to both (“no build” and “build”) alternatives. The 2017 certified traffic volumes include only current development on the Grandview Yard property, while 2037 volumes include the traffic generated by the total build-out of the development.
Traffic Analyses
The alternatives were first evaluated at the signalized intersections in order to identify conditions along the Olentangy River Road corridor. Then, the alternatives were tested at the specified locations on SR 315 southbound to determine the potential impacts (if any) on freeway operations, particularly at the on ramp/weave section.
Olentangy River Road Corridor Analyses
At signalized intersections, capacity analyses were performed using HCS 2010 (streets module). For both the “no build” and “build” alternatives, each signalized intersection was considered isolated and thus uncoordinated. Cycle lengths were optimized, and phase splits were adjusted so that critical approach delays were balanced within 3 seconds. A cycle length of 120 seconds was used at all intersections for AM and PM peak hour analyses.
Design year capacity analysis results for the Olentangy River Road corridor can be found in Appendix B. 2037 AM and PM peak hour capacity analysis results are illustrated in Figures 4 and 5, respectively. Additionally, Table 1 provides the levels of service and average delay at the intersection of Olentangy River Road and the SR 315 Ramps for both alternatives.
6
7
8
9
Interchange Operations Study, SR 315 Southbound Ramps at Olentangy River Road
Table 1. 2037 Level of Service (Delay, sec/veh), Olentangy River Road at SR 315 Southbound Ramps
Approach Lane Group
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
No Build Build No Build Build
Westbound
Left F (119.2)
E (56.2) F (128.5)
F (84.3)
Right B (17.2) B (18.3)
Overall F (119.2) D (43.2) F (128.5) E (68.2)
Northbound
Through F (99.6) D (41.9) F (103.0) E (56.4)
Through/Right F (138.7) D (47.3) F (153.5) F (84.8)
Overall F (118.4) D (44.5) F (127.5) E (70.2)
Southbound
Left F (140.3) D (47.9) F (152.9) F (84.7)
Through B (11.5) A (3.7) A (5.8) A (2.0)
Overall E (71.0) C (24.1) E (77.3) D (42.2)
Intersection F (98.0) D (35.4) F (105.7) E (57.7)
These results show that the intersection of Olentangy River Road at the SR 315 southbound ramps operates at an exceptionally poor level of service in the future if the existing single-lane off ramp is retained. In both the AM and PM, all movements will be over capacity with v/c ratios of greater than 1.0 except for the southbound through movement. Intersection delays hover around 100 seconds per vehicle during both time frames. Adding two lanes to the off ramp decreases overall delay by 64% in the AM and allows the intersection to operate at an acceptable level of service. While overall delay decreases by 45% in the PM, the intersection will still operate poorly even with a three-lane off ramp. In this instance, the northbound through/right and southbound left turn movements are over capacity.
The intersection of Olentangy River Road at Goodale Boulevard/Twin Rivers Drive was also looked at more closely given the proposed lane usage modifications. The northbound and southbound approaches of this intersection operate under a split phasing configuration, and right turn overlap phases are provided on the westbound and southbound approaches. However, the current version of HCS does not allow for a right turn overlap phase with a split phase approach. This particular caveat affects the westbound right turn only. With a projected demand of over 700 vehicles during both the AM and PM peak hours, it was essential that an adjustment be made to account for the additional green time that is provided to this movement during the southbound approach phase.
10
Interchange Operations Study, SR 315 Southbound Ramps at Olentangy River Road
This limitation was addressed by assigning some of the westbound right turn volume to the right turn on red volume. The right turn on red volume is discounted in capacity analysis calculations since it does not operate under the control of the traffic signal. The right turn on red volume was estimated using the following steps:
1) Multiply the green split of the southbound through phase by the saturation flow rate of the westbound right turn to determine the capacity that is added to this movement during the overlap phase.
2) Calculate the total capacity of the westbound right turn by summing the westbound through phase capacity and the overlap phase capacity.
3) Calculate the actual volume to capacity ratio of the westbound right turn by dividing the (adjusted) demand flow rate by the total movement capacity.
4) Calculate by how much the westbound right turn volume should be reduced (input westbound right turn on red volume) to achieve the correct volume to capacity ratio.
Table 2 provides the final capacity analysis results for the intersection of Olentangy River Road and Goodale Boulevard/Twin Rivers Drive. For the “no build” alternative, the intersection will operate at a failing level of service with exceptionally high delay on the southbound left turn movement and in the eastbound shared through/right lane. During the AM peak hour, the modified lane usages result in a decrease in totally intersection delay of over 31%, though the signal still operates poorly with a level of service of E. The southbound left turn movement still has a level of service of F, though its delay is reduced by nearly 54%.
Table 2. 2037 Level of Service (Delay, sec/veh), Olentangy River Road at Goodale Boulevard/Twin Rivers Drive
Approach Lane Group
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
No Build Build No Build Build
Eastbound
Left D (46.2) C (34.1) F (139.0) F (112.9)
Through/Right F (146.0) F (95.3) F (104.8) F (75.6)
Overall F (119.3) E (78.9) F (118.0) F (90.0)
Westbound
Left C (30.3) C (28.3) C (32.6) C (31.9)
Through D (46.2) C (33.7) F (138.6) F (111.4)
Right E (61.4) D (48.6) F (124.8) F (135.9)
Overall D (50.6) D (38.7) F (131.3) F (116.5)
Northbound
Left D (55.0) D (55.0) E (59.8) E (59.8)
Through E (58.1) E (58.1) F (86.6) F (86.6)
Right A (0.0) D (54.9) A (0.0) E (60.1)
Overall E (56.8) E (56.3) E (75.9) E (71.8)
Southbound
Left F (212.1) F (98.1) F (256.5) F (181.0)
Through D (39.2) F (99.8) D (51.3) F (174.2)
Right D (37.8) E (56.8) C (27.4) C (29.3)
Overall F (119.5) F (80.8) F (130.7) F (120.9)
Intersection F (92.9) E (64.0) F (123.9) F (105.7)
11
Interchange Operations Study, SR 315 Southbound Ramps at Olentangy River Road
During the PM peak hour, the benefits of implementing the modified lane usage are less drastic from a level of service standpoint. The intersection will still have a failing level of service and will only experience a near 15% decrease in delay. The average delays for the southbound left turn movement and the shared eastbound through/right movement may each decrease by about 28%.
The intersection of Olentangy River Road with Time Warner should operate well with an intersection level of service of C in the AM and PM.
SR 315 Southbound Freeway Analyses
Capacity analyses at freeway locations were performed strictly using HCS 2010 (freeways, weaving, and ramps modules), and the results are contained in Appendix C. For this study, the effect of potential off ramp modifications was determined based on the constraints at the signal. Without any modifications to geometry or signal timing, the volume of demand traffic that can get onto the SR 315 southbound on ramp is constrained. Once geometric and signal timing modifications are considered, less green time is needed for the off ramp approach and more green time can be given to the southbound left turn movement and northbound through/right movement. As a result, a larger volume of vehicles may be able to reach the on ramp and enter the freeway.
As stipulated in section 550.3.2 of the ODOT Location and Design Manual, constrained on ramp volumes were determined by dividing the 2037 demand traffic volumes by the volume-to-capacity ratio for the southbound left and northbound through/right turn movements at the ramp signal. The resulting constrained traffic volumes were then compared on the basis of percent increase in total traffic volume on SR 315 southbound, downstream of the merge point. Table 3 provides a summary of the relevant traffic volumes.
Table 3. Comparison of 2037 Traffic Volumes, SR 315 Southbound, Downstream of Merge Point (veh)
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
No Build, Mainline 2760 4260
No Build, On Ramp* 735 885
Build, On Ramp* 870 1030
Increase 3.9% 2.8%
*Constrained volume
Volumes entering the downstream weave section may be expected to increase by 3.9% during the AM peak hour and 2.8% during the PM peak hour. Since there is no degradation in the level of service of the weave section during the AM peak hour (see Table 4), a volume increase of 3.9% is acceptable. In the PM, however, the weave section already operates at a level of service of F for “no build” conditions. The total traffic entering the weave section further increases by 2.8% with the proposed “build” improvements, which is typically not acceptable in this situation. While the ODOT Location and Design Manual requires that mitigative measures be taken for volume increases of greater than 2%, representatives of ODOT have indicated that ramp metering is not a viable option in this location due to the geometry of the on ramp and the downstream weave section. It is further believed that the potential reduction in queues formed at the off ramp is a suitable trade-off for the potentially degraded operation of the weave section.
12
Interchange Operations Study, SR 315 Southbound Ramps at Olentangy River Road
Since the total increase during the PM peak hour does not greatly exceed 2%, ODOT has indicated that a volume increase of 2.8% is permissible at this location without any mitigative measures.
Each of the SR 315 southbound locations were analyzed for “no build” and “build” alternatives. Constrained volumes from the on ramp were considered during the PM peak hour only; the weave section operates at a level of service of D using (unconstrained) demand volumes for the AM. The results of these analyses are summarized in Table 4.
Table 4. 2037 Capacity Analysis Results, SR 315 Southbound
SR 315 Southbound Locations
HCM 2010 Level of Service (Density, pc/mi/ln)
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
No Build Build No Build Build
Freeway Segment (I-670 EB to Off Ramp) D (33.0) D (33.0) F (60.0) F (60.0)
Diverge (Off Ramp) D (30.7) D (30.7) F (42.9) F (42.9)
Freeway Segment (Off Ramp to On Ramp) D (27.4) D (27.4) F (48.1) F (48.1)
Weave (On Ramp to I-670 WB) D (34.4) D (34.4) F (N/A)1 F (N/A)1 1Volume-to-capacity ratio > 1.0
During the AM peak hour, there is no degradation expected with the proposed improvements in place. All freeway locations are expected to operate at a level of service of D for the “no build” and “build” alternatives.
PM peak hour results are less favorable and show expected levels of service of F at all SR 315 southbound locations. Again, the “build” alternative results in an increased density downstream of the on ramp location. There is a slight impact noted when comparing the volume-to-capacity ratios obtained at the SR 315 southbound/I-670 westbound weave section. Considering the “no build” alternative, the weave section has a level of service of F and a volume-to-capacity ratio of 1.009. The “build” alternative increases the volume-to-capacity ratio to 1.044, or by 3.5%.
These results show that while the increase in the on ramp volume for the “build” alternative is higher than typically accepted, there is no impact on freeway operations at the weave section between SR 315 southbound and I-670 westbound during the AM peak hour. The exact impacts on the weave segment during the PM peak hour are difficult to quantify since this location will be over capacity for either alternative.
13
Interchange Operations Study, SR 315 Southbound Ramps at Olentangy River Road
Queuing Analyses
In addition to the level of service analyses, queueing analyses were also conducted to determine the impact of potential modifications on off ramp queues and at key locations on Olentangy River Road. Results are contained in Appendix D.
Off ramp queues were first determined according to Figure 401-9E of the ODOT L&D Manual (Vol. 1). The intersection on Olentangy at Goodale is only about 580’ south of the ramp signal. For the “build” alternative, vehicles will likely queue in the appropriate off ramp lane so that they do not have to quickly change lanes before the intersection at Goodale. The amount of traffic using each left turn lane was estimated based on the proportion of turning movement volumes on the southbound approach of Olentangy at Goodale, and knowing that all site-generated traffic will be turning right onto Goodale to Grandview Yard.
The off ramp queue lengths as determined using the methodology of the ODOT L&D Manual are provided in Table 5. These results are based on a 120 second cycle length.
Considering these results alone, there does not seem to be a major concern of off ramp queues spilling back onto mainline SR 315 even with a single-lane off ramp. Without any ramp modifications, queues may spill back slightly into the deceleration portion of the lane during the AM peak hour only. However, the results presented below are misleading as they do not take into account potential blocking from queues on Olentangy River Road.
Also included in Table 5 are possible queue lengths on the southbound approach of Olentangy River Road at Goodale. There is about 460’ of storage available between Goodale and the ramp signal, and the existing southbound left turn lane is striped for 380’ of storage. Queues calculated for both alternatives are larger than the provided storage, indicating a possible blocking issue.
Table 5. Summary of 2037 Queue Lengths, ODOT L&D Manual
Intersection Approach Lane Number
Queue Length (ft)
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
No Build Build No Build Build
Olentangy River Road at SR 315 Southbound Ramps
Westbound (Off Ramp)
1 650 175 475 175
2 - 350 - 250
3 - 275 - 150
Olentangy River Road at Goodale Boulevard/Twin Rivers Drive
Southbound
1 600 400 525 400
2 175 400 275 400
3 550 550 475 475
14
Interchange Operations Study, SR 315 Southbound Ramps at Olentangy River Road
To verify this point, conditions on the Olentangy River Road corridor were also simulated using SimTraffic 8. For 2037 conditions, simulation showed that queues in the southbound left turn lane from Olentangy onto Goodale will consistently back up into the adjacent through lane and to the ramp signal during both peak hours. Vehicles attempting to exit the off ramp may then be blocked from doing so, resulting in excessive queues that backup onto the freeway.
During the AM peak hour when the off ramp volume is highest, queues could back up onto the freeway almost 90% of the time with no ramp modifications. In the PM, this could still occur over 70% of the time even with lower off ramp volumes. It is therefore essential that lanes be added to the off ramp so that vehicles planning to turn right onto Goodale can proceed past and turn into the outside southbound lane on Olentangy River Road.
The “build” alternative was shown to nearly eliminate the potential for queue spill back into freeway lanes. Changing the lane usages on the southbound approach of Olentangy River Road at Goodale is the largest benefactor when considering the reduction in off ramp queues. Since this approach already operates as split phase, it is suggested the exclusive through lane be converted to a shared through/left turn lane. The second eastbound through lane on the bridge over SR 315 would need to be extended to the intersection at Olentangy River Road (± 80’ of additional pavement). The existing channelized right turn lane on the northbound approach (currently free flowing) could then operate as a yield condition or under signal control if desired by the City of Columbus. A three-lane off ramp would still be required in order to contain queues within the storage area. In this case, off ramp queues should not reach the deceleration lane or the freeway lanes a majority of the time in the AM. In the PM, queues are not likely to ever reach the deceleration portion of the lane.
The amount of storage required for the proposed turn lanes was calculated using the methodology in the ODOT L&D Manual with AM peak hour demand volumes (see Table 6 below). In order to optimize the utilization of all three storage lanes, at least 350 feet of storage should be provided in each additional lane. With the modified lane usages on the southbound approach of Olentangy at Goodale, blocking on Olentangy River Road should not be an issue and these storage lengths should be sufficient.
Table 6. Summary of 2037 Off Ramp Storage Length Requirements, Build Condition
Lane ODOT L&D
Westbound Left
Required Storage (ft) 175
Through Queue Backup (ft) 350
Recommended Storage (ft) 350
Westbound Right
Required Storage (ft) 275
Through Queue Backup (ft) 350
Recommended Storage (ft) 350
15
Interchange Operations Study, SR 315 Southbound Ramps at Olentangy River Road
Conclusions
This study was undertaken in order to verify the need for modifications at the SR 315 southbound off ramp to Olentangy River Road, which will serve a large portion of the trips made to the Grandview Yard development. Capacity analysis results show that the signal will operate at a failing levels of service during the AM and PM peak hours if no modifications are made. The “build” alternative produces a 64% reduction in delay for the AM peak hour, allowing the intersection to operate with acceptable levels of service on all approaches and raising the overall level of service to ‘D’. In the PM peak hour, “build” conditions reduce overall intersection delay by 45% although most movements still operate poorly.
In the AM, all freeway locations are expected to operate at a level of service of D. PM peak hour results are less favorable and show expected levels of service of F at all SR 315 southbound locations.
Calculation of constrained traffic volumes shows that the total volume on SR 315 southbound, downstream of the merge location, could increase by 3.9% in the AM and 2.8% in the PM. Degradation of the downstream weave section does not occur in the AM peak hour, as a level of service of D is expected for both “no build” and “build” conditions. However, a slight degradation does occur in the PM peak hour; the “no build” level of service for the weave section is already F, and the total volume increases by over 2% for proposed “build” conditions. While migitation through geometric constrains and/or ramp metering would typically be implemented, the location in question is not suitable for ramp metering due to the geometry of the on ramp and the downstream weave section.
Queuing analyses were then undertaken to determine storage requirements at the off ramp. Using the methodology outlined in the ODOT L&D Manual, two additional lanes of storage, each 350 feet in length, could be sufficient at the off ramp. However, these results do not take into account potential blocking from queues on Olentangy River Road.
Conditions on the Olentangy River Road corridor were also simulated to consider the effects of blocking. Simulation showed that queues in the southbound left turn lane from Olentangy onto Goodale will consistently back up into the adjacent through lane and to the ramp signal during both peak hours. Vehicles attempting to exit the off ramp may then be blocked from doing so, resulting in excessive queues that backup onto the freeway. It is therefore essential that at least one lane be added to the off ramp so that vehicles planning to turn right onto Goodale can proceed past and turn into the outside southbound lane on Olentangy River Road. The “build” alternative, with a combination of modified lane usages on the southbound approach of Olentangy River Road at Goodale and widening on the SR 315 southbound off ramp, was shown to nearly eliminate the potential for queue spill back into freeway lanes.
16
Interchange Operations Study, SR 315 Southbound Ramps at Olentangy River Road
Recommendations
With no degradation of the downstream weave section on SR 315 southbound during the AM peak hour and minimal degradation in the PM, it is recommended that the off ramp to Olentangy River Road be widened to three lanes, providing for dual lefts and an exclusive right turn lane. This alternative provides the best level of service at the ramp signal, though conditions are still not ideal. According to the ODOT L&D Manual methodology, 350’ of storage should be provided in the left and right turn lanes in order to accommodate AM peak hour queues and prevent storage blocking. This condition represents maximized storage without any change to the deceleration lane, and a concept drawing is contained in Appendix E.
Furthermore, it is recommended that the lane usages on the southbound approach of Olentangy River Road at Goodale Boulevard be modified, converting the exclusive through lane to a shared through/left turn lane. The second eastbound through lane on the bridge over SR 315 would need to be extended to the intersection at Olentangy River Road (± 80’ of additional pavement). The existing channelized right turn lane on the northbound approach (currently free flowing) should then operate as a yield condition or under signal control if desired by the City of Columbus. Lastly, signal timings on the corridor should be optimized to reflect the new traffic patterns and lane usages.
17
Appendices
Appendix A. Certified Traffic Volumes
INTER‐OFFICE COMMUNICATION
TO: David Carlin, P.E., District 6 FROM: Joshua Kieselbach, P.E., Transportation Engineer, Office of Statewide Planning &
Research, Modeling & Forecasting Section SUBJECT: FRA‐315‐2.11, No PID DATE: February 25, 2015 In reply to a request dated November 7, 2014, the subject request has been completed. During the review of the consultant’s report no issues were found. As requested the peak hour forecast from the consultant was updated to 2017/2037 DHV with the inclusion SR‐315 southbound mainline, ramps, and weaving section. The consultant’s trip generation numbers were added to the DHV forecast as well. Four plates have been attached showing the 2017/2037 AM and PM DHV, both with and without the site generated traffic. The site generated traffic was only added to the design year. If you have any questions, please contact me at [email protected] or (614) 752‐5747. c: M. Byram, OSPR – G. Giaimo, OSPR – File
315
670
5550/6080
2760/3010
315
PLATE 1 OF 4
NO PID
FRA-315-2.11
FEBRUARY 25, 2015 NOT TO SCALE
OFFICE OF STATEWIDE PLANNING & RESEARCH
OHIO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
2017/2037 AM DHV
FRA-315-2.11 NO PID
2790/3070
660/720
2560/2810
3220/3530
30/30
20/30
640/700
190/210
520/
580
510/
570
180/
190
750/
820
240/250
700/770
20/20
680/750
210/230
40/50
80/80
20/20
30/30
310/340
640/700
390/430
90/100
190/200
110/130
590/640
550/590
1970/2170
1000/1120
60/70
160/160
80/90
N
GOODALE ST.
OLE
NT
AN
GY RIV
ER
RD.
TWIN
RIV
ERS
DR.
TO I-670
WB
FR
OM I-670 E
B
315
670
5850/6440
4060/4470
315
PLATE 2 OF 4
NO PID
FRA-315-2.11
FEBRUARY 25, 2015 NOT TO SCALE
OFFICE OF STATEWIDE PLANNING & RESEARCH
OHIO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
2017/2037 PM DHV
FRA-315-2.11 NO PID
1790/1970
1070/1180
3580/3930
4650/5110
120/13
080/
90
1080/1170
20/20
610/
670
590/
630
130/160
50/50
160/
180
860/
950
180/210
770/850
20/30
420/460
270/300
70/70
100/110
60/60
40/50
770/850
650/720
350/380
160/180
210/230
130/150
940/1030
2940/3230
640/700
890/980
20/20
N
GOODALE ST.
OLE
NT
AN
GY RIV
ER
RD.
TWIN
RIV
ERS
DR.
TO I-670
WB
FR
OM I-670 E
B
315
670
5550/6400
2760/3330
315
PLATE 3 OF 4
NO PID
FRA-315-2.11
2790/3070
660/750
2560/2980
3220/3730
30/30
20/30
640/870
190/210
520/
610
510/
710
180/
260
750/
890
240/570
700/970
20/30
680/900
210/340
40/50
80/80
20/60
30/30
310/900
640/730
390/510
90/110
190/470
110/160
590/810
550/590
1970/2170
1000/1290
60/70
160/380
80/190
FEBRUARY 25, 2015 NOT TO SCALE
OFFICE OF STATEWIDE PLANNING & RESEARCH
OHIO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
2017/2037 AM DHV WITH TRIP-GEN
FRA-315-2.11 NO PID
N
GOODALE ST.
OLE
NT
AN
GY RIV
ER
RD.
TWIN
RIV
ERS
DR.
TO I-670
WB
FR
OM I-670 E
B
315
670
5850/6600
4060/4630
315
PLATE 4 OF 4
NO PID
FRA-315-2.11
1790/1970
1070/1220
3580/4130
4650/5350
120/13
080/
90
1080/1310
20/20
610/
700
590/
740
130/280
50/90
160/
390
860/
1090
180/370
770/1090
20/70
420/870
270/590
70/70
100/120
60/80
40/50
770/1090
650/770
350/440
160/190
210/390
130/190
940/1030
2940/3230
640/900
890/1160
20/20
FEBRUARY 25, 2015 NOT TO SCALE
OFFICE OF STATEWIDE PLANNING & RESEARCH
OHIO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
2017/2037 PM DHV WITH TRIP-GEN
FRA-315-2.11 NO PID
N
GOODALE ST.
OLE
NT
AN
GY RIV
ER
RD.
TWIN
RIV
ERS
DR.
TO I-670
WB
FR
OM I-670 E
B
Appendix B. Capacity Analysis Results, Olentangy River Road
HCS 2010 Signalized Intersection Results Summary
General Information Intersection Information
Agency Trans Associates Duration, h 0.25
Analyst AMC Analysis Date Jul 30, 2015 Area Type Other
Jurisdiction City of Columbus Time Period AM Peak Hour PHF 0.92
Intersection Time Warner Cable Analysis Year 2037 (No Build) Analysis Period 1> 7:00
File Name (1) 2037 AM - Olentangy @ Time Warner - No Build.xus
Project Description SR 315 SB Off-Ramp to Olentangy River Road - IOS
Demand Information EB WB NB SB
Approach Movement L T R L T R L T R L T R
Demand (v), veh/h 30 30 210 870 1290 70
Signal Information
GreenYellowRed
13.0 57.3 35.0 0.0 0.0 0.03.6 4.5 3.6 0.0 0.0 0.01.0 0.9 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0
1 3 4
6 7 8
Cycle, s 120.0 Reference Phase 2
Offset, s 0 Reference Point Begin
Uncoordinated Yes Simult. Gap E/W On
Force Mode Float Simult. Gap N/S On
Timer Results EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT
Assigned Phase 4 5 2 6
Case Number 9.0 1.0 4.0 8.3
Phase Duration, s 39.7 17.6 80.3 62.7
Change Period, (Y+Rc), s 4.7 4.6 5.4 5.4
Max Allow Headway (MAH), s 4.5 4.2 4.1 4.1
Queue Clearance Time (gs), s 3.8 8.6 16.8 41.1
Green Extension Time (ge), s 0.2 0.3 18.7 10.4
Phase Call Probability 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Max Out Probability 0.00 0.88 0.13 0.63
Movement Group Results EB WB NB SB
Approach Movement L T R L T R L T R L T R
Assigned Movement 7 14 5 2 6 16
Adjusted Flow Rate (v), veh/h 33 33 228 946 744 734
Adjusted Saturation Flow Rate (s), veh/h/ln 1774 1579 1774 1773 1863 1829
Queue Service Time (gs), s 1.6 1.8 6.6 14.8 38.8 39.1
Cycle Queue Clearance Time (gc), s 1.6 1.8 6.6 14.8 38.8 39.1
Green Ratio (g/C) 0.30 0.30 0.63 0.66 0.52 0.52
Capacity (c), veh/h 540 480 333 2347 959 896
Volume-to-Capacity Ratio (X) 0.060 0.068 0.686 0.403 0.776 0.819
Available Capacity (ca), veh/h 540 480 333 2347 959 896
Back of Queue (Q), veh/ln (50th percentile) 0.7 0.7 7.0 5.0 16.7 17.1
Queue Storage Ratio (RQ) (50th percentile) 0.25 0.00 0.45 0.00 0.00 0.00
Uniform Delay (d1), s/veh 29.6 29.7 22.4 10.2 24.6 23.7
Incremental Delay (d2), s/veh 0.1 0.1 6.1 0.1 4.2 6.2
Initial Queue Delay (d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Control Delay (d), s/veh 29.7 29.7 28.5 10.3 28.7 29.9
Level of Service (LOS) C C C B C C
Approach Delay, s/veh / LOS 29.7 C 0.0 13.9 B 29.3 C
Intersection Delay, s/veh / LOS 22.6 C
Multimodal Results EB WB NB SB
Pedestrian LOS Score / LOS 2.9 C 2.8 C 0.7 A 2.3 B
Bicycle LOS Score / LOS F 1.5 A 1.7 A
Copyright © 2015 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved. HCS 2010™ Streets Version 6.65 Generated: 7/30/2015 4:00:14 PM
HCS 2010 Signalized Intersection Results Summary
General Information Intersection Information
Agency Trans Associates Duration, h 0.25
Analyst AMC Analysis Date Jul 30, 2015 Area Type Other
Jurisdiction City of Columbus Time Period AM Peak Hour PHF 0.92
Intersection SR 315 SB Ramps Analysis Year 2037 (No Build) Analysis Period 1> 7:00
File Name (2) 2037 AM - Olentangy @ SR 315 SB - No Build.xus
Project Description SR 315 SB Off-Ramp to Olentangy River Road - IOS
Demand Information EB WB NB SB
Approach Movement L T R L T R L T R L T R
Demand (v), veh/h 380 0 190 890 260 610 710
Signal Information
GreenYellowRed
32.0 34.3 37.2 0.0 0.0 0.03.6 4.5 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.01.8 1.2 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0
1 3 4
5 6 7 8
Cycle, s 120.0 Reference Phase 2
Offset, s 0 Reference Point Begin
Uncoordinated Yes Simult. Gap E/W On
Force Mode Float Simult. Gap N/S On
Timer Results EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT
Assigned Phase 8 2 1 6
Case Number 12.0 8.3 1.0 4.0
Phase Duration, s 42.6 40.0 37.4 77.4
Change Period, (Y+Rc), s 5.4 5.7 5.4 5.7
Max Allow Headway (MAH), s 4.3 7.1 4.2 7.1
Queue Clearance Time (gs), s 40.7 44.7 35.5 14.2
Green Extension Time (ge), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 42.0
Phase Call Probability 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Max Out Probability 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.70
Movement Group Results EB WB NB SB
Approach Movement L T R L T R L T R L T R
Assigned Movement 3 8 18 2 12 1 6
Adjusted Flow Rate (v), veh/h 620 648 602 663 772
Adjusted Saturation Flow Rate (s), veh/h/ln 1704 1863 1718 1774 1773
Queue Service Time (gs), s 38.7 42.7 38.8 33.5 12.2
Cycle Queue Clearance Time (gc), s 38.7 42.7 38.8 33.5 12.2
Green Ratio (g/C) 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.59 0.63
Capacity (c), veh/h 549 602 512 555 2252
Volume-to-Capacity Ratio (X) 1.128 1.077 1.174 1.194 0.343
Available Capacity (ca), veh/h 528 602 512 555 2252
Back of Queue (Q), veh/ln (50th percentile) 27.8 26.8 29.6 31.7 4.4
Queue Storage Ratio (RQ) (50th percentile) 0.67 1.48 1.64 1.13 0.09
Uniform Delay (d1), s/veh 40.7 40.6 41.3 36.2 11.1
Incremental Delay (d2), s/veh 78.6 59.0 97.4 104.1 0.4
Initial Queue Delay (d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Control Delay (d), s/veh 119.2 99.6 138.7 140.3 11.5
Level of Service (LOS) F F F F B
Approach Delay, s/veh / LOS 0.0 119.2 F 118.4 F 71.0 E
Intersection Delay, s/veh / LOS 98.0 F
Multimodal Results EB WB NB SB
Pedestrian LOS Score / LOS 2.8 C 2.9 C 2.1 B 1.9 A
Bicycle LOS Score / LOS 1.5 A 1.5 A 1.7 A
Copyright © 2015 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved. HCS 2010™ Streets Version 6.65 Generated: 7/30/2015 4:01:51 PM
HCS 2010 Signalized Intersection Results Summary
General Information Intersection Information
Agency Trans Associates Duration, h 0.25
Analyst AMC Analysis Date Jul 30, 2015 Area Type Other
Jurisdiction City of Columbus Time Period AM Peak Hour PHF 0.92
Urban Street Olentangy River Road Analysis Year 2037 (No Build) Analysis Period 1> 7:00
Intersection Goodale Boulevard File Name (3) 2037 AM - Olentangy @ Goodale - No Build.xus
Project Description SR 315 SB Off-Ramp to Olentangy River Road - IOS
Demand Information EB WB NB SB
Approach Movement L T R L T R L T R L T R
Demand ( v ), veh/h 340 900 30 30 900 730 60 80 510 110 470
Signal Information
GreenYellowRed
7.0 10.6 38.1 28.1 10.0 0.03.6 3.6 3.6 4.5 3.6 0.01.4 1.1 1.7 1.5 1.6 0.0
1 2 3 4
5 6 7
Cycle, s 120.0 Reference Phase 2
Offset, s 0 Reference Point End
Uncoordinated Yes Simult. Gap E/W On
Force Mode Fixed Simult. Gap N/S On
Timer Results EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT
Assigned Phase 5 2 1 6 8 4
Case Number 1.1 4.0 1.1 3.0 10.0 9.0
Phase Duration, s 27.3 58.7 12.0 43.4 15.2 34.1
Change Period, ( Y+R c ), s 4.7 5.3 5.0 5.3 5.2 6.0
Max Allow Headway ( MAH ), s 3.3 4.2 3.3 4.2 4.5 4.8
Queue Clearance Time ( g s ), s 19.7 55.4 3.4 35.7 7.4 30.1
Green Extension Time ( g e ), s 0.3 0.0 0.0 2.2 0.1 0.0
Phase Call Probability 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Max Out Probability 1.00 1.00 0.55 1.00 1.00 1.00
Movement Group Results EB WB NB SB
Approach Movement L T R L T R L T R L T R
Assigned Movement 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 7 4 14
Adjusted Flow Rate ( v ), veh/h 370 1011 33 978 460 65 87 554 120 511
Adjusted Saturation Flow Rate ( s ), veh/h/ln 1774 1852 1774 1773 1579 1774 1863 1774 1863 1579
Queue Service Time ( g s ), s 17.7 53.4 1.4 31.2 33.7 4.2 5.4 28.1 6.3 28.1
Cycle Queue Clearance Time ( g c ), s 17.7 53.4 1.4 31.2 33.7 4.2 5.4 28.1 6.3 28.1
Green Ratio ( g/C ) 0.52 0.45 0.38 0.32 0.32 0.08 0.08 0.23 0.23 0.42
Capacity ( c ), veh/h 427 824 163 1126 501 148 155 415 436 667
Volume-to-Capacity Ratio ( X ) 0.865 1.227 0.199 0.869 0.917 0.441 0.560 1.334 0.274 0.766
Available Capacity ( c a ), veh/h 427 824 163 1126 501 148 155 415 436 667
Back of Queue ( Q ), veh/ln ( 50 th percentile) 12.8 48.7 1.0 14.4 15.8 2.0 2.8 31.1 3.0 13.4
Queue Storage Ratio ( RQ ) ( 50 th percentile) 0.69 2.63 0.14 0.35 0.89 0.14 0.00 2.08 0.17 0.74
Uniform Delay ( d 1 ), s/veh 29.8 33.3 29.9 38.6 39.4 52.3 52.9 46.0 37.6 29.6
Incremental Delay ( d 2 ), s/veh 16.5 112.7 0.4 7.6 22.0 2.6 5.3 166.1 1.6 8.2
Initial Queue Delay ( d 3 ), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Control Delay ( d ), s/veh 46.2 146.0 30.3 46.2 61.4 55.0 58.1 212.1 39.2 37.8
Level of Service (LOS) D F C D E D E F D D
Approach Delay, s/veh / LOS 119.3 F 50.6 D 56.8 E 119.5 F
Intersection Delay, s/veh / LOS 92.9 F
Multimodal Results EB WB NB SB
Pedestrian LOS Score / LOS 2.3 B 2.4 B 3.1 C 2.7 B
Bicycle LOS Score / LOS 2.8 C 1.7 A 0.7 A 2.4 B
Copyright © 2016 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved. HCS 2010™ Signals Version 6.70 Generated: 2/5/2016 11:59:22 AM
HCS 2010 Signalized Intersection Results Summary
General Information Intersection Information
Agency Trans Associates Duration, h 0.25
Analyst AMC Analysis Date Jul 30, 2015 Area Type Other
Jurisdiction City of Columbus Time Period AM Peak Hour PHF 0.92
Intersection Time Warner Cable Analysis Year 2037 (Build) Analysis Period 1> 7:00
File Name (1) 2037 AM - Olentangy @ Time Warner - Build.xus
Project Description SR 315 SB Off-Ramp to Olentangy River Road - IOS
Demand Information EB WB NB SB
Approach Movement L T R L T R L T R L T R
Demand (v), veh/h 30 30 210 870 1290 70
Signal Information
GreenYellowRed
13.0 57.3 35.0 0.0 0.0 0.03.6 4.5 3.6 0.0 0.0 0.01.0 0.9 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0
1 3 4
6 7 8
Cycle, s 120.0 Reference Phase 2
Offset, s 0 Reference Point Begin
Uncoordinated Yes Simult. Gap E/W On
Force Mode Float Simult. Gap N/S On
Timer Results EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT
Assigned Phase 4 5 2 6
Case Number 9.0 1.0 4.0 8.3
Phase Duration, s 39.7 17.6 80.3 62.7
Change Period, (Y+Rc), s 4.7 4.6 5.4 5.4
Max Allow Headway (MAH), s 4.5 4.2 4.1 4.1
Queue Clearance Time (gs), s 3.8 8.6 16.8 41.1
Green Extension Time (ge), s 0.2 0.3 18.7 10.4
Phase Call Probability 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Max Out Probability 0.00 0.88 0.13 0.63
Movement Group Results EB WB NB SB
Approach Movement L T R L T R L T R L T R
Assigned Movement 7 14 5 2 6 16
Adjusted Flow Rate (v), veh/h 33 33 228 946 744 734
Adjusted Saturation Flow Rate (s), veh/h/ln 1774 1579 1774 1773 1863 1829
Queue Service Time (gs), s 1.6 1.8 6.6 14.8 38.8 39.1
Cycle Queue Clearance Time (gc), s 1.6 1.8 6.6 14.8 38.8 39.1
Green Ratio (g/C) 0.30 0.30 0.63 0.66 0.52 0.52
Capacity (c), veh/h 540 480 333 2347 959 896
Volume-to-Capacity Ratio (X) 0.060 0.068 0.686 0.403 0.776 0.819
Available Capacity (ca), veh/h 540 480 333 2347 959 896
Back of Queue (Q), veh/ln (50th percentile) 0.7 0.7 7.0 5.0 16.7 17.1
Queue Storage Ratio (RQ) (50th percentile) 0.25 0.00 0.45 0.00 0.00 0.00
Uniform Delay (d1), s/veh 29.6 29.7 22.4 10.2 24.6 23.7
Incremental Delay (d2), s/veh 0.1 0.1 6.1 0.1 4.2 6.2
Initial Queue Delay (d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Control Delay (d), s/veh 29.7 29.7 28.5 10.3 28.7 29.9
Level of Service (LOS) C C C B C C
Approach Delay, s/veh / LOS 29.7 C 0.0 13.9 B 29.3 C
Intersection Delay, s/veh / LOS 22.6 C
Multimodal Results EB WB NB SB
Pedestrian LOS Score / LOS 2.9 C 2.8 C 0.7 A 2.3 B
Bicycle LOS Score / LOS F 1.5 A 1.7 A
Copyright © 2015 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved. HCS 2010™ Streets Version 6.65 Generated: 7/30/2015 4:04:03 PM
HCS 2010 Signalized Intersection Results Summary
General Information Intersection Information
Agency Trans Associates Duration, h 0.25
Analyst AMC Analysis Date Jul 30, 2015 Area Type Other
Jurisdiction City of Columbus Time Period AM Peak Hour PHF 0.92
Intersection SR 315 SB Ramps Analysis Year 2037 (Build) Analysis Period 1> 7:00
File Name (2) 2037 AM - Olentangy @ SR 315 SB - Build.xus
Project Description SR 315 SB Off-Ramp to Olentangy River Road - IOS
Demand Information EB WB NB SB
Approach Movement L T R L T R L T R L T R
Demand (v), veh/h 380 190 890 260 610 710
Signal Information
GreenYellowRed
40.5 46.0 17.0 0.0 0.0 0.03.6 4.5 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.01.8 1.2 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0
1 3 4
5 6 7 8
Cycle, s 120.0 Reference Phase 2
Offset, s 0 Reference Point Begin
Uncoordinated Yes Simult. Gap E/W On
Force Mode Float Simult. Gap N/S On
Timer Results EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT
Assigned Phase 8 2 1 6
Case Number 9.0 8.3 1.0 4.0
Phase Duration, s 22.4 51.7 45.9 97.6
Change Period, (Y+Rc), s 5.4 5.7 5.4 5.7
Max Allow Headway (MAH), s 4.3 7.1 4.2 7.1
Queue Clearance Time (gs), s 15.8 39.7 38.1 8.6
Green Extension Time (ge), s 0.4 6.0 0.8 57.4
Phase Call Probability 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Max Out Probability 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.57
Movement Group Results EB WB NB SB
Approach Movement L T R L T R L T R L T R
Assigned Movement 3 18 2 12 1 6
Adjusted Flow Rate (v), veh/h 413 207 648 602 663 772
Adjusted Saturation Flow Rate (s), veh/h/ln 1723 1579 1863 1718 1774 1773
Queue Service Time (gs), s 13.8 9.0 36.6 37.7 36.1 6.6
Cycle Queue Clearance Time (gc), s 13.8 9.0 36.6 37.7 36.1 6.6
Green Ratio (g/C) 0.15 0.50 0.42 0.42 0.76 0.80
Capacity (c), veh/h 531 796 784 680 717 2849
Volume-to-Capacity Ratio (X) 0.778 0.259 0.827 0.885 0.924 0.271
Available Capacity (ca), veh/h 531 796 784 680 717 2849
Back of Queue (Q), veh/ln (50th percentile) 6.4 3.2 17.8 17.7 20.8 1.6
Queue Storage Ratio (RQ) (50th percentile) 0.47 0.23 0.98 0.98 0.74 0.03
Uniform Delay (d1), s/veh 48.8 17.0 32.1 31.7 30.1 3.4
Incremental Delay (d2), s/veh 7.4 0.2 9.8 15.6 17.9 0.2
Initial Queue Delay (d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Control Delay (d), s/veh 56.2 17.2 41.9 47.3 47.9 3.7
Level of Service (LOS) E B D D D A
Approach Delay, s/veh / LOS 0.0 43.2 D 44.5 D 24.1 C
Intersection Delay, s/veh / LOS 35.4 D
Multimodal Results EB WB NB SB
Pedestrian LOS Score / LOS 2.8 C 2.9 C 2.4 B 0.6 A
Bicycle LOS Score / LOS F 1.5 A 1.7 A
Copyright © 2015 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved. HCS 2010™ Streets Version 6.65 Generated: 7/30/2015 4:04:59 PM
HCS 2010 Signalized Intersection Results Summary
General Information Intersection Information
Agency Trans Associates Duration, h 0.25
Analyst AMC Analysis Date Jul 30, 2015 Area Type Other
Jurisdiction City of Columbus Time Period AM Peak Hour PHF 0.92
Urban Street Olentangy River Road Analysis Year 2037 (Build) Analysis Period 1> 7:00
Intersection Goodale Boulevard File Name (3) 2037 AM - Olentangy @ Goodale - Build.xus
Project Description SR 315 SB Off-Ramp to Olentangy River Road - IOS
Demand Information EB WB NB SB
Approach Movement L T R L T R L T R L T R
Demand ( v ), veh/h 340 900 30 30 900 730 60 80 50 510 110 470
Signal Information
GreenYellowRed
7.0 8.5 45.8 22.5 10.0 0.03.6 3.6 3.6 4.5 3.6 0.01.4 1.1 1.7 1.5 1.6 0.0
1 2 3 4
5 6 7
Cycle, s 120.0 Reference Phase 2
Offset, s 0 Reference Point End
Uncoordinated Yes Simult. Gap E/W On
Force Mode Fixed Simult. Gap N/S On
Timer Results EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT
Assigned Phase 5 2 1 6 8 4
Case Number 1.1 4.0 1.1 3.0 9.0 9.0
Phase Duration, s 25.2 64.3 12.0 51.1 15.2 28.5
Change Period, ( Y+R c ), s 4.7 5.3 5.0 5.3 5.2 6.0
Max Allow Headway ( MAH ), s 3.3 4.2 3.3 4.2 4.6 4.8
Queue Clearance Time ( g s ), s 15.9 61.0 3.3 39.4 7.4 24.5
Green Extension Time ( g e ), s 0.4 0.0 0.0 5.3 0.2 0.0
Phase Call Probability 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Max Out Probability 0.41 1.00 0.42 0.94 1.00 1.00
Movement Group Results EB WB NB SB
Approach Movement L T R L T R L T R L T R
Assigned Movement 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 7 4 14
Adjusted Flow Rate ( v ), veh/h 370 1011 33 978 529 65 87 54 333 341 511
Adjusted Saturation Flow Rate ( s ), veh/h/ln 1774 1852 1774 1773 1579 1774 1863 1579 1774 1805 1579
Queue Service Time ( g s ), s 13.9 59.0 1.3 28.3 37.4 4.2 5.4 3.9 22.5 22.5 22.5
Cycle Queue Clearance Time ( g c ), s 13.9 59.0 1.3 28.3 37.4 4.2 5.4 3.9 22.5 22.5 22.5
Green Ratio ( g/C ) 0.57 0.49 0.44 0.38 0.38 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.19 0.19 0.36
Capacity ( c ), veh/h 447 911 163 1354 602 148 155 132 333 338 566
Volume-to-Capacity Ratio ( X ) 0.827 1.110 0.199 0.723 0.879 0.441 0.560 0.413 1.000 1.008 0.903
Available Capacity ( c a ), veh/h 447 911 163 1354 602 148 155 132 333 338 566
Back of Queue ( Q ), veh/ln ( 50 th percentile) 12.2 41.2 1.0 12.2 16.3 2.0 2.8 1.7 14.2 14.6 16.6
Queue Storage Ratio ( RQ ) ( 50 th percentile) 0.66 2.22 0.14 0.29 0.92 0.14 0.00 0.28 0.95 0.81 0.92
Uniform Delay ( d 1 ), s/veh 22.2 30.5 27.9 31.7 34.5 52.3 52.9 52.2 48.7 48.8 36.5
Incremental Delay ( d 2 ), s/veh 11.9 64.8 0.4 2.0 14.1 2.6 5.3 2.7 49.3 51.1 20.3
Initial Queue Delay ( d 3 ), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Control Delay ( d ), s/veh 34.1 95.3 28.3 33.7 48.6 55.0 58.1 54.9 98.1 99.8 56.8
Level of Service (LOS) C F C C D D E D F F E
Approach Delay, s/veh / LOS 78.9 E 38.7 D 56.3 E 80.8 F
Intersection Delay, s/veh / LOS 64.0 E
Multimodal Results EB WB NB SB
Pedestrian LOS Score / LOS 2.4 B 2.4 B 3.0 C 2.7 B
Bicycle LOS Score / LOS 2.8 C 1.8 A 0.8 A 2.4 B
Copyright © 2016 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved. HCS 2010™ Signals Version 6.70 Generated: 2/5/2016 11:52:35 AM
HCS 2010 Signalized Intersection Results Summary
General Information Intersection Information
Agency Trans Associates Duration, h 0.25
Analyst AMC Analysis Date Jul 30, 2015 Area Type Other
Jurisdiction City of Columbus Time Period PM Peak Hour PHF 0.92
Intersection Time Warner Cable Analysis Year 2037 (No Build) Analysis Period 1> 5:00
File Name (1) 2037 PM - Olentangy @ Time Warner - No Build.xus
Project Description SR 315 SB Off-Ramp to Olentangy River Road - IOS
Demand Information EB WB NB SB
Approach Movement L T R L T R L T R L T R
Demand (v), veh/h 90 130 20 1160 1310 20
Signal Information
GreenYellowRed
7.0 57.8 40.5 0.0 0.0 0.03.6 4.5 3.6 0.0 0.0 0.01.0 0.9 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0
1 3 4
6 7 8
Cycle, s 120.0 Reference Phase 2
Offset, s 0 Reference Point Begin
Uncoordinated Yes Simult. Gap E/W On
Force Mode Float Simult. Gap N/S On
Timer Results EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT
Assigned Phase 4 5 2 6
Case Number 9.0 1.0 4.0 8.3
Phase Duration, s 45.2 11.6 74.8 63.2
Change Period, (Y+Rc), s 4.7 4.6 5.4 5.4
Max Allow Headway (MAH), s 4.5 4.2 4.1 4.1
Queue Clearance Time (gs), s 9.7 2.6 27.4 38.8
Green Extension Time (ge), s 1.0 0.0 20.6 13.0
Phase Call Probability 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Max Out Probability 0.00 0.76 0.34 0.65
Movement Group Results EB WB NB SB
Approach Movement L T R L T R L T R L T R
Assigned Movement 7 14 5 2 6 16
Adjusted Flow Rate (v), veh/h 98 141 22 1261 724 721
Adjusted Saturation Flow Rate (s), veh/h/ln 1774 1579 1774 1773 1863 1853
Queue Service Time (gs), s 4.6 7.7 0.6 25.4 36.7 36.8
Cycle Queue Clearance Time (gc), s 4.6 7.7 0.6 25.4 36.7 36.8
Green Ratio (g/C) 0.35 0.35 0.58 0.62 0.52 0.52
Capacity (c), veh/h 621 553 254 2184 967 916
Volume-to-Capacity Ratio (X) 0.158 0.256 0.085 0.577 0.749 0.788
Available Capacity (ca), veh/h 621 553 254 2184 967 916
Back of Queue (Q), veh/ln (50th percentile) 2.0 3.0 0.2 9.2 15.7 15.9
Queue Storage Ratio (RQ) (50th percentile) 0.72 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00
Uniform Delay (d1), s/veh 26.8 27.8 17.3 14.8 23.7 22.8
Incremental Delay (d2), s/veh 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.4 3.4 4.8
Initial Queue Delay (d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Control Delay (d), s/veh 27.0 28.1 17.5 15.2 27.1 27.5
Level of Service (LOS) C C B B C C
Approach Delay, s/veh / LOS 27.7 C 0.0 15.2 B 27.3 C
Intersection Delay, s/veh / LOS 22.1 C
Multimodal Results EB WB NB SB
Pedestrian LOS Score / LOS 2.9 C 2.8 C 0.7 A 2.3 B
Bicycle LOS Score / LOS F 1.5 A 1.7 A
Copyright © 2015 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved. HCS 2010™ Streets Version 6.65 Generated: 7/30/2015 4:01:19 PM
HCS 2010 Signalized Intersection Results Summary
General Information Intersection Information
Agency Trans Associates Duration, h 0.25
Analyst AMC Analysis Date Jul 30, 2015 Area Type Other
Jurisdiction City of Columbus Time Period PM Peak Hour PHF 0.92
Intersection SR 315 SB Ramps Analysis Year 2037 (No Build) Analysis Period 1> 5:00
File Name (2) 2037 PM - Olentangy @ SR 315 SB - No Build.xus
Project Description SR 315 SB Off-Ramp to Olentangy River Road - IOS
Demand Information EB WB NB SB
Approach Movement L T R L T R L T R L T R
Demand (v), veh/h 280 0 90 1090 390 700 740
Signal Information
GreenYellowRed
36.3 43.5 23.7 0.0 0.0 0.03.6 4.5 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.01.8 1.2 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0
1 3 4
5 6 7 8
Cycle, s 120.0 Reference Phase 2
Offset, s 0 Reference Point Begin
Uncoordinated Yes Simult. Gap E/W On
Force Mode Float Simult. Gap N/S On
Timer Results EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT
Assigned Phase 8 2 1 6
Case Number 12.0 8.3 1.0 4.0
Phase Duration, s 29.1 49.2 41.7 90.9
Change Period, (Y+Rc), s 5.4 5.7 5.4 5.7
Max Allow Headway (MAH), s 4.3 7.2 4.2 7.2
Queue Clearance Time (gs), s 27.2 59.5 39.8 10.9
Green Extension Time (ge), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 64.0
Phase Call Probability 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Max Out Probability 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.82
Movement Group Results EB WB NB SB
Approach Movement L T R L T R L T R L T R
Assigned Movement 3 8 18 2 12 1 6
Adjusted Flow Rate (v), veh/h 402 826 782 761 804
Adjusted Saturation Flow Rate (s), veh/h/ln 1722 1863 1697 1774 1773
Queue Service Time (gs), s 25.2 57.5 48.0 37.8 8.9
Cycle Queue Clearance Time (gc), s 25.2 57.5 48.0 37.8 8.9
Green Ratio (g/C) 0.21 0.40 0.40 0.71 0.75
Capacity (c), veh/h 362 745 636 619 2651
Volume-to-Capacity Ratio (X) 1.112 1.109 1.229 1.230 0.303
Available Capacity (ca), veh/h 340 745 636 619 2651
Back of Queue (Q), veh/ln (50th percentile) 18.8 34.3 39.4 37.4 2.6
Queue Storage Ratio (RQ) (50th percentile) 0.45 1.89 2.18 1.34 0.06
Uniform Delay (d1), s/veh 47.4 36.0 36.8 35.9 5.5
Incremental Delay (d2), s/veh 81.1 67.0 116.6 117.0 0.3
Initial Queue Delay (d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Control Delay (d), s/veh 128.5 103.0 153.5 152.9 5.8
Level of Service (LOS) F F F F A
Approach Delay, s/veh / LOS 0.0 128.5 F 127.5 F 77.3 E
Intersection Delay, s/veh / LOS 105.7 F
Multimodal Results EB WB NB SB
Pedestrian LOS Score / LOS 2.8 C 2.9 C 2.1 B 1.9 A
Bicycle LOS Score / LOS 1.2 A 1.8 A 1.8 A
Copyright © 2015 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved. HCS 2010™ Streets Version 6.65 Generated: 7/30/2015 4:03:11 PM
HCS 2010 Signalized Intersection Results Summary
General Information Intersection Information
Agency Trans Associates Duration, h 0.25
Analyst AMC Analysis Date Jul 30, 2015 Area Type Other
Jurisdiction City of Columbus Time Period PM Peak Hour PHF 0.92
Urban Street Olentangy River Road Analysis Year 2037 (No Build) Analysis Period 1> 5:00
Intersection Goodale Boulevard File Name (3) 2037 PM - Olentangy @ Goodale - No Build.xus
Project Description SR 315 SB Off-Ramp to Olentangy River Road - IOS
Demand Information EB WB NB SB
Approach Movement L T R L T R L T R L T R
Demand ( v ), veh/h 590 870 70 50 1090 770 80 120 440 190 390
Signal Information
GreenYellowRed
7.0 20.4 33.7 22.7 10.0 0.03.6 3.6 3.6 4.5 3.6 0.01.4 1.1 1.7 1.5 1.6 0.0
1 2 3 4
5 6 7
Cycle, s 120.0 Reference Phase 2
Offset, s 0 Reference Point End
Uncoordinated Yes Simult. Gap E/W On
Force Mode Fixed Simult. Gap N/S On
Timer Results EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT
Assigned Phase 5 2 1 6 8 4
Case Number 1.1 4.0 1.1 3.0 10.0 9.0
Phase Duration, s 37.1 64.1 12.0 39.0 15.2 28.7
Change Period, ( Y+R c ), s 4.7 5.3 5.0 5.3 5.2 6.0
Max Allow Headway ( MAH ), s 3.3 4.2 3.3 4.2 4.5 4.8
Queue Clearance Time ( g s ), s 34.4 60.8 4.5 35.7 10.3 24.7
Green Extension Time ( g e ), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Phase Call Probability 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Max Out Probability 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Movement Group Results EB WB NB SB
Approach Movement L T R L T R L T R L T R
Assigned Movement 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 7 4 14
Adjusted Flow Rate ( v ), veh/h 641 1022 54 1185 499 87 130 478 207 424
Adjusted Saturation Flow Rate ( s ), veh/h/ln 1774 1838 1774 1773 1579 1774 1863 1774 1863 1579
Queue Service Time ( g s ), s 32.4 58.8 2.5 33.7 33.7 5.7 8.3 22.7 12.1 22.7
Cycle Queue Clearance Time ( g c ), s 32.4 58.8 2.5 33.7 33.7 5.7 8.3 22.7 12.1 22.7
Green Ratio ( g/C ) 0.57 0.49 0.34 0.28 0.28 0.08 0.08 0.19 0.19 0.46
Capacity ( c ), veh/h 539 901 163 996 443 148 155 336 352 725
Volume-to-Capacity Ratio ( X ) 1.190 1.134 0.332 1.190 1.125 0.588 0.840 1.425 0.586 0.585
Available Capacity ( c a ), veh/h 539 901 163 996 443 148 155 336 352 725
Back of Queue ( Q ), veh/ln ( 50 th percentile) 26.1 43.1 1.1 27.6 22.9 2.8 5.3 29.1 6.1 9.1
Queue Storage Ratio ( RQ ) ( 50 th percentile) 1.41 2.33 0.15 0.67 1.29 0.21 0.00 1.94 0.34 0.50
Uniform Delay ( d 1 ), s/veh 36.2 30.6 31.8 43.2 43.2 53.0 54.2 48.7 44.4 24.0
Incremental Delay ( d 2 ), s/veh 102.8 74.2 0.9 95.4 81.6 6.8 32.4 207.9 7.0 3.4
Initial Queue Delay ( d 3 ), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Control Delay ( d ), s/veh 139.0 104.8 32.6 138.6 124.8 59.8 86.6 256.5 51.3 27.4
Level of Service (LOS) F F C F F E F F D C
Approach Delay, s/veh / LOS 118.0 F 131.3 F 75.9 E 130.7 F
Intersection Delay, s/veh / LOS 123.9 F
Multimodal Results EB WB NB SB
Pedestrian LOS Score / LOS 2.3 B 2.4 B 3.1 C 2.7 B
Bicycle LOS Score / LOS 3.2 C 1.9 A 0.8 A 2.3 B
Copyright © 2016 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved. HCS 2010™ Signals Version 6.70 Generated: 2/5/2016 12:18:36 PM
HCS 2010 Signalized Intersection Results Summary
General Information Intersection Information
Agency Trans Associates Duration, h 0.25
Analyst AMC Analysis Date Jul 30, 2015 Area Type Other
Jurisdiction City of Columbus Time Period PM Peak Hour PHF 0.92
Intersection Time Warner Cable Analysis Year 2037 (Build) Analysis Period 1> 5:00
File Name (1) 2037 PM - Olentangy @ Time Warner - Build.xus
Project Description SR 315 SB Off-Ramp to Olentangy River Road - IOS
Demand Information EB WB NB SB
Approach Movement L T R L T R L T R L T R
Demand (v), veh/h 90 130 20 1160 1310 20
Signal Information
GreenYellowRed
7.0 57.8 40.5 0.0 0.0 0.03.6 4.5 3.6 0.0 0.0 0.01.0 0.9 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0
1 3 4
6 7 8
Cycle, s 120.0 Reference Phase 2
Offset, s 0 Reference Point Begin
Uncoordinated Yes Simult. Gap E/W On
Force Mode Float Simult. Gap N/S On
Timer Results EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT
Assigned Phase 4 5 2 6
Case Number 9.0 1.0 4.0 8.3
Phase Duration, s 45.2 11.6 74.8 63.2
Change Period, (Y+Rc), s 4.7 4.6 5.4 5.4
Max Allow Headway (MAH), s 4.5 4.2 4.1 4.1
Queue Clearance Time (gs), s 9.7 2.6 27.4 38.8
Green Extension Time (ge), s 1.0 0.0 20.6 13.0
Phase Call Probability 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Max Out Probability 0.00 0.76 0.34 0.65
Movement Group Results EB WB NB SB
Approach Movement L T R L T R L T R L T R
Assigned Movement 7 14 5 2 6 16
Adjusted Flow Rate (v), veh/h 98 141 22 1261 724 721
Adjusted Saturation Flow Rate (s), veh/h/ln 1774 1579 1774 1773 1863 1853
Queue Service Time (gs), s 4.6 7.7 0.6 25.4 36.7 36.8
Cycle Queue Clearance Time (gc), s 4.6 7.7 0.6 25.4 36.7 36.8
Green Ratio (g/C) 0.35 0.35 0.58 0.62 0.52 0.52
Capacity (c), veh/h 621 553 254 2184 967 916
Volume-to-Capacity Ratio (X) 0.158 0.256 0.085 0.577 0.749 0.788
Available Capacity (ca), veh/h 621 553 254 2184 967 916
Back of Queue (Q), veh/ln (50th percentile) 2.0 3.0 0.2 9.2 15.7 15.9
Queue Storage Ratio (RQ) (50th percentile) 0.72 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00
Uniform Delay (d1), s/veh 26.8 27.8 17.3 14.8 23.7 22.8
Incremental Delay (d2), s/veh 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.4 3.4 4.8
Initial Queue Delay (d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Control Delay (d), s/veh 27.0 28.1 17.5 15.2 27.1 27.5
Level of Service (LOS) C C B B C C
Approach Delay, s/veh / LOS 27.7 C 0.0 15.2 B 27.3 C
Intersection Delay, s/veh / LOS 22.1 C
Multimodal Results EB WB NB SB
Pedestrian LOS Score / LOS 2.9 C 2.8 C 0.7 A 2.3 B
Bicycle LOS Score / LOS F 1.5 A 1.7 A
Copyright © 2015 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved. HCS 2010™ Streets Version 6.65 Generated: 7/30/2015 4:04:33 PM
HCS 2010 Signalized Intersection Results Summary
General Information Intersection Information
Agency Trans Associates Duration, h 0.25
Analyst AMC Analysis Date Jul 30, 2015 Area Type Other
Jurisdiction City of Columbus Time Period PM Peak Hour PHF 0.92
Intersection SR 315 SB Ramps Analysis Year 2037 (Build) Analysis Period 1> 5:00
File Name (2) 2037 PM - Olentangy @ SR 315 SB - Build.xus
Project Description SR 315 SB Off-Ramp to Olentangy River Road - IOS
Demand Information EB WB NB SB
Approach Movement L T R L T R L T R L T R
Demand (v), veh/h 280 90 1090 390 700 740
Signal Information
GreenYellowRed
43.0 50.5 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.03.6 4.5 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.01.8 1.2 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0
1 3 4
5 6 7 8
Cycle, s 120.0 Reference Phase 2
Offset, s 0 Reference Point Begin
Uncoordinated Yes Simult. Gap E/W On
Force Mode Float Simult. Gap N/S On
Timer Results EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT
Assigned Phase 8 2 1 6
Case Number 9.0 8.3 1.0 4.0
Phase Duration, s 15.4 56.2 48.4 104.6
Change Period, (Y+Rc), s 5.4 5.7 5.4 5.7
Max Allow Headway (MAH), s 4.3 7.2 4.2 7.2
Queue Clearance Time (gs), s 12.5 57.9 46.5 6.9
Green Extension Time (ge), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 76.7
Phase Call Probability 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Max Out Probability 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.78
Movement Group Results EB WB NB SB
Approach Movement L T R L T R L T R L T R
Assigned Movement 3 18 2 12 1 6
Adjusted Flow Rate (v), veh/h 304 98 826 782 761 804
Adjusted Saturation Flow Rate (s), veh/h/ln 1723 1579 1863 1697 1774 1773
Queue Service Time (gs), s 10.5 4.2 55.9 55.0 44.5 4.9
Cycle Queue Clearance Time (gc), s 10.5 4.2 55.9 55.0 44.5 4.9
Green Ratio (g/C) 0.10 0.47 0.46 0.46 0.82 0.86
Capacity (c), veh/h 330 737 854 735 718 3056
Volume-to-Capacity Ratio (X) 0.922 0.133 0.968 1.064 1.060 0.263
Available Capacity (ca), veh/h 330 737 854 735 718 3056
Back of Queue (Q), veh/ln (50th percentile) 5.9 1.5 27.2 31.7 29.7 0.6
Queue Storage Ratio (RQ) (50th percentile) 0.43 0.11 1.50 1.75 1.06 0.01
Uniform Delay (d1), s/veh 53.8 18.2 32.5 33.3 34.1 1.8
Incremental Delay (d2), s/veh 30.5 0.1 23.9 51.5 50.6 0.2
Initial Queue Delay (d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Control Delay (d), s/veh 84.3 18.3 56.4 84.8 84.7 2.0
Level of Service (LOS) F B E F F A
Approach Delay, s/veh / LOS 0.0 68.2 E 70.2 E 42.2 D
Intersection Delay, s/veh / LOS 57.7 E
Multimodal Results EB WB NB SB
Pedestrian LOS Score / LOS 2.8 C 2.9 C 2.4 B 0.6 A
Bicycle LOS Score / LOS F 1.8 A 1.8 A
Copyright © 2015 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved. HCS 2010™ Streets Version 6.65 Generated: 7/30/2015 4:05:31 PM
HCS 2010 Signalized Intersection Results Summary
General Information Intersection Information
Agency Trans Associates Duration, h 0.25
Analyst AMC Analysis Date Jul 31, 2015 Area Type Other
Jurisdiction City of Columbus Time Period PM Peak Hour PHF 0.92
Urban Street Olentangy River Road Analysis Year 2037 (Build) Analysis Period 1> 5:00
Intersection Goodale Boulevard File Name (3) 2037 PM - Olentangy @ Goodale - Build.xus
Project Description SR 315 SB Off-Ramp to Olentangy River Road - IOS
Demand Information EB WB NB SB
Approach Movement L T R L T R L T R L T R
Demand ( v ), veh/h 590 870 70 50 1090 770 80 120 70 440 190 390
Signal Information
GreenYellowRed
7.0 22.5 35.6 18.7 10.0 0.03.6 3.6 3.6 4.5 3.6 0.01.4 1.1 1.7 1.5 1.6 0.0
1 2 3 4
5 6 7
Cycle, s 120.0 Reference Phase 2
Offset, s 0 Reference Point End
Uncoordinated Yes Simult. Gap E/W On
Force Mode Fixed Simult. Gap N/S On
Timer Results EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT
Assigned Phase 5 2 1 6 8 4
Case Number 1.1 4.0 1.1 3.0 9.0 9.0
Phase Duration, s 39.2 68.1 12.0 40.9 15.2 24.7
Change Period, ( Y+R c ), s 4.7 5.3 5.0 5.3 5.2 6.0
Max Allow Headway ( MAH ), s 3.3 4.2 3.3 4.2 4.6 4.8
Queue Clearance Time ( g s ), s 36.5 64.8 4.4 37.6 10.3 20.7
Green Extension Time ( g e ), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Phase Call Probability 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Max Out Probability 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Movement Group Results EB WB NB SB
Approach Movement L T R L T R L T R L T R
Assigned Movement 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 7 4 14
Adjusted Flow Rate ( v ), veh/h 641 1022 54 1185 543 87 130 76 340 345 424
Adjusted Saturation Flow Rate ( s ), veh/h/ln 1774 1838 1774 1773 1579 1774 1863 1579 1774 1827 1579
Queue Service Time ( g s ), s 34.5 62.8 2.4 35.6 35.6 5.7 8.3 5.6 18.7 18.7 18.7
Cycle Queue Clearance Time ( g c ), s 34.5 62.8 2.4 35.6 35.6 5.7 8.3 5.6 18.7 18.7 18.7
Green Ratio ( g/C ) 0.60 0.52 0.35 0.30 0.30 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.16 0.16 0.44
Capacity ( c ), veh/h 570 962 163 1052 468 148 155 132 276 285 700
Volume-to-Capacity Ratio ( X ) 1.125 1.062 0.332 1.126 1.160 0.588 0.840 0.578 1.228 1.212 0.606
Available Capacity ( c a ), veh/h 570 962 163 1052 468 148 155 132 276 285 700
Back of Queue ( Q ), veh/ln ( 50 th percentile) 29.4 38.4 1.6 25.3 25.7 2.8 5.3 2.5 18.0 18.1 9.4
Queue Storage Ratio ( RQ ) ( 50 th percentile) 1.59 2.08 0.23 0.61 1.45 0.21 0.00 0.42 1.21 1.00 0.52
Uniform Delay ( d 1 ), s/veh 35.9 28.6 31.0 42.2 42.2 53.0 54.2 53.0 50.7 50.7 25.4
Incremental Delay ( d 2 ), s/veh 77.0 47.0 0.9 69.2 93.7 6.8 32.4 7.1 130.3 123.5 3.9
Initial Queue Delay ( d 3 ), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Control Delay ( d ), s/veh 112.9 75.6 31.9 111.4 135.9 59.8 86.6 60.1 181.0 174.2 29.3
Level of Service (LOS) F F C F F E F E F F C
Approach Delay, s/veh / LOS 90.0 F 116.5 F 71.8 E 120.9 F
Intersection Delay, s/veh / LOS 105.7 F
Multimodal Results EB WB NB SB
Pedestrian LOS Score / LOS 2.4 B 2.4 B 3.0 C 2.7 B
Bicycle LOS Score / LOS 3.2 C 2.0 A 1.0 A 2.3 B
Copyright © 2016 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved. HCS 2010™ Signals Version 6.70 Generated: 2/5/2016 12:12:11 PM
Appendix C. Capacity Analysis Results, SR 315 Southbound
BASIC FREEWAY SEGMENTS WORKSHEET
General Information Site Information Analyst AMC Highway/Direction of Travel SR 315/Southbound
Agency or Company Trans Associates From/To I-670 EB Diverge/ORR Off Ramp
Date Performed 7/30/2015 Jurisdiction ODOT D6 Analysis Time Period AM Peak Hour Analysis Year 2037 (No Build) Project Description SR 315 SB Off-Ramp to Olentangy River Road - IOS
Oper.(LOS) Des.(N) Planning Data Flow InputsVolume, V 3330 veh/h Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.94 AADT veh/day %Trucks and Buses, PT 5
Peak-Hr Prop. of AADT, K %RVs, PR 0 Peak-Hr Direction Prop, D General Terrain: Level DDHV = AADT x K x D veh/h Grade % Length mi
Up/Down %
Calculate Flow Adjustmentsfp 1.00 ER 1.2 ET 1.5 fHV = 1/[1+PT(ET - 1) + PR(ER - 1)] 0.976
Speed Inputs Calc Speed Adj and FFSLane Width ft Rt-Side Lat. Clearance ft Number of Lanes, N 2 Total Ramp Density, TRD ramps/mi FFS (measured) 55.0 mph Base free-flow Speed, BFFS mph
fLW mph fLC mph TRD Adjustment mph
FFS 55.0 mph
LOS and Performance Measures Design (N)
Operational (LOS)vp = (V or DDHV) / (PHF x N x fHVx fp)
1816 pc/h/ln
S 55.0 mph D = vp / S 33.0 pc/mi/ln LOS D
Design (N) Design LOSvp = (V or DDHV) / (PHF x N x fHVx fp)
pc/h/ln
S mph D = vp / S pc/mi/ln Required Number of Lanes, N
Glossary Factor LocationN - Number of lanes S - SpeedV - Hourly volume D - Densityvp - Flow rate FFS - Free-flow speedLOS - Level of service BFFS - Base free-flow speedDDHV - Directional design hour volume
ER - Exhibits 11-10, 11-12 fLW - Exhibit 11-8ET - Exhibits 11-10, 11-11, 11-13 fLC - Exhibit 11-9fp - Page 11-18 TRD - Page 11-11LOS, S, FFS, vp - Exhibits 11-2, 11-3
Copyright © 2014 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS 2010TM Version 6.65 Generated: 7/30/2015 11:33 AM
Page 1 of 1BASIC FREEWAY WORKSHEET
7/30/2015file:///C:/Users/coatesa/AppData/Local/Temp/f2k7658.tmp
RAMPS AND RAMP JUNCTIONS WORKSHEETGeneral Information Site Information Analyst AMC Freeway/Dir of Travel SR 315/SouthboundAgency or Company Trans Associates Junction Olentangy River Road Off RampDate Performed 7/30/2015 Jurisdiction ODOT D6Analysis Time Period AM Peak Hour Analysis Year 2037 (No Build)Project Description SR 315 SB Off-Ramp to Olentangy River Road - IOS Inputs
Upstream Adj Ramp
Yes On
No Off
Lup = 885 ft
Vu = 3070 veh/h
Freeway Number of Lanes, N 2 Ramp Number of Lanes, N 1 Acceleration Lane Length, LADeceleration Lane Length LD 530 Freeway Volume, VF 3330 Ramp Volume, VR 570 Freeway Free-Flow Speed, SFF 55.0 Ramp Free-Flow Speed, SFR 35.0
Downstream Adj Ramp
Yes On
No Off
Ldown = ft
VD = veh/h
Conversion to pc/h Under Base Conditions (pc/h) V
(Veh/hr) PHF Terrain %Truck %Rv fHV fp v = V/PHF x fHV x fpFreeway 3330 0.94 Level 5 0 0.976 1.00 3631Ramp 570 0.94 Level 2 0 0.990 1.00 612UpStream 3070 0.94 Level 5 0 0.976 1.00 3348DownStream
Merge Areas Diverge AreasEstimation of v12 Estimation of v12
V12 = VF ( PFM )LEQ = (Equation 13-6 or 13-7)PFM = using Equation (Exhibit 13-6) V12 = pc/h V3 or Vav34 pc/h (Equation 13-14 or 13-17)Is V3 or Vav34 > 2,700 pc/h? Yes NoIs V3 or Vav34 > 1.5 * V12/2 Yes No
If Yes,V12a = pc/h (Equation 13-16, 13-18, or 13-19)
V12 = VR + (VF - VR)PFDLEQ = (Equation 13-12 or 13-13) PFD = 1.000 using Equation (Exhibit 13-7) V12 = 3631 pc/h V3 or Vav34 0 pc/h (Equation 13-14 or 13-17)Is V3 or Vav34 > 2,700 pc/h? Yes No
Is V3 or Vav34 > 1.5 * V12/2 Yes No
If Yes,V12a = pc/h (Equation 13-16, 13-18, or 13-19)
Capacity Checks Capacity ChecksActual Capacity LOS F? Actual Capacity LOS F?
VFO Exhibit 13-8
VF 3631 Exhibit 13-8 4500 NoVFO = VF - VR 3019 Exhibit 13-8 4500 No
VR 612 Exhibit 13-10 2000 No
Flow Entering Merge Influence Area Flow Entering Diverge Influence AreaActual Max Desirable Violation? Actual Max Desirable Violation?
VR12 Exhibit 13-8 V12 3631 Exhibit 13-8 4400:All NoLevel of Service Determination (if not F) Level of Service Determination (if not F)
DR = 5.475 + 0.00734 v R + 0.0078 V12 - 0.00627 LADR = (pc/mi/ln)LOS = (Exhibit 13-2)
DR = 4.252 + 0.0086 V12 - 0.009 LDDR = 30.7 (pc/mi/ln)LOS = D (Exhibit 13-2)
Speed Determination Speed DeterminationMS = (Exibit 13-11) SR= mph (Exhibit 13-11) S0= mph (Exhibit 13-11) S = mph (Exhibit 13-13)
Ds = 0.483 (Exhibit 13-12) SR= 48.7 mph (Exhibit 13-12) S0= N/A mph (Exhibit 13-12) S = 48.7 mph (Exhibit 13-13)
Copyright © 2014 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS2010TM Version 6.65 Generated: 7/30/2015 11:34 AM
Page 1 of 1RAMPS AND RAMP JUNCTIONS WORKSHEET
7/30/2015file:///C:/Users/coatesa/AppData/Local/Temp/r2k1BD9.tmp
BASIC FREEWAY SEGMENTS WORKSHEET
General Information Site Information Analyst AMC Highway/Direction of Travel SR 315/Southbound
Agency or Company Trans Associates From/To ORR Off Ramp/ORR On Ramp
Date Performed 7/30/2015 Jurisdiction ODOT D6 Analysis Time Period AM Peak Hour Analysis Year 2037 (No Build) Project Description SR 315 SB Off-Ramp to Olentangy River Road - IOS
Oper.(LOS) Des.(N) Planning Data Flow InputsVolume, V 2760 veh/h Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.94 AADT veh/day %Trucks and Buses, PT 5
Peak-Hr Prop. of AADT, K %RVs, PR 0 Peak-Hr Direction Prop, D General Terrain: Level DDHV = AADT x K x D veh/h Grade % Length mi
Up/Down %
Calculate Flow Adjustmentsfp 1.00 ER 1.2 ET 1.5 fHV = 1/[1+PT(ET - 1) + PR(ER - 1)] 0.976
Speed Inputs Calc Speed Adj and FFSLane Width ft Rt-Side Lat. Clearance ft Number of Lanes, N 2 Total Ramp Density, TRD ramps/mi FFS (measured) 55.0 mph Base free-flow Speed, BFFS mph
fLW mph fLC mph TRD Adjustment mph
FFS 55.0 mph
LOS and Performance Measures Design (N)
Operational (LOS)vp = (V or DDHV) / (PHF x N x fHVx fp)
1505 pc/h/ln
S 55.0 mph D = vp / S 27.4 pc/mi/ln LOS D
Design (N) Design LOSvp = (V or DDHV) / (PHF x N x fHVx fp)
pc/h/ln
S mph D = vp / S pc/mi/ln Required Number of Lanes, N
Glossary Factor LocationN - Number of lanes S - SpeedV - Hourly volume D - Densityvp - Flow rate FFS - Free-flow speedLOS - Level of service BFFS - Base free-flow speedDDHV - Directional design hour volume
ER - Exhibits 11-10, 11-12 fLW - Exhibit 11-8ET - Exhibits 11-10, 11-11, 11-13 fLC - Exhibit 11-9fp - Page 11-18 TRD - Page 11-11LOS, S, FFS, vp - Exhibits 11-2, 11-3
Copyright © 2014 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS 2010TM Version 6.65 Generated: 7/30/2015 11:34 AM
Page 1 of 1BASIC FREEWAY WORKSHEET
7/30/2015file:///C:/Users/coatesa/AppData/Local/Temp/f2kBFE5.tmp
FREEWAY WEAVING WORKSHEETGeneral Information Site Information
Analyst AMC Agency/Company Trans Associates Date Performed 7/30/2015 Analysis Time Period AM Peak Hour
Freeway/Dir of Travel SR 315/Southbound Weaving Segment Location ORR On Ramp/I-670W Diverge Analysis Year 2037 (No Build)
Project Description SR 315 SB Off-Ramp to Olentangy River Road - IOS Inputs
Weaving configuration One-Sided Weaving number of lanes, N 3 Weaving segment length, LS 840ftFreeway free-flow speed, FFS 55 mph
Segment type FreewayFreeway minimum speed, SMIN 15Freeway maximum capacity, CIFL 2250Terrain type Level
Conversions to pc/h Under Base ConditionsV (veh/h) PHF Truck (%) RV (%) E T E R fHV fp v (pc/h)
VFF 2170 0.94 5 0 1.5 1.2 0.976 1.00 2366 VRF 810 0.94 2 0 1.5 1.2 0.990 1.00 870 VFR 590 0.94 5 0 1.5 1.2 0.976 1.00 643 VRR 160 0.94 2 0 1.5 1.2 0.990 1.00 172 VNW 2538 V = 4051 VW 1513 VR 0.373 Configuration CharacteristicsMinimum maneuver lanes, NWL 2 lcInterchange density, ID 1.3 int/miMinimum RF lane changes, LCRF 1 lc/pcMinimum FR lane changes, LCFR 1 lc/pcMinimum RR lane changes, LCRR lc/pc
Minimum weaving lane changes, LCMIN 1513 lc/hWeaving lane changes, LCW 1672 lc/hNon-weaving lane changes, LCNW 400 lc/hTotal lane changes, LCALL 2072 lc/hNon-weaving vehicle index, INW 277
Weaving Segment Speed, Density, Level of Service, and CapacityWeaving segment flow rate, v 3969 veh/hWeaving segment capacity, cw 5344 veh/hWeaving segment v/c ratio 0.743 Weaving segment density, D 34.4 pc/mi/lnLevel of Service, LOS D
Weaving intensity factor, W 0.461 Weaving segment speed, S 39.3 mphAverage weaving speed, SW 42.4 mphAverage non-weaving speed, SNW 37.6 mphMaximum weaving length, LMAX 6385 ft
Notesa. Weaving segments longer than the calculated maximum length should be treated as isolated merge and diverge areas using the procedures of Chapter 13, "Freeway Merge and Diverge Segments". b. For volumes that exceed the weaving segment capacity, the level of service is "F".
Copyright © 2015 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS 2010TM Version 6.70 Generated: 2/5/2016 12:40 PM
Page 1 of 1FREEWAY WEAVING WORKSHEET
2/5/2016file:///C:/Users/coatesa/AppData/Local/Temp/s2k89DE.tmp
BASIC FREEWAY SEGMENTS WORKSHEET
General Information Site Information Analyst AMC Highway/Direction of Travel SR 315/Southbound
Agency or Company Trans Associates From/To I-670 EB Diverge/ORR Off Ramp
Date Performed 7/30/2015 Jurisdiction ODOT D6 Analysis Time Period AM Peak Hour Analysis Year 2037 (Build) Project Description SR 315 SB Off-Ramp to Olentangy River Road - IOS
Oper.(LOS) Des.(N) Planning Data Flow InputsVolume, V 3330 veh/h Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.94 AADT veh/day %Trucks and Buses, PT 5
Peak-Hr Prop. of AADT, K %RVs, PR 0 Peak-Hr Direction Prop, D General Terrain: Level DDHV = AADT x K x D veh/h Grade % Length mi
Up/Down %
Calculate Flow Adjustmentsfp 1.00 ER 1.2 ET 1.5 fHV = 1/[1+PT(ET - 1) + PR(ER - 1)] 0.976
Speed Inputs Calc Speed Adj and FFSLane Width ft Rt-Side Lat. Clearance ft Number of Lanes, N 2 Total Ramp Density, TRD ramps/mi FFS (measured) 55.0 mph Base free-flow Speed, BFFS mph
fLW mph fLC mph TRD Adjustment mph
FFS 55.0 mph
LOS and Performance Measures Design (N)
Operational (LOS)vp = (V or DDHV) / (PHF x N x fHVx fp)
1816 pc/h/ln
S 55.0 mph D = vp / S 33.0 pc/mi/ln LOS D
Design (N) Design LOSvp = (V or DDHV) / (PHF x N x fHVx fp)
pc/h/ln
S mph D = vp / S pc/mi/ln Required Number of Lanes, N
Glossary Factor LocationN - Number of lanes S - SpeedV - Hourly volume D - Densityvp - Flow rate FFS - Free-flow speedLOS - Level of service BFFS - Base free-flow speedDDHV - Directional design hour volume
ER - Exhibits 11-10, 11-12 fLW - Exhibit 11-8ET - Exhibits 11-10, 11-11, 11-13 fLC - Exhibit 11-9fp - Page 11-18 TRD - Page 11-11LOS, S, FFS, vp - Exhibits 11-2, 11-3
Copyright © 2014 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS 2010TM Version 6.65 Generated: 7/30/2015 11:40 AM
Page 1 of 1BASIC FREEWAY WORKSHEET
7/30/2015file:///C:/Users/coatesa/AppData/Local/Temp/f2k8CE4.tmp
RAMPS AND RAMP JUNCTIONS WORKSHEETGeneral Information Site Information Analyst AMC Freeway/Dir of Travel SR 315/SouthboundAgency or Company Trans Associates Junction Olentangy River Road Off RampDate Performed 7/30/2015 Jurisdiction ODOT D6Analysis Time Period AM Peak Hour Analysis Year 2037 (Build)Project Description SR 315 SB Off-Ramp to Olentangy River Road - IOS Inputs
Upstream Adj Ramp
Yes On
No Off
Lup = 885 ft
Vu = 3070 veh/h
Freeway Number of Lanes, N 2 Ramp Number of Lanes, N 1 Acceleration Lane Length, LADeceleration Lane Length LD 530 Freeway Volume, VF 3330 Ramp Volume, VR 570 Freeway Free-Flow Speed, SFF 55.0 Ramp Free-Flow Speed, SFR 35.0
Downstream Adj Ramp
Yes On
No Off
Ldown = ft
VD = veh/h
Conversion to pc/h Under Base Conditions (pc/h) V
(Veh/hr) PHF Terrain %Truck %Rv fHV fp v = V/PHF x fHV x fpFreeway 3330 0.94 Level 5 0 0.976 1.00 3631Ramp 570 0.94 Level 2 0 0.990 1.00 612UpStream 3070 0.94 Level 5 0 0.976 1.00 3348DownStream
Merge Areas Diverge AreasEstimation of v12 Estimation of v12
V12 = VF ( PFM )LEQ = (Equation 13-6 or 13-7)PFM = using Equation (Exhibit 13-6) V12 = pc/h V3 or Vav34 pc/h (Equation 13-14 or 13-17)Is V3 or Vav34 > 2,700 pc/h? Yes NoIs V3 or Vav34 > 1.5 * V12/2 Yes No
If Yes,V12a = pc/h (Equation 13-16, 13-18, or 13-19)
V12 = VR + (VF - VR)PFDLEQ = (Equation 13-12 or 13-13) PFD = 1.000 using Equation (Exhibit 13-7) V12 = 3631 pc/h V3 or Vav34 0 pc/h (Equation 13-14 or 13-17)Is V3 or Vav34 > 2,700 pc/h? Yes No
Is V3 or Vav34 > 1.5 * V12/2 Yes No
If Yes,V12a = pc/h (Equation 13-16, 13-18, or 13-19)
Capacity Checks Capacity ChecksActual Capacity LOS F? Actual Capacity LOS F?
VFO Exhibit 13-8
VF 3631 Exhibit 13-8 4500 NoVFO = VF - VR 3019 Exhibit 13-8 4500 No
VR 612 Exhibit 13-10 2000 No
Flow Entering Merge Influence Area Flow Entering Diverge Influence AreaActual Max Desirable Violation? Actual Max Desirable Violation?
VR12 Exhibit 13-8 V12 3631 Exhibit 13-8 4400:All NoLevel of Service Determination (if not F) Level of Service Determination (if not F)
DR = 5.475 + 0.00734 v R + 0.0078 V12 - 0.00627 LADR = (pc/mi/ln)LOS = (Exhibit 13-2)
DR = 4.252 + 0.0086 V12 - 0.009 LDDR = 30.7 (pc/mi/ln)LOS = D (Exhibit 13-2)
Speed Determination Speed DeterminationMS = (Exibit 13-11) SR= mph (Exhibit 13-11) S0= mph (Exhibit 13-11) S = mph (Exhibit 13-13)
Ds = 0.483 (Exhibit 13-12) SR= 48.7 mph (Exhibit 13-12) S0= N/A mph (Exhibit 13-12) S = 48.7 mph (Exhibit 13-13)
Copyright © 2014 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS2010TM Version 6.65 Generated: 7/30/2015 11:43 AM
Page 1 of 1RAMPS AND RAMP JUNCTIONS WORKSHEET
7/30/2015file:///C:/Users/coatesa/AppData/Local/Temp/r2k3801.tmp
BASIC FREEWAY SEGMENTS WORKSHEET
General Information Site Information Analyst AMC Highway/Direction of Travel SR 315/Southbound
Agency or Company Trans Associates From/To ORR Off Ramp/ORR On Ramp
Date Performed 7/30/2015 Jurisdiction ODOT D6 Analysis Time Period AM Peak Hour Analysis Year 2037 (Build) Project Description SR 315 SB Off-Ramp to Olentangy River Road - IOS
Oper.(LOS) Des.(N) Planning Data Flow InputsVolume, V 2760 veh/h Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.94 AADT veh/day %Trucks and Buses, PT 5
Peak-Hr Prop. of AADT, K %RVs, PR 0 Peak-Hr Direction Prop, D General Terrain: Level DDHV = AADT x K x D veh/h Grade % Length mi
Up/Down %
Calculate Flow Adjustmentsfp 1.00 ER 1.2 ET 1.5 fHV = 1/[1+PT(ET - 1) + PR(ER - 1)] 0.976
Speed Inputs Calc Speed Adj and FFSLane Width ft Rt-Side Lat. Clearance ft Number of Lanes, N 2 Total Ramp Density, TRD ramps/mi FFS (measured) 55.0 mph Base free-flow Speed, BFFS mph
fLW mph fLC mph TRD Adjustment mph
FFS 55.0 mph
LOS and Performance Measures Design (N)
Operational (LOS)vp = (V or DDHV) / (PHF x N x fHVx fp)
1505 pc/h/ln
S 55.0 mph D = vp / S 27.4 pc/mi/ln LOS D
Design (N) Design LOSvp = (V or DDHV) / (PHF x N x fHVx fp)
pc/h/ln
S mph D = vp / S pc/mi/ln Required Number of Lanes, N
Glossary Factor LocationN - Number of lanes S - SpeedV - Hourly volume D - Densityvp - Flow rate FFS - Free-flow speedLOS - Level of service BFFS - Base free-flow speedDDHV - Directional design hour volume
ER - Exhibits 11-10, 11-12 fLW - Exhibit 11-8ET - Exhibits 11-10, 11-11, 11-13 fLC - Exhibit 11-9fp - Page 11-18 TRD - Page 11-11LOS, S, FFS, vp - Exhibits 11-2, 11-3
Copyright © 2014 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS 2010TM Version 6.65 Generated: 7/30/2015 11:45 AM
Page 1 of 1BASIC FREEWAY WORKSHEET
7/30/2015file:///C:/Users/coatesa/AppData/Local/Temp/f2kF9A.tmp
FREEWAY WEAVING WORKSHEETGeneral Information Site Information
Analyst AMC Agency/Company Trans Associates Date Performed 7/30/2015 Analysis Time Period AM Peak Hour
Freeway/Dir of Travel SR 315/Southbound Weaving Segment Location ORR On Ramp/I-670W Diverge Analysis Year 2037 (Build)
Project Description SR 315 SB Off-Ramp to Olentangy River Road - IOS Inputs
Weaving configuration One-Sided Weaving number of lanes, N 3 Weaving segment length, LS 840ftFreeway free-flow speed, FFS 55 mph
Segment type FreewayFreeway minimum speed, SMIN 15Freeway maximum capacity, CIFL 2250Terrain type Level
Conversions to pc/h Under Base ConditionsV (veh/h) PHF Truck (%) RV (%) E T E R fHV fp v (pc/h)
VFF 2170 0.94 5 0 1.5 1.2 0.976 1.00 2366 VRF 810 0.94 2 0 1.5 1.2 0.990 1.00 870 VFR 590 0.94 5 0 1.5 1.2 0.976 1.00 643 VRR 160 0.94 2 0 1.5 1.2 0.990 1.00 172 VNW 2538 V = 4051 VW 1513 VR 0.373 Configuration CharacteristicsMinimum maneuver lanes, NWL 2 lcInterchange density, ID 1.3 int/miMinimum RF lane changes, LCRF 1 lc/pcMinimum FR lane changes, LCFR 1 lc/pcMinimum RR lane changes, LCRR lc/pc
Minimum weaving lane changes, LCMIN 1513 lc/hWeaving lane changes, LCW 1672 lc/hNon-weaving lane changes, LCNW 400 lc/hTotal lane changes, LCALL 2072 lc/hNon-weaving vehicle index, INW 277
Weaving Segment Speed, Density, Level of Service, and CapacityWeaving segment flow rate, v 3969 veh/hWeaving segment capacity, cw 5344 veh/hWeaving segment v/c ratio 0.743 Weaving segment density, D 34.4 pc/mi/lnLevel of Service, LOS D
Weaving intensity factor, W 0.461 Weaving segment speed, S 39.3 mphAverage weaving speed, SW 42.4 mphAverage non-weaving speed, SNW 37.6 mphMaximum weaving length, LMAX 6385 ft
Notesa. Weaving segments longer than the calculated maximum length should be treated as isolated merge and diverge areas using the procedures of Chapter 13, "Freeway Merge and Diverge Segments". b. For volumes that exceed the weaving segment capacity, the level of service is "F".
Copyright © 2014 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS 2010TM Version 6.65 Generated: 7/30/2015 11:46 AM
Page 1 of 1FREEWAY WEAVING WORKSHEET
7/30/2015file:///C:/Users/coatesa/AppData/Local/Temp/s2kE485.tmp
BASIC FREEWAY SEGMENTS WORKSHEET
General Information Site Information Analyst AMC Highway/Direction of Travel SR 315/Southbound
Agency or Company Trans Associates From/To I-670 EB Diverge/ORR Off Ramp
Date Performed 7/30/2015 Jurisdiction ODOT D6 Analysis Time Period PM Peak Hour Analysis Year 2037 (No Build) Project Description SR 315 SB Off-Ramp to Olentangy River Road - IOS
Oper.(LOS) Des.(N) Planning Data Flow InputsVolume, V 4630 veh/h Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.94 AADT veh/day %Trucks and Buses, PT 5
Peak-Hr Prop. of AADT, K %RVs, PR 0 Peak-Hr Direction Prop, D General Terrain: Level DDHV = AADT x K x D veh/h Grade % Length mi
Up/Down %
Calculate Flow Adjustmentsfp 1.00 ER 1.2 ET 1.5 fHV = 1/[1+PT(ET - 1) + PR(ER - 1)] 0.976
Speed Inputs Calc Speed Adj and FFSLane Width ft Rt-Side Lat. Clearance ft Number of Lanes, N 2 Total Ramp Density, TRD ramps/mi FFS (measured) 55.0 mph Base free-flow Speed, BFFS mph
fLW mph fLC mph TRD Adjustment mph
FFS 55.0 mph
LOS and Performance Measures Design (N)
Operational (LOS)vp = (V or DDHV) / (PHF x N x fHVx fp)
2524 pc/h/ln
S 42.1 mph D = vp / S 60.0 pc/mi/ln LOS F
Design (N) Design LOSvp = (V or DDHV) / (PHF x N x fHVx fp)
pc/h/ln
S mph D = vp / S pc/mi/ln Required Number of Lanes, N
Glossary Factor LocationN - Number of lanes S - SpeedV - Hourly volume D - Densityvp - Flow rate FFS - Free-flow speedLOS - Level of service BFFS - Base free-flow speedDDHV - Directional design hour volume
ER - Exhibits 11-10, 11-12 fLW - Exhibit 11-8ET - Exhibits 11-10, 11-11, 11-13 fLC - Exhibit 11-9fp - Page 11-18 TRD - Page 11-11LOS, S, FFS, vp - Exhibits 11-2, 11-3
Copyright © 2014 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS 2010TM Version 6.65 Generated: 7/30/2015 11:33 AM
Page 1 of 1BASIC FREEWAY WORKSHEET
7/30/2015file:///C:/Users/coatesa/AppData/Local/Temp/f2kACC2.tmp
RAMPS AND RAMP JUNCTIONS WORKSHEETGeneral Information Site Information Analyst AMC Freeway/Dir of Travel SR 315/SouthboundAgency or Company Trans Associates Junction Olentangy River Road Off RampDate Performed 7/30/2015 Jurisdiction ODOT D6Analysis Time Period PM Peak Hour Analysis Year 2037 (No Build)Project Description SR 315 SB Off-Ramp to Olentangy River Road - IOS Inputs
Upstream Adj Ramp
Yes On
No Off
Lup = 885 ft
Vu = 1970 veh/h
Freeway Number of Lanes, N 2 Ramp Number of Lanes, N 1 Acceleration Lane Length, LADeceleration Lane Length LD 530 Freeway Volume, VF 4630 Ramp Volume, VR 370 Freeway Free-Flow Speed, SFF 55.0 Ramp Free-Flow Speed, SFR 35.0
Downstream Adj Ramp
Yes On
No Off
Ldown = ft
VD = veh/h
Conversion to pc/h Under Base Conditions (pc/h) V
(Veh/hr) PHF Terrain %Truck %Rv fHV fp v = V/PHF x fHV x fpFreeway 4630 0.94 Level 5 0 0.976 1.00 5049Ramp 370 0.94 Level 2 0 0.990 1.00 398UpStream 1970 0.94 Level 5 0 0.976 1.00 2148DownStream
Merge Areas Diverge AreasEstimation of v12 Estimation of v12
V12 = VF ( PFM )LEQ = (Equation 13-6 or 13-7)PFM = using Equation (Exhibit 13-6) V12 = pc/h V3 or Vav34 pc/h (Equation 13-14 or 13-17)Is V3 or Vav34 > 2,700 pc/h? Yes NoIs V3 or Vav34 > 1.5 * V12/2 Yes No
If Yes,V12a = pc/h (Equation 13-16, 13-18, or 13-19)
V12 = VR + (VF - VR)PFDLEQ = (Equation 13-12 or 13-13) PFD = 1.000 using Equation (Exhibit 13-7) V12 = 5049 pc/h V3 or Vav34 0 pc/h (Equation 13-14 or 13-17)Is V3 or Vav34 > 2,700 pc/h? Yes No
Is V3 or Vav34 > 1.5 * V12/2 Yes No
If Yes,V12a = pc/h (Equation 13-16, 13-18, or 13-19)
Capacity Checks Capacity ChecksActual Capacity LOS F? Actual Capacity LOS F?
VFO Exhibit 13-8
VF 5049 Exhibit 13-8 4500 YesVFO = VF - VR 4651 Exhibit 13-8 4500 Yes
VR 398 Exhibit 13-10 2000 No
Flow Entering Merge Influence Area Flow Entering Diverge Influence AreaActual Max Desirable Violation? Actual Max Desirable Violation?
VR12 Exhibit 13-8 V12 5049 Exhibit 13-8 4400:All YesLevel of Service Determination (if not F) Level of Service Determination (if not F)
DR = 5.475 + 0.00734 v R + 0.0078 V12 - 0.00627 LADR = (pc/mi/ln)LOS = (Exhibit 13-2)
DR = 4.252 + 0.0086 V12 - 0.009 LDDR = 42.9 (pc/mi/ln)LOS = F (Exhibit 13-2)
Speed Determination Speed DeterminationMS = (Exibit 13-11) SR= mph (Exhibit 13-11) S0= mph (Exhibit 13-11) S = mph (Exhibit 13-13)
Ds = 0.464 (Exhibit 13-12) SR= 49.0 mph (Exhibit 13-12) S0= N/A mph (Exhibit 13-12) S = 49.0 mph (Exhibit 13-13)
Copyright © 2014 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS2010TM Version 6.65 Generated: 7/30/2015 11:34 AM
Page 1 of 1RAMPS AND RAMP JUNCTIONS WORKSHEET
7/30/2015file:///C:/Users/coatesa/AppData/Local/Temp/r2k8517.tmp
BASIC FREEWAY SEGMENTS WORKSHEET
General Information Site Information Analyst AMC Highway/Direction of Travel SR 315/Southbound
Agency or Company Trans Associates From/To ORR Off Ramp/ORR On Ramp
Date Performed 7/30/2015 Jurisdiction ODOT D6 Analysis Time Period PM Peak Hour Analysis Year 2037 (No Build) Project Description SR 315 SB Off-Ramp to Olentangy River Road - IOS
Oper.(LOS) Des.(N) Planning Data Flow InputsVolume, V 4260 veh/h Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.94 AADT veh/day %Trucks and Buses, PT 5
Peak-Hr Prop. of AADT, K %RVs, PR 0 Peak-Hr Direction Prop, D General Terrain: Level DDHV = AADT x K x D veh/h Grade % Length mi
Up/Down %
Calculate Flow Adjustmentsfp 1.00 ER 1.2 ET 1.5 fHV = 1/[1+PT(ET - 1) + PR(ER - 1)] 0.976
Speed Inputs Calc Speed Adj and FFSLane Width ft Rt-Side Lat. Clearance ft Number of Lanes, N 2 Total Ramp Density, TRD ramps/mi FFS (measured) 55.0 mph Base free-flow Speed, BFFS mph
fLW mph fLC mph TRD Adjustment mph
FFS 55.0 mph
LOS and Performance Measures Design (N)
Operational (LOS)vp = (V or DDHV) / (PHF x N x fHVx fp)
2323 pc/h/ln
S 48.2 mph D = vp / S 48.1 pc/mi/ln LOS F
Design (N) Design LOSvp = (V or DDHV) / (PHF x N x fHVx fp)
pc/h/ln
S mph D = vp / S pc/mi/ln Required Number of Lanes, N
Glossary Factor LocationN - Number of lanes S - SpeedV - Hourly volume D - Densityvp - Flow rate FFS - Free-flow speedLOS - Level of service BFFS - Base free-flow speedDDHV - Directional design hour volume
ER - Exhibits 11-10, 11-12 fLW - Exhibit 11-8ET - Exhibits 11-10, 11-11, 11-13 fLC - Exhibit 11-9fp - Page 11-18 TRD - Page 11-11LOS, S, FFS, vp - Exhibits 11-2, 11-3
Copyright © 2014 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS 2010TM Version 6.65 Generated: 7/30/2015 11:35 AM
Page 1 of 1BASIC FREEWAY WORKSHEET
7/30/2015file:///C:/Users/coatesa/AppData/Local/Temp/f2k261.tmp
FREEWAY WEAVING WORKSHEETGeneral Information Site Information
Analyst AMC Agency/Company Trans Associates Date Performed 7/30/2015 Analysis Time Period PM Peak Hour
Freeway/Dir of Travel SR 315/Southbound Weaving Segment Location ORR On Ramp/I-670W Diverge Analysis Year 2037 (No Build)
Project Description SR 315 SB Off-Ramp to Olentangy River Road - IOS *Constrained AnalysisInputs
Weaving configuration One-Sided Weaving number of lanes, N 3 Weaving segment length, LS 840ftFreeway free-flow speed, FFS 55 mph
Segment type FreewayFreeway minimum speed, SMIN 15Freeway maximum capacity, CIFL 2250Terrain type Level
Conversions to pc/h Under Base ConditionsV (veh/h) PHF Truck (%) RV (%) E T E R fHV fp v (pc/h)
VFF 3230 0.94 5 0 1.5 1.2 0.976 1.00 3522 VRF 730 0.94 2 0 1.5 1.2 0.990 1.00 784 VFR 1030 0.94 5 0 1.5 1.2 0.976 1.00 1123 VRR 155 0.94 2 0 1.5 1.2 0.990 1.00 167 VNW 3689 V = 5596 VW 1907 VR 0.341 Configuration CharacteristicsMinimum maneuver lanes, NWL 2 lcInterchange density, ID 1.3 int/miMinimum RF lane changes, LCRF 1 lc/pcMinimum FR lane changes, LCFR 1 lc/pcMinimum RR lane changes, LCRR lc/pc
Minimum weaving lane changes, LCMIN lc/hWeaving lane changes, LCW lc/hNon-weaving lane changes, LCNW lc/hTotal lane changes, LCALL lc/hNon-weaving vehicle index, INW
Weaving Segment Speed, Density, Level of Service, and CapacityWeaving segment flow rate, v 5474 veh/hWeaving segment capacity, cw 5423 veh/hWeaving segment v/c ratio 1.009 Weaving segment density, D pc/mi/lnLevel of Service, LOS F
Weaving intensity factor, W Weaving segment speed, S mphAverage weaving speed, SW mphAverage non-weaving speed, SNW mphMaximum weaving length, LMAX 6025 ft
Notesa. Weaving segments longer than the calculated maximum length should be treated as isolated merge and diverge areas using the procedures ofChapter 13, "Freeway Merge and Diverge Segments". b. For volumes that exceed the weaving segment capacity, the level of service is "F".
Copyright © 2014 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS 2010TM Version 6.65 Generated: 7/30/2015 11:35 AM
Page 1 of 1FREEWAY WEAVING WORKSHEET
7/30/2015file:///C:/Users/coatesa/AppData/Local/Temp/s2k7F4D.tmp
BASIC FREEWAY SEGMENTS WORKSHEET
General Information Site Information Analyst AMC Highway/Direction of Travel SR 315/Southbound
Agency or Company Trans Associates From/To I-670 EB Diverge/ORR Off Ramp
Date Performed 7/30/2015 Jurisdiction ODOT D6 Analysis Time Period PM Peak Hour Analysis Year 2037 (Build) Project Description SR 315 SB Off-Ramp to Olentangy River Road - IOS
Oper.(LOS) Des.(N) Planning Data Flow InputsVolume, V 4630 veh/h Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.94 AADT veh/day %Trucks and Buses, PT 5
Peak-Hr Prop. of AADT, K %RVs, PR 0 Peak-Hr Direction Prop, D General Terrain: Level DDHV = AADT x K x D veh/h Grade % Length mi
Up/Down %
Calculate Flow Adjustmentsfp 1.00 ER 1.2 ET 1.5 fHV = 1/[1+PT(ET - 1) + PR(ER - 1)] 0.976
Speed Inputs Calc Speed Adj and FFSLane Width ft Rt-Side Lat. Clearance ft Number of Lanes, N 2 Total Ramp Density, TRD ramps/mi FFS (measured) 55.0 mph Base free-flow Speed, BFFS mph
fLW mph fLC mph TRD Adjustment mph
FFS 55.0 mph
LOS and Performance Measures Design (N)
Operational (LOS)vp = (V or DDHV) / (PHF x N x fHVx fp)
2524 pc/h/ln
S 42.1 mph D = vp / S 60.0 pc/mi/ln LOS F
Design (N) Design LOSvp = (V or DDHV) / (PHF x N x fHVx fp)
pc/h/ln
S mphD = vp / S pc/mi/ln Required Number of Lanes, N
Glossary Factor LocationN - Number of lanes S - SpeedV - Hourly volume D - Densityvp - Flow rate FFS - Free-flow speedLOS - Level of service BFFS - Base free-flow speedDDHV - Directional design hour volume
ER - Exhibits 11-10, 11-12 fLW - Exhibit 11-8ET - Exhibits 11-10, 11-11, 11-13 fLC - Exhibit 11-9fp - Page 11-18 TRD - Page 11-11LOS, S, FFS, vp - Exhibits 11-2, 11-3
Copyright © 2014 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS 2010TM Version 6.65 Generated: 7/30/2015 11:40 AM
Page 1 of 1BASIC FREEWAY WORKSHEET
7/30/2015file:///C:/Users/coatesa/AppData/Local/Temp/f2kD855.tmp
RAMPS AND RAMP JUNCTIONS WORKSHEETGeneral Information Site Information Analyst AMC Freeway/Dir of Travel SR 315/SouthboundAgency or Company Trans Associates Junction Olentangy River Road Off RampDate Performed 7/30/2015 Jurisdiction ODOT D6Analysis Time Period PM Peak Hour Analysis Year 2037 (Build)Project Description SR 315 SB Off-Ramp to Olentangy River Road - IOS Inputs
Upstream Adj Ramp
Yes On
No Off
Lup = 885 ft
Vu = 1970 veh/h
Freeway Number of Lanes, N 2 Ramp Number of Lanes, N 1 Acceleration Lane Length, LADeceleration Lane Length LD 530 Freeway Volume, VF 4630 Ramp Volume, VR 370 Freeway Free-Flow Speed, SFF 55.0 Ramp Free-Flow Speed, SFR 35.0
Downstream Adj Ramp
Yes On
No Off
Ldown = ft
VD = veh/h
Conversion to pc/h Under Base Conditions (pc/h) V
(Veh/hr) PHF Terrain %Truck %Rv fHV fp v = V/PHF x fHV x fpFreeway 4630 0.94 Level 5 0 0.976 1.00 5049Ramp 370 0.94 Level 2 0 0.990 1.00 398UpStream 1970 0.94 Level 5 0 0.976 1.00 2148DownStream
Merge Areas Diverge AreasEstimation of v12 Estimation of v12
V12 = VF ( PFM )LEQ = (Equation 13-6 or 13-7)PFM = using Equation (Exhibit 13-6) V12 = pc/h V3 or Vav34 pc/h (Equation 13-14 or 13-17)Is V3 or Vav34 > 2,700 pc/h? Yes NoIs V3 or Vav34 > 1.5 * V12/2 Yes No
If Yes,V12a = pc/h (Equation 13-16, 13-18, or 13-19)
V12 = VR + (VF - VR)PFDLEQ = (Equation 13-12 or 13-13) PFD = 1.000 using Equation (Exhibit 13-7) V12 = 5049 pc/h V3 or Vav34 0 pc/h (Equation 13-14 or 13-17)Is V3 or Vav34 > 2,700 pc/h? Yes No
Is V3 or Vav34 > 1.5 * V12/2 Yes No
If Yes,V12a = pc/h (Equation 13-16, 13-18, or 13-19)
Capacity Checks Capacity ChecksActual Capacity LOS F? Actual Capacity LOS F?
VFO Exhibit 13-8
VF 5049 Exhibit 13-8 4500 YesVFO = VF - VR 4651 Exhibit 13-8 4500 Yes
VR 398 Exhibit 13-10 2000 No
Flow Entering Merge Influence Area Flow Entering Diverge Influence AreaActual Max Desirable Violation? Actual Max Desirable Violation?
VR12 Exhibit 13-8 V12 5049 Exhibit 13-8 4400:All YesLevel of Service Determination (if not F) Level of Service Determination (if not F)
DR = 5.475 + 0.00734 v R + 0.0078 V12 - 0.00627 LADR = (pc/mi/ln)LOS = (Exhibit 13-2)
DR = 4.252 + 0.0086 V12 - 0.009 LDDR = 42.9 (pc/mi/ln)LOS = F (Exhibit 13-2)
Speed Determination Speed DeterminationMS = (Exibit 13-11)SR= mph (Exhibit 13-11)S0= mph (Exhibit 13-11)S = mph (Exhibit 13-13)
Ds = 0.464 (Exhibit 13-12)SR= 49.0 mph (Exhibit 13-12)S0= N/A mph (Exhibit 13-12)S = 49.0 mph (Exhibit 13-13)
Copyright © 2014 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS2010TM Version 6.65 Generated: 7/30/2015 11:44 AM
Page 1 of 1RAMPS AND RAMP JUNCTIONS WORKSHEET
7/30/2015file:///C:/Users/coatesa/AppData/Local/Temp/r2k8FE0.tmp
BASIC FREEWAY SEGMENTS WORKSHEET
General Information Site Information Analyst AMC Highway/Direction of Travel SR 315/Southbound
Agency or Company Trans Associates From/To ORR Off Ramp/ORR On Ramp
Date Performed 7/30/2015 Jurisdiction ODOT D6 Analysis Time Period PM Peak Hour Analysis Year 2037 (Build) Project Description SR 315 SB Off-Ramp to Olentangy River Road - IOS
Oper.(LOS) Des.(N) Planning Data Flow InputsVolume, V 4260 veh/h Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.94 AADT veh/day %Trucks and Buses, PT 5
Peak-Hr Prop. of AADT, K %RVs, PR 0 Peak-Hr Direction Prop, D General Terrain: Level DDHV = AADT x K x D veh/h Grade % Length mi
Up/Down %
Calculate Flow Adjustmentsfp 1.00 ER 1.2 ET 1.5 fHV = 1/[1+PT(ET - 1) + PR(ER - 1)] 0.976
Speed Inputs Calc Speed Adj and FFSLane Width ft Rt-Side Lat. Clearance ft Number of Lanes, N 2 Total Ramp Density, TRD ramps/mi FFS (measured) 55.0 mph Base free-flow Speed, BFFS mph
fLW mph fLC mph TRD Adjustment mph
FFS 55.0 mph
LOS and Performance Measures Design (N)
Operational (LOS)vp = (V or DDHV) / (PHF x N x fHVx fp)
2323 pc/h/ln
S 48.2 mph D = vp / S 48.1 pc/mi/ln LOS F
Design (N) Design LOSvp = (V or DDHV) / (PHF x N x fHVx fp)
pc/h/ln
S mphD = vp / S pc/mi/ln Required Number of Lanes, N
Glossary Factor LocationN - Number of lanes S - SpeedV - Hourly volume D - Densityvp - Flow rate FFS - Free-flow speedLOS - Level of service BFFS - Base free-flow speedDDHV - Directional design hour volume
ER - Exhibits 11-10, 11-12 fLW - Exhibit 11-8ET - Exhibits 11-10, 11-11, 11-13 fLC - Exhibit 11-9fp - Page 11-18 TRD - Page 11-11LOS, S, FFS, vp - Exhibits 11-2, 11-3
Copyright © 2014 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS 2010TM Version 6.65 Generated: 7/30/2015 11:45 AM
Page 1 of 1BASIC FREEWAY WORKSHEET
7/30/2015file:///C:/Users/coatesa/AppData/Local/Temp/f2k755E.tmp
FREEWAY WEAVING WORKSHEETGeneral Information Site Information
Analyst AMC Agency/Company Trans Associates Date Performed 7/30/2015 Analysis Time Period PM Peak Hour
Freeway/Dir of Travel SR 315/Southbound Weaving Segment Location ORR On Ramp/I-670W Diverge Analysis Year 2037 (Build)
Project Description SR 315 SB Off-Ramp to Olentangy River Road - IOS *Constrained AnalysisInputs
Weaving configuration One-Sided Weaving number of lanes, N 3 Weaving segment length, LS 840ftFreeway free-flow speed, FFS 55 mph
Segment type FreewayFreeway minimum speed, SMIN 15Freeway maximum capacity, CIFL 2250Terrain type Level
Conversions to pc/h Under Base ConditionsV (veh/h) PHF Truck (%) RV (%) E T E R fHV fp v (pc/h)
VFF 3230 0.94 5 0 1.5 1.2 0.976 1.00 3522 VRF 850 0.94 2 0 1.5 1.2 0.990 1.00 913 VFR 1030 0.94 5 0 1.5 1.2 0.976 1.00 1123 VRR 180 0.94 2 0 1.5 1.2 0.990 1.00 193 VNW 3715 V = 5751 VW 2036 VR 0.354 Configuration CharacteristicsMinimum maneuver lanes, NWL 2 lcInterchange density, ID 1.3 int/miMinimum RF lane changes, LCRF 1 lc/pcMinimum FR lane changes, LCFR 1 lc/pcMinimum RR lane changes, LCRR lc/pc
Minimum weaving lane changes, LCMIN lc/hWeaving lane changes, LCW lc/hNon-weaving lane changes, LCNW lc/hTotal lane changes, LCALL lc/hNon-weaving vehicle index, INW
Weaving Segment Speed, Density, Level of Service, and CapacityWeaving segment flow rate, v 5628 veh/hWeaving segment capacity, cw 5391 veh/hWeaving segment v/c ratio 1.044 Weaving segment density, D pc/mi/lnLevel of Service, LOS F
Weaving intensity factor, W Weaving segment speed, S mphAverage weaving speed, SW mphAverage non-weaving speed, SNW mphMaximum weaving length, LMAX 6171 ft
Notesa. Weaving segments longer than the calculated maximum length should be treated as isolated merge and diverge areas using the procedures ofChapter 13, "Freeway Merge and Diverge Segments". b. For volumes that exceed the weaving segment capacity, the level of service is "F".
Copyright © 2014 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS 2010TM Version 6.65 Generated: 7/30/2015 11:47 AM
Page 1 of 1FREEWAY WEAVING WORKSHEET
7/30/2015file:///C:/Users/coatesa/AppData/Local/Temp/s2kE5CC.tmp
Appendix D. Queuing Analysis Results
Through Lane Backup Computation Worksheet(Based on ODOT's Location Design Manual)
Project Name:
Project Number:
Compiled By: Condition:
Note: EB - Eastbound, WB - Westbound, NB - Northbound, SB - Southbound
Source: January 2006 ODOT L& D Manual-Volume I: 401 - 9E, 401 -10E
Left Thru Thru/Right
Average Number of Vehicles/Cycle 1 39 45
PM Peak Hour:
Volume (vph) 20 1160
Cycles/Hour 30 30
Cycle Length (sec) 120
Average Number of Vehicles/Cycle/Lane 1 20
Queue Length (ft) 50 675
120
Average Number of Vehicles/Cycle 7
Average Number of Vehicles/Cycle/Lane 7
Queue Length (ft) 275
Cycles/Hour 30
Number of Lanes 1
Volume (vph) 210
AM Peak Hour:
AMC - Trans Associates No Build/Build
General Information:
Approach
120
SBNB NB
2
870
Cycle Length (sec) 120
2
Movement
120
1360
SR 315 SB Off Ramp to Olentangy River Road - IMS Intersection: Olentangy River Road @ Time Warner
NWRIN00 - 06292 Year: 2037
30 30
29
15
525
46
23
775
1330
120
30
23
775
AMC - Trans Associates5/19/2015
(1) ORR @ Time Warner.xlsx1 of 1
Queue Length Computation Worksheet(Based on ODOT's Location Design Manual)
Project Name:
Project Number:
Compiled By: Condition:
Note: EB - Eastbound, WB - Westbound, NB - Northbound, SB - Southbound
Source: January 2006 ODOT L& D Manual-Volume I: 401 - 9E, 401 -10E
30
13
13
475
WB
Left/Right
1
570
120
740
120
30
13
475
30 30
21
21
725
24
12
450
SR 315 SB Off Ramp to Olentangy River Road - IMS Intersection: Olentangy River Road @ SR 315 SB Ramps
NWRIN00 - 06292 Year: 2037
AMC - Trans Associates No Build
General Information:
Approach
120
SBNB SB
1
610
Cycle Length (sec) 120
2
Movement
120
710
Cycles/Hour 30
Number of Lanes 2
Volume (vph) 1150
AM Peak Hour:
30
120
Average Number of Vehicles/Cycle 39
Average Number of Vehicles/Cycle/Lane 20
Queue Length (ft) 675
19
19
650
370
120
Average Number of Vehicles/Cycle/Lane 25 24
Queue Length (ft) 825 800
Thru/Right Left Thru
Average Number of Vehicles/Cycle 50 24 25
PM Peak Hour:
Volume (vph) 1480 700
Cycles/Hour 30 30
Cycle Length (sec) 120
AMC - Trans Associates5/19/2015
(2) ORR @ 315 - No Build.xlsx1 of 1
Queue Length Computation Worksheet(Based on ODOT's Location Design Manual)
Project Name:
Project Number:
Compiled By: Condition:
Note: EB - Eastbound, WB - Westbound, NB - Northbound, SB - Southbound
Source: January 2006 ODOT L& D Manual-Volume I: 401 - 9E, 401 -10E
250
30
9
9
350
170
120
30
6
6
3
3
150
WB
Right
1
190
120
30
7
7
275
90
120
3030
4
4
175
WB
Left
1
110
120
30
110
120
740
120
30
13
475
30 30
21
21
725
24
12
450
120
SR 315 SB Off Ramp to Olentangy River Road - IMS Intersection: Olentangy River Road @ SR 315 SB Ramps
NWRIN00 - 06292 Year: 2037
AMC - Trans Associates Build
General Information:
Approach
120
SBNB SB
1
610
Cycle Length (sec) 120
2
Movement
120
710
Number of Lanes 2
Volume (vph) 1150
AM Peak Hour:
WB
Left
1
270
120
Average Number of Vehicles/Cycle 39
Average Number of Vehicles/Cycle/Lane 20
Queue Length (ft) 675
4
4
175
Average Number of Vehicles/Cycle/Lane 25 24
Queue Length (ft) 825 800
Thru/Right Left Thru
Average Number of Vehicles/Cycle 50 24 25
PM Peak Hour:
Volume (vph) 1480 700
Cycles/Hour 30 30
Cycle Length (sec) 120
Cycles/Hour 30
AMC - Trans Associates5/19/2015
(2) ORR @ 315 - Build, 3 lanes.xlsx1 of 1
Queue Length Computation Worksheet(Based on ODOT's Location Design Manual)
Project Name:
Project Number:
Compiled By: Condition:
Note: EB - Eastbound, WB - Westbound, NB - Northbound, SB - Southbound
Source: January 2006 ODOT L& D Manual-Volume I: 401 - 9E, 401 -10E
3 4
3 4
150 175
80 120
120 120
30 30
WB
Right
1
730
120
NB NB
Left Thru
1 1
60 80
120 120
37
19
650
30
30
15
525
1090
26
855
30
25
25
825
770
120
30
26
30
30 30 30
12 31 1
EB
120
30
475
30 30
4
4
175
16
16
550
120
390
120
30
13
SR 315 SB Off Ramp to Olentangy River Road - IMS Intersection: Olentangy River Road @ Goodale Boulevard
NWRIN00 - 06292 Year:
AMC - Trans Associates
2037
No Build
General Information:
Approach
120
SBSB SB
1
110
Cycle Length (sec) 120
1
Movement
120
470
Left Thru Right
EB WB
Left Thru/Right Left
WB
Thru
2
Cycles/Hour 30
Number of Lanes 1
Volume (vph) 510
AM Peak Hour:
1 1 1
340 930 30
120 120 120
900
120
30 30
Average Number of Vehicles/Cycle 17
Average Number of Vehicles/Cycle/Lane 17
Queue Length (ft) 600
12 31 1
450 1005 50
2 3
2 3
100 150
Average Number of Vehicles/Cycle/Lane 15 7
Queue Length (ft) 525 275675 1035 100
20 32 2
Average Number of Vehicles/Cycle 15 7 13
PM Peak Hour:
Volume (vph) 440 190
Cycles/Hour 30 30
Cycle Length (sec) 120
590 940 50
20 32 2
120 120 120
30 30
AMC - Trans Associates5/19/2015
(3) ORR @ Goodale.xlsx1 of 1
Queue Length Computation Worksheet(Based on ODOT's Location Design Manual)
Project Name:
Project Number:
Compiled By: Condition:
Note: EB - Eastbound, WB - Westbound, NB - Northbound, SB - Southbound
Source: January 2006 ODOT L& D Manual-Volume I: 401 - 9E, 401 -10E
Average Number of Vehicles/Cycle 11 11 13
PM Peak Hour:
Volume (vph) 315 315
Cycles/Hour 30 30
Cycle Length (sec) 120
590 940 50
20 32 2
120 120 120
30 30
Average Number of Vehicles/Cycle/Lane 11 11
Queue Length (ft) 400 400675 1035 100
20 32 2
Average Number of Vehicles/Cycle 11
Average Number of Vehicles/Cycle/Lane 11
Queue Length (ft) 400
12 31 1
450 1005 50
2 3
2 3
100 150
Cycles/Hour 30
Number of Lanes 1
Volume (vph) 310
AM Peak Hour:
1 1 1
340 930 30
120 120 120
900
120
30 30
Approach
120
SBSB SB
1
310
Cycle Length (sec) 120
1
Movement
120
470
Left Left/Thru Right
EB WB
Left Thru/Right Left
WB
Thru
2
SR 315 SB Off Ramp to Olentangy River Road - IMS Intersection: Olentangy River Road @ Goodale Boulevard
NWRIN00 - 06292 Year: 2037
AMC - Trans Associates Build
General Information:
475
30 30
11
11
400
16
16
550
120
390
120
30
13
30
30 30 30
12 31 1
EB
120
30
37
19
650
30
30
15
525
1090
26
855
30
25
25
825
770
120
30
26
WB
Right
1
730
120
NB NB
Left Thru
1 1
60 80
120 120
3 4
3 4
150 175
80 120
120 120
30 30
AMC - Trans Associates8/3/2015
(3) ORR @ Goodale - Build.xlsx1 of 1
Turn Lane Length Computation Worksheet(Based on ODOT's Location Design Manual)
Project Name:
Project Number:
Compiled By: Condition:
Design Method
Note: EB - Eastbound, WB - Westbound, NB - Northbound, SB - Southbound
Source: January 2006 ODOT L& D Manual-Volume I: 401 - 9E, 401 -10E
Left
Total
Condition C (Moderate Speed
Deceleration & Storage)
Condition B (High Speed Decel Only)
Condition A (Storage Only)
50
175
225
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
4
175
Taper
Storage
19%
HIGH
A
120
30
NO
35
110
570
Signalized
Unsignalized Stopped Crossroad
Olentangy River Road @ SR 315 SB Ramps
2037
Build
Westbound
AM
YES
NO
General Information:
Peak Hour
Type of Traffic Control
Approach
SR 315 SB Off Ramp to Olentangy River Road - IOS
NWRIN00 - 06292
AMC - Trans Associates
Intersection:
Year:
Westbound
Right
AM
YES
NO
Movement
Decel Length
Total
Taper
Unsignalized Through Road
Applicable Design Condition (A, B or C)
Cycles/Hour
Storage Length (ft)
Approach Volume (vph)
High or Low
Design Parameters
Design Speed
Average Number of Vehicles/Cycle
Cycle Length (sec)
Turn Volume (vph)
NO
35
190
570
33%
HIGH
Decel Length
Storage
175
225
-
-
-
275
325
Turn Percentage
Required Turn Lane Length, including 50' taper (ft/lane) =
Required Storage and/or Decel Length (ft/lane) =
Total
Taper
A
120
30
7
275
50
275
325
-
-
-
-
AMC - Trans Associates8/3/2015
ODOT L&D - Turn Lane Lengths - Off Ramp.xlsx1 of 1
2037 AM - No Build (Optimized Timing)Queuing and Blocking Report Grandview Yard (NWRIN00 - 06292)
AMC - Trans Associates SimTraffic Report5/15/2015 Page 4
Intersection: 1: Olentangy River Rd & Time Warner Dr
Movement EB EB NB NB NB SB SBDirections Served L R L T T T TRMaximum Queue (ft) 66 82 210 111 134 1004 939Average Queue (ft) 29 24 103 25 37 432 33395th Queue (ft) 63 61 177 83 113 1083 1003Link Distance (ft) 190 1268 1268 1199 1199Upstream Blk Time (%) 5 1Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0Storage Bay Dist (ft) 70 400Storage Blk Time (%) 2 1Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0
Intersection: 2: Olentangy River Rd & SR 315 Ramp
Movement WB NB NB SB SB SBDirections Served LR T T> L T TMaximum Queue (ft) 1109 589 586 760 1269 1108Average Queue (ft) 1053 466 496 585 803 20395th Queue (ft) 1209 650 667 938 1656 779Link Distance (ft) 1072 516 516 1268 1268Upstream Blk Time (%) 87 8 32 14 0Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 45 183 91 1Storage Bay Dist (ft) 710Storage Blk Time (%) 29 8Queuing Penalty (veh) 103 49
Intersection: 3: Twin Rivers Dr/Olentangy River Rd & Goodale Blvd
Movement EB EB WB WB WB WB NB NB NB SB SB SBDirections Served L TR L T T R L T R L T RMaximum Queue (ft) 528 536 230 620 680 500 286 682 119 430 564 194Average Queue (ft) 488 512 50 368 476 366 42 309 8 415 478 4495th Queue (ft) 613 526 175 588 821 641 156 757 75 491 759 88Link Distance (ft) 495 495 641 641 677 516 516Upstream Blk Time (%) 28 61 0 36 30 51Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 0 0 0 279Storage Bay Dist (ft) 180 450 350 150 380Storage Blk Time (%) 43 0 40 52 68 1Queuing Penalty (veh) 13 1 179 56 75 3
Zone SummaryZone wide Queuing Penalty: 1080
2037 AM - Build, 3 Lanes (Dual SBLT)Queuing and Blocking Report Grandview Yard (NWRIN00 - 06292)
AMC - Trans Associates SimTraffic Report6/2/2015 Page 4
Intersection: 1: Olentangy River Rd & Time Warner Dr
Movement EB EB NB NB NB SB SBDirections Served L R L T T T TRMaximum Queue (ft) 82 78 245 25 51 374 296Average Queue (ft) 25 24 114 2 11 127 6895th Queue (ft) 62 59 209 15 36 294 202Link Distance (ft) 190 1252 1252 1199 1199Upstream Blk Time (%)Queuing Penalty (veh)Storage Bay Dist (ft) 70 400Storage Blk Time (%) 3 1Queuing Penalty (veh) 1 0
Intersection: 2: Olentangy River Rd & SR 315 Ramp
Movement WB WB WB NB NB SB SB SBDirections Served L L R T T> L T TMaximum Queue (ft) 468 532 266 573 583 594 433 272Average Queue (ft) 173 309 74 439 460 332 115 4595th Queue (ft) 442 532 231 647 666 547 282 172Link Distance (ft) 1402 516 516 1252 1252Upstream Blk Time (%) 9 13Queuing Penalty (veh) 49 74Storage Bay Dist (ft) 650 650 710Storage Blk Time (%) 0 1 0 0Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 2 0 1
Intersection: 3: Twin Rivers Dr/Olentangy River Rd & Goodale Blvd
Movement EB EB WB WB WB WB NB NB SB SB SBDirections Served L TR L T T R L T L LT RMaximum Queue (ft) 520 536 230 546 566 440 126 129 430 530 212Average Queue (ft) 371 451 67 352 347 269 49 63 331 378 12895th Queue (ft) 634 619 209 551 637 534 99 121 466 560 180Link Distance (ft) 495 495 641 641 672 516 516Upstream Blk Time (%) 13 28 1 12 7Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 0 0 36Storage Bay Dist (ft) 180 450 350 380Storage Blk Time (%) 41 2 17 0 7 22Queuing Penalty (veh) 12 14 74 0 26 55
Zone SummaryZone wide Queuing Penalty: 345
2037 PM - No Build (Optimized Timing)Queuing and Blocking Report Grandview Yard (NWRIN00 - 06292)
AMC - Trans Associates SimTraffic Report5/15/2015 Page 4
Intersection: 1: Olentangy River Rd & Time Warner Dr
Movement EB EB NB NB NB SB SBDirections Served L R L T T T TRMaximum Queue (ft) 120 208 55 163 191 1065 1039Average Queue (ft) 68 97 14 56 78 659 58995th Queue (ft) 124 188 41 146 191 1479 1482Link Distance (ft) 190 1268 1268 1199 1199Upstream Blk Time (%) 5 30 12Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 0Storage Bay Dist (ft) 70 400Storage Blk Time (%) 17 20Queuing Penalty (veh) 22 18
Intersection: 2: Olentangy River Rd & SR 315 Ramp
Movement WB NB NB SB SB SBDirections Served LR T T> L T TMaximum Queue (ft) 1121 595 577 760 1356 1303Average Queue (ft) 998 496 520 712 1016 38195th Queue (ft) 1299 632 637 879 1786 1217Link Distance (ft) 1072 516 516 1268 1268Upstream Blk Time (%) 73 6 20 25 1Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 41 144 183 5Storage Bay Dist (ft) 710Storage Blk Time (%) 48 3Queuing Penalty (veh) 176 24
Intersection: 3: Twin Rivers Dr/Olentangy River Rd & Goodale Blvd
Movement EB EB WB WB WB WB NB NB NB SB SB SBDirections Served L TR L T T R L T R L T RMaximum Queue (ft) 543 541 230 695 683 500 355 611 200 430 551 194Average Queue (ft) 511 506 106 629 631 466 117 309 64 381 381 6895th Queue (ft) 529 581 267 746 758 636 338 696 217 524 732 141Link Distance (ft) 495 495 641 641 677 516 516Upstream Blk Time (%) 64 42 35 40 18 30Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 0 0 0 153Storage Bay Dist (ft) 180 450 350 150 380Storage Blk Time (%) 71 35 16 51 0 48 2Queuing Penalty (veh) 36 269 86 77 0 92 9
Zone SummaryZone wide Queuing Penalty: 1332
2037 PM - Build, 3 Lanes (Dual SBLT)Queuing and Blocking Report Grandview Yard (NWRIN00 - 06292)
AMC - Trans Associates SimTraffic Report6/2/2015 Page 4
Intersection: 1: Olentangy River Rd & Time Warner Dr
Movement EB EB NB NB NB SB SBDirections Served L R L T T T TRMaximum Queue (ft) 120 199 56 163 175 1244 1225Average Queue (ft) 67 91 13 50 74 692 64195th Queue (ft) 125 178 42 132 166 1479 1470Link Distance (ft) 190 1252 1252 1199 1199Upstream Blk Time (%) 2 23 7Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 0Storage Bay Dist (ft) 70 400Storage Blk Time (%) 16 18Queuing Penalty (veh) 21 16
Intersection: 2: Olentangy River Rd & SR 315 Ramp
Movement WB WB WB NB NB SB SB SBDirections Served L L R T T> L T TMaximum Queue (ft) 587 450 226 611 590 760 1345 1305Average Queue (ft) 206 190 35 526 540 700 1020 61095th Queue (ft) 554 447 71 635 638 913 1823 1524Link Distance (ft) 1402 516 516 1252 1252Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 10 31 32 1Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 78 227 233 8Storage Bay Dist (ft) 650 650 710Storage Blk Time (%) 4 2 50 4Queuing Penalty (veh) 8 2 186 26
Intersection: 3: Twin Rivers Dr/Olentangy River Rd & Goodale Blvd
Movement EB EB WB WB WB WB NB NB NB SB SB SBDirections Served L TR L T T R L T R L LT RMaximum Queue (ft) 540 537 230 682 691 500 400 704 200 430 560 292Average Queue (ft) 505 502 102 575 613 471 179 450 108 369 455 14295th Queue (ft) 577 588 257 760 787 610 451 829 271 508 638 255Link Distance (ft) 495 495 641 641 672 516 516Upstream Blk Time (%) 66 39 19 36 27 21Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 0 0 0 105Storage Bay Dist (ft) 180 450 350 150 380Storage Blk Time (%) 0 65 21 30 0 75 0 12 42Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 33 162 167 1 113 0 49 91
Zone SummaryZone wide Queuing Penalty: 1525
Appendix E. Concept Drawing
1
1
SR
315/
OL
EN
TA
NG
YS
R315
SB
OF
F
RA
MP
RE
ALIG
NM
EN
T
AN
D
TU
RN
LA
NE
AD
DITIO
N
DL
R
AC
J:\
2013
15
05\
Dgn\
DL
R_
Ra
mp_
Layout\
Proposed
Ra
mp
Base
map.d
gn
2/5/2
016 1:5
8:0
4
PM drein
ke
HO
RIZ
ON
TA
L
SC
AL
E IN F
EE
T
075
150
CA
LC
UL
AT
ED
CH
EC
KE
D
N
OLENTANGY RIVER RD
315
- DRAFT -
820' DECEL L
ENGTH
100'
CS
PC
23'
100'
(60MPH)
DIVERGING ¬=2°15'
Dc=4°47'
R=1,198'
350' STORAGE EACH)
(3 x 14' LANES -
42' WIDE
SC
Dc=2°32'
R=2,257'
Dc=18°00'
R=318'