# Highway Capacity Manual 2010

Save this PDF as:

Size: px
Start display at page:

## Transcription

1 Exhibit Defining Analysis Segments for a Weaving Configuration L S = Short Length, ft 500 ft 500 ft L B = Base Length, ft L WI = Weaving Influence Area, ft (a) Case I: L B L wmax (weaving segment exists) (b) Case II: L B > L wmax (analyze as basic segment) Three lengths are involved in analyzing a weaving segment: The base length of the segment, measured from the points where the edges of the travel lanes of the merging and diverging roadways converge (L B ); The influence area of the weaving segment (L WI ), which includes 500 ft upstream and downstream of L B ; and The short length of the segment, defined as the distance over which lane changing is not prohibited or dissuaded by markings (L S ). The latter is the length that is used in all the predictive models for weaving segment analysis. The results of these models, however, apply to a distance of L B ft upstream and L B ft downstream. For further discussion of the various lengths applied to weaving segments, consult Chapter 12. If the distance between the merge and diverge points is greater than L wmax, then the merge and diverge segments are too far apart to form a weaving segment. As shown in Exhibit 10-13(b), the segment is treated as a basic freeway segment. In the Chapter 12 weaving methodology, the value of L wmax depends on a number of factors, including the split of component flows, demand flows, and other traffic factors. A weaving configuration could therefore qualify as a weaving segment in some analysis periods and as separate merge, diverge, and possibly basic segments in others. In segmenting the freeway facility for analysis, merge, diverge, and weaving segments are identified as illustrated in Exhibit and Exhibit All segments not qualifying as merge, diverge, or weaving segments are basic freeway segments. Chapter 10/Freeway Facilities Page Methodology

2 However, a long basic freeway section may have to be divided into multiple segments. This situation occurs when there is a sharp break in terrain within the section. For example, a 5-mi section may have a constant demand and a constant number of lanes. If there is a 2-mi level terrain portion followed by a 4% grade that is 3 mi long, then the level terrain portion and the specific grade portion would be established as two separate, consecutive basic freeway segments. Step 2: Adjust Demand According to Spatial and Time Units Established Traffic counts taken at each entrance to and exit from the defined freeway facility (including the mainline entrance and mainline exit) for each time interval serve as inputs to the methodology. While entrance counts are considered to represent the current entrance demands for the freeway facility (provided that there is not a queue on the freeway entrance), the exit counts may not represent the current exit demands for the freeway facility because of congestion within the defined facility. For planning applications, estimated traffic demands at each entrance to and exit from the freeway facility for each time interval serve as input to the methodology. The sum of the input demands must equal the sum of the output demands in every time interval. Once the entrance and exit demands are calculated, the demands for each cell in every time interval can be estimated. The segment demands can be thought of as filtering across the time space domain and filling each cell of the time space matrix. Demand estimation is needed if the methodology uses actual freeway counts. If demand flows are known or can be projected, they are used directly without modification. The methodology includes a demand estimation model that converts the input set of freeway exit 15-min counts to a set of vehicle flows that desire to exit the freeway in a given 15-min period. This demand may not be the same as the 15-min exit count because of upstream congestion within the defined freeway facility. The procedure sums the freeway entrance demands along the entire directional freeway facility, including the entering mainline segment, and compares this sum with the sum of freeway exit counts along the directional freeway facility, including the departing mainline segment. This procedure is repeated for each time interval. The ratio of the total facility entrance counts to total facility exit counts is called the time interval scale factor and should approach 1.00 when the freeway exit counts are, in fact, freeway exit demands. Scale factors greater than 1.00 indicate increasing levels of congestion within the freeway facility, with exit counts underestimating the actual freeway exit demands. To provide an estimate of freeway exit demand, each freeway exit count is multiplied by the time interval scale factor. Equation 10-6 and Equation 10-7 summarize this process. Methodology Page Chapter 10/Freeway Facilities

5 4. APPLICATIONS The methodology of this chapter is most often used to estimate the capacity and LOS of freeway weaving segments. The steps are most easily applied in the operational analysis mode, that is, all traffic and roadway conditions are specified, and a solution for the capacity (and v/c ratio) is found along with an expected LOS. Other types of analysis, however, are possible. DEFAULT VALUES An NCHRP report (10) provides a comprehensive presentation of potential default values for uninterrupted-flow facilities. Default values for freeways are summarized in Chapter 11, Basic Freeway Segments. These defaults cover the key characteristics of PHF and percentage of heavy vehicles. Recommendations are based on geographical region, population, and time of day. All general freeway default values may be applied to the analysis of weaving segments in the absence of field data or projected conditions. There are many specific variables related to weaving segments. It is, therefore, virtually impossible to specify default values of such characteristics as length, width, configuration, and balance of weaving and nonweaving flows. Weaving segments are a detail of the freeway design and should therefore be treated only with the specific characteristics of the segment known or projected. Small changes in some of these variables can and do yield significant changes in the analysis results. TYPES OF ANALYSIS The methodology of this chapter can be used in three types of analysis: operational, design, and planning and preliminary engineering. Operational Analysis The methodology of this chapter is most easily applied in the operational analysis mode. In this application, all weaving demands and geometric characteristics are known, and the output of the analysis is the expected LOS and the capacity of the segment. Secondary outputs include the average speed of component flows, the overall density in the segment, and measures of lanechanging activity. Design Analysis In design applications, the desired output is the length, width, and configuration of a weaving segment that will sustain a target LOS for given demand flows. This application is best accomplished by iterative operational analyses on a small number of candidate designs. Generally, there is not a great deal of flexibility in establishing the length and width of a segment, and only limited flexibility in potential configurations. The location of intersecting facilities places logical limitations on the length of the weaving segment. The number of entry and exit lanes on ramps and the freeway itself limits the number of lanes to, at most, two choices. The entry and exit Design analysis is best accomplished by iterative operational analyses on a small number of candidate designs. Chapter 12/Freeway Weaving Segments Page Applications July 2012

6 design of ramps and the freeway facility also produces a configuration that can generally only be altered by adding or subtracting a lane from an entry or exit roadway. Thus, iterative analyses of candidate designs are relatively easy to pursue, particularly with the use of HCM-replicating software. Planning and Preliminary Engineering Planning and preliminary engineering applications generally have the same desired outputs as design applications: the geometric design of a weaving segment that can sustain a target LOS for specified demand flows. In the planning and preliminary design phase, however, demand flows are generally stated as average annual daily traffic (AADT) statistics that must be converted to directional design hour volumes. A number of variables may be unknown (e.g., PHF and percentage of heavy vehicles); these may be replaced by default values. Equation Service Flow Rates, Service Volumes, and Daily Service Volumes This manual defines three sets of values that are related to LOS boundary conditions: SF i = service flow rate for LOS i (veh/h), SV i = service volume for LOS i (veh/h), and DSV i = daily service volume for LOS i (veh/day). The service flow rate is the maximum rate of flow (for a 15-min interval) that can be accommodated on a segment while maintaining all operational criteria for LOS i under prevailing roadway and traffic conditions. The service volume is the maximum hourly volume that can be accommodated on a segment while maintaining all operational criteria for LOS i during the worst 15 min of the hour under prevailing roadway and traffic conditions. The daily service volume is the maximum AADT that can be accommodated on a segment while maintaining all operational criteria for LOS i during the worst 15 min of the peak hour under prevailing roadway and traffic conditions. The service flow rate and service volume are unidirectional values, while the daily service volume is a total twoway volume. In the context of a weaving section, the daily service volume is highly approximate, as it is rare that both directions of a freeway have a weaving segment with similar geometry. In general, service flow rates are initially computed for ideal conditions and are then converted to prevailing conditions by using Equation and the appropriate adjustment factors from Chapter 11, Basic Freeway Segments: SF SFI f i i HV f p where SFI i = service flow rate under ideal conditions (pc/h), f HV = adjustment factor for heavy-vehicle presence (Chapter 11), and f p = adjustment factor for driver population (Chapter 11). Applications Page Chapter 12/Freeway Weaving Segments July 2012

7 CHAPTER 13 FREEWAY MERGE AND DIVERGE SEGMENTS CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION Ramp Components Classification of Ramps Ramp and Ramp Junction Analysis Boundaries Ramp Freeway Junction Operational Conditions Base Conditions LOS Criteria for Merge and Diverge Segments Required Input Data METHODOLOGY Scope of the Methodology Limitations of the Methodology Overview Computational Steps Special Cases Overlapping Ramp Influence Areas APPLICATIONS Default Values Establish Analysis Boundaries Types of Analysis Use of Alternative Tools EXAMPLE PROBLEMS Example Problem 1: Isolated One-Lane, Right-Hand On-Ramp to a Four-Lane Freeway Example Problem 2: Two Adjacent Single-Lane, Right-Hand Off-Ramps on a Six-Lane Freeway Example Problem 3: One-Lane On-Ramp Followed by a One-Lane Off-Ramp on an Eight-Lane Freeway Example Problem 4: Single-Lane, Left-Hand On-Ramp on a Six-Lane Freeway Example Problem 5: Service Flow Rates and Service Volumes for an Isolated On-Ramp on a Six-Lane Freeway REFERENCES Chapter 13/Freeway Merge and Diverge Segments Page 13-i Contents

8 LIST OF EXHIBITS Exhibit 13-1 Ramp Influence Areas Illustrated Exhibit 13-2 LOS Criteria for Freeway Merge and Diverge Segments Exhibit 13-3 Measuring the Length of Acceleration and Deceleration Lanes Exhibit 13-4 Flowchart for Analysis of Ramp Freeway Junctions Exhibit 13-5 Key Ramp Junction Variables Exhibit 13-6 Models for Predicting P FM at On-Ramps or Merge Areas Exhibit 13-7 Models for Predicting P FD at Off-Ramps or Diverge Areas Exhibit 13-8 Capacity of Ramp Freeway Junctions (pc/h) Exhibit 13-9 Capacity of High-Speed Ramp Junctions on Multilane Highways and C-D Roadways (pc/h) Exhibit Capacity of Ramp Roadways (pc/h) Exhibit Estimating Speed at On-Ramp (Merge) Junctions Exhibit Estimating Speed at Off-Ramp (Diverge) Junctions Exhibit Estimating Average Speed of All Vehicles at Ramp Freeway Junctions Exhibit Typical Geometry of a Two-Lane Ramp Freeway Junction Exhibit Common Geometries for Two-Lane Off-Ramp Freeway Junctions Exhibit Adjustment Factors for Left-Hand Ramp Freeway Junctions Exhibit Expected Flow in Lane 5 of a 10-Lane Freeway Immediately Upstream of a Ramp Freeway Junction Exhibit Major Merge Areas Illustrated Exhibit Major Diverge Areas Illustrated Exhibit Limitations of the HCM Ramps and Ramp Junctions Procedure Exhibit List of Example Problems Exhibit Capacity Checks for Example Problem Exhibit Capacity Checks for Example Problem Exhibit Illustrative Service Flow Rates and Service Volumes Based on Approaching Freeway Demand Exhibit Illustrative Service Flow Rates and Service Volumes Based on a Fixed Freeway Demand Contents Page 13-ii Chapter 13/Freeway Merge and Diverge Segments

10 Equation 13-8 Exhibit 13-7 Models for Predicting P FD at Off-Ramps or Diverge Areas Equation 13-9 Equation Equation maneuver. Thus, for off-ramps, the flow in Lanes 1 and 2 consists of all off-ramp vehicles and a proportion of freeway through vehicles, as in Equation 13-8: where v 12 v R v F v R P FD v 12 = flow rate in Lanes 1 and 2 of the freeway immediately upstream of the deceleration lane (pc/h), v R = flow rate on the off-ramp (pc/h), and P FD = proportion of through freeway traffic remaining in Lanes 1 and 2 immediately upstream of the deceleration lane. For off-ramps, the point at which flows are defined is the beginning of the deceleration lane(s), regardless of whether this point is within or outside the ramp influence area. Exhibit 13-7 contains the equations used to estimate P FD at off-ramp diverge areas. As was the case for on-ramps (merge areas), the value of P FD for four-lane freeways is trivial, since only Lanes 1 and 2 exist. No. of Freeway Lanes a Model(s) for Determining P FD 4 P FD PFD vF vR 6 PFD vF 0.604vU / LUP when v U/L UP 0.2 b P v v / L FD 8 P Adjacent Upstream Ramp None None None On Off On On Off Off Note: FD F D DOWN SELECTING EQUATIONS FOR P FD FOR SIX-LANE FREEWAYS Adjacent Subject Downstream Ramp Ramp Equation(s) Used Off None Equation 13-9 Off On Equation 13-9 Off Off Equation or 13-9 Off None Equation or 13-9 Off None Equation 13-9 Off On Equation or 13-9 Off Off Equation 13-11, 13-10, or 13-9 Off On Equation 13-9 Off Off Equation or 13-9 a 4 lanes = two lanes in each direction; 6 lanes = three lanes in each direction; 8 lanes = four lanes in each direction. b When v U/L UP > 0.2, use Equation If an adjacent ramp on a six-lane freeway is not a one-lane, right-side off-ramp, use Equation For six-lane freeways, three equations are presented. Equation 13-9 is the base case for isolated ramps or for cases in which the impact of adjacent ramps can be ignored. Equation addresses cases in which there is an adjacent upstream on-ramp, while Equation addresses cases in which there is an adjacent downstream off-ramp. Adjacent upstream off-ramps and downstream on-ramps have not been found to have a statistically significant impact on diverge operations and may be ignored. All variables in Exhibit 13-7 are as previously defined. Methodology Page Chapter 13/Freeway Merge and Diverge Segments

12 Equation Equation Equation Equation Equation The average flow per lane in the outer lanes of the freeway (lanes other than 1 and 2) should not be higher than 2,700 pc/h/ln. 2. The average flow per lane in outer lanes should not be higher than times the average flow in Lanes 1 and 2. These limits guard against cases in which the predicted value of v 12 implies an unreasonably high flow rate in outer lanes of the freeway. When either of these limits is violated, an adjusted value of v 12 must be computed and used in the remainder of the methodology. Application to Six-Lane Freeways On a six-lane freeway (three lanes in one direction), there is only one outer lane to consider. The flow rate in this outer lane (Lane 3) is given by Equation 13-14: where v 3 v 3 v F v 12 = flow rate in Lane 3 of the freeway (pc/h/ln), v F = flow rate on freeway immediately upstream of the ramp influence area (pc/h), and v 12 = flow rate in Lanes 1 and 2 immediately upstream of the ramp influence area (pc/h). Then, if v 3 is greater than 2,700 pc/h, use Equation 13-15: v 12 a v F 2,700 If v 3 is greater than (v 12 /2), use Equation 13-16: v 12a vf 1.75 where v 12a equals the adjusted flow rate in Lanes 1 and 2 immediately upstream of the ramp influence area (pc/h) and all other variables are as previously defined. In cases where both limitations on outer lane flow rate are violated, the result yielding the highest value of v 12a is used. The adjusted value replaces the original value of v 12 and the analysis continues. Application to Eight-Lane Freeways On eight-lane freeways, there are two outer lanes (Lanes 3 and 4). Thus, the limiting values cited previously apply to the average flow rate per lane in these lanes. The average flow in these lanes is computed from Equation 13-17: v av34 v F v 2 where v av34 equals the flow rate in outer lanes (pc/h/ln) and all other variables are as previously defined. Then, if v av34 is greater than 2,700, use Equation 13-18: 12 v 12 a v F 5,400 Methodology Page Chapter 13/Freeway Merge and Diverge Segments

13 If v av34 is greater than (v 12 /2), use Equation 13-19: v 12a where all terms are as previously defined. vf 0 In cases where both limitations on outer lane flow rate are violated, the result yielding the highest value of v 12a is used. The adjusted value replaces the original value of v 12 and the analysis continues. Equation Summary of Step 2 At this point, an appropriate value of v 12 has been computed and adjusted as necessary. Step 3: Estimate the Capacity of the Ramp Freeway Junction and Compare with Demand Flow Rates There are three major checkpoints for the capacity of a ramp freeway junction: 1. The capacity of the freeway immediately downstream of an on-ramp or immediately upstream of an off-ramp, 2. The capacity of the ramp roadway, and 3. The maximum flow rate entering the ramp influence area. In most cases, the freeway capacity is the controlling factor. Studies (1) have shown that the turbulence in the vicinity of a ramp freeway junction does not diminish the capacity of the freeway. The capacity of the ramp roadway is rarely a factor at on-ramps, but it can play a major role at off-ramp (diverge) junctions. Failure of a diverge junction is most often caused by a capacity deficiency on the off-ramp roadway or at its ramp street terminal. While this methodology establishes a maximum desirable rate of flow entering the ramp influence area, exceeding this value does not cause a failure. Instead, it means that operations may be less desirable than indicated by the methodology. At off-ramps, the total flow rate entering the ramp influence area is merely the estimated value of v 12. At on-ramps, however, the on-ramp flow also enters the ramp influence area. Therefore, the total flow entering the ramp influence area at an on-ramp is given by Equation 13-20: v R 12 v 12 v R where v R12 is the total flow rate entering the ramp influence area at an on-ramp (pc/h) and all other variables are as previously defined. Exhibit 13-8 shows capacity values for ramp freeway junctions. Exhibit 13-9 shows similar values for high-speed ramps on multilane highways and C-D roadways within freeway interchanges. Exhibit shows the capacity of ramp roadways. Locations for checking the capacity of a ramp freeway junction. Freeway capacity immediately downstream of an on-ramp or upstream of an off-ramp is usually the controlling capacity factor. Failure of a diverge junction is usually caused by a capacity deficiency at the ramp street terminal or on the offramp roadway. Equation Chapter 13/Freeway Merge and Diverge Segments Page Methodology

14 Exhibit 13-8 Capacity of Ramp Freeway Junctions (pc/h) Exhibit 13-9 Capacity of High-Speed Ramp Junctions on Multilane Highways and C-D Roadways (pc/h) FFS (mi/h) Notes: FFS (mi/h) Notes: Capacity of Upstream/Downstream Freeway Segment a No. of Lanes in One Direction >4 4,800 7,200 9,600 2,400/ln 4,700 7,050 9,400 2,350/ln 4,600 6,900 9,200 2,300/ln 4,500 6,750 9,000 2,250/ln Max. Desirable Flow Rate (v R12) Entering Merge Influence Area b 4,600 4,600 4,600 4,600 Max. Desirable Flow Rate (v 12) Entering Diverge Influence Area b 4,400 4,400 4,400 4,400 a Demand in excess of these capacities results in LOS F. b Demand in excess of these values alone does not result in LOS F; operations may be worse than predicted by this methodology. Capacity of Upstream/Downstream Highway or C-D Segment a No. of Lanes in One Direction 2 3 >3 4,400 4,200 4,000 3,800 6,600 6,300 6,000 5,700 2,200/ln 2,100/ln 2,000/ln 1,900/ln Max. Desirable Flow Rate (v R12) Entering Merge Influence Area b 4,600 4,600 4,600 4,600 Max. Desirable Flow Rate (v 12) Entering Diverge Influence Area b 4,400 4,400 4,400 4,400 a Demand in excess of these capacities results in LOS F. b Demand in excess of these values alone does not result in LOS F; operations may be worse than predicted by this methodology. Exhibit Capacity of Ramp Roadways (pc/h) Note: Ramp FFS S FR (mi/h) >50 >40 50 > <20 Capacity of Ramp Roadway Single-Lane Ramps Two-Lane Ramps 2,200 4,400 2,100 4,200 2,000 4,000 1,900 3,800 1,800 3,600 Capacity of a ramp roadway does not ensure an equal capacity at its freeway or other high-speed junction. Junction capacity must be checked against criteria in Exhibit 13-8 and Exhibit Ramp Freeway Junction Capacity Checkpoint As noted previously, it is generally the capacity of the upstream or downstream freeway segment that limits flow through a merge or diverge area, assuming that the number of freeway lanes entering and leaving the ramp junction is the same. In such cases, the critical checkpoint for freeway capacity is Immediately downstream of an on-ramp influence area (v FO ), or Immediately upstream of an off-ramp influence area (v F ). Failure of any ramp freeway junction capacity check results in LOS F. These are logical checkpoints, since each represents the point at which maximum freeway flow exists. When a ramp junction or major merge/diverge area involves lane additions or lane drops at the junction, freeway capacity must be checked both immediately upstream and downstream of the ramp influence area. Failure of any ramp freeway junction capacity check (i.e., demand exceeds capacity: v/c is greater than 1.00) results in LOS F. Ramp Roadway Capacity Checkpoint The capacity of the ramp roadway should always be checked against the demand flow rate on the ramp. For on-ramp or merge junctions, this is rarely a problem. Theoretically, cases could exist in which demand exceeds capacity. A Methodology Page Chapter 13/Freeway Merge and Diverge Segments

15 Average Speed in Ramp influence area Outer lanes of Equation S FFS( FFS 42) D R D v S O S 1.097FFS R S 0.013S freeway S 1.097FFS v 1,000 v 1,000 pc/h O OA FR v OA OA 1,000 pc/h Exhibit Estimating Speed at Off- Ramp (Diverge) Junctions Value Average flow in outer lanes v OA (pc/h) Average speed for on-ramp (merge) junctions (mi/h) Average speed for off-ramp (diverge) junctions (mi/h) Equation v v F 12 voa NO vr12 voa NO S v VOA N R12 SR SO v12 voa NO S v voa N 12 O SR SO O Exhibit Estimating Average Speed of All Vehicles at Ramp Freeway Junctions While many (but not all) of the variables in Exhibit 13-11, Exhibit 13-12, and Exhibit have been defined previously, all are defined here for convenience: S R = average speed of vehicles within the ramp influence area (mi/h); for merge areas, this includes all ramp and freeway vehicles in Lanes 1 and 2; for diverge areas, this includes all vehicles in Lanes 1 and 2; S O = average speed of vehicles in outer lanes of the freeway, adjacent to the 1,500-ft ramp influence area (mi/h); S = average speed of all vehicles in all lanes within the 1,500-ft length covered by the ramp influence area (mi/h); FFS = free-flow speed of the freeway (mi/h); S FR = free-flow speed of the ramp (mi/h); L A = length of acceleration lane (ft); L D = length of deceleration lane (ft); v R = demand flow rate on ramp (pc/h); v 12 = demand flow rate in Lanes 1 and 2 of the freeway immediately upstream of the ramp influence area (pc/h); vr 12 = total demand flow rate entering the on-ramp influence area, including v 12 and v R (pc/h); v OA = average demand flow per lane in outer lanes adjacent to the ramp influence area (not including flow in Lanes 1 and 2) (pc/h/ln); v F = demand flow rate on freeway immediately upstream of the ramp influence area (pc/h); N O = number of outer lanes on the freeway (1 for a six-lane freeway; 2 for an eight-lane freeway); M S = speed index for on-ramps (merge areas); this is simply an intermediate Chapter 13/Freeway Merge and Diverge Segments Page Methodology

16 Exhibit 13-11, Exhibit 13-12, and Exhibit only apply to stable flow conditions. Consult Chapter 10 for analysis of oversaturated conditions. computation that simplifies the equations; and D S = speed index for off-ramps (diverge areas); this is simply an intermediate computation that simplifies the equations. The equations in Exhibit 13-11, Exhibit 13-12, and Exhibit apply only to cases in which operation is stable (LOS A E). Analysis of operational details for cases in which LOS F is present relies on deterministic queuing approaches, as presented in Chapter 10, Freeway Facilities. Flow rates in outer lanes can be higher than the value cited for basic freeway segments. The basic freeway segment values represent averages across all freeway lanes, not flow rates in a single lane or a subset of lanes. The methodology herein allows flows in outer lanes to be as high as 2,700 pc/h/ln. The equations for average speed in outer lanes were based on a database that included average outer lane flows as high as 2,988 pc/h/ln while still maintaining stable flow. Values over 2,700 pc/h/ln, however, are unusual and cannot be expected in the majority of situations. In addition, the equations of Exhibit do not allow a predicted speed over the FFS for merge areas. For diverge areas at low flow rates, however, the average speed in outer lanes may marginally exceed the FFS. As with average lane flow rates, the FFS is stated as an average across all lanes, and speeds in individual lanes can exceed this value. Despite this, the average speed of all vehicles S should be limited to a maximum value equal to the FFS. SPECIAL CASES As noted previously, the computational procedure for ramp freeway junctions was calibrated for single-lane, right-side ramps. Many other merge and diverge configurations may be encountered, however. In these cases, the general methodology is modified to account for special situations. These modifications are discussed in the sections that follow. Single-Lane Ramp Additions and Lane Drops On-ramps and off-ramps do not always include merge and diverge elements. In some cases, there are lane additions at on-ramps or lane drops at off-ramps. Analysis of single-lane additions and lane drops is relatively straightforward. The freeway segment downstream of the on-ramp or upstream of the off-ramp is simply considered to be a basic freeway segment with an additional lane. The procedures in Chapter 11 should be applied in this case. The case of an on-ramp lane addition followed by an off-ramp lane drop may be a weaving segment, and should be evaluated using the procedures of Chapter 12. This configuration may either be a weaving segment or a basic segment, depending on the distance between the ramps. Note that some segments may be classified as a weaving segment at higher volumes and as a basic segment at lower volumes. Ramps with two or more lanes frequently have lane additions or drops for some or all of the ramp lanes. These cases are covered below. Methodology Page Chapter 13/Freeway Merge and Diverge Segments

17 Two-Lane On-Ramps Exhibit illustrates the geometry of a typical two-lane ramp freeway junction. It is characterized by two separate acceleration lanes, each successively forcing merging maneuvers to the left. 1,500 ft Exhibit Typical Geometry of a Two-Lane Ramp Freeway Junction v F L A1 L A2 Two-lane on-ramps entail two modifications to the basic methodology: the flow remaining in Lanes 1 and 2 immediately upstream of the on-ramp influence area is generally somewhat higher than it is for one-lane on-ramps in similar situations, and densities in the merge influence area are lower than those for similar one-lane on-ramp situations. The lower density is primarily due to the existence of two acceleration lanes and the generally longer distance over which these lanes extend. Thus, two-lane on-ramps handle higher ramp flows more smoothly and at a better LOS than if the same flows were carried on a one-lane ramp freeway junction. Two-lane on-ramp freeway junctions, however, do not enhance the capacity of the junction. The downstream freeway capacity still controls the total output capacity of the merge area, and the maximum desirable number of vehicles entering the ramp influence area is not changed. There are three computational modifications to the general methodology for two-lane on-ramps. First, while v 12 is still estimated as v F P FM, the values of P FM are modified as follows: For four-lane freeways: P FM = 1.000; For six-lane freeways: P FM = 0.555; and For eight-lane freeways: P FM = Second, in all equations using the length of the acceleration lane L A, this value is replaced by the effective length of both acceleration lanes L Aeff from Equation 13-23: L Aeff 2LA1 LA2 Equation A two-lane ramp is always considered to be isolated (i.e., no adjacent ramp conditions affect the computation). Component lengths are as illustrated in Exhibit Two-Lane Off-Ramps Two common types of diverge geometries are in use with two-lane offramps, as shown in Exhibit In the first, two successive deceleration lanes are introduced. In the second, a single deceleration lane is used. The left-hand Chapter 13/Freeway Merge and Diverge Segments Page Methodology

18 ramp lane splits from Lane 1 of the freeway at the gore area, without a deceleration lane. As is the case for two-lane on-ramps, there are three computational step modifications. While v 12 is still computed as v R + (v F v R ) P FD, the values of P FD are modified as follows: For four-lane freeways: P FD = 1.000; For six-lane freeways: P FD = 0.450; and For eight-lane freeways: P FD = Exhibit Common Geometries for Two-Lane Off-Ramp Freeway Junctions 1,500 ft v F v12 v FO L D2 L D1 1,500 ft v 12 v FO L D Equation The capacity of a two-lane offramp is essentially equal to that of a similar one-lane offramp. Where a single deceleration lane is used, there is no modification to the length of the deceleration lane L D ; where two deceleration lanes exist, the length is replaced by the effective length LDeff in all equations, obtained from Equation 13-24: L Deff 2LD1 LD2 A two-lane ramp is always considered to be isolated (i.e., no adjacent ramp conditions affect the computation). Component lengths are as illustrated in Exhibit The capacity of a two-lane off-ramp freeway junction is essentially equal to that of a similar one-lane off-ramp; that is, the total flow capacity through the diverge is unchanged. It is limited by the upstream freeway, the downstream freeway, or the off-ramp capacity. While the capacity is not affected by the presence of two-lane junctions, the lane distribution of vehicles is more flexible than in a similar one-lane case. The two-lane junction may also be able to accommodate a higher off-ramp flow than can a single-lane off-ramp. Left-Hand On- and Off-Ramps While they are not normally recommended, left-hand ramp freeway junctions do exist on some freeways, and they occur frequently on C-D roadways. The left-hand ramp influence area covers the same 1,500-ft length as that of right-hand ramps upstream of off-ramps; downstream of on-ramps. Methodology Page Chapter 13/Freeway Merge and Diverge Segments

19 For right-hand ramps, the ramp influence area involves Lanes 1 and 2 of the freeway. For left-hand ramps, the ramp influence area involves the two leftmost lanes of the freeway. For four-lane freeways (two lanes in each direction), this does not involve any changes, since only Lanes 1 and 2 exist. For six-lane freeways (three lanes in each direction), the flow in Lanes 2 and 3 (v 23 ) is involved. For eight-lane freeways (four lanes in each direction), the flow in Lanes 3 and 4 (v 34 ) is involved. While there is no direct methodology for the analysis of left-hand ramps, some rational modifications can be applied to the right-hand ramp methodology to produce reasonable results (3). It is suggested that analysts compute v 12 as if the ramp were on the right. An estimate of the appropriate flow rate in the two leftmost lanes is then obtained by multiplying the result by the adjustment factors shown in Exhibit Freeway Size Four-lane Six-lane Eight-lane Adjustment Factor for Left-Hand Ramps On-Ramps Off-Ramps Exhibit Adjustment Factors for Left-Hand Ramp Freeway Junctions The remaining computations for density and speed continue by using the value of v 23 (six-lane freeways) or v 34 (eight-lane freeways), as appropriate. All capacity values remain unchanged. Ramp Freeway Junctions on 10-Lane Freeways (Five Lanes in Each Direction) Freeway segments with five continuous lanes in a single direction are becoming more common in North America. A procedure is therefore needed to analyze a single-lane, right-hand on- or off-ramp on such a segment. The approach taken is relatively simple: estimate the flow in Lane 5 of such a segment and deduct it from the approaching freeway flow v F. With the Lane 5 flow deducted, the segment can now be treated as if it were an eight-lane freeway (4). Exhibit shows the recommended values for flow rate in Lane 5 of these segments. Approaching Freeway Flow v F (pc/h) 8,500 7,500 8,499 6,500 7,499 5,500 6,499 <5,500 On-Ramps Approaching Lane 5 Flow v 5 (pc/h) 2, v F v F v F v F Approaching Freeway Flow v F (pc/h) 7,000 5,500 6,999 4,000 5,499 <4,000 Off-Ramps Approaching Lane 5 Flow v 5 (pc/h) v F v F v F 0 Exhibit Expected Flow in Lane 5 of a 10- Lane Freeway Immediately Upstream of a Ramp Freeway Junction Once the expected flow in Lane 5 is determined, the effective total freeway flow rate in the remaining four lanes is computed from Equation 13-25: v v F4eff F v 5 Equation where v F4eff = effective approaching freeway flow in four lanes (pc/h), Chapter 13/Freeway Merge and Diverge Segments Page Methodology

20 Exhibit Major Merge Areas Illustrated v F = total approaching freeway flow in five lanes (pc/h), and v 5 = estimated approaching freeway flow in Lane 5 (pc/h). The remainder of the analysis uses the adjusted approaching freeway flow rate and treats the geometry as if it were a single-lane, right-hand ramp junction on an eight-lane freeway (four lanes in each direction). There is no calibrated procedure for adapting the methodology of this chapter to freeways with more than five lanes in one direction. The approach of Equation is, however, conceptually adaptable to such situations. A local calibration of the amount of traffic using Lanes 5+ would be needed. The remaining flow could then be modeled as if it were taking place on a four-lane (one direction) segment. Major Merge Areas A major merge area is one in which two primary roadways, each having multiple lanes, merge to form a single freeway segment. Such junctions occur when two freeways join to form a single freeway or when a major multilane high-speed ramp joins with a freeway. Major merges are different from one- and two-lane on-ramps in that each of the merging roadways is generally at or near freeway design standards and no clear ramp or acceleration lane is involved in the merge. Such merge areas come in a variety of geometries, all of which fall into one of two categories. In one geometry, the number of lanes leaving the merge area is one less than the total number of lanes entering it. In the other, the number of lanes leaving the merge area is the same as that entering it. These geometries are illustrated in Exhibit (a) Major Merge with One Lane Dropped (b) Major Merge with No Lane Dropped LOS cannot be determined for major merge areas. There are no effective models of performance for a major merge area. Therefore, analysis is limited to checking capacities on the approaching legs and the downstream freeway segment. A merge failure would be indicated by a v/c ratio in excess of LOS cannot be determined for major merge areas. Problems in major merge areas usually result from insufficient capacity of the downstream freeway segment. Major Diverge Areas The two common geometries for major diverge areas are illustrated in Exhibit In the first case, the number of lanes leaving the diverge area is the same as the number entering it. In the second, the number of lanes leaving the diverge area is one more than the number entering it. Methodology Page Chapter 13/Freeway Merge and Diverge Segments

21 The principal analysis of a major diverge area involves checking the capacity of entering and departing roadways, all of which are generally built to mainline standards. A failure results when any of the demand flow rates exceeds the capacity of the segment. Exhibit Major Diverge Areas Illustrated (a) Major Diverge Area with No Lane Addition (b) Major Diverge Area with Lane Addition For major diverge areas, a model exists for computing the average density across all approaching freeway lanes within 1,500 ft of the diverge, as given in Equation 13-26: where D MD vf N D MD = density in the major diverge influence area (which includes all approaching freeway lanes) (pc/mi/ln), v F = demand flow rate immediately upstream of the major diverge influence area (pc/h), and N = number of lanes approaching the major diverge. The result can be compared with the criteria of Exhibit 13-2 to determine a LOS for the major diverge influence area. Note that the density and LOS estimates are only valid for stable cases (i.e., not in cases in which LOS F exists because of a capacity deficiency on the approaching or departing legs of the diverge). Equation Effect of Ramp Control at On-Ramps For the purposes of this methodology, procedures are not modified in any way to account for the local effect of ramp control except for the limitation that the ramp meter may have on the ramp demand flow rate. Research (5) has found that the breakdown of a merge area may be a probabilistic event based on the platoon characteristics of the arriving ramp vehicles. Ramp meters facilitate uniform gaps between entering ramp vehicles and may reduce the probability of a breakdown on the associated freeway mainline. OVERLAPPING RAMP INFLUENCE AREAS Whenever a series of ramps on a freeway is analyzed, the 1,500-ft ramp influence areas could overlap. In such cases, the operation in the overlapping region is determined by the ramp influence area having the highest density. Chapter 13/Freeway Merge and Diverge Segments Page Methodology

### Basic Freeways and Multilane Highways (LOS) CIVL 4162/6162

Basic Freeways and Multilane Highways (LOS) CIVL 4162/6162 Learning Objectives Define uninterrupted facilities Determine LOS of Basic freeway segments Multilane highways Uninterrupted Flow Facilities Pure

### Analysis of Weaving, Merging, and Diverging Movements CIVL 4162/6162

Analysis of Weaving, Merging, and Diverging Movements CIVL 4162/6162 Weaving, Diverging, Merging Segments Weaving one movement must cross the path of another along a length of facility without the aid

### MEMORANDUM. Date: September 22, Don Skillingstad, Spokane Transit Authority. Yongliang Zhu, Lochner

MEMORANDUM Date: September 22, 2014 To: Don Skillingstad, Spokane Transit Authority From: Yongliang Zhu, Lochner Re: Attachments: Median Flyer Stop Weave Analysis West Plains Transit Center IJR Project

### Chapter Capacity and LOS Analysis of a Signalized I/S Overview Methodology Scope Limitation

Chapter 37 Capacity and LOS Analysis of a Signalized I/S 37.1 Overview The Highway Capacity Manual defines the capacity as the maximum howdy rate at which persons or vehicle can be reasonably expected

### HCM Sixth Edition. Plus More. Rahim (Ray) Benekohal University of Illinois at Urban Champaign,

HCM Sixth Edition What s New in the HCM Sixth Edition Plus More Rahim (Ray) Benekohal University of Illinois at Urban Champaign, 65 th Traffic Engineering and Safety Conference October 19 20, 2016 Institute

### Exam 2. Two-Lane Highway Capacity and LOS Analysis. Two-lane Highway Characteristics. LOS Considerations 10/24/2009

Two-Lane Highway Capacity and LOS Analysis CE322 Transportation Engineering Ahmed Abdel-Rahim, Ph.D., P.E. Exam 2 Wednesday 10/28/2009 No class Monday 10/24/2009 Open-Book Open notes Exam 6 Problems Traffic

### URBAN STREET CONCEPTS

CHAPTER 10 URBAN STREET CONCEPTS CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION... 10-1 II. URBAN STREETS...10-1 Flow Characteristics... 10-3 Free-Flow Speed...10-3 Running Speed... 10-3 Travel Speed... 10-4 Time-Space Trajectory...10-4

### Subject: Use of Pull-off Areas in Work Zones Page: 1 of 13. Brief Description: Guidance for the use and placement of pull-off area in work zones.

6 - G2 Subject: Use of Pull-off Areas in Work Zones Page: 1 of 13 MdMUTCD REF. NO. None Date Issued: 09/09 Effective Date: 09/09 Brief Description: Guidance for the use and placement of pull-off area in

### Design of Turn Lane Guidelines

Design of Turn Lane Guidelines CTS Transportation Research Conference May 24, 2012 Howard Preston, PE Minnesota Department of Transportation Research Services Office of Policy Analysis, Research & Innovation

### FINAL DESIGN TRAFFIC TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM

FINAL DESIGN TRAFFIC TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM July 2014 FINAL (SR 43) Project Development and Environment Study From State Road 60 (Adamo Drive) to I-4 (SR 400) Hillsborough County, Florida Work Program Item

### Truck Climbing Lane Traffic Justification Report

ROUTE 7 (HARRY BYRD HIGHWAY) WESTBOUND FROM WEST MARKET STREET TO ROUTE 9 (CHARLES TOWN PIKE) Truck Climbing Lane Traffic Justification Report Project No. 6007-053-133, P 101 Ι UPC No. 58599 Prepared by:

Design 101: Capacity Issues Part 2 March 7, 2012 Presentation Outline Part 2 Geometry and Capacity Choosing a Capacity Analysis Method Modeling differences Capacity Delay Limitations Variation / Uncertainty

### INTERCHANGE RAMP TERMINALS

CHAPTER 26 INTERCHANGE RAMP TERMINALS CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION...26-1 Types of Interchanges...26-1 Diamond Interchanges...26-1 Partial Cloverleaf Interchanges...26-1 Influence of Interchange Type on Turning

### Introduction Roundabouts are an increasingly popular alternative to traffic signals for intersection control in the United States. Roundabouts have a

HIGH-CAPACITY ROUNDABOUT INTERSECTION ANALYSIS: GOING AROUND IN CIRCLES David Stanek, PE and Ronald T. Milam, AICP Abstract. Roundabouts have become increasingly popular in recent years as an innovative

### Highway Capacity and LOS. Reading Assignment: pgs

Highway Caacity and LOS Reading Assignment: gs. 170-200 We know from the revious section that traffic flows fairly well when Demand < Caacity. However, when demand aroaches caacity, we begin to exerience

### Chapter Twenty-eight SIGHT DISTANCE BUREAU OF LOCAL ROADS AND STREETS MANUAL

Chapter Twenty-eight SIGHT DISTANCE BUREAU OF LOCAL ROADS AND STREETS MANUAL Jan 2006 SIGHT DISTANCE 28(i) Chapter Twenty-eight SIGHT DISTANCE Table of Contents Section Page 28-1 STOPPING SIGHT DISTANCE

INTERSECTIONS 1 AT GRADE INTERSECTIONS INTERSECTIONS INTERSECTIONS = INTERRUPTED FACILITIES Definitions and key elements An intersection is defined as an area where two or more roadways join or cross.

### METHODOLOGY FOR THE OPERATIONAL PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT OF TWO-LANE HIGHWAY FACILITIES

METHODOLOGY FOR THE OPERATIONAL PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT OF TWO-LANE HIGHWAY FACILITIES By QINGYONG YU A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT

### Topic No January 2000 Manual on Uniform Traffic Studies Revised July Chapter 8 GAP STUDY

Chapter 8 8.1 PURPOSE GAP STUDY (1) The Gap Study is used to determine the size and the number of gaps in the vehicular traffic stream for unsignalized intersections and access points, pedestrian studies,

### AN APPROACH FOR ASSESSMENT OF WEAVING LENGTH FOR MID-BLOCK TRAFFIC OPERATIONS

International Journal for Traffic and Transport Engineering, 215, 5(4): 442-45 UDC: 625.739 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/1.778/ijtte.215.5(4).8 AN APPROACH FOR ASSESSMENT OF WEAVING LENGTH FOR MID-BLOCK TRAFFIC

### Volume-to-Capacity Estimation of Signalized Road Networks for Metropolitan Transportation Planning

Volume-to-Capacity Estimation of Signalized Road Networks for Metropolitan Transportation Planning Hao Xu (Corresponding Author) Research Associate Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering Texas

### Determining the Free-Flow Speeds in a Regional Travel Demand Model Based on the Highway Capacity Manual

1 Determining the Free-Flow Speeds in a Regional Travel Demand Model Based on the Highway Capacity Manual Chao Wang* Senior Research Associate Institute for Transportation Research and Education North

### HIGHWAY CAPACITY MANUAL

HISTORY OF THE HIGHWAY CAPACITY MANUAL TexITE - Houston Chapter November 10, 2010 Michael Y. Ereti City of Houston Department of Public Works & Engineering THE NEW GUY (Michael Ereti) Consultant (10 years)

### Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual 2 nd Edition

PART 4 BUS TRANSIT CAPACITY CONTENTS CHAPTER 1. BUS CAPACITY FUNDAMENTALS... 4-1 Overview... 4-1 Capacity Calculation Process... 4-1 Loading Areas... 4-2 Bus Stops... 4-2 Bus Facilities... 4-3 Person Capacity...

Introduction to Roundabout Analysis Using ARCADY Toronto SimCap User Group Technical Event and ITE Toronto Section Social Event July 22, 2014 Phil Weber, P.Eng. GHD Inc. (The Home of Ourston Roundabout

### Attachment No. 17 GMI No. 1. National Committee on Uniform Traffic Control Devices GMI SIGNS TECHNICAL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

1 2 3 Attachment No. 17 GMI No. 1 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 GMI agenda item II.H.2., January 19, 2012 National Committee on Uniform

### Queue analysis for the toll station of the Öresund fixed link. Pontus Matstoms *

Queue analysis for the toll station of the Öresund fixed link Pontus Matstoms * Abstract A new simulation model for queue and capacity analysis of a toll station is presented. The model and its software

### CHAPTER 2G. PREFERENTIAL AND MANAGED LANE SIGNS

2011 Edition - Revision 2 Page 275 Section 2G.01 Scope CHAPTER 2G. PREFERENTIAL AND MANAGED LANE SIGNS 01 Preferential lanes are lanes designated for special traffic uses such as high-occupancy vehicles

### ATTACHMENT NO. 18 GMI-C. National Committee on Uniform Traffic Control Devices GMI SIGNS TECHNICAL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

1 2 3 ATTACHMENT NO. 18 GMI-C 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 GMI agenda item II.H.2., January 19, 2012 National Committee on Uniform

### Roundabout Model Calibration Issues and a Case Study

Roundabout Model Calibration Issues and a Case Study TRB National Roundabout Conference Vail, Colorado, USA, 22-25 May 2005 Pictures modified to show driving on the right-hand side of the road Rahmi Akçelik

### Guidelines for Integrating Safety and Cost-Effectiveness into Resurfacing, Restoration, and Rehabilitation Projects

Guidelines for Integrating Safety and Cost-Effectiveness into Resurfacing, Restoration, and Rehabilitation Projects NCHRP Project 15-50 July 2017 1 Research Objective Develop guidelines for safe and cost-effective

### INTRODUCTION THOROUGHFARE SYSTEM CLASSIFICATIONS

INTRODUCTION The thoroughfare plan will assist public officials in the development of a specialized system for efficient and safe movement of vehicular traffic while minimizing potential conflicts with

### Analysis of Signalized Intersections

Analysis of Signalized Intersections What is Intersection analysis Inverse application of the signal timing design In signal timing design, green times are estimated to provide necessary capacity In intersection

### SIDRA INTERSECTION 6.1 UPDATE HISTORY

Akcelik & Associates Pty Ltd PO Box 1075G, Greythorn, Vic 3104 AUSTRALIA ABN 79 088 889 687 For all technical support, sales support and general enquiries: support.sidrasolutions.com SIDRA INTERSECTION

CHAPTERFOUR SELECTED ROADWAY CAPACITY ANALYSIS 4.1 SELECTED ROADWAY CAPACITY ANALYSIS Introduction Capacity analysis was performed on six selected roadways within the Dearborn County study area using the

### 5858 N COLLEGE, LLC N College Avenue Traffic Impact Study

5858 N COLLEGE, LLC nue Traffic Impact Study August 22, 2016 Contents Traffic Impact Study Page Preparer Qualifications... 1 Introduction... 2 Existing Roadway Conditions... 5 Existing Traffic Conditions...

### Access Location, Spacing, Turn Lanes, and Medians

Design Manual Chapter 5 - Roadway Design 5L - Access Management 5L-3 Access Location, Spacing, Turn Lanes, and Medians This section addresses access location, spacing, turn lane and median needs, including

### Traffic Impact Analysis Walton Acres at Riverwood Athletic Club Clayton, NC

Traffic Impact Analysis Walton Acres at Riverwood Athletic Club Clayton, NC 1. TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION...1 1.1. Site Location and Study Area...1 1.2. Proposed Land Use and Site Access...2 1.3.

### REDEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY

REDEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY For Wendy s Parker, Colorado January 215 Prepared for: Sterling Design Associates, LLC 29 W. Littleton Boulevard #3 Littleton, Colorado 812 Prepared by: 1233 Airport

### MUTCD Part 6G: Type of Temporary Traffic Control Zone Activities

MUTCD Part 6G: Type of Temporary Traffic Control Zone Activities 6G.01 Typical Applications Each temporary traffic control (TTC) zone is different. Many variables, such as location of work, highway type,

### HCM 2010: ROUNDABOUTS. PRAVEEN EDARA, PH.D., P.E., PTOE UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI - COLUMBIA

HCM 2010: ROUNDABOUTS PRAVEEN EDARA, PH.D., P.E., PTOE UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI - COLUMBIA EMAIL: edarap@missouri.edu OUTLINE Terminology used Input data needs Capacity of single and multilane roundabouts

### Roundabouts along Rural Arterials in South Africa

Krogscheepers & Watters 0 0 Word count: 00 text + figures = 0 equivalent words including Title and Abstract. Roundabouts along Rural Arterials in South Africa Prepared for: rd Annual Meeting of Transportation

### I-95/Temple Avenue Interchange

Roundabout Peer Review I-95/Temple Avenue Interchange Colonial Heights, Virginia January 2013 Roundabout Peer Review I 95/Temple Avenue Interchange Colonial Heights, Virginia Prepared for: Robert E. Vilak,

### Figure 1: Graphical definitions of superelevation in terms for a two lane roadway.

Iowa Department of Transportation Office of Design Superelevation 2A-2 Design Manual Chapter 2 Alignments Originally Issued: 12-31-97 Revised: 12-10-10 Superelevation is the banking of the roadway along

### Multimodal Arterial Level of Service

Multimodal Arterial Level of Service DOUGLAS S. MCLEOD Florida Department of Transportation, USA ABSTRACT The concept of quality of service from a user perspective of a transportation facility or service

### CHAPTER 3A. GENERAL PAGE CHAPTER 3B. PAVEMENT AND CURB MARKINGS PAGE

Virginia Supplement to the 2009 MUTCD Revision 1 Page TC-3-1 PART 3. MARKINGS CHAPTER 3A. GENERAL PAGE Section 3A.01 Functions and Limitations Section 3A.02 Standardization of Application Section 3A.03

### THE FUTURE OF THE TxDOT ROADWAY DESIGN MANUAL

THE FUTURE OF THE TXDOT ROADWAY DESIGN MANUAL Kenneth Mora, P.E. (Design Division) 10/10/2017 Table of contents 1 2 Reduction in FHWA design controlling criteria Innovative Intersection Guidance 3-7 8-42

Roadway Design Manual Manual Notice Archive by Texas Department of Transportation (512) 302-2453 all rights reserved Manual Notice 2009-1 From: Manual: Mark A. Marek, P.E Roadway Design Manual Effective

### Highway Safety Manual (HSM) Freeway Training Course

Highway Safety Manual (HSM) Freeway Training Course Ohio Department of Transportation John R. Kasich, Governor Jerry Wray, Director Freeway and Interchange Crash Prediction ECAT ODOT HSM Freeway and Interchange

### Geometric Design Tables

Design Manual Chapter 5 - Roadway Design 5C - Geometric Design Criteria 5C-1 Geometric Design Tables A. General The following sections present two sets of design criteria tables - Preferred Roadway Elements

### WYDOT DESIGN GUIDES. Guide for. Non-NHS State Highways

WYDOT DESIGN GUIDES Guide for Non-NHS State Highways 2014 GUIDE FOR Non-NATIONAL HIGHWAY SYSTEM (Non-NHS) STATE HIGHWAYS PRESERVATION REHABILITATION RECONSTRUCTION INTRODUCTION This Guide is directed to

### TWO-LANE ROAD ANALYSIS METHODOL.OGY IN THE HIGHWAY CAPACITY MANUAL

20.7 (160) Copy No. TWO-LANE ROAD ANALYSIS METHODOL.OGY IN THE HIGHWAY CAPACITY MANUAL NCHRP Project 20-7 (160) MRI Project 110252 FINAL REPORT September 2003 Prepared for National Cooperative Highway

### October 2004 REVISIONS (2) SUPERELEVATION DEVELOPMENT 11.3(2)

October 2004 REVISIONS (2) Chapter 11 HORIZONTAL ALIGNMENT SUPERELEVATION DEVELOPMENT 11.3(2) Chapter 12 VERTICAL ALIGNMENT VERTICAL CURVES PASSING SIGHT DISTANCE 12.5(2) VERTICAL CURVES STOPPING SIGHT

### TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM VDOT Central Region On Call Task Order

Kittelson & Associates, Inc. T R A N S P O R T A T I O N E N G I N E E R I N G / P L A N N I N G 1850 Centennial Park Drive, Suite 130, 20191 P 703-885-8970 F 703-885-8971 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM VDOT Central

### ISTTT20 Tutorials. Traffic Management and Control. A. Traffic Signal Control Introduction

ISTTT20 Tutorials Traffic Management and Control A. Traffic Signal Control Introduction Prof. Nathan H. Gartner University of Massachusetts Lowell, MA, USA NHGartner,UML, July 2013 Module Objectives: Describe

### Probabilistic Models for Pedestrian Capacity and Delay at Roundabouts

Probabilistic Models for Pedestrian Capacity and Delay at Roundabouts HEUNGUN OH Doctoral Candidate VIRGINIA P. SISIOPIKU Assistant Professor Michigan State University Civil and Environmental Engineering

### Clackamas County Comprehensive Plan

ROADWAYS The County s road system permits the movement of goods and people between communities and regions, using any of a variety of modes of travel. Roads provide access to virtually all property. They

Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Analysis for Corridor Planning Projects Word Count: 4,305 Submission Date: August 1, 2015 Author: Adriana Rodriguez, E.I Assistant Engineer Parsons Brinckerhoff 1420 South

### ANALYSIS OF SIGNALISED INTERSECTIONS ACCORDING TO THE HIGHWAY CAPACITY MANUAL FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF THE PROCESSES APPLIED IN HUNGARY

2nd Int. Symposium in Civil Engineering 1998 Budapest ANALYSIS OF SIGNALISED INTERSECTIONS ACCORDING TO THE HIGHWAY CAPACITY MANUAL FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF THE PROCESSES APPLIED IN HUNGARY István Styevola

### 6. signalized Intersections

6. signalized Intersections 1 References 1. HCM 2000, chapter 16 2. safety.fhwa.dot.gov/intersection/signalized/sig_int_pps051508 /short/sigint_short.ppt 3. mason.gmu.edu/~aflaner/ceie_360/signalized%20intersectio

### RURAL HIGHWAY SHOULDERS THAT ACCOMMODATE BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN USE (TxDOT Project ) June 7, Presented by: Karen Dixon, Ph.D., P.E.

RURAL HIGHWAY SHOULDERS THAT ACCOMMODATE BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN USE (TxDOT Project 0-6840) June 7, 2016 Presented by: Karen Dixon, Ph.D., P.E., TTI Team: Kay Fitzpatrick, Raul Avelar, & Subasish Das Project

### SECTION 12 ROAD MARKINGS AND DELINEATION

SECTION 12 20 June 2009 Part 3: Motorways and Expressways CONTENTS Reference Page Page Number Date SECTION 12: MARKINGS AND DELINEATION 12.1 GENERAL... 12-1 June 2009 12.1.1 INTRODUCTION... 12-1 June 2009

### FHWA Safety Performance for Intersection Control Evaluation (SPICE) Tool

FHWA Safety Performance for Intersection Control Evaluation (SPICE) Tool Virginia Section ITE Annual Meeting Virginia Beach June 217 Pete Jenior Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 1 Intersection Control Evaluation

### Sensitivity Analysis of Factors Affecting Road Widening Thresholds

Sensitivity Analysis of Factors Affecting Road Widening Thresholds Abstract: Carlos Alba and Edward Beimborn The decision to widen a highway is often a complex matter involving considerations of traffic

Akcelik & Associates Pty Ltd PO Box 1075G, Greythorn, Vic 3104 AUSTRALIA www.sidrasolutions.com Management Systems Registered to ISO 9001 ABN 79 088 889 687 ROUNDABOUT MODEL COMPARISON TABLE Prepared by

THE INSTALLATION OF PRE-SIGNALS AT RAILROAD GRADE CROSSINGS Lisa D. Sherman, Kenneth J. Petraglia, P.E. INTRODUCTION Each signalized intersection adjacent to a highway-rail grade crossing presents the

### CIRCLE DRIVE TRAFFIC AND ACCESS MANAGEMENT POLICY GUIDE. Management Principles and Implementation Concepts

CIRCLE DRIVE TRAFFIC AND ACCESS MANAGEMENT POLICY GUIDE A. PREFACE Management Principles and Implementation Concepts The intent of this policy guide is to provide interim guidance on the implementation

### LYNNWOOD ROAD ARTERIAL STUDY The effect of intersection spacing on arterial operation

LYNNWOOD ROAD ARTERIAL STUDY The effect of intersection spacing on arterial operation A J Joubert*, S L Burnett**, and T Ueckermann* *PWV Consortium, PO Box 1109, Sunninghill 2157 **Gautrans, Gauteng Department

### Analysis of Run-Off-Road Crashes in Relation to Roadway Features and Driver Behavior

Analysis of Run-Off-Road Crashes in Relation to Roadway Features and Driver Behavior Ertan Örnek University of Wisconsin, Madison Traffic Operations Lab 141 NW Barstow Street Waukesha, WI 53187 ornek@wisc.edu

### Highway Capacity. 1. A traffic stream is carrying 4500 veh/hr in three lanes in one direction. What is the average headway per lane?

Mini-Exercise June 2003 Highway Capacity 1. A traffic stream is carrying 4500 veh/hr in three lanes in one direction. What is the average headway per lane? 2. With the 4500 veh/hr in three lanes; a. What

### KDOT Access Management Policy (AMP)

KDOT Access Management Policy (AMP) (January 2013 Edition) Errata KDOT intends to correct these errors during the next revision to the Policy. Corrections are denoted in red text with a solid line through

### Synchro Studio 8. Overview. By Ioannis Psarros

Synchro Studio 8 Overview By Ioannis Psarros What is Synchro? Software for signal optimization Developed by Trafficware Optimization can be applied to: Cycle lengths Splits Offsets Source: http://bikewalklee.blogspot.com

### 1609 E. FRANKLIN STREET HOTEL TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1609 E. FRANKLIN STREET HOTEL TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Prepared for: The Town of Chapel Hill Public Works Department Traffic Engineering Division Prepared by: HNTB North Carolina, PC 343

### Technical Memo. Steve Gramm, SDDOT. RE: Phase 1, Task 100: Baseline Analysis. To: From: Steve Hoff, HDR Engineering, Inc.

Technical Memo To: Steve Gramm, SDDOT From: Steve Hoff, Engineering, Inc. Project: I-190/Silver Street Study CC: Date: 6//010 Job No: DOT Contract 41044, Order PD-0-09 RE: Phase 1, Task 100: Baseline Analysis

### IHSDM- HSM Predictive Methods. Slide 1

IHSDM- HSM Predictive Methods Slide 1 Presentation Outline IHSDM Overview Relationship between HSM and IHSDM Crash Prediction Models and Data Needs IHSDM HSM Predictive Method 2011 Release Preview Questions

### GEOMETRIC DESIGN OF ROUNDABOUTS AND TRAFFIC S IGNAL SIGNAL CONTROLLED

TD 16/07 and TD 50/04 GEOMETRIC DESIGN OF ROUNDABOUTS AND TRAFFIC SIGNAL CONTROLLED JUNCTIONS DMRB Vol 6 File 6 0 ROUNDABOUTS: INTRODUCTION Principles Roundabout Types Entry Deflection Capacity Visibility

### City of Prince Albert Statement of POLICY and PROCEDURE. Department: Public Works Policy No. 66. Section: Transportation Issued: July 14, 2014

Page: 1 of 8 1 POLICY 1.01 The City shall follow all of the specifications in the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Canada, prepared by the National Committee of Uniform Traffic Control, and

Akcelik & Associates Pty Ltd PO Box 1075G, Greythorn, Vic 3104 AUSTRALIA info@sidrasolutions.com Management Systems Registered to ISO 9001 ABN 79 088 889 687 ROUNDABOUT MODEL COMPARISON TABLE Prepared

### TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY. Creekside Thornton, Colorado. For. August 2015 November 2015 Revised: August Prepared for:

TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY For Creekside Thornton, Colorado August 215 November 215 Revised: August 216 Prepared for: Jansen Strawn Consulting Engineers 45 West 2 nd Avenue Denver, Colorado 8223 Prepared by:

### Another View of Truck Lane Restrictions

Matthew A. Cate and Thomas Urbanik II 1 Another View of Lane Restrictions Submitted to the Transportation Research Board November 14, 2003 5,098 Words, 7 Tables Matthew A. Cate Senior Research Associate

### Memorandum Pershing Road Suite 400 Kansas City, MO Tel Fax

Memorandum 2400 Pershing Road Suite 400 Kansas ity, MO 64108 Tel 816 329 8600 Fax 816 329 8601 www.transystems.com To: Mr. avid Gurss Kansas epartment of Transportation wight. Eisenhower State Office ldg.

200 Horizontal and Vertical Design Table of Contents 201 Sight Distance... 2-1 201.1 General... 2-1 201.2 Stopping Sight Distance... 2-1 201.2.1 Horizontal Sight Distance... 2-2 201.2.2 Vertical Stopping

Roadway Vertical Alignments by Gregory J. Taylor, P.E. INTRODUCTION This course summarizes and highlights the design of vertical alignments for modern roads and highways. The contents of this document

### ASSESSMENT OF SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION CAPACITY IN RESPONSE TO DOWNSTREAM QUEUE SPILLBACK. Xin Yu and Goro Sulijoadikusumo

ASSESSMENT OF SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION CAPACITY IN RESPONSE TO DOWNSTREAM QUEUE SPILLBACK Xin Yu and Goro Sulijoadikusumo ABSTRACT The congestion of urban signalized intersections is a major issue and severe

### MULTIMODAL LEVEL OF SERVICE REPORT

METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLANNING ORGANIZATION (MTPO) FOR THE GAINESVILLE URBANIZED AREA YEAR 2010 ANNUAL AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (AADT) MULTIMODAL LEVEL OF SERVICE REPORT GAINESVILLE METROPOLITAN AREA

### CITY OF SASKATOON COUNCIL POLICY

ORIGIN/AUTHORITY Clause 1, Report No. 1-1980 and Clause 4, Report No. 22-1990 of the Works and Utilities Committee; Clause 6, Report No. 17-2004 of the Planning and Operations Committee; and Clause D5,

### Working White Paper on the Implementation of the Highway Capacity Manual 6 th Edition in Synchro

Working White Paper on the Implementation of the Highway Capacity Manual 6 th Edition in Synchro 1 st Edition January 18, 2017 Copyright 1993-2017 Trafficware, LLC. All rights reserved. No part of this

### This document was prepared by DLZ Michigan, Inc. under the direction of MDOT s Roundabout Committee which consists of the following individuals:

FOREWORD With the study, design, and construction of modern roundabouts (referred to in this document as roundabouts ) becoming commonplace throughout the state of Michigan, the Michigan Department of

### Working White Paper on the Implementation of the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual within Synchro Version 9

Working White Paper on the Implementation of the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual within Synchro Version 9 1 st Edition May 9, 2014 Copyright 1993-2014 Trafficware, LLC. All rights reserved. No part of this

### Harrah s Station Square Casino

Transportation Analysis Harrah s Station Square Casino Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania Submitted To: City of Pittsburgh and Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board Prepared By: DKS Associates GAI Consultants December

### Roundabouts in Australia: the state of the art on models and applications

Roundabouts in Australia: the state of the art on models and applications Seminar Presentation One-day International Meeting on Roundabouts Università di Pisa - Corso di TECNICA del TRAFFICO, Livorno,

### MEASURING PASSENGER CAR EQUIVALENTS (PCE) FOR LARGE VEHICLES AT SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS

MEASURING PASSENGER CAR EQUIVALENTS (PCE) FOR LARGE VEHICLES AT SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Md. Mizanur RAHMAN Doctoral Student Graduate School of Engineering Department of Civil Engineering Yokohama National

### JONESBORO HIGHWAY 63 HIGHWAY 18 CONNECTOR STUDY

JONESBORO HIGHWAY 63 HIGHWAY 18 CONNECTOR STUDY Craighead County May 2007 JONESBORO HIGHWAY 63 HIGHWAY 18 CONNECTOR STUDY Craighead County May 2007 Prepared by Planning and Research Division Arkansas State

### Access Management Standards

Access Management Standards Section 1: Application of Access Standards This chapter describes the Department's access management standards for access connections on the county roadway system. The standards

### How Might Connected Vehicles and Autonomous Vehicles Influence Geometric Design? October 10, 2017

How Might Connected Vehicles and Autonomous Vehicles Influence Geometric Design? October 10, 2017 Overview Design Vehicle Design Driver Potential Geometric Impacts of Autonomous Vehicles Connected Vehicles

### COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF TRAFFIC PERFORMANCE OF SMALL AND LARGE CENTRAL ISLAND ROTARIES IN MINNA, NIGERIA

Part-I: Natural and Applied Sciences ISSN-L: 2223-9553, ISSN: 2223-9944 OMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF TRAFFI PERFORMANE OF SMALL AND LARGE ENTRAL ISLAND ROTARIES IN MINNA, NIGERIA M. Abubakar 1, P. N. Ndoke 2