TnAi§;6B*iK}|oN .[ i . V V - '_ “ " I‘ LIBRARY 1 - .. ~ ‘ * 1 -' V fi4E j i\£3 48o53O“~‘ 572 ~ I C 7 ‘ D “isifl AN~ALY~1~ I ~0~F cm PAR ATIVE TRAFFIC OF THE OLE GY RI van ROAD ~ @ R AND ~ ALTERNATE crrv ARTERIALS ~ ~ O‘OLUM~BUS,~OHlO~ V ~PR~EP~ARED BY THE o|~-no ~DEPARTM~ENT or HIGHWAYS BUREAU OF PLANNl~NG~ AND "PR~O“G»R~A~M~MlNG y ~ H'IGHWAY PLANNING SUR\_/EY ~ 3 MARCH i952 'fi0rsn1y 9, ~ 3 p §$}i§ig?€?Ql$i%? ‘ ‘ ‘ r ‘ya T‘‘*‘ J. " ..,_.‘r, r ‘P '1; ,£/*;:/'.? 3/on /Q_ N ~ 5/I 6%-' ‘M,'~ 1 3 1 7 §5P?-.%- III-.l_*."'3‘ fit»-......_._......_‘, AR T E S__ SCIENTIA VER»'T'A3 -_.~n"I .AN ANALYSIS .OF COMPARATIVE TRAFFIC USAGE .OF THE OLENTANGY RIVER ROAD AND ALI-ERNATE .C I TY ARTER I ALS COLUMBUS, OHIO PREPARED BY THE OHIO DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS BUREAU 6F PLANNING AND PROGRAIIMING OI HIGHWAY; PLANNING SURVEY.‘ IN COOPERATION WITH THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE BUREAU OF PUBLIC ROADS MARCHO I952 “M rzsportafion Library H E I-37Q £7 IOISQ Iranspofiafien Lstra ry PREFACE During the progress of this study three brief interim reports were presentedu The statistical method employed in the analysis of the data for these interim reports did not conform with the procedure used in the analysis of similar studies in other cities. Therefore, in order that the results of this study could be properly correlated with the findings of these other studies, the method of analysis was changed accordinglyo As a result the charts contained in this final report which graphically depict the percentages of traffic usage have been revised and should take precedence over the prior publicationsg ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The ultimate value of a research project such as the Olentangy River Road Use Study lies in the eventual correlation of its results with analyses of similar studies made in other areas. The Ohio Highway Planning Survey, therefore, gratefully acknowledges the great amount of specialized thought and study thus far afforded this type of 'traffic research, Particular mention is directed towards the interest and promotional activity of Mr, M, Earl Campbell, Engineer of Traffic and Operations of the Highway Research Board, whose preliminary findings and related suggestions lent momentum to studies of this character, Appreciation also is expressed to Mr, D, L, Trueblood, of the Bureau of Public Roads, for his technical assistance and certain proposed analyses rendered the Olentangy report, Finally, the Planning Survey staff wishes to express its appreciation to the thousands of motorists in the Columbus area who, by means of personal in» terviews and written questionnaires, cooperated in making this study possible, CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION ll METHOD OF STUDY CONTENTS The Olentangy River Road Origin and Destination Data Travel Time and Distance Data Interim Reports River River River River River River River River Road Road Road Road Road Read Read Road ANALYSIS OF DATA Use Use Use Use Use Use Use Use in Relation to 0ff~Peak Time Ratios in Relation to Distance Ratios in Relation to 0ff~Peak Time and Distance in Relation to increments of Off~Peak Time and Distance in Relation to Peak Time (N-6 P.M.) in Relation to Peak Time and Distance in Relation to Length ef Trip in Relation to Average Overall Speed IV TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENT FORHULAE Traffic Assignment Formuiae Based on 0ff—Peak Time Ratio Traffic Assignnt Formulae Based on Distance Ratio Traffic Assignment Formulae Based on Peak Time Ratio V CONCLUSIONS APPENDIX PAGE IS I3 2i 23 24 25 25 29 32 35 38 NI 44 N6 N8 48 52 52 57 59 TABLE I TABLE II TABLE III TABLE IV TABLE V TABLE VI LIST OF TABLES (Appendix) Physical Characteristics of the Olentangy River Road Comparative I949 Volume of Traffic on Olentangy River Road and Two Alternate Arterials Average Off-Peak Time and Distance Ratios for Each Per Cent of Olentangy River Road Use Average Difference in Off-Peak Time and Distance for Each Per Cent of Olentangy River Road Use Comparison of Weighted Average Percentages of Olentangy River Road Use and Values Derived from Empirical Formulae Based on Off-Peak Time Ratio Comparison of Weighted Average Percentages of Olentangy River Road Use and Values Derived from Empirical Formula Based on Distance Ratio PAGE 60 BI 62 an 65 Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure 12 - Figure LIST OF FIGURES Map of Columbus and Vicinity Showing Olentangy River Road and Zones of Influence Included in Traffic Usage Study . . . . . . . .. Scatter Diagram Showing Relation Between Per Cent of Traffic Usage and Off-Peak Time Ratio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...... Per Cent of Traffic Usage in Relation to Off-Peak Time Ratio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , , . . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Scatter Diagram Showing Relation Between Per Cent of Traffic Usage and Ratio of Distance Traveled...,.... ..,-. ..,. Per Cent of Traffic Usage in Relation to the Distance alliiil-3 3'‘ IR 3'idr‘ SE03!) G""{JiBiiDB"lII " I I I I I I c Q I I I I 5! Per Cent of Traffic Usage in Relation to the Per Cent Difference in Time or Distance . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . , , . .,,.,... . . . . .. Per Cent Difference in Time and Distance in Relation to Per Cent of Traffic Usage , . . , . I . . , . , , . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Per Cent of Traffic Usage in Relation to Increments of Time or Distance Saved or Lost , . , , , , , , , .,, . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........ Increments of Time and Distance Saved or Lost in Relation to Per Cent of Traffic Usage, , . . . . , , , . . . . . . . , . , . . . . . . . . . , . . . .. Per Cent of Traffic Usage in Relation to the Peak Time Ratio . . . . , . . , , . . . , . . I , . , , . . I . , . . . I . . , . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . I . . . . . , . . .. the Off-Peak and 3 E I B ’ B ! ' ! I I I I H t Q I I I I I I I I I I ! Q 5 I I I I I I Per Cent of Traffic Usage in Relation to Peak Time Ratio , . . , . , , . . .. Per Cent of Traffic Usage in Relation to the Per Cent Difference in Peak Time or Distance . - , , . . , , . . , . , , . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Per Cent of Traffic Usage and Off-Peak Time Ratio in Relation to the Total Length of Trip , . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. PAGE IN 26 28 30 3| 33 34 36 39 40 42 43 U5 Figure 14 Figure 15 Figure 16 Figure 17 Figure 18 .Figure 19 - Plate 1 Plate 2 Plate 3 ‘ Traveled, Showing Equation for Curve of Trend .. Per Cent of Traffic Usage in Relation to the Average Overall Speed..... . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . ................,. Per Cent of Traffic Usage in Relation to Off-Peak Time Ratio, Showing Equation for Curve of Trend................. Per Cent of Traffic Usage in Relation to Off-Peak Time Ratio, Showing Equations for Curve of Trend for Ratios Less Than |.0 and More Than l.0 .... . . . . ........... Per Cent of Traffic Usage in Relation to RatioIofDistance Per Cent of Traffic Usage Derived from Empirical Formulae Based on Time and Distance Ratios ............. Per Cent of Traffic Usage in Relation to Peak Time Ratio, Showing Equation for Curve of Trend .... PHOTOGRAPHS Olentangy River Road Looking North Toward Intersection with Goodale St. N. High St. Looking North Toward Intersection with Goodale St. N. Fourth St. Looking North Toward Intersection with Goodale St. Olentangy River Road Looking North Toward Intersection with Lane Ave. N. High St. Looking North at the Intersection with l5th Ave. N. Fourth St. Looking North Toward the Intersection with llth Ave. Olentangy River Road Looking North to the Junction with State Route l6l Olentangy River Road Looking North Toward Intersection with Henderson Road Olentangy River Road Looking South Toward Intersection with North Broadway PAGE N7 49 5| SN 55 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION The extent to which traffic may be diverted from existing city streets to an expressway or high type boulevard and the factors which influence that diversion are of vital concern to highway planners in the design and location of these facilities. The problem of estimating this diversion of vehicular movement to an alternate line of travel involves consideration of time, dis- tance, convenience, speed of travel, comfort and other factors that may influ- ence traffic behavior. Due to the many variable and immeasurable quantities involved, there has been a lack of agreement among engineers as to an accept- able method for predicting diversion of traffic to an expressway. However, since time and distance seem to be the most tangible of these considerations and are generally accepted as the primary bases for the attraction of traffic to an expressway, they should be given the greatest weight in the development of any formula. In the interest of determining the methods employed by the various State Highway Departments in making traffic usage predictions for proposed express- ways, Mr. M. Earl Campbell, Engineer of Traffic and Operations of the Highway Research Board, in I950, compiled a compendium of correspondence on the sub- ject. This publication, containing replies tohis questionnaire from 23 States, showed conclusively that a wide variety of methods and thinking were employed throughout the country in making such traffic assignments. Most of these States resolved the problem on the basis of judgment or opinion only. The results further substantiated the desirability of research into the matter especially along the lines suggested by Mr. Campbell's theoretical curves depicting the probable attraction values basediwitwo principal factors, namely, "Time Saving" and "Distance Saving". Following the lead thus established, the U. S. Bureau of PublicRoads encouraged the various States, through their Planning Survey organizations, to undertake projects to test Mr. Campbell's conclusions. The tentative proced- ure as proposed by the Bureau was, briefly, to determine traffic usage on existing high type boulevards and their competitive routes, and to develop traffic usage curves in relation to time and distance factors. In Ohio, the Olentangy River Road in the urban area of Columbus was selected as the best of several subjects available for study. Accordingly, an agreement was entered into with the U. 8. Bureau of Public Roads in the spring of I950 to prepare: "An Analysis of Comparative Traffic Usage of the Olentangy River Road and Alternate City Arterials in Columbus, Ohio". The purpose of the study is to compare the relative volume and percentage of motor vehicles that traverse the Olentangy River Road with the volume of traffic using alternate facilities in relation to the travel time and distance involved. All data used in this study pertaining to the number of trips via the River Road and alternate city streets, and their comparative average Peak and Off-Peak Time and Distance measurements, are on file in the office of the Ohio Highway Planning Survey located at IOI North High Street, Columbus, Ohio. I2 CHAPTER II METHOD OF STUDY THE OLEIITANGY RIVER ROAD The Olentangy River Road is a high type boulevard with partially limited access. It parallels the west bank of the Olentangy River and extends from West Spring Street, at the northwest corner of the Columbus business district, north to the intersection with U. 8. Route 23 at Stratford, 20 miles north of Columbus. That portion of the River Road included in this study is confined to the southerly 9 miles extending from West Spring Street north to the junc- tion with State Route I6I west of the Village of Worthington and is shown as a heavy band on the map. (Figure I) The Olentangy River forms the west boundary of the north portion of Columbus. From West Spring Street to King Avenue, the Olentangy River Road is within the corporate limits of Columbus and north of King Avenue it is a county highway. The river constitutes a traffic barrier between the River Road and the populated areas to the east, with access to this arterial provided by means of bridges located at.Spring Street, Goodale Street, Third Avenue, King Avenue, Lane Avenue, Dodridge Street, North Broadway, Henderson Road and also on State Route I6I west of Worthington. These streets intersect the Olentangy River Road at grade with fixed time traffic signals controlling the vehicular move- ments at all intersections except at North Broadway. At the latter inter- section traffic entering the River Road is controlled by a "STOP" sign and channelization which gives the Right-of-Way to the River Road traffic. From Spring Street to Dublin Road, the River Road is a 6-lane, undivided pavement; from Dublin Road to Goodale Street it is a 6-lane, divided pavement; from Goodale Street to North Broadway, 4-lane, divided;and from North Broadway to State Route I6l, 2-lane rural road. A summary of certain physical charac- teristics of the River Road may be found in Appendix Table I. Views taken on the Olentangy River Road and also at comparable locations on the two principal alternate arterials, North High Street and North Fourth Street are shown in Plates I, 2, and 3. At the time the River Road was constructed, access to the highway for the most part was confined to the intersecting roads. The minor amount of private access which existed was not considered a serious threat to the efficiency of the highway. However, in recent years, due to the pressure of commercial interests and influential citizens, Hwapolitical subdivisions in control, have not been able to hold the line against the establishment of private access. . - -4 II . ._v H, __ Y V“‘uMu I I29 - " \ ‘ g 5- :1. ‘ E III. .. Z ‘ ‘ . ., , ‘L Q ‘ . I E, '\ - . ' “- \ - I‘ I \ s .q 5 \ ' 2 ‘ II . 7 U _ -‘ ' AP A ounvn.I.z s i_ 2 . aw. .~/4-P. 1.». I“ M. I} ,1 - . a‘ ' -: I 1- g 0 -: ' F10 / U r 2 , '“ 5 F 9 WOFIhIF“IOU - .> = _rT - 3 ' _ ' . '. < F . qsv P. so 2, *“‘“‘ I it ‘a . g = 1") Q, K‘ I I filv ._ \/ *0. “-2. use 3' T-. “‘ o . P; Q- ‘ "3 -I s . 5 3, L ‘ ~ F 5 i’ \ aznm "°~ nous: he ,.-. ' C l- d. 6;, . EEAJIAGNT , d ‘ I Q 2 :. I < .2‘ I -I N no as I . 0 V “.1 '‘O x: 3: '2 ,2 no I 5:! z . ' '5 ; _‘ 2 - ——v I -1 _ ~ __ - ->01 4. C 1. S \ v [5 2 . - t W w.-gov no HIGHLAND W E I Q, A ' I _, ' 8 r 1 4“ 2 ,-I 0 a . -i P OAKLAND PARK I AVE. L- - _. __ . q . ' ’ 1 I‘ 6 p - -1 “ nsmuou am 0°‘ ‘-’ . 4- I Qt, no. I : ' I f " I ' ,/ ISNING II no. I ‘ 5 - =1 . . g ‘ Y 40 _ I I k \ A . ... . J I _ ' ' Acxsnuw Rn, . wpson 51. I YOUPJDGE - .__._._I 0"» ‘bl -‘._. . J.:-IV (,""d~ _‘ .._,.'r‘; . _; F- _ - LANE ; 0 A one U3,‘ noaufi ‘JP, ) -‘IQE ‘I AVE INDIANO A . / - ’ G/RANT AVE. / I __ ' - I 4? 40- ~,,.0L I ',_-.-_.. __._, 4‘. . ‘roe °‘°' P4 MANBE I L... 1 ' I \ F ' ' I >g,. —-J %% '\ HFTN L I _" _ - _/ \’ ‘E, e, I I a ' _ _____ . - éfi THIRD - . 0| 1nW"" _ -\ 3 \ - ’ I \‘;,\I_ ~ cocoa: _I Q: E- CL? ' x ' awe. “ 2 J D 3 51. - ...» 9 "- ‘ I lsnu 9 Q‘ ‘ow 6' 2 ,a_ ' _ - 2 -\ / ‘ __ , , . J ’ g I __ . an» F‘ G '\ § . 5 . E '\ “L 55 F - -_ . .. . ''''-'\--1 V " FIGURE-I ' LEGEND . ; I P ~ MAP OF _ OLENTANGY RIVER ROAD ' \ COLUMBUS AND V|c|~l1'Y zone NUMBER T'~- $"°"'"° ! . , ZONE BOUNDARY 3 OLENTANGY RIVER ROAD 5 _$- ,,°,,,,L,,,,,,, CENTER 0, ZONE 5 I _ AN0 zones or INFLUENCE INCLUDED I IN COMPARATIVE TRAFFIC USAGE STUDY 0! I A 0 so INTERVIEW snmow _ ,1 I- (Right) - OLENTANGY RIVER ROAD LOOKING NORTH TOWARD INTERSECTION WITH GOODALE ST. (Left)- N.HlGH ST. LOOKING NORTH TOWARD INTERSECTION WITH GOODALE ST. 1- _ :1 191 THE SMITH BB (Right) - N.FOURTH s1. LOOKING noarn TOWARD INTERSECTION WITH GOODALE ST. (Right) - OLENTANGY RIVER ROAD LOOKING NORTH TOWARD INTERSECTION WITH LANE AVE. (Left) - N.HIGH ST. LOOKING NORTH AT THE INTERSECTION WITH l5th AVE. (Right) - N.FOURTH s1. LOOKING NORTH TOWARD THE INTERSECTION IITN Ilth AVE. (Right) -OLENTANGY RIVER ROAD LOOKING NORTH TO THE JUNCTION WITH STATE ROUTE IBI (Left) -OLENTANGY RIVER ROAD LOOKING NORTH TOWARD INTERSECTION WITH HENDERSON ROAD (Right)-OLENTANGY RIVER ROAD LOOKING SOUTH TOWARD INTERSECTION WITH NORTH BROADWAY However, the Olentangy River which is situated to the east of this road and roughly parallels it for a considerable portion of its course, has been an effective natural barrier against the establishment of access from that direction. Because of the existing access and also due to the presence of the many signalized intersections, the Olentangy River Road can not be classified as an "expressway" or limited access facility in the strictest sense of the word. Nevertheless, compared to the city arterials, it does provide fewer delays and a freer flow of traffic and is, therefore, attractive to a large number of motorists who apparently find it superior to its competing routes. Figure I shows the location of the Olentangy River Road in relation to the city street arterials between the central business district of Columbus and the northern area of the city. The Ohio Department of Highways maintains a permanently installed electric-eye traffic counter on the Olentangy River Road between Dublin Road and Goodale Street. During I949, the 24-hour volume of traffic at this location averaged 29,700 vehicles. Portable traffic recorders used at other locations on this road indicated the average daily volume on this highway varied from 33,780 vehicles between Spring Street and Dublin Road to 4,NOO vehicles north of Henderson Road. From manual and machine counts it was found that on North High Street, which is the principal alternate arterial, the average daily traffic volume south of Spring Street was I8,000.vehicles. The average volume.of traffic on this street ranged from l8,800 vehicles per day south of Chittenden Avenue to 6,700 vehicles per day north of Henderson Road. (See Appendix Table II) ORIGIN AND DESTINATION DATA In order to determine the origins and destinations of vehicles operating on the Olentangy River Road, east bound traffic was stopped and interviewed at the point of egress at each of eight stations as shown in Figure I. Traffic bound to the area west of the River Road was not included in the study. These interview stations were located on Henderson Road, North Broadway, Dodridge Street, Lane Avenue, King Avenue, Fifth Avenue, Third Avenue, and also on Olentangy River Road north of Henderson Road. Each 0. and D. Station was operated from 7 A.M. to II P.N. for one week-day exclusive of Saturday or Sunday In July and August, I9501 Expansion of these 0. and D. data on an hourly basis at each station was effected by a ZN-hour manual count. A comprehensive 0. and D. Survey had been conducted in I949 for Columbus and Franklin County employing the Controlled Post Card Method. This study had employed a zone arrangement which proved suitable for the River Road Study 2| with certain adjustments. Figure I shows the zone arrangement as adapted to this study. Briefly, the adaptation consisted of dividing original zones Nos. I, 2, 4 and 6, located in the northern part of the city, into the follow- ing sub-zones: Zone I = Zones 20I, 30I, 40I Zone 2 = Zones 202, 302, 402, 502 Zone 4 = Zones 204, 304, 404 Zone 6 = Zones 206, 306 This revision provided a finer classification of some of the important residential areas under study. The original Columbus Survey 0. and D. cards for these four zones were reviewed and all trips to and from this area were recoded into these sub-zones. The number of passenger car and truck trips originating in the other zones and their collective zone to zone movements were taken directly from the tables contained in the Columbus Survey Report. In order to adjust for the increase in the volume of I950 traffic over that of I949 when the inter-zone movements as reported in the Columbus Survey were recorded, the total trips from that report were expanded by a factor of I2 per cent. This expansion was based upon comparing traffic data recorded in both I949 and I950. Thus, the analysis of the Olentangy River Road Origin and Destination Survey data recorded at the 8 interview stations made itpossible to accurately determine the number and percentage of vehicles using the River Road in rela- tion to the total number of vehicles originating in or destined to the same zones as revealed by the previous Columbus Survey. Vehicles not using the River Road were assigned collectively to the alternate routes. The method used in determining the percentages of River Road use as compared to total usage was relatively simple. From Zone I5, which comprises the business area of Columbus, to Zone 60 which embraces the Village of Worthington, there were I32 trips via the Olentangy River Road. The Columbus Survey showed a total of 3I0 trips recorded between these zones which, when expanded to the year I950 amounted to 347 trips. Therefore, 38.04 per cent of the trips from Zone I5 to Zone 60 used the River Road and the remaining trips were assigned to alternate city streets. The assignment between zones and sub-zones required more detailed analysis. For example, between Zone I5 and sub-zones Nos. 20I, 30I and 40I, a total of 304 trips were recorded via the Olentangy River Road. A review of the Columbus Survey' 0. and 0. data indicated a total of 554 trips from Zone I5 to original Zone I. Of these 554 trips 425 were readily identified as resident 22 trips, or trips made by residents residing in Zone I. This left I29 residual trips which were non-residential in character. These I29 residual trips were apportioned between the three sub-zones in accordance with the ratio of resident trips (425) to the total trips (554) in each sub-zone. Thus, the River Road usage from Zone I5 to Zone 20I showed I66 of a hdflal of 365 trips, or 45.47 per cent; from Zone I5 to Zone 30I, 86 of I68 trips, or 5I.I9 per cent, and from Zone I5 to Zone 40I, 52 of 87 trips, or 59.77 per cent. Throughout this study the percentages of use represent an average 24-hour period. Due to limitations of tmeI949 Columbus Survey it was necessary to make the assumption that hourly variations in zone to zone traffic movements followed the same pattern on all competing facilities. Therefore, for each zone to zone movement the same percentage of River Road use was applied in the various analyses. TRAVEL TIME AND DISTANCE DATA In order to provide a comparison of the ratio of travel time via the Olentangy River Road with the travel time over alternate city arterial streets, a series of Time and Delay studies were made throughout the study area. These studies provided travel time and distance measurements between the centers of population of zones via any desired route or combination of routes. The time data were gathered for both peak and off-peak traffic periods. During the peak period, from 4 P.M. to 6 P.M., six runs were made with the predominant flow of traffic and the average of the travel times obtained. During the off-peak period three runs were made in each direction and an average time computed. A survey crew consisting of a driver, a recorder and an observer, were equipped with an odometer, a stop-watch and necessary tabulating forms. With the vehicle "floating with traffic", the distance as’hell as the elapsed time, measured between the centers of intersections, were recorded at pre-selected control points. It was possible, therefore, to determine the minimum travel time and minimum travel distance over any street or any combination of streets between the population centers of zones. These minimum time and distance measurements, when divided into the time and distance measurements by way of the River Road, provided time ratios and distance ratios which when correlated with usage ratios provided the data for the "Probability of Use" curves. It should be pointed out that in the establishment of the time and distance ratios fora trip by way of the River Road, the time and distance used included not only the time and distance consumedT AOVFERUASGEE .3 - 0.9 93.94 .9 - 10 63.61 1.0 - 1.1 43.33 1.1- 1.2 40.31 1.2 - 1.3 23.33 1.3 - 1.4 19.20 1.4 -1.5 10.90 1.5 -1.6 9.04 1.3 -1.7 4.07 1.7 - 1.3 1.39 1.3 - 1.9 3.37 1.9 - 2.0 3.32 These weighted average values when platted graphically resulted in the smooth curve shown in Figure 5 which illustrates the per cent of Olentangy River Road use in relation to the ratios of distance traveled. While the shape of the Off-Peak time ratio curve was found to be of the cumulative frequency or ogive type, the Distance ratio curve is concave. The trend of the curve indicates that when the distance ratio is less than 0.835, all of the motorists use the River Road and less than 4 per cent use it when the distance ratio is greater than 1.70. When the distance via alternate city streets is the same as over the River Road, 57.5 percent of the motorists travel via the River Road. 29 PER CENT OF OLENTANGY RIVER ROAD USE STATE OF OHIO BUREAU OF PLANNING AND PROGRAMMING DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS 1-||(;)-MAY PLANNING 5URVEY NUMBER OF RIVER ROAD TRIPS WITHIN EACH O.I INCREMENT OF DISTANCE RATIO 0 O O O O O O O 62 799 I088 50 I91‘! IIl6 531 283 - I09 20 38 72 IOC : : -... — __.: 0 0 0 0 A I . 0 " ‘ . 0‘: . 0 0 -80 = = 0 ' . . 0 3 up = 0 0 70 ' 0 0 . 00' 0 0 T S 0 0. . . 0 6Q 1:. = = . . .0. 0 0 -b . 0 . . 0 50 . ; .O O .; : "~ - , : 9 O O I O . O 0 0 . 05 . 0 0 40 :‘- ’ ’ : ' .. JO=.. .NR. ‘ 0 00 1' ' 0 .0.0 . 9 ‘ O . 0 . 0 30 . .. . ' ' H - - 0 . ‘ ‘ O z 9 0 '0 0 I 0 00 I! ‘f 0 0 0 ‘D 0__ 0 20 ' . ' .1I.::v' "5. 0 0 : 0 (>0 0 0 ‘J 0 — ._ __ O-. O Q . ‘ 0 I i‘. . . 0' ' . . 0| . . 0 : . ' 0 ' ' '0 O O = ' I. I . O. O . 0’ Q . . . ‘ 0 . Q . 0: I ’ . “l a I .’ . I‘ O 0O.'O'.. ~’ ...‘. 0. I . 0 I0 . 0~ . . . C11 02 C 3 Q4 Q5 C 6 0.7 Q8 Q9 I.O I.I I.2 I3 I4 L5 1.6 1.7 IB 1.9 20 - OLENTANGY RIVER ROAD DISTANCE RATI0. -—-6,-W-SW-— SCATTER DIAG.RAM SHOWING RELATION BETWEEN PER CENT OF TRAFFIC USAGE OF OLENTANGY RIVER ROAD COLUMBUS, OHIO. AND RATIO OF DISTANCE TRAVELED 1950 FIGURE 4 PER CENT OF OLENTANGY RIVER ROAD USE STATE OF OHIO DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS HIGHWAY PLANNING SURVEY BUREAU OF PLANNING AND PROGRAMMING 9O 20 \ O.I I O L I 1.2 1.5 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 I.8 1.9 OLENTANGY RIVER ROAD CITY STREETS Q 2 0.3 0.4 O5 O6 0. 7 Q8 0 9 DISTANCE RATIO 1 PER CENT OF TRAFFIC USAGE or OLENTANGY RIVER R0-AD cowuaus, 01-no ' IN RELATION T0 THE DISTANCE RATIO 1950 20 FIGURE 5 Investigation reveals that on the Distance curve between the distance ratios of 1.00 and I.30 and also on the Off-Peak time curve between the time ratios of 0.80 and I.O0, the percentage of River Road use decreases approxi- mately I per cent’for each 0.66 per cent increase in Timezuulbistance ratios. RIVER ROAD USE III RELATION TO OFF-PEAK TIME AND DISTANCE A study of the comparative usage of the River Road in relation to the per cent difference in both Time and Distance is provided in Figure 6. On this diagram both the Off-Peak Time curve and the Distance curve are platted on the same grid. An average of 23 per cent or less of the motorists use the Olentangy River Road although their trips require both additional travel time and distance. When the time by way of city streets is equal to the time via the River Road, 23 per cent of the motorists use the River Road although the average distance is 30 per cent greater. Fifty per cent of the motorists traverse the River Road when it provides an average saving in time of I5.0 per cent although requiring an average of 5.5 per cent increase in distance. Between 23 per cent and 57.5 per cent of the motorists travel via the River Road when it provides a saving in time although requiring additional traveling distance. When the distance via the River Road is the same as over city streets, an average of 57.5 per cent of the motorists traverse the River Road with a corresponding average saving in time of 20 per cent. When both a saving in time and distance is realized, 57.5 per cent or more of the motorists use the Olentangy River Road. This diagram clearly indicates that on the Dlentangy River Road adverse time discourages traffic usage more quickly than adverse distance. Table III of the Appendix provides both the Off-Peak Time ratio and the Distance ratio for each corresponding change of I per cent in River Road use as obtained from the two curves in Figure 6. When these Off-Peak Time ratios are platted against the Distance ratios, as shown in Figure 7, the result provides an indication of the relationship between the percentage of River Road usage and the per cent of difference in Time and Distance. The percent- ages of River Road use indicated along the combined Time-Distance ratio curve vary from a minimum of 3 per cent when the trips required 44 per cent more time and 79 per cent additional distance to 90 per cent usage when the trips provide a 58.5 per cent saving in time with I4.I per cent less distance. 32 PER CENT OF OLENTANGY RIVER ROAD USE STATE. OF OHIO DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS BUREAU OF PLANNING AND PROGRAMMING HIGHWAY PLANNING SURVEY PER CENT SAVING IN TIME OR DISTANCE PER CENT OF TRAFFIC USAGE OF OLENTANGY RIVER ROAD (DLUMBUS, OHIO IN RELATION TOTHE PER CENT DIFFERENCE IN TIME OR DISTANCE I950 I00 ~ ‘ \_\\ it I \_ I 80 sAv1NIc IN TIIIIE \ 2 AND DISTANCE [ 52453431 11.... 7O \ \ .1 \ -..’\ 1 \F--15.0% A55% 50/ \ \ I 40K SAVING IN TIAIIE, WHTH ADDITIONAL DISTANCE \o 23% TO 57 5 % ' ( A TIME /3” \ISTANCE' .1 I \ I \ .. \ /--_—/\... 20 I \ ADDITIONAL TIME AND DISTANCE > 0 TO 23% \ \ A0 \ \ 0 _._“ ° 0 O 0 T ~ -I00 -90 -80 -70 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 O O +10 #20 430 R40 - +50 I-E10 +70 +80 +90 1100 PER CENT INCREASE IN TIME GR DISTANCE FIGURE 6 TIME DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS BUREAU OF PLANNING AND PROGRAMMING HIGHWAY PLANNING SURVEY STATE OF OHIO +100 +90 +80 "1 LL.I 200 (I LLI CK O E60 A 1- 33.2 L?-l+4Q . O Q:+3O A LLI fig’-1 0- I +20 ~ +10 7 I \ /5g 0 \ <2 20% I 10 ‘%\i$>j0% I %»_., ° 1 . :§:\=;.%° -20 - _ R3 - - 9% 3 -30 N .31 1.1.1 \<\?-3 it .. I 3 $ 50 __| a°~ '_-60 ' E “A 0-70 55 0.- -90 -I00 -90 -I8-0 51/0 -60 -50 Y -40 -310 -20 - 0 0 +10 +20 +20 +40 +50 +60 -170 + 80 + 90 4100 PER CENT LESS DISTANCE PER CENT INCREASED DISTANCE DISTANCE COMBINED TIME AND DISTANCE CURVES SHOWING PER CENT OF DIFFERENCE IN TIME AND DISTANCE IN RELATION TO PER CENT OF TRAFFIC USAGE OF OLENTANGY RIVER ROAD COLUMBUS, OHIO I950 FIGURE 7 RIVER ROAD USE IN RELATION TO INCREMENTS OF OFF-PEAK TIME AND DISTANCE A study of the relationship between the percentage of River Road use and the number of minutes saved or lost in traveling between the centers of zones via the River Road as compared with alternate city streets is shown in Figure 8. As in the previous analyses, the weighted average percentages of use were obtained by combining the zone to zone movements for each minute of time saved or lost and computing the percentage of these combined movements that used the River Road. The resulting weighted average percentage of use for each increment of one minute saved or lost is indicated in the following table: MINUTES SAVED NO. OF WEIGHTED AVERAGE OR LOST RIVER ROAD TRIPS PER CENT OF USE 6 - 7 MIN. LOST 4 9.52 5 - 6 MIN. LOST 10 4.56 4 - 5 MIN. LOST 22 4.24 3 - 4 MIN. LOST 172 3.21 2 - 3 MIN. LOST 302 10.13 1 - 2 MIN. LOST 595 7.09 0 - 1 MIN. LOST 699 14.61 0 - 1 MIN. SAVED 1571 30.37 1 - 2 MIN. SAVED 1062 37.40 2 - 3 MIN. SAVED 715 44.94 3 - 4 MIN. SAVED 579 47.61 4 - 5 MIN. SAVED 291 60.00 5 - 6 MIN. SAVED 266 61.00 6 - 7 MIN. SAVED 140 71.80 7 - 8 MIN. SAVED 213 59.66 8 - 9 MIN. SAVED 85 72.65 9 - 10 MIN. SAVED 56 91.80 10 - 11 MIN. SAVED 21 100.00 11 - 12 MIN. SAVED 55 85.93 12 - 13 MIN. SAVED 75 92.59 In a similar manner the weighted average percentage of River Road use in terms of the difference in traveling distance between centers of zones 35 PER GENT OF OLENTANGY RIVER ROAD USE STATE OF OHIO BUREAU OF PLANNING AND PROGRAMMING DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS HIGHWAY PLANNING SURVEY LESS MILES ADDITIONAL MILES ‘QC I II ; ‘3 I3 7 (5 5 4 3 2 O 2 3 4 5 6 7 E \ \ \ . \ , \ \ \ . \ \ 70 4.8 Minjfes [MSTA NOE ; g |‘T‘l 1'» / 0 40 20 O O \. . - \ \ Q \ ' ' I C I I 9 8 7 I5 5 4 3 2 I O I 2 3 4 MINUTES SAVED MINUTES LOST PER CENT OF TRAFFIC USAGE or THE OLENTANGY RIVER nono ' coumeus, omo IN RELATION TO INCREMENTS OF TIME OR DISTANCE SAVED OR LOST 1950 5 6 7 FIGURE 8 measured in increments of one-half mile was obtained as indicated in the following table: DIFFERENCE IN DISTANCE NO. OF WEIGHTED AVERAGE (MILES) TRIPS PER CENT OF USE 6.0 T0 7.0 ADDITIONAL MILES 4 9.52 5.0 T0 6.0 " 0 0 4.0 T0 5.0 " 2 5.13 3.5 T0 4.0 " 7 25.00 3.0 T0 3.5 " 368 32.19 2.5 T0 3.0 " 70 18.86 2.0 T0 2.5 " 657 8.96 1.5 T0 2.0 " 1529 18.21 1.0 T0 1.5 " 1675 16.68 0.5 T0 1.0 " 781 28.82 0 T0 0.5 " 1138 46.09 0 T0 0.5 LESS NHLES 627 64.37 0.5 T0 1.0 " " 234 75.48 1.0 T0 2.0 " " 36 55.38 A comparison between the weighted average percentages of River Road use in relation to units of both Time and Distance, saved or lost, is graphically shown in Figure 8. These curves indicate that when the Time via the River Road is the same as over city streets, an average of 23 per cent of the motorists use the River Road although their trips require an average of 1.05 miles additional travel. When the distance via the River Road is the same as over city streets, an average of 57.5 per cent of the motorists use the River Road and realize an average saving in Time of 4.8 minutes. When 50 per cent of the motorists travel via the River Road, their trips resulted in an average saving in Time of 3.5 minutes although necessitating an average additional distance of 0.2 mile. Table IV of the Appendix provides both the difference in Time measured in minutes and the difference in Distance measured in miles for each correspond- ing change of I per cent in River Road usage as indicated in Figure 8. When these units of Time, saved or lost, are platted against the difference in 37 distance in miles for each percentage of use, the resulting relationship is shown in Figure Qiin which the percentages of River Road use are indicated along the curve. As may be seen, 10 per cent of the trips were made via the River Road when the average time required 1.40 additional minutes and an average of 3.85 additional miles. At the other extreme, 90 per cent of the motorists used the River Road when their trips resulted in an average saving of 11,15 minutes and 1.82 miles. RIVER ROAD USE IN RELATION TO PEAK TIME (II to 6 P. M.) While the number of trips made via the Olentangy River Road during the peak traffic period from ll P.M. to 6 P.M. was available from the data collected at the eight 0. and D. stations, similar information relative to the total number of interzone movements made during that period was not provided in the 1949 Columbus Traffic Survey. Therefore, it was assumed that the number of interzone trips occurring between 4 P.M. and 6 P.M. from the Columbus Survey was proportionate to the number of peak period trips via the River Road in relation to the total number of trips via the River Road. Accordingly, the same percentage of River Road use for each zone to zone movement was employed in the Peak Time study as was used in the Off-Peak Time study. The relationship between these percentages of River Road use and the ratios of Peak Travel Time between 4 P.M. and 6 P.M. is shown in Figure 10. The weighted average percentages of use and Peak Time ratios within each 0.1 increment of Time ratio are showdrin the following table: PEAK TIME NO. OF WEIGHTEO AVERAGE RATIO INCREMENT TRIPS PER CENT OF USE 0.6 - 0.7 40 90.90 0.7 - 0.8 589 71.30 0.8 — 0.9 1793 48.51 0.9 — 1.0 2054 34.56 1.0 — 1.1 1404 20.81 1.1 - 1.2 441 14.78 1.2 — 1.3 324 8.06 1.3 - 1.4 270 7.35 1.4 - 1.5 69 4.86 1.5 - 1.6 9 2.80 1.6 - 1.7 84 3.75 1.7 - 1.8 4 1.44 1.8 - 1.9 62 3.36 1.9 - 2.0 10 2.51 38 ADDITIONAL TIME SAVING IN TIME MINUTES STATE OF OHIO DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS BUREAU OF PLANNING AND PROGRAMMING HIGHWAY PLANNING SURVEY A 2 I /74’ z % "" x 25: 30: I 1”” 21 M ' 3 0: 4 an 5 . fisoz s Ike: 7 fan BF /7? 9% 507 II {sax I2 13 9 8 7 6 4 5 _ 2 I O I 2 :5 4 5 15 7 3 13 MILES SAVING IN DISTANCE ADDITIONAL DISTAN CE COMBINED TIME AND DISTANCE CURVES SHOWING INCREMENTS OF TIME AND DISTANCE SAVED OR LOST IN RELATION TO PER CENT OF TRAFFIC USAGE OF OLENTANGY RIVER ROAD COLUMBU$,OHIO 19 50 FIGURE 9 PER CENT OF OLENTANGY RIVER ROAD USE STATE OF OHIO DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS BUREAU OF PLANNING AND PROGRAMMING HIGHWAY PLANNING SURVEY II : OLENTANGY RIVER ROAD (4 to 6 RM‘) CITY STREETS PER CENT OF TRAFFIC USAGE OF OLENTANGY RIVER ROAD COLUMBUS, OHIO IN RELATION TO THE PEAK TIME RATIO 1950 _\_\ \ \. \ \ \ \ I \ \ I \\ I I-9 I \\ I \\ I '\\ g I i ' -_.‘ FIGURE 10 Due to the congestion and delay encountered during the peak traffic period on access streets leading to and from the River Road, the difference between the Peak and Off-Peak time from center to center of zone via the River Road was usually greater than the difference via alternate city streets. As a result, the Peak Time ratio for each zone to zone movement is greater in most cases than the Off-Peak Time ratio. When these higher Peak Time ratios between centers of zones are related to the same percentages of use as employed in the Off-Peak study for those movements, it results in shifting the Peak Time curve slightly to the right of the Off-Peak curve. A comparison between the percentages of River Road use in relation to Peak and Off-Peak Time ratios is provided in Figure 11. When the time between centers of zones via the River Road was the same as over city streets, an average of 26 per cent of the motorists used the River Road during the Peak period as compared with an average of 23 per cent during the Off-Peak period, or an increase of 3 per cent. Between the travel-time ratios of 0.85 and 0.90 the twocurves practically coincide, indicating that when the trips via the River Road provide from 10 to 15 per cent savihg in time, the same percentage of motorists will use it during both Peak and Off-Peak traffic periods. The maximum average difference between the percentage of River Road use during the Peak period and the Off-Peak period amounted to 9 per cent when the River Road trips afforded from 30 to 40 per cent saving in travel time. RIVER ROAD USE IN RELATION TO PEAK TIME AND DISTANCE A study of the comparative usage of the River Road in relation to the per cent difference in Peak Time and Distance is shown in Figure 12 in which both the Peak Time curve and the Distance curve are platted on the same base. During the peak traffic period from 4 P.M. to 6 P.M., an average of 26 per cent or less of the motorists use the Olentangy River Road although their trips require both additional time and distance. When the time via the River Road is the same as over alternate city streets, an average of 26 per cent of the motorists use the River Road although the average distance is 27 per cent greater. Fifty per cent of the motorists traverse the River Road during the Peak traffic period when it provides an average saving in time of 14.5 per cent although requiring an average of 5.5 per cent increase in distance. Between 26 per cent and 57.5 per cent of the motorists travel via the River Road during the Peak period when it provides a saving in time although requiring additional traveling distance. When the distance via the River Road 41 PER CENT OF OLENTANGY RIVER ‘ROAD USE STATE OF OHIO DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS BUREAU OF PLANNING AND PROGRAMMING HIGHWAY PLANNING SURVEY I.I OFF-PEAK AND PEAK TIME RATIOI I OLENTANGY RlVE_R ROAD CITY STREETS PER CENT or TRAFFIC USAGE OF OLENTANGY RIVER ROAD COLUMBUS, OHIO IN RELATION TO THE OFF-PEAK AND PEAK TIME RATIO 1950 FIGURE 11 PER CENT OF OLENTANGY RIVER ROAD USE BUREAU OF PLANNING AND PROGRAMMING HIGHWAY PLANNING SURVEY STATE OF OHIO DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS -40 + -r -r r PER CENT SAVING IN PEAK TIME OR DISTANCE PER CENT INCREASE IN PEAK TIME OR DISTANCE PER CENT OF TRAFFIC USAGE or THE OLENTANGY RIVER ROAD COLUMBU$,0I-I10 ' IN RELATION TO THE PER CENT DIFFERENCE IN PEAK TIME OR DISTANCE 1950 FIGURE 12 is the same as over an alternate route, an average of 57.5 per cent of the motorists use the River Road with an average saving in time of 18 per cent. RIVER ROAD USE IN RELATION TO LENGTH OF TRIP The various zone to zone movements were grouped into travel distance increments of 2 to 4 miles, 4 to 6 miles, etc. on the basis of the total length of trip via the River Road and the percentage of the total trips of these combined movements that used the River Road was computed. The following table indicates the weighted average percentage of use and Off-Peak Time ratio for each ihcrement of total trip length via the River Road. LENGTH OF TRIP WEIGHTED AVERAGE WEIGHTED AVERAGE VIA RIVER ROAD PER CENT OF USE OFF-PEAK TIME RATIO 2 T0 4 MILES 10.65 1.050 4 T0 6 MILES 15.25 0.942 6 To 8 MILES 24.05 0.924 8 To 10 MILES 28.77 0.922 10 To 12 MILES 44.99 0.867 12 TO 14 MILES 41.15 0.840 14 T0 16 MILES 39.63 0.859 16 MILES AND OVER 16.12 1.004 Figure 13 provides a graphic presentation of the percentages of use and travel time ratios for these various lengths of trips. From this diagram it may be seen that as the length of trip via the River Road increases up to a distance of 12 miles, the average percentage of use gradually increases to 45 per cent with a corresponding decrease in the travel time ratio. When the trips via the River Road are 2 to 4 miles in length, the average time is the same as over alternate city streets and therefore only 10.65 per cent of the motorists use the facility. However, when the total length of the trip via the River Road ranges from 10 to 12 miles, the time ratio is 0.867 (13.3 per cent less time) and 45 per cent of the motorists travel via the River Road. In as much as the Olentangy River Road is not marked as a State Route and long trips invariably involve a greater percentage of strangers or casual users, the decline in the percentage of use as the trip length increases beyond 12 miles is readily understandable. 44 STATE OF OHIO DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS O_._.:._. xdmm InIO IO 9 Q 8 7. 6 0.4 03 L0 0.924 Se an 0 0 0 0000000 0 L 0 0 0 0 0 -I 00000 00 000 0 0 I 0 0 0 0000000“0“0u0 6 M 0 0 0 000 00“0000000 00000000000 0 0 0 0 0 0000000. 0000000000000000000000 0000000000. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 00 0000000 0000 000 0 0$00000000000000000000. 0000,0000’. 000000. ' ‘ ' Q . ‘ . . . . - “nu”.......“.”.””."“”"”""””~£ 000000000000000000. 0000000000000 0 000 00000000000. 0000000000000000000000000000000& 00000000000 0 00000 0 0 0 0 0 00. 000000000000 000000000000 0 000. 0000000000000000. 6 5 000000000000000 0000000000000000. E 0000000000000000 00 000000000 :0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 L 0 0 0 0 0000000000 T I 00000 0N0N0H0M0M 4. M 0000000000 0000 .”0“.“0”0” 0000000000 0H0M0N0N0M0 000000 . 0M 0 0”0”. 0 00. 4 S O E -I 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 M 00000 000006 ...... OOOOOOOOA . C O . ......“..‘.fi 0H0H0H0H0»0»0»0»0»0n0~0~0~0 mm: 040$ mu>E A4V 3 >wZ<._.zmI_O mO ._.Zmo mum 20 TOTAL LENGTH OF TRIP VIA OLENTANGY RIVER ROAD (MILES) PER CENT OF TRAFFIC USAGE AND OFF- PEAK TIME RATIO IN RELATION TO THE TOTAL LENGTH OF TRIP LEGEND BUREAU OF PLANNING AND PROGRAMMING HIGHWAY PLANNING SURVEY LOO4 . . . . . . . . v”."0.....~» 00“. 00000 0 0 0 0 000 0. 0 00000 0 0 0 0922 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 00000 0000000 "0“0”000»0” 0 000 0 0 0 0 M M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 “.n.".“.“0“ uh " "0 Q? .0n.u00.“.” 0 . R 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000000000000000000 0000000 0 0 E S E 0000000000000000000000 0 00000 0- E ‘...‘..........‘.. .' . O L 0“0000000”0n0 0 0 m 0 0 0N0M00 00000000000 00000000000000000 0 0 . MM N000M0H00 00“000 000000 0 0000 0 0000000 000 00N00 ”0“0“0“0u0“0”0”0“. 0 0! 00000000 0000000000050000000404045 .c040..0I.0004010|010..0.. ..0I0I0Iv|0.0I0I0I0..0.0.0I0.0.0IQI0..0I0.0-0.0.0.0I 0I0I0.0.0.0.0.0I0I0I0I -0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.. 00M00 00 00000000 0 0 0 0 0 000000000000000 00000000000000H000000M0 0 000000000n00000000000000000000000000000000. 0 0000000 0000000 00000000000 000 00000000000 . 000000 0 00000000000000 000000000000000000000 00 0000 000000 0000000000000000000000. 00000000000 00000000000000 0000000000000000000000000 000 0 0 0 0000000000000000000000000% "I0 .000000000n0“0n0”0n0u N0N0 0M0N0H0H0 0H 00 0 000000N0n0n0»0”0 0 N000n0n0n0n0»0000000000000. ...".“.x...§. . 0 ...”.".".x.“ .“.“.“.§.”.......".“. 6 9 3 0 0 0 000” 000000 00000 00 0 0000000000 0000000000000000000000000% I S 5 . 0 00 00 0 0 0 VVV 0" 0 0 0 0 ”0n0u0n0n.V “0“0“0”0”0"00 n0“0n0n0".n0“ O E 6 00 000000000000 00000000000000 TL 00000000000000 0000000000000. 8 9 0 0 0000000000000000000000000 0 0 000 000000000000000000000. I . 0 0000000 000000000000000000000000 0 00 0000M00Q000000000000000001 4 M O 2 V _ 00 000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000000 000000000000 0 000000 00000 000000000 00000000000000000000000000. I . 0 00M0M00Q00000000000000000000000000000000 0 00000000000000000000 00000000000000000 0 00000000000000000000 0000. . 00000000000000000000000000000000000000 0 000000 0 00 000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0 0 00000000000000000 0000‘ 00000000000000000000000 00 000000000000000000000 00000000000 . 0000000000 0000 000000000000000000000000000000 0 0000000000000000000000000000 0000000000 000000000000000000000. _ . 00000000000000 0 0040?»0w0»0»0w0»0w0»0m0w0w0. "0" n I0 0n0n0n0n0n0n0u0n0n0»0n0n0n0n0»0u0n0I 0u0n0m0n0n0n0n0n >0n0H s§”..fl.. .....§.“.. . 9;. V.’..'.".... ....‘ ~........‘. 00000000000000 0 00000 0000000000 000000000 0 0 000 00000000000 . 0“0n0"0n000“0n0u0w00 n000000000u0n u0"0”00 000000000000 T . I ..“~"0“0 "03-"0" ..0.»0u0“0"00 0 .3." 0 0 0 ”0“0"0u0v 4 00000 00 0000000000 00 00000000000000 0000000000 IS 0 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 0 0 00000000000 000 0 00000000000000000000000000000 0 0 0 0 0 50000000000 00000 0 00000000000000000000000000 00000 E 0000000 0 0 000000000v00000000000000 00000 O I 0000000 0000000000000000 00000 000 00000000000 0000 0000000000000000 00 0000000000 T L 000000000000000000000 0 000000 I I 0000000M00000000000Q0Q0000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -0000000000 0000000000000 00 0000 0 00000000000 9-M 00000 000000000000000000 0 00000 00 0 0 0 1 000000 000000000000000000 000000 0 00 0 0 000 00000 I 00 000000000000000000000000000 00 000000000000 00 0000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000 00000000000 000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000 000 0 00000000 00000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000 00 000 00000 0000000 0000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000u00000 0 00000 000000 000000000 000000 0000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000 000 00 0000 0 00000 0 0 0 0 0 0. 00000 0 0000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00 00000000 0 0 000 0 000000000000000000. 0.0 .0 0. . .0. .0.0.0.0-0.0..0.0.0-0.0I0..0I0.0I0»0>0>0|0>0..0>00000>0I0>0>0>0>0I00000000000>0>0>0>0000000>000000000 0 0 0 00000000.0000004000. r.x Na.§.N.".N.“...N.u.xex ......“.“.“.“.“.“.N.. . “."...§.§. a.“.§ §.a.§.".§ as. R . RR ... . ‘......’ .'... O ......“. .~‘.‘.... ..'..‘... ........... ...’... ... .%'V....'. ....‘ '0'... O’ ... 'VQOO ..'...... " ..'.‘.......“ 0 000 00000000000 000 00000 0000000000 0 0000000000000 00 0000000 000000 00000 0 000000 00000000000000000000000000000000 000000 0 0 000000 00000000 0000000000 000 00000000000000000 000000 000000000000000 0000 00 0 000 0000 00000000000. .... .§...O....‘ . .............. ............ .... ...’... ........ .... .............§.....’. . ' '- 7 QOQQ’Q .......... ....,..."..‘.....'............v . . ‘.. ....'......‘... Q . .’....‘.’ Q . - 000000 0000000000000 00 0000 000000000000 0 2 7 '..'........ ....‘......... .'.. ......‘.... . ‘ IIS 0 000000 0000 0000000 00 000000000 0 6 03%$§ /X \I/L/P= 4O.4(2.I2>-On)‘-°° 6 - 5°./. \ \ I W so A TIME C__\ \_‘_5—'-DISTANCE \ sAvINp IN TME WITH ADDITIONAL DIS ANOE ‘\ 40 2" ‘a as: % \ ,0 \ \\ \\ 2 +19% 20 \\ > ADDITIONAL TIME AND DIsTANcIIT 22 /\ IO 0 To 23% P=_'rIIT’a_-+ '4 \ / \ \§~I'_-Q 0 OI O2 O3 04 O5 O6 O7 O8 09 IO II I2 I3 I4 [5 L7 L8 I9 20 TIME OR DISTANCE RATIO: ———————°LE2,T,'?',“G",,R,1§F,-g‘;sR°A° PER CENT OF TRAFFIC USAGE COLUMBUS, OHIO As DERIVED FROM EMPIRICAL FORMULAE I950 OF OLENTANGY RIVER ROAD BASED ON TIME AND DISTANCE RATIOS FIGURE I8 PER CENT OF OLENTANGY RIVER ROAD USE ‘STATE OF OHIO DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS BUREAU OF PLANNING AND PROGRAMMING HIGHWAY PLANNING SURVEY IOC ‘Q \\ \ \ ‘\ 90 80 70 60 5C 40 I: I I+(Il 7 PmT“’ 30 20 N \ IO \\ \ \\ ' \ \~\.‘__\‘ . ‘ \ _~.__ _-__ ____. O O.l Q2 0.3 04 0.5 0.6 O7 O8 0.9 l.O I.I I.2 L3 L4 I 5 L6 I.7 I.8 .9 2O , OLENTANGY FiIlER ROAD PEAK (4-|;I)|\gEFJMI):IATIO- CITY STREETS PER CENT OF TRAFFIC USAGE OF OLENTANGY RIVER ROAD COLUMBUS, GIIO IN RELATION TO PEAK TIME RATIO AND SHOWING CURVE OF TREND BASED ON EQUATION IO P ‘ I + H6? Pu W FIGURE I9 It is apparent that close conformance to the trend of the observed data is obtained except at the extreme ends of the curve where the volume of trip data was limited and volume of usage of any facility will be delimited. A larger number of trips within the range of Time ratios might have permitted the curve to conform more closely to the trend derived from the mathematical expression. 56 From the results of the foregoing analysis of traffic usage of the Olentangy River Road in relation to alternate city arterials, the following CHAPTER V CONCLUSIONS conclusions are indicated: (I) (2) (3) ('4) (5) (6) (7) (8) Up to 23 per cent of the motorists prefer to use a superior facility even though their trips require both additional time and distance. When a high type boulevard provides any saving in time, 23 per cent or more of the motorists will use it. 57.5 per cent or more of the motorists are attracted to a superior facility when it provides a saving in both time and distance. Adverse time will discourage the use of a superior facility more quickly than adverse distance. During the off-peak traffic period an average of 33 per cent or more of the motorists prefer to use a superior facility providing it saves I minute or more in time. As the length of trip increases the attraction value of a superior facility increases for those motorists who know of its existence. Empirical formulae applicable to the trend of a percentage of use curve for a superior facility, based on Time or Distance,can be developed which will closely conform to the observed data. If a sufficient number and variety of existing facilities were thus studied, mathematical equations could be developed to aid in predicting traffic usage on any.planned facility by careful selection and application of these known equations. 57 APPENDIX 59 LOCATION From Spring St. to Dublin Rd. From Dublin Rd. to Goodale St. From Goodale St. to Third Avenue From Third Ave. to Fifth Ave. From Fifth Ave. to King Ave. From King Ave. to Lane Ave. From Lane Ave. to Dodridge St. From Dodridge St. to N. Broadway From N. Broadway to Henderson Rd. From Henderson Rd. to State Route I6I APPENDIX TABLE I PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE OLENTANGY RIVER ROAD TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION Brick Asphalt on Brick Base Asphaltic Concrete Asphaltic Concrete Asphaltic Concrete Asphaltic Concrete Asphaltic Concrete Asphaltic Concrete Bituminous Macadam Bituminous Macadam YEAR BUILT I930 I936 I940 I940 I940 I943 I942 I940 I9I9 I9I9 WIDTH 60' Not divided 4-I5‘ lanes 8' conc. divider 4-I3‘ lanes 4' conc. divider 4-I3‘ lanes 4' conc. divider 4-I3‘ lanes 4' conc. divider 4-I4‘ to I5‘ lanes 8' conc. divider 4-II.5' lanes 8' to I8‘ median 4-II.5' lanes 8' median 2 lanes 20' to 24' 2 lanes 20' to 24' MAXIMUM GRADE _ I.5% 4.0% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 3.l% 2.3% 2.7% 4.8% 3.6% LENGTH 0.27 0.38 0.72 0.32 O.2I 0.69 I.07 I.56 2.7I mi. mi. mi. mi. mi. 60 APPENDIX TABLE COMPARATIVE I949 VOLUME OF TRAFFIC ON OLENTANGY RIVER ROAD AND TWO ALTERNATE ARTERIALS LOCATION ON THE OLENTANGY RIVER ROAD Between Between Between Between Between Between Between Between Between Dublin Rd. & Goodale St. Goodale St. & Third Ave. Third Ave. & Fifth Ave. Fifth Ave. & King Ave. King Ave. & Lane Ave. Lane Ave. & Dodridge St. Dodridge St. & N. Broadway N. Broadway & Henderson Rd. Henderson Rd. & SR I6I Olentangy River Road 29,700 25,700 22,I00 20,000 I7,800 I9,700 I6,300 9,500 4,400 Comparable Location On N.HighSt. I8,000 I8,000 I8,600 I7,500 l8,800 I3,500 I4,000 I3,300 6,700 I949 AVERAGE 24-HOUR VOLUME OF TRAFFIC Comparable Location On N.Fourth St. or Indianola Avenue 26,000 I5,300 I3,5OO I2,800 I2,6OO 7,600 6,950 6,250 6| APPENDIX TABLE III AVERAGE OFF-PEAK TIME AND DISTANCE RATIOS FOR EACH PER CENT OF OLENTANGY RIVER ROAD USE AVERAGE AVERAGE PER CENT OF 0FF_PEAk AVERAGE PER CENT OF 0FF_PEAK AVERAGE RIVER ROAD TlME DISTANCE RIVER ROAD TIME DISTANCE USE RATIO RATIO USE RATIO RATIO 3 1.440 1.790 47 0.883 1.078 4 1.340 1.728 48 0.857 1.070 5 1.271 1.888 49 0.851 1.082 8 1.225 1.828 50 0.845 1.055 7 1.191 1.593 51 0.839 1.048 8 1.184 1.580 52 0.833 1.041 9 1.142 1.530 53 0.827 1.034 10 1.128 1.504 54 0.821 1.028 11 1.109 1.483 55 0.814 1.018 12 1.094 1.483 56 0.807 1.010 13 1.082 1.444 57 0.800 1.003 14 1.071 1.428 58 0.793 0.997 15 1.081 1.409 59 0.788 0.991 I6 1.052 1.393 80 0.779 0.985 17 1.044 1.379 81 0.772 0.979 18 1.038 1.385 62 0.765 0.973 19 1.028 1.351 63 0.758 0.987 20 1.021 1.338 64 0.751 0.981 21 1.014 1.325 85 0.743 0.955 22 1.007 1.313 66 0.735 0.949 23 1.000 1.302 67 0.727 0.943 24 0.993 1.291 88 0.719 0.937 25 0.988 l.28O 89 0.710 0.932 28 0.980 1.289 70 0.701 0.927 27 0.974 1.258 71 0.892 0.922 28 0.988 1.248 72 0.883 0.918 29 0.982 1.238 73 0.874 0.913 30 0.958 1.228 74 0.885 0.909 31 0.950 l.2I8 75 0.855 0.905 32 0.944 1.208 76 0.845 0.901 33 0.938 1.198 77 0.833 0.897 34 0.932 1.188 78 0 821 0.894 35 0.928 1.178 79 0.809 0.891 36 0.920 1.188 80 0.598 0.888 37 0.915 1.159 81 0.583 0 885 38 0.910 1.150 82 0.589 0.882 39 0.905 1.142 83 0.554 0.879 40 0.900 1.134 84 0.538 0.875 41 0.895 1.128 85 0.520 0.872 42 0.890 1.118 88 0.501 0.889 43 0 885 1.109 87 0.481 0.867 44 0.880 1.101 88 0.480 0.885 45 0.875 1.093 89 0.439 0 882 46 0 889 1.088 90 0.415 0 859 62 APPENDIX TABLE IV AVERAGE DIFFERENCE IN OFF-PEAK TIME AND DISTANCE FOR EACH PER CENT OF OLENTANGY RIVER ROAD USE AVERAGE AVERAGE PER CENT OF DIFFERENCE AVERAGE PER CENT OF DIFFERENCE AVERAGE RIVER ROAD IN OFF-PEAK DIFFERENCE RIVER ROAD IN OFF-PEAK DIFFERENCE USE TIME IN DISTANCE USE TIME IN DISTANCE (MINUTES) (MILES) (MINUTES) (MILEs) 8 + 2.00 + 5.20 50 — 3.57 + 0.18 9 + 1.70 + 4.45 51 - 3,74 + 0,16 10 + 1.40 + 3.85 52 - 3,91 + 0,14 11 + 1.15 -I 3.40 53 - 4.08 + 0.12 12 + 0.95 + 3.00 54 - 4.25 + 0.10 13 + 0.80 + 2.62 55 - 4_4g + Q_Q7 14 + 0.66 -+ 2.31 56 ._ 4,59 + 0,04 15 + 0.54 + 2.05 57 — 4.77 + 0.01 16 + 0.44 + 1.82 58 - 4,95 - 0,02 17 + 0.35 + 1.63 59 -5,13 - 0,05 18 + 0.27 + 1.50 60 — 5,31 — 0,08 19 + 0.20 + 1.39 81 ~ 5,49 - 0,11 20 + 0.13 + 1.29 62 — 5.67 — 0.14 21 + 0.07 + 1.20 63 — 5.85 — 0.17 22 + 0.03 + 1.22 64 — 6.03 - 0.20 23 Q_00 + 1.05 65 — 6.21 — 0.23 24 — 0.10 + 1.00 66 — 6.39 - 0.27 25 — 0.17 + 0.95 67 * 6.57 — 0.31 26 — 0.25 + 0.90 68 — 6.75 — 0.36 27- — 0.33 + 0.86 69 — 6.93 — 0.41 28 — 0.41 + 0.82 70 — 7.11 — 0.46 29 . — 0.50 + 0.78 71 - 7.29 — 0.51 30 — 0.60 + 0.74 72 — 7.48 — 0.56 31 - 0.70 + 0.70 73 — 7.66 — 0.61 32 - 0.82 + 0.67 74 — 7.84 — 0.67 33 — 0.95 + 0.64 75 — 8.02 - 0.73 34 — 1.09 + 0.61 76 - 8.20 — 0.79 35 — 1.23 + 0.58 77 — 8.38 — 0.86 36 — 1.37 + 0.53 78 — 8.57 — 0.93 37 — 1.51 + 0.50 79 — 8.76 — 1.00 38 — 1.65 + 0.47 80 — 8.95 — 1.07 39 — 1.79 + 0.43 81 — 9.16 — 1.14 40 - 1.94 + 0.41 82 - 9.36 - 1.21 41 — 2.09 + 0.38 83 — 9.56 — 1.28 42 — 2.24 + 0.35 34 — 9.77 — 1.35 43 " 2-40 T 0.32 85 - 10.00 - 1.42 44 7 2'56 + 0'30 86 - 10.24 -1.50 2: : 22: 1: 2:22 87 - — 47 -3.08 + 0.24 88 7 '°'73 "I166 48 - 3.23 + 0.22 89 " 10-99 "I-74 49 _ 3,40 + 0.20 90 - 11.15 - 1.82 63 APPENDIX TABLE V COMPARISON OF WEIGHTED AVERAGE PERCENTAGES OF OLENTANGY RIVER ROAD USE AND VALUES DERIVED FROM EMPIRICAL FORMULAE* BASED ON OFF-PEAK TIME RATIO OFF PEAK VIEIGHTED AVERAGE COMPUTED DIFFERENCE TIME PER CENT PER CENT IN PER CENT RATIO OF USE OF USE OF USE 0.40 90.8 93.2 + 2.4 0.45 88.5 90.7 + 2.2 0.50 86.2 87.7 + 1.5 0.55 83.3 84.2 + 0.9 0.60 79.7 80.0 + 0.3 0.65 75.3 75.4 + 0.1 0.70 70.0 70.0 — 0.0 0.75 64.0 63.9 — 0.1 0.80 57.0 57.3 + 0.3 0.85 48.8 50.0 + 1.2 0.90 40.0 41.8 + 1.8 0.95 30.8 33.0 + 2.2 1.00 23.0 23.0 0.0 1.05 16.5 16.4 — 0.1 1.10 11.7 11.9 + 0.2 1.15 8.7 8.9 + 0.2 1.20 6.7 6.8 + 0.1 1.25 5.5 5.3 — 0.2 1.30 4.6 4.2 - 0.4 1.35 4.0 3.4 - 0.6 1.40 3.4 2.9 — 0.5 1.45 3.1 2.5 — 0.6 1.50 2.7 2.1 — 0.6 1.55 2.4 1.9 — 0u5 1.60 2.1 1.7 — 0.4 1.65 1.9 1.6 — 0.3 1.70 1.7 1.5 — 0.2 1.75 1.5 1.4 — 0.1 1.80 1.3 1.3 0.0 1.85 1.1 1.2 + 0.1 1.90 0.9 1.2 + 0.3 1.95 0.8 1.2 + 0.4 2.00 0.7 1.1 + 0.4 * EMPIRICAL FORMULA FOR TIME RATIOS GREATER THAN I.0 +1 EMPIRICAL FORMULA FOR TIME RATIOS LESS THAN I.0 P= 100.. (5.18 TR)2'64 an APPENDIX TABLE VI COMPARISON OF WEIGHTED AVERAGE PERCENTAGES OF OLENTANGY RIVER ROAD USE AND VALUES DERIVED FROM EMPIRICAL FORMULA BASED ON DISTANCE RATIO P = 40.4 (2.13--0R)3~°6 WE IGHTED PEAK TIME AVERAGE COMPUTED DIFFERENCE RATlo PER CENT PER CENT IN PER CENT OF USE OF USE OF usz 0.60 ... 96.64 0.65 93.9 66.05 _ 7.6 0.90 76:4 76.11 - 0.3 0.95 65.5 67.06 + 1.6 1.00 57.5 56.74 + 1.2 1.05 50.3 51.15 + 0.9 1.10 44.5 44.24 — 0.3 1.15 36.3 37.96 — 0.3 1.20 32.7 32.36 — 0.3 1.25 27.6 27.35 — 0.4 1.30 23.3 22.63 - 0.5 1.35 19.3 16.67 — 0.4 1.40 15.6 15.43 — 0.4 1.45 12.9 12.40 — 0.5 1.50 10.7 9.62 - 0.9 1.55 6.5 7.64 — 0.9 1.60 6.9 5.62 - 1.1 1.65 5.6 4.24 - 1.4 1.70 4.5 3.07 — 1.4 1.75 3.6 2.10 — 1.5 1.60 2.6 1.37 - 1.4 1.65 2.2 0.61 — 1.4 1.90 1.6 0.44 - 1.4 1.95 1.4 0.20 — 1.2 2.00 1.1 0.06 — 1.0 65 IVEHSITY OF 3 9015 06829 1593 DATE DUE \|\\|\I|’|fi|anIll||\|u|\|u||mun|||mu ‘ .4.”\\'[1|.l.|\1|"‘ |(..\ Vt.‘ m 7 Yr A _.a 4 , ‘ I _. ./ q L Y . :. .‘ N .1. V . l . . \ 1 31 . ~ I. . V .‘ ‘r\5-< Q . x x ‘Av .u \ K I 4 ‘ > v ‘ ‘ 1 V ,. x -. , r ., . ~ . .. -\ J Y . *- 1 1 I ‘ - 1 Y F I ~ . . 1 _ ‘F ‘ ‘ _ Q P 4 . . . 1. h . V ‘ , . f <. . . 2 .. , . F r I. . v V . 4 M , £4. 4" w . is ~_ . ? ‘ ~ IQ K ‘ é r 4 \ y . -4 Y “ IZW \, . 3 in . .7 . .. .. . 7;‘ Q