2019-03-28 Nagel Smith Feasibility

McMAHON ASSOCIATES, INC.
835 Springdale Drive, Suite 200
Exton, PA 19341
p 610‐594‐9995 | f 610‐594‐9565
PRINCIPALS
Joseph J. DeSantis, P.E., PTOE
John S. DePalma
Casey A. Moore, P.E.
Gary R. McNaughton, P.E., PTOE
March 28, 2019 Christopher J. Williams, P.E.
ASSOCIATES
John J. Mitchell, P.E.

R. Trent Ebersole, P.E.
Matthew M. Kozsuch, P.E.
Mr. John Nagel, ICMA‐CM, Township Manager Maureen Chlebek, P.E., PTOE
Dean A. Carr, P.E.
East Whiteland Township Jason T. Adams, P.E., PTOE
209 Conestoga Road Christopher K. Bauer, P.E., PTOE
Frazer, PA 19355‐1699 FOUNDER
Joseph W. McMahon, P.E.

Mr. Rick Smith, Township Manager
East Goshen Township
1580 Paoli Pike
West Chester, PA 19380‐6199

RE: Sproul Road (S.R. 0352) and King Road (S.R. 2022) Improvement Feasibility Study
East Whiteland and East Goshen Townships, Chester County, PA
McMahon Project No. 817294.11

Dear Mr. Nagel and Mr. Smith:

McMahon Associates, Inc. has completed a traffic evaluation of the intersection of Sproul Road (S.R. 0352) and
King Road (S.R. 2022). The purpose of this evaluation is to determine the traffic improvements necessary to
achieve acceptable traffic operations at this intersection. In order to complete this evaluation, our office analyzed
existing and future traffic operations at this intersection. In addition, our office prepared conceptual roadway
improvement plans for two traffic improvement options, which include a traffic signal with widening for left‐turn
lanes, and reconfiguring the intersection for a roundabout.

Existing Traffic Conditions Analysis

For the traffic analysis, our office used recently (November 2016) completed manual turning movement traffic
counts conducted during the weekday morning (7:00 AM to 9:00 AM) and weekday afternoon (4:00 PM to 6:00
PM) commuter peak periods. The existing peak hour traffic volumes are shown on Figure 1, and the traffic
counts are included in Appendix A. These traffic volumes were then analyzed to determine the existing
operating conditions, and the results of this analysis are also shown in Figure 1. The detailed capacity/level‐of‐
service analysis worksheets are provided in Appendix B.

As shown in Figure 1, the intersection currently operates with some delay during both the weekday morning and
weekday afternoon peak hours, especially on the King Road approaches to the intersection. Furthermore, due to

Engineering | Planning | Design | Technology mcmahonassociates.com

Mr. John Nagel
Mr. Rick Smith
March 28, 2019
Page 2 of 6
the skewed and offset alignment of King Road through the intersection, northbound and southbound S.R. 0352
left‐turn traffic cannot turn simultaneously, which further negatively affects the operations of the intersection.

Future Traffic Conditions Analysis

In order to evaluate future traffic conditions, the existing traffic volumes were projected to the future 2028 design
year. To account for regional traffic growth, the existing traffic volumes were increased by an annual traffic
growth rate of 1.71 percent per year compounded for ten years to 2028, or 22.6 percent total. This growth rate
exceeds the traffic growth rate recommended by the PennDOT Bureau of Planning and Research Growth Factors
for August 2018 to July 2019 for similar, Urban Non‐Interstate roadways in Chester County, and was selected to
reflect increased growth in the area, as well as potential added traffic from specific future developments. The
future 2028 future peak hour traffic volumes are shown on Figure 2. These traffic volumes were then analyzed to
determine the existing operating conditions, and the results of this analysis are also shown in Figure 2. The
detailed capacity/level‐of‐service analysis worksheets are provided in Appendix C.

As shown in Figure 2, in the future without any capacity improvements, the intersection will operate with further
delay, especially during the weekday afternoon peak hour. In order to improve conditions at the intersection, it
would be necessary to install one of the following improvement scenarios:

 Scenario 1 – Conventional Signalized Improvements

- Widen Sproul Road/North Chester Road (S.R. 0352) to provide separate left‐turn lanes on each
approach.

- Widen King Road (S.R. 2022) to provide separate left‐turn lanes on each approach, and convert the
existing westbound King Road right‐turn lane to a shared through/right‐turn lane.

- Install a new traffic signal to include updated signal equipment, and optimized timings and phasing.

 Scenario 2 – Roundabout

- Reconfigure the intersection to install a single lane roundabout.

Improvement Scenario Comparison

In order to provide a comparison between the conventional signalized intersection and roundabout
improvements, Tables 1 and 2 show a comparison of the levels of service and queuing results for each scenario.
As shown in Tables 1 and 2, the roundabout option provides better overall intersection and individual movement
levels of services and shorter approach queues than the conventional signalized intersection improvement option.

Mr. John Nagel
Mr. Rick Smith
March 28, 2019
Page 3 of 6
Table 1. Level‐of‐Service Comparison
Conventional Signalized Intersection vs. Roundabout
Level‐of‐Service
(Delay in Seconds)
Approach Movement Weekday Morning Peak Hour Weekday Afternoon Peak Hour
Signalized Roundabout Signalized Roundabout

D D
Left
Eastbound (43.2) B (38.6) B
King Road D (10.8) D (13.4)
Thru‐Right
(35.9) (46.1)
D D
Left
Westbound (42.9) C (39.3) C
King Road D (20.9) D (15.0)
Thru‐Right
(46.2) (45.5)
B B
Left
Northbound (17.8) B (17.4) B
S.R. 0352 C (14.4) C (11.1)
Thru‐Right
(30.2) (25.6)
B B
Left
Southbound (19.6) B (16.9) B
S.R. 0352 C (10.1) C (14.5)
Thru‐Right
(24.2) (27.4)
C B C B
Overall
(34.2) (14.7) (34.4) (13.6)

Table 2. Queue Comparison
Conventional Signalized Intersection vs. Roundabout
Queues
(Feet)
Approach Movement Weekday Morning Peak Hour Weekday Afternoon Peak Hour
Signalized Roundabout Signalized Roundabout

Eastbound Left 55 40
75 75
King Road Thru‐Right 358 320
Westbound Left 65 85
150 125
King Road Thru‐Right 410 375
Northbound Left 55 40
125 75
S.R. 0352 Thru‐Right 325 260
Southbound Left 40 45
50 125
S.R. 0352 Thru‐Right 193 298

Mr. John Nagel
Mr. Rick Smith
March 28, 2019
Page 4 of 6

Based on the traffic analysis and current design criteria, McMahon updated the conceptual design exhibit that
was previously prepared for the signalized intersection, and also prepared a second conceptual design exhibit for
the roundabout option. The proposed design criteria for both scenarios is based on the current Functional
Classification System Guidelines within PennDOT’s “Publication 13M – Design Manual Part 2” (DM‐2), which are
included in Appendix D, designate both Sproul Road/North Chester Road (S.R. 0352) and King Road (S.R. 2022)
as Community Arterials within Suburban Neighborhoods.

Conceptual Roadway Improvement Plans Scenario 1 – Conventional Signalized Intersection

The revised traffic analysis and current PennDOT design criteria, resulted in the following changes to the
roadway improvements that were previously depicted on the original conceptual design exhibit from 2005:

 The proposed 100‐foot eastbound and 100‐foot westbound S.R. 0352 left‐turn lanes were increased to
175‐feet and 225‐feet, respectively.
 The proposed 14‐foot wide through lanes along S.R. 0352 were revised to provide 11’ through lanes
with 4‐foot shoulders.
 The proposed 14‐foot‐wide through lanes along King Road were revised to provide 11‐foot through
lanes with 5‐foot shoulders. The additional shoulder width can provide room for a bike lane in the
future.
 The proposed intersection curb radii were modified to accommodate tractor trailers (WB‐62) along all
legs of the intersection, except trucks turning onto or from the western leg of King Road, which is
difficult due to the existing skewed alignment.
 Pedestrian facilities were provided at the southern and eastern legs of the intersection. Based on the
preliminary design evaluation, installing curb ramps and crosswalks on the western and northern
legs of the intersection was determined to be infeasible due to the grade difference at the northwest
corner, the existing driveway configuration at the northeast corner, and the right‐of‐way and/or
easement impact, which would be required from the Three Tuns Tavern Property for a sidewalk
connection. This property is likely considered historic, which will require a detailed evaluation
during preliminary engineering.
 Stormwater management facilities are proposed to offset the increase in runoff due to the proposed
roadway improvements. The stormwater management facilities are a requirement of the
Pennsylvania DEP and Chester County Conservation District, due to the estimated earth disturbance
that will likely exceed one (1) acre.

As a result of these updates, in addition to the benefits identified in the traffic analysis results, the conventional
signalized intersection improvements will provide stormwater runoff management, improved pedestrian
facilities, improved turning accommodations for trucks, and better overall ride quality through the intersection.

The improvements will require right‐of‐way from thirteen (13) different properties, totaling an estimated 0.51
acres. Temporary construction easements will be identified during preliminary design; however, it is likely they
will be required from several properties for driveway adjustments and grading. Additionally, it is anticipated
that nine (9) utility pole relocations will be required. Impacts to existing underground utilities will need to be
explored during the preliminary engineering phase of the project through subsurface utility engineering.
Mr. John Nagel
Mr. Rick Smith
March 28, 2019
Page 5 of 6

As shown in Appendix E, the estimated opinion of cost for the conventional signalized intersection
improvements is $2,525,503.

Conceptual Roadway Improvement Plan: Scenario 2 – Roundabout

The roundabout conceptual design exhibit was primarily developed in accordance with the National Cooperative
Highway Research Programs (NHRCP), Report 672, “Roundabouts: An Informational Guide”. This option was
developed not only because of its traffic operations benefits, but also for the following reasons:

 Improved pedestrian accommodations at the intersection.
 Improved accommodations for tractor trailers (WB‐62) on all legs of the intersection.
 Improved intersection geometry and overall safer operating speeds.
 Reduced long term maintenance costs.

The roundabout improvements identified in the conceptual design exhibit will require right‐of‐way from seven
(7) different properties, totaling an estimated 0.64 acres, which includes the acquisition of the entire property
currently owned by Thomas A. Stuart & Christine M. Stefanou. This option will also have slightly larger impacts
to the majority of the properties within the immediate area of the intersection, when compared with to the
conventional signalized intersection improvements. However, the roundabout option eliminates many of the
impacts to the properties along the approach legs of the intersection and the potentially large easement
acquisition required from the Pierre Property and Jackson Property for stormwater management facilities. In
order to mitigate some of these larger impacts to properties within the immediate area of the intersection,
landscaping and small retaining walls are proposed on the affected properties. Providing pedestrian
accommodations across the entire intersection, will require right‐of‐way from the historically eligible Three Tuns
Tavern Property. Further investigation will need to be completed during preliminary engineering to mitigate
impacts to the property.

Similar to the conventional intersection improvements, temporary construction easements will likely be required
from several properties for driveway adjustments and grading, which will be identified during preliminary
design. It is anticipated the roundabout will require only five (5) utility pole relocations. Impacts to existing
underground utilities will need to be explored during the preliminary engineering phase of the project through
subsurface utility engineering.

As shown in Appendix E, the estimated opinion of cost for the roundabout is $3,127,098.

Improvement Option Comparison

In order to summarize the results of the technical evaluation summarized above, Table 3 provides a summary of
the impacts of both the conventional signalized intersection improvements and the roundabout improvements.

Mr. John Nagel
Mr. Rick Smith
March 28, 2019
Page 6 of 6
Table 3. Intersection Improvements Impact Matrix

Scenario 1 – Conventional Signalized
Category Scenario 2 – Roundabout
Intersection Improvements
Overall Level‐of‐Service
AM(PM)
C(C) B(B) 
Maximum Approach Queue
EB King Road, WB King Road,
NB Rt. 352, SB Rt. 352
358 feet, 410 feet, 325 feet, 298 feet 75 feet, 150 feet, 125 feet, 125 feet 
Properties Affected 13 Properties 7 Properties 
Total Property Acquisitions 0 Properties  1 Property
Right‐of‐Way Required 0.51 Acres  0.64 Acres
Utility Pole Relocations 9 Poles 5 Poles 

Estimated Cost $2,525,503  $3,127,098

If you should have any questions, or require further information, please feel free to contact our office.

Sincerely,

Christopher J. Williams, P.E.
Vice President & Regional Manager – Mid‐Atlantic

James J. Kouch, P.E.
Senior Project Manager
I:\eng\817294 ‐ 352 King Feasibility\correspondence\out\client\2019-03-28_Nagel_ Smith_Feasibility.docx

SR0352NORTHCHESTERROAD/SPROULROAD
ANDSR2022KINGROADIMPROVEMENTS
ESTIMATEDPROJECTIMPACTSTATISTICS
IMPACT QUANTITY
2 LARGE
UTILITY POLE
( ) 7 MEDIUM
RELOCATIONS
1 SMALL
AFFECTED
(#) 13
PROPERTIES*
ESTIMATED TOTAL
REQUIRED (AC.) 0.51 AC.
RIGHT-OF-WAY*
*PROPERTIES WHERE IT IS ESTIMATED THAT PERMANENT RIGHT-OF-WAY,

PERMANENT EASEMENTS, OR TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENTS
WILL BE NECESSARY.
IP
NSH
IP
NSH
OW
TOW
DT
LAN
EN
ITE
OSH
WH
TG
T
EAS
EAS
CONCEPTUAL DESIGN EXHIBIT

(NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION)
SR0352NORTHCHESTERROAD/SPROULROAD
ANDSR2022KINGROADIMPROVEMENTS
ESTIMATEDPROJECTIMPACTSTATISTICS
IMPACT QUANTITY
2 LARGE
UTILITY POLE
( ) 1 MEDIUM
RELOCATIONS
1 SMALL
AFFECTED
(#) 7
PROPERTIES*
ESTIMATED TOTAL
REQUIRED (AC.) 0.64 AC.**
RIGHT-OF-WAY*
IP
NSH
IP
NSH
OW
TOW
DT
LAN
EN
ITE
OSH
WH
TG
T
EAS
EAS
CONCEPTUAL DESIGN EXHIBIT

(NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION)

Appendix A
Manual Turning Movement Counts

Transportation Solutions Building Better Communities mcmahonassociates.com

McMahon Associates, Inc.
425 Commerce Drive, Suite 200
Fort Washington, P A 19034
Municipality: East Whiteland Township File Name : ewhiteact20w
Location: King Road & Site Code : 81661120
Sproul Road Start Date : 11/2/2016
Counter/Board #: RS Page No :1
Groups Printed- Passenger Vehicles - Heavy Vehicles
Sproul Rd King Rd Sproul Rd King Rd
Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound
Start Time Left Thru ROR Right Left Thru ROR Right Left Thru ROR Right Left Thru ROR Right Int. Total
07:00 12 29 0 1 11 24 0 33 4 60 0 7 6 57 0 8 252
07:15 15 47 0 0 11 35 0 50 9 71 0 9 14 53 0 13 327
07:30 10 44 0 2 16 51 0 30 24 67 0 2 8 53 0 17 324
07:45 15 51 0 0 6 74 0 26 17 87 0 13 15 55 0 18 377
Total 52 171 0 3 44 184 0 139 54 285 0 31 43 218 0 56 1280
08:00 8 45 0 0 13 63 0 26 20 72 0 10 11 57 0 10 335
08:15 21 56 0 5 13 50 0 30 13 79 0 6 7 54 0 14 348
08:30 8 38 0 2 17 47 0 36 14 75 0 9 7 42 0 17 312
08:45 10 46 0 2 14 37 0 29 18 72 0 12 4 44 0 14 302
Total 47 185 0 9 57 197 0 121 65 298 0 37 29 197 0 55 1297
16:00 5 71 0 5 7 53 0 32 18 67 0 9 6 34 0 23 330
16:15 16 73 0 3 15 82 0 23 18 67 0 12 5 44 0 15 373
16:30 14 82 0 7 10 59 0 25 17 57 0 13 8 53 0 22 367
16:45 14 67 0 5 24 62 0 34 21 60 0 14 5 52 0 17 375
Total 49 293 0 20 56 256 0 114 74 251 0 48 24 183 0 77 1445
17:00 17 91 0 9 17 66 0 17 20 65 0 3 13 61 0 20 399
17:15 19 81 0 6 17 60 0 31 10 82 0 11 6 52 0 22 397
17:30 23 89 0 5 16 53 0 31 15 74 0 12 11 49 0 14 392
17:45 13 86 0 3 14 55 0 12 12 74 0 10 6 36 0 14 335
Total 72 347 0 23 64 234 0 91 57 295 0 36 36 198 0 70 1523
Grand Total 220 996 0 55 221 871 0 465 250 1129 0 152 132 796 0 258 5545
Apprch % 17.3 78.4 0 4.3 14.2 55.9 0 29.9 16.3 73.7 0 9.9 11.1 67.1 0 21.8
Total % 4 18 0 1 4 15.7 0 8.4 4.5 20.4 0 2.7 2.4 14.4 0 4.7
Passenger Vehicles 213 982 0 54 209 836 0 443 244 1110 0 146 130 763 0 249 5379
% Passenger Vehicles 96.8 98.6 0 98.2 94.6 96 0 95.3 97.6 98.3 0 96.1 98.5 95.9 0 96.5 97
Heavy Vehicles 7 14 0 1 12 35 0 22 6 19 0 6 2 33 0 9 166
% Heavy Vehicles 3.2 1.4 0 1.8 5.4 4 0 4.7 2.4 1.7 0 3.9 1.5 4.1 0 3.5 3
Zero Pedestrians were observed during this study.


Thr RO Rig App. Thr RO Rig App. Thr RO Rig App. Int.
Start Time Left Thru ROR Right App. Total Left Left Left
u R ht Total u R ht Total u R ht Total Total
Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 to 11:45 - Peak 1 of 1
Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 07:30
07:30 10 44 0 2 56 16 51 0 30 97 24 67 0 2 93 8 53 0 17 78 324
07:45 15 51 0 0 66 6 74 0 26 106 17 87 0 13 117 15 55 0 18 88 377
08:00 8 45 0 0 53 13 63 0 26 102 20 72 0 10 102 11 57 0 10 78 335
08:15 21 56 0 5 82 13 50 0 30 93 13 79 0 6 98 7 54 0 14 75 348
Total Volume 54 196 0 7 257 48 238 0 112 398 74 305 0 31 410 41 219 0 59 319 1384
% App. Total 21 76.3 0 2.7 12.1 59.8 0 28.1 18 74.4 0 7.6 12.9 68.7 0 18.5
PHF .643 .875 .000 .350 .784 .750 .804 .000 .933 .939 .771 .876 .000 .596 .876 .683 .961 .000 .819 .906 .918
Passenger Vehicles
% Passenger Vehicles 98.1 95.9 0 100 96.5 93.8 92.4 0 96.4 93.7 95.9 99.3 0 90.3 98.0 97.6 91.8 0 94.9 93.1 95.4
Heavy Vehicles
% Heavy Vehicles 1.9 4.1 0 0 3.5 6.3 7.6 0 3.6 6.3 4.1 0.7 0 9.7 2.0 2.4 8.2 0 5.1 6.9 4.6
Sproul Rd
Out In Total
451 248 699
7 9 16
458 257 715
7 188 53
0 8 1
7 196 54
Right Thru Left
Peak Hour Data

43
595
638
Total
Out
304
282
1
40
41
Right Thru
22
Left
112
108
North
4
22
297
319
King Rd
King Rd
Peak Hour Begins at 07:30

18
201
219
Right Thru
In
In
238
220
398
373
18
25
Passenger Vehicles
Heavy Vehicles
3
56
59
Left
298
319
21
Out
Total
48
45
3
702
655
47
Left Thru Right

71 303 28
3 2 3
74 305 31
289 402 691

14 8 22
303 410 713
Out In Total
Sproul Rd

Start Time Left Thru ROR Right App. Total Left Thru ROR Right App. Total Left Thru ROR Right App. Total Left Thru ROR Right App. Total Int. Total
Peak Hour Analysis From 12:00 to 17:45 - Peak 1 of 1
Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 16:45
16:45 14 67 0 5 86 24 62 0 34 120 21 60 0 14 95 5 52 0 17 74 375
17:00 17 91 0 9 117 17 66 0 17 100 20 65 0 3 88 13 61 0 20 94 399
17:15 19 81 0 6 106 17 60 0 31 108 10 82 0 11 103 6 52 0 22 80 397
17:30 23 89 0 5 117 16 53 0 31 100 15 74 0 12 101 11 49 0 14 74 392
Total Volume 73 328 0 25 426 74 241 0 113 428 66 281 0 40 387 35 214 0 73 322 1563
% App. Total 17.1 77 0 5.9 17.3 56.3 0 26.4 17.1 72.6 0 10.3 10.9 66.5 0 22.7
PHF .793 .901 .000 .694 .910 .771 .913 .000 .831 .892 .786 .857 .000 .714 .939 .673 .877 .000 .830 .856 .979
Passenger Vehicles
% Passenger Vehicles 100 100 0 96.0 99.8 98.6 99.2 0 96.5 98.4 100 99.6 0 100 99.7 97.1 97.2 0 100 97.8 99.0
Heavy Vehicles
% Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 4.0 0.2 1.4 0.8 0 3.5 1.6 0 0.4 0 0 0.3 2.9 2.8 0 0 2.2 1.0
Sproul Rd
Out In Total
423 425 848
6 1 7
429 426 855
24 328 73
1 0 0
25 328 73
Right Thru Left
Peak Hour Data

10
644
654
Total
Out
327
321
1
34
35
Right Thru
Left
113
109
North
4
7
315
322
King Rd
King Rd
Peak Hour Begins at 16:45

6
208
214
Right Thru
In
In
241
239
428
421
2
Passenger Vehicles
Heavy Vehicles
0
73
73
Left
3
329
332
Out
Total
74
73
1
755
742
13
Left Thru Right

66 280 40
0 1 0
66 281 40
474 386 860

1 1 2
475 387 862
Out In Total
Sproul Rd

Appendix B
Existing (2016) Capacity/Level-of-Service

Analysis Worksheets


McMahon Associates, Inc. King Road and 352 Imprvt Feasibility McMahon Associates, Inc. King Road and 352 Imprvt Feasibility
1: Sproul Road (S.R. 0352) & West King Road 2016 Existing Weekday AM Peak Hour 1: Sproul Road (S.R. 0352) & West King Road 2016 Existing Weekday AM Peak Hour
Splits and Phases: 1: Sproul Road (S.R. 0352) & West King Road
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 41 219 59 48 238 112 74 305 31 54 196 7
Future Volume (vph) 41 219 59 48 238 112 74 305 31 54 196 7
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800
Lane Width (ft) 10 10 10 12 12 12 14 14 14 10 10 10
Grade (%) 4% -2% -2% 2%
Storage Length (ft) 0 0 125 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.975 0.952 0.990 0.996
Flt Protected 0.994 0.950 0.991 0.990
Satd. Flow (prot) 0 1496 0 1629 1622 0 0 1861 0 0 1585 0
Flt Permitted 0.994 0.950 0.882 0.813
Satd. Flow (perm) 0 1496 0 1629 1622 0 0 1656 0 0 1302 0
Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes
Satd. Flow (RTOR) 13 26 6 2
Link Speed (mph) 35 40 40 35
Link Distance (ft) 2002 907 900 1892
Travel Time (s) 39.0 15.5 15.3 36.9
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 8% 5% 6% 8% 4% 4% 1% 10% 2% 4% 0%
Adj. Flow (vph) 45 238 64 52 259 122 80 332 34 59 213 8
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 347 0 52 381 0 0 446 0 0 280 0
Turn Type Split NA Split NA Perm NA Perm NA
Protected Phases 4 4 8 8 2 6
Permitted Phases 2 6
Detector Phase 4 4 8 8 2 2 6 6
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 28.0 28.0 28.0 28.0
Minimum Split (s) 23.0 23.0 22.0 22.0 34.0 34.0 34.0 34.0
Total Split (s) 25.0 25.0 21.0 21.0 34.0 34.0 34.0 34.0
Total Split (%) 31.3% 31.3% 26.3% 26.3% 42.5% 42.5% 42.5% 42.5%
Yellow Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
All-Red Time (s) 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0
Total Lost Time (s) 6.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Lead/Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize?
Recall Mode None None None None Min Min Min Min
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 80
Actuated Cycle Length: 80
Natural Cycle: 90
Control Type: Semi Act-Uncoord
Description: 8A
Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2016 Existing Weekday AM Peak Hour Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2016 Existing Weekday AM Peak Hour
I:\eng\817294 - 352 King Feasibility\Traffic\analysis\Existing\Weekday AM.syn Synchro 8 I:\eng\817294 - 352 King Feasibility\Traffic\analysis\Existing\Weekday AM.syn Synchro 8
McMahon Associates, Inc. King Road and 352 Imprvt Feasibility
1: Sproul Road (S.R. 0352) & West King Road 2016 Existing Weekday AM Peak Hour
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 41 219 59 48 238 112 74 305 31 54 196 7
Future Volume (veh/h) 41 219 59 48 238 112 74 305 31 54 196 7
Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1764 1654 1764 1715 1704 1818 1891 1850 1891 1782 1722 1782
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 45 238 64 52 259 122 80 332 34 59 213 8
Adj No. of Lanes 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Percent Heavy Veh, % 8 8 8 6 8 8 1 1 1 4 4 4
Cap, veh/h 49 259 70 327 219 103 140 489 47 135 443 15
Arrive On Green 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36
Sat Flow, veh/h 206 1092 294 1633 1096 516 239 1348 131 223 1222 42
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 347 0 0 52 0 381 446 0 0 280 0 0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1592 0 0 1633 0 1612 1717 0 0 1487 0 0
Q Serve(g_s), s 17.0 0.0 0.0 2.1 0.0 16.0 6.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 17.0 0.0 0.0 2.1 0.0 16.0 17.5 0.0 0.0 10.9 0.0 0.0
Prop In Lane 0.13 0.18 1.00 0.32 0.18 0.08 0.21 0.03
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 378 0 0 327 0 322 676 0 0 594 0 0
V/C Ratio(X) 0.92 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.00 1.18 0.66 0.00 0.00 0.47 0.00 0.00
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 378 0 0 327 0 322 676 0 0 594 0 0
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 29.7 0.0 0.0 26.4 0.0 32.0 21.7 0.0 0.0 19.5 0.0 0.0
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 27.7 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 108.9 2.4 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(95%),veh/ln 15.6 0.0 0.0 1.8 0.0 30.3 13.8 0.0 0.0 8.4 0.0 0.0
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 57.5 0.0 0.0 26.9 0.0 140.9 24.0 0.0 0.0 20.1 0.0 0.0
LnGrp LOS E C F C C
Approach Vol, veh/h 347 433 446 280
Approach Delay, s/veh 57.5 127.2 24.0 20.1
Approach LOS E F C C
Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Assigned Phs 2 4 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 34.0 25.0 34.0 21.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 7.0 6.0 6.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 28.0 18.0 28.0 15.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 19.5 19.0 12.9 18.0
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.9 0.0 0.7 0.0
HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 60.7
HCM 2010 LOS E
HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 2016 Existing Weekday AM Peak Hour
I:\eng\817294 - 352 King Feasibility\Traffic\analysis\Existing\Weekday AM.syn Synchro 8
1: Sproul Road (S.R. 0352) & West King Road 2016 Existing Weekday PM Peak Hour 1: Sproul Road (S.R. 0352) & West King Road 2016 Existing Weekday PM Peak Hour

Description: 8A
Lane Configurations Splits and Phases: 1: Sproul Road (S.R. 0352) & West King Road
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800
Lane Width (ft) 10 10 10 12 12 12 14 14 14 10 10 10
Grade (%) 4% -2% -2% 2%
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.970 0.952 0.986 0.992
Flt Protected 0.995 0.950 0.992 0.992
Satd. Flow (prot) 0 1553 0 1710 1698 0 0 1897 0 0 1633 0
Flt Permitted 0.995 0.950 0.834 0.842
Satd. Flow (perm) 0 1553 0 1710 1698 0 0 1595 0 0 1386 0
Link Distance (ft) 2002 907 900 1892
Travel Time (s) 39.0 15.5 15.3 36.9
Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98
Heavy Vehicles (%) 3% 3% 0% 1% 1% 4% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 4%
Adj. Flow (vph) 36 218 74 76 246 115 67 287 41 74 335 26
Turn Type Split NA Split NA Perm NA Perm NA
Protected Phases 4 4 8 8 2 6
Switch Phase
Minimum Split (s) 23.0 23.0 22.0 22.0 34.0 34.0 34.0 34.0
Total Split (s) 25.0 25.0 21.0 21.0 34.0 34.0 34.0 34.0
Total Split (%) 31.3% 31.3% 26.3% 26.3% 42.5% 42.5% 42.5% 42.5%
Maximum Green (s) 18.0 18.0 15.0 15.0 28.0 28.0 28.0 28.0
Yellow Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
All-Red Time (s) 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0
Total Lost Time (s) 6.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Lead/Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize?
Vehicle Extension (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Recall Mode None None None None Min Min Min Min
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 80
Actuated Cycle Length: 79.8
Natural Cycle: 90
Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2016 Existing Weekday PM Peak Hour Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2016 Existing Weekday PM Peak Hour
I:\eng\817294 - 352 King Feasibility\Traffic\analysis\Existing\Weekday PM.syn Synchro 8 I:\eng\817294 - 352 King Feasibility\Traffic\analysis\Existing\Weekday PM.syn Synchro 8
1: Sproul Road (S.R. 0352) & West King Road 2016 Existing Weekday PM Peak Hour
Lane Configurations
Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Adj No. of Lanes 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0
Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98
Cap, veh/h 42 253 86 346 232 108 125 463 62 127 472 35
Arrive On Green 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.37
Sat Flow, veh/h 181 1096 372 1714 1150 538 198 1267 170 201 1291 95
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 328 0 0 76 0 361 395 0 0 435 0 0
Q Serve(g_s), s 15.1 0.0 0.0 2.9 0.0 16.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.1 0.0 0.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 15.1 0.0 0.0 2.9 0.0 16.0 15.8 0.0 0.0 18.9 0.0 0.0
Prop In Lane 0.11 0.23 1.00 0.32 0.17 0.10 0.17 0.06
V/C Ratio(X) 0.86 0.00 0.00 0.22 0.00 1.06 0.61 0.00 0.00 0.69 0.00 0.00
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 395 0 0 346 0 340 650 0 0 633 0 0
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 18.4 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 65.6 1.6 0.0 0.0 3.1 0.0 0.0
LnGrp LOS D C F C C
Approach LOS D F C C
Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Assigned Phs 2 4 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 34.0 24.3 34.0 21.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 7.0 6.0 6.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 28.0 18.0 28.0 15.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 17.8 17.1 20.9 18.0
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.8 0.2 0.8 0.0
HCM 2010 LOS D
HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 2016 Existing Weekday PM Peak Hour
I:\eng\817294 - 352 King Feasibility\Traffic\analysis\Existing\Weekday PM.syn Synchro 8

Appendix C
Future (2028) Capacity/Level-of-Service

Analysis Worksheets


Scenario 1
1: Sproul Road (S.R. 0352) & West King Road 2016 Existing Weekday AM Peak Hour with Impvts - Phasing 1 1: Sproul Road (S.R. 0352) & West King Road 2016 Existing Weekday AM Peak Hour with Impvts - Phasing 1

Description: 8A
Lane Configurations Splits and Phases: 1: Sproul Road (S.R. 0352) & West King Road
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800
Lane Width (ft) 10 14 14 10 14 14 10 12 12 10 14 14
Grade (%) 4% -2% -2% 2%
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.968 0.952 0.986 0.995
Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (prot) 1533 1696 0 1521 1730 0 1550 1760 0 1549 1821 0
Flt Permitted 0.950 0.950 0.531 0.408
Satd. Flow (perm) 1533 1696 0 1521 1730 0 866 1760 0 665 1821 0
Link Distance (ft) 2002 907 900 1892
Travel Time (s) 39.0 15.5 15.3 36.9
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 8% 5% 6% 8% 4% 4% 1% 10% 2% 4% 0%
Adj. Flow (vph) 45 238 64 52 259 122 80 332 34 59 213 8
Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA pm+pt NA pm+pt NA
Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6
Switch Phase
Minimum Split (s) 23.0 23.0 22.0 22.0 10.0 32.0 10.0 32.0
Total Split (s) 23.0 32.0 23.0 32.0 13.0 32.0 13.0 32.0
Total Split (%) 23.0% 32.0% 23.0% 32.0% 13.0% 32.0% 13.0% 32.0%
Maximum Green (s) 17.0 26.0 17.0 26.0 7.0 26.0 7.0 26.0
Yellow Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
All-Red Time (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0
Total Lost Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize?
Vehicle Extension (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Recall Mode None None None None None Min None Min
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 100
Natural Cycle: 90
Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2016 Existing Weekday AM Peak Hour with Impvts - Phasing 1 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2016 Existing Weekday AM Peak Hour with Impvts - Phasing 1
I:\eng\817294 - 352 King Feasibility\Traffic\analysis\Existing with Improvements\Pmt Prot Phasing\Weekday AM.syn Synchro 8 I:\eng\817294 - 352 King Feasibility\Traffic\analysis\Existing with Improvements\Pmt Prot Phasing\Weekday AM.syn Synchro 8
1: Sproul Road (S.R. 0352) & West King Road 2016 Existing Weekday AM Peak Hour with Impvts - Phasing 1
Lane Configurations
Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Adj No. of Lanes 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Cap, veh/h 124 351 95 124 310 146 483 558 57 363 578 22
Arrive On Green 0.08 0.27 0.27 0.08 0.27 0.27 0.06 0.35 0.35 0.05 0.34 0.34
Sat Flow, veh/h 1647 1298 349 1633 1140 537 1665 1593 163 1664 1709 64
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 45 0 302 52 0 381 80 0 366 59 0 221
Q Serve(g_s), s 2.1 0.0 13.1 2.4 0.0 17.1 2.4 0.0 13.6 1.8 0.0 7.5
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.1 0.0 13.1 2.4 0.0 17.1 2.4 0.0 13.6 1.8 0.0 7.5
Prop In Lane 1.00 0.21 1.00 0.32 1.00 0.09 1.00 0.04
V/C Ratio(X) 0.36 0.00 0.68 0.42 0.00 0.84 0.17 0.00 0.59 0.16 0.00 0.37
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 372 0 558 369 0 568 544 0 615 443 0 600
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 3.8 0.0 4.2 4.7 0.0 11.3 0.2 0.0 1.6 0.2 0.0 0.4
LnGrp LOS D C D D B C B C
Approach LOS C D C B
Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 9.1 33.0 11.1 26.6 10.1 32.0 11.0 26.7
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 7.0 26.0 17.0 26.0 7.0 26.0 17.0 26.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.3 15.6 4.9 15.1 4.9 9.5 4.6 19.1
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.7 0.2 1.6 0.0 0.4 0.1 1.6
HCM 2010 LOS C
HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 2016 Existing Weekday AM Peak Hour with Impvts - Phasing 1
I:\eng\817294 - 352 King Feasibility\Traffic\analysis\Existing with Improvements\Pmt Prot Phasing\Weekday AM.syn Synchro 8
1: Sproul Road (S.R. 0352) & West King Road 2028 Future Weekday PM Peak Hour with Impvts - Phasing 1 1: Sproul Road (S.R. 0352) & West King Road 2028 Future Weekday PM Peak Hour with Impvts - Phasing 1
Splits and Phases: 1: Sproul Road (S.R. 0352) & West King Road
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800
Lane Width (ft) 10 14 14 10 14 14 10 12 12 10 14 14
Grade (%) 4% -2% -2% 2%
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.962 0.952 0.981 0.989
Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (prot) 1519 1770 0 1596 1811 0 1612 1783 0 1580 1874 0
Flt Permitted 0.950 0.950 0.243 0.297
Satd. Flow (perm) 1519 1770 0 1596 1811 0 412 1783 0 494 1874 0
Link Distance (ft) 2002 907 900 1892
Travel Time (s) 39.0 15.5 15.3 36.9
Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98
Heavy Vehicles (%) 3% 3% 0% 1% 1% 4% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 4%
Adj. Flow (vph) 44 267 91 93 301 141 83 351 50 91 410 32
Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA pm+pt NA pm+pt NA
Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6
Switch Phase
Minimum Split (s) 23.0 23.0 22.0 22.0 10.0 31.0 10.0 31.0
Total Split (s) 19.0 24.0 22.0 27.0 13.0 31.0 13.0 31.0
Total Split (%) 21.1% 26.7% 24.4% 30.0% 14.4% 34.4% 14.4% 34.4%
Yellow Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
All-Red Time (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0
Total Lost Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize?
Recall Mode None None None None None Min None Min
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 90
Natural Cycle: 90
Description: 8A
Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2028 Future Weekday PM Peak Hour with Impvts - Phasing 1 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2028 Future Weekday PM Peak Hour with Impvts - Phasing 1
I:\eng\817294 - 352 King Feasibility\Traffic\analysis\2028 Build\Pmt Prot Phasing\Weekday PM.syn Synchro 8 I:\eng\817294 - 352 King Feasibility\Traffic\analysis\2028 Build\Pmt Prot Phasing\Weekday PM.syn Synchro 8
1: Sproul Road (S.R. 0352) & West King Road 2028 Future Weekday PM Peak Hour with Impvts - Phasing 1
Lane Configurations
Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Adj No. of Lanes 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0
Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98
Cap, veh/h 123 324 110 170 331 155 324 509 72 345 561 44
Arrive On Green 0.08 0.25 0.25 0.10 0.28 0.28 0.06 0.33 0.33 0.07 0.33 0.33
Sat Flow, veh/h 1631 1281 437 1714 1196 560 1731 1557 222 1697 1693 132
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 44 0 358 93 0 442 83 0 401 91 0 442
Q Serve(g_s), s 2.0 0.0 15.7 4.1 0.0 19.4 2.4 0.0 15.6 2.7 0.0 17.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.0 0.0 15.7 4.1 0.0 19.4 2.4 0.0 15.6 2.7 0.0 17.0
Prop In Lane 1.00 0.25 1.00 0.32 1.00 0.12 1.00 0.07
V/C Ratio(X) 0.36 0.00 0.83 0.55 0.00 0.91 0.26 0.00 0.69 0.26 0.00 0.73
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 287 0 434 366 0 486 385 0 581 397 0 605
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 3.7 0.0 13.6 5.7 0.0 22.0 0.4 0.0 3.4 0.4 0.0 4.5
LnGrp LOS D D D D B C B C
Approach LOS D D C C
Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 10.5 31.0 12.9 25.1 10.2 31.4 11.0 27.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 7.0 25.0 16.0 18.0 7.0 25.0 13.0 21.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 5.2 17.6 6.6 17.7 4.9 19.0 4.5 21.4
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.7 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.7 0.1 0.0
HCM 2010 LOS D
HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 2028 Future Weekday PM Peak Hour with Impvts - Phasing 1
I:\eng\817294 - 352 King Feasibility\Traffic\analysis\2028 Build\Pmt Prot Phasing\Weekday PM.syn Synchro 8

Scenario 2
1: Sproul Road (S.R. 0352) & West King Road 2028 Future Weekday AM Peak Hour with Impvts - Roundabout 1: Sproul Road (S.R. 0352) & West King Road 2028 Future Weekday AM Peak Hour with Impvts - Roundabout
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Intersection
Lane Configurations Intersection Delay, s/veh 14.7
Traffic Volume (vph) 50 268 72 59 292 137 91 374 38 66 240 9 Intersection LOS B
Future Volume (vph) 50 268 72 59 292 137 91 374 38 66 240 9 Approach EB WB NB SB
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800
Entry Lanes 1 1 1 1
Lane Width (ft) 10 14 14 10 14 14 10 12 12 10 14 14
Conflicting Circle Lanes 1 1 1 1
Grade (%) 4% -2% -2% 2%
Adj Approach Flow, veh/h 423 530 547 343
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Demand Flow Rate, veh/h 451 565 559 354
Frt 0.975 0.962 0.990 0.996
Vehicles Circulating, veh/h 412 569 442 513
Flt Protected 0.994 0.994 0.991 0.990
Vehicles Exiting, veh/h 455 432 421 621
Satd. Flow (prot) 0 1709 0 0 1739 0 0 1745 0 0 1812 0
Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h 0 0 0 0
Flt Permitted 0.994 0.994 0.991 0.990
Ped Cap Adj 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
Satd. Flow (perm) 0 1709 0 0 1739 0 0 1745 0 0 1812 0
Approach LOS B C B B
Link Distance (ft) 2002 907 900 1892
Travel Time (s) 39.0 15.5 15.3 36.9 Lane Left Left Left Left
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Designated Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR
Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 8% 5% 6% 8% 4% 4% 1% 10% 2% 4% 0% Assumed Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR
Adj. Flow (vph) 54 291 78 64 317 149 99 407 41 72 261 10 RT Channelized
Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 423 0 0 530 0 0 547 0 0 343 0 Follow-Up Headway, s 2.609 2.609 2.609 2.609
Sign Control Yield Yield Yield Yield Critical Headway, s 4.976 4.976 4.976 4.976
Entry Flow, veh/h 451 565 559 354
Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 906 772 879 818
Area Type: Other
Entry HV Adj Factor 0.937 0.937 0.978 0.968
Control Type: Roundabout
Flow Entry, veh/h 423 530 547 343
Cap Entry, veh/h 850 724 860 791
V/C Ratio 0.498 0.732 0.636 0.433
Control Delay, s/veh 10.8 20.9 14.4 10.1
LOS B C B B
95th %tile Queue, veh 3 6 5 2
Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2028 Future Weekday AM Peak Hour with Impvts - Roundabout HCM 6th Roundabout 2028 Future Weekday AM Peak Hour with Impvts - Roundabout
I:\eng\817294 - 352 King Feasibility\Traffic\analysis\2028 Build\Single Lane Roundabout\Weekday AM.syn Synchro 8 I:\eng\817294 - 352 King Feasibility\Traffic\analysis\2028 Build\Single Lane Roundabout\Weekday AM.syn Synchro 8
1: Sproul Road (S.R. 0352) & West King Road 2028 Future Weekday PM Peak Hour with Impvts - Roundabout 1: Sproul Road (S.R. 0352) & West King Road 2028 Future Weekday PM Peak Hour with Impvts - Roundabout
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Intersection
Lane Configurations Intersection Delay, s/veh 13.6
Traffic Volume (vph) 43 262 89 91 295 138 81 344 49 89 402 31 Intersection LOS B
Future Volume (vph) 43 262 89 91 295 138 81 344 49 89 402 31 Approach EB WB NB SB
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800
Entry Lanes 1 1 1 1
Lane Width (ft) 10 14 14 10 14 14 10 12 12 10 14 14
Conflicting Circle Lanes 1 1 1 1
Grade (%) 4% -2% -2% 2%
Adj Approach Flow, veh/h 402 535 484 533
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Demand Flow Rate, veh/h 411 545 484 534
Frt 0.969 0.964 0.986 0.992
Vehicles Circulating, veh/h 595 479 411 481
Flt Protected 0.995 0.991 0.991 0.992
Vehicles Exiting, veh/h 420 416 595 543
Satd. Flow (prot) 0 1773 0 0 1820 0 0 1776 0 0 1866 0
Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h 0 0 0 0
Flt Permitted 0.995 0.991 0.991 0.992
Ped Cap Adj 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
Satd. Flow (perm) 0 1773 0 0 1820 0 0 1776 0 0 1866 0
Approach LOS B C B B
Link Distance (ft) 2002 907 900 1892
Travel Time (s) 39.0 15.5 15.3 36.9 Lane Left Left Left Left
Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Designated Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR
Heavy Vehicles (%) 3% 3% 0% 1% 1% 4% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 4% Assumed Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR
Adj. Flow (vph) 44 267 91 93 301 141 83 351 50 91 410 32 RT Channelized
Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 402 0 0 535 0 0 484 0 0 533 0 Follow-Up Headway, s 2.609 2.609 2.609 2.609
Critical Headway, s 4.976 4.976 4.976 4.976
Entry Flow, veh/h 411 545 484 534
Area Type: Other
Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 752 847 907 845
Entry HV Adj Factor 0.978 0.982 1.000 0.998
Flow Entry, veh/h 402 535 484 533
Cap Entry, veh/h 736 831 907 843
V/C Ratio 0.546 0.644 0.533 0.632
Control Delay, s/veh 13.4 15.0 11.1 14.5
LOS B C B B
95th %tile Queue, veh 3 5 3 5
Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2028 Future Weekday PM Peak Hour with Impvts - Roundabout HCM 6th Roundabout 2028 Future Weekday PM Peak Hour with Impvts - Roundabout
I:\eng\817294 - 352 King Feasibility\Traffic\analysis\2028 Build\Single Lane Roundabout\Weekday PM.syn Synchro 8 I:\eng\817294 - 352 King Feasibility\Traffic\analysis\2028 Build\Single Lane Roundabout\Weekday PM.syn Synchro 8

Appendix D
PennDOT Design Criteria


Chapter 1 - General Design Publication 13M (DM-2)
TABLE 1.4 (METRIC) Change #1 - Revised 12/12
MATRIX OF DESIGN VALUES – COMMUNITY ARTERIAL
Community Suburban Suburban Suburban Town/Village Town/Village
Rural Urban Core
Arterial Neighborhood Corridor Center Neighborhood Center
Lane Width 1 3.3 m to 3.6 m 3.0 m to 3.6 m 3.3 m to 3.6 m 3.0 m to 3.6 m 3.0 m to 3.6 m 3.0 m to 3.6 m 3.0 m to 3.6 m
1.2 m to 2.4 m 1.2 m to 1.8 m 1.2 m to 1.8 m 1.2 m to 1.8 m 1.2 m to 1.8 m
Shoulder
2.4 m to 3.0 m (if No Parking 2.4 m to 3.0 m (if No Parking (if No Parking (if No Parking (if No Parking
Width 2, 3
or Bike Lane) or Bike Lane) or Bike Lane) or Bike Lane) or Bike Lane)
2.1 m to 2.4 m 2.1 m to 2.4 m 2.1 m to 2.4 m 2.1 m to 2.4 m
Parking Lane 16 NA NA 2.4 m Parallel
Parallel Parallel Parallel Parallel
1.5 m to 1.8 m 1.5 m to 1.8 m
Bike Lane 4 NA 1.5 m to 1.8 m 1.5 m to 1.8 m 1.5 m to 1.8 m 1.5 m to 1.8 m
(if No Shoulder) (if No Shoulder)
4.8 m to 5.4 m 4.8 m to 5.4 m 4.8 m to 5.4 m 4.8 m to 5.4 m 4.8 m to 5.4 m 4.8 m to 5.4 m
for Left Turn for Left Turn for Left Turn for Left Turn for Left Turn for Left Turn
Median 3.6 m to 5.4 m for 3.6 m to 5.4 m for 3.6 m to 5.4 m for 3.6 m to 5.4 m for 3.6 m to 5.4 m for 3.6 m to 5.4 m for
1.2 m to 1.8 m
(if needed) Left Turn; Left Turn; Left Turn; Left Turn; Left Turn; Left Turn;
1.8 m to 2.4 m for 1.8 m to 2.4 m for 1.8 m to 2.4 m for 1.8 m to 2.4 m for 1.8 m to 2.4 m for 1.8 m to 2.4 m for
Pedestrians Pedestrians Pedestrians Pedestrians Pedestrians Pedestrians
Roadway
Curb Return 5 7.5 m to 15.0 m 7.5 m to 10.5 m 7.5 m to 15.0 m 6.0 m to 12.0 m 4.5 m to 9.0 m 4.5 m to 10.5 m 4.5 m to 12.0 m
Travel Lanes 2 to 4 2 to 4 2 to 4 2 to 4 2 to 4 2 to 4 2 to 4
Cross Slopes
2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0%
(Minimum) 6, 7
Cross Slopes
8.0% 6.0% 6.0% 6.0% 6.0% 6.0% 6.0%
(Maximum) 8
Bridge Widths Lane Widths Plus Lane Widths Plus Lane Widths Plus Lane Widths Plus Lane Widths Plus Lane Widths Plus Lane Widths Plus
(Two-Lane Shoulders Each Shoulders Each Shoulders Each Shoulders Each Shoulders Each Shoulders Each Shoulders Each
Facilities) 9, 10, 17 Side Side Side Side Side Side Side
Bridge Widths Lane Widths Plus Lane Widths Plus Lane Widths Plus Lane Widths Plus Lane Widths Plus Lane Widths Plus Lane Widths Plus
(Four-Lane Shoulders Each Shoulders Each Shoulders Each Shoulders Each Shoulders Each Shoulders Each Shoulders Each
Facilities) 9, 10, 17 Side Side Side Side Side Side Side
Vertical Grades
0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5%
(Minimum) 11
Vertical Clearance 5.05 m, 5.05 m, 5.05 m, 5.05 m, 5.05 m, 5.05 m, 5.05 m,
(Minimum) See Chapter 2 See Chapter 2 See Chapter 2 See Chapter 2 See Chapter 2 See Chapter 2 See Chapter 2
Clear Sidewalk
NA 1.5 m 1.5 m to 1.8 m 1.8 m 1.8 m to 2.4 m 1.8 m to 3.0 m 2.4 m to 4.2 m
Width
Buffer 13 NA 1.8 m+ 1.5 m to 3.0 m 1.2 m to 1.8 m 1.2 m to 1.8 m 1.2 m to 1.8 m 1.2 m to 1.8 m
Roadside 12
Shy Distance NA NA NA 0 m to 0.6 m 0 m to 0.6 m 0.6 m 0.6 m

Total Sidewalk
NA 1.5 m 1.5 m to 1.8 m 3.0 m to 4.2 m 3.0 m to 4.8 m 3.6 m to 5.4 m 4.2 m to 6.6 m
Width
Clear Zone
See Chapter 12 See Chapter 12 See Chapter 12 See Chapter 12 See Chapter 12 See Chapter 12 See Chapter 12
Widths 14
Right-of-Way
Varies Varies Varies Varies Varies Varies Varies
Widths 15
Desired Operating
Speed 60-90 km/h 50-60 km/h 60-80 km/h 50 km/h 40-50 km/h 40-50 km/h 40-50 km/h
(Design Speed)
Stopping and
2004 AASHTO 2004 AASHTO 2004 AASHTO 2004 AASHTO 2004 AASHTO 2004 AASHTO 2004 AASHTO
Speed
Passing Sight
Green Book, Green Book, Green Book, Green Book, Green Book, Green Book, Green Book,
Distances
Exhibit 7-1 Exhibit 7-1 Exhibit 7-1 Exhibit 7-1 Exhibit 7-1 Exhibit 7-1 Exhibit 7-1
(Minimum)
2004 AASHTO 2004 AASHTO 2004 AASHTO 2004 AASHTO 2004 AASHTO 2004 AASHTO 2004 AASHTO
Vertical Grades
Green Book, Green Book, Green Book, Green Book, Green Book, Green Book, Green Book,
(Maximum)
Exhibit 7-2 Exhibit 7-10 Exhibit 7-10 Exhibit 7-10 Exhibit 7-10 Exhibit 7-10 Exhibit 7-10
1 - 16
Chapter 1 - General Design Publication 13M (DM-2)
Change #1 - Revised 12/12
TABLE 1.4 (METRIC) (CONTINUED)
MATRIX OF DESIGN VALUES – COMMUNITY ARTERIAL
1
3.6 m preferred for regular transit routes, and heavy truck volumes > 5%, particularly for design speeds of 60 km/h or greater. A 0.3 m to
0.6 m offset to the curb is desirable. 4.2 m for an outside lane with no shoulder or bike lane, if optimal accommodation for bicyclists is desired.
2
Shoulders should be installed in urban contexts only as part of a retrofit of wide travel lanes to accommodate bicyclists.
3
Paving for railroad grade crossings shall extend 0.6 m beyond the extreme rails for the full graded width of the highway.
4
Design of bike lanes should be considered when identified as part of the Engineering & Environmental (E&E) Scoping process. For additional
guidance, refer to Publication 10X, Design Manual, Part 1X, Appendices to Design Manuals 1, 1A, 1B, and 1C , Appendix S, Bicycle and Pedestrian
Checklist.
es - Notes (Community Arterial)
5
Curb Return radius should be as small as possible. Number of lanes, on street parking, bike lanes, and shoulders should be utilized to determine
effective radius.
6
Cross slopes of 3.0% are recommended for design speeds less than 60 km/h.
7
In curbed areas with longitudinal slopes of 1% or less, 3.0% cross slopes may be used on tangents.
8
For additional guidance, refer to Chapter 2, Sections 2.13.B, Rates of Superelevation and 2.13.C, Maximum Superelevation.
9
On curbed approaches, the minimum bridge width may equal the curb-to-curb width. Where pedestrian traffic is anticipated, provisions for a sidewalk,
preferably on the outside of the parapet, should be considered and shall meet the Department's Standards and requirements (see Chapter 6). Where
paved or curbed parking lanes exist or have been approved for construction on approaches, the clear roadway width of the proposed bridge in each
case shall be determined by the Central Office, Bureau of Project Delivery upon receipt of the District Executive’s recommendation.
10
For appropriate bridge widths, refer to the Minimum Width Criteria for Bridges.
Matrix of Design Value
11
Recommended minimum grade of 0.75% on curbed sections.
12
The Roadside design values should be considered and implemented as feasible and reasonable; however, Chapter 6, Pedestrian Facilities, should
still be used for minimum design criteria. ADA accommodations must be addressed in accordance with ADA policy.
13
Buffer is assumed to be planted area (grass, shrubs and/or trees) for suburban neighborhood and corridor contexts; street furniture/car door zone for
other land use contexts. Minimum of 1.8 m for transit zones.
14
Center piers are not desirable. Increase bridge span where necessary to provide for required horizontal stopping sight distance. Provide clearance for
guide rail in front of substructures if protection is required. For offset distances to substructure units, see Publication 15M, Design Manual, Part 4,
Structures .
15
No minimum right-of-way width is suggested. The procurement of sufficient right-of-way width should be based on the preferable dimensions for all
the elements of the composite highway cross section and should be adequate to accommodate the construction and proper maintenance of the highway
throughout the project. Future widening should be considered and, where needed for safety, additional right-of-way may be required for adequate sight
distance. For additional information on right-of-way widths, refer to the 2004 AASHTO Green Book.
16
2.1 m parking lanes on this roadway type to be considered in appropriate conditions.
17
For long bridges over 60 m in length, the shoulder width may be 1.2 m on each side.
1 - 17

Appendix E
Estimated Opinions of Cost


McMahon Aassociates, Inc. 3/25/2019
Engineer's Conceptual Opinion of Cost Prepared By: JWJ
Checked By: JJK
Municipality East Goshen & East Whiteland Townships, Chester County, PA

Project Name: Sproul Road/ North Chester Road (S.R. 0352) and King Road (S.R. 2022)
Project Number: 817294.11
Plan Title: Sproul Road/ North Chester Road (S.R. 0352) and King Road (S.R. 2022) Improvement Feasibility Study
Roadway(s): Sproul Road/ North Chester Road (S.R. 0352) and King Road (S.R. 2022)
Project Description: Roadway improvements including the addition of Left-turn lanes on all legs of the Sproul Road/ North Chester Road (S.R. 0352) and King Road
(S.R. 2022) intersection.
Unit Costs Last Revised: 3/25/2019
Source: ECMS Bid Price History and Similar Project Experience
Disclaimer: McMahon Associates, Inc. has provided this opinion of cost as requested by the client. Please note that opinions of cost are subject to change
based on plan/design revisions, fluctuations in unit costs, field conditions, and differences in locale. Opinions of cost are provided for use in budgeting, but in
no way intended to be construed as a final cost for the project. Final costs are contingent only on actual bids from contractors. McMahon Associates, Inc. will
not be held responsible for differences between this opinion of cost and contractor bid costs.
Intersection 1: Sproul Road/ North Chester Road (S.R. 0352) and King Road (S.R. 2022)
Item No. Description Cost
1 Total Roadway Construction Cost $1,450,359.00
2 Construction Inspection $145,036.00
3 Total Roadway Construction + Inspection $1,595,395.00
4 Engineering and Permitting $435,108.00
5 Utility Relocations $315,000.00
6 Right-of-Way Acquisitions $180,000.00
7 Total Project Cost $2,525,503.00
General Notes:
1. The following costs are rough estimates for budgeting purposes only: Right-of-Way, Construction Inspection, Engineering and
Permitting and Utility Relocation. The costs associated with these items will need to be determined through the development of the
project. Contingency, Construction Inspection and Inflation are based on PennDOT Publication 352.
2. Refer to the intersection spreadsheet details relating to cost calculations and individual intersection assumptions.
3. The Engineer's Conceptual Opinion of Cost does not include relocating or resetting existing aboveground/ underground utilities
within the limits of the project. Impacts to existing utilities will need to be determined during the preliminary engineering of the
project through subsurface utility engineering. Due to visible evidence of subsurface utilities within the project area, it is
recommended (and likely required by law) that utility test pits be performed during the preliminary engineering of the
project.
4. Existing legal rights-of-way and existing property lines, as well as the size and location of any required rights-of-way (temporary
or permanent), will need to be determined during the preliminary engineering of the project.
5. The size, type and location of all required roadway drainage and SWM facilities will need to be determined during the preliminary
engineering of the project.
Engineer's Conceptual Opinion of Cost for 3/25/2019
Sproul Road/ North Chester Road (S.R. 0352) and Kind Road (S.R. 2022)
East Goshen & East Whiteland Townships, Chester County, PA
Item
No. Description Comment Unit Quantity Unit Cost Cost
Standard Items
1 Clearing and Grubbing LS 1 $20,000.00 $20,000.00
2 Class 1 Excavation For Widened Pavement CY 1,750 $45.00 $78,750.00
3 Foreign Borrow CY 600 $30.00 $18,000.00
4 Grading (includes topsoil and seeding) For Roadside Slopes & Restoration SY 2,150 $10.00 $21,500.00
Full Depth Bituminous Pavement Including Wearing Course
5 SY 3,950 $65.00 $256,750.00
(6" Bituminous Base Course & No. 2A Sub-base, 6" Depth)
6 Driveway Adjustments SY 225 $50.00 $11,250.00
7 Milling and Bituminous Overlay (including Tack Coat) SY 4,900 $17.50 $85,750.00
8 Plain Cement Concrete Curb LF 1,770 $30.00 $53,100.00
9 Drainage New Drainage Structures/Inlets LS 1 $140,000.00 $140,000.00
10 4" White Pavement Markings, Hot Thermoplastic Paint LF 4,100 $1.00 $4,100.00
11 4" Yellow Pavement Markings, Hot Thermoplastic Paint LF 4,800 $1.00 $4,800.00
12 6" White Pavement Markings, Hot Thermoplastic Paint LF 290 $1.50 $435.00
14 24" Yellow Pavement Markings, Hot Thermoplastic Paint LF 300 $8.00 $2,400.00
15 Marking Legend, Hot Thermoplastic Paint EA 4 $150.00 $600.00
16 Post Mounted Signs LS 1 $3,000.00 $3,000.00
17 ADA Accessible Curb Ramp EA 4 $6,500.00 $26,000.00
Special Items
18 Stormwater BMPs LS 1 $100,000.00 $100,000.00
19 Traffic Signal Replacement of all Equipment LS 1 $220,000.00 $220,000.00
20 Privacy Fence 6' Height LF 460 $25.00 $11,500.00
21 Subtotal Roadway Construction Cost Items 1 - 20 $1,058,655.00

22 Maintenance and Protection of Traffic 12% of Item 21 $127,039.00
23 Erosion and Sediment Control 5% of Item 21 $52,933.00
24 Mobilization 5% of Item 21 $52,933.00
25 Contingency 15% of Item 21 $158,799.00
26 Total Roadway Construction Cost Items 21 - 25 $1,450,359.00
27 Construction Inspection 10% of Item 26 $145,036.00
28 Total Roadway Construction + Inspection Items 26 - 27 $1,595,395.00
29 Engineering and Permitting 30% of Item 26 $435,108.00
30 Utility Relocations (Poles) LS 1 $315,000.00 $315,000.00
31 Right-of-Way Acquisitions LS 1 $180,000.00 $180,000.00
32 Total Project Cost Items 28 - 31 $2,525,503.00
Assumptions:
-The Engineer's Conceptual Opinion of Cost includes a lump-sum estimate for roadway drainage and SWM facilities. The type, location and size of these facilities
must be determined during preliminary engineering of the project, based on existing topography and existing stormwater management facilities (if any).
McMahon Aassociates, Inc. 3/25/2019
Engineer's Conceptual Opinion of Cost Prepared By: JWJ
Checked By: JJK
Municipality East Goshen & East Whiteland Townships, Chester County, PA

Project Name: Roudnabout - Sproul Road/ North Chester Road (S.R. 0352) and King Road (S.R. 2022)
Project Number: 817294.11
Plan Title: Sproul Road/ North Chester Road (S.R. 0352) and King Road (S.R. 2022) Improvement Feasibility Study
Roadway(s): Sproul Road/ North Chester Road (S.R. 0352) and King Road (S.R. 2022)
Project Description: Convert existing signalized intersection of the Sproul Road/ North Chester Road (S.R. 0352) and King Road (S.R. 2022) to signle-lane roundabout.
Unit Costs Last Revised: 3/25/2019

Source: ECMS Bid Price History and Similar Project Experience
Disclaimer: McMahon Associates, Inc. has provided this opinion of cost as requested by the client. Please note that opinions of cost are subject to change
based on plan/design revisions, fluctuations in unit costs, field conditions, and differences in locale. Opinions of cost are provided for use in budgeting, but in
no way intended to be construed as a final cost for the project. Final costs are contingent only on actual bids from contractors. McMahon Associates, Inc. will
not be held responsible for differences between this opinion of cost and contractor bid costs.
Intersection 1: Roundabout - Sproul Road/ North Chester Road (S.R. 0352) and King Road (S.R. 2022)
Item No. Description Cost
1 Total Roadway Construction Cost $1,815,783.50
2 Construction Inspection $181,579.00
3 Total Roadway Construction + Inspection $1,997,362.50
4 Engineering and Permitting $544,736.00
5 Utility Relocations $135,000.00
6 Right-of-Way Acquisitions $450,000.00
7 Total Project Cost $3,127,098.50
General Notes:
1. The following costs are rough estimates for budgeting purposes only: Right-of-Way, Construction Inspection, Engineering and
Permitting and Utility Relocation. The costs associated with these items will need to be determined through the development of the
project. Contingency, Construction Inspection and Inflation are based on PennDOT Publication 352.
2. Refer to the intersection spreadsheet details relating to cost calculations and individual intersection assumptions.
3. The Engineer's Conceptual Opinion of Cost does not include relocating or resetting existing aboveground/ underground utilities
within the limits of the project. Impacts to existing utilities will need to be determined during the preliminary engineering of the
project through subsurface utility engineering. Due to visible evidence of subsurface utilities within the project area, it is
recommended (and likely required by law) that utility test pits be performed during the preliminary engineering of the
project.
4. Existing legal rights-of-way and existing property lines, as well as the size and location of any required rights-of-way (temporary
or permanent), will need to be determined during the preliminary engineering of the project.
5. The size, type and location of all required roadway drainage and SWM facilities will need to be determined during the preliminary
engineering of the project.
Engineer's Conceptual Opinion of Cost for 3/25/2019
Roundabout - Sproul Road/ North Chester Road (S.R. 0352) and Kind Road (S.R. 2022)
East Goshen & East Whiteland Townships, Chester County, PA
Item
No. Description Comment Unit Quantity Unit Cost Cost
Standard Items
1 Clearing and Grubbing LS 1 $70,000.00 $70,000.00
2 Class 1 Excavation For Reconstructed/Removed Pavement CY 3,000 $45.00 $135,000.00
3 Foreign Borrow CY 1,600 $30.00 $48,000.00
4 Grading (includes topsoil and seeding) For Roadside Slopes & Restoration SY 3,000 $10.00 $30,000.00
Full Depth Bituminous Pavement Including Wearing Course
5 SY 3,950 $75.00 $296,250.00
(6" Bituminous Base Course & No. 2A Sub-base, 8" Depth)
6 Reinforced Cement Concrete Pavement - 8" Depth Truck Apron SY 575 $140.00 $80,500.00
7 Driveway Adjustments SY 270 $50.00 $13,500.00
8 Milling and Bituminous Overlay (including Tack Coat) SY 350 $17.50 $6,125.00
9 Plain Cement Concrete Curb LF 1,975 $30.00 $59,250.00
10 Plain Cement Concrete Mountable Curb LF 950 $40.00 $38,000.00
11 Roudabout Truck Apron Curb LF 530 $60.00 $31,800.00
12 Plain Cement Concrete Pavement - 4" Depth Median Islands SY 270 $80.00 $21,600.00
13 Plain Cement Concrete Sidewalk SY 250 $80.00 $20,000.00
14 Guide Rail - Type 31 LF 250 $30.00 $7,500.00
15 End Treatement EA 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00
16 Drainage New Drainage Structures/Inlets LS 1 $140,000.00 $140,000.00
17 4" White Pavement Markings, Hot Thermoplastic Paint LF 2,000 $1.00 $2,000.00
18 4" Yellow Pavement Markings, Hot Thermoplastic Paint LF 1,850 $1.00 $1,850.00
20 24" Yellow Pavement Markings, Hot Thermoplastic Paint LF 50 $10.00 $500.00
21 Marking Legend, Hot Thermoplastic Paint Yield Line EA 4 $150.00 $600.00
22 Post Mounted Signs LS 1 $12,500.00 $12,500.00
23 ADA Accessible Curb Ramp EA 12 $6,500.00 $78,000.00
Special Items
24 Stormwater BMPs LS 1 $100,000.00 $100,000.00
25 Landscaping LS 1 $75,000.00 $75,000.00
26 Demolition LS 1 $40,000.00 $40,000.00
26 Grade Serperator/Barrier Wall LF 75 $200.00 $15,000.00
27 Subtotal Roadway Construction Cost Items 1 - 26 $1,325,387.50

28 Maintenance and Protection of Traffic 12% of Item 27 $159,047.00
29 Erosion and Sediment Control 5% of Item 27 $66,270.00
30 Mobilization 5% of Item 27 $66,270.00
31 Contingency 15% of Item 27 $198,809.00
32 Total Roadway Construction Cost Items 27 - 31 $1,815,783.50
33 Construction Inspection 10% of Item 32 $181,579.00
34 Total Roadway Construction + Inspection Items 32 - 33 $1,997,362.50
35 Engineering and Permitting 30% of Item 32 $544,736.00
36 Utility Relocations (Poles) LS 1 $135,000.00 $135,000.00
37 Right-of-Way Acquisitions LS 1 $450,000.00 $450,000.00
38 Total Project Cost Items 34 - 37 $3,127,098.50
Assumptions:
-The Engineer's Conceptual Opinion of Cost includes a lump-sum estimate for roadway drainage and SWM facilities. The type, location and size of these facilities
must be determined during preliminary engineering of the project, based on existing topography and existing stormwater management facilities (if any).

2019-03-28 Nagel Smith Feasibility

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2019-03-28 Nagel Smith Feasibility

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

McMAHON ASSOCIATES, INC.

Engineering | Planning | Design | Technology mcmahonassociates.com

Signalized Roundabout Signalized Roundabout

Signalized Roundabout Signalized Roundabout

Right‐of‐Way Required 0.51 Acres  0.64 Acres

Utility Pole Relocations 9 Poles 5 Poles 

*PROPERTIES WHERE IT IS ESTIMATED THAT PERMANENT RIGHT-OF-WAY,

CONCEPTUAL DESIGN EXHIBIT

CONCEPTUAL DESIGN EXHIBIT

Manual Turning Movement Counts

Zero Pedestrians were observed during this study.

Sproul Rd King Rd Sproul Rd King Rd

Peak Hour Data

Peak Hour Begins at 07:30

Left Thru Right

289 402 691

Sproul Rd King Rd Sproul Rd King Rd

Peak Hour Data

Peak Hour Begins at 16:45

Left Thru Right

474 386 860

Existing (2016) Capacity/Level-of-Service

Control Type: Semi Act-Uncoord

Future (2028) Capacity/Level-of-Service

Control Type: Semi Act-Uncoord

PennDOT Design Criteria

Shy Distance NA NA NA 0 m to 0.6 m 0 m to 0.6 m 0.6 m 0.6 m

Estimated Opinions of Cost

Municipality East Goshen & East Whiteland Townships, Chester County, PA

1 Total Roadway Construction Cost $1,450,359.00

2 Construction Inspection $145,036.00

3 Total Roadway Construction + Inspection $1,595,395.00

4 Engineering and Permitting $435,108.00

5 Utility Relocations $315,000.00

6 Right-of-Way Acquisitions $180,000.00

7 Total Project Cost $2,525,503.00

21 Subtotal Roadway Construction Cost Items 1 - 20 $1,058,655.00

Municipality East Goshen & East Whiteland Townships, Chester County, PA

Unit Costs Last Revised: 3/25/2019

1 Total Roadway Construction Cost $1,815,783.50

2 Construction Inspection $181,579.00

3 Total Roadway Construction + Inspection $1,997,362.50

4 Engineering and Permitting $544,736.00

5 Utility Relocations $135,000.00

6 Right-of-Way Acquisitions $450,000.00

7 Total Project Cost $3,127,098.50

27 Subtotal Roadway Construction Cost Items 1 - 26 $1,325,387.50

You might also like