call application report project ( mini scope)

11/7/2014

Route: US 40 City/Town: County 1 County 2RP Start: Latitude Start:RP End: Latitude End:AADT Lo.: 4,530 AADT Hi.: 6,995 % Trucks: 11%Length: 0.00 # Lanes: 4 Lane Mi: 0Func. Class: Area: N/A NHS:

INSERT ONE OR

DATE:

LOS: Icc: 1.53Deck:

Bridge Scour: NA NA Culvert NAIRI: PCR: RUT: Friction #: Other:

KPI Delta: KPI UNIT:

NO

Bridge/Culvert Super:

Bridge Paint:

Attach extra sheets as necessary to fully describe the alternatives.

PRELIMINARY ALTERNATIVES THAT ARE CONTEMPLATED (ANALYSED) WITH COSTS:

SECONDARY CONSIDERATIONS OR GOALS WITH COSTS:

NO

NASubstructure (Bridge/ Culvert):

CONSEQUENCES IF NO ACTION IS TAKEN (DO NOTHING ALTERNATIVE IS SELECTED):

The intent of this project is to improve safety at the above intersection by converting the intersection from two way stop controlled to a roundabout.

If no action is taken, the number of crashes per year will remain high and may even increase.

This alternative is to convert the intersection to a roundabout with one lane in the NB/SB direction and two lanes in the EB/WB direction. A new cantalever or box truss structure will be needed for the EB direction west of the roundabout to provide additional warning.

ALT 2. Do nothing. This alternative does not address the crash pattern

Type I Culverts/ pipes:

Wearing Surface:

INTENT/ PURPOSE OF PROJECT (INITIAL STATEMENT OF ESSENTIAL PROJECT PURPOSE:

Completed FULL SCOPE:

GREENFIELD

Cambridge

SAFETY

District Intersection Improvement Pro

SCORE:

Date:

DES:

Proposed FY:

Sub-District:

District:

Asset Group:

12/15/2017

1702920

2023

Work Type:

SEE IT: WHAT IS THE CURRENT AND PROJECTED CONDITION AND WHY IS THIS A PROBLEM (FOCUS ON THE PROBLEM):

DATE AND TYPE OF LAST MAJOR TREATMENT:

70

Bridge Area (SFT): N/A Year Built:

Crash Rate:

Other Principal Arterial (OPA)

Longitude Start:Longitude End:115.70 -85.448131

Str. # N/A NBI #: N/A Bridge / Culvert: Length (FT) / Width (FT):

N/A

The intersection of US 40 and SR 3 has an ICC of 1.53 and an ICF of 1.7. There were 23 crashes at this location in 3 years. This is more than would be expected for an intersection of this type and size. Most of the crashes involved vehicles on SR 3 rearending vehicles in the NB right turn lane. Several of the more serious crashes involved vehicles on SR 3 pulling in front of traffic on US 40. A Roundabout is proposed at this location to address this crash pattern.

Call Application Report Project ( Mini Scope)

Project Location

OWN IT: Alternatives

FORM VERSION: FORM VERSION BY: Andrew Fitzgerald, PTOE, PE

Intersection Improvement, Roundabout Work Category:

39.80217439.802174

N/ANo

115.70 -85.448131Dunreith Henry

PROJECT CONDITION RATINGS:

Location Description: US 40 at SR 3 (W Jct)

ALT 1. Roundabout ESTIMATED COST: $2,217,000

Will Further Analysis/Assessment be required beyond this form?

$2,217,000.00YES COST: $40,000.00

NO COST: $0.00

YES COST: $296,180.00

NO COST: $0.00

YES COST: $0.00

NO COST: $0.00

NO COST: $0.00

YES COST: $0.00

YES COST: $0.00

NO COST: $0.00

YES COST: $1,880,820.00

YES COST: $0.00

NO COST: $0.00

NO COST: $0.00

DES: FY: Work Type: Location:

DES: FY: Work Type: Location:DES: FY: Work Type: Location:

1 FY

3

NO YES NO

YES YES

YES NA

YES YES

YES NO

Prepared by:

Reviewed by:

Approval by:

11/7/2014

Other Projects within Limits

SOLVE IT: Project Recommendations and Costs

Maintenance of Traffic:

Utilities PE (UT1):

Estimated Total Project Costs:

FORM VERSION: FORM VERSION BY: Andrew Fitzgerald, PTOE, PE

Report Prepared By and Approved By Signature

Nathan Sturdevant District Investigations Engr

Report Prepared By and Approved By

District Traffic Staff Engr Title:

Engineer Assessment:

Bridge/Culvert Inspection Report:

NOTE: Appropriate environmental and assessment process need to be followed.

Location Map:

Spreadsheets (calcs):

Attachments

NOTE: Any changes require a re-submittal of Call Application Report.

Other items relevant to the project not specifically listed elsewhere.

Taylor Ruble

Pathway Data:

Accident History:Cost Calculations:

Additional Comments

Luis Laracuente District Traffic Engineer Luis Laracuente APPROVED ON: 12/15/17

Taylor RubleNathan Sturdevant

ANTCIPATED NUMBER OF YEARS TO COMPLETE DESIGN (1, 2 or 3 fiscal years):

Right of Way Purchase (RW1):

Preliminary Engineering 2 (PE2):

Solution Schematic:

Mobility History:

Some Small Takes May Be Needed

If Designed Out of House

Asset Team Scoring Sheet:

Miscellaneous Notes

Preliminary Engineering 1 (PE1):

Railroad PE (RR2):

Construction Engineering (CE):

Pictures

ANTCIPATED NUMBER OF CONSTRUCTION SEASONS TO COMPLETE(1, 2 or 3 seasons):

See Attached Estimate

Included in CN

Included in CN

In House

Included in PE

Relinquishment Payment (RQP):

QUANTIFIABLE PRIMARY GOAL(S) OF PROJECT (WHAT ARE WE PURCHASING SUCH AS CONDITION, SERVICE LIFE, LOS, OR CRF):

This project aims to reduce the number and the severity of crashes at this intersection by 58/% by changing the intersection from a two way stop to a Roundabout.

COMMENTS

Right of Way Services (RW2):

Railroad PE (RR1):

Environmental Study:

Utilities CN (UT2):

Construction (CN):

Other Considerations:

Project Notes

This locations has been an area of concern given the presence of several high speed right angle

collisions and many low speed rearend collisions. This intersection has received much public

attention over the years by the public and elected officials.

A Roundabout was chosen as the recommended countermeasure since it should correct the

right angle crash pattern and since a signal nor a 4 way stop were warranted. The Roundabout

should also correct the NB rearends in queues of right turners.

The Roundabout is expected to cost somewhat more than average since it will have two lanes in

the EB and WB direction and one lane in the NB and SB directions.

A sign structure is needed for EB traffic to the west of the roundabout. This is the first stop after

a long stretch of free flow roadway so extra warning is needed.

The existing span to the east of the roundabout will remain for lane assignment signs for WB

traffic.

A pedestrian trail exists to the south of the proposed Roundabout. It will need to be avoided

during design and construction.

PRICING REPORT

Project: US 27 at SR 28 Roundabout Project ID: NA

Location: US 27 at SR 28 Bid Date: NA

County: Randolph Route: US 27

District: Greenfield

Item No. Description Quantity Unit Bid Price Extension

1 Excavation Common 9000 CY $15.00 $135,000

2 Compacted Agg No 53 Base 3000 TON $28.00 $84,000

3 HMA Full Depth 7500 TON $70.00 $525,000

4 Curb, Island Concrete 2550 SYS $78.00 $198,900

5 Curb, Concrete 1200 LF $20.00 $24,000

6 Curb and Gutter, Concrete 6000 LF $19.00 $114,000

7 Lighting 1 LS $150,000.00 $150,000

8 Signage and Markings 1 LS $150,000.00 $150,000

9 MOT 1 LS $100,000 $100,000

$1,480,900

10 Project estimate adjustment(20% Contingency) 1 L.S. $296,180 $296,180

11 Construction engineering(2%) 1 L.S. $29,618 $29,618

12 Project Engineering (15%) 1 L.S. $296,180 $296,180

13 ROW 1 L.S. $40,000 $40,000

14 Mobilization and demobilization(5%) 1 L.S. $74,045 $74,045

$2,217,000

Alternative 1 ‐ Single Lane RAB

SUBTOTAL

TOTAL

Safety Asset TeamScoring Sheet

DES: NA Date: 5/30/2017Analyst: T Ruble Project Cost (today's dollars): $2,217,000District: Greenfield Route: US 40

City: Dunreith County: Henry

Notes:

Rating Score Weight Total

1.53 4 6 24

Slightly Substandard 1 2 2

Adequate Operational Condition

3 3 9

(imported from worksheet Factor #4) 5 6 30

Neutral Opposition and Support

1 2 2

Positive Effect on Consistency and Conformity

3 1 3

Team Score 70

(if applicable, refer to business rules) 0 7 0

Total Score 70

#3 Operational Status

At SR 3 (W Jct)

Alternative 2, Roundabout

Location:

#7 Earmarks & External Contributions

Factor

#1 Traffic Safety (Icc-based) (type number=>)

#2 Compliance with Current Standards

#4 Cost-Effectiveness (value)

#5 Public and Other Interests

#6 Route Continuity and Corridor Completion

Printed 12/15/20178:31 AM

Safety Asset Team Factor #4 Scoring Spreadsheet

Fatal and Incapacitating Injury Crashes 4 $3,512

Non‐Incapacitating Injury Crashes 1

PDO Crashes 16

Score

5

CRFA 58

CRFB 0

CRFC 0

30

Discount Rate (%) 5

Project Life 20

Project Cost (today's dollars) $2,217,000

NOTES

Crash Reduction Factor (%)

Weighted Score

**USER INPUT** RESULTS

Crashes (total of 3 years only) Annual Cost per Crash Reduced Crash Data is from Appendix QQ

Used Desktop Reference for Crash Reduction Factors; Report No. FHWA‐SA‐07‐015

Improve signal timing : 18Provide protected left turn phase : 30Backplates : 13

0.13

0.28

120

480

0.08

323 389

388

244 244

0.22

208

0.21

490

402

123 0.08

170

0.13

0.13

0.37

396 0.25

RankingSheetTYPE OF INTERSECTION#CLV V/CCLV V/C CLV V/C CLV V/C CLV V/C

Zone 1 (North) Zone 2 (South) Zone 3 (East) Zone 4 (West) Zone 5 (Center) Overall v/c Ratio

0.21

0.21

0.11

0.20

0.24

0.24

0.11

0.150.15

0.15

0.02 0.13

0.15

0.15

0.36

0.15

0.07

0.07

0.30

333

456

0.02

0.26

#12

7 1

1352

0.22

0.220.22

8.2 E-WPartial Median U-Turn

85

5

339

7.1 N-S

124 #

#

#

7.2 E-W

224

235 298

167 293 1

5 18.1 N-S

#8

N-W 1

410

212

0.26205

243 120

1792361 #30.15

4

11#

#

#

#15

13

1

0.37

#10

0.31

0.25

1

1

584

1

0.31

0.25

1

0.15

1

1

1

#

#

#1

14#1

0.36

Capacity Analysis for Planning of JunctionsInput Worksheet

Results for Intersections

Project Number:

Critical Lane Volume Sum

32 0 0 0

Acceptable ConfigurationsUS 40 @ SR 3(CR 325)

0

US 40 @ SR 3(CR 325)

September 21, 2017

Location

Date

Project Name:

< 1200 1200 - 1399 1400 - 1599 ≥ 1600

1 0.25 9FULL

S-W

N-E

S-EQuadrant Roadway

CSRL

E-W

FULL

453

243

575

247

Conventional

Conventional Shared RT LN

Median U-Turn

25

410

132

0.29

0.21

0.21

140

339

0.19

0.18

0.15

0.10

0.14

0.14

0.05

0.29

3.1

3.2

3.3

2

4.2

5

350

225

205

6.2 E-W

6.1 N-S

0.08

0.09

Partial Displaced Left Turn 254.1 N-S

3.4 0.21

0.26

0.15

1

Displaced Left Turn

Restricted Crossing U-Turn

Capacity Analysis for Planning of Junctions

0 00 0

0 00 0

0 00 0

0 00 0

0 00 0

00.03 0.04

0

0

0

0.24 0.31

9.6

9.7

Zone 4 (Ctr. 2)

2

1

0.17

0.16

CLVCLV V/C

Zone 1 (Rt Mrg) Zone 3 (Ctr. 1)

0.06

V/C

3 X 3

#

#

0.09

1

1

0.13

0.12

0.04

1

1

0.18

2

10

6

5

7

3

8

4

9

0.10

0.17

1

1

15.2 E-W

15.1 N-S

N-S

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

14.2 E-W

11.1 N-S

11.2 E-W

13.1 N-S

E-W

15

13.2

14.1

10.2 E-W

10.1 N-S

Displaced Left Turn

Double Crossover Diamond 123

1

1

1

0.30

0.22

0.30

Zone 3 (East)

Capacity Analysis for Planning of JunctionsInput Worksheet

9.3

9.4

9.5

3

4 0

0.00 0.00 0.01

0.21

0.14

6

CLV

0.00

1

1

0.07 0.14 0.08

0.14

0.10

0.16

Results for Roundabouts

0.09 0.12 0.13

0.07

1

1

1

1

1

Zone 5 (Lt Mrg) Zone 6 (Rt Mrg)

V/C CLV V/C CLV

0.04

V/C

0.04

0.11

0.10 131

138

0.07

0.05

0.13

0.07

0.13

0.12

268

97

237

0.16

0.07

0.17

155

207

294

118

15

98

0.01

0.06

208

109

215

41

250

0.09

0.10

0.13

11

123

Zone 2 (Lt Mrg)

CLV V/C

122

Results for Interchanges

0.08

0.06

0.150.18

0.01

0.08

0.01

0.08

0.01

0.08

249

1170.03

0.16

0.08

0.14

0.13

14

0.080.22

60

2861

190

217

154

111

191

80

215

0.12

0.02

0.22

0.21

0.13

Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 2 Lane 3 Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 Lane 1

Zone 1 (North) Zone 2 (South) Zone 4 (West)

Lane 3 Lane 3 Lane 1 Lane 2

0.22

0.07

0.23

0.02

0.01 0.01

0.01 0.01

0.300.02 0.23

0.10

0.30

1 0

9.2 75 ICD 0.02 0.27 0.23 0.30 0.30 5 1 0

9.1 50 ICD 0.02

Single Point

Overall v/c Ratio Ranking

# TYPE OF INTERCHANGE Sheet Overall v/c Ratio Ranking

Diamond

Partial Cloverleaf

0.31 7

#

0.26

TYPE OF ROUNDABOUT

1 X 1

1 X 2

2 X 1

2 X 2 0.10

Capacity Analysis for Planning of Junctions

ROUNDABOUTS - UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS WORKSHEET

General Information Site InformationAnalyst Taylor Ruble Agency/Co. INDOT Date Performed 5/24/2017 Time Period 4:30 pm to 5:30 pm

Intersection US 40 at SR 3 Jurisdiction Greenfeld Analysis Year 2015

Project Description NAVolume Adjustments

EB WB NB SB

LT TrafficVolume, veh/h 6 128 49 4 PHF 0.38 0.80 0.94 0.50 Flow rate, veh/h 15 159 52 8

TH TrafficVolume, veh/h 177 154 13 4 PHF 0.87 0.86 0.54 0.75 Flow rate, veh/h 203 179 24 5

RT TrafficVolume, veh/h 40 3 133 8 PHF 0.71 0.75 0.88 0.50 Flow rate, veh/h 56 4 151 16

Approach Flow ComputationApproach Flow (veh/h) Va (veh/h)

Vae 274 Vaw 342 Van 227 Vas 29

Circulating Flow ComputationApproach Flow (veh/h) Vc (veh/h)

Vce 172 Vcw 91 Vcn 226 Vcs 390

Capacity ComputationEB WB NB SB

Capacity Upper bound 1210 1289 1160 1018 Lower bound 1002 1074 957 830

v/c Ratio Upper bound 0.23 0.27 0.20 0.03 Lower bound 0.27 0.32 0.24 0.03

Copyright © 2010 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.5 Generated: 5/24/2017 2:36 PM

Page 1 of 1Roundabouts - Unsignalized Intersections Worksheet

5/24/2017file:///C:/Users/truble/AppData/Local/Temp/u2k1062.tmp

ROUNDABOUT REPORT

General Information Site InformationAnalyst Agency or Co. Date Performed 5/24/2017Time Period Peak Hour Factor 0.92

Intersection E/W Street Name N/S Street Name Analysis Year Project ID

Project Description:

Volume Adjustment and Site CharacteristicsEB WB NB SB

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

Number of Lanes (N) 1 1 0 0 2 0 0 1 1 0 1 0

Lane Assignment L LTR LT TR LT R LTR

Conflicting Lanes 1 1 1 1

Volume (V), veh/h 5 180 40 0 130 155 5 0 50 15 133 0 10 10 10 0 Heavy Veh. Adj. (fHV), % 3 3 3 3 16 5 5 3 3 3 15 3 25 25 25 3

Pedestrians Crossing 0 0 0 0

Critical and Follow-Up Headway AdjustmentEB WB NB SB

Left Right Bypass Left Right Bypass Left Right Bypass Left Right Bypass

Critical Headway (sec) 4.2000 4.2000 5.1929 4.2000 4.2000 5.1929 4.2000 4.2000 4.2000 5.1929 4.2000 5.1929

Follow-Up Headway (sec) 2.8000 2.8000 3.1858 2.8000 2.8000 3.1858 2.8000 2.8000 2.8000 3.1858 2.8000 3.1858

Flow ComputationsEB WB NB SB

Left Right Bypass Left Right Bypass Left Right Bypass Left Right BypassCirculating Flow (Vc), pc/h 192 79 222 397 Exiting Flow (Vex), pc/h 215 246 28 222 Entry Flow (Ve), pc/h 6 246 163 184 73 0 166 41

Entry Volume veh/h 6 239 148 167 66 0 149 33

Capacity and v/c RatiosEB WB NB SB

Left Right Bypass Left Right Bypass Left Right Bypass Left Right BypassCapacity (cPCE), pc/h 1108 1108 1210 1210 1083 1083 944

Capacity (c), veh/h 1076 1076 1100 1100 1051 1051 755

v/c Ratio (X) 0.01 0.22 0.13 0.15 0.06 0.00 0.04

Delay and Level of ServiceEB WB NB SB

Left Right Bypass Left Right Bypass Left Right Bypass Left Right Bypass

Lane Control Delay (d), s/veh 3.4 5.4 4.5 4.6 4.0 3.4 0.0 5.2

Lane LOS A A A A A A A

Lane 95% Queue 0.0 0.8 0.5 0.5 0.2 0.0 0.1

Approach Delay, s/veh 5.36 4.54 1.22 5.20

Approach LOS, s/veh A A A A

Intersection Delay, s/veh 3.93

Intersection LOS A

Copyright © 2012 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS 2010TM 6.41 Roundabouts Generated: 5/24/2017 3:16 PM

Page 1 of 1Formatted Report

5/24/2017file:///C:/Users/lularacuente/AppData/Local/Temp/u2k8E7D.tmp

TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARYGeneral Information Site Information Analyst Taylor Ruble Agency/Co. INDOT Date Performed 5/24/2017 Analysis Time Period 4:30 PM to 5:30 PM

Intersection US 40 at SR 3 Jurisdiction Greenfield Analysis Year 2016

Project Description NA East/West Street: US 40 North/South Street: SR 3 Intersection Orientation: East-West Study Period (hrs): 1.00

Vehicle Volumes and AdjustmentsMajor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6

L T R L T RVolume (veh/h) 6 177 40 128 154 3 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h) 7 215 48 156 187 3

Percent Heavy Vehicles 11 -- -- 11 -- --Median Type Raised curb RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 1 Configuration LTR LT R Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12


Percent Heavy Vehicles 11 11 11 11 11 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 1 2 0 1 2 0 Configuration L T TR L T TR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of ServiceApproach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12Lane Configuration LTR LT L T TR L T TR v (veh/h) 7 156 59 7 169 4 2 11 C (m) (veh/h) 1332 1251 360 362 743 263 342 614 v/c 0.01 0.12 0.16 0.02 0.23 0.02 0.01 0.02 95% queue length 0.02 0.43 0.59 0.06 0.88 0.05 0.02 0.05 Control Delay (s/veh) 7.7 8.3 17.0 15.1 11.3 18.9 15.6 11.0 LOS A A C C B C C B Approach Delay (s/veh) -- -- 12.8 13.4 Approach LOS -- -- B B

Copyright © 2010 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.5 Generated: 5/30/2017 11:32 AM

Page 1 of 1Two-Way Stop Control

5/30/2017file:///C:/Users/truble/AppData/Local/Temp/u2k253.tmp

TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARYGeneral Information Site Information Analyst Taylor Ruble Agency/Co. INDOT Date Performed 5/24/2017 Analysis Time Period 4:30 PM to 5:30 PM

Intersection US 40 at SR 3 Jurisdiction Greenfield Analysis Year 2016

Project Description NA East/West Street: US 40 North/South Street: SR 3 Intersection Orientation: East-West Study Period (hrs): 1.00

Vehicle Volumes and AdjustmentsMajor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6


Percent Heavy Vehicles 18 -- -- 34 -- --Median Type Raised curb RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 1 Configuration LTR LT R Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12


Percent Heavy Vehicles 35 31 36 50 75 50 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 1 2 0 1 2 0 Configuration L T TR L T TR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of ServiceApproach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12Lane Configuration LTR LT L T TR L T TR v (veh/h) 15 159 52 12 163 8 4 23 C (m) (veh/h) 1301 1141 312 330 671 216 270 575 v/c 0.01 0.14 0.17 0.04 0.24 0.04 0.01 0.04 95% queue length 0.03 0.49 0.60 0.11 0.96 0.12 0.05 0.12 Control Delay (s/veh) 7.8 8.7 18.8 16.3 12.1 22.3 18.5 11.5 LOS A A C C B C C B Approach Delay (s/veh) -- -- 13.9 14.8 Approach LOS -- -- B B

Copyright © 2010 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.5 Generated: 5/24/2017 2:22 PM

Page 1 of 1Two-Way Stop Control

5/24/2017file:///C:/Users/truble/AppData/Local/Temp/u2kAB88.tmp

Town:

Major Street: Minor Street:

45 mph 45 mph

Lanes: Lanes:

Yes

From North (SB) 0% 4 or more

From East (WB) 100% No

From South (NB) 0% No

From West (EB) 100%

volume data.

From AM / PM

6:00 PM

Name:

Agency:

Date:

N/A

Taylor Ruble

70%

Tuesday AM

Traffic Signal Warrant Summary Worksheet

The Worksheet(s) attached are provided as an attachment to the Engineering Investigation Study for:

2 or more lanes 1 lane

5/24/2017

Warrant 4: Pedestrian Volume

Criterion A: Four‐Hour

Condition A: Minimum Vehicular Volume

N/A

Warrant Analysis Conducted By:

Warrant 3: Peak Hour Volume

Warrant 2: Four‐Hour Volume

Warrant Evaluation Summary Warrant Met:

Warrant 6: Coordinated Signal System

Warrant 7: Crash Experience

Warrant 8: Roadway Network

Warrant 9: Intersection Near a Grade Crossing

Condition B: Interruption of Continuous Traffic

Condition C: Combination: 80% of A and B

N/A

N/A

N/A

No

No

INDOT

Warrant 5: School Crossing

US 40

Critical Approach Speed:

Criterion B: Peak‐Hour

SR 3

No

N/A

No

In built‐up area of isolated community of < 10,000 population?

Warrant 1: Eight ‐ Hour Vehicular Volume

Critical Approach Speed:

Total number of approaches at intersection?

AM / PM To

Analysis based on EXISTING

US 40 at SR 3

No

No

Time (HH:MM)Day of the WeekDate

% Right Turns Included

10/20/2015

Manually set volume level?

If it is a "T" intersection, inflate minor threshold to 150%?

No

Henry

Dunreith IN

Intersection:

County:

18:00

1

Yes No

Volume Level 70% 56%

Major Rd. Req 420 336 1 6:00 7:00 323

Minor Rd. Req 105 84 2 7:00 8:00 479

Number of Hours 0 0 3 8:00 9:00 336

No 4 9:00 10:00 295

5 10:00 11:00 340

6 11:00 12:00 352

7 12:00 13:00 323

Volume Level 70% 56% 8 13:00 14:00 352

Major Rd. Req 630 504 9 14:00 15:00 404

Minor Rd. Req 53 42 10 15:00 16:00 503

Number of Hours 0 0 11 16:00 17:00 519

No 12 17:00 18:00 526

13 18:00 19:00 313

14 19:00 20:00 225

15 20:00 21:00 201

No 16 21:00 22:00 160

YesHour Start 16:00 17:00 15:00 7:00 NoMajor Road Vol. 458 476 452 430

Minor Road Vol. 61 50 51 49

Warrant 1: Eight ‐ Hour Vehicular Volume

49

35

Warrant Evaluated?

Major Road: Both

App. (VPH)

6:00 AM Enter Start Time (Military Time) (HH:MM)

Time

PeriodFrom

Min. Veh. VolumeTo

Manually Set To:

Total

Condition A :

Satisfied?

70%

Satisfied?

283 40

430

301

315

293

Warrant Satisfied?

303

Minor Road: High

App. (VPH)

Warrant 2: Four‐Hour Volume

Condition C:

70%

Interruption of Continuous Traffic

37

37

30

Condition B:

Warrant Evaluated?

185

61

50

38

24

16

36

41

476

Warrant Satisfied?

Manually Set To:

Satisfied?

452

458

154 6

316

363

31264

201

51

275

Combination of A & B at 56%

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600

Minor Street VPH (High App)

Major Street VPH (Both App)

Chart TitleFigure 4C‐2 Warrant 2, Four‐Hour Vehicular Volume (70% Factor)

2

call application report project ( mini scope)

Documents