5-Points Trdegteetgnative Analysis Redegteetgrt February 17, 2016 PDF

Traffic Impact Alternative Analysis Report
For the Five-Points Intersection of
South Union Street (S.R. 3013),

Old Kennett Road (S.R. 3036),
and Hillendale Road
Kennett Township, Chester County, Pennsylvania
February 16, 2016
Prepared By:
922 Fayette Street

Conshohocken, PA 19428
(610) 940-1050
www.rve.com
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY................................................................................................. 1
I) INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 2
II) EXISTING CONDITIONS ..................................................................................... 2
III) Physical Inventory ................................................................................................ 4
IV) Existing Traffic Conditions .................................................................................... 4
V) FUTURE CONDITIONS ....................................................................................... 7
VI) Projected Traffic Conditions.................................................................................. 7
VII) Traffic Analysis ..................................................................................................... 9
VIII) IMPROVEMENT ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS ..................................................... 14
a) ALTERNATIVE 1 ................................................................................................ 15
b) ALTERNATIVE 1A.............................................................................................. 16
c) ALTERNATIVE 2 ................................................................................................ 19
d) ALTERNATIVE 3 ................................................................................................ 22
IX) RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................................................................... 26
List of Tables
Table 1 Anticipated Site-Generated Peak Hour Traffic Volumes .................................. 9

Table 2 - Level of Service Criteria for Signalized Intersections ..................................... 12
Table 3 Existing 2015 LOS ......................................................................................... 12
Table 4 Projected Baseline 2018 LOS ....................................................................... 13
Table 5 Projected No Build 2018 LOS ...................................................................... 14
Table 6 Alternative 1 Projected LOS .......................................................................... 15
Table 7 Alternative 1A Projected LOS ........................................................................ 17
Table 8 Alternative 2 Projected LOS .......................................................................... 21
Table 9 Alternative 3 Projected LOS South Union Street & Hillendale Road .......... 23
Table 10 Alternative 3 Projected LOS South Union Street & Old Kennett Road ..... 23
Table 11 Alternative Impact Summary ....................................................................... 27
List of Figures
Figure 1 Location Map.................................................................................................. 3

Figure 2 Existing 2015 Traffic Volumes ........................................................................ 5
Figure 3 Existing Traffic Signal Phase Diagram ........................................................... 6
Figure 4 Baseline 2018 Traffic Volumes ....................................................................... 8
Figure 5 Developed 2018 Traffic Volumes ................................................................. 10
Figure 6 Alternative 3 2018 Traffic Volumes .............................................................. 11
Figure 7 Alternative 1A Traffic Signal Phase Diagram ............................................... 18
Figure 8 Alternative 2 Traffic Signal Phase Diagram .................................................. 20
Figure 9 Alternative 3 Traffic Signal Phase Diagram .................................................. 24
Appendix A - Traffic Volume Development Charts

Appendix B Concept Plans / Project Costs
Appendix C - Intersection Capacity Analysis Reports
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Kennett Township has requested Remington, Vernick and Beach Engineers (RVB) to
study the traffic impacts from nearby developments at the five-point intersection of
South Union Street (S.R. 3013), Old Kennett Road (S.R. 3036), and Hillendale Road
located in Kennett Township, Chester County, Pennsylvania. The Township wishes to
determine the impact of the development on the intersection and evaluate potential
improvements to reduce traffic delays since this is currently a congested intersection
and additional development is anticipated nearby.
The objective of this study is to analyze the various alternative intersection

configurations and provide a preferred alternative recommendation. The study will
include gathering/analyzing traffic data, reviewing existing conditions and developing
alternatives to mitigate the existing conditions. This report was prepared to describe the
results of the alternatives analysis. The intersection alternatives were developed from
the review of the traffic data, highway capacity analysis, and site review of the study
intersection. Three mitigation alternatives were developed as noted below:
Alternative 1 maintains the existing intersection roadway network geometry with

optimization of the existing traffic signal operation to provide improved signal
phasing and timing. Alternative 1A is a similar option that also includes the removal
of the exclusive southbound traffic signal phase.
Alternative 2 provides widening along South Union Street and Hillendale Road to
accommodate a left turn lane on each intersection approach. This alternative would
require full replacement of the existing traffic signal equipment due to the pavement
widening. The new traffic signal operation would be optimized to provide improved
signal phasing and timing.
Alternative 3 includes realignment of Old Kennett Road (S.R. 3036) to a new stop-
controlled T-intersection with South Union Street (S.R. 3013), and would be located
several hundred feet south of the existing five-point intersection. Traffic signal
modifications will be required to accommodate the new intersection geometry.
Each alternative includes the optimization of the signal timings at the study intersection.
This is expected to improve the Levels of Service at this intersection under current and
future conditions when nearby developments are completed.
Alternative 3 was identified by RVB as the preferred alternative intersection

improvement. This alternative provides reduced delay to motorists at the study
intersection and enhances safety by eliminating one of the approaches to the existing
five-point intersection and reducing conflicts between turning vehicles. The estimated
project cost for the preferred alternative is approximately $728,800.00.
Alternative 3 was selected as the preferred alternative due to the following:

It is expected to provide the greatest reduction in motorist delay
It is the most cost-effective improvement alternative
Traffic Impact Alternative Analysis Report, Kennett Township 1

I) INTRODUCTION
RVB has been requested by Kennett Township to review traffic problems at the five-
point intersection of South Union Street (S.R. 3013), Hillendale Road, and Old Kennett
Road (S.R. 3036) in Kennett Township. The review includes analyzing and developing
alternatives to relieve the existing congestion and to minimize the traffic impacts from
nearby development projects at the five-point intersection. These developments are in
the various stages of planning. However, the impacts are being reviewed now in order
to proactively plan for improvements to the intersection.
A townhome development is proposed northwest of this intersection in the Bentley-

Plankington property at 912 South Union Street. This development is expected to
generate 25 to 28 new vehicle-trips during weekday peak hours. The development
includes a proposed access road intersecting South Union Street at two locations north
of the study intersection. Another townhome development, referred to as the Guthrie
property, is located west of the intersection and is anticipated to generate 36 to 41 trips
during weekday peak hours. The development of the Guthrie property includes main
access roads intersecting Hillendale Road and Union Street via Meadowview Lane.
Additional development projects are anticipated in the Pia property northwest of the
intersection and the Phillips property southwest of the intersection. Both are located in
an R4 Residential Zoning district and are expected to be similarly developed with
townhomes which will generate comparable vehicle-trips during weekday peak hours.
The study intersection and the locations of each proposed development are depicted in
Figure 1.
This report will present and evaluate alternatives for the modifications to the existing
signalized intersection. It will describe the intersection alternatives analysis which
included identifying the predominant travel patterns and levels of congestion for future
conditions. The conceptual alternatives have been developed to enhance the
operational characteristics of the study intersection. The alternatives include different
travel lane and traffic signal configurations. In order to complete this study, the following
data were collected regarding the study intersection:
Field investigation of the existing intersection

Manual turning movement counts
Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT) approved traffic signal
plan and timing schedule
Information regarding anticipated developments near the study intersection
II) EXISTING CONDITIONS
In order to evaluate the issues and develop a solution for the study intersection, we
conducted a physical inventory of all features that may affect traffic flow and safety
characteristics.

III) Physical Inventory
The study intersection is a five-legged intersection with South Union Street being the
single north/south oriented leg. South Union Street is the major route at this intersection
and has the largest traffic volumes. For the purposes of this study, Hillendale Road will be
designated to have an east-west orientation, and Old Kennett Road will have a
northwest/southeast orientation. All roads are two-lane, arterial roads with one lane in
either direction.
Hillendale Road and Old Kennett Road have 10-foot wide travel lanes at the intersection
approaches and have speed limits of 35 MPH and 45 MPH, respectively. South Union
Street (S.R. 3013) currently has one 11-foot wide lane approaching the intersection and
one 14-foot wide lane trailing the intersection in each direction with a speed limit of 40
MPH.
The study intersection is currently signalized and includes no-turn-on-red restrictions for
the westbound Hillendale Road, northbound South Union Street, and northwest-bound Old
Kennett Road approaches.
The study intersection is located in a semi-rural, developing area just south of Kennett
Square Borough, approximately mile south of Kennett High School. The intersection
does not currently accommodate pedestrians and there are no sidewalks in the area.
IV) Existing Traffic Conditions
Manual turning movement counts were obtained from a study prepared by Traffic
Planning and Design (TPD), dated November 16, 2015, titled 912 South Union Street
Traffic Impact Study. The existing peak hour traffic volumes are indicated in Figure 2.
The traffic count data indicates the morning peak hour occurred between 7:00 AM and
8:00 AM and the evening peak hour occurred between 5:00 PM and 6:00 PM.
The existing traffic signal operates in a four-phase structure, including a leading

southbound phase along South Union Street with protected left turns receiving a green
arrow indication. The northbound approach of South Union Street operates concurrently
with the southbound approach in separate phase, with permitted left turn movements
receiving a green ball signal along both approaches, so that left turns are permitted
when gaps in opposing traffic are available. One phase is provided for the Hillendale
Road approaches, including permitted left turns. The Old Kennett Road approach
operates on its own phase, with no opposing movements in conflict with the left turns
from Old Kennett Road.

V) FUTURE CONDITIONS
VI) Projected Traffic Conditions
The existing traffic volumes were increased to account for future traffic growth, including
four (4) proposed developments in the vicinity of the study intersection that have not yet
been constructed.
Since the anticipated developments are expected to be fully constructed and occupied
several years from the date the traffic volumes were obtained, the existing traffic
volumes were increased to account for background traffic growth expected from other
developments in the surrounding area. Since the 912 South Union Traffic Impact Study
reflected a future buildout year of 2018, the same year was selected as the future
analysis year for this study.
Based on the current table of projected traffic growth factors obtained from PennDOT
District 6-0 staff, the growth rate of 1.75% for urban, non-interstate roads in Chester
County was selected. The existing 2015 traffic volumes were increased by this annual
rate to obtain the 2018 baseline traffic volumes. This scenario provides a baseline to
better evaluate the expected impact of the anticipated developments on the study
intersection. The 2018 baseline volumes are depicted in Figure 4.
These proposed developments include two proposed townhome developments

northwest of the study intersection: the Bentley-Plankington development at 912 South
Union Street, which includes 40 townhome units, and the Guthrie development which
includes 63 townhome units. Two (2) additional development projects are anticipated in
the Pia property northwest of the intersection and the Phillips property southwest of the
intersection. Both are located in the same R4 Residential Zoning district as the Bentley-
Plankington and Guthrie developments. To provide a conservative analysis, these
developments are assumed to develop at the maximum density permitted in the R4
Zone, six (6) units per acre. Based on Chester County Geographic Information System
(GIS) data, the areas of the Pia and Phillips properties are 5.9 and 19.2 acres,
respectively. Therefore, the number of townhomes expected in each development is 35
units and 115 units, respectively.
Projections of site-generated traffic for the Bentley-Plankington development were

obtained from the TPD study noted above. The estimated site-generated traffic for the
remaining developments was calculated based on Trip Generation, a publication by the
Institute of Transportation Engineers that includes guidelines for projections of vehicle
trips based on the type and size of various land uses. Based on the formulas published
by ITE and the estimated number of townhomes for each development, the number of
total peak hour trips was calculated. The percentages of entering and exiting volumes
published by ITE was used to calculate the proportions of traffic entering and exiting
each development to add to the traffic volumes along the adjacent roadways.

A summary of these calculations is included in Appendix A of this report. The
anticipated site-generated vehicle-trips during each weekday peak hour for each
development is depicted in Table 1.
Table 1 Anticipated Site-Generated Peak Hour Traffic Volumes
Development AM PM
Bentley-Plankington property 25 28
Guthrie property 36 41
Pia property 22 25
Phillips property 58 67
The additional vehicle trips were assigned to specific turning movements in the adjacent
roadway network and added to the existing turning volumes to obtain the projected
traffic volumes at the study intersection. The projected turning movements for the
Bentley-Plankington development were obtained from the TPD study noted above. The
turning movements for the other two developments were assigned to the roadway
network proportionally based on the existing patterns of peak hour traffic, by
determining the percentage of traffic entering or leaving the study area in each direction
and assigning the entering and exiting volumes from the development to the various
movements to and from those origins and destinations.
The existing peak hour intersection volumes and the projected turning movement
volumes for all four developments are shown in Figure 5. The projected volumes for
Alternative 3, the realignment of Old Kennett Road away from the study intersection, are
shown in Figure 6.
VII) Traffic Analysis
The study intersection traffic operations capacity analyses were evaluated using
Synchro / SimTraffic Software, which is accepted by PennDOT for traffic analysis. The
capacity analysis procedure is used to estimate the roadways ability to accommodate
existing and projected traffic volumes. Level of Service (LOS) is a measure of the delay
of the traffic operation and describes the operational characteristics of the facility. The
factors that affect delay are traffic volume, roadway configuration and traffic signal
timing.

The LOS criteria for signalized intersections are shown in Table 2.
Table 2 - Level of Service Criteria for Signalized Intersections
Level of Service Delay (sec)

A 10
B 10 20
C 20 35
D 35 55
E 55 80
F 80
The projected conditions were analyzed at the study intersection during the AM and PM
peak hours. The intersection geometry, lane configuration, and signal phases for each of
the alternatives were input into the analysis software. The intersection capacity analysis
reports summarize the results for the traffic modeling and include the LOS for each of
the approaches. The reports for the existing and projected conditions are provided in
Appendix C of the report.
The current cycle length at the study intersection is not fixed, but varies depending on
the volume of vehicles that are detected along each vehicle detector. Based on our
analysis, the intersection currently operates at a 107.8 second and 114.9 second
actuated cycle length in the AM and PM peak hours, respectively.
The existing LOS was analyzed for the 2015 peak hour traffic conditions and the results
are summarized in Table 3 for comparison purposes.
Table 3 Existing 2015 LOS

(No projected development volumes)
Approach AM PM
Old Kennett Road, Northwestbound D(54.3) F(94.8)
South Union Street, Southbound B(13.1) B(16.5)
South Union Street, Northbound C(27.0) C(25.1)
Hillendale Road, Westbound E(62.4) F(83.9)
Hillendale Road, Eastbound E(73.1) D(43.2)
Overall D(35.2) D(42.4)

(xx) Vehicle delay measured in seconds
The Baseline scenario includes the expected future traffic volumes for the 2018 analysis
year including background traffic growth but not including the anticipated traffic
generated by the specific developments analyzed in this study. The Baseline scenario
includes no improvements to the study intersection, including any modification of the

existing traffic signal phases and timings. This analysis is used to provide a baseline
with which to evaluate the impacts of the developments on the intersection. The results
are summarized in Table 4.
Table 4 Projected Baseline 2018 LOS

(Background traffic growth only)
Approach AM PM
Old Kennett Road, Northwestbound D(55.1) F(106.1)
Hillendale Road, Eastbound E(77.3) D(43.1)
Overall D(37.8) D(46.0)

The results of the analysis indicate that the additional background traffic will increase
average delays by approximately two seconds and four seconds in the AM and PM
peak hours, respectively. The largest increases in delay are expected in the PM peak
hour along the westbound Hillendale Road approach and the Old Kennett Road
approach, approximately 10 and 11 seconds respectively. These movements already
operate at LOS F under the existing conditions and the baseline traffic growth will
increase the delays further.
Based on our analysis of the No Build conditions, the intersection is expected to

operate at a 108.8 second and 115.5 second actuated cycle length in the AM and PM
peak hours, respectively.
The No Build condition would occur after all four developments have been completed,
but before any intersection improvements have been performed. The site-generated
traffic volumes for each development were added to the 2018 Baseline traffic volumes
representing background traffic growth. No changes were made to the existing traffic
signal phases and timing. This analysis was used to determine the impacts of the
developments on the intersection for comparison to the 2018 Baseline scenario. In turn,
the No Build scenario provides a baseline by which future improvement alternatives can
be evaluated.

The results of the No Build scenario are summarized in Table 5.
Table 5 Projected No Build 2018 LOS

(Background traffic growth and traffic from specific developments)
Approach AM PM
Old Kennett Road, Northwestbound E(56.0) F(127.0)
Hillendale Road, Eastbound F(107.0) D(43.3)
Overall D(45.5) D(53.8)

The results of the analysis indicate that the additional background traffic will increase
average delays from the 2018 Baseline scenario by approximately eight seconds in the
each weekday peak hour. The largest increases in delay are expected along the
eastbound Hillendale Road approach during the AM peak hour, the westbound
Hillendale Road approaches in each weekday peak hour and the Old Kennett Road
approach in the PM peak hour. These approaches are expected to experience
increases in delay of 10 to 30 seconds respectively. These movements already operate
at LOS E to F under the Baseline conditions and the site-generated traffic growth is
expected to increase the delays significantly.
Based on our analysis of the No Build conditions, the intersection is expected to

operate at a 109.1 second and 116.0 second actuated cycle length in the AM and PM
peak hours, respectively. Since the average motorist is expected to experience similar
or greater delays along the approaches identified above during weekday peak hours,
this represents an average delay of at least a full signal cycle before passing through
the intersection.
VIII) IMPROVEMENT ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS
Three conceptual alternatives have been developed to mitigate the traffic issues at the
study intersection. For each alternative, traffic signal timing optimization analysis was
performed. The purpose of timing optimization is to generate the most effective length of
each traffic signal cycle and phase for a given set of traffic volumes and signal phases.
The signal timing optimization analysis procedure employed in this study utilized
Synchro 9.0 traffic analysis models. Synchro 9.0 generally performs this optimization by
varying the available green time for each phase to balance the ratio of the traffic volume
to the capacity of each phase.
The alternative analysis also analyzes construction impacts on right-of-way, utilities,

traffic operations, and project costs. Conceptual Engineers Estimates, included in
Appendix B, have been prepared for each alternative to compare overall cost of

construction, professional engineering and inspection services, right-of-way acquisition,
stormwater management, environmental remediation, and utility impacts.
a) ALTERNATIVE 1
Alternative 1 maintains the existing geometry and traffic signal equipment and includes
the optimization of the existing traffic signal timing at the study intersection.
Traffic
The current intersection geometry and lane configuration for this alternative was held
constant and the signal timing was varied to determine the best timing configuration,
using the signal optimization procedure described above for the projected traffic
conditions:
Based on our analysis, to accommodate the expected traffic volumes in the projected
(build) conditions, an 88.3 second and 80.0 second actuated cycle length is required in
the AM and PM peak hours, respectively. The intersection capacity analysis reports are
provided in Appendix C of this report. The results are summarized in Table 6.
Table 6 Alternative 1 Projected LOS
Approach AM PM
Old Kennett Road, Northwestbound F(81.5) F(84.0)
South Union Street, Southbound B(16.7) C(20.5)
South Union Street, Northbound D(39.2) D(37.3)
Hillendale Road, Westbound D(47.7) E(77.7)
Hillendale Road, Eastbound E(73.9) C(30.0)
Overall D(41.7) D(43.8)

Based on our analysis, the timing improvements are expected to continue to yield an
overall LOS D during the AM and PM peak hours. However, the delay for the average
motorist is expected to decrease by approximately four seconds and ten seconds in the
AM and PM peak hours, respectively.
Certain approaches are still expected to operate at low Levels of Service. Each
Hillendale Road approach is expected to operate at an improved level of service in each
weekday peak hour. The Old Kennett Road approach is expected to improve
significantly during the PM peak hour, with an expected reduction in average delay of 43
seconds, although it is expected to continue to operate at LOS F.
Increased delays are expected along the South Union Street approaches, however, as
green time is allocated to other approaches. Additionally, the operation of Old Kennett
Road approach is expected to degrade in the AM peak hour from LOS E to LOS F.

Based on this analysis, optimization of the signal timing does not result in significant
improvements to delay at the study intersection. Conditions are expected to improve for
certain movements as green time is reallocated from one movement to another, but the
overall performance of the intersection is not expected to significantly improve.
While timing optimization results in some improvement compared to the No-Build

scenario as described above, average vehicle delay at the intersection is still higher
than in the Baseline scenario, by approximately four and two seconds in the AM and PM
peak hours. Therefore, signal timing optimization alone does not fully mitigate the traffic
impact of the proposed developments studied.
Construction Impacts
Utilities
It is anticipated that the proposed alternative will have a no impact on the existing
underground and overhead utilities since the geometry of the intersection will remain the
same. The existing traffic signal equipment (junction boxes, foundations, etc.) will
remain in their current locations.
Right-of-Way
The proposed design will require no right-away acquisition since the proposed
improvements are confined to the existing right-of-way.
Project Cost
The estimated cost associated with this alternative is approximately $22,400.00. The
existing signal equipment matches the traffic signal plan approved by PennDOT and
includes video cameras added for vehicle detection in 2011, therefore no replacement
of traffic signal equipment is required for Alternative 1.
The optimization will utilize the existing traffic signal equipment and will not require
additional lanes or reconfiguration of the existing approach roads. A revised traffic
signalization plan will need to be prepared and be submitted to PennDOT for approval.
An electrical contractor will need to be retained to perform the required timing changes.
b) ALTERNATIVE 1A
Alternative 1 maintains the existing traffic signal phase structure, which includes a
leading southbound phase along South Union Street with protected left turns receiving
a green arrow indication. The northbound approach of South Union Street operates
concurrently with the southbound approach in an additional phase, with permitted left
turn movements receiving a green ball signal along both approaches, so that left turns
are permitted when gaps in opposing traffic are available. This phase structure favors
the southbound approach at the expense of the northbound approach, as well as the
other approaches.

Traffic volumes along South Union Street at the study intersection are larger along the
northbound approach in the morning and along the southbound approach in the
afternoon peak hour. However, each approach volume is relatively balanced in each
direction.
Therefore, removing the exclusive southbound phase was evaluated to provide a

reduced cycle length and reduced delay along the other approaches. Alternative 1A
includes minor modifications to the traffic signal equipment and modification of the traffic
signal phase structure to remove the exclusive southbound phase and includes the
optimization of the traffic signal cycle and phase lengths for the remaining phases at the
study intersection. The proposed phase structure for Alternative 1A is depicted in Figure
7.
Traffic
Based on our analysis, to accommodate the expected traffic volumes in the projected
(build) conditions, a 68.0 second and 74.1 second actuated cycle length is required in
the AM and PM peak hours, respectively. The intersection capacity analysis reports are
provided in Appendix C of this report. The results are summarized in Table 7.
Table 7 Alternative 1A Projected LOS
Approach AM PM
Old Kennett Road, Northwestbound D(39.0) D(53.9)
South Union Street, Southbound B(19.1) C(22.6)
South Union Street, Northbound B(18.9) B(17.0)
Hillendale Road, Westbound C(31.6) E(63.2)
Hillendale Road, Eastbound D(53.6) C(27.3)
Overall C(27.1) C(32.1)

Based on our analysis, the signal phasing improvements of Alternative 1A are expected
to improve the overall intersection operation from LOS D to LOS C during the each
weekday peak hour. With the removal of the exclusive southbound phase, minor
increases in average vehicle delay of approximately three to four seconds are expected
along the southbound South Union approach during the weekday peak hours,
compared with the No Build alternative. Levels of Service are expected to improve for
all other approaches during each weekday peak hour.
Based on this analysis, modification of the traffic signal phasing to remove the exclusive
southbound phase results in significant improvements to delay at the study intersection.

Utilities
It is anticipated that the proposed alternative will have a no impact on the existing
underground and overhead utilities since the geometry of the intersection will remain the
same. The existing traffic signal equipment (junction boxes, foundations, etc.) will
remain in their current locations.
Right-of-Way
The proposed design will require no right-of-way acquisition since the proposed
improvements are confined to the existing right-of-way.
Project Cost
The estimated cost associated with this alternative is approximately $23,450.00.
Minor traffic signal modifications will be required to replace the existing five-section
head with a three-section signal head, removing the left turn arrow sections. A revised
traffic signalization plan will need to be prepared and be submitted to PennDOT for
approval. An electrical contractor will need to be retained to perform the required timing
changes.
c) ALTERNATIVE 2
Alternative 2 involves widening of South Union Street and Hillendale Road to provide
dedicated left turn lanes at the intersection for each approach to the study intersection
along these roadways. The concept plans in Appendix B depict the proposed
intersection configuration. New traffic signal equipment will be required due to
reconfiguration of the intersection. A leading left turn phase for each South Union Street
approach and optimization of the signal timing has also been incorporated in the
analysis. The proposed traffic signal phase structure is depicted in Figure 8.
Traffic
The signal timing was varied to determine the best timing configuration under the new
intersection configuration and the signal optimization procedure was completed for the
projected traffic conditions. Based on our analysis, an 80.0 second actuated cycle
length is required to accommodate the projected conditions for each weekday peak
hour. The intersection capacity analysis reports are provided in Appendix C of this
report. The results are summarized in Table 8.

Table 8 Alternative 2 Projected LOS
Approach AM PM
Old Kennett Road, Northwestbound F(88.1) E(68.3)
South Union Street, Southbound C(21.1) D(40.2)
Hillendale Road, Westbound C(31.2) D(35.3)
Hillendale Road, Eastbound C(33.1) C(27.6)
Overall C(32.3) D(40.9)

The improvements of Alternative 2 are expected to yield a minor reduction in delay

when compared to the No-Build alternative, resulting in an overall LOS C in the AM
peak hour, but still maintaining an overall Level of Service D during the PM peak hour.
The Old Kennett Road approach continues to operate poorly at LOS F and E during the
AM and PM peak hours, respectively. The Hillendale Road approached are expected to
improve slightly, operating at a LOS C and D in the weekday peak hours. However, the
South Union Street approaches are expected to experience slightly higher delays,
operating at LOS C and D during the weekday peak hours.
Based on this analysis, Alternative 2 would also result in a significant reduction of delay
at the study intersection, but is not expected to yield an improvement greater than
Alternative 1A.
Utilities
It is anticipated that the proposed alternative will have significant impacts on the existing
underground and overhead utilities since the geometry of the intersection will widen
each approach along South Union Street and Hillendale Road. This widening will
require removal of the existing traffic signal assemblies and a utility pole carrying
overhead wires at the northwest intersection corner. The existing traffic signal
equipment will be replaced on all approaches in order to provide a uniform upgrade of
the traffic signal equipment.
Right-of-Way
This alternative will require partial property right-away acquisition along both South
Union Street and Hillendale Road since the widening improvements will extend beyond
the existing 33-0 right-of-way of each roadway. Right-of-way acquisition will be required
at the following properties for this alternative:

Tax Parcel Number
Street Address
(Twp Code-Sheet-Lot)
62-3-110 912 S. Union Street
62-3-110.2 906 S. Union Street
62-3-111 107 W. Hillendale Road
62-3-113.1 920 W. Hillendale Road
62-3-123 139 E. Hillendale Road
62-3-125.1 129 E. Hillendale Road
62-3-125.2 913 S. Union Street
62-3-141.1 1012 S. Union Street (Kaolin Road)
62-3-143 1001 S. Union Street (Kaolin Road)
Project Cost
The estimated cost associated with this alternative is approximately $2,967,500.00. The
project will include engineering, development of construction documents including a
revised traffic signalization plan, obtaining PennDOT concurrence and obtaining a
contractor by public bidding to construct the improvements.
d) ALTERNATIVE 3
Alternative 3 involves realignment of Old Kennett Road to eliminate one of the

intersection approach legs, thereby potentially improving traffic operations at the
intersection by allowing a reduced number of traffic signal phases, reduced cycle length
and reduced delay. A stop-controlled T-intersection located several hundred feet south
of the existing five-point intersection would be constructed for Old Kennett Road along
South Union Street, with the Old Kennett Road approach required to stop. Traffic signal
equipment facing the approach of Old Kennett Road would require removal at the
existing four leg intersection. The resulting four point intersection would maintain
existing lane widths and intersection configurations on all of the other intersection
approaches. The proposed intersection configuration is depicted in Appendix B.

Traffic
The traffic model was modified to provide for the removal of Old Kennett Road. The
signal timing was varied to determine the best timing under the improved intersection
configuration. The signal optimization procedure was completed for the projected traffic
conditions and was based on the poorest approach performance: Based on our
analysis, a two-phase signal cycle with an actuated cycle length of 56.6 seconds and
58.3 seconds is required to accommodate the projected conditions during the AM and
PM peak hours, respectively. This represents a significant reduction in cycle length from
the existing conditions, which is expected to result in a more efficient signal operation
with less delay. The proposed traffic signal phase structure is depicted in Figure 9. The
intersection capacity analysis reports are provided in Appendix C of this report. The
results are summarized in Tables 9 and 10 for the study intersection and the new stop-
controlled intersection, respectively.
Table 9 Alternative 3 Projected LOS South Union Street & Hillendale Road
Approach AM PM
South Union Street, Southbound A (6.4) A(7.1)

South Union Street, Northbound A(8.9) B(10.4)
Hillendale Road, Westbound C(23.3) D(35.6)
Hillendale Road, Eastbound C(28.4) B(19.1)
Overall B(13.0) B(13.6)

Table 10 Alternative 3 Projected LOS South Union Street & Old Kennett Road
Approach AM PM
Old Kennett Road, Westbound B(14.8) B(15.1)
South Union Street, Southbound A (4.8) A(1.9)
South Union Street, Northbound N/A N/A
Overall A(3.1) A(3.6)

N/A indicates approach is not delayed
For the projected conditions, the timing improvements are expected to yield an overall
Level of Service B at the primary study intersection during the AM and PM peak hours
with all movements and approaches operating at LOS C or better except the westbound
Hillendale Road approach during the PM peak hour. This represents a significant
reduction in delay for the average motorist traveling through the study intersection.
The South Union Street approaches are expected to operate at LOS A or B in each of
the peak periods.

The Old Kennett Road intersection with South Union Street is expected to operate at
Level of Service B during the AM and PM peak hours, while the southbound Union
Street approach operates at LOS A during the AM and PM peak hours. The northbound
Union Street approach to this intersection is unimpeded and therefore since it has no
effective delay, it has no Level of Service. Although traffic along the Old Kennett Road
approach would have to move through two intersections and would experience minor
delays at each, the overall delay for the average motorist making these movements
would be lower for Alternative 3 than in the No-Build scenario and the other
improvement alternatives
In comparison to the No-Build scenario and Alternatives 1, 1A and 2, the results of the
analysis demonstrate a significant improvement to the study intersection. At the primary
study intersection. The Level of Service for the overall intersection improves from LOS
C and D in the No-Build scenario and the other improvement alternatives to LOS B for
Alternative 3.
Utilities
It is anticipated that the proposed alternative will not have any significant impacts on the
existing underground and overhead utilities. The existing traffic signal equipment
(junction boxes, foundations, etc.) will remain in their current locations at the study
intersection, with only removal of the traffic signal equipment facing the approach of Old
Kennett Road required. This results in fewer required modifications to the traffic signal
equipment and lower project costs.
Right-of-Way
This alternative will require right-away acquisition for the new alignment of Old Kennett
Road. The new right-of-way will need to be acquired for the State through the properties
located at 106 and 108 Old Kennett Road to support the realignment of Old Kennett
Road. Some of the existing right-of-way along Old Kennett Road can be dedicated to
the adjacent property owners, offsetting some of the acquisition. Right-of-way acquisition
will be required at the following properties for this alternative:
Tax Parcel Number

Street Address
(Twp Code-Sheet-Lot)
62-3-144.1 108 S. Union Street (Kaolin Road)
Project Cost
The estimated cost associated with Alternative 3 is approximately $728,800.00. This

alternative will require construction of new pavement for the realignment of Old Kennett

Road to the new intersection at South Union Street. The project will include engineering,
development of construction documents including a revised traffic signalization plan,
obtaining PennDOT concurrence and obtaining a contractor by public bidding to
construct the improvements.
IX) RECOMMENDATIONS
The purpose of this study is to develop alternatives to alleviate congestion at the study
intersection. Various alternative intersection configurations were developed to provide a
recommended improvement alternative to increase capacity and mitigate traffic
congestion at the intersection.
Table 11 summarizes the results of this analysis. Alternative 3 is preferred since it is

expected to significantly reduce delay, improve LOS and relieve congestion at the study
intersection. Alternatives 1, 1A and 2 are only expected to provide minor LOS
improvements. However, since Alternative 1A provides the greatest benefit of the lower-
cost alternatives, it should be considered as a short-term improvement. Alternative 3
does not require the installation of any additional traffic signal equipment, while
Alternative 2 requires the full replacement of the traffic signal equipment. Additionally,
since Alternative 3 would eliminate one of the approach legs of the five-point
intersection, it would potentially allow the no turn on red restrictions to be eliminated
from the remaining intersection approaches, which would further improve the
intersection LOS.
Therefore, we recommend the implementation of Alternative 1A as a short-term

improvement since it is expected to provide a reduction in delay for a low project cost
and would better accommodate existing traffic volumes and future traffic volumes
resulting from nearby developments. Additionally, we recommend Alternative 3 be
considered for future implementation since it provides greater congestion relief and a
cost effective means to provide a significant improvement to the operation of the
intersection.
The estimated construction cost for the preferred alternative is approximately

$728,800.00 which includes right-of-way acquisition, engineering and inspection and
construction of a new alignment for Old Kennett Road to intersect with South Union
Street.
It should be noted the construction costs presented for each alternative do not include
pedestrian accommodations at the study intersection, such as pedestrian signal heads,
push buttons, curb ramps or sidewalk. If sidewalks are planned along Hillendale Road
and South Union Street to accommodate the proposed developments, these
intersection improvements should be included with the sidewalk improvements.

Table 11 Alternative Impact Summary
TRAFFIC IMPACT CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS

SCENARIO /
IMPROVEMENT LOS LOS
ALTERNATIVE AM PM UTILITIES ROW PROJECT COST
PEAK PEAK
2015 EXISTING D(35.2) D(42.4) No impact No impact $0
2018 BASELINE D(37.8) D(46.0) No impact No impact $0
2018 'NO-BUILD' D(45.5) D(53.8) No impact No impact $0
2018 ALTERNATIVE 1 D(40.7) D(37.1) No impact No impact $22,400.00
2018 ALTERNATIVE 1A C(27.1) C(32.1) No impact No impact $23,450.00

Utility 24 partial
2018 ALTERNATIVE 2 D(32.3) D(40.9) relocation parcel $2,967,500.00
required takings
Utility 3 partial
2018 ALTERNATIVE 3 B(13.0) B(13.6) relocation parcel $728,800.00
required takings

Appendix A
Traffic Volume Development Charts

TripGeneration
for
TrafficImpactAlternativeAnalysisReport
SouthUnionStreet,OldKennettRoad,andHillendaleRoad
KennettTownship,ChesterCounty,Pennsylvania

Peakhourtrips
ITEland AM PM
Development Unittype Quantity
usecode
Total Entering Exiting Total Entering Exiting
Trips Percent Trips Percent Trips Trips Percent Trips Percent Trips
BentleyPlankingtonproperty
developmentnorthwestof 230 Units 40 25 17% 4 83% 21 28 67% 19 33% 9
intersection
Guthrieproperty
developmentnorthwestof 230 Units 63 36 17% 6 83% 30 41 67% 27 33% 14
intersection
Piapropertydevelopment
230 Units 35 22 17% 4 83% 18 25 67% 17 33% 8
northwestofintersection
Phillipsproperty
developmentsouthwestof 230 Units 115 58 17% 10 83% 48 67 67% 45 33% 22
intersection
PeakHourVolumes
for
TrafficImpactAlternativeAnalysisReport
SouthUnionStreet,OldKennettRoad,andHillendaleRoad
KennettTownship,ChesterCounty,Pennsylvania
A.M.PEAKHOURVOLUMES
NB SB EB WB NWB
Alternative/Development Total
LT TH RT1 RT2 LT2 LT1 TH RT LT TH RT1 RT2 LT2 LT1 TH RT LT2 LT1 RT1 RT2
Existing2015volumes 17 339 146 6 1 90 234 21 66 51 68 15 0 77 14 23 3 17 35 8 1231
2018withoutdevelopment 18 357 154 6 1 95 247 22 70 54 72 16 0 81 15 24 3 18 37 8 1298
developmentnorthwestof 0 1 0 0 2 1 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 10
intersection
Guthriepropertydevelopment
1 1 0 0 2 2 4 0 0 3 2 4 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 21
Piapropertydevelopmentnorthwest
1 1 0 0 1 1 3 0 0 2 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12
ofintersection
Phillipspropertydevelopment
0 9 4 3 0 0 2 1 9 4 3 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 36
southwestofintersection
2018withdevelopment 20 369 158 9 6 99 260 24 79 63 78 22 0 81 17 25 3 18 38 8 1377
P.M.PEAKHOURVOLUMES
NB SB EB WB NWB
Alternative/Development Total
LT TH RT1 RT2 LT2 LT1 TH RT LT TH RT1 RT2 LT2 LT1 TH RT LT2 LT1 RT1 RT2
Existing2015volumes 11 246 69 1 3 51 341 41 13 28 21 14 2 123 44 7 7 78 96 3 1199
2018withoutdevelopment 12 259 73 1 3 54 359 43 14 29 22 15 2 130 46 7 7 82 101 3 1262
developmentnorthwestof 0 4 0 0 1 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 12
intersection
Guthriepropertydevelopment
6 5 0 0 0 1 3 0 0 1 0 3 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 23
Piapropertydevelopmentnorthwest
2 3 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 2 0 1 1 0 15
ofintersection
Phillipspropertydevelopment
0 4 1 1 0 0 8 8 3 1 0 0 0 4 3 0 3 4 0 0 40
southwestofintersection
2018withdevelopment 20 275 74 2 4 57 374 51 18 32 22 19 2 134 51 12 10 88 104 3 1352
Appendix B
Concept Plans / Project Costs

R V REMINGTON & VERNICK ENGINEERS
& B ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE
PROJECT NAME:
TRAFFIC IMPACT ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS AT HILLENDALE RD., S.R. 3013, AND S.R. 3036
PROJECT NUMBER:
PCKTT027
CLIENT:
KENNETT TOWNSHIP, PA 1-Feb-16
CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE - ALTERNATIVE 1

ESTIMATED EST. UNIT
# DESCRIPTION UNITS QUANTITY PRICE AMOUNT
1 TRAFFIC SIGNAL TIMING MODIFICATION SERVICES LS 1 $10,000.00 $3,500.00
2 POLICE TRAFFIC DIRECTORS HR 16 $100.00 $1,600.00
SUBTOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST: $5,100.00
25% CONTINGENCIES $1,300.00
ENGINEERING & INSPECTION $16,000.00
TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $22,400.00

PROJECT NAME:
PROJECT NUMBER:
PCKTT027
CLIENT:
CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE - ALTERNATIVE 1A

ESTIMATED EST. UNIT
1 TRAFFIC SIGNAL TIMING MODIFICATION SERVICES LS 1 $10,000.00 $3,500.00
VEHICULAR SIGNAL HEAD,
3 EA 1 $850.00 $850.00
THREE 12" SECTIONS (LED)
ENGINEERING & INSPECTION $16,000.00
TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $23,450.00

PROJECT NAME:
PROJECT NUMBER:
PCKTT027
CLIENT:

ESTIMATED EST. UNIT
1 CLEARING AND GRUBBING AC 2 $10,000.00 $20,000.00

2 CLASS 1 EXCAVATION CY 1600 $25.00 $40,000.00
3 BITUMINOUS CONCRETE BASE COURSE, 6" DEPTH SY 2700 $30.00 $81,000.00
4 CRUSHED AGGREGATE BASE COURSE, 6" DEPTH SY 2700 $7.00 $18,900.00
5 BITUMINOUS WEARING COURSE, 2" DEPTH SY 2700 $13.00 $35,100.00
6 BITUMINOUS TACK COAT GAL. 450 $1.00 $450.00
7 BITUMINOUS PRIME COAT GAL. 1000 $1.50 $1,500.00
8 MOBILIZATION LS 1 $41,000.00 $41,000.00
9 SILT BARRIER FENCE, 18" HEIGHT L.F. 1600 $4.00 $6,400.00
10 AWG 8 UNDERGROUND CABLE, COPPER, 1 CONDUCTOR LF 450 $2.00 $900.00
11 MAST ARM MOUNTED SIGNS SF 50 $40.00 $2,000.00
12 FOUNDATION, TYPE A EA 5 $2,800.00 $14,000.00
13 TRAFFIC SIGNAL SUPPORT, 25' MAST ARM EA 5 $5,500.00 $27,500.00
14 MAINTENANCE AND PROTECTION OF TRAFFIC LS 1 $43,500.00 $43,500.00
15 3 INCH CONDUIT LF 450 $4.00 $1,800.00
16 TRENCH AND BACKFILL, TYPE II CY 50 $35.00 $1,750.00
17 INLET, TYPE "M" EA 3 $2,500.00 $7,500.00
18 INLET CONVERTED TO MANHOLE EA 3 $2,000.00 $6,000.00
19 18" REINFORCED CONCRETE PIPE LF 150 $80.00 $12,000.00
20 SIGNAL CABLE, 14 AWG, 3 CONDUCTOR LF 1440 $2.00 $2,880.00
21 SIGNAL CABLE, 14 AWG, 5 CONDUCTOR LF 1440 $3.00 $4,320.00
22 JUNCTION BOX, JB-27 EA 5 $550.00 $2,750.00
23 PLAIN CONCRETE CURB LF 280 $30.00 $8,400.00
VEHICULAR SIGNAL HEAD,
24 EA 16 $850.00 $13,600.00
THREE 12" SECTIONS (LED)
SNOWPLOWABLE RAISED PAVEMENT MARKER TWO WAY HOLDER
25 EACH 20 $65.00 $1,300.00
WITH REFLECTOR (Y/Y)
26 POST MOUNTED SIGNS, TYPE A SF 35 $40.00 $1,400.00
27 24" WHITE HOT THERMOPLASTIC PAVEMENT MARKINGS LF 150 $6.00 $900.00
28 THERMOPLASTIC PAVEMENT MARKINGS SF 175 $6.00 $1,050.00
29 4" STANDARD PAVEMENT MARKINGS, PAINT & BEADS L.F. 2600 $1.00 $2,600.00
30 PLACING STOCKPILED TOPSOIL CY 250 $50.00 $12,500.00
31 SEEDING, FORMULA B LB 200 $5.00 $1,000.00
32 MULCHING - STRAW TON 1 $400.00 $400.00
33 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT LS 1 $500,000.00 $500,000.00
34 ENVIRONMENTAL PERMITTING LS 1 $100,000.00 $100,000.00
35 ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION LS 1 $100,000.00 $100,000.00
36 UTILITY RELOCATIONS LS 1 $100,000.00 $100,000.00
PROJECT NAME:
PROJECT NUMBER:
PCKTT027
CLIENT:

ESTIMATED EST. UNIT
SUBTOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST: $1,374,400.00
SURVEYING, ENGINEERING & INSPECTION $429,500.00

APPROXIMATE PARTIAL PROPERTY RIGHT-OF-WAY ACQUISITION COSTS: $820,000.00
TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COST (ALTERNATIVE 2): $2,967,500.00

PROJECT NAME:
PROJECT NUMBER:
PCKTT027
CLIENT:

ESTIMATED EST. UNIT
1 CLEARING AND GRUBBING AC 1 $10,000.00 $10,000.00

2 CLASS 1 EXCAVATION CY 600 $25.00 $15,000.00
3 BITUMINOUS CONCRETE BASE COURSE, 6" DEPTH SY 600 $30.00 $18,000.00
4 CRUSHED AGGREGATE BASE COURSE, 6" DEPTH SY 600 $7.00 $4,200.00
5 BITUMINOUS WEARING COURSE, 2" DEPTH SY 600 $13.00 $7,800.00
6 BITUMINOUS TACK COAT GAL. 100 $1.00 $100.00
7 BITUMINOUS PRIME COAT GAL. 200 $1.50 $300.00
8 MOBILIZATION LS 1 $11,000.00 $11,000.00
9 SILT BARRIER FENCE, 18" HEIGHT L.F. 750 $4.00 $3,000.00
10 MAINTENANCE AND PROTECTION OF TRAFFIC LS 1 $26,500.00 $26,500.00
11 SCARIFY, RESHAPE AND ROLL EXISTING PAVEMENT SY 600 $15.00 $9,000.00
12 EVERGREEN TREES, 8' HIGH EA 14 $250.00 $3,500.00
13 REMOVE TRAFFIC SIGNALS, SUPPORT, AND MAST ARM LS 1 $1,500.00 $1,500.00
14 PLAIN CONCRETE CURB LF 60 $20.00 $1,200.00
SNOWPLOWABLE RAISED PAVEMENT MARKER TWO WAY
15 EACH 10 $70.00 $700.00
HOLDER WITH REFLECTOR (Y/Y)
16 POST MOUNTED SIGNS, TYPE A SF 30 $40.00 $1,200.00
17 24" WHITE HOT THERMOPLASTIC PAVEMENT MARKINGS LF 20 $5.00 $100.00
18 THERMOPLASTIC PAVEMENT MARKINGS SF 100 $6.00 $600.00
19 4" STANDARD PAVEMENT MARKINGS, PAINT & BEADS L.F. 1100 $1.00 $1,100.00
20 PLACING STOCKPILED TOPSOIL CY 90 $50.00 $4,500.00
21 SEEDING, FORMULA B LB 40 $5.00 $200.00
22 MULCHING - STRAW TON 0.25 $400.00 $100.00
23 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT LS 1 $100,000.00 $100,000.00
23 ENVIRONMENTAL PERMITTING LS 1 $25,000.00 $25,000.00
24 ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION LS 1 $25,000.00 $25,000.00
24 UTILITY RELOCATIONS LS 1 $20,000.00 $20,000.00
SURVEYING, ENGINEERING & INSPECTION $116,800.00

APPROXIMATE PARTIAL PROPERTY RIGHT-OF-WAY ACQUISITION COSTS: $145,000.00
TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COST (ALTERNATIVE 3): $728,800.00

Appendix C
Intersection Capacity Analysis Reports

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
3: S. Union Street/(S.R. 3013) & Old Kennett Road (S.R. 3036) & Hillendale Rd. 2/8/2016
Movement EBL EBT EBR EBR2 WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR NBR2 SBL2
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 66 51 68 15 77 14 23 17 339 146 6 1
Future Volume (vph) 66 51 68 15 77 14 23 17 339 146 6 1
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 11 11 11 11 11
Total Lost time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.94 0.97 0.96
Flt Protected 0.98 0.97 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1647 1658 1732
Flt Permitted 0.86 0.55 0.98
Satd. Flow (perm) 1432 945 1703
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94
Adj. Flow (vph) 70 54 72 16 82 15 24 18 361 155 6 1
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 209 0 0 0 121 0 0 540 0 0 0
Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 2% 1% 0% 33%
Turn Type Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA pm+pt
Protected Phases 48 48 2 1
Permitted Phases 48 48 48 2 2 16
Actuated Green, G (s) 17.9 17.9 50.4
Effective Green, g (s) 17.9 17.9 50.4
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.17 0.17 0.47
Clearance Time (s) 6.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 237 156 796
v/s Ratio Prot
v/s Ratio Perm c0.15 0.13 c0.32
v/c Ratio 0.88 0.78 0.68
Uniform Delay, d1 43.9 43.0 22.4
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 29.1 19.4 4.6
Delay (s) 73.1 62.4 27.0
Level of Service E E C
Approach Delay (s) 73.1 62.4 27.0
Approach LOS E E C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 35.2 HCM 2000 Level of Service D
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.71
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 107.8 Sum of lost time (s) 24.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 82.6% ICU Level of Service E
Analysis Period (min) 15
Description: S. Union St.
c Critical Lane Group
2015 Existing Conditions AM 1/14/2016 Synchro 9 Report

DGM Page 1
Movement SBL SBT SBR NWL2 NWL NWR NWR2

Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 90 234 21 3 17 35 8
Future Volume (vph) 90 234 21 3 17 35 8
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width 11 11 11 10 10 10 10
Total Lost time (s) 6.0 6.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.99 0.91
Flt Protected 0.99 0.98
Satd. Flow (prot) 1742 1434
Flt Permitted 0.67 0.98
Satd. Flow (perm) 1178 1434
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94
Adj. Flow (vph) 96 249 22 3 18 37 9
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 2 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 366 0 0 67 0 0
Heavy Vehicles (%) 12% 0% 0% 0% 4% 9% 33%
Turn Type pm+pt NA Prot Prot
Permitted Phases 16
Actuated Green, G (s) 63.5 8.4
Effective Green, g (s) 63.5 8.4
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.59 0.08
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 731 111
v/s Ratio Prot c0.03 c0.05
v/s Ratio Perm 0.26
v/c Ratio 0.50 0.60
Uniform Delay, d1 12.9 48.1
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.2 6.2
Delay (s) 13.1 54.3
Level of Service B D
Approach Delay (s) 13.1 54.3
Approach LOS B D
2015 Existing Conditions AM 1/14/2016 Synchro 9 Report

DGM Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR EBR2 WBL2 WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR NBR2
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 11 11 11 11
Frt 0.94 0.99 0.97
Satd. Flow (prot) 1650 1692 1751
Satd. Flow (perm) 1559 1323 1719
Adj. Flow (vph) 14 30 22 15 2 131 47 7 12 262 73 1
Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 2% 1% 0%
Turn Type Perm NA Perm Perm NA Perm NA
Protected Phases 48 48 2
v/s Ratio Prot
v/s Ratio Perm 0.05 c0.14 0.20
v/c Ratio 0.30 0.90 0.47
Delay (s) 43.2 83.9 25.1
Level of Service D F C
Approach LOS D F C
2015 Existing Conditions PM 1/14/2016 Synchro 9 Report

DGM Page 1
Movement SBL2 SBL SBT SBR NWL2 NWL NWR NWR2

Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 3 51 341 41 7 78 96 3
Future Volume (vph) 3 51 341 41 7 78 96 3
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width 11 11 11 11 10 10 10 10
Frt 0.99 0.93
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94
Adj. Flow (vph) 3 54 363 44 7 83 102 3
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 461 0 0 195 0 0
Heavy Vehicles (%) 33% 12% 0% 0% 0% 4% 9% 33%
Turn Type pm+pt pm+pt NA Prot Prot
Protected Phases 1 1 16 9 9
Permitted Phases 16 16
v/s Ratio Perm c0.25
v/c Ratio 0.51 0.94
Delay (s) 16.5 94.8
Level of Service B F
Approach LOS B F
2015 Existing Conditions PM 1/14/2016 Synchro 9 Report

DGM Page 2
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 11 11 11 11 11
Frt 0.94 0.97 0.96
Satd. Flow (prot) 1646 1658 1732
Satd. Flow (perm) 1426 929 1701
Adj. Flow (vph) 74 57 77 17 86 16 26 19 380 164 6 1
Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 2% 1% 0% 33%
v/s Ratio Prot
v/c Ratio 0.91 0.81 0.72
Delay (s) 77.3 66.9 29.3
Level of Service E E C
Approach LOS E E C
2018 Baseline AM 1/14/2016 Synchro 9 Report

DGM Page 1

Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width 11 11 11 10 10 10 10
Frt 0.99 0.91
Adj. Flow (vph) 101 263 23 3 19 39 9
Heavy Vehicles (%) 12% 0% 0% 0% 4% 9% 33%
Permitted Phases 16
v/s Ratio Perm 0.29
v/c Ratio 0.56 0.61
Delay (s) 14.6 55.1
Level of Service B E
Approach LOS B E
2018 Baseline AM 1/14/2016 Synchro 9 Report

DGM Page 2
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 11 11 11 11
Frt 0.94 1.00 0.97
Satd. Flow (prot) 1649 1692 1750
Satd. Flow (perm) 1555 1304 1715
Adj. Flow (vph) 15 31 23 16 2 138 49 7 13 276 78 1
Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 2% 1% 0%
v/s Ratio Prot
v/c Ratio 0.31 0.94 0.50
Delay (s) 43.1 93.7 26.0
Approach LOS D F C
2018 Baseline PM 1/14/2016 Synchro 9 Report

DGM Page 1

Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width 11 11 11 11 10 10 10 10
Frt 0.99 0.93
Adj. Flow (vph) 3 57 382 46 7 87 107 3
Heavy Vehicles (%) 33% 12% 0% 0% 0% 4% 9% 33%
v/c Ratio 0.55 0.98
Delay (s) 17.4 106.1
Approach LOS B F
2018 Baseline PM 1/14/2016 Synchro 9 Report

DGM Page 2
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 11 11 11 11 11
Frt 0.94 0.97 0.96
Satd. Flow (prot) 1648 1658 1731
Satd. Flow (perm) 1423 882 1695
Adj. Flow (vph) 84 67 83 23 86 18 27 21 393 168 10 6
Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 2% 1% 0% 33%
v/s Ratio Prot
v/c Ratio 1.02 0.85 0.76
Delay (s) 107.0 76.3 31.2
Level of Service F E C
Approach LOS F E C
2018 No Build AM 1/14/2016 Synchro 9 Report

DGM Page 1

Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width 11 11 11 10 10 10 10
Frt 0.99 0.91
Adj. Flow (vph) 105 277 26 3 19 40 9
Heavy Vehicles (%) 12% 0% 0% 0% 4% 9% 33%
Permitted Phases 16
v/s Ratio Perm 0.32
v/c Ratio 0.62 0.62
Delay (s) 16.4 56.0
Level of Service B E
Approach LOS B E
2018 No Build AM 1/14/2016 Synchro 9 Report

DGM Page 2
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 11 11 11 11
Frt 0.94 0.99 0.97
Satd. Flow (prot) 1650 1689 1752
Satd. Flow (perm) 1532 1268 1685
Adj. Flow (vph) 19 34 23 20 2 143 54 13 21 293 79 2
Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 2% 1% 0%
Turn Type Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA
Permitted Phases 48 48 48 2 2
v/s Ratio Prot
v/c Ratio 0.35 1.02 0.54
Delay (s) 43.3 117.5 27.4
Approach LOS D F C
2018 No Build PM 1/14/2016 Synchro 9 Report

DGM Page 1

Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width 11 11 11 11 10 10 10 10
Frt 0.99 0.93
Adj. Flow (vph) 4 61 398 54 11 94 111 3
Heavy Vehicles (%) 33% 12% 0% 0% 0% 4% 9% 33%
v/c Ratio 0.60 1.05
Delay (s) 18.6 127.0
Approach LOS B F
2018 No Build PM 1/14/2016 Synchro 9 Report

DGM Page 2
3: S. Union St. /(S.R. 3013) & Old Kennett Road (S.R. 3036) & Hillendale Road 2/8/2016
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 11 11 11 11 11
Frt 0.94 0.97 0.96
Satd. Flow (prot) 1648 1658 1731
Satd. Flow (perm) 1433 940 1695
Adj. Flow (vph) 84 67 83 23 86 18 27 21 393 168 10 6
Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 2% 1% 0% 33%
v/s Ratio Prot
v/c Ratio 0.94 0.74 0.87
Delay (s) 73.9 47.7 39.2
Level of Service E D D
Approach LOS E D D
2018 Alt 1 Retiming Only AM 1/14/2016 Synchro 9 Report

DGM Page 1

Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width 11 11 11 10 10 10 10
Frt 0.99 0.91
Adj. Flow (vph) 105 277 26 3 19 40 9
Heavy Vehicles (%) 12% 0% 0% 0% 4% 9% 33%
Permitted Phases 16
v/s Ratio Perm 0.32
v/c Ratio 0.68 0.82
Delay (s) 16.7 81.5
Approach LOS B F
2018 Alt 1 Retiming Only AM 1/14/2016 Synchro 9 Report

DGM Page 2
3: S. Union St./(SR 3013) & Old Kennett Rd (SR 3036) & Hillendale Rd. 2/8/2016
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 11 11 11 11
Frt 0.94 0.99 0.97
Satd. Flow (prot) 1650 1689 1752
Satd. Flow (perm) 1525 1383 1679
Adj. Flow (vph) 19 34 23 20 2 143 54 13 21 293 79 2
Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 2% 1% 0%
v/s Ratio Prot
v/c Ratio 0.34 0.95 0.79
Delay (s) 30.0 77.7 37.3
Level of Service C E D
Approach LOS C E D
2018 Alt 1 Retiming Only PM 1/14/2016 Alt. 1 Synchro 9 Report

DGM Page 1

Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width 11 11 11 11 10 10 10 10
Frt 0.99 0.93
Adj. Flow (vph) 4 61 398 54 11 94 111 3
Heavy Vehicles (%) 33% 12% 0% 0% 0% 4% 9% 33%
v/c Ratio 0.72 0.97
Delay (s) 20.5 84.0
Level of Service C F
Approach LOS C F
2018 Alt 1 Retiming Only PM 1/14/2016 Alt. 1 Synchro 9 Report

DGM Page 2
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 11 11 11 11 11
Frt 0.94 0.97 0.96
Satd. Flow (prot) 1648 1658 1731
Satd. Flow (perm) 1448 1016 1697
Adj. Flow (vph) 84 67 83 23 86 18 27 21 393 168 10 6
Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 2% 1% 0% 33%
Turn Type Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA Perm
Clearance Time (s)
Vehicle Extension (s)
v/s Ratio Prot
v/c Ratio 0.89 0.66 0.76
Delay (s) 53.6 31.6 18.9
Level of Service D C B
Approach LOS D C B
HCM 2000 Control Delay 27.1 HCM 2000 Level of Service C
2018 Alt 1A Permitted Left Turns Only AM 1/14/2016 Synchro 9 Report

DGM Page 1

Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width 11 11 11 10 10 10 10
Frt 0.99 0.91
Adj. Flow (vph) 105 277 26 3 19 40 9
Heavy Vehicles (%) 12% 0% 0% 0% 4% 9% 33%
Turn Type Perm NA Prot Prot
Permitted Phases 26
v/s Ratio Prot c0.05
v/s Ratio Perm 0.34
v/c Ratio 0.73 0.64
Delay (s) 19.1 39.0
Level of Service B D
Approach LOS B D
2018 Alt 1A Permitted Left Turns Only AM 1/14/2016 Synchro 9 Report

DGM Page 2
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 11 11 11 11
Frt 0.94 0.99 0.97
Satd. Flow (prot) 1650 1689 1752
Satd. Flow (perm) 1524 1387 1687
Adj. Flow (vph) 19 34 23 20 2 143 54 13 21 293 79 2
Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 2% 1% 0%
Clearance Time (s)
v/s Ratio Prot
v/c Ratio 0.32 0.90 0.56
Delay (s) 27.3 63.2 17.0
Level of Service C E B
Approach LOS C E B
2018 Alt 1A - Perm Left Turns Only PM 1/14/2016 Synchro 9 Report

DGM Page 1

Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width 11 11 11 11 10 10 10 10
Frt 0.99 0.93
Adj. Flow (vph) 4 61 398 54 11 94 111 3
Heavy Vehicles (%) 33% 12% 0% 0% 0% 4% 9% 33%
Turn Type Perm Perm NA Prot Prot
v/s Ratio Prot c0.15
v/c Ratio 0.76 0.86
Delay (s) 22.6 53.9
Level of Service C D
Approach LOS C D
2018 Alt 1A - Perm Left Turns Only PM 1/14/2016 Synchro 9 Report

DGM Page 2
3: S. Union Street/(S.R. 3013) & Old Kennett Road (S.R. 3036) & Hillendale Road 2/8/2016
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 11 11 11 11 11
Total Lost time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.95
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1685 1610 1668 1614 1711 1716
Flt Permitted 0.73 1.00 0.62 1.00 0.50 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1290 1610 1080 1614 903 1716
Adj. Flow (vph) 84 67 83 23 86 18 27 22 401 172 10 7
Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2%
Turn Type Perm NA Perm NA pm+pt NA custom
Actuated Green, G (s) 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 35.0 32.0
Effective Green, g (s) 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 35.0 32.0
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.44 0.40
Clearance Time (s) 6.0 6.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 258 322 216 322 425 686
v/s Ratio Prot c0.10 0.03 0.00 c0.34
v/s Ratio Perm 0.07 0.08 0.02
v/c Ratio 0.33 0.51 0.40 0.14 0.05 0.85
Uniform Delay, d1 27.4 28.5 27.8 26.3 12.9 21.8
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 3.3 5.8 5.4 0.9 0.2 12.5
Delay (s) 30.7 34.3 33.2 27.2 13.2 34.3
Level of Service C C C C B C
Approach LOS C C C
Intersection Capacity Utilization 78.3% ICU Level of Service D
2018 Alt 2 - 4-way Turn Lanes AM 1/14/2016 Synchro 9 Report

DGM Page 1

Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width 11 11 11 10 10 10 10
Frt 1.00 0.99 0.91
Satd. Flow (prot) 1711 1778 1435
Satd. Flow (perm) 375 1778 1435
Adj. Flow (vph) 108 283 26 3 19 40 9
Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 2% 2% 0% 4% 9% 33%
Permitted Phases 6
Clearance Time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0
v/s Ratio Prot c0.02 0.17 c0.05
v/s Ratio Perm 0.21
v/c Ratio 0.54 0.43 0.80
Delay (s) 25.9 19.3 88.1
Level of Service C B F
Approach LOS C F
2018 Alt 2 - 4-way Turn Lanes AM 1/14/2016 Synchro 9 Report

DGM Page 2
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 11 11 11 11
Total Lost time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.92 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.97
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1685 1625 1668 1722 1711 1743
Flt Permitted 0.71 1.00 0.71 1.00 0.22 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1265 1625 1241 1722 398 1743
Adj. Flow (vph) 19 34 23 20 2 143 54 13 22 299 80 2
Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 2% 2% 2% 2%
Turn Type Perm NA Perm Perm NA pm+pt NA
Actuated Green, G (s) 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 27.0 24.0
Effective Green, g (s) 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 27.0 24.0
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.34 0.30
Clearance Time (s) 6.0 6.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 253 325 248 344 183 522
v/s Ratio Prot 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.22
v/c Ratio 0.08 0.19 0.58 0.19 0.12 0.73
Uniform Delay, d1 26.0 26.6 29.0 26.6 18.9 25.1
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.6 1.3 9.7 1.3 1.3 8.7
Delay (s) 26.6 27.9 38.7 27.9 20.3 33.8
Level of Service C C D C C C
Approach LOS C D C
Intersection Capacity Utilization 72.3% ICU Level of Service C
2018 Alt 2 - 4-way Turn Lanes PM 1/14/2016 Synchro 9 Report

DGM Page 1

Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width 11 11 11 11 10 10 10 10
Frt 1.00 0.98 0.93
Satd. Flow (prot) 1711 1768 1509
Satd. Flow (perm) 601 1768 1509
Adj. Flow (vph) 4 62 407 55 11 94 111 3
Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 2% 2% 2% 0% 4% 9% 33%
Turn Type custom pm+pt NA Prot Prot
Clearance Time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0
v/s Ratio Prot c0.01 c0.26 c0.15
v/s Ratio Perm 0.08
v/c Ratio 0.27 0.86 0.89
Delay (s) 21.5 42.9 68.3
Level of Service C D E
Approach LOS D E
2018 Alt 2 - 4-way Turn Lanes PM 1/14/2016 Synchro 9 Report

DGM Page 2
3: S. Union St. (S.R. 3013)/S, Union St. (S.R. 3013) & Hillendale Road 2/8/2016
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width 10 10 10 10 10 10 11 11 11 11 11 11
Total Lost time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.94 0.97 0.96 0.99
Flt Protected 0.98 0.97 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1648 1658 1736 1811
Flt Permitted 0.86 0.63 0.96 0.99
Satd. Flow (perm) 1446 1086 1668 1797
Adj. Flow (vph) 84 67 106 86 18 27 40 433 177 6 382 26
Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 2% 1% 33% 0% 0%
Turn Type Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA
Actuated Green, G (s) 11.5 11.5 33.1 33.1
Effective Green, g (s) 11.5 11.5 33.1 33.1
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.20 0.20 0.58 0.58
Clearance Time (s)
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 293 220 975 1050
v/s Ratio Prot
v/s Ratio Perm c0.15 0.12 c0.38 0.23
v/c Ratio 0.72 0.60 0.65 0.39
Uniform Delay, d1 21.1 20.4 7.8 6.3
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 7.3 2.9 1.1 0.1
Delay (s) 28.4 23.3 8.9 6.4
Level of Service C C A A
Approach Delay (s) 28.4 23.3 8.9 6.4
Approach LOS C C A A
HCM 2000 Control Delay 13.0 HCM 2000 Level of Service B
2018 Alt 3 - Old Kennett Realignment AM 1/14/2016 Synchro 9 Report

DGM Page 1
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
7: S. Union St. (S.R. 3013) & Old Kennett Rd (SR 3036) 2/8/2016
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT

Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 3 64 547 9 177 363
Future Volume (Veh/h) 3 64 547 9 177 363
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Hourly flow rate (vph) 3 70 595 10 192 395
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft) 359
pX, platoon unblocked 0.89
vC, conflicting volume 1379 600 605
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 1364 600 605
tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2
p0 queue free % 97 86 80
cM capacity (veh/h) 116 501 973
Direction, Lane # WB 1 NB 1 SB 1
Volume Total 73 605 587
Volume Left 3 0 192
Volume Right 70 10 0
cSH 441 1700 973
Volume to Capacity 0.17 0.36 0.20
Queue Length 95th (ft) 15 0 18
Control Delay (s) 14.8 0.0 4.8
Lane LOS B A
Approach LOS B
Average Delay 3.1
Intersection Capacity Utilization 72.4% ICU Level of Service C
2018 Alt 3 - Old Kennett Realignment AM 1/14/2016 Synchro 9 Report

DGM Page 1
3: S. Union St. (S.R. 3013)/S, Union St. (S.R. 3013) & Hillendale Road 2/8/2016
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width 10 10 10 10 10 10 11 11 11 11 11 11
Total Lost time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.94 0.99 0.98 0.99
Flt Protected 0.99 0.97 0.99 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1649 1689 1760 1805
Flt Permitted 0.92 0.74 0.82 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1527 1285 1457 1799
Adj. Flow (vph) 19 34 44 145 54 13 115 403 82 4 459 54
Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 2% 1% 33% 0% 0%
Turn Type Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA
Actuated Green, G (s) 12.2 12.2 34.1 34.1
Effective Green, g (s) 12.2 12.2 34.1 34.1
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.21 0.21 0.58 0.58
Clearance Time (s)
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 319 268 852 1052
v/s Ratio Prot
v/s Ratio Perm 0.04 c0.16 c0.41 0.28
v/c Ratio 0.20 0.79 0.69 0.49
Uniform Delay, d1 19.0 21.8 8.5 7.0
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.1 13.8 2.0 0.1
Delay (s) 19.1 35.6 10.4 7.1
Level of Service B D B A
Approach Delay (s) 19.1 35.6 10.4 7.1
Approach LOS B D B A
HCM 2000 Control Delay 13.6 HCM 2000 Level of Service B
2018 Alt 3 - Old Kennett Realignment PM 1/14/2016 Synchro 9 Report

DGM Page 1
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
7: S. Union St. (S.R. 3013) & Old Kennett Rd (SR 3036) 2/8/2016
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT

Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 10 195 369 2 81 527
Future Volume (Veh/h) 10 195 369 2 81 527
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Hourly flow rate (vph) 11 212 401 2 88 573
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft) 359
pX, platoon unblocked 0.85
vC, conflicting volume 1151 402 403
vCu, unblocked vol 1088 402 403
tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2
p0 queue free % 94 67 92
cM capacity (veh/h) 187 648 1156
Direction, Lane # WB 1 NB 1 SB 1
Volume Total 223 403 661
Volume Left 11 0 88
Volume Right 212 2 0
cSH 578 1700 1156
Volume to Capacity 0.39 0.24 0.08
Queue Length 95th (ft) 45 0 6
Control Delay (s) 15.1 0.0 1.9
Lane LOS C A
Approach LOS C
Average Delay 3.6
2018 Alt 3 - Old Kennett Realignment PM 1/14/2016 Synchro 9 Report

DGM Page 1

5-Points Trdegteetgnative Analysis Redegteetgrt February 17, 2016 PDF

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

5-Points Trdegteetgnative Analysis Redegteetgrt February 17, 2016 PDF

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Traffic Impact Alternative Analysis Report

For the Five-Points Intersection of

South Union Street (S.R. 3013),

Kennett Township, Chester County, Pennsylvania

February 16, 2016

922 Fayette Street

Table 1 Anticipated Site-Generated Peak Hour Traffic Volumes .................................. 9

Figure 1 Location Map.................................................................................................. 3

Appendix A - Traffic Volume Development Charts

The objective of this study is to analyze the various alternative intersection

Alternative 1 maintains the existing intersection roadway network geometry with

Alternative 3 was identified by RVB as the preferred alternative intersection

Alternative 3 was selected as the preferred alternative due to the following:

Traffic Impact Alternative Analysis Report, Kennett Township 1

A townhome development is proposed northwest of this intersection in the Bentley-

Field investigation of the existing intersection

II) EXISTING CONDITIONS

Traffic Impact Alternative Analysis Report, Kennett Township 2

IV) Existing Traffic Conditions

The existing traffic signal operates in a four-phase structure, including a leading

Traffic Impact Alternative Analysis Report, Kennett Township 4

VI) Projected Traffic Conditions

These proposed developments include two proposed townhome developments

Projections of site-generated traffic for the Bentley-Plankington development were

Traffic Impact Alternative Analysis Report, Kennett Township 7

Table 1 Anticipated Site-Generated Peak Hour Traffic Volumes

VII) Traffic Analysis

Traffic Impact Alternative Analysis Report, Kennett Township 9

Table 2 - Level of Service Criteria for Signalized Intersections

Level of Service Delay (sec)

Table 3 Existing 2015 LOS

Overall D(35.2) D(42.4)

Traffic Impact Alternative Analysis Report, Kennett Township 12

Table 4 Projected Baseline 2018 LOS

Overall D(37.8) D(46.0)

Based on our analysis of the No Build conditions, the intersection is expected to

Traffic Impact Alternative Analysis Report, Kennett Township 13

Table 5 Projected No Build 2018 LOS

Overall D(45.5) D(53.8)

Based on our analysis of the No Build conditions, the intersection is expected to

VIII) IMPROVEMENT ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS

The alternative analysis also analyzes construction impacts on right-of-way, utilities,

Traffic Impact Alternative Analysis Report, Kennett Township 14

Table 6 Alternative 1 Projected LOS

Overall D(41.7) D(43.8)

Traffic Impact Alternative Analysis Report, Kennett Township 15

While timing optimization results in some improvement compared to the No-Build

Traffic Impact Alternative Analysis Report, Kennett Township 16

Therefore, removing the exclusive southbound phase was evaluated to provide a

Table 7 Alternative 1A Projected LOS

Overall C(27.1) C(32.1)

Traffic Impact Alternative Analysis Report, Kennett Township 17

The estimated cost associated with this alternative is approximately $23,450.00.

Traffic Impact Alternative Analysis Report, Kennett Township 19

Overall C(32.3) D(40.9)

The improvements of Alternative 2 are expected to yield a minor reduction in delay

Traffic Impact Alternative Analysis Report, Kennett Township 21

Alternative 3 involves realignment of Old Kennett Road to eliminate one of the

Traffic Impact Alternative Analysis Report, Kennett Township 22

South Union Street, Southbound A (6.4) A(7.1)

Overall B(13.0) B(13.6)

Overall A(3.1) A(3.6)

Traffic Impact Alternative Analysis Report, Kennett Township 23