Scribd
Upload
69 views

Case Study 03 - Problem 4

This document discusses the analysis of a four-leg intersection with an unusual configuration involving wide medians and separated conflict points using the Highway Capacity Manual methodology. It examines analyzing the intersection as a whole and as separated conflict points, finding the latter approach is more appropriate. It also determines the northbound right turn is better analyzed as a freeway merge rather than a traditional traffic signal control analysis.

Uploaded by

Waqas Muneer Khan
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as PPT, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
69 views

Case Study 03 - Problem 4

This document discusses the analysis of a four-leg intersection with an unusual configuration involving wide medians and separated conflict points using the Highway Capacity Manual methodology. It examines analyzing the intersection as a whole and as separated conflict points, finding the latter approach is more appropriate. It also determines the northbound right turn is better analyzed as a freeway merge rather than a traditional traffic signal control analysis.

Uploaded by

Waqas Muneer Khan
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as PPT, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 33

Problem 4:

Okeechobee Road
Stopped Control
Analysis
N

Location and Configuration


N
 T Intersection Observations?

 Very wide median


 Might operate as
separate conflict
points
 Right turns removed
Peak Hour Volumes

Left Thru Right


NB257 --- 433
EB --- 2,010 389
Observations? WB 120 358 ---

 What’s missing and why?


 What’s critical?
 How Critical?
 What do we need to analyze?
Sub-problem 4a

Examine the capacity of the critical minor


street movement (the northbound left turn)
using the graphical solution presented in the
HCM, without going through the full procedure
HCM Exhibit 17-7

Conclusion:
Volume > Capacity
NBLT

Conflicting Flow = 2010 vph

Volume (257) vph


Capacity (< 100 vph)
What to do next?

 Normally we would stop at this


Conclusion:
point and declare that TWSC is
not a viable choice Volume > Capacity

 In this case, we will proceed with more problems


to illustrate more features of the TWSC procedure
Sub-problem 4b

Invoke the full HCM procedure, treating the operation as a


conventional TWSC intersection and ignoring the unusual
separation between the conflict points.

Then examine the results to


determine if our treatment
was appropriate.

Conventional T
Intersection Conflict
Points
LOS Thresholds for TWSC Intersections (HCM Exhibit 17-2)

LOS Average Control Delay


(sec/veh)

A ≤ 10
B > 10–15
C > 15-25
D > 25-35
E > 35-50
F >50
Assumptions

 Analysis period=15 min


 No pedestrians
 No upstream signals
 PHF = 0.93 for all movements
 Level Terrain
Input Data

EBT WBT NBL WBL NBR


Volume 2010 358 257 120 433
Number 2 2 1 1 1
of lanes
Median N/A N/A 4 veh N/A N/A
storage
Percent 20 41 10
trucks
Results
EBT WBT NBL WBL NBR

Whilegap
Critical the(sec)
HCM equations
N/A doN/Anot limit Observations?
7.2 the4.9
range of
7.1
v/c ratios
Follow for(sec)
up time which delay
N/A mayN/Abe computed,
3.7 2.6 some
3.4
software
Adjusted products
flow rate impose
2010 limitations
358 257as a 120
practical
433
consideration
(vph)
Adjusted capacity N/A N/A 69 168 226
(vph)
v/c ratio N/A N/A 3.72 0.71 1.92
95% queue length N/A N/A 27.1 4.4 31.1
(veh)
Delay (sec/veh) N/A N/A ??? 67 464
LOS N/A N/A F F F
Results
EBT WBT NBL WBL NBR
Critical gap (sec) N/A N/A 7.2 4.9 7.1
Follow up time (sec) N/A N/A 3.7 2.6 3.4
Adjusted flow rate 2010 358 257 120 433
(vph)
Adjusted capacity N/A N/A 69 168 226
(vph)
v/c ratio N/A N/A 3.72 0.71 1.92
95% queue length N/A
Why does the
(veh)
WBL have N/A 27.1
a higher 4.4
capacity 31.1
than the
NBL when both movements have to yield to same
Delay (sec/veh) N/A N/A ??? 67 464
conflicting volume of EB through traffic?
LOS N/A N/A F F F
Results
EBT WBT NBL WBL NBR
Critical gap (sec) N/A N/A 7.2 4.9 7.1
Follow up time (sec) N/A N/A 3.7 2.6 3.4
Adjusted flow rate 2010 358 257 120 433
(vph)
Adjusted capacity N/A N/A 69 168 226
(vph)
v/c ratio N/A N/A
Because the HCM tells us that the3.72 0.71
critical 1.92
gap and
95% queueup
follow length N/A lower
times are both N/A for27.1 4.4 from
a left turn 31.1
(veh)
the major street than from the minor street. In other
Delay (sec/veh) N/A N/A ??? 67 464
words drivers on the major street are willing to
LOS N/A N/A F F F
accept smaller gaps, so more vehicles can get
through the same volume of conflicting traffic
Because of the wide separation
of conflicts at this intersection,
it should occur to us that we N
probably shouldn’t treat this
situation as a typical urban
intersection.

So, we will examine the separation of conflict points


in the next subproblem.
Sub-problem 4c

    Separate the conflict points for TWSC control and treat each
conflict point individually.

Then compare the results


with the treatment of the
previous sub-problem.
Separated Conflict
Points
Why will the separation of conflict points usually give a more optimistic
assessment of the operation than the aggregation of conflict points into a
single intersection?

Because there is no need to adjust the


potential capacity of any movement
because of impedance from other
movements

Conventional T
Intersection Conflict Separated Conflict
Points Points
When is it appropriate to separate the conflict points?

Only when the queue from one conflict


point does not back up into an upstream
conflict point

Conventional T
Intersection Conflict Separated Conflict
Points Points
Input Data

Input Data EBT WBT NBL WBL NBR

Volume 2010 358 257 120 433

Number of lanes 2 2 1 1 1

Percent trucks 20 41 10
NB Left vs EB Through

Subproblem 4b Capacity 69
Observations?
Subproblem 4c Capacity 99
95% queue length (veh) 24
Queue storage (veh) N/A
Is storage adequate? N/A
v/c ratio 2.6
Delay 814
LOS F
NB Left vs WB Through and Left

Subproblem 4b Capacity N/A


Subproblem 4c Capacity
Observations? 559
95% queue length (veh) 2.4
Queue storage (veh) 4
Is storage adequate? Yes
v/c ratio 0.46
Delay 17
LOS C
WB Left vs EB Through

Subproblem 4b Capacity 168


Subproblem 4c Capacity
Observations? 213
95% queue length (veh) 2.07
Queue storage (veh) 3.06
Is storage adequate? Yes
v/c ratio 0.56
Delay 41.7
LOS E
NB Right vs EB Through

Subproblem 4b Capacity 226


Observations?Subproblem 4c Capacity 283
95% queue length (veh) 25
Queue storage (veh) N/A
Is storage adequate? N/A
v/c ratio 1.53
Delay 287
LOS F
NB Right vs EB Through

Is this really a
TWSC
operation?

Have we used the proper procedure for


analyzing the operation of the NB right
turn?
NB Right vs EB Through

Is this really a
TWSC
operation?

Would it be better to consider this


operation in the context of freeway
merging
Sub-problem 4d

Intersection

Merge
Area

Further Consideration of the


Northbound Right Turn
 The HCM does not prescribe an explicit
procedure for at-grade intersections with
merge area characteristics.
 We must view the TWSC procedure as
pessimistic because of the design of the
merge area.
 The logical next step would be to treat this
entrance as a freeway merge, using HCM
Chapter 25, which prescribes a procedure for
estimating freeway merge area performance
in terms of the traffic density.

 Density is used in all HCM freeway-related


chapters as an indicator of congestion level.
The density thresholds for each LOS are
given in HCM Exhibit 25-4.
LOS Thresholds for Merging
(HCM Exhibit 25-4)

LOS Density
(pc/mi/ln)
A ≤ 10
B > 10–20
C > 20–28
D > 28–35
E > 35
F V/C>1.0
Assumptions and Parameters
 Right side entry, No other ramps present
 Driver pop. adjustment =1.0, PHF =1
 10% Trucks and RVs
 Level terrain, 1200 foot acceleration lane

Input Data EBT NBR


Volume 2010 433
Number of lanes 2 1
Free flow speed 55 35
Observations?
Results

EBT NBR
Adjusted flow rate 2010 433
Merge area density 17.7 pc/mile/lane
LOS B
Problem 4 Conclusions

 HCM TWSC procedure applies to all movements


except the channelized right turns, which may be
eliminated from the analysis
 Conflict points may be separated because queues
do not block upstream conflict points
 TWSC is not a viable control mode because it will
not provide adequate capacity for all movements
 Problem 5 will therefore examine signalization of
this intersection.
End of Presentation …

You might also like