Signal Warrant Studies

Signal Warrant Studies Seven Locations Piqua, Ohio December 12, 217

Signal Warrant Studies Seven Locations Piqua, Ohio TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary... 3 Introduction... 5 Study Location... 5 Data Collection... 6 Traffic Counts... 6 Crash Data... 6 Signal Warrants... 6 Traffic Signal Removal... 7 Capacity Analyses... 7 Sight Distance... 8 Recommendations... 9 APPENDICES Appendix A Spring St. & Greene St. Appendix B Broadway St. & Ash St. Appendix C Broadway St. & High St. Appendix D McKinley Ave. & Grant St. Appendix E South St. & Brice St. Appendix F Main St. & Staunton St. Appendix G South St. & McKinley Ave. December 12, 217 Page 2

Signal Warrant Studies Seven Locations Piqua, Ohio EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ms consultants performed signal warrant analyses for seven intersections in the City of Piqua, Ohio. Six of the seven intersections were existing signals, while one intersection is controlled by a flashing beacon. Signal warrant analyses were performed as per the Ohio Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (OMUTCD), Chapter 4C and Ohio s Traffic Engineering Manual, Section 41 4. The recommendations are based on traffic volumes/operations, crash history, and sight distance. A summary of the recommendations for each intersection is below: Spring St. & Greene St. Short term: Retain signalized operation o Sight distance is t adequate with on street parking Long term: Convert to unsignalized operation (Greene Street stops for Spring Street) o Restrict parking on Spring Street within sight triangle Broadway St. & Ash St. Short term: Retain signalized operation o Sight distance is t adequate with on street parking Long term: Convert to unsignalized operation (Broadway Street stops for Ash Street) o Restrict parking on Ash Street within sight triangle Broadway St. & High St. Short term: Retain signalized operation o Sight distance is t adequate with on street parking o However, without alternative parking, restricting is parking is t recommended as the existing businesses do t have alternative parking Long term: Convert to unsignalized operation (Broadway Street stops for High Street) o When alternative parking is available, restrict on street parking within sight triangle o Install bump outs McKinley Ave. & Grant St. Short term: Retain signalized operation o Sight distance issues from fence and shrubbery need to be removed before removing signal without any other changes Long term: Convert to unsignalized operation with striping changes (Grant Street stops for McKinley Avenue) o Stripe parking lane along McKinley Avenue and block parking adjacent to the intersection to increase sight triangle without removing fencing South St. & Brice St. Short term: Retain signalized operation o Sight distance issues from on street parking Long term: Convert to unsignalized operation (Brice Street stops for South Street) o Adjacent intersection at South Street/Boal Avenue operate as unsignalized Main St. & Staunton St. Remove flashing beacon o Low volumes on Staunton Street (<5 peak hour vehicles) December 12, 217 Page 3

Signal Warrant Studies Seven Locations Piqua, Ohio o Low pedestrian volumes (does t indicate need to replace flashing beacon with rectangular rapid flash beacon) Restrict parking on Main Street west of the intersection South St. & McKinley Ave. Short term: Retain signalized operation o Meets signal warrant criteria for warrants #3 & #8 o Consider operating signal on flash mode in off peak Long term: Stripe left turn lanes which can be incorporated into upcoming resurfacing project o May reduce left turn and rear end crashes o Upgrade to actuated operation December 12, 217 Page 4

Signal Warrant Studies Seven Locations Piqua, Ohio INTRODUCTION Signal warrant analyses have been performed for seven (7) intersections in the City of Piqua. These seven intersections have been identified by the City as potentially being better served with an alternative means of traffic control. This document will evaluate each intersection to determine: if signal warrant criteria are met, if the existing signal or flashing beacon should remain, and what means of traffic control should be implemented, if the signal/beacon should be removed STUDY LOCATION Signal warrant analyses were performed at the following locations: 1. Spring St. & Greene St. 2. Broadway St. & Ash St. 3. Broadway St. & High St. 4. McKinley Ave. & Grant St. 5. South St. & Brice St. 6. Main St. & Staunton St. 7. South St. & McKinley Ave. A map of these locations is provided on Figure 1. Figure 1: Signal Warrant Locations December 12, 217 Page 5

Signal Warrant Studies Seven Locations Piqua, Ohio DATA COLLECTION Traffic Counts Traffic count data was collected at each of the seven intersections. Turning movement counts were conducted on Tuesday October 3, 217 at each location. This was a typical weekday when local schools were in regular session. Pedestrians and bicycle traffic were included. A copy of the traffic count data is provided in each intersection s Appendix. At six of the locations, which were expected to have the lowest volumes, count data was collected during AM and PM peak hours. At the South Street/McKinley Avenue intersection, eight hours of turning movement count data was collected. Crash Data Historic crash data was analyzed for each intersection. The most recent and complete five year period (212 216) was analyzed. Individual OH 1 crash report forms were download and reviewed to identify any existing crash patterns. SIGL WARRANTS Signal warrants were performed for each intersection according to the criteria established in the Ohio Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (OMUTCD). The OMUTCD provides nine different ways in which a signal can be warranted. The nine OMUTCD signal warrants are as follows: Warrant 1, Eight Hour Vehicular Volume Warrant 2, Four Hour Vehicular Volume Warrant 3, Peak Hour Warrant 4, Pedestrian Volume Warrant 5, School Crossing Warrant 6, Coordinated Signal System Warrant 7, Crash Experience Warrant 8, Roadway Network Warrant 9, Intersection Near a Grade Crossing Only one of the seven study intersections currently meets any of the signal warrant criteria. The South St./McKinley St. intersection meets warrants #3 and #8. The remaining six intersections do t meet any of the signal warrant criteria. Copies of the detailed signal warrants are shown in the Appendices. Each of these locations was also analyzed to determine if an all way stop condition would be warranted. The OMUTCD states that an all way stop condition is warranted if the major street has 3 vehicles and December 12, 217 Page 6

Signal Warrant Studies Seven Locations Piqua, Ohio the mir street has 2 vehicles during each of 8 hours. Only one location the South Street/McKinley Avenue intersection was found to potentially meet all way stop criteria. TRAFFIC SIGL REMOVAL The Traffic Engineering Manual (TEM), published by the Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) provides a set of criteria that should be followed in order to remove a traffic signal. These procedures are found in TEM Section 41 4 and are outlined below: To determine if the traffic signal is still needed, the District shall prepare a traffic engineering study for the signal installation documenting the following information, as appropriate: a. Warrant analysis summary. If reasons other than the standard warrants were used to justify the signal installation, determine if these reasons are still valid. b. Accident history. c. Site conditions, especially sight distance problems. d. Public, business, school board or governmental complaints resulting in the original signal installation. e. Present and future developmental growth. f. Kwn reasons for change in traffic patterns or volumes. g. Capacity analysis for the alternate traffic control scheme most likely to be installed if the signal is removed. h. Analysis of the cost of continued signal operation versus a one time signal removal cost. i. Discussion of traffic volume growth needed to warrant the signal. Each intersection was studied to determine if it is appropriate to remove the traffic signal and the appropriate traffic control that should take its place. For convenience, a summary sheet has been developed for each of the intersections Figures 2 9. These summary sheets describe each intersection and provide recommendations for future operation. A summary of all of the above topics (TEM 41 4 a i) are covered in the Appendices. CAPACITY ALYSES Capacity analyses were performed for each intersection to determine if they could successfully operate under stop control (unsignalized) conditions. Highway Capacity Software (HCS7) was used to analyze the existing intersection operation and unsignalized operation. Only one intersection (Main St. & Staunton St.) is unsignalized in the existing condition. In a suburban area, level of service (LOS) D or better is considered acceptable operations. A summary of the capacity analyses is shown in Table 1. December 12, 217 Page 7

Signal Warrant Studies Seven Locations Piqua, Ohio Table 1: Level of Service (LOS) and Delays Intersection Existing LOS Unsignalized LOS* Unsignalized Operation B B Spring St. & Greene St. 2 way stop (Greene stops) 12.6 1.7 B B Broadway St. & Ash St. 2 way stop (Broadway stops) 11.5 11.6 B B Broadway St. & High St. 2 way stop (Broadway stops) 12.8 12.6 B B McKinley Ave. & Grant St. 2 way stop (Grant stops) 11.8 12.8 B A South St. & Brice St. 2 way stop (Brice stops) 12.1 9.9 B* B Main St. & Staunton St. Existing is unsignalized 1.3 1.3 B E** South St. & McKinley Ave All way stop 14.8 44.4 *At two way stop control intersections, LOS/delay reported is for the stopped approach with the highest delay **At all way stop control intersection, LOS/delay reported is the average of all approaches Based on these results, unsignalized operation is viable for all intersections except the South Street/McKinley Avenue from a capacity standpoint. The South Street/McKinley Avenue intersection would degrade to LOS E if operated as an all way stop. All other locations are predicted to operate at LOS B or better with unsignalized operation. Even though the unsignalized delays in Table 1 appear similar to the existing/signalized delays, it is important to te that the unsignalized delay only pertains to the stopped approach. All of the vehicles on the major street would experience delay, thus the overall delays are reduced by well over 5% without signals. SIGHT DISTANCE Sight distance was evaluated for any approaches that may operate as stop control if the existing signal were removed. Intersection sight distance was measured and compared with criteria established in the Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) Location & Design (L&D) Manual. Table 21 5E of the L&D Manual lists the minimum intersection sight distance (ISD) for left and right turning vehicles. Table 2summarizes the required sight distances for left and right turning vehicles. A visual summary of the sight triangles can be seen on the individual intersection summary sheets. However, it should be ted that the sight triangles were drawn using the conservative 17.8 from the edge of the traveled way of the major road to the decision point. In practice, most drivers pull out into the intersection to try and gain a better look at approaching cross traffic. The minimum distance that can be used is 14.4, as per December 12, 217 Page 8

Signal Warrant Studies Seven Locations Piqua, Ohio L&D standards. The results shown in Table 2 are based on the minimum L&D distance assuming that drivers will pull up closer to the intersection before attempting a turn. Intersection Design Speed (mph) Table 2: Sight Distance Summary ISD Left Turn ISD Right Turn ISD met? Spring St. & Greene St. 25 28 24 Parked vehicles within sight triangle Broadway St. & Ash St. 25 28 24 Parked vehicles within sight triangle Broadway St. & High St. 25 28 24 Parked vehicles within sight triangle McKinley Ave. & Grant St. 35 39 335 Fence & shrubbery within sight triangle South St. & Brice St. 35 39 335 Parked vehicles within sight triangle Main St. & Staunton St. 25 28 24 Parked vehicles within sight triangle South St. & McKinley Ave. 35 39 335 Parked vehicles within sight triangle Most locations have on street parking that exists within the sight triangle, which can be an obstruction for motorists attempting a turn. Before any location is converted to two way stop control, on street parking should be removed from the sight triangle. At some locations, the existing on street parking is the only apparent parking available for a residence or business, which would complicate removal of the parking. The McKinley Avenue/Grant Street intersection is the only location where a fixed object interferes with the required sight distance. RECOMMENDATIONS Each of the seven intersections in this study were analyzed for signal warrant criteria, safety, and sight distance. Based on these factors and engineering judgement, the following recommendations have been made. Spring St. & Greene St. Short term: Retain signalized operation o Sight distance is t adequate with on street parking Long term: Convert to unsignalized operation (Greene Street stops for Spring Street) o Restrict parking on Spring Street within sight triangle Broadway St. & Ash St. Short term: Retain signalized operation o Sight distance is t adequate with on street parking Long term: Convert to unsignalized operation (Broadway Street stops for Ash Street) o Restrict parking on Ash Street within sight triangle December 12, 217 Page 9

Signal Warrant Studies Seven Locations Piqua, Ohio Broadway St. & High St. Short term: Retain signalized operation o Sight distance is t adequate with onstreet parking o However, without alternative parking, restricting is parking is t recommended as the existing businesses do t have alternative parking Long term: Convert to unsignalized operation (Broadway Street stops for High Street) o When alternative parking is available, restrict on street parking within sight triangle o Install bump outs McKinley Ave. & Grant St. Short term: Retain signalized operation o Sight distance issues from fence and shrubbery need to be removed before removing signal without any other changes Long term: Convert to unsignalized operation with striping changes (Grant Street stops for McKinley Avenue) (see Appendix D for proposed striping) o Stripe parking lane along McKinley Avenue and block parking adjacent to the intersection to increase sight triangle without removing fencing South St. & Brice St. Short term: Retain signalized operation o Sight distance issues from on street parking Long term: Convert to unsignalized operation (Brice Street stops for South Street) o Adjacent intersection at South Street/Boal Avenue operate as unsignalized Main St. & Staunton St. Remove flashing beacon o Low volumes on Staunton Street (<5 peak hour vehicles) o Low pedestrian volumes (does t indicate need to replace flashing beacon with rectangular rapid flash beacon) Restrict parking on Main Street west of the intersection South St. & McKinley Ave. Short term: Retain signalized operation o Meets signal warrant criteria for warrants #3 & #8 o Consider operating signal on flash mode in off peak Long term: Stripe left turn lanes which can be incorporated into upcoming resurfacing project (see Appendix G for proposed striping) o May reduce left turn and rear end crashes o Upgrade to actuated operation N:\3\6\1667\traffic\docs\217 12 12 PiquaSignalWarrants.docx December 12, 217 Page 1

PIQUA SIGL WARRANT STUDY SPRING STREET & GREENE STREET EXISTING CONDITIONS SPRING ST. GREENE ST. ¾ Span-wire traffic signal ¾ Northbound left turn lane ¾ On-street parking ¾ 25 mph on both streets TRAFFIC OPERATIONS SIGLIZED UNSIGLIZED TWO-WAY STOP AM B A PM B B ¾ Acceptable operations with or without signal SAFETY ¾ 4 crashes between 212-216 1 fixed object 1 left turn 1 angle 1 rear-end ¾ No identifiable pattern SIGL WARRANT SUMMARY #1 Eight-Hour Volume #2 Four-Hour Volume #3 Peak Hour Volume W A R R A N T S #4 Pedestrian Volume #5 School Crossing #6 Coordinated Signal System #7 Crash Experience #8 Roadway Network #9 Railroad Met? No No No No No No No No No Hours Met Crossing No signal warrants are met SIGHT DISTANCE ALYSIS 28 24 SPRING ST. 24 ¾ Parked vehicles along Spring Street cause sight distance issues ¾ Vehicles can pull forward past stop bar and have adequate sight distance 28 On-Street Parking within Sight Triangle RECOMMENDATIONS ¾ Short-term: Retain signalized operation Sight distance is t adequate with on-street parking ¾ Long-term: Convert to unsignalized operation (Greene Street stops for Spring Street) Restrict parking on Spring Street within sight triangle Figure 2

PIQUA SIGL WARRANT STUDY ASH STREET & BROADWAY STREET EXISTING CONDITIONS BROADWAY ST. ASH ST. ¾ On-street parking on all legs ¾ 25-mph speed limit ¾ Span-wire traffic signal ¾ Single lane approaches TRAFFIC OPERATIONS SIGLIZED UNSIGLIZED TWO-WAY STOP AM B B PM B B ¾ Acceptable operations with or without signal SAFETY ¾ 3 intersection related crashes between 212-216 1 angle, 1 rear-end, & 1 sideswipe ¾ No identifiable crash pattern SIGL WARRANT SUMMARY #1 Eight-Hour Volume #2 Four-Hour Volume #3 Peak Hour Volume W A R R A N T S #4 Pedestrian Volume #5 School Crossing #6 Coordinated Signal System #7 Crash Experience #8 Roadway Network #9 Railroad Met? No No No No No No No No No Hours Met Crossing No signal warrants are met SIGHT DISTANCE ALYSIS 28 24 ASH ST. 24 ¾ Issues Shrubbery on southwest and rtheast corners On-street parking can block sight lines 28 On-Street Parking within Sight Triangle ¾ Solutions Remove shrubbery in sight lines Restrict parking on Ash Street RECOMMENDATIONS ¾ Short-term: Retain signalized operation Sight distance is t adequate with on-street parking ¾ Long-term: Convert to unsignalized (Broadway Street stops for Ash Street) Restrict parking on Ash Street within sight triangle Figure 3

PIQUA SIGL WARRANT STUDY HIGH STREET & BROADWAY STREET EXISTING CONDITIONS BROADWAY ST. HIGH ST. ¾ Span-wire traffic signal ¾ South leg is one-way rthbound and skewed ¾ On-street parking TRAFFIC OPERATIONS SIGLIZED UNSIGLIZED TWO-WAY STOP AM B B PM B B ¾ Acceptable operations with or without signal SAFETY ¾ 3 crashes between 212-216 1 rear-end collision 2 sideswipe collisions with parked vehicles ¾ No identifiable crash pattern SIGL WARRANT SUMMARY #1 Eight-Hour Volume #2 Four-Hour Volume #3 Peak Hour Volume W A R R A N T S #4 Pedestrian Volume #5 School Crossing #6 Coordinated Signal System #7 Crash Experience #8 Roadway Network #9 Railroad Met? No No No No No No No No No Hours Met Crossing No signal warrants are met SIGHT DISTANCE ALYSIS 28 24 HIGH ST. 24 ¾ Issues Buildings on rtheast & southeast corner are in sight triangle; however, if vehicles pull past stop bar, drivers can see past buildings Parked vehicles within sight triangle Limited parking for businesses along High Street 28 On-Street Parking within Sight Triangle ¾ Solutions Bump-outs on High Street would allow vehicles to pull up closer and have longer sight distance Find alternative parking for businesses at intersection RECOMMENDATIONS ¾ Short-term: Retain signalized operation Sight distance is t adequate with on-street parking However, without alternative parking, restricting is parking is t recommended ¾ Long-term: Convert to unsignalized (Broadway Street stops for High Street) When alternative parking is available, limit on-street parking within sight triangle Install bump-outs Figure 4

PIQUA SIGL WARRANT STUDY MCKINLEY AVENUE & GRANT STREET EXISTING CONDITIONS MCKINLEY AVE. GRANT ST. ¾ Span-wire traffic signal ¾ Single lane approaches ¾ On-street parking on all legs ¾ 35-mph speed limit on McKinley Avenue TRAFFIC OPERATIONS SIGLIZED UNSIGLIZED TWO-WAY STOP AM B B PM B B ¾ Acceptable operations with or without signal SAFETY ¾ 2 crashes between 212-216 2 rthbound through vehicles ran red light & hit by westbound through vehicles Drivers t complying with signal SIGL WARRANT SUMMARY #1 Eight-Hour Volume #2 Four-Hour Volume #3 Peak Hour Volume W A R R A N T S #4 Pedestrian Volume #5 School Crossing #6 Coordinated Signal System #7 Crash Experience #8 Roadway Network #9 Railroad Met? No No No No No No No No No Hours Met Crossing No signal warrants are met SIGHT DISTANCE ALYSIS 39 335 ¾ Issues Fence and landscaping on southeast corner limit westbound sight distance On rthwest corner, porch is in sight triangle 335 39 MCKINLEY ST. On-Street Parking within Sight Triangle ¾ Solutions Stripe parking lane on McKinley Avenue Construct bump-outs on McKinley Avenue to improve sight distance on Grant Street RECOMMENDATIONS ¾ Short-term: Retain signalized operation Sight distance issues from fence and shrubbery need to be removed before removing signal ¾ Long-term: Convert to unsignalized operation with striping changes Stripe parking lane, which increase sight triangle Figure 5

PIQUA SIGL WARRANT STUDY SOUTH STREET & BRICE STREET EXISTING CONDITIONS SOUTH ST. BRICE ST. ¾ Span-wire traffic signal ¾ Single lane approaches ¾ 35-mph speed limit on South Street TRAFFIC OPERATIONS SIGLIZED UNSIGLIZED TWO-WAY STOP AM B A PM B A ¾ Acceptable operations with or without signal SAFETY ¾ 2 crashes between 212-216 1 fixed object & 1 EB rearend ¾ No identifiable crash pattern SIGL WARRANT SUMMARY W A R R A N T S #1 Eight-Hour Volume #2 Four-Hour Volume #3 Peak Hour Volume #4 Pedestrian Volume #5 School Crossing #6 Coordinated Signal System #7 Crash Experience #8 Roadway Network #9 Railroad Crossing No signal warrants are met Met? No No No No No No No No No Hours Met SIGHT DISTANCE ALYSIS SOUTH ST. 335 39 On-Street Parking within Sight Triangle ¾ Parked vehicles within sight triangle, however vehicles can pull into crosswalk and see around vehicles RECOMMENDATIONS ¾ Short-term: Retain signalized operation Sight distance issues from on-street parking ¾ Long-term: Convert to unsignalized operation (Brice Street stops for South Street) Adjacent intersection at South Street/Boal Avenue operate as unsignalized Figure 6

PIQUA SIGL WARRANT STUDY MAIN STREET & STAUNTON STREET EXISTING CONDITIONS MAIN ST. STAUNTON ST. ¾ Existing one-way stop intersection with flashing beacon ¾ 25-mph speed limit ¾ On-street parking on all legs TRAFFIC OPERATIONS UNSIGLIZED TWO-WAY STOP AM A PM B ¾ Acceptable operations with existing traffic control SAFETY ¾ 4 crashes between 212-216 ¾ No crashes related to intersection control or sight distance SIGL WARRANT SUMMARY W A R R A N T S #1 Eight-Hour Volume #2 Four-Hour Volume #3 Peak Hour Volume #4 Pedestrian Volume #5 School Crossing #6 Coordinated Signal System #7 Crash Experience #8 Roadway Network #9 Railroad Crossing No signal warrants are met Met? No No No No No No No No No Hours Met SIGHT DISTANCE ALYSIS MAIN ST. 24 ¾ Issues Sight distance to the west can be limited to 15 due to parked vehicles. However, drivers can pull into empty crosswalk & have adequate sight distance 28 On-Street Parking within Sight Triangle ¾ Solutions Restrict parking on the south side of Main Street to the west of the intersection for 15 RECOMMENDATIONS ¾ Remove flashing beacon Low volumes on Staunton Street (<5 peak hour vehicles) Low pedestrian volumes (does t indicate need to replace flashing beacon with rectangular rapid flash beacon) ¾ Restrict parking on Main Street west of the intersection Figure 7

PIQUA SIGL WARRANT STUDY SOUTH STREET & MCKINLEY AVENUE EXISTING CONDITIONS MCKINLEY AVE. SOUTH ST. ¾ Span-wire traffic signal ¾ Eastbound left turn lane ¾ Driveways located close to intersection ¾ 35 mph speed limit on both streets TRAFFIC OPERATIONS SIGLIZED UNSIGLIZED ALL-WAY STOP AM B B PM B E ¾ Acceptable operations with or without signal SAFETY ¾ 24 crashes between 212-216 11 rear-end collisions 5 left turn crashes 4 angle (ran red light) 2 backing 2 other crashes SIGL WARRANT SUMMARY #1 Eight-Hour Volume #2 Four-Hour Volume #3 Peak Hour Volume W A R R A N T S #4 Pedestrian Volume #5 School Crossing #6 Coordinated Signal System #7 Crash Experience #8 Roadway Network #9 Railroad Met? No No Yes No No No No Yes No Hours Met 3 3 Crossing Warrants #3 (Peak Hour) & #8 (Roadway Network) are met. SIGHT DISTANCE ALYSIS 39 335 ¾ On-street parking results in vehicles in sight triangle on South Street, east of McKinley Avenue ¾ No other sight distance issues SOUTH ST. 335 39 On-Street Parking within Sight Triangle RECOMMENDATIONS ¾ Short-term: Retain signalized operation Meets signal warrant criteria for warrants #3 & #8 Consider operating signal on flash mode in off-peak ¾ Long-term: Stripe left turn lanes May reduce left-turn and rear-end crashes Upgrade to actuated operation Figure 8

Appendix A Spring Street & Greene Street

Type of peak hour being reported: Intersection Peak Method for determining peak hour: Total Entering Volume LOCATION: Spring St -- E Greene St QC JOB #: 145549 CITY/STATE: Piqua, OH DATE: Tue, Oct 3 217 113 1 15 54 7 Peak-Hour: 7:15 AM -- 8:15 AM Peak 15-Min: 7:45 AM -- 8: AM 1.8. 1.9 16.7. 25 87 14 6.72 7 81 5 26 16 12. 3.4. 7.1. 28.6 3.7. 11.5. 17 4 3 5.9 2.. 191 6 2.6 15. 1 1 1 15-Min Count Period Spring St (Northbound) Spring St (Southbound) E Greene St (Eastbound) E Greene St (Westbound) Total Hourly Totals Beginning At Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U 7: AM 2 11 1 23 2 22 1 1 2 65 7:15 AM 2 1 1 23 1 2 1 1 3 62 7:3 AM 2 7 1 2 18 3 2 1 4 58 7:45 AM 6 14 2 4 35 1 25 1 5 6 99 284 8: AM 7 9 29 2 16 2 1 1 67 286 8:15 AM 1 14 2 28 1 1 3 2 61 285 8:3 AM 2 13 2 1 13 2 9 1 4 47 274 8:45 AM 2 1 24 1 2 3 4 64 239 Peak 15-Min Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Flowrates Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Total All Vehicles 24 56 8 16 14 4 1 4 2 24 396 Heavy Trucks 12 4 8 4 28 Pedestrians 4 4 4 12 Bicycles Railroad Stopped Buses Comments: Report generated on 1/12/217 1:7 PM SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) 1-877-58-2212

Type of peak hour being reported: Intersection Peak Method for determining peak hour: Total Entering Volume LOCATION: Spring St -- E Greene St QC JOB #: 145541 CITY/STATE: Piqua, OH DATE: Tue, Oct 3 217 13 2 93 155 8 Peak-Hour: 4:45 PM -- 5:45 PM Peak 15-Min: 5:15 PM -- 5:3 PM 1.. 1.1 1.9. 55 83 2 45 19.86 27 62 14 86 36 1.8 1.2.... 1.6... 26 18 9 3.8 2.8. 169 143 1.2 2.8 1 1 1 3 15-Min Count Period Spring St (Northbound) Spring St (Southbound) E Greene St (Eastbound) E Greene St (Westbound) Total Hourly Totals Beginning At Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U 4: PM 15 21 2 2 16 3 11 3 5 1 88 4:15 PM 11 12 6 2 23 1 16 1 1 8 9 4:3 PM 6 17 3 1 21 1 4 15 4 7 6 85 4:45 PM 9 25 4 27 1 4 22 2 5 9 18 371 5: PM 6 28 3 2 21 1 16 5 6 11 99 382 5:15 PM 7 29 4 2 25 2 7 16 4 11 14 121 413 5:3 PM 4 26 2 2 1 7 8 3 5 11 87 415 5:45 PM 9 23 3 3 13 1 1 4 17 2 2 6 84 391 Peak 15-Min Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Flowrates Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Total All Vehicles 28 116 16 8 1 8 28 64 16 44 56 484 Heavy Trucks 4 4 8 Pedestrians 4 4 Bicycles Railroad Stopped Buses Comments: Report generated on 1/12/217 1:7 PM SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) 1-877-58-2212

HCS7 Signalized Intersection Results Summary General Information Intersection Information Agency ms consultants Duration, h.25 Analyst JRH Analysis Date Oct 19, 217 Area Type Other Jurisdiction Time Period AM Peak PHF.92 Urban Street Spring Street Analysis Year 217 Analysis Period 1> 7: Intersection Spring/Greene File Name Spring-Greene_AMPeak.xus Project Description Demand Information EB WB NB SB Approach Movement L T R L T R L T R L T R Demand ( v ), veh/h 6 81 5 7 14 17 4 3 7 15 1 Signal Information Cycle, s 7. Reference Phase 2 Offset, s Reference Point End Uncoordinated Yes Simult. Gap E/W On Force Mode Fixed Simult. Gap N/S On Green Yellow Red 3. 3..... 4. 4..... 1. 1..... 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 Timer Results EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT Assigned Phase 4 8 2 6 Case Number 8. 8. 6. 8. Phase Duration, s 35. 35. 35. 35. Change Period, ( Y+R c ), s 5. 5. 5. 5. Max Allow Headway ( MAH ), s 3.3 3.3 3.1 3.1 Queue Clearance Time ( g s ), s 4.5 2.7 5.5 4.8 Green Extension Time ( g e ), s.2.2.3.3 Phase Call Probability 1. 1. 1. 1. Max Out Probability.... Movement Group Results EB WB NB SB Approach Movement L T R L T R L T R L T R Assigned Movement 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16 Adjusted Flow Rate ( v ), veh/h 28 18 47 123 Adjusted Saturation Flow Rate ( s ), veh/h/ln 163 1267 1833 1837 Queue Service Time ( g s ), s...6 1.. Cycle Queue Clearance Time ( g c ), s..7 3.5 1. 2.8 Green Ratio ( g/c ).43.43.43.43 Capacity ( c ), veh/h 749 594 785 842 Volume-to-Capacity Ratio ( X )..38.31.6.146 Back of Queue ( Q ), ft/ln ( 5 th percentile) 6.4 4.6 1.6 29.1 Back of Queue ( Q ), veh/ln ( 5 th percentile)..2.2.4 1.1 Queue Storage Ratio ( RQ ) ( 5 th percentile)..... Uniform Delay ( d 1 ), s/veh 11.6 13.3 11.7 12.2 Incremental Delay ( d 2 ), s/veh..1.1.1.4 Initial Queue Delay ( d 3 ), s/veh..... Control Delay ( d ), s/veh 11.7 13.4 11.9 12.6 Level of Service (LOS) B B B B Approach Delay, s/veh / LOS 12.6 B 11.7 B 12.3 B 12.6 B Intersection Delay, s/veh / LOS 12.5 B Multimodal Results EB WB NB SB Pedestrian LOS Score / LOS 2.3 B 2.1 B 2.1 B 2.1 B Bicycle LOS Score / LOS.6 A.5 A.6 A.7 A Copyright 217 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved. HCS7 Streets Version 7.3 Generated: 11/2/217 11:19: AM

HCS7 Signalized Intersection Results Summary General Information Intersection Information Agency ms consultants Duration, h.25 Analyst JRH Analysis Date Oct 19, 217 Area Type Other Jurisdiction Time Period PM Peak PHF.92 Urban Street Spring Street Analysis Year 217 Analysis Period 1> 7: Intersection Spring/Greene File Name Spring-Greene_PMPeak.xus Project Description Demand Information EB WB NB SB Approach Movement L T R L T R L T R L T R Demand ( v ), veh/h 2 19 62 14 27 45 26 18 9 8 93 2 Signal Information Cycle, s 7. Reference Phase 2 Offset, s Reference Point End Uncoordinated Yes Simult. Gap E/W On Force Mode Fixed Simult. Gap N/S On Green Yellow Red 3. 3..... 4. 4..... 1. 1..... 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 Timer Results EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT Assigned Phase 4 8 2 6 Case Number 8. 8. 6. 8. Phase Duration, s 35. 35. 35. 35. Change Period, ( Y+R c ), s 5. 5. 5. 5. Max Allow Headway ( MAH ), s 3.3 3.3 3.1 3.1 Queue Clearance Time ( g s ), s 4.3 4.3 5.5 4.6 Green Extension Time ( g e ), s.3.3.5.5 Phase Call Probability 1. 1. 1. 1. Max Out Probability.... Movement Group Results EB WB NB SB Approach Movement L T R L T R L T R L T R Assigned Movement 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16 Adjusted Flow Rate ( v ), veh/h 9 93 28 127 112 Adjusted Saturation Flow Rate ( s ), veh/h/ln 1633 1627 1281 183 182 Queue Service Time ( g s ), s.. 1. 3.. Cycle Queue Clearance Time ( g c ), s 2.3 2.3 3.5 3. 2.6 Green Ratio ( g/c ).43.43.43.43.43 Capacity ( c ), veh/h 753 757 65 784 835 Volume-to-Capacity Ratio ( X ).12.124.47.162.134 Back of Queue ( Q ), ft/ln ( 5 th percentile) 21.2 22 7.1 3.4 26.3 Back of Queue ( Q ), veh/ln ( 5 th percentile).8.9.3 1.2 1. Queue Storage Ratio ( RQ ) ( 5 th percentile)..... Uniform Delay ( d 1 ), s/veh 12.1 12.1 13.2 12.3 12.2 Incremental Delay ( d 2 ), s/veh.3.3.1.4.3 Initial Queue Delay ( d 3 ), s/veh..... Control Delay ( d ), s/veh 12.4 12.4 13.4 12.7 12.5 Level of Service (LOS) B B B B B Approach Delay, s/veh / LOS 12.4 B 12.4 B 12.8 B 12.5 B Intersection Delay, s/veh / LOS 12.6 B Multimodal Results EB WB NB SB Pedestrian LOS Score / LOS 2.3 B 2.1 B 2.1 B 2.1 B Bicycle LOS Score / LOS.6 A.6 A.7 A.7 A Copyright 217 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved. HCS7 Streets Version 7.3 Generated: 11/2/217 11:2:5 AM

HCS7 Two-Way Stop-Control Report General Information Site Information Analyst JRH Intersection Spring/Greene Agency/Co. ms consultants Jurisdiction City of Piqua Date Performed 11/1/217 East/West Street Greene St Analysis Year 217 North/South Street Spring St Time Analyzed AM Peak Peak Hour Factor.92 Intersection Orientation North-South Analysis Time Period (hrs).25 Project Description Lanes TWSC Major Street: North-South Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Priority 1 11 12 7 8 9 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 Number of Lanes 1 1 1 1 1 Configuration LTR LTR L TR LTR Volume, V (veh/h) 6 81 5 7 14 17 4 3 7 15 1 Percent Heavy Vehicles (%) 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade (%) Right Turn Channelized No No No No Median Type/Storage Critical and Follow-up Headways Undivided Base Critical Headway (sec) Critical Headway (sec) Base Follow-Up Headway (sec) Follow-Up Headway (sec) Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate, v (veh/h) 95 28 18 8 Capacity, c (veh/h) 99 86 1466 1553 v/c Ratio.1.3.1.1 95% Queue Length, Q₉₅ (veh).3.1.. Control Delay (s/veh) 9.4 9.6 7.5 7.3 Level of Service, LOS A A A A Approach Delay (s/veh) 9.4 9.6 2.1.5 Approach LOS A A Copyright 217 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS7 TWSC Version 7.3 Generated: 11/7/217 8:59:28 AM Spring-Greene_AMPeak.xtw

HCS7 Two-Way Stop-Control Report General Information Site Information Analyst JRH Intersection Spring/Greene Agency/Co. ms consultants Jurisdiction City of Piqua Date Performed 11/1/217 East/West Street Greene St Analysis Year 217 North/South Street Spring St Time Analyzed PM Peak Peak Hour Factor.92 Intersection Orientation North-South Analysis Time Period (hrs).25 Project Description Lanes TWSC Major Street: North-South Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Priority 1 11 12 7 8 9 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 Number of Lanes 1 1 1 1 1 Configuration LTR LTR L TR LTR Volume, V (veh/h) 2 19 62 14 27 45 26 18 9 8 93 2 Percent Heavy Vehicles (%) 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade (%) Right Turn Channelized No No No No Median Type/Storage Critical and Follow-up Headways Undivided Base Critical Headway (sec) Critical Headway (sec) Base Follow-Up Headway (sec) Follow-Up Headway (sec) Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate, v (veh/h) 9 93 28 9 Capacity, c (veh/h) 821 719 1481 1451 v/c Ratio.11.13.2.1 95% Queue Length, Q₉₅ (veh).4.4.1. Control Delay (s/veh) 9.9 1.7 7.5 7.5 Level of Service, LOS A B A A Approach Delay (s/veh) 9.9 1.7 1.4.6 Approach LOS A B Copyright 217 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS7 TWSC Version 7.3 Generated: 11/7/217 9::53 AM Spring-Greene_PMPeak.xtw

Intersection: Spring Street & Greene Street Date: 1/18/217 Jurisdiction: City of Piqua Project Name / #: 6-1667 Condition/Scenario: 217 - Existing Volumes Analyst: JRH WARRANT #1 - EIGHT-HOUR VOLUME MIR STREET Eligible to use 7% of Warrant Criteria for high-speed MAJOR STREET Apply Mir Street Right Turn Reduction Factor? (>4mph) condition or isolated community? # of Major Street lanes per approach 1 Approach Direction (EB or NB) eb Approach Direction (WB or SB) wb # of approach lanes for analysis 1 # of approach lanes for analysis 1 Type of Mir Street approach (TEM 497.7) 1 (LTR) Type of Mir Street approach (TEM 497.7) 1 (LTR) Sesaonal Adjust. Factor and/or Growth Factor 1. MAJOR STREET MIR STREET WARRANT 1 WARRANT 1 WARRANT 1, CONDITION A/B (8%) Spring Street Greene Street CONDITION A CONDITION B CONDITION A CONDITION B CONDITION A CONDITION B Full Volumes 7% of Vols Full Volumes 7% of Vols 8% of Vols 8% of Vols 56% of Vols 56% of Vols Factored EASTBOUND WESTBOUND NB SB Maj Min* Maj Min* Maj Min* Maj Min* Maj Min* Maj Min* Maj Min* Maj Min* Total of Pedestrians Highest Approach Approach Major Crossing (raw) RT Factored (raw) RT Factored Mir 15 15 75 53 12 6 84 42 (raw) (raw) 5 35 75 525 4 6 28 42 Approaches Major Street L T R Reduce Approach L T R Reduce Approach Approach 15 15 75 53 12 6 84 42 12: AM -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 1: AM -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 2: AM -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 3: AM -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 4: AM -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 5: AM -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 6: AM -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 7: AM 57 18 165 2 6 87 -- 93 4 7 15 -- 26 93 -- -- Yes -- -- Yes -- -- -- -- 8: AM 6 97 157 6 55 -- 61 3 11 7 -- 21 61 -- -- -- -- Yes -- -- -- -- 9: AM -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 1: AM -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 11: AM -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 12: PM -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 1: PM -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 2: PM -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 3: PM -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 4: PM 127 98 225 1 12 64 -- 76 1 27 33 -- 7 76 -- -- Yes -- -- Yes -- -- -- -- 5: PM 144 88 232 4 3 19 57 -- 79 14 24 42 -- 8 8 -- -- Yes -- -- Yes -- -- -- -- 6: PM -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 7: PM -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 8: PM -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 9: PM -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 1: PM -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 11: PM -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- NUMBER OF HOURS MET WARRANT CRITERIA MET? WARRANT #2 - FOUR-HOUR VOLUME (see attached graph) WARRANT #7 - CRASH EXPERIENCE Adequate trial of alternativesfailed to reduce crash frequency? WARRANT #3 - PEAK HOUR VOLUME (see attached graph) At least 5 crashes in year that may be preventable with signalization? 8% of Warrant 1 (either Condition A or B) satisfied? WARRANT #4 - PEDESTRIAN VOLUME 8% of Warrant 4 satisfied Meet four-hour criteria? WARRANT MET? Meet peak hour criteria? Location more than 3 feet away from nearest signal? WARRANT #8 - ROADWAY NETWORK WARRANT MET? Both streets are major routes? At least 1, weekday peak hour entering vehicles? WARRANT #5 - SCHOOL CROSSING Five-year projected volumes meet Warrants 1, 2, or 3? At least 2 students crossing during highest crossing hour? At least 1, entering vehicles for each of 5 weekend hours? Engineering study shows that adequate gaps do t exist? WARRANT MET? Location more than 3 feet away from nearest signal? WARRANT MET? WARRANT #9 - INTERSECTION NEAR A GRADE CROSSING Crossing is at intersection controlled by STOP or YIELD and within 14'? WARRANT #6 - COORDITED SIGL SYSTEM Plotted points above corresponding lines on Figures? Location can be incorporated into a signal system? WARRANT MET? New signal would provide improved platooning? (Guidance) Is resultant spacing of signals < 1ft? WARRANT MET? CONCLUSION: ms consultants, inc. SIGL WARRANT ALYSIS COMMENTS: * ### = Warrant criteria for eastbound mir street ### = Warrant criteria for westbound mir street

Spring Street & Greene Street Warrant 2 - Four-Hour Vehicular Volume Conclusion: Warrant 2 - T MET Spring Street & Greene Street Warrant 3 - Peak Hour Vehicular Volume Conclusion: Warrant 3 - T MET

SIGL REMOVAL DETAILED ALYSIS From TEM Section 41 4 Spring Street & Greene Street a) Warrant Analysis Summary other reasons used to justify the installation. Not applicable for this location. b) Accident History Crash data does t indicate that removal of this signal would increase crashes. c) Site Conditions, especially sight distance problems On street parking is within sight triangle for vehicles stopped at stop bar, however there is room for vehicles to pull out further and see around parked vehicles. d) Public, business, school board or governmental complaints resulting in the original signal installation. Not applicable for this location. e) Present and future development growth. This intersection is located in a fully established suburban residential and commercial corridor. Most parcels in the vicinity are built out and occupied. Additional growth is a possibility, but specific redevelopment plans are identified that would impact this specific intersection. The signal does t come close to meeting warrants, therefore any potential immediate growth in the area is t expected to warrant a signal at this intersection. f) Kwn reasons for changes in traffic volumes. Not applicable for this location. g) Capacity analysis for the post removal condition. Capacity analysis shows that the intersection operations remain unchanged with the signal removal. h) Analysis of the cost of continued signal operation versus a one time signal removal cost. Ongoing operation and maintenance costs for this signal are anticipated to be approximately $2,5 per year. A one time signal removal cost is anticipated to be approximately $1,5. Therefore, it would only require one year of operations and maintenance savings to pay for the signal removal. i) Discussion of the traffic growth needed to warrant the signal. Mir street volumes would have to increase over 5 vehicles in the highest 8 hours and the major street would have to increase over 3 vehicles in the highest 8 hours.

Appendix B Broadway Street & Ash Street

Type of peak hour being reported: Intersection Peak Method for determining peak hour: Total Entering Volume LOCATION: Broadway St -- W Ash St QC JOB #: 1455411 CITY/STATE: Piqua, OH DATE: Tue, Oct 3 217 8 6 51 53 23 Peak-Hour: 7:45 AM -- 8:45 AM Peak 15-Min: 8:15 AM -- 8:3 AM 16.3 15.1 33.3 15.7 13. 48 65 4 27 58.97 39 3 9 75 92 14.6 7.7. 18.5 6.9 12.8 33.3 11.1 14.7 7.6 3 22 11. 13.6. 63 36 15.9 8.3 1 2 1 3 15-Min Count Period Broadway St (Northbound) Broadway St (Southbound) W Ash St (Eastbound) W Ash St (Westbound) Total Hourly Totals Beginning At Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U 7: AM 4 1 9 6 15 1 1 4 2 43 7:15 AM 4 1 2 7 1 2 11 1 1 5 4 39 7:3 AM 1 3 7 7 2 1 11 1 17 5 55 7:45 AM 4 3 3 9 2 16 1 2 11 8 59 196 8: AM 9 9 15 2 1 11 1 6 11 65 218 8:15 AM 2 5 4 8 11 1 2 16 2 2 9 4 66 245 8:3 AM 1 4 4 3 16 1 1 15 4 13 4 66 256 8:45 AM 2 2 5 5 1 14 1 2 16 7 55 252 Peak 15-Min Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Flowrates Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Total All Vehicles 8 2 16 32 44 4 8 64 8 8 36 16 264 Heavy Trucks 4 8 8 4 8 8 4 Pedestrians Bicycles 1 1 Railroad Stopped Buses Comments: Report generated on 1/12/217 1:7 PM SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) 1-877-58-2212

Type of peak hour being reported: Intersection Peak Method for determining peak hour: Total Entering Volume LOCATION: Broadway St -- W Ash St QC JOB #: 1455412 CITY/STATE: Piqua, OH DATE: Tue, Oct 3 217 73 3 44 94 26 Peak-Hour: 4: PM -- 5: PM Peak 15-Min: 4: PM -- 4:15 PM 1.4. 2.3 1.1. 117 68 2 44 62.96 11 4 21 175 99 2.6 1.5. 2.3. 2.7 25.. 2.3. 4 48 11... 69 63 2.9. 2 1 3 15-Min Count Period Broadway St (Northbound) Broadway St (Southbound) W Ash St (Eastbound) W Ash St (Westbound) Total Hourly Totals Beginning At Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U 4: PM 2 14 2 7 16 1 19 1 5 23 9 99 4:15 PM 1 7 1 9 7 1 1 17 1 4 35 14 98 4:3 PM 1 11 4 6 1 11 6 26 14 89 4:45 PM 16 4 4 11 1 1 15 2 6 26 7 93 379 5: PM 1 8 2 7 1 16 2 3 31 1 81 361 5:15 PM 6 1 8 16 2 17 1 4 26 9 9 353 5:3 PM 2 4 7 16 1 12 1 2 22 4 71 335 5:45 PM 1 7 5 8 1 15 1 4 24 13 79 321 Peak 15-Min Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Flowrates Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Total All Vehicles 8 56 8 28 64 4 76 4 2 92 36 396 Heavy Trucks 4 8 12 Pedestrians 8 8 Bicycles Railroad Stopped Buses Comments: Report generated on 1/12/217 1:7 PM SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) 1-877-58-2212

HCS7 Signalized Intersection Results Summary General Information Intersection Information Agency ms consultants Duration, h.25 Analyst JRH Analysis Date Oct 19, 217 Area Type Other Jurisdiction Time Period AM Peak PHF.92 Urban Street Ash Street Analysis Year 217 Analysis Period 1> 7: Intersection Ash/Broadway File Name Ash-Broadway_AMPeak.xus Project Description Demand Information EB WB NB SB Approach Movement L T R L T R L T R L T R Demand ( v ), veh/h 4 58 3 9 39 27 3 22 11 23 51 6 Signal Information Cycle, s 6. Reference Phase 2 Offset, s Reference Point End Uncoordinated Yes Simult. Gap E/W On Force Mode Fixed Simult. Gap N/S On Green Yellow Red 25. 25..... 4. 4..... 1. 1..... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Timer Results EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT Assigned Phase 2 6 8 4 Case Number 8. 8. 8. 8. Phase Duration, s 3. 3. 3. 3. Change Period, ( Y+R c ), s 5. 5. 5. 5. Max Allow Headway ( MAH ), s 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 Queue Clearance Time ( g s ), s 3.4 3.7 2.8 3.7 Green Extension Time ( g e ), s.2.2.2.2 Phase Call Probability 1. 1. 1. 1. Max Out Probability.... Movement Group Results EB WB NB SB Approach Movement L T R L T R L T R L T R Assigned Movement 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 7 4 14 Adjusted Flow Rate ( v ), veh/h 71 82 39 87 Adjusted Saturation Flow Rate ( s ), veh/h/ln 1825 173 1737 1693 Queue Service Time ( g s ), s.... Cycle Queue Clearance Time ( g c ), s 1.4 1.7.8 1.7 Green Ratio ( g/c ).42.42.42.42 Capacity ( c ), veh/h 824 777 789 783 Volume-to-Capacity Ratio ( X ).86.15.5.111 Back of Queue ( Q ), ft/ln ( 5 th percentile) 13.6 15.9 7.4 17 Back of Queue ( Q ), veh/ln ( 5 th percentile).5.6.3.7 Queue Storage Ratio ( RQ ) ( 5 th percentile).... Uniform Delay ( d 1 ), s/veh 1.6 1.7 1.4 1.7 Incremental Delay ( d 2 ), s/veh.2.3.1.3 Initial Queue Delay ( d 3 ), s/veh.... Control Delay ( d ), s/veh 1.8 11. 1.6 11. Level of Service (LOS) B B B B Approach Delay, s/veh / LOS 1.8 B 11. B 1.6 B 11. B Intersection Delay, s/veh / LOS 1.9 B Multimodal Results EB WB NB SB Pedestrian LOS Score / LOS 2.1 B 2.1 B 2.1 B 2.1 B Bicycle LOS Score / LOS.6 A.6 A.6 A.6 A Copyright 217 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved. HCS7 Streets Version 7.3 Generated: 11/2/217 1:39:54 AM

HCS7 Signalized Intersection Results Summary General Information Intersection Information Agency ms consultants Duration, h.25 Analyst JRH Analysis Date Oct 19, 217 Area Type Other Jurisdiction Time Period PM Peak PHF.92 Urban Street Ash Street Analysis Year 217 Analysis Period 1> 7: Intersection Ash/Broadway File Name Ash-Broadway_PMPeak.xus Project Description Demand Information EB WB NB SB Approach Movement L T R L T R L T R L T R Demand ( v ), veh/h 2 62 4 21 11 44 4 48 11 26 44 3 Signal Information Cycle, s 6. Reference Phase 2 Offset, s Reference Point End Uncoordinated Yes Simult. Gap E/W On Force Mode Fixed Simult. Gap N/S On Green Yellow Red 25. 25..... 4. 4..... 1. 1..... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Timer Results EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT Assigned Phase 2 6 8 4 Case Number 8. 8. 8. 8. Phase Duration, s 3. 3. 3. 3. Change Period, ( Y+R c ), s 5. 5. 5. 5. Max Allow Headway ( MAH ), s 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 Queue Clearance Time ( g s ), s 3.5 6.2 3.4 3.6 Green Extension Time ( g e ), s.5.4.2.2 Phase Call Probability 1. 1. 1. 1. Max Out Probability.... Movement Group Results EB WB NB SB Approach Movement L T R L T R L T R L T R Assigned Movement 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 7 4 14 Adjusted Flow Rate ( v ), veh/h 74 19 68 79 Adjusted Saturation Flow Rate ( s ), veh/h/ln 1831 1733 1785 1647 Queue Service Time ( g s ), s.... Cycle Queue Clearance Time ( g c ), s 1.5 4.2 1.4 1.6 Green Ratio ( g/c ).42.42.42.42 Capacity ( c ), veh/h 825 789 88 768 Volume-to-Capacity Ratio ( X ).9.241.85.13 Back of Queue ( Q ), ft/ln ( 5 th percentile) 14.2 4 13.2 15.5 Back of Queue ( Q ), veh/ln ( 5 th percentile).6 1.6.5.6 Queue Storage Ratio ( RQ ) ( 5 th percentile).... Uniform Delay ( d 1 ), s/veh 1.6 11.4 1.6 1.7 Incremental Delay ( d 2 ), s/veh.2.7.2.3 Initial Queue Delay ( d 3 ), s/veh.... Control Delay ( d ), s/veh 1.9 12.2 1.8 1.9 Level of Service (LOS) B B B B Approach Delay, s/veh / LOS 1.9 B 12.2 B 1.8 B 1.9 B Intersection Delay, s/veh / LOS 11.5 B Multimodal Results EB WB NB SB Pedestrian LOS Score / LOS 2.1 B 2.1 B 2.1 B 2.1 B Bicycle LOS Score / LOS.6 A.8 A.6 A.6 A Copyright 217 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved. HCS7 Streets Version 7.3 Generated: 11/2/217 1:41:13 AM

HCS7 Two-Way Stop-Control Report General Information Site Information Analyst JRH Intersection Ash/Broadway Agency/Co. ms consultants Jurisdiction City of Piqua Date Performed 11/1/217 East/West Street Ash St Analysis Year 217 North/South Street Broadway St Time Analyzed AM Peak Peak Hour Factor.92 Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs).25 Project Description Lanes TWSC Major Street: East-West Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 11 12 Number of Lanes 1 1 1 1 Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR Volume, V (veh/h) 4 58 3 9 39 27 3 22 11 23 51 6 Percent Heavy Vehicles (%) 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade (%) Right Turn Channelized No No No No Median Type/Storage Critical and Follow-up Headways Undivided Base Critical Headway (sec) 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 Critical Headway (sec) 4.13 4.13 7.13 6.53 6.23 7.13 6.53 6.23 Base Follow-Up Headway (sec) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4. 3.3 3.5 4. 3.3 Follow-Up Headway (sec) 2.23 2.23 3.53 4.3 3.33 3.53 4.3 3.33 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate, v (veh/h) 4 1 39 87 Capacity, c (veh/h) 1521 1528 787 757 v/c Ratio..1.5.11 95% Queue Length, Q₉₅ (veh)...2.4 Control Delay (s/veh) 7.4 7.4 9.8 1.4 Level of Service, LOS A A A B Approach Delay (s/veh).4 1. 9.8 1.4 Approach LOS A B Copyright 217 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS7 TWSC Version 7.3 Generated: 11/1/217 7:4:5 AM Ash-Broadway_AMPeak.xtw

HCS7 Two-Way Stop-Control Report General Information Site Information Analyst JRH Intersection Ash/Broadway Agency/Co. ms consultants Jurisdiction City of Piqua Date Performed 11/1/217 East/West Street Ash St Analysis Year 217 North/South Street Broadway St Time Analyzed PM Peak Peak Hour Factor.92 Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs).25 Project Description Lanes TWSC Major Street: East-West Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 11 12 Number of Lanes 1 1 1 1 Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR Volume, V (veh/h) 2 62 4 21 11 44 4 48 11 26 44 3 Percent Heavy Vehicles (%) 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade (%) Right Turn Channelized No No No No Median Type/Storage Critical and Follow-up Headways Undivided Base Critical Headway (sec) 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 Critical Headway (sec) 4.13 4.13 7.13 6.53 6.23 7.13 6.53 6.23 Base Follow-Up Headway (sec) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4. 3.3 3.5 4. 3.3 Follow-Up Headway (sec) 2.23 2.23 3.53 4.3 3.33 3.53 4.3 3.33 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate, v (veh/h) 2 23 68 79 Capacity, c (veh/h) 142 1521 654 623 v/c Ratio..2.1.13 95% Queue Length, Q₉₅ (veh)...3.4 Control Delay (s/veh) 7.6 7.4 11.1 11.6 Level of Service, LOS A A B B Approach Delay (s/veh).2 1. 11.1 11.6 Approach LOS B B Copyright 217 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS7 TWSC Version 7.3 Generated: 11/1/217 7:41:55 AM Ash-Broadway_PMPeak.xtw

ms consultants, inc. SIGL WARRANT ALYSIS Intersection: Ash Street & Broadway Street Date: 1/18/217 Jurisdiction: City of Piqua Project Name / #: 6-1667 Condition/Scenario: 217 - Existing Volumes Analyst: JRH WARRANT #1 - EIGHT-HOUR VOLUME MIR STREET Eligible to use 7% of Warrant Criteria for high-speed MAJOR STREET Apply Mir Street Right Turn Reduction Factor? (>4mph) condition or isolated community? # of Major Street lanes per approach 1 Approach Direction (EB or NB) nb Approach Direction (WB or SB) sb # of approach lanes for analysis 1 # of approach lanes for analysis 1 Type of Mir Street approach (TEM 497.7) 1 (LTR) Type of Mir Street approach (TEM 497.7) 1 (LTR) Sesaonal Adjust. Factor and/or Growth Factor 1. MAJOR STREET MIR STREET WARRANT 1 WARRANT 1 WARRANT 1, CONDITION A/B (8%) Ash Street Broadway Street CONDITION A CONDITION B CONDITION A CONDITION B CONDITION A CONDITION B Full Volumes 7% of Vols Full Volumes 7% of Vols 8% of Vols 8% of Vols 56% of Vols 56% of Vols Factored RTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EB WB Maj Min* Maj Min* Maj Min* Maj Min* Maj Min* Maj Min* Maj Min* Maj Min* Total of Pedestrians Highest Approach Approach Major Crossing (raw) RT Factored (raw) RT Factored Mir 15 15 75 53 12 6 84 42 (raw) (raw) 5 35 75 525 4 6 28 42 Approaches Major Street L T R Reduce Approach L T R Reduce Approach Approach 15 15 75 53 12 6 84 42 12: AM -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 1: AM -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 2: AM -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 3: AM -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 4: AM -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 5: AM -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 6: AM -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 7: AM 59 61 12 2 1 15 5 -- 21 21 29 5 -- 55 55 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 8: AM 63 79 142 3 2 1 -- 33 25 47 5 -- 77 77 -- -- Yes -- -- Yes -- -- -- -- 9: AM -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 1: AM -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 11: AM -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 12: PM -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 1: PM -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 2: PM -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 3: PM -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 4: PM 68 175 243 4 48 11 -- 63 26 44 3 -- 73 73 -- -- -- -- Yes -- -- -- -- 5: PM 66 152 218 5 4 25 1 -- 3 22 47 4 -- 73 73 -- -- -- -- Yes -- -- -- -- 6: PM -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 7: PM -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 8: PM -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 9: PM -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 1: PM -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 11: PM -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- NUMBER OF HOURS MET WARRANT CRITERIA MET? WARRANT #2 - FOUR-HOUR VOLUME (see attached graph) WARRANT #7 - CRASH EXPERIENCE Adequate trial of alternativesfailed to reduce crash frequency? WARRANT #3 - PEAK HOUR VOLUME (see attached graph) At least 5 crashes in year that may be preventable with signalization? 8% of Warrant 1 (either Condition A or B) satisfied? WARRANT #4 - PEDESTRIAN VOLUME 8% of Warrant 4 satisfied Meet four-hour criteria? WARRANT MET? Meet peak hour criteria? Location more than 3 feet away from nearest signal? WARRANT #8 - ROADWAY NETWORK WARRANT MET? Both streets are major routes? At least 1, weekday peak hour entering vehicles? WARRANT #5 - SCHOOL CROSSING Five-year projected volumes meet Warrants 1, 2, or 3? At least 2 students crossing during highest crossing hour? At least 1, entering vehicles for each of 5 weekend hours? Engineering study shows that adequate gaps do t exist? WARRANT MET? Location more than 3 feet away from nearest signal? WARRANT MET? WARRANT #9 - INTERSECTION NEAR A GRADE CROSSING Crossing is at intersection controlled by STOP or YIELD and within 14'? WARRANT #6 - COORDITED SIGL SYSTEM Plotted points above corresponding lines on Figures? Location can be incorporated into a signal system? WARRANT MET? New signal would provide improved platooning? (Guidance) Is resultant spacing of signals < 1ft? WARRANT MET? CONCLUSION: Not warranted COMMENTS: * ### = Warrant criteria for rthbound mir street ### = Warrant criteria for southbound mir street

Ash Street & Broadway Street Warrant 2 - Four-Hour Vehicular Volume Conclusion: Warrant 2 - T MET Ash Street & Broadway Street Warrant 3 - Peak Hour Vehicular Volume Conclusion: Warrant 3 - T MET

SIGL REMOVAL DETAILED ALYSIS From TEM Section 41 4 Ash Street & Broadway Street a) Warrant Analysis Summary other reasons used to justify the installation. Not applicable for this location. b) Accident History Crash data does t indicate that removal of this signal would increase crashes. c) Site Conditions, especially sight distance problems Some shrubbery and on street parking is within sight triangle for vehicles stopped at stop bar, however there is room for vehicles to pull out further and see around obstructions. d) Public, business, school board or governmental complaints resulting in the original signal installation. Not applicable for this location. e) Present and future development growth. This intersection is located in a fully established suburban residential neighborhood. Most parcels in the vicinity are built out and occupied. Additional growth is a possibility, but specific redevelopment plans are identified that would impact this specific intersection. The signal does t come close to meeting warrants, therefore any potential immediate growth in the area is t expected to warrant a signal at this intersection. f) Kwn reasons for changes in traffic volumes. Not applicable for this location. g) Capacity analysis for the post removal condition. Capacity analysis shows that the intersection operations remain unchanged with the signal removal. h) Analysis of the cost of continued signal operation versus a one time signal removal cost. Ongoing operation and maintenance costs for this signal are anticipated to be approximately $2,5 per year. A one time signal removal cost is anticipated to be approximately $1,. Therefore, it would only require one year of operations and maintenance savings to pay for the signal removal. i) Discussion of the traffic growth needed to warrant the signal. Mir street volumes would have to increase over 7 vehicles in the highest 8 hours and the major street would have to increase over 3 vehicles in the highest 8 hours.

Appendix C Broadway Street & High Street

Type of peak hour being reported: Intersection Peak Method for determining peak hour: Total Entering Volume LOCATION: Broadway St -- High St QC JOB #: 145545 CITY/STATE: Piqua, OH DATE: Tue, Oct 3 217 62 33 33 29 Peak-Hour: 7:45 AM -- 8:45 AM Peak 15-Min: 8:3 AM -- 8:45 AM 16.1 9.1 15.2. 17.2 15 143 8 11 135.87 7 81 175 9.5 6.3 12.5 9.1 5.9 7.1.. 7.4 7.4 2 14 11. 7.1. 27. 3.7 2 1 1 1 15-Min Count Period Broadway St (Northbound) Broadway St (Southbound) High St (Eastbound) High St (Westbound) Total Hourly Totals Beginning At Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U 7: AM 6 3 28 1 5 52 7:15 AM 1 3 3 6 2 32 8 1 56 7:3 AM 4 2 4 4 34 24 1 73 7:45 AM 1 2 4 6 35 2 1 69 25 8: AM 2 5 4 9 6 2 26 12 2 68 266 8:15 AM 3 3 5 9 4 39 2 3 86 296 8:3 AM 5 2 11 12 2 35 18 5 9 313 8:45 AM 2 2 5 2 1 41 12 1 66 31 Peak 15-Min Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Flowrates Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Total All Vehicles 2 8 44 48 8 14 72 2 36 Heavy Trucks 4 8 4 16 Pedestrians 4 4 Bicycles 1 1 Railroad Stopped Buses Comments: Report generated on 1/12/217 1:7 PM SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) 1-877-58-2212

Type of peak hour being reported: Intersection Peak Method for determining peak hour: Total Entering Volume LOCATION: Broadway St -- High St QC JOB #: 145546 CITY/STATE: Piqua, OH DATE: Tue, Oct 3 217 68 39 65 29 Peak-Hour: 4: PM -- 5: PM Peak 15-Min: 4: PM -- 4:15 PM 2.9 2.6.. 3.4 222 239 22 2 217.88 177 197 257 2.7.8...9 2.8.. 2.5 1.2 6 23 11... 4.. 1 3 1 2 1 5 6 1 15-Min Count Period Broadway St (Northbound) Broadway St (Southbound) High St (Eastbound) High St (Westbound) Total Hourly Totals Beginning At Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U 4: PM 2 8 4 1 13 8 63 44 3 155 4:15 PM 2 4 2 5 6 4 43 49 3 118 4:3 PM 2 8 4 8 9 4 65 42 3 145 4:45 PM 3 1 6 11 6 46 42 11 126 544 5: PM 2 4 3 7 7 1 5 52 4 13 519 5:15 PM 3 2 7 12 2 54 47 5 132 533 5:3 PM 1 4 4 11 1 6 4 1 122 51 5:45 PM 2 1 3 6 1 3 42 33 4 14 488 Peak 15-Min Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Flowrates Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Total All Vehicles 8 32 16 4 52 32 252 176 12 62 Heavy Trucks 4 4 8 16 Pedestrians Bicycles 1 1 1 3 Railroad Stopped Buses Comments: Report generated on 1/12/217 1:7 PM SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) 1-877-58-2212

HCS7 Signalized Intersection Results Summary General Information Intersection Information Agency ms consultants Duration, h.25 Analyst JRH Analysis Date Oct 19, 217 Area Type Other Jurisdiction Time Period AM Peak PHF.92 Urban Street High Street Analysis Year 217 Analysis Period 1> 7: Intersection High/Broadway File Name High-Broadway_AMPeak.xus Project Description Demand Information EB WB NB SB Approach Movement L T R L T R L T R L T R Demand ( v ), veh/h 8 135 7 11 2 14 11 29 33 Signal Information Cycle, s 7. Reference Phase 2 Offset, s Reference Point End Uncoordinated Yes Simult. Gap E/W On Force Mode Fixed Simult. Gap N/S On Green Yellow Red 3. 3..... 4. 4..... 1. 1..... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Timer Results EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT Assigned Phase 2 6 8 4 Case Number 8. 8. 8. 8. Phase Duration, s 35. 35. 35. 35. Change Period, ( Y+R c ), s 5. 5. 5. 5. Max Allow Headway ( MAH ), s 3.1 3.1 3.2 3.2 Queue Clearance Time ( g s ), s 5.7 4. 2.7 3.7 Green Extension Time ( g e ), s.4.4.2.2 Phase Call Probability 1. 1. 1. 1. Max Out Probability.... Movement Group Results EB WB NB SB Approach Movement L T R L T R L T R L T R Assigned Movement 5 2 6 16 3 8 18 7 4 14 Adjusted Flow Rate ( v ), veh/h 155 88 29 67 Adjusted Saturation Flow Rate ( s ), veh/h/ln 184 1811 1711 1489 Queue Service Time ( g s ), s. 2... Cycle Queue Clearance Time ( g c ), s 3.7 2..7 1.7 Green Ratio ( g/c ).43.43.43.43 Capacity ( c ), veh/h 843 776 788 714 Volume-to-Capacity Ratio ( X ).184.113.37.94 Back of Queue ( Q ), ft/ln ( 5 th percentile) 37.6 2.5 6.6 15.7 Back of Queue ( Q ), veh/ln ( 5 th percentile) 1.5.8.3.6 Queue Storage Ratio ( RQ ) ( 5 th percentile).... Uniform Delay ( d 1 ), s/veh 12.5 12. 11.6 11.9 Incremental Delay ( d 2 ), s/veh.5.3.1.3 Initial Queue Delay ( d 3 ), s/veh.... Control Delay ( d ), s/veh 13. 12.3 11.7 12.2 Level of Service (LOS) B B B B Approach Delay, s/veh / LOS 13. B 12.3 B 11.7 B 12.2 B Intersection Delay, s/veh / LOS 12.5 B Multimodal Results EB WB NB SB Pedestrian LOS Score / LOS 2.1 B 2.1 B 2.1 B 2.1 B Bicycle LOS Score / LOS.7 A.6 A.5 A.6 A Copyright 217 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved. HCS7 Streets Version 7.3 Generated: 11/2/217 1:42:15 AM

HCS7 Signalized Intersection Results Summary General Information Intersection Information Agency ms consultants Duration, h.25 Analyst JRH Analysis Date Oct 19, 217 Area Type Other Jurisdiction Time Period PM Peak PHF.92 Urban Street High Street Analysis Year 217 Analysis Period 1> 7: Intersection High/Broadway File Name High-Broadway_PMPeak.xus Project Description Demand Information EB WB NB SB Approach Movement L T R L T R L T R L T R Demand ( v ), veh/h 22 217 177 2 6 23 11 29 39 Signal Information Cycle, s 7. Reference Phase 2 Offset, s Reference Point End Uncoordinated Yes Simult. Gap E/W On Force Mode Fixed Simult. Gap N/S On Green Yellow Red 32. 28..... 4. 4..... 1. 1..... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Timer Results EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT Assigned Phase 2 6 8 4 Case Number 8. 8. 8. 8. Phase Duration, s 37. 37. 33. 33. Change Period, ( Y+R c ), s 5. 5. 5. 5. Max Allow Headway ( MAH ), s 3.1 3.1 3.2 3.2 Queue Clearance Time ( g s ), s 8.2 7.1 3.1 3.9 Green Extension Time ( g e ), s.8.8.2.2 Phase Call Probability 1. 1. 1. 1. Max Out Probability.... Movement Group Results EB WB NB SB Approach Movement L T R L T R L T R L T R Assigned Movement 5 2 6 16 3 8 18 7 4 14 Adjusted Flow Rate ( v ), veh/h 26 214 43 74 Adjusted Saturation Flow Rate ( s ), veh/h/ln 185 1822 1711 1494 Queue Service Time ( g s ), s. 5.1.. Cycle Queue Clearance Time ( g c ), s 6.2 5.1 1.1 1.9 Green Ratio ( g/c ).46.46.4.4 Capacity ( c ), veh/h 881 833 744 671 Volume-to-Capacity Ratio ( X ).295.257.58.11 Back of Queue ( Q ), ft/ln ( 5 th percentile) 62.8 5.6 1.5 18.5 Back of Queue ( Q ), veh/ln ( 5 th percentile) 2.5 2..4.7 Queue Storage Ratio ( RQ ) ( 5 th percentile).... Uniform Delay ( d 1 ), s/veh 12. 11.7 12.9 13.2 Incremental Delay ( d 2 ), s/veh.9.7.2.3 Initial Queue Delay ( d 3 ), s/veh.... Control Delay ( d ), s/veh 12.8 12.4 13.1 13.5 Level of Service (LOS) B B B B Approach Delay, s/veh / LOS 12.8 B 12.4 B 13.1 B 13.5 B Intersection Delay, s/veh / LOS 12.8 B Multimodal Results EB WB NB SB Pedestrian LOS Score / LOS 2.1 B 2.1 B 2.1 B 2.1 B Bicycle LOS Score / LOS.9 A.8 A.6 A.6 A Copyright 217 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved. HCS7 Streets Version 7.3 Generated: 11/2/217 1:43:47 AM

HCS7 Two-Way Stop-Control Report General Information Site Information Analyst JRH Intersection High/Broadway Agency/Co. ms consultants Jurisdiction City of Piqua Date Performed 11/1/217 East/West Street High St Analysis Year 217 North/South Street Broadway St Time Analyzed AM Peak Peak Hour Factor.92 Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs).25 Project Description Lanes TWSC Major Street: East-West Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 11 12 Number of Lanes 1 1 1 1 Configuration LT TR LTR LR Volume, V (veh/h) 8 135 7 11 2 14 11 29 33 Percent Heavy Vehicles (%) 3 3 3 3 3 3 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade (%) Right Turn Channelized No No No No Median Type/Storage Critical and Follow-up Headways Undivided Base Critical Headway (sec) Critical Headway (sec) Base Follow-Up Headway (sec) Follow-Up Headway (sec) Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate, v (veh/h) 9 29 68 Capacity, c (veh/h) 15 73 8 v/c Ratio.1.4.9 95% Queue Length, Q₉₅ (veh)..1.3 Control Delay (s/veh) 7.4 1.1 9.9 Level of Service, LOS A B A Approach Delay (s/veh).5 1.1 9.9 Approach LOS B A Copyright 217 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS7 TWSC Version 7.3 Generated: 11/1/217 7:24:59 AM High-Broadway_AMPeak.xtw

HCS7 Two-Way Stop-Control Report General Information Site Information Analyst JRH Intersection High/Broadway Agency/Co. ms consultants Jurisdiction City of Piqua Date Performed 11/1/217 East/West Street High St Analysis Year 217 North/South Street Broadway St Time Analyzed PM Peak Peak Hour Factor.92 Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs).25 Project Description Lanes TWSC Major Street: East-West Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 11 12 Number of Lanes 1 1 1 1 Configuration LT TR LTR LR Volume, V (veh/h) 22 217 177 2 6 23 11 29 39 Percent Heavy Vehicles (%) 3 3 3 3 3 3 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade (%) Right Turn Channelized No No No No Median Type/Storage Critical and Follow-up Headways Undivided Base Critical Headway (sec) Critical Headway (sec) Base Follow-Up Headway (sec) Follow-Up Headway (sec) Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate, v (veh/h) 24 44 74 Capacity, c (veh/h) 1349 519 63 v/c Ratio.2.8.12 95% Queue Length, Q₉₅ (veh).1.3.4 Control Delay (s/veh) 7.7 12.6 11.8 Level of Service, LOS A B B Approach Delay (s/veh).9 12.6 11.8 Approach LOS B B Copyright 217 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS7 TWSC Version 7.3 Generated: 11/1/217 7:25:59 AM High-Broadway_PMPeak.xtw

Intersection: High Street & Broadway Street Date: 1/18/217 Jurisdiction: City of Piqua Project Name / #: 6-1667 Condition/Scenario: 217 - Existing Volumes Analyst: JRH WARRANT #1 - EIGHT-HOUR VOLUME MIR STREET Eligible to use 7% of Warrant Criteria for high-speed MAJOR STREET Apply Mir Street Right Turn Reduction Factor? (>4mph) condition or isolated community? # of Major Street lanes per approach 1 Approach Direction (EB or NB) nb Approach Direction (WB or SB) sb # of approach lanes for analysis 1 # of approach lanes for analysis 1 Type of Mir Street approach (TEM 497.7) 1 (LTR) Type of Mir Street approach (TEM 497.7) 1 (LTR) Sesaonal Adjust. Factor and/or Growth Factor 1. MAJOR STREET MIR STREET WARRANT 1 WARRANT 1 WARRANT 1, CONDITION A/B (8%) High Street Broadway Street CONDITION A CONDITION B CONDITION A CONDITION B CONDITION A CONDITION B Full Volumes 7% of Vols Full Volumes 7% of Vols 8% of Vols 8% of Vols 56% of Vols 56% of Vols Factored RTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EB WB Maj Min* Maj Min* Maj Min* Maj Min* Maj Min* Maj Min* Maj Min* Maj Min* Total of Pedestrians Highest Approach Approach Major Crossing (raw) RT Factored (raw) RT Factored Mir 15 15 75 53 12 6 84 42 (raw) (raw) 5 35 75 525 4 6 28 42 Approaches Major Street L T R Reduce Approach L T R Reduce Approach Approach 15 15 75 53 12 6 84 42 12: AM -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 1: AM -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 2: AM -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 3: AM -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 4: AM -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 5: AM -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 6: AM -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 7: AM 129 7 199 3 1 8 7 -- 16 2 15 -- 35 35 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 8: AM 15 73 223 2 15 11 -- 28 3 29 -- 59 59 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 9: AM -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 1: AM -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 11: AM -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 12: PM -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 1: PM -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 2: PM -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 3: PM -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 4: PM 239 197 436 6 23 11 -- 4 29 39 -- 68 68 -- -- -- -- Yes Yes -- -- -- -- 5: PM 213 186 399 3 5 12 8 -- 25 24 4 -- 64 64 -- -- -- -- Yes -- -- -- -- 6: PM -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 7: PM -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 8: PM -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 9: PM -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 1: PM -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 11: PM -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- NUMBER OF HOURS MET WARRANT CRITERIA MET? WARRANT #2 - FOUR-HOUR VOLUME (see attached graph) WARRANT #7 - CRASH EXPERIENCE Adequate trial of alternativesfailed to reduce crash frequency? WARRANT #3 - PEAK HOUR VOLUME (see attached graph) At least 5 crashes in year that may be preventable with signalization? 8% of Warrant 1 (either Condition A or B) satisfied? WARRANT #4 - PEDESTRIAN VOLUME 8% of Warrant 4 satisfied Meet four-hour criteria? WARRANT MET? Meet peak hour criteria? Location more than 3 feet away from nearest signal? WARRANT #8 - ROADWAY NETWORK WARRANT MET? Both streets are major routes? At least 1, weekday peak hour entering vehicles? WARRANT #5 - SCHOOL CROSSING Five-year projected volumes meet Warrants 1, 2, or 3? At least 2 students crossing during highest crossing hour? At least 1, entering vehicles for each of 5 weekend hours? Engineering study shows that adequate gaps do t exist? WARRANT MET? Location more than 3 feet away from nearest signal? WARRANT MET? WARRANT #9 - INTERSECTION NEAR A GRADE CROSSING Crossing is at intersection controlled by STOP or YIELD and within 14'? WARRANT #6 - COORDITED SIGL SYSTEM Plotted points above corresponding lines on Figures? Location can be incorporated into a signal system? WARRANT MET? New signal would provide improved platooning? (Guidance) Is resultant spacing of signals < 1ft? WARRANT MET? CONCLUSION: ms consultants, inc. SIGL WARRANT ALYSIS COMMENTS: * ### = Warrant criteria for rthbound mir street ### = Warrant criteria for southbound mir street

High Street & Broadway Street Warrant 2 - Four-Hour Vehicular Volume Conclusion: Warrant 2 - T MET High Street & Broadway Street Warrant 3 - Peak Hour Vehicular Volume Conclusion: Warrant 3 - T MET

Appendix D McKinley Avenue & Grant Street

Type of peak hour being reported: Intersection Peak Method for determining peak hour: Total Entering Volume LOCATION: McKinley Ave -- W Grant St QC JOB #: 145541 CITY/STATE: Piqua, OH DATE: Tue, Oct 3 217 17 129 3 14 Peak-Hour: 7:3 AM -- 8:3 AM Peak 15-Min: 7:45 AM -- 8: AM 4.7. 4.8 7.. 16 25 12 2 3.81 3 1 2 7 6 18.8 8.... 33.3 2.. 14.3. 1 115 3 2. 7.8. 116 128 6. 8.6 2 3 15-Min Count Period McKinley Ave (Northbound) McKinley Ave (Southbound) W Grant St (Eastbound) W Grant St (Westbound) Total Hourly Totals Beginning At Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U 7: AM 2 1 25 1 1 1 4 1 54 7:15 AM 1 28 29 1 1 1 61 7:3 AM 3 27 29 1 2 4 66 7:45 AM 5 38 1 29 1 1 2 2 2 1 82 263 8: AM 2 24 24 1 3 1 1 56 265 8:15 AM 26 2 22 6 2 3 1 1 63 267 8:3 AM 2 29 1 2 21 2 1 2 1 2 3 66 267 8:45 AM 1 25 22 3 1 1 1 54 239 Peak 15-Min Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Flowrates Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Total All Vehicles 2 152 4 116 4 4 8 8 8 4 328 Heavy Trucks 16 8 4 28 Pedestrians Bicycles Railroad Stopped Buses Comments: Report generated on 1/12/217 1:7 PM SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) 1-877-58-2212

Type of peak hour being reported: Intersection Peak Method for determining peak hour: Total Entering Volume LOCATION: McKinley Ave -- W Grant St QC JOB #: 145542 CITY/STATE: Piqua, OH DATE: Tue, Oct 3 217 245 235 6 182 3 Peak-Hour: 4:45 PM -- 5:45 PM Peak 15-Min: 5: PM -- 5:15 PM 1.2. 1.6 3.. 91 62 23 7 18.87 12 21 7 26 27... 14.3.... 3.8. 19 25 6. 2.9. 21 23 1.4 2.6 1 1 4 15-Min Count Period McKinley Ave (Northbound) McKinley Ave (Southbound) W Grant St (Eastbound) W Grant St (Westbound) Total Hourly Totals Beginning At Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U 4: PM 4 47 3 2 26 5 9 7 4 2 2 2 113 4:15 PM 7 46 1 32 6 4 5 6 3 1 111 4:3 PM 7 39 3 4 11 4 7 6 1 118 4:45 PM 3 5 3 1 42 16 7 4 1 2 5 134 476 5: PM 6 58 2 1 53 18 9 4 8 1 2 162 525 5:15 PM 5 55 33 19 5 5 8 2 5 3 14 554 5:3 PM 5 42 1 1 54 7 2 5 4 3 1 2 127 563 5:45 PM 5 6 2 37 1 2 3 3 1 2 2 118 547 Peak 15-Min Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Flowrates Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Total All Vehicles 24 232 8 4 212 72 36 16 32 4 8 648 Heavy Trucks 4 4 4 12 Pedestrians Bicycles Railroad Stopped Buses Comments: Report generated on 1/12/217 1:7 PM SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) 1-877-58-2212

HCS7 Signalized Intersection Results Summary General Information Intersection Information Agency ms consultants Duration, h.25 Analyst JRH Analysis Date Oct 19, 217 Area Type Other Jurisdiction Time Period AM Peak PHF.92 Urban Street McKinley Avenue Analysis Year 217 Analysis Period 1> 7: Intersection McKinley/Grant File Name McKinley-Grant_AMPeak.xus Project Description Demand Information EB WB NB SB Approach Movement L T R L T R L T R L T R Demand ( v ), veh/h 12 3 1 2 3 2 1 115 3 14 3 Signal Information Cycle, s 6. Reference Phase 2 Offset, s Reference Point End Uncoordinated Yes Simult. Gap E/W On Force Mode Fixed Simult. Gap N/S On Green Yellow Red 25. 25..... 4. 4..... 1. 1..... 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 Timer Results EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT Assigned Phase 4 8 2 6 Case Number 8. 8. 8. 8. Phase Duration, s 3. 3. 3. 3. Change Period, ( Y+R c ), s 5. 5. 5. 5. Max Allow Headway ( MAH ), s 3.2 3.2 3. 3. Queue Clearance Time ( g s ), s 2.6 2.2 4.9 4.4 Green Extension Time ( g e ), s...4.4 Phase Call Probability 1. 1. 1. 1. Max Out Probability.... Movement Group Results EB WB NB SB Approach Movement L T R L T R L T R L T R Assigned Movement 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16 Adjusted Flow Rate ( v ), veh/h 27 8 139 Adjusted Saturation Flow Rate ( s ), veh/h/ln 153 1646 1822 Queue Service Time ( g s ), s.... Cycle Queue Clearance Time ( g c ), s.6.2 2.9. Green Ratio ( g/c ).42.42.42 Capacity ( c ), veh/h 726 763 824 Volume-to-Capacity Ratio ( X ).37.1.169. Back of Queue ( Q ), ft/ln ( 5 th percentile) 4.7 1.3 25.6 Back of Queue ( Q ), veh/ln ( 5 th percentile).2.1 1.. Queue Storage Ratio ( RQ ) ( 5 th percentile).... Uniform Delay ( d 1 ), s/veh 1.4 1.3 11. Incremental Delay ( d 2 ), s/veh.... Initial Queue Delay ( d 3 ), s/veh.... Control Delay ( d ), s/veh 1.4 1.3 11.1 Level of Service (LOS) B B B Approach Delay, s/veh / LOS 1.4 B 1.3 B 11.1 B 1.9 B Intersection Delay, s/veh / LOS 1.9 B Multimodal Results EB WB NB SB Pedestrian LOS Score / LOS 2.1 B 2.1 B 2.1 B 2.1 B Bicycle LOS Score / LOS.5 A.5 A.7 A.7 A Copyright 217 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved. HCS7 Streets Version 7.3 Generated: 11/1/217 8:35:7 AM

HCS7 Signalized Intersection Results Summary General Information Intersection Information Agency ms consultants Duration, h.25 Analyst JRH Analysis Date Oct 19, 217 Area Type Other Jurisdiction Time Period PM Peak PHF.92 Urban Street McKinley Avenue Analysis Year 217 Analysis Period 1> 7: Intersection McKinley/Grant File Name McKinley-Grant_PMPeak.xus Project Description Demand Information EB WB NB SB Approach Movement L T R L T R L T R L T R Demand ( v ), veh/h 23 18 21 7 12 7 19 25 6 3 182 6 Signal Information Cycle, s 6. Reference Phase 2 Offset, s Reference Point End Uncoordinated Yes Simult. Gap E/W On Force Mode Fixed Simult. Gap N/S On Green Yellow Red 25. 25..... 4. 4..... 1. 1..... 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 Timer Results EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT Assigned Phase 4 8 2 6 Case Number 8. 8. 8. 8. Phase Duration, s 3. 3. 3. 3. Change Period, ( Y+R c ), s 5. 5. 5. 5. Max Allow Headway ( MAH ), s 3.2 3.2 3.1 3.1 Queue Clearance Time ( g s ), s 3.4 2.6 7.5 8.2 Green Extension Time ( g e ), s.1.1.9.9 Phase Call Probability 1. 1. 1. 1. Max Out Probability.... Movement Group Results EB WB NB SB Approach Movement L T R L T R L T R L T R Assigned Movement 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16 Adjusted Flow Rate ( v ), veh/h 67 28 25 266 Adjusted Saturation Flow Rate ( s ), veh/h/ln 1586 1649 185 1775 Queue Service Time ( g s ), s.... Cycle Queue Clearance Time ( g c ), s 1.4.6 5.5 6.2 Green Ratio ( g/c ).42.42.42.42 Capacity ( c ), veh/h 743 763 817 8 Volume-to-Capacity Ratio ( X ).91.37.36.333 Back of Queue ( Q ), ft/ln ( 5 th percentile) 11.9 4.9 49.3 53.3 Back of Queue ( Q ), veh/ln ( 5 th percentile).5.2 1.9 2.1 Queue Storage Ratio ( RQ ) ( 5 th percentile).... Uniform Delay ( d 1 ), s/veh 1.6 1.4 11.8 12. Incremental Delay ( d 2 ), s/veh...1.1 Initial Queue Delay ( d 3 ), s/veh.... Control Delay ( d ), s/veh 1.6 1.4 11.9 12.1 Level of Service (LOS) B B B B Approach Delay, s/veh / LOS 1.6 B 1.4 B 11.9 B 12.1 B Intersection Delay, s/veh / LOS 11.8 B Multimodal Results EB WB NB SB Pedestrian LOS Score / LOS 2.1 B 2.1 B 2.1 B 2.1 B Bicycle LOS Score / LOS.6 A.5 A.9 A.9 A Copyright 217 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved. HCS7 Streets Version 7.3 Generated: 11/1/217 8:35:5 AM

HCS7 Two-Way Stop-Control Report General Information Site Information Analyst JRH Intersection McKinley/Grant Agency/Co. ms consultants Jurisdiction City of Piqua Date Performed 11/1/217 East/West Street Grant St Analysis Year 217 North/South Street McKinley Ave Time Analyzed AM Peak Peak Hour Factor.92 Intersection Orientation North-South Analysis Time Period (hrs).25 Project Description Lanes TWSC Major Street: North-South Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Priority 1 11 12 7 8 9 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 Number of Lanes 1 1 1 1 Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR Volume, V (veh/h) 12 3 1 2 3 2 1 115 3 14 3 Percent Heavy Vehicles (%) 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade (%) Right Turn Channelized No No No No Median Type/Storage Critical and Follow-up Headways Undivided Base Critical Headway (sec) Critical Headway (sec) Base Follow-Up Headway (sec) Follow-Up Headway (sec) Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate, v (veh/h) 27 7 11 Capacity, c (veh/h) 756 77 1465 145 v/c Ratio.4.1.1. 95% Queue Length, Q₉₅ (veh).1... Control Delay (s/veh) 9.9 1.1 7.5 7.5 Level of Service, LOS A B A A Approach Delay (s/veh) 9.9 1.1.6. Approach LOS A B Copyright 217 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS7 TWSC Version 7.3 Generated: 11/1/217 7:17:51 AM McKinley-Grant_AMPeak.xtw

HCS7 Two-Way Stop-Control Report General Information Site Information Analyst JRH Intersection McKinley/Grant Agency/Co. ms consultants Jurisdiction City of Piqua Date Performed 11/1/217 East/West Street Grant St Analysis Year 217 North/South Street McKinley Ave Time Analyzed PM Peak Peak Hour Factor.92 Intersection Orientation North-South Analysis Time Period (hrs).25 Project Description Lanes TWSC Major Street: North-South Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Priority 1 11 12 7 8 9 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 Number of Lanes 1 1 1 1 Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR Volume, V (veh/h) 23 18 21 7 12 7 19 25 6 3 182 6 Percent Heavy Vehicles (%) 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade (%) Right Turn Channelized No No No No Median Type/Storage Critical and Follow-up Headways Undivided Base Critical Headway (sec) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1 Critical Headway (sec) 7.13 6.53 6.23 7.13 6.53 6.23 4.13 4.13 Base Follow-Up Headway (sec) 3.5 4. 3.3 3.5 4. 3.3 2.2 2.2 Follow-Up Headway (sec) 3.53 4.3 3.33 3.53 4.3 3.33 2.23 2.23 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate, v (veh/h) 68 29 21 3 Capacity, c (veh/h) 529 497 1294 1331 v/c Ratio.13.6.2. 95% Queue Length, Q₉₅ (veh).4.2.. Control Delay (s/veh) 12.8 12.7 7.8 7.7 Level of Service, LOS B B A A Approach Delay (s/veh) 12.8 12.7.8.1 Approach LOS B B Copyright 217 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS7 TWSC Version 7.3 Generated: 11/1/217 7:16:35 AM McKinley-Grant_PMPeak.xtw

Intersection: McKinley Avenue & Grant Street Date: 1/18/217 Jurisdiction: City of Piqua Project Name / #: 6-1667 Condition/Scenario: 217 - Existing Volumes Analyst: JRH WARRANT #1 - EIGHT-HOUR VOLUME MIR STREET Eligible to use 7% of Warrant Criteria for high-speed MAJOR STREET Apply Mir Street Right Turn Reduction Factor? (>4mph) condition or isolated community? # of Major Street lanes per approach 1 Approach Direction (EB or NB) eb Approach Direction (WB or SB) wb # of approach lanes for analysis 1 # of approach lanes for analysis 1 Type of Mir Street approach (TEM 497.7) 1 (LTR) Type of Mir Street approach (TEM 497.7) 1 (LTR) Sesaonal Adjust. Factor and/or Growth Factor 1. MAJOR STREET MIR STREET WARRANT 1 WARRANT 1 WARRANT 1, CONDITION A/B (8%) McKinley Avenue Grant Street CONDITION A CONDITION B CONDITION A CONDITION B CONDITION A CONDITION B Full Volumes 7% of Vols Full Volumes 7% of Vols 8% of Vols 8% of Vols 56% of Vols 56% of Vols Factored EASTBOUND WESTBOUND NB SB Maj Min* Maj Min* Maj Min* Maj Min* Maj Min* Maj Min* Maj Min* Maj Min* Total of Pedestrians Highest Approach Approach Major Crossing (raw) RT Factored (raw) RT Factored Mir 15 15 75 53 12 6 84 42 (raw) (raw) 5 35 75 525 4 6 28 42 Approaches Major Street L T R Reduce Approach L T R Reduce Approach Approach 15 15 75 53 12 6 84 42 12: AM -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 1: AM -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 2: AM -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 3: AM -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 4: AM -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 5: AM -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 6: AM -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 7: AM 123 116 239 5 1 1 -- 16 4 3 1 -- 8 16 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 8: AM 112 95 27 5 12 5 6 -- 23 1 4 4 -- 9 23 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 9: AM -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 1: AM -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 11: AM -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 12: PM -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 1: PM -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 2: PM -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 3: PM -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 4: PM 21 184 394 4 24 23 17 -- 64 4 11 3 -- 18 64 -- -- -- -- Yes -- -- -- -- 5: PM 241 224 465 18 17 23 -- 58 6 9 9 -- 24 58 -- -- -- -- Yes -- -- -- -- 6: PM -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 7: PM -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 8: PM -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 9: PM -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 1: PM -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 11: PM -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- NUMBER OF HOURS MET WARRANT CRITERIA MET? WARRANT #2 - FOUR-HOUR VOLUME (see attached graph) WARRANT #7 - CRASH EXPERIENCE Adequate trial of alternativesfailed to reduce crash frequency? WARRANT #3 - PEAK HOUR VOLUME (see attached graph) At least 5 crashes in year that may be preventable with signalization? 8% of Warrant 1 (either Condition A or B) satisfied? WARRANT #4 - PEDESTRIAN VOLUME 8% of Warrant 4 satisfied Meet four-hour criteria? WARRANT MET? Meet peak hour criteria? Location more than 3 feet away from nearest signal? WARRANT #8 - ROADWAY NETWORK WARRANT MET? Both streets are major routes? At least 1, weekday peak hour entering vehicles? WARRANT #5 - SCHOOL CROSSING Five-year projected volumes meet Warrants 1, 2, or 3? At least 2 students crossing during highest crossing hour? At least 1, entering vehicles for each of 5 weekend hours? Engineering study shows that adequate gaps do t exist? WARRANT MET? Location more than 3 feet away from nearest signal? WARRANT MET? WARRANT #9 - INTERSECTION NEAR A GRADE CROSSING Crossing is at intersection controlled by STOP or YIELD and within 14'? WARRANT #6 - COORDITED SIGL SYSTEM Plotted points above corresponding lines on Figures? Location can be incorporated into a signal system? WARRANT MET? New signal would provide improved platooning? (Guidance) Is resultant spacing of signals < 1ft? WARRANT MET? CONCLUSION: ms consultants, inc. SIGL WARRANT ALYSIS COMMENTS: * ### = Warrant criteria for eastbound mir street ### = Warrant criteria for westbound mir street

McKinley Avenue & Grant Street Warrant 2 - Four-Hour Vehicular Volume Conclusion: Warrant 2 - T MET McKinley Avenue & Grant Street Warrant 3 - Peak Hour Vehicular Volume Conclusion: Warrant 3 - T MET

PROPOSED STRIPING PLAN 15 MCKINLEY AVENUE GRANT STREET 215 15 215

Appendix E South Street & Brice Street

Type of peak hour being reported: Intersection Peak Method for determining peak hour: Total Entering Volume LOCATION: Brice St -- South St QC JOB #: 145543 CITY/STATE: Piqua, OH DATE: Tue, Oct 3 217 Peak-Hour: 7:3 AM -- 8:3 AM Peak 15-Min: 7:45 AM -- 8: AM..... 97 13 11.83 93 2 3 96 11 11.3 5.8.. 5.9 11.8.. 11.5 5.5 4 9... 5 13.. 2 1 1 4 15-Min Count Period Brice St (Northbound) Brice St (Southbound) South St (Eastbound) South St (Westbound) Total Hourly Totals Beginning At Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U 7: AM 3 26 12 41 7:15 AM 4 21 1 35 7:3 AM 5 24 1 25 55 7:45 AM 1 2 37 3 21 64 195 8: AM 2 24 19 45 199 8:15 AM 1 2 16 1 28 48 212 8:3 AM 1 1 28 2 22 54 211 8:45 AM 1 1 21 27 1 51 198 Peak 15-Min Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Flowrates Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Total All Vehicles 4 8 148 12 84 256 Heavy Trucks 12 4 16 Pedestrians Bicycles Railroad Stopped Buses Comments: Report generated on 1/12/217 1:7 PM SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) 1-877-58-2212

Type of peak hour being reported: Intersection Peak Method for determining peak hour: Total Entering Volume LOCATION: Brice St -- South St QC JOB #: 145544 CITY/STATE: Piqua, OH DATE: Tue, Oct 3 217 Peak-Hour: 4:45 PM -- 5:45 PM Peak 15-Min: 5:3 PM -- 5:45 PM..... 278 223 217.92 277 6 1 287 223 1.4 1.3.. 1.4 1.4.. 1.4 1.3 1 6... 16 7.. 1 3 4 3 15-Min Count Period Brice St (Northbound) Brice St (Southbound) South St (Eastbound) South St (Westbound) Total Hourly Totals Beginning At Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U 4: PM 4 1 61 2 1 81 15 4:15 PM 1 5 5 3 61 12 4:3 PM 1 56 1 51 19 4:45 PM 1 59 1 3 66 13 59 5: PM 64 1 3 7 138 497 5:15 PM 4 37 1 1 66 19 486 5:3 PM 1 1 57 3 3 75 14 517 5:45 PM 3 2 47 2 76 13 517 Peak 15-Min Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Flowrates Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Total All Vehicles 4 4 228 12 12 3 56 Heavy Trucks 4 4 Pedestrians 4 4 Bicycles 2 1 3 Railroad Stopped Buses Comments: Report generated on 1/12/217 1:7 PM SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) 1-877-58-2212

HCS7 Signalized Intersection Results Summary General Information Intersection Information Agency ms consultants Duration, h.25 Analyst JRH Analysis Date Oct 19, 217 Area Type Other Jurisdiction Time Period AM Peak PHF.92 Urban Street South Street Analysis Year 217 Analysis Period 1> 7: Intersection South/Brice File Name South-Brice_AMPeak.xus Project Description Demand Information EB WB NB SB Approach Movement L T R L T R L T R L T R Demand ( v ), veh/h 11 2 3 93 4 9 Signal Information Cycle, s 6. Reference Phase 2 Offset, s Reference Point End Uncoordinated Yes Simult. Gap E/W On Force Mode Fixed Simult. Gap N/S On Green Yellow Red 25. 25..... 4. 4..... 1. 1..... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Timer Results EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT Assigned Phase 2 6 8 Case Number 8. 8. 12. Phase Duration, s 3. 3. 3. Change Period, ( Y+R c ), s 5. 5. 5. Max Allow Headway ( MAH ), s 3. 3. 3.3 Queue Clearance Time ( g s ), s 4.3 4.1 2.3 Green Extension Time ( g e ), s.3.3. Phase Call Probability 1. 1. 1. Max Out Probability... Movement Group Results EB WB NB SB Approach Movement L T R L T R L T R L T R Assigned Movement 2 12 1 6 3 8 18 Adjusted Flow Rate ( v ), veh/h 112 14 14 Adjusted Saturation Flow Rate ( s ), veh/h/ln 1849 185 1628 Queue Service Time ( g s ), s 2.3..3 Cycle Queue Clearance Time ( g c ), s 2.3 2.1.3 Green Ratio ( g/c ).42.42.42 Capacity ( c ), veh/h 77 833 678 Volume-to-Capacity Ratio ( X ).145.125.21 Back of Queue ( Q ), ft/ln ( 5 th percentile) 2.3 18.8 2.4 Back of Queue ( Q ), veh/ln ( 5 th percentile).8.7.1 Queue Storage Ratio ( RQ ) ( 5 th percentile)... Uniform Delay ( d 1 ), s/veh 1.9 1.8 1.3 Incremental Delay ( d 2 ), s/veh... Initial Queue Delay ( d 3 ), s/veh... Control Delay ( d ), s/veh 1.9 1.8 1.3 Level of Service (LOS) B B B Approach Delay, s/veh / LOS 1.9 B 1.8 B 1.3 B. Intersection Delay, s/veh / LOS 1.8 B Multimodal Results EB WB NB SB Pedestrian LOS Score / LOS 1.4 A 1.9 B 2.1 B 2.1 B Bicycle LOS Score / LOS.7 A.7 A.5 A Copyright 217 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved. HCS7 Streets Version 7.3 Generated: 11/1/217 8:32:59 AM

HCS7 Signalized Intersection Results Summary General Information Intersection Information Agency ms consultants Duration, h.25 Analyst JRH Analysis Date Oct 19, 217 Area Type Other Jurisdiction Time Period PM Peak PHF.92 Urban Street South Street Analysis Year 217 Analysis Period 1> 7: Intersection South/Brice File Name South-Brice_PMPeak.xus Project Description Demand Information EB WB NB SB Approach Movement L T R L T R L T R L T R Demand ( v ), veh/h 217 6 1 277 1 6 Signal Information Cycle, s 6. Reference Phase 2 Offset, s Reference Point End Uncoordinated Yes Simult. Gap E/W On Force Mode Fixed Simult. Gap N/S On Green Yellow Red 25. 25..... 4. 4..... 1. 1..... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Timer Results EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT Assigned Phase 2 6 8 Case Number 8. 8. 12. Phase Duration, s 3. 3. 3. Change Period, ( Y+R c ), s 5. 5. 5. Max Allow Headway ( MAH ), s 3. 3. 3.3 Queue Clearance Time ( g s ), s 7.3 9.1 2.2 Green Extension Time ( g e ), s 1..9. Phase Call Probability 1. 1. 1. Max Out Probability... Movement Group Results EB WB NB SB Approach Movement L T R L T R L T R L T R Assigned Movement 2 12 1 6 3 8 18 Adjusted Flow Rate ( v ), veh/h 242 312 8 Adjusted Saturation Flow Rate ( s ), veh/h/ln 1847 1842 1598 Queue Service Time ( g s ), s 5.3..2 Cycle Queue Clearance Time ( g c ), s 5.3 7.1.2 Green Ratio ( g/c ).42.42.42 Capacity ( c ), veh/h 769 83 666 Volume-to-Capacity Ratio ( X ).315.376.11 Back of Queue ( Q ), ft/ln ( 5 th percentile) 47.5 64.1 1.3 Back of Queue ( Q ), veh/ln ( 5 th percentile) 1.9 2.5.1 Queue Storage Ratio ( RQ ) ( 5 th percentile)... Uniform Delay ( d 1 ), s/veh 11.8 12.3 1.3 Incremental Delay ( d 2 ), s/veh.1.1. Initial Queue Delay ( d 3 ), s/veh... Control Delay ( d ), s/veh 11.8 12.4 1.3 Level of Service (LOS) B B B Approach Delay, s/veh / LOS 11.8 B 12.4 B 1.3 B. Intersection Delay, s/veh / LOS 12.1 B Multimodal Results EB WB NB SB Pedestrian LOS Score / LOS 1.4 A 1.9 B 2.1 B 2.1 B Bicycle LOS Score / LOS.9 A 1. A.5 A Copyright 217 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved. HCS7 Streets Version 7.3 Generated: 11/1/217 8:34:8 AM

HCS7 Two-Way Stop-Control Report General Information Site Information Analyst JRH Intersection South/Brice Agency/Co. ms consultants Jurisdiction City of Piqua Date Performed 11/1/217 East/West Street South St Analysis Year 217 North/South Street Brice St Time Analyzed AM Peak Peak Hour Factor.92 Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs).25 Project Description Lanes TWSC Major Street: East-West Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 11 12 Number of Lanes 1 1 1 Configuration TR LT LR Volume, V (veh/h) 11 2 3 93 4 9 Percent Heavy Vehicles (%) 3 3 3 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade (%) Right Turn Channelized No No No No Median Type/Storage Critical and Follow-up Headways Undivided Base Critical Headway (sec) 4.1 7.1 6.2 Critical Headway (sec) 4.13 6.43 6.23 Base Follow-Up Headway (sec) 2.2 3.5 3.3 Follow-Up Headway (sec) 2.23 3.53 3.33 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate, v (veh/h) 3 14 Capacity, c (veh/h) 147 882 v/c Ratio..2 95% Queue Length, Q₉₅ (veh).. Control Delay (s/veh) 7.5 9.1 Level of Service, LOS A A Approach Delay (s/veh).2 9.1 Approach LOS A Copyright 217 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS7 TWSC Version 7.3 Generated: 11/1/217 7:2:25 AM South-Brice_AMPeak.xtw

HCS7 Two-Way Stop-Control Report General Information Site Information Analyst JRH Intersection South/Brice Agency/Co. ms consultants Jurisdiction City of Piqua Date Performed 11/1/217 East/West Street South St Analysis Year 217 North/South Street Brice St Time Analyzed PM Peak Peak Hour Factor.92 Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs).25 Project Description Lanes TWSC Major Street: East-West Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 11 12 Number of Lanes 1 1 1 Configuration TR LT LR Volume, V (veh/h) 217 6 1 277 1 6 Percent Heavy Vehicles (%) 3 3 3 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade (%) Right Turn Channelized No No No No Median Type/Storage Critical and Follow-up Headways Undivided Base Critical Headway (sec) 4.1 7.1 6.2 Critical Headway (sec) 4.13 6.43 6.23 Base Follow-Up Headway (sec) 2.2 3.5 3.3 Follow-Up Headway (sec) 2.23 3.53 3.33 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate, v (veh/h) 11 8 Capacity, c (veh/h) 1316 736 v/c Ratio.1.1 95% Queue Length, Q₉₅ (veh).. Control Delay (s/veh) 7.8 9.9 Level of Service, LOS A A Approach Delay (s/veh).3 9.9 Approach LOS A Copyright 217 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS7 TWSC Version 7.3 Generated: 11/1/217 7:21:42 AM South-Brice_PMPeak.xtw

Intersection: South Street & Brice Street Date: 1/18/217 Jurisdiction: City of Piqua Project Name / #: 6-1667 Condition/Scenario: 217 - Existing Volumes Analyst: JRH WARRANT #1 - EIGHT-HOUR VOLUME MIR STREET Eligible to use 7% of Warrant Criteria for high-speed MAJOR STREET Apply Mir Street Right Turn Reduction Factor? (>4mph) condition or isolated community? # of Major Street lanes per approach 1 Approach Direction (EB or NB) nb Approach Direction (WB or SB) # of approach lanes for analysis 1 # of approach lanes for analysis Type of Mir Street approach (TEM 497.7) 1 (LTR) Type of Mir Street approach (TEM 497.7) Sesaonal Adjust. Factor and/or Growth Factor 1. MAJOR STREET MIR STREET WARRANT 1 WARRANT 1 WARRANT 1, CONDITION A/B (8%) South Street Brice Street CONDITION A CONDITION B CONDITION A CONDITION B CONDITION A CONDITION B Full Volumes 7% of Vols Full Volumes 7% of Vols 8% of Vols 8% of Vols 56% of Vols 56% of Vols Factored RTHBOUND EB WB Maj Min* Maj Min* Maj Min* Maj Min* Maj Min* Maj Min* Maj Min* Maj Min* Total of Pedestrians Highest Approach Approach Major Crossing (raw) RT Factored (raw) RT Factored Mir 15 15 75 53 12 6 84 42 (raw) (raw) 5 35 75 525 4 6 28 42 Approaches Major Street L T R Reduce Approach L T R Reduce Approach Approach N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 12: AM -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 1: AM -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 2: AM -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 3: AM -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 4: AM -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 5: AM -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 6: AM -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 7: AM 19 71 18 1 14 -- 15 -- 15 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 8: AM 92 96 188 3 5 4 -- 9 -- 9 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 9: AM -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 1: AM -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 11: AM -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 12: PM -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 1: PM -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 2: PM -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 3: PM -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 4: PM 229 267 496 1 5 8 -- 13 -- 13 -- -- -- -- Yes -- -- -- -- 5: PM 21 296 56 4 7 -- 11 -- 11 Yes -- -- -- -- Yes -- -- -- -- 6: PM -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 7: PM -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 8: PM -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 9: PM -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 1: PM -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 11: PM -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- NUMBER OF HOURS MET WARRANT CRITERIA MET? WARRANT #2 - FOUR-HOUR VOLUME (see attached graph) WARRANT #7 - CRASH EXPERIENCE Adequate trial of alternativesfailed to reduce crash frequency? WARRANT #3 - PEAK HOUR VOLUME (see attached graph) At least 5 crashes in year that may be preventable with signalization? 8% of Warrant 1 (either Condition A or B) satisfied? WARRANT #4 - PEDESTRIAN VOLUME 8% of Warrant 4 satisfied Meet four-hour criteria? WARRANT MET? Meet peak hour criteria? Location more than 3 feet away from nearest signal? WARRANT #8 - ROADWAY NETWORK WARRANT MET? Both streets are major routes? At least 1, weekday peak hour entering vehicles? WARRANT #5 - SCHOOL CROSSING Five-year projected volumes meet Warrants 1, 2, or 3? At least 2 students crossing during highest crossing hour? At least 1, entering vehicles for each of 5 weekend hours? Engineering study shows that adequate gaps do t exist? WARRANT MET? Location more than 3 feet away from nearest signal? WARRANT MET? WARRANT #9 - INTERSECTION NEAR A GRADE CROSSING Crossing is at intersection controlled by STOP or YIELD and within 14'? WARRANT #6 - COORDITED SIGL SYSTEM Plotted points above corresponding lines on Figures? Location can be incorporated into a signal system? WARRANT MET? New signal would provide improved platooning? (Guidance) Is resultant spacing of signals < 1ft? WARRANT MET? CONCLUSION: ms consultants, inc. SIGL WARRANT ALYSIS COMMENTS: * ### = Warrant criteria for rthbound mir street ###

South Street & Brice Street Warrant 2 - Four-Hour Vehicular Volume Conclusion: Warrant 2 - T MET South Street & Brice Street Warrant 3 - Peak Hour Vehicular Volume Conclusion: Warrant 3 - T MET

SIGL REMOVAL DETAILED ALYSIS From TEM Section 41 4 South Street & Brice Street a) Warrant Analysis Summary other reasons used to justify the installation. Not applicable for this location. b) Accident History Crash data does t indicate that removal of this signal would increase crashes. c) Site Conditions, especially sight distance problems On street parking is within sight triangle for vehicles stopped at stop bar, however there is room for vehicles to pull out further and see around parked vehicles. d) Public, business, school board or governmental complaints resulting in the original signal installation. Not applicable for this location. e) Present and future development growth. This intersection is located in a fully established suburban residential and commercial corridor. Most parcels in the vicinity are built out and occupied, except for the abandoned elementary school property on the rtheast corner. Additional growth is a possibility, but specific redevelopment plans are identified that would impact this specific intersection. The signal does t come close to meeting warrants, therefore any potential immediate growth in the area is t expected to warrant a signal at this intersection. f) Kwn reasons for changes in traffic volumes. Not applicable for this location. g) Capacity analysis for the post removal condition. Capacity analysis shows that the intersection operations improve when converted to two way stop control. h) Analysis of the cost of continued signal operation versus a one time signal removal cost. Ongoing operation and maintenance costs for this signal are anticipated to be approximately $2,5 per year. A one time signal removal cost is anticipated to be approximately $1,5. Therefore, it would only require one year of operations and maintenance savings to pay for the signal removal. i) Discussion of the traffic growth needed to warrant the signal. Mir street volumes would have to increase over 135 vehicles in the highest 8 hours and the major street would have to increase over 3 vehicles in the highest 8 hours.

Appendix F Main Street & Staunton Street

Type of peak hour being reported: Intersection Peak Method for determining peak hour: Total Entering Volume LOCATION: Staunton St -- E Main St QC JOB #: 145547 CITY/STATE: Piqua, OH DATE: Tue, Oct 3 217 Peak-Hour: 7:45 AM -- 8:45 AM Peak 15-Min: 8:15 AM -- 8:3 AM..... 82 134 132.93 78 2 21 99 153 6.1 3.7.. 3. 2.6 5.. 2. 3.9 4 21 75.. 9.5 23 25 4.3 2. 15-Min Count Period Staunton St (Northbound) Staunton St (Southbound) E Main St (Eastbound) E Main St (Westbound) Total Hourly Totals Beginning At Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U 7: AM 1 4 19 5 12 41 7:15 AM 1 8 29 2 13 53 7:3 AM 1 6 2 2 8 15 52 7:45 AM 5 27 14 17 63 29 8: AM 1 6 4 1 3 11 62 23 8:15 AM 2 7 29 2 29 69 246 8:3 AM 1 3 36 1 2 21 64 258 8:45 AM 1 21 1 4 27 54 249 Peak 15-Min Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Flowrates Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Total All Vehicles 8 28 116 8 116 276 Heavy Trucks 4 4 4 12 Pedestrians Bicycles Railroad Stopped Buses Comments: Report generated on 1/12/217 1:7 PM SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) 1-877-58-2212

Type of peak hour being reported: Intersection Peak Method for determining peak hour: Total Entering Volume LOCATION: Staunton St -- E Main St QC JOB #: 145548 CITY/STATE: Piqua, OH DATE: Tue, Oct 3 217 Peak-Hour: 4:3 PM -- 5:3 PM Peak 15-Min: 5: PM -- 5:15 PM..... 215 28 24.85 28 4 3 238 245.9.5...5.5. 6.7 1.3.8 7 41 14.3. 2.4 34 48 5.9 4.2 1 1 1 15-Min Count Period Staunton St (Northbound) Staunton St (Southbound) E Main St (Eastbound) E Main St (Westbound) Total Hourly Totals Beginning At Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U 4: PM 4 9 42 1 6 42 14 4:15 PM 3 5 45 3 2 45 13 4:3 PM 1 6 52 3 4 5 116 4:45 PM 7 46 6 48 17 43 5: PM 5 18 58 7 57 145 471 5:15 PM 1 1 48 1 13 53 126 494 5:3 PM 2 3 35 9 34 83 461 5:45 PM 2 4 46 1 9 4 12 456 Peak 15-Min Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Flowrates Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Total All Vehicles 2 72 232 28 228 58 Heavy Trucks 4 4 Pedestrians 4 4 Bicycles Railroad Stopped Buses Comments: Report generated on 1/12/217 1:7 PM SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) 1-877-58-2212

HCS7 Two-Way Stop-Control Report General Information Site Information Analyst JRH Intersection Main/Staunton Agency/Co. ms consultants Jurisdiction City of Piqua Date Performed 11/1/217 East/West Street Main St Analysis Year 217 North/South Street Staunton St Time Analyzed AM Peak Peak Hour Factor.92 Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs).25 Project Description Lanes TWSC Major Street: East-West Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 11 12 Number of Lanes 1 1 1 Configuration TR LT LR Volume, V (veh/h) 132 2 21 78 4 21 Percent Heavy Vehicles (%) 3 3 3 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade (%) Right Turn Channelized No No No No Median Type/Storage Critical and Follow-up Headways Undivided Base Critical Headway (sec) Critical Headway (sec) Base Follow-Up Headway (sec) Follow-Up Headway (sec) Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate, v (veh/h) 23 27 Capacity, c (veh/h) 1429 856 v/c Ratio.2.3 95% Queue Length, Q₉₅ (veh)..1 Control Delay (s/veh) 7.6 9.3 Level of Service, LOS A A Approach Delay (s/veh) 1.7 9.3 Approach LOS A Copyright 217 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS7 TWSC Version 7.3 Generated: 11/1/217 7:28:32 AM Main-Staunton_AMPeak.xtw

HCS7 Two-Way Stop-Control Report General Information Site Information Analyst JRH Intersection Main/Staunton Agency/Co. ms consultants Jurisdiction City of Piqua Date Performed 11/1/217 East/West Street Main St Analysis Year 217 North/South Street Staunton St Time Analyzed PM Peak Peak Hour Factor.92 Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs).25 Project Description Lanes TWSC Major Street: East-West Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 11 12 Number of Lanes 1 1 1 Configuration TR LT LR Volume, V (veh/h) 24 4 3 28 7 41 Percent Heavy Vehicles (%) 3 3 3 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade (%) Right Turn Channelized No No No No Median Type/Storage Critical and Follow-up Headways Undivided Base Critical Headway (sec) Critical Headway (sec) Base Follow-Up Headway (sec) Follow-Up Headway (sec) Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate, v (veh/h) 33 53 Capacity, c (veh/h) 1335 727 v/c Ratio.2.7 95% Queue Length, Q₉₅ (veh).1.2 Control Delay (s/veh) 7.8 1.3 Level of Service, LOS A B Approach Delay (s/veh) 1.2 1.3 Approach LOS B Copyright 217 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS7 TWSC Version 7.3 Generated: 11/1/217 7:29:52 AM Main-Staunton_PMPeak.xtw

Intersection: Main Street & Staunton Street Date: 1/18/217 Jurisdiction: City of Piqua Project Name / #: 6-1667 Condition/Scenario: 217 - Existing Volumes Analyst: JRH WARRANT #1 - EIGHT-HOUR VOLUME MIR STREET Eligible to use 7% of Warrant Criteria for high-speed MAJOR STREET Apply Mir Street Right Turn Reduction Factor? (>4mph) condition or isolated community? # of Major Street lanes per approach 1 Approach Direction (EB or NB) nb Approach Direction (WB or SB) # of approach lanes for analysis 1 # of approach lanes for analysis Type of Mir Street approach (TEM 497.7) 1 (LTR) Type of Mir Street approach (TEM 497.7) Sesaonal Adjust. Factor and/or Growth Factor 1. MAJOR STREET MIR STREET WARRANT 1 WARRANT 1 WARRANT 1, CONDITION A/B (8%) Main Street Staunton Street CONDITION A CONDITION B CONDITION A CONDITION B CONDITION A CONDITION B Full Volumes 7% of Vols Full Volumes 7% of Vols 8% of Vols 8% of Vols 56% of Vols 56% of Vols Factored RTHBOUND EB WB Maj Min* Maj Min* Maj Min* Maj Min* Maj Min* Maj Min* Maj Min* Maj Min* Total of Pedestrians Highest Approach Approach Major Crossing (raw) RT Factored (raw) RT Factored Mir 15 15 75 53 12 6 84 42 (raw) (raw) 5 35 75 525 4 6 28 42 Approaches Major Street L T R Reduce Approach L T R Reduce Approach Approach N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 12: AM -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 1: AM -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 2: AM -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 3: AM -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 4: AM -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 5: AM -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 6: AM -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 7: AM 97 86 183 3 3 23 -- 26 -- 26 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 8: AM 129 99 228 4 17 -- 21 -- 21 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 9: AM -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 1: AM -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 11: AM -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 12: PM -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 1: PM -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 2: PM -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 3: PM -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 4: PM 192 23 395 8 27 -- 35 -- 35 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 5: PM 189 222 411 1 1 35 -- 45 -- 45 -- -- -- -- Yes -- -- -- -- 6: PM -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 7: PM -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 8: PM -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 9: PM -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 1: PM -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 11: PM -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- NUMBER OF HOURS MET WARRANT CRITERIA MET? WARRANT #2 - FOUR-HOUR VOLUME (see attached graph) WARRANT #7 - CRASH EXPERIENCE Adequate trial of alternativesfailed to reduce crash frequency? WARRANT #3 - PEAK HOUR VOLUME (see attached graph) At least 5 crashes in year that may be preventable with signalization? 8% of Warrant 1 (either Condition A or B) satisfied? WARRANT #4 - PEDESTRIAN VOLUME 8% of Warrant 4 satisfied Meet four-hour criteria? WARRANT MET? Meet peak hour criteria? Location more than 3 feet away from nearest signal? WARRANT #8 - ROADWAY NETWORK WARRANT MET? Both streets are major routes? At least 1, weekday peak hour entering vehicles? WARRANT #5 - SCHOOL CROSSING Five-year projected volumes meet Warrants 1, 2, or 3? At least 2 students crossing during highest crossing hour? At least 1, entering vehicles for each of 5 weekend hours? Engineering study shows that adequate gaps do t exist? WARRANT MET? Location more than 3 feet away from nearest signal? WARRANT MET? WARRANT #9 - INTERSECTION NEAR A GRADE CROSSING Crossing is at intersection controlled by STOP or YIELD and within 14'? WARRANT #6 - COORDITED SIGL SYSTEM Plotted points above corresponding lines on Figures? Location can be incorporated into a signal system? WARRANT MET? New signal would provide improved platooning? (Guidance) Is resultant spacing of signals < 1ft? WARRANT MET? CONCLUSION: ms consultants, inc. SIGL WARRANT ALYSIS COMMENTS: * ### = Warrant criteria for rthbound mir street ###

Main Street & Staunton Street Warrant 2 - Four-Hour Vehicular Volume Conclusion: Warrant 2 - T MET Main Street & Staunton Street Warrant 3 - Peak Hour Vehicular Volume Conclusion: Warrant 3 - T MET

Appendix G South Street & McKinley Avenue

Type of peak hour being reported: Intersection Peak Method for determining peak hour: Total Entering Volume LOCATION: McKinley Ave -- South St QC JOB #: 1455415 CITY/STATE: Piqua, OH DATE: Tue, Oct 3 217 113 9 99 116 5 Peak-Hour: 7:45 AM -- 8:45 AM Peak 15-Min: 7:45 AM -- 8: AM 6.2 11.1 6.1 6.9. 19 249 8 15 81.79 65 16 17 97 16 7.4 3.6. 6.7 6.2 12.3 2.5 11.8 11.3 6.6 116 93 2 4.3 7.5 1. 276 229 4.3 6.1 1 3 1 1 15-Min Count Period McKinley Ave (Northbound) McKinley Ave (Southbound) South St (Eastbound) South St (Westbound) Total Hourly Totals Beginning At Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U 7: AM 16 15 4 5 27 2 3 14 4 2 9 137 7:15 AM 26 22 4 3 27 1 1 14 27 2 7 3 137 7:3 AM 24 23 2 3 3 2 1 14 4 4 14 5 162 7:45 AM 45 33 5 1 28 2 3 27 48 6 16 5 219 655 8: AM 2 2 6 2 26 2 1 15 36 4 11 2 145 663 8:15 AM 3 2 7 2 21 4 1 13 28 5 18 3 152 678 8:3 AM 21 2 2 24 1 3 26 48 2 2 5 172 688 8:45 AM 27 18 6 17 1 1 11 32 6 18 3 14 69 Peak 15-Min Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Flowrates Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Total All Vehicles 18 132 2 4 112 8 12 18 192 24 64 2 876 Heavy Trucks 12 8 8 4 4 4 4 Pedestrians 12 12 Bicycles Railroad Stopped Buses Comments: Report generated on 1/12/217 1:7 PM SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) 1-877-58-2212

Type of peak hour being reported: Intersection Peak Method for determining peak hour: Total Entering Volume LOCATION: McKinley Ave -- South St QC JOB #: 1455416 CITY/STATE: Piqua, OH DATE: Tue, Oct 3 217 141 11 83 136 47 Peak-Hour: 11:45 AM -- 12:45 PM Peak 15-Min: 12:3 PM -- 12:45 PM 7.1 9.1 7.2 2.2 6.4 23 223 8 26 82.97 1 133 29 155 148 6.5 3.1.. 2.4 7. 3.8. 4.5 3.4 119 12 19 5.9 2.9. 245 24 4.5 4.2 1 1 1 1 15-Min Count Period McKinley Ave (Northbound) McKinley Ave (Southbound) South St (Eastbound) South St (Westbound) Total Hourly Totals Beginning At Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U 11: AM 24 15 6 5 23 1 21 23 6 24 2 15 11:15 AM 22 21 5 4 25 1 1 2 23 5 22 4 153 11:3 AM 26 33 4 4 13 1 4 26 36 9 17 1 183 11:45 AM 25 2 4 13 15 2 3 15 36 7 32 3 175 661 12: PM 23 27 7 15 17 2 2 24 33 9 26 8 193 74 12:15 PM 35 28 5 11 25 2 1 19 31 4 24 1 195 746 12:3 PM 36 27 3 8 26 5 2 24 33 9 18 5 196 759 12:45 PM 27 26 1 3 14 3 3 14 22 11 26 7 166 75 Peak 15-Min Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Flowrates Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Total All Vehicles 144 18 12 32 14 2 8 96 132 36 72 2 784 Heavy Trucks 12 4 12 4 4 36 Pedestrians Bicycles 1 1 2 Railroad Stopped Buses Comments: Report generated on 1/12/217 1:7 PM SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) 1-877-58-2212

Type of peak hour being reported: Intersection Peak Method for determining peak hour: Total Entering Volume LOCATION: McKinley Ave -- South St QC JOB #: 1455417 CITY/STATE: Piqua, OH DATE: Tue, Oct 3 217 199 24 57 12 22 Peak-Hour: 5: PM -- 6: PM Peak 15-Min: 5: PM -- 5:15 PM 1.. 1.7 1.7. 46 357 23 32 156.91 195 178 93 32 29 1.1 1.7. 3.1 1.9 1. 1.7 1.1 1.3 1.9 28 185 31 1.4 1.6 3.2 391 424 1.5 1.7 2 1 1 2 15-Min Count Period McKinley Ave (Northbound) McKinley Ave (Southbound) South St (Eastbound) South St (Westbound) Total Hourly Totals Beginning At Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U 2: PM 28 31 6 9 16 3 2 35 6 33 7 194 2:15 PM 36 31 5 9 21 3 3 24 3 8 29 8 27 2:3 PM 29 17 3 3 26 1 2 25 33 11 32 9 191 2:45 PM 35 31 9 8 2 1 3 36 24 8 26 11 212 84 3: PM 46 44 9 13 29 3 1 33 32 8 49 1 277 887 3:15 PM 57 33 17 2 14 6 7 37 39 1 36 6 264 944 3:3 PM 51 47 3 5 22 6 7 49 59 16 43 13 321 174 3:45 PM 43 45 13 4 2 6 6 43 71 8 49 7 315 1177 4: PM 41 42 9 6 19 7 3 37 58 11 58 13 34 124 4:15 PM 45 46 1 5 13 17 3 31 53 15 39 7 284 1224 4:3 PM 48 33 11 6 18 14 3 36 42 1 34 14 269 1172 4:45 PM 39 47 11 6 16 19 4 37 29 14 37 7 266 1123 5: PM 5 46 5 7 3 23 12 54 62 12 49 8 358 1177 5:15 PM 62 5 4 3 28 8 5 37 34 22 59 9 321 1214 5:3 PM 52 32 15 9 32 21 3 36 47 27 48 6 328 1273 5:45 PM 44 57 7 3 3 5 3 29 35 32 39 9 293 13 Peak 15-Min Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Flowrates Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Total All Vehicles 2 184 2 28 12 92 48 216 248 48 196 32 1432 Heavy Trucks 4 4 8 8 4 4 32 Pedestrians 4 4 8 Bicycles Railroad Stopped Buses Comments: Report generated on 1/12/217 1:7 PM SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) 1-877-58-2212

HCS7 Signalized Intersection Results Summary General Information Intersection Information Agency ms consultants Duration, h.25 Analyst JRH Analysis Date Oct 19, 217 Area Type Other Jurisdiction Time Period AM Peak PHF.92 Urban Street South Street Analysis Year 217 Analysis Period 1> 7: Intersection South/McKinley File Name South-McKinley_AMPeak.xus Project Description Demand Information EB WB NB SB Approach Movement L T R L T R L T R L T R Demand ( v ), veh/h 8 81 16 17 65 15 116 93 2 5 99 9 Signal Information Cycle, s 6. Reference Phase 2 Offset, s Reference Point End Uncoordinated Yes Simult. Gap E/W On Force Mode Fixed Simult. Gap N/S On Green Yellow Red 25. 25..... 4. 4..... 1. 1..... 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 Timer Results EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT Assigned Phase 4 8 2 6 Case Number 6. 8. 8. 8. Phase Duration, s 3. 3. 3. 3. Change Period, ( Y+R c ), s 5. 5. 5. 5. Max Allow Headway ( MAH ), s 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Queue Clearance Time ( g s ), s 8.6 4.2 8.5 4.5 Green Extension Time ( g e ), s.7.7.7.7 Phase Call Probability 1. 1. 1. 1. Max Out Probability.... Movement Group Results EB WB NB SB Approach Movement L T R L T R L T R L T R Assigned Movement 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16 Adjusted Flow Rate ( v ), veh/h 9 262 15 249 123 Adjusted Saturation Flow Rate ( s ), veh/h/ln 13 1657 1683 159 182 Queue Service Time ( g s ), s.3 6.6. 4.. Cycle Queue Clearance Time ( g c ), s 2.4 6.6 2.2 6.5 2.5 Green Ratio ( g/c ).42.42.42.42.42 Capacity ( c ), veh/h 615 691 772 719 821 Volume-to-Capacity Ratio ( X ).14.379.137.346.15 Back of Queue ( Q ), ft/ln ( 5 th percentile) 1.6 53.2 19.1 5.1 22.5 Back of Queue ( Q ), veh/ln ( 5 th percentile).1 2.1.7 2..9 Queue Storage Ratio ( RQ ) ( 5 th percentile)..... Uniform Delay ( d 1 ), s/veh 11.6 12.1 1.8 12. 1.9 Incremental Delay ( d 2 ), s/veh..1..1. Initial Queue Delay ( d 3 ), s/veh..... Control Delay ( d ), s/veh 11.6 12.3 1.9 12.1 11. Level of Service (LOS) B B B B B Approach Delay, s/veh / LOS 12.2 B 1.9 B 12.1 B 11. B Intersection Delay, s/veh / LOS 11.8 B Multimodal Results EB WB NB SB Pedestrian LOS Score / LOS 2.1 B 2.1 B 2.1 B 2.3 B Bicycle LOS Score / LOS.9 A.7 A.9 A.7 A Copyright 217 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved. HCS7 Streets Version 7.3 Generated: 11/1/217 8:49:21 AM

HCS7 Signalized Intersection Results Summary General Information Intersection Information Agency ms consultants Duration, h.25 Analyst JRH Analysis Date Oct 19, 217 Area Type Other Jurisdiction Time Period PM Peak PHF.92 Urban Street South Street Analysis Year 217 Analysis Period 1> 7: Intersection South/McKinley File Name South-McKinley_PMPeak.xus Project Description Demand Information EB WB NB SB Approach Movement L T R L T R L T R L T R Demand ( v ), veh/h 23 156 178 93 195 32 28 185 31 22 12 57 Signal Information Cycle, s 6. Reference Phase 2 Offset, s Reference Point End Uncoordinated Yes Simult. Gap E/W On Force Mode Fixed Simult. Gap N/S On Green Yellow Red 25. 25..... 4. 4..... 1. 1..... 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 Timer Results EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT Assigned Phase 4 8 2 6 Case Number 6. 8. 8. 8. Phase Duration, s 3. 3. 3. 3. Change Period, ( Y+R c ), s 5. 5. 5. 5. Max Allow Headway ( MAH ), s 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 Queue Clearance Time ( g s ), s 18.7 17.5 17.9 6.9 Green Extension Time ( g e ), s 1.1 1.2 1.1 1.4 Phase Call Probability 1. 1. 1. 1. Max Out Probability.29.18.18. Movement Group Results EB WB NB SB Approach Movement L T R L T R L T R L T R Assigned Movement 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16 Adjusted Flow Rate ( v ), veh/h 25 363 348 461 216 Adjusted Saturation Flow Rate ( s ), veh/h/ln 1124 1693 126 146 172 Queue Service Time ( g s ), s 1.1 9.6 6. 11.. Cycle Queue Clearance Time ( g c ), s 16.7 9.6 15.5 15.9 4.9 Green Ratio ( g/c ).42.42.42.42.42 Capacity ( c ), veh/h 297 75 63 698 783 Volume-to-Capacity Ratio ( X ).84.515.577.661.276 Back of Queue ( Q ), ft/ln ( 5 th percentile) 7.2 79.4 92.2 121.3 42.1 Back of Queue ( Q ), veh/ln ( 5 th percentile).3 3.1 3.6 4.7 1.6 Queue Storage Ratio ( RQ ) ( 5 th percentile)..... Uniform Delay ( d 1 ), s/veh 21.8 13. 14.5 14.7 11.6 Incremental Delay ( d 2 ), s/veh..3.9 1.9.1 Initial Queue Delay ( d 3 ), s/veh..... Control Delay ( d ), s/veh 21.8 13.3 15.4 16.6 11.7 Level of Service (LOS) C B B B B Approach Delay, s/veh / LOS 13.8 B 15.4 B 16.6 B 11.7 B Intersection Delay, s/veh / LOS 14.8 B Multimodal Results EB WB NB SB Pedestrian LOS Score / LOS 2.1 B 2.1 B 2.1 B 2.3 B Bicycle LOS Score / LOS 1.1 A 1.1 A 1.2 A.8 A Copyright 217 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved. HCS7 Streets Version 7.3 Generated: 11/1/217 8:49:21 AM

HCS7 All-Way Stop Control Report General Information Site Information Analyst JRH Intersection South/McKinley Agency/Co. ms consultants Jurisdiction City of Piqua Date Performed 11/7/217 East/West Street South St Analysis Year 217 North/South Street McKinley St Analysis Time Period (hrs).25 Peak Hour Factor.92 Time Analyzed Project Description AM Peak AWSC Lanes Vehicle Volume and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement L T R L T R L T R L T R Volume 8 81 16 17 65 15 116 93 2 5 99 9 % Thrus in Shared Lane Lane L1 L2 L3 L1 L2 L3 L1 L2 L3 L1 L2 L3 Configuration L TR LTR LTR LTR Flow Rate, v (veh/h) 9 262 15 249 123 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 2 2 2 2 Departure Headway and Service Time Initial Departure Headway, hd (s) 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Initial Degree of Utilization, x.8.233.94.221.19 Final Departure Headway, hd (s) 6.17 5.19 5.39 5.15 5.26 Final Degree of Utilization, x.15.378.158.356.18 Move-Up Time, m (s) 2.3 2.3 2. 2. 2. Service Time, ts (s) 3.87 2.89 3.39 3.15 3.26 Capacity, Delay and Level of Service Flow Rate, v (veh/h) 9 262 15 249 123 Capacity 584 693 668 698 684 95% Queue Length, Q₉₅ (veh). 1.8.6 1.6.7 Control Delay (s/veh) 9. 11. 9.4 11. 9.4 Level of Service, LOS A B A B A Approach Delay (s/veh) 1.9 9.4 11. 9.4 Approach LOS B A B A Intersection Delay, s/veh LOS 1.5 B Copyright 217 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS7 AWSC Version 7.3 Generated: 11/8/217 7:52:47 AM South-McKinley_AMPeak.xaw

HCS7 All-Way Stop Control Report General Information Site Information Analyst JRH Intersection South/McKinley Agency/Co. ms consultants Jurisdiction City of Piqua Date Performed 11/7/217 East/West Street South St Analysis Year 217 North/South Street McKinley St Analysis Time Period (hrs).25 Peak Hour Factor.92 Time Analyzed Project Description PM Peak AWSC Lanes Vehicle Volume and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement L T R L T R L T R L T R Volume 23 156 178 93 195 32 28 185 31 22 12 57 % Thrus in Shared Lane Lane L1 L2 L3 L1 L2 L3 L1 L2 L3 L1 L2 L3 Configuration L TR LTR LTR LTR Flow Rate, v (veh/h) 25 363 348 461 216 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 2 2 2 2 Departure Headway and Service Time Initial Departure Headway, hd (s) 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Initial Degree of Utilization, x.22.323.39.41.192 Final Departure Headway, hd (s) 9.1 8.1 8.25 7.76 8.59 Final Degree of Utilization, x.63.817.797.994.516 Move-Up Time, m (s) 2.3 2.3 2. 2. 2. Service Time, ts (s) 6.71 5.8 6.25 5.76 6.59 Capacity, Delay and Level of Service Flow Rate, v (veh/h) 25 363 348 461 216 Capacity 399 444 436 464 419 95% Queue Length, Q₉₅ (veh).2 7.7 7.2 13. 2.9 Control Delay (s/veh) 12.3 38. 36.7 68.3 2.4 Level of Service, LOS B E E F C Approach Delay (s/veh) 36.4 36.7 68.3 2.4 Approach LOS E E F C Intersection Delay, s/veh LOS 44.4 E Copyright 217 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS7 AWSC Version 7.3 Generated: 11/8/217 7:53:23 AM South-McKinley_PMPeak.xaw

Intersection: South Street & McKinley Street Date: 1/18/217 Jurisdiction: City of Piqua Project Name / #: 6-1667 Condition/Scenario: 217 - Existing Volumes Analyst: JRH WARRANT #1 - EIGHT-HOUR VOLUME MIR STREET Eligible to use 7% of Warrant Criteria for high-speed MAJOR STREET Apply Mir Street Right Turn Reduction Factor? (>4mph) condition or isolated community? # of Major Street lanes per approach 1 Approach Direction (EB or NB) nb Approach Direction (WB or SB) sb # of approach lanes for analysis 1 # of approach lanes for analysis 1 Type of Mir Street approach (TEM 497.7) 1 (LTR) Type of Mir Street approach (TEM 497.7) 1 (LTR) Sesaonal Adjust. Factor and/or Growth Factor 1. MAJOR STREET MIR STREET WARRANT 1 WARRANT 1 WARRANT 1, CONDITION A/B (8%) South Street College Street CONDITION A CONDITION B CONDITION A CONDITION B CONDITION A CONDITION B Full Volumes 7% of Vols Full Volumes 7% of Vols 8% of Vols 8% of Vols 56% of Vols 56% of Vols Factored RTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EB WB Maj Min* Maj Min* Maj Min* Maj Min* Maj Min* Maj Min* Maj Min* Maj Min* Total of Pedestrians Highest Approach Approach Major Crossing (raw) RT Factored (raw) RT Factored Mir 15 15 75 53 12 6 84 42 (raw) (raw) 5 35 75 525 4 6 28 42 Approaches Major Street L T R Reduce Approach L T R Reduce Approach Approach 15 15 75 53 12 6 84 42 12: AM -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 1: AM -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 2: AM -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 3: AM -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 4: AM -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 5: AM -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 6: AM -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 7: AM 232 73 35 # 7 111 93 15 -- 219 12 112 7 -- 131 219 Yes -- -- Yes -- -- Yes Yes -- -- -- -- 8: AM 215 97 312 98 78 21 -- 197 4 88 8 -- 1 197 # Yes -- -- Yes -- -- Yes Yes -- -- -- -- 9: AM -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 1: AM -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 11: AM 28 141 349 1 97 89 19 -- 25 26 76 5 -- 17 25 Yes -- -- Yes -- -- Yes Yes -- -- -- -- 12: PM 28 157 365 121 18 25 -- 254 37 82 12 -- 131 254 Yes -- -- Yes -- -- Yes Yes -- -- -- -- 1: PM -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 2: PM 235 188 423 2 128 11 23 -- 261 29 83 8 -- 12 261 Yes -- -- Yes -- -- Yes Yes Yes -- -- -- -- 3: PM 384 255 639 197 169 42 -- 48 24 85 21 -- 13 48 Yes Yes -- -- Yes -- -- Yes Yes Yes Yes -- -- -- -- 4: PM 336 259 595 173 168 41 -- 382 23 66 57 -- 146 382 Yes Yes -- -- Yes -- -- Yes Yes Yes -- -- -- -- 5: PM 357 32 677 2 28 185 31 -- 424 22 12 57 -- 199 424 Yes Yes -- -- Yes -- -- Yes Yes Yes Yes -- -- -- -- 6: PM -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 7: PM -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 8: PM -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 9: PM -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 1: PM -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 11: PM -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- NUMBER OF HOURS MET 3 4 2 WARRANT CRITERIA MET? WARRANT #2 - FOUR-HOUR VOLUME (see attached graph) WARRANT #7 - CRASH EXPERIENCE Adequate trial of alternativesfailed to reduce crash frequency? WARRANT #3 - PEAK HOUR VOLUME (see attached graph) YES At least 5 crashes in year that may be preventable with signalization? 8% of Warrant 1 (either Condition A or B) satisfied? WARRANT #4 - PEDESTRIAN VOLUME 8% of Warrant 4 satisfied Meet four-hour criteria? WARRANT MET? Meet peak hour criteria? Location more than 3 feet away from nearest signal? WARRANT #8 - ROADWAY NETWORK WARRANT MET? Both streets are major routes? yes At least 1, weekday peak hour entering vehicles? yes WARRANT #5 - SCHOOL CROSSING Five-year projected volumes meet Warrants 1, 2, or 3? yes At least 2 students crossing during highest crossing hour? At least 1, entering vehicles for each of 5 weekend hours? Engineering study shows that adequate gaps do t exist? WARRANT MET? YES Location more than 3 feet away from nearest signal? WARRANT MET? WARRANT #9 - INTERSECTION NEAR A GRADE CROSSING Crossing is at intersection controlled by STOP or YIELD and within 14'? WARRANT #6 - COORDITED SIGL SYSTEM Plotted points above corresponding lines on Figures? Location can be incorporated into a signal system? WARRANT MET? New signal would provide improved platooning? (Guidance) Is resultant spacing of signals < 1ft? WARRANT MET? CONCLUSION: ms consultants, inc. SIGL WARRANT ALYSIS COMMENTS: * ### = Warrant criteria for rthbound mir street ### = Warrant criteria for southbound mir street

South Street & McKinley Street Warrant 2 - Four-Hour Vehicular Volume Conclusion: Warrant 2 - T MET (3 hours) South Street & McKinley Street Warrant 3 - Peak Hour Vehicular Volume Conclusion: Warrant 3 - MET

PROPOSED STRIPING PLAN 1 265 375 15 5 MCKINLEY AVENUE 275 SOUTH STREET