HIGHWAY CAPACITY MANUAL

6 T H E D IT ION | A G U I D E F O R M U LT IM O D A L M OBIL I T Y A N A LYS I S

VO L U M E 4 : A P P L I C AT IO N S G U ID E

T R A N SP ORTAT IO N R E S E A R C H B OA RD
WA S H I N G T ON , D .C . | W W W.T RB.O RG
TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD
2016 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE*

Chair: James M. Crites, Executive Vice President of Operations, Marie Therese Dominguez, Administrator, Pipeline and Hazardous
Dallas–Fort Worth International Airport, Texas Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation
Vice Chair: Paul Trombino III, Director, Iowa Department of (ex officio)
Transportation, Ames Sarah Feinberg, Administrator, Federal Railroad Administration,
Executive Director: Neil J. Pedersen, Transportation Research Board U.S. Department of Transportation (ex officio)
Carolyn Flowers, Acting Administrator, Federal Transit Administration,
U.S. Department of Transportation (ex officio)
Victoria A. Arroyo, Executive Director, Georgetown Climate Center;
LeRoy Gishi, Chief, Division of Transportation, Bureau of Indian
Assistant Dean, Centers and Institutes; and Professor and Director,
Affairs, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. (ex officio)
Environmental Law Program, Georgetown University Law Center,
John T. Gray II, Senior Vice President, Policy and Economics,
Washington, D.C.
Association of American Railroads, Washington, D.C. (ex officio)
Scott E. Bennett, Director, Arkansas State Highway and Transportation
Michael P. Huerta, Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration,
Department, Little Rock
U.S. Department of Transportation (ex officio)
Jennifer Cohan, Secretary, Delaware Department of Transportation, Dover
Paul N. Jaenichen, Sr., Administrator, Maritime Administration,
Malcolm Dougherty, Director, California Department of
U.S. Department of Transportation (ex officio)
Transportation, Sacramento
Bevan B. Kirley, Research Associate, University of North Carolina
A. Stewart Fotheringham, Professor, School of Geographical Sciences
Highway Safety Research Center, Chapel Hill, and Chair, TRB Young
and Urban Planning, Arizona State University, Tempe
Members Council (ex officio)
John S. Halikowski, Director, Arizona Department of Transportation,
Gregory G. Nadeau, Administrator, Federal Highway Administration,
Phoenix
U.S. Department of Transportation (ex officio)
Susan Hanson, Distinguished University Professor Emerita, Graduate
Wayne Nastri, Acting Executive Officer, South Coast Air Quality
School of Geography, Clark University, Worcester, Massachusetts
Management District, Diamond Bar, California (ex officio)
Steve Heminger, Executive Director, Metropolitan Transportation
Mark R. Rosekind, Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety
Commission, Oakland, California
Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation (ex officio)
Chris T. Hendrickson, Hamerschlag Professor of Engineering, Carnegie
Craig A. Rutland, U.S. Air Force Pavement Engineer, U.S. Air Force
Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Civil Engineer Center, Tyndall Air Force Base, Florida (ex officio)
Jeffrey D. Holt, Managing Director, Power, Energy, and Infrastructure
Reuben Sarkar, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Transportation,
Group, BMO Capital Markets Corporation, New York
U.S. Department of Energy (ex officio)
S. Jack Hu, Vice President for Research and J. Reid and Polly Anderson
Richard A. White, Acting President and CEO, American Public
Professor of Manufacturing, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
Transportation Association, Washington, D.C. (ex officio)
Roger B. Huff, President, HGLC, LLC, Farmington Hills, Michigan
Gregory D. Winfree, Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology,
Geraldine Knatz, Professor, Sol Price School of Public Policy, Viterbi
Office of the Secretary, U.S. Department of Transportation (ex officio)
School of Engineering, University of Southern California, Los Angeles
Frederick G. (Bud) Wright, Executive Director, American Association
Ysela Llort, Consultant, Miami, Florida
of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, D.C.
Melinda McGrath, Executive Director, Mississippi Department of
(ex officio)
Transportation, Jackson
Paul F. Zukunft (Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard), Commandant, U.S. Coast
James P. Redeker, Commissioner, Connecticut Department of
Guard, U.S. Department of Homeland Security (ex officio)
Transportation, Newington
Mark L. Rosenberg, Executive Director, The Task Force for Global
Health, Inc., Decatur, Georgia
Kumares C. Sinha, Olson Distinguished Professor of Civil Engineering,
Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana
Daniel Sperling, Professor of Civil Engineering and Environmental
Science and Policy; Director, Institute of Transportation Studies,
University of California, Davis
Kirk T. Steudle, Director, Michigan Department of Transportation,
Lansing (Past Chair, 2014)
Gary C. Thomas, President and Executive Director, Dallas Area Rapid
Transportation Research Board publications are available by ordering
Transit, Dallas, Texas
individual publications directly from the TRB Business Office, through
Pat Thomas, Senior Vice President of State Government Affairs, United
the Internet at www.TRB.org, or by annual subscription through
Parcel Service, Washington, D.C.
organizational or individual affiliation with TRB. Affiliates and library
Katherine F. Turnbull, Executive Associate Director and Research
subscribers are eligible for substantial discounts. For further information,
Scientist, Texas A&M Transportation Institute, College Station
contact the Transportation Research Board Business Office, 500 Fifth
Dean Wise, Vice President of Network Strategy, Burlington Northern
Street, NW, Washington, DC 20001 (telephone 202-334-3213;
Santa Fe Railway, Fort Worth, Texas
fax 202-334-2519; or e-mail [email protected]).
Thomas P. Bostick (Lieutenant General, U.S. Army), Chief of Engineers
Copyright 2016 by the National Academy of Sciences.
and Commanding General, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington,
All rights reserved.
D.C. (ex officio)
Printed in the United States of America.
James C. Card (Vice Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, retired), Maritime
Consultant, The Woodlands, Texas, and Chair, TRB Marine Board
ISBN 978-0-309-36997-8 [Slipcased set of three volumes]
(ex officio)
ISBN 978-0-309-36998-5 [Volume 1]
T. F. Scott Darling III, Acting Administrator and Chief Counsel, Federal
ISBN 978-0-309-36999-2 [Volume 2]
Motor Carrier Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation
ISBN 978-0-309-37000-4 [Volume 3]
(ex officio)
ISBN 978-0-309-37001-1 [Volume 4, online only]
* Membership as of June 2016.
The National Academy of Sciences was established in 1863 by an Act of Congress,
signed by President Lincoln, as a private, nongovernmental institution to advise the
nation on issues related to science and technology. Members are elected by their peers
for outstanding contributions to research. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone is president.
The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964 under the charter of
the National Academy of Sciences to bring the practices of engineering to advising
the nation. Members are elected by their peers for extraordinary contributions to
engineering. Dr. C. D. Mote, Jr., is president.
The National Academy of Medicine (formerly the Institute of Medicine) was
established in 1970 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to advise
the nation on medical and health issues. Members are elected by their peers for
distinguished contributions to medicine and health. Dr. Victor J. Dzau is president.
The three Academies work together as the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering,
and Medicine to provide independent, objective analysis and advice to the nation and
conduct other activities to solve complex problems and inform public policy decisions.
The Academies also encourage education and research, recognize outstanding
contributions to knowledge, and increase public understanding in matters of science,
engineering, and medicine.
Learn more about the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine at
www.national-academies.org.
The Transportation Research Board is one of seven major programs of the National
Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. The mission of the Transportation
Research Board is to increase the benefits that transportation contributes to society by
providing leadership in transportation innovation and progress through research and
information exchange, conducted within a setting that is objective, interdisciplinary, and
multimodal. The Board’s varied committees, task forces, and panels annually engage about
7,000 engineers, scientists, and other transportation researchers and practitioners from the
public and private sectors and academia, all of whom contribute their expertise in the public
interest. The program is supported by state transportation departments, federal agencies
including the component administrations of the U.S. Department of Transportation, and
other organizations and individuals interested in the development of transportation.
Learn more about the Transportation Research Board at www.TRB.org.
 Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis

CHAPTER 32
STOP-CONTROLLED INTERSECTIONS: SUPPLEMENTAL

CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 32-1

2. TWSC POTENTIAL CAPACITY ......................................................................... 32-2

3. TWSC EXAMPLE PROBLEMS ............................................................................ 32-4

TWSC Example Problem 1: TWSC at an Intersection with Three Legs ....... 32-4
TWSC Example Problem 2: Pedestrian Crossing at a TWSC
Intersection................................................................................................... 32-10
TWSC Example Problem 3: Flared Approaches and Median Storage ....... 32-13
TWSC Example Problem 4: TWSC Intersection Within A Signalized
Urban Street Segment ................................................................................. 32-28
TWSC Example Problem 5: Six-Lane Street with U-Turns and
Pedestrians ................................................................................................... 32-38

4. AWSC SUPPLEMENTAL ANALYSIS FOR THREE-LANE

APPROACHES ...................................................................................................... 32-47

5. AWSC EXAMPLE PROBLEMS .......................................................................... 32-56

AWSC Example Problem 1: Single-Lane, Three-Leg Intersection .............. 32-56
AWSC Example Problem 2: Multilane, Four-Leg Intersection.................... 32-61

Chapter 32/STOP-Controlled Intersections: Supplemental Contents

Version 6.0 Page 32-i
Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis

LIST OF EXHIBITS

Exhibit 32-1 Potential Capacity cp,x for Two-Lane Major Streets .......................... 32-2
Exhibit 32-2 Potential Capacity cp,x for Four-Lane Major Streets .......................... 32-3
Exhibit 32-3 Potential Capacity cp,x for Six-Lane Major Streets ............................. 32-3
Exhibit 32-4 TWSC Example Problems .................................................................... 32-4
Exhibit 32-5 TWSC Example Problem 1: 15-min Volumes and Lane
Configurations ...................................................................................................... 32-4
Exhibit 32-6 TWSC Example Problem 1: Movement Numbers and
Calculation of Peak 15-min Flow Rates ............................................................ 32-5
Exhibit 32-7 TWSC Example Problem 3: 15-min Volumes and Lane
Configurations .................................................................................................... 32-13
Exhibit 32-8 TWSC Example Problem 3: Movement Numbers and
Calculation of Peak 15-min Flow Rates .......................................................... 32-14
Exhibit 32-9 TWSC Example Problem 4: TWSC Intersection Within a
Signalized Urban Street Segment .................................................................... 32-29
Exhibit 32-10 TWSC Example Problem 4: 15-min Flow Rates and Lane
Configurations .................................................................................................... 32-29
Exhibit 32-11 TWSC Example Problem 4: Movement-Based Access Point
Output (from Chapter 30, Example Problem 1) ............................................ 32-29
Exhibit 32-12 TWSC Example Problem 4: Movement Numbers and
Calculation of Peak 15-min Flow Rates .......................................................... 32-30
Exhibit 32-13 TWSC Example Problem 5: Volumes and Lane
Configurations .................................................................................................... 32-39
Exhibit 32-14 TWSC Example Problem 5: Movement Numbers and
Calculation of Peak 15-min Flow Rates .......................................................... 32-39
Exhibit 32-15 Probability of Degree-of-Conflict Case: Multilane AWSC
Intersections (Three-Lane Approaches, by Lane) ......................................... 32-47
Exhibit 32-16 AWSC Example Problems ............................................................... 32-56
Exhibit 32-17 AWSC Example Problem 1: Volumes and Lane
Configurations .................................................................................................... 32-56
Exhibit 32-18 AWSC Example Problem 1: Applicable Degree-of-Conflict
Cases .................................................................................................................... 32-58
Exhibit 32-19 AWSC Example Problem 1: Eastbound Saturation
Headways ........................................................................................................... 32-59
Exhibit 32-20 AWSC Example Problem 1: Convergence Check ......................... 32-60
Exhibit 32-21 AWSC Example Problem 2: 15-min Volumes and Lane
Configurations .................................................................................................... 32-62
Exhibit 32-22 AWSC Example Problem 2: 15-min Volumes Converted to
Hourly Flow Rates ............................................................................................. 32-62
Exhibit 32-23 AWSC Example Problem 2: Convergence Check ......................... 32-66

Contents Chapter 32/STOP-Controlled Intersections: Supplemental

Page 32-ii Version 6.0
 Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis

1. INTRODUCTION

Chapter 32 is the supplemental chapter for Chapter 20, Two-Way STOP- VOLUME 4: APPLICATIONS
GUIDE
Controlled Intersections, and Chapter 21, All-Way STOP-Controlled Intersections, 25. Freeway Facilities:
which are found in Volume 3 of the Highway Capacity Manual. This chapter Supplemental
26. Freeway and Highway
provides supplemental material on (a) determining the potential capacity of two- Segments: Supplemental
way STOP-controlled (TWSC) intersections and (b) identifying the 512 27. Freeway Weaving:
Supplemental
combinations of degree-of-conflict cases for all-way STOP-controlled (AWSC) 28. Freeway Merges and
intersections with three-lane approaches. The chapter also provides example Diverges: Supplemental
29. Urban Street Facilities:
problems demonstrating the application of the TWSC and AWSC methodologies. Supplemental
30. Urban Street Segments:
Supplemental
31. Signalized Intersections:
Supplemental
32. STOP-Controlled
Intersections:
Supplemental
33. Roundabouts:
Supplemental
34. Interchange Ramp
Terminals: Supplemental
35. Pedestrians and Bicycles:
Supplemental
36. Concepts: Supplemental
37. ATDM: Supplemental

Chapter 32/STOP-Controlled Intersections: Supplemental Introduction

Version 6.0 Page 32-1
Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis

2. TWSC POTENTIAL CAPACITY

The gap acceptance model to estimate potential capacity (presented in

Chapter 20, Equation 20-32) can be plotted for each of the non–Rank 1
movements by using values of critical headway and follow-up headway from
Chapter 20 (Exhibit 20-12 and Exhibit 20-13, respectively). These graphs are
presented in Exhibit 32-1, Exhibit 32-2, and Exhibit 32-3 for a major street with
two lanes, four lanes, and six lanes, respectively. The potential capacity is
expressed as vehicles per hour. The exhibits indicate the potential capacity is a
function of the conflicting flow rate vc,x expressed as an hourly rate, as well as the
type of minor-street movement.

Exhibit 32-1
Potential Capacity cp,x for
Two-Lane Major Streets

Note: LT = left turn, RT = right turn, and TH = through.

TWSC Potential Capacity Chapter 32/STOP-Controlled Intersections: Supplemental

Page 32-2 Version 6.0
 Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis

Exhibit 32-2
Potential Capacity cp,x for
Four-Lane Major Streets

Note: LT = left turn, U = U-turn, RT = right turn, and TH = through.

Exhibit 32-3
Potential Capacity cp,x for
Six-Lane Major Streets

Note: LT = left turn, U = U-turn, RT = right turn, and TH = through.

Chapter 32/STOP-Controlled Intersections: Supplemental TWSC Potential Capacity

Version 6.0 Page 32-3
Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis

3. TWSC EXAMPLE PROBLEMS

This section provides example problems for use of the TWSC methodology.
Exhibit 32-4 provides an overview of these problems. The examples focus on the
operational analysis level. The planning and preliminary engineering analysis
level is identical to the operations analysis level in terms of the calculations,
except that default values are used when available.

Exhibit 32-4 Problem Analysis

TWSC Example Problems Number Description Level
1 TWSC at an intersection with three legs Operational
2 Pedestrian crossing at a TWSC intersection Operational
3 TWSC intersection with flared approaches and median storage Operational
4 TWSC intersection within a signalized urban street segment Operational
5 TWSC intersection on a six-lane street with U-turns and pedestrians Operational

TWSC EXAMPLE PROBLEM 1: TWSC AT AN INTERSECTION

WITH THREE LEGS
The Facts
The following data are available to describe the traffic and geometric
characteristics of this location:
 T-intersection,
 Major street with one lane in each direction,
 Minor street with one lane in each direction and STOP-controlled on the
minor-street approach,
 Level grade on all approaches,
 Percentage heavy vehicles on all approaches = 10%,
 No other unique geometric considerations or upstream signal
considerations,
 No pedestrians,
 Length of analysis period = 0.25 h, and
 Volumes during the peak 15-min period and lane configurations as
shown in Exhibit 32-5.

Exhibit 32-5
TWSC Example Problem 1:
15-min Volumes and Lane
Configurations

TWSC Example Problems Chapter 32/STOP-Controlled Intersections: Supplemental

Page 32-4 Version 6.0
 Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis

Comments
All input parameters are known, so no default values are needed or used.

Steps 1 and 2: Convert Movement Demand Volumes to Flow Rates and

Label Movement Priorities
Because peak 15-min volumes have been provided, each volume is
multiplied by four to determine a peak 15-min flow rate (in vehicle per hour) for
each movement. These values, along with the associated movement numbers, are
shown in Exhibit 32-6.

Exhibit 32-6
TWSC Example Problem 1:
Movement Numbers and
Calculation of Peak 15-min
Flow Rates

Step 3: Compute Conflicting Flow Rates

The conflicting flow rates for each minor movement at the intersection are
computed according to Equation 20-3, Equation 20-4, Equation 20-18, and
Equation 20-24. The conflicting flow for the major-street left-turn vc,4 is
𝑣𝑐,4 = 𝑣2 + 𝑣3 + 𝑣15
𝑣𝑐,4 = 240 + 40 + 0 = 280 veh/h
The conflicting flow for the minor-street right-turn movement vc,9 is
𝑣𝑐,9 = 𝑣2 + 0.5𝑣3 + 𝑣14 + 𝑣15
𝑣𝑐,9 = 240 + 0.5(40) + 0 + 0 = 260 veh/h
Finally, the conflicting flow for the minor-street left-turn movement vc,7 is
computed. Because two-stage gap acceptance is not present at this intersection,
the conflicting flow rates shown in Stage I (Equation 20-18) and Stage II
(Equation 20-24) are added together and considered as one conflicting flow rate.
The conflicting flow for vc,7 is computed as follows:
𝑣𝑐,7 = 2𝑣1 + 𝑣2 + 0.5𝑣3 + 𝑣15 + 2𝑣4 + 𝑣5 + 0.5𝑣6 + 0.5𝑣12 + 0.5𝑣11 + 𝑣13
𝑣𝑐,7 = 2(0) + 240 + 0.5(40) + 0 + 2(160) + 300 + 0.5(0) + 0.5(0) + 0.5(0)
+ 0 = 880 veh/h

Step 4: Determine Critical Headways and Follow-Up Headways

The critical headway for each minor movement is computed beginning with
the base critical headway given in Exhibit 20-12. The base critical headway for
each movement is then adjusted according to Equation 20-30. The critical
headway for the major-street left-turn movement tc,4 is computed as follows:
𝑡𝑐,4 = 𝑡𝑐,base + 𝑡𝑐,𝐻𝑉 𝑃𝐻𝑉 + 𝑡𝑐,𝐺 𝐺 − 𝑡3,𝐿𝑇
𝑡𝑐,4 = 4.1 + 1.0(0.1) + 0(0) − 0 = 4.2 s

Chapter 32/STOP-Controlled Intersections: Supplemental TWSC Example Problems

Version 6.0 Page 32-5
Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis

Similarly, the critical headway for the minor-street right-turn movement tc,9 is
𝑡𝑐,9 = 6.2 + 1.0(0.1) + 0.1(0) − 0 = 6.3 s
Finally, the critical headway for the minor-street left-turn movement tc,7 is
𝑡𝑐,7 = 7.1 + 1.0(0.1) + 0.2(0) − 0.7 = 6.5 s
The follow-up headway for each minor movement is computed beginning
with the base follow-up headway given in Exhibit 20-13. The base follow-up
headway for each movement is then adjusted according to Equation 20-31. The
follow-up headway for the major-street left-turn movement tf,4 is computed as
follows:
𝑡𝑓,4 = 𝑡𝑓,𝑏𝑎𝑠𝑒 + 𝑡𝑓,𝐻𝑉 𝑃𝐻𝑉
𝑡𝑓,4 = 2.2 + 0.9(0.1) = 2.29 s
Similarly, the follow-up headway for the minor-street right-turn movement
tf,9 is
𝑡𝑓,9 = 3.3 + 0.9(0.1) = 3.39 s
Finally, the follow-up headway for the minor-street left-turn movement tf,7 is
𝑡𝑓,7 = 3.5 + 0.9(0.1) = 3.59 s

Step 5: Compute Potential Capacities

The computation of a potential capacity for each movement provides the
analyst with a definition of capacity under the assumed base conditions. The
potential capacity will be adjusted in later steps to estimate the movement
capacity for each movement. The potential capacity for each movement is a
function of the conflicting flow rate, critical headway, and follow-up headway
computed in the previous steps. The potential capacity for the major-street left-
turn movement cp,4 is computed as follows from Equation 20-32:
𝑒 −𝑣𝑐,4𝑡𝑐,4 /3,600
𝑐𝑝,4 = 𝑣𝑐,4
1 − 𝑒 −𝑣𝑐,4𝑡𝑓,4/3,600
𝑒 −(280)(4.2)/3,600
𝑐𝑝,4 = 280 = 1,238 veh/h
1 − 𝑒 −(280)(2.29)/3,600
Similarly, the potential capacity for the minor-street right-turn movement cp,9
is computed as follows:
𝑒 −(260)(6.3)/3,600
𝑐𝑝,9 = 260 = 760 veh/h
1 − 𝑒 −(260)(3.39)/3,600
Finally, the potential capacity for the minor-street left-turn movement cp,7 is
𝑒 −(880)(6.5)/3,600
𝑐𝑝,7 = 880 = 308 veh/h
1 − 𝑒 −(880)(3.59)/3,600
There are no upstream signals, so the adjustments for upstream signals are
ignored.

Step 6: Compute Rank 1 Movement Capacities

There are no pedestrians at the intersection; therefore, all pedestrian
impedance factors are equal to 1.0, and this step can be ignored.

TWSC Example Problems Chapter 32/STOP-Controlled Intersections: Supplemental

Page 32-6 Version 6.0
 Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis

Step 7: Compute Rank 2 Movement Capacities

The movement capacity for the major-street left-turn movement (Rank 2) cm,4
is computed as follows from Equation 20-36:
𝑐𝑚,4 = 𝑐𝑝,4 = 1,238 veh/h
Similarly, the movement capacity for the minor-street right-turn movement
(Rank 2) cm,9 is computed with Equation 20-37:
𝑐𝑚,9 = 𝑐𝑝,9 = 760 veh/h

Step 8: Compute Rank 3 Movement Capacities

The computation of vehicle impedance effects accounts for the reduction in
potential capacity due to the impacts of the congestion of a high-priority
movement on lower-priority movements.
Major-street movements of Rank 1 and Rank 2 are assumed to be unimpeded
by other vehicular movements. Minor-street movements of Rank 3 can be
impeded by major-street left-turn movements due to a major-street left-turning
vehicle waiting for an acceptable gap at the same time as vehicles of Rank 3. The
magnitude of this impedance depends on the probability that major-street left-
turning vehicles will be waiting for an acceptable gap at the same time as
vehicles of Rank 3. In this example, only the minor-street left-turn movement is
defined as a Rank 3 movement. Therefore, the probability of the major-street left-
turn movement operating in a queue-free state (p0,4) is computed from Equation
20-42:
𝑣4 160
𝑝0,4 = 1 − =1− = 0.871
𝑐𝑚,4 1,238
The movement capacity for the minor-street left-turn movement (Rank 3) cm,7
is found by first computing a capacity adjustment factor that accounts for the
impeding effects of higher-ranked movements. The capacity adjustment factor
for the minor-street left-turn movement f7 is computed with Equation 20-46:

𝑓7 = ∏ 𝑝0,𝑗 = 0.871
𝑗

The movement capacity for the minor-street left-turn movement (Rank 3) cm,7
is computed with Equation 20-47:
𝑐𝑚,7 = 𝑐𝑝,7 × 𝑓7 = 308(0.871) = 268 veh/h

Step 9: Compute Rank 4 Movement Capacities

There are no Rank 4 movements in this example problem, so this step does
not apply.

Step 10: Compute Capacity Adjustment Factors

In this example, the minor-street approach is a single lane shared by right-
turn and left-turn movements; therefore, the capacity of these two movements
must be adjusted to compute an approach capacity based on shared-lane effects.
The shared-lane capacity for the northbound minor-street approach cSH,NB is
computed from Equation 20-59:

Chapter 32/STOP-Controlled Intersections: Supplemental TWSC Example Problems

Version 6.0 Page 32-7
Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis

∑𝑦 𝑣𝑦 𝑣7 + 𝑣9 40 + 120
𝑐𝑆𝐻,𝑁𝐵 = 𝑣𝑦 = 𝑣7 𝑣9 = 40 120 = 521 veh/h
∑𝑦 +
𝑐𝑚,𝑦 𝑐𝑚,7 𝑐𝑚,9 268 + 760
No other adjustments apply.

Step 11: Compute Control Delay

The control delay computation for any movement includes initial
deceleration delay, queue move-up time, stopped delay, and final acceleration
delay.

Step 11a: Compute Control Delay to Rank 2 Through Rank 4 Movements

The control delay for the major-street left-turn movement (Rank 2) d4 is
computed with Equation 20-64:

3,600 𝑣
2 ( )( 𝑥 )
3,600 𝑣𝑥 𝑣𝑥 𝑐𝑚,𝑥 𝑐𝑚,𝑥
𝑑= + 900𝑇 − 1 + √( − 1) + +5
𝑐𝑚,𝑥 𝑐𝑚,𝑥 𝑐𝑚,𝑥 450𝑇
[ ]

3,600 160
3,600 160 160 2 ( )( )
√ 1,238 1,238
𝑑4 = + 900(0.25) −1+ ( − 1) + +5
1,238 1,238 1,238 450(0.25)
[ ]
𝑑4 = 8.3 s
On the basis of Exhibit 20-2, the westbound left-turn movement is assigned
level of service (LOS) A.
The control delay for the minor-street right-turn and left-turn movements is
computed by using the same formula; however, one significant difference from
the major-street left-turn computation of control delay is that these movements
share the same lane. Therefore, the control delay is computed for the approach as
a whole, and the shared-lane volume and shared-lane capacity must be used as
follows:

3,600 160
3,600 160 160 2 ( )( )
− 1) + 521
√ 521 + 5
𝑑𝑆𝐻,𝑁𝐵 = + 900(0.25) −1+ (
521 521 521 450(0.25)
[ ]
𝑑𝑆𝐻,𝑁𝐵 = 14.9 s
On the basis of Exhibit 20-2, the northbound approach is assigned LOS B.

Step 11b: Compute Control Delay to Rank 1 Movements

This step is not applicable as the westbound major-street through movement
v5 and westbound major-street left-turn movement v4 have exclusive lanes at this
intersection. It is assumed the eastbound through movement v2 and eastbound
major-street right-turn movement v3 do not incur any delay at this intersection.

TWSC Example Problems Chapter 32/STOP-Controlled Intersections: Supplemental

Page 32-8 Version 6.0
 Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis

Step 12: Compute Approach and Intersection Control Delay

The control delays to all vehicles on the eastbound approach are assumed to
be negligible as described in Step 11b. The control delay for the westbound
approach dA,WB is computed with Equation 20-66:
𝑑𝑟 𝑣𝑟 + 𝑑𝑡 𝑣𝑡 + 𝑑𝑙 𝑣𝑙
𝑑𝐴 =
𝑣𝑟 + 𝑣𝑡 + 𝑣𝑙
0(0) + 0(300) + 8.3(160)
𝑑𝐴,𝑊𝐵 = = 2.9 s
0 + 300 + 160
It is assumed the westbound through movement incurs no control delay at
this intersection. The control delay for the northbound approach was computed
in Step 11a as dSH,NB.
The intersection control delay dI is computed from Equation 20-67:
𝑑𝐴,𝐸𝐵 𝑣𝐴,𝐸𝐵 + 𝑑𝐴,𝑊𝐵 𝑣𝐴,𝑊𝐵 + 𝑑𝐴,𝑁𝐵 𝑣𝐴,𝑁𝐵
𝑑𝐼 =
𝑣𝐴,𝐸𝐵 + 𝑣𝐴,𝑊𝐵 + 𝑣𝐴,𝑁𝐵
0(280) + 2.9(460) + 14.9(160)
𝑑𝐼 = = 4.1 s
280 + 460 + 160
As noted in Chapter 20, neither major-street approach LOS nor intersection
LOS is defined.

Step 13: Compute 95th Percentile Queue Lengths

The 95th percentile queue length for the major-street westbound left-turn
movement Q95,4 is computed from Equation 20-68:

3,600 𝑣
2 ( )( 𝑥 )
𝑣4 𝑣4 𝑐𝑚,4 𝑐𝑚,4 𝑐𝑚,4
𝑄95,4 ≈ 900𝑇 − 1 + √( − 1) + ( )
𝑐𝑚,4 𝑐𝑚,4 150𝑇 3,600
[ ]

3,600 160
160 160 2 ( )( ) 1,238
√ 1,238 1,238
𝑄95,4 ≈ 900(0.25) −1+ ( − 1) + ( )
1,238 1,238 150(0.25) 3,600
[ ]
𝑄95,4 = 0.4 veh
The result of 0.4 vehicles for the 95th percentile queue indicates a queue of
more than one vehicle will occur very infrequently for the major-street left-turn
movement.
The 95th percentile queue length for the northbound approach is computed
by using the same formula. Similar to the control delay computation, the shared-
lane volume and shared-lane capacity must be used as shown:

3,600 160
160 160 2 ( )( )
521 ( 521 )
𝑄95,𝑁𝐵 ≈ 900(0.25) √
−1+ ( − 1) + 521
521 521 150(0.25) 3,600
[ ]
𝑄95,𝑁𝐵 = 1.3 veh

Chapter 32/STOP-Controlled Intersections: Supplemental TWSC Example Problems

Version 6.0 Page 32-9
Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis

The result suggests that a queue of more than one vehicle will occur only
occasionally for the northbound approach.

Discussion
Overall, the results indicate this three-leg TWSC intersection will operate
well with brief delays and little queuing for all minor movements.

TWSC EXAMPLE PROBLEM 2: PEDESTRIAN CROSSING AT A TWSC

INTERSECTION
Calculate the pedestrian LOS of a pedestrian crossing of a major street at a
TWSC intersection under the following circumstances:
 Scenario A: unmarked crosswalk, no median refuge island;
 Scenario B: unmarked crosswalk, median refuge island; and
 Scenario C: marked crosswalk with high-visibility treatments, median
refuge island.

The Facts
The following data are available to describe the traffic and geometric
characteristics of this location:
 Four-lane major street;
 1,700 peak hour vehicles, bidirectional;
 Crosswalk length without median = 46 ft;
 Crosswalk length with median = 40 ft;
 Observed pedestrian walking speed = 4 ft/s;
 Pedestrian start-up time = 3 s; and
 No pedestrian platooning.

Comments
In addition to the input data listed above, information is required on motor
vehicle yield rates under the various scenarios. On the basis of an engineering
study of similar intersections in the vicinity, it is determined motor vehicle yield
rates are 0% with unmarked crosswalks and 50% with high-visibility marked
crosswalks.

Step 1: Identify Two-Stage Crossings

Scenario A does not have two-stage pedestrian crossings, as no median
refuge is available. Analysis for Scenarios B and C should assume two-stage
crossings. Thus, analysis for Scenarios B and C will combine two equidistant
pedestrian crossings of 20 ft each to determine the total delay.

Step 2: Determine Critical Headway

Because there is no pedestrian platooning, the critical headway tc is
determined with Equation 20-77:

TWSC Example Problems Chapter 32/STOP-Controlled Intersections: Supplemental

Page 32-10 Version 6.0
 Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis

Scenario A: tc = (46 ft)/(4 ft/s) + 3 s = 14.5 s

Scenario B: tc = (20 ft)/(4 ft/s) + 3 s = 8 s
Scenario C: tc = (20 ft)/(4 ft/s) + 3 s = 8 s

Step 3: Estimate Probability of a Delayed Crossing

Equation 20-81 and Equation 20-82 are used to calculate Pb, the probability of
a blocked lane, and Pd, the probability of a delayed crossing, respectively. In the
case of Scenario A, the crossing consists of four lanes. Scenarios B and C have
only two lanes, given the two-stage crossing opportunity.
For the single-stage crossing, v is (1,700 veh/h)/(3,600 s/h) = 0.47 veh/s.
For the two-stage crossing, without any information on directional flows,
one-half the volume is used, and v is therefore (850 veh/h)/(3,600 s/h) = 0.24
veh/s.
Scenario A:
−𝑡𝑐,𝐺 𝑣
𝑃𝑏 = 1 − 𝑒 𝑁𝐿

𝑃𝑑 = 1 − (1 − 𝑃𝑏 )𝑁𝐿

−14.5(0.47)
𝑃𝑏 = 1 − 𝑒 4 = 0.82
𝑃𝑑 = 1 − (1 − 0.18)4 = 0.999

Scenario B:
−8(0.24)
𝑃𝑏 = 1 − 𝑒 2 = 0.61
2
𝑃𝑑 = 1 − (1 − 0.39) = 0.85

Scenario C:
−8(0.24)
𝑃𝑏 = 1 − 𝑒 2 = 0.61
𝑃𝑑 = 1 − (1 − 0.39)2 = 0.85

Step 4: Calculate Average Delay to Wait for Adequate Gap

Average gap delay dg and average gap delay when delay is nonzero dgd are
calculated by Equation 20-83 and Equation 20-84, respectively.
Scenario A:
1 𝑣𝑡
𝑑𝑔 = (𝑒 𝑐,𝐺 − 𝑣𝑡𝑐,𝐺 − 1)
𝑣
1
𝑑𝑔 = (𝑒 0.47(14.5) − 0.47(14.5) − 1) = 1,977 𝑠
0.47
𝑑𝑔 1,977
𝑑𝑔𝑑 = = = 1,979 s
𝑃𝑑 0.999

Chapter 32/STOP-Controlled Intersections: Supplemental TWSC Example Problems

Version 6.0 Page 32-11
Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis

Scenario B:
1
𝑑𝑔 = (𝑒 0.24(8) − 0.24(8) − 1) = 15.8 𝑠
0.24
15.8
𝑑𝑔𝑑 = = 18.6 s
0.85
Scenario C:
1
𝑑𝑔 = (𝑒 0.24(8) − 0.24(8) − 1) = 15.8 𝑠
0.24
15.8
𝑑𝑔𝑑 = = 18.6 s
0.85

Step 5: Estimate Delay Reduction Due to Yielding Vehicles

Under Scenarios A and B, the motorist yield rates are approximately 0%.
Therefore, there is no reduction in delay due to yielding vehicles, and average
delay is the same as that shown in Step 4. Under Scenario C, motorist yield rates
are 50%. The two-stage crossing requires the use of Equation 20-88 to determine
P(Yi):
𝑖−1
(2𝑃𝑏 [1 − 𝑃𝑏 ]𝑀𝑦 ) + (𝑃𝑏2 𝑀𝑦2 )
𝑃(𝑌𝑖 ) = [𝑃𝑑 − ∑ 𝑃(𝑌𝑗 )] [ ]
𝑃𝑑
𝑗=0

(2[0.61][1 − 0.61][0.5]) + (0.612 0.502 )

𝑃(𝑌1 ) = [0.85 − 0] [ ] = 0.33
0.85
(2[0.61][1 − 0.61][0.5]) + (0.612 0.502 )
𝑃(𝑌2 ) = [0.85 − 0.33] [ ] = 0.20
0.85
The results of Equation 20-88 are substituted into Equation 20-85 to
determine average pedestrian delay.
𝑛 𝑛

𝑑𝑝 = ∑ ℎ(𝑖 − 0.5)𝑃(𝑌𝑖 ) + (𝑃𝑑 − ∑ 𝑃(𝑌𝑖 )) 𝑑𝑔𝑑

𝑖=1 𝑖=1
𝑁𝐿 2
ℎ= = = 8.3 s
𝑣 (0.24)
𝑑𝑔𝑑 18.6
𝑛 = int ( ) = int ( )=2
ℎ 8.3
𝑑𝑝 = (8.3)(1 − 0.5)(0.33) + (8.3)(2 − 0.5)(0.20) + (0.85 − 0.53)(18.6) = 9.8 s

Step 6: Calculate LOS

Average pedestrian delays and the corresponding pedestrian LOS under
each of the three scenarios are determined from Exhibit 20-3 as follows:
Scenario A = 1,979 s = LOS F
Scenario B = 2 × 15.8 s = 31.6 s = LOS E
Scenario C = 2 × 9.8 s = 19.6 s = LOS C

TWSC Example Problems Chapter 32/STOP-Controlled Intersections: Supplemental

Page 32-12 Version 6.0
 Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis

TWSC EXAMPLE PROBLEM 3: FLARED APPROACHES AND MEDIAN

STORAGE
The Facts
The following data are available to describe the traffic and geometric
characteristics of this location:
 Major street with two lanes in each direction, minor street with one lane
on each approach that flares with storage for one vehicle in the flare area,
and median storage for two vehicles at one time available for minor-street
through and left-turn movements;
 Level grade on all approaches;
 Percentage heavy vehicles on all approaches = 10%;
 Peak hour factor on all approaches = 0.92;
 Length of analysis period = 0.25 h; and
 Volumes and lane configurations as shown in Exhibit 32-7.

Exhibit 32-7
TWSC Example Problem 3:
15-min Volumes and Lane
Configurations

Comments
All relevant input parameters are known, so no default values are needed or
used.

Steps 1 and 2: Convert Movement Demand Volumes to Flow Rates and

Label Movement Priorities
Because hourly volumes and a peak hour factor have been provided, each
hourly volume is divided by the peak hour factor to determine a peak 15-min
flow rate (in vehicles per hour) for each movement. These values are shown in
Exhibit 32-8.

Chapter 32/STOP-Controlled Intersections: Supplemental TWSC Example Problems

Version 6.0 Page 32-13
Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis

Exhibit 32-8
TWSC Example Problem 3:
Movement Numbers and
Calculation of Peak 15-min
Flow Rates

Step 3: Compute Conflicting Flow Rates

The conflicting flow rates for each minor movement at the intersection are
computed according to the equations in Chapter 20. The conflicting flow for the
eastbound major-street left-turn movement vc,1 is computed according to
Equation 20-2 as follows:
𝑣𝑐,1 = 𝑣5 + 𝑣6 + 𝑣16 = 300 + 100 + 0 = 400 veh/h
Similarly, the conflicting flow for the westbound major-street left-turn
movement vc,4 is computed according to Equation 20-3 as follows:
𝑣𝑐,4 = 𝑣2 + 𝑣3 + 𝑣15 = 250 + 50 + 0 = 300 veh/h
The conflicting flows for the northbound minor-street right-turn movement
vc,9 and southbound minor-street right-turn movement vc,12 are computed with
Equation 20-6 and Equation 20-7, respectively, as follows (with no U-turns and
pedestrians, the last three terms can be assigned zero):
𝑣𝑐,9 = 0.5𝑣2 + 0.5𝑣3 + 𝑣4𝑈 + 𝑣14 + 𝑣15
𝑣𝑐,9 = 0.5(250) + 0.5(50) + 0 + 0 + 0 = 150 veh/h
𝑣𝑐,12 = 0.5𝑣5 + 0.5𝑣6 + 𝑣1𝑈 + 𝑣13 + 𝑣16
𝑣𝑐,12 = 0.5(300) + 0.5(100) + 0 + 0 + 0 = 200 veh/h
Next, the conflicting flow for the northbound minor-street through
movement vc,8 is computed. Because two-stage gap acceptance is available for
this movement, the conflicting flow rates shown in Stage I and Stage II must be
computed separately. The conflicting flow for Stage I vc,I,8 is computed from
Equation 20-14:
𝑣𝑐,I,8 = 2(𝑣1 + 𝑣1𝑈 ) + 𝑣2 + 0.5𝑣3 + 𝑣15
𝑣𝑐,I,8 = 2(33 + 0) + 250 + 0.5(50) + 0 = 341 veh/h
The conflicting flow for Stage II vc,II,8 is computed from Equation 20-16:
𝑣𝑐,II,8 = 2(𝑣4 + 𝑣4𝑈 ) + 𝑣5 + 𝑣6 + 𝑣16
𝑣𝑐,II,8 = 2(66 + 0) + 300 + 100 + 0 = 532 veh/h

TWSC Example Problems Chapter 32/STOP-Controlled Intersections: Supplemental

Page 32-14 Version 6.0
 Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis

The total conflicting flow for the northbound through movement vc,8 is
computed as follows:
𝑣𝑐,8 = 𝑣𝑐,I,8 + 𝑣𝑐,II,8 = 341 + 532 = 873 veh/h
Similarly, the conflicting flow for the southbound minor-street through
movement vc,11 is computed in two stages as follows:
𝑣𝑐,I,11 = 2(66 + 0) + 300 + 0.5(100) + 0 = 482 veh/h
𝑣𝑐,II,11 = 2(33 + 0) + 250 + 50 + 0 = 366 veh/h
𝑣𝑐,11 = 𝑣𝑐,I,11 + 𝑣𝑐,II,11 = 482 + 366 = 848 veh/h
Next, the conflicting flow for the northbound minor-street left-turn
movement vc,7 is computed. Because two-stage gap acceptance is available for
this movement, the conflicting flow rates shown in Stage I and Stage II must be
computed separately. The conflicting flow for Stage I vc,I,7 is computed with
Equation 20-20 as follows:
𝑣𝑐,I,7 = 2(𝑣1 + 𝑣1𝑈 ) + 𝑣2 + 0.5𝑣3 + 𝑣15
𝑣𝑐,I,7 = 2(33 + 0) + 250 + 0.5(50) + 0 = 341 veh/h
The conflicting flow for Stage II vc,II,7 is computed with Equation 20-26 as
follows:
𝑣𝑐,II,7 = 2(𝑣4 + 𝑣4𝑈 ) + 0.5𝑣5 + 0.5𝑣11 + 𝑣13
𝑣𝑐,II,7 = 2(66 + 0) + 0.5(300) + 0.5(110) + 0 = 337 veh/h
The total conflicting flow for the northbound left-turn movement vc,7 is
computed as follows:
𝑣𝑐,7 = 𝑣𝑐,I,7 + 𝑣𝑐,II,7 = 341 + 337 = 678 veh/h
Similarly, the conflicting flow for the southbound minor-street left-turn
movement vc,10 is computed in two stages as follows:
𝑣𝑐,I,10 = 2(66 + 0) + 300 + 0.5(100) + 0 = 482 veh/h
𝑣𝑐,II,10 = 2(33 + 0) + 0.5(250) + 0.5(132) + 0 = 257 veh/h
𝑣𝑐,10 = 𝑣𝑐,I,10 + 𝑣𝑐,II,10 = 482 + 257 = 739 veh/h

Step 4: Determine Critical Headways and Follow-Up Headways

The critical headway for each minor movement is computed beginning with
the base critical headway given in Exhibit 20-12. The base critical headway for
each movement is then adjusted according to Equation 20-30. The critical
headways for the eastbound and westbound major-street left turns tc,1 and tc,4 (in
this case, tc,1 = tc,4) are computed as follows:
𝑡𝑐,1 = 𝑡𝑐,4 = 𝑡𝑐,base + 𝑡𝑐,𝐻𝑉 𝑃𝐻𝑉 + 𝑡𝑐,𝐺 𝐺 − 𝑡3,𝐿𝑇
𝑡𝑐,1 = 𝑡𝑐,4 = 4.1 + 2.0(0.1) + 0(0) − 0 = 4.3 s
Next, the critical headways for the northbound and southbound minor-street
right-turn movements tc,9 and tc,12 (in this case, tc,9 = tc,12) are computed as follows:
𝑡𝑐,9 = 𝑡𝑐,12 = 6.9 + 2.0(0.1) + 0.1(0) − 0 = 7.1 s
Next, the critical headways for the northbound and southbound minor-street
through movements tc,8 and tc,11 (in this case, tc,8 = tc,11) are computed. Because

Chapter 32/STOP-Controlled Intersections: Supplemental TWSC Example Problems

Version 6.0 Page 32-15
Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis

two-stage gap acceptance is available for these movements, the critical headways
for Stage I and Stage II must be computed, along with the critical headways for
these movements assuming single-stage gap acceptance. The critical headways
for Stage I and Stage II, tc,I,8, tc,I,11 and tc,II,8, tc,II,11, respectively (in this case, tc,I,8 = tc,II,8
= tc,I,11 = tc,II,11), are computed as follows:
𝑡𝑐,I,8 = 𝑡𝑐,II,8 = 𝑡𝑐,I,11 = 𝑡𝑐,II,11 = 5.5 + 2.0(0.1) + 0.2(0) − 0 = 5.7 s
The critical headways for tc,8 and tc,11 (in this case, tc,8 = tc,11), assuming single-
stage gap acceptance, are computed as follows:
𝑡𝑐,8 = 𝑡𝑐,11 = 6.5 + 2.0(0.1) + 0.2(0) − 0 = 6.7 s
Finally, the critical headways for the northbound and southbound minor-
street left-turn movements tc,7 and tc,10 (in this case, tc,7 = tc,10) are computed.
Because two-stage gap acceptance is available for these movements, the critical
headways for Stage I and Stage II must be computed, along with the critical
headways for these movements assuming single-stage gap acceptance. The
critical headways for Stage I and Stage II, tc,I,7, tc,I,10 and tc,II,7, tc,II,10, respectively (in
this case, tc,I,7 = tc,II,7 = tc,I,10 = tc,II,10), are computed as follows:
𝑡𝑐,I,7 = 𝑡𝑐,II,7 = 𝑡𝑐,I,10 = 𝑡𝑐,II,10 = 6.5 + 2.0(0.1) + 0.2(0) − 0 = 6.7 s
The critical headways for tc,7 and tc,10 (in this case, tc,7 = tc,10), assuming single-
stage gap acceptance, are computed as follows:
𝑡𝑐,7 = 𝑡𝑐,10 = 7.5 + 2.0(0.1) + 0.2(0) − 0 = 7.7 s
The follow-up headway for each minor movement is computed beginning
with the base follow-up headway given in Exhibit 20-13. The base follow-up
headway for each movement is then adjusted according to Equation 20-31. The
follow-up headways for the northbound and southbound major-street left-turn
movements tf,1 and tf,4 (in this case, tf,1 = tf,4) are computed as follows:
𝑡𝑓,1 = 𝑡𝑓,4 = 𝑡𝑓,𝑏𝑎𝑠𝑒 + 𝑡𝑓,𝐻𝑉 𝑃𝐻𝑉
𝑡𝑓,1 = 𝑡𝑓,4 = 2.2 + 1.0(0.1) = 2.3 s
Next, the follow-up headways for the northbound and southbound minor-
street right-turn movements tf,9 and tf,12 (in this case, tf,9 = tf,12) are computed as
follows:
𝑡𝑓,9 = 𝑡𝑓,12 = 3.3 + 1.0(0.1) = 3.4 s
Next, the follow-up headways for the northbound and southbound minor-
street through movements tf,8 and tf,11 (in this case, tf,8 = tf,11) are computed as
follows:
Follow-up headways for the 𝑡𝑓,8 = 𝑡𝑓,11 = 4.0 + 1.0(0.1) = 4.1 s
minor-street through and left-
turn movements are computed Finally, the follow-up headways for the northbound and southbound minor-
for the movement as a whole.
Follow-up headways are not street left-turn movements tf,7 and tf,10 (in this case, tf,7 = tf,10) are computed as
broken up by stage because follows:
they apply only to vehicles as
they exit the approach and 𝑡𝑓,7 = 𝑡𝑓,10 = 3.5 + 1.0(0.1) = 3.6 s
enter the intersection.

TWSC Example Problems Chapter 32/STOP-Controlled Intersections: Supplemental

Page 32-16 Version 6.0
 Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis

Step 5: Compute Potential Capacities

Because no upstream signals are present, the procedure in Step 5a is
followed.
The computation of a potential capacity for each movement provides the
analyst with a definition of capacity under the assumed base conditions. The
potential capacity will be adjusted in later steps to estimate the movement
capacity for each movement. The potential capacity for each movement is a
function of the conflicting flow rate, critical headway, and follow-up headway
computed in the previous steps. The potential capacity for the northbound
major-street left-turn movement cp,1 is computed from Equation 20-32:
𝑒 −𝑣𝑐,1𝑡𝑐,1 /3,600
𝑐𝑝,1 = 𝑣𝑐,1
1 − 𝑒 −𝑣𝑐,1𝑡𝑓,1/3,600
𝑒 −(400)(4.3)/3,600
𝑐𝑝,1 = 400 = 1,100 veh/h
1 − 𝑒 −(400)(2.3)/3,600
Similarly, the potential capacities for Movements 4, 9, and 12 (cp,4, cp,9, and
cp,12, respectively) are computed as follows:
𝑒 −(300)(4.3)/3,600
𝑐𝑝,4 = 300 = 1,202 veh/h
1 − 𝑒 −(300)(2.3)/3,600
𝑒 −(150)(7.1)/3,600
𝑐𝑝,9 = 150 = 845 veh/h
1 − 𝑒 −(150)(3.4)/3,600
𝑒 −(200)(7.1)/3,600
𝑐𝑝,12 = 200 = 783 veh/h
1 − 𝑒 −(200)(3.4)/3,600
Because the two-stage gap-acceptance adjustment procedure will be
implemented for estimating the capacity of the minor-street movements, three
potential capacity values must be computed for each of Movements 7, 8, 10, and
11. First, the potential capacity must be computed for Stage I, cp,I,8, cp,I,11, cp,I,7, and
cp,I,10, for each movement as follows:
𝑒 −(341)(5.7)/3,600
𝑐𝑝,𝐼,8 = 341 = 618 veh/h
1 − 𝑒 −(341)(4.1)/3,600
𝑒 −(482)(5.7)/3,600
𝑐𝑝,𝐼,11 = 482 = 532 veh/h
1 − 𝑒 −(482)(4.1)/3,600
𝑒 −(341)(6.7)/3,600
𝑐𝑝,𝐼,7 = 341 = 626 veh/h
1 − 𝑒 −(341)(3.6)/3,600
𝑒 −(482)(6.7)/3,600
𝑐𝑝,𝐼,10 = 482 = 514 veh/h
1 − 𝑒 −(482)(3.6)/3,600
Next, the potential capacity must be computed for Stage II for each
movement, cp,II,8, cp,II,11, cp,II,7, and cp,II,10, as follows:
𝑒 −(532)(5.7)/3,600
𝑐𝑝,𝐼𝐼,8 = 532 = 504 veh/h
1 − 𝑒 −(532)(4.1)/3,600
𝑒 −(366)(5.7)/3,600
𝑐𝑝,𝐼𝐼,11 = 366 = 601 veh/h
1 − 𝑒 −(366)(4.1)/3,600

Chapter 32/STOP-Controlled Intersections: Supplemental TWSC Example Problems

Version 6.0 Page 32-17
Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis

𝑒 −(337)(6.7)/3,600
𝑐𝑝,𝐼𝐼,7 = 337 = 629 veh/h
1 − 𝑒 −(337)(3.6)/3,600
𝑒 −(257)(6.7)/3,600
𝑐𝑝,𝐼,10 = 257 = 703 veh/h
1 − 𝑒 −(257)(3.6)/3,600
Finally, the potential capacity must be computed assuming single-stage gap
acceptance for each movement, cp,8, cp,11, cp,7, and cp,10, as follows:
𝑒 −(873)(6.7)/3,600
𝑐𝑝,8 = 873 = 273 veh/h
1 − 𝑒 −(873)(4.1)/3,600
𝑒 −(848)(6.7)/3,600
𝑐𝑝,11 = 848 = 283 veh/h
1 − 𝑒 −(848)(4.1)/3,600
𝑒 −(678)(7.7)/3,600
𝑐𝑝,7 = 678 = 323 veh/h
1 − 𝑒 −(678)(3.6)/3,600
𝑒 −(739)(7.7)/3,600
𝑐𝑝,10 = 739 = 291 veh/h
1 − 𝑒 −(739)(3.6)/3,600

Steps 6–9: Compute Movement Capacities

Because no pedestrians are present, the procedures given in Chapter 20 are
followed.

Step 6: Compute Rank 1 Movement Capacities

There is no computation for this step.

Step 7: Compute Rank 2 Movement Capacities

Step 7a: Movement Capacity for Major-Street Left-Turn Movements
The movement capacity of each Rank 2 major-street left-turn movement is
equal to its potential capacity:
𝑐𝑚,1 = 𝑐𝑝,1 = 1,100 veh/h
𝑐𝑚,4 = 𝑐𝑝,4 = 1,202 veh/h

Step 7b: Movement Capacity for Minor-Street Right-Turn Movements

The movement capacity of each minor-street right-turn movement is equal to
its potential capacity:
𝑐𝑚,9 = 𝑐𝑝,9 = 845 veh/h
𝑐𝑚,12 = 𝑐𝑝,12 = 783 veh/h

Step 7c: Movement Capacity for Major-Street U-Turn Movements

No U-turns are present, so this step is skipped.

Step 7d: Effect of Major-Street Shared Through and Left-Turn Lane

Separate major-street left-turn lanes are provided, so this step is skipped.

TWSC Example Problems Chapter 32/STOP-Controlled Intersections: Supplemental

Page 32-18 Version 6.0
 Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis

Step 8: Compute Rank 3 Movement Capacities

The movement capacity of each Rank 3 movement is equal to its potential
capacity, factored by any impedance due to conflicting pedestrian or vehicular
movements.

Step 8a: Rank 3 Capacity for One-Stage Movements

As there are no pedestrians assumed at this intersection, the Rank 3
movements will be impeded only by other vehicular movements. Specifically,
the Rank 3 movements will be impeded by major-street left-turning traffic, and
as a first step in determining the impact of this impedance, the probability that
these movements will operate in a queue-free state must be computed according
to Equation 20-42:
𝑣1 33
𝑝0,1 = 1 − =1− = 0.970
𝑐𝑚,1 1,100
66
𝑝0,4 = 1 − = 0.945
1,202
Next, by using the probabilities computed above, capacity adjustment factors
f8 and f11 can be computed according to Equation 20-46:
𝑓8 = 𝑓11 = 𝑝0,1 × 𝑝0,4 = (0.970)(0.945) = 0.917
Finally, under the single-stage gap-acceptance assumption, the movement
capacities cm,8 and cm,11 can be computed according to Equation 20-47:
𝑐𝑚,8 = 𝑐𝑝,8 × 𝑓8 = (273)(0.917) = 250 veh/h
𝑐𝑚,11 = 𝑐𝑝,11 × 𝑓11 = (283)(0.917) = 260 veh/h
Because Movements 8 and 11 will operate under two-stage gap acceptance,
the capacity adjustment procedure for estimating the capacity of Stage I and
Stage II of these movements must be completed.
To begin the process of estimating Stage I and Stage II movement capacities,
the probabilities of queue-free states on conflicting Rank 2 movements calculated
above are entered into Equation 20-46 as before, but this time capacity
adjustment factors are estimated for each individual stage as follows:
𝑓I,8 = 𝑝0,1 = 0.970
𝑓I,11 = 𝑝0,4 = 0.945
𝑓II,8 = 𝑝0,4 = 0.945
𝑓II,11 = 𝑝0,1 = 0.970
The Stage I movement capacities are then computed as follows:
𝑐𝑚,I,8 = 𝑐𝑝,I,8 × 𝑓𝐼,8 = (618)(0.970) = 599 veh/h
𝑐𝑚,I,11 = 𝑐𝑝,I,11 × 𝑓I,11 = (532)(0.945) = 503 veh/h
The Stage II movement capacities are then computed as follows:
𝑐𝑚,II,8 = 𝑐𝑝,II,8 × 𝑓II,8 = (504)(0.945) = 476 veh/h
𝑐𝑚,II,11 = 𝑐𝑝,II,11 × 𝑓II,11 = (601)(0.970) = 583 veh/h

Chapter 32/STOP-Controlled Intersections: Supplemental TWSC Example Problems

Version 6.0 Page 32-19
Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis

Step 8b: Rank 3 Capacity for Two-Stage Movements

The two-stage gap-acceptance procedure will result in a total capacity estimate
for Movements 8 and 11. To begin the procedure, an adjustment factor a must be
computed for each movement by using Equation 20-48, under the assumption
there is storage for two vehicles in the median refuge area; thus, nm = 2.
𝑎8 = 𝑎11 = 1 − 0.32𝑒 −1.3√𝑛𝑚 = 1 − 0.32𝑒 −1.3√2 = 0.949
Next, an intermediate variable, y, must be computed for each movement by
using Equation 20-49:
𝑐𝑚,𝐼,8 − 𝑐𝑚,8 599 − 250
𝑦8 = = = 1.808
𝑐𝑚,𝐼𝐼,8 − 𝑣1 − 𝑐𝑚,8 476 − 33 − 250
𝑐𝑚,𝐼,11 − 𝑐𝑚,11 503 − 260
𝑦11 = = = 0.946
𝑐𝑚,𝐼𝐼,11 − 𝑣4 − 𝑐𝑚,11 583 − 66 − 260
Finally, the total capacity for each movement cT,8 and cT,11 is computed
according to Equation 20-50, because y ≠ 1:
𝑎8 𝑛
𝑐𝑚,𝑇,8 = 𝑛𝑚 +1 [𝑦8 (𝑦8 𝑚 − 1)(𝑐𝑚,𝐼𝐼,8 − 𝑣1 ) + (𝑦8 − 1)𝑐𝑚,8 ]
𝑦8 − 1
0.949
𝑐𝑚,𝑇,8 = [(1.808)(1.8082 − 1)(476 − 33) + (1.808 − 1)(250)]
1.8082+1 − 1
𝑐𝑚,𝑇,8 = 390 veh/h

𝑎11 𝑛𝑚
𝑐𝑚,𝑇,11 = 𝑛𝑚 +1 [𝑦11 (𝑦11 − 1)(𝑐𝑚,𝐼𝐼,11 − 𝑣4 ) + (𝑦11 − 1)𝑐𝑚,11 ]
𝑦11 −1
0.949
𝑐𝑚,𝑇,11 = [(0.946)(0.9462 − 1)(583 − 66) + (0.946 − 1)(260)]
0.9462+1 − 1
𝑐𝑚,𝑇,11 = 405 veh/h

Step 9: Compute Rank 4 Movement Capacities

Step 9a: Rank 4 Capacity for One-Stage Movements
The vehicle impedance effects for Rank 4 movements are first estimated by
assuming single-stage gap acceptance. Rank 4 movements are impeded by all the
same movements impeding Rank 2 and Rank 3 movements with the addition of
impedances due to the minor-street crossing movements and minor-street right-
turn movements. The probability that these movements will operate in a queue-
free state must be incorporated into the procedure.
The probabilities that the minor-street right-turn movements will operate in
a queue-free state (p0,9 and p0,12) are computed as follows:
𝑣9 55
𝑝0,9 = 1 − =1− = 0.935
𝑐𝑚,9 845
28
𝑝0,12 = 1 − = 0.964
783
To compute p’, the probability that both the major-street left-turn movements
and the minor-street crossing movements will operate in a queue-free state
simultaneously, the analyst must first compute p0,k, which is done in the same

TWSC Example Problems Chapter 32/STOP-Controlled Intersections: Supplemental

Page 32-20 Version 6.0
 Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis

manner as the computation of p0,j, except k represents Rank 3 movements. The

values for p0,k are computed as follows:
𝑣8 132
𝑝0,8 = 1 − = 1− = 0.662
𝑐𝑚,𝑇,8 390
110
𝑝0,11 = 1 − = 0.728
405
Next, the analyst must compute p”, which, under the single-stage gap-
acceptance assumption, is simply the product of fj and p0,k. The value for f8 = f11 =
0.917 is as computed above. The value for p0,11 is computed by using the total
capacity for Movement 11 calculated in the previous step:
𝑝7′′ = 𝑝0,11 × 𝑓11 = (0.728)(0.917) = 0.668
′′
𝑝10 = 𝑝0,8 × 𝑓8 = (0.662)(0.917) = 0.607
With the values for p”, the probability of a simultaneous queue-free state for
each movement can be computed by using Equation 20-52 as follows:
𝑝7′′
𝑝7′ = 0.65𝑝7′′ − + 0.6√𝑝7′′
𝑝7′′ + 3
0.668
𝑝7′ = 0.65(0.668) − + 0.6√0.668 = 0.742
0.668 + 3
′
0.607
𝑝10 = 0.65(0.607) − + 0.6√0.607 = 0.694
0.607 + 3
Next, with the probabilities computed above, capacity adjustment factors f7
and f10 can be computed according to Equation 20-53:
𝑓7 = 𝑝7′ × 𝑝0,12 = (0.742)(0.964) = 0.715
′
𝑓10 = 𝑝10 × 𝑝0,9 = (0.694)(0.935) = 0.649
Finally, under the single-stage gap-acceptance assumption, the movement
capacities cm,7 and cm,10 can be computed according to Equation 20-54:
𝑐𝑚,7 = 𝑐𝑝,7 × 𝑓7 = (323)(0.715) = 231 veh/h
𝑐𝑚,10 = 𝑐𝑝,10 × 𝑓10 = (291)(0.649) = 189 veh/h

Step 9b: Rank 4 Capacity for Two-Stage Movements

Similar to the minor-street crossing movements at this intersection,
Movements 7 and 10 will also operate under two-stage gap acceptance.
Therefore, the capacity adjustment procedure for estimating the capacity of Stage
I and Stage II of these movements must be completed.
Under the assumption of two-stage gap acceptance with a median refuge
area, the minor-street left-turn movements operate as Rank 3 movements in each
individual stage of completing the left-turn maneuver. To begin the process of
estimating two-stage movement capacities, the probabilities of queue-free states
on conflicting Rank 2 movements for Stage I of the minor-street left-turn
movement are entered into Equation 20-46, and capacity adjustment factors for
Stage I are computed as follows:
𝑓I,7 = 𝑝0,1 = 0.970
𝑓I,10 = 𝑝0,4 = 0.945

Chapter 32/STOP-Controlled Intersections: Supplemental TWSC Example Problems

Version 6.0 Page 32-21
Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis

The Stage I movement capacities can then be computed as follows:

𝑐𝑚,I,7 = 𝑐𝑝,I,7 × 𝑓I,7 = (626)(0.970) = 607 veh/h
𝑐𝑚,I,10 = 𝑐𝑝,I,10 × 𝑓I,10 = (514)(0.945) = 486 veh/h
Next, the probabilities of queue-free states on conflicting Rank 2 movements
for Stage II of the minor-street left-turn movement are entered into Equation 20-
46. However, before estimating these probabilities, the probability of a queue-
free state for the first stage of the minor-street crossing movement must be
estimated as it impedes Stage II of the minor-street left-turn movement. These
probabilities are estimated with Equation 20-42:
𝑣8 132
𝑝0,I,8 = 1 − =1− = 0.780
𝑐𝑚,I,8 599
110
𝑝0,I,11 = 1 −
= 0.781
503
The capacity adjustment factors for Stage II are then computed as follows:
𝑓II,7 = 𝑝0,4 × 𝑝0,12 × 𝑝0,I,11 = (0.945)(0.964)(0.781) = 0.711
𝑓II,10 = 𝑝0,1 × 𝑝0,9 × 𝑝0,I,8 = (0.970)(0.935)(0.780) = 0.707
Finally, the movement capacities for Stage II are computed as follows:
𝑐𝑚,II,7 = 𝑐𝑝,II,7 × 𝑓II,7 = (629)(0.711) = 447 veh/h
𝑐𝑚,II,10 = (703)(0.707) = 497 veh/h
The final result of the two-stage gap-acceptance procedure will be a total
capacity estimate for Movements 7 and 10. To begin the procedure, an
adjustment factor a must be computed for each movement by using Equation 20-
55, under the assumption there is storage for two vehicles in the median refuge
area; thus, nm = 2.
𝑎7 = 𝑎10 = 1 − 0.32𝑒 −1.3√𝑛𝑚 = 1 − 0.32𝑒 −1.3√2 = 0.949
Next, an intermediate variable y must be computed for each movement by
using Equation 20-56:
𝑐𝑚,I,7 − 𝑐𝑚,7 607 − 231
𝑦7 = = = 2.055
𝑐𝑚,II,7 − 𝑣1 − 𝑐𝑚,7 447 − 33 − 231
𝑐𝑚,I,10 − 𝑐𝑚,10 486 − 189
𝑦10 = = = 1.227
𝑐𝑚,II,10 − 𝑣4 − 𝑐𝑚,10 497 − 66 − 189
Finally, the total capacity for each movement, cT,7 and cT,10, is computed
according to Equation 20-57, as y ≠ 1:
𝑎7 𝑛
𝑐𝑇,7 = 𝑛𝑚 +1 [𝑦7 (𝑦7 𝑚 − 1)(𝑐𝑚,𝐼𝐼,7 − 𝑣1 ) + (𝑦7 − 1)𝑐𝑚,7 ]
𝑦7 −1
0.949
𝑐𝑇,7 = [(2.055)(2.0552 − 1)(447 − 33) + (2.055 − 1)(231)]
2.0552+1 − 1
𝑐𝑇,7 = 369 veh/h

𝑎10 𝑛𝑚
𝑐𝑇,10 = 𝑛𝑚 +1 [𝑦10 (𝑦10 − 1)(𝑐𝑚,𝐼𝐼,10 − 𝑣4 ) + (𝑦10 − 1)𝑐𝑚,10 ]
𝑦10 − 1

TWSC Example Problems Chapter 32/STOP-Controlled Intersections: Supplemental

Page 32-22 Version 6.0
 Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis

0.949
𝑐𝑇,10 = [(1.227)(1.2272 − 1)(497 − 66) + (1.227 − 1)(189)]
1.2272+1 − 1
𝑐𝑇,10 = 347 veh/h

Step 10: Compute Final Capacity Adjustments

In this example problem, several final capacity adjustments must be made to
account for the effect of the shared lanes and the flared lanes on the minor-street
approaches. Initially, the shared-lane capacities for each of the minor-street
approaches must be computed on the assumption of no flared lanes; after these
computations are completed, the effects of the flare can be incorporated to
compute an actual capacity for each minor-street approach.

Step 10a: Shared-Lane Capacity of Minor-Street Approaches

In this example, both minor-street approaches have single-lane entries,
meaning that all movements on the minor street share one lane. The shared-lane
capacities for the minor-street approaches are computed according to Equation
20-59:
∑𝑦 𝑣𝑦 𝑣7 + 𝑣 8 + 𝑣9 44 + 132 + 55
𝑐𝑆𝐻,𝑁𝐵 = 𝑣𝑦 = 𝑣7 𝑣8 𝑣9 = 44 132 55 = 442 veh/h
∑𝑦 + +
𝑐𝑚,𝑦 𝑐𝑚,7 𝑐𝑚,8 𝑐𝑚,9 369 + 390 + 845

∑𝑦 𝑣𝑦 11 + 110 + 28
𝑐𝑆𝐻,𝑆𝐵 = 𝑣𝑦 = 11 110 28 = 439 veh/h
∑𝑦
𝑐𝑚,𝑦 347 + 405 + 783

Step 10b: Flared Minor-Street Lane Effects

In this example, the capacity of each minor-street approach will be greater
than the shared capacities computed in the previous step due to the shared-lane
condition on each approach. On each approach, it is assumed one vehicle at a
time can queue in the flared area; therefore, n = 1.
First, the analyst must estimate the average queue length for each movement
sharing the lane on each approach. Required input data for this estimation
include the flow rates and control delays for each movement. Although the flow
rates are known input data, the control delays have not yet been computed.
Therefore, the control delay for each movement, assuming a 15-min analysis
period and separate lanes for each movement, is computed with Equation 20-64:

3,600 𝑣
2 ( )( 7 )
3,600 𝑣7 √ 𝑣7 𝑐𝑚,7 𝑐𝑚,7
𝑑7 = + 900𝑇 −1+ ( − 1) + +5
𝑐7 𝑐𝑚,7 𝑐𝑚,7 450𝑇
[ ]
3,600 44
3,600 44 44 2 ( )( )
− 1) + 369
√ 369 ] + 5
𝑑7 = + 900(0.25) [ −1+ (
369 369 369 450(0.25)

𝑑7 = 16.07 s

Chapter 32/STOP-Controlled Intersections: Supplemental TWSC Example Problems

Version 6.0 Page 32-23
Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis

3,600 132
3,600 132 132 2 ( )( )
− 1) + 390
√ 390 ] + 5
𝑑8 = + 900(0.25) [ −1+ (
390 390 390 450(0.25)

𝑑8 = 18.88 s

3,600 55
3,600 55 55 2 ( )( )
√ 845 845
𝑑9 = + 900(0.25) −1+ ( − 1) + +5
845 845 845 450(0.25)
[ ]
𝑑9 = 9.57 s
3,600 11
3,600 11 11 2 ( )( )
√ 347 347 ]
𝑑10 = + 900(0.25) [ −1+ ( − 1) + +5
347 347 347 450(0.25)

𝑑10 = 15.71 s
3,600 110
3,600 110 110 2 ( )( )
𝑑11 = + 900(0.25) [ √
−1+ ( − 1) + 405 405 ] + 5
405 405 405 450(0.25)

𝑑11 = 17.17 s
3,600 28
3,600 28 28 2 ( )( )
− 1) + 783
√ 783 ] + 5
𝑑12 = + 900(0.25) [ −1+ (
783 783 783 450(0.25)

𝑑12 = 9.77 s
In this example, all movements on the minor-street approach share one lane;
therefore, the average queue lengths for each minor-street movement are
computed as follows from Equation 20-60:
𝑑𝑠𝑒𝑝,7 𝑣𝑠𝑒𝑝,7 (16.07)(44)
𝑄𝑠𝑒𝑝,7 = = = 0.20 veh
3,600 3,600
(18.88)(132)
𝑄𝑠𝑒𝑝,8 = = 0.69 veh
3,600
(9.57)(55)
𝑄𝑠𝑒𝑝,9 = = 0.15 veh
3,600
(15.71)(11)
𝑄𝑠𝑒𝑝,10 = = 0.05 veh
3,600
(17.17)(110)
𝑄𝑠𝑒𝑝,11 = = 0.53 veh
3,600
(9.77)(28)
𝑄𝑠𝑒𝑝,12 = = 0.08 veh
3,600
Next, the required length of the storage area so that each approach would
operate effectively as separate lanes is computed with Equation 20-61:
𝑛𝑀𝑎𝑥 = max[round(𝑄𝑠𝑒𝑝,𝑖 + 1)]
𝑖

TWSC Example Problems Chapter 32/STOP-Controlled Intersections: Supplemental

Page 32-24 Version 6.0
 Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis

𝑛𝑀𝑎𝑥,𝑁𝐵 = max[round(𝑄𝑠𝑒𝑝,7 + 1),round(𝑄𝑠𝑒𝑝,8 + 1),round(𝑄𝑠𝑒𝑝,9 + 1)]

𝑁𝐵
𝑛𝑀𝑎𝑥,𝑁𝐵 = max[round(0.20 + 1),round(0.69 + 1),round(0.15 + 1)] = 2
𝑁𝐵
𝑛𝑀𝑎𝑥,𝑆𝐵 = max[round(0.05 + 1),round(0.53 + 1),round(0.08 + 1)] = 2
𝑆𝐵

The next step involves estimating separate lane capacities, with

consideration of the limitation of the amount of right-turn traffic that could
actually move into a separate right-turn lane given a queue before the location of
the flare. To compute separate lane capacities, the shared-lane capacities of the
through plus left-turn movement on each approach must first be estimated
according to Equation 20-59:
∑𝑦 𝑣𝑦 𝑣7 + 𝑣8 44 + 132
𝑐𝐿+𝑇𝐻,𝑁𝐵 = 𝑣𝑦 = 𝑣7 𝑣8 = 44 132 = 385 veh/h
∑𝑦 +
𝑐𝑚,𝑦 𝑐𝑚,7 𝑐𝑚,8 369 + 390

∑𝑦 𝑣𝑦 𝑣10 + 𝑣11 11 + 110

𝑐𝐿+𝑇𝐻,𝑆𝐵 = 𝑣𝑦 = 𝑣10 𝑣11 = 11 110 = 399 veh/h
∑𝑦 +
𝑐𝑚,𝑦 𝑐𝑚,10 𝑐𝑚,11 347 + 405

Then, the capacity of the separate lane condition csep for each approach can be
computed according to Equation 20-62:
𝑣𝐿+𝑇𝐻 𝑣𝑅
𝑐𝑠𝑒𝑝 = min [𝑐𝑅 (1 + ) , 𝑐𝐿+𝑇𝐻 (1 + )]
𝑣𝑅 𝑣𝐿+𝑇𝐻
𝑣𝐿+𝑇𝐻,𝑁𝐵 𝑣9
𝑐𝑠𝑒𝑝,𝑁𝐵 = min [𝑐𝑚,9 (1 + ) , 𝑐𝐿+𝑇𝐻,𝑁𝐵 (1 + )]
𝑣9 𝑣𝐿+𝑇𝐻,𝑁𝐵
44 + 132 55
𝑐𝑠𝑒𝑝,𝑁𝐵 = min [(845) (1 + ) , (385) (1 + )] = 505 veh/h
55 44 + 132
𝑣𝐿+𝑇𝐻,𝑆𝐵 𝑣12
𝑐𝑠𝑒𝑝,𝑆𝐵 = min [𝑐𝑚,12 (1 + ) , 𝑐𝐿+𝑇𝐻,𝑆𝐵 (1 + )]
𝑣12 𝑣𝐿+𝑇𝐻,𝑆𝐵
11 + 110 28
𝑐𝑠𝑒𝑝,𝑆𝐵 = min [(783) (1 + ) , (399) (1 + )] = 491 veh/h
28 11 + 110
Finally, the capacities of the flared minor-street lanes are computed
according to Equation 20-63:
𝑛𝑅
(𝑐𝑠𝑒𝑝 − 𝑐𝑆𝐻 ) + 𝑐𝑆𝐻 if 𝑛𝑅 ≤ 𝑛𝑀𝑎𝑥
𝑐 ={ 𝑛𝑀𝑎𝑥
𝑅
𝑐𝑠𝑒𝑝 if 𝑛𝑅 > 𝑛𝑀𝑎𝑥
Because nR = 1 and nMax = 2, the first condition is evaluated:
1
𝑐𝑅,𝑁𝐵 = (505 − 442) ( ) + 442 = 474 veh/h
2
Similarly,
1
𝑐𝑅,𝑆𝐵 = (491 − 439) ( ) + 439 = 465 veh/h
2

Chapter 32/STOP-Controlled Intersections: Supplemental TWSC Example Problems

Version 6.0 Page 32-25
Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis

Step 11: Compute Control Delay

The control delay computation for any movement includes initial
deceleration delay, queue move-up time, stopped delay, and final acceleration
delay.

Step 11a: Compute Control Delay to Rank 2 Through Rank 4 Movements

The control delays for the major-street left-turn movements (Rank 2) d1 and
d4 and the minor-street approaches dNB and dSB are computed with Equation
20-64:

3,600 33
3,600 33 33 2 ( )( )
1,100 1,100
𝑑1 = + 900(0.25) − 1 + √( − 1) + +5
1,100 1,100 1,100 450(0.25)
[ ]
𝑑1 = 8.4 s

3,600 66
3,600 66 66 2 ( )( )
√ 1,202 1,202
𝑑4 = + 900(0.25) −1+ ( − 1) + +5
1,202 1,202 1,202 450(0.25)
[ ]
𝑑4 = 8.2 s
3,600 231
3,600 231 231 2 ( )( )
− 1) + 474
√ 474 ] + 5
𝑑𝑁𝐵 = + 900(0.25) [ −1+ (
474 474 474 450(0.25)

𝑑𝑁𝐵 = 19.6 s
3,600 149
3,600 149 149 2 ( )( )
− 1) + 465
√ 465 ] + 5
𝑑𝑆𝐵 = + 900(0.25) [ −1+ (
465 465 465 450(0.25)

𝑑𝑆𝐵 = 16.3 s
According to Exhibit 20-2, LOS for the major-street left-turn movements and
the minor-street approaches are as follows:
 Eastbound major-street left turn (Movement 1): LOS A,
 Westbound major-street left turn (Movement 4): LOS A,
 Northbound minor-street approach: LOS C, and
 Southbound minor-street approach: LOS C.

Step 11b: Compute Control Delay to Rank 1 Movements

This step is not applicable as the major-street through movements v2 and v5
and westbound major-street left-turn movements v1 and v4 have exclusive lanes
at this intersection.

TWSC Example Problems Chapter 32/STOP-Controlled Intersections: Supplemental

Page 32-26 Version 6.0
 Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis

Step 12: Compute Approach and Intersection Control Delay

The control delay for the eastbound approach dA,EB is computed with
Equation 20-66:
𝑑𝑟 𝑣𝑟 + 𝑑𝑡 𝑣𝑡 + 𝑑𝑙 𝑣𝑙
𝑑𝐴 =
𝑣𝑟 + 𝑣𝑡 + 𝑣𝑙
0(50) + 0(250) + 8.2(33)
𝑑𝐴,𝐸𝐵 = = 0.8 s
50 + 250 + 33
The control delay for the westbound approach dA,WB is computed according
to the same equation as for the eastbound approach:
0(100) + 0(300) + 8.4(66)
𝑑𝐴,𝑊𝐵 = = 1.2 s
100 + 300 + 66
The intersection delay dI is computed from Equation 20-67:
𝑑𝐴,𝐸𝐵 𝑣𝐴,𝐸𝐵 + 𝑑𝐴,𝑊𝐵 𝑣𝐴,𝑊𝐵 + 𝑑𝐴,𝑁𝐵 𝑣𝐴,𝑁𝐵 + 𝑑𝐴,𝑆𝐵 𝑣𝐴,𝑆𝐵
𝑑𝐼 =
𝑣𝐴,𝐸𝐵 + 𝑣𝐴,𝑊𝐵 + 𝑣𝐴,𝑁𝐵 + 𝑣𝐴,𝑆𝐵
0.8(333) + 1.2(466) + 19.6(231) + 16.3(149)
𝑑𝐼 = = 6.6 s
333 + 466 + 231 + 149
LOS is not defined for the intersection as a whole or for the major-street
approaches.

Step 13: Compute 95th Percentile Queue Lengths

The 95th percentile queue length for the major-street eastbound left-turn
movement Q95,1 is computed from Equation 20-68:

3,600 𝑣
2 ( )( 𝑥 )
𝑣1 𝑣1 𝑐𝑚,1 𝑐𝑚,1 𝑐𝑚,1
𝑄95,1 ≈ 900𝑇 − 1 + √( − 1) + ( )
𝑐𝑚,1 𝑐𝑚,1 150𝑇 3,600
[ ]

3,600 33
33 33 2 ( )( ) 1,100
√ 1,100 1,100
𝑄95,1 ≈ 900(0.25) −1+ ( − 1) + ( )
1,100 1,100 150(0.25) 3,600
[ ]
𝑄95,1 ≈ 0.1 veh
The result of 0.1 vehicles for the 95th percentile queue indicates a queue of
more than one vehicle will occur very infrequently for the eastbound major-street
left-turn movement.
The 95th percentile queue length for the major-street westbound left-turn
movement Q95,4 is computed as follows:

3,600 66
66 66 2 ( )( ) 1,202
√ 1,202 1,202
𝑄95,4 ≈ 900(0.25) −1+ ( − 1) + ( )
1,202 1,202 150(0.25) 3,600
[ ]
𝑄95,4 ≈ 0.2 veh

Chapter 32/STOP-Controlled Intersections: Supplemental TWSC Example Problems

Version 6.0 Page 32-27
Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis

The result of 0.2 vehicles for the 95th percentile queue indicates a queue of
more than one vehicle will occur very infrequently for the westbound major-
street left-turn movement.
The 95th percentile queue length for the northbound approach is computed
by using the same formula, but similar to the control delay computation, the
shared-lane volume and shared-lane capacity must be used.
3,600 231
231 231 2 ( )( )
√ 474 474 ] ( 474 )
𝑄95,𝑁𝐵 ≈ 900(0.25) [ −1+ ( − 1) +
474 474 150(0.25) 3,600

𝑄95,𝑁𝐵 ≈ 2.6 veh

The result of 2.6 vehicles for the 95th percentile queue indicates a queue of
more than two vehicles will occur occasionally for the northbound approach.
The 95th percentile queue length for the southbound approach is computed
by using the same formula, but similar to the control delay computation, the
shared-lane volume and shared-lane capacity must be used.
3,600 149
149 149 2 ( )( )
𝑄95,𝑆𝐵 ≈ 900(0.25) [ √
−1+ ( − 1) + 465 465 ] ( 465 )
465 465 150(0.25) 3,600

𝑄95,𝑆𝐵 ≈ 1.4 veh

The result of 1.4 vehicles for the 95th percentile queue indicates a queue of
more than one vehicle will occur occasionally for the southbound approach.

Discussion
Overall, the results indicate the four-leg TWSC intersection with two-stage
gap acceptance and flared minor-street approaches will operate satisfactorily
with low delays for major-street movements and average delays for the minor-
street approaches.

TWSC EXAMPLE PROBLEM 4: TWSC INTERSECTION WITHIN A

SIGNALIZED URBAN STREET SEGMENT
The Facts
This problem analyzes the performance of the TWSC intersection at Access
Point 1 (AP1) from Example Problem 1 in Chapter 30, Urban Street Segments:
Supplemental, which looks at the motor vehicle performance of the urban street
segment bounded by two signalized intersections, as shown in Exhibit 32-9. The
street has a four-lane cross section with two lanes in each direction.

TWSC Example Problems Chapter 32/STOP-Controlled Intersections: Supplemental

Page 32-28 Version 6.0
 Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis

Exhibit 32-9
1800 ft N TWSC Example Problem 4:
600 ft 600 ft TWSC Intersection Within a
Signalized Urban Street
Segment

1 2

AP1 AP2

Signal Segment 1 Signal

From Example Problem 1 in Chapter 30, the following data are relevant:
 Major street with two lanes in each direction,
 Minor street with separate left-turn and right-turn lanes in each direction
(through movements considered negligible) and STOP control on minor-
street approach,
 Level grade on all approaches,
 Percentage heavy vehicles on all approaches = 1%,
 Length of analysis period = 0.25 h, and
 Flow rates and lane configurations as shown in Exhibit 32-10.

Exhibit 32-10
TWSC Example Problem 4:
15-min Flow Rates and Lane
Configurations

The proportion time blocked and delay to through vehicles from the
methodology of Chapter 18, Urban Street Segments, are as shown in Exhibit
32-11.
Access Point Data
Segment 1
EB
L
EB
T
EB
R
WB
L
WB
T
WB
R
NB
L
NB
T
NB
R
SB
L
SB
T
SB
R Exhibit 32-11
Movement:
Access Point Intersection No. 1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 TWSC Example Problem 4:
1: Volume, veh/h 74.80 981.71 93.50 75.56 991.70 94.45 80.00 0.00 100.00 80.00 0.00 100.00 Movement-Based Access Point
Output (from Chapter 30,
1: Lanes 0 2 0 0 2 0 1 0 1 1 0 1
1: Proportion time blocked 0.170 0.170 0.260 0.260 0.170 0.260 0.260 0.170
1: Delay to through vehicles, s/veh
1: Prob. inside lane blocked by left
0.163
0.101
0.164
0.101
Example Problem 1)
1: Dist. from West/South signal, ft 600
Access Point Intersection No. 2
2: Volume, veh/h 75.56 991.70 94.45 74.80 981.71 93.50 80.00 0.00 100.00 80.00 0.00 100.00
2: Lanes 0 2 0 0 2 0 1 0 1 1 0 1
2: Proportion time blocked 0.170 0.170 0.260 0.260 0.170 0.260 0.260 0.170
2: Delay to through vehicles, s/veh 0.164 0.163
2: Prob. inside lane blocked by left 0.101 0.101
2: Dist. from West/South signal, ft 1200

Chapter 32/STOP-Controlled Intersections: Supplemental TWSC Example Problems

Version 6.0 Page 32-29
Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis

Comments
Default values are needed for the saturation flow rates of the major-street
through and right-turn movements for the analysis of shared or short major-
street left-turn lanes:
• Major-street through movement, si1 = 1,800 veh/h; and
• Major-street right-turn movement, si2 = 1,500 veh/h.
All other input parameters are known.

Steps 1 and 2: Convert Movement Demand Volumes to Flow Rates and

Label Movement Priorities
Flow rates for each turning movement have been provided from the
methodology of Chapter 17, Urban Street Reliability and ATDM. They are
assigned movement numbers as shown in Exhibit 32-12.

Exhibit 32-12
TWSC Example Problem 4:
Movement Numbers and
Calculation of Peak 15-min
Flow Rates

Step 3: Compute Conflicting Flow Rates

Major-Street Left-Turn Movements (Rank 2, Movements 1 and 4)
The conflicting flows for the major-street left-turn movements are computed
from Equation 20-2 and Equation 20-3 as follows:
𝑣𝑐,1 = 𝑣5 + 𝑣6 + 𝑣16 = 992 + 94 + 0 = 1,086 veh/h
𝑣𝑐,4 = 𝑣2 + 𝑣3 + 𝑣15 = 982 + 94 + 0 = 1,076 veh/h

Minor-Street Right-Turn Movements (Rank 2, Movements 9 and 12)

The conflicting flows for minor-street right-turn movements are computed
from Equation 20-6 and Equation 20-7 as follows:

𝑣𝑐,9 = 0.5𝑣2 + 0.5𝑣3 + 𝑣4𝑈 + 𝑣14 + 𝑣15

𝑣𝑐,9 = 0.5(982) + 0.5(94) + 0 + 0 + 0 = 538 veh/h
𝑣𝑐,12 = 0.5𝑣5 + 0.5𝑣6 + 𝑣1𝑈 + 𝑣13 + 𝑣16
𝑣𝑐,12 = 0.5(992) + 0.5(94) + 0 + 0 + 0 = 543 veh/h

TWSC Example Problems Chapter 32/STOP-Controlled Intersections: Supplemental

Page 32-30 Version 6.0
 Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis

Major-Street U-Turn Movements (Rank 2, Movements 1U and 4U)

U-turns are assumed to be negligible.

Minor-Street Pedestrian Movements (Rank 2, Movements 13 and 14)

Minor-street pedestrian movements are assumed to be negligible.

Minor-Street Through Movements (Rank 3, Movements 8 and 11)

Because there are no minor-street through movements, this step can be
skipped.

Minor-Street Left-Turn Movements (Rank 4, Movements 7 and 10)

Because the major street has four lanes without left-turn lanes or other
possible median storage, the minor-street left-turn movement is assumed to be
conducted in one stage. As a result, the conflicting flows for Stages I and II can be
combined.
𝑣𝑐,7 = 2(𝑣1 + 𝑣1𝑈 ) + 𝑣2 + 0.5𝑣3 + 𝑣15 + 2(𝑣4 + 𝑣4𝑈 ) + 0.5𝑣5 + 0.5𝑣11 + 𝑣13
𝑣𝑐,7 = 2(75 + 0) + 982 + 0.5(94) + 0 + 2(76 + 0) + 0.5(992) + 0.5(0) + 0
𝑣𝑐,7 = 1,827 veh/h
𝑣𝑐,10 = 2(𝑣4 + 𝑣4𝑈 ) + 𝑣5 + 0.5𝑣6 + 𝑣16 + 2(𝑣1 + 𝑣1𝑈 ) + 0.5𝑣2 + 0.5𝑣8 + 𝑣14
𝑣𝑐,10 = 2(76 + 0) + 992 + 0.5(94) + 0 + 2(75 + 0) + 0.5(982) + 0.5(0) + 0
𝑣𝑐,10 = 1,832 veh/h

Step 4: Determine Critical Headways and Follow-Up Headways

Critical headways for each movement are computed from Equation 20-30:
𝑡𝑐,𝑥 = 𝑡𝑐,base + 𝑡𝑐,𝐻𝑉 𝑃𝐻𝑉 + 𝑡𝑐,𝐺 𝐺 − 𝑡3,𝐿𝑇
𝑡𝑐,1 = 𝑡𝑐,4 = 4.1 + (2.0)(0.01) + 0 − 0 = 4.12 s
𝑡𝑐,9 = 𝑡𝑐,12 = 6.9 + (2.0)(0.01) + 0.1(0) − 0 = 6.92 s
𝑡𝑐,7 = 𝑡𝑐,10 = 7.5 + (2.0)(0.01) + 0.2(0) − 0 = 7.52 s
Follow-up headways for each movement are computed from Equation 20-31:
𝑡𝑓,𝑥 = 𝑡𝑓,𝑏𝑎𝑠𝑒 + 𝑡𝑓,𝐻𝑉 𝑃𝐻𝑉
𝑡𝑓,1 = 𝑡𝑓,4 = 2.2 + (1.0)(0.01) = 2.21 s
𝑡𝑓,9 = 𝑡𝑓,12 = 3.3 + (1.0)(0.01) = 3.31 s
𝑡𝑓,7 = 𝑡𝑓,10 = 3.5 + (1.0)(0.01) = 3.51 s

Step 5: Compute Potential Capacities

Because upstream signals are present, Step 5b is used. The proportion time
blocked for each movement x is given as pb,x and has been computed by the
Chapter 18 procedure.
The flow for the unblocked period (no platoons) is determined by first
computing the conflicting flow for each movement during the unblocked period
(Equation 20-33). The minimum platooned flow rate vc,min over two lanes is
assumed to be equal to 1,000N = 1,000(2) = 2,000. The flow rate assumed to occur
during the blocked period is calculated as follows:

Chapter 32/STOP-Controlled Intersections: Supplemental TWSC Example Problems

Version 6.0 Page 32-31
Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis

𝑣𝑐,𝑥 − 1.5𝑣𝑐,𝑚𝑖𝑛 𝑝𝑏,𝑥

if 𝑣𝑐,𝑥 > 1.5𝑣𝑐,𝑚𝑖𝑛 𝑝𝑏,𝑥
𝑣𝑐,𝑢,𝑥 ={ 1 − 𝑝𝑏,𝑥
0 otherwise
1.5𝑣𝑐,𝑚𝑖𝑛 𝑝𝑏,1 = 1.5(2,000)(0.170) = 510 veh/h
The value for vc,1 = 1,086 exceeds this value, which indicates some of the
conflicting flow occurs in the unblocked period. Therefore, vc,u,1 is calculated as
follows:
𝑣𝑐,1 − 1.5𝑣𝑐,𝑚𝑖𝑛 𝑝𝑏,1 1,086 − 1.5(2,000)(0.170)
𝑣𝑐,𝑢,1 = = = 694 veh/h
1 − 𝑝𝑏,1 1 − 0.170
Similar calculations are made for the other movements:
1,076 − 1.5(2,000)(0.170)
𝑣𝑐,𝑢,4 = = 682 veh/h
1 − 0.170
538 − 1.5(2,000)(0.170)
𝑣𝑐,𝑢,9 = = 34 veh/h
1 − 0.170

543 − 1.5(2,000)(0.170)
𝑣𝑐,𝑢,12 = = 40 veh/h
1 − 0.170

1,827 − 1.5(2,000)(0.260)
𝑣𝑐,𝑢,7 = = 1,415 veh/h
1 − 0.260

1,832 − 1.5(2,000)(0.260)
𝑣𝑐,𝑢,10 = = 1,422 veh/h
1 − 0.260
The potential capacity for each movement is then calculated with Equation
20-34 and Equation 20-35 (combined) as follows:
𝑒 −𝑣𝑐,𝑢,1𝑡𝑐,1/3,600
𝑐𝑝,1 = (1 − 𝑝𝑏,1 )(𝑣𝑐,𝑢,1 )
1 − 𝑒 −𝑣𝑐,𝑢,1𝑡𝑓,1 /3,600

𝑒 −(694)(4.12)/3,600
𝑐𝑝,1 = (1 − 0.170)(694) = 750 veh/h
1 − 𝑒 −(694)(2.21)/3,600

𝑒 −(682)(4.12)/3,600
𝑐𝑝,4 = (1 − 0.170)(682) = 758 veh/h
1 − 𝑒 −(682)(2.21)/3,600

𝑒 −(34)(6.92)/3,600
𝑐𝑝,9 = (1 − 0.170)(34) = 859 veh/h
1 − 𝑒 −(34)(3.31)/3,600

𝑒 −(40)(6.92)/3,600
𝑐𝑝,12 = (1 − 0.170)(40) = 851 veh/h
1 − 𝑒 −(40)(3.31)/3,600

𝑒 −(1,415)(7.52)/3,600
𝑐𝑝,7 = (1 − 0.260)(1,415) = 73 veh/h
1 − 𝑒 −(1,415)(3.51)/3,600

𝑒 −(1,422)(7.52)/3,600
𝑐𝑝,10 = (1 − 0.260)(1,422) = 72 veh/h
1 − 𝑒 −(1,422)(3.51)/3,600

TWSC Example Problems Chapter 32/STOP-Controlled Intersections: Supplemental

Page 32-32 Version 6.0
 Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis

Steps 6–9: Compute Movement Capacities

Because no pedestrians are present, the procedures given in Chapter 20 are
followed.

Step 6: Compute Rank 1 Movement Capacities

There is no computation for this step. The adjustment for the delay to
through movements caused by left-turn movements in the shared left–through
lane is accounted for by using adjustments provided later in this procedure.

Step 7: Compute Rank 2 Movement Capacities

Step 7a: Movement Capacity for Major-Street Left-Turn Movements
The movement capacity of each Rank 2 major-street left-turn movement is
equal to its potential capacity as follows:
𝑐𝑚,1 = 𝑐𝑝,1 = 750 veh/h
𝑐𝑚,4 = 𝑐𝑝,4 = 758 veh/h

Step 7b: Movement Capacity for Minor-Street Right-Turn Movements

The movement capacity of each minor-street right-turn movement is equal to
its potential capacity:
𝑐𝑚,9 = 𝑐𝑝,9 = 859 veh/h
𝑐𝑚,12 = 𝑐𝑝,12 = 851 veh/h

Step 7c: Movement Capacity for Major-Street U-Turn Movements

No U-turns are present, so this step is skipped.

Step 7d: Effect of Major-Street Shared Through and Left-Turn Lane

The probability that the major-street left-turning traffic will operate in a
queue-free state, assuming the left-turn movement occupies its own lane, is
calculated with Equation 20-42 as follows:
𝑣1 75
𝑝0,1 = 1 − =1− = 0.900
𝑐𝑚,1 750
𝑣4 76
𝑝0,4 = 1 − =1− = 0.900
𝑐𝑚,4 758
However, for this problem the major-street left-turn movement shares a lane
with the through movement. First, the combined degree of saturation for the
major-street through and right-turn movements is calculated as follows (using
default values for s):
𝑣2 𝑣3 982 94
𝑥2+3 = + = + = 0.608
𝑠2 𝑠3 1,800 1,500
𝑣5 𝑣6 992 94
𝑥5+6 = + = + = 0.614
𝑠5 𝑠6 1,800 1,500
Next, the probability that there will be no queue in the major-street shared
lane p*0,j is calculated according to the special case (nL = 0) given in Equation
20-45:

Chapter 32/STOP-Controlled Intersections: Supplemental TWSC Example Problems

Version 6.0 Page 32-33
Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis

∗
1 − 𝑝0,1 1 − 0.900
𝑝0,1 = 1− =1− = 0.745
1 − 𝑥2+3 1 − 0.608
∗
1 − 𝑝0,4 1 − 0.900
𝑝0,4 = 1− =1− = 0.741
1 − 𝑥5+6 1 − 0.614
These values of p*0,1 and p*0,4 are used in lieu of p0,1 and p0,4 for the remaining
calculations.

Step 8: Compute Rank 3 Movement Capacities

Step 8a: Rank 3 Capacity for One-Stage Movements
Because there are no minor-street through movements, it is not necessary to
compute the movement capacities for those movements. However, capacity
adjustment factors f8 and f11 are needed for subsequent steps and can be
computed as follows:
𝑓8 = 𝑓11 = 𝑝∗0,1 𝑝∗0,4 = (0.745)(0.741) = 0.552

Step 8b: Rank 3 Capacity for Two-Stage Movements

No two-stage movements are present, so this step is skipped.

Step 9: Compute Rank 4 Movement Capacities

Step 9a: Rank 4 Capacity for One-Stage Movements
The probabilities that the minor-street right-turn movements will operate in
the queue-free state p0,9 and p0,12 are computed as follows:
𝑣9 100
𝑝0,9 = 1 − =1− = 0.884
𝑐𝑚,9 859
𝑣12 100
𝑝0,12 =1− =1− = 0.882
𝑐𝑚,12 851
To compute pʹ, the probability that both the major-street left-turn movements
and the minor-street crossing movements will operate in a queue-free state
simultaneously, the analyst must first compute p0,k, which is done in the same
manner as the computation of p0,j, except k represents Rank 3 movements. The
values for p0,k are computed as follows:
𝑣8
𝑝0,8 = 1 − = 1−0 = 1
𝑐𝑚,8
𝑣11
𝑝0,11 =1− = 1−0 = 1
𝑐𝑚,11
Next, the analyst must compute p”, which, under the single-stage gap-
acceptance assumption, is simply the product of fj and p0,k. The value for f8 = f11 =
0.552 is as computed above. The value for p0,11 is computed by using the total
capacity for Movement 11 calculated in the previous step:
𝑝7′′ = 𝑝0,11 × 𝑓11 = (1)(0.552) = 0.552
′′
𝑝10 = 𝑝0,8 × 𝑓8 = (1)(0.552) = 0.552
By using the values for pʹʹ, the probability of a simultaneous queue-free state
for each movement can be computed with Equation 20-52 as follows:

TWSC Example Problems Chapter 32/STOP-Controlled Intersections: Supplemental

Page 32-34 Version 6.0
 Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis

𝑝7′′
𝑝7′ = 0.65𝑝7′′ − + 0.6√𝑝7′′
𝑝7′′ + 3
(0.552)
𝑝7′ = 0.65(0.552) − + 0.6√0.552 = 0.649
0.552 + 3

′
(0.552)
𝑝10 = 0.65(0.552) − + 0.6√0.552 = 0.649
0.552 + 3
Next, by using the probabilities computed above, capacity adjustment factors
f7 and f10 can be computed as follows:
𝑓7 = 𝑝7′ × 𝑝0,12 = (0.649)(0.882) = 0.572
′
𝑓10 = 𝑝10 × 𝑝0,9 = (0.649)(0.884) = 0.574
Finally, the movement capacities cm,7 and cm,10 can be computed as follows:
𝑐𝑚,7 = 𝑐𝑝,7 × 𝑓7 = (73)(0.572) = 42 veh/h
𝑐𝑚,10 = 𝑐𝑝,10 × 𝑓10 = (72)(0.574) = 41 veh/h

Step 9b: Rank 4 Capacity for Two-Stage Movements

No two-stage movements are present, so this step is skipped.

Step 10: Final Capacity Adjustments

Step 10a: Shared-Lane Capacity of Minor-Street Approaches
No shared lanes are present on the side street, so this step is skipped.

Step 10b: Flared Minor-Street Lane Effects

No flared lanes are present, so this step is skipped.

Step 11: Compute Movement Control Delay

Step 11a: Compute Control Delay to Rank 2 Through Rank 4 Movements
The delay for each minor-street movement is calculated from Equation 20-64:

3,600 75
3,600 75 75 2 ( )( )
− 1) + 750
√ 750 + 5
𝑑1 = + 900(0.25) −1+ (
750 750 750 450(0.25)
[ ]
𝑑1 = 10.3 s
3,600 76
3,600 76 76 2 ( )( )
− 1) + 758
√ 758 ] + 5
𝑑4 = + 900(0.25) [ −1+ (
758 758 758 450(0.25)

𝑑4 = 10.3 s
3,600 100
3,600 100 100 2 ( )( )
− 1) + 859
√ 859 ] + 5
𝑑9 = + 900(0.25) [ −1+ (
859 859 859 450(0.25)

𝑑9 = 9.7 s

Chapter 32/STOP-Controlled Intersections: Supplemental TWSC Example Problems

Version 6.0 Page 32-35
Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis

3,600 100
3,600 100 100 2 ( )( )
− 1) + 851
√ 851 ] + 5
𝑑12 = + 900(0.25) [ −1+ (
851 851 851 450(0.25)

𝑑12 = 9.8 s
3,600 80
3,600 80 80 2 ( )( )
√ 42 42 ]
𝑑7 = + 900(0.25) [ − 1 + ( − 1) + +5
42 42 42 450(0.25)

𝑑7 = 633 s
3,600 80
3,600 80 80 2 ( )( )
√ 41 41 ]
𝑑10 = + 900(0.25) [ − 1 + ( − 1) + +5
41 41 41 450(0.25)

𝑑10 = 657 s
According to Exhibit 20-2, the LOS for the major-street left-turn movements
and the minor-street approaches are as follows:
 Eastbound major-street left turn (Movement 1): LOS B,
 Westbound major-street left turn (Movement 4): LOS B,
 Northbound minor-street right turn (Movement 9): LOS A,
 Southbound minor-street right turn (Movement 12): LOS A,
 Northbound minor-street left turn (Movement 7): LOS F, and
 Southbound minor-street left turn (Movement 10): LOS F.

Step 11b: Compute Control Delay to Rank 1 Movements

The presence of a shared left–through lane on the major street creates delay
for Rank 1 movements (major-street through movements). Assuming that major-
street through vehicles distribute equally across both lanes, then vi,1 = v2/N = 982/2
= 491. The number of major-street turning vehicles in the shared lane is equal to
the major-street left-turn flow rate; therefore, vi,2 = 75.
The average delay to Rank 1 vehicles is computed with Equation 20-65 as
follows:
∗ )𝑑 𝑣𝑖,1
(1 − 𝑝0,𝑗 𝑀,𝐿𝑇 ( )
𝑁 𝑁>1
𝑑𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑘1 = 𝑣𝑖,1 + 𝑣𝑖,2
∗
{ (1 − 𝑝0,𝑗 )𝑑𝑀,𝐿𝑇 𝑁=1

𝑣𝑖,1 491
(1 − 𝑝∗0,1 ) 𝑑1 ( (1 − 0.745)(10.3) (
𝑁)= 2 )
𝑑2 = = 1.1 s
𝑣𝑖,1 + 𝑣𝑖,2 491 + 75
Similarly, for the opposite direction, vi,1 = v5/N = 992/2 = 496. The number of
major-street turning vehicles in the shared lane is equal to the major-street left-
turn flow rate; therefore, vi,2 = 76.

TWSC Example Problems Chapter 32/STOP-Controlled Intersections: Supplemental

Page 32-36 Version 6.0
 Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis

𝑣𝑖,1 496
(1 − 𝑝∗0,4 ) 𝑑4 ( (1 − 0.741)(10.3) (
𝑁)= 2 )
𝑑5 = = 1.2 s
𝑣𝑖,1 + 𝑣𝑖,2 496 + 76
The procedures in Chapter 18 provide a better estimate of delay to major-
street through vehicles: d2 = 0.2 and d5 = 0.2. These values account for the
likelihood of major-street through vehicles shifting out of the shared left–through
lane to avoid being delayed by major-street left-turning vehicles. These values
are used in the calculations in Step 12.

Step 12: Compute Approach and Intersection Control Delay

The control delay for each approach is computed as follows:
𝑑𝑟 𝑣𝑟 + 𝑑𝑡 𝑣𝑡 + 𝑑𝑙 𝑣𝑙
𝑑𝐴 =
𝑣𝑟 + 𝑣𝑡 + 𝑣𝑙

0(94) + 1.1(982) + 10.3(75)

𝑑𝐴,𝐸𝐵 = = 1.6 s
94 + 982 + 75

0(94) + 1.2(992) + 10.3(76)

𝑑𝐴,𝑊𝐵 = = 1.7 s
94 + 992 + 76

9.7(100) + 0 + 633(80)
𝑑𝐴,𝑁𝐵 = = 287 s
100 + 0 + 80

9.8(100) + 0 + 657(80)
𝑑𝐴,𝑆𝐵 = = 297 s
100 + 0 + 80
The intersection delay dI is computed as follows:
𝑑𝐴,𝐸𝐵 𝑣𝐴,𝐸𝐵 + 𝑑𝐴,𝑊𝐵 𝑣𝐴,𝑊𝐵 + 𝑑𝐴,𝑁𝐵 𝑣𝐴,𝑁𝐵 + 𝑑𝐴,𝑆𝐵 𝑣𝐴,𝑆𝐵
𝑑𝐼 =
𝑣𝐴,𝐸𝐵 + 𝑣𝐴,𝑊𝐵 + 𝑣𝐴,𝑁𝐵 + 𝑣𝐴,𝑆𝐵
1.6(1,151) + 1.7(1,162) + 287(180) + 297(180)
𝑑𝐼 = = 40.8 s
1,151 + 1,162 + 180 + 180
LOS is not defined for the intersection as a whole or for the major-street
approaches. This fact is particularly important for this problem, as the
assignment of LOS to the intersection as a whole would mask the severe LOS F
condition on the minor-street left-turn movement.

Step 13: Compute 95th Percentile Queue Lengths

The 95th percentile queue length for each movement is computed by using
Equation 20-68:

3,600 𝑣
2 ( )( 1 )
𝑣1 𝑣1 𝑐𝑚,1 𝑐𝑚,1 𝑐𝑚,1
𝑄95,1 ≈ 900𝑇 − 1 + √( − 1) + ( )
𝑐𝑚,1 𝑐𝑚,1 150𝑇 3,600
[ ]

3,600 75
75 75 2 ( )( )
𝑄95,1 ≈ 900(0.25) √
−1+ ( − 1) + 750 750 ( 750 )
750 750 150(0.25) 3,600
[ ]

Chapter 32/STOP-Controlled Intersections: Supplemental TWSC Example Problems

Version 6.0 Page 32-37
Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis

𝑄95,1 ≈ 0.3 veh

3,600 76
76 76 2 ( )( )
758 ] ( 758 )
𝑄95,4 ≈ 900(0.25) [ √
−1+ ( − 1) + 758
758 758 150(0.25) 3,600

𝑄95,4 ≈ 0.3 veh

3,600 100
100 100 2 ( )( )
√ 859 859 ] ( 859 )
𝑄95,9 ≈ 900(0.25) [ −1+ ( − 1) +
859 859 150(0.25) 3,600

𝑄95,9 ≈ 0.4 veh

3,600 100
100 100 2 ( )( )
𝑄95,12 ≈ 900(0.25) [ √
−1+ ( − 1) + 851 851 ] ( 851 )
851 851 150(0.25) 3,600

𝑄95,12 ≈ 0.4 veh

3,600 80
80 80 2 ( )( )
√ 42 42 ] ( 42 )
𝑄95,7 ≈ 900(0.25) [ − 1 + ( − 1) +
42 42 150(0.25) 3,600

𝑄95,7 ≈ 8.3 veh

3,600 80
80 80 2 ( )( )
41 ] ( 41 )
𝑄95,10 ≈ 900(0.25) [ − 1 + ( − 1) + 41
√
41 41 150(0.25) 3,600

𝑄95,10 ≈ 8.4 veh

The results indicate that queues of more than one vehicle will rarely occur
for the major-street left-turn and minor-street right-turn movements. Longer
queues are expected for the minor-street left-turn movements, and these queues
are likely to be unstable under the significantly oversaturated conditions.

Discussion
The results indicate that Access Point 1 will operate over capacity (LOS F) for
the minor-street left-turn movements. All other movements are expected to
operate at LOS B or better, with low average delays and short queue lengths.

TWSC EXAMPLE PROBLEM 5: SIX-LANE STREET WITH U-TURNS

AND PEDESTRIANS
The Facts
The following data are available to describe the traffic and geometric
characteristics of this location:
 T-intersection,
 Major street with three lanes in each direction,

TWSC Example Problems Chapter 32/STOP-Controlled Intersections: Supplemental

Page 32-38 Version 6.0
 Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis

 Minor street with separate left-turn and right-turn lanes and STOP control
on the minor-street approach (minor-street left turns operate in two stages
with room for storage of one vehicle),
 Level grade on all approaches,
 Percentage heavy vehicles on all approaches = 0%,
 Lane width = 12 ft,
 No other unique geometric considerations or upstream signal
considerations,
 20 p/h crossing both the west and south legs [each pedestrian is assumed
to cross in his or her own group (i.e., independently)],
 Peak hour factor = 1.00,
 Length of analysis period = 0.25 h, and
 Hourly volumes and lane configurations as shown in Exhibit 32-13.

Exhibit 32-13
TWSC Example Problem 5:
Volumes and Lane
Configurations

Comments
The assumed walking speed of pedestrians is 3.5 ft/s.

Steps 1 and 2: Convert Movement Demand Volumes to Flow Rates and

Label Movement Priorities
Flow rates for each turning movement are the same as the peak hour
volumes because the peak hour factor equals 1.0. These movements are assigned
numbers as shown in Exhibit 32-14.

Exhibit 32-14
TWSC Example Problem 5:
Movement Numbers and
Calculation of Peak 15-min
Flow Rates

Chapter 32/STOP-Controlled Intersections: Supplemental TWSC Example Problems

Version 6.0 Page 32-39
Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis

Step 3: Compute Conflicting Flow Rates

Major-Street Left-Turn Movement (Rank 2, Movement 4)
The conflicting flow rate for the major-street left-turn movement is computed
as follows:
𝑣𝑐,4 = 𝑣2 + 𝑣3 + 𝑣15 = 1,000 + 100 + 20 = 1,120 veh/h

Minor-Street Right-Turn Movement (Rank 2, Movement 9)

The conflicting flow rate for the minor-street right-turn movement is
computed as follows (dropping the v3 term due to a separate major-street right-
turn lane):
𝑣𝑐,9 = 0.5𝑣2 + 0.5𝑣3 + 𝑣4𝑈 + 𝑣14 + 𝑣15
𝑣𝑐,9 = 0.5(1,000) + 0.5(0) + 0 + 0 + 20 = 520 veh/h

Major-Street U-Turn Movements (Rank 2, Movements 1U and 4U)

The conflicting flow rates for the major-street U-turns are computed as
follows (again dropping the v3 term):
𝑣𝑐,1𝑈 = 0.73𝑣5 + 0.73𝑣6 = 0.73(1,200) + 0 = 876 veh/h
𝑣𝑐,4𝑈 = 0.73𝑣2 + 0.73𝑣3 = 0.73(1,000) + 0 = 730 veh/h

Minor-Street Left-Turn Movements (Rank 3, Movement 7)

The conflicting flow rate for Stage I of the minor-street left-turn movement is
computed as follows (the v3 term in these equations is assumed to be zero
because of the right-turn lane on the major street):
𝑣𝑐,I,7 = 2(𝑣1 + 𝑣1𝑈 ) + 𝑣2 + 0.5𝑣3 + 𝑣15
𝑣𝑐,I,7 = 2(0 + 50) + 1,000 + 0 + 20 = 1,120 veh/h
The conflicting flow rate for Stage II of the minor-street left-turn movement
is computed as follows:
𝑣𝑐,II,7 = 2(𝑣4 + 𝑣4𝑈 ) + 0.4𝑣5 + 0.5𝑣11 + 𝑣13
𝑣𝑐,II,7 = 2(100 + 25) + 0.4(1,200) + 0 + 20 = 750 veh/h
𝑣𝑐,7 = 𝑣𝑐,I,7 + 𝑣𝑐,II,7 = 1,120 + 750 = 1,870 veh/h

Step 4: Determine Critical Headways and Follow-Up Headways

Critical headways for each minor movement are computed as follows:
𝑡𝑐,𝑥 = 𝑡𝑐,base + 𝑡𝑐,𝐻𝑉 𝑃𝐻𝑉 + 𝑡𝑐,𝐺 𝐺 − 𝑡3,𝐿𝑇
𝑡𝑐,1𝑈 = 5.6 + 0 + 0 − 0 = 5.6 s
𝑡𝑐,4 = 5.3 + 0 + 0 − 0 = 5.3 s
𝑡𝑐,4𝑈 = 5.6 + 0 + 0 − 0 = 5.6 s
𝑡𝑐,9 = 7.1 + 0 + 0 − 0 = 7.1 s
𝑡𝑐,7 = 6.4 + 0 + 0 − 0.7 = 5.7 s
𝑡𝑐,𝐼,7 = 7.3 + 0 + 0 − 0.7 = 6.6 s
𝑡𝑐,𝐼𝐼,7 = 6.7 + 0 + 0 − 0.7 = 6.0 s

TWSC Example Problems Chapter 32/STOP-Controlled Intersections: Supplemental

Page 32-40 Version 6.0
 Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis

Follow-up headways for each minor movement are computed as follows:

𝑡𝑓,𝑥 = 𝑡𝑓,base + 𝑡𝑓,𝐻𝑉 𝑃𝐻𝑉
𝑡𝑓,1𝑈 = 2.3 + 0 = 2.3 s
𝑡𝑓,4 = 3.1 + 0 = 3.1 s
𝑡𝑓,4𝑈 = 2.3 + 0 = 2.3 s
𝑡𝑓,9 = 3.9 + 0 = 3.9 s
𝑡𝑓,7 = 3.8 + 0 = 3.8 s

Step 5: Compute Potential Capacities

Because no upstream signals are present, Step 5a is used. The potential
capacity cp,x for each movement is computed as follows:
𝑒 −𝑣𝑐,𝑥𝑡𝑐,𝑥 /3,600
𝑐𝑝,𝑥 = 𝑣𝑐,𝑥
1 − 𝑒 −𝑣𝑐,𝑥 𝑡𝑓,𝑥/3,600

𝑒 −𝑣𝑐,1𝑈 𝑡𝑐,1𝑈 /3,600 𝑒 −(876)(5,6)/3,600

𝑐𝑝,1𝑈 = 𝑣𝑐,1𝑈 = 876 = 523 veh/h
1 − 𝑒 −𝑣𝑐,1𝑈 𝑡𝑓,1𝑈 /3,600 1 − 𝑒 −(876)(2.3)/3,600

𝑒 −(1,120)(5,3)/3,600
𝑐𝑝,4 = 1,120 = 348 veh/h
1 − 𝑒 −(1,120)(3.1)/3,600

𝑒 −(730)(5,6)/3,600
𝑐𝑝,4𝑈 = 730 = 629 veh/h
1 − 𝑒 −(730)(2.3)/3,600

𝑒 −(520)(7.1)/3,600
𝑐𝑝,9 = 520 = 433 veh/h
1 − 𝑒 −(520)(3.9)/3,600

𝑒 −(1,870)(5,7)/3,600
𝑐𝑝,7 = 1,870 = 112 veh/h
1 − 𝑒 −(1,870)(3.8)/3,600

𝑒 −(1,120)(6.6)/3,600
𝑐𝑝,𝐼,7 = 1,120 = 207 veh/h
1 − 𝑒 −(1,120)(3.8)/3,600

𝑒 −(750)(6.0)/3,600
𝑐𝑝,𝐼𝐼,7 = 750 = 393 veh/h
1 − 𝑒 −(750)(3.8)/3,600

Steps 6–9: Compute Movement Capacities

Because of the presence of pedestrians, the computation steps provided
earlier in this chapter should be used.

Step 6: Compute Rank 1 Movement Capacities

The methodology assumes Rank 1 vehicles are unimpeded by pedestrians.

Chapter 32/STOP-Controlled Intersections: Supplemental TWSC Example Problems

Version 6.0 Page 32-41
Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis

Step 7: Compute Rank 2 Movement Capacities

Step 7a: Pedestrian Impedance
The factor accounting for pedestrian blockage is computed by Equation 20-69
as follows:
𝑤
𝑣𝑥 × 𝑆
𝑝
𝑓𝑝𝑏 =
3,600
𝑤 12
𝑣13 ×
𝑆𝑝 20 × 3.5
𝑓𝑝𝑏,13 = = = 0.019
3,600 3,600

12
20 ×
𝑓𝑝𝑏,15 = 3.5 = 0.019
3,600
The pedestrian impedance factor for each pedestrian movement x, pp,x is
computed by Equation 20-70 as follows:
𝑝𝑝,13 = 1 − 𝑓𝑝𝑏,13 = 1 − 0.019 = 0.981
𝑝𝑝,15 = 1 − 𝑓𝑝𝑏,15 = 1 − 0.019 = 0.981

Step 7b: Movement Capacity for Major-Street Left-Turn Movements

On the basis of Exhibit 20-18, vehicular Movement 4 is impeded by
pedestrian Movement 15. Therefore, the movement capacity for Rank 2 major-
street left-turn movements is computed as follows:
𝑐𝑚,4 = 𝑐𝑝,4 × 𝑝𝑝,15 = (348)(0.981) = 341 veh/h

Step 7c: Movement Capacity for Minor-Street Right-Turn Movements

The northbound minor-street right-turn movement (Movement 9) is
impeded by one conflicting pedestrian movement: Movement 15.
𝑓9 = 𝑝𝑝,15 = 0.981
The movement capacity is then computed as follows:
𝑐𝑚,9 = 𝑐𝑝,9 × 𝑓9 = (433)(0.981) = 425 veh/h

Step 7d: Movement Capacity for Major-Street U-Turn Movements

The eastbound U-turn is unimpeded by queues from any other movement.
Therefore, f1U = 1, and the movement capacity is computed as follows:
𝑐𝑚,1𝑈 = 𝑐𝑝,1𝑈 × 𝑓1𝑈 = (523)(0.981) = 523 veh/h
For the westbound U-turn, the movement capacity is found by first
computing a capacity adjustment factor that accounts for the impeding effects of
minor-street right turns as follows:
𝑣9 100
𝑓4𝑈 = 𝑝0,9 = 1 − = 1− = 0.765
𝑐𝑚,9 425
The movement capacity is therefore computed as follows:
𝑐𝑚,4𝑈 = 𝑐𝑝,4𝑈 × 𝑓4𝑈 = (629)(0.765) = 481 veh/h

TWSC Example Problems Chapter 32/STOP-Controlled Intersections: Supplemental

Page 32-42 Version 6.0
 Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis

Because the westbound left-turn and U-turn movements are conducted from
the same lane, their shared-lane capacity is computed as follows:
𝑣4 + 𝑣4𝑈 100 + 25
𝑐𝑚,4+4𝑈 = 𝑣 𝑣 = = 362 veh/h
4
+ 4𝑈 100 25
+
𝑐𝑚,4 𝑐𝑚,4𝑈 341 481

Step 7e: Effect of Major-Street Shared Through and Left-Turn Lane

This step is skipped.

Step 8: Compute Rank 3 Movement Capacities

There are no minor-street through movements, so the minor-street left-turn
movement is treated as a Rank 3 movement.

Step 8a: Pedestrian Impedance

The northbound minor-street left turn (Movement 7) must yield to
pedestrian Movements 13 and 15. Therefore, the impedance factor for
pedestrians is as follows:
𝑝𝑝,7 = 𝑝𝑝,15 × 𝑝𝑝,13 = (0.981)(0.981) = 0.962

Step 8b: Rank 3 Capacity for One-Stage Movements

The movement capacity cm,k for all Rank 3 movements is found by first
computing a capacity adjustment factor that accounts for the impeding effects of
higher-ranked movements, assuming the movement operates in one stage. This
value is computed as follows:
𝑣1𝑈 𝑣4+4𝑈
𝑓7 = 𝑝0,1𝑈 × 𝑝0,4+4𝑈 × 𝑝𝑝,7 = (1 − ) (1 − ) (𝑝𝑝,7 )
𝑐𝑚,1𝑈 𝑐𝑚,4+4𝑈
50 100 + 25
𝑓7 = (1 − ) (1 − ) (0.962) = 0.570
523 362
𝑐𝑚,7 = 𝑐𝑝,7 × 𝑓7 = (112)(0.570) = 64 veh/h

Step 8c: Rank 3 Capacity for Two-Stage Movements

Because the minor-street left-turn movement operates in two stages, the
procedure for computing the total movement capacity for the subject movement
considering the two-stage gap-acceptance process is followed.
First, the movement capacities for each stage of the left-turn movement are
computed on the basis of the impeding movements for each stage. For Stage I,
the left-turn movement is impeded by the major-street left and U-turns and by
pedestrian Movement 15. Therefore,
𝑣1𝑈 𝑣4+4𝑈
𝑓I,7 = 𝑝0,1𝑈 × 𝑝0,4+4𝑈 × 𝑝𝑝,15 = (1 − ) (1 − ) (𝑝𝑝,15 )
𝑐𝑚,1𝑈 𝑐𝑚,4+4𝑈
50 100 + 25
𝑓I,7 = (1 − ) (1 − ) (0.981) = 0.581
523 362
𝑐𝑚,I,7 = 𝑐𝑝,I,7 × 𝑓I,7 = (207)(0.581) = 120 veh/h
For Stage II, the left-turn movement is impeded only by pedestrian
Movement 13. Therefore,

Chapter 32/STOP-Controlled Intersections: Supplemental TWSC Example Problems

Version 6.0 Page 32-43
Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis

𝑓II,7 = 𝑝𝑝,13 = 0.981

𝑐𝑚,II,7 = 𝑐𝑝,II,7 × 𝑓II,7 = (393)(0.981) = 386 veh/h
Next, an adjustment factor a and an intermediate variable y are computed for
Movement 7 as follows:
𝑎7 = 1 − 0.32𝑒 −1.3√𝑛𝑚 = 1 − 0.32𝑒 −1.3√1 = 0.913
𝑐𝑚,𝐼,7 − 𝑐𝑚,7 120 − 64
𝑦7 = = = 0.284
𝑐𝑚,𝐼𝐼,7 − 𝑣4+4𝑈 − 𝑐𝑚,7 386 − 125 − 64
Therefore, the total capacity cT is computed as follows:
𝑎7
𝑐𝑚,𝑇,7 = 𝑛𝑚 +1 [𝑦7 (𝑦7𝑛𝑚 − 1)(𝑐𝑚,𝐼𝐼,7 − 𝑣4+4𝑈 ) + (𝑦7 − 1)𝑐𝑚,7 ]
𝑦7 −1
0.913
𝑐𝑚,𝑇,7 = [(0.284)(0.2841 − 1)(386 − 125) + (0.284 − 1)(64)]
0.2841+1 − 1
𝑐𝑚,𝑇,7 = 98 veh/h

Step 9: Compute Rank 4 Movement Capacities

Because there are no Rank 4 movements, this step is skipped.

Step 10: Final Capacity Adjustments

There are no shared or flared lanes on the minor street, so this step is
skipped.

Step 11: Compute Movement Control Delay

Step 11a: Compute Control Delay to Rank 2 Through Rank 4 Movements
The control delay for each minor movement is computed as follows:

3,600 50
3,600 50 50 2 ( )( )
− 1) + 523
√ 523 + 5
𝑑1𝑈 = + 900(0.25) −1+ (
523 523 523 450(0.25)
[ ]
𝑑1 = 12.6 s
This movement would be assigned LOS B.

3,600 125
3,600 125 125 2 ( )( )
− 1) + 362
√ 362 + 5
𝑑4+4𝑈 = + 900(0.25) −1+ (
362 362 362 450(0.25)
[ ]
𝑑4+4𝑈 = 20.1 s
This movement would be assigned LOS C.
3,600 100
3,600 100 100 2 ( )( )
− 1) + 425
√ 425 ] + 5
𝑑9 = + 900(0.25) [ −1+ (
425 425 425 450(0.25)

𝑑9 = 16.1 s

TWSC Example Problems Chapter 32/STOP-Controlled Intersections: Supplemental

Page 32-44 Version 6.0
 Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis

This movement would be assigned LOS C.

3,600 75
3,600 75 75 2 ( )( )
√ 98 98
𝑑7 = + 900(0.25) − 1 + ( − 1) + +5
98 98 98 450(0.25)
[ ]
𝑑1 = 113 s
This movement would be assigned LOS F.

Step 11b: Compute Control Delay to Rank 1 Movements

No shared lanes are present on the major street, so this step is skipped.

Step 12: Compute Approach and Intersection Control Delay

The control delay for each approach is computed as follows:
0(100) + 0(1,000) + 12.6(50)
𝑑𝐴,𝐸𝐵 = = 0.5 s
100 + 1,000 + 50

0(1,200) + 20.1(125)
𝑑𝐴,𝑊𝐵 = = 1.9 s
1,200 + 125

16.1(100) + 113(75)
𝑑𝐴,𝑁𝐵 = = 57.6 s
100 + 75

The northbound approach is assigned LOS F. No LOS is assigned to the

major-street approaches.
The intersection delay dI is computed as follows:
𝑑𝐴,𝐸𝐵 𝑣𝐴,𝐸𝐵 + 𝑑𝐴,𝑊𝐵 𝑣𝐴,𝑊𝐵 + 𝑑𝐴,𝑁𝐵 𝑣𝐴,𝑁𝐵
𝑑𝐼 =
𝑣𝐴,𝐸𝐵 + 𝑣𝐴,𝑊𝐵 + 𝑣𝐴,𝑁𝐵

0.5(1,150) + 1.9(1,325) + 57.6(175)

𝑑𝐼 = = 5.0 s
1,150 + 1,325 + 175
LOS is not defined for the intersection as a whole.

Step 13: Compute 95th Percentile Queue Lengths

The 95th percentile queue length for each movement is computed from
Equation 20-68:

3,600 50
50 50 2 ( )( )
√ 523 523 ( 523 )
𝑄95,1𝑈 ≈ 900(0.25) −1+ ( − 1) +
523 523 150(0.25) 3,600
[ ]
𝑄95,1 ≈ 0.3 veh

3,600 125
125 125 2 ( )( )
√ 362 362 ( 362 )
𝑄95,4+4𝑈 ≈ 900(0.25) −1+ ( − 1) +
362 362 150(0.25) 3,600
[ ]

Chapter 32/STOP-Controlled Intersections: Supplemental TWSC Example Problems

Version 6.0 Page 32-45
Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis

𝑄95,4+4𝑈 ≈ 1.5 veh

3,600 100
100 100 2 ( )( )
425 ] ( 425 )
𝑄95,9 ≈ 900(0.25) [ √
−1+ ( − 1) + 425
425 425 150(0.25) 3,600

𝑄95,9 ≈ 0.9 veh

3,600 75
75 75 2 ( )( )
√ 98 98 ( 98 )
𝑄95,7 ≈ 900(0.25) − 1 + ( − 1) +
98 98 150(0.25) 3,600
[ ]
𝑄95,7 ≈ 4.1 veh

Discussion
Overall, the results indicate that although most minor movements are
operating at low to moderate delays and at LOS C or better, the minor-street left
turn experiences high delays and operates at LOS F.

TWSC Example Problems Chapter 32/STOP-Controlled Intersections: Supplemental

Page 32-46 Version 6.0
 Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis

4. AWSC SUPPLEMENTAL ANALYSIS FOR THREE-LANE

APPROACHES

Exhibit 32-15 provides the 512 possible combinations of probability of

degree-of-conflict cases when alternative lane occupancies are considered for
three-lane approaches. A 1 indicates a vehicle is in the lane; a 0 indicates a
vehicle is not in the lane.

Opposing Conflicting Left Conflicting Right Exhibit 32-15

DOC No. of Approach Approach Approach Probability of Degree-of-
i Case Vehicles L1 L2 L3 L1 L2 L3 L1 L2 L3 Conflict Case: Multilane AWSC
1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Intersections (Three-Lane
2 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Approaches, by Lane)
3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (Cases 1–49)
4 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
5 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
6 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
7 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
8 3 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
9 3 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
10 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
11 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
12 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
15 2 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0
16 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0
17 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0
18 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
20 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
21 3 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0
22 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1
23 4 2 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
24 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
25 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
26 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
27 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
28 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
29 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
30 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0
31 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0
32 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
33 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
34 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
35 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
36 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
37 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
38 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0
39 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0
40 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1
41 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0
42 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0
43 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1
44 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0
45 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0
46 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1
47 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0
48 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0
49 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1

Chapter 32/STOP-Controlled Intersections: Supplemental AWSC Supplemental Analysis for Three-Lane Approaches
Version 6.0 Page 32-47
Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis

Exhibit 32-15 (cont’d.) Opposing Conflicting Left Conflicting Right

Probability of Degree-of- DOC No. of Approach Approach Approach
Conflict Case: Multilane AWSC i Case Vehicles L1 L2 L3 L1 L2 L3 L1 L2 L3
Intersections (Three-Lane 50 4 3 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
Approaches, by Lane) 51 (cont’d.) 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
(Cases 50–112) 52 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
53 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
54 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0
55 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0
56 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
57 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0
58 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0
59 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
60 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
61 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
62 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0
63 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0
64 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1
65 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0
66 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0
67 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1
68 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0
69 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0
70 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0
71 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0
72 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0
73 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0
74 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0
75 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0
76 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0
77 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0
78 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0
79 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1
80 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0
81 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0
82 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1
83 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0
84 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0
85 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1
86 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
87 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
88 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
89 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
90 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
91 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
92 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0
93 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1
94 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1
95 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0
96 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1
97 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1
98 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0
99 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1
100 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1
101 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0
102 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1
103 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1
104 4 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0
105 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0
106 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0
107 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0
108 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0
109 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0
110 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0
111 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0
112 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0

AWSC Supplemental Analysis for Three-Lane Approaches Chapter 32/STOP-Controlled Intersections: Supplemental
Page 32-48 Version 6.0
 Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis

Opposing Conflicting Left Conflicting Right Exhibit 32-15 (cont’d.)

DOC No. of Approach Approach Approach Probability of Degree-of-
i Case Vehicles L1 L2 L3 L1 L2 L3 L1 L2 L3 Conflict Case: Multilane AWSC
113 4 4 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 Intersections (Three-Lane
114 (cont’d.) (cont’d.) 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 Approaches, by Lane)
115 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 (Cases 113–175)
116 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0
117 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1
118 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1
119 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0
120 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1
121 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1
122 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0
123 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1
124 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1
125 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0
126 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1
127 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1
128 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0
129 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1
130 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1
131 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
132 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0
133 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0
134 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0
135 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0
136 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1
137 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0
138 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0
139 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0
140 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0
141 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0
142 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1
143 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1
144 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1
145 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1
146 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1
147 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1
148 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1
149 5 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0
150 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0
151 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0
152 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0
153 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1
154 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1
155 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0
156 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0
157 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0
158 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0
159 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1
160 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1
161 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1
162 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1
163 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1
164 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1
165 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1
166 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1
167 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0
168 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1
169 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1
170 5 3 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0
171 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0
172 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1
173 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0
174 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0
175 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1

Chapter 32/STOP-Controlled Intersections: Supplemental AWSC Supplemental Analysis for Three-Lane Approaches
Version 6.0 Page 32-49
Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis

Exhibit 32-15 (cont’d.) Opposing Conflicting Left Conflicting Right

Probability of Degree-of- DOC No. of Approach Approach Approach
Conflict Case: Multilane AWSC i Case Vehicles L1 L2 L3 L1 L2 L3 L1 L2 L3
Intersections (Three-Lane 176 5 3 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0
Approaches, by Lane) 177 (cont’d.) (cont’d.) 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0
(Cases 176–238) 178 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
179 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0
180 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0
181 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1
182 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0
183 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0
184 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1
185 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0
186 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0
187 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
188 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0
189 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0
190 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1
191 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0
192 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0
193 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1
194 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0
195 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0
196 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1
197 4 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0
198 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0
199 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1
200 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0
201 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0
202 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1
203 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0
204 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0
205 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
206 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0
207 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0
208 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1
209 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0
210 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0
211 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1
212 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0
213 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0
214 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1
215 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0
216 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0
217 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1
218 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0
219 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0
220 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1
221 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0
222 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0
223 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1
224 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0
225 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0
226 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1
227 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0
228 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0
229 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1
230 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0
231 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0
232 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1
233 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0
234 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0
235 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1
236 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0
237 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0
238 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1

AWSC Supplemental Analysis for Three-Lane Approaches Chapter 32/STOP-Controlled Intersections: Supplemental
Page 32-50 Version 6.0
 Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis

Opposing Conflicting Left Conflicting Right Exhibit 32-15 (cont’d.)

DOC No. of Approach Approach Approach Probability of Degree-of-
i Case Vehicles L1 L2 L3 L1 L2 L3 L1 L2 L3 Conflict Case: Multilane AWSC
239 5 4 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 Intersections (Three-Lane
240 (cont’d.) (cont’d.) 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 Approaches, by Lane)
241 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 (Cases 239–301)
242 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0
243 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0
244 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1
245 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0
246 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0
247 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1
248 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0
249 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0
250 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1
251 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0
252 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1
253 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1
254 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0
255 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1
256 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1
257 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0
258 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1
259 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1
260 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0
261 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1
262 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1
263 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0
264 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1
265 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1
266 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0
267 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1
268 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1
269 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0
270 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1
271 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1
272 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0
273 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1
274 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1
275 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0
276 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1
277 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1
278 5 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0
279 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0
280 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1
281 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0
282 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0
283 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1
284 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0
285 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0
286 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1
287 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0
288 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0
289 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1
290 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0
291 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0
292 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1
293 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0
294 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0
295 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1
296 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0
297 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0
298 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1
299 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0
300 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0
301 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1

Chapter 32/STOP-Controlled Intersections: Supplemental AWSC Supplemental Analysis for Three-Lane Approaches
Version 6.0 Page 32-51
Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis

Exhibit 32-15 (cont’d.) Opposing Conflicting Left Conflicting Right

Probability of Degree-of- DOC No. of Approach Approach Approach
Conflict Case: Multilane AWSC i Case Vehicles L1 L2 L3 L1 L2 L3 L1 L2 L3
Intersections (Three-Lane 302 5 5 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0
Approaches, by Lane) 303 (cont’d.) (cont’d.) 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0
(Cases 302–364) 304 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1
305 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0
306 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0
307 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0
308 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1
309 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1
310 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1
311 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1
312 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1
313 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1
314 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0
315 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0
316 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0
317 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1
318 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1
319 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1
320 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1
321 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1
322 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1
323 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0
324 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0
325 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0
326 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1
327 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1
328 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1
329 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1
330 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1
331 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1
332 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0
333 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1
334 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1
335 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0
336 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1
337 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1
338 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0
339 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1
340 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1
341 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0
342 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1
343 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1
344 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0
345 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1
346 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 1
347 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0
348 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1
349 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1
350 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0
351 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1
352 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 1
353 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0
354 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1
355 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1
356 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0
357 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1
358 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1
359 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0
360 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0
361 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1
362 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0
363 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0
364 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1

AWSC Supplemental Analysis for Three-Lane Approaches Chapter 32/STOP-Controlled Intersections: Supplemental
Page 32-52 Version 6.0
 Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis

Opposing Conflicting Left Conflicting Right Exhibit 32-15 (cont’d.)

DOC No. of Approach Approach Approach Probability of Degree-of-
i Case Vehicles L1 L2 L3 L1 L2 L3 L1 L2 L3 Conflict Case: Multilane AWSC
365 5 5 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 Intersections (Three-Lane
366 (cont’d. (cont’d.) 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 Approaches, by Lane)
367 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 (Cases 365–427)
368 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0
369 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0
370 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1
371 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0
372 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0
373 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1
374 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0
375 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 0
376 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 1
377 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1
378 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1
379 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1
380 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1
381 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1
382 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1
383 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1
384 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1
385 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1
386 6 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0
387 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1
388 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1
389 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0
390 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1
391 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 1
392 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0
393 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1
394 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1
395 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0
396 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1
397 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1
398 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0
399 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1
400 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1
401 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0
402 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1
403 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1
404 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0
405 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1
406 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 1
407 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0
408 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1
409 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1
410 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0
411 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1
412 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1
413 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0
414 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0
415 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1
416 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0
417 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0
418 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1
419 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0
420 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0
421 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1
422 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0
423 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1
424 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1
425 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0
426 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1
427 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1

Chapter 32/STOP-Controlled Intersections: Supplemental AWSC Supplemental Analysis for Three-Lane Approaches
Version 6.0 Page 32-53
Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis

Exhibit 32-15 (cont’d.) Opposing Conflicting Left Conflicting Right

Probability of Degree-of- DOC No. of Approach Approach Approach
Conflict Case: Multilane AWSC i Case Vehicles L1 L2 L3 L1 L2 L3 L1 L2 L3
Intersections (Three-Lane 428 5 6 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0
Approaches, by Lane) 429 (cont’d.) (cont’d.) 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1
(Cases 428–490) 430 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1
431 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0
432 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0
433 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1
434 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0
435 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0
436 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1
437 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0
438 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 0
439 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 1
440 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0
441 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1
442 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1
443 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0
444 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1
445 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1
446 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0
447 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1
448 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1
449 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1
450 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1
451 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1
452 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1
453 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1
454 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1
455 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1
456 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1
457 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1
458 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1
459 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1
460 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1
461 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1
462 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1
463 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1
464 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1
465 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1
466 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1
467 7 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0
468 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1
469 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1
470 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0
471 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1
472 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1
473 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0
474 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1
475 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1
476 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0
477 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1
478 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1
479 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0
480 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1
481 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1
482 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0
483 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1
484 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1
485 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1
486 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1
487 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1
488 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1
489 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1
490 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1

AWSC Supplemental Analysis for Three-Lane Approaches Chapter 32/STOP-Controlled Intersections: Supplemental
Page 32-54 Version 6.0
 Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis

Opposing Conflicting Left Conflicting Right Exhibit 32-15 (cont’d.)

DOC No. of Approach Approach Approach Probability of Degree-of-
i Case Vehicles L1 L2 L3 L1 L2 L3 L1 L2 L3 Conflict Case: Multilane AWSC
491 5 7 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 Intersections (Three-Lane
492 (cont’d.) (cont’d.) 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 Approaches, by Lane)
493 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 (Cases 491–512)
494 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0
495 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0
496 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1
497 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1
498 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1
499 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1
500 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1
501 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1
502 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
503 8 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0
504 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1
505 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1
506 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1
507 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1
508 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1
509 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1
510 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
511 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
512 9 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Note: DOC = degree-of-conflict; No. of vehicles = total number of vehicles on the opposing and conflicting
approaches; L1, L2, and L3 = Lane 1, 2, and 3, respectively.

Chapter 32/STOP-Controlled Intersections: Supplemental AWSC Supplemental Analysis for Three-Lane Approaches
Version 6.0 Page 32-55
Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis

5. AWSC EXAMPLE PROBLEMS

This part of the chapter provides example problems for use of the AWSC
methodology. Exhibit 32-16 provides an overview of these problems. The
examples focus on the operational analysis level. The planning and preliminary
engineering analysis level is identical to the operations analysis level in terms of
the calculations, except default values are used when available.

Exhibit 32-16 Problem Analysis

AWSC Example Problems Number Description Level
1 Single-lane, three-leg AWSC intersection Operational
2 Multilane, four-leg AWSC intersection Operational

AWSC EXAMPLE PROBLEM 1: SINGLE-LANE, THREE-LEG

INTERSECTION
The Facts
The following describes this location’s traffic and geometric characteristics:
 Three legs (T-intersection),
 One-lane entries on each leg,
 Percentage heavy vehicles on all approaches = 2%,
 Peak hour factor = 0.95, and
 Volumes and lane configurations are as shown in Exhibit 32-17.

Exhibit 32-17
AWSC Example Problem 1:
Volumes and Lane
Configurations

Comments
The use of a spreadsheet or All input parameters are known, so no default values are needed or used.
software for AWSC intersection
analysis is recommended The use of a spreadsheet or software is recommended because of the repetitive
because of the repetitive and computations required. Slight differences in reported values may result from
iterative computations
required. rounding differences between manual and software computations. Because
showing all the individual computations is not practical, this example problem
shows how one or more computations are made. All computational results can
be found in the spreadsheet output located in the Volume 4 Technical Reference
Library section for Chapter 32.

AWSC Example Problems Chapter 32/STOP-Controlled Intersections: Supplemental

Page 32-56 Version 6.0
 Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis

Step 1: Convert Movement Demand Volumes to Flow Rates

Peak 15-min flow rates for each turning movement at the intersection are
equal to the hourly volumes divided by the peak hour factor (Equation 21-12).
For example, the peak 15-min flow rate for the eastbound through movement is
as follows:
𝑉𝐸𝐵𝑇𝐻 300
𝑣𝐸𝐵𝑇𝐻 = = = 316 veh/h
𝑃𝐻𝐹 0.95

Step 2: Determine Lane Flow Rates

This step does not apply because the intersection has one-lane approaches on
all legs.

Step 3: Determine Geometry Group for Each Approach

Exhibit 21-11 shows each approach should be assigned to Geometry Group 1.

Step 4: Determine Saturation Headway Adjustments

Exhibit 21-12 shows the headway adjustments for left turns, right turns, and
heavy vehicles are 0.2, –0.6, and 1.7, respectively. These values apply to all
approaches because all are assigned to Geometry Group 1. The saturation
headway adjustment for the eastbound approach is calculated from Equation 21-
13 as follows:
ℎ𝑎𝑑𝑗 = ℎ𝐿𝑇,𝑎𝑑𝑗 𝑃𝐿𝑇 + ℎ𝑅𝑇,𝑎𝑑𝑗 𝑃𝑅𝑇 + ℎ𝐻𝑉,𝑎𝑑𝑗 𝑃𝐻𝑉
53
ℎ𝑎𝑑𝑗,𝐸𝐵 = 0.2 − 0.6(0) + 1.7(0.02) = 0.063
53 + 316
Similarly, the saturation headway adjustments for the westbound and
northbound approaches are as follows:
105
ℎ𝑎𝑑𝑗,𝑊𝐵 = 0.2(0) − 0.6 ( ) + 1.7(0.02) = −0.116
105 + 316
105 53
ℎ𝑎𝑑𝑗,𝑁𝐵 = 0.2 − 0.6 ( ) + 1.7(0.02) = −0.034
105 + 53 105 + 53

Steps 5–11: Determine Departure Headways

These steps are iterative. The following narrative highlights some of the key
calculations using the eastbound approach for Iteration 1.

Step 6: Calculate Initial Degree of Utilization

By using the lane flow rates from Step 2 and the assumed initial departure
headway from Step 5, the initial degree of utilization x is computed as follows
from Equation 21-14:
𝑣ℎ𝑑 (368)(3.2)
𝑥𝐸𝐵 = = = 0.327
3,600 3,600
(421)(3.2)
𝑥𝑊𝐵 = = 0.374
3,600
(158)(3.2)
𝑥𝑁𝐵 = = 0.140
3,600

Chapter 32/STOP-Controlled Intersections: Supplemental AWSC Example Problems

Version 6.0 Page 32-57
Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis

Step 7: Compute Probability States

The probability state of each combination i is determined with Equation
21-15.

𝑃(𝑖) = ∏ 𝑃(𝑎𝑗 ) = 𝑃(𝑎𝑂 ) × 𝑃(𝑎𝐶𝐿 ) × 𝑃(𝑎𝐶𝑅 )

𝑗
For an intersection with single-lane approaches, only eight cases from
Exhibit 21-14 apply, as shown in Exhibit 32-18:

Exhibit 32-18 Conflicting Conflicting

AWSC Example Problem 1: DOC No. of Opposing Left Right
Applicable Degree-of-Conflict i Case Vehicles Approach Approach Approach
Cases 1 1 0 0 0 0
2 2 1 1 0 0
5 3 1 0 1 0
7 3 1 0 0 1
13 4 2 0 1 1
16 4 2 1 1 0
21 4 2 1 0 1
45 5 3 1 1 1

For example, the probability state for the eastbound leg under the condition
of no opposing vehicles on the other approaches (degree-of-conflict Case 1, i = 1)
is as follows:
𝑃(𝑎𝑂 ) = 1 − 𝑥𝑂 = 1 − 0.374 = 0.626 (no opposing vehicle present)
𝑃(𝑎𝐶𝐿 ) = 1 − 𝑥𝐶𝐿 = 1 − 0.140 = 0.860 (no conflicting vehicle from left)
𝑃(𝑎𝐶𝑅 ) = 1 (no approach conflicting from right)
Therefore,
𝑃(1) = 𝑃(𝑎𝑂 ) × 𝑃(𝑎𝐶𝐿 ) × 𝑃(𝑎𝐶𝑅 ) = (0.626)(0.860)(1) = 0.538
Similarly,
𝑃(2) = (0.374)(0.860)(1) = 0.322
𝑃(5) = (0.626)(0.140)(1) = 0.088
𝑃(7) = (0.626)(0.860)(0) = 0
𝑃(13) = (0.626)(0.140)(0) = 0
𝑃(16) = (0.374)(0.140)(1) = 0.052
𝑃(21) = (0.374)(0.860)(0) = 0
𝑃(45) = (0.374)(0.140)(0) = 0

Step 8: Compute Probability Adjustment Factors

The probability adjustment is computed as follows, using Equation 21-16
through Equation 21-20:
𝑃(𝐶1 ) = 𝑃(1) = 0.538
𝑃(𝐶2 ) = 𝑃(2) = 0.322
𝑃(𝐶3 ) = 𝑃(5) + 𝑃(7) = 0.088 + 0 = 0.088
𝑃(𝐶4 ) = 𝑃(13) + 𝑃(16) + 𝑃(21) = 0 + 0.052 + 0 = 0.052
𝑃(𝐶5 ) = 𝑃(45) = 0

AWSC Example Problems Chapter 32/STOP-Controlled Intersections: Supplemental

Page 32-58 Version 6.0
 Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis

The probability adjustment factors for the nonzero cases are calculated from
Equation 21-21 through Equation 21-25:
𝐴𝑑𝑗𝑃(1) = 0.01[0.322 + 2(0.088) + 3(0.052) + 0]/1 = 0.0065
𝐴𝑑𝑗𝑃(2) = 0.01[0.088 + 2(0.052) + 0 − 0.322]/3 = −0.0004
𝐴𝑑𝑗𝑃(5) = 0.01[0.052 + 2(0) − 3(0.088)]/6 = −0.0004
𝐴𝑑𝑗𝑃(16) = 0.01[0 − 6(0.052)]/27 = −0.0001
Therefore, the adjusted probability for Combination 1, for example, is as
follows from Equation 21-16:
𝑃′ (1) = 𝑃(1) + 𝐴𝑑𝑗𝑃(1) = 0.538 + 0.0065 = 0.5445

Step 9: Compute Saturation Headways

The base saturation headways for each combination can be determined with
Exhibit 21-15. They are adjusted by using the adjustment factors calculated in
Step 4 and added to the base saturation headways to determine saturation
headways as shown in Exhibit 32-19 (eastbound illustrated):

i hbase hadj hsi Exhibit 32-19

1 3.9 0.063 3.963 AWSC Example Problem 1:
Eastbound Saturation
2 4.7 0.063 4.763
Headways
5 5.8 0.063 5.863
7 7.0 0.063 7.063

Step 10: Compute Departure Headways

The departure headway of the lane is the sum of the products of the adjusted
probabilities and the saturation headways as follows (eastbound illustrated):
64

ℎ𝑑 = ∑ 𝑃′ (𝑖)ℎ𝑠𝑖
𝑖=1
ℎ𝑑,𝐸𝐵 = (0.5445)(3.963) + (0.3213)(4.763) + (0.0875)(5.863) + (0.0524)(7.063)
ℎ𝑑,𝐸𝐵 = 4.57 s

Step 11: Check for Convergence

The calculated values of hd are checked against the initial values assumed for
hd. After one iteration, each calculated headway differs from the initial value by
more than 0.1 s. Therefore, the new calculated headway values are used as initial
values in a second iteration. For this problem, four iterations are required for
convergence, as shown in Exhibit 32-20.

Chapter 32/STOP-Controlled Intersections: Supplemental AWSC Example Problems

Version 6.0 Page 32-59
Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis

Exhibit 32-20 EB EB WB WB NB NB SB SB
AWSC Example Problem 1: L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2
Convergence Check Total Lane Flow Rate 368 421 158
hd, initial value, iteration 1 3.2 3.2 3.2
x, initial, iteration 1 0.327 0.374 0.140
hd, computed value, iteration 1 4.57 4.35 5.14
Convergence? N N N

hd, initial value, iteration 2 4.57 4.35 5.14

x, initial, iteration 2 0.468 0.509 0.225
hd, computed value, iteration 2 4.88 4.66 5.59
Convergence? N N N

hd, initial value, iteration 3 4.88 4.66 5.59

x, initial, iteration 3 0.499 0.545 0.245
hd, computed value, iteration 3 4.95 4.73 5.70
Convergence? Y Y N

hd, initial value, iteration 4 4.88 4.66 5.70

x, initial, iteration 4 0.499 0.545 0.250
hd, computed value, iteration 4 4.97 4.74 5.70
Convergence? Y Y Y

Step 12: Compute Capacities

The capacity of each lane in a subject approach is computed by increasing the
given flow rate on the subject lane (assuming the flows on the opposing and
conflicting approaches are constant) until the degree of utilization for the subject
lane reaches 1. This level of calculation requires running an iterative procedure
many times, which is practical for a spreadsheet or software implementation.
Here, the eastbound lane capacity is approximately 720 veh/h, which is lower
than the value that could be estimated by dividing the lane volume by the degree
of utilization (368/0.492 = 748 veh/h). The difference is due to the interaction
effects among the approaches: increases in eastbound traffic volume increase the
departure headways of the lanes on the other approaches, which in turn
increases the departure headways of the lane(s) on the subject approach.

Step 13: Compute Service Times

The service time required to calculate control delay is computed on the basis
of the final calculated departure headway and the move-up time by using
Equation 21-29. For the eastbound lane (using a value for m of 2.0 for Geometry
Group 1), the calculation is as follows:
𝑡𝑠,𝐸𝐵 = ℎ𝑑,𝐸𝐵 − 𝑚 = 4.97 − 2.0 = 2.97 s

Step 14: Compute Control Delay and Determine LOS for Each Lane
The control delay for each lane is computed with Equation 21-30 as follows
(eastbound illustrated):

ℎ𝑑,𝐸𝐵 𝑥𝐸𝐵
𝑑𝐸𝐵 = 𝑡𝑠,𝐸𝐵 + 900𝑇 [(𝑥𝐸𝐵 − 1) + √(𝑥𝐸𝐵 − 1)2 + ]+5
450𝑇

4.97(0.508)
𝑑𝐸𝐵 = 2.97 + 900(0.25) [(0.508 − 1) + √(0.508 − 1)2 + ]+5
450(0.25)

𝑑𝐸𝐵 = 13.0 s

AWSC Example Problems Chapter 32/STOP-Controlled Intersections: Supplemental

Page 32-60 Version 6.0
 Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis

By using Exhibit 21-8, the eastbound lane (and thus approach) is assigned
LOS B. A similar calculation for the westbound and southbound lanes (and thus
approaches) yields 13.5 and 10.6 s, respectively.

Step 15: Compute Control Delay and Determine LOS for the
Intersection
The control delays for the approaches can be combined into an intersection
control delay by using a weighted average as follows:
∑ 𝑑𝑎 𝑣𝑎
𝑑intersection =
∑ 𝑣𝑎
(13.0)(368) + (13.5)(421) + (10.6)(158)
𝑑intersection = = 12.8 s
368 + 421 + 158
This value of delay is assigned LOS B.

Step 16: Compute Queue Lengths

The 95th percentile queue for each lane is computed with Equation 21-33 as
follows (eastbound approach illustrated):

900𝑇 ℎ𝑑,𝐸𝐵 𝑥𝐸𝐵

𝑄95,𝐸𝐵 ≈ [(𝑥𝐸𝐵 − 1) + √(𝑥𝐸𝐵 − 1)2 + ]
ℎ𝑑,𝐸𝐵 150𝑇

900(0.25) 4.97(0.508)
𝑄95,𝐸𝐵 ≈ [(0.508 − 1) + √(0.508 − 1)2 + ] = 2.9 veh
4.97 150(0.25)

This queue length would be reported as three vehicles.

Discussion
The results indicate the intersection operates well with brief delays.

AWSC EXAMPLE PROBLEM 2: MULTILANE, FOUR-LEG INTERSECTION

The Facts
The following data are available to describe the traffic and geometric
characteristics of this location:
 Four legs;
 Two-lane approaches on the east and west legs;
 Three-lane approaches on the north and south legs;
 Percentage heavy vehicles on all approaches = 2%;
 Demand volumes are provided in 15-min intervals (therefore, a peak hour
factor is not required), and the analysis period length is 0.25 h; and
 Volumes and lane configurations are as shown in Exhibit 32-21.

Chapter 32/STOP-Controlled Intersections: Supplemental AWSC Example Problems

Version 6.0 Page 32-61
Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis

Exhibit 32-21
AWSC Example Problem 2:
15-min Volumes and Lane
Configurations

Comments
All input parameters are known, so no default values are needed or used.
The use of a spreadsheet or software is required because of the several thousand
repetitive computations needed. Slight differences in reported values may result
from rounding differences between manual and software computations. Because
showing all the individual computations is not practical, this example problem
shows how one or more computations are made. All computational results can
be found in the spreadsheet output located in the Volume 4 Technical Reference
Library section for Chapter 32.

Step 1: Convert Movement Demand Volumes to Flow Rates

To convert the peak 15-min demand volumes to hourly flow rates, the
individual movement volumes are simply multiplied by four, as shown in
Exhibit 32-22:

Exhibit 32-22
AWSC Example Problem 2:
15-min Volumes Converted to
Hourly Flow Rates

Step 2: Determine Lane Flow Rates

This step simply involves assigning the turning movement volume to each of
the approach lanes. The left-turn volume is assigned to the separate left-turn lane
on each approach. For the east and west approaches, the through and right-turn
volumes are assigned to the shared through and right lanes. For the north and

AWSC Example Problems Chapter 32/STOP-Controlled Intersections: Supplemental

Page 32-62 Version 6.0
 Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis

south approaches, the through volumes are assigned to the through lanes and
the right-turn volumes are assigned to the right-turn lanes.

Step 3: Determine Geometry Group for Each Approach

Exhibit 21-11 shows each approach should be assigned to Geometry Group 6.

Step 4: Determine Saturation Headway Adjustments

Exhibit 21-12 shows the headway adjustments for left turns, right turns, and
heavy vehicles are 0.5, –0.7, and 1.7, respectively. These values apply to all
approaches as all are assigned Geometry Group 6. The saturation headway
adjustment for the eastbound approach is as follows for Lane 1 (the left-turn
lane):
ℎ𝑎𝑑𝑗 = ℎ𝐿𝑇,𝑎𝑑𝑗 𝑃𝐿𝑇 + ℎ𝑅𝑇,𝑎𝑑𝑗 𝑃𝑅𝑇 + ℎ𝐻𝑉,𝑎𝑑𝑗 𝑃𝐻𝑉
ℎ𝑎𝑑𝑗,𝐸𝐵,1 = 0.5(1.0) − 0.7(0) + 1.7(0.02) = 0.534
Similarly, the saturation headway adjustment for Lane 2 of the eastbound
approach is as follows:
64
ℎ𝑎𝑑𝑗,𝐸𝐵,2 = 0.5(0) − 0.7 ( ) + 1.7(0.02) = −0.173
64 + 152
The saturation headway adjustment for all the remaining lanes by approach
is similarly calculated. The full computational results can be seen in the
“HdwyAdj” spreadsheet tab.

Steps 5–11: Determine Departure Headways

These steps are iterative and, for this example, involve several thousand
calculations. The following narrative highlights some of the key calculations
using the eastbound approach for Iteration 1, but it does not attempt to
reproduce all calculations for all iterations. The full computational results for
each of the iterative computations can be seen in the “DepHdwyIterX”
spreadsheet tab, where “X” is the iteration.

Step 6: Calculate Initial Degree of Utilization

The remainder of this example illustrates the calculations needed to evaluate
Lane 1 on the eastbound approach (eastbound left turn). Step 6 requires
calculating the initial degree of utilization for all the opposing and conflicting
lanes. They are computed as follows:
𝑣ℎ𝑑 (156)(3.2)
𝑥𝑊𝐵,1 = = = 0.1387
3,600 3,600
𝑣ℎ𝑑 (164)(3.2)
𝑥𝑊𝐵,2 = = = 0.1458
3,600 3,600
𝑣ℎ𝑑 (76)(3.2)
𝑥𝑁𝐵,1 = = = 0.0676
3,600 3,600
𝑣ℎ𝑑 (164)(3.2)
𝑥𝑁𝐵,2 = = = 0.1458
3,600 3,600
𝑣ℎ𝑑 (116)(3.2)
𝑥𝑁𝐵,3 = = = 0.1031
3,600 3,600

Chapter 32/STOP-Controlled Intersections: Supplemental AWSC Example Problems

Version 6.0 Page 32-63
Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis

𝑣ℎ𝑑 (48)(3.2)
𝑥𝑆𝐵,1 = = = 0.0427
3,600 3,600
𝑣ℎ𝑑 (124)(3.2)
𝑥𝑆𝐵,2 = = = 0.1102
3,600 3,600
𝑣ℎ𝑑 (88)(3.2)
𝑥𝑆𝐵,3 = = = 0.0782
3,600 3,600

Step 7: Compute Probability States

Because three-lane approaches are involved, the modified methodology
presented in Section 4 of Chapter 21 is used.
The probability state of each combination i is determined with Equation
21-34:

𝑃(𝑖) = ∏ 𝑃(𝑎𝑗 ) = 𝑃(𝑎𝑂 ) × 𝑃(𝑎𝐶𝐿 ) × 𝑃(𝑎𝐶𝑅 )

𝑗
For example, the probability state for the eastbound leg under the condition
of no opposing vehicles on the other approaches (Degree-of-Conflict Case 1, i = 1)
is as follows (using Exhibit 21-16):
𝑃(𝑎𝑂1 ) = 1 − 𝑥𝑂1 = 1 − 0.1387 = 0.8613 (opposing westbound Lane 1)
𝑃(𝑎𝑂2 ) = 1 − 𝑥𝑂2 = 1 − 0.1458 = 0.8542 (opposing westbound Lane 2)
𝑃(𝑎𝐶𝐿1 ) = 1 − 𝑥𝐶𝐿1 = 1 − 0.0427 = 0.9573 (conflicting from left Lane 1)
𝑃(𝑎𝐶𝐿2 ) = 1 − 𝑥𝐶𝐿2 = 1 − 0.1102 = 0.8898 (conflicting from left Lane 2)
𝑃(𝑎𝐶𝐿3 ) = 1 − 𝑥𝐶𝐿3 = 1 − 0.0782 = 0.9218 (conflicting from left Lane 3)
𝑃(𝑎𝐶𝑅1 ) = 1 − 𝑥𝐶𝑅1 = 1 − 0.0676 = 0.9324 (conflicting from right Lane 1)
𝑃(𝑎𝐶𝑅2 ) = 1 − 𝑥𝐶𝑅2 = 1 − 0.1458 = 0.8542 (conflicting from right Lane 2)
𝑃(𝑎𝐶𝑅3 ) = 1 − 𝑥𝐶𝑅3 = 1 − 0.1031 = 0.8969 (conflicting from right Lane 3)
Therefore,
𝑃(1) = 𝑃(𝑎𝑂1 ) × 𝑃(𝑎𝑂2 ) × 𝑃(𝑎𝐶𝐿1 ) × 𝑃(𝑎𝐶𝐿2 ) × 𝑃(𝑎𝐶𝐿3 ) × 𝑃(𝑎𝐶𝑅1 ) × 𝑃(𝑎𝐶𝑅2 )
× 𝑃(𝑎𝐶𝑅3 )
𝑃(1) = (0.8613)(0.8542)(0.9573)(0.8898)(0.9218)(0.9324)(0.8542)(0.8969)
𝑃(1) = 0.4127
To complete the calculations for Step 7, the computations are completed for
the remaining 511 possible combinations. The full computational results for the
eastbound leg (Lane 1) can be seen in the “DepHdwyIter1” spreadsheet tab,
Rows 3118–3629 (Columns C–K).

Step 8: Compute Probability Adjustment Factors

The probability adjustment is computed with Equation 21-35 through
Equation 21-39 to account for the serial correlation in the previous probability
computation. First, the probability of each degree-of-conflict case must be
determined. For the example of eastbound Lane 1, these computations are made
by summing Rows 3118–3629 in the spreadsheet for each of the five cases
(Columns R–V). The resulting computations are shown in Row 3630 (Columns
R–V), where

AWSC Example Problems Chapter 32/STOP-Controlled Intersections: Supplemental

Page 32-64 Version 6.0
 Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis

𝑃(𝐶1 ) = 𝑃(1) = 0.4127

8

𝑃(𝐶2 ) = ∑ 𝑃(𝑖) = 0.1482

𝑖=2
22

𝑃(𝐶3 ) = ∑ 𝑃(𝑖) = 0.2779

𝑖=9
169

𝑃(𝐶4 ) = ∑ 𝑃(𝑖) = 0.1450

𝑖=23
512

𝑃(𝐶5 ) = ∑ 𝑃(𝑖) = 0.0162

𝑖=170
The probability adjustment factors are then computed with Equation 21-40
through Equation 21-44, where  equals 0.01 (or 0.00 if correlation among
saturation headways is not taken into account).
For example, by using Equation 21-35, AdjP(1) is calculated as follows:
𝐴𝑑𝑗𝑃(1) = 0.01[0.1482 + 2(0.2779) + 3(0.1450) + 4(0.0162)]/1 = 0.01204
The results of the remaining computations for eastbound Lane 1 are located
in Row 3632 of the spreadsheet (Columns S–V).

Step 9: Compute Saturation Headways

The base saturation headways for each of the 512 combinations can be
determined with Exhibit 21-15. They are adjusted by using the adjustment factors
calculated in Step 4 and added to the base saturation headways to determine
saturation headways.
For the example of eastbound Lane 1, these computations are shown in Rows
3118–3629 of the spreadsheet (Columns M–O).

Step 10: Compute Departure Headways

The departure headway of the lane is the sum of the products of the adjusted
probabilities and the saturation headways. For the example of eastbound Lane 1,
these computations are made by summing the product of Columns O and Y for
Rows 3118–3629 in the example spreadsheet.

Step 11: Check for Convergence

The calculated values of hd are checked against the assumed initial values for
hd. After one iteration, each calculated headway differs from the initial value by
more than 0.1 s. Therefore, the new calculated headway values are used as initial
values in a second iteration. For this problem, five iterations were required for
convergence, as shown in Exhibit 32-23.

Chapter 32/STOP-Controlled Intersections: Supplemental AWSC Example Problems

Version 6.0 Page 32-65
Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis

Exhibit 32-23 EB EB EB WB WB WB NB NB NB SB SB SB
L1 L2 L3 L1 L2 L3 L1 L2 L3 L1 L2 L3
AWSC Example Problem 2: Total lane flow rate 56 216 156 164 76 164 116 48 124 88
Convergence Check hd, initial value, Iteration 1 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2
x, initial, Iteration 1 0.0498 0.192 0.1387 0.1458 0.0676 0.1458 0.1031 0.0427 0.1102 0.0782
hd, computed value, Iteration 1 6.463 5.755 6.405 5.597 6.440 5.935 5.228 6.560 6.055 5.347
Convergence? N N N N N N N N N N

hd, initial value, Iteration 2 6.463 5.755 6.405 5.597 6.440 5.935 5.228 6.560 6.055 5.347
x, initial, Iteration 2 0.1005 0.3453 0.2776 0.255 0.136 0.2704 0.1685 0.0875 0.2086 0.1307
hd, computed value, Iteration 2 7.550 6.838 7.440 6.629 7.537 7.027 6.313 7.740 7.230 6.515
Convergence? N N N N N N N N N N

hd, initial value, Iteration 3 7.550 6.838 7.440 6.629 7.537 7.027 6.313 7.740 7.230 6.515
x, initial, Iteration 3 0.1174 0.4103 0.3224 0.302 0.1591 0.3201 0.2034 0.1032 0.249 0.1593
hd, computed value, Iteration 3 7.970 7.257 7.854 7.041 7.954 7.442 6.725 8.187 7.675 6.957
Convergence? N N N N N N N N N N

hd, initial value, Iteration 4 7.970 7.257 7.854 7.041 7.954 7.442 6.725 8.187 7.675 6.957
x, initial, Iteration 4 0.124 0.4354 0.3404 0.3208 0.1679 0.339 0.2167 0.1092 0.2643 0.17
hd, computed value, Iteration 4 8.130 7.416 8.010 7.196 8.114 7.601 6.884 8.359 7.845 7.126
Convergence? N N N N N N N N N N

hd, initial value, Iteration 5 8.130 7.416 8.010 7.196 8.114 7.601 6.884 8.359 7.845 7.126
x, initial, Iteration 5 0.1265 0.445 0.3471 0.3278 0.1713 0.3463 0.2218 0.1115 0.2702 0.1742
hd, computed value, Iteration 5 8.191 7.476 8.069 7.255 8.174 7.661 6.943 8.424 7.910 7.190
Convergence? Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Step 12: Compute Capacity

As noted in the procedure, the capacity of each lane in a subject approach is
computed by increasing the given flow rate on the subject lane (assuming the
flows on the opposing and conflicting approaches are constant) until the degree
of utilization for the subject lane reaches 1. This level of calculation requires
running an iterative procedure many times, which is practical only for a
spreadsheet or software implementation.
For this example, the capacity of eastbound Lane 1 can be found to be
approximately 420 veh/h. This value is lower than the value that could be
estimated by dividing the lane volume by the degree of utilization (56/0.1265 =
443 veh/h). The difference is due to the interaction effects among the approaches:
increases in eastbound traffic volume increase the departure headways of the
lanes on the other approaches, which increases the departure headways of the
lanes on the subject approach.

Step 13: Compute Service Times

The service time required to calculate control delay is computed on the basis
of the final calculated departure headway and the move-up time by using
Equation 21-29. For the eastbound Lane 1 (using a value for m of 2.3 for
Geometry Group 6), the calculation is as follows:
𝑡𝑠,𝐸𝐵,1 = ℎ𝑑,𝐸𝐵,1 − 𝑚 = 8.19 − 2.3 = 5.89 s

Step 14: Compute Control Delay and Determine LOS for Each Lane
The control delay for each lane is computed with Equation 21-30 as follows
(eastbound Lane 1 illustrated):

ℎ𝑑,𝐸𝐵,1 𝑥𝐸𝐵,1
𝑑𝐸𝐵,1 = 𝑡𝑠,𝐸𝐵,1 + 900𝑇 [(𝑥𝐸𝐵,1 − 1) + √(𝑥𝐸𝐵,1 − 1)2 + ]+5
450𝑇

8.19(0.1274)
𝑑𝐸𝐵,1 = 5.89 + 900(0.25) [(0.1274 − 1) + √(0.1274 − 1)2 + ]+5
450(0.25)

AWSC Example Problems Chapter 32/STOP-Controlled Intersections: Supplemental

Page 32-66 Version 6.0
 Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis

𝑑𝐸𝐵,1 = 12.1 s
On the basis of Exhibit 20-2, eastbound Lane 1 is assigned LOS B.

Step 15: Compute Control Delay and Determine LOS for Each Approach
and the Intersection
The control delay for each approach is calculated using Equation 21-31 as
follows (eastbound approach illustrated):
(12.1)(272) + (16.1)(216)
𝑑EB = = 15.3 s
56 + 216
This value of delay is assigned LOS C.
Similarly, the control delay for the intersection is calculated as follows:
(15.3)(272) + (14.3)(320) + (13.1)(356) + (12.6)(260)
𝑑intersection = = 14.0 s
272 + 320 + 356 + 260
This value of delay is assigned LOS B.

Step 16: Compute Queue Lengths

The 95th percentile queue for each lane is computed with Equation 21-33 as
follows for eastbound Lane 1:

900(0.25) 8.19(0.1274)
𝑄95,𝐸𝐵1 ≈ [(0.1274 − 1) + √(0.1274 − 1)2 + ]
8.19 150(0.25)

𝑄95,𝐸𝐵1 ≈ 0.4 veh

This queue length commonly would be rounded up to one vehicle.

Discussion
The overall results can be found in the “DelayLOS” spreadsheet tab. As
indicated in the output, all movements at the intersection are operating well with
small delays. The worst-performing movement is eastbound Lane 2, which is
operating with a volume-to-capacity ratio of 0.45 and a control delay of 16.1
s/veh, which results in LOS C. The intersection as a whole operates at LOS B, so
the reporting of individual movements is important to avoid masking results
caused by aggregating delays.

Chapter 32/STOP-Controlled Intersections: Supplemental AWSC Example Problems

Version 6.0 Page 32-67