Government Street Traffic Study - Stantec

STAGE 0 FEASIBILITY STUDY LA 73 (GOVERNMENT STREET) CORRIDOR I-110 TO JEFFERSON HIGHWAY
April 25, 2013
FINAL
Sign-off Sheet
This document entitled STAGE 0 FEASIBILITY STUDY LA 73 (GOVERNMENT STREET) CORRIDOR I-110 TO JEFFERSON HIGHWAY was prepared by Stantec Consulting Services Inc. for the account of City of Baton Rouge. The material in it reflects Stantecs best judgment in light of the information available to it at the time of preparation. Any use which a third party makes of this report, or any reliance on or decisions made based on it, are the responsibilities of such third parties. Stantec Consulting Services Inc. accepts no responsibility for damages, if any, suffered by any third party as a result of decisions made or actions based on this report.
Prepared by (signature) Stephen Mensah
Reviewed by (signature) Laurence Lambert
Executive Summary
The purpose of this project was to assess the feasibility of upgrading LA 73 (Government Street) to a Complete Street by implementing a Road Diet from Jefferson Highway to the I-110 interchange. Implementation of a complete streets policy according to FuturEBR is that generally it is envisioned to promote a more comprehensive and integrated transportation network that provides safe and diverse multimodal transportation option to all Louisianans regardless of geographic location, physical condition, economic status or service requirement. To achieve this, Government Street should be reconfigured to better serve the people who use it. It is envisioned that the proposed changes will improve safety and access for all road users. The implementation of the Road Diet will allow the use of right-of-way for alternatives such as bike lanes, on-street parking and better transit stops thus making Government Street a truly multimodal corridor. These transformations will in turn encourage more pedestrian activity, biking and use of public transit because the corridor would be safer and more attractive. Finally the enhanced pedestrian activity, on-street parking and better transit access will attract businesses and revitalize the corridor and promote community livability. These outcomes are consistent with Complete Streets Policy of LADOTD. Several impacts relative to the proposed improvements were evaluated and they are as follows: impact to access, impact to right-of-way, impact to pedestrians, impact to bicyclists, impact to transit and cost. Two traffic characteristics were evaluated to measure the impacts of the improvements: safety and operations. The approach adopted for the Government Street safety analysis is outlined in LADOTDs Guidelines for Conducting a Safety Analysis for Transportation Management Plans and Other Work Zone Activities. Crash data from January 2008 to December 2010 was obtained from LADOTD for the safety analysis. On average there are 270 crashes per year on the studied segment of Government Street. The predominant crash types that have occurred on Government Street are rear end, left turn, right angle and side swipe related crashes. The geometric features of Government Street contribute to the overrepresentation of these crash types. The lack of medians and turning lanes contribute to the overrepresentation of side swipe and rear end crashes. These types of crashes can be reduced with the provision of left turn pockets so that turning vehicles have refuge from through vehicles. The proposed alternatives offer improved safety for this corridor either by eliminating or reducing conflict points. Alternative 1 is a three lane section, which consists of two through lanes separated by a twoway-left-turn-lane (TWLTL). This change will reduce the number of conflict points and enhance safety. The reduction in roadway from four to three lanes will make it easier and safer for pedestrians to cross the street. This reduction in lanes will also permit the addition of bicycle lanes in each direction thus encouraging multimodal use in this corridor. Moreover the additional buffer created by bike lanes will encourage more pedestrian use. Variants of Alternative 1 which includes wider sidewalk, bike lanes and or on-street parking are also discussed and the benefits are expected to be similar to Alternative 1. The first variant
ms f:\projects\2272\documents\final\2013-04-25\rpt_la73_stage0_20130425.docx
E.1
provides sidewalks (8 feet wide) and bike lanes (4 feet wide). The narrower bike lane provides less buffer for pedestrians and bikers may feel less comfortable with live traffic compared to Alternative 1. The second variant to Alternative 1 will implement on-street parking and a parking buffer on the north side of Government Street. The buffer will serve dual purpose by shielding parked vehicles and occupants from live traffic and also provide right-of-way needed to implement full bus turnout in the westbound direction. Transit buses can stop without encroaching on through lanes and this enhances safety on the corridor. Alternative 2 will implement roundabouts at most of the signalized intersections and a raised median. Park Boulevard, 22nd Street, Eugene Street, Edison Street, Acadian Thruway, S. Foster Drive and Jefferson Highway are the intersections that are proposed to be converted to either a 1-lane or 2-lane roundabouts. The proposed change will reduce the conflict points along the corridor and especially improve safety at the intersections. The raised median will provide a positive separation from opposing traffic and also provide a refuge for pedestrians crossing the street. Alternative 2 will also provide a bike lane thus encouraging multimodal use of the corridor. The FuturEBR document and DOTD policy both make a compelling case for Complete Streets as the only sustainable transportation policy that will meet the needs of today and the future. The proposed alternatives will enhance the safety of the corridor, and improve the diversity of transportation options if the removed lanes are converted to bike lanes and better pedestrian and transit facilities. Furthermore it will enhance the character and appeal of the corridor. Based on the feasibility of the alternatives provided in this report, Alternative 1 is the preferred alternative. While the potential safety improvements of Alternative 2 are somewhat greater, Alternative 1 does provide significant safety improvements over the existing condition at minimal cost and impact to existing access points. The Highway Safety Manual predictive worksheet was used to assess the relative safety between the existing and proposed Alternative 1. No analysis was done for Alternative 2 since the roadway geometric section is not currently supported by the safety analysis worksheets of the HSM. Three segments and three intersections were analyzed using the worksheets. The total length of corridor analyzed is 0.17 miles. The results are summarized below and it shows a potential reduction in crashes of at least 5%. Table ES 1: Crash estimation based on Highway Safety Manual Year 2008 2009 2010 HSM Crash Estimation Existing ALT 1 % Reduction 11.0 10.4 5.45% 11.0 10.4 5.45% 11.4 10.8 5.26%
In terms of the performance of the facility from an operations perspective, Alternative 1 performed better than Alternative 2. One of the most significant concerns for modifying the corridor is to not materially impact operations. It should be noted that the corridor experiences significant commuter traffic. In the off-peak periods, there is excess capacity. Alternative 1 is
E.2
also preferred since it will not impact access to existing businesses. In fact, access should be enhanced due to the center turn lane. Another critical component to making the project a reality is cost and constructability. Alternative 1 will consist mainly of restriping and signing, while Alternative 2 will require a raised median throughout the corridor as well as replacing exiting signals with roundabouts. Given the fact the DOTD has immediate plans to replace the existing signals along Government Street, removing a brand new signal system would be significant waste of resources. Finally, Alternative 2 would require additional right-of-way to accommodate the roundabouts, which would add significantly to the cost of the project. Table ES 2: AM Travel Times on Government Street from I-110 to Jefferson Hwy, (Minutes)
Table ES 3: PM Travel Times on Government Street from I-110 to Jefferson Hwy (Minutes)
E.3
The various cross-sections proposed and analyzed are shown below. Figure ES 1: Alternative 1 (TWLTL with bike lanes)
E.4
Figure ES 2: Alternative 1-First Variant
E.5
Figure ES 3: Alternative 1-Second Variant
E.6
Figure ES 4: Alternative 1-Third Variant
E.7
Figure ES 5: Alternative 2 (Raised median with bike lanes and roundabouts)
E.8
The estimated cost for each proposed alternative is summarized in the table below.
Cost Summary Alternative Without Wearing Course With Wearing Course (B) $1,100,000.00
Alternative 1 (Road Diet with TWLTL) -First Variant -Second Variant -Third Variant Alternative 2 (Road Diet with raised median and roundabouts)
$300,000.00
$2,600,000.00 $350,000.00 $3,110,000.00 $15,210,000.00
$3,400,000.00 $1,110,000.00 $3,800,000.00 $15,700,000.00
E.9
Table of Contents
1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 BACKGROUND .......................................................................................................................................................3 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 SAFETY ANALYSIS .......................................................................................................................................... 2 SUMMARY OF CRASH HISTORY .............................................................................................................................2 CRASH RATE TENTHS ..........................................................................................................................................8 MODIFIED SEGMENT ANALYSIS ..........................................................................................................................15 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS .....................................................................................................................................17 2.4.1 Intersections .....................................................................................................................................18 2.4.2 Segments ..........................................................................................................................................18 2.5 HSM ANALYSIS ....................................................................................................................................................18
3.0 COMPLETE STREETS ALTERNATIVES ............................................................................................................. 20 3.1 ALTERNATIVE 1: THREE (3) LANE SECTION FROM I-110 TO JEFFERSON HIGHWAY ............................................20 3.1.1 IMPACT ON PEDESTRIANS ................................................................................................................24 3.1.2 IMPACT ON BIKES .............................................................................................................................24 3.1.3 IMPACT ON RIGHT-OF-WAY ..............................................................................................................24 3.1.4 IMPACT ON ACCESS ..........................................................................................................................24 3.1.5 COST ..................................................................................................................................................24 3.1.6 VARIANTS OF ALTERNATIVE 1 ...........................................................................................................25 3.2 ALTERNATIVE 2: ROUNDABOUTS WITH RAISED MEDIAN ...................................................................................32 3.2.1 IMPACT ON PEDESTRIANS ................................................................................................................35 3.2.2 IMPACT ON BIKES .............................................................................................................................36 3.2.3 IMPACT ON RIGHT-OF-WAY ..............................................................................................................36 3.2.4 IMPACT ON ACCESS ..........................................................................................................................36 3.2.5 COST ..................................................................................................................................................36 4.0 TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ....................................................................................................................................... 37 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................................... 42 SAFETY .................................................................................................................................................................42 LEVEL OF SERVICE ...............................................................................................................................................42 RECOMMENDATION ...........................................................................................................................................44
APPENDIX ............................................................................................................................................................ 46 COST ANALYSIS TRAFFIC ANALYSIS HCS ANALYSIS HSM ANALYSIS CHECKLIST
List of Tables
Table 1: Summary of crashes on Government Street (January 2008-December 2010) ................................................3 Table 2: Average Percentages by Manner of Collision, All Crashes (January 2008 - December 2010) .........................6 Table 3: Average Severities (January 2008 - December 2010) ......................................................................................7 Table 4: Average Percentages by Type of Crash, All Crashes (January 2008 - December 2010) ...................................7 Table 5: Average Percentages by Manner of Collision, Non-intersection Crashes (January 2008 - December 2010) ..7 Table 6: Average Percentages by Manner of Collision, Intersection Crashes (January 2008 - December 2010) ..........8 Table 7: Crash Rate, Tenths (January 2008 - December 2010) ......................................................................................8 Table 8: Average Percentages by Manner of Collision, Modified Segments (January 2008 - December 2010) ..........15 Table 9: Average Percentages by Manner of Collision, Signalized Intersection Only (January 2008 - December 2010) .....................................................................................................................................................................................15 Table 10: Crash Rates for Modified Segments (January 2008 - December 2010) .......................................................16 Table 11: Crash Rates for Intersections, Modified Segments (January 2008 - December 2010) ................................16 Table 12: Manner of Crashes, All Intersections (January 2008 - December 2010) ......................................................17 Table 13: Manner of Crashes, All Segments (January 2008 - December 2010) ...........................................................17 Table 14: Relative comparison of crashes for existing versus proposed 3 lane section with TWLTL ..........................19 Table 15: Level of Service Criteria for Signalized Intersections and Roundabouts ......................................................38 Table 16: Level of Service Criteria for Unsignalized Intersections ...............................................................................38 Table 17: AM Peak Hour Level of Service Results ........................................................................................................39 Table 18: PM Peak Hour Level of Service Results ........................................................................................................40 Table 19: AM Peak Hour Travel Time Results (from Interstate 110 to Jefferson Highway) ........................................41 Table 20: PM Peak Hour Travel Time Results (from Interstate 110 to Jefferson Highway).........................................41 Table 21: AM Peak Hour Level of Service Results, Government Street at N Foster Drive ...........................................43 Table 22: PM Peak Hour Level of Service Results, Government Street at N Foster Drive ...........................................43 Table 23: Impact of proposed Road Diet alternatives .................................................................................................45
List of Figures
Figure 1: Government Street typical cross-section .......................................................................................................3 Figure 2: A cross-section of Government Street near S. 17th Street.............................................................................1 Figure 3: Spatial distribution of crashes within project scope from January 2008-December 2010 .............................3 Figure 4: Crash frequency for Government Street (January 2008 - December 2010) ...................................................4 Figure 5: Cumulative crash frequency by severity for government street (January 2008 - December 2010) ...............5 Figure 6: Crashes on Government Street aggregated by month of the year (January 2008 - December 2010) ...........6 Figure 7: Crash Rate, Tenths ........................................................................................................................................10 Figure 8: Collision types overrepresented on Government Street ..............................................................................18 Figure 9: Cross-section showing TWLTL with Road Diet (Alternative 1) ......................................................................21 Figure 10: Layout of Two Way Left Turn Lane .............................................................................................................22 Figure 11: Cross-section showing wider walkway with Road Diet (Alternative 1, First Variant) .................................26 Figure 12: Cross-section showing on-street parking with Road Diet (Alternative 1, Second Variant) ........................28 Figure 13: Cross-section showing wider sidewalks with bus turnout (Alternative 1, Third Variant) ...........................30 Figure 14: Plan view showing bus turnout option (Alternative 1, Third Variant) ........................................................31 Figure 15: Cross-section showing proposed raised median with Road Diet (Alternative 2) .......................................33 Figure 16: Schematic of Roundabout with Raised Median ..........................................................................................34 Figure 17: Segment showing raised median, through and bike lanes, and on-street parking ....................................35 Figure 18: 2012 AM Existing Traffic Volumes Segment 1 ............................................................................................47
ii
Figure 19: 2012 AM Existing Traffic Volumes Segment 2 ............................................................................................47 Figure 20: 2012 AM Existing Traffic Volumes Segment 3 ............................................................................................47 Figure 21: 2012 AM Existing Traffic Volumes Segment 4 ............................................................................................47 Figure 22: 2012 AM Existing Traffic Volumes Segment 5 ............................................................................................47 Figure 23: 2012 AM Existing Traffic Volumes Segment 6 ............................................................................................47 Figure 24: 2012 AM Existing Traffic Volumes Segment 7 ............................................................................................47 Figure 25: 2012 AM Existing Traffic Volumes Segment 8 ............................................................................................47 Figure 26: 2012 PM Existing Traffic Volumes Segment 1 ............................................................................................47 Figure 27: 2012 PM Existing Traffic Volumes Segment 2 ............................................................................................47 Figure 28: 2012 PM Existing Traffic Volumes Segment 3 ............................................................................................47 Figure 29: 2012 PM Existing Traffic Volumes Segment 4 ............................................................................................47 Figure 30: 2012 PM Existing Traffic Volumes Segment 5 ............................................................................................47 Figure 31: 2012 PM Existing Traffic Volumes Segment 6 ............................................................................................47 Figure 32: 2012 PM Existing Traffic Volumes Segment 7 ............................................................................................47 Figure 33: 2012 PM Existing Traffic Volumes Segment 8 ............................................................................................47
iii
1.0
INTRODUCTION
According to the FuturEBR Comprehensive Plan, which was adopted in September 2011, the goal of East Baton Rouge Parish is to address core issues such as environment and conservation, economic development, housing, infrastructure, land use, parks and recreation, public service and intergovernmental coordination, urban design and neighborhoods, and transportation. The vision of the parish underscores sustainability in economic, environmental and social equity terms. This vision calls for a conscientious evaluation of all the above mentioned sectors of business, including land use and transportation decision making, in the parish to ensure that goals and objectives meet the needs of today, while also laying a strong foundation for future growth of its diverse groups of people. Currently East Baton Rouge is congested and the situation is predicted to worsen if there is no shift in land use and transportation policy. In fact many metropolitan areas in the US are grappling with chronic congestion, which is stifling economic growth, posing environmental issues and depressing the quality of life for both residents and visitors. The FuturEBR plan concluded that a more comprehensive and integrated multi-modal transportation system which caters to all modes of transportation walking, biking, autos and transit is a more sustainable approach than an auto-centric planning and design approach. In urbanized areas, there is virtually no room to expand roadways to add more lanes, since the cost of acquiring right-of-way for this purpose could be prohibitive. As the population grows there will be more demands placed on the transportation system. In view of this challenge, all available means of transportation have to be explored and provisions made to alternatives such as walking and biking, which are more sustainable especially for short trips. The FuturEBR Transportation plan describes a Complete Street as a collaborative, interdisciplinary decision-making process that balances the many needs of diverse stakeholders and offers flexibility in the application of design controls, guidelines, and criteria, resulting in facilities that are safe and effective for all users regardless of the mode of travel they choose. In an attempt to balance out the modes, as a form of Complete Streets, Road Diets have been implemented in different parts of the world including many places in the US especially in urbanized areas. Road Diets target multilane roadways to reduce the number or width of travel lanes to provide space for other uses such as pedestrian walkways, bike lanes, green-space or transit related infrastructure a Complete Street implementation. This concept of Complete Streets has gained much traction today and there are many references in the literature that discuss its success. Some of the benefits are: transportation needs of diverse groups of people in the community can be met regardless of age, sex or race; it results in traffic calming due to lane reduction and it makes the corridor safe for all users; new attractive pedestrian oriented streetscape and green space turn these corridors into destinations and stimulates businesses and attracts new ones thus revitalizing the local economy; it boosts existing property values and attracts new commercial and residential developments.
STAGE 0 FEASIBILITY STUDY LA 73 (GOVERNMENT STREET) CORRIDOR I-110 TO JEFFERSON HIGHWAY Pedestrian safety is a critical component of an integrated transportation system. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration reported that in 2010, 4,280 pedestrians were killed and an estimated 70,000 were injured in traffic crashes in the United States. This means an average of one pedestrian is killed every two hours and injured every eight minutes in traffic related crashes. Pedestrian deaths accounted for 13% of all traffic fatalities and 3% of all the people injured in traffic crashes. Fatalities in urban settings accounted for 73% of all pedestrian fatalities, and 79% of pedestrian fatalities occurred at non-intersections. Louisiana recorded 710 total traffic fatalities in 2010 and 74 were pedestrian fatalities. The pedestrian fatality rate in Louisiana per 100,000 population is 1.63 compared to a national average of 1.38 fatalities. These statistics highlight pedestrian safety in the year 2010, and also underscore the importance of addressing pedestrian related safety. The purpose of this project is to assess the feasibility of upgrading LA 73 (Government Street) to a Complete Street from Jefferson Highway to the I-110 interchange. Implementation of a Complete Streets policy according to FuturEBR is that generally it is envisioned to promote a more comprehensive and integrated transportation network that provides safe and diverse multimodal transportation option to all Louisianans regardless of geographic location, physical condition, economic status or service requirement. This goal is consistent with Complete Streets Policy of LADOTD which states: This policy will create a comprehensive, integrated, connected transportation network for Louisiana that balances access, mobility, health and safety needs of motorists, transit users, bicyclists, and pedestrians of all ages and abilities, which includes users of wheelchairs and mobility aids. It ensures a fully integrated transportation system, by planning, funding, designing, constructing, managing, and maintaining a complete and multi-modal network that achieves and sustains mobility, while encouraging and safely accommodating pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit users. The limited right of way along the Government Street corridor means that the only way to provide for the other components advocated in the Complete Streets policy is to implement a Road Diet. A Road Diet typically entails reducing the width or number of lanes to provide for bike lanes, sidewalks and other streetscape features. Therefore different Complete Street alternatives will be evaluated for impacts to capacity, safety, right-of-way and access to determine the most viable treatment to transform this corridor into a Complete Street. Safety assessments of roadway corridors can be performed on two levels i.e. nominal and substantive safety. Nominal safety is achieved when a facility is designed to meet policy standards or compliance. Substantive safety address performance and it is much more subjective. No substantive safety analysis of the proposed alternatives will be addressed in this study since the required calibration factors for the prediction model are not available. The designs of the proposed alternatives are expected to conform to current design standards and therefore should satisfy nominal safety requirements. Where appropriate, comparisons will be drawn from projects that have been implemented at other locations and discussed in the literature. This will be used to show the potential benefits that could accrue and any challenges that could be encountered. 2
1.1
BACKGROUND
Government Street is an urban, four-lane undivided arterial that runs in an east-west direction within the project scope. It connects downtown Baton Rouge to Mid-City and Independence Park. The annual average daily traffic (AADT) on this roadway ranges between 18,000 24,000 vehicles and the posted speed limit is 40mph. The adjoining developments include residential homes, schools, shops and light commercial facilities. There are about five schools in the vicinity of the corridor and they are Catholic High School, Baton Rouge High School, Dufrocq Elementary School, Our Lady of Mercy Catholic School, and Bernard Terrace Elementary. The FuturEBR report identified Government Street, among other corridors, as a potential location to implement a Complete Streets program to revitalize the corridor and make it livable, economically attractive and safe. The limited right of way available at this corridor implies that a Complete Streets concept can only be implemented with Road Diet. Road Diet entails reducing the number of travel lanes for automobiles to make provision for other uses such as bike lanes and parking. This safety and capacity study will aid in assessing the impacts of the proposed Complete Streets design alternatives. Figure 1 and Figure 2 show segments of Government Street with the existing dimensions of the cross-section elements. Figure 1: Government Street typical cross-section
STAGE 0 FEASIBILITY STUDY LA 73 (GOVERNMENT STREET) CORRIDOR I-110 TO JEFFERSON HIGHWAY Figure 2: A cross-section of Government Street near S. 17th Street

SAFETY ANALYSIS April 22, 2013
2.0
SAFETY ANALYSIS
The approach adopted for the Government Street safety analysis is outlined in Guidelines for Conducting a Safety Analysis for Transportation Management Plans and Other Work Zone Activities, which is a document developed by LADOTD. The goal is to identify patterns or trends in historical crash data that show any locations with overrepresented crashes or abnormal crash occurrence also known as hot spots and recommend a mitigation strategy. Overrepresented crashes are crash types that occur more often than statewide averages for the given crash at a given location. LADOTD defines abnormal crashes as follows: a location having at least five crashes and twice the statewide average crash rate for its functional classification for intersections and spot locations and at least five crashes per mile and twice the statewide average crash rate for its functional classification for sections. The number of crashes, types of crashes (rear end, side swipe, head on, etc), severity of crashes (fatal, injury or property damage only) and crash rates are analyzed and compared to the statewide averages. The comparison will help to identify overrepresented crashes or hot spots. The subsequent subsections will discuss the crash history of Government Street using crash data from January 2008 to December 2010, which was obtained from LADOTD.
2.1
SUMMARY OF CRASH HISTORY
Figure 3 shows a map of the project scope analyzed which is Csect 077-05 begin log mile 5.33
to end log mile 8.14. All crashes that have occurred from January 2008 through December 2010 have been overlaid on this map. The crashes are fairly evenly distributed spatially on the segments. Table 1 gives a summary of the number and type of crashes that have occurred on Government Street. No fatal crashes have occurred within the project limits from 2008-2010. Also injury and property damage only (PDO) crashes have declined by 39.8% and 22.3% respectively during this period.
Figure 4 shows a time series of crashes aggregated by month from January 2008 through
December 2010. A fitted linear trendline has a negative slope which shows a decline in crashes. Since no corresponding AADT data was available for the crashes observed, it cannot be said with certainty if the exposure was increasing, decreasing, or stayed fairly the same during this time period in order to truly assess the cause of this reduction. Therefore no definitive statements can be made about the reasons for the observed reduction in crashes. Figure 5 gives additional information on the proportions of the crashes by severity that have occurred each month of the study period.

Figure 3: Spatial distribution of crashes within project scope from January 2008-December 2010
Table 1: Summary of crashes on Government Street (January 2008-December 2010)

Type of Crash Fatal Injury PDO Total 2008 0 98 215 313 2009 0 65 208 273 2010 0 59 167 226 Total 0 222 590 812

Figure 4: Crash frequency for Government Street (January 2008 - December 2010)
Government Street Cumulative Total Crash Frequency Tot Crashes 40 35 30 Crash Frequency 25 20 15 10 5 0 Jan Mar May Jul Sep Nov Jan Mar May Jul Sep Nov Jan Mar May Jul Sep Month (Jan 2008 - Dec 2010) Linear (Tot Crashes)

Figure 5: Cumulative crash frequency by severity for government street (January 2008 - December 2010) Government Street Cumulative Crash Frequency by Severity pdo 40 35 30
Crash Frequency
fat
inj
25 20 15 10 5 0 Jan Mar May Jul Sep Nov Jan Mar May Jul Sep Nov Jan Mar May Jul
Month (Jan 2008-Dec 2010)
Further analysis was performed to identify seasonal effects, if any, on crashes and therefore crash events for individual months were aggregated over the 3-year time frame and plotted as shown in Figure 6. The month of April recorded the highest incidents of crashes (94 crashes) during the three year analysis period. The three highest peaks coincide with the months of February (76 crashes), March (88 crashes) and April (94 crashes), which all together account for over 31% of all crashes. Figure 6 appears to indicate that higher crashes occur around February, March and April.

Figure 6: Crashes on Government Street aggregated by month of the year (January 2008 - December 2010)
Government Street Crashes (Jan 2008-Dec 2010) 100 90 80 70 Crash Frequency 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Month
Table 2 and Table 3 show the average percentages of crashes by manner of collision and also crash severities for all crashes respectively. The percentages highlighted in yellow show the crash types that are overrepresented, i.e. higher than statewide averages. Rear end collisions are predominantly the type of crashes that were experienced on Government Street accounting for over 39% of all crashes. PDO crashes also account for 72.66% of all crashes.
Table 2: Average Percentages by Manner of Collision, All Crashes (January 2008 - December 2010)
Type of Collision Head on Left Turn-Angle Left Turn-Opposite Direction Left Turn-Same Direction Non Collision w/ MV Other Rear End Right Turn-Angle Right Turn-Opposite Direction Right Angle Side Swipe - Opposite Direction Side Swipe -Same Direction Crash Frequency 6 8 73 14 18 60 320 9 1 172 9 122 Percentage 0.74% 0.99% 8.99% 1.72% 2.22% 7.39% 39.41% 1.11% 0.12% 21.18% 1.11% 15.02% Statewide Average 0.98% 3.86% 6.11% 2.04% 4.49% 10.14% 37.71% 17.61% 0.40% 17.61% 0.90% 14.16%

Table 3: Average Severities (January 2008 - December 2010)

Type of Crash Fatal Crashes Injury Crashes PDO Crashes Crash Frequency 0 222 590 Percentage 0.00% 27.34% 72.66% Statewide Average 0.20% 30.10% 69.70%
Table 4 shows that crashes have predominantly occurred at intersections. Over 95% of crashes occurred at intersections which exceeds the statewide average of 51.9%. It should be noted that crashes that occur within 150 feet of an intersection are assumed to be intersection related crash and count towards intersection crashes. Government Street has many short segments with an average segment length of 254 feet within the project scope. This implies that on the average crashes occurring on segments would be at least 150 feet from one intersection or the adjacent intersection. This explains the very high proportion of intersection crashes in this corridor.
Table 4: Average Percentages by Type of Crash, All Crashes (January 2008 - December 2010)
Type of Crash Roadway Departure Intersection Crashes Night Crashes Alcohol Involved Wet Surface Crash Frequency 6 778 144 18 124 Percentage 0.74% 95.81% 17.73% 2.23% 15.27% Statewide Average 3.12% 51.97% 21.73% 3.33% 15.32%
Table 5 shows the average percentages of crashes by manner of collision for non-intersection crashes. Left turn opposite direction crashes constitute 8.82% of crashes and exceed the statewide average of 2.75%. Similarly left turn same direction crashes and right angle crashes are respectively 5.88% and 17.65%, both exceeding the statewide average of 1.74% and 10.47%. These three types of collisions (left turn opposite direction, left turn same direction and right angle) are overrepresented in the non-intersection crashes that occurred on Government Street.
Table 5: Average Percentages by Manner of Collision, Non-intersection Crashes (January 2008 December 2010)
Type of Collision (nonIntersection) Left Turn - Opposite Direction Left Turn - Same Direction Non Collision w/ MV Other Rear End Right Angle Side Swipe - Same Direction Crash Frequency 3 2 2 2 14 6 5 Percentage 8.82% 5.88% 5.88% 5.88% 41.18% 17.65% 14.71% Statewide Average 2.75% 1.74% 6.26% 9.22% 46.18% 10.47% 17.46%
Crash distribution by manner of collision at intersections is summarized Table 6. Rear end, side swipe opposite direction, and side swipe same direction crashes constitute respectively 39.33%, 1.16% and 15.04%. The above listed manner of collisions exceed the respective statewide averages of 29.87%, 0.74% and 11.12%. Therefore these crashes are overrepresented.

Table 6: Average Percentages by Manner of Collision, Intersection Crashes (January 2008 December 2010)
Type of Collision Head on Left Turn-Angle Left Turn-Opposite Direction Left Turn-Same Direction Non Collision w/ MV Other Rear End Right Turn-Angle Right Turn-Opposite Direction Right Angle Side Swipe - Opposite Direction Side Swipe -Same Direction Crash Frequency 6 8 70 12 16 58 306 9 1 166 9 117 Percentage 0.77% 1.03% 9.00% 1.54% 2.06% 7.46% 39.33% 1.16% 0.13% 21.34% 1.16% 15.04% Statewide Average 1.00% 5.20% 9.20% 2.33% 2.85% 10.99% 29.87% 1.96% 0.53% 24.21% 0.74% 11.12%
2.2
CRASH RATE TENTHS
This analysis segments the corridor into tenths of a mile and aggregates all crashes (excluding intersection related crashes) within each segment to determine the crash rate. This methodology is consistent with that used to develop the statewide crash rates for segments by LADOTD. Table 7 shows the crash rates by tenths on Government Street. The results show that nearly the entire corridor has a crash rate that exceeds the statewide average except for Csect 077-05 log mile 7.73-7.83 (the segment between S. 17th Street and S. 15th Street), Csect 077-05 logmile 7.03-7.13 (the segment between Eugene Street and Lavinia Street), and finally log mile 8.13-8.23 (I-110 ramp approach). Segments with abnormal crash rates are highlighted in red. The segment highlighted in yellow has a crash rate higher than the statewide average but less than two times the value. Figure 7 (A, B, C, D & E) show the various segments.
Table 7: Crash Rate, Tenths (January 2008 - December 2010)
Log mile 5.33-5.43 5.43-5.53 5.53-5.63 5.63-5.73 5.73-5.83 5.83-5.93 5.93-6.03 6.03-6.13 6.13-6.23 6.23-6.33 6.33-6.43 6.43-6.53 6.53-6.63 6.63-6.73 6.73-6.83 6.83-6.93 6.93-7.03 Crashes 27 25 13 52 40 18 18 26 21 5 28 25 30 34 15 15 34 AADT* 22123 21492 21296 21054 20208 20179 20072 20011 19991 19782 20007 20150 20293 20451 20484 20117 19305 Length 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 VMT 807490 784458 777304 768471 737592 736534 732628 730402 729672 722043 730256 735475 740695 746462 747666 734271 704633 Crash Rate 11.15 10.62 5.57 22.56 18.08 8.15 8.19 11.87 9.59 2.31 12.78 11.33 13.50 15.18 6.69 6.81 16.08 2x Statewide Average 2.14 2.14 2.14 2.14 2.14 2.14 2.14 2.14 2.14 2.14 2.14 2.14 2.14 2.14 2.14 2.14 2.14

Log mile 7.03-7.13 7.13-7.23 7.23-7.33 7.33-7.43 7.43-7.53 7.53-7.63 7.63-7.73 7.73-7.83 7.83-7.93 7.93-8.03 8.03-8.13 8.13-8.23
Crashes 4 10 23 6 4 22 16 2 11 11 23 1
AADT* 18024 17318 18186 17321 16955 16588 16313 15640 15145 14794 14489 14489
Length 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
VMT 657876 632107 663789 632217 618858 605462 595425 570860 552793 539981 528849 528849
Crash Rate 2.03 5.27 11.55 3.16 2.15 12.11 8.96 1.17 6.63 6.79 14.50 0.63
2x Statewide Average 2.14 2.14 2.14 2.14 2.14 2.14 2.14 2.14 2.14 2.14 2.14 2.14
* The ADTs used in all the analysis were based on data from count stations or estimated from interpolating data from count stations. The ADTs therefore may not be as accurate as what would have been obtained from permanent count stations at each required location.

Figure 7: Crash Rate, Tenths





2.3
MODIFIED SEGMENT ANALYSIS
In the modified segment analysis, a segment is assumed to be from one signalized intersection to an adjacent signalized intersection and all intermediate side streets are treated as driveways. This assumption was made based on the very low volumes of vehicles from the side streets. This exploratory analysis was also discussed with LADOTD. Table 8 shows the average percentages by manner of collision for the modified segments.
Table 8: Average Percentages by Manner of Collision, Modified Segments (January 2008 December 2010)
Type of Collision (nonIntersection) Head on Left Turn Angle Left Turn Opposite Direction Left Turn Same Direction Non Collision Other Rear End Right Turn Angle Right Angle Side Swipe-Opposite Direction S Swipe-Same Direction Crash Frequency 2 6 50 11 11 46 220 4 114 7 88 Percentage 0.36% 1.07% 8.94% 1.97% 1.97% 8.23% 39.36% 0.72% 20.39% 1.25% 15.74% Statewide Average 0.95% 2.40% 2.75% 1.74% 6.26% 9.22% 46.18% 1.23% 10.47% 1.08% 17.46%
Table 9 shows average percentages by manner of collision for signalized intersections. In comparison to Table 6 head on collisions and right turn angle crashes are the additional types of crashes that become overrepresented. This can be explained by the fact that with the modified segments, the crashes related to the signalized intersections will increase because crashes that may have been assigned to adjacent intersections are now added on to the signalized intersection.
Table 9: Average Percentages by Manner of Collision, Signalized Intersection Only (January 2008 December 2010)
Type of Collision Head on Left Turn Angle Left Turn Opposite Direction Left Turn Same Direction Non Collision Other Rear End Right Turn Angle Right Turn Opposite Direction Right Angle Side Swipe-Opposite Direction S Swipe-Same Direction Crash Frequency 4 2 23 3 7 4 100 5 1 58 2 34 Percentage 1.58% 0.79% 9.09% 1.19% 2.77% 5.53% 39.53% 1.98% 0.40% 22.92% 0.79% 13.44% Statewide Average 1.00% 5.20% 9.20% 2.33% 2.85% 10.99% 29.87% 1.96% 0.53% 24.21% 0.74% 11.12%

Table 10 shows that many more segments have crash rates above the statewide average. Table 11 shows that Foster Drive intersection continues to show abnormal crash rates. The intersections at Acadian Thruway, Eugene Street and Park Avenue show crash rates that are higher than the statewide average but are not abnormal because the values are still less than two times the statewide average.
Table 10: Crash Rates for Modified Segments (January 2008 - December 2010)
Begin End Length Total Crashes (3yrs) 65 78 101 118 15 49 42 1 22 44 24 ADT VMT Crash Rate (Crashes/MVM) 8.68 21.69 9.00 11.87 5.56 10.41 6.77 0.82 8.99 6.54 11.54 2x Statewide Average (Crashes/MVM) 6.96 6.96 6.96 6.96 6.96 6.96 6.96 6.96 6.96 6.96 6.96
Jefferson Comm Coll Foster Edison Acadian Hearthstone Eugene S. 22nd s. 21st 19th S.13th
Comm Col Foster Edison Acadian Hearthstone Eugene S. 22nd S. 21st 19th S 13th I-110 Ramp
0.314 0.162 0.512 0.449 0.121 0.221 0.319 0.066 0.134 0.399 0.13
21792 20270 20015 20221 20362 19447 17753 16954 16680 15389 14608
2497581 1198565 3740403 3313919 899288 1568692 2067071 408422 815819 2241177 693150
Table 11: Crash Rates for Intersections, Modified Segments (January 2008 - December 2010)
Csect Begin Logmile End Logmile Intersection Total Crashes (3yrs) AADT Major AADT Minor MEV Crash Rate (MEV) 2x Statewide Average (Crashes/MEV)
077-05 077-05 077-05 077-05 077-05 077-05 077-05 077-05 077-05 077-05
5.59 5.75 6.25 6.69 6.82 7.02 7.36 7.43 7.56 7.97
5.63 5.79 6.3 6.74 6.87 7.08 7.4 7.48 7.61 8.01
Comm Col Foster Edison Acadian Hearthstone Eugene 22nd Camelia Ave Park 13th
29 59 29 40 17 19 14 16 18 12
21296 21920 19607 21962 21703 1.10 18448 17091 15887 15911 14082 7851 26.019025 0.69 4587 7913 25.223325 27.37938 0.75 0.51 24790 51.193075 0.78 14886 40.30257 1.46

Table 12 and Table 13 show that the predominant crashes at intersections and segments are rear end collisions with respective proportions of 39.53% and 39.36%.
Table 12: Manner of Crashes, All Intersections (January 2008 - December 2010)
Type of Crash Head on Left Turn Angle Left Turn Opposite Direction Left Turn Same Direction Non Collision Other Rear End Right Turn Angle Right Turn Opposite Direction Right Angle Side Swipe Opposite Direction Side Swipe Same Direction Frequency 4 2 23 3 7 14 100 5 1 58 2 34 Percentage 1.58% 0.79% 9.09% 1.19% 2.77% 5.53% 39.53% 1.98% 0.40% 22.92% 0.79% 13.44%
Table 13: Manner of Crashes, All Segments (January 2008 - December 2010)
Type of Crash Head on Left Turn Angle Left Turn Opposite Direction Left Turn Same Direction Non Collision Other Rear End Right Turn Angle Right Angle Side Swipe Opposite Direction Side Swipe Same Direction Frequency 2 6 50 11 11 46 220 4 114 7 88 Percentage 0.36% 1.07% 8.94% 1.97% 1.97% 8.23% 39.36% 0.72% 20.39% 1.25% 15.74%
2.4
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
The types of crashes observed on Government Street that are overrepresented in the crash data are rear end, left turn, right angle and side swipe related crashes. These crashes are mostly property damage only crashes and no fatality has occurred during the time frame under analysis. Figure 8 shows a schematic of the crash types that are overrepresented in the crashes that have occurred on Government Street.

Figure 8: Collision types overrepresented on Government Street
Rear End
Right Angle
Left Turn Side Swipe
2.4.1
Intersections
Intersection related crashes are also overrepresented and this is attributable to the relatively short segment lengths on Government Street. The intersection at Foster Drive is a hot spot and has a crash rate that exceeds two times the statewide average. The predominant crashes at this location are rear end and right angle crashes. 2.4.2 Segments
The crash rate based on tenths shows failure of the entire corridor with the exception of the following segments: S. 17th Street to S. 15th Street and the segment leading up to the I-110 ramp. This is shown in Figure 7.
2.5
HSM ANALYSIS
The highway safety manual (HSM) provides analytical tools and techniques for quantifying potential safety benefits for planning, design, operations and maintenance. The predictive method discussed in the manual is intended to provide a structured methodology to estimate

crashes by total crashes, crash severity, or collision type on a roadway. The models for the predictive analysis were developed using sites of similar characteristics from around the country. The model therefore should be adjusted using calibration factors to account for specific site conditions and local conditions. No calibration factors have been developed to use with the HSM for the different classes of roadways within Louisiana and therefore the output from the uncalibrated model analysis has limited use. However the HSM analysis can give some useful insights for relative comparisons. The HSM was used to evaluate expected crashes over a short section of the corridor consisting of three intersections and three segments with a total length of 0.17 miles. The number of crashes predicted by the model for the existing roadway and the proposed upgrades using the HSM worksheet are summarized in Table 14. Alternative 2 was not analyzed because the worksheets for the HSM methodology do not currently support the proposed cross-section. The 3-lane section with TWLTL appears to perform better across all metrics (fatal, injury, PDO) in all years with lower frequency of crashes than the existing undivided 4-lane section. This observation corroborates the benefits that are reported in the literature when similar road diets were implemented elsewhere.
Table 14: Relative comparison of crashes for existing versus proposed 3 lane section with TWLTL
Roadway Type Crash Severity Year 2008 2009 2010 4-Lane Undivided (Existing) Fatal + Injury Observed 6.0 3.0 0.0 Predicted 3.5 3.5 3.6 PDO Observed 12.0 12.0 7.0 Predicted 7.5 7.5 7.7 Total Observed 18.0 15.0 7.0 Predicted 11.0 11.0 11.4 3 Lane Section with TWLTL Fatal + Injury Predicted 3.3 3.2 3.4 PDO Predicted 7.2 7.2 7.4 Total Predicted 10.4 10.4 10.8

COMPLETE STREETS ALTERNATIVES April 22, 2013
3.0
COMPLETE STREETS ALTERNATIVES
Two geometric alternatives have been proposed for the segment of Government Street between I-110 and Jefferson Highway in an attempt to enhance livability, improve safety and attract economic growth. Each of the alternatives was analyzed to assess the impacts on the existing safety, especially at locations where crash rates are abnormal or crash types are overrepresented. It is expected that since the proposed Complete Street alternatives will be designed according to the minimum standards of the AASHTO Design Guide, the affected areas should meet nominal safety requirements. No prediction can be made on the substantive safety since there are no state calibration factors available to use with the predictive Highway Safety Manual procedure.
3.1
ALTERNATIVE 1: THREE (3) LANE SECTION FROM I-110 TO JEFFERSON HIGHWAY
A three lane section, which consists of two through lanes separated by a two-way-left-turn-lane (TWLTL), has been proposed for this corridor. Left turn lanes will be developed at each signalized intersection to facilitate left turn at each intersection. A schematic of the proposed improvement is shown in Figure 10. The crash types that have occurred from January 2008 through December 2010 are rear end (39.41%), right angle (21.18%), side swipe-same direction (15.02%) and left turn-opposite direction (8.99%) crashes. All these crash types are overrepresented in the crash data. Few intersections on Government Street have left turn lanes with protected left turn phasing. This condition can lead to several rear end, side swipe and turn related crashes, which is borne out by the overrepresentation of these crash types shown in Table 2.

Figure 9: Cross-section showing TWLTL with Road Diet (Alternative 1)

Figure 10: Layout of Two Way Left Turn Lane

Provision of a TWLTL will provide refuge for left turning vehicles from through traffic moving in the same direction. This will help reduce rear end collisions caused by drivers who are either following too closely or distracted. Furthermore with the through lanes unobstructed, there will be no need for drivers, who will otherwise be stopped behind turning vehicles, to make lane changes that can lead to side swipe (same direction) crashes. The reduced exposure of turning vehicles to through lane traffic is expected to reduce the collision types discussed above. Reducing the through lanes to just one lane in each direction reduces the number of conflicts for turning vehicles and also eliminates the obstruction of line of sight to vehicles in the outer lane because of vehicles in the inner lane of the opposing traffic. This change should make left turn movements simpler and shorter. Drivers can also wait for safer gaps without duress before turning knowing that they are not blocking through lanes. This could reduce left turn opposite direction crashes. Furthermore by reducing the number of lanes on Government Street from 4 to 3 lanes this will reduce the number of conflict points for vehicles turning onto Government Street. This reduction of conflicting paths from a maximum of 4 to 2 on the mainline makes it easier for drivers on side streets to judge acceptable gaps in through traffic before making the turn. These turns are expected to be safer because of the shorter distance. Finally there is no median on Government Street. Opposing lanes are separated by double yellow lines about 2 feet apart. There is no protection afforded on-coming drivers when a driver is distracted and wanders out of lane. A TWLTL will provide a measure of safety by serving as a buffer for opposing through traffic movements and therefore could reduce the incidence of side swipe-opposite direction crashes, which is overrepresented on this roadway. In 2002, studies by the City of Orlando showed some positive gains after implementing similar changes by converting a four-lane roadway to three lanes. Some of the positive results were reduced crash rates and increased bicycle / pedestrian activity. For a time period of three years before and after the Road Diet implementation, crashes showed a significant drop of 34% and injury rate dropped by 68%. Pedestrian and bicycle counts increased by 23% and 30% respectively, underscoring potential benefits of a modal shift. Property values were estimated to have grown annually by an average of 8-10% for residential properties and 1-2% for commercial properties. A survey conducted in the community showed great satisfaction with the transformation.

3.1.1
IMPACT ON PEDESTRIANS
The reduction in roadway width from four lanes to three lanes will make it easier for pedestrians to cross since the travel lanes are fewer. This also implies that the time assigned to pedestrian movement can be reduced and more time can be assigned for vehicular movement at the signalized intersections. The reduced number of traffic lanes will result in safer crossings for pedestrians since exposure to live traffic will be reduced. Also the new configuration will reduce the multiple threat crash types where a driver stops in one lane of a multilane roadway to allow pedestrians to cross, and an oncoming vehicle traveling in the same direction strikes the pedestrians. 3.1.2 IMPACT ON BIKES
The space gained from the lane reduction in this alternative can be used to create new bike lanes in each direction and encourage a truly multi-modal facility catering to transit, autos, bikes and pedestrians in this corridor. The reduced number of lanes will lead to calming of traffic thus making the road safer for non-motorized users like pedestrians and bicyclists. Bikers feel secure knowing they have a dedicated lane within the right of way and it encourages more people to ride. A similar project carried out in San Francisco, California, reported 144% increase in bike usage from 85 to 215 riders during the peak PM hour. Other cities have reported improvements in bike usage as well with increments of 20-40%, after bike lanes were provided on some corridors. 3.1.3 IMPACT ON RIGHT-OF-WAY
No negative impacts of Alternative 1 on right-of-way are anticipated since it involves only restriping the lanes. The space gained from lane reduction from four lanes to three lanes could be used to provide transit stops, bike lanes, wider pedestrian walkways and landscaping, thus improving the aesthetic appeal of the corridor. Bike lanes are an essential component of multimodal, livable streets. Safety of the corridor also improves for all users as sightlines are improved. Emergency vehicles do not get trapped since motorists can move over into bike lanes to allow emergency vehicles to pass. 3.1.4 IMPACT ON ACCESS
Since the TWLTL does not consist of any positive separation between travel lanes, there will be no adverse impact to access adjoining properties. In fact, access should be enhanced since the left-turning vehicles can use the TWLTL to easily access businesses and other adjoining property. 3.1.5 COST
The estimated cost of this alternative is $300,000.00. This cost does not include milling and overlay of existing pavement. If milling and overlay are included in this alternative in order to
24

enhance the ride surface and aesthetics of the corridor, the estimated cost inclusive of milling and overlay of new wearing course will be $1,100,000.00. 3.1.6 VARIANTS OF ALTERNATIVE 1
Variants of Alternative 1 above are briefly discussed in this section. The first variant features a wider pedestrian walkway of 8 feet and a 4 feet wide bike lane on each side of the street. This variant will have identical benefits as in Alternative 1. The wider pedestrian walkway will be safer and enhance pedestrian activity. However the narrower bike lanes will make bikers feel less comfortable. Figure 11 provides an illustration of the proposed cross-section. The estimated cost of this variant is $2,600,000.00. The estimated cost inclusive of milling and overlay of new wearing course will be $3,400,000.00.

Figure 11: Cross-section showing wider walkway with Road Diet (Alternative 1, First Variant)

A second variant of Alternative 1 features a shift in the travel lanes towards the curb on the south side to provide on-street parking and a parking buffer on the north side of Government Street. Bike lanes are eliminated in this alternative. Bikers can use the bike lanes on Capital Heights Avenue which is one block south of Government Street. The buffer between parked vehicles and live traffic enables protects parked vehicle and occupants and also affords the space for bus turnouts to be constructed that do not encroach on travel lanes. This buffer enhances safety for both passenger cars and bus operations. Figure 12 shows a schematic diagram of this second variant. The estimated cost for this variant of Alternative 1 is $350,000.00. The estimated cost inclusive of milling and overlay of new wearing course will be $1,110,000.00.

Figure 12: Cross-section showing on-street parking with Road Diet (Alternative 1, Second Variant)

A third variant of Alternative 1 involves a Road Diet to reclaim part of the outer lane to provide wider sidewalks of 11 feet wide except at the bus turnouts where the sidewalks will have a minimum width of 6 feet as currently existing and the TWLTL will be eliminated. The roadway at this location will neck down to two lanes and these locations will facilitate safer pedestrian crossings. Figure 13 and Figure 14 illustrate the layout for this third variant. The cost of this project will be about $3,110,000.00. The estimated cost inclusive of milling and overlay of new wearing course will be $3,800,000.00.

Figure 13: Cross-section showing wider sidewalks with bus turnout (Alternative 1, Third Variant)

Figure 14: Plan view showing bus turnout option (Alternative 1, Third Variant)
31

3.2
ALTERNATIVE 2: ROUNDABOUTS WITH RAISED MEDIAN
This alternative will provide a raised median along the corridor and roundabouts at most of the current signalized intersections. The configuration of the affected intersections is given below: Park Boulevard: 1-lane roundabout 22nd Street: 1-lane roundabout Eugene Street: 1-lane roundabout Edison Street: 1-lane roundabout Acadian Thruway: 2-lane roundabout S. Foster Drive: 2-lane roundabout Jefferson Highway: 2-lane roundabout
All left turns onto Government Street will be eliminated at all unsignalized side streets and driveways forcing all such turns to be made at the roundabouts. Figure 15 shows the existing right of way and the proposed cross-section. Figure 16 shows a layout of the proposed roundabout with raised median. Figure 17 shows a similar layout and a snapshot of what the transformed corridor could look like. This change will reduce the number of conflicts points and make access to Government Street from side streets safer. A traditional intersection has 32 vehicular and 16 pedestrian conflict points compared to a roundabout with 8 vehicular and 8 pedestrian conflict points. Also, roundabouts are known to perform very well in calming traffic by breaking the line of sight and also deflecting the movement of vehicles thus making drivers slow down. The traffic calming effect coupled with the reduction in the number of conflict points gives it very desirable safety performance. Furthermore drivers make only right turns to access any leg of the intersection therefore simplifying the decision making at the roundabout compared to other control types at an intersection. Collisions that occur in the roundabout are usually angle collisions and therefore it eliminates the often fatal right angle crashes.
32

Figure 15: Cross-section showing proposed raised median with Road Diet (Alternative 2)

Figure 16: Schematic of Roundabout with Raised Median
34

Figure 17: Segment showing raised median, through and bike lanes, and on-street parking
3.2.1
IMPACT ON PEDESTRIANS
Provision of a raised median can serve as a refuge for pedestrians crossing the street especially for the disabled and elderly who may not be able to complete a crossing from one end to the other in one stage. The raised median will provide a refuge and afford some measure of protection and make pedestrians waiting in the median feel safer. Also the new cross-section will eliminate the multiple-threat crash types at segments. At the intersections with 2 lane roundabouts, the multiple-threat crash could still occur where the entry lanes are flared to two lanes depending on the location of the pedestrian cross walk. The roundabouts may pose a challenge for pedestrians since the flow of traffic is continuous and there are no predefined stops that will allow pedestrians to have a protected or permitted phase to cross the road at the intersection. This creates a challenge for all pedestrians especially for the disabled. Visually impaired pedestrians for instance depend on traffic cues to cross the street. These cues are not present at roundabouts due to the continuous movement of traffic. Special provisions may be required to help the blind cross the intersections with roundabouts.
35

The traffic calming effects of roundabouts have been discussed above. Traffic calming makes the roadway safer for pedestrians. The consequences of vehicle-pedestrian strikes will not be as fatal. 3.2.2 IMPACT ON BIKES
Bicyclists benefit as well from the traffic calming effect that roundabouts induce, which makes the roadway safer for all users. The challenge is that the design of bike lanes through roundabouts appears to be evolving or varies from one jurisdiction to another. Some jurisdictions terminate the bike lanes before the roundabout and bicyclists therefore have to dismount and walk their bikes through the intersection using the pedestrian crossing provided. Other jurisdictions permit bicyclists to negotiate roundabouts just like any motorized vehicle would. In the former case it creates inconvenience for the bicyclists when the riders have to dismount. In the latter case, vehicles may not recognize a bicyclist in the roundabout has a right to use the roadway and may not yield thus creating unsafe situations for the bicyclist. 3.2.3 IMPACT ON RIGHT-OF-WAY
No additional right-of-way will be required along the segments. However some additional right of way may have to be acquired to implement the roundabouts especially in the case of the twolane roundabouts. The benefits discussed in Alternative 1 above are applicable in this scenario. 3.2.4 IMPACT ON ACCESS
The raised median will provide positive separation between travel lanes, effectively prohibiting left-turns into and out of side streets and driveways. The roundabouts will be used for U-turn maneuver to compensate for the deleted left-turn movements. The maximum spacing of the roundabouts is mile. Without the roundabouts, existing minor streets and driveways would lose half of their access. 3.2.5 COST
The cost was estimated based on a similar retrofit project carried out in the state. Alternative 2 recommends improvements to seven (7) intersections to either single or double lane roundabouts. The cost per improvement could be approximately $1,700,000.00 per intersection bringing the total cost to $15,210,000.00. The estimated cost inclusive of milling and overlay of new wearing course will be $15,700,000.00. Right of way acquisition cost has not been considered in this analysis.

TRAFFIC ANALYSIS April 22, 2013
4.0
TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
Stantec collected turning movement counts at the major studied intersections listed below in April 2012. The counts were performed on Tuesdays, Wednesdays, and Thursdays only between the hours of 6:00 AM - 9:00 AM and 3:00 PM 6:00 PM. The portable JAMAR manual hand held traffic count device was used to do the turning movement counts at the intersections listed below and the peak hour counts developed from the count data. No counts were taken on holidays. Government at I-110 WB Ramps Government at Eddie Robinson Government at Park Government at 22nd Government at Eugene Government at S Acadian Government at Edison Government at S Foster Government at Rebel Government at Jefferson
Traffic volumes along the rest of the minor intersections in the corridor were developed using ITE best practices. A minimum volume of 25 vehicles per hour were used for each turning movement at minor streets. Turning movement counts larger than 25 vehicles per hour were used as necessary to balance traffic between the counted major intersections. See Appendix for the traffic volumes used in the analyses. Traffic models were developed using VISSIM software (Version 5.4) for each of the different alternatives. Signalized analyses for the Road Diet alternative are supplemented by HCS analyses (Version 5.4). Roundabout analyses for the Roundabouts Alternative are supplemented by SIDRA analyses (Version 5.1). To determine the impact of each scenario, the intersections were analyzed to reveal any improvement to the Level of Service (LOS) for individual movements or effects on the overall intersection operation. The LOS was determined by calculating the delay at each approach using the model. Based on the seconds of delay, a LOS was determined for each alternative in the AM and PM peak hours. LOSs are rated from A (free flow of traffic) to F (total breakdown of traffic flow). LOS criteria for signalized intersections and roundabouts (based on the Highway Capacity Manual 2000) are presented in Table 15.

Table 15: Level of Service Criteria for Signalized Intersections and Roundabouts
Level of Service A B C D E F Delay Range (seconds) < 10 10 and < 20 20 and < 35 35 and < 55 55 and < 80 80
Each unsignalized intersection was also analyzed. LOS criteria for unsignalized intersections (based on the Highway Capacity Manual 2000) are presented in Table 16 below.
Table 16: Level of Service Criteria for Unsignalized Intersections
Level of Service A B C D E F Delay Range (seconds) < 10 10 and < 15 15 and < 25 25 and < 35 35 and < 50 50

Table 17: AM Peak Hour Level of Service Results

2012 AM Existing VISSIM Delay (sec) LOS 13.2 B 30.9 C 7.6 A 3.3 A 5.4 A 34.0 31.9 8.3 2.2 11.9 11.1 17.4 3.6 4.7 5.5 34.1 5.8 2.5 8.0 30.4 18.8 20.9 1.7 11.5 32.2 5.4 1.4 3.4 24.2 20.8 17.2 23.2 22.2 18.5 17.0 8.7 3.6 7.0 36.8 22.8 25.7 13.0 24.0 10.5 12.8 3.6 17.5 10.2 23.4 32.4 16.4 25.7 C C A A B B B A A A C A A A C B C A B C A A A C C B C C B B A A A D C C B C B B A B B C C B C 2012 AM Road Diet VISSIM Delay (sec) LOS 13.7 B 30.3 C 7.6 A 6.1 A 7.3 A 34.0 31.9 6.9 4.5 12.9 12.0 20.8 3.9 6.0 6.6 33.4 6.6 6.2 10.4 38.5 25.8 16.5 5.2 13.4 31.9 7.3 2.9 4.9 38.5 30.5 15.9 13.6 25.1 20.7 19.5 4.3 10.2 7.4 39.5 27.9 22.9 23.4 28.6 15.3 15.9 13.6 12.9 13.4 30.0 20.2 16.9 22.3 C C A A B B C A A A C A A B D C B A B C A A A D C B B C C B A B A D C C C C B B B B B C C B C HCS Delay (sec) LOS 33.9 C 32.8 C 9.5 A 6.4 A 9.8 A 34.9 31.6 6.7 11.1 17.3 34.1 32.9 4.8 6.5 9.5 34.6 6.0 10.0 12.9 38.7 34.2 14.4 5.3 13.8 33.0 3.8 5.7 5.5 43.7 36.0 26.2 30.5 34.9 30.8 34.5 5.8 7.1 8.4 46.8 45.1 24.9 27.7 35.4 34.4 6.6 32.9 22.1 50.2 20.3 22.4 31.7 C C A B B C C A A A C A B B D C B A B C A A A D D C C C C C A A A D D C C D C A C C D C C C 2012 AM Roundabout VISSIM Delay (sec) LOS 18.6 B 43.1 D 5.0 A 5.8 A 7.4 A SIGNALIZED 42.6 D 32.7 C 7.8 A 25.1 C 26.6 C 98.1 2.1 9.3 23.1 7.6 13.0 7.6 8.4 8.6 9.5 6.1 7.5 42.9 21.5 61.3 20.8 18.4 30.3 26.7 19.6 9.9 9.2 19.1 15.2 17.6 4.2 13.6 11.5 F A A C A B A A A A A A D C E C B C C B A A B B B A B B SIDRA Delay (sec) LOS 24.6 15.2 6.8 199.2 90.6 38.5 12.2 30.7 26.2 23.1 20.4 10.2 91.6 51.1 22.1 16.7 8.1 38.9 23.5 22.4 25.5 45.1 103.7 72.8 19.4 30.1 15.1 60.9 34.7 15.9 5.7 19.8 13.2 C B A F F D B C C C C B F D C B A D C C C D F E B C B E C B A B B
Government at Eddie Robinson Northbound (Eddie Robinson) Southbound (Eddie Robinson) Eastbound (Government) Westbound (Government) Overall Government at Park Northbound (Park) Southbound (Park) Eastbound (Government) Westbound (Government) Overall Government at Camelia Northbound (Camelia) Southbound (Camelia) Eastbound (Government) Westbound (Government) Overall Government at 22nd Southbound (22nd) Eastbound (Government) Westbound (Government) Overall Government at Eugene Northbound (Eugene) Southbound (Eugene) Eastbound (Government) Westbound (Government) Overall Government at Hearthstone Northbound (Hearthstone) Eastbound (Government) Westbound (Government) Overall Government at S Acadian Northbound (S Acadian) Southbound (S Acadian) Eastbound (Government) Westbound (Government) Overall Government at Edison Northbound (Edison) Southbound (Edison) Eastbound (Government) Westbound (Government) Overall Government at S Foster Northbound (S Foster) Southbound (S Foster) Eastbound (Government) Westbound (Government) Overall Government at Community College Northbound (Rebel) Southbound (Rebel) Eastbound (Government) Westbound (Government) Overall Government at Jefferson Northbound (Jefferson) Eastbound (Government) Westbound (Government) Overall

Table 18: PM Peak Hour Level of Service Results

2012 PM Existing VISSIM Delay (sec) LOS 17.3 B 31.8 C 11.5 B 20.5 C 17.8 B 25.5 29.2 10.8 15.9 17.5 13.3 20.5 9.5 9.6 10.1 35.5 11.0 16.7 18.3 32.9 23.2 18.3 4.2 14.2 31.7 20.3 13.9 17.6 26.7 26.4 40.0 22.9 29.6 20.9 19.2 21.3 18.7 20.3 42.5 24.3 38.0 59.4 40.9 12.8 17.3 8.3 24.6 14.8 27.9 8.2 15.4 14.7 C C B B B B C A A B D B B B C C B A B C C B B C C D C C C B C B C D C D E D B B A C B C A B B 2012 PM Road Diet VISSIM Delay (sec) LOS 21.9 C 48.0 D 7.9 A 9.4 A 11.3 B 33.3 41.8 9.2 10.3 17.5 27.0 38.7 4.7 6.2 7.2 43.7 9.9 15.7 19.0 45.6 31.0 22.8 9.8 20.2 52.8 6.1 2.2 4.7 38.3 37.1 13.8 19.5 25.7 27.6 26.3 9.6 8.8 10.2 43.4 28.5 36.2 41.6 37.6 20.1 27.1 10.7 22.8 16.8 40.8 16.5 22.5 24.4 C D A B B C D A A A D A B B D C C A C D A A A D D B B C C C A A B D C D D D C C B C B D B C C HCS Delay (sec) LOS 47.3 D 54.5 D 11.5 B 2.3 A 13.6 B 30.6 50.9 25.9 10.1 27.5 52.2 47.9 3.0 2.0 6.0 50.7 7.2 6.2 16.4 46.5 51.6 27.9 18.3 29.0 52.7 2.1 2.0 2.7 52.6 50.2 30.1 15.7 35.9 42.8 47.1 4.2 2.7 5.7 49.1 45.2 37.6 40.1 42.3 53.4 5.3 24.8 17.5 52.7 14.0 33.0 28.8 C D C B C D D A A A D A A B D D C B C D A A A D D C B D D D B A A D D D D D D A C B D B C C 2012 PM Roundabout VISSIM Delay (sec) LOS 24.6 C 48.3 D 17.9 B 6.7 A 15.9 B SIGNALIZED 116.6 F 176.1 F 20.6 C 16.1 B 50.2 D 134.2 7.6 7.7 27.3 23.0 30.3 36.7 9.5 25.8 17.0 28.9 19.9 31.1 26.9 130.8 54.7 16.4 33.4 29.7 68.9 37.9 28.9 25.1 41.4 22.4 6.6 8.0 11.6 F A A C C C D A C B C B C C F D B C C E D C C D C A A B SIDRA Delay (sec) LOS 19.7 109.1 410.5 11.4 211.3 97.2 248.8 6.8 129.2 25.3 53.3 488.3 12.2 269.5 50.4 39.2 182.2 49.7 96.9 25.3 24.4 273.5 67.7 180.6 59.5 99.8 258.6 83.8 139.3 22.5 8.4 17.7 13.9 B F F B F F F A F C D F B F D D F D F C C F E F E F F F F C A B B
Government at Eddie Robinson Northbound (Eddie Robinson) Southbound (Eddie Robinson) Eastbound (Government) Westbound (Government) Overall Government at Park Northbound (Park) Southbound (Park) Eastbound (Government) Westbound (Government) Overall Government at Camelia Northbound (Camelia) Southbound (Camelia) Eastbound (Government) Westbound (Government) Overall Government at 22nd Southbound (22nd) Eastbound (Government) Westbound (Government) Overall Government at Eugene Northbound (Eugene) Southbound (Eugene) Eastbound (Government) Westbound (Government) Overall Government at Hearthstone Northbound (Hearthstone) Eastbound (Government) Westbound (Government) Overall Government at S Acadian Northbound (S Acadian) Southbound (S Acadian) Eastbound (Government) Westbound (Government) Overall Government at Edison Northbound (Edison) Southbound (Edison) Eastbound (Government) Westbound (Government) Overall Government at S Foster Northbound (S Foster) Southbound (S Foster) Eastbound (Government) Westbound (Government) Overall Government at Community College Northbound (Rebel) Southbound (Rebel) Eastbound (Government) Westbound (Government) Overall Government at Jefferson Northbound (Jefferson) Eastbound (Government) Westbound (Government) Overall

Table 19: AM Peak Hour Travel Time Results (from Interstate 110 to Jefferson Highway)
2012 AM Existing (minutes) EB WB 7.9 6.9 3-Lane Road Diet (minutes) 7.8 7.6 % change -1% 10% Roundabout % change (minutes) 7.3 9.4 -7% 37%
Table 20: PM Peak Hour Travel Time Results (from Interstate 110 to Jefferson Highway)
2012 PM Existing (minutes) EB WB 9.3 10.1 3-Lane Road Diet (minutes) 8.1 9.0 % change -13% -11% Roundabout % change (minutes) 11.0 9.7 19% -4%

CONCLUSION April 22, 2013
5.0
CONCLUSION
5.1
SAFETY
The predominant crash types that have occurred on Government Street are rear end, left turn, right angle and side swipe related crashes. The geometric features of Government Street contributed to the overrepresentation of these crash types. The lack of medians and turning lanes contributed to the overrepresentation of side swipe and rear end crashes. These types of crashes can be reduced with the provision of left turn pockets so that turning vehicles have refuge from through vehicles. The proposed alternatives offer improved safety for this corridor either by eliminating or reducing conflict points. Alternative 1, which provides a Two-Way-Left-Turn-Lane (TWLTL) or Center Turn Lane, will potentially reduce the frequency of a broad range of crash types such as rear end, right angle, side swipe, and left turn crashes experienced on Government Street. The shorter width of the roadway will make it safer for pedestrians to cross. Also vehicles at the intersection will require a shorter time to traverse the intersection. There will be a reduction in number of lanes, but this is not expected to significantly adversely impact the capacity compared to the existing condition since left turning vehicles block through lanes and the inner lanes essentially operate as de facto left turn lanes. Alternative 2 consists of roundabouts and a raised median that will eliminate all left turns to and from Government Street except at the roundabouts. Elimination of this movement from driveways and other side streets will help promote access management. Foster Drive, which is the only intersection with abnormal crash rates on Government Street, if converted into a roundabout will have safety improvements as already discussed. Alternative 2 will also reduce crash types such as rear end, right angle, side swipe, and left turn crashes which are predominant on Government Street.
5.2
LEVEL OF SERVICE
The capacity analysis for the existing and the two other proposed alternatives have been summarized in Table 17 and Table 18. Alternative 1 (TWLTL) performed nearly as well as the existing condition based on the outputs from the model. This alternative performs at LOS D or better based on the VISSIM outputs. Highway Capacity Software (HCS) models were created for Alternative 1 in order to verify the VISSIM results. The HCS results for some intersections contain levels of service that are slightly worse than the VISSIM results for Alternative 1, but are comparable to the existing condition results in VISSIM. Since the HCS and VISSIM software packages use different methods to determine delay, it is difficult to determine a direct comparison between the models. But the fact

that both VISSIM and HCS produce acceptable results for Alternative 1 along the entire corridor highlights the benefits of this alternative. Alternative 1 proposes a consistent three lane cross-section throughout the entire corridor. The only exception to this cross-section occurs at the intersection of Government Street and S Foster Drive. This intersection will need to maintain two eastbound through lanes to maintain the preferred signal phasing. This configuration will require both of the bike lanes to merge into the exterior vehicular travel lanes and proceed through the intersection in these shared lanes until the three lane cross-section is restored on the other side. As an alternate proposal to continue the dedicated bike lanes through the intersection, the protected left turn movements at the intersection would need to be replaced with permissive-only left turns. This configuration allows the three lane cross-section to be maintained through the intersection with only one eastbound through lane. This results in an acceptable level of service at the intersection, as seen in Table 21 and Table 22, but this phasing was not considered acceptable. Therefore, the proposed configuration contains two eastbound through lanes and shared bike lanes through the intersection.
Table 21: AM Peak Hour Level of Service Results, Government Street at N Foster Drive
Government at S Foster Northbound (S Foster) Southbound (S Foster) Eastbound (Government) Westbound (Government) Overall
2012 AM Road Diet Proposed Configuration Alternate Configuration Protected Lefts Permissive Lefts Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS 46.8 D 30.2 C 45.1 D 33.1 C 24.9 C 15.3 B 27.7 C 14.7 B 35.4 D 22.6 C
Table 22: PM Peak Hour Level of Service Results, Government Street at N Foster Drive
Government at S Foster Northbound (S Foster) Southbound (S Foster) Eastbound (Government) Westbound (Government) Overall
2012 PM Road Diet Proposed Configuration Alternate Configuration Protected Lefts Permissive Lefts Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS 49.1 D 62.1 E 45.2 D 57.5 E 37.6 D 49.0 D 40.1 D 54.4 D 42.3 D 54.9 D
There was some conflicting information in the results for Alternative 2 (Roundabouts with raised median). According to the VISSIM results, this alternative performs acceptably well, but the

SIDRA results indicate several failing intersections. The difference in the reported results stems from the modeling methodologies, and the data from each model is informative in different ways. The SIDRA model analyzes each roundabout as a separate isolated intersection. Based on the results of SIDRA analysis, the modeled volumes on the corridor exceed the capacity available from roundabout conversions. The VISSIM model, however, seems to contradict this. The reason for this discrepancy is that the VISSIM model analyzes several roundabouts in sequence. The roundabouts create long, but well-moving, queues in the eastbound and westbound directions. These queues inhibit vehicles on the north / south minor streets from turning onto Government Street. Therefore, the total predicted traffic volumes are unable to access Government Street and the roundabouts. The seemingly acceptable levels of service in the VISSIM Roundabouts model are the result of this decreased volume. The significant benefits of transforming Government Street into a Complete Street (social equity, economic, environmental and safety), as discussed in the report, makes a compelling argument for these alternatives to be considered for implementation.
5.3
RECOMMENDATION
The FuturEBR document and DOTD policy both make a compelling case for Complete Streets as the only sustainable transportation policy that will meet the needs of today and the future. The proposed alternatives will enhance the safety of the corridor, and improve the diversity of transportation options if the removed lanes are converted to bike lanes and better pedestrian facilities. Furthermore it will enhance the character and appeal of the corridor if green spaces are also provided. Based on the feasibility of the alternatives provided in this report, Alternative 1 is the preferred alternative. While safety improvements are gained from the two alternatives, Alternative 1 does provide significant improvements over the existing condition. In terms of the performance of the facility from an operations perspective, Alternative 1 performed better than Alternative 2. One of the most significant concerns for modifying the corridor is to not materially impact operations. It should be noted that the corridor experiences significant commuter traffic. In the off-peak periods, there is excess capacity. Alternative 1 is also preferred since it will not impact access to existing businesses. In fact, access should be enhanced due to the center turn lane. Another critical component to making the project a reality is cost and constructability. Alternative 1 will consist mainly of restriping and signing, while Alternative 2 will require a raised median throughout the corridor as well as replacing exiting signals with roundabouts. Given the fact the DOTD has immediate plans to replace the existing signals along Government Street, this would be significant expense. Finally, Alternative 2 would require some additional right of way to accommodate the roundabouts. Table 23 draws some contrasts between the existing and proposed alternatives.

Table 23: Impact of proposed Road Diet alternatives

Geometric Design Capacity Transit Bike Pedestrians Safety Aesthetics
Existing
Benefits of 2-lanes not realized during Crossing four lanes of traffic to get to No bike lanes are provided and rush hour since turning vehicles use the inner lane as de facto left turn lane. Also, vehicles turning from behind stopped vehicles impede flow of adjacent through lane thus further reducing the capacity of outer lane. transit can be onerous for pedestrians there are virtually no shoulders especially during rush hour. This may on either side to accommodate discourage transit use. riders
Sidewalks are very close to live lanes with little buffer. Pedestrians have to
Safety analysis shows over representation of rear end, side swipe,
Dominated by automobiles
cross four lanes of traffic, which is very and right angle crashes. This is unsafe compared to the proposed consistent with existing geometric
alternatives with fewer number of traffic features such as abnormal segment lanes. lengths
Alternative 1 (Center Turn Lane aka TWLTL with Bike Lanes)
Provision of TWLTL will remove turning vehicles from through lanes thus enhancing capacity of a single lane better than the existing. Crossing vehicles and turning vehicles from opposite side will still interfere with movement
Easier for pedestrians to get to transit New bike lanes can be provided. Sidewalks can be made wider and the on other side of street since three lanes instead of four will be crossed. Accessibility of facilities on other buffer between live vehicles can be side of street is easier than Alternative 2. improved. New streetscape will be appealing to pedestrians. Pedestrians only cross 3 lanes of traffic.
Improved safety for both automobiles and pedestrians. Provision of TWLTL should reduce rear end crashes and turn related crashes.
New streetscape will improve the aesthetic appeal. Narrower crosssection allows for less automobile dominance. Provides environment for multimodal transportation which gives an urban context.
Alternative 2
Raised median will prevent impedance Better access to transit than Alternative 1. Raised median will
New bike lanes can be provided All of the benefits of Alternative 1 in and even though accessibility is plus safer street crossing with raised median which will serve as refuge and provide positive protection against
Safety performance should be better than Alternative 1 since all turning movements will be done at the nodes.
Aesthetics will be better than Alternative 1 since raised median can be used as islands to plant
(Roundabouts with from turning vehicles and crossing raised median)
vehicles from opposite side. Speed is serve as refuge for two stage crossing restricted, bicyclists are more dependent on first vehicle in a platoon. which is safer and makes transit easily accessible. protected from left turning
Maximum number of lanes crossed will ornamental plants or shrubs
vehicles compared to Alternative errant vehicles. Pedestrians only cross be 1 as opposed to 2 in Alternative 1 1. two lanes reducing exposure to traffic.
45

APPENDIX April 22, 2013
APPENDIX
46

COST ANALYSIS April 22, 2013
COST ANALYSIS

Various cross-sections were analyzed for cost and the table below gives a summary of the cross-sections and estimated cost. Detailed cost items a presented in the subsequent tables for each option.
Cost Summary Alternative Without Wearing Course With Wearing Course (B) $1,100,000.00
Alternative 1 (Road Diet with TWLTL) -First Variant -Second Variant -Third Variant Alternative 2 (Road Diet with raised median and roundabouts)
$300,000.00
$2,600,000.00 $350,000.00 $3,110,000.00 $15,210,000.00
$3,400,000.00 $1,110,000.00 $3,800,000.00 $15,700,000.00

COST ESTIMATE ALTERNATIVE 1

TOTAL QUANTITIES 108556.8
ITEM NO. 732-0101000 732-0401080 732-0402000 731-0200100
DESCRIPTION Plastic Pavement Striping (4" Width) (Thermoplastic 90 mil) Plastic Pavement Legends and Symbols (Arrow - Left Turn) Plastic Pavement Legends and Symbols (Bicycle) Reflectorized Raised Pavement Markers Removal of Existing Pavement Marking (Milling) Signal Head, 5 Section (R, RT.Y., Y, RT.G., G) L.E.D. Signal Support (55 Single Mast Arm)
UNIT LNFT
UNIT PRICE $0.65
ITEM TOTAL $70,561.92
EACH
181
$195.56
$35,382.28
EACH
90
$359.21
$32,495.57
EACH
2724
$4.33
$11,797.00
mi
15
$3,000.00
$46,260.00
Each
10
$1,500.00
$15,000.00
Each
$15,000.00
$15,000.00
Total Cost
$226,496.77
Mobilization Contingency
8% of projected cost 20% of projected cost PROJECT TOTAL
$18,119.74 $45,299.35 $289,915.87

COST ESTIMATE ALTERNATIVE 1B

TOTAL QUANTITIES 108556.8 UNIT PRICE $0.65
ITEM NO. 732-0101000 732-0401080 732-0402000 731-0200100
DESCRIPTION Plastic Pavement Striping (4" Width) (Thermoplastic 90 mil) Plastic Pavement Legends and Symbols (Arrow - Left Turn)
UNIT LNFT
EACH
181
$195.56
$35,382.28
Plastic Pavement Legends and Symbols (Bicycle)
EACH
90
$359.21
$32,495.57
Reflectorized Raised Pavement Markers Removal of Existing Pavement Marking (Milling) Signal Head, 5 Section (R, RT.Y., Y, RT.G., G) L.E.D. Signal Support (55 Single Mast Arm)
EACH mi Each Each
2724 15 10 1
$4.33 $3,000.00 $1,500.00 $15,000.00
$11,797.00 $46,260.00 $15,000.00 $15,000.00
509-0100100 508-0100100
Cold Planing Asphaltic Pavement
SQYD
34929
$2.00
$69,858.48
Asphalt Concrete (SMA) Wearing Course
TON
3799
$142.00
$539,394.77
Total Cost
$835,750.02
$66,860.00 $167,150.00 $1,069,760.03

COST ESTIMATE ALTERNATIVE 1 (First Variant)

ITEM NO. 732-01-01000
DESCRIPTION Plastic Pavement Striping (4" Width) (Thermoplastic 90 mil) Plastic Pavement Legends and Symbols (Arrow - Left Turn) Plastic Pavement Legends and Symbols (Bicycle) Reflectorized Raised Pavement Markers Removal of Existing Pavement Marking (Milling) Signal Head, 5 Section (R, RT.Y., Y, RT.G., G) L.E.D. Signal Support (55 Single Mast Arm) Reconstruction of curbs, walkways and driveways
UNIT LNFT
UNIT PRICE $0.65
732-04-01080
EACH
181
$195.56
$35,382.28
732-04-02000 731-02-00100
EACH EACH
90 2724
$359.21 $4.33
$32,495.57 $11,797.00
mi
15
$3,000.00
$46,260.00
Each Each
10 1
$1,500.00 $15,000.00
$15,000.00 $15,000.00
LUMP
$1,800,000.00
Total Cost Mobilization Contingency 8% of projected cost 20% of projected cost PROJECT TOTAL
$2,026,496.77 $162,119.74 $405,299.35 $2,593,915.87

COST ESTIMATE ALTERNATIVE 1 (First Variant B)

ITEM NO. 732-01-01000
UNIT LNFT
732-04-01080
EACH
181
$195.56
$35,382.28
732-04-02000 731-02-00100
EACH EACH
90 2724
$359.21 $4.33
$32,495.57 $11,797.00
mi
15
$3,000.00
$46,260.00
Each Each
10 1
$1,500.00 $15,000.00
$15,000.00 $15,000.00
LUMP SQYD TON 32466 3531 $2.00 $142.00
$1,800,000.00 $64,931.01 $501,348.57
509-01-00100 508-01-00100
Cold Planing Asphaltic Pavement Asphalt Concrete (SMA) Wearing Course
$2,592,776.35 $207,422.11 $518,555.27 $3,318,753.73

COST ESTIMATE ALTERNATIVE 1 (Second Variant)

ITEM NO. 732-01-01000
DESCRIPTION Plastic Pavement Striping (4" Width) (Thermoplastic 90 mil) Plastic Pavement Legends and Symbols (Arrow - Left Turn) Plastic Pavement Legends and Symbols (Other) Reflectorized Raised Pavement Markers Removal of Existing Pavement Marking (Milling) Signal Head, 5 Section (R, RT.Y., Y, RT.G., G) L.E.D. Removal of Existing Pavement Marking
UNIT LNFT
UNIT PRICE $0.65
732-04-01080
EACH
181
$195.56
$35,382.28
732-04-02000 731-02-00100
EACH EACH
90 2724
$359.21 $4.33
$32,495.57 $11,797.00
mi
15
$3,000.00
$46,260.00
Each mi
10 15
$1,500.00 $3,000.00
$15,000.00 $46,260.00
Total Cost
$257,756.77
8% of projected cost 20% of projected cost
$20,620.54 $51,551.35
PROJECT TOTAL
$329,928.67

COST ESTIMATE ALTERNATIVE 1 (Second Variant B)

ITEM NO. 732-0101000 732-0401080 732-0402000 731-0200100
UNIT LNFT
EACH
181
$195.56
$35,382.28
Plastic Pavement Legends and Symbols (Other)
EACH
90
$359.21
$32,495.57
Reflectorized Raised Pavement Markers Removal of Existing Pavement Marking (Milling) Signal Head, 5 Section (R, RT.Y., Y, RT.G., G) L.E.D. Removal of Existing Pavement Marking
EACH mi Each mi
2724 15 10 15
$4.33 $3,000.00 $1,500.00 $3,000.00
$11,797.00 $46,260.00 $15,000.00 $46,260.00
509-0100100 508-0100100
SQYD
34805
$2.00
$69,609.87
TON
3785
$142.00
$537,475.22
Total Cost
$864,841.86
8% of projected cost 20% of projected cost
$69,187.35 $172,968.37
PROJECT TOTAL
$1,106,997.58

COST ESTIMATE ALTERNATIVE 1 (Third Variant)

ITEM NO. 732-01-01000
UNIT LNFT
UNIT PRICE $0.65
732-04-01080
EACH
181
$195.56
$35,382.28
732-04-02000 731-02-00100
EACH EACH
90 2724
$359.21 $4.33
$32,495.57 $11,797.00
mi
15
$3,000.00
$46,260.00
Each Each
10 1
$1,500.00 $15,000.00
$15,000.00 $15,000.00
LUMP
$2,200,000.00
$2,426,496.77 $194,119.74 $485,299.35 $3,105,915.87

COST ESTIMATE ALTERNATIVE 1 (Third Variant B)

ITEM NO. 732-0101000 732-0401080 732-0402000 731-0200100
UNIT LNFT
EACH
181
$195.56
$35,382.28
Plastic Pavement Legends and Symbols (Bicycle)
EACH
90
$359.21
$32,495.57
Reflectorized Raised Pavement Markers Removal of Existing Pavement Marking (Milling) Signal Head, 5 Section (R, RT.Y., Y, RT.G., G) L.E.D. Signal Support (55 Single Mast Arm) Reconstruction of curbs, walkways and driveways
EACH mi Each Each LUMP
2724 15 10 1
$4.33 $3,000.00 $1,500.00 $15,000.00
$11,797.00 $46,260.00 $15,000.00 $15,000.00 $2,200,000.00
509-0100100 508-0100100
SQYD
28860
$2.00
$57,719.77
TON
3139
$142.00
$445,668.79
$2,929,885.33 $234,390.83 $585,977.07 $3,750,253.22

COST ESTIMATE ALTERNATIVE 2

Total Quantities 7
Item Roundabout Construction
Description Intersections will be retrofitted into roundabouts Construction of 12' landscaped raised median Landscaping Irrigation Curbs, Walks and Drives Drainage Work Removal of Asphaltic Concrete Pavement
Unit Each
Unit Price $1,250,759.55
Total $8,755,316.85
Raised Median
Lump Lump Lump Lump Sq. Yd Lump 18145 7 $10.00 $13,000.00
$635,000.00 $420,000.00 $1,700,000.00 $100,000.00 $181,450.37 $91,000.00
Removal of Signals
Remove existing signal systems
Total Mobilization Contingency 8% of projected cost 20% of projected cost PROJECT TOTAL
$11,882,767.22 $950,621.38 $2,376,553.44 $15,209,942.04

COST ESTIMATE ALTERNATIVE 2 B

Total Quantities 7
Item Roundabout Construction Raised Median
Description Intersections will be retrofitted into roundabouts Construction of 12' landscaped raised median Landscaping Irrigation Curbs, Walks and Drives Drainage Work Removal of Asphaltic Concrete Pavement
Unit Each
Unit Price $1,250,759.55
Total $8,755,316.85
Lump Lump Lump Lump Sq. Yd 18145 $10.00
$635,000.00 $420,000.00 $1,700,000.00 $100,000.00 $181,450.37
Removal of Signals 509-01-00100 508-01-00100
Remove existing signal systems Cold Planing Asphaltic Pavement Asphalt Concrete (SMA) Wearing Course Total
Lump SQYD TON
7 20403 2219
$13,000.00 $2.00 $142.00
$91,000.00 $40,805.69 $315,070.90 $12,238,643.81 $979,091.50 $2,447,728.76
$15,665,464.07

TRAFFIC ANALYSIS

APPENDIX B April 22, 2013
Figure 18: 2012 AM Existing Traffic Volumes Segment 1


APPENDIX A April 22, 2013






Figure 26: 2012 PM Existing Traffic Volumes Segment 1






APPENDIX A April 22, 2013 Figure 32: 2012 PM Existing Traffic Volumes Segment 7


HCS ANALYSIS
Detailed Report
Page 1 of 2
HCS+ DETAILED REPORT

General Information Analyst JML Agency or Co. ABMB Engineers, Inc. Date Performed 08/13/2012 Time Period AM Site Information Government at Eddie Intersection Robinson Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction East Baton Rouge Analysis Year 2012 Project ID 2272 WB TH 1 TR 597 2 0.92 NB TH 1 LTR 6 2 0.92 SB TH 1 LTR 10 2 0.92
Volume and Timing Input LT RT LT RT LT RT LT RT Number of Lanes, N1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Group L L Volume, V (vph) 24 7 35 13 21 35 17 11 % Heavy Vehicles, %HV 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Pretimed (P) or Actuated P P P P P P P P P P P P (A) Start-up Lost Time, l1 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Green, e Arrival Type, AT 3 3 3 4 3 3 Unit Extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering/Metering, I 1.000 1.000 0.645 0.645 1.000 1.000 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Volumes Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N N N 0 N 0 Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Gp Phasing EW Perm 02 03 04 NS Perm 06 07 08 G = 67.0 G = 0.0 G = 0.0 G= G = 24.0 G = G= G= Timing Y= 6 Y= 0 Y= 0 Y= Y= 8 Y= Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 105.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 26 406 38 663 68 41 Lane Group Capacity, c v/c Ratio, X Total Green Ratio, g/C Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor, PF Delay Calibration, k Incremental Delay, d2 452 0.06 0.64 7.1 1185 0.34 0.64 8.8 576 0.07 0.64 7.2 1185 0.56 0.64 10.7 352 0.19 0.23 32.7 1.000 0.50 1.2 354 0.12 0.23 32.1 1.000 0.50 0.7 EB TH 1 TR 366 2 0.92
1.000 1.000 0.50 0.2 0.50 0.8
1.000 0.474 0.50 0.1 0.50 1.2
file://C:\Users\jlefante\AppData\Local\Temp\s2k4238.tmp
1/28/2013
Detailed Report
Page 2 of 2
Initial Queue Delay, d3 Control Delay Lane Group LOS Approach Delay Approach LOS Intersection Delay
0.0 7.4 A
0.0 9.6 A 9.5 A 9.8
0.0 7.3 A
0.0 6.3 A 6.4 A
0.0 33.9 C 33.9 C Intersection LOS

HCS+TM Version 5.4
0.0 32.8 C 32.8 C A

Generated: 1/28/2013 5:17 PM
XC = 0.46
Copyright 2008 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved
1/28/2013
Detailed Report
Page 1 of 2

General Information Analyst JML Agency or Co. ABMB Engineers, Inc. Date Performed 08/13/2012 AM Time Period Volume and Timing Input LT EB TH RT 1 0 TR 373 19 2 2 0.92 0.92 LT WB TH RT 1 0 TR 662 82 2 2 0.92 0.92 LT NB TH RT 1 1 T R 281 83 2 2 0.92 0.92 LT SB TH RT 1 0 TR 135 30 2 2 0.92 0.92 Site Information Intersection Government at Park Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction East Baton Rouge Analysis Year 2012 Project ID 2272
Number of Lanes, N1 Lane Group Volume, V (vph) % Heavy Vehicles, %HV Peak-Hour Factor, PHF Pretimed (P) or Actuated P P P P P P P P (A) Start-up Lost Time, l1 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Green, e Arrival Type, AT 4 4 3 3 3 Unit Extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering/Metering, I 0.958 0.789 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR Volumes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N N N 0 N 0 Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Gp Phasing EW Perm 02 03 04 NS Perm 06 07 08 G = 64.0 G = 0.0 G = 0.0 G= G = 30.0 G = G= G= Timing Y= 6 Y= 0 Y= 0 Y= Y= 5 Y= Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 105.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 426 809 305 90 180 Lane Group Capacity, c v/c Ratio, X Total Green Ratio, g/C Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor, PF Delay Calibration, k Incremental Delay, d2 Initial Queue Delay, d3 1128 0.38 0.61 10.4 0.552 0.50 0.9 0.0 1118 0.72 0.61 14.3 0.552 0.50 3.2 0.0 532 0.57 0.29 32.0 1.000 0.50 4.4 0.0 452 0.20 0.29 28.4 1.000 0.50 1.0 0.0 519 0.35 0.29 29.7 1.000 0.50 1.8 0.0
file://C:\Users\jlefante\AppData\Local\Temp\s2k309B.tmp
1/28/2013
Detailed Report
Page 2 of 2
Control Delay Lane Group LOS Approach Delay Approach LOS Intersection Delay
6.7 A 6.7 A 17.3
11.1 B 11.1 B XC = 0.68
36.5 D 34.9 C
29.4 C
31.6 C 31.6 C B
Intersection LOS
HCS+TM Version 5.4
Generated: 1/28/2013
5:18 PM
file://C:\Users\jlefante\AppData\Local\Temp\s2k309B.tmp
1/28/2013
Detailed Report
Page 1 of 2

General Information Analyst JML Agency or Co. ABMB Engineers, Inc. Date Performed 08/13/2012 AM Time Period Volume and Timing Input RT Number of Lanes, N1 0 Lane Group LR Volume, V (vph) 25 48 54 % Heavy Vehicles, %HV 2 2 2 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 Pretimed (P) or Actuated P P P P P P P P P (A) Start-up Lost Time, l1 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Green, e Arrival Type, AT 4 3 4 3 3 3 Unit Extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering/Metering, I 0.947 0.663 0.663 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Volumes Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N N N 0 N 0 Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Gp Phasing EW Perm 02 03 04 NS Perm 06 07 08 G = 68.0 G = 0.0 G = 0.0 G= G = 25.0 G = G= G= Timing Y= 6 Y= 0 Y= 0 Y= Y= 6 Y= Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 105.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 468 27 752 79 27 86 Lane Group Capacity, c v/c Ratio, X Total Green Ratio, g/C Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor, PF Delay Calibration, k Incremental Delay, d2 1197 0.39 0.65 8.7 0.445 0.50 0.9 596 0.05 0.65 6.7 1207 0.62 0.65 10.9 324 0.24 0.24 32.4 1.000 0.50 1.8 421 0.06 0.24 30.9 398 0.22 0.24 32.1 LT EB TH RT 1 0 TR 406 25 2 2 0.92 0.92 LT 1 L 25 2 0.92 WB TH 1 T 692 2 0.92 RT LT 0 NB TH RT 0 LT 1 L 25 2 0.92 SB TH 1 TR 25 2 0.92 Site Information Intersection Government at Camelia Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction East Baton Rouge Analysis Year 2012 Project ID 2272
1.000 0.445 0.50 0.1 0.50 1.6
1.000 1.000 0.50 0.3 0.50 1.2
file://C:\Users\jlefante\AppData\Local\Temp\s2k86B6.tmp
1/28/2013
Detailed Report
Page 2 of 2
0.0 4.8 A 4.8 A 9.5
0.0 6.8 A
0.0 6.5 A 6.5 A

HCS+TM Version 5.4
0.0 31.2 C
0.0 33.4 C 32.9 C A
XC = 0.52
5:19 PM
1/28/2013
Detailed Report
Page 1 of 2

General Information Analyst JML Agency or Co. ABMB Engineers, Inc. Date Performed 08/13/2012 AM Time Period Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes, N1 1 1 1 0 1 1 Lane Group L T TR L R Volume, V (vph) 103 376 608 198 147 109 % Heavy Vehicles, %HV 2 2 2 2 2 2 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Pretimed (P) or Actuated (A) P P P P P P Start-up Lost Time, l1 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Green, e Arrival Type, AT 3 4 4 3 3 Unit Extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering/Metering, I 0.942 0.942 0.756 1.000 1.000 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR Volumes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N N N 0 N 0 Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Gp Phasing EW Perm 02 03 04 SB Only 06 07 08 G = 67.0 G = 0.0 G = 0.0 G= G = 26.0 G = G= G= Timing Y= 6 Y= 0 Y= 0 Y= Y= 6 Y= Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 105.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 112 409 876 160 118 Lane Group Capacity, c v/c Ratio, X Total Green Ratio, g/C Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor, PF Delay Calibration, k Incremental Delay, d2 Initial Queue Delay, d3 392 0.29 0.64 8.4 1189 0.34 0.64 8.8 1149 0.76 0.64 13.4 0.474 0.50 3.7 0.0 10.0 438 0.37 0.25 32.7 1.000 0.50 2.3 0.0 35.0 392 0.30 0.25 32.1 1.000 0.50 2.0 0.0 34.1 Site Information Intersection Government at 22nd Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction East Baton Rouge Analysis Year 2012 Project ID 2272
1.000 0.474 0.50 1.7 0.0 10.1 0.50 0.7 0.0 4.9
file://C:\Users\jlefante\AppData\Local\Temp\s2kFA30.tmp
1/28/2013
Detailed Report
Page 2 of 2
Control Delay Lane Group LOS Approach Delay Approach LOS Intersection Delay B 6.0 A 12.9 A B 10.0 B XC = 0.65 Intersection LOS
HCS+TM Version 5.4
D 34.6 C B
5:20 PM
file://C:\Users\jlefante\AppData\Local\Temp\s2kFA30.tmp
1/28/2013
Detailed Report
Page 1 of 2

General Information Analyst JML Agency or Co. ABMB Engineers, Inc. Date Performed 08/13/2012 AM Time Period Volume and Timing Input RT Number of Lanes, N1 1 Lane Group R Volume, V (vph) 32 30 75 8 % Heavy Vehicles, %HV 2 2 2 2 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Pretimed (P) or Actuated P P P P P P P P P P P P (A) Start-up Lost Time, l1 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Green, e Arrival Type, AT 3 4 3 4 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering/Metering, I 0.946 0.946 0.623 0.623 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Volumes Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N N N 0 N 0 Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Gp Phasing WB Only EW Perm 03 04 NS Perm 06 07 08 G = 9.0 G = 56.0 G = 0.0 G= G = 22.0 G = G= G= Timing Y= 6 Y= 6 Y= 0 Y= Y= 6 Y= Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 105.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 8 588 52 820 64 154 29 43 9 Lane Group Capacity, c 354 v/c Ratio, X Total Green Ratio, g/C Uniform Delay, d1 Delay Calibration, k Incremental Delay, d2 0.02 0.53 11.6 985 0.60 0.53 16.8 501 0.10 0.68 7.2 1252 0.65 0.68 9.9 285 0.22 0.21 34.4 1.000 0.50 1.8 359 0.43 0.21 36.0 1.000 0.50 3.7 237 0.12 0.21 33.7 390 0.11 0.21 33.6 332 0.03 0.21 33.0 LT 1 L 7 2 0.92 EB TH 1 TR 509 2 0.92 RT 0 LT 1 L 48 2 0.92 WB TH 1 TR 724 2 0.92 RT 0 LT 1 L 59 2 0.92 NB TH 1 TR 66 2 0.92 RT 0 LT 1 L 27 2 0.92 SB TH 1 T 40 2 0.92 Site Information Intersection Government at Eugene Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction East Baton Rouge Analysis Year 2012 Project ID 2272
Progression Factor, PF 1.000 0.712 0.50 0.1 0.50 2.5
1.000 0.350 0.50 0.3 0.50 1.7
1.000 1.000 1.000 0.50 1.1 0.50 0.6 0.50 0.2
1/28/2013
Detailed Report
Page 2 of 2
0.0 11.7 B
0.0 14.5 B 14.4 B 13.8
0.0 7.5 A
0.0 5.1 A 5.3 A
0.0 36.2 D
0.0 39.8 D 38.7 D
0.0 34.7 C
0.0 34.2 C 34.2 C B
0.0 33.1 C
XC = 0.60
HCS+TM
Intersection LOS
Version 5.4
5:20 PM
1/28/2013
Detailed Report
Page 1 of 2

General Information Analyst JML Agency or Co. ABMB Engineers, Inc. Date Performed 08/13/2012 AM Time Period Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes, N1 1 1 1 0 1 Lane Group L T TR R Volume, V (vph) 25 525 802 25 25 % Heavy Vehicles, %HV 2 2 2 2 2 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Pretimed (P) or Actuated (A) P P P P P Start-up Lost Time, l1 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Green, e Arrival Type, AT 3 4 4 3 Unit Extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering/Metering, I 0.809 0.809 0.557 1.000 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR Volumes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N N N 0 N 0 Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Gp Phasing EW Perm 02 03 04 NB Only 06 07 08 G = 71.0 G = 0.0 G= G= G = 23.0 G = G= G= Timing Y= 6 Y= 0 Y= Y= Y= 5 Y= Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 105.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 27 571 899 27 Lane Group Capacity, c v/c Ratio, X Total Green Ratio, g/C Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor, PF Delay Calibration, k Incremental Delay, d2 Initial Queue Delay, d3 417 0.06 0.68 5.8 1260 0.45 0.68 7.9 1254 0.72 0.68 10.7 0.350 0.50 2.0 0.0 5.7 353 0.08 0.22 32.6 1.000 0.50 0.4 0.0 33.0 Site Information Intersection Government at Hearthstone Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction East Baton Rouge Analysis Year 2012 Project ID 2272
1.000 0.350 0.50 0.2 0.0 6.0 0.50 1.0 0.0 3.7
file://C:\Users\jlefante\AppData\Local\Temp\s2kE163.tmp
1/28/2013
Detailed Report
Page 2 of 2
Control Delay Lane Group LOS Approach Delay Approach LOS Intersection Delay A 3.8 A 5.5 A A 5.7 A XC = 0.56 33.0 C Intersection LOS A
Generated: 1/28/2013 5:20 PM
HCS+TM Version 5.4
file://C:\Users\jlefante\AppData\Local\Temp\s2kE163.tmp
1/28/2013
Detailed Report
Page 1 of 2

General Information Analyst JML Agency or Co. ABMB Engineers, Inc. Date Performed 08/13/2012 AM Time Period Volume and Timing Input LT EB TH RT 1 1 T R 491 59 2 2 0.92 0.92 LT WB TH RT 1 1 T R 597 138 2 2 0.92 0.92 LT 1 L 169 2 0.92 NB TH 2 T 589 2 0.92 P 2.0 2.0 RT 1 R 102 2 0.92 P 2.0 2.0 LT 1 L 77 2 0.92 P 2.0 2.0 SB TH 2 T 350 2 0.92 P 2.0 2.0 RT 1 R 63 2 0.92 P 2.0 2.0 Site Information Intersection Government at S Acadian Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction East Baton Rouge Analysis Year 2012 Project ID 2272
Number of Lanes, N1 Lane Group Volume, V (vph) % Heavy Vehicles, %HV Peak-Hour Factor, PHF Pretimed (P) or Actuated P P P P P (A) Start-up Lost Time, l1 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Green, e Arrival Type, AT 4 3 4 3 3 Unit Extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering/Metering, I 0.903 0.903 0.722 0.722 1.000 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Volumes Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, 3.2 3.2 Gp Phasing Thru & RT 02 03 04 Excl. Left G = 43.3 G = 0.0 G= G= G = 16.0 Timing Y= 6 Y= 0 Y= Y= Y= 7 Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 534 64 649 150 184 Lane Group Capacity, c v/c Ratio, X Total Green Ratio, g/C Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor, PF Delay Calibration, k Incremental Delay, d2 768 0.70 0.41 25.4 653 0.10 0.41 18.9 768 0.85 0.41 27.8 653 0.23 0.41 20.0 270 0.68 0.15 42.1
3 3 3 3 3 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 12.0 0 0 3.2 0 12.0 N 0 0 12.0 N 0 0 12.0 0 0 3.2 0 12.0 N 0
Thru & RT 07 08 G = 25.7 G= G= Y= 7 Y= Y= Cycle Length, C = 105.0 NB TH 640 868 0.74 0.24 36.5 SB TH 380 868 0.44 0.24 33.5
RT 111 387 0.29 0.24 32.2
LT 84 270 0.31 0.15 39.6
RT 68 387 0.18 0.24 31.3
0.881 1.000 0.50 4.7 0.50 0.3
0.881 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.50 8.3 0.50 0.6 0.50 13.1 0.50 5.6
1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.50 1.9 0.50 3.0 0.50 1.6 0.50 1.0
file://C:\Users\jlefante\AppData\Local\Temp\s2k32FC.tmp
1/28/2013
Detailed Report
Page 2 of 2
0.0 27.1 C 26.2 C 34.9
0.0 19.2 B
0.0 32.8 C 30.5 C XC = 0.78
0.0 20.6 C
0.0 55.2 E
0.0 42.1 D 43.7 D
0.0 34.1 C
0.0 42.6 D
0.0 35.1 D 36.0 D C
0.0 32.3 C
Intersection LOS
HCS+TM Version 5.4
5:21 PM
file://C:\Users\jlefante\AppData\Local\Temp\s2k32FC.tmp
1/28/2013
Detailed Report
Page 1 of 2

General Information Analyst JML Agency or Co. ABMB Engineers, Inc. Date Performed 08/13/2012 AM Time Period Volume and Timing Input RT Number of Lanes, N1 0 Lane Group Volume, V (vph) 2 21 4 4 55 27 % Heavy Vehicles, %HV 2 2 2 2 2 2 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Pretimed (P) or Actuated P P P P P P P P P P P P (A) Start-up Lost Time, l1 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Green, e Arrival Type, AT 3 4 3 4 3 3 Unit Extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering/Metering, I 0.776 0.776 0.746 0.746 1.000 1.000 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Volumes Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N N N 0 N 0 Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Gp Phasing EW Perm 02 03 04 NS Perm 06 07 08 G = 68.0 G = G= G= G = 25.0 G = G= G= Timing Y= 6 Y= Y= Y= Y= 6 Y= Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 105.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 18 651 0 787 11 92 Lane Group Capacity, c v/c Ratio, X Total Green Ratio, g/C Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor, PF Delay Calibration, k Incremental Delay, d2 385 0.05 0.65 6.7 1206 0.54 0.65 10.0 474 0.00 0.65 6.5 1201 0.66 0.65 11.3 392 0.03 0.24 30.7 1.000 0.50 0.1 343 0.27 0.24 32.6 1.000 0.50 1.9 LT 1 L 17 2 0.92 EB TH 1 TR 597 2 0.92 RT 0 LT 1 L 0 2 0.92 WB TH 1 TR 703 2 0.92 RT 0 LT 0 NB TH 1 LTR 3 2 0.92 RT 0 LT 0 SB TH 1 LTR 3 2 0.92 Site Information Intersection Government at Edison Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction East Baton Rouge Analysis Year 2012 Project ID 2272
1.000 0.445 0.50 0.2 0.50 1.3
1.000 0.445 0.50 0.0 0.50 2.1
file://C:\Users\jlefante\AppData\Local\Temp\s2k80EC.tmp
1/28/2013
Detailed Report
Page 2 of 2
0.0 6.9 A
0.0 5.8 A 5.8 A 8.4
0.0 6.5 A
0.0 7.1 A 7.1 A

HCS+TM Version 5.4
0.0 34.5 C 34.5 C A

Generated: 1/28/2013 5:21 PM
XC = 0.55
file://C:\Users\jlefante\AppData\Local\Temp\s2k80EC.tmp
1/28/2013
Detailed Report
Page 1 of 2

General Information Analyst JML Agency or Co. ABMB Engineers, Inc. Date Performed 08/13/2012 AM Time Period Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes, N1 1 2 0 1 1 1 1 2 0 2 2 1 Lane Group L TR L T R L TR L T R Volume, V (vph) 131 453 42 54 674 153 106 448 51 154 358 154 % Heavy Vehicles, %HV 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Pretimed (P) or Actuated A P P A P P A A A A A A (A) Start-up Lost Time, l1 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Green, e Arrival Type, AT 3 4 3 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering/Metering, I 0.847 0.847 0.279 0.279 0.279 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Volumes Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N N N 0 N 0 Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. Time for 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Pedestrians, Gp Phasing WB Only EW Perm EB Only 04 NB Only Thru & RT SB Only 08 G = 5.0 G = 35.0 G = 4.0 G= G = 11.0 G = 5.0 G = 8.0 G= Timing Y= 7 Y= 7 Y= 7 Y= Y= 7 Y= 7 Y= 7 Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 110.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 142 538 59 733 166 115 542 167 389 167 Lane Group Capacity, c 254 v/c Ratio, X 0.56 1464 0.37 0.42 22.0 327 0.18 0.43 19.1 796 0.92 0.43 29.7 892 0.19 0.56 11.7 177 0.65 0.10 47.6 730 0.74 0.21 40.7 250 0.67 0.07 49.7 645 0.60 0.18 41.4 345 0.48 0.22 37.6 Site Information Intersection Government at S Foster Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction East Baton Rouge Analysis Year 2012 Project ID 2272
Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.42 Uniform Delay, d1 Delay Calibration, k Incremental Delay, d2 41.9
1.000 0.864 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.11 0.1 0.50 6.2 0.11 0.0 0.23 8.1 0.30 4.1
1.000 1.000 1.000 0.24 6.7 0.19 1.6 0.11 1.1
file://C:\Users\jlefante\AppData\Local\Temp\s2k524E.tmp
1/28/2013
Detailed Report
Page 2 of 2
0.0 44.3 D
0.0 19.8 B 24.9 C 35.4
0.0 19.2 B
0.0 31.9 C 27.7 C
0.0 11.7 B
0.0 55.8 E
0.0 44.8 D 46.8 D
0.0 56.4 E
0.0 43.0 D 45.1 D D
0.0 38.7 D
XC = 0.78
HCS+TM
Intersection LOS
Version 5.4
5:22 PM
file://C:\Users\jlefante\AppData\Local\Temp\s2k524E.tmp
1/28/2013
Detailed Report
Page 1 of 2

General Information Analyst JML Agency or Co. ABMB Engineers, Inc. Date Performed 08/13/2012 AM Time Period Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes, N1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 0 1 2 1 Lane Group L T R L T R L TR L T R Volume, V (vph) 131 453 42 54 674 153 106 448 51 154 358 154 % Heavy Vehicles, %HV 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Pretimed (P) or Actuated P P P P P P P P P P P P (A) Start-up Lost Time, l1 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Green, e Arrival Type, AT 3 4 3 3 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering/Metering, I 0.847 0.847 0.847 0.279 0.279 0.279 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Volumes Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N N N 0 N 0 Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. Time for 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Pedestrians, Gp Phasing EW Perm 02 03 04 NS Perm 06 07 08 G = 59.0 G = G= G= G = 37.0 G = G= G= Timing Y= 7 Y= Y= Y= Y= 7 Y= Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 110.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 142 492 46 59 733 166 115 542 167 389 167 Lane Group Capacity, c v/c Ratio, X 249 0.57 999 0.49 0.54 16.1 849 0.05 0.54 12.2 430 0.14 0.54 12.8 999 0.73 0.54 19.5 849 0.20 0.54 13.2 306 0.38 0.34 27.7 1175 0.46 0.34 28.7 231 0.72 0.34 32.0 1193 0.33 0.34 27.2 532 0.31 0.34 27.1 Site Information Intersection Govt at S Foster--perm lefts Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction East Baton Rouge Analysis Year 2012 Project ID 2272
Progression Factor, PF 1.000 0.707 1.000 1.000 0.707 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.50 7.8 0.50 1.5 0.50 0.1 0.50 0.2 0.50 1.4 0.50 0.1 0.50 3.5 0.50 1.3
1.000 1.000 1.000 0.50 17.8 0.50 0.7 0.50 1.5
file://C:\Users\jlefante\AppData\Local\Temp\s2kDA9F.tmp
1/28/2013
Detailed Report
Page 2 of 2
Initial Queue Delay, d3 0.0 Control Delay Lane Group LOS Approach Delay Approach LOS Intersection Delay 24.8 C
0.0 12.8 B 15.3 B 22.6
0.0 12.3 B
0.0 12.9 B
0.0 15.1 B 14.7 B
0.0 13.4 B
0.0 31.2 C
0.0 30.0 C 30.2 C
0.0 49.8 D
0.0 27.9 C 33.1 C C
0.0 28.6 C
XC = 0.73
HCS+TM
Intersection LOS
Version 5.4
5:21 PM
file://C:\Users\jlefante\AppData\Local\Temp\s2kDA9F.tmp
1/28/2013
Detailed Report
Page 1 of 2

General Information Analyst JML Agency or Co. ABMB Engineers, Inc. Date Performed 08/13/2012 AM Time Period Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes, N1 1 1 1 0 0 0 Lane Group L T TR LR Volume, V (vph) 78 627 813 96 33 68 % Heavy Vehicles, %HV 2 2 2 2 2 2 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Pretimed (P) or Actuated (A) P P P P P P Start-up Lost Time, l1 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Green, e Arrival Type, AT 3 4 4 3 Unit Extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering/Metering, I 0.824 0.824 0.650 1.000 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR Volumes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N N N 0 N 0 Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Gp Phasing EB Only EW Perm 03 04 SB Only 06 07 08 G = 4.0 G = 58.0 G = G= G = 25.0 G = G= G= Timing Y= 6 Y= 6 Y= Y= Y= 6 Y= Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 105.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 85 682 988 110 Lane Group Capacity, c v/c Ratio, X Total Green Ratio, g/C Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor, PF Delay Calibration, k Incremental Delay, d2 Initial Queue Delay, d3 329 0.26 0.65 8.2 1207 0.57 0.65 10.3 1014 0.97 0.55 22.8 0.677 0.50 17.5 0.0 32.9 397 0.28 0.24 32.6 1.000 0.50 1.7 0.0 34.4 Site Information Intersection Government at Rebel Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction East Baton Rouge Analysis Year 2012 Project ID 2272
1.000 0.445 0.50 1.6 0.0 9.8 0.50 1.6 0.0 6.2
file://C:\Users\jlefante\AppData\Local\Temp\s2kCE7F.tmp
1/28/2013
Detailed Report
Page 2 of 2
Control Delay Lane Group LOS Approach Delay Approach LOS Intersection Delay A 6.6 A 22.1 A C 32.9 C XC = 0.77 Intersection LOS
HCS+TM Version 5.4
C 34.4 C C
Generated: 1/28/2013 5:22 PM
file://C:\Users\jlefante\AppData\Local\Temp\s2kCE7F.tmp
1/28/2013
Detailed Report
Page 1 of 2

General Information Analyst JML Agency or Co. ABMB Engineers, Inc. Date Performed 08/13/2012 AM Time Period Volume and Timing Input RT Number of Lanes, N1 Lane Group Volume, V (vph) % Heavy Vehicles, %HV Peak-Hour Factor, PHF Pretimed (P) or Actuated (A) Start-up Lost Time, l1 Extension of Effective 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Green, e Arrival Type, AT 4 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering/Metering, I 0.812 0.812 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR Volumes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N N N 0 N 0 Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Gp Phasing EW Perm Thru & RT 03 04 NB Only 06 07 08 G = 27.0 G = 24.0 G = G= G = 33.0 G = G= G= Timing Y= 7 Y= 7 Y= Y= Y= 7 Y= Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 105.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 355 278 222 472 514 222 Lane Group Capacity, c v/c Ratio, X Total Green Ratio, g/C Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor, PF Delay Calibration, k Incremental Delay, d2 Initial Queue Delay, d3 811 0.44 0.23 34.7 1583 0.18 1.00 0.0 455 0.49 0.26 33.1 1029 0.46 0.55 14.1 556 0.92 0.31 34.8 1.000 0.50 23.4 0.0 58.2 498 0.45 0.31 28.7 1.000 0.50 2.9 0.0 31.6 LT EB TH RT 2 1 T R 327 256 2 2 0.92 0.92 P P 2.0 2.0 LT 1 L 204 2 0.92 P 2.0 WB TH 1 T 434 2 0.92 P 2.0 RT LT 1 L 473 2 0.92 P 2.0 NB TH RT 1 R 204 2 0.92 P 2.0 LT SB TH Site Information Intersection Government at Jefferson Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction East Baton Rouge Analysis Year 2012 Project ID 2272
1.000 0.950 1.000 1.000 0.50 1.4 0.0 36.1 0.50 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.50 3.7 0.0 36.8 0.50 1.5 0.0 15.6
1/28/2013
Detailed Report
Page 2 of 2
Control Delay Lane Group LOS Approach Delay Approach LOS Intersection Delay D 20.3 C 31.7 A D B 22.4 C XC = 0.63 E 50.2 D Intersection LOS
HCS+TM Version 5.4
C
Generated: 1/28/2013 5:23 PM
1/28/2013
Detailed Report
Page 1 of 2

General Information Analyst JML Agency or Co. ABMB Engineers, Inc. Date Performed 08/13/2012 Time Period PM Site Information Government at Eddie Intersection Robinson Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction East Baton Rouge Analysis Year 2012 Project ID 2272 WB TH 1 TR 476 2 0.92 NB TH 1 LTR 13 2 0.92 SB TH 1 LTR 20 2 0.92
Volume and Timing Input LT RT LT RT LT RT LT RT Number of Lanes, N1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Group L L Volume, V (vph) 17 19 46 8 22 54 74 24 % Heavy Vehicles, %HV 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Pretimed (P) or Actuated P P P P P P P P P P P P (A) Start-up Lost Time, l1 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Green, e Arrival Type, AT 3 3 3 4 3 3 Unit Extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering/Metering, I 1.000 1.000 0.791 0.791 1.000 1.000 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Volumes Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N N N 0 N 0 Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Gp Phasing EW Perm 02 03 04 NS Perm 06 07 08 G = 79.0 G = 0.0 G = 0.0 G= G = 17.0 G = G= G= Timing Y= 6 Y= 0 Y= 0 Y= Y= 8 Y= Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 110.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 18 920 50 526 97 128 Lane Group Capacity, c v/c Ratio, X Total Green Ratio, g/C Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor, PF Delay Calibration, k Incremental Delay, d2 627 0.03 0.72 4.5 1333 0.69 0.72 8.7 289 0.17 0.72 5.0 1334 0.39 0.72 6.1 235 0.41 0.15 42.0 1.000 0.50 5.3 217 0.59 0.15 43.3 1.000 0.50 11.2 EB TH 1 TR 827 2 0.92
1.000 1.000 0.50 0.1 0.50 2.9
1.000 0.204 0.50 1.0 0.50 0.7
file://C:\Users\jlefante\AppData\Local\Temp\s2k661C.tmp
1/28/2013
Detailed Report
Page 2 of 2
0.0 4.5 A
0.0 11.6 B 11.5 B 13.6
0.0 6.0 A
0.0 1.9 A 2.3 A
0.0 47.3 D 47.3 D Intersection LOS

HCS+TM Version 5.4
0.0 54.5 D 54.5 D B

Generated: 1/28/2013 5:23 PM
XC = 0.67
file://C:\Users\jlefante\AppData\Local\Temp\s2k661C.tmp
1/28/2013
Detailed Report
Page 1 of 2

General Information Analyst JML Agency or Co. ABMB Engineers, Inc. Date Performed 08/13/2012 Time Period PM Volume and Timing Input LT EB TH RT 1 0 TR 837 109 2 2 0.92 0.92 LT WB TH RT 1 0 TR 549 21 2 2 0.92 0.92 LT NB TH RT 1 1 T R 151 151 2 2 0.92 0.92 LT SB TH RT 1 0 TR 437 15 2 2 0.92 0.92 Site Information Intersection Government at Park Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction East Baton Rouge Analysis Year 2012 Project ID 2272
Number of Lanes, N1 Lane Group Volume, V (vph) % Heavy Vehicles, %HV Peak-Hour Factor, PHF Pretimed (P) or Actuated P P P P P P P P (A) Start-up Lost Time, l1 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Green, e Arrival Type, AT 4 4 3 3 3 Unit Extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering/Metering, I 0.693 0.893 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR Volumes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N N N 0 N 0 Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Gp Phasing EW Perm 02 03 04 NS Perm 06 07 08 G = 65.0 G = 0.0 G = 0.0 G= G = 34.0 G = G= G= Timing Y= 6 Y= 0 Y= 0 Y= Y= 5 Y= Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 110.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 1028 620 164 164 491 Lane Group Capacity, c v/c Ratio, X Total Green Ratio, g/C Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor, PF Delay Calibration, k Incremental Delay, d2 Initial Queue Delay, d3 1084 0.95 0.59 20.9 0.596 0.50 13.4 0.0 1095 0.57 0.59 13.8 0.596 0.50 1.9 0.0 576 0.28 0.31 28.8 1.000 0.50 1.2 0.0 489 0.34 0.31 29.3 1.000 0.50 1.8 0.0 573 0.86 0.31 35.7 1.000 0.50 15.2 0.0
file://C:\Users\jlefante\AppData\Local\Temp\s2kA379.tmp
1/28/2013
Detailed Report
Page 2 of 2
Control Delay Lane Group LOS Approach Delay Approach LOS Intersection Delay
25.9 C 25.9 C 27.5
10.1 B 10.1 B XC = 0.92
30.0 C 30.6 C
31.1 C
50.9 D 50.9 D C
Intersection LOS
HCS+TM Version 5.4
5:23 PM
1/28/2013
Detailed Report
Page 1 of 2

General Information Analyst JML Agency or Co. ABMB Engineers, Inc. Date Performed 08/13/2012 Time Period PM Volume and Timing Input RT Number of Lanes, N1 0 Lane Group LR Volume, V (vph) 25 25 25 % Heavy Vehicles, %HV 2 2 2 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 Pretimed (P) or Actuated P P P P P P P P P (A) Start-up Lost Time, l1 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Green, e Arrival Type, AT 4 3 4 3 3 3 Unit Extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering/Metering, I 0.399 0.815 0.815 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Volumes Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N N N 0 N 0 Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Gp Phasing EW Perm 02 03 04 NS Perm 06 07 08 G = 86.0 G = 0.0 G = 0.0 G= G = 12.0 G = G= G= Timing Y= 6 Y= 0 Y= 0 Y= Y= 6 Y= Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 110.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 1047 27 664 54 27 54 Lane Group Capacity, c v/c Ratio, X Total Green Ratio, g/C Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor, PF Delay Calibration, k Incremental Delay, d2 1430 0.73 0.78 6.1 0.264 0.50 1.4 420 0.06 0.78 2.8 1457 0.46 0.78 4.1 149 0.36 0.11 45.5 1.000 0.50 6.7 193 0.14 0.11 44.3 188 0.29 0.11 45.1 LT EB TH RT 1 0 TR 834 129 2 2 0.92 0.92 LT 1 L 25 2 0.92 WB TH 1 T 611 2 0.92 RT LT 0 NB TH RT 0 LT 1 L 25 2 0.92 SB TH 1 TR 25 2 0.92 Site Information Intersection Government at Camelia Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction East Baton Rouge Analysis Year 2012 Project ID 2272
1.000 0.264 0.50 0.2 0.50 0.8
1.000 1.000 0.50 1.5 0.50 3.8
file://C:\Users\jlefante\AppData\Local\Temp\s2kDD4E.tmp
1/28/2013
Detailed Report
Page 2 of 2
0.0 3.0 A 3.0 A 6.0
0.0 3.0 A
0.0 1.9 A 2.0 A

HCS+TM Version 5.4
0.0 45.8 D
0.0 48.9 D 47.9 D A
XC = 0.69
5:23 PM
file://C:\Users\jlefante\AppData\Local\Temp\s2kDD4E.tmp
1/28/2013
Detailed Report
Page 1 of 2

General Information Analyst JML Agency or Co. ABMB Engineers, Inc. Date Performed 08/13/2012 Time Period PM Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes, N1 1 1 1 0 1 1 Lane Group L T TR L R Volume, V (vph) 137 747 519 131 314 117 % Heavy Vehicles, %HV 2 2 2 2 2 2 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Pretimed (P) or Actuated (A) P P P P P P Start-up Lost Time, l1 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Green, e Arrival Type, AT 3 4 4 3 3 Unit Extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering/Metering, I 0.646 0.646 0.764 1.000 1.000 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR Volumes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N N N 0 N 0 Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Gp Phasing EW Perm 02 03 04 SB Only 06 07 08 G = 72.0 G = 0.0 G = 0.0 G= G = 26.0 G = G= G= Timing Y= 6 Y= 0 Y= 0 Y= Y= 6 Y= Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 110.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 149 812 706 341 127 Lane Group Capacity, c v/c Ratio, X Total Green Ratio, g/C Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor, PF Delay Calibration, k Incremental Delay, d2 Initial Queue Delay, d3 484 0.31 0.65 8.2 1219 0.67 0.65 11.6 1186 0.60 0.65 10.8 0.424 0.50 1.7 0.0 6.2 418 0.82 0.24 39.7 1.000 0.50 16.0 0.0 55.7 374 0.34 0.24 34.9 1.000 0.50 2.5 0.0 37.3 Site Information Intersection Government at 22nd Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction East Baton Rouge Analysis Year 2012 Project ID 2272
1.000 0.424 0.50 1.1 0.0 9.3 0.50 1.9 0.0 6.8
file://C:\Users\jlefante\AppData\Local\Temp\s2k1C60.tmp
1/28/2013
Detailed Report
Page 2 of 2
Control Delay Lane Group LOS Approach Delay Approach LOS Intersection Delay A 7.2 A 16.4 A A 6.2 A XC = 0.71 Intersection LOS
HCS+TM Version 5.4
E 50.7 D B
5:24 PM
file://C:\Users\jlefante\AppData\Local\Temp\s2k1C60.tmp
1/28/2013
Detailed Report
Page 1 of 2

General Information Analyst JML Agency or Co. ABMB Engineers, Inc. Date Performed 08/13/2012 Time Period PM Volume and Timing Input RT Number of Lanes, N1 1 Lane Group R Volume, V (vph) 30 85 12 % Heavy Vehicles, %HV 2 2 2 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 Pretimed (P) or Actuated P P P P P P P P P P P P (A) Start-up Lost Time, l1 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Green, e Arrival Type, AT 3 4 3 4 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering/Metering, I 0.631 0.631 0.789 0.789 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Volumes Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N N N 0 N 0 Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Gp Phasing EB Only EW Perm 03 04 NS Perm 06 07 08 G = 8.0 G = 65.0 G = 0.0 G= G = 19.0 G = G= G= Timing Y= 6 Y= 6 Y= 0 Y= Y= 6 Y= Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 110.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 5 1348 63 703 42 153 125 136 13 Lane Group Capacity, c 479 v/c Ratio, X Total Green Ratio, g/C Uniform Delay, d1 Delay Calibration, k Incremental Delay, d2 0.01 0.72 6.0 1326 1.02 0.72 15.5 68 0.93 0.59 20.3 1093 0.64 0.59 14.8 199 0.21 0.17 39.1 1.000 0.50 2.4 293 0.52 0.17 41.4 1.000 0.50 6.5 185 0.68 0.17 42.6 322 0.42 0.17 40.6 273 0.05 0.17 38.0 LT 1 L 5 2 0.92 EB TH RT LT 1 0 1 TR L 1165 75 58 2 2 2 0.92 0.92 0.92 WB TH 1 TR 616 2 0.92 RT 0 LT 1 L 39 2 0.92 NB TH 1 TR 56 2 0.92 RT 0 LT 1 L 115 2 0.92 SB TH 1 T 125 2 0.92 Site Information Intersection Government at Eugene Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction East Baton Rouge Analysis Year 2012 Project ID 2272
1.000 0.596 0.50 78.2 0.50 2.3
1.000 1.000 1.000 0.50 18.0 0.50 4.0 0.50 0.3
1/28/2013
Detailed Report
Page 2 of 2
0.0 6.1 A
0.0 28.0 C 27.9 C 29.0
0.0 98.6 F
0.0 11.2 B 18.4 B
0.0 41.5 D
0.0 47.9 D 46.5 D
0.0 60.7 E
0.0 44.6 D 51.6 D C
0.0 38.3 D
XC = 0.95
HCS+TM
Intersection LOS
Version 5.4
5:24 PM
1/28/2013
Detailed Report
Page 1 of 2

General Information Analyst JML Agency or Co. ABMB Engineers, Inc. Date Performed 08/13/2012 Time Period PM Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes, N1 1 1 1 0 1 Lane Group L T TR R Volume, V (vph) 91 1077 743 65 25 % Heavy Vehicles, %HV 2 2 2 2 2 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Pretimed (P) or Actuated (A) P P P P P Start-up Lost Time, l1 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Green, e Arrival Type, AT 3 4 4 3 Unit Extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering/Metering, I 0.184 0.184 0.592 1.000 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR Volumes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N N N 0 N 0 Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Gp Phasing EW Perm 02 03 04 NB Only 06 07 08 G = 91.0 G = 0.0 G= G= G = 8.0 G= G= G= Timing Y= 6 Y= 0 Y= Y= Y= 5 Y= Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 110.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 99 1171 879 27 Lane Group Capacity, c v/c Ratio, X Total Green Ratio, g/C Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor, PF Delay Calibration, k Incremental Delay, d2 Initial Queue Delay, d3 520 0.19 0.83 1.9 1541 0.76 0.83 4.4 1524 0.58 0.83 3.1 0.333 0.50 0.9 0.0 2.0 117 0.23 0.07 48.1 1.000 0.50 4.6 0.0 52.7 Site Information Intersection Government at Hearthstone Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction East Baton Rouge Analysis Year 2012 Project ID 2272
1.000 0.333 0.50 0.1 0.0 2.1 0.50 0.7 0.0 2.1
file://C:\Users\jlefante\AppData\Local\Temp\s2kE9CC.tmp
1/28/2013
Detailed Report
Page 2 of 2
Control Delay Lane Group LOS Approach Delay Approach LOS Intersection Delay A 2.1 A 2.7 A A 2.0 A XC = 0.72 52.7 D Intersection LOS A
Generated: 1/28/2013 5:25 PM
HCS+TM Version 5.4
file://C:\Users\jlefante\AppData\Local\Temp\s2kE9CC.tmp
1/28/2013
Detailed Report
Page 1 of 2

General Information Analyst JML Agency or Co. ABMB Engineers, Inc. Date Performed 08/13/2012 Time Period PM Volume and Timing Input LT EB TH RT 1 1 T R 911 125 2 2 0.92 0.92 LT WB TH RT 1 1 T R 680 62 2 2 0.92 0.92 LT 1 L 167 2 0.92 NB TH 2 T 509 2 0.92 P 2.0 2.0 RT 1 R 21 2 0.92 P 2.0 2.0 LT 1 L 133 2 0.92 P 2.0 2.0 SB TH 2 T 504 2 0.92 P 2.0 2.0 RT 1 R 1 2 0.92 P 2.0 2.0 Site Information Intersection Government at S Acadian Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction East Baton Rouge Analysis Year 2012 Project ID 2272
Number of Lanes, N1 Lane Group Volume, V (vph) % Heavy Vehicles, %HV Peak-Hour Factor, PHF Pretimed (P) or Actuated P P P P P (A) Start-up Lost Time, l1 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Green, e Arrival Type, AT 4 3 4 3 3 Unit Extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering/Metering, I 0.582 0.582 0.776 0.776 1.000 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR 0 0 13 0 0 6 0 Volumes Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, 3.2 3.2 Gp Phasing Thru & RT 02 03 04 Excl. Left G = 60.0 G = 0.0 G= G= G = 9.0 Timing Y= 6 Y= 0 Y= Y= Y= 7 Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 990 122 739 61 182 Lane Group Capacity, c v/c Ratio, X Total Green Ratio, g/C Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor, PF Delay Calibration, k Incremental Delay, d2 1016 0.97 0.55 24.3 1079 0.11 0.68 6.0 1016 0.73 0.55 18.8 1079 0.06 0.68 5.8 229 0.79 0.34 28.7
3 3 3 3 3 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 12.0 0 0 3.2 2 12.0 N 0 0 12.0 N 0 0 12.0 0 0 3.2 0 12.0 N 0
NS Perm 07 08 G = 21.0 G= G= Y= 7 Y= Y= Cycle Length, C = 110.0 NB TH 553 677 0.82 0.19 42.7 SB TH 548 677 0.81 0.19 42.6
RT 21 302 0.07 0.19 36.5
LT 145 227 0.64 0.34 28.0
RT 1 302 0.00 0.19 36.0
0.690 1.000 0.50 16.3 0.50 0.1
0.690 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.50 3.6 0.50 0.1 0.50 24.1 0.50 10.5
1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.50 0.4 0.50 13.0 0.50 10.1 0.50 0.0
file://C:\Users\jlefante\AppData\Local\Temp\s2k2BCB.tmp
1/28/2013
Detailed Report
Page 2 of 2
0.0 33.0 C 30.1 C 35.9
0.0 6.2 A
0.0 16.6 B 15.7 B XC = 0.94
0.0 5.9 A
0.0 52.8 D
0.0 53.2 D 52.6 D
0.0 36.9 D
0.0 41.0 D
0.0 52.7 D 50.2 D D
0.0 36.0 D
Intersection LOS
HCS+TM Version 5.4
5:25 PM
file://C:\Users\jlefante\AppData\Local\Temp\s2k2BCB.tmp
1/28/2013
Detailed Report
Page 1 of 2

General Information Analyst JML Agency or Co. ABMB Engineers, Inc. Date Performed 08/13/2012 Time Period PM Volume and Timing Input RT Number of Lanes, N1 0 Lane Group Volume, V (vph) 31 18 8 40 20 % Heavy Vehicles, %HV 2 2 2 2 2 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Pretimed (P) or Actuated P P P P P P P P P P P P (A) Start-up Lost Time, l1 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Green, e Arrival Type, AT 3 4 3 4 3 3 Unit Extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering/Metering, I 0.289 0.289 0.593 0.593 1.000 1.000 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Volumes Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N N N 0 N 0 Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Gp Phasing EW Perm 02 03 04 NS Perm 06 07 08 G = 82.0 G = G= G= G = 16.0 G = G= G= Timing Y= 6 Y= Y= Y= Y= 6 Y= Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 110.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 26 1172 4 836 36 75 Lane Group Capacity, c v/c Ratio, X Total Green Ratio, g/C Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor, PF Delay Calibration, k Incremental Delay, d2 488 0.05 0.75 3.7 1387 0.84 0.75 9.6 356 0.01 0.75 3.6 1380 0.61 0.75 6.5 215 0.17 0.15 41.2 1.000 0.50 1.7 209 0.36 0.15 42.4 1.000 0.50 4.7 LT 1 L 24 2 0.92 EB TH RT 1 0 TR 1072 6 2 2 0.92 0.92 LT 1 L 4 2 0.92 WB TH 1 TR 738 2 0.92 RT 0 LT 0 NB TH 1 LTR 6 2 0.92 RT 0 LT 0 SB TH 1 LTR 9 2 0.92 Site Information Intersection Government at Edison Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction East Baton Rouge Analysis Year 2012 Project ID 2272
1.000 0.226 0.50 0.1 0.50 2.0
1.000 0.226 0.50 0.0 0.50 1.2
file://C:\Users\jlefante\AppData\Local\Temp\s2k71EF.tmp
1/28/2013
Detailed Report
Page 2 of 2
0.0 3.8 A
0.0 4.2 A 4.2 A 5.7
0.0 3.6 A
0.0 2.6 A 2.7 A

HCS+TM Version 5.4
0.0 47.1 D 47.1 D A

Generated: 1/28/2013 5:25 PM
XC = 0.77
file://C:\Users\jlefante\AppData\Local\Temp\s2k71EF.tmp
1/28/2013
Detailed Report
Page 1 of 2

General Information Analyst JML Agency or Co. ABMB Engineers, Inc. Date Performed 08/13/2012 Time Period PM Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes, N1 1 2 0 1 1 1 1 2 0 2 2 1 Lane Group L TR L T R L TR L T R Volume, V (vph) 188 824 75 101 641 156 122 461 75 360 472 78 % Heavy Vehicles, %HV 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Pretimed (P) or Actuated A P P A P P A A A A A A (A) Start-up Lost Time, l1 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Green, e Arrival Type, AT 3 4 3 4 3 3 4 3 4 3 Unit Extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering/Metering, I 0.469 0.469 0.393 0.393 0.393 0.469 0.469 0.469 0.469 0.469 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR 0 0 8 0 0 16 0 0 15 0 0 8 Volumes Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N N N 0 N 0 Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. Time for 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Pedestrians, Gp Phasing WB Only EW Perm EB Only 04 SB Only Thru & RT NB Only 08 G = 8.0 G = 27.0 G = 4.0 G= G = 14.0 G = 5.0 G = 10.0 G= Timing Y= 7 Y= 7 Y= 7 Y= Y= 7 Y= 7 Y= 7 Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 110.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 204 969 110 697 152 133 566 391 513 76 Lane Group Capacity, c 245 v/c Ratio, X 0.83 1212 0.80 0.35 32.6 197 0.56 0.38 26.1 711 0.98 0.38 33.6 806 0.19 0.51 14.7 161 0.83 0.09 49.1 697 0.81 0.20 42.0 437 0.89 0.13 47.3 838 0.61 0.24 37.5 532 0.14 0.34 25.4 Site Information Intersection Government at S Foster Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction East Baton Rouge Analysis Year 2012 Project ID 2272
1.000 0.913 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.16 1.4 0.50 17.0 0.11 0.0 0.36 15.2 0.35 3.5
1.000 1.000 1.000 0.42 11.1 0.20 0.6 0.11 0.1
file://C:\Users\jlefante\AppData\Local\Temp\s2kEE10.tmp
1/28/2013
Detailed Report
Page 2 of 2
0.0 57.0 E
0.0 33.5 C 37.6 D 42.3
0.0 27.5 C
0.0 47.7 D 40.1 D
0.0 14.7 B
0.0 64.3 E
0.0 45.6 D 49.1 D
0.0 58.4 E
0.0 38.1 D 45.2 D D
0.0 25.5 C
XC = 0.90
HCS+TM
Intersection LOS
Version 5.4
5:26 PM
file://C:\Users\jlefante\AppData\Local\Temp\s2kEE10.tmp
1/28/2013
Detailed Report
Page 1 of 2

General Information Analyst JML Agency or Co. ABMB Engineers, Inc. Date Performed 08/13/2012 Time Period PM Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes, N1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 0 1 2 1 Lane Group L T R L T R L TR L T R Volume, V (vph) 188 824 75 101 641 156 122 461 75 360 472 78 % Heavy Vehicles, %HV 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Pretimed (P) or Actuated P P P P P P P P P P P P (A) Start-up Lost Time, l1 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Green, e Arrival Type, AT 3 4 3 3 4 3 3 4 3 4 3 Unit Extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering/Metering, I 0.469 0.469 0.469 0.393 0.393 0.393 0.469 0.469 0.469 0.469 0.469 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR 0 0 8 0 0 16 0 0 15 0 0 8 Volumes Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N N N 0 N 0 Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. Time for 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Pedestrians, Gp Phasing EW Perm 02 03 04 SB Only NS Perm 07 08 G = 53.0 G = G= G= G = 17.0 G = 19.0 G= G= Timing Y= 7 Y= Y= Y= Y= 7 Y= 7 Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 110.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 204 896 73 110 697 152 133 566 391 513 76 Lane Group Capacity, c v/c Ratio, X 193 1.06 898 1.00 0.48 28.4 763 0.10 0.48 15.5 68 1.62 0.48 28.5 898 0.78 0.48 23.6 1108 0.14 0.70 5.5 149 0.89 0.17 44.5 602 0.94 0.17 44.9 342 1.14 0.39 30.7 1387 0.37 0.39 23.9 619 0.12 0.39 21.4 Site Information Intersection Govt at S Foster--perm lefts Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction East Baton Rouge Analysis Year 2012 Project ID 2272
Progression Factor, PF 1.000 0.794 1.000 1.000 0.794 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.50 60.2 0.50 20.1 0.50 0.1 0.50 302.9 0.50 2.7 0.50 0.1 0.50 29.3 0.50 14.4
1.000 0.904 1.000 0.50 80.3 0.50 0.4 0.50 0.2
file://C:\Users\jlefante\AppData\Local\Temp\s2k39CF.tmp
1/28/2013
Detailed Report
Page 2 of 2
Initial Queue Delay, d3 0.0 Control Delay Lane Group LOS Approach Delay Approach LOS Intersection Delay 88.7 F
0.0 42.6 D 49.0 D 54.9
0.0 15.6 B
0.0
0.0
0.0 5.6 A
0.0 73.8 E
0.0 59.3 E 62.1 E
0.0
0.0
0.0 21.6 C
331.4 21.4 F C 54.4 D XC = 1.54
111.0 21.9 F C 57.5 E D

Intersection LOS
HCS+TM Version 5.4
5:26 PM
file://C:\Users\jlefante\AppData\Local\Temp\s2k39CF.tmp
1/28/2013
Detailed Report
Page 1 of 2

General Information Analyst JML Agency or Co. ABMB Engineers, Inc. Date Performed 08/13/2012 Time Period PM Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes, N1 1 1 1 0 0 0 Lane Group L T TR LR Volume, V (vph) 97 1063 785 50 110 113 % Heavy Vehicles, %HV 2 2 2 2 2 2 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Pretimed (P) or Actuated (A) P P P P P P Start-up Lost Time, l1 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Green, e Arrival Type, AT 3 4 4 3 Unit Extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering/Metering, I 0.090 0.090 0.706 1.000 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR Volumes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N N N 0 N 0 Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Gp Phasing EB Only EW Perm 03 04 SB Only 06 07 08 G = 10.0 G = 60.0 G = G= G = 22.0 G = G= G= Timing Y= 6 Y= 6 Y= Y= Y= 6 Y= Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 110.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 105 1155 907 243 Lane Group Capacity, c v/c Ratio, X Total Green Ratio, g/C Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor, PF Delay Calibration, k Incremental Delay, d2 Initial Queue Delay, d3 441 0.24 0.69 6.9 1287 0.90 0.69 13.8 1008 0.90 0.55 22.3 0.690 0.50 9.4 0.0 24.8 339 0.72 0.20 41.1 1.000 0.50 12.3 0.0 53.4 Site Information Intersection Government at Rebel Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction East Baton Rouge Analysis Year 2012 Project ID 2272
1.000 0.293 0.50 0.1 0.0 7.0 0.50 1.1 0.0 5.1
1/28/2013
Detailed Report
Page 2 of 2
Control Delay Lane Group LOS Approach Delay Approach LOS Intersection Delay A 5.3 A 17.5 A C 24.8 C XC = 0.86 Intersection LOS
HCS+TM Version 5.4
D 53.4 D B
Generated: 1/28/2013 5:26 PM
1/28/2013
Detailed Report
Page 1 of 2

General Information Analyst JML Agency or Co. ABMB Engineers, Inc. Date Performed 08/13/2012 Time Period PM Volume and Timing Input RT Number of Lanes, N1 Lane Group Volume, V (vph) % Heavy Vehicles, %HV Peak-Hour Factor, PHF Pretimed (P) or Actuated (A) Start-up Lost Time, l1 Extension of Effective 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Green, e Arrival Type, AT 4 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering/Metering, I 0.348 0.348 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR Volumes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N N N 0 N 0 Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Gp Phasing EW Perm Thru & RT 03 04 NB Only 06 07 08 G = 18.0 G = 40.0 G = G= G = 31.0 G = G= G= Timing Y= 7 Y= 7 Y= Y= Y= 7 Y= Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 110.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 679 604 246 466 451 227 Lane Group Capacity, c v/c Ratio, X Total Green Ratio, g/C Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor, PF Delay Calibration, k Incremental Delay, d2 Initial Queue Delay, d3 1290 0.53 0.36 27.5 1583 0.38 1.00 0.0 290 0.85 0.16 44.7 1101 0.42 0.59 12.3 499 0.90 0.28 38.1 1.000 0.50 22.4 0.0 60.4 446 0.51 0.28 33.1 1.000 0.50 4.1 0.0 37.2 LT EB TH RT 2 1 T R 625 556 2 2 0.92 0.92 P P 2.0 2.0 LT 1 L 226 2 0.92 P 2.0 WB TH 1 T 429 2 0.92 P 2.0 RT LT 1 L 415 2 0.92 P 2.0 NB TH RT 1 R 209 2 0.92 P 2.0 LT SB TH Site Information Intersection Government at Jefferson Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction East Baton Rouge Analysis Year 2012 Project ID 2272
0.931 0.950 1.000 1.000 0.50 0.5 0.0 26.2 0.50 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.50 25.3 0.0 70.0 0.50 1.2 0.0 13.5
file://C:\Users\jlefante\AppData\Local\Temp\s2kBB7C.tmp
1/28/2013
Detailed Report
Page 2 of 2
Control Delay Lane Group LOS Approach Delay Approach LOS Intersection Delay C 14.0 B 28.8 A E B 33.0 C XC = 0.72 E 52.7 D Intersection LOS
HCS+TM Version 5.4
C
Generated: 1/28/2013 5:27 PM
file://C:\Users\jlefante\AppData\Local\Temp\s2kBB7C.tmp
1/28/2013

HSM ANALYSIS

The safety analysis is based on the Highway Safety Manual methodology using the worksheets. Due to the unavailability of local calibration factors the output from the analysis has limited use. However it offers some insights into the performance of different geometric features on safety. In this analysis, all parameters are assumed to remain the same and changes are only made to the roadway or intersection type and the outputs compared. Therefore the existing four-lane undivided segment was compared to the three-lane segment with a two-way-left-turn lane (Alternative 1) by changing the roadway type and leaving all other parameters the same. No analysis was done for Alternative 2 since the roadway type is not supported. The worksheets and outputs are presented in this section.
STAGE 0 FEASIBILITY STUDY LA 73 GOVERNMENT STREET CORRIDOR (I-110 TO JEFFERSON HIGHWAY)
Summary of crashes based on HSM Worksheets
Roadway Type* EXISTING TWLTL CrashSeverity Fatal + Injury PDO Total Fatal + Injury PDO Total Year Observed Predicted Observed Predicted Observed Predicted Predicted Predicted Predicted 2008 6.0 3.5 12.0 7.5 18.0 11.0 3.3 7.2 10.4 2009 3.0 3.5 12.0 7.5 15.0 11.0 3.2 7.2 10.4 2010 0.0 3.6 7.0 7.7 7.0 11.4 3.4 7.4 10.8 * The geometric section for Alternative 2 is not supported by the HSM worksheets
Year 2008 2009 2010
Total Predicted Crashes 3 Lane 4 Lane % with Undivided Reduction TWLTL 11.0 10.4 5.45% 11.0 10.4 5.45% 11.4 10.8 5.26%
HSM Urban and Suburban Arterial Predictive Method
Analyst Agency or Company Date Performed
Worksheet 1A -- General Information and Input Data for Urban and Suburban Roadway Segments General Information Location Information SAM Roadway Government Street (Existing) STANTEC 02/14/13 Input Data Roadway Section Jurisdiction Analysis Year Base Conditions --(veh/day) -None -15 Not Present Not Present --------0 30 1.00 St. Rose Ave - Lavinia St EAST BATON ROUGE PARISH 2008 Site Conditions 4U 0.033 16,687 None 0 Not Present Present Not Present 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 Posted Speed Greater than 30 mph 10 6 1.00
Roadway type (2U, 3T, 4U, 4D, ST) Length of segment, L (mi) AADT (veh/day) AADTMAX = 40,100 Type of on-street parking (none/parallel/angle) Proportion of curb length with on-street parking Median width (ft) - for divided only Lighting (present / not present) Auto speed enforcement (present / not present) Major commercial driveways (number) Minor commercial driveways (number) Major industrial / institutional driveways (number) Minor industrial / institutional driveways (number) Major residential driveways (number) Minor residential driveways (number) Other driveways (number) Speed Category Roadside fixed object density (fixed objects / mi) Offset to roadside fixed objects (ft) [If greater than 30 or Not Present, input 30] Calibration Factor, Cr
(1) CMF for On-Street Parking CMF 1r from Equation 12-32 1.00
Worksheet 1B -- Crash Modification Factors for Urban and Suburban Roadway Segments (2) (3) (4) (5) CMF for Roadside Fixed Objects CMF for Median Width CMF for Lighting CMF for Automated Speed Enforcement CMF 2r from Equation 12-33 1.01 CMF 3r from Table 12-22 1.00 CMF 4r from Equation 12-34 0.92 CMF 5r from Section 12.7.1 1.00
(6) Combined CMF CMF comb (1)*(2)*(3)*(4)*(5) 0.92
(1) Crash Severity Level
Total Fatal and Injury (FI) Property Damage Only (PDO)
Worksheet 1C -- Multiple-Vehicle Nondriveway Collisions by Severity Level for Urban and Suburban Roadway Segments (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) Adjusted SPF Coefficients Overdispersion Proportion of Total Combined Initial Nbrmv Nbrmv Crashes Parameter, k CMFs from Table 12-3 (6) from (4)TOTAL*(5) from Table 12-3 from Equation 12-10 Worksheet 1B a b 1.01 0.121 1.000 -11.63 1.33 0.121 0.92 (4)FI/((4)FI+(4)PDO) 0.99 -12.08 1.25 0.035 0.037 0.92 0.307 (5)TOTAL-(5)FI -12 53 1 38 1 08 0 080 0 084 0 92
(8) Calibration Factor, Cr
(9) Predicted Nbrmv (6)*(7)*(8)
1.00 1.00 1 00
0.112 0.034 0 078
Property Damage Only (PDO)
12.53
1.38
1.08
0.080
0.693
0.084
0.92
1.00
0.078
(1) Collision Type
Worksheet 1D -- Multiple-Vehicle Nondriveway Collisions by Collision Type for Urban and Suburban Roadway Segments (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Proportion of Collision Predicted N brmv (FI) Proportion of Collision Predicted N brmv (PDO) Predicted N brmv (TOTAL) (crashes/year) Type(FI) (crashes/year) Type (PDO) (crashes/year) from Table 12-4 (9)FI from Worksheet 1C 0.034 (2)*(3)FI 0.018 0.003 0.006 0.003 0.003 0.002 from Table 12-4 1.000 0.506 0.004 0.130 0.249 0.031 0.080 (9)PDO from Worksheet 1C 0.078 (4)*(5)PDO 0.039 0.000 0.010 0.019 0.002 0.006 (9)TOTAL from Worksheet 1C 0.112 (3)+(5) 0.057 0.003 0.016 0.023 0.005 0.008
Total Rear-end collision Head-on collision Angle collision Sideswipe, same direction Sideswipe, opposite direction Other multiple-vehicle collision
1.000 0.511 0.077 0.181 0.093 0.082 0.056
(1) Crash Severity Level Total Fatal and Injury (FI) Property Damage Only (PDO)
Worksheet 1E -- Single-Vehicle Collisions by Severity Level for Urban and Suburban Roadway Segments (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) Adjusted SPF Coefficients Overdispersion Proportion of Total Combined Initial Nbrsv Nbrsv Crashes Parameter, k CMFs from Table 12-5 (6) from (4)TOTAL*(5) from Table 12-5 from Equation 12-13 Worksheet 1B a b 0.91 0.029 1.000 -7.99 0.81 0.029 0.92 (4)FI/((4)FI+(4)PDO) -7.37 0.61 0.54 0.008 0.007 0.92 0.249 (5)TOTAL-(5)FI -8.50 0.84 0.97 0.024 0.022 0.92 0.751
(9) Predicted Nbrsv (6)*(7)*(8)
1.00 1.00 1.00
0.027 0.007 0.020
(1)
Worksheet 1F -- Single-Vehicle Collisions by Collision Type for Urban and Suburban Roadway Segments (2) (3) (4) (5) Proportion of Collision Predicted N brsv (FI) Proportion of Collision Predicted N brsv (PDO) Type(FI) (crashes/year) Type (PDO) (crashes/year) from Table 12-6 (9)FI from Worksheet 1E 0.007 (2)*(3)FI 0.000 0.004 0.000 0.002 from Table 12-6 1.000 0.001 0.809 0.029 0.161 (9)PDO from Worksheet 1E 0.020 (4)*(5)PDO 0.000 0.017 0.001 0.003
(6) Predicted N brsv

(TOTAL) (crashes/year)
Collision Type (9)TOTAL from Worksheet 1E 0.027 (3)+(5) 0.000 0.021 0.001 0.006
Total Collision with animal Collision with fixed object Collision with other object Other single-vehicle collision
1.000 0.001 0.612 0.020 0.367
(1) Driveway Type Major commercial Minor commercial Major industrial/institutional Minor industrial/institutional Major residential Minor residential Other Total
Worksheet 1G -- Multiple-Vehicle Driveway-Related Collisions by Driveway Type for Urban and Suburban Roadway Segments (2) (3) (4) (5) Crashes per driveway Coefficient for traffic Initial Nbrdwy per year, Nj adjustment, t Number of driveways, Equation 12-16 nj from Table 12-7 from Table 12-7 nj * Nj * (AADT/15,000)t 1 0.182 1.172 0.206 3 0.058 1.172 0.197 0 0.198 1.172 0.000 0 0.026 1.172 0.000 0 0.096 1.172 0.000 0 0.018 1.172 0.000 0 0.029 1.172 0.000 ---0.403
(6) Overdispersion parameter, k from Table 12-7
--
0.81
(1) Crash Severity Level Total Fatal and injury (FI) Property damage only (PDO)
Worksheet 1H -- Multiple-Vehicle Driveway-Related Collisions by Severity Level for Urban and Suburban Roadway Segments (4) (2) (3) (5) (6) Proportion of total Adjusted Initial Nbrdwy Combined CMFs crashes (fdwy) Nbrdwy Calibration factor, Cr (5)TOTAL from Worksheet (2)TOTAL * (3) (6) from Worksheet 1B from Table 12-7 1G 0.403 1.000 0.92 1.00 0.403 -0.342 0.92 1.00 0.138 -0.658 0.265 0.92 1.00
(7) Predicted Nbrdwy (4)*(5)*(6) 0.373 0.127 0.245
(1) Crash Severity Level Total Fatal and injury (FI)
Worksheet 1I -- Vehicle-Pedestrian Collisions for Urban and Suburban Roadway Segments (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Predicted Nbrmv Predicted Nbrsv Predicted Nbrdwy Predicted Nbr fpedr from Table (9) from Worksheet 1C (9) from Worksheet 1E (7) from Worksheet 1H (2)+(3)+(4) 12-8 0.112 0.027 0.373 0.512 0.009 ------
(7) Calibration factor, Cr 1.00 1.00
(8) Predicted Npedr (5)*(6)*(7) 0.005 0.005
Worksheet 1J -- Vehicle-Bicycle Collisions for Urban and Suburban Roadway Segments (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Predicted Nbrmv Predicted Nbrsv Predicted Nbrdwy Predicted Nbr fbiker from Table (9) from Worksheet 1C (9) from Worksheet 1E (7) from Worksheet 1H (2)+(3)+(4) 12-9 0.112 0.027 0.373 0.512 0.002 ------
(8) Predicted Nbiker (5)*(6)*(7) 0.001 0.001
(1) Collision type
Rear-end collisions (from Worksheet 1D) Head-on collisions (from Worksheet 1D) Angle collisions (from Worksheet 1D) Sideswipe, same direction (from Worksheet 1D) Sideswipe, opposite direction (from Worksheet 1D) Driveway-related collisions (from Worksheet 1H) Other multiple-vehicle collision (from Worksheet 1D) Subtotal Collision with animal (from Worksheet 1F) Collision with fixed object (from Worksheet 1F) Collision with other object (from Worksheet 1F) Other single-vehicle collision (from Worksheet 1F) Collision with pedestrian (from Worksheet 1I) Collision with bicycle (from Worksheet 1J) Subtotal Total
Worksheet 1K -- Crash Severity Distribution for Urban and Suburban Roadway Segments (2) (3) Fatal and injury (FI) Property damage only (PDO) (3) from Worksheet 1D and 1F; (5) from Worksheet 1D and 1F; and (7) from Worksheet 1H; and (7) from Worksheet 1H (8) from Worksheet 1I and 1J MULTIPLE-VEHICLE 0.018 0.039 0.003 0.000 0.006 0.010 0.003 0.019 0.003 0.002 0.127 0.245 0.002 0.006 0.162 0.323 SINGLE-VEHICLE 0.000 0.000 0.004 0.017 0.000 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.005 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.012 0.020 0.174 0.343
(4) Total (6) from Worksheet 1D and 1F; (7) from Worksheet 1H; and (8) from Worksheet 1I and 1J 0.057 0.003 0.016 0.023 0.005 0.373 0.008 0.484 0.000 0.021 0.001 0.006 0.005 0.001 0.033 0.517
Worksheet 1L -- Summary Results for Urban and Suburban Roadway Segments (2) (3) Predicted average crash frequency, N predicted rs (crashes/year) (Total) from Worksheet 1K 0.5 0.2 0.3 Roadway segment length, L (mi) 0.03 0.03 0.03
(4) Crash rate (crashes/mi/year) (2) / (3) 15.7 5.3 10.4
Urban and Suburban Predictive Method
Worksheet 1A -- General Information and Input Data for Urban and Suburban Roadway Segments General Information Location Information SAM Roadway Government Street (Existing) STANTEC 02/14/13 Input Data Roadway Section Jurisdiction Analysis Year Base Conditions --(veh/day) -None -15 Not Present Not Present --------0 30 1.00 Lavinia St - S Eugene St East Baton Rouge Parish 2008 Site Conditions 4U 0.075 16,687 None 0 Not Present Present Not Present 0 4 0 0 0 1 0 Posted Speed 30 mph or Lower 10 6 1.00
Worksheet 1C -- Multiple-Vehicle Nondriveway Collisions by Severity Level for Urban and Suburban Roadway Segments (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) Adjusted SPF Coefficients Overdispersion Proportion of Total Combined Initial Nbrmv Nbrmv Crashes Parameter, k CMFs from Table 12-3 (6) from (4)TOTAL*(5) from Table 12-3 from Equation 12-10 Worksheet 1B a b 1.01 0.275 1.000 -11.63 1.33 0.275 0.92 (4)FI/((4)FI+(4)PDO) -12.08 1.25 0.99 0.081 0.085 0.92 0.307 (5)TOTAL-(5)FI -12 53 1 38 1 08 0 182 0 191 0 92
1.00 1.00 1 00
0.254 0.078 0 176
12.53
1.38
1.08
0.182
0.693
0.191
0.92
1.00
0.176
(1) Collision Type
1.000 0.511 0.077 0.181 0.093 0.082 0.056
1.00 1.00 1.00
0.062 0.015 0.046
(1)

1.000 0.001 0.612 0.020 0.367
--
0.81
(8) Predicted Npedr (5)*(6)*(7) 0.013 0.013
(1) Collision type
Worksheet 1A -- General Information and Input Data for Urban and Suburban Roadway Segments General Information Location Information SAM Roadway Government Street (Existing) STANTEC 02/14/13 Input Data Roadway Section Jurisdiction Analysis Year Base Conditions --(veh/day) -None -15 Not Present Not Present --------0 30 1.00 S Eugene St - Arlington Ave East Baton Rouge Parish 2008 Site Conditions 4U 0.062 18,303 None 0 Not Present Present Not Present 0 4 1 0 0 0 0 Posted Speed 30 mph or Lower 10 6 1.00
1.00 1.00 1 00
0.238 0.072 0 165
12.53
1.38
1.08
0.171
0.695
0.179
0.92
1.00
0.165
(1) Collision Type
1.000 0.511 0.077 0.181 0.093 0.082 0.056
1.00 1.00 1.00
0.055 0.013 0.042
(1)

1.000 0.001 0.612 0.020 0.367
10
--
0.81
(8) Predicted Npedr (5)*(6)*(7) 0.017 0.017
11
(1) Collision type
12
Urban and Suburban Arterial Predictive Method
Worksheet 2A -- General Information and Input Data for Urban and Suburban Arterial Intersections General Information Location Information Analyst SAM Roadway Government Street (Existing) Agency or Company STANTEC Intersection Lavinia St Date Performed 02/14/13 Jurisdiction East Baton Rouge Parish Analysis Year 2008 Input Data Base Conditions Site Conditions Intersection type (3ST, 3SG, 4ST, 4SG) -3ST AADTMAX = AADT major (veh/day) 45,700 (veh/day) -16,687 AADTMAX = AADT minor (veh/day) 9,300 (veh/day) -4,000 Intersection lighting (present/not present) Calibration factor, Ci Data for unsignalized intersections only: Number of major-road approaches with left-turn lanes (0,1,2) Number of major-road approaches with right-turn lanes (0,1,2) Data for signalized intersections only: Number of approaches with left-turn lanes (0,1,2,3,4) [for 3SG, use maximum value of 3] Number of approaches with right-turn lanes (0,1,2,3,4) [for 3SG, use maximum value of 3] Number of approaches with left-turn signal phasing [for 3SG, use maximum value of 3] Type of left-turn signal phasing for Leg #1 Type of left-turn signal phasing for Leg #2 Type of left-turn signal phasing for Leg #3 Type of left-turn signal phasing for Leg #4 (if applicable) Number of approaches with right-turn-on-red prohibited [for 3SG, use maximum value of 3] Intersection red light cameras (present/not present) Sum of all pedestrian crossing volumes (PedVol) -- Signalized intersections only Maximum number of lanes crossed by a pedestrian (nlanesx) Number of bus stops within 300 m (1,000 ft) of the intersection Schools within 300 m (1,000 ft) of the intersection (present/not present) Number of alcohol sales establishments within 300 m (1,000 ft) of the intersection Not Present 1.00 -0 0 -0 0 -Permissive ---0 Not Present -0 Not Present 0 Present 1.00 -0 0 -0 0 0 Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable 0 Not Present 10 4 4 Not Present 0
(1) CMF for Left-Turn Lanes CMF 1i from Table 12-24 1.00
Worksheet 2B -- Crash Modification Factors for Urban and Suburban Arterial Intersections (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) CMF for Left-Turn Signal CMF for Right-Turn Lanes CMF for Right Turn on Red CMF for Lighting CMF for Red Light Cameras Phasing CMF 2i CMF 3i CMF 4i CMF 5i CMF 6i from Table 12-25 from Table 12-26 from Equation 12-35 from Equation 12-36 from Equation 12-37 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00
(7) Combined CMF CMF COMB (1)*(2)*(3)*(4)*(5)*(6) 0.91
13
a -13.36 -14.01 -15.38
Worksheet 2C -- Multiple-Vehicle Collisions by Severity Level for Urban and Suburban Arterial Intersections (2) (3) (5) (4) (6) Adjusted SPF Coefficients Overdispersion Proportion of Total Initial Nbimv Nbimv Crashes Parameter, k from Equation 12from Table 12-10 (4)TOTAL*(5) from Table 12-10 21 b c 0.80 1.000 1.11 0.41 2.299 2.299 (4)FI/((4)FI+(4)PDO) 0.30 1.16 0.69 0.784 0.732 0.319 (5)TOTAL-(5)FI 0.51 1.677 1.567 1.20 0.77 0.681
(7) (8) Combined Calibration Factor, Ci CMFs (7) from Worksheet 2B 0.91 1.00 0.91 0.91 1.00 1.00
(9) Predicted Nbimv (6)*(7)*(8) 2.091 0.666 1.425
(1) Collision Type
Worksheet 2D -- Multiple-Vehicle Collisions by Collision Type for Urban and Suburban Arterial Intersections (2) (3) (4) (5) Proportion of Collision Type(FI) from Table 12-11 Predicted N bimv (FI) (crashes/year) (9)FI from Worksheet 2C 0.666 (2)*(3)FI 0.280 0.030 0.228 0.084 0.043 Proportion of Collision Type
(PDO)
(6) Predicted N bimv

Predicted N bimv (PDO) (crashes/year) (9)PDO from Worksheet 2C 1.425 (4)*(5)PDO 0.627 0.033 0.373 0.057 0.335
from Table 12-11 1.000 0.440 0.023 0.262 0.040 0.235
(9)PDO from Worksheet 2C 2.091 (3)+(5) 0.907 0.063 0.602 0.141 0.378
Total Rear-end collision Head-on collision Angle collision Sideswipe Other multiple-vehicle collision
1.000 0.421 0.045 0.343 0.126 0.065
(1)
Crash Severity Level a Total Fatal and Injury (FI) Property Damage Only (PDO) -6.81 --8.36
Worksheet 2E -- Single-Vehicle Collisions by Severity Level for Urban and Suburban Arterial Intersections (2) (3) (5) (4) (6) Adjusted SPF Coefficients Overdispersion Proportion of Total Initial Nbisv Nbimv Crashes Parameter, k from Eqn. 12-24; from Table 12-12 (4)TOTAL*(5) (FI) from Eqn. 12from Table 12-12 b c 24 or 12-27 1.14 1.000 0.16 0.51 0.359 0.359 (4)FI/((4)FI+(4)PDO) ---0.111 0.109 0.304 (5)TOTAL-(5)FI 0.25 0.55 1.29 0.255 0.250 0.696
(9) Predicted Nbisv (6)*(7)*(8) 0.327 0.099 0.227
14
(1) Collision Type
Worksheet 2F -- Single-Vehicle Collisions by Collision Type for Urban and Suburban Arterial Intersections (2) (3) (4) (5) Proportion of Collision Type(FI) from Table 12-13 Predicted N bisv (FI) (crashes/year) (9)FI from Worksheet 2E 0.099 (2)*(3)FI 0.000 0.000 0.076 0.009 0.004 0.010 Proportion of Collision Type
(PDO)
(6) Predicted N bisv

Predicted N bisv (PDO) (crashes/year) (9)PDO from Worksheet 2E 0.227 (4)*(5)PDO 0.001 0.004 0.190 0.021 0.005 0.007
from Table 12-13 1.000 0.003 0.018 0.834 0.092 0.023 0.030
(9)PDO from Worksheet 2E 0.327 (3)+(5) 0.001 0.004 0.265 0.030 0.009 0.017
Total Collision with parked vehicle Collision with animal Collision with fixed object Collision with other object Other single-vehicle collision Single-vehicle noncollision
1.000 0.001 0.003 0.762 0.090 0.039 0.105
Worksheet 2G -- Vehicle-Pedestrian Collisions for Urban and Suburban Arterial Stop-Controlled Intersections (2) (3) (5) (6) (4) Predicted Nbimv (9) from Worksheet 2C Predicted Nbisv (9) from Worksheet 2E 0.327 -Predicted Nbi (2) + (3) 2.417 -fpedi Calibration factor, Ci from Table 12-16 0.021 -1.00 1.00
(7) Predicted Npedi (4)*(5)*(6) 0.051 0.051
Total Fatal and injury (FI)
2.091 --
Worksheet 2H -- Crash Modification Factors for Vehicle-Pedestrian Collisions for Urban and Suburban Arterial Signalized Intersections (1) (2) (3) (4) CMF for Bus Stops CMF for Schools CMF for Alcohol Sales Establishments Combined CMF CMF1p CMF2p CMF3p from Table 12-28 from Table 12-29 from Table 12-30 (1)*(2)*(3) -----
(1) Crash Severity Level Total Fatal and Injury (FI) a ---
Worksheet 2I -- Vehicle-Pedestrian Collisions for Urban and Suburban Arterial Signalized Intersections (2) (3) (4) (5) SPF Coefficients Npedbase Combined CMF Overdispersion from Table 12-14 Parameter, k (4) from Worksheet 2H from Equation 12-29 d e b c ---------------
(6) Calibration factor, Ci 1.00 1.00
(7) Predicted Npedi (4)*(5)*(6) ---
15
Worksheet 2J -- Vehicle-Bicycle Collisions for Urban and Suburban Arterial Intersections (2) (3) (5) (4) Predicted Nbimv (9) from Worksheet 2C Predicted Nbisv (9) from Worksheet 2E 0.327 -Predicted Nbi (2) + (3) 2.417 -fbikei
(6) Calibration factor, Ci
(7) Predicted Nbikei (4)*(5)*(6)
from Table 12-17 0.016 -1.00 1.00
2.091 --
0.039 0.039
(1) Collision type
Rear-end collisions (from Worksheet 2D) Head-on collisions (from Worksheet 2D) Angle collisions (from Worksheet 2D) Sideswipe (from Worksheet 2D) Other multiple-vehicle collision (from Worksheet 2D) Subtotal Collision with parked vehicle (from Worksheet 2F) Collision with animal (from Worksheet 2F) Collision with fixed object (from Worksheet 2F) Collision with other object (from Worksheet 2F) Other single-vehicle collision (from Worksheet 2F) Single-vehicle noncollision (from Worksheet 2F) Collision with pedestrian (from Worksheet 2G or 2I) Collision with bicycle (from Worksheet 2J) Subtotal Total
Worksheet 2K -- Crash Severity Distribution for Urban and Suburban Arterial Intersections (2) (3) Fatal and injury (FI) Property damage only (PDO) (3) from Worksheet 2D and 2F; (5) from Worksheet 2D and 2F (7) from 2G or 2I and 2J MULTIPLE-VEHICLE 0.280 0.627 0.030 0.033 0.228 0.373 0.084 0.057 0.043 0.335 0.666 1.425 SINGLE-VEHICLE 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.004 0.076 0.190 0.009 0.021 0.004 0.005 0.010 0.007 0.051 0.000 0.039 0.000 0.189 0.227 0.855 1.652
(4) Total (6) from Worksheet 2D and 2F; (7) from 2G or 2I and 2J 0.907 0.063 0.602 0.141 0.378 2.091 0.001 0.004 0.265 0.030 0.009 0.017 0.051 0.039 0.416 2.507
Worksheet 2L -- Summary Results for Urban and Suburban Arterial Intersections (1) (2) Crash severity level Total Fatal and injury (FI) Property damage only (PDO) Predicted average crash frequency, Npredicted int (crashes/year) (Total) from Worksheet 2K 2.5 0.9 1.7
16
Urban and Suburban Predictive Methods
Worksheet 2A -- General Information and Input Data for Urban and Suburban Arterial Intersections General Information Location Information Analyst SAM Roadway Government Street (Existing) Agency or Company STANTEC Intersection S Eugene St Date Performed 02/14/13 Jurisdiction East Baton Rouge Parish Analysis Year 2008 Input Data Base Conditions Site Conditions Intersection type (3ST, 3SG, 4ST, 4SG) -4SG AADTMAX = AADT major (veh/day) 67,700 (veh/day) -18,303 AADTMAX = AADT minor (veh/day) 33,400 (veh/day) -4,000 Intersection lighting (present/not present) Calibration factor, Ci Data for unsignalized intersections only: Number of major-road approaches with left-turn lanes (0,1,2) Number of major-road approaches with right-turn lanes (0,1,2) Data for signalized intersections only: Number of approaches with left-turn lanes (0,1,2,3,4) [for 3SG, use maximum value of 3] Number of approaches with right-turn lanes (0,1,2,3,4) [for 3SG, use maximum value of 3] Number of approaches with left-turn signal phasing [for 3SG, use maximum value of 3] Type of left-turn signal phasing for Leg #1 Type of left-turn signal phasing for Leg #2 Type of left-turn signal phasing for Leg #3 Type of left-turn signal phasing for Leg #4 (if applicable) Number of approaches with right-turn-on-red prohibited [for 3SG, use maximum value of 3] Intersection red light cameras (present/not present) Sum of all pedestrian crossing volumes (PedVol) -- Signalized intersections only Maximum number of lanes crossed by a pedestrian (nlanesx) Number of bus stops within 300 m (1,000 ft) of the intersection Schools within 300 m (1,000 ft) of the intersection (present/not present) Number of alcohol sales establishments within 300 m (1,000 ft) of the intersection Not Present 1.00 -0 0 -0 0 -Permissive ---0 Not Present -0 Not Present 0 Present 1.00 -0 0 -0 0 0 Permissive Permissive Permissive Permissive 0 Not Present 50 4 4 Present 0
17
a -10.99 -13.14 -11.02
Worksheet 2C -- Multiple-Vehicle Collisions by Severity Level for Urban and Suburban Arterial Intersections (2) (3) (5) (4) (6) Adjusted SPF Coefficients Overdispersion Proportion of Total Nbimv Initial Nbimv Parameter, k Crashes from Equation 12from Table 12-10 (4)TOTAL*(5) from Table 12-10 21 b c 1.07 0.23 4.135 4.135 0.39 1.000 (4)FI/((4)FI+(4)PDO) 1.18 0.22 0.33 1.305 1.358 0.328 (5)TOTAL-(5)FI 1.02 0.24 0.44 2.669 2.777 0.672
(7) (8) Combined Calibration CMFs Factor, Ci (7) from Worksheet 2B 0.91 1.00 0.91 0.91 1.00 1.00
(9) Predicted Nbimv (6)*(7)*(8) 3.766 1.237 2.529
(1) Collision Type
(PDO)

from Table 12-11 1.000 0.483 0.030 0.244 0.032 0.211
1.000 0.450 0.049 0.347 0.099 0.055
(1)
Crash Severity Level a Total Fatal and Injury (FI) Property Damage Only (PDO) -10.21 -9.25 -11.34
Worksheet 2E -- Single-Vehicle Collisions by Severity Level for Urban and Suburban Arterial Intersections (4) (6) (2) (3) (5) Adjusted SPF Coefficients Overdispersion Proportion of Total Nbimv Initial Nbisv Parameter, k Crashes from Eqn. 12-24; from Table 12-12 (4)TOTAL*(5) from Table 12-12 (FI) from Eqn. 12b c 24 or 12-27 0.36 1.000 0.68 0.27 0.273 0.273 (4)FI/((4)FI+(4)PDO) 0.43 0.29 0.09 0.072 0.073 0.266 (5)TOTAL-(5)FI 0.78 0.25 0.44 0.200 0.201 0.734
(9) Predicted Nbisv (6)*(7)*(8) 0.249 0.066 0.183
18
(1) Collision Type
(PDO)

from Table 12-13 1.000 0.001 0.002 0.870 0.070 0.023 0.034
1.000 0.001 0.002 0.744 0.072 0.040 0.141
Worksheet 2G -- Vehicle-Pedestrian Collisions for Urban and Suburban Arterial Stop-Controlled Intersections (4) (2) (3) (5) (6) Predicted Nbimv (9) from Worksheet 2C Predicted Nbisv (9) from Worksheet 2E --Predicted Nbi (2) + (3) --fpedi Calibration factor, Ci from Table 12-16 --1.00 1.00
---
Worksheet 2H -- Crash Modification Factors for Vehicle-Pedestrian Collisions for Urban and Suburban Arterial Signalized Intersections (1) (2) (3) (4) CMF for Bus Stops CMF for Schools CMF for Alcohol Sales Establishments Combined CMF CMF1p CMF2p CMF3p from Table 12-28 from Table 12-29 from Table 12-30 (1)*(2)*(3) 4.15 1.35 1.00 5.60
(1) Crash Severity Level Total Fatal and Injury (FI) a -9.53 --
Worksheet 2I -- Vehicle-Pedestrian Collisions for Urban and Suburban Arterial Signalized Intersections (3) (2) (4) (5) SPF Coefficients Npedbase Combined CMF Overdispersion Parameter, k from Table 12-14 from Equation 12-29 (4) from Worksheet 2H d e b c 0.40 0.26 0.45 0.04 0.24 0.018 5.60 --------
(7) Predicted Calibration Npedi factor, Ci (4)*(5)*(6) 1.00 1.00 0.103 0.103
(6)
19
from Table 12-17 0.015 -1.00 1.00
3.766 --
0.060 0.060
(1) Collision type
20
Worksheet 2A -- General Information and Input Data for Urban and Suburban Arterial Intersections General Information Location Information Analyst SAM Roadway Government Street (Existing) Agency or Company STANTEC Intersection Arlington Ave Date Performed 02/14/13 Jurisdiction East Baton Rouge Parish Analysis Year 2008 Input Data Base Conditions Site Conditions Intersection type (3ST, 3SG, 4ST, 4SG) -3ST AADTMAX = AADT major (veh/day) 45,700 (veh/day) -18,303 AADTMAX = AADT minor (veh/day) 9,300 (veh/day) -4,000 Intersection lighting (present/not present) Calibration factor, Ci Data for unsignalized intersections only: Number of major-road approaches with left-turn lanes (0,1,2) Number of major-road approaches with right-turn lanes (0,1,2) Data for signalized intersections only: Number of approaches with left-turn lanes (0,1,2,3,4) [for 3SG, use maximum value of 3] Number of approaches with right-turn lanes (0,1,2,3,4) [for 3SG, use maximum value of 3] Number of approaches with left-turn signal phasing [for 3SG, use maximum value of 3] Type of left-turn signal phasing for Leg #1 Type of left-turn signal phasing for Leg #2 Type of left-turn signal phasing for Leg #3 Type of left-turn signal phasing for Leg #4 (if applicable) Number of approaches with right-turn-on-red prohibited [for 3SG, use maximum value of 3] Intersection red light cameras (present/not present) Sum of all pedestrian crossing volumes (PedVol) -- Signalized intersections only Maximum number of lanes crossed by a pedestrian (nlanesx) Number of bus stops within 300 m (1,000 ft) of the intersection Schools within 300 m (1,000 ft) of the intersection (present/not present) Number of alcohol sales establishments within 300 m (1,000 ft) of the intersection Not Present 1.00 -0 0 -0 0 -Permissive ---0 Not Present -0 Not Present 0 Present 1.00 -0 0 -2 2 2 Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable 0 Not Present 10 4 3 Present 0
21
a -13.36 -14.01 -15.38
(9) Predicted Nbimv (6)*(7)*(8) 2.317 0.736 1.581
(1) Collision Type
(PDO)

from Table 12-11 1.000 0.440 0.023 0.262 0.040 0.235
1.000 0.421 0.045 0.343 0.126 0.065
(1)
Worksheet 2E -- Single-Vehicle Collisions by Severity Level for Urban and Suburban Arterial Intersections (4) (6) (2) (3) (5) Adjusted SPF Coefficients Overdispersion Proportion of Total Nbimv Initial Nbisv Parameter, k Crashes from Eqn. 12-24; from Table 12-12 (4)TOTAL*(5) from Table 12-12 (FI) from Eqn. 12b c 24 or 12-27 1.14 1.000 0.16 0.51 0.364 0.364 (4)FI/((4)FI+(4)PDO) ---0.113 0.110 0.302 (5)TOTAL-(5)FI 0.25 0.55 1.29 0.261 0.254 0.698
(9) Predicted Nbisv (6)*(7)*(8) 0.331 0.100 0.231
22
(1) Collision Type
(PDO)

from Table 12-13 1.000 0.003 0.018 0.834 0.092 0.023 0.030
1.000 0.001 0.003 0.762 0.090 0.039 0.105
(7) Predicted Npedi (4)*(5)*(6) 0.056 0.056
2.317 --
Worksheet 2I -- Vehicle-Pedestrian Collisions for Urban and Suburban Arterial Signalized Intersections (3) (2) (4) (5) SPF Coefficients Npedbase Combined CMF Overdispersion Parameter, k from Table 12-14 from Equation 12-29 (4) from Worksheet 2H d e b c ---------------
(7) Predicted Calibration Npedi factor, Ci (4)*(5)*(6) 1.00 1.00 ---
(6)
23
from Table 12-17 0.016 -1.00 1.00
2.317 --
0.042 0.042
(1) Collision type
24
Worksheet 3A -- Predicted Crashes by Severity and Site Type and Observed Crashes Using the Site-Specific EB Method for Urban and Suburban Arterials (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) Observed Overdispersion Weighted Expected Predicted average crash frequency crashes, Parameter, k adjustment, w average crash (crashes/year) Nobserved frequency, Collision type / Site type N predicted N predicted (FI) N predicted Equation A-5 Equation A-4 (crashes/year) from Part C from Part C (TOTAL) (PDO) Appendix Appendix ROADWAY SEGMENTS Multiple-vehicle nondriveway 0.112 0.034 0.078 0 1.010 0.898 0.101 Segment 1 Segment 2 0.254 0.078 0.176 0 1.010 0.796 0.202 Segment 3 0.238 0.072 0.165 0 1.010 0.806 0.192 Segment 4 0 1.000 0.000 Single-vehicle Segment 1 0.027 0.007 0.020 0 0.910 0.976 0.027 Segment 2 0.062 0.015 0.046 0 0.910 0.947 0.058 Segment 3 0.055 0.013 0.042 0 0.910 0.952 0.052 Segment 4 0 1.000 0.000 Multiple-vehicle driveway-related Segment 1 0.373 0.127 0.245 0 0.810 0.768 0.286 Segment 2 0.262 0.089 0.172 0 0.810 0.825 0.216 Segment 3 0.501 0.171 0.330 0 0.810 0.711 0.357 Segment 4 0 1.000 0.000 INTERSECTIONS Multiple-vehicle Intersection 1 2.091 0.666 1.425 0 0.800 0.374 0.782 3.766 1.237 2.529 0 0.390 0.405 1.525 Intersection 2 Intersection 3 1.581 0 0.800 0.350 0.812 2.317 0.736 1.000 0.000 Intersection 4 Single-vehicle Intersection 1 0.327 0.099 0.227 0 1.140 0.729 0.238 0.249 0.066 0.183 0 0.360 0.918 0.229 Intersection 2 Intersection 3 0.331 0.100 0.231 0 1.140 0.726 0.241 1.000 0.000 Intersection 4 COMBINED (sum of column) 10.964 3.513 7.451 0 --5.317
25
Worksheet 3B -- Predicted Pedestrian and Bicycle Crashes for Urban and Suburban Arterials (2) (3) (1) Nped Nbike Site Type ROADWAY SEGMENTS Segment 1 0.005 0.001 Segment 2 0.013 0.006 Segment 3 0.017 0.009 Segment 4 INTERSECTIONS Intersection 1 0.051 0.039 0.103 0.060 Intersection 2 Intersection 3 0.056 0.042 Intersection 4 COMBINED (sum of column) 0.244 0.157
Worksheet 3C -- Site-Specific EB Method Summary Results for Urban and Suburban Arterials (1) Crash severity level Total Fatal and injury (FI) Property damage only (PDO) (2) N predicted (2)COMB from Worksheet 3A 11.0 (3)COMB from Worksheet 3A 3.5 (4)COMB from Worksheet 3A 7.5 (3) N ped (2)COMB from Worksheet 3B 0.2 (2)COMB from Worksheet 3B 0.2 -0.0 (4) N bike (3)COMB from Worksheet 3B 0.2 (3)COMB from Worksheet 3B 0.2 -0.0 (5) N expected (VEHICLE) (8)COMB Worksheet 3A 5.3 (5)TOTAL * (2)FI / (2) TOTAL 1.7 (5)TOTAL * (2)PDO / (2) TOTAL 3.6 (6) N expected (3)+(4)+(5) 5.7 (3)+(4)+(5) 2.1 (3)+(4)+(5) 3.6
26
Worksheet 4A -- Predicted Crashes by Collision and Site Type and Observed Crashes Using the Project-Level EB Method for Urban and Suburban Arterials (1) Collision type / Site type (2) (3) Predicted crashes N predicted (TOTAL) N predicted (FI) N predicted (PDO) (4) (5) (6) (7) Observed Overdispersion Npredicted w0 crashes, Parameter, k Equation A-8 Nobserved (6)*(2)2 (crashes/year) ROADWAY SEGMENTS ------------1.010 1.010 1.010 0.013 0.065 0.057 (8) Npredicted w1 Equation A-9 sqrt((6)*(2)) (9) W0 (10) N0 (11) w1 (12) N1 (13) Nexpected/comb A-
Equation A- Equation A- Equation A- Equation A- Equation 10 11 12 13 14
Multiple-vehicle nondriveway Segment 1 Segment 2 Segment 3 Segment 4 Single-vehicle Segment 1 Segment 2 Segment 3 Segment 4 Multiple-vehicle driveway-related Segment 1 Segment 2 Segment 3 Segment 4 Multiple-vehicle Intersection 1 Intersection 2 Intersection 3 Intersection 4 Single-vehicle Intersection 1 Intersection 2 Intersection 3 Intersection 4 COMBINED (sum of column)
0.112 0.254 0.238
0.034 0.078 0.072
0.078 0.176 0.165
0.336 0.507 0.490
-------------
-------------
-------------
-------------
-------------
0.027 0.062 0.055
0.007 0.015 0.013
0.020 0.046 0.042
0.910 0.910 0.910
0.001 0.003 0.003
0.157 0.237 0.224
0.373 0.262 0.501
0.127 0.089 0.171
0.245 0.172 0.330
0.810 0.810 0.810 INTERSECTIONS
0.112 0.055 0.204
0.549 0.460 0.637
2.091 3.766 2.317
0.666 1.237 0.736
1.425 2.529 1.581
---------
0.800 0.390 0.800
3.498 5.531 4.294
1.293 1.212 1.361
--------0.437
--------#VALUE!
--------0.549
--------#VALUE!
--------#VALUE!
0.327 0.249 0.331 10.964
0.099 0.066 0.100 3.513
0.227 0.183 0.231 7.451
1.140 0.360 1.140 --
0.122 0.022 0.125 14.105
0.610 0.299 0.615 8.989
27
Worksheet 4C -- Project-Specific EB Method Summary Results for Urban and Suburban Arterials (1) Crash severity level Total Fatal and injury (FI) Property damage only (PDO) (2) N predicted (2)COMB from Worksheet 4A 11.0 (3)COMB from Worksheet 4A 3.5 (4)COMB from Worksheet 4A 7.5 (3) N ped (2)COMB from Worksheet 4B 0.2 (2)COMB from Worksheet 4B 0.2 -0.0 (4) N bike (3)COMB from Worksheet 4B 0.2 (3)COMB from Worksheet 4B 0.2 -0.0 (5) N expected (vehicle) (13)COMB Worksheet 4A #VALUE! (5)TOTAL * (2)FI / (2) TOTAL #VALUE! (5)TOTAL * (2)PDO / (2) TOTAL #VALUE! (6) N expected (3)+(4)+(5) #VALUE! (3)+(4)+(5) #VALUE! (3)+(4)+(5) #VALUE!
28
Worksheet 1A -- General Information and Input Data for Urban and Suburban Roadway Segments General Information Location Information SAM Roadway STANTEC 02/14/13 Input Data Roadway Section Jurisdiction Analysis Year Base Conditions --(veh/day) -None -15 Not Present Not Present --------0 30 1.00
LA 73
St. Rose Ave - Lavinia St EAST BATON ROUGE PARISH 2008 Site Conditions 3T 0.033 16,687 None 0 10 Present Not Present 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 Posted Speed Greater than 30 mph 10 10 1.00
1.00 1.00 1 00
0.115 0.031 0 084
11.95
1.33
0.59
0.088
0.731
0.089
0.94
1.00
0.084
(1) Collision Type
1.000 0.845 0.034 0.069 0.001 0.017 0.034
1.00 1.00 1.00
0.019 0.005 0.014
(1)

1.000 0.001 0.688 0.001 0.310
--
1.10
(8) Predicted Npedr (5)*(6)*(7) 0.004 0.004
(1) Collision type
Worksheet 1A -- General Information and Input Data for Urban and Suburban Roadway Segments General Information Location Information SAM Roadway Government Street STANTEC 02/14/13 Input Data Roadway Section Jurisdiction Analysis Year Base Conditions --(veh/day) -None -15 Not Present Not Present --------0 30 1.00 Lavinia St - S Eugene St East Baton Rouge Parish 2008 Site Conditions 3T 0.075 16,687 None 0 10 Present Not Present 0 4 0 0 0 1 0 Posted Speed 30 mph or Lower 10 10 1.00
1.00 1.00 1 00
0.262 0.070 0 191
11.95
1.33
0.59
0.200
0.731
0.203
0.94
1.00
0.191
(1) Collision Type
1.000 0.845 0.034 0.069 0.001 0.017 0.034
1.00 1.00 1.00
0.043 0.012 0.031
(1)

1.000 0.001 0.688 0.001 0.310
--
1.10
(8) Predicted Npedr (5)*(6)*(7) 0.018 0.018
(1) Collision type
Worksheet 1A -- General Information and Input Data for Urban and Suburban Roadway Segments General Information Location Information SAM Roadway Government Street STANTEC 02/14/13 Input Data Roadway Section Jurisdiction Analysis Year Base Conditions --(veh/day) -None -15 Not Present Not Present --------0 30 1.00 S Eugene St - Arlington Ave East Baton Rouge Parish 2008 Site Conditions 3T 0.062 18,303 None 0 10 Present Not Present 0 4 1 0 0 0 0 Posted Speed 30 mph or Lower 10 10 1.00
1.00 1.00 1 00
0.247 0.068 0 179
11.95
1.33
0.59
0.187
0.724
0.189
0.94
1.00
0.179
(1) Collision Type
1.000 0.845 0.034 0.069 0.001 0.017 0.034
1.00 1.00 1.00
0.038 0.010 0.027
(1)

1.000 0.001 0.688 0.001 0.310
10
--
1.10
(8) Predicted Npedr (5)*(6)*(7) 0.023 0.023
11
(1) Collision type
12
Worksheet 2A -- General Information and Input Data for Urban and Suburban Arterial Intersections General Information Location Information Analyst SAM Roadway Government Street Agency or Company STANTEC Intersection Lavinia St Date Performed 02/14/13 Jurisdiction East Baton Rouge Parish Analysis Year 2008 Input Data Base Conditions Site Conditions Intersection type (3ST, 3SG, 4ST, 4SG) -3ST AADTMAX = AADT major (veh/day) 45,700 (veh/day) -16,687 AADTMAX = AADT minor (veh/day) 9,300 (veh/day) -4,000 Intersection lighting (present/not present) Calibration factor, Ci Data for unsignalized intersections only: Number of major-road approaches with left-turn lanes (0,1,2) Number of major-road approaches with right-turn lanes (0,1,2) Data for signalized intersections only: Number of approaches with left-turn lanes (0,1,2,3,4) [for 3SG, use maximum value of 3] Number of approaches with right-turn lanes (0,1,2,3,4) [for 3SG, use maximum value of 3] Number of approaches with left-turn signal phasing [for 3SG, use maximum value of 3] Type of left-turn signal phasing for Leg #1 Type of left-turn signal phasing for Leg #2 Type of left-turn signal phasing for Leg #3 Type of left-turn signal phasing for Leg #4 (if applicable) Number of approaches with right-turn-on-red prohibited [for 3SG, use maximum value of 3] Intersection red light cameras (present/not present) Sum of all pedestrian crossing volumes (PedVol) -- Signalized intersections only Maximum number of lanes crossed by a pedestrian (nlanesx) Number of bus stops within 300 m (1,000 ft) of the intersection Schools within 300 m (1,000 ft) of the intersection (present/not present) Number of alcohol sales establishments within 300 m (1,000 ft) of the intersection Not Present 1.00 -0 0 -0 0 -Permissive ---0 Not Present -0 Not Present 0 Present 1.00 -0 0 -0 0 0 Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable 0 Not Present 10 3 4 Not Present 0
13
a -13.36 -14.01 -15.38
(9) Predicted Nbimv (6)*(7)*(8) 2.091 0.666 1.425
(1) Collision Type
(PDO)

from Table 12-11 1.000 0.440 0.023 0.262 0.040 0.235
1.000 0.421 0.045 0.343 0.126 0.065
(1)
(9) Predicted Nbisv (6)*(7)*(8) 0.327 0.099 0.227
14
(1) Collision Type
(PDO)

from Table 12-13 1.000 0.003 0.018 0.834 0.092 0.023 0.030
1.000 0.001 0.003 0.762 0.090 0.039 0.105
(7) Predicted Npedi (4)*(5)*(6) 0.051 0.051
2.091 --
15
from Table 12-17 0.016 -1.00 1.00
2.091 --
0.039 0.039
(1) Collision type
16
Worksheet 2A -- General Information and Input Data for Urban and Suburban Arterial Intersections General Information Location Information Analyst SAM Roadway Government Street Agency or Company STANTEC Intersection S Eugene St Date Performed 02/14/13 Jurisdiction East Baton Rouge Parish Analysis Year 2008 Input Data Base Conditions Site Conditions Intersection type (3ST, 3SG, 4ST, 4SG) -4SG AADTMAX = AADT major (veh/day) 67,700 (veh/day) -18,303 AADTMAX = AADT minor (veh/day) 33,400 (veh/day) -4,000 Intersection lighting (present/not present) Calibration factor, Ci Data for unsignalized intersections only: Number of major-road approaches with left-turn lanes (0,1,2) Number of major-road approaches with right-turn lanes (0,1,2) Data for signalized intersections only: Number of approaches with left-turn lanes (0,1,2,3,4) [for 3SG, use maximum value of 3] Number of approaches with right-turn lanes (0,1,2,3,4) [for 3SG, use maximum value of 3] Number of approaches with left-turn signal phasing [for 3SG, use maximum value of 3] Type of left-turn signal phasing for Leg #1 Type of left-turn signal phasing for Leg #2 Type of left-turn signal phasing for Leg #3 Type of left-turn signal phasing for Leg #4 (if applicable) Number of approaches with right-turn-on-red prohibited [for 3SG, use maximum value of 3] Intersection red light cameras (present/not present) Sum of all pedestrian crossing volumes (PedVol) -- Signalized intersections only Maximum number of lanes crossed by a pedestrian (nlanesx) Number of bus stops within 300 m (1,000 ft) of the intersection Schools within 300 m (1,000 ft) of the intersection (present/not present) Number of alcohol sales establishments within 300 m (1,000 ft) of the intersection Not Present 1.00 -0 0 -0 0 -Permissive ---0 Not Present -0 Not Present 0 Present 1.00 -0 0 -0 0 0 Permissive Permissive Permissive Permissive 0 Not Present 50 3 4 Present 0
17
a -10.99 -13.14 -11.02
(9) Predicted Nbimv (6)*(7)*(8) 3.766 1.237 2.529
(1) Collision Type
(PDO)

from Table 12-11 1.000 0.483 0.030 0.244 0.032 0.211
1.000 0.450 0.049 0.347 0.099 0.055
(1)
(9) Predicted Nbisv (6)*(7)*(8) 0.249 0.066 0.183
18
(1) Collision Type
(PDO)

from Table 12-13 1.000 0.001 0.002 0.870 0.070 0.023 0.034
1.000 0.001 0.002 0.744 0.072 0.040 0.141
---
(6)
19
from Table 12-17 0.015 -1.00 1.00
3.766 --
0.060 0.060
(1) Collision type
20
Worksheet 2A -- General Information and Input Data for Urban and Suburban Arterial Intersections General Information Location Information Analyst SAM Roadway Government Street Agency or Company STANTEC Intersection Arlington Ave Date Performed 02/14/13 Jurisdiction East Baton Rouge Parish Analysis Year 2008 Input Data Base Conditions Site Conditions Intersection type (3ST, 3SG, 4ST, 4SG) -3ST AADTMAX = AADT major (veh/day) 45,700 (veh/day) -18,303 AADTMAX = AADT minor (veh/day) 9,300 (veh/day) -4,000 Intersection lighting (present/not present) Calibration factor, Ci Data for unsignalized intersections only: Number of major-road approaches with left-turn lanes (0,1,2) Number of major-road approaches with right-turn lanes (0,1,2) Data for signalized intersections only: Number of approaches with left-turn lanes (0,1,2,3,4) [for 3SG, use maximum value of 3] Number of approaches with right-turn lanes (0,1,2,3,4) [for 3SG, use maximum value of 3] Number of approaches with left-turn signal phasing [for 3SG, use maximum value of 3] Type of left-turn signal phasing for Leg #1 Type of left-turn signal phasing for Leg #2 Type of left-turn signal phasing for Leg #3 Type of left-turn signal phasing for Leg #4 (if applicable) Number of approaches with right-turn-on-red prohibited [for 3SG, use maximum value of 3] Intersection red light cameras (present/not present) Sum of all pedestrian crossing volumes (PedVol) -- Signalized intersections only Maximum number of lanes crossed by a pedestrian (nlanesx) Number of bus stops within 300 m (1,000 ft) of the intersection Schools within 300 m (1,000 ft) of the intersection (present/not present) Number of alcohol sales establishments within 300 m (1,000 ft) of the intersection Not Present 1.00 -0 0 -0 0 -Permissive ---0 Not Present -0 Not Present 0 Present 1.00 -0 0 -2 2 2 Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable 0 Not Present 10 3 3 Present 0
21
a -13.36 -14.01 -15.38
(9) Predicted Nbimv (6)*(7)*(8) 2.317 0.736 1.581
(1) Collision Type
(PDO)

from Table 12-11 1.000 0.440 0.023 0.262 0.040 0.235
1.000 0.421 0.045 0.343 0.126 0.065
(1)
(9) Predicted Nbisv (6)*(7)*(8) 0.331 0.100 0.231
22
(1) Collision Type
(PDO)

from Table 12-13 1.000 0.003 0.018 0.834 0.092 0.023 0.030
1.000 0.001 0.003 0.762 0.090 0.039 0.105
(7) Predicted Npedi (4)*(5)*(6) 0.056 0.056
2.317 --
(6)
23
from Table 12-17 0.016 -1.00 1.00
2.317 --
0.042 0.042
(1) Collision type
24
Worksheet 3A -- Predicted Crashes by Severity and Site Type and Observed Crashes Using the Site-Specific EB Method for Urban and Suburban Arterials (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) Observed Overdispersion Weighted Expected Predicted average crash frequency Parameter, k crashes, adjustment, w average crash (crashes/year) Nobserved frequency, Collision type / Site type N predicted N predicted (FI) N predicted Equation A-5 Equation A-4 (crashes/year) from Part C from Part C (TOTAL) (PDO) Appendix Appendix ROADWAY SEGMENTS Multiple-vehicle nondriveway 0.115 0.031 0.084 0 0.660 0.929 0.107 Segment 1 Segment 2 0.262 0.070 0.191 0 0.660 0.853 0.223 Segment 3 0.247 0.068 0.179 0 0.660 0.860 0.212 Segment 4 0 1.000 0.000 Single-vehicle Segment 1 0.019 0.005 0.014 0 1.370 0.975 0.019 Segment 2 0.043 0.012 0.031 0 1.370 0.944 0.041 Segment 3 0.038 0.010 0.027 0 1.370 0.951 0.036 Segment 4 0 1.000 0.000 Multiple-vehicle driveway-related Segment 1 0.208 0.050 0.157 0 1.100 0.814 0.169 Segment 2 0.145 0.035 0.110 0 1.100 0.863 0.125 Segment 3 0.274 0.067 0.207 0 1.100 0.768 0.211 Segment 4 0 1.000 0.000 INTERSECTIONS Multiple-vehicle Intersection 1 2.091 0.666 1.425 0 0.800 0.374 0.782 3.766 1.237 2.529 0 0.390 0.405 1.525 Intersection 2 Intersection 3 1.581 0 0.800 0.350 0.812 2.317 0.736 1.000 0.000 Intersection 4 Single-vehicle Intersection 1 0.327 0.099 0.227 0 1.140 0.729 0.238 0.249 0.066 0.183 0 0.360 0.918 0.229 Intersection 2 Intersection 3 0.331 0.100 0.231 0 1.140 0.726 0.241 1.000 0.000 Intersection 4 COMBINED (sum of column) 10.431 3.254 7.177 0 --4.969
25
26
0.115 0.262 0.247
0.031 0.070 0.068
0.084 0.191 0.179
0.276 0.416 0.403
-------------
-------------
-------------
-------------
-------------
0.019 0.043 0.038
0.005 0.012 0.010
0.014 0.031 0.027
1.370 1.370 1.370
0.000 0.003 0.002
0.162 0.244 0.227
0.208 0.145 0.274
0.050 0.035 0.067
0.157 0.110 0.207
0.047 0.023 0.083
0.478 0.399 0.549
2.091 3.766 2.317
0.666 1.237 0.736
1.425 2.529 1.581
--------34
0.800 0.390 0.800
3.498 5.531 4.294
1.293 1.212 1.361
--------0.430
--------23.872
--------0.550
--------21.044
--------22.458
0.327 0.249 0.331 10.431
0.099 0.066 0.100 3.254
0.227 0.183 0.231 7.177
1.140 0.360 1.140 --
0.122 0.022 0.125 13.844
0.610 0.299 0.615 8.544
27
Worksheet 4C -- Project-Specific EB Method Summary Results for Urban and Suburban Arterials (1) Crash severity level Total Fatal and injury (FI) Property damage only (PDO) (2) N predicted (2)COMB from Worksheet 4A 10.4 (3)COMB from Worksheet 4A 3.3 (4)COMB from Worksheet 4A 7.2 (3) N ped (2)COMB from Worksheet 4B 0.3 (2)COMB from Worksheet 4B 0.3 -0.0 (4) N bike (3)COMB from Worksheet 4B 0.2 (3)COMB from Worksheet 4B 0.2 -0.0 (5) N expected (vehicle) (13)COMB Worksheet 4A 22.5 (5)TOTAL * (2)FI / (2) TOTAL 7.0 (5)TOTAL * (2)PDO / (2) TOTAL 15.5 (6) N expected (3)+(4)+(5) 22.9 (3)+(4)+(5) 7.4 (3)+(4)+(5) 15.5
28
Worksheet 1A -- General Information and Input Data for Urban and Suburban Roadway Segments General Information Location Information SAM Roadway Government Street (Existing) STANTEC 02/14/13 Input Data Roadway Section Jurisdiction Analysis Year Base Conditions --(veh/day) -None -15 Not Present Not Present --------0 30 1.00 St. Rose Ave - Lavinia St EAST BATON ROUGE PARISH 2009 Site Conditions 4U 0.033 17,289 None 0 Not Present Present Not Present 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 Posted Speed Greater than 30 mph 10 6 1.00
1.00 1.00 1 00
0.117 0.036 0 081
12.53
1.38
1.08
0.084
0.694
0.088
0.92
1.00
0.081
(1) Collision Type
1.000 0.511 0.077 0.181 0.093 0.082 0.056
1.00 1.00 1.00
0.028 0.007 0.021
(1)

1.000 0.001 0.612 0.020 0.367
--
0.81
(8) Predicted Npedr (5)*(6)*(7) 0.005 0.005
(1) Collision type
Worksheet 1A -- General Information and Input Data for Urban and Suburban Roadway Segments General Information Location Information SAM Roadway Government Street (Existing) STANTEC 02/14/13 Input Data Roadway Section Jurisdiction Analysis Year Base Conditions --(veh/day) -None -15 Not Present Not Present --------0 30 1.00 Lavinia St - S Eugene St East Baton Rouge Parish 2009 Site Conditions 4U 0.075 17,289 None 0 Not Present Present Not Present 0 4 0 0 0 1 0 Posted Speed 30 mph or Lower 10 6 1.00
1.00 1.00 1 00
0.267 0.082 0 185
12.53
1.38
1.08
0.191
0.694
0.200
0.92
1.00
0.185
(1) Collision Type
1.000 0.511 0.077 0.181 0.093 0.082 0.056
Worksheet 1E -- Single-Vehicle Collisions by Severity Level for Urban and Suburban Roadway Segments (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) Adjusted SPF Coefficients Overdispersion Proportion of Total Combined Initial Nbrsv Nbrsv Crashes Parameter, k CMFs from Table 12-5 (6) from (4)TOTAL*(5) from Table 12-5 from Equation 12-13 Worksheet 1B a b 0.91 0.069 1.000 -7.99 0.81 0.069 0.92 (4)FI/((4)FI+(4)PDO) -7.37 0.61 0.54 0.018 0.017 0.92 0.247 (5)TOTAL-(5)FI 0.84 0.052 0.92 -8.50 0.97 0.055 0.753
1.00 1.00 1.00
0.064 0.016 0.048
(1)

1.000 0.001 0.612 0.020 0.367
--
0.81
(8) Predicted Npedr (5)*(6)*(7) 0.013 0.013
(1) Collision type
Worksheet 1A -- General Information and Input Data for Urban and Suburban Roadway Segments General Information Location Information SAM Roadway Government Street (Existing) STANTEC 02/14/13 Input Data Roadway Section Jurisdiction Analysis Year Base Conditions --(veh/day) -None -15 Not Present Not Present --------0 30 1.00 S Eugene St - Arlington Ave East Baton Rouge Parish 2009 Site Conditions 4U 0.062 18,951 None 0 Not Present Present Not Present 0 4 1 0 0 0 0 Posted Speed 30 mph or Lower 10 6 1.00
1.00 1.00 1 00
0.249 0.076 0 173
12.53
1.38
1.08
0.179
0.696
0.188
0.92
1.00
0.173
(1) Collision Type
1.000 0.511 0.077 0.181 0.093 0.082 0.056
1.00 1.00 1.00
0.057 0.014 0.043
(1)

1.000 0.001 0.612 0.020 0.367
10
--
0.81
(8) Predicted Npedr (5)*(6)*(7) 0.018 0.018
11
(1) Collision type
12
Worksheet 2A -- General Information and Input Data for Urban and Suburban Arterial Intersections General Information Location Information Analyst SAM Roadway Government Street (Existing) Agency or Company STANTEC Intersection Lavinia St Date Performed 02/14/13 Jurisdiction East Baton Rouge Parish Analysis Year 2009 Input Data Base Conditions Site Conditions Intersection type (3ST, 3SG, 4ST, 4SG) -3ST AADTMAX = AADT major (veh/day) 45,700 (veh/day) -17,289 AADTMAX = AADT minor (veh/day) 9,300 (veh/day) -4,000 Intersection lighting (present/not present) Calibration factor, Ci Data for unsignalized intersections only: Number of major-road approaches with left-turn lanes (0,1,2) Number of major-road approaches with right-turn lanes (0,1,2) Data for signalized intersections only: Number of approaches with left-turn lanes (0,1,2,3,4) [for 3SG, use maximum value of 3] Number of approaches with right-turn lanes (0,1,2,3,4) [for 3SG, use maximum value of 3] Number of approaches with left-turn signal phasing [for 3SG, use maximum value of 3] Type of left-turn signal phasing for Leg #1 Type of left-turn signal phasing for Leg #2 Type of left-turn signal phasing for Leg #3 Type of left-turn signal phasing for Leg #4 (if applicable) Number of approaches with right-turn-on-red prohibited [for 3SG, use maximum value of 3] Intersection red light cameras (present/not present) Sum of all pedestrian crossing volumes (PedVol) -- Signalized intersections only Maximum number of lanes crossed by a pedestrian (nlanesx) Number of bus stops within 300 m (1,000 ft) of the intersection Schools within 300 m (1,000 ft) of the intersection (present/not present) Number of alcohol sales establishments within 300 m (1,000 ft) of the intersection Not Present 1.00 -0 0 -0 0 -Permissive ---0 Not Present -0 Not Present 0 Present 1.00 -0 0 -0 0 0 Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable 0 Not Present 10 4 4 Not Present 0
13
a -13.36 -14.01 -15.38
(9) Predicted Nbimv (6)*(7)*(8) 2.175 0.692 1.483
(1) Collision Type
(PDO)

from Table 12-11 1.000 0.440 0.023 0.262 0.040 0.235
1.000 0.421 0.045 0.343 0.126 0.065
(1)
(9) Predicted Nbisv (6)*(7)*(8) 0.328 0.100 0.229
14
(1) Collision Type
(PDO)

from Table 12-13 1.000 0.003 0.018 0.834 0.092 0.023 0.030
1.000 0.001 0.003 0.762 0.090 0.039 0.105
(7) Predicted Npedi (4)*(5)*(6) 0.053 0.053
2.175 --
15
from Table 12-17 0.016 -1.00 1.00
2.175 --
0.040 0.040
(1) Collision type
16
Worksheet 2A -- General Information and Input Data for Urban and Suburban Arterial Intersections General Information Location Information Analyst SAM Roadway Government Street (Existing) Agency or Company STANTEC Intersection S Eugene St Date Performed 02/14/13 Jurisdiction East Baton Rouge Parish Analysis Year 2009 Input Data Base Conditions Site Conditions Intersection type (3ST, 3SG, 4ST, 4SG) -4SG AADTMAX = AADT major (veh/day) 67,700 (veh/day) -17,289 AADTMAX = AADT minor (veh/day) 33,400 (veh/day) -4,000 Intersection lighting (present/not present) Calibration factor, Ci Data for unsignalized intersections only: Number of major-road approaches with left-turn lanes (0,1,2) Number of major-road approaches with right-turn lanes (0,1,2) Data for signalized intersections only: Number of approaches with left-turn lanes (0,1,2,3,4) [for 3SG, use maximum value of 3] Number of approaches with right-turn lanes (0,1,2,3,4) [for 3SG, use maximum value of 3] Number of approaches with left-turn signal phasing [for 3SG, use maximum value of 3] Type of left-turn signal phasing for Leg #1 Type of left-turn signal phasing for Leg #2 Type of left-turn signal phasing for Leg #3 Type of left-turn signal phasing for Leg #4 (if applicable) Number of approaches with right-turn-on-red prohibited [for 3SG, use maximum value of 3] Intersection red light cameras (present/not present) Sum of all pedestrian crossing volumes (PedVol) -- Signalized intersections only Maximum number of lanes crossed by a pedestrian (nlanesx) Number of bus stops within 300 m (1,000 ft) of the intersection Schools within 300 m (1,000 ft) of the intersection (present/not present) Number of alcohol sales establishments within 300 m (1,000 ft) of the intersection Not Present 1.00 -0 0 -0 0 -Permissive ---0 Not Present -0 Not Present 0 Present 1.00 -0 0 -0 0 0 Permissive Permissive Permissive Permissive 0 Not Present 50 4 4 Present 0
17
a -10.99 -13.14 -11.02
(9) Predicted Nbimv (6)*(7)*(8) 3.543 1.156 2.387
(1) Collision Type
(PDO)

from Table 12-11 1.000 0.483 0.030 0.244 0.032 0.211
1.000 0.450 0.049 0.347 0.099 0.055
(1)
(9) Predicted Nbisv (6)*(7)*(8) 0.240 0.065 0.175
18
(1) Collision Type
(PDO)

from Table 12-13 1.000 0.001 0.002 0.870 0.070 0.023 0.034
1.000 0.001 0.002 0.744 0.072 0.040 0.141
---
(6)
19
from Table 12-17 0.015 -1.00 1.00
3.543 --
0.057 0.057
(1) Collision type
20
Worksheet 2A -- General Information and Input Data for Urban and Suburban Arterial Intersections General Information Location Information Analyst SAM Roadway Government Street (Existing) Agency or Company STANTEC Intersection Arlington Ave Date Performed 02/14/13 Jurisdiction East Baton Rouge Parish Analysis Year 2009 Input Data Base Conditions Site Conditions Intersection type (3ST, 3SG, 4ST, 4SG) -3ST AADTMAX = AADT major (veh/day) 45,700 (veh/day) -18,951 AADTMAX = AADT minor (veh/day) 9,300 (veh/day) -4,000 Intersection lighting (present/not present) Calibration factor, Ci Data for unsignalized intersections only: Number of major-road approaches with left-turn lanes (0,1,2) Number of major-road approaches with right-turn lanes (0,1,2) Data for signalized intersections only: Number of approaches with left-turn lanes (0,1,2,3,4) [for 3SG, use maximum value of 3] Number of approaches with right-turn lanes (0,1,2,3,4) [for 3SG, use maximum value of 3] Number of approaches with left-turn signal phasing [for 3SG, use maximum value of 3] Type of left-turn signal phasing for Leg #1 Type of left-turn signal phasing for Leg #2 Type of left-turn signal phasing for Leg #3 Type of left-turn signal phasing for Leg #4 (if applicable) Number of approaches with right-turn-on-red prohibited [for 3SG, use maximum value of 3] Intersection red light cameras (present/not present) Sum of all pedestrian crossing volumes (PedVol) -- Signalized intersections only Maximum number of lanes crossed by a pedestrian (nlanesx) Number of bus stops within 300 m (1,000 ft) of the intersection Schools within 300 m (1,000 ft) of the intersection (present/not present) Number of alcohol sales establishments within 300 m (1,000 ft) of the intersection Not Present 1.00 -0 0 -0 0 -Permissive ---0 Not Present -0 Not Present 0 Present 1.00 -0 0 -2 2 2 Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable 0 Not Present 10 4 3 Present 0
21
a -13.36 -14.01 -15.38
(9) Predicted Nbimv (6)*(7)*(8) 2.408 0.764 1.644
(1) Collision Type
(PDO)

from Table 12-11 1.000 0.440 0.023 0.262 0.040 0.235
1.000 0.421 0.045 0.343 0.126 0.065
(1)
(9) Predicted Nbisv (6)*(7)*(8) 0.333 0.101 0.233
22
(1) Collision Type
(PDO)

from Table 12-13 1.000 0.003 0.018 0.834 0.092 0.023 0.030
1.000 0.001 0.003 0.762 0.090 0.039 0.105
(7) Predicted Npedi (4)*(5)*(6) 0.058 0.058
2.408 --
(6)
23
from Table 12-17 0.016 -1.00 1.00
2.408 --
0.044 0.044
(1) Collision type
24
25
26
0.117 0.267 0.249
0.036 0.082 0.076
0.081 0.185 0.173
0.344 0.519 0.502
-------------
-------------
-------------
-------------
-------------
0.028 0.064 0.057
0.007 0.016 0.014
0.021 0.048 0.043
0.910 0.910 0.910
0.001 0.004 0.003
0.160 0.240 0.227
0.388 0.273 0.522
0.133 0.093 0.179
0.256 0.179 0.344
0.122 0.060 0.221
0.561 0.470 0.650
2.175 3.543 2.408
0.692 1.156 0.764
1.483 2.387 1.644
--------34
0.800 0.390 0.800
3.784 4.896 4.639
1.319 1.175 1.388
--------0.437
--------23.940
--------0.548
--------21.398
--------22.669
0.328 0.240 0.333 10.991
0.100 0.065 0.101 3.512
0.229 0.175 0.233 7.480
1.140 0.360 1.140 --
0.123 0.021 0.127 14.148
0.612 0.294 0.616 9.077
27
28
Worksheet 1A -- General Information and Input Data for Urban and Suburban Roadway Segments General Information Location Information SAM Roadway Government Street (TWLTL) STANTEC 02/14/13 Input Data Roadway Section Jurisdiction Analysis Year Base Conditions --(veh/day) -None -15 Not Present Not Present --------0 30 1.00 St. Rose Ave - Lavinia St EAST BATON ROUGE PARISH 2009 Site Conditions 3T 0.033 17,289 None 0 10 Present Not Present 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 Posted Speed Greater than 30 mph 10 10 1.00
1.00 1.00 1 00
0.121 0.033 0 088
11.95
1.33
0.59
0.092
0.729
0.094
0.94
1.00
0.088
(1) Collision Type
1.000 0.845 0.034 0.069 0.001 0.017 0.034
1.00 1.00 1.00
0.019 0.005 0.014
(1)

1.000 0.001 0.688 0.001 0.310
--
1.10
(8) Predicted Npedr (5)*(6)*(7) 0.005 0.005
(1) Collision type
Worksheet 1A -- General Information and Input Data for Urban and Suburban Roadway Segments General Information Location Information SAM Roadway Government Street (TWLTL) STANTEC 02/14/13 Input Data Roadway Section Jurisdiction Analysis Year Base Conditions --(veh/day) -None -15 Not Present Not Present --------0 30 1.00 Lavinia St - S Eugene St East Baton Rouge Parish 2009 Site Conditions 3T 0.075 17,289 None 0 10 Present Not Present 0 4 0 0 0 1 0 Posted Speed 30 mph or Lower 10 10 1.00
1.00 1.00 1 00
0.275 0.075 0 201
11.95
1.33
0.59
0.210
0.729
0.213
0.94
1.00
0.201
(1) Collision Type
1.000 0.845 0.034 0.069 0.001 0.017 0.034
1.00 1.00 1.00
0.044 0.012 0.032
(1)

1.000 0.001 0.688 0.001 0.310
--
1.10
(8) Predicted Npedr (5)*(6)*(7) 0.019 0.019
(1) Collision type
Worksheet 1A -- General Information and Input Data for Urban and Suburban Roadway Segments General Information Location Information SAM Roadway Government Street (TWLTL) STANTEC 02/14/13 Input Data Roadway Section Jurisdiction Analysis Year Base Conditions --(veh/day) -None -15 Not Present Not Present --------0 30 1.00 S Eugene St - Arlington Ave East Baton Rouge Parish 2009 Site Conditions 3T 0.062 18,951 None 0 10 Present Not Present 0 4 1 0 0 0 0 Posted Speed 30 mph or Lower 10 10 1.00
1.00 1.00 1 00
0.259 0.072 0 187
11.95
1.33
0.59
0.196
0.722
0.198
0.94
1.00
0.187
(1) Collision Type
1.000 0.845 0.034 0.069 0.001 0.017 0.034
1.00 1.00 1.00
0.038 0.011 0.028
(1)

1.000 0.001 0.688 0.001 0.310
10
--
1.10
(8) Predicted Npedr (5)*(6)*(7) 0.024 0.024
11
(1) Collision type
12
Worksheet 2A -- General Information and Input Data for Urban and Suburban Arterial Intersections General Information Location Information Analyst SAM Roadway Government Street (TWLTL) Agency or Company STANTEC Intersection Lavinia St Date Performed 02/14/13 Jurisdiction East Baton Rouge Parish Analysis Year 2009 Input Data Base Conditions Site Conditions Intersection type (3ST, 3SG, 4ST, 4SG) -3ST AADTMAX = AADT major (veh/day) 45,700 (veh/day) -17,289 AADTMAX = AADT minor (veh/day) 9,300 (veh/day) -4,000 Intersection lighting (present/not present) Calibration factor, Ci Data for unsignalized intersections only: Number of major-road approaches with left-turn lanes (0,1,2) Number of major-road approaches with right-turn lanes (0,1,2) Data for signalized intersections only: Number of approaches with left-turn lanes (0,1,2,3,4) [for 3SG, use maximum value of 3] Number of approaches with right-turn lanes (0,1,2,3,4) [for 3SG, use maximum value of 3] Number of approaches with left-turn signal phasing [for 3SG, use maximum value of 3] Type of left-turn signal phasing for Leg #1 Type of left-turn signal phasing for Leg #2 Type of left-turn signal phasing for Leg #3 Type of left-turn signal phasing for Leg #4 (if applicable) Number of approaches with right-turn-on-red prohibited [for 3SG, use maximum value of 3] Intersection red light cameras (present/not present) Sum of all pedestrian crossing volumes (PedVol) -- Signalized intersections only Maximum number of lanes crossed by a pedestrian (nlanesx) Number of bus stops within 300 m (1,000 ft) of the intersection Schools within 300 m (1,000 ft) of the intersection (present/not present) Number of alcohol sales establishments within 300 m (1,000 ft) of the intersection Not Present 1.00 -0 0 -0 0 -Permissive ---0 Not Present -0 Not Present 0 Present 1.00 -0 0 -0 0 0 Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable 0 Not Present 10 3 4 Not Present 0
13
a -13.36 -14.01 -15.38
(9) Predicted Nbimv (6)*(7)*(8) 2.175 0.692 1.483
(1) Collision Type
(PDO)

from Table 12-11 1.000 0.440 0.023 0.262 0.040 0.235
1.000 0.421 0.045 0.343 0.126 0.065
(1)
(9) Predicted Nbisv (6)*(7)*(8) 0.328 0.100 0.229
14
(1) Collision Type
(PDO)

from Table 12-13 1.000 0.003 0.018 0.834 0.092 0.023 0.030
1.000 0.001 0.003 0.762 0.090 0.039 0.105
(7) Predicted Npedi (4)*(5)*(6) 0.053 0.053
2.175 --
15
from Table 12-17 0.016 -1.00 1.00
2.175 --
0.040 0.040
(1) Collision type
16
Worksheet 2A -- General Information and Input Data for Urban and Suburban Arterial Intersections General Information Location Information Analyst SAM Roadway Government Street (TWLTL) Agency or Company STANTEC Intersection S Eugene St Date Performed 02/14/13 Jurisdiction East Baton Rouge Parish Analysis Year 2009 Input Data Base Conditions Site Conditions Intersection type (3ST, 3SG, 4ST, 4SG) -4SG AADTMAX = AADT major (veh/day) 67,700 (veh/day) -17,289 AADTMAX = AADT minor (veh/day) 33,400 (veh/day) -4,000 Intersection lighting (present/not present) Calibration factor, Ci Data for unsignalized intersections only: Number of major-road approaches with left-turn lanes (0,1,2) Number of major-road approaches with right-turn lanes (0,1,2) Data for signalized intersections only: Number of approaches with left-turn lanes (0,1,2,3,4) [for 3SG, use maximum value of 3] Number of approaches with right-turn lanes (0,1,2,3,4) [for 3SG, use maximum value of 3] Number of approaches with left-turn signal phasing [for 3SG, use maximum value of 3] Type of left-turn signal phasing for Leg #1 Type of left-turn signal phasing for Leg #2 Type of left-turn signal phasing for Leg #3 Type of left-turn signal phasing for Leg #4 (if applicable) Number of approaches with right-turn-on-red prohibited [for 3SG, use maximum value of 3] Intersection red light cameras (present/not present) Sum of all pedestrian crossing volumes (PedVol) -- Signalized intersections only Maximum number of lanes crossed by a pedestrian (nlanesx) Number of bus stops within 300 m (1,000 ft) of the intersection Schools within 300 m (1,000 ft) of the intersection (present/not present) Number of alcohol sales establishments within 300 m (1,000 ft) of the intersection Not Present 1.00 -0 0 -0 0 -Permissive ---0 Not Present -0 Not Present 0 Present 1.00 -0 0 -0 0 0 Permissive Permissive Permissive Permissive 0 Not Present 50 3 4 Present 0
17
a -10.99 -13.14 -11.02
(9) Predicted Nbimv (6)*(7)*(8) 3.543 1.156 2.387
(1) Collision Type
(PDO)

from Table 12-11 1.000 0.483 0.030 0.244 0.032 0.211
1.000 0.450 0.049 0.347 0.099 0.055
(1)
(9) Predicted Nbisv (6)*(7)*(8) 0.240 0.065 0.175
18
(1) Collision Type
(PDO)

from Table 12-13 1.000 0.001 0.002 0.870 0.070 0.023 0.034
1.000 0.001 0.002 0.744 0.072 0.040 0.141
---
(6)
19
from Table 12-17 0.015 -1.00 1.00
3.543 --
0.057 0.057
(1) Collision type
20
Worksheet 2A -- General Information and Input Data for Urban and Suburban Arterial Intersections General Information Location Information Analyst SAM Roadway Government Street (TWLTL) Agency or Company STANTEC Intersection Arlington Ave Date Performed 02/14/13 Jurisdiction East Baton Rouge Parish Analysis Year 2009 Input Data Base Conditions Site Conditions Intersection type (3ST, 3SG, 4ST, 4SG) -3ST AADTMAX = AADT major (veh/day) 45,700 (veh/day) -18,951 AADTMAX = AADT minor (veh/day) 9,300 (veh/day) -4,000 Intersection lighting (present/not present) Calibration factor, Ci Data for unsignalized intersections only: Number of major-road approaches with left-turn lanes (0,1,2) Number of major-road approaches with right-turn lanes (0,1,2) Data for signalized intersections only: Number of approaches with left-turn lanes (0,1,2,3,4) [for 3SG, use maximum value of 3] Number of approaches with right-turn lanes (0,1,2,3,4) [for 3SG, use maximum value of 3] Number of approaches with left-turn signal phasing [for 3SG, use maximum value of 3] Type of left-turn signal phasing for Leg #1 Type of left-turn signal phasing for Leg #2 Type of left-turn signal phasing for Leg #3 Type of left-turn signal phasing for Leg #4 (if applicable) Number of approaches with right-turn-on-red prohibited [for 3SG, use maximum value of 3] Intersection red light cameras (present/not present) Sum of all pedestrian crossing volumes (PedVol) -- Signalized intersections only Maximum number of lanes crossed by a pedestrian (nlanesx) Number of bus stops within 300 m (1,000 ft) of the intersection Schools within 300 m (1,000 ft) of the intersection (present/not present) Number of alcohol sales establishments within 300 m (1,000 ft) of the intersection Not Present 1.00 -0 0 -0 0 -Permissive ---0 Not Present -0 Not Present 0 Present 1.00 -0 0 -2 2 2 Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable 0 Not Present 10 3 3 Present 0
21
a -13.36 -14.01 -15.38
(9) Predicted Nbimv (6)*(7)*(8) 2.408 0.764 1.644
(1) Collision Type
(PDO)

from Table 12-11 1.000 0.440 0.023 0.262 0.040 0.235
1.000 0.421 0.045 0.343 0.126 0.065
(1)
(9) Predicted Nbisv (6)*(7)*(8) 0.333 0.101 0.233
22
(1) Collision Type
(PDO)

from Table 12-13 1.000 0.003 0.018 0.834 0.092 0.023 0.030
1.000 0.001 0.003 0.762 0.090 0.039 0.105
(7) Predicted Npedi (4)*(5)*(6) 0.058 0.058
2.408 --
(6)
23
from Table 12-17 0.016 -1.00 1.00
2.408 --
0.044 0.044
(1) Collision type
24
25
26
0.121 0.275 0.259
0.033 0.075 0.072
0.088 0.201 0.187
0.283 0.426 0.413
-------------
-------------
-------------
-------------
-------------
0.019 0.044 0.038
0.005 0.012 0.011
0.014 0.032 0.028
1.370 1.370 1.370
0.001 0.003 0.002
0.163 0.246 0.229
0.215 0.150 0.284
0.052 0.036 0.069
0.163 0.114 0.215
0.051 0.025 0.088
0.487 0.406 0.559
2.175 3.543 2.408
0.692 1.156 0.764
1.483 2.387 1.644
--------34
0.800 0.390 0.800
3.784 4.896 4.639
1.319 1.175 1.388
--------0.429
--------23.880
--------0.548
--------21.093
--------22.486
0.328 0.240 0.333 10.433
0.100 0.065 0.101 3.243
0.229 0.175 0.233 7.190
1.140 0.360 1.140 --
0.123 0.021 0.127 13.862
0.612 0.294 0.616 8.617
27
28
Worksheet 1A -- General Information and Input Data for Urban and Suburban Roadway Segments General Information Location Information SAM Roadway STANTEC 02/14/13 Input Data Roadway Section Jurisdiction Analysis Year Base Conditions --(veh/day) -None -15 Not Present Not Present --------0 30 1.00
LA 73
St. Rose Ave - Lavinia St EAST BATON ROUGE PARISH 2010 Site Conditions 4U 0.033 17,891 None 0 Not Present Present Not Present 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 Posted Speed Greater than 30 mph 10 6 1.00
1.00 1.00 1 00
0.123 0.037 0 085
12.53
1.38
1.08
0.088
0.695
0.092
0.92
1.00
0.085
(1) Collision Type
1.000 0.511 0.077 0.181 0.093 0.082 0.056
1.00 1.00 1.00
0.029 0.007 0.022
(1)

1.000 0.001 0.612 0.020 0.367
--
0.81
(8) Predicted Npedr (5)*(6)*(7) 0.005 0.005
(1) Collision type
Worksheet 1A -- General Information and Input Data for Urban and Suburban Roadway Segments General Information Location Information SAM Roadway Government Street STANTEC 02/14/13 Input Data Roadway Section Jurisdiction Analysis Year Base Conditions --(veh/day) -None -15 Not Present Not Present --------0 30 1.00 Lavinia St - S Eugene St East Baton Rouge Parish 2010 Site Conditions 4U 0.075 17,891 None 0 Not Present Present Not Present 0 4 0 0 0 1 0 Posted Speed 30 mph or Lower 10 6 1.00
1.00 1.00 1 00
0.279 0.085 0 194
12.53
1.38
1.08
0.200
0.695
0.210
0.92
1.00
0.194
(1) Collision Type
1.000 0.511 0.077 0.181 0.093 0.082 0.056
1.00 1.00 1.00
0.065 0.016 0.049
(1)

1.000 0.001 0.612 0.020 0.367
--
0.81
(8) Predicted Npedr (5)*(6)*(7) 0.014 0.014
(1) Collision type
Worksheet 1A -- General Information and Input Data for Urban and Suburban Roadway Segments General Information Location Information SAM Roadway Government Street STANTEC 02/14/13 Input Data Roadway Section Jurisdiction Analysis Year Base Conditions --(veh/day) -None -15 Not Present Not Present --------0 30 1.00 S Eugene St - Arlington Ave East Baton Rouge Parish 2010 Site Conditions 4U 0.062 19,600 None 0 Not Present Present Not Present 0 4 1 0 0 0 0 Posted Speed 30 mph or Lower 10 6 1.00
1.00 1.00 1 00
0.260 0.079 0 182
12.53
1.38
1.08
0.188
0.697
0.197
0.92
1.00
0.182
(1) Collision Type
1.000 0.511 0.077 0.181 0.093 0.082 0.056
1.00 1.00 1.00
0.058 0.014 0.044
(1)

1.000 0.001 0.612 0.020 0.367
10
--
0.81
(8) Predicted Npedr (5)*(6)*(7) 0.019 0.019
11
(1) Collision type
12
Worksheet 2A -- General Information and Input Data for Urban and Suburban Arterial Intersections General Information Location Information Analyst SAM Roadway Government Street Agency or Company STANTEC Intersection Lavinia St Date Performed 02/14/13 Jurisdiction East Baton Rouge Parish Analysis Year 2010 Input Data Base Conditions Site Conditions Intersection type (3ST, 3SG, 4ST, 4SG) -3ST AADTMAX = AADT major (veh/day) 45,700 (veh/day) -17,891 AADTMAX = AADT minor (veh/day) 9,300 (veh/day) -4,000 Intersection lighting (present/not present) Calibration factor, Ci Data for unsignalized intersections only: Number of major-road approaches with left-turn lanes (0,1,2) Number of major-road approaches with right-turn lanes (0,1,2) Data for signalized intersections only: Number of approaches with left-turn lanes (0,1,2,3,4) [for 3SG, use maximum value of 3] Number of approaches with right-turn lanes (0,1,2,3,4) [for 3SG, use maximum value of 3] Number of approaches with left-turn signal phasing [for 3SG, use maximum value of 3] Type of left-turn signal phasing for Leg #1 Type of left-turn signal phasing for Leg #2 Type of left-turn signal phasing for Leg #3 Type of left-turn signal phasing for Leg #4 (if applicable) Number of approaches with right-turn-on-red prohibited [for 3SG, use maximum value of 3] Intersection red light cameras (present/not present) Sum of all pedestrian crossing volumes (PedVol) -- Signalized intersections only Maximum number of lanes crossed by a pedestrian (nlanesx) Number of bus stops within 300 m (1,000 ft) of the intersection Schools within 300 m (1,000 ft) of the intersection (present/not present) Number of alcohol sales establishments within 300 m (1,000 ft) of the intersection Not Present 1.00 -0 0 -0 0 -Permissive ---0 Not Present -0 Not Present 0 Present 1.00 -0 0 -0 0 0 Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable 0 Not Present 10 4 4 Not Present 0
13
a -13.36 -14.01 -15.38
(9) Predicted Nbimv (6)*(7)*(8) 2.259 0.718 1.541
(1) Collision Type
(PDO)

from Table 12-11 1.000 0.440 0.023 0.262 0.040 0.235
1.000 0.421 0.045 0.343 0.126 0.065
(1)
(9) Predicted Nbisv (6)*(7)*(8) 0.330 0.100 0.230
14
(1) Collision Type
(PDO)

from Table 12-13 1.000 0.003 0.018 0.834 0.092 0.023 0.030
1.000 0.001 0.003 0.762 0.090 0.039 0.105
(7) Predicted Npedi (4)*(5)*(6) 0.054 0.054
2.259 --
15
from Table 12-17 0.016 -1.00 1.00
2.259 --
0.041 0.041
(1) Collision type
16
Worksheet 2A -- General Information and Input Data for Urban and Suburban Arterial Intersections General Information Location Information Analyst SAM Roadway Government Street Agency or Company STANTEC Intersection S Eugene St Date Performed 02/14/13 Jurisdiction East Baton Rouge Parish Analysis Year 2010 Input Data Base Conditions Site Conditions Intersection type (3ST, 3SG, 4ST, 4SG) -4SG AADTMAX = AADT major (veh/day) 67,700 (veh/day) -17,891 AADTMAX = AADT minor (veh/day) 33,400 (veh/day) -4,000 Intersection lighting (present/not present) Calibration factor, Ci Data for unsignalized intersections only: Number of major-road approaches with left-turn lanes (0,1,2) Number of major-road approaches with right-turn lanes (0,1,2) Data for signalized intersections only: Number of approaches with left-turn lanes (0,1,2,3,4) [for 3SG, use maximum value of 3] Number of approaches with right-turn lanes (0,1,2,3,4) [for 3SG, use maximum value of 3] Number of approaches with left-turn signal phasing [for 3SG, use maximum value of 3] Type of left-turn signal phasing for Leg #1 Type of left-turn signal phasing for Leg #2 Type of left-turn signal phasing for Leg #3 Type of left-turn signal phasing for Leg #4 (if applicable) Number of approaches with right-turn-on-red prohibited [for 3SG, use maximum value of 3] Intersection red light cameras (present/not present) Sum of all pedestrian crossing volumes (PedVol) -- Signalized intersections only Maximum number of lanes crossed by a pedestrian (nlanesx) Number of bus stops within 300 m (1,000 ft) of the intersection Schools within 300 m (1,000 ft) of the intersection (present/not present) Number of alcohol sales establishments within 300 m (1,000 ft) of the intersection Not Present 1.00 -0 0 -0 0 -Permissive ---0 Not Present -0 Not Present 0 Present 1.00 -0 0 -0 0 0 Permissive Permissive Permissive Permissive 0 Not Present 50 4 4 Present 0
17
a -10.99 -13.14 -11.02
(9) Predicted Nbimv (6)*(7)*(8) 3.675 1.204 2.471
(1) Collision Type
(PDO)

from Table 12-11 1.000 0.483 0.030 0.244 0.032 0.211
1.000 0.450 0.049 0.347 0.099 0.055
(1)
(9) Predicted Nbisv (6)*(7)*(8) 0.245 0.066 0.180
18
(1) Collision Type
(PDO)

from Table 12-13 1.000 0.001 0.002 0.870 0.070 0.023 0.034
1.000 0.001 0.002 0.744 0.072 0.040 0.141
---
(6)
19
from Table 12-17 0.015 -1.00 1.00
3.675 --
0.059 0.059
(1) Collision type
20
Worksheet 2A -- General Information and Input Data for Urban and Suburban Arterial Intersections General Information Location Information Analyst SAM Roadway Government Street Agency or Company STANTEC Intersection Arlington Ave Date Performed 02/14/13 Jurisdiction East Baton Rouge Parish Analysis Year 2010 Input Data Base Conditions Site Conditions Intersection type (3ST, 3SG, 4ST, 4SG) -3ST AADTMAX = AADT major (veh/day) 45,700 (veh/day) -19,600 AADTMAX = AADT minor (veh/day) 9,300 (veh/day) -4,000 Intersection lighting (present/not present) Calibration factor, Ci Data for unsignalized intersections only: Number of major-road approaches with left-turn lanes (0,1,2) Number of major-road approaches with right-turn lanes (0,1,2) Data for signalized intersections only: Number of approaches with left-turn lanes (0,1,2,3,4) [for 3SG, use maximum value of 3] Number of approaches with right-turn lanes (0,1,2,3,4) [for 3SG, use maximum value of 3] Number of approaches with left-turn signal phasing [for 3SG, use maximum value of 3] Type of left-turn signal phasing for Leg #1 Type of left-turn signal phasing for Leg #2 Type of left-turn signal phasing for Leg #3 Type of left-turn signal phasing for Leg #4 (if applicable) Number of approaches with right-turn-on-red prohibited [for 3SG, use maximum value of 3] Intersection red light cameras (present/not present) Sum of all pedestrian crossing volumes (PedVol) -- Signalized intersections only Maximum number of lanes crossed by a pedestrian (nlanesx) Number of bus stops within 300 m (1,000 ft) of the intersection Schools within 300 m (1,000 ft) of the intersection (present/not present) Number of alcohol sales establishments within 300 m (1,000 ft) of the intersection Not Present 1.00 -0 0 -0 0 -Permissive ---0 Not Present -0 Not Present 0 Present 1.00 -0 0 -2 2 2 Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable 0 Not Present 10 4 3 Present 0
21
a -13.36 -14.01 -15.38
(9) Predicted Nbimv (6)*(7)*(8) 2.500 0.793 1.707
(1) Collision Type
(PDO)

from Table 12-11 1.000 0.440 0.023 0.262 0.040 0.235
1.000 0.421 0.045 0.343 0.126 0.065
(1)
(9) Predicted Nbisv (6)*(7)*(8) 0.335 0.101 0.234
22
(1) Collision Type
(PDO)

from Table 12-13 1.000 0.003 0.018 0.834 0.092 0.023 0.030
1.000 0.001 0.003 0.762 0.090 0.039 0.105
(7) Predicted Npedi (4)*(5)*(6) 0.060 0.060
2.500 --
(6)
23
from Table 12-17 0.016 -1.00 1.00
2.500 --
0.045 0.045
(1) Collision type
24
25
26
0.123 0.279 0.260
0.037 0.085 0.079
0.085 0.194 0.182
0.352 0.531 0.513
-------------
-------------
-------------
-------------
-------------
0.029 0.065 0.058
0.007 0.016 0.014
0.022 0.049 0.044
0.910 0.910 0.910
0.001 0.004 0.003
0.162 0.244 0.230
0.404 0.284 0.543
0.138 0.097 0.186
0.266 0.187 0.358
0.132 0.065 0.239
0.572 0.480 0.663
2.259 3.675 2.500
0.718 1.204 0.793
1.541 2.471 1.707
---------
0.800 0.390 0.800
4.083 5.268 4.999
1.344 1.197 1.414
--------0.428
--------#VALUE!
--------0.552
--------#VALUE!
--------#VALUE!
0.330 0.245 0.335 11.390
0.100 0.066 0.101 3.641
0.230 0.180 0.234 7.749
1.140 0.360 1.140 --
0.124 0.022 0.128 15.230
0.614 0.297 0.618 9.231
27
28
Worksheet 1A -- General Information and Input Data for Urban and Suburban Roadway Segments General Information Location Information SAM Roadway Government Street (TWLTL) STANTEC 02/14/13 Input Data Roadway Section Jurisdiction Analysis Year Base Conditions --(veh/day) -None -15 Not Present Not Present --------0 30 1.00 St. Rose Ave - Lavinia St EAST BATON ROUGE PARISH 2010 Site Conditions 3T 0.033 17,891 None 0 10 Present Not Present 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 Posted Speed Greater than 30 mph 10 10 1.00
1.00 1.00 1 00
0.127 0.035 0 092
11.95
1.33
0.59
0.097
0.726
0.098
0.94
1.00
0.092
(1) Collision Type
1.000 0.845 0.034 0.069 0.001 0.017 0.034
1.00 1.00 1.00
0.020 0.005 0.014
(1)

1.000 0.001 0.688 0.001 0.310
--
1.10
(8) Predicted Npedr (5)*(6)*(7) 0.005 0.005
(1) Collision type
Worksheet 1A -- General Information and Input Data for Urban and Suburban Roadway Segments General Information Location Information SAM Roadway Government Street (TWLTL) STANTEC 02/14/13 Input Data Roadway Section Jurisdiction Analysis Year Base Conditions --(veh/day) -None -15 Not Present Not Present --------0 30 1.00 Lavinia St - S Eugene St East Baton Rouge Parish 2010 Site Conditions 3T 0.075 17,891 None 0 10 Present Not Present 0 4 0 0 0 1 0 Posted Speed 30 mph or Lower 10 10 1.00
1.00 1.00 1 00
0.289 0.079 0 210
11.95
1.33
0.59
0.219
0.726
0.222
0.94
1.00
0.210
(1) Collision Type
1.000 0.845 0.034 0.069 0.001 0.017 0.034
1.00 1.00 1.00
0.045 0.012 0.033
(1)

1.000 0.001 0.688 0.001 0.310
--
1.10
(8) Predicted Npedr (5)*(6)*(7) 0.020 0.020
(1) Collision type
Worksheet 1A -- General Information and Input Data for Urban and Suburban Roadway Segments General Information Location Information SAM Roadway Government Street (TWLTL) STANTEC 02/14/13 Input Data Roadway Section Jurisdiction Analysis Year Base Conditions --(veh/day) -None -15 Not Present Not Present --------0 30 1.00 S Eugene St - Arlington Ave East Baton Rouge Parish 2010 Site Conditions 3T 0.062 19,600 None 0 10 Present Not Present 0 4 1 0 0 0 0 Posted Speed 30 mph or Lower 10 10 1.00
1.00 1.00 1 00
0.272 0.076 0 195
11.95
1.33
0.59
0.205
0.720
0.207
0.94
1.00
0.195
(1) Collision Type
1.000 0.845 0.034 0.069 0.001 0.017 0.034
1.00 1.00 1.00
0.039 0.011 0.028
(1)

1.000 0.001 0.688 0.001 0.310
10
--
1.10
(8) Predicted Npedr (5)*(6)*(7) 0.025 0.025
11
(1) Collision type
12
Worksheet 2A -- General Information and Input Data for Urban and Suburban Arterial Intersections General Information Location Information Analyst SAM Roadway Government Street (TWLTL) Agency or Company STANTEC Intersection Lavinia St Date Performed 02/14/13 Jurisdiction East Baton Rouge Parish Analysis Year 2010 Input Data Base Conditions Site Conditions Intersection type (3ST, 3SG, 4ST, 4SG) -3ST AADTMAX = AADT major (veh/day) 45,700 (veh/day) -17,891 AADTMAX = AADT minor (veh/day) 9,300 (veh/day) -4,000 Intersection lighting (present/not present) Calibration factor, Ci Data for unsignalized intersections only: Number of major-road approaches with left-turn lanes (0,1,2) Number of major-road approaches with right-turn lanes (0,1,2) Data for signalized intersections only: Number of approaches with left-turn lanes (0,1,2,3,4) [for 3SG, use maximum value of 3] Number of approaches with right-turn lanes (0,1,2,3,4) [for 3SG, use maximum value of 3] Number of approaches with left-turn signal phasing [for 3SG, use maximum value of 3] Type of left-turn signal phasing for Leg #1 Type of left-turn signal phasing for Leg #2 Type of left-turn signal phasing for Leg #3 Type of left-turn signal phasing for Leg #4 (if applicable) Number of approaches with right-turn-on-red prohibited [for 3SG, use maximum value of 3] Intersection red light cameras (present/not present) Sum of all pedestrian crossing volumes (PedVol) -- Signalized intersections only Maximum number of lanes crossed by a pedestrian (nlanesx) Number of bus stops within 300 m (1,000 ft) of the intersection Schools within 300 m (1,000 ft) of the intersection (present/not present) Number of alcohol sales establishments within 300 m (1,000 ft) of the intersection Not Present 1.00 -0 0 -0 0 -Permissive ---0 Not Present -0 Not Present 0 Present 1.00 -0 0 -0 0 0 Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable 0 Not Present 10 3 4 Not Present 0
13
a -13.36 -14.01 -15.38
(9) Predicted Nbimv (6)*(7)*(8) 2.259 0.718 1.541
(1) Collision Type
(PDO)

from Table 12-11 1.000 0.440 0.023 0.262 0.040 0.235
1.000 0.421 0.045 0.343 0.126 0.065
(1)
(9) Predicted Nbisv (6)*(7)*(8) 0.330 0.100 0.230
14
(1) Collision Type
(PDO)

from Table 12-13 1.000 0.003 0.018 0.834 0.092 0.023 0.030
1.000 0.001 0.003 0.762 0.090 0.039 0.105
(7) Predicted Npedi (4)*(5)*(6) 0.054 0.054
2.259 --
15
from Table 12-17 0.016 -1.00 1.00
2.259 --
0.041 0.041
(1) Collision type
16
Worksheet 2A -- General Information and Input Data for Urban and Suburban Arterial Intersections General Information Location Information Analyst SAM Roadway Government Street (TWLTL) Agency or Company STANTEC Intersection S Eugene St Date Performed 02/14/13 Jurisdiction East Baton Rouge Parish Analysis Year 2010 Input Data Base Conditions Site Conditions Intersection type (3ST, 3SG, 4ST, 4SG) -4SG AADTMAX = AADT major (veh/day) 67,700 (veh/day) -17,891 AADTMAX = AADT minor (veh/day) 33,400 (veh/day) -4,000 Intersection lighting (present/not present) Calibration factor, Ci Data for unsignalized intersections only: Number of major-road approaches with left-turn lanes (0,1,2) Number of major-road approaches with right-turn lanes (0,1,2) Data for signalized intersections only: Number of approaches with left-turn lanes (0,1,2,3,4) [for 3SG, use maximum value of 3] Number of approaches with right-turn lanes (0,1,2,3,4) [for 3SG, use maximum value of 3] Number of approaches with left-turn signal phasing [for 3SG, use maximum value of 3] Type of left-turn signal phasing for Leg #1 Type of left-turn signal phasing for Leg #2 Type of left-turn signal phasing for Leg #3 Type of left-turn signal phasing for Leg #4 (if applicable) Number of approaches with right-turn-on-red prohibited [for 3SG, use maximum value of 3] Intersection red light cameras (present/not present) Sum of all pedestrian crossing volumes (PedVol) -- Signalized intersections only Maximum number of lanes crossed by a pedestrian (nlanesx) Number of bus stops within 300 m (1,000 ft) of the intersection Schools within 300 m (1,000 ft) of the intersection (present/not present) Number of alcohol sales establishments within 300 m (1,000 ft) of the intersection Not Present 1.00 -0 0 -0 0 -Permissive ---0 Not Present -0 Not Present 0 Present 1.00 -0 0 -0 0 0 Permissive Permissive Permissive Permissive 0 Not Present 50 3 4 Present 0
17
a -10.99 -13.14 -11.02
(9) Predicted Nbimv (6)*(7)*(8) 3.675 1.204 2.471
(1) Collision Type
(PDO)

from Table 12-11 1.000 0.483 0.030 0.244 0.032 0.211
1.000 0.450 0.049 0.347 0.099 0.055
(1)
(9) Predicted Nbisv (6)*(7)*(8) 0.245 0.066 0.180
18
(1) Collision Type
(PDO)

from Table 12-13 1.000 0.001 0.002 0.870 0.070 0.023 0.034
1.000 0.001 0.002 0.744 0.072 0.040 0.141
---
(6)
19
from Table 12-17 0.015 -1.00 1.00
3.675 --
0.059 0.059
(1) Collision type
20
Worksheet 2A -- General Information and Input Data for Urban and Suburban Arterial Intersections General Information Location Information Analyst SAM Roadway Government Street (TWLTL) Agency or Company STANTEC Intersection Arlington Ave Date Performed 02/14/13 Jurisdiction East Baton Rouge Parish Analysis Year 2010 Input Data Base Conditions Site Conditions Intersection type (3ST, 3SG, 4ST, 4SG) -3ST AADTMAX = AADT major (veh/day) 45,700 (veh/day) -19,600 AADTMAX = AADT minor (veh/day) 9,300 (veh/day) -4,000 Intersection lighting (present/not present) Calibration factor, Ci Data for unsignalized intersections only: Number of major-road approaches with left-turn lanes (0,1,2) Number of major-road approaches with right-turn lanes (0,1,2) Data for signalized intersections only: Number of approaches with left-turn lanes (0,1,2,3,4) [for 3SG, use maximum value of 3] Number of approaches with right-turn lanes (0,1,2,3,4) [for 3SG, use maximum value of 3] Number of approaches with left-turn signal phasing [for 3SG, use maximum value of 3] Type of left-turn signal phasing for Leg #1 Type of left-turn signal phasing for Leg #2 Type of left-turn signal phasing for Leg #3 Type of left-turn signal phasing for Leg #4 (if applicable) Number of approaches with right-turn-on-red prohibited [for 3SG, use maximum value of 3] Intersection red light cameras (present/not present) Sum of all pedestrian crossing volumes (PedVol) -- Signalized intersections only Maximum number of lanes crossed by a pedestrian (nlanesx) Number of bus stops within 300 m (1,000 ft) of the intersection Schools within 300 m (1,000 ft) of the intersection (present/not present) Number of alcohol sales establishments within 300 m (1,000 ft) of the intersection Not Present 1.00 -0 0 -0 0 -Permissive ---0 Not Present -0 Not Present 0 Present 1.00 -0 0 -2 2 2 Protected / Permissive Protected / Permissive Not Applicable Not Applicable 0 Not Present 10 3 4 Present 0
21
a -13.36 -14.01 -15.38
(9) Predicted Nbimv (6)*(7)*(8) 2.500 0.793 1.707
(1) Collision Type
(PDO)

from Table 12-11 1.000 0.440 0.023 0.262 0.040 0.235
1.000 0.421 0.045 0.343 0.126 0.065
(1)
(9) Predicted Nbisv (6)*(7)*(8) 0.335 0.101 0.234
22
(1) Collision Type
(PDO)

from Table 12-13 1.000 0.003 0.018 0.834 0.092 0.023 0.030
1.000 0.001 0.003 0.762 0.090 0.039 0.105
(7) Predicted Npedi (4)*(5)*(6) 0.060 0.060
2.500 --
(6)
23
from Table 12-17 0.016 -1.00 1.00
2.500 --
0.045 0.045
(1) Collision type
24
25
26
0.127 0.289 0.272
0.035 0.079 0.076
0.092 0.210 0.195
0.290 0.437 0.423
-------------
-------------
-------------
-------------
-------------
0.020 0.045 0.039
0.005 0.012 0.011
0.014 0.033 0.028
1.370 1.370 1.370
0.001 0.003 0.002
0.165 0.248 0.231
0.223 0.155 0.293
0.054 0.038 0.071
0.169 0.118 0.222
0.055 0.027 0.095
0.495 0.413 0.568
2.259 3.675 2.500
0.718 1.204 0.793
1.541 2.471 1.707
---------
0.800 0.390 0.800
4.083 5.268 4.999
1.344 1.197 1.414
--------0.420
--------#VALUE!
--------0.552
--------#VALUE!
--------#VALUE!
0.330 0.245 0.335 10.807
0.100 0.066 0.101 3.363
0.230 0.180 0.234 7.444
1.140 0.360 1.140 --
0.124 0.022 0.128 14.919
0.614 0.297 0.618 8.755
27
28

CHECKLIST
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS MANAGEMENT PROJECTS, ROADWAY FLOODING PROJECTS, HIGHWAY SAFETY PROJECTS, AND CAPACITY PROJECTS
East Baton Rouge Parish
Project Limits End Project Begin Project
STAGE 0
Preliminary Scope and Budget Checklist
District 61 Control Section Parish East Baton Rouge_______ 077-05 5.33 Route LA 73
Total Project Length (miles) 2.81 End Project (CS Log Mile) Date Prepared: 8.14
Begin Project (CS Log Mile)
Project Category (Safety, Capacity, etc.) Safety
A. Purpose and need for the project: The purpose for this project is to improve safety and access management along this corridor and implement a road diet to transform the corridor into complete street.
B. Project Concept Description of existing facility (functional class, ADT, number of lanes, etc): Urban arterial, State Highway (LA 73) from Jefferson Highway to I-110, AADT is approx. 22,500 (2010), 4 lane section, undivided, no shoulders. Multiple signalized and unsignalized intersections and driveways. All intersections are at-grade except for interchange at I-110
Major Design Features/Criteria of the proposed facility (attach aerial photo w/concept if applicable): Two (2) project concepts identified: one road diet to reduce travel lanes to 3 including TWLTL another road diet project with raised median and roundabouts at select intersections. ;
Design Exceptions: To be addressed as needed in design stage Technical Analyses (traffic analysis, safety analysis, etc): Attached report contains technical reports on
both traffic and safety analyses for existing and or future traffic conditions Alternatives to Project Concept: 2 project concepts discussed in addition to no build Future ITS / Traffic Considerations: DOTD and East Baton Rouge Parish will coordinate for this provision________________________ Construction Traffic Management/Property Access Considerations: No detailed survey work has been done to confirm required right of way. Construction for one of proposed concepts will all occur within the existing right of way. Construction for concept with roundabouts may require additional right of way at the intersections with roundabouts only but this has to be confirmed after detailed design and survey are completed
C. Potential environmental impacts (Complete the Stage 0 Environmental Checklist on pages 4-10 to 4-13): Required environmental checklist has been completed and enclosed. No environmentally sensitive sites identified within the corridor D. Cost Estimate Engineering Design: Environmental (document, mitigation, etc.): R/W Acquisition: (C of A if applicable) Utility Relocations: N/A N/A N/A N/A
Construction (including const. traffic management):
$300,000.00 $300,000.00
TOTAL PROJECT COST
E. Expected Funding Source(s) (Highway Priority Program, CMAQ, Urban Systems, Fed/State earmarks, etc.)
ATTACH ANY ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION Disposition (circle one): (1) Advance to Stage 1
Prepared By:
(3) Shelve
______
(2) Hold for Reconsideration
C.S. __077-05____________________
Route _LA 73__________________
Parish: East Baton Rouge_

End Log mile _8.14______
Begin Log mile 5.33____
ADJACENT LAND USE: _Residential, Commercial and Schools___________________ Any property owned by a Native American Tribe? (Y or N or Unknown) If so, which Tribe? ____N_______________________________________ Any property enrolled into the Wetland Reserve Program? (Y or N or Unknown) If so, give the location ___N_________________________ Community Elements: Is the project impacting or adjacent to any: (Y or N) Cemeteries ______N________________________________________ (Y or N) Churches ________N_______________________________________ (Y or N) Schools _______Y__________________________________________ (Y or N) Public Facilities (i.e., fire station, library, etc.)__N__________________ (Y or N) Community water well/supply ________________________________ Section 4(f) issue: Is the project impacting or adjacent to any: (Y or N) Public recreation areas ______N________________________________ (Y or N) Public parks _______________N_______________________________ (Y or N) Wildlife Refuges _____________N_______________________________ (Y or N) Historic Sites_________________N____________________________ Is the project impacting, or adjacent to, a property listed on the National Register of Historic Places? (Y or N) Is the project within a historic district or a national landmark district? (Y or N) If the answer is yes to either question, list names and locations below: _____N________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ Do you know of any threatened or endangered species in the area? (Y or N) If so, which species? _____N______________________________________________________ Does the project impact a stream protected by the Louisiana Scenic Rivers Act? (Y or N) If yes, name the stream. _____N____________________________________________________ Are there any Significant Trees as defined by EDSM I.1.1.21 within proposed ROW?(Y or N) If so, where?___N________________________________________________________________ What year was the existing bridge built? _____N/A_______________________________ Are any waterways impacted by the project considered navigable? (Y or N) If unknown, state so, list the waterways: ___N___________________________________________________ Hazardous Material: Have you checked the following DEQ and EPA databases for potential problems? (Y or N) Leaking Underground Storage Tanks _____Y____________________________
Stage 0 Environmental Checklist

(Y or N) CERCLIS_________Y_______________________________________________ (Y or N) ERNS____________Y_______________________________________________ (Y or N) Enforcement and Compliance History_______Y___________________________ If found site, give the name and location: _____________________________________ Underground Storage Tanks (UST): Are there any Gasoline Stations or other facilities that may have UST on or adjacent to the project? (Y or N) ___Y____________________________ If so, give the name and location: Texaco 2215 Government Street Baton Rouge, LA 70806 Gas Station (Closed) Between Lovers Lane and Arcadian Thruway, Westbound side of street Cracker Barrel 3676 Government Street Baton Rouge, LA 70806 Shell 5035 Government Street Baton Rouge, LA 70806 Mobile Service (Gas Station closed) Intersection of Jefferson Highway and Government Street Any chemical plants, refineries or landfills adjacent to the project? (Y or N) Any large manufacturing facilities adjacent to the project? (Y or N) Dry Cleaners? (Y or N) If yes to any, give names and locations:___No refineries, landfills, manufacturing facilities adjacent to the project_______________________________________________________________________ Oil/Gas wells: Have you checked DNR database for registered oil and gas wells? (Y or N) List the type and location of wells being impacted by the project. ________Y_______________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ Are there any possible residential or commercial relocations/displacements? (Y or N) How many? _N__________________________________________________________________ Do you know of any sensitive community issues related to the project? (Y or N) If so, explain ____N______________________________________________________________ Is the project area population minority or low income? (Y or N) _N____________________ What type of detour/closures could be used on the job? _Roundabout construction may require closure of intersections._____________________________________________ Did you notice anything of concern during your site/windshield survey of the area? If so, explain below. ___None______________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________
09/7/2006
Page 2 of 4 Stage 0 Manual Appendix I: Checklists

Stephen Mensah Point of Contact (225) 765 7244 Phone Number 2/27/2013_ Date
09/7/2006

Threatened & Endangered Species Information http://www.wlf.louisiana.gov/experience/threatened/speciesfactsheets/ http://www.wlf.louisiana.gov/experience/threatened/threatenedandendangeredtable/ http://www.wlf.louisiana.gov/experience/threatened/ LA Wildlife Refuge Information http://www.wlf.louisiana.gov/experience/wmas/refuges/ Louisiana Scenic Rivers Act (R.S. 56:1840-1856) Louisiana Natural and Scenic Rivers (R.S. 56:1847) http://www.legis.state.la.us/lss/lss.asp?doc=104995 Louisiana Historic and Scenic Rivers (R.S. 56:1856) http://www.legis.state.la.us/lss/lss.asp?doc=105004 http://www.wlf.louisiana.gov/experience/scenicrivers/ Significant Tree Policy (EDSM I.1.1.21) EDSMs can be found on DOTDs intranet site: http://ladotnet/ (Live Oak, Red Oak, White Oak, Magnolia or Cypress, aesthetically important, 18 or greater in diameter at breast height and has form that separates it from surrounding or that which may be considered historic.) LA Historic Sites and Districts http://www.crt.state.la.us/hp/nhl/default.htm Hazardous Waste Site Information http://www.deq.louisiana.gov/portal/tabid/71/Default.aspx http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/cursites/index.htm http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/npl/la.htm http://www.deq.louisiana.gov/portal/Portals/0/permits/ust_facility_owner.pdf http://www.deq.louisiana.gov/portal/Portals/0/remediation/form_5222_r01.xls http://www.nrc.uscg.mil/wdbcgi/wdbcgi.exe/WWWUSER/WEBDB.foia_query.show_parms http://www.epa.gov/echo/ DNR Oil & Gas Well Information http://sonris-www.dnr.state.la.us/www_root/sonris_portal_1.htm Environmental Justice (minority & low income) http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/ej2000.htm Demographics http://www.louisiana.gov/wps/wcm/connect/Louisiana.gov/About+Louisiana/Demographics%3A+Census+Info/Censu s+2000+Information/ http://www.census.gov/ Water Wells http://www.dotd.state.la.us/intermodal/wells/home.asp FHWAs Environmental Website (Just a good reference for understanding NEPA) http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/index.htm Additional Databases Checked _____________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________ Other Comments: _____________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________
09/7/2006 Page 4 of 4 Stage 0 Manual Appendix I: Checklists

General Explanation: To adequately consider projects in Stage 0, some consideration must be given to the human and natural environment which will be impacted by the project. The Environmental Checklist was designed knowing that some environmental issues may surface later in the process. This checklist was designed to obtain basic information, which is readily accessible by reviewing public databases and by visiting the site. It is recognized that some information may be more accessible than other information. Some items on the checklist may be more important than others depending on the type of project. It is recommended that the individual completing the checklist do their best to answer the questions accurately. Feel free to comment or write any explanatory comments at the end of the checklist. The Databases: To assist in gathering public information, the previous sheet includes web addresses for some of the databases that need to be consulted to complete the checklist. As of October 2006, these addresses were accurate. Note that you will not have access to the location of any threatened or endangered (T&E) species. The web address list only the threatened or endangered species in Louisiana. It will generally describe their habitat and other information. If you know of any species in the project area, please state so, but you will not be able to confirm it yourself. If you feel this may be an issue, please contact the Environmental Section. We have biologist on staff who can confirm the presence of a species. Why is this information important? Land Use? Indicator of biological issues such as T&E species or wetlands. Ownership? Tells us whether coordination with tribal nations will be required. WRP properties? Farmland that is converted back into wetlands. The Federal government has a permanent easement which cannot be expropriated by the State. Program is operated through the Natural Resources Conservation Service (formerly the Soil Conservation Service). Community Elements? DOTD would like to limit adverse impacts to communities. Also, public facilities may be costly to relocate. Section 4(f) issues? USDOT agencies are required by law to avoid certain properties, unless a prudent or feasible alternative is not available. Historic Properties? Tells us if we have a Section 106 issue on the project. (Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act) See http://www.achp.gov/work106.html for more details. Scenic Streams? Scenic streams require a permit and may require restricted construction activities. Significant Trees? Need coordination and can be important to community. Age of Bridge? Section 106 may apply. Bridges over 50 years old are evaluated to determine if they are eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. Navigability? If navigable, will require an assessment of present and future navigation needs and US Coast Guard permit. Hazardous Material? Dont want to purchase property if contaminated. Also, a safety issue for construction workers if right-of-way is contaminated. Oil and Gas Wells? Expensive if project hits a well. Relocations? Important to community. Real Estate costs can be substantial depending on location of project. Can result in organized opposition to a project. Sensitive Issues? Identification of sensitive issues early greatly assists project team in designing public involvement plan. Minority/Low Income Populations? Executive Order requires Federal Agencies to identify and address disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental effects on minority or low income populations. (often referred to as Environmental Justice) Detours? The detour route may have as many or more impacts. Should be looked at with project. May be unacceptable to the public.
09/7/2006

Government Street Traffic Study - Stantec

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Government Street Traffic Study - Stantec

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

STAGE 0 FEASIBILITY STUDY LA 73 (GOVERNMENT STREET) CORRIDOR I-110 TO JEFFERSON HIGHWAY

April 25, 2013

Prepared by (signature) Stephen Mensah

Reviewed by (signature) Laurence Lambert

STAGE 0 FEASIBILITY STUDY LA 73 (GOVERNMENT STREET) CORRIDOR I-110 TO JEFFERSON HIGHWAY

STAGE 0 FEASIBILITY STUDY LA 73 (GOVERNMENT STREET) CORRIDOR I-110 TO JEFFERSON HIGHWAY

STAGE 0 FEASIBILITY STUDY LA 73 (GOVERNMENT STREET) CORRIDOR I-110 TO JEFFERSON HIGHWAY

STAGE 0 FEASIBILITY STUDY LA 73 (GOVERNMENT STREET) CORRIDOR I-110 TO JEFFERSON HIGHWAY

STAGE 0 FEASIBILITY STUDY LA 73 (GOVERNMENT STREET) CORRIDOR I-110 TO JEFFERSON HIGHWAY

Figure ES 2: Alternative 1-First Variant

STAGE 0 FEASIBILITY STUDY LA 73 (GOVERNMENT STREET) CORRIDOR I-110 TO JEFFERSON HIGHWAY

Figure ES 3: Alternative 1-Second Variant

STAGE 0 FEASIBILITY STUDY LA 73 (GOVERNMENT STREET) CORRIDOR I-110 TO JEFFERSON HIGHWAY

Figure ES 4: Alternative 1-Third Variant

STAGE 0 FEASIBILITY STUDY LA 73 (GOVERNMENT STREET) CORRIDOR I-110 TO JEFFERSON HIGHWAY

Figure ES 5: Alternative 2 (Raised median with bike lanes and roundabouts)

STAGE 0 FEASIBILITY STUDY LA 73 (GOVERNMENT STREET) CORRIDOR I-110 TO JEFFERSON HIGHWAY

$2,600,000.00 $350,000.00 $3,110,000.00 $15,210,000.00

$3,400,000.00 $1,110,000.00 $3,800,000.00 $15,700,000.00

STAGE 0 FEASIBILITY STUDY LA 73 (GOVERNMENT STREET) CORRIDOR I-110 TO JEFFERSON HIGHWAY

STAGE 0 FEASIBILITY STUDY LA 73 (GOVERNMENT STREET) CORRIDOR I-110 TO JEFFERSON HIGHWAY

STAGE 0 FEASIBILITY STUDY LA 73 (GOVERNMENT STREET) CORRIDOR I-110 TO JEFFERSON HIGHWAY

STAGE 0 FEASIBILITY STUDY LA 73 (GOVERNMENT STREET) CORRIDOR I-110 TO JEFFERSON HIGHWAY

STAGE 0 FEASIBILITY STUDY LA 73 (GOVERNMENT STREET) CORRIDOR I-110 TO JEFFERSON HIGHWAY

STAGE 0 FEASIBILITY STUDY LA 73 (GOVERNMENT STREET) CORRIDOR I-110 TO JEFFERSON HIGHWAY

SUMMARY OF CRASH HISTORY

STAGE 0 FEASIBILITY STUDY LA 73 (GOVERNMENT STREET) CORRIDOR I-110 TO JEFFERSON HIGHWAY

Table 1: Summary of crashes on Government Street (January 2008-December 2010)

STAGE 0 FEASIBILITY STUDY LA 73 (GOVERNMENT STREET) CORRIDOR I-110 TO JEFFERSON HIGHWAY

STAGE 0 FEASIBILITY STUDY LA 73 (GOVERNMENT STREET) CORRIDOR I-110 TO JEFFERSON HIGHWAY

STAGE 0 FEASIBILITY STUDY LA 73 (GOVERNMENT STREET) CORRIDOR I-110 TO JEFFERSON HIGHWAY

STAGE 0 FEASIBILITY STUDY LA 73 (GOVERNMENT STREET) CORRIDOR I-110 TO JEFFERSON HIGHWAY

Table 3: Average Severities (January 2008 - December 2010)

STAGE 0 FEASIBILITY STUDY LA 73 (GOVERNMENT STREET) CORRIDOR I-110 TO JEFFERSON HIGHWAY

CRASH RATE TENTHS

STAGE 0 FEASIBILITY STUDY LA 73 (GOVERNMENT STREET) CORRIDOR I-110 TO JEFFERSON HIGHWAY

STAGE 0 FEASIBILITY STUDY LA 73 (GOVERNMENT STREET) CORRIDOR I-110 TO JEFFERSON HIGHWAY

Figure 7: Crash Rate, Tenths

STAGE 0 FEASIBILITY STUDY LA 73 (GOVERNMENT STREET) CORRIDOR I-110 TO JEFFERSON HIGHWAY

STAGE 0 FEASIBILITY STUDY LA 73 (GOVERNMENT STREET) CORRIDOR I-110 TO JEFFERSON HIGHWAY

STAGE 0 FEASIBILITY STUDY LA 73 (GOVERNMENT STREET) CORRIDOR I-110 TO JEFFERSON HIGHWAY

STAGE 0 FEASIBILITY STUDY LA 73 (GOVERNMENT STREET) CORRIDOR I-110 TO JEFFERSON HIGHWAY

STAGE 0 FEASIBILITY STUDY LA 73 (GOVERNMENT STREET) CORRIDOR I-110 TO JEFFERSON HIGHWAY

MODIFIED SEGMENT ANALYSIS

STAGE 0 FEASIBILITY STUDY LA 73 (GOVERNMENT STREET) CORRIDOR I-110 TO JEFFERSON HIGHWAY

STAGE 0 FEASIBILITY STUDY LA 73 (GOVERNMENT STREET) CORRIDOR I-110 TO JEFFERSON HIGHWAY

STAGE 0 FEASIBILITY STUDY LA 73 (GOVERNMENT STREET) CORRIDOR I-110 TO JEFFERSON HIGHWAY

Figure 8: Collision types overrepresented on Government Street

Left Turn Side Swipe

STAGE 0 FEASIBILITY STUDY LA 73 (GOVERNMENT STREET) CORRIDOR I-110 TO JEFFERSON HIGHWAY

STAGE 0 FEASIBILITY STUDY LA 73 (GOVERNMENT STREET) CORRIDOR I-110 TO JEFFERSON HIGHWAY

COMPLETE STREETS ALTERNATIVES

ALTERNATIVE 1: THREE (3) LANE SECTION FROM I-110 TO JEFFERSON HIGHWAY

STAGE 0 FEASIBILITY STUDY LA 73 (GOVERNMENT STREET) CORRIDOR I-110 TO JEFFERSON HIGHWAY

Figure 9: Cross-section showing TWLTL with Road Diet (Alternative 1)

STAGE 0 FEASIBILITY STUDY LA 73 (GOVERNMENT STREET) CORRIDOR I-110 TO JEFFERSON HIGHWAY

Figure 10: Layout of Two Way Left Turn Lane

STAGE 0 FEASIBILITY STUDY LA 73 (GOVERNMENT STREET) CORRIDOR I-110 TO JEFFERSON HIGHWAY

STAGE 0 FEASIBILITY STUDY LA 73 (GOVERNMENT STREET) CORRIDOR I-110 TO JEFFERSON HIGHWAY

STAGE 0 FEASIBILITY STUDY LA 73 (GOVERNMENT STREET) CORRIDOR I-110 TO JEFFERSON HIGHWAY

STAGE 0 FEASIBILITY STUDY LA 73 (GOVERNMENT STREET) CORRIDOR I-110 TO JEFFERSON HIGHWAY

STAGE 0 FEASIBILITY STUDY LA 73 (GOVERNMENT STREET) CORRIDOR I-110 TO JEFFERSON HIGHWAY

STAGE 0 FEASIBILITY STUDY LA 73 (GOVERNMENT STREET) CORRIDOR I-110 TO JEFFERSON HIGHWAY

STAGE 0 FEASIBILITY STUDY LA 73 (GOVERNMENT STREET) CORRIDOR I-110 TO JEFFERSON HIGHWAY