traffic impact study - westlake city school district impact study tms engineers, inc. westlake...

Traffic Impact Study

TMS Engineers, Inc.

Westlake Elementary SchoolWestlake, Ohio

June 5, 2017

Prepared for:Westlake City Schools - Board of Education

27200 Hilliard BoulevardWestlake, OH 44145

TRAFFICIMPACTSTUDY

WestlakeElementarySchool

Westlake,Ohio

June5,2017

PreparedFor:

WestlakeCitySchools‐BoardofEducation27200HilliardBoulevardWestlake,Ohio44145

PreparedBy:

TMSEngineers,Inc.2112CaseParkwayS.

Unit#7Twinsburg,Ohio44087

Traffic Impact Study Westlake Elementary School, Westlake, Ohio

TableofContents

ExecutiveSummary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi‐ix

Chapter1Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1‐4

1.1 PurposeoftheReport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

1.2 StudyObjectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Chapter2AreaConditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5‐12

2.1 TransportationNetworkStudyArea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

2.2 Traffic. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Chapter3ProjectedTrafficConditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13‐28

3.1 SiteTraffic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

3.2 Non‐SiteTraffic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

3.3 FutureTraffic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Chapter4TrafficAnalysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29‐67

4.1 CapacityandLOSatStudyAreaIntersections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

4.2 CapacityandLOSatDevelopmentAccessIntersections. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

4.3 AuxiliaryTurningLaneWarrantAnalysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

4.4 TurnLaneLengthAnalysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

4.5 AlternateScenarioAnalysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

4.6 ImprovementstoAccommodateStudyAreaTraffic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

Chapter5Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68‐71

June 5, 2017 Page i TMS Engineers, Inc.


Appendices

AppendixA‐TrafficCountDataAppendixB‐TripGenerationData

AppendixC‐ExistingCapacityAnalysisWorksheets‐2017

AppendixD‐No‐BuildCapacityAnalysisWorksheets‐2019

AppendixE‐No‐BuildCapacityAnalysisWorksheets‐2039

AppendixF‐No‐BuildCapacityAnalysisWorksheets‐2039w/Improvements

AppendixG‐BuildCapacityAnalysisWorksheets‐2019

AppendixH‐BuildCapacityAnalysisWorksheets‐2019w/Improvements

AppendixI‐TrafficSignalWarrantAnalysis

AppendixJ‐BuildCapacityAnalysisWorksheets‐2039

AppendixK‐BuildCapacityAnalysisWorksheets‐2039w/Improvements

AppendixL‐AccessCapacityAnalysisWorksheets‐2019

AppendixM‐AccessCapacityAnalysisWorksheets‐2039

AppendixN‐ODOTTurnLaneWarrantGraphs

AppendixO‐ODOTTurnLaneDesignCriteria

AppendixP‐CapacityAnalysisWorksheets‐2039AlternateScenario

AppendixQ‐CapacityAnalysisWorksheets‐2039AlternateScenariow/Improvements

AppendixR‐ODOTChannelizingIslandDesignCriteria

June 5, 2017 Page ii TMS Engineers, Inc.


ListofFigures

Figure1.1LocationMap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Figure1.2SitePlan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Figure2.1FunctionalClassification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Figure2.2AerialView . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Figure2.3ExistingLaneUse&TrafficControl . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Figure2.4ExistingWeekdayPeakHourTrafficVolumes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Figure3.1GeneratedTrafficDistribution‐PassengerVehicles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Figure3.2GeneratedTrafficDistribution‐SchoolBuses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Figure3.3GeneratedTraffic‐PassengerVehicles. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Figure3.4GeneratedTraffic‐SchoolBuses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Figure3.52019No‐BuildWeekdayTrafficVolumes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Figure3.62039No‐BuildWeekdayTrafficVolumes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Figure3.72019BuildWeekdayTrafficVolumes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Figure3.82039BuildWeekdayTrafficVolumes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Figure4.1AlternateScenarioGeneratedTraffic‐PassengerVehicles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

Figure4.2AlternateScenario2039BuildWeekdayTrafficVolumes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

Figure4.3RecommendedLaneUseandTrafficControl‐SitePlan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

Figure4.4RecommendedLaneUseandTrafficControl‐InteriorTrafficControl . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

Figure4.5RecommendedLaneUseandTrafficControl‐AlternateScenario. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

June 5, 2017 Page iii TMS Engineers, Inc.


ListofTables

Table‐2.1FunctionalClassification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Table‐2.2RoadwayCharacteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Table‐3.1ITELandUseCodes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Table‐3.2NewTripGeneration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Table‐3.3AMTripOrigins&Destinations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Table‐3.4PMTripOrigins&Destinations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Table‐3.5GrowthRates&Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Table‐3.6DHVFactorCalculations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Table‐4.1IntersectionLOS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Table‐4.22017Levels‐of‐Service(ExistingConditions) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Table‐4.32019Levels‐of‐Service(No‐BuildConditions) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Table‐4.42039Levels‐of‐Service(No‐BuildConditions) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Table‐4.52039Levels‐of‐Service(No‐BuildConditions‐RecommendedImprovements) . . . . . . . . . 33

Table‐4.62019Levels‐of‐Service(BuildConditions). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Table‐4.72019No‐BuildvsBuildScenario(AMPeakHourComparisonTable). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Table‐4.82019No‐BuildvsBuildScenario(PMPeakHourComparisonTable) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Table‐4.92019Levels‐of‐Service(BuildConditions‐RecommendedImprovements). . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Table‐4.102039Levels‐of‐Service(BuildConditions) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Table‐4.112039No‐BuildvsBuildScenario(AMPeakHourComparisonTable) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Table‐4.122039No‐BuildvsBuildScenario(PMPeakHourComparisonTable). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

Table‐4.132039Levels‐of‐Service(BuildConditions‐RecommendedImprovements) . . . . . . . . . . . 44

Table‐4.142019Levels‐of‐Service(BuildConditions‐AccessLocations). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

Table‐4.152039Levels‐of‐Service(BuildConditions‐AccessLocations). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

June 5, 2017 Page iv TMS Engineers, Inc.


Table‐4.16TurningLaneWarrants‐CenterRidgeRoad&ProposedEastAccess . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

Table‐4.17TurnLaneLengthAnalysis‐CenterRidgeRoad&DoverCenterRoad. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

Table‐4.18TurnLaneLengthAnalysis‐CenterRidgeRoad&ProposedWestAccess . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

Table‐4.192039Levels‐of‐Service(BuildConditions‐AlternateScenario) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

Table‐4.202039Levels‐of‐Service(AlternateScenario‐RecommendedImprovements) . . . . . . . . . 57

Table‐4.212039SitePlanvsAlternateScenario(AMPeakHourComparisonTable). . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

Table‐4.232039SitePlanvsAlternateScenario(PMPeakHourComparisonTable‐AMS) . . . . . . . 60

Table‐4.24TurnLaneLengthAnalysis‐CenterRidgeRoad&DoverCenterRoad. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

Table‐4.25TurnLaneLengthAnalysis‐CenterRidgeRoad&GlenmoreDrive/WestAccess . . . . . . 61

June 5, 2017 Page v TMS Engineers, Inc.


ExecutiveSummary

ThistrafficimpactstudyhasbeenpreparedattherequestoftheWestlakeCitySchoolsforaproposed

elementaryschool.TheprojectsiteislocatedintheCityofWestlake,CuyahogaCounty,Ohioalongthe

southsideofCenterRidgeRoad(USRoute20)betweenGlenmoreDrivetothewestandDoverCenter

Roadtotheeast.

Theproposedelementaryschoolisexpectedtohaveastudentpopulationof1,450studentswith120

staffforgradespre‐kindergartenthroughfourthgrade.Figure1.2showstheproposedsiteplanfor

theelementaryschool.

ThedevelopmentisproposedwithtwoaccessdrivewaysalongthesouthsideofCenterRidgeRoadand

oneaccessdrivewayalongthenorthsideofWestownBoulevard.

Theyear2019wasanalyzedfortheopeningyearconditions,andtheyear2039wasanalyzedasthe

designyearforthetwentyyearconditionsanalysis.

Theelementaryschooldaybeginsat7:50AMandendsat2:20PM,thereforethereportanalyzedthe

hoursof7:30to8:30AMand2:00PMto3:00PM.The7:30to8:30AMhourwasreferredtoasthe

weekdayAMpeakhourforthepurposeofthisreport.The2:00to3:00PMhourwasreferredtoasthe

PMpeakhourforthepurposeofthisreport.Theseperiodswereanalyzedsincetheyreflecttheperiod

ofthehighestvolumeoftrafficflowfortheproposedschool.

Theelementaryschoolwasassumedtogenerateatotalof30enteringand30exitingtripsforschool

buses.Thesevolumesareincludedinthetotalgenerationvolumescalculatedforthisanalysis.

Theproposedelementaryschoolisexpectedtogeneratethefollowingaveragehourlytrafficduringthe

AMandPMpeakperiods:

ITETRIPGENERATION

SIZE

(Staff)

TRIPENDS

ITE

CodeLandUseDescription

AMPeakHour

ofGenerator

(Enter/Exit)

PMPeakHour

ofGenerator

(Enter/Exit)

520 ElementarySchool 120 431 368 176 225

TOTALNEWGENERATEDTRIPS 799 401

June 5, 2017 Page vi TMS Engineers, Inc.


RecommendedImprovementstoServeExistingConditionsTheexistingstudyareaintersectionsweredeterminedtobeoperatingwithacceptablelevels‐of‐service

duringthepeakhoursunderstudy.

ItshouldbenotedthatawestboundrightturnlaneatintersectionofCenterRidgeRoadandDover

CenterRoadhasbeenpreviouslyrecommendedinotherreportspreparedfortheCityofWestlake.This

recommendationwasbasedonananalysisoftheroadwaypeakhours.Theelementaryschoolanalysis

isbasedonthepeakhouroftheschooltrafficvolumeswhichdoesnotcoincidewiththepeakhourof

trafficfortheroadway(i.etheschoolpeaksintheafternoonfrom2:00to3:00PMwhiletheroadway

peaksfrom5:00to6:00PM).

RecommendedImprovementstoServeFutureConditionswithouttheDevelopmentThestudyareaintersectionsandapproachesareexpectedtooperatewithacceptablelevels‐of‐service

undertheexpected2019No‐BuildconditionsduringtheAMandPMpeakhours.

ThefollowingimprovementswererecommendedtoaccommodatetheYear2039No‐Buildtrafficat

thestudyareaintersectionsthatdonotprovideaccesstotheproposedelementaryschool.

CenterRidgeRoad&DoverCenterRoad

# Constructawestboundrightturnlane.

# Constructanorthboundrightturnlane.

NoadditionalintersectionimprovementswerefoundtobenecessarytoaccommodatetheYear2039

No‐Build trafficat theremainingstudyarea intersections. Theremainingstudy intersectionsare

anticipatedtooperatewithacceptablelevels‐of‐serviceduringtheAMandPMpeakhours.

RecommendedImprovementstoMitigatetheTrafficAssociatedwiththeDevelopmentThefollowinglaneuseandtrafficcontrolarerecommendedtoaccommodatethe2019and2039site

generated(Build)trafficbasedonthedevelopmentsiteplanshowninFigure1.2:

CenterRidgeRoad&GlenmoreDrive(2039)

# Constructasouthboundleftturnlane.


# Constructawestboundrightturnlane.(2019)

# Constructasouthboundrightturnlane.(2039)

June 5, 2017 Page vii TMS Engineers, Inc.


DoverCenterRoad&WestownBoulevard(2019)

# Re‐stripetheeastboundapproachforoneingresslaneandtwoegresslanesconsisting

ofarightturnlaneandleftturnlane.

Thefollowinglaneuseandtrafficcontrolarerecommendedtoaccommodatethe2039sitegenerated

(Build)trafficbasedontheAlternateScenariodetailedinSection4.5:


# Constructasouthboundrightturnlane.

DoverCenterRoad&WestownBoulevard

# Installtrafficsignalcontrol.



DevelopmentAccessRecommendationsThefollowinglaneuseandtrafficcontrolarerecommendedtoaccommodatethe2019and2039site


CenterRidgeRoad&ProposedWestAccess(2019)


# Constructtheproposeddevelopmentroadwaywithoneegresslaneandtwoingress

lanes.

# Theegresslanesshouldconsistofanexclusiveleftturnlaneandanexclusiverightturn

lane.

# Constructanexclusivewestboundleftturnlane.

# Includethechurchaccessdriveaspartofintersectionandtrafficsignalcontrol.

CenterRidgeRoad&ProposedEastAccess(2019)

# Constructtheproposeddevelopmentroadwaywithoneegresslaneandoneingress

lane.

# Restricttheaccessdrivewaytorightturnsinandrightturnsoutofthesiteonlythrough

theuseofachannelizingisland.

# Theegressdriveshouldbeconstructedpertherecommendationsandguidelinesfound

intheODOTAccessManagementManualforchannelizingislands(SeeAppendixR).

# Installstopsigncontrolonthenorthboundapproach.

June 5, 2017 Page viii TMS Engineers, Inc.




CenterRidgeRoad&ProposedWestAccess/GlenmoreDrive

# ConstructthedevelopmentWestAccessdirectlyacrossfromGlenmoreDrive.



lanes.

# Theegresslanesshouldconsistofanexclusiveleftturnlaneandasharedthroughand

rightturnlane.


# Constructanexclusiveeastboundleftturnlane.

CenterRidgeRoad&ProposedEastAccess


lane.






ConclusionBasedupontheresultsoftheanalysisinthisstudyandthecorrespondingrecommendations,itcanbe

seen that the site generated traffic can be accommodatedwithout adversely impacting the area

roadwaynetworkundereachscenario.

June 5, 2017 Page ix TMS Engineers, Inc.


Chapter1

Introduction

1.1 PurposeofReport

ThistrafficimpactstudyhasbeenpreparedattherequestoftheWestlakeCitySchoolsforaproposed

elementaryschool.TheprojectsiteislocatedintheCityofWestlake,CuyahogaCounty,Ohioalongthe

southsideofCenterRidgeRoad(USRoute20)betweenGlenmoreDrivetothewestandDoverCenter

Roadtotheeast.Figure1.1,Page2showstheproposedlocationofthedevelopment.

Theproposedelementaryschoolisexpectedtohaveastudentpopulationof1,450studentswith120

staffforgradespre‐kindergartenthroughfourthgrade.Figure1.2,Page3showstheproposedsite

planfortheelementaryschool.

ThedevelopmentisproposedwithtwoaccessdrivewaysalongthesouthsideofCenterRidgeRoadand

one access driveway along the north side ofWestownBoulevard. The proposed location of the

developmentroadwayscanbeseeninFigure1.2,Page3.TheWestownBoulevardaccessisproposed

forschoolbustrafficonly.AllpassengervehiclesareproposedtousetheaccesslocationsalongCenter

RidgeRoad.

ThecurrentdevelopmentscheduleexpectstheschooltoopenintheFallof2019.Therefore,2019will

beanalyzedfortheopeningyearconditions,andtheyear2039willbeanalyzedasthedesignyearfor

thetwentyyearconditionsanalysis.

June 5, 2017 Page 1 TMS Engineers, Inc.

ElementarySchoolWestlake,Ohio

TrafficImpactStudyLocationMap

Figure1.1

Page2

NOTTOSCALE

DEVELOPMENTSITE


TrafficImpactStudySitePlan

Figure1.2

Page3

NOTTOSCALE


1.2 StudyObjectives

Thisstudyisstructuredforthefollowingpurposes;

# to adequately assess the traffic impacts associatedwith the proposed elementary

schoolidentifythelevelofoff‐siteaccessandtraffic,

# toprovideacomprehensivestudywhichevaluatesanddocumentsthetrafficimpacts

andoff‐siteimprovements,wherewarranted,

# andtoprovideatechnicallysoundbasistoidentifymitigationrequirementstooff‐site

trafficimpacts.

Thisstudydocumentsthemethodologies,findingsandconclusionsoftheanalysis,includingthebasis

forallassumptions,trafficparametersutilizedandconclusionsreached.

Thetrafficimpactswillbedeterminedbycomparingtheexistingintersectionlevels‐of‐servicebefore

thedevelopment of the proposed elementary school to the anticipated levels‐of‐service after the

elementaryschooliscompleted.Levels‐of‐serviceforthestudyareaandaccessdrivewayintersections

willbecalculatedusingthecomputerizedversionoftheTransportationResearchBoard'sHighway

CapacityManual6THEdition,HCM6E(HCS7,Release7.2).

Thejustificationforanychangestotheintersectiontrafficcontrolwillbedeterminedbycomparing

data collectedof theexisting traffic conditions to the criteriaestablishedby theOhioManualof

UniformTrafficControlDevicesandprofessionalengineeringjudgmentfromanon‐sitefieldreview.

TheAuxiliaryLaneGraphsfoundinSection401‐6oftheLocationandDesignManual,Volume1will

beusedtodeterminetheneedforauxiliaryturnlanesatunsignalizedintersectionsasrecommended

intheLocationandDesignManual,Volume1andtheAccessManagementManual.

Intersectiongeometricdesigncriteriawillbebasedintheinformationandproceduresfoundinthe

OhioDepartmentofTransportation’sLocation&DesignManual,Volume1.



Chapter2

AreaConditions

2.1 TransportationNetworkStudyArea

TheOhioDepartmentofTransportationfunctionallyclassifiesroadwaystohelpdefinearoadway’s

characteristicsaswellasidentifyroadwaysthatareeligibleforfederalfunds.Functionalclassification

isthegroupingofroads,streets,andhighwaysinahierarchybasedonthetypeofhighwayservicethey

provide.Generally,streetsandhighwaysperformtwotypesofservice.Theyprovideeithertraffic

mobilityorlandaccessandcanberankedintermsoftheproportionofservicetheyprovide.The

ODOTfunctionalclassificationoftheroadwaysinthestudyareacanbeseenonODOT’swebsite.

The following table lists the study roadways that have an assigned functional classification as

determinedbyODOTandlocalgovernmententities.Roadwaysthatarenotlistedashavingafunctional

classificationcanbeassignedintooneoftwocategories.Thefirstcategoryisalocalroadwayandthe

secondcategoryisthatofanaccessdrive.

Table2.1FunctionalClassification

ROADWAY AREA FC# CLASSIFICATION

CenterRidgeRoad(USRoute20) Urban 3 PrincipalArterial

DoverCenterRoad Urban 5 MajorCollector

GlenmoreDrive Urban 7 LocalRoadway

WestownBoulevard Urban 7 LocalRoadway

Figure2.1,Page6detailsthesectionofthefunctionalclassificationmapforthestudyarea. The

classificationmapscancurrentlybefoundonlineatthefollowingODOTwebaddress:

http://www.dot.state.oh.us/Divisions/Planning/ProgramManagement/MajorPrograms/MapRoom/Forms/AllItems.aspx



TrafficImpactStudy

FunctionalClassification

Figure2.1

Page6

NOTTOSCALE

DEVELOPMENTSITE


Thefollowingtabledetailstheprimarycharacteristicsofthestudyarearoadways:

Table2.2RoadwayCharacteristics

ROADWAY #OFLANES ORIENTATIONSPEEDLIMIT

(MPH)

ADT*

(VPD)

CenterRidgeRoad(US20) 4 East‐West 35 18,280

DoverCenterRoad 2 North‐South 35 14,060

GlenmoreDrive 2 North‐South 25 760

WestownBoulevard 2 East‐West 25 1,320

*Trafficdatacollectedin2017forthisreport/Roundedtonearest10TH

Thefollowingsectionsdetailthelaneuse,trafficcontrol,andaveragedailytrafficateachlocationunder

studyforthisreport.

CENTERRIDGEROAD(US20)&DOVERCENTERROAD

CenterRidgeRoadWestApproach CenterRidgeRoadEastApproach

‐1ExclusiveLeftTurnLane ‐1ExclusiveLeftTurnLane

‐1ThroughLane ‐1ThroughLane

‐1SharedThrough&RightTurnLane ‐1SharedThrough&RightTurnLane

DoverCenterRoadNorthApproach DoverCenterRoadSouthApproach

‐1ExclusiveLeftTurnLane ‐1ExclusiveLeftTurnLane

‐1SharedThrough&RightTurnLane ‐1SharedThrough&RightTurnLane

Theintersectioniscontrolledbyatrafficsignal.Theintersectionoperateswithan8‐phaseoperation

thatallowspermissiveandprotectedleftturnsonallapproaches.Theleftturnmovementsfromall

approachescanbemadewhentheleftturnarrowallowsthemovement(protectedmovement)or

during the green ball indicationwhen there is a gap in the opposing through traffic (permissive

movement).



CENTERRIDGEROAD(US20)&GLENMOREDRIVE

CenterRidgeRoadWestApproach CenterRidgeRoadEastApproach

‐1SharedThrough&LeftTurnLane ‐1ThroughLane

‐1ThroughLane ‐1SharedThrough&RightTurnLane

GlenmoreDriveNorthApproach

‐1SharedLeft&RightTurnLane

TheintersectioniscontrolledbyastopsignontheGlenmoreDriveapproach.TheCenterRidgeRoad

approachesoperateunderfree‐flowconditionswiththewestboundleftturnmovementyieldingtothe

eastboundmovements.

DOVERCENTERROAD&WESTOWNBOULEVARD

DoverCenterRoadNorthApproach DoverCenterRoadSouthApproach

‐1SharedThrough&RightTurnLane ‐1SharedThroughLane&LeftTurnLane

WestownBoulevardWestApproach

‐1SharedLeft&RightTurnLane

TheintersectioniscontrolledbyastopsignontheWestownBoulevardapproach.TheDoverCenter

Roadapproachesoperateunderfree‐flowconditionswiththenorthboundleftturnmovementyielding

tothesouthboundmovements.

Figure2.2,Page9showsanaerialviewofthestudyarea.

Figure2.3,Page10showstheexistinglaneuseandtrafficcontrolconditionsinthestudyarea.These

willbeconsideredtheexistingbaseconditionsforthisreport.



TrafficImpactStudy

AerialView

Figure2.2

Page9

NOTTOSCALE

DoverCenterRoad

DEVELOPMENTSITE

Westown Boulevard

GlenmoreDrive


TrafficImpactStudy

DoverCenterRoad

CenterRidgeRoad

CenterRidgeRoad

GlenmoreDrive

PROPOSEDELEMENTARYSCHOOL

NOTTOSCALE

ProposedEastAccess

ProposedWestAccess

ProposedSouthAccess

DoverCenterRoad

WestownBoulevard

ExistingLaneUse&TrafficControl

Figure2.3

Page10

ExistingLaneUse

LEGEND

ExistingSignal

ExistingStopSignSTOP

ProposedAccess

STOP

ST

OP


2.2 Traffic

Weekdayninehourturningmovementcountswereperformedatthefollowinglocations:

1. CenterRidgeRoad(US20)&DoverCenterRoad

2. CenterRidgeRoad(US20)&GlenmoreDrive

3. DoverCenterRoad&WestownBoulevard

ThetrafficcountswereperformedonTuesday,May9,2017.

Theweekdaytrafficcountswereconductedinfifteen(15)minuteintervalsbetweenthehoursof7AM‐

10AM,11AM‐1PM,and2PM‐6PM,thenhourlytotalswerecalculated.Acopyoftheintersection

turnmovementcountsareincludedinAppendixA.

Averagedailytrafficwascalculatedfortheroadwaysusingexpansionfactorstoaccountfordailyand

seasonalvariationsaccordingtotherecommendationsandlatestdatafromtheOhioDepartmentof

Transportation.

Theelementaryschooldaybeginsat7:50AMandendsat2:20PM,thereforethereportwillanalyze

thehoursof7:30to8:30AMand2:00PMto3:00PM.The7:30to8:30AMhourwillbereferredtoas

theweekdayAMpeakhourforthepurposeofthisreport.The2:00to3:00PMhourwillbereferred

toasthePMpeakhourforthepurposeofthisreport.Theseperiodswillbeanalyzedsincetheyreflect

theperiodofthehighestvolumeoftrafficflowfortheproposedschool.

TheexistingAMandPMpeakhourtrafficvolumesareshowninFigure2.4,Page12.



TrafficImpactStudy

DoverCenterRoad

CenterRidgeRoad

CenterRidgeRoad

GlenmoreDrive


NOTTOSCALE

ProposedEastAccess

ProposedWestAccess

ProposedSouthAccess

DoverCenterRoad

WestownBoulevard

ExistingWeekdayPeakHour

TrafficVolumes

Figure2.4

Page12

PMPeakHourTraffic

AMPeakHourTraffic

LEGEND

XX

(XX)

75 (106)275 (258)150 (105)

176 (106)631 (368)

55 (81)

106 (133)328 (271)116 (84)

233 (92)350 (367)82 (76)

24 (11)483 (592)

6 (3)878 (507)

9 (11)25 (11)

25 (20)334 (390)

8 (13)478 (454)

62 (35)22 (18)


Chapter3

ProjectedTrafficConditions

3.1 SiteTraffic

TripGeneration

Calculatingfuturetotaldrivewaytripsrequiresanestimateofthetrafficgeneratedbytheproposed

development.Themostwidelyacceptedmethodofdeterminingtheamountoftrafficthattheproposed

developmentwillgenerateistocomparetheproposedlandusewithexistingfacilitiesofthesameuse.

The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) has prepared amanual titled “TripGeneration

Manual”, which is a compilation of similar traffic generation studies to aide in making such a

comparison.Themostrecentupdateofthismanualisthe9THeditionandwasutilizedforthisstudy.

The proposed development is expected to consist of a pre‐kindergarten through fourth grade

elementaryschool.Theschoolisexpectedtohaveastudentpopulationof1,450studentsand120staff.

The following table details the development land use from the site plan (Figure 1.2) and the

correspondingITElandusethatwillbeusedtoforecastthesitegeneratedtrafficvolumesfortheBuild

conditions:

Table3.1ITELandUseCodes

SITEPLAN

DESCRIPTION

LANDUSE ITE

CODE

ITE

DESCRIPTION

PK‐4School Institutional 520 ElementarySchool



The following tables detail the development generated traffic volumes based on the previously

describedmethodsasoutlinedinthe(ITE)TripGenerationHandbook.Calculationswereprepared

basedonthenumberofstudentsandthenumberofstaff.Thevolumeofsitegeneratedtripswashigher

usingthenumberofstafffortheschoolandwillthereforebeusedintheanalysis.Copiesofthetrip

generationworksheetscanbeseeninAppendixB.

Table3.3NetTripGeneration

ITETRIPGENERATION

SIZE(Staff)

TRIPENDS

ITE


AMPeakHour

ofGenerator

(Enter/Exit)

PMPeakHour

ofGenerator

(Enter/Exit)



DistributionofGeneratedTraffic

Thedirectionaldistribution for thenewgeneratedtraffic isa functionof theprevailingoperating

conditionsontheexistingroadways.Thedistributionpatternthatwasassumedisshowninthetables

thatfollowandarebasedupontheexistingtrafficvolumesattheintersectionofCenterRidgeRoadand

DoverCenterRoadduringtheAMandPManalysishoursshowninFigure2.4.

Table3.4AMTripOriginsandDestinations

ORIGIN/

DESTINATIONROUTE FROM

%

TOTAL

NEW

TRIPSTO

%

TOTAL

NEW

TRIPS

North DoverCenter 500 19% 84 737 29% 105

South DoverCenter 550 21% 92 412 16% 59

East CenterRidge 665 26% 111 897 35% 128

West CenterRidge 862 34% 144 531 20% 76

TOTALS 2577 100% 431 2577 100% 368



Table3.5PMTripOriginsandDestinations

ORIGIN/

DESTINATIONROUTE FROM

%

TOTAL

NEW

TRIPSTO

%

TOTAL

NEW

TRIPS

North DoverCenter 469 23% 40 469 23% 51

South DoverCenter 488 24% 42 415 20% 46

East CenterRidge 535 26% 46 557 27% 61

West CenterRidge 555 27% 48 606 30% 67

TOTALS 2047 100% 176 2047 100% 225

ThedirectionaldistributionforthenewAMandPMpeakhourgeneratedtrafficpassengervehicletrips

areshowngraphicallyinFigure3.1,Page16.ThedirectionaldistributionforthenewAMandPMpeak

hourgeneratedschoolbustripsareshowngraphicallyinFigure3.2,Page17.

AssignmentofGeneratedTraffic

BaseduponthedistributionpatternsshowninFigures3.1&3.2,thenewAMandPMpeakgenerated

trafficwereassignedtothestudyintersections. Theassignmentsoftheestimatednewgenerated

passengervehicletrafficfortheproposedelementaryschoolareshowngraphicallyinFigure3.3,Page

18.Theassignmentsoftheestimatednewgeneratedschoolbustrafficfortheproposedelementary

schoolareshowngraphicallyinFigure3.4,Page19.



TrafficImpactStudy

DoverCenterRoad

CenterRidgeRoad

CenterRidgeRoad

GlenmoreDrive


NOTTOSCALE

ProposedEastAccess

ProposedWestAccess

ProposedSouthAccess

DoverCenterRoad

WestownBoulevard

NewGeneratedTrafficDistribution

Figure3.1

Page16

LEGEND

AMPeakHourDistributionXX

RED=EnteringVolumes

GREEN=ExitingVolumes

PMPeakHourDistribution(XX)

34% (27%

)

80% (70%)

19% (23%)

21% (24%)

66% (73%

)

20% (30%)

66% (73%

)20%

(30%)

34% (27%

)

26% (26%

)

29% (23%

)35%

(27%)

16% (20%

)

16% (20%)

21% (24%)


TrafficImpactStudy

DoverCenterRoad

CenterRidgeRoad

CenterRidgeRoad

GlenmoreDrive


NOTTOSCALE

ProposedEastAccess

ProposedWestAccess

ProposedSouthAccess

DoverCenterRoad

WestownBoulevard

NewGeneratedTrafficDistribution

SchoolBuses

Figure3.2

Page17

LEGEND

AMPeakHourDistributionXX

RED=EnteringVolumes


PMPeakHourDistribution(XX)

34% (27%

)

19% (23%)

20% (30%)29% (23%)35% (27%)

100% (100%

)

100% (100%)

20% (30%

)26%

(26%)

34% (27%

)

79% (76%)

21% (24%)

34% (27%

)

20% (30%

)34% (27%

)

20% (30%

)

84% (80%

)16%

(20%)


TrafficImpactStudy

DoverCenterRoad

CenterRidgeRoad

CenterRidgeRoad

GlenmoreDrive


NOTTOSCALE

ProposedEastAccess

ProposedWestAccess

ProposedSouthAccess

DoverCenterRoad

WestownBoulevard

NewGeneratedTraffic

PassengerVehicles

Figure3.3

Page18

NEWGENERATEDTRAFFIC

TOTALTRIPS

ENTER

EXIT

AM739

401

338

PM341

146

195

LEGEND

AMPeakHourTripsXX

RED=EnteringVolumes


PMPeakHourTrips(XX)

134 (40)

269 (137)

78 (33)

86 (35)

267 (106)

69 (58)

267 (106)69 (58)

134 (40)

103 (38)

97 (45)118 (53)

54 (39)

54 (39)

86 (35)


TrafficImpactStudy

DoverCenterRoad

CenterRidgeRoad

CenterRidgeRoad

GlenmoreDrive


NOTTOSCALE

ProposedEastAccess

ProposedWestAccess

ProposedSouthAccess

DoverCenterRoad

WestownBoulevard

NewGeneratedTraffic

SchoolBuses

Figure3.4

Page19

NEWGENERATEDTRAFFIC

TOTALTRIPS

ENTER

EXIT

AM60

30

30

PM60

30

30

LEGEND

AMPeakHourTripsXX

RED=EnteringVolumes


PMPeakHourTrips(XX)

10 (8)

6 (7)

6 (9)9 (7)

10 (8)

30 (30)

30 (30)

6 (9)8 (8)

10 (8)

24 (23)

6 (7)

25 (24)5 (6)

10 (8)

6 (9)

10 (8)

6 (9)


3.2 Non‐SiteTraffic

BackgroundTrafficGrowth

Usuallythedesignofnewroadwaysorimprovementstoexistingroadwaysshouldnotbebasedon

currenttrafficvolumesalone,butshouldconsiderfuturetrafficvolumesexpectedtomakeuseofthe

facilities.Roadwaysshouldbedesignedtoaccommodatethetrafficvolumethatislikelytooccurwithin

thedesignlifeofthefacility.Inapracticalsense,thisdesignvolumeshouldbeavaluethatcanbe

estimatedwithreasonableaccuracy.Itisbelievedthatthemaximumdesignperiodisintherangeof

15to24years.Therefore,aperiodoftwentyyearsiswidelyusedasabasisfordesign.Trafficcannot

usuallybeforecastedaccuratelybeyondthisperiodonaspecificfacilitybecauseofprobablechanges

inthegeneralregionaleconomy,population,andlanddevelopmentalongtheroadway.TheODOT

AccessManagementManualrequiresthatopeningyearandtwentyyeardesignhourtrafficvolumes

beanalyzedforaproposeddevelopment.

Roadways,likethosefoundinthestudyarea,carryasignificantamountofthroughtrafficduetotheir

functionalcharacteristics. This through trafficcomponentgenerally increasesasregionalgrowth

occurs.Therefore,itisanticipatedthatexistingtrafficonthestudyarearoadwayswillincreasein

futureyears.

Anyrecommendedimprovementsfortheseintersectionsshouldadequatelyhandlethetransportation

needs of the intersections for twenty years from the opening of the project based upon sound

engineeringpracticeandthelikelihoodoftrafficgrowthduetothefunctionalcharacteristicsofthe

roadways.

TheelementaryschoolisexpectedtobeopenintheFallof2019.Theyears2019and2039willbe

analyzedfortheproposedelementaryschool.Therefore,itisnecessarytoestimatehistoricalgrowth

rates in order to establish the future traffic on the study area roadways due to non‐site related

conditions.

TheODOTTrafficMonitoringManagementSystem(TMMS)wasconsultedtodeterminepasthistorical

trendsonthestudyarearoadways.TheODOTTrafficMonitoringManagementSystem(TMMS)canbe

currentlyaccessedatthefollowingwebaddress:

http://www.dot.state.oh.us/Divisions/Planning/TechServ/traffic/Pages/TMMS.aspx



TheTMMSprovideddataatthefollowinglocationthatwasusedtodeterminethestudyareagrowth

rates:

1. CenterRidgeRoad(US20)EastofCanterbury‐LocationID18318

2. CenterRidgeRoad(US20)EastofBradley‐LocationID18218

3. DoverCenterRoadNorthofLorain‐Location48618

4. DoverCenterRoadNorthofHilliard‐Location301898

TheintersectionofCenterRidgeRoadandDoverCenterRoadhadalsobeenpreviouslycountedbyTMS

Engineers,Inc.intheyears2007,2012,2014,and2016

Basedonthecollectedhistoricaltrafficdata,alineargrowthrateof1.00%peryearwillbeusedto

determinetheanticipatedstudyareavolumesunderthe2019and2039No‐BuildconditionsforCenter

RidgeRoad(US20)andDoverCenterRoad.Nogrowthratewillbeappliedtothelocalroadways,local

accessdriveways,andturningmovementsattheintersections.

Alineargrowthratewasutilizedtoestimatenon‐siterelatedtrafficgrowth.Thesegrowthrateswill

beappliedtotheexistingtrafficvolumes(Figure2.4).Thegrowthrateandfactorsforthestudyarea

roadwayscanbeseeninthefollowingtable:

Table3.5‐GrowthRates&Factors

ROADWAYGROWTHRATE

(AnnualGrowth)

2019GROWTH

FACTOR

2039GROWTH

FACTOR

CenterRidgeRoad(US20) 1.00% 1.02 1.22

DoverCenterRoad 1.00% 1.02 1.22



DesignHourTraffic

The traffic patterns on any roadway typically show considerable variation in the traffic volumes

experiencedduringthevarioushoursofthedayandinthehourlyvolumesexperiencedthroughoutthe

year.Akeydecisioninthedesignprocessinvolvesdeterminingwhichofthesehourlytrafficvolumes

shouldbeusedasthebasisforthedesign.Itwouldbewastefultopredicateadesignonthemaximum

peakhourtrafficthatoccursduringtheyearandtheuseoftheaveragehourlytrafficwouldresultin

aninadequatedesign.Thehourlytrafficvolumesusedinadesignshouldnotbeexceededveryoften

orbyverymuch.Ontheothersideofthespectrum,thehourlytrafficvolumesshouldnotbesohigh

thattrafficwouldrarelybesufficienttomakefulluseofthedesignedfacility.Normaldesignpolicyin

theStateofOhioisbaseduponareviewofcurvesthatdepictthevariationinhourlytrafficvolumes

duringtheyear.TheOhioDepartmentofTransportationrecommendsusingthe30THhighesthouras

adesigncontrolforurbanstreets.Thereistypicallyverylittledifferencebetweenthevolumesinthis

range.TheOhioDepartmentofTransportationprovidesfactorsoramethodologytodeterminefactors

thatareappliedtocounteddailytrafficvolumestodetermineappropriatedesignhourtrafficvolumes.

FollowingguidelinessetforthintheODOTAccessManagementManual,allanalysesarerequiredto

examinethedesignhourvolumefortheadjacentroadwayandpeakhourtrafficvolumeoftheproposed

development.

TheODOTCertifiedTrafficManualprovidesthemethodsforestimatingdesignhourvolumes.The

preferredmethodistocomputetheratioofthepeakhourvolumeagainstthedailytrafficvolumefor

thestudyarearoadways.AK‐factoristhenselectedfromavailableODOTdataforrouteswiththesame

functional classification and a similarADT. The selectedK‐factor is then divided by the ratio to

determinetheDHVfactorthatwillbeusedtocomputethedesignhourvolumes.

Forroadwayswithoutcomparablesite‐specificdata,thedesignhourfactorisdeterminedusingthe

ODOTPeakHourtoDesignHourcharts.Thesechartsarebasedonthefunctionalclassificationofthe

roadway,thedayoftheweekandthemonththatthetrafficdatawascollected.

K‐factors were determined using site specific data available on the ODOT Traffic Monitoring



ManagementSystem(TMMS).TheODOTTMMScancurrentlybefoundatthefollowingwebaddress:

http://odot.ms2soft.com/tcds/tsearch.asp?loc=Odot&mod=

ForCenterRidgeRoad(US20),datawasavailableatLocationID18318.ThelocationiseastofDover

CenterRoad.ThelocationhadanAADTof12,944vehiclesperdayin2016withaDHV‐30of1,275

vehicles.TheavailabledatayieldsaK‐factorof0.0985.

ForDoverCenterRoad,datawasavailableatLocationID48618.ThelocationissouthofCenterRidge

Road.ThelocationhadanAADTof13,509vehiclesperdayin2016withaDHV‐30of1,389vehicles.

TheavailabledatayieldsaK‐factorof0.1028.

ThefollowingtabledetailsthecalculationofthedesignhourfactorsforCenterRidgeRoadandDover

CenterRoad:

Table3.6‐DHVFactorCalculations

LOCATIONPEAKHOUR

VOLUMEADT RATIO K‐FACTOR

DHV

FACTOR*

CenterRidgeRoad(US20) 1,691 18,280 0.0925 0.099 1.06

DoverCenterRoad 1,322 14,062 0.0940 0.103 1.09

* ‐Iftheresultantvalue is lessthan1.00,thepeakhourvolumesshouldbeusedasthedesignhour

volumesmakingtheDHVfactor1.00.

Theremainingroadwaysinthestudyareaweredeterminedtolackcomparablesitespecificdataas

comparedtotheavailabledataandtheODOTK&DReportsinordertousethepreferredmethodof

usingsitespecificdata.TheODOTPeakHourtoDesignHourchartswillbeusedtodeterminethe

designhourfactorsforthestudyarearoadways.

GlenmoreDriveandWestownBoulevardareurbanlocalroadwaysthatwerecountedonaTuesdayin

May.Theroadwayshaveadesignhourfactorof1.17.



3.3 FutureTraffic

No‐BuildCondition

In order to estimate the future traffic considering non‐project traffic conditions, the previously

discussedcalculationofdesignhourfactorsandgrowthratesforeachmovementwereappliedtothe

existing2017trafficvolumesshowninFigure2.4.

Theestimated2019and2039No‐Buildtrafficvolumesforthestudyareaareshowngraphicallyin

Figures3.5and3.6,Pages25and26.Thistrafficistheexpectedtrafficiftheproposedelementary

schoolisnotconstructed,the“No‐Build”condition.

TheNo‐Build traffic volumeshavebeen rounded to thenearest 10 to adhere to preferredODOT

practices.

BuildCondition

Inordertoestimatethefuturetrafficconsideringprojecttrafficconditions,thesumofthe2019and

2039No‐Buildvolumes,showninFigures3.5and3.6,wereaddedtothenewgeneratedtrafficto

equalthefutureBuildanalysishourvolumes.

Theestimated2019and2039BuildtrafficvolumesforthestudyareaareshowngraphicallyinFigures

3.7and3.8,Pages27and28fortheproposedelementaryschool. Thesetrafficvolumesarethe

expectedvolumesiftheproposedelementaryschoolisconstructed,orthe“Build”condition.



TrafficImpactStudy

DoverCenterRoad

CenterRidgeRoad

CenterRidgeRoad

GlenmoreDrive


NOTTOSCALE

ProposedEastAccess

ProposedWestAccess

ProposedSouthAccess

DoverCenterRoad

WestownBoulevard

2019No‐BuildWeekday

TrafficVolumes

Figure3.5

Page25

PMPeakHourTraffic

AMPeakHourTraffic

LEGEND

XX

(XX)

80 (120)310 (290)170 (120)

190 (120)680 (440)

60 (90)

120 (150)370 (300)130 (90)

250 (100)380 (400)90 (80)

30 (10)520 (640)

10 (10)950 (550)

10 (10)30 (10)

30 (20)370 (430)

10 (10)530 (510)

70 (40)30 (20)


TrafficImpactStudy

DoverCenterRoad

CenterRidgeRoad

CenterRidgeRoad

GlenmoreDrive


NOTTOSCALE

ProposedEastAccess

ProposedWestAccess

ProposedSouthAccess

DoverCenterRoad

WestownBoulevard

2039No‐BuildWeekday

TrafficVolumes

Figure3.6

Page26

PMPeakHourTraffic

AMPeakHourTraffic

LEGEND

XX

(XX)

100 (140)370 (340)200 (140)

230 (140)820 (480)

70 (110)

140 (180)440 (360)150 (110)

300 (120)450 (480)110 (100)

30 (10)630 (770)

10 (10)1140 (660)

10 (10)30 (10)

30 (20)440 (520)

10 (10)640 (600)

70 (40)30 (20)


TrafficImpactStudy

DoverCenterRoad

CenterRidgeRoad

CenterRidgeRoad

GlenmoreDrive


NOTTOSCALE

ProposedEastAccess

ProposedWestAccess

ProposedSouthAccess

DoverCenterRoad

WestownBoulevard

2019BuildWeekdayTraffic

Figure3.7

Page27

158 (153)316 (297)170 (120)

287 (165)798 (453)124 (137)

212 (194)379 (307)140 (98)

30 (10)595 (707)

10 (10)1094 (598)

10 (10)30 (10)

54 (43)424 (469)

16 (17)616 (545)

30 (30)40 (30)

0 (0)100 (60)

0 (0)30 (30)

95 (64)35 (26)

250 (100)483 (438)98 (88)

990 (568)134 (40)

556 (659)267 (106)

69 (58)0 (0)

990 (568)0 (0)

823 (765)

269 (137)


TrafficImpactStudy

DoverCenterRoad

CenterRidgeRoad

CenterRidgeRoad

GlenmoreDrive


NOTTOSCALE

ProposedEastAccess

ProposedWestAccess

ProposedSouthAccess

DoverCenterRoad

WestownBoulevard


Figure3.8

Page28

178 (173)376 (347)200 (140)

327 (185)938 (533)134 (157)

232 (224)449 (367)150 (118)

300 (120)553 (518)118 (108)

30 (10)705 (837)

10 (10)1284 (708)

10 (10)30 (10)

54 (43)494 (559)

16 (17)726 (635)

95 (64)35 (26)

30 (30)40 (30)

0 (0)100 (60)

0 (0)30 (30)

1180 (678)134 (40)

666 (789)267 (106)

69 (58)0 (0)

1180 (678)0 (0)

933 (895)

269 (137)


Chapter4

TrafficAnalysis

4.1 CapacityandLOSatStudyAreaIntersections

Intersectioncapacityanalyseswereperformedatthestudyintersectionusingtheproceduresoutlined

inthecomputerizedversionoftheTransportationResearchBoard’sHighwayCapacityManual6TH

Edition,HCM6E(HCS7,Release7.2).Thecapacityanalyseswereperformedinordertoestimatethe

maximum amount of traffic that can be accommodated by a roadway facility while maintaining

recommendedoperationalqualities.Existing,NoBuild,andBuildanalysishourtrafficvolumeswere

analyzedtodeterminethelevel‐of‐service(LOS)atthestudyareaintersections.

Thecapacityanalysisproceduresprovideacalculated“averagevehicledelay”,whichisbasedontraffic

volumes,numberoflanes,typeoftrafficcontrol,channelization,grade,andpercentageoflargevehicles

in the traffic streamateach intersection. Theaveragedelay calculatedat an intersection is then

assigneda“grade”orlevelofservice(LOS)rangingfromLOSA,thebest,toLOSF,theworstbasedupon

driverexpectation.TheintersectionLOS“grades”asdefinedbytheTransportationResearchBoard

areasfollows:

Table4.1IntersectionLOS

LOS

UNSIGNALIZED

AVERAGEDELAY

PERVEHICLE(sec)

SIGNALIZED

AVERAGEDELAY

PERVEHICLE(sec)

A #10.0 #10.0

B 10.1to15.0 10.1to20.0

C 15.1to25.0 20.1to35.0

D 25.1to35.0 35.1to55.0

E 35.1to50.0 55.1to80.0

F >50 >80

Thecapacityanalysisproceduresandtheresultinglevelofservicegradesanddelaysarearecognized

traffic engineering standard for measuring the efficiency of intersection operations by such

organizationsastheInstituteofTransportationEngineers,AmericanAssociationofStateHighwayand

TransportationOfficials,andtheOhioDepartmentofTransportation.



ExistingConditions‐2017CapacityAnalysis

Analyseswereperformedfortheexisting2017conditions.Allanalyseswillassumethatthesignal

timingwouldbeoptimizedtobalancecriticallanedelaysatthesignalizedintersection.Thetraffic

volumesusedintheanalysiscanbeseeninFigure2.4.Copiesofthecapacityworksheetsareincluded

inAppendixC.TheresultsoftheYear2017ExistingConditionsanalysisareshowninthefollowing

table:

Table4.2‐2017Levels‐of‐Service

(ExistingConditions)

LOCATIONTRAFFIC

CONTROLMOVEMENT

AMPEAK

LOS(DELAY)

PMPEAK

LOS(DELAY)

CenterRidge&DoverCenter TrafficSignal Intersection C(31.6) C(27.7)

Eastbound C(33.3) C(27.7)

Westbound C(32.0) C(28.3)

Northbound C(32.3) C(27.0)

Southbound C(27.5) C(27.6)

CenterRidge&Glenmore StopSign EastboundLeft A(8.6) A(8.9)


DoverCenter&Westown StopSign Eastbound C(18.8) C(17.5)

NorthboundLeft A(8.1) A(8.3)

(XX.X)=Averagevehicledelayinsecondspervehicle

Thestudyareaintersectionsandapproachesareoperatingwithacceptablelevels‐of‐serviceunderthe

2017existingconditionsduringtheAMandPMpeakhours.



No‐BuildConditions‐2019CapacityAnalysis

Analyseswereperformedfortheprojected2019openingdayconditionsundertheNo‐Buildscenario.

Theseanalyseswillbeused tocompare to theconditionsexpectedunder theBuildscenario. All

analyseswillassumethatthesignaltimingwouldbeoptimizedtobalancecriticallanedelaysatthe

signalizedintersection.ThetrafficvolumesusedintheanalysiscanbeseeninFigure3.5.Copiesof

thecapacityworksheetsareincludedinAppendixD.TheresultsoftheYear2019No‐Buildanalysis

areshowninthefollowingtable:

Table4.3‐2019Levels‐of‐Service

(No‐BuildConditions)

LOCATIONTRAFFIC

CONTROLMOVEMENT

AMPEAK

LOS(DELAY)

PMPEAK

LOS(DELAY)

CenterRidge&DoverCenter TrafficSignal Intersection D(35.5) C(29.1)

Eastbound D(38.8) C(29.2)

Westbound D(35.2) C(29.9)

Northbound D(35.7) C(27.9)




DoverCenter&Westown StopSign Eastbound C(22.3) C(19.9)



Thestudyareaintersectionsandapproachesareexpectedtooperatewithacceptablelevels‐of‐service




No‐BuildConditions‐2039CapacityAnalysis

Analyseswereperformedfortheprojected2039designyearconditionsundertheNo‐Buildscenario.

Theseanalyseswillbeused tocompare to theconditionsexpectedunder theBuildscenario. All

analyseswillassumethatthesignaltimingwouldbeoptimizedtobalancecriticallanedelaysatthe

signalizedintersection.ThetrafficvolumesusedintheanalysiscanbeseeninFigure3.6.Copiesof

thecapacityworksheetsareincludedinAppendixE.TheresultsoftheYear2039No‐Buildanalysis

areshowninthefollowingtable:

Table4.42039Levels‐of‐Service

(No‐BuildConditions)

LOCATIONTRAFFIC

CONTROLMOVEMENT

AMPEAK

LOS(DELAY)

PMPEAK

LOS(DELAY)

CenterRidge&DoverCenter TrafficSignal Intersection E(57.0) C(33.2)

Eastbound E(61.4) C(32.9)

Westbound E(60.8) C(33.7)

Northbound E(59.3) C(33.6)

Southbound D(42.5) C(32.7)



DoverCenter&Westown StopSign Eastbound D(30.6) D(25.6)



TheintersectionofCenterRidgeRoadandDoverCenterRoadwasdeterminedtobeoperatingwith

poorlevels‐of‐serviceandhighdelayundertheexpected2039No‐BuildconditionsduringtheAMpeak

hour.Theremainingintersectionsweredeterminedtobeoperatingwithacceptablelevels‐of‐service




Inordertodeterminewhatmitigationwouldbenecessaryto improvethe levels‐of‐serviceat the

intersectionofCenterRidgeRoadandDoverCenterRoad,certainimprovementsweretestedwith

furthercapacityanalyses.Thefollowingimprovementsarerecommendedtomitigatetheanticipated

poorlevels‐of‐serviceunderthe2039No‐Buildconditions:



Thefollowingtableshowsthecapacityanalysisresultsofimplementingtheproposedimprovements.

CopiesofthecapacityworksheetsfortheimprovedintersectionareinincludedinAppendixF.


(No‐BuildConditions‐RecommendedImprovements)

LOCATIONTRAFFIC

CONTROLMOVEMENT

AMPEAK

LOS(DELAY)

PMPEAK

LOS(DELAY)

CenterRidge&DoverCenter TrafficSignal Intersection C(34.2) C(29.9)








BuildCondition‐2019CapacityAnalysis

Analyseswereperformedfortheprojected2019openingdayBuildconditions.Theanalyseswillbe

usedtodeterminethefuturelevels‐of‐serviceatthestudyintersectionsundertheanticipatedBuild

conditions.Allanalyseswillassumethatthesignaltimingwouldbeoptimizedtobalancecriticallane

delays at the signalized intersection. The intersections analyzed in this section only include the

intersectionsthatdonotprovidedirectaccesstothedevelopmentsite.Thetrafficvolumesusedinthe

analysiscanbeseeninFigure3.7.CopiesofthecapacityworksheetsareincludedinAppendixG.The

resultsofthe2019Buildanalysesareshowninthefollowingtables:


(BuildConditions)

LOCATIONTRAFFIC

CONTROLMOVEMENT

AMPEAK

LOS(DELAY)

PMPEAK

LOS(DELAY)



Westbound D(53.1) C(31.5)

Northbound E(56.0) C(30.5)




DoverCenter&Westown StopSign Eastbound E(46.9) D(34.1)



ThenorthboundapproachattheintersectionofCenterRidgeRoadandDoverCenterisexpectedto

operate with a poor level‐of‐service during the AM peak hour under the expected 2019 Build

conditions.

TheeastboundapproachattheintersectionofDoverCenterRoadandWestownBoulevardisexpected

to operatewith a poor level‐of‐service during theAMpeakhour under the expected2019Build

conditions.



A comparisonwas performed to show the incremental effects on the capacity of the study area

intersections due to the development of the proposed elementary school and to identify where

improvementsmaybenecessarytoaccommodateBuildtraffic.

ThefollowingtablesshowasidebysidecomparisonoftheBuildversusNoBuildconditionsforthe

2019AMandPMpeakhours.

Table4.72019No‐BuildvsBuildScenario

AMPeakHourComparisonTable

LOCATION

(TRAFFICCONTROL)MOVEMENT

NOBUILD

LOS(DELAY)

BUILD

LOS(DELAY)

DIFFERENCE

+/‐

CenterRidge&DoverCenter Intersection D(35.5) D(52.4) +16.9

(TrafficSignal) Eastbound D(38.8) D(49.5) +10.7

Westbound D(35.2) D(53.1) +17.9

Northbound D(35.7) E(56.0) +20.3

Southbound C(30.4) D(52.8) +22.4

CenterRidge&Glenmore EastboundLeft A(8.8) A(9.0) +0.2

(StopSign) Southbound C(23.4) D(29.4) +6.0

DoverCenter&Westown Eastbound C(22.3) E(46.9) +24.6

(StopSign) NorthboundLeft A(8.3) A(9.1) +0.8


The2019AMpeakhourcomparisontablesindicatetheapproachandintersectiondelaysareimpacted

withtheadditionofthedevelopmentgeneratedtrafficunderthe2019AMpeakhourconditions.The

intersectionofCenterRidgeRoadandDoverCenterRoadexperiencesincreaseddelayinexcessof20

secondsforthenorthboundandsouthboundapproaches.Thenorthboundapproachisalsoexpected

todegradetolevel‐of‐serviceE.TheeastboundapproachattheintersectionofDoverCenterRoadand

WestownBoulevardisexpectedtodegradetoalevel‐of‐serviceEundertheexpectedBuildconditions

duringtheAMpeakhour.Thepoorlevel‐of‐servicecanbeattributedtothelackofadequategapsin

thenorth‐south through traffic streamand the site generated school bus traffic on theWestown

Boulevardapproach.




PMPeakHourComparisonTable

LOCATION


NOBUILD

LOS(DELAY)

BUILD

LOS(DELAY)

DIFFERENCE

+/‐

CenterRidge&DoverCenter Intersection C(29.1) C(31.6) +2.5

(TrafficSignal) Eastbound C(29.2) C(32.3) +3.1

Westbound C(29.9) C(31.5) +1.6

Northbound C(27.9) C(30.5) +2.6

Southbound C(29.1) C(31.8) +2.7


(StopSign) Southbound C(16.5) C(18.1) +1.6

DoverCenter&Westown Eastbound C(19.9) D(34.1) +14.2



The2019PMpeakhourcomparisontablesindicatetheapproachandintersectiondelaysareonly

minimallyimpactedwiththeadditionofthedevelopmentgeneratedtrafficunderthe2019PMpeak

hourconditions.Theintersectionandapproachlevels‐of‐serviceremainunchangedfromtheNo‐Build

toBuildconditionswiththeexceptionoftheeastboundapproachattheintersectionofDoverCenter

RoadandWestownBoulevard.Thelevel‐of‐serviceisexpectedtodegradefromanLOSCtoandLOS

D.

BasedontheseresultsimprovementsarenecessarytotheintersectionsofDoverCenterRoadatCenter

RidgeRoadandWestownBoulevardwith the sitegenerated trafficunder the2019openingyear

conditions.

Inordertodeterminewhatmitigationwouldbenecessarytoimprovethedelayexperiencedandthe

levels‐of‐service at these intersections, certain improvements were tested with further capacity

analyses.Thefollowingimprovementsweredeterminedtomitigatetheanticipatedpoorlevels‐of‐

serviceand/orlessenthedelayexperiencedunderthe2019Buildconditions:






# Stripetheeastboundapproachforseparateleftandrightturnlanes.

OR

# Installaroundabout.

OR


TheexistingwidthofWestownBoulevardatDoverCenterRoadisapproximately36feetwide.The

roadwaycouldbestripedforthree12footlanes.Thelaneswouldconsistofonewestboundingress

lane,oneeastboundleftturnlane,andoneeastboundrightturnlane. Itshouldbenotedthatthe

addition of a second lanemay create a situationwhere side by side turning vehicles stoppedon

WestownBoulevardmayblocktheothervehiclesviewofoncomingtrafficalongDoverCenterRoad.

TheconstructionofaroundaboutattheintersectionwouldlikelyrequireroadwideningonDover

CenterRoadtoaccommodatethediameteroftheroundaboutandthesplitterislandsonthenorthand

southapproaches.Theseimprovementswouldlikelyrequirethereplacementofthebridgeonthe

southapproachtoaccommodatethewidening.Theconstructionofaroundaboutandthereplacement

ofthebridgewouldresultinthisbeingahighcostimprovement.


CopiesofthecapacityworksheetsfortheimprovedintersectionsareinincludedinAppendixH.




(BuildConditions‐RecommendedImprovements)

LOCATIONTRAFFIC

CONTROLMOVEMENT

AMPEAK

LOS(DELAY)

PMPEAK

LOS(DELAY)






DoverCenter&Westown StopSign EastboundLeft E(49.0) E(37.6)

(EBRTL&LTL) EastboundRight C(22.3) B(12.6)

Eastbound E(41.8) D(30.4)

Northbound A(9.1) A(9.4)

DoverCenter&Westown Roundabout Intersection A(8.8) A(8.0)

Eastbound A(7.7) A(8.0)

Northbound B(10.5) A(8.6)

Southbound A(7.0) A(7.4)

DoverCenter&Westown TrafficSignal Intersection C(20.4) C(20.3)



Southbound B(18.0) B(19.7)


TheinstallationofaroundaboutortrafficsignalcontrolattheintersectionofDoverCenterRoadand

WestownBoulevardisexpectedtoallowtheintersectiontooperatewithlevel‐of‐serviceCorbetter.

Thestripingoftheeastboundapproachforseparateleftandrightturnlanesisstillexpectedtoresult

inlevel‐of‐serviceE,howevertheoveralldelayhasbeenreducedandwiththeexclusiveleftturnlane

therightturnvehicleswillnotbeblockedbyavehiclewaitingtomakealeftturn.



TrafficSignalWarrantAnalysis‐DoverCenterRoad&WestownBoulevard2019BuildConditions

Theanticipated2019BuildtrafficconditionsattheintersectionofDoverCenterRoadandWestown

BoulevardwereanalyzedandcomparedtothecriteriaestablishedbytheOhioManualofUniform

TrafficControlDevicesandprofessionalengineeringjudgementtodetermineiftrafficsignalcontrol

iswarrantedattheintersection.Allofthedatacollectedanddeterminedforthisstudywasanalyzed

andcomparedtothethresholdsestablishedbythecriteriafromtheOMUTCD.Warrants1‐9were

evaluatedforthisanalysisoftheexpected2019Buildconditions.

Inorder todetermine if the2019anticipatedbuildconditionsareexpected tomeetoneof these

warrants,theexistinghourlyvolumesweremultipliedbythepreviouslydiscussedgrowthrateto

determinethefuture2019Buildconditions.Thesitegeneratedtrafficwasaddedtothepeakhours.

Noadditionaltrafficwasaddedtotheremaininghours.Itshouldbenotedthatthedesignhourfactors

havenotbeenincludedinthesignalwarrantvolumecalculations.

BasedupontheevaluationofthewarrantsestablishedbytheOhioManualofUniformTrafficControl

Devices,weconcludethatatrafficsignalisnotjustifiedattheintersectionofDoverCenterRoadand

WestownBoulevardasrequiredby theOhioRevisedCodebasedupon theexpected2019Build

conditions.CopiesofthetrafficsignalwarrantanalysisworksheetscanbefoundinAppendixI.




Analyseswereperformedfortheprojected2039designyearBuildconditionsundertheSitePlan

scenario.Theanalyseswillbeusedtodeterminethefuturelevels‐of‐serviceatthestudyintersections

under theanticipatedbuildconditions. Allanalyseswillassumethat thesignal timingwouldbe

optimizedtobalancecriticallanedelaysatthesignalizedintersection.Theintersectionsanalyzedin

thissectiononlyincludetheintersectionsthatdonotprovideaccesstothedevelopment.Thetraffic

volumesusedintheanalysiscanbeseeninFigure3.8.Copiesofthecapacityworksheetsareincluded

inAppendixJ.Theresultsofthe2039Buildanalysesareshowninthefollowingtable:


(BuildConditions)

LOCATIONTRAFFIC

CONTROLMOVEMENT

AMPEAK

LOS(DELAY)

PMPEAK

LOS(DELAY)

CenterRidge&DoverCenter TrafficSignal Intersection E(61.1) D(35.1)

Eastbound F(85.0) D(40.9)



Southbound E(71.6) D(38.4)


Southbound E(42.8) C(22.4)

DoverCenter&Westown StopSign Eastbound F(87.3) F(50.3)



Thestudyareaintersectionsareexpectedtooperatewithacceptablelevels‐of‐serviceduringtheAM

andPMpeakhoursundertheexpected2039Buildconditions.




intersections due to the development of the proposed development and to identify where

improvementsmaybenecessarytoaccommodateBuildtraffic.

ThefollowingtablesshowasidebysidecomparisonoftheBuildversusNo‐Buildconditionsforthe

2039AMandPMpeakhours.



LOCATION


NOBUILD

LOS(DELAY)

BUILD

LOS(DELAY)

DIFFERENCE

+/‐

CenterRidge&DoverCenter Intersection C(34.2) E(61.1) +26.9

(TrafficSignal) Eastbound C(39.0) F(85.0) +46.0

Westbound C(26.4) C(32.5) +6.1

Northbound C(30.8) D(44.7) +13.9

Southbound D(39.8) E(71.6) +31.8


(StopSign) Southbound D(32.5) E(42.8) +10.3

DoverCenter&Westown Eastbound D(25.4) F(87.3) +61.9



The2039AMpeakhourcomparisontableindicatesthattheapproachandintersectiondelaysare

impactedwiththeadditionofthedevelopmentgeneratedtrafficunderthe2039peakhourconditions.

TheintersectionofCenterRidgeRoadandDoverCenterRoadexperiencesincreaseddelayinexcess

of 20 seconds for the eastbound and southbound approaches. The eastbound approach at the

intersectionofDoverCenterRoadandWestownBoulevardisexpectedtodegradetoalevel‐of‐service

FundertheexpectedBuildconditionsduringtheAMpeakhour.Thepoorlevel‐of‐servicecanbe

attributedtothelackofadequategapsinthenorth‐souththroughtrafficstreamandthesitegenerated

schoolbustrafficontheWestownBoulevardapproach.





LOCATION


NOBUILD

LOS(DELAY)

BUILD

LOS(DELAY)

DIFFERENCE

+/‐

CenterRidge&DoverCenter Intersection C(29.9) D(35.1) +5.2

(TrafficSignal) Eastbound C(32.9) D(40.9) +8.0

Westbound C(28.4) C(31.0) +2.4

Northbound C(26.2) C(29.2) +3.0

Southbound C(31.8) D(38.4) +6.6


(StopSign) Southbound C(20.1) C(22.4) +2.3

DoverCenter&Westown Eastbound C(21.4) F(50.3) +28.9



The2039PMpeakhourcomparisontablesindicatetheapproachandintersectiondelaysareonly

minimallyimpactedwiththeadditionofthedevelopmentgeneratedtrafficunderthe2019PMpeak

hourconditionswiththeexceptionoftheeastboundapproachattheDoverCenterRoadandWestown

Boulevardintersection.

Basedontheseresultsimprovementsarenecessarytoallthreestudyareaintersectionsduetothesite

generatedtrafficunderthe2039openingyearconditions.

Inordertodeterminewhatmitigationwouldbenecessarytoimprovethelevels‐of‐serviceatthese

intersections, certain improvements were tested with further capacity analyses. The following

improvementsarerecommendedtomitigatetheanticipatedpoorlevels‐of‐serviceunderthe2039

Buildconditions:





CenterRidgeRoad&GlenmoreDrive

# Constructanexclusivesouthboundleftturnlane.

Theadditionofaseparateleftturnlaneisstillexpectedtoresultinapoorlevel‐of‐service,howeverthe

overalldelaywillbereducedandwiththeexclusiveleftturnlanetherightturnvehicleswillnotbe

blockedbyavehiclewaitingtomakealeftturn.Itshouldbenotedthattheadditionofasecondlane

may create a situationwhere side by side turning vehiclesmay block the other vehicles viewof

oncomingtraffic.

TheintersectionisnotexpectedtomeettheminimumsidestreetvolumethresholdsfortheOMUTCD

trafficsignalwarrantcriteria.GlenmoreDrivehasapeakvolumeof50vehiclesinthe5:00PMto6:00

PMhour.TheminimumsidestreetvolumeforWarrant1(8‐HourVehicularVolume)is150vehicles

forConditionAand75vehiclesforCondition.TheminimumsidestreetvolumeforWarrant2(4‐Hour

VehicularVolume)is80vehicles.



OR

# Installaroundabout.

OR


TheexistingwidthofWestownBoulevardatDoverCenterRoadisapproximately36feetwide.The

roadwaycouldbestripedforthree12footlanes.Thelaneswouldconsistofonewestboundingress

lane,oneeastboundleftturnlane,andoneeastboundrightturnlane.Thestripingoftheeastbound

approachforseparateleftandrightturnlanesisstillexpectedtoresultinapoorlevel‐of‐service,

howevertheoveralldelaywillbereducedandwiththeexclusiveleftturnlanetherightturnvehicles

willnotbeblockedbyavehiclewaitingtomakealeftturn.

TheconstructionofaroundaboutattheintersectionwouldlikelyrequireroadwideningonDover

CenterRoadtoaccommodatethediameteroftheroundaboutandthesplitterislandsonthenorthand

southapproaches.Theseimprovementswouldlikelyrequirethereplacementofthebridgeonthe

southapproachtoaccommodatethewidening.Theconstructionofaroundaboutandthereplacement

ofthebridgewouldresultinthisbeingahighcostimprovement.


CopiesofthecapacityworksheetsfortheimprovedintersectionsareinincludedinAppendixK.




(BuildConditions‐RecommendedImprovements)

LOCATIONTRAFFIC

CONTROLMOVEMENT

AMPEAK

LOS(DELAY)

PMPEAK

LOS(DELAY)






CenterRidge&Glenmore StopSign Eastbound A(9.5) A(9.9)

SouthboundLeft F(51.2) D(32.0)

SouthboundRight B(11.1) B(11.7)

Southbound E(41.2) C(21.9)

DoverCenter&Westown StopSign EastboundLeft F(87.9) F(55.2)

(EBRTL&LTL) EastboundRight D(29.5) D(26.7)

Eastbound F(72.1) E(47.0)

Northbound A(9.4) A(9.7)

DoverCenter&Westown Roundabout Intersection B(10.7) A(9.3)

Eastbound A(8.5) A(9.1)

Northbound B(13.3) B(10.1)

Southbound A(7.8) A(8.5)

DoverCenter&Westown TrafficSignal Intersection C(20.8) C(20.9)



Southbound B(17.2) C(20.3)




TrafficSignalWarrantAnalysis‐DoverCenterRoad&WestownBoulevard2039BuildConditions

Theanticipated2039BuildtrafficconditionsattheintersectionofDoverCenterRoadandWestown

BoulevardwereanalyzedandcomparedtothecriteriaestablishedbytheOhioManualofUniform

TrafficControlDevicesandprofessionalengineeringjudgementtodetermineiftrafficsignalcontrol

iswarrantedattheintersection.Allofthedatacollectedanddeterminedforthisstudywasanalyzed

andcomparedtothethresholdsestablishedbythecriteriafromtheOMUTCD.Warrants1‐9were





Noadditionaltrafficwasaddedtotheremaininghours.Itshouldbenotedthatthedesignhourfactors

havenotbeenincludedonthesignalwarrantvolumecalculations.


Devices,weconcludethatatrafficsignalisnotjustifiedattheintersectionofDoverCenterRoadand

WestownBoulevardasrequiredby theOhioRevisedCodebasedupon theexpected2039Build

conditions.CopiesofthetrafficsignalwarrantanalysisworksheetscanbefoundinAppendixI.



4.2 Capacity&LOSatDevelopmentAccessIntersections

CapacityanalyseswereperformedfortheintersectionslocatedalongCenterRidgeRoadthatprovide

accesstotheproposedelementaryschoolsiteusingtheproceduresoutlined inthecomputerized

versionof theTransportationResearchBoard’s HighwayCapacityManual6THEdition,HCM6E

(HCS7,Release7.2).Theinitialoperatingconditionsfortheproposedintersectionswillincludetraffic

signalcontrolatthewestaccesslocationandastopsigncontrolledrestrictedaccessdrivewayatthe

eastaccesslocation.


Analyseswereperformedfortheprojected2019openingdayconditionsundertheBuildscenarioto

determinethefuturelevel‐of‐serviceattheintersectionswhereaccessisavailabletotheelementary

schoolalongCenterRidgeRoad.Theresultsofthe2019Buildanalysesareshowninthefollowing

table.CopiesofthecapacityworksheetsareincludedinAppendixL.


(BuildConditions‐AccessLocations)

LOCATIONTRAFFIC

CONTROLMOVEMENT

AMPEAK

LOS(DELAY)

PMPEAK

LOS(DELAY)

CenterRidge&WestAccess TrafficSignal Intersection C(27.0) C(23.1)


Westbound B(17.9) B(18.7)



CenterRidge&EastAccess StopSign Northbound C(22.7) B(11.7)


TheintersectionswhereaccesstothedevelopmentisavailablealongCenterRidgeRoadareexpected

tooperatewithacceptablelevels‐of‐serviceunderthe2019BuildconditionsduringtheAMandPM

peakhours.TheanalysesdeterminedthatanexclusivewestboundleftturnlaneattheproposedWest

Accessintersectionwouldbenecessarytoaccommodatetheexpectedsitegeneratedtrafficvolumes.



TrafficSignalWarrantAnalysis‐CenterRidgeRoad&WestAccess2019BuildConditions

Theanticipated2019BuildtrafficconditionsattheintersectionofCenterRidgeRoadandtheproposed

WestAccessdrivewaywereanalyzedandcomparedtothecriteriaestablishedbytheOhioManualof

UniformTrafficControlDevicesandprofessionalengineeringjudgementtodetermineiftrafficsignal

controliswarrantedattheintersection.Allofthedatacollectedanddeterminedforthisstudywas

analyzedandcomparedtothethresholdsestablishedbythecriteriafromtheOMUTCD.Warrant3was





Itshouldbenotedthatthedesignhourfactorshavenotbeenincludedonthesignalwarrantvolume

calculations.


Devices,weconcludethatatrafficsignalisjustifiedattheintersectionofCenterRidgeRoadandthe

proposedWestAccessdrivewayasrequiredbytheOhioRevisedCodebasedupontheexpected2019

Buildconditions.CopiesofthetrafficsignalwarrantanalysisworksheetscanbefoundinAppendixI.




Analyseswereperformedfortheprojected2039designyearconditionsundertheBuildscenarioto

determinethefuturelevel‐of‐serviceattheintersectionswhereaccessisavailabletotheelementary

schoolalongCenterRidgeRoad.Theresultsofthe2039Buildanalysesareshowninthefollowing

table.CopiesofthecapacityworksheetsareincludedinAppendixM.


(BuildConditions‐AccessLocations)

LOCATIONTRAFFIC

CONTROLMOVEMENT

AMPEAK

LOS(DELAY)

PMPEAK

LOS(DELAY)

CenterRidge&WestAccess TrafficSignal Intersection C(28.7) C(21.7)





CenterRidge&EastAccess StopSign Northbound D(31.2) B(12.5)


TheintersectionswhereaccesstothedevelopmentisavailablealongCenterRidgeRoadareexpected

tooperatewithacceptablelevels‐of‐serviceunderthe2039BuildconditionsduringtheAMandPM

peakhours.



4.3 AuxiliaryTurningLaneWarrantAnalysis

TheODOTLocationandDesignManual,Volume1andtheAccessManagementManualrecommend

thattheneedforauxiliaryturnlanesatunsignalizedintersectionsbedeterminedbyusingtheAuxiliary

Lane Graphs found in Section 401‐6 of the Location and Design Manual, Volume 1. This

recommendationismadeforthefree‐flowapproachesatunsignalizedintersections.Section401.6.3

oftheODOTLocationandDesignManualstatesthat:

“Todeterminethenumberanduseofrightandleftturnlanes,intersectioncapacityanalysisprocedures

ofthecurrenteditionoftheHighwayCapacityManualshouldbeused.Forunsignalizedintersections,

rightandleftturnlanesmayalsobeneedediftheymeetwarrantsprovidedinFigures401‐6a,b,cand

d.Thewarrantsapplyonlytothefree‐flowapproachoftheunsignalizedintersection.”

ItistheintentofthisreporttoevaluatetheneedforanexclusiverightturnlaneonCenterRidgeRoad

attheEastAccess.

Theneedforanexclusiveturnlaneattheintersectionwasbasedonafour‐laneroadwaywithaposted

speedlimitof35milesperhourforCenterRidgeRoad.

Thefollowingtableshowstheresultsoftheanalysisoftheneedforanexclusiverightturnlaneat

CenterRidgeRoadandtheproposedEastAccessdriveway.CopiesoftheODOTturnlanewarrant

graphscanbeseeninAppendixN.

Table4.16TurningLaneWarrantAnalysis


TURNLANE&LOCATION2019 2039

AMPEAK PMPEAK AMPEAK PMPEAK

EBRightTurnLane@ProposedEastAccess NO NO NO NO

Theresultsoftheturnlanewarrantanalysisindicatethatanexclusiveeastboundrightturnlanewas

showntonotbewarrantedonCenterRidgeRoadattheproposedEastAccessundertheexpected2019

and2039Buildconditions.



4.4 TurnLaneLengthAnalysis

An analysis was performed to determine the necessary turn lane storage length in order to

accommodatetherecommendedturnlanesundertheYear2039peakhourBuildconditions.

TheanalysiswasperformedinaccordancewiththeprocedurerecommendedbytheOhioDepartment

ofTransportationintheirLocationandDesignManual,Volume1,Section401.TheODOTcriteria

andproceduresarefurnishedinAppendixO.

Therecommendedmaximumleftturnlanelengthis600feetandtherightturnlanelengthis800feet,

howeverifthecalculatedturnlanelengthislowerthanthesevaluesthemaximumlengthwillnotbe

applicable.

Thefollowingtablesshowtheresultsoftheanalysisbaseduponthehighestanticipatedmovement

volumesattheintersections.

Table4.17‐TurnLaneLengthAnalysis


Movement

Direction

DHV No.of

Lanes

Cycles

/

Hour

Average

Veh/

Cycle/

Lane

Design

Speed

(mph)

Fig.401‐

10

Storage

Length

(ft)

Fig.401‐9

Condition Backup

Length

(ft)

Turn

Lane

Length*

(ft)A* B* C*

WBRT 300 1 36 8.3 40 350 ‐‐ ‐‐ 466 ‐‐ 466*

WBT 553 2 36 7.7 40 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 325 ‐‐

NBRT 150 1 36 4.2 40 200 ‐‐ ‐‐ 311 ‐‐ 475*

NBT 449 1 36 12.5 40 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 475 ‐‐

SBRT 178 1 36 4.9 40 200 ‐‐ ‐‐ 311 ‐‐ 400*

SBT 376 1 36 10.4 40 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 400 ‐‐

*Includes50'taper




CenterRidgeRoad&ProposedWestAccess

Movement

Direction

DHV No.of

Lanes

Cycles

/

Hour

Average

Veh/

Cycle/

Lane

Design

Speed

(mph)

Fig.401‐

10

Storage

Length

(ft)

Fig.401‐9

Condition Backup

Length

(ft)

Turn

Lane

Length*

(ft)A* B* C*

WBLT 267 1 36 7.4 40 325 ‐‐ ‐‐ 436 ‐‐ 436*

WBT/RT 789 2 36 11.0 40 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 400 ‐‐

*Includes50'taper



4.5 AlternativeScenarioAnalysis

ThepreviousanalysesindicatedthattheintersectionofCenterRidgeRoadandDoverCenterRoadwas

expectedtorequireseveralimprovementsinordertomitigatetheimpactofthesitegeneratedtraffic.

TheintersectionsofCenterRidgeRoad/GlenmoreDriveandDoverCenterRoad/WestownBoulevard

weredeterminedtooperatewithpoorlevels‐of‐serviceasaresultofthesitegeneratedtrafficandwere

notabletobefullymitigatedwithoutunwarrantedimprovementsorhighcostimprovements.For

thesestatedreasonsanalternativescenariowasdevelopedtodeterminetheimpactontheadjacent

studyareaintersectionsascomparedtotheproposedscenariodetailedonthesiteplan(Figure1.2).

Theanalysisofthisscenariowillbebasedonthe2039twentyyeardesigntrafficvolumes.

Thesitegeneratedschoolbus trafficwill continue touseabusonlyaccessdrivealongWestown

Boulevardasdetailedonthesiteplan(Figure1.2).Therewillbenochangestotheschoolbusvolumes

ordistributionthroughoutthestreetnetworkasdetailedinFigure3.4.

TheproposedWestAccessdrivewillberelocatedtothewestsothatitalignsdirectlyacrossfrom

GlenmoreDrive.TheWestaccessdrivewouldthenbeextendedtothecul‐de‐sacatthewestofendof

WestownBoulevard.TheintentwouldbetoallowthevehiclescomingfromthesouthalongDover

CenterRoadtoaccessthesitewithouthavingtomakeanorthboundleftturnattheCenterRidgeRoad

andDoverCenterRoadintersection.VehiclesexitingthesitetothesouthalongDoverCenterRoad

wouldthenalsobeabletoavoidtheintersectionofCenterRidgeRoadandDoverCenterRoadaswell.

TheproposedsignalwouldalsobeabletoservetheGlenmoreDrivetrafficandtheWestlakeUnited

MethodistChurchwouldbeabletoaccessthetrafficsignalviatheiraccessdrivesalongGlenmoreDrive.

TheproposedEastaccessdrivewillremainasdetailedonthesiteplanasarestrictedaccessdriveway.



Theassignmentsoftheestimatednewgeneratedpassengervehicletrafficfortheproposedelementary

schoolareshowngraphicallyinFigure4.1,Page54.Theassignmentsoftheestimatednewgenerated

schoolbustrafficfortheproposedelementaryschoolwasshowngraphicallyinFigure3.4,Page19,

astheschoolbusdistributionhasnotbeenalteredinthisscenario.

Inordertoestimatethefuturetrafficconsideringthedescribedalternativeconditions,thesumofthe

2039No‐Buildvolumes,showninFigure3.6,wereaddedtothenewgeneratedtraffic(Figures3.4&

4.1)toequalthefutureBuildpeakhourvolumes.

Theestimated2039BuildtrafficvolumesforthealternativescenarioareshowngraphicallyinFigure

4.2,Page55fortheproposedelementaryschool.



TrafficImpactStudy

DoverCenterRoad

CenterRidgeRoad

CenterRidgeRoad

GlenmoreDrive


NOTTOSCALE

ProposedEastAccess

ProposedWestAccess

ProposedSouthAccess

DoverCenterRoad

WestownBoulevard

NewGeneratedTrafficPassengerVehiclesAlternateScenario

Figure4.1

Page54

NEWGENERATEDTRAFFIC

TOTALTRIPS

ENTER

EXIT

AM739

401

338

PM341

146

195

LEGENDAMPeakHourTripsXX

RED=EnteringVolumesGREEN=ExitingVolumes

PMPeakHourTrips(XX)

134 (40)

215 (98)

78 (33)

86 (35)

86 (35)

69 (58)181 (71)

103 (38)

97 (45)118 (53)

54 (39)

181 (71)

86 (35)

54 (39)

54 (39)


TrafficImpactStudy

DoverCenterRoad

CenterRidgeRoad

CenterRidgeRoad

GlenmoreDrive


NOTTOSCALE

ProposedEastAccess

ProposedWestAccess

ProposedSouthAccess

DoverCenterRoad

WestownBoulevard


Figure4.2

Page55

178 (173)376 (347)200 (140)

327 (185)938 (533)

80 (118)

146 (189)449 (367)150 (118)

300 (120)553 (518)118 (108)

54 (43)440 (520)

102 (52)640 (600)

95 (64)69 (65)

30 (30)126 (65)

0 (0)154 (99)

0 (0)30 (30)

1180 (678)0 (0)

847 (860)

215 (98)86 (35)40 (30)

0 (0)100 (60)

0 (0)54 (39)

10 (10)0 (0)30 (10)

10 (10)1150 (668)

134 (40)

69 (58)0 (0)0 (0)

30 (10)636 (779)181 (71)


Analyseswereperformedfortheprojected2039designyearBuildconditionsunderthealternative

scenario.Thisanalysiswillbeusedtodeterminethefuturelevels‐of‐serviceatthestudyintersections

under theanticipatedbuildconditions. All analysiswill assume that thesignal timingwouldbe

optimizedtobalancecriticallanedelaysatthesignalizedintersection.Thetrafficvolumesusedinthis

analysiscanbeseeninFigure4.1.CopiesofthecapacityworksheetsareincludedinAppendixP.The

resultsofthe2039Buildanalysesareshowninthefollowingtables:


(BuildConditions‐AlternativeScenario)

LOCATIONTRAFFIC

CONTROLMOVEMENT

AMPEAK

LOS(DELAY)

PMPEAK

LOS(DELAY)






CenterRidge&Glenmore/West TrafficSignal Intersection C(22.9) B(18.6)

Eastbound C(28,2) C(22.9)




CenterRidge&EastAccess StopSign NorthboundRight C(24.0) B(11.9)

DoverCenter&Westown StopSign EastboundLeft F(123.8) F(61.8)

EastboundRight B(12.6) B(13.5)

Eastbound F(76.9) E(37.5)

Northbound B(12.6) A(9.2)


Thestudyareaintersectionsareexpectedtooperatewithacceptablelevels‐of‐serviceduringtheAM

andPMpeakhoursundertheexpected2039AlternateScenarioBuildconditionswiththeexception

oftheDoverCenterRoadandWestownBoulevardintersection.



Basedontheseresults improvementsarenecessaryat the intersectionofDoverCenterRoadand

WestownBoulevardunderthe2039AlternateScenarioBuildconditions.

Inordertodeterminewhatmitigationwouldbenecessarytoimprovethelevels‐of‐serviceatthis

intersection, certain improvements were tested with further capacity analyses. The following

improvementsarerecommendedtomitigatetheanticipatedpoorlevels‐of‐serviceunderthe2039

AlternateScenarioBuildconditions:





CopiesofthecapacityworksheetsfortheimprovedintersectionareinincludedinAppendixQ.


(AlternativeScenario‐RecommendedImprovements)

LOCATIONTRAFFIC

CONTROLMOVEMENT

AMPEAK

LOS(DELAY)

PMPEAK

LOS(DELAY)

DoverCenter&Westown TrafficSignal Intersection C(22.2) B(19.8)



Southbound B(12.3) B(16.4)




TrafficSignalWarrantAnalysis‐DoverCenterRoad&WestownBoulevard2039AlternateConditions

Theanticipated2039AlternateScenarioBuildtrafficconditionsattheintersectionofDoverCenter

RoadandWestownBoulevardwereanalyzedandcomparedtothecriteriaestablishedbytheOhio

ManualofUniformTrafficControlDevicesandprofessionalengineeringjudgementtodetermine

iftrafficsignalcontroliswarrantedattheintersection.Allofthedatacollectedanddeterminedforthis

studywasanalyzedandcomparedtothethresholdsestablishedbythecriteriafromtheOMUTCD.

Warrant3wasevaluatedforthisanalysisoftheexpected2039AlternateScenarioBuildconditions.


warrants,theexistinghourlyvolumesmultipliedbythepreviouslydiscussedgrowthratetodetermine

thefuture2039Buildconditions.Thesitegeneratedtrafficwasaddedtothepeakhours.Itshouldbe

notedthatthedesignhourfactorshavenotbeenincludedonthesignalwarrantvolumecalculations.


Devices,weconcludethatatrafficsignalisjustifiedattheintersectionofDoverCenterRoadand

WestownBoulevardasrequiredbytheOhioRevisedCodebasedupontheexpected2039Alternate

ScenarioBuildconditions.Copiesofthetrafficsignalwarrantanalysisworksheetscanbefoundin

AppendixI.




intersectionsduetothealternatescenarioascomparedtothesiteplanconditionsshowninFigure1.2.

Thefollowingtablesshowasidebysidecomparisonofthesiteplanversusthealternatescenario

conditionsforthe2039AMandPMpeakhours.

Table4.212039SitePlanvs.AlternateScenario


LOCATION


SITEPLAN

LOS(DELAY)

ALTERNATE

LOS(DELAY)

DIFFERENCE

+/‐

CenterRidge&DoverCenter Intersection D(40.7) D(36.8) –3.9

(TrafficSignal) Eastbound D(50.3) D(44.6) ‐5.7

Westbound C(27.6) C(29.3) +1.7

Northbound D(42.6) D(36.1) ‐6.5

Southbound D(37.6) C(33.1) ‐4.5

CenterRidge&EastAccess

(StopSign)NorthboundRight D(31.2) C(24.0) ‐7.2

DoverCenter&Westown Intersection C(20.8) C(22.2) +1.4


Northbound C(23.0) C(21.7) ‐1.3

Southbound B(17.2) B(12.3) ‐4.9


The2039AMpeakhourcomparisontableindicatesthattheintersectiondelaysareloweredunderthe

AlternateScenarioattheCenterRidgeRoadintersections.The2039AMpeakhourcomparisontable

indicatestheapproachandintersectiondelaysattheintersectionofDoverCenterRoadandWestown

BoulevardareonlyminimallyimpactedbytheproposedconditionsoftheAlternateScenario.



Table4.222039SitePlanvs.AlternateScenario


LOCATION


NOBUILD

LOS(DELAY)

BUILD

LOS(DELAY)

DIFFERENCE

+/‐

CenterRidge&DoverCenter Intersection C(28.2) C(27.4) ‐0.8

(TrafficSignal) Eastbound C(29.9) C(29.4) ‐0.5

Westbound C(25.0) C(25.2) ‐0.2

Northbound C(30.0) C(28.4) ‐1.6

Southbound C(27.4) C(26.4) ‐1.0

CenterRidge&EastAccess

(StopSign)NorthboundRight B(12.5) B(11.9) ‐0.6

DoverCenter&Westown Intersection C(20.9) B(19.8) ‐1.1


Northbound C(21.4) C(21.7) +0.3

Southbound C(20.3) B(16.4) ‐3.9


The2039PMpeakhourcomparisontableindicatesthattheintersectiondelaysareloweredunderthe

AlternateScenarioattheCenterRidgeRoadintersections.The2039PMpeakhourcomparisontable

indicatestheapproachandintersectiondelaysattheintersectionofDoverCenterRoadandWestown

BoulevardareonlyminimallyimpactedbytheproposedconditionsoftheAlternateScenario.



An analysis was performed to determine the necessary turn lane storage length in order to

accommodatetherecommendedturnlanesundertheYear2039peakhourBuildconditionsforthe

AlternateScenario. The following tablesshowtheresultsof theanalysisbasedupon thehighest

anticipatedmovementvolumesattheintersections.



Movement

Direction

DHV No.of

Lanes

Cycles

/

Hour

Average

Veh/

Cycle/

Lane

Design

Speed

(mph)

Fig.401‐

10

Storage

Length

(ft)

Fig.401‐9

Condition Backup

Length

(ft)

Turn

Lane

Length*

(ft)A* B* C*

WBRT 300 1 36 8.3 40 350 ‐‐ ‐‐ 466 ‐‐ 466*

WBT 553 2 36 7.7 40 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 325 ‐‐

NBRT 150 1 36 4.2 40 200 ‐‐ ‐‐ 311 ‐‐ 475*

NBT 449 1 36 12.5 40 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 475 ‐‐

SBRT 178 1 36 4.9 40 200 ‐‐ ‐‐ 311 ‐‐ 400*

SBT 376 1 36 10.4 40 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 400 ‐‐

*Includes50'taper


CenterRidgeRoad&GlenmoreDrive/ProposedWestAccess

Movement

Direction

DHV No.of

Lanes

Cycles

/

Hour

Average

Veh/

Cycle/

Lane

Design

Speed

(mph)

Fig.401‐

10

Storage

Length

(ft)

Fig.401‐9

Condition Backup

Length

(ft)

Turn

Lane

Length*

(ft)A* B* C*

EBLT 10 1 36 0.3 40 50 ‐‐ ‐‐ 161 ‐‐ 600*

EBT/RT 1284 2 36 17.8 40 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 625

WBLT 181 1 36 5.0 40 200 ‐‐ ‐‐ 311 ‐‐ 400*

WBT/RT 789 2 36 11.0 40 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 400 ‐‐

*Includes50'taper



4.6 ImprovementstoAccommodateStudyAreaTraffic

Nointersectionimprovementswerefoundtobenecessarytoaccommodatethe2017existingtraffic

conditionsatthestudyareaintersections.

ItshouldbenotedthatawestboundrightturnlaneatintersectionofCenterRidgeRoadandDover

CenterRoadhasbeenpreviouslyrecommendedinotherreportspreparedfortheCityofWestlake.This

recommendationwasbasedonananalysisoftheroadwaypeakhours.Theelementaryschoolanalysis

isbasedonthepeakhouroftheschooltrafficvolumeswhichdoesnotcoincidewiththepeakhourof

trafficfortheroadway(i.etheschoolpeaksintheafternoonfrom2:00to3:00PMwhiletheroadway

peaksfrom5:00to6:00PM).

NointersectionimprovementswerefoundtobenecessarytoaccommodatetheYear2019No‐Build

trafficatthestudyareaintersections.

ThefollowingimprovementswererecommendedtoaccommodatetheYear2039No‐Buildtrafficat

thestudyareaintersectionsthatdonotprovideaccesstotheproposeddevelopment.




NoadditionalintersectionimprovementswerefoundtobenecessarytoaccommodatetheYear2039

No‐Build trafficat theremainingstudyarea intersections. Theremainingstudy intersectionsare

anticipatedtooperatewithacceptablelevelsofserviceduringtheAMandPMpeakhours.

Thefollowinglaneuseandtrafficcontrolarerecommendedtoaccommodatethe2019and2039site


CenterRidgeRoad&GlenmoreDrive

# Constructasouthboundleftturnlane.(2039)

Theadditionofaseparateleftturnlaneisstillexpectedtoresultinapoorlevel‐of‐serviceunderthe

2039Buildconditions,howevertheoveralldelaywillbereducedandwiththeexclusiveleftturnlane

therightturnvehicleswillnotbeblockedbyavehiclewaitingtomakealeftturn.Itshouldbenoted

thattheadditionofasecondlanemaycreateasituationwheresidebysideturningvehiclesmayblock

theothervehiclesviewofoncomingtraffic.






lanes.


lane.





lane.












Trafficsignalcontrolandaroundaboutwereanalyzedaspotentialimprovementsfortheintersection.

Trafficsignalcontrolisnotexpectedtobewarrantedattheintersectionbasedonthetrafficsignal

warrantsfoundintheOMUTCD.Theconstructionofroundaboutattheintersectionwasdetermined

tobeunlikelyduetothebridgelocatedonthesouthapproachandthehighcostofincludingitinthe

constructionoftheroundabout.

The recommended lane use and traffic control for the study area to accommodate the proposed

developmentbasedonthesiteplaninFigure1.2canbeseeninFigure4.3,Page64.



TrafficImpactStudy

DoverCenterRoad

CenterRidgeRoad

CenterRidgeRoad

GlenmoreDrive


NOTTOSCALE

ProposedEastAccess

ProposedWestAccess

ProposedSouthAccess

DoverCenterRoad

WestownBoulevard

RecommendedLaneUseandTraffic

Control– SitePlan

Figure4.3

Page64

STOP

ProposedLaneUse

LEGEND

ProposedSignal

ProposedStopSignSTOP

ExistingLaneUse

ExistingSignal

ExistingStopSign

STOP

ProposedAccess

ST

OP

ST

OP

2019BUILD

2019BUILD

2019BUILD

2019BUILD

ST

OP

2039NO‐BUILD

2039NO‐BUILD2019BUILD

2039BUILD

2039BUILD








lanes.


rightturnlane.





lane.












TherecommendedtrafficcontrolwithinthesitetoaccommodatetheAlternateScenariocanbeseen

inFigure4.4,Page66.

The recommended lane use and traffic control for the study area to accommodate the proposed

developmentbasedontheAlternateScenariodescribedinSection4.5canbeseeninFigure4.5,Page

67.



TrafficImpactStudy

InteriorTrafficControl

AlternateScenario

Figure4.4

Page66

ProposedStopSign

LEGEND

NOTTOSCALE


TrafficImpactStudy

DoverCenterRoad

CenterRidgeRoad

CenterRidgeRoad

GlenmoreDrive


NOTTOSCALE

ProposedEastAccess

ProposedWestAccess

ProposedSouthAccess

DoverCenterRoad

WestownBoulevard

RecommendedLaneUseandTraffic

Control– Alternate

Figure4.5

Page66

STOP

ProposedLaneUse

LEGEND

ProposedSignal

ProposedStopSignSTOP

ExistingLaneUse

ExistingSignal

ExistingStopSign

STOP

ProposedAccess

ST

OP

ST

OP

2039NO‐BUILD 2039

NO‐BUILD

ST

OP


Chapter5

Conclusions

Basedontheresultsoftheanalyses,weofferthefollowingconclusionsandrecommendations:

5.1 ThistrafficimpactstudyhasbeenpreparedattherequestoftheWestlakeCitySchoolsfora

proposedelementaryschool. TheprojectsiteislocatedintheCityofWestlake,Cuyahoga

County,OhioalongthesouthsideofCenterRidgeRoad(USRoute20)betweenGlenmoreDrive

tothewestandDoverCenterRoadtotheeast.

5.2 Theproposedelementaryschoolisexpectedtohaveastudentpopulationof1,450students

with 120 staff for grades pre‐kindergarten through fourth grade. Figure1.2 shows the

proposedsiteplanfortheelementaryschool.

5.3 ThedevelopmentisproposedwithtwoaccessdrivewaysalongthesouthsideofCenterRidge

RoadandoneaccessdrivewayalongthenorthsideofWestownBoulevard.

5.4 Theyear2019wasanalyzedfortheopeningyearconditions,andtheyear2039wasanalyzed

asthedesignyearforthetwentyyearconditionsanalysis.

5.5 The elementary school day begins at 7:50AM and ends at 2:20 PM, therefore the report

analyzedthehoursof7:30to8:30AMand2:00PMto3:00PM.The7:30to8:30AMhourwas

referredtoastheweekdayAMpeakhourforthepurposeofthisreport.The2:00to3:00PM

hourwasreferredtoasthePMpeakhourforthepurposeofthisreport.Theseperiodswere

analyzedsincetheyreflecttheperiodofthehighestvolumeoftrafficflowfortheproposed

school.

5.6 Theelementaryschoolwasassumedtogenerateatotalof30enteringand30exitingtripsfor

schoolbuses.Thesevolumesareincludedinthetotalgenerationvolumescalculatedforthis

analysis.



5.7 Theproposedelementaryschoolisexpectedtogeneratethefollowingaveragehourlytraffic

duringtheAMandPMpeakperiods:

ITETRIPGENERATION

SIZE

(Staff)

TRIPENDS

ITE


AMPeakHour

ofGenerator

(Enter/Exit)

PMPeakHour

ofGenerator

(Enter/Exit)



5.8 Nointersectionimprovementswerefoundtobenecessarytoaccommodatethe2017existing

trafficconditionsatthestudyareaintersections.

5.9 NointersectionimprovementswerefoundtobenecessarytoaccommodatetheYear2019No‐

Buildtrafficatthestudyareaintersections.

5.10 ThefollowingimprovementswererecommendedtoaccommodatetheYear2039No‐Build

trafficatthestudyareaintersectionsthatdonotprovideaccesstotheproposedelementary

school.




NoadditionalintersectionimprovementswerefoundtobenecessarytoaccommodatetheYear

2039 No‐Build traffic at the remaining study area intersections. The remaining study

intersectionsareanticipatedtooperatewithacceptablelevelsofserviceduringtheAMandPM

peakhours.



5.11 Thefollowinglaneuseandtrafficcontrolarerecommendedtoaccommodatethe2019and

2039sitegenerated(Build)trafficbasedonthedevelopmentsiteplanshowninFigure1.2:

CenterRidgeRoad&GlenmoreDrive(2039)

# Constructasouthboundleftturnlane.




lanes.


lane.





lane.




intheODOTAccessManagementManualforchannelizingislands(SeeAppendixX).










5.12 Thefollowinglaneuseandtrafficcontrolarerecommendedtoaccommodatethe2039site

generated(Build)trafficbasedontheAlternateScenariodetailedinSection4.5:





lanes.


rightturnlane.





lane.




intheODOTAccessManagementManualforchannelizingislands(SeeAppendixX).








5.13 Basedupontheresultsoftheanalysisinthisstudyandthecorrespondingrecommendations,

itcanbeseenthatthesitegeneratedtrafficcanbeaccommodatedwithoutadverselyimpacting

thearearoadwaynetworkundereachscenario.



AppendixA

TrafficCountData

June 5, 2017 TMS Engineers, Inc.

Mun

icip

alit

y:A

t In

ters

ecti

on o

fan

d

Dat

e:

Day

:P

roje

ct:

Wea

ther

:

Dat

a en

try

by:

JJ

OD

ate

ente

red:

Left

Thr

uR

ight

Tot

alT

rkB

usLe

ftT

hru

Rig

htT

otal

Trk

Bus

Left

Thr

uR

ight

Tot

alT

rkB

usLe

ftT

hru

Rig

htT

otal

Trk

Bus

Nor

thS

outh

East

Wes

t

06

:00

07

:00

93

7

1

29

32

23

0

08

:00

9

04

1

32

72

23

1

09

:00

8

46

1

05

01

89

6

10

:00

11

:00

93

0

1

17

02

10

0

12

:00

95

3

11

83

21

36

1:0

0

2:0

0

95

7

1

09

02

04

7

3:0

0

11

88

1

53

22

72

0

4:0

0

11

48

16

04

27

52

5:0

0

13

22

16

91

30

13

6:0

0

7:0

0

8:0

0

9:0

0

TO

TA

LS1

18

02

54

89

85

47

13

57

24

11

13

24

78

88

14

47

25

81

69

18

58

76

37

88

12

35

58

99

12

23

21

22

74

02

07

94

60

41

10

83

11

19

40

21

12

5

AD

T1

80

73

90

11

50

87

21

51

70

43

79

41

34

96

84

61

40

62

13

41

57

99

18

91

90

31

18

78

61

54

12

16

92

48

18

28

03

23

41

HO

UR

LY F

AC

TO

R:

1

.68

MO

NT

HLY

FA

CT

OR

:

0.9

1C

OM

BIN

ED F

AC

TO

R:

1

.53

17

-05

2

Rec

orde

r(s)

:

Cle

arG

FA &

PM

BM

ay.

10

, 2

01

7

Com

men

ts:

TM

S E

NG

INEE

RS

, IN

C.

21

12

Cas

e P

arkw

ay S

outh

#7

TO

TA

LA

LLD

IREC

.

PEA

K H

OU

R F

AC

TO

RFR

OM

WES

T

Cen

ter

Rid

ge R

d.C

ente

r R

idge

Rd.

(33

0)

68

6-6

40

2

FA

X:

(3

30

) 6

86

-64

17

FRO

M N

OR

TH

FRO

M S

OU

TH

TO

TA

LN

OR

TH

SO

UT

H

1.7

%1

.7%

2.3

%2

.6%

TO

TA

LEA

ST

WES

T

Tw

insb

urg,

Ohi

o 4

40

87

FRO

M E

AS

TT

IME

BEG

INS

Dov

er C

ente

r R

d.D

over

Cen

ter

Rd.

Mun

icip

alit

y:A

t In

ters

ecti

on o

fan

d

Dat

e:

Day

:P

roje

ct:

Wea

ther

:

Dat

a en

try

by:

JJ

OD

ate

ente

red:

Left

Thr

uR

ight

Tot

alT

rkB

usLe

ftT

hru

Rig

htT

otal

Trk

Bus

Left

Thr

uR

ight

Tot

alT

rkB

usLe

ftT

hru

Rig

htT

otal

Trk

Bus

Nor

thS

outh

East

Wes

t

06

:00

07

:00

26

1

10

41

13

0

08

:00

29

1

26

41

29

3

09

:00

16

1

09

81

11

4

10

:00

11

:00

15

1

19

61

21

1

12

:00

13

1

15

71

17

0

1:0

0

2:0

0

22

1

11

31

13

5

3:0

0

48

1

50

81

55

6

4:0

0

25

15

15

15

40

5:0

0

50

16

38

16

88

6:0

0

7:0

0

8:0

0

9:0

0

TO

TA

LS1

33

01

11

24

44

22

44

05

54

51

60

57

05

12

22

39

15

79

70

58

88

11

53

01

15

93

11

83

7

AD

T2

04

01

70

37

43

74

08

48

92

45

87

34

13

98

87

50

90

14

17

74

81

81

22

HO

UR

LY F

AC

TO

R:

1

.68

MO

NT

HLY

FA

CT

OR

:

0.9

1C

OM

BIN

ED F

AC

TO

R:

1

.53

17

-05

2

Rec

orde

r(s)

:

Cle

arD

JSM

ay.

10

, 2

01

7

Com

men

ts:

TM

S E

NG

INEE

RS

, IN

C.

21

12

Cas

e P

arkw

ay S

outh

#7

TO

TA

LA

LLD

IREC

.

PEA

K H

OU

R F

AC

TO

RFR

OM

WES

T

Cen

ter

Rid

ge R

d.C

ente

r R

idge

Rd.

(33

0)

68

6-6

40

2

FA

X:

(3

30

) 6

86

-64

17

FRO

M N

OR

TH

FRO

M S

OU

TH

TO

TA

LN

OR

TH

SO

UT

H

2.5

%2

.5%

2.5

%

TO

TA

LEA

ST

WES

T

Tw

insb

urg,

Ohi

o 4

40

87

FRO

M E

AS

TT

IME

BEG

INS

Gle

nmor

e D

r.

Mun

icip

alit

y:A

t In

ters

ecti

on o

fan

d

Dat

e:

Day

:P

roje

ct:

Wea

ther

:

Dat

a en

try

by:

JJ

OD

ate

ente

red:

Left

Thr

uR

ight

Tot

alT

rkB

usLe

ftT

hru

Rig

htT

otal

Trk

Bus

Left

Thr

uR

ight

Tot

alT

rkB

usLe

ftT

hru

Rig

htT

otal

Trk

Bus

Nor

thS

outh

East

Wes

t

06

:00

07

:00

79

4

84

87

8

08

:00

7

24

59

78

3

09

:00

72

3

58

78

1

10

:00

11

:00

89

5

44

93

9

12

:00

88

6

51

93

7

1:0

0

2:0

0

87

7

53

93

0

3:0

0

10

98

45

11

43

4:0

0

11

65

40

12

05

5:0

0

12

13

42

12

55

6:0

0

7:0

0

8:0

0

9:0

0

TO

TA

LS0

38

59

25

94

11

84

81

41

26

41

31

04

25

73

81

68

37

52

89

01

87

47

69

34

76

88

51

AD

T0

59

08

39

76

30

41

93

63

24

06

51

71

28

22

44

20

28

67

29

72

91

35

50

HO

UR

LY F

AC

TO

R:

1

.68

MO

NT

HLY

FA

CT

OR

:

0.9

1C

OM

BIN

ED F

AC

TO

R:

1

.53

1.5

%1

.3%

2.5

%

TO

TA

LEA

ST

WES

T

Tw

insb

urg,

Ohi

o 4

40

87

FRO

M E

AS

TT

IME

BEG

INS

Dov

er C

ente

r R

d.D

over

Cen

ter

Rd.

PEA

K H

OU

R F

AC

TO

RFR

OM

WES

T

Wes

tow

n B

lvd.

(33

0)

68

6-6

40

2

FA

X:

(3

30

) 6

86

-64

17

FRO

M N

OR

TH

FRO

M S

OU

TH

TO

TA

LN

OR

TH

SO

UT

H

May

. 1

0,

20

17

Com

men

ts:

TM

S E

NG

INEE

RS

, IN

C.

21

12

Cas

e P

arkw

ay S

outh

#7

TO

TA

LA

LLD

IREC

.

17

-05

2

Rec

orde

r(s)

:

Cle

arS

LC


AppendixB

TripGenerationData


ELEMENTARY SCHOOLITE CODE = 520

PK‐4 Elementary School ‐ Westlake, OhioDate: 5/15/2017

Trip Generation based on: Size of Analysis Area: 120 Employees

Number of Employees

Average Weekday 2‐way Volume 18.14 0.00 1.00 2176

Generator AM Peak Hour Enter 3.60 0.00 1.00 431

Generator AM Peak Hour Exit 3.06 0.00 1.00 368

Generator AM Peak Hour Total 6.66 0.00 1.00 799

Generator PM Peak Hour Enter 1.47 0.00 1.00 176

Generator PM Peak Hour Exit 1.87 0.00 1.00 225

Generator PM Peak Hour Total 3.34 0.00 1.00 401

Saturday 2‐way Volume ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐

Saturday Peak Hour Enter ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐

Saturday Peak Hour Exit ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐

Saturday Peak Hour Total ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐

ENTER EXIT

Average Weekday 2‐way Volume 50% 50%

Generator AM Peak Hour Total 54% 46%

Generator PM Peak Hour Total 44% 56%

Saturday 2‐way Volume

Saturday Peak Hour Volume

Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers

Trip Generartion, 9th Edition, 2012.

Average

Rate

Standard

Deviation

Adjustment

factor

Driveway

Volume

T 7.65 X ‐ 118.67

T 19.87 X ‐ 207.96

T 3.29 X 6.41

NO AVAILABEDATA

NOAVAILABLEDATA

ELEMENTARY SCHOOLITE CODE = 520

PK‐4 Elementary School ‐ Westlake, OhioDate: 5/15/2017

Trip Generation based on: Size of Analysis Area: 1450 Students

Number of Students

Average Weekday 2‐way Volume 1.29 1.26 1.00 1871

Generator AM Peak Hour Enter 0.25 0.00 1.00 359

Generator AM Peak Hour Exit 0.20 0.00 1.00 294

Generator AM Peak Hour Total 0.45 0.70 1.00 653

Generator PM Peak Hour Enter 0.13 0.00 1.00 183

Generator PM Peak Hour Exit 0.15 0.00 1.00 223

Generator PM Peak Hour Total 0.28 0.54 1.00 406

Saturday 2‐way Volume ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐

Saturday Peak Hour Enter ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐

Saturday Peak Hour Exit ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐

Saturday Peak Hour Total ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐

ENTER EXIT

Average Weekday 2‐way Volume 50% 50%

Generator AM Peak Hour Total 55% 45%

Generator PM Peak Hour Total 45% 55%

Saturday 2‐way Volume

Saturday Peak Hour Volume

Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers

Trip Generartion, 9th Edition, 2012.

Average

Rate

Standard

Deviation

Adjustment

factor

Driveway

Volume

EQUATIONNOT GIVEN

EQUATIONNOT GIVEN

EQUATIONNOT GIVEN

NO AVAILABEDATA

NOAVAILABLEDATA


AppendixC

ExistingCapacityAnalysesWorksheets‐2017


HCS7 Signalized Intersection Results Summary

General Information Intersection Information

Agency TMS Engineers, Inc. Duration, h 0.25

Analyst ABC Analysis Date May 19, 2017 Area Type Other

Jurisdiction Westlake, OH Time Period AM Peak PHF 0.92

Urban Street Center Ridge Analysis Year 2017 Analysis Period 1> 7:00

Intersection @ Dover Center File Name AM EX CenterDover.xus

Project Description Existing Conditions

Demand Information EB WB NB SB

Approach Movement L T R L T R L T R L T R

Demand ( v ), veh/h 176 631 55 82 350 233 106 328 116 150 275 75

Signal Information

GreenYellowRed

7.0 31.4 7.0 34.6 0.0 0.03.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 0.0 0.01.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 0.0 0.0

1 2 4

5 6 7

Cycle, s 100.0 Reference Phase 2

Offset, s 0 Reference Point End

Uncoordinated No 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 3 8 7 4

Case Number 1.1 4.0 1.1 4.0 1.1 4.0 1.1 4.0

Phase Duration, s 12.0 36.4 12.0 36.4 12.0 39.6 12.0 39.6

Change Period, ( Y+R c ), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0

Max Allow Headway ( MAH ), s 3.1 0.0 3.1 0.0 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1

Queue Clearance Time ( g s ), s 9.0 5.3 6.0 26.2 7.9 19.5

Green Extension Time ( g e ), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.0 1.6

Phase Call Probability 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Max Out Probability 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.13 1.00 0.01

Movement Group Results EB WB NB SB


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

Adjusted Flow Rate ( v ), veh/h 191 378 368 89 337 297 115 483 163 380

Adjusted Saturation Flow Rate ( s ), veh/h/ln 1781 1870 1817 1767 1856 1609 1781 1786 1781 1801

Queue Service Time ( g s ), s 7.0 17.4 17.4 3.3 15.2 15.5 4.0 24.2 5.9 17.5

Cycle Queue Clearance Time ( g c ), s 7.0 17.4 17.4 3.3 15.2 15.5 4.0 24.2 5.9 17.5

Green Ratio ( g/C ) 0.38 0.31 0.31 0.38 0.31 0.31 0.42 0.35 0.42 0.35

Capacity ( c ), veh/h 307 587 571 281 583 505 348 618 273 623

Volume-to-Capacity Ratio ( X ) 0.624 0.643 0.644 0.317 0.578 0.588 0.331 0.781 0.597 0.611

Back of Queue ( Q ), ft/ln ( 85 th percentile) 129.7 290.9 280.4 61.1 257 229 74.5 365.6 106.4 262.3

Back of Queue ( Q ), veh/ln ( 85 th percentile) 5.1 11.5 11.2 2.4 10.0 9.2 2.9 14.4 4.2 10.3

Queue Storage Ratio ( RQ ) ( 85 th percentile) 0.86 0.00 0.00 0.41 0.00 0.00 0.43 0.00 0.33 0.00

Uniform Delay ( d 1 ), s/veh 24.1 29.5 29.5 22.1 28.7 28.9 20.4 29.3 23.0 27.1

Incremental Delay ( d 2 ), s/veh 2.9 5.4 5.5 0.2 4.1 4.9 0.2 5.8 2.5 1.3

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

Control Delay ( d ), s/veh 27.0 34.8 35.0 22.4 32.9 33.8 20.6 35.1 25.4 28.4

Level of Service (LOS) C C D C C C C D C C

Approach Delay, s/veh / LOS 33.3 C 32.0 C 32.3 C 27.5 C

Intersection Delay, s/veh / LOS 31.6 C

Multimodal Results EB WB NB SB

Pedestrian LOS Score / LOS 2.3 B 2.3 B 2.8 C 2.8 C

Bicycle LOS Score / LOS 1.3 A 1.1 A 1.5 A 1.4 A

Copyright © 2017 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved. HCS7™ Streets Version 7.2 Generated: 5/23/2017 2:48:55 PM

HCS7 Two-Way Stop-Control Report

General Information Site InformationAnalyst ABC Intersection Center Ridge & Glenmore

Agency/Co. TMS Engineers, Inc. Jurisdiction Westlake, OH

Date Performed 5/19/2017 East/West Street Center Ridge Road

Analysis Year 2017 North/South Street Glenmore Drive

Time Analyzed AM Peak Peak Hour Factor 0.92

Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs) 0.25


Lanes

Major Street: East-West

Vehicle Volumes and AdjustmentsApproach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R

Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Number of Lanes 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0

Configuration LT T T TR LR

Volume, V (veh/h) 6 878 483 24 25 9

Percent Heavy Vehicles (%) 3 3 3

Proportion Time Blocked

Percent Grade (%) 0

Right Turn Channelized No No No No

Median Type/Storage Undivided

Critical and Follow-up HeadwaysBase Critical Headway (sec) 4.1 7.5 6.9

Critical Headway (sec) 4.16 6.86 6.96

Base Follow-Up Headway (sec) 2.2 3.5 3.3

Follow-Up Headway (sec) 2.23 3.53 3.33

Delay, Queue Length, and Level of ServiceFlow Rate, v (veh/h) 7 37

Capacity, c (veh/h) 1008 278

v/c Ratio 0.01 0.13

95% Queue Length, Q₉₅ (veh) 0.0 0.5

Control Delay (s/veh) 8.6 19.9

Level of Service, LOS A C

Approach Delay (s/veh) 0.1 19.9

Approach LOS C

Copyright © 2017 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS7™ TWSC Version 7.2 Generated: 5/23/2017 2:58:41 PMTWSC1.xtw


General Information Site InformationAnalyst ABC Intersection Dover Center & Westown


Date Performed 5/19/2017 East/West Street Westown Boulevard

Analysis Year 2017 North/South Street Dover Center Road


Intersection Orientation North-South Analysis Time Period (hrs) 0.25


Lanes

Major Street: North-South



Priority 10 11 12 7 8 9 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6

Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0

Configuration LR LT TR

Volume, V (veh/h) 62 22 8 478 334 25



Percent Grade (%) 0



Critical and Follow-up HeadwaysBase Critical Headway (sec)

Critical Headway (sec)

Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Follow-Up Headway (sec)



v/c Ratio 0.22 0.01



Level of Service, LOS C A


Approach LOS C

Copyright © 2017 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS7™ TWSC Version 7.2 Generated: 5/23/2017 3:02:08 PMAM EX Westown.xtw





Jurisdiction Westlake, OH Time Period PM Peak PHF 0.92


Intersection @ Dover Center File Name PM EX CenterDover.xus




Demand ( v ), veh/h 106 368 81 76 367 92 133 271 84 105 258 106

Signal Information

GreenYellowRed

7.0 31.7 7.0 34.3 0.0 0.03.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 0.0 0.01.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 0.0 0.0

1 2 4

5 6 7







Case Number 1.1 4.0 1.1 4.0 1.1 4.0 1.1 4.0

Phase Duration, s 12.0 36.7 12.0 36.7 12.0 39.3 12.0 39.3














Green Ratio ( g/C ) 0.39 0.32 0.32 0.39 0.32 0.32 0.41 0.34 0.41 0.34

Capacity ( c ), veh/h 363 593 556 367 588 548 330 615 359 610


Back of Queue ( Q ), ft/ln ( 85 th percentile) 78.5 184.1 175 55.8 190.6 179.1 91.6 269.2 74.2 279.1







Level of Service (LOS) C C C C C C C C C C












Time Analyzed PM Peak Peak Hour Factor 0.92



Lanes




Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Number of Lanes 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0


Volume, V (veh/h) 3 507 592 11 11 11



Percent Grade (%) 0









v/c Ratio 0.00 0.06





Approach LOS C

Copyright © 2017 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS7™ TWSC Version 7.2 Generated: 5/23/2017 3:05:51 PMAM EX Glenmore.xtw









Lanes




Priority 10 11 12 7 8 9 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6

Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0


Volume, V (veh/h) 35 18 13 454 390 20



Percent Grade (%) 0









v/c Ratio 0.14 0.01



Level of Service, LOS B A


Approach LOS B

Copyright © 2017 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS7™ TWSC Version 7.2 Generated: 5/23/2017 3:07:20 PMPM EX Westown.xtw


AppendixD

No‐BuildCapacityAnalysisWorksheets‐2019








Intersection @ Dover Center File Name AM 19NB CenterDover.xus

Project Description No-Build Conditions



Demand ( v ), veh/h 190 680 60 90 380 250 120 370 130 170 310 80

Signal Information

GreenYellowRed

7.0 30.1 7.0 35.9 0.0 0.03.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 0.0 0.01.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 0.0 0.0

1 2 4

5 6 7







Case Number 1.1 4.0 1.1 4.0 1.1 4.0 1.1 4.0

Phase Duration, s 12.0 35.1 12.0 35.1 12.0 40.9 12.0 40.9














Green Ratio ( g/C ) 0.37 0.30 0.30 0.37 0.30 0.30 0.43 0.36 0.43 0.36

Capacity ( c ), veh/h 278 563 547 253 559 484 334 641 247 648


Back of Queue ( Q ), ft/ln ( 85 th percentile) 156 329.6 317.6 69.5 289.3 256.9 81.6 432.2 132.9 292.6







Level of Service (LOS) D D D C D D C D C C

Approach Delay, s/veh / LOS 38.8 D 35.2 D 35.7 D 30.4 C

Intersection Delay, s/veh / LOS 35.5 D



Bicycle LOS Score / LOS 1.3 A 1.1 A 1.6 B 1.5 A










Lanes




Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Number of Lanes 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0


Volume, V (veh/h) 10 950 520 30 30 10



Percent Grade (%) 0









v/c Ratio 0.01 0.18





Approach LOS C

Copyright © 2017 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS7™ TWSC Version 7.2 Generated: 5/23/2017 3:13:12 PMAM 19NB Glenmore.xtw









Lanes




Priority 10 11 12 7 8 9 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6

Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0


Volume, V (veh/h) 70 30 10 530 370 30



Percent Grade (%) 0









v/c Ratio 0.29 0.01





Approach LOS C

Copyright © 2017 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS7™ TWSC Version 7.2 Generated: 5/23/2017 3:14:36 PMAM 19NB Westown.xtw







Intersection @ Dover Center File Name PM 19NB CenterDover.xus




Demand ( v ), veh/h 120 400 90 80 400 100 150 300 90 120 290 120

Signal Information

GreenYellowRed

7.0 30.9 7.0 35.1 0.0 0.03.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 0.0 0.01.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 0.0 0.0

1 2 4

5 6 7







Case Number 1.1 4.0 1.1 4.0 1.1 4.0 1.1 4.0

Phase Duration, s 12.0 35.9 12.0 35.9 12.0 40.1 12.0 40.1














Green Ratio ( g/C ) 0.38 0.31 0.31 0.38 0.31 0.31 0.42 0.35 0.42 0.35

Capacity ( c ), veh/h 339 578 541 342 573 534 304 630 322 624


Back of Queue ( Q ), ft/ln ( 85 th percentile) 88.4 204.7 193.9 60 211.6 198.3 102 298 82.8 321






















Lanes




Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Number of Lanes 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0


Volume, V (veh/h) 10 550 640 10 10 10



Percent Grade (%) 0









v/c Ratio 0.01 0.07





Approach LOS C

Copyright © 2017 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS7™ TWSC Version 7.2 Generated: 5/23/2017 3:17:34 PMPM 19NB Glenmore.xtw









Lanes




Priority 10 11 12 7 8 9 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6

Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0


Volume, V (veh/h) 40 20 10 510 430 20



Percent Grade (%) 0









v/c Ratio 0.17 0.01





Approach LOS C

Copyright © 2017 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS7™ TWSC Version 7.2 Generated: 5/23/2017 3:18:25 PMPM 19NB Westown.xtw


AppendixE

No‐BuildCapacityAnalysisWorksheets‐2039








Intersection @ Dover Center File Name AM 39NB CenterDover.xus




Demand ( v ), veh/h 230 820 70 110 450 300 140 440 150 200 370 100

Signal Information

GreenYellowRed

7.0 3.0 25.3 7.0 1.9 35.83.6 0.0 3.6 3.6 0.0 3.61.4 0.0 1.4 1.4 0.0 1.4

1 2 4

5 6 7







Case Number 1.1 4.0 1.1 4.0 1.1 4.0 1.1 4.0

Phase Duration, s 15.0 33.3 12.0 30.3 12.0 40.8 13.9 42.7














Green Ratio ( g/C ) 0.35 0.28 0.28 0.32 0.25 0.25 0.43 0.36 0.45 0.38

Capacity ( c ), veh/h 265 529 515 200 469 407 295 640 231 679


Back of Queue ( Q ), ft/ln ( 85 th percentile) 254.3 477.8 460.5 95.5 446.6 395.9 94.2 658.1 281.6 364.9







Level of Service (LOS) E E E C E E C F E C

Approach Delay, s/veh / LOS 61.4 E 60.8 E 59.3 E 42.5 D

Intersection Delay, s/veh / LOS 57.0 E



Bicycle LOS Score / LOS 1.5 A 1.3 A 1.8 B 1.7 B










Lanes




Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Number of Lanes 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0


Volume, V (veh/h) 10 1140 630 30 30 10



Percent Grade (%) 0









v/c Ratio 0.01 0.25



Level of Service, LOS A D


Approach LOS D

Copyright © 2017 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS7™ TWSC Version 7.2 Generated: 5/23/2017 3:34:51 PMAM 39NB Glenmore.xtw

HCS7 Two-Way Stop-Control ReportGeneral Information Site Information

Analyst ABC Intersection Dover Center & Westown







Lanes




Priority 10 11 12 7 8 9 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6

Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0


Volume, V (veh/h) 70 30 10 640 440 30



Percent Grade (%) 0









v/c Ratio 0.44 0.01



Level of Service, LOS D A


Approach LOS D

Copyright © 2017 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS7™ TWSC Version 7.2.1 Generated: 5/31/2017 11:33:56 AMAM 39NB Westown.xtw







Intersection @ Dover Center File Name PM 39NB CenterDover.xus




Demand ( v ), veh/h 140 480 110 100 480 120 180 360 110 140 340 140

Signal Information

GreenYellowRed

7.0 29.7 7.0 36.3 0.0 0.03.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 0.0 0.01.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 0.0 0.0

1 2 4

5 6 7







Case Number 1.1 4.0 1.1 4.0 1.1 4.0 1.1 4.0

Phase Duration, s 12.0 34.7 12.0 34.7 12.0 41.3 12.0 41.3














Green Ratio ( g/C ) 0.37 0.30 0.30 0.37 0.30 0.30 0.43 0.36 0.43 0.36

Capacity ( c ), veh/h 290 555 520 293 551 513 266 652 294 645


Back of Queue ( Q ), ft/ln ( 85 th percentile) 104.1 256.5 241.7 78 265 247.2 138 379.8 93.6 397.3







Level of Service (LOS) C C D C D D C C C D















Lanes




Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Number of Lanes 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0


Volume, V (veh/h) 10 660 770 10 10 10



Percent Grade (%) 0









v/c Ratio 0.01 0.08





Approach LOS C

Copyright © 2017 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS7™ TWSC Version 7.2 Generated: 5/23/2017 3:38:54 PMPM 19NB Glenmore.xtw









Lanes




Priority 10 11 12 7 8 9 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6

Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0


Volume, V (veh/h) 40 20 10 600 520 20



Percent Grade (%) 0









v/c Ratio 0.27 0.01





Approach LOS D

Copyright © 2017 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS7™ TWSC Version 7.2.1 Generated: 5/31/2017 11:34:29 AMPM 39NB Westown.xtw


AppendixF

No‐BuildCapacityAnalysisWorksheets‐2039w/Improvements



General Information Intersection InformationAgency TMS Engineers, Inc. Duration, h 0.25Analyst ABC Analysis Date May 19, 2017 Area Type OtherJurisdiction Westlake, OH Time Period AM Peak PHF 0.92Urban Street Center Ridge Analysis Year 2039 Analysis Period 1> 7:00Intersection @ Dover Center File Name AM 39NB CenterDover-WBNB RTL.xusProject Description WB & NB RTL

Demand Information EB WB NB SBApproach Movement L T R L T R L T R L T RDemand ( v ), veh/h 230 820 70 110 450 300 140 440 150 200 370 100

Signal Information

GreenYellowRed

7.0 32.7 7.0 0.1 33.2 0.03.6 3.6 3.6 0.0 3.6 0.01.4 1.4 1.4 0.0 1.4 0.0

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 8

Cycle, s 100.0 Reference Phase 2Offset, s 0 Reference Point EndUncoordinated No Simult. Gap E/W OnForce Mode Fixed Simult. Gap N/S On

Timer Results EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBTAssigned Phase 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4Case Number 1.1 4.0 1.1 3.0 1.1 3.0 1.1 4.0Phase Duration, s 12.0 37.7 12.0 37.7 12.0 38.2 12.1 38.3Change Period, ( Y+R c ), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0Max Allow Headway ( MAH ), s 3.1 0.0 3.1 0.0 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1Queue Clearance Time ( g s ), s 9.0 6.4 7.6 24.9 9.1 28.4Green Extension Time ( g e ), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.9 0.0 1.4Phase Call Probability 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Max Out Probability 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.22 1.00 0.59

Movement Group Results EB WB NB SBApproach Movement L T R L T R L T R L T RAssigned Movement 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 7 4 14Adjusted Flow Rate ( v ), veh/h 250 491 477 120 489 326 152 478 163 217 511Adjusted Saturation Flow Rate ( s ), veh/h/ln 1781 1870 1818 1767 1766 1610 1781 1870 1610 1781 1801Queue Service Time ( g s ), s 7.0 23.9 23.9 4.4 10.8 15.3 5.6 22.9 6.7 7.1 26.4Cycle Queue Clearance Time ( g c ), s 7.0 23.9 23.9 4.4 10.8 15.3 5.6 22.9 6.7 7.1 26.4Green Ratio ( g/C ) 0.40 0.33 0.33 0.40 0.33 0.40 0.40 0.33 0.40 0.40 0.33Capacity ( c ), veh/h 377 612 595 235 1155 641 240 621 647 292 600Volume-to-Capacity Ratio ( X ) 0.663 0.802 0.802 0.509 0.423 0.509 0.633 0.770 0.252 0.743 0.852Back of Queue ( Q ), ft/ln ( 85 th percentile) 94.8 401.1 386.4 81.5 175 215.9 105.6 362.4 102.3 155.5 419.9Back of Queue ( Q ), veh/ln ( 85 th percentile) 3.7 15.8 15.5 3.2 6.8 8.6 4.2 14.3 4.1 6.1 16.5Queue Storage Ratio ( RQ ) ( 85 th percentile) 0.63 0.00 0.00 0.54 0.00 0.00 0.60 0.00 0.00 0.48 0.00Uniform Delay ( d 1 ), s/veh 25.7 30.7 30.7 23.7 26.3 22.7 24.4 30.0 19.9 26.4 31.1Incremental Delay ( d 2 ), s/veh 3.5 10.7 10.9 0.8 1.1 2.9 4.1 5.3 0.1 8.8 10.8Initial 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 0.0Control Delay ( d ), s/veh 29.2 41.3 41.6 24.5 27.4 25.6 28.5 35.3 20.0 35.2 41.8Level of Service (LOS) C D D C C C C D B D DApproach Delay, s/veh / LOS 39.0 D 26.4 C 30.8 C 39.8 DIntersection Delay, s/veh / LOS 34.2 C

Multimodal Results EB WB NB SBPedestrian LOS Score / LOS 2.4 B 2.3 B 2.9 C 2.8 CBicycle LOS Score / LOS 1.5 A 1.3 A 1.8 B 1.7 B

Copyright © 2017 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved. HCS7™ Streets Version 7.2.1 Generated: 5/31/2017 11:20:50 AM


General Information Intersection InformationAgency TMS Engineers, Inc. Duration, h 0.25Analyst ABC Analysis Date May 19, 2017 Area Type OtherJurisdiction Westlake, OH Time Period PM Peak PHF 0.92Urban Street Center Ridge Analysis Year 2039 Analysis Period 1> 7:00Intersection @ Dover Center File Name PM 39NB CenterDover-WBNB RTL.xusProject Description WB & NB RTL


Signal Information

GreenYellowRed

7.0 29.5 7.0 36.5 0.0 0.03.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 0.0 0.01.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 0.0 0.0

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 8



Movement Group Results EB WB NB SBApproach Movement L T R L T R L T R L T RAssigned Movement 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 7 4 14Adjusted Flow Rate ( v ), veh/h 152 330 311 109 522 130 196 391 120 152 522Adjusted Saturation Flow Rate ( s ), veh/h/ln 1781 1870 1749 1767 1766 1610 1781 1870 1610 1781 1777Queue Service Time ( g s ), s 5.9 15.1 15.3 4.2 12.2 5.6 7.0 16.8 4.5 5.3 26.4Cycle Queue Clearance Time ( g c ), s 5.9 15.1 15.3 4.2 12.2 5.6 7.0 16.8 4.5 5.3 26.4Green Ratio ( g/C ) 0.36 0.30 0.30 0.36 0.30 0.37 0.44 0.36 0.44 0.44 0.36Capacity ( c ), veh/h 331 552 516 291 1042 588 268 683 700 372 649Volume-to-Capacity Ratio ( X ) 0.459 0.598 0.603 0.373 0.501 0.222 0.730 0.573 0.171 0.409 0.804Back of Queue ( Q ), ft/ln ( 85 th percentile) 103.4 257.7 242.9 78.3 196.5 93.7 134.6 257.7 73.5 92 394.7Back of Queue ( Q ), veh/ln ( 85 th percentile) 4.1 10.1 9.7 3.1 7.7 3.7 5.3 10.1 2.9 3.6 15.5Queue Storage Ratio ( RQ ) ( 85 th percentile) 0.69 0.00 0.00 0.52 0.00 0.00 0.77 0.00 0.00 0.28 0.00Uniform Delay ( d 1 ), s/veh 23.3 30.2 30.2 23.2 29.2 21.9 23.1 25.5 17.2 19.5 28.5Incremental Delay ( d 2 ), s/veh 0.4 4.7 5.1 0.3 1.7 0.9 8.5 0.8 0.0 0.3 6.8Initial 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 0.0Control Delay ( d ), s/veh 23.6 34.9 35.4 23.5 30.9 22.8 31.6 26.3 17.3 19.8 35.3Level of Service (LOS) C C D C C C C C B B DApproach Delay, s/veh / LOS 32.9 C 28.4 C 26.2 C 31.8 CIntersection Delay, s/veh / LOS 29.9 C




AppendixG

BuildCapacityAnalysisWorksheets‐2019








Intersection @ Dover Center File Name AM 19 CenterDover.xus

Project Description Build Conditions



Demand ( v ), veh/h 287 798 124 98 483 250 212 379 140 170 316 158

Signal Information

GreenYellowRed

7.0 1.1 25.9 7.5 1.2 32.33.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 0.0 3.61.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 0.0 1.4

1 2 4

5 6 7







Case Number 1.1 4.0 1.1 4.0 1.1 4.0 1.1 4.0

Phase Duration, s 18.1 37.0 12.0 30.9 13.7 38.5 12.5 37.3














Green Ratio ( g/C ) 0.41 0.32 0.32 0.33 0.26 0.26 0.41 0.34 0.40 0.32

Capacity ( c ), veh/h 332 599 570 218 481 425 261 593 209 565









Level of Service (LOS) E D D C E E D E E D

Approach Delay, s/veh / LOS 49.5 D 53.1 D 56.0 E 52.8 D




Bicycle LOS Score / LOS 1.6 B 1.2 A 1.8 B 1.6 B

Copyright © 2017 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved. HCS7™ Streets Version 7.2 Generated: 5/30/2017 6:35:37 AM









Lanes




Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Number of Lanes 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0


Volume, V (veh/h) 10 1094 595 30 30 10



Percent Grade (%) 0









v/c Ratio 0.01 0.23



Level of Service, LOS A D


Approach LOS D

Copyright © 2017 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS7™ TWSC Version 7.2 Generated: 5/30/2017 6:58:12 AMAM 19 Glenmore.xtw









Lanes




Priority 10 11 12 7 8 9 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6

Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0


Volume, V (veh/h) 95 35 16 616 424 54



Percent Grade (%) 0









v/c Ratio 0.57 0.02



Level of Service, LOS E A


Approach LOS E

Copyright © 2017 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS7™ TWSC Version 7.2 Generated: 5/30/2017 7:00:36 AMAM 19 Westown.xtw







Intersection @ Dover Center File Name PM 19 CenterDover.xus




Demand ( v ), veh/h 165 453 137 88 438 100 194 307 98 120 297 153

Signal Information

GreenYellowRed

7.0 30.2 7.1 35.7 0.0 0.03.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 0.0 0.01.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 0.0 0.0

1 2 4

5 6 7







Case Number 1.1 4.0 1.1 4.0 1.1 4.0 1.1 4.0

Phase Duration, s 12.0 35.2 12.0 35.2 12.1 40.8 12.0 40.7














Green Ratio ( g/C ) 0.37 0.30 0.30 0.37 0.30 0.30 0.43 0.36 0.43 0.36

Capacity ( c ), veh/h 317 565 520 295 560 524 294 637 317 624


Back of Queue ( Q ), ft/ln ( 85 th percentile) 121.1 256 238.9 67.9 231.4 216.9 143.4 313.2 81.9 371.1






















Lanes




Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Number of Lanes 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0


Volume, V (veh/h) 10 598 707 10 10 10



Percent Grade (%) 0









v/c Ratio 0.01 0.07





Approach LOS C

Copyright © 2017 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS7™ TWSC Version 7.2 Generated: 5/30/2017 7:22:53 AMPM 19 Glenmore.xtw









Lanes




Priority 10 11 12 7 8 9 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6

Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0


Volume, V (veh/h) 64 26 17 545 469 43



Percent Grade (%) 0









v/c Ratio 0.39 0.02





Approach LOS D

Copyright © 2017 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS7™ TWSC Version 7.2 Generated: 5/30/2017 7:24:26 AMPM 19 Westown.xtw


AppendixH

BuildCapacityAnalysisWorksheets‐2019w/Improvements








Intersection @ Dover Center File Name AM 19 CenterDover-IMP2.xus

Project Description WB RTL



Demand ( v ), veh/h 287 798 124 98 483 250 212 379 140 170 316 158

Signal Information

GreenYellowRed

7.0 31.2 7.0 0.6 34.2 0.03.6 3.6 3.6 0.0 3.6 0.01.4 1.4 1.4 0.0 1.4 0.0

1 2 4

5 6 7







Case Number 1.1 4.0 1.1 3.0 1.1 4.0 1.1 4.0

Phase Duration, s 12.1 36.2 12.0 36.1 12.6 39.8 12.0 39.2














Green Ratio ( g/C ) 0.38 0.31 0.31 0.38 0.31 0.38 0.42 0.35 0.41 0.34

Capacity ( c ), veh/h 366 584 556 212 1099 613 266 616 216 599









Level of Service (LOS) D D D C C C D D D D

Approach Delay, s/veh / LOS 49.4 D 27.7 C 49.8 D 44.6 D




Bicycle LOS Score / LOS 1.6 B 1.2 A 1.8 B 1.6 B


HCS7 Roundabouts ReportGeneral Information Site Information


Agency or Co. TMS Engineers, Inc. E/W Street Name Westown Boulevard

Date Performed 5/19/2017 N/S Street Name Dover Center Road

Analysis Year 2019 Analysis Time Period (hrs) 0.25


Project Description Roundabout Jurisdiction Westlake, OH

Volume Adjustments and Site Characteristics

Approach EB WB NB SB


Number of Lanes (N) 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0

Lane Assignment LR LT TR

Volume (V), veh/h 0 95 35 0 16 616 0 424 54

Percent Heavy Vehicles, % 3 28 17 3 38 3 3 3 44

Flow Rate (vPCE), pc/h 0 132 45 0 24 690 0 475 85

Right-Turn Bypass None None None None

Conflicting Lanes 1 1 1

Pedestrians Crossing, p/h 0 0 0

Critical and Follow-Up Headway Adjustment


Lane Left Right Bypass Left Right Bypass Left Right Bypass Left Right Bypass

Critical Headway (s) 4.9763 4.9763 4.9763

Follow-Up Headway (s) 2.6087 2.6087 2.6087

Flow Computations, Capacity and v/c Ratios



Entry Flow (ve), pc/h 177 714 560

Entry Volume veh/h 142 687 520

Circulating Flow (vc), pc/h 475 846 132 24

Exiting Flow (vex), pc/h 0 109 822 520

Capacity (cpce), pc/h 850 1206 1347

Capacity (c), veh/h 680 1161 1251

v/c Ratio (x) 0.21 0.59 0.42

Delay and Level of Service



Lane Control Delay (d), s/veh 7.7 10.5 7.0

Lane LOS A B A

95% Queue, veh 0.8 4.1 2.1

Approach Delay, s/veh 7.7 10.5 7.0

Approach LOS A B A

Intersection Delay, s/veh | LOS 8.8 A

Copyright © 2017 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS7™ Roundabouts Version 7.2 5/30/2017 10:50:01 AMAM 19 Westown-RDAB.xro






Urban Street Dover Center @ Analysis Year 2019 Analysis Period 1> 7:00

Intersection Westown File Name AM 19 Westown-TS.xus

Project Description Traffic Signal



Demand ( v ), veh/h 95 0 35 16 616 424 54

Signal Information

GreenYellowRed

52.8 37.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.03.6 3.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.01.4 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

1 3 4

5 6 7 8






Assigned Phase 4 2 6

Case Number 12.0 8.0 8.0

Phase Duration, s 42.2 57.8 57.8

Change Period, ( Y+R c ), s 5.0 5.0 5.0

Max Allow Headway ( MAH ), s 3.2 0.0 0.0

Queue Clearance Time ( g s ), s 9.0

Green Extension Time ( g e ), s 0.3 0.0 0.0

Phase Call Probability 1.00

Max Out Probability 0.00



Assigned Movement 7 4 14 5 2 6 16

Adjusted Flow Rate ( v ), veh/h 141 687 520

Adjusted Saturation Flow Rate ( s ), veh/h/ln 1410 1803 1790

Queue Service Time ( g s ), s 7.0 0.0 19.3

Cycle Queue Clearance Time ( g c ), s 7.0 28.5 19.3

Green Ratio ( g/C ) 0.37 0.53 0.53

Capacity ( c ), veh/h 524 989 945

Volume-to-Capacity Ratio ( X ) 0.269 0.695 0.550

Back of Queue ( Q ), ft/ln ( 85 th percentile) 115 409.1 282.1

Back of Queue ( Q ), veh/ln ( 85 th percentile) 3.8 15.7 10.8

Queue Storage Ratio ( RQ ) ( 85 th percentile) 0.00 0.00 0.00

Uniform Delay ( d 1 ), s/veh 21.9 17.9 15.7

Incremental Delay ( d 2 ), s/veh 0.1 4.0 2.3

Initial Queue Delay ( d 3 ), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0

Control Delay ( d ), s/veh 22.0 21.9 18.0

Level of Service (LOS) C C B

Approach Delay, s/veh / LOS 22.0 C 0.0 21.9 C 18.0 B



Pedestrian LOS Score / LOS 2.1 B 2.1 B 1.9 B 1.4 A

Bicycle LOS Score / LOS 0.7 A 1.6 B 1.3 A








Intersection @ Dover Center File Name PM 19 CenterDover-WB RTL.xus

Project Description WB RTL



Demand ( v ), veh/h 165 453 137 88 438 100 194 307 98 120 297 153

Signal Information

GreenYellowRed

7.0 30.2 7.1 35.7 0.0 0.03.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 0.0 0.01.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 0.0 0.0

1 2 4

5 6 7







Case Number 1.1 4.0 1.1 3.0 1.1 4.0 1.1 4.0

Phase Duration, s 12.0 35.2 12.0 35.2 12.1 40.8 12.0 40.7














Green Ratio ( g/C ) 0.37 0.30 0.30 0.37 0.30 0.37 0.43 0.36 0.43 0.36

Capacity ( c ), veh/h 356 565 520 295 1067 599 294 637 317 624


Back of Queue ( Q ), ft/ln ( 85 th percentile) 118.3 256 238.9 67.9 177.3 79.2 143.4 313.2 81.9 371.1
























Number of Lanes (N) 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0


Volume (V), veh/h 0 64 26 0 17 545 0 469 43



















Capacity (c), veh/h 596 1200 1253

v/c Ratio (x) 0.16 0.51 0.44





Lane LOS A A A

95% Queue, veh 0.6 3.0 2.3


Approach LOS A A A


Copyright © 2017 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS7™ Roundabouts Version 7.2 5/30/2017 10:52:43 AMPM 19 Westown-RDAB.xro






Urban Street Dover Center @ Analysis Year 2019 Analysis Period 1> 7:00

Intersection Westown File Name PM 19 Westown-TS.xus

Project Description Traffic Signal



Demand ( v ), veh/h 64 0 26 17 545 469 43

Signal Information

GreenYellowRed

51.7 38.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.03.6 3.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.01.4 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

1 3 4

5 6 7 8






Assigned Phase 4 2 6

Case Number 12.0 8.0 8.0

Phase Duration, s 43.3 56.7 56.7

Change Period, ( Y+R c ), s 5.0 5.0 5.0

Max Allow Headway ( MAH ), s 3.2 0.0 0.0

Queue Clearance Time ( g s ), s 7.2

Green Extension Time ( g e ), s 0.2 0.0 0.0

Phase Call Probability 1.00

Max Out Probability 0.00



Assigned Movement 7 4 14 5 2 6 16

Adjusted Flow Rate ( v ), veh/h 98 611 557

Adjusted Saturation Flow Rate ( s ), veh/h/ln 1256 1796 1799

Queue Service Time ( g s ), s 5.2 0.0 21.6

Cycle Queue Clearance Time ( g c ), s 5.2 24.3 21.6

Green Ratio ( g/C ) 0.38 0.52 0.52

Capacity ( c ), veh/h 481 966 930

Volume-to-Capacity Ratio ( X ) 0.203 0.633 0.598

Back of Queue ( Q ), ft/ln ( 85 th percentile) 86.7 355.5 316.7

Back of Queue ( Q ), veh/ln ( 85 th percentile) 2.7 13.7 12.2

Queue Storage Ratio ( RQ ) ( 85 th percentile) 0.00 0.00 0.00

Uniform Delay ( d 1 ), s/veh 20.6 17.5 16.9

Incremental Delay ( d 2 ), s/veh 0.1 3.2 2.8

Initial Queue Delay ( d 3 ), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0

Control Delay ( d ), s/veh 20.7 20.7 19.7

Level of Service (LOS) C C B

Approach Delay, s/veh / LOS 20.7 C 0.0 20.7 C 19.7 B



Pedestrian LOS Score / LOS 2.1 B 2.1 B 1.9 B 1.4 A

Bicycle LOS Score / LOS 0.6 A 1.5 A 1.4 A



AppendixI

TrafficSignalWarrantAnalysis


Form 750-020-01TRAFFIC ENGINEERING - 07/99

Page 1 of 52019 BUILD CONDITIONS

TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT SUMMARY

City: Engineer:County: Date:

Major Street: Lanes: Critical Approach Speed:Minor Street: Lanes:

Volume Level Criteria1. Is the critical speed of major street traffic > 70 km/h (40 mph) ? Yes No2. Is the intersection in a built-up area of isolated community of <10,000 population? Yes No

If Question 1 or 2 above is answered "Yes", then use "70%" volume level 70% 100%

WARRANT 1 - EIGHT-HOUR VEHICULAR VOLUME Applicable: Yes NoWarrant 1 is satisfied if Condition A or Condition B is "100%" satisfied. Satisfied: Yes NoWarrant is also satisfied if both Condition A and Condition B are "80%" satisfied.

Condition A - Minimum Vehicular Volume 100% Satisfied: Yes No80% Satisfied: Yes No

Record 8 highest hours and the corresponding volumes in boxes provided. Condition is 100% satisfied if the minimum volumes are met for eight hours . Condition is 80% satisfied if parenthetical volumes are met for eight hours.

Condition B - Interruption of Continuous Traffic Applicable: Yes NoCondition B is intended for application where the traffic volume is Excessive Delay: Yes Noso heavy that traffic on the minor street suffers excessive delay. 100% Satisfied: Yes No

80% Satisfied: Yes No


Source: Revised from NCHRP Report 457

on Minor Street (60) (042) (80)42119 58 44 51 83 45 40

(720)Highest Approach 75 53

on Major Street (600) (420)100 70

1,175968 718 869 854 935 1,050 1,119Both Approaches 750 525 900

Minimum Requirements

7:3

0 A

M -

8:3

0 A

M(volumes in veh/hr) (80% Shown in Brackets)Approach Lanes 1 2 or more

Volume Level

Both Approacheson Major Street

Highest Approach on Minor Street

500 350

150(120)

Eight Highest Hours

9:0

0 A

M -

10

:00

AM

11

:00

AM

-

12

:00

PM

12

:00

PM

-

1:0

0 P

M

5:0

0 P

M

935 1,050

Approach Lanes

Volume Level

(volumes in veh/hr) (80% Shown in Brackets)1

70%100%

2 or more

630

6:0

0 P

M

100% 70% 100% 70% 2:0

0 P

M -

3:0

0 P

M

4:0

0 P

M

4240

1,119 1,175

83

5:0

0 P

M -

3:0

0 P

M -

45

Eight Highest Hours

4:0

0 P

M -

514458119

6:0

0 P

M

8:3

0 A

M

12

:00

PM

12

:00

PM

-

1:0

0 P

M

2:0

0 P

M -

3:0

0 P

M -

4:0

0 P

M -

5:0

0 P

M -

3:0

0 P

M

4:0

0 P

M

5:0

0 P

M

11

:00

AM

-70%100% 9

:00

AM

-

10

:00

AM


7:3

0 A

M -

869 854(400) (280) (480)

968 718420600

(160)105

(084)200 140

ABCMay 19, 2017

Dover Center RoadWestown Boulevard

CuyahogaWestlake

11

35








WARRANT 2 - FOUR-HOUR VEHICULAR VOLUME Applicable: Yes No If all four points lie above the appropriate line, then the warrant is satisfied. Satisfied: Yes No

* Note: 115 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor street approach with two or more lanes and

80 vph applies as the lower threshold volume threshold for a minor street approach with one lane.




135

9:00 AM -


8:30 AM

Cuyahoga

718 5810:00 AM

Hours Street Street

7:30 AM -968 119

12:00 PM -854 51

1:00 PM

2:00 PM -935 83

3:00 PM

Westlake ABC

FourHighest

VolumesMajor Minor

Plot four volume combinations on the applicable figure below.

May 19, 2017

1

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700

MIN

OR

ST

RE

ET

H

IGH

VO

LU

ME

AP

PR

OA

CH

-V

PH

MAJOR STREET - TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES - VPH

FIGURE 4C-1: Criteria for "100%" Volume Level

2 OR MORE LANES & 2 OR MORE LANES

2 OR MORE LANES & 1 LANE

1 LANE & 1 LANE

*115*80

0

100

200

300

400

200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000

MIN

OR

ST

RE

ET

HIG

H V

OL

UM

E A

PP

RO

AC

H -

VP

H





1 LANE & 1 LANE

*80

*60

(Community Less than 10,000 population or above 70 km/hr (40 mph) on Major Street)








WARRANT 3 - PEAK HOUR Applicable: Yes NoIf all three criteria are fullfilled or the plotted point lies above the appropriate line, Satisfied: Yes Nothen the warrant is satisfed.

Record hour when criteria are fulfilled

and the corresponding delay or volume

in boxes provided.

Criteria






AM 119968

WestlakeCuyahoga

Plot volume combination on the applicable figure below.

35Westown Boulevard 1

ABCMay 19, 2017

1. Delay on Minor Approach*(vehicle-hours)

Dover Center Road 1

Peak Hour

Unusual condition justifying

use of warrant:

School Bus Traffic

4

1 2

Delay Criteria* 4.0 5.0

*(vehicles per hour)

Approach Lanes

Delay*

2. Volume on Minor Approach

1.2

Yes NoFulfilled?:

150

119

Approach Lanes 1 2

Volume Criteria* 100

Volume*

650

Fulfilled?:

800

Yes No

*(vehicles per hour)3. Total Entering Volume

Volume Criteria*

No. of Approaches 3

NoYesFulfilled?:

1,087Volume*

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800

MIN

OR

ST

RE

ET

HIG

H V

OL

UM

E A

PP

RO

AC

H -

VP

H





1 LANE & 1 LANE

*150

*100

0

100

200

300

400

500

300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300

MIN

OR

ST

RE

ET

HIG

H V

OL

UM

E A

PP

RO

AC

H -

VP

H





1 LANE & 1 LANE

*100

*75







WARRANT 4 - PEDESTRIAN VOLUME Applicable: Yes NoRecord hours where criteria are fulfilled and the corresponding volume or gap Satisfied: Yes Nofrequency in the boxes provided. The warrant is satisfied if condition 1 or 2 is fulfilled

and condition 3 is fulfilled.

1. Pedestrian volume crossing the major street is

100 ped/hr or more for each of any four hoursand there are less than 60 gaps per hour in the

major street traffic stream of adequate length.

2. Pedestrian volume crossing the major street is190 ped/hr or more for any one hour and there

are less than 60 gaps per hour in the major street

traffic stream of adequate length.

3. The nearest traffic signal along the major street is located more than 90 m (300 ft) away, or the nearest signalis within 90 m (300 ft) but the proposed traffic signal will not restrict the progressive movement of traffic.

WARRANT 5 - SCHOOL CROSSING Applicable: Yes NoRecord hours where criteria are fulfilled and the corresponding volume or gap Satisfied: Yes Nofrequency in the boxes provided. The warrant is satisfied if all three of the criteria

are fulfilled.

1. There are a minimum of 20 students crossing the major street Students: Hour:

during the highest crossing hour.

2. There are fewer adequate gaps in the major street traffic stream during the period Minutes: Gaps:

when the children are using the crossing than the number of minutes in the same period.


WARRANT 6 - COORDINATED SIGNAL SYSTEM Applicable: Yes NoIndicate if the criteria are fulfilled in the boxes provided. The warrant is Satisfied: Yes Nosatisfied if either criterion is fulfilled. This warrant should not be applied when the

resulting signal spacing would be less than 300 m (1,000 ft).

1. On a one-way street or a street that has traffic predominately in one direction, the adjacent signals are

so far apart that they do not provide the necessary degree of vehicle platooning.

2. On a two-way street, adjacent signals do not provide the necessary degree of platooning, andthe proposed and adjacent signals will collectively provide a progressive operation.


8:00 - 9:00 AM 0

Pedestrian Fulfilled?

0YesGaps

5:00 - 6:00 PM

Hour Volume7:00 8:00 AM

WestlakeCuyahoga

ABCMay 19, 2017

PedestrianNo

Fulfilled?

0

Criteria

Fulfilled?

NoYes

0

YesCriteria

0

No

1 35Westown Boulevard 1Dover Center Road

Criteria

4:00 - 5:00 PM






WARRANT 7 - CRASH EXPERIENCE Applicable: Yes NoRecord hours where criteria are fulfilled, the corresponding volume, and other Satisfied: Yes Noinformation in the boxes provided. The warrant is satisfied if all three of the criteria

are fulfilled.

1. One of the Warrant 1, Condition A (80% satisfied)

warrants Warrant 1, Condition B (80% satisfied)

to the right

is met.

2. Adequate trial of other remedial measure

has failed to reduce crash frequency.

3. Five or more reported crashes, of types susceptible to correction by signal, have occurred within a 12-mo. period.

WARRANT 8 - ROADWAY NETWORK Applicable: Yes NoRecord hours where criteria are fulfilled, and the corresponding volume or other Satisfied: Yes Noinformation in the boxes provided. The warrant is satisfied if at least one of the criteria

is fulfilled and if all intersecting routes have one or more of the characteristics listed.

1. Both of a. Total entering volume of at least 1,000 veh/hr Entering Volume:

the criteria during a typical weekday peak hour.

to the right b. Five-year projected volumes that satisfy

are met. one or more of Warrants 1, 2, or 3.

2. Total entering volume at least

1,000 veh/hr for each of any 5 hrs

of a non-normal business day(Sat. or Sun.)

1. Part of the street or highway system that serves as the principal roadway

network for through traffic flow.

2. Rural or suburban highway outside of, entering, or traversing a city.

3. Appears as a major route on an official plan.

CONCLUSIONS Warrants Satisfied:

Remarks:


at 80% of volume requirements:

80 ped/hr for four (4) hours or

Characteristics of Major Routes

ABCMay 19, 2017

Volume

WestlakeCuyahoga

Dover Center Road

Criteria

Warrant 4, Pedestrian Volume

Major Street:

Minor Street:

Major Street:

Minor Street:

Minor Street:

Yes

2 3

Fulfilled?No Yes No

Met?

Hour

Fulfilled?Yes No

Criteria

Major Street:

Met?Yes NoHour

Warrant:

Satisfied?:

1

Fulfilled?Yes

Volume

No

NoMet?

Yes

UNKNOWN

2

Number of crashes per 12 months:

Measure tried:

1 35Westown Boulevard 1

Warrant #9 NOT APPLICABLE due to no at grade railroad crossing.INTERSECTION DOES NOT MEET WARRANT CRITERIA UNDER 2019 BUILD CONDITIONS

152 ped/hr for one (1) hour








WARRANT 1 - EIGHT-HOUR VEHICULAR VOLUME Applicable: Yes NoWarrant 1 is satisfied if Condition A or Condition B is "100%" satisfied. Satisfied: Yes NoWarrant is also satisfied if both Condition A and Condition B are "80%" satisfied.

Condition A - Minimum Vehicular Volume 100% Satisfied: Yes No80% Satisfied: Yes No


Condition B - Interruption of Continuous Traffic Applicable: Yes NoCondition B is intended for application where the traffic volume is Excessive Delay: Yes Noso heavy that traffic on the minor street suffers excessive delay. 100% Satisfied: Yes No

80% Satisfied: Yes No



ABCMay 19, 2017


CuyahogaWestlake

11

35

(160)105

(084)200 140

1,039 1,021(400) (280) (480)

1,131 859420600

11

:00

AM

-70%100% 9

:00

AM

-

10

:00

AM


7:3

0 A

M -

3:0

0 P

M -

4:0

0 P

M -

5:0

0 P

M -

3:0

0 P

M

4:0

0 P

M

5:0

0 P

M

514458119

6:0

0 P

M

8:3

0 A

M

12

:00

PM

12

:00

PM

-

1:0

0 P

M

2:0

0 P

M -

4240

1,338 1,405

83

5:0

0 P

M -

3:0

0 P

M -

45

Eight Highest Hours

4:0

0 P

M -

630

6:0

0 P

M

100% 70% 100% 70% 2:0

0 P

M -

3:0

0 P

M

4:0

0 P

M

Approach Lanes

Volume Level

(volumes in veh/hr) (80% Shown in Brackets)1

70%100%

2 or more

Eight Highest Hours

9:0

0 A

M -

10

:00

AM

11

:00

AM

-

12

:00

PM

12

:00

PM

-

1:0

0 P

M

5:0

0 P

M

1,104 1,255Both Approacheson Major Street

Highest Approach on Minor Street

500 350

150(120)

(80% Shown in Brackets)Approach Lanes 1 2 or more

Volume Level

1,338Both Approaches 750 525 900


7:3

0 A

M -

8:3

0 A

M(volumes in veh/hr)

(420)100 70

1,4051,131 859 1,039 1,021 1,104 1,255

83 45 40

(720)Highest Approach 75 53

on Major Street (600)

on Minor Street (60) (042) (80)42119 58 44 51








WARRANT 2 - FOUR-HOUR VEHICULAR VOLUME Applicable: Yes No If all four points lie above the appropriate line, then the warrant is satisfied. Satisfied: Yes No






Westlake ABC

FourHighest

VolumesMajor Minor

Plot four volume combinations on the applicable figure below.

May 19, 2017

1

12:00 PM -1,021 51

1:00 PM

2:00 PM -1,104 83

3:00 PM

Cuyahoga

859 5810:00 AM

Hours Street Street

7:30 AM -1,131 119

135

9:00 AM -


8:30 AM

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700

MIN

OR

ST

RE

ET

H

IGH

VO

LU

ME

AP

PR

OA

CH

-V

PH





1 LANE & 1 LANE

*115*80

0

100

200

300

400

200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000

MIN

OR

ST

RE

ET

HIG

H V

OL

UM

E A

PP

RO

AC

H -

VP

H





1 LANE & 1 LANE

*80

*60












in boxes provided.

Criteria






NoYesFulfilled?:

1,420Volume*

650

Fulfilled?:

800

Yes No


Volume Criteria*

No. of Approaches 3

119

Approach Lanes 1 2


Volume*

2.8

Yes NoFulfilled?:

150

4

1 2



Approach Lanes

Delay*


May 19, 2017


Dover Center Road 1

Peak Hour


use of warrant:

School Bus Traffic

AM 1191131

WestlakeCuyahoga



ABC

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800

MIN

OR

ST

RE

ET

HIG

H V

OL

UM

E A

PP

RO

AC

H -

VP

H





1 LANE & 1 LANE

*150

*100

0

100

200

300

400

500

300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300

MIN

OR

ST

RE

ET

HIG

H V

OL

UM

E A

PP

RO

AC

H -

VP

H





1 LANE & 1 LANE

*100

*75







WARRANT 4 - PEDESTRIAN VOLUME Applicable: Yes NoRecord hours where criteria are fulfilled and the corresponding volume or gap Satisfied: Yes Nofrequency in the boxes provided. The warrant is satisfied if condition 1 or 2 is fulfilled

and condition 3 is fulfilled.

1. Pedestrian volume crossing the major street is

100 ped/hr or more for each of any four hoursand there are less than 60 gaps per hour in the

major street traffic stream of adequate length.

2. Pedestrian volume crossing the major street is190 ped/hr or more for any one hour and there

are less than 60 gaps per hour in the major street

traffic stream of adequate length.


WARRANT 5 - SCHOOL CROSSING Applicable: Yes NoRecord hours where criteria are fulfilled and the corresponding volume or gap Satisfied: Yes Nofrequency in the boxes provided. The warrant is satisfied if all three of the criteria

are fulfilled.

1. There are a minimum of 20 students crossing the major street Students: Hour:

during the highest crossing hour.

2. There are fewer adequate gaps in the major street traffic stream during the period Minutes: Gaps:

when the children are using the crossing than the number of minutes in the same period.


WARRANT 6 - COORDINATED SIGNAL SYSTEM Applicable: Yes NoIndicate if the criteria are fulfilled in the boxes provided. The warrant is Satisfied: Yes Nosatisfied if either criterion is fulfilled. This warrant should not be applied when the

resulting signal spacing would be less than 300 m (1,000 ft).

1. On a one-way street or a street that has traffic predominately in one direction, the adjacent signals are

so far apart that they do not provide the necessary degree of vehicle platooning.

2. On a two-way street, adjacent signals do not provide the necessary degree of platooning, andthe proposed and adjacent signals will collectively provide a progressive operation.


1 35Westown Boulevard 1Dover Center Road

Criteria

4:00 - 5:00 PM0

No

0

YesCriteriaFulfilled?

NoYesFulfilled?

0

Criteria

5:00 - 6:00 PM

Hour Volume7:00 8:00 AM

WestlakeCuyahoga

ABCMay 19, 2017

PedestrianNo

8:00 - 9:00 AM 0

Pedestrian Fulfilled?

0YesGaps






WARRANT 7 - CRASH EXPERIENCE Applicable: Yes NoRecord hours where criteria are fulfilled, the corresponding volume, and other Satisfied: Yes Noinformation in the boxes provided. The warrant is satisfied if all three of the criteria

are fulfilled.

1. One of the Warrant 1, Condition A (80% satisfied)

warrants Warrant 1, Condition B (80% satisfied)

to the right

is met.

2. Adequate trial of other remedial measure

has failed to reduce crash frequency.

3. Five or more reported crashes, of types susceptible to correction by signal, have occurred within a 12-mo. period.

WARRANT 8 - ROADWAY NETWORK Applicable: Yes NoRecord hours where criteria are fulfilled, and the corresponding volume or other Satisfied: Yes Noinformation in the boxes provided. The warrant is satisfied if at least one of the criteria

is fulfilled and if all intersecting routes have one or more of the characteristics listed.

1. Both of a. Total entering volume of at least 1,000 veh/hr Entering Volume:

the criteria during a typical weekday peak hour.

to the right b. Five-year projected volumes that satisfy

are met. one or more of Warrants 1, 2, or 3.

2. Total entering volume at least

1,000 veh/hr for each of any 5 hrs

of a non-normal business day(Sat. or Sun.)

1. Part of the street or highway system that serves as the principal roadway

network for through traffic flow.

2. Rural or suburban highway outside of, entering, or traversing a city.

3. Appears as a major route on an official plan.

CONCLUSIONS Warrants Satisfied:

Remarks:


Warrant #9 NOT APPLICABLE due to no at grade railroad crossing.INTERSECTION DOES NOT MEET WARRANT CRITERIA UNDER 2039 BUILD CONDITIONS

152 ped/hr for one (1) hour

1 35Westown Boulevard 1

UNKNOWN

2

Number of crashes per 12 months:

Measure tried:

Fulfilled?Yes

Volume

No

NoMet?

YesCriteria

Major Street:

Met?Yes NoHour

Warrant:

Satisfied?:

1

Hour

Fulfilled?Yes No

No Yes NoMet?

2 3

Fulfilled?

Minor Street:

Yes

Major Street:

Minor Street:

Major Street:

Minor Street:

ABCMay 19, 2017

Volume

WestlakeCuyahoga

Dover Center Road

Criteria

Warrant 4, Pedestrian Volume

at 80% of volume requirements:

80 ped/hr for four (4) hours or

Characteristics of Major Routes


Page 3 of 52039 ALTERNATE SCENARIO BUILD CONDITIONS









in boxes provided.

Criteria






NoYesFulfilled?:

1,420Volume*

650

Fulfilled?:

800

Yes No


Volume Criteria*

No. of Approaches 3

119

Approach Lanes 1 2


Volume*

2.8

Yes NoFulfilled?:

150

4

1 2



Approach Lanes

Delay*


May 19, 2017


Dover Center Road 1

Peak Hour


use of warrant:

School Bus Traffic

AM 1731107

WestlakeCuyahoga



ABC

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800

MIN

OR

ST

RE

ET

HIG

H V

OL

UM

E A

PP

RO

AC

H -

VP

H





1 LANE & 1 LANE

*150

*100

0

100

200

300

400

500

300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300

MIN

OR

ST

RE

ET

HIG

H V

OL

UM

E A

PP

RO

AC

H -

VP

H





1 LANE & 1 LANE

*100

*75












in boxes provided.

Criteria






AM 2671066

WestlakeCuyahoga


35Proposed West Access 1

ABCMay 19, 2017


Center Ridge Road 2

Peak Hour


use of warrant:

School Bus Traffic

4

1 2



Approach Lanes

Delay*


Yes NoFulfilled?:

150

267

Approach Lanes 1 2


Volume*

650

Fulfilled?:

800

Yes No


Volume Criteria*

No. of Approaches 3

NoYesFulfilled?:

1,333Volume*

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800

MIN

OR

ST

RE

ET

HIG

H V

OL

UM

E A

PP

RO

AC

H -

VP

H





1 LANE & 1 LANE

*150

*100

0

100

200

300

400

500

300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300

MIN

OR

ST

RE

ET

HIG

H V

OL

UM

E A

PP

RO

AC

H -

VP

H





1 LANE & 1 LANE

*100

*75



AppendixJ

BuildCapacityAnalysisWorksheets‐2039



General Information Intersection InformationAgency TMS Engineers, Inc. Duration, h 0.25Analyst ABC Analysis Date May 19, 2017 Area Type OtherJurisdiction Westlake, OH Time Period AM Peak PHF 0.92Urban Street Center Ridge Analysis Year 2039 Analysis Period 1> 7:00Intersection @ Dover Center File Name AM 39 CenterDover-WBNB RTL.xusProject Description Build Conditions


Signal Information

GreenYellowRed

7.0 2.4 28.1 7.7 2.4 32.43.6 0.0 3.6 3.6 0.0 3.61.4 0.0 1.4 1.4 0.0 1.4

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 8



Movement Group Results EB WB NB SBApproach Movement L T R L T R L T R L T RAssigned Movement 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 7 4 14Adjusted Flow Rate ( v ), veh/h 355 595 570 128 601 326 252 488 163 217 602Adjusted Saturation Flow Rate ( s ), veh/h/ln 1781 1870 1788 1767 1766 1610 1781 1870 1610 1781 1768Queue Service Time ( g s ), s 9.4 30.5 30.5 5.1 14.7 16.3 10.1 23.0 6.6 7.7 32.4Cycle Queue Clearance Time ( g c ), s 9.4 30.5 30.5 5.1 14.7 16.3 10.1 23.0 6.6 7.7 32.4Green Ratio ( g/C ) 0.37 0.30 0.30 0.35 0.28 0.36 0.43 0.35 0.42 0.40 0.32Capacity ( c ), veh/h 349 570 545 196 993 576 252 651 673 298 573Volume-to-Capacity Ratio ( X ) 1.019 1.043 1.045 0.655 0.605 0.566 1.001 0.750 0.242 0.730 1.051Back of Queue ( Q ), ft/ln ( 85 th percentile) 313.3 677 646.3 102.4 233.7 233.4 270.1 358.3 99.4 153.5 691.4Back of Queue ( Q ), veh/ln ( 85 th percentile) 12.3 26.7 25.9 4.0 9.1 9.3 10.6 14.1 4.0 6.0 27.2Queue Storage Ratio ( RQ ) ( 85 th percentile) 2.09 0.00 0.00 0.68 0.00 0.00 1.54 0.00 0.00 0.47 0.00Uniform Delay ( d 1 ), s/veh 32.2 34.8 34.8 26.7 31.1 25.8 27.1 28.8 18.8 25.2 33.8Incremental Delay ( d 2 ), s/veh 53.2 49.5 50.8 6.2 2.7 4.0 57.0 4.3 0.1 7.7 51.7Initial 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 0.0Control Delay ( d ), s/veh 85.3 84.2 85.6 32.8 33.9 29.8 84.0 33.1 18.9 32.9 85.5Level of Service (LOS) F F F C C C F C B C FApproach Delay, s/veh / LOS 85.0 F 32.5 C 44.7 D 71.6 EIntersection Delay, s/veh / LOS 61.1 E

Multimodal Results EB WB NB SBPedestrian LOS Score / LOS 2.4 B 2.3 B 2.9 C 2.8 CBicycle LOS Score / LOS 1.7 B 1.4 A 2.0 B 1.8 B

Copyright © 2017 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved. HCS7™ Streets Version 7.2.1 Generated: 5/31/2017 12:02:34 PM









Lanes




Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Number of Lanes 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0


Volume, V (veh/h) 10 1284 705 30 30 10



Percent Grade (%) 0









v/c Ratio 0.01 0.32



Level of Service, LOS A E


Approach LOS E

Copyright © 2017 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS7™ TWSC Version 7.2 Generated: 5/31/2017 7:01:25 AMAM 39 Glenmore.xtw





Analysis Year North/South Street Dover Center Road

Time Analyzed Peak Hour Factor 0.92

Intersection Orientation Analysis Time Period (hrs) 0.25

Project Description

2039

AM Peak

North-South

Build Conditions

Lanes




Priority 10 11 12 7 8 9 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6

Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0


Volume, V (veh/h) 95 35 16 726 494 54



Percent Grade (%) 0









v/c Ratio 0.84 0.02



Level of Service, LOS F A


Approach LOS F

Copyright © 2017 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS7™ TWSC Version 7.2.1 Generated: 5/31/2017 1:07:45 PMAM 39 Westown.xtw


General Information Intersection InformationAgency TMS Engineers, Inc. Duration, h 0.25Analyst ABC Analysis Date May 19, 2017 Area Type OtherJurisdiction Westlake, OH Time Period PM Peak PHF 0.92Urban Street Center Ridge Analysis Year 2039 Analysis Period 1> 7:00Intersection @ Dover Center File Name PM 39 CenterDover-WBNB RTL.xusProject Description Build Conditions


Signal Information

GreenYellowRed

7.0 27.7 7.0 2.1 36.2 0.03.6 3.6 3.6 0.0 3.6 0.01.4 1.4 1.4 0.0 1.4 0.0

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 8



Movement Group Results EB WB NB SBApproach Movement L T R L T R L T R L T RAssigned Movement 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 7 4 14Adjusted Flow Rate ( v ), veh/h 201 390 360 117 563 130 243 399 128 152 565Adjusted Saturation Flow Rate ( s ), veh/h/ln 1781 1870 1723 1767 1766 1610 1781 1870 1610 1781 1765Queue Service Time ( g s ), s 7.0 19.0 19.1 4.6 13.7 5.8 8.7 16.7 4.7 5.3 30.1Cycle Queue Clearance Time ( g c ), s 7.0 19.0 19.1 4.6 13.7 5.8 8.7 16.7 4.7 5.3 30.1Green Ratio ( g/C ) 0.35 0.28 0.28 0.35 0.28 0.35 0.45 0.38 0.45 0.43 0.36Capacity ( c ), veh/h 298 518 477 242 979 559 286 716 729 390 639Volume-to-Capacity Ratio ( X ) 0.674 0.752 0.755 0.485 0.575 0.233 0.851 0.557 0.176 0.391 0.885Back of Queue ( Q ), ft/ln ( 85 th percentile) 147.7 329.8 307 86 219.2 96.3 185.7 254.3 75.9 92.4 470.8Back of Queue ( Q ), veh/ln ( 85 th percentile) 5.8 13.0 12.3 3.4 8.6 3.9 7.3 10.0 3.0 3.6 18.5Queue Storage Ratio ( RQ ) ( 85 th percentile) 0.98 0.00 0.00 0.57 0.00 0.00 1.06 0.00 0.00 0.28 0.00Uniform Delay ( d 1 ), s/veh 27.9 33.0 33.0 25.5 31.1 23.2 23.2 24.2 16.3 19.3 29.9Incremental Delay ( d 2 ), s/veh 4.8 9.7 10.6 0.6 2.5 1.0 20.1 0.6 0.0 0.2 13.5Initial 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 0.0Control Delay ( d ), s/veh 32.7 42.7 43.6 26.1 33.6 24.2 43.4 24.8 16.3 19.5 43.5Level of Service (LOS) C D D C C C D C B B DApproach Delay, s/veh / LOS 40.9 D 31.0 C 29.2 C 38.4 DIntersection Delay, s/veh / LOS 35.1 D











Lanes




Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Number of Lanes 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0


Volume, V (veh/h) 10 708 837 10 10 10



Percent Grade (%) 0









v/c Ratio 0.01 0.10





Approach LOS C

Copyright © 2017 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS7™ TWSC Version 7.2 Generated: 5/31/2017 7:02:02 AMPM 39 Glenmore.xtw









Lanes




Priority 10 11 12 7 8 9 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6

Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0


Volume, V (veh/h) 64 26 17 635 539 43



Percent Grade (%) 0









v/c Ratio 0.57 0.02



Level of Service, LOS F A


Approach LOS F

Copyright © 2017 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS7™ TWSC Version 7.2.1 Generated: 5/31/2017 1:07:05 PMPM 39 Westown.xtw


AppendixK

BuildCapacityAnalysisWorksheets‐2039w/Improvements



General Information Intersection InformationAgency TMS Engineers, Inc. Duration, h 0.25Analyst ABC Analysis Date May 19, 2017 Area Type OtherJurisdiction Westlake, OH Time Period AM Peak PHF 0.92Urban Street Center Ridge Analysis Year 2039 Analysis Period 1> 7:00Intersection @ Dover Center File Name AM 39 CenterDover-SB TL.xusProject Description SB RTL


Signal Information

GreenYellowRed

7.0 2.6 32.4 9.1 28.9 0.03.6 0.0 3.6 3.6 3.6 0.01.4 0.0 1.4 1.4 1.4 0.0

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 8



Movement Group Results EB WB NB SBApproach Movement L T R L T R L T R L T RAssigned Movement 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 7 4 14Adjusted Flow Rate ( v ), veh/h 355 595 570 128 601 326 252 488 163 217 409 193Adjusted Saturation Flow Rate ( s ), veh/h/ln 1781 1870 1788 1767 1766 1610 1781 1870 1610 1781 1870 1610Queue Service Time ( g s ), s 9.6 30.3 30.4 4.7 13.9 14.9 9.1 25.1 7.2 8.6 19.9 8.4Cycle Queue Clearance Time ( g c ), s 9.6 30.3 30.4 4.7 13.9 14.9 9.1 25.1 7.2 8.6 19.9 8.4Green Ratio ( g/C ) 0.42 0.35 0.35 0.39 0.32 0.41 0.38 0.29 0.36 0.38 0.29 0.39Capacity ( c ), veh/h 395 655 626 208 1145 667 322 542 580 250 541 620Volume-to-Capacity Ratio ( X ) 0.901 0.909 0.911 0.616 0.525 0.489 0.783 0.900 0.281 0.870 0.756 0.312Back of Queue ( Q ), ft/ln ( 85 th percentile) 227.3 525.6 501.7 93 217.3 209.3 189.1 443 109.4 194.1 323.4 122.9Back of Queue ( Q ), veh/ln ( 85 th percentile) 9.0 20.7 20.1 3.6 8.5 8.4 7.4 17.4 4.4 7.6 12.7 4.9Queue Storage Ratio ( RQ ) ( 85 th percentile) 1.52 0.00 0.00 0.62 0.00 0.00 1.08 0.00 0.00 0.60 0.00 0.00Uniform Delay ( d 1 ), s/veh 28.1 31.0 31.0 24.9 27.5 21.5 26.9 34.1 22.8 26.1 32.3 21.5Incremental Delay ( d 2 ), s/veh 22.5 18.8 19.7 4.0 1.7 2.6 10.9 17.5 0.1 25.5 5.4 0.1Initial 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 0.0Control Delay ( d ), s/veh 50.6 49.8 50.7 28.9 29.3 24.1 37.8 51.6 22.9 51.6 37.8 21.6Level of Service (LOS) D D D C C C D D C D D CApproach Delay, s/veh / LOS 50.3 D 27.6 C 42.6 D 37.6 DIntersection Delay, s/veh / LOS 40.7 D




Analyst ABC Intersection Center Ridge & Glenmore






Project Description SB RTL & LTL

Lanes




Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Number of Lanes 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 1

Configuration LT T T TR L R

Volume, V (veh/h) 10 1284 705 30 30 10



Percent Grade (%) 0







Delay, Queue Length, and Level of ServiceFlow Rate, v (veh/h) 11 33 11

Capacity, c (veh/h) 813 110 597

v/c Ratio 0.01 0.30 0.02

95% Queue Length, Q₉₅ (veh) 0.0 1.1 0.1

Control Delay (s/veh) 9.5 51.2 11.1

Level of Service, LOS A F B


Approach LOS E

Copyright © 2017 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS7™ TWSC Version 7.2.1 Generated: 5/31/2017 2:11:57 PMAM 39 Glenmore-SB TL.xtw








Project Description EB RTL & LTL

Lanes




Priority 10 11 12 7 8 9 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6

Number of Lanes 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0

Configuration L R LT TR

Volume, V (veh/h) 95 35 16 726 494 54



Percent Grade (%) 0









v/c Ratio 0.76 0.21 0.02



Level of Service, LOS F D A


Approach LOS F

Copyright © 2017 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS7™ TWSC Version 7.2.1 Generated: 5/31/2017 1:02:28 PMAM 39 Westown-EB TL.xtw











Number of Lanes (N) 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0


Volume (V), veh/h 0 95 35 0 16 726 0 494 54



















Capacity (c), veh/h 628 1163 1258

v/c Ratio (x) 0.23 0.69 0.47





Lane LOS A B A

95% Queue, veh 0.9 6.0 2.6


Approach LOS A B A

Intersection Delay, s/veh | LOS 10.7 B

Copyright © 2017 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS7™ Roundabouts Version 7.2 5/31/2017 7:12:07 AMAM 39 Westown-RDAB.xro


General Information Intersection InformationAgency TMS Engineers, Inc. Duration, h 0.25Analyst ABC Analysis Date May 19, 2017 Area Type OtherJurisdiction Westlake, OH Time Period AM Peak PHF 0.92Urban Street Dover Center @ Analysis Year 2039 Analysis Period 1> 7:00Intersection Westown File Name AM 39 Westown-TS.xusProject Description Traffic Signal

Demand Information EB WB NB SBApproach Movement L T R L T R L T R L T RDemand ( v ), veh/h 95 35 16 726 494 54

Signal Information

GreenYellowRed

0.0 55.8 34.2 0.0 0.0 0.03.6 3.6 3.6 0.0 0.0 0.01.4 1.4 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 8


Timer Results EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBTAssigned Phase 4 5 2 6Case Number 9.0 0.0 14.0 8.3Phase Duration, s 39.2 0.0 60.8 60.8Change Period, ( Y+R c ), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0Max Allow Headway ( MAH ), s 3.2 0.0 0.0 0.0Queue Clearance Time ( g s ), s 6.0Green Extension Time ( g e ), s 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0Phase Call Probability 1.00Max Out Probability 0.00

Movement Group Results EB WB NB SBApproach Movement L T R L T R L T R L T RAssigned Movement 7 14 5 2 6 16Adjusted Flow Rate ( v ), veh/h 103 38 807 596Adjusted Saturation Flow Rate ( s ), veh/h/ln 1810 1610 1805 1794Queue Service Time ( g s ), s 4.0 1.6 7.0 22.0Cycle Queue Clearance Time ( g c ), s 4.0 1.6 35.0 22.0Green Ratio ( g/C ) 0.34 0.34 0.56 0.56Capacity ( c ), veh/h 619 551 1044 1001Volume-to-Capacity Ratio ( X ) 0.167 0.069 0.772 0.595Back of Queue ( Q ), ft/ln ( 85 th percentile) 75.1 26.7 488.8 312.5Back of Queue ( Q ), veh/ln ( 85 th percentile) 3.0 1.1 18.8 12.0Queue Storage Ratio ( RQ ) ( 85 th percentile) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Uniform Delay ( d 1 ), s/veh 23.0 22.2 17.5 14.6Incremental Delay ( d 2 ), s/veh 0.0 0.0 5.5 2.6Initial Queue Delay ( d 3 ), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Control Delay ( d ), s/veh 23.0 22.2 23.0 17.2Level of Service (LOS) C C C BApproach Delay, s/veh / LOS 22.8 C 0.0 23.0 C 17.2 BIntersection Delay, s/veh / LOS 20.8 C

Multimodal Results EB WB NB SBPedestrian LOS Score / LOS 2.1 B 2.1 B 0.7 A 1.7 BBicycle LOS Score / LOS F 1.8 B 1.5 A



General Information Intersection InformationAgency TMS Engineers, Inc. Duration, h 0.25Analyst ABC Analysis Date May 19, 2017 Area Type OtherJurisdiction Westlake, OH Time Period PM Peak PHF 0.92Urban Street Center Ridge Analysis Year 2039 Analysis Period 1> 7:00Intersection @ Dover Center File Name PM 39 CenterDover-SB RTL.xusProject Description SB RTL


Signal Information

GreenYellowRed

7.0 34.2 7.0 0.7 31.1 0.03.6 3.6 3.6 0.0 3.6 0.01.4 1.4 1.4 0.0 1.4 0.0

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 8



Movement Group Results EB WB NB SBApproach Movement L T R L T R L T R L T RAssigned Movement 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 7 4 14Adjusted Flow Rate ( v ), veh/h 201 390 360 117 563 130 243 399 128 152 377 188Adjusted Saturation Flow Rate ( s ), veh/h/ln 1781 1870 1723 1767 1766 1610 1781 1870 1610 1781 1870 1610Queue Service Time ( g s ), s 7.0 17.3 17.4 4.2 12.5 5.2 7.7 18.5 5.3 5.8 17.4 8.2Cycle Queue Clearance Time ( g c ), s 7.0 17.3 17.4 4.2 12.5 5.2 7.7 18.5 5.3 5.8 17.4 8.2Green Ratio ( g/C ) 0.41 0.34 0.34 0.41 0.34 0.41 0.39 0.32 0.39 0.38 0.31 0.38Capacity ( c ), veh/h 364 640 589 300 1208 663 347 595 625 308 582 613Volume-to-Capacity Ratio ( X ) 0.553 0.609 0.612 0.391 0.466 0.197 0.702 0.671 0.205 0.494 0.648 0.307Back of Queue ( Q ), ft/ln ( 85 th percentile) 125 284.4 263.9 77.4 196.7 86.6 94.8 290.8 84.8 101.1 274.5 120.6Back of Queue ( Q ), veh/ln ( 85 th percentile) 4.9 11.2 10.6 3.0 7.7 3.5 3.7 11.4 3.4 4.0 10.8 4.8Queue Storage Ratio ( RQ ) ( 85 th percentile) 0.83 0.00 0.00 0.52 0.00 0.00 0.54 0.00 0.00 0.31 0.00 0.00Uniform Delay ( d 1 ), s/veh 21.6 27.3 27.4 20.8 25.8 18.8 26.7 29.6 20.3 23.3 29.7 21.7Incremental Delay ( d 2 ), s/veh 1.1 4.3 4.7 0.3 1.3 0.7 5.3 2.4 0.1 0.5 2.0 0.1Initial 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 0.0Control Delay ( d ), s/veh 22.7 31.6 32.1 21.1 27.0 19.5 32.0 32.0 20.4 23.7 31.7 21.8Level of Service (LOS) C C C C C B C C C C C CApproach Delay, s/veh / LOS 29.9 C 25.0 C 30.0 C 27.4 CIntersection Delay, s/veh / LOS 28.2 C




Analyst ABC Intersection Center Ridge & Glenmore






Project Description SB RTL & LTL

Lanes




Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Number of Lanes 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 1

Configuration LT T T TR L R

Volume, V (veh/h) 10 708 837 10 10 10



Percent Grade (%) 0









v/c Ratio 0.01 0.08 0.02



Level of Service, LOS A D B


Approach LOS C

Copyright © 2017 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS7™ TWSC Version 7.2.1 Generated: 5/31/2017 2:13:32 PMPM 39 Glenmore-SB TL.xtw








Project Description EB RTL & LTL

Lanes




Priority 10 11 12 7 8 9 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6

Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0


Volume, V (veh/h) 64 26 17 635 539 43



Percent Grade (%) 0









v/c Ratio 0.51 0.02



Level of Service, LOS E A


Approach LOS E

Copyright © 2017 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS7™ TWSC Version 7.2.1 Generated: 5/31/2017 1:03:56 PMPM 39 Westown-EB TL.xtw











Number of Lanes (N) 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0


Volume (V), veh/h 0 64 26 0 17 635 0 559 43



















Capacity (c), veh/h 538 1202 1261

v/c Ratio (x) 0.18 0.59 0.52





Lane LOS A B A

95% Queue, veh 0.7 4.0 3.1


Approach LOS A B A


Copyright © 2017 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS7™ Roundabouts Version 7.2 5/31/2017 7:13:08 AMPM 39 Westown-RDAB.xro


General Information Intersection InformationAgency TMS Engineers, Inc. Duration, h 0.25Analyst ABC Analysis Date May 19, 2017 Area Type OtherJurisdiction Westlake, OH Time Period PM Peak PHF 0.92Urban Street Dover Center @ Analysis Year 2039 Analysis Period 1> 7:00Intersection Westown File Name PM 39 Westown-TS.xusProject Description Traffic Signal


Signal Information

GreenYellowRed

0.0 54.0 36.0 0.0 0.0 0.03.6 3.6 3.6 0.0 0.0 0.01.4 1.4 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 8



Movement Group Results EB WB NB SBApproach Movement L T R L T R L T R L T RAssigned Movement 7 14 5 2 6 16Adjusted Flow Rate ( v ), veh/h 70 28 709 654Adjusted Saturation Flow Rate ( s ), veh/h/ln 1810 1610 1798 1803Queue Service Time ( g s ), s 2.6 1.1 7.0 26.2Cycle Queue Clearance Time ( g c ), s 2.6 1.1 29.2 26.2Green Ratio ( g/C ) 0.36 0.36 0.54 0.54Capacity ( c ), veh/h 651 580 1008 973Volume-to-Capacity Ratio ( X ) 0.107 0.049 0.703 0.672Back of Queue ( Q ), ft/ln ( 85 th percentile) 48 19.1 414 374Back of Queue ( Q ), veh/ln ( 85 th percentile) 1.9 0.8 15.9 14.4Queue Storage Ratio ( RQ ) ( 85 th percentile) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Uniform Delay ( d 1 ), s/veh 21.3 20.8 17.3 16.6Incremental Delay ( d 2 ), s/veh 0.0 0.0 4.1 3.7Initial Queue Delay ( d 3 ), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Control Delay ( d ), s/veh 21.3 20.9 21.4 20.3Level of Service (LOS) C C C CApproach Delay, s/veh / LOS 21.2 C 0.0 21.4 C 20.3 CIntersection Delay, s/veh / LOS 20.9 C

Multimodal Results EB WB NB SBPedestrian LOS Score / LOS 2.1 B 2.1 B 0.7 A 1.7 BBicycle LOS Score / LOS F 1.7 B 1.6 B



AppendixL

AccessCapacityAnalysisWorksheets‐2019







Urban Street Center Ridge Road Analysis Year 2019 Analysis Period 1> 7:00

Intersection @ West Access File Name AM 19 West.xus




Demand ( v ), veh/h 10 990 134 267 556 10 69 10 10 10 10 10

Signal Information

GreenYellowRed

12.2 42.2 7.0 18.6 0.0 0.03.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 0.0 0.01.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 0.0 0.0

1 2 4

5 6 7






Assigned Phase 2 1 6 3 8 4

Case Number 6.3 1.0 4.0 1.0 4.0 8.3

Phase Duration, s 47.2 17.2 64.4 12.0 35.6 23.6

Change Period, ( Y+R c ), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0

Max Allow Headway ( MAH ), s 0.0 3.1 0.0 3.1 3.2 3.2

Queue Clearance Time ( g s ), s 10.3 5.1 2.9 3.5

Green Extension Time ( g e ), s 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1

Phase Call Probability 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Max Out Probability 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00




Adjusted Flow Rate ( v ), veh/h 11 623 599 290 308 307 75 22 33

Adjusted Saturation Flow Rate ( s ), veh/h/ln 820 1856 1778 1810 1856 1844 1810 1743 1654

Queue Service Time ( g s ), s 0.8 29.2 29.3 8.3 8.1 8.1 3.1 0.9 0.0

Cycle Queue Clearance Time ( g c ), s 0.8 29.2 29.3 8.3 8.1 8.1 3.1 0.9 1.5

Green Ratio ( g/C ) 0.42 0.42 0.42 0.56 0.59 0.59 0.28 0.31 0.19

Capacity ( c ), veh/h 418 783 750 352 1102 1095 440 533 356

Volume-to-Capacity Ratio ( X ) 0.026 0.796 0.798 0.824 0.280 0.280 0.170 0.041 0.092

Back of Queue ( Q ), ft/ln ( 85 th percentile) 7 456.7 433.3 165.5 130.2 126.6 60.1 16.1 29.3

Back of Queue ( Q ), veh/ln ( 85 th percentile) 0.3 17.8 17.3 6.6 5.1 5.1 2.4 0.6 1.2

Queue Storage Ratio ( RQ ) ( 85 th percentile) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Uniform Delay ( d 1 ), s/veh 16.9 25.1 25.2 19.8 9.9 9.9 27.4 24.4 33.7

Incremental Delay ( d 2 ), s/veh 0.1 8.2 8.7 13.7 0.6 0.6 0.1 0.0 0.0

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

Control Delay ( d ), s/veh 17.0 33.4 33.8 33.5 10.5 10.5 27.5 24.4 33.8

Level of Service (LOS) B C C C B B C C C

Approach Delay, s/veh / LOS 33.5 C 17.9 B 26.8 C 33.8 C




Bicycle LOS Score / LOS 1.5 B 1.2 A 0.6 A 0.5 A



General Information Site InformationAnalyst ABC Intersection Center Ridge & East



Analysis Year 2019 North/South Street East Access




Lanes




Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Number of Lanes 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0

Configuration T TR T R

Volume, V (veh/h) 990 10 823 269

Percent Heavy Vehicles (%) 0


Percent Grade (%) 0



Critical and Follow-up HeadwaysBase Critical Headway (sec) 6.9

Critical Headway (sec) 6.90

Base Follow-Up Headway (sec) 3.3

Follow-Up Headway (sec) 3.30

Delay, Queue Length, and Level of ServiceFlow Rate, v (veh/h) 292

Capacity, c (veh/h) 488

v/c Ratio 0.60

95% Queue Length, Q₉₅ (veh) 3.9

Control Delay (s/veh) 22.7

Level of Service, LOS C

Approach Delay (s/veh) 22.7

Approach LOS C

Copyright © 2017 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS7™ TWSC Version 7.2 Generated: 5/30/2017 4:32:31 PMAM 19 East.xtw







Intersection @ West Access File Name PM 19 West.xus




Demand ( v ), veh/h 10 568 40 106 659 10 58 10 10 10 10 10

Signal Information

GreenYellowRed

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

1 2 4

5 6 7







Case Number 6.3 1.0 4.0 1.0 4.0 8.3

Phase Duration, s 40.2 12.0 52.2 12.0 47.8 35.8














Green Ratio ( g/C ) 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.44 0.47 0.47 0.40 0.43 0.31

Capacity ( c ), veh/h 325 653 638 363 876 871 199 746 120


Back of Queue ( Q ), ft/ln ( 85 th percentile) 8.3 236.6 227.2 69.1 206.3 200.7 67.5 12.7 24.8







Level of Service (LOS) C C C B B B C B C















Lanes




Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Number of Lanes 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0


Volume, V (veh/h) 568 10 765 137



Percent Grade (%) 0









v/c Ratio 0.22



Level of Service, LOS B


Approach LOS B

Copyright © 2017 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS7™ TWSC Version 7.2 Generated: 5/30/2017 4:33:54 PMPM 19 East.xtw


AppendixM

AccessCapacityAnalysisWorksheets‐2039








Intersection @ West Access File Name AM 39 West.xus




Demand ( v ), veh/h 10 1180 134 267 666 10 69 10 10 10 10 10

Signal Information

GreenYellowRed

13.6 45.1 7.0 14.3 0.0 0.03.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 0.0 0.01.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 0.0 0.0

1 2 4

5 6 7







Case Number 6.3 1.0 4.0 1.0 4.0 8.3

Phase Duration, s 50.1 18.6 68.7 12.0 31.3 19.3














Green Ratio ( g/C ) 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.61 0.64 0.64 0.23 0.26 0.14

Capacity ( c ), veh/h 403 837 807 354 1182 1176 378 458 286


Back of Queue ( Q ), ft/ln ( 85 th percentile) 6.7 548.1 529 283.1 137.4 133.7 64.3 17.3 31.2







Level of Service (LOS) B D D D A A C C D

Approach Delay, s/veh / LOS 36.7 D 17.0 B 30.1 C 37.5 D




Bicycle LOS Score / LOS 1.7 B 1.3 A 0.6 A 0.5 A










Lanes




Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Number of Lanes 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0


Volume, V (veh/h) 1180 10 933 269



Percent Grade (%) 0









v/c Ratio 0.70



Level of Service, LOS D


Approach LOS D

Copyright © 2017 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS7™ TWSC Version 7.2 Generated: 5/30/2017 4:47:11 PMAM 19 East.xtw







Intersection @ West Access File Name PM 39 West.xus




Demand ( v ), veh/h 10 678 40 106 789 10 58 10 10 10 10 10

Signal Information

GreenYellowRed

7.0 38.7 7.0 27.3 0.0 0.03.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 0.0 0.01.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 0.0 0.0

1 2 4

5 6 7







Case Number 6.3 1.0 4.0 1.0 4.0 8.3

Phase Duration, s 43.7 12.0 55.7 12.0 44.3 32.3














Green Ratio ( g/C ) 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.48 0.51 0.51 0.36 0.39 0.27

Capacity ( c ), veh/h 302 718 704 354 941 937 565 685 496


Back of Queue ( Q ), ft/ln ( 85 th percentile) 8.2 267 256.9 63.7 233 226.8 42.9 13.7 25.7







Level of Service (LOS) C C C B B B C B C















Lanes




Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Number of Lanes 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0


Volume, V (veh/h) 678 10 895 137



Percent Grade (%) 0









v/c Ratio 0.24





Approach LOS B

Copyright © 2017 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS7™ TWSC Version 7.2 Generated: 5/30/2017 4:50:21 PMPM 19 East.xtw


AppendixN

ODOTTurnLaneWarrantGraphs


CE

NT

ER

RID

GE

RO

AD

& E

AS

T A

CC

ES

S

2019

Bu

ild –

WA

RR

AN

T IS

ME

T

AM

Ad

van

cin

g V

olu

me

= 1

000

vph

AM

Rig

ht

Tu

rn V

olu

me

= 1

0 vp

h

WA

RR

AN

T IS

NO

T M

ET

PM

Ad

van

cin

g V

olu

me

= 5

78 v

ph

PM

Rig

ht

Tu

rn V

olu

me

= 1

0 vp

h

WA

RR

AN

T IS

NO

T M

ET

CE

NT

ER

RID

GE

RO

AD

& E

AS

T A

CC

ES

S

2039

Bu

ild –

WA

RR

AN

T IS

ME

T

AM

Ad

van

cin

g V

olu

me

= 1

190

vph

AM

Rig

ht

Tu

rn V

olu

me

= 1

0 vp

h

WA

RR

AN

T IS

NO

T M

ET

PM

Ad

van

cin

g V

olu

me

= 6

88 v

ph

PM

Rig

ht

Tu

rn V

olu

me

= 1

0 vp

h

WA

RR

AN

T IS

NO

T M

ET


AppendixO

ODOTTurnLaneDesignCriteria


Example - Turn Lane Design Using Figures 401-9 and 401-10

Problem

Calculate the length of an exclusive left-turn lane on a signalized intersection approach of a rural arterialhighway (Design Speed - 55 mph). The intersection approach has three comprised on an exclusive leftturn lane and two through lanes with 200 left turning vehicles and 680 through vehicles, respectively. Thetraffic signal has a 90 second cycle length.

Determine Lane Length

Refer to the matrix in Figure 401-9. First, using the given design speed of 55 mph, enter the column withthe design speed “50-60". Next, determine if the left turn demand volume is “high” or “low”. “Low” isconsidered 10% or less of the approach traffic flow. The demand is 200/(680 + 200) = 22.7%. Therefore,the left turn demand is considered “high”. Based on a “signalized” intersection, the matrix indicates thatMethod B or C (whichever is greater) should be used to calculate the length of the left turn lane.

Method B, for the 55 mph design speed, requires a left turn lane length of 285 ft.

Method C is calculated by adding the 164 ft. (for the 55 mph design speed) to the storage lengthdetermined from Figure 401-10. To determine the storage length, first, calculate the number ofcycles/hour (3,600 seconds/hour x 1 cycle/90 seconds = 40 cycles/hour). Next, divide the hourly left turnapproach volume by the number of cycles/hour (200 left turning vehicles divided by 40 cycles/hour = 5). Using Figure 401-10, the required storage length is 200 ft. Adding the 200 ft. storage length to the 164 ft.(moderate speed deceleration length) noted above equals 364 ft. A comparison of the values fromMethod B and Method C yields 285 ft. and 364 ft., respectively. Therefore, use the greater value of 364 ft.

Check Length for Backup

Next, check to determine if backups from the through movements will block left turning vehicles fromentering the left turn lane. Figure 401-10 is also used for this purpose. Using the value of 40 cycles/hour(determined above), calculate the average number of through vehicles per cycle (680/40 = 17). Based onFigure 401-10, this will result in backups of 600 ft. in a single lane. However, since the through trafficvolume is in two through lanes, the backup of through vehicles is only one-half the 600 ft., or 300 ft.

Therefore, the through vehicle backup of 300 ft. per lane will not block left turning vehicles desiring toenter the left turn lane which extends back 364 ft.

October 2004


AppendixP

CapacityAnalysisWorksheets‐2039AlternateScenario



General Information Intersection InformationAgency TMS Engineers, Inc. Duration, h 0.25Analyst ABC Analysis Date May 19, 2017 Area Type OtherJurisdiction Westlake, OH Time Period AM Peak PHF 0.92Urban Street Center Ridge Analysis Year 2039 Analysis Period 1> 7:00Intersection @ Dover Center File Name AM 39ALT CenterDover-SB RTL.xusProject Description Alternate Scenario


Signal Information

GreenYellowRed

7.0 4.1 30.7 7.0 0.8 30.43.6 0.0 3.6 3.6 0.0 3.61.4 0.0 1.4 1.4 0.0 1.4

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 8



Movement Group Results EB WB NB SBApproach Movement L T R L T R L T R L T RAssigned Movement 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 7 4 14Adjusted Flow Rate ( v ), veh/h 355 561 546 128 601 326 159 488 174 217 409 193Adjusted Saturation Flow Rate ( s ), veh/h/ln 1781 1870 1818 1767 1766 1610 1781 1870 1610 1781 1870 1610Queue Service Time ( g s ), s 11.1 27.9 28.0 4.9 14.2 15.6 6.1 24.6 7.6 7.8 19.2 7.9Cycle Queue Clearance Time ( g c ), s 11.1 27.9 28.0 4.9 14.2 15.6 6.1 24.6 7.6 7.8 19.2 7.9Green Ratio ( g/C ) 0.43 0.35 0.35 0.38 0.31 0.39 0.37 0.30 0.37 0.38 0.31 0.42Capacity ( c ), veh/h 405 651 633 220 1085 620 294 569 602 264 584 681Volume-to-Capacity Ratio ( X ) 0.878 0.862 0.862 0.582 0.554 0.526 0.540 0.858 0.289 0.824 0.700 0.284Back of Queue ( Q ), ft/ln ( 85 th percentile) 186.5 471 454.1 92.8 223.5 221.3 107.5 414.1 113.5 178.7 304.3 115.3Back of Queue ( Q ), veh/ln ( 85 th percentile) 7.3 18.5 18.2 3.6 8.7 8.9 4.2 16.3 4.5 7.0 12.0 4.6Queue Storage Ratio ( RQ ) ( 85 th percentile) 1.24 0.00 0.00 0.62 0.00 0.00 0.61 0.00 0.00 0.55 0.00 0.00Uniform Delay ( d 1 ), s/veh 26.1 30.4 30.4 25.2 28.9 23.7 24.0 32.8 22.0 27.4 30.3 18.9Incremental Delay ( d 2 ), s/veh 18.6 14.1 14.4 2.6 2.0 3.2 1.1 11.9 0.1 17.6 3.2 0.1Initial 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 0.0Control Delay ( d ), s/veh 44.7 44.4 44.8 27.8 31.0 26.9 25.1 44.7 22.1 45.0 33.4 19.0Level of Service (LOS) D D D C C C C D C D C BApproach Delay, s/veh / LOS 44.6 D 29.3 C 36.1 D 33.1 CIntersection Delay, s/veh / LOS 36.8 D




General Information Intersection InformationAgency TMS Engineers, Inc. Duration, h 0.25Analyst ABC Analysis Date May 19, 2017 Area Type OtherJurisdiction Westlake, OH Time Period AM Peak PHF 0.92Urban Street Center Ridge Road Analysis Year 2039 Analysis Period 1> 7:00Intersection @ Glenmore/West Access File Name AM 39ALT Glenmore.xusProject Description Alternate Scenario


Signal Information

GreenYellowRed

7.3 48.7 29.0 0.0 0.0 0.03.6 3.6 3.6 0.0 0.0 0.01.4 1.4 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 8


Timer Results EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBTAssigned Phase 2 1 6 8 4Case Number 6.3 1.0 4.0 6.0 8.0Phase Duration, s 53.7 12.3 66.0 34.0 34.0Change Period, ( Y+R c ), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0Max Allow Headway ( MAH ), s 0.0 3.1 0.0 3.1 3.1Queue Clearance Time ( g s ), s 7.1 8.5 4.3Green Extension Time ( g e ), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2Phase Call Probability 1.00 1.00 1.00Max Out Probability 1.00 0.00 0.00

Movement Group Results EB WB NB SBApproach Movement L T R L T R L T R L T RAssigned Movement 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 7 4 14Adjusted Flow Rate ( v ), veh/h 11 708 687 197 365 359 75 22 54Adjusted Saturation Flow Rate ( s ), veh/h/ln 730 1856 1787 1810 1856 1826 1412 1743 1542Queue Service Time ( g s ), s 0.8 31.7 32.0 5.1 9.5 9.6 4.1 0.9 1.0Cycle Queue Clearance Time ( g c ), s 0.8 31.7 32.0 5.1 9.5 9.6 6.5 0.9 2.3Green Ratio ( g/C ) 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.58 0.61 0.61 0.29 0.29 0.29Capacity ( c ), veh/h 427 904 870 270 1132 1114 448 506 505Volume-to-Capacity Ratio ( X ) 0.025 0.784 0.789 0.730 0.322 0.323 0.167 0.043 0.108Back of Queue ( Q ), ft/ln ( 85 th percentile) 6.2 472.2 453.2 113.3 147.3 142.2 61.9 16.5 42.1Back of Queue ( Q ), veh/ln ( 85 th percentile) 0.2 18.4 18.1 4.5 5.8 5.7 2.5 0.7 1.7Queue Storage Ratio ( RQ ) ( 85 th percentile) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Uniform Delay ( d 1 ), s/veh 13.4 21.3 21.4 20.0 9.5 9.5 28.4 25.5 26.0Incremental Delay ( d 2 ), s/veh 0.1 6.8 7.2 8.5 0.8 0.8 0.1 0.0 0.0Initial Queue Delay ( d 3 ), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Control Delay ( d ), s/veh 13.5 28.0 28.6 28.5 10.2 10.2 28.5 25.5 26.0Level of Service (LOS) B C C C B B C C CApproach Delay, s/veh / LOS 28.2 C 14.1 B 27.8 C 26.0 CIntersection Delay, s/veh / LOS 22.9 C

Multimodal Results EB WB NB SBPedestrian LOS Score / LOS 2.3 B 2.1 B 2.8 C 2.8 CBicycle LOS Score / LOS 1.6 B 1.2 A 0.6 A 0.6 A









Project Description Alternate Scenario

Lanes




Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Number of Lanes 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0


Volume, V (veh/h) 1180 10 847 215



Percent Grade (%) 0









v/c Ratio 0.56



Level of Service, LOS C


Approach LOS C

Copyright © 2017 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS7™ TWSC Version 7.2.1 Generated: 6/1/2017 9:52:15 AMAM 39Alt East.xtw









Lanes




Priority 10 11 12 7 8 9 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6

Number of Lanes 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0


Volume, V (veh/h) 95 69 102 640 440 54



Percent Grade (%) 0









v/c Ratio 0.88 0.14 0.11



Level of Service, LOS F B A


Approach LOS F

Copyright © 2017 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS7™ TWSC Version 7.2.1 Generated: 6/1/2017 9:57:13 AMAM 39ALT Westown.xtw


General Information Intersection InformationAgency TMS Engineers, Inc. Duration, h 0.25Analyst ABC Analysis Date May 19, 2017 Area Type OtherJurisdiction Westlake, OH Time Period PM Peak PHF 0.92Urban Street Center Ridge Analysis Year 2039 Analysis Period 1> 7:00Intersection @ Dover Center File Name PM 39ALT CenterDover-SB RTL.xusProject Description Alternate Scenario


Signal Information

GreenYellowRed

7.0 33.8 7.0 32.2 0.0 0.03.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 0.0 0.01.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 0.0 0.0

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 8



Movement Group Results EB WB NB SBApproach Movement L T R L T R L T R L T RAssigned Movement 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 7 4 14Adjusted Flow Rate ( v ), veh/h 201 364 343 117 563 130 205 399 128 152 377 188Adjusted Saturation Flow Rate ( s ), veh/h/ln 1781 1870 1752 1767 1766 1610 1781 1870 1610 1781 1870 1610Queue Service Time ( g s ), s 7.0 16.0 16.1 4.2 12.6 5.2 7.0 18.4 5.3 5.7 17.1 8.0Cycle Queue Clearance Time ( g c ), s 7.0 16.0 16.1 4.2 12.6 5.2 7.0 18.4 5.3 5.7 17.1 8.0Green Ratio ( g/C ) 0.41 0.34 0.34 0.41 0.34 0.41 0.39 0.32 0.39 0.39 0.32 0.39Capacity ( c ), veh/h 360 632 592 311 1194 657 328 602 631 313 602 631Volume-to-Capacity Ratio ( X ) 0.559 0.577 0.579 0.377 0.472 0.199 0.626 0.662 0.203 0.486 0.626 0.298Back of Queue ( Q ), ft/ln ( 85 th percentile) 126.2 265.6 249.8 78.1 198.4 87.2 136.4 287.9 84.3 99.2 268.2 118.3Back of Queue ( Q ), veh/ln ( 85 th percentile) 5.0 10.5 10.0 3.1 7.7 3.5 5.4 11.3 3.4 3.9 10.6 4.7Queue Storage Ratio ( RQ ) ( 85 th percentile) 0.84 0.00 0.00 0.52 0.00 0.00 0.78 0.00 0.00 0.31 0.00 0.00Uniform Delay ( d 1 ), s/veh 22.0 27.2 27.2 20.7 26.1 19.1 24.9 29.2 20.1 22.7 28.8 20.9Incremental Delay ( d 2 ), s/veh 1.2 3.8 4.1 0.3 1.3 0.7 2.8 2.2 0.1 0.4 1.6 0.1Initial 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 0.0Control Delay ( d ), s/veh 23.1 31.0 31.3 21.0 27.4 19.7 27.7 31.4 20.1 23.1 30.3 21.0Level of Service (LOS) C C C C C B C C C C C CApproach Delay, s/veh / LOS 29.4 C 25.2 C 28.4 C 26.4 CIntersection Delay, s/veh / LOS 27.4 C




General Information Intersection InformationAgency TMS Engineers, Inc. Duration, h 0.25Analyst ABC Analysis Date May 19, 2017 Area Type OtherJurisdiction Westlake, OH Time Period PM Peak PHF 0.92Urban Street Center Ridge Road Analysis Year 2039 Analysis Period 1> 7:00Intersection @ Glenmore/West Access File Name PM 39ALT Glenmore.xusProject Description Alternate Scenario


Signal Information

GreenYellowRed

7.0 42.7 35.3 0.0 0.0 0.03.6 3.6 3.6 0.0 0.0 0.01.4 1.4 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 8


Timer Results EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBTAssigned Phase 2 1 6 8 4Case Number 6.3 1.0 4.0 6.0 8.0Phase Duration, s 47.7 12.0 59.7 40.3 40.3Change Period, ( Y+R c ), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0Max Allow Headway ( MAH ), s 0.0 3.1 0.0 3.1 3.1Queue Clearance Time ( g s ), s 4.2 6.3 3.2Green Extension Time ( g e ), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2Phase Call Probability 1.00 1.00 1.00Max Out Probability 1.00 0.00 0.00

Movement Group Results EB WB NB SBApproach Movement L T R L T R L T R L T RAssigned Movement 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 7 4 14Adjusted Flow Rate ( v ), veh/h 11 389 381 77 430 428 63 22 33Adjusted Saturation Flow Rate ( s ), veh/h/ln 644 1856 1818 1810 1856 1847 1412 1743 1637Queue Service Time ( g s ), s 1.0 15.2 15.2 2.2 13.7 13.7 3.1 0.8 0.0Cycle Queue Clearance Time ( g c ), s 2.7 15.2 15.2 2.2 13.7 13.7 4.3 0.8 1.2Green Ratio ( g/C ) 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.52 0.55 0.55 0.35 0.35 0.35Capacity ( c ), veh/h 336 792 776 394 1015 1010 554 615 626Volume-to-Capacity Ratio ( X ) 0.032 0.490 0.491 0.196 0.423 0.423 0.114 0.035 0.052Back of Queue ( Q ), ft/ln ( 85 th percentile) 7.5 242.9 233.6 37.6 208.8 203.2 45.3 14.8 22.3Back of Queue ( Q ), veh/ln ( 85 th percentile) 0.3 9.5 9.3 1.5 8.2 8.1 1.8 0.6 0.9Queue Storage Ratio ( RQ ) ( 85 th percentile) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Uniform Delay ( d 1 ), s/veh 17.7 20.8 20.8 13.8 13.4 13.4 22.7 21.2 21.3Incremental Delay ( d 2 ), s/veh 0.2 2.2 2.2 0.1 1.3 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.0Initial Queue Delay ( d 3 ), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Control Delay ( d ), s/veh 17.9 22.9 23.0 13.9 14.6 14.7 22.8 21.2 21.3Level of Service (LOS) B C C B B B C C CApproach Delay, s/veh / LOS 22.9 C 14.6 B 22.4 C 21.3 CIntersection Delay, s/veh / LOS 18.6 B

Multimodal Results EB WB NB SBPedestrian LOS Score / LOS 2.3 B 2.1 B 2.8 C 2.8 CBicycle LOS Score / LOS 1.1 A 1.3 A 0.6 A 0.5 A










Lanes




Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Number of Lanes 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0


Volume, V (veh/h) 678 10 860 98



Percent Grade (%) 0









v/c Ratio 0.17





Approach LOS B

Copyright © 2017 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS7™ TWSC Version 7.2.1 Generated: 6/1/2017 9:51:51 AMPM 39Alt East.xtw









Lanes




Priority 10 11 12 7 8 9 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6

Number of Lanes 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0


Volume, V (veh/h) 64 65 52 600 520 43



Percent Grade (%) 0









v/c Ratio 0.54 0.14 0.06



Level of Service, LOS F B A


Approach LOS E

Copyright © 2017 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS7™ TWSC Version 7.2.1 Generated: 6/1/2017 9:59:53 AMPM 39ALT Westown.xtw


AppendixQ

CapacityAnalysisWorksheets‐2039AlternateScenariow/Imp.



General Information Intersection InformationAgency TMS Engineers, Inc. Duration, h 0.25Analyst ABC Analysis Date May 19, 2017 Area Type OtherJurisdiction Westlake, OH Time Period AM Peak PHF 0.92Urban Street Dover Center @ Analysis Year 2039 Analysis Period 1> 7:00Intersection Westown File Name AM 39ALT Westown-TS.xusProject Description Alternate Access


Signal Information

GreenYellowRed

0.0 61.2 28.8 0.0 0.0 0.03.6 3.6 3.6 0.0 0.0 0.01.4 1.4 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 8



Movement Group Results EB WB NB SBApproach Movement L T R L T R L T R L T RAssigned Movement 7 14 5 2 6 16Adjusted Flow Rate ( v ), veh/h 103 75 807 537Adjusted Saturation Flow Rate ( s ), veh/h/ln 1414 1497 1469 1791Queue Service Time ( g s ), s 5.6 3.8 7.0 16.6Cycle Queue Clearance Time ( g c ), s 5.6 3.8 35.0 16.6Green Ratio ( g/C ) 0.29 0.29 0.61 0.61Capacity ( c ), veh/h 407 431 940 1096Volume-to-Capacity Ratio ( X ) 0.254 0.174 0.858 0.490Back of Queue ( Q ), ft/ln ( 85 th percentile) 100.8 63.7 557.7 233.8Back of Queue ( Q ), veh/ln ( 85 th percentile) 3.3 2.4 21.4 9.0Queue Storage Ratio ( RQ ) ( 85 th percentile) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Uniform Delay ( d 1 ), s/veh 27.3 26.7 17.7 10.8Incremental Delay ( d 2 ), s/veh 0.1 0.1 10.0 1.6Initial Queue Delay ( d 3 ), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Control Delay ( d ), s/veh 27.5 26.8 27.6 12.3Level of Service (LOS) C C C BApproach Delay, s/veh / LOS 27.2 C 0.0 27.6 C 12.3 BIntersection Delay, s/veh / LOS 22.2 C




General Information Intersection InformationAgency TMS Engineers, Inc. Duration, h 0.25Analyst ABC Analysis Date May 19, 2017 Area Type OtherJurisdiction Westlake, OH Time Period PM Peak PHF 0.92Urban Street Dover Center @ Analysis Year 2039 Analysis Period 1> 7:00Intersection Westown File Name PM 39ALT Westown-TS.xusProject Description Alternate Scenariol


Signal Information

GreenYellowRed

0.0 54.1 35.9 0.0 0.0 0.03.6 3.6 3.6 0.0 0.0 0.01.4 1.4 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 8



Movement Group Results EB WB NB SBApproach Movement L T R L T R L T R L T RAssigned Movement 7 14 5 2 6 16Adjusted Flow Rate ( v ), veh/h 70 71 709 503Adjusted Saturation Flow Rate ( s ), veh/h/ln 1259 1472 1751 1825Queue Service Time ( g s ), s 3.7 3.2 7.0 17.5Cycle Queue Clearance Time ( g c ), s 3.7 3.2 29.0 17.5Green Ratio ( g/C ) 0.36 0.36 0.54 0.54Capacity ( c ), veh/h 452 528 986 987Volume-to-Capacity Ratio ( X ) 0.154 0.134 0.719 0.510Back of Queue ( Q ), ft/ln ( 85 th percentile) 64.3 53.6 410.7 256.5Back of Queue ( Q ), veh/ln ( 85 th percentile) 2.0 2.0 16.0 10.0Queue Storage Ratio ( RQ ) ( 85 th percentile) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Uniform Delay ( d 1 ), s/veh 21.7 21.6 17.2 14.5Incremental Delay ( d 2 ), s/veh 0.1 0.0 4.5 1.9Initial Queue Delay ( d 3 ), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Control Delay ( d ), s/veh 21.8 21.6 21.7 16.4Level of Service (LOS) C C C BApproach Delay, s/veh / LOS 21.7 C 0.0 21.7 C 16.4 BIntersection Delay, s/veh / LOS 19.8 B




AppendixR

ODOTChannelizingIslandDesignCriteria


TRAFFICIMPACTSTUDY

WestlakeElementarySchool

Westlake,Ohio

June5,2017

PreparedFor:

WestlakeCitySchools‐BoardofEducation27200HilliardBoulevardWestlake,Ohio44145

PreparedBy:

TMSEngineers,Inc.2112CaseParkwaySouth

Unit#7Twinsburg,Ohio44087

___________________________________REGISTEREDENGINEERNO.E56982

CERTIFICATIONNO.2234

“This document was prepared consistent with local agency requirements and/or applicable guidelines contained in this report.”

traffic impact study - westlake city school district impact study tms engineers, inc. westlake...

Documents