Upload
others
View
4
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
HCM 2000 Course
Multilane Highways and Freeways
Lectures
Instructor Andrew P. Tarko
Teaching Assistant
Tim Wells
Purdue University West Lafayette, Indiana
June 19-21, 2006
M-1
Chapter 21 Multilane Highways
Instructor: Andrew P. Tarko
Short Course on Highway Capacity ManualPurdue UniversityWest Lafayette, June 19-21, 2006
Outline
ConceptsMethodologyHCS Exercises
M-2
Concepts
ConceptsMultilane Highways
Four or six lanesIn rural or suburban areasNo traffic signalsNo stop signsUnsignalized intersectionsAccess points
M-3
ConceptsInput Data
ConceptsIdeal Conditions
12-ft minimum lane widths12-ft minimum total lateral clearance in the direction of travel (lateral clearances greater than 6 ft are considered equal to 6 ft)Only passenger cars in the traffic streamNo direct access points along the roadwayA divided highwayLevel terrain
M-4
ConceptsSpeed-flow Curves and LOS
FFS = 50 mi/hV=1,000 pc/h/ln
ConceptsFree-flow Speed
Base FreeFlow Speed
Effect ofLane Width
Effect of Lateral Clearance
Effect ofMedian
Effect of AccessPoints
Free FlowSpeed
M-5
ConceptsFlow Rate
Flow Rate
PeakHourFactor
Numberof Lanes
Effect ofDriverPopulation
HourlyVolume
Effect of Heavy Vehicles on Grades
PC Equivalentfor Trucks andBuses
PC Equivalentfor RecreationalVehicles
ConceptsTraffic Density
vp=1,600 pc/h/lnFFS = 52.5 mi/hS = 51.0 mi/h D = 1,600/51.0D = 31.4 pc/mi/ln
M-6
Methodology
MethodologyInput
4-lane undivided highway,45 mi/h speed limit,11-ft lane width,26 access points along 3.25 mi4-ft outside shoulder,2.5 percent 2,100 ft grade,1,900-veh/h volume,13 percent trucks and buses,2 percent RVs, and0.90 PHF.LOS ?
M-7
MethodologyFree Flow Speed
4-lane undivided highway,45 mi/h speed limit,11-ft lane width,4 ft outside shoulder,26 access points along 3.25 mi,
BFFS = 45 + 7 = 52 mi/h
MethodologyFree Flow Speed
4-lane undivided highway,45 mi/h speed limit,11-ft lane width,4 ft outside shoulder,26 access points along 3.25 mi,
Density of access points = 26/3.25 = 8 per mile
2.0 mi/h
M-8
MethodologyFree Flow Speed
4-lane undivided highway,45 mi/h speed limit,11-ft lane width,4 ft outside shoulder,26 access points along 3.25 mi,
FFS = 52 – 1.9 – 1.6 – 2.0 – 0.4 = 46.1 mi/h
Total lateral clearance is:4 + 6 = 10 ft
MethodologyFlow Rate
4 lanes,2.5 percent 2,100 ft grade,1,900-veh/h volume,13 percent trucks and buses,2 percent RVs, and0.90 PHF.
M-9
MethodologyFlow Rate
Methodology LOS
FFS = 46.1-mi/h calculated vp = 1,129 pc/h/ln flow rate
S = 46.1 mi/hD = vp/SD = 1,129/46.1D = 24.5 pc/mi/ln
M-10
HCS
Demonstration of the example presented in class
Exercise - US 52 Studied Segment
LafayetteFuture needs of widening of the U.S. Highway 52 south of Lafayette, Indiana, are to be studied.
M-11
Exercise - US 52 Studied Segment
The segment 2.8 miles long in Tippecanoe County between CR 350 S and CR 550 S is considered in this exercise.
Exercise - US 52 Geometry and Pavement
• Full-depth asphalt pavement with painted striping
• Two 12-foot travel lanes
• Divided cross-section with 6 feet of left-side clearance
• 2-foot right shoulders
• Ten residential and commercial access points along highway section in the Southbound direction
• Slightly rolling vertical alignment without pronounced grades
M-12
Exercise - US 52 Traffic
2003 AADT = 10,780 veh/day,5% trucks, 1% recreational vehicles,Local traffic prevails,12% of AADT during the hour of analysis,60% traffic in the SB direction,PHF = 0.92,Speed limit is 55 mph, andAnnual traffic growth factor = 3 %.
Exercise - US 52 Tasks
1. Please check the present traffic conditions in the peak direction during the afternoon rush hour.
2. Determine in which year the studied US 52 segment may require upgrading to accommodate increased traffic. LOS C is the minimum requirement.
M-13
END
of multilane highways
F-1
Chapter 22 Freeway Facilities
Instructor: Andrew P. Tarko
Short Course on Highway Capacity ManualPurdue UniversityWest Lafayette, June 19-21, 2006
Outline
ConceptsMethodologyHCS Exercises
F-2
ConceptsDemand vs. Volume
Volume = actual number of vehicles passing a spot per hour
Demand = volume that does not reflect the effects of upstream bottlenecks and downstream queues
ConceptsEffect of Overflow
Vr= 800 veh/h
Vf =6,600 C3 = 7,100C1 = 7,000 C3 = 6,200+800
Basic Segment 1 1.0 mi
Basic Segment 21.0 mi
Ramp JunctionSegment0.3 mi
Section 1 Section 2
var
41
37
Densityveh/mi/ln
7,100
6,200+800
7,000
Capacityveh/h
F7,400Basic 2
F6,600+800Ramp Junction
E6,600Basic 1
LOSDemandveh/h
Segment
Standard Analysis Results
3 lanesnear-basic conditions
F-3
Basic Segment 1 1.0 mi
Basic Segment 21.0 mi
Vr= 800 veh/h
Vf =6,600 C3 = 7,100C1 = 7,000 C3 = 6,200+ 800
Ramp JunctionSegment0.3 mi
Section 1 Section 2
0
0
200
Av. Queue veh
43
39
55
Densityveh/mi/ln
7,100
6,200+800
7,000
Capacityveh/h
E7,000Basic 2
E6,200+800Ramp Junction
F6,600Basic 1
LOSInflowveh/h
SegmentResults with Consideration of Queues (1 hr)
3 lanesnear-basic conditionsAfter one hour
400 veh remain
ConceptsEffect of Overflow
6,200 veh/henter
7,000 veh/h enter
ConceptsEffect of Overflow
var
41
37
Densityveh/mi/ln
7,100
6,200+800
7,000
Capacityveh/h
F7,400Basic 2
F6,600+800Ramp Junction
E6,600Basic 1
LOSDemandveh/h
Segment
Standard Analysis Results
0
0
200
Av. Queue veh
43
39
55
Densityveh/mi/ln
7,100
6,200+800
7,000
Capacityveh/h
E7,000Basic 2
E6,200+800Ramp Junction
F6,600Basic 1
LOSInflowveh/h
SegmentResults with Consideration of Queues (1 hr)
F-4
ConceptsTraffic Density and Speed in Queues
V = S·DS = V/D
ConceptsDemand Prediction (veh/h)
O1 =600
O =5,000
O2 =400
5 % D = ?
D1 = ?
D1 = 0.05x(5,000+600+400) = 300
D = (1-0.05)x (5,000+600+400) = 5,700
F-5
ConceptsDemand Derived from Measured Volumes (veh/h)
O1 =600
O =5,000
O2 =400
D = 5,415
D1 = 285
ΣO = 5,000+600+400 =6,000 veh/hΣD = 5,415+285 = 5,700 veh/hΣO > ΣD What may the cause be?
ConceptsDemand Derived from Measured Volume (veh/h)
O1 =600
O =5,000
O2 =400
D = 5,415
D1 = 285
ΣO/ΣD = 6,000/5,700 = 1.053All the exit volumes have to be multiplied with 1.053 to restore demand balanceThe true exit demands are:D = 5,415 x 1.053 = 5,700 veh/hD1 = 285 x 1.053 = 300 veh/hCan ΣO < ΣD?
F-6
ConceptsFreeway Sections and Segments
Max. 9-12 mi
ConceptsTime-Space Domain
Tim
e Period (several hours, all rows)Time Interval (15 minutes, single row)Time Step (1 minute, calculations for over-saturated conditions)
F-7
ConceptsInitial and Boundary Conditions
Demand-to-capacity RatiosInitialConditions
ResidualConditions
UpstreamBoundaryConditions
DownstreamBoundaryConditions
ConceptsInput Data
F-8
ConceptsMeasures of Effectiveness
Average density (veh/mi/ln)Level of ServiceAverage speed (mi/h)Average travel time (min)Average delay (min)Occupancy (%)Queue length (mi)Vehicle-miles of travel (veh·mi)Vehicle-hours of travel (veh·hr)Vehicle-hours of delay (veh·hr)
Methodology
F-9
MethodologyGeometric Data
Acc./Dec. lanes are 328 ft long,Time interval is 15 min.
MethodologyDemand Data
F-10
MethodologySpace Domain
MethodologyDemand Adjustment
Time Interval 1
ΣO = 4796+756+1456+648 = 7656 veh/h
ΣD = 656+560+6440 = 7656 veh/h
ΣO = ΣD
Demand is balanced in all the intervals.
No demand adjustment is needed.
F-11
MethodologyDemand-Capacity Ratios
All the segments areunder-saturated
MethodologySegment Speeds
F-12
MethodologySegment Densities and LOS
MethodologyFacility MOEs
F-13
MethodologyDemand Data
Let us increase the demand by 6%
MethodologyDemand-Capacity Ratios
Some segments areover-saturated ininterval 3
F-14
MethodologyVolume-Capacity Ratios
MethodologyEffect of Overflow
F-15
MethodologyQueue Lengths
Queue on the rampNo queue on the freeway
No congestion
Congestion
MethodologySegment Densities and LOS
F-16
MethodologyFacility MOEs
HCS
Demonstration of the example presented in class
F-17
Exercise – Reconstructed BormanGeometry
Exercise – Reconstructed BormanGeometry
F-18
Exercise – Reconstructed BormanGeometry Summary
Exercise – Reconstructed BormanPredicted Hourly Traffic
F-19
Exercise – Reconstructed BormanTasks
1. On the post construction westbound roadway of I-80/94, identify all the section/segments as required for freeway facility analyses. Limit the analysis to the freeway section between the I-65 South connector ramp and the Grant Street interchange. In Table 1, write the consecutive number of each identified segment, type of segment (basic, ramp, weave), the stations of its beginning and its end.
2. Using the freeway facility module, input the freeway segments corresponding to the designed freeway geometry. Analyze the facility for the 2024 morning peak traffic. Write the results in Table 1.
3. Increase the 2024 traffic volumes by 25% and analyze the facility again. Write the results in Table 1. Note the differences in the results.
ExerciseTable 1
Table 1: Results of the freeway exercise (freeway facility analysis for post construction geometry)
Seg. #
Segment Name/TypeStations 2024 Traffic 2024 Traffic Increased by 25%
Start End Density
(pc/km/ln)Speed(km/h)
LOS Density(pc/km/ln)
Speed(km/h)
LOS
F-20
END
of freeway facilities
B-1
Chapter 23 Basic Freeway Segments
Instructor: Andrew P. Tarko
Short Course on Highway Capacity ManualPurdue UniversityWest Lafayette, June 19-21, 2006
Outline
ConceptsMethodologyHCS Exercises
B-2
Concepts
ConceptsBasic Freeway Segments
Full access control dividedUrban and ruralNo influence of ramps and weaving
B-3
ConceptsFreeway Sections and Segments
1500 ft 1500 ft 1500 ft 1500 ft
If > 2,500 ft then twoseparate ramp junctions
ConceptsFreeway Sections and Segments
B-4
ConceptsInput Data
ConceptsBase Conditions
Minimum lane widths of 12 ft;Minimum outside lateral clearance of 6 ft;Minimum median lateral clearance of 2 ft;Passenger cars only;Five or more lanes for one direction (in urban areas only);Interchange spacing at 2 mi or greater;Level terrain, with grades no greater than 2 percent; andRegular users.
B-5
ConceptsLimitations
High-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes, truck lanes, and climbing lanes;Extended bridge and tunnel segments;Segments near a toll plaza;Facilities with free-flow speeds below 55 mi/h or in excess of 75 mi/h;Demand conditions in excess of capacity;The influence of downstream blockages or queuing on a segment;Special enforcement or control means.
ConceptsSpeed-flow Curves
V=1,000 pc/h/lnS = 60 mi/hD = 16.7 pc/mi/ln
vp=2,250 pc/h/ln
S = 50 mi/h
D = 45 pc/mi/ln
B-6
ConceptsFree-flow Speed
Base FreeFlow Speed
Effect ofLane Width
Effect of Lateral Clearance
Number of Lanes Effect
Effect of Interchange Density
Free FlowSpeed
ConceptsLevel of Service
LOS F
LOS A
LOS E
B-7
ConceptsFlow Rate
Flow Rate
PeakHourFactor
Numberof Lanes
Effect ofDriverPopulation
HourlyVolume
Effect of Heavy Vehicles
PC Equivalentfor Trucks andBuses
PC Equivalentfor RecreationalVehicles
Methodology
B-8
MethodologyInput
Urban freeway is designed,BFFS of 70 mi/h,12-ft lane width, 6-ft lateral clearance,1.50 interchanges per mile,4,000 veh/h (one direction), 0.85 PHF,Level terrain, 15 percent trucks, 3 percent RVs, Commuter traffic, fp = 1.00,How many lanes for LOS D?
MethodologyFlow Rate for 4-Lane Freeway
Level terrain, 15 percent trucks, 3 percent RVs,
B-9
4,000 veh/h (one direction), 0.85 PHF,fHV = 0.925Commuter traffic, fp = 1.00.
MethodologyFlow Rate for 4-Lane Freeway
The flow rate is higher than the capacity for 4-lanefreeways (c = 2,400 pc/h/ln)
MethodologyFree Flow Speed for 6-lane Freeway
Urban freeway is designed,BFFS of 70 mi/h,12-ft lane width, 6-ft lateral clearance,1.50 interchanges per mile.
B-10
MethodologyFree Flow Speed for 6-lane Freeway
Urban freeway is designed,BFFS of 70 mi/h,12-ft lane width, 6-ft lateral clearance,1.50 interchanges per mile.
4,000 veh/h (one direction), 0.85 PHF,fHV = 0.925Commuter traffic, fp = 1.00.
MethodologyFlow Rate for 6-Lane Freeway
B-11
Methodology LOS
FFS = 62.0-mi/hvp = 1,696 pc/h/ln
S = 62.0 mi/hD = vp/SD = 1,696/62.0D = 27.4 pc/mi/ln
D
HCS
Demonstration of the example presented in class
B-12
Exercise - Borman Expressway
1. Distribute among students
2. Introduce
Hohm
anAve underpass
IL / INState Line
Little Calum
et River
Old L & N
RR
Harrison Ave underpass
US 41 / C
alumet Ave
Interchange
Colum
bia Ave overpass
Northcote
Ave underpass
Old C
& O R
R M
ulti-use Pathunderpass
US 41 / Indianapolis Blvd
Interchange
CSX R
R underpass
Kennedy AveInterchange
SR 912 / C
line AveInterchange
SR 912 / C
line AveInterchange
N &W
/ EJ & E RR
underpass
Colfax St. overpass
Burr StInterchange
Clark St. overpass
Chase St. overpass
Harrison St. overpass
Georgia St. overpass
Little Calum
et River
Grant Street
Interchange
SR 53 / Broadw
ay StInterchange
Georgia St. overpass
Little Calum
et River
Martin Luther King D
rive overpass
I-65 Interchange
Borman / I-65 Connector Ramps
Colorado Street
overpass
Deep R
iver
Central AveInterchange
Clay Street underpass
Borman Expressway
B-13
Hohm
anAve underpass
IL / INState Line
Little Calum
et River
Old L & N
RR
Harrison Ave underpass
US 41 / C
alumet Ave
Interchange
Colum
bia Ave overpass
Northcote
Ave underpass
Old C
& O R
R M
ulti-use Pathunderpass
US 41 / Indianapolis Blvd
Interchange
CSX R
R underpass
Kennedy AveInterchange
SR 912 / C
line AveInterchange
SR 912 / C
line AveInterchange
N &W
/ EJ & E RR
underpass
Colfax St. overpass
Burr StInterchange
Clark St. overpass
Chase St. overpass
Harrison St. overpass
Georgia St. overpass
Little Calum
et River
Grant Street
Interchange
SR 53 / Broadw
ay StInterchange
Georgia St. overpass
Little Calum
et River
Martin Luther King D
rive overpass
I-65 Interchange
Borman / I-65 Connector Ramps
Colorado Street
overpass
Deep R
iver
Central AveInterchange
Clay Street underpass
Borman Expressway--Interchange Work
No Modification--Already Done Presently under Construction
Minor Modification Proposed Major Modification (Reconfiguration) Proposed
Hohm
anAve underpass
IL / INState Line
Little Calum
et River
Old L & N
RR
Harrison Ave underpass
US 41 / C
alumet Ave
Interchange
Colum
bia Ave overpass
Northcote
Ave underpass
Old C
& O R
R M
ulti-use Pathunderpass
US 41 / Indianapolis Blvd
Interchange
CSX R
R underpass
Kennedy AveInterchange
SR 912 / C
line AveInterchange
SR 912 / C
line AveInterchange
N &W
/ EJ & E RR
underpass
Colfax St. overpass
Burr StInterchange
Clark St. overpass
Chase St. overpass
Harrison St. overpass
Georgia St. overpass
Little Calum
et River
Grant Street
Interchange
SR 53 / Broadw
ay StInterchange
Georgia St. overpass
Little Calum
et River
Martin Luther King D
rive overpass
I-65 Interchange
Borman / I-65 Connector Ramps
Colorado Street
overpass
Deep R
iver
Central AveInterchange
Clay Street underpass
Borman Expressway
B-14
Exercise - Borman ExpresswaySection Studied
I-65
On
Ram
p
Bro
adw
ay In
terc
hang
e
Gra
nt In
terc
hang
e
Exercise - Borman ExpresswayI-65 On Ramp
250-m acceleration lane
B-15
Exercise - Borman ExpresswayBroadway Off Ramp
420-m deceleration lane
Exercise - Borman ExpresswayBroadway Weave
145-m weaving segment
B-16
Exercise - Borman ExpresswayGrant Interchange
Similar toBroadway Interchange
Exercise - Borman ExpresswayPre-construction Geometry Summary
B-17
Exercise - Borman Expressway2006 -2024 Traffic
Exercise - Borman ExpresswayTasks
1. On the pre-construction westbound roadway between the I-65 South connector ramp and the Grant Street interchange, identify all the basic freeway segments, ramp junction segments, and weaving segments. Use the provided materials. In provided Table 2, write the consecutive number of each identified segment, type of segment (basic, ramp, weave), the stations of its beginning and its end. The LOS and other basic traffic conditions will be determined later.
2. Determine the level of service of the first basic segment for the pre construction geometry and for the 2006 and 2024 morning peak traffic. Write the obtained results in Table 2. Save the HCS file on the provided CD media for future reference.
3. Repeat the same analysis for as many basic segments as time permits.
B-18
Seg. # Segment Name/Type
Stations 2006 Traffic 2024 Traffic
Start End Density(pc/km/ln)
Speed(km/h) LOS
HCS File
Density(pc/km/ln)
Speed(km/h) LOS
HCS File
Exercise - Borman ExpresswayTable with Results
Table 2: Results of the freeway exercise (individual segments analysis for pre construction geometry)
Task 1
Results
END
of basic freeway segments
W-1
Chapter 24 Freeway Weaving
Instructor: Andrew P. Tarko
Short Course on Highway Capacity ManualPurdue UniversityWest Lafayette, June 19-21, 2006
Outline
ConceptsMethodologyHCS Exercises
W-2
ConceptsWeave Formation
ConceptsWeave Formation
Non-weaving Flow A-C
Non-weaving Flow B-D
Weaving Flow B-C
Weaving Flow A-D
W-3
ConceptsWeave Type A
ConceptsWeave Type B
(c)
W-4
ConceptsWeave Type C
ConceptsWeaving Length
W-5
ConceptsWeaving Width
Nw(max)=
Nw(max)=
Nw(max)=
Nw = numberof lanes requiredfor weaving
ConceptsFlow Rate
Flow Rate
PeakHourFactor
Effect ofDriverPopulation
HourlyVolume
Effect of Heavy Vehicles on Grades
PC Equivalentfor Trucks andBuses
PC Equivalentfor RecreationalVehicles
Proportion of Trucks andBuses Proportion of
RecreationalVehicles
W-6
ConceptsUnconstrained and Constrained Operation
Nw≤ Nw(max) Unconstrained operation• speed of weaving vehicles is only slightly lower than non-weaving vehicles• non-weaving vehicles use the lanes with weaving vehicles• traffic across lanes is more less balanced
Nw > Nw(max) Constrained operation • weaving vehicles move much slower than non-weaving vehicles• non-weaving vehicles try to avoid the lanes with weaving vehicles
ConceptsSpeed of Weaving and Non-weaving Traffic
Freeway Free-flow Speed
Weaving Intensity; depends on whether the operation is constrained or not, total volume, weaving ratio, and weave length
Speed of Weaving or Non-weaving traffic
W-7
ConceptsAverage Speed and Density
Total FlowAverage Speed
Weaving Flow
Non-weaving Flow
Non-weaving Speed
Weaving Speed
Total Flow
Number of Lanes
Average Speed
Average Density
ConceptsLevel of Service
W-8
ConceptsWeaving Segment Capacity
Capacity occurs at any combination of weaving and non-weaving flows that produce average density equal 43 veh/mi/ln.
Capacity can be determined by:
1. Trials and errors
2. Using programmed spreadsheets
3. Using tables provided by the HCM
Methodology
W-9
MethodologyInput
PHF = 0.91,Level terrain,Drivers are regular commuters,FFS = 65 mi/h for freeway, 10 percent trucks, LOS ?
(veh/h)
Level terrain,10 percent trucks.
MethodologyFlow Rates
W-10
MethodologyWeave Type
MethodologyCritical Variables
2,095
7991,197
1,497pc/h
W-11
MethodologyUnconstrained Speeds
MethodologyConstrained Operation Check
W-12
MethodologyAverage Speed and Density
MethodologyLevel of Service
D = 27.3 pc/mi/ln
W-13
HCS
Demonstration of the example presented in class
Exercise1. Determine the level of service of the first
weaving segment for the pre construction geometry (2002) for the 2006 and 2024 morning peak traffic. Write the obtained results in Table 2. Save the HCS file on the provided CD media for future reference.
2. Repeat the same analysis for as many weaving segments as time permits.
W-14
END
of freeway weaving
R-1
Chapter 25 Ramps and Ramp Junctions
Instructor: Andrew P. Tarko
Short Course on Highway Capacity ManualPurdue UniversityWest Lafayette, June 19-21, 2006
Outline
ConceptsMethodologyHCS Exercises
R-2
ConceptsInfluence Areas
ConceptsCapacity Factors
Lane widths, lateral clearances, terrain, driver population, and the presence of heavy vehicles Length of acceleration/deceleration lane Ramp free-flow speedLane distribution of upstream traffic
R-3
ConceptsV12 Volume
ConceptsV12 Volume for On-Ramp Junctions
Adjacent Upstream Ramp
Lup < LEQ then use Equation 2Otherwise, use Equation 1
Adjacent Downstream Ramp
Ldown < LEQ then use Equation 3Otherwise, use Equation 1
Lup Ldown
Analyzed Ramp
R-4
ConceptsV12 Volume for Off-Ramp Junctions
Lup Ldown
Analyzed Ramp
Adjacent Downstream Ramp
Ldown < LEQ then use Equation 7Otherwise, use Equation 5
Lup < LEQ then use Equation 6Otherwise, use Equation 5
Adjacent Upstream Ramp
ConceptsCapacity
R-5
ConceptsCapacity
ConceptsInputs
R-6
ConceptsAcceleration/ Deceleration
Length
Methodology
R-7
MethodologyRoadway and Traffic
ConditionsIsolated location, PHF = 0.90,Drivers are regular commuters,Adequate lateral clearances,0 percent RVs,
MethodologyFlow Rates
Isolated location, PHF = 0.90,Drivers are regular commuters,Adequate lateral clearances,0 percent RVs,
R-8
MethodologyVolume V12
MethodologyCapacity Check
Two lanesFFS = 60 mi/h
R-9
MethodologyCapacity Check
C1 = 4600 pc/hC2 = 4600 pc/hV12 = 2918 pc/h, VR = 626 pc/h
< C1 = 4600
VR12 = VR+V12 = 626+2918 = 3544 < C2 = 4600
MethodologyDensity
V12 = 2918 pc/h VR = 626 pc/hLA = 750 ft
R-10
MethodologyLOS
Dr = 28.1 pc/mi/lane
MethodologySpeed
R-11
MethodologyVolume V12
MethodologyCapacity Check
R-12
MethodologyCapacity Check
MethodologyDensity
R-13
MethodologySpeed
MethodologySpecial Cases
Two-Lane Ramps
Lane Additions/Drops
Major Merge/Diverge Areas
Ramps on Ten-Lane Freeway
Left-Hand Ramps
Effects of Ramp Control at On-Ramps
R-14
MethodologyTwo-Lane On-Ramps
V12=VF·PFM
MethodologyTwo-Lane Off-Ramps
Adjusted PDF factor to calculate V12
Adjusted deceleration lane LD
R-15
MethodologyLane Additions and Drops
Consider two basic freeway segments
MethodologyMajor Merges
Consider three basic freeway segments
R-16
MethodologyMajor Diverges
1. Consider three basic freeway segments
2. In addition, check density upstream of the fork
D = 0.0109·VF/N (use Ex. 25-4 to determine LOS)
MethodologyOn-ramps on Ten-lane Freeways
1. Calculate volume in the fifth lane V5
2. Subtract V5 from VF
3. Proceed as for the eight-lane freeway
R-17
MethodologyRamps on Ten-lane Freeways
1. Calculate volume in the fifth lane V5
2. Subtract V5 from VF
3. Proceed as for the eight-lane freeway
MethodologyLeft-hand Ramps
1. Calculate volume V12 as for a right-hand ramp
2. For four-lane freeways use V12
3. For six- and eight-lane freeways, convert V12 to V23 or to V34, respectively
4. Proceed as for the right-hand ramp
Off-rampOn-ramp
1.20
1.12
1.00
1.10Eight-lane
1.05Six-lane
1.00Four-lane
Conversion FactorFreeway
R-18
MethodologyEffect of Ramp Metering
Use the ramp flow rate enforced by metering instead of the capacity governed by the ramp geometry
HCS
Demonstration of the example presented in class
R-19
Exercise1. Determine the level of service of the first
ramp junction segment for the before construction geometry and for the post construction 2006 and 2024 morning peak traffic. Write the obtained results in Table 2.Save the HCS file on the provided CD media for future reference.
2. Repeat the same analysis for as many ramp junction segments as time permits.
END
of ramp junctions
T-1
Chapter 26 Interchange Ramp Terminals
Instructor: Andrew P. Tarko
Short Course on Highway Capacity ManualPurdue UniversityWest Lafayette, June 19-21, 2006
Outline
Concepts
T-2
ConceptsContents
Types of freeway-highway interchangesTraffic issues at signalized diamond interchangesLevel of ServiceAppendix A Signal timing considerations for diamond interchangesAppendix B Comparing alternative interchanges
ConceptsTypes of Interchanges
T-3
ConceptsTraffic Operations at Diamond Interchanges
ConceptsTraffic Operations at Diamond Interchanges
1. Upstream intersection blocked by the downstream queue
2. Aggressive lane changing between intersections
3. Green at the downstream intersections not fully utilized
4. Effective traffic control difficult
T-4
ConceptsLevel of Service
1. Both the intersections are considered together as a point facility
2. Each lane groups is evaluated separately
3. LOS criteria for signalized intersections are used
ConceptsPhasing Consideration for Diamond Interchanges
T-5
ConceptsPhasing Consideration for Diamond Interchanges
ConceptsOffset Consideration for Diamond Interchanges
Offset equal travel timebetween the stop-bars
Adjustment for number of vehicles that arriveduring red signal
Adjustment for number of vehicles that fillthe space between the intersections
T-6
ConceptsDiamond vs. SPUI
• SPUI – a possible solution
ConceptsDiamond vs. SPUI
T-7
65 Three Phases
ConceptsDiamond vs. SPUI
END
of interchange ramp terminals
HCM 2000 Course
Multilane Highways and Freeways
Laboratory Assignment
Instructor Andrew P. Tarko
Teaching Assistant
Tim Wells
Purdue University West Lafayette, Indiana
June 19-21, 2006
A-1
A-2
Multilane Highway – US 52
Existing Conditions Future needs of widening of the U.S. Highway 52 south of Lafayette, Indiana, are to be studied. The segment 2.8 miles long in Tippecanoe County between CR 350 S and CR 550 S is considered in this exercise. Figure 1 shows the location of the segment while Figures 2 through 4 show the existing geometry of this highway segment. Geometry and Pavement A site study has revealed that the following characteristics of the highway segment:
- Full-depth asphalt pavement with painted striping - Two 12-foot travel lanes - Divided cross-section with 6 feet of left-side clearance - 2-foot right shoulders - Ten residential and commercial access points along highway section in the
Southbound direction - Slightly rolling vertical alignment without pronounced grades
Traffic The AADT is 10,780 vehicles /day for the year 2003. Five percent trucks and one percent recreational vehicles may be assumed. Because of the proximity of I-65 three miles to the east, the traffic on U.S. 52 almost has local range. Twelve percent of AADT is observed during the typical afternoon rush hour (design hour) with 60 percent of traffic in the southbound direction. The peak hour factor (PHF) of 0.92 may be assumed. The speed limit is 55 mph.
Figure 1. Map of Study Section
A-3
Figure 2. U.S. 52 at Tippecanoe County Road 550 S looking southward.
Figure 3. U.S. 52 near Tippecanoe County Road 450 S, near the midpoint of the study section.
A-4
Figure 4. Typical business entrance along U.S. 52 near the north end of the section at Tippecanoe County Road 350 S.
Assignment (Multilane Highways) Much of the land surrounding the US 52 near Lafayette is zoned for industrial or commercial use in anticipation of expansion of the city. Because of this, traffic growth along the section is anticipated to occur at an accelerated rate of 3% per year.
1. Please check the present traffic conditions (2006) in the peak direction during the afternoon rush hour.
2. Determine in which year the US52 near Lafayette may require upgrading to
accommodate increased traffic. LOS C is the minimum requirement.
A-5
HCM Freeway Exercises
Introduction The Indiana Department of Transportation has been working to upgrade sections of the Borman Expressway (I-80/I-94) near Gary, Indiana. The improvements to the highway include reconfiguration of the interchanges and addition of an extra travel lane in each direction. This exercise includes the freeway section between the Grant Street interchange and the I-65 South connector ramps. The Grant Street and Broadway cloverleaf interchanges in this 3.9 km stretch have not been upgraded since their original construction in the mid 1960’s. At the start of reconstruction the highway was expected to be complete by 2006, with a target design year of 2024. Assume that the construction has been completed. These notes give information necessary for evaluating traffic conditions in 2006 and future traffic conditions in 2024 for the before construction existing and designed geometry excerpted from the INDOT Engineer’s Report: I-80/94 Borman Expressway – Appendices B and C, Volume 3, year 2000. The information is provided in two sections: Before Construction Geometry and Traffic Data and Designed Geometry and Traffic Data. First, the assignment is described for each teaching module of the HCM course pertaining to the freeway chapters of the Highway Capacity Manual. Then, the two sections with traffic and geometry follow.
Assignment for Freeways Problem for Freeway Facilities On the post construction westbound roadway of I-80/94, identify all the section/segments as required for freeway facility analyses. Limit the analysis to the freeway section between the I-65 South connector ramp and the Grant Street interchange. Use the drawings of the geometry provided in the further part of these notes. In Table 1, write the consecutive number of each identified segment, type of segment (basic, ramp, weave), the stations of its beginning and its end, and the LOS and other basic traffic conditions as determined later in the course of the lab activities. Using the freeway facility module, input the freeway segments corresponding to the designed freeway geometry. Analyze the facility for the 2024 morning peak traffic. Examine the results. Increase the 2024 traffic volumes by 25% and analyze the facility again. Note the differences in the results.
A-6
Dividing Freeway Facility into Segments On the before construction westbound roadway between the I-65 South connector ramp and the Grant Street interchange, identify all the basic freeway segments, ramp junction segments, and weaving segments. Use the provided drawings. In Table 2 on the next page, write the consecutive number of each identify segment, type of segment (basic, ramp, weave), the stations of its beginning and its end, and the LOS and other basic traffic conditions as determined later in the course of the lab activities. Problem for Basic Freeway Segments Determine the level of service of the first basic segment for the before construction geometry and for the 2006 and 2024 morning peak traffic using the HCS 2000. Write the obtained results in Table 2. Save the HCS file on the provided CD media for future reference. Repeat the same analysis for as many basic segments as time permits. Problem for Ramp Junctions Determine the level of service of the first ramp junction segment for the before construction geometry and for the 2006 and 2024 morning peak traffic using the HCS 2000. Write the obtained results in Table 2. Save the HCS file on the provided CD media for future reference. Repeat the same analysis for as many ramp junction segments as time permits. Problem for Freeway Weaving Determine the level of service of the first weaving segment for the before construction geometry and for the 2006 and 2024 morning peak traffic using the HCS 2000. Write the obtained results in Table 2. Save the HCS file on the provided CD media for future reference. Repeat the same analysis for as many weaving segments as time permits.
A-7
Table 1: Results of the freeway exercise (freeway facility analysis for after construction geometry)
Stations 2024 Traffic 2024 Traffic Increased by 25%
Seg. #
Segment Name/Type
Start End Density (pc/km/ln)
Speed (km/h)
LOS Density (pc/km/ln)
Speed (km/h)
LOS
A-8
Table 2: Results of the freeway exercise (individual segments analysis for before construction geometry)
Stations 2006 Traffic 2024 Traffic Seg. #
Segment Name/Type Start End Density
(pc/km/ln) Speed (km/h)
LOS HCS File
Density (pc/km/ln)
Speed (km/h)
LOS HCS File
A-9
Before Construction Geometry and Traffic Data (Freeway)
Geometric Data A schematic drawing of the before construction freeway westbound roadway is shown in Figure 5. The existing freeway has three 3.6 m travel lanes, a 3.1 m right shoulder, and a 3.6 m left shoulder. The additional lane in the weaving areas is 3.6 m. The terrain is level.
Figure 5 Before Construction geometry of the westbound roadway
Traffic Data Traffic diagrams for the before construction geometry are included in this section (Figures 6 and 7). The before construction speed limit was 55 mi/h. Speed on the loop ramps can be assumed 40 km/h, and speed on direct ramps 60 km/h. The peak hour factor (PHF) is assumed to be 1.00. A significant portion of the freeway flow is long-distance traffic. The freeway is a major server of commuter traffic into the Chicago metropolitan area.
A-10
Figure 6 Design hourly volumes for before construction geometry
A-11
Figure 7 Design hourly volumes for 2006 and 2024 years, AM.
A-12
Designed Geometry and Traffic Data
Geometric Data Figure 8 presents post construction geometry of the Grant Interchange. The Broadway Interchanges has been transformed in a similar way. The additional lane is continuous between interchanges. After adding another lane in the median, the cross-section (see Figure 9) includes 10 3.6-m traveled lanes between interchanges and eight 3.6 m traveled lanes within the interchanges. The outside and median shoulders are 3.6 m. The median is divided with a Jersey barrier placed in the middle. The terrain is level. A summary of the post construction geometry for the entire studied facility in the westbound direction is shown in Figure 10.
Figure 8 Post construction geometry of the Grant Interchange.
A-13
Figure 9 Cross-sections of new Borman Expressway
A-14
Figure 10 Schematic drawing of the post construction geometry Traffic Data The traffic data for the post construction geometry is included in this section (Figure 11). The freeway will have a speed limit of 65-mi/h. The ramp geometry indicates free flow speed of 40 km/h for loop ramps and 60 km/h for direct ramps as a reasonable choice for traffic analysis. The peak hour factor (PHF) is assumed to be 1.00 for all situations. A significant portion of the freeway flow is long-distance traffic. The freeway is a major server of commuter traffic into the Chicago metropolitan area.
Figure 11 Predicted AM design volumes for 2006 and 2024.
S-1
Multilane Highways and Freeways
Solutions of Laboratory Assignment
Instructor Andrew P. Tarko
Teaching Assistant
Tim Wells
Purdue University West Lafayette, Indiana
June 19-21, 2006
S-2
S-3
Multilane Highway – US 52
INPUT Present Conditions Future needs of widening of the U.S. Highway 52 north of Lafayette, Indiana, are to be studied. The segment 2.8 miles long in Tippecanoe County between CR 350 S and CR 550 S is considered in this exercise. Figures 1 shows the location of the segment while Figures 2 through 4 show the present geometry of this highway segment. Geometry and Pavement A site study has revealed that the following characteristics of the highway segment:
- Full-depth asphalt pavement with painted striping - Two 12-foot travel lanes - Divided cross-section with 6 feet of left-side clearance - 2-foot right shoulders - Ten residential and commercial access points along highway section in
the Southbound direction - Slightly rolling vertical alignment without pronounced grades
Traffic An AADT map indicates 10,780 veh/day in 2003. Five percent trucks and one percent recreational vehicles may be assumed. Because of the proximity of I-65 three miles to the east, the traffic on U.S. 52 almost has local range. Twelve percent of AADT is observed during the typical afternoon rush hour (design hour) with 60 percent of traffic in the southbound direction. The peak hour factor (PHF) of 0.92 may be assumed. Assume the current speed limit along the highway is 55 mph. Assignment Much of the land surrounding the US 52 near Lafayette is zoned for industrial or commercial use in anticipation of expansion of the city. Because of this, traffic growth along the section is anticipated to occur at an accelerated rate of 3% per year.
1. Please check the present traffic conditions in the peak direction during the afternoon rush hour.
2. Determine in which year the analyzed US 52 segment would require
upgrading to accommodate increased traffic. LOS C is the minimum requirement.
S-4
Problem Solutions for Multilane Highways Comments on Problem 1: Access points per mile = 10 access points / 2.8 miles = 3.6 points per mile Volume in 2006 = 10,780 x (1.03)2006-2003 = 11,780 veh/day Volume = 11,780 x 0.12 x 0.6 (peak direction) = 850 veh/h See Figure 1: Multi-Lane Problem #1 (Solution) Comments on Problem 2: By the trial-and-error method, the critical volume for LOS C has been found, VC = 2694 veh/h. Volume in 2045 will be 10,780 x (1.03)(2045 – 2004) x 0.12 x 0.6 = 2686 veh/h. This is the predicted last year when the road segment will operate at LOS C. See Figure 2: Multi-Lane Problem #2 (check of highest volume that still provides LOS C) and Figure 3: Multi-Lane Problem #2 (verify LOS D for 2695 vph)
S-5
HCS2000: Multilane Highways Release 4.1c Phone: Fax: E-mail: ___________________________OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS________________________________ Analyst: Solution Agency/Co: HCM_Short_Course_2006 Date: 6/18/2006 Analsis Period: PM peak Highway: US 52 (Tippecanoe County) From/To: 350 South to 550 South Jurisdiction: INDOT Analysis Year: 2006 Project ID: 2006 Existing Conditions _______________________________FREE-FLOW SPEED_________________________________ Direction 1 2 Lane width 12.0 ft 12.0 ft Lateral clearance: Right edge 2.0 ft 6.0 ft Left edge 6.0 ft 6.0 ft Total lateral clearance 8.0 ft 12.0 ft Access points per mile 4 0 Median type Divided Free-flow speed: Base Measured FFS or BFFS 60.0 mph 60.0 mph Lane width adjustment, FLW 0.0 mph 0.0 mph Lateral clearance adjustment, FLC 0.9 mph 0.0 mph Median type adjustment, FM 0.0 mph 0.0 mph Access points adjustment, FA 1.0 mph 0.0 mph Free-flow speed 58.1 mph 60.0 mph ____________________________________VOLUME_____________________________________ Direction 1 2 Volume, V 850 vph 0 vph Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.90 Peak 15-minute volume, v15 231 Trucks and buses 5 % 0 % Recreational vehicles 1 % 0 % Terrain type Rolling Level Grade 0.00 % 0.00 % Segment length 0.00 mi 0.00 mi Number of lanes 2 2 Driver population adjustment, fP 1.00 1.00 Trucks and buses PCE, ET 1.5* 1.5 Recreational vehicles PCE, ER 1.2* 1.2 Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 0.974 1.000 Flow rate, vp 474 pcphpl pcphpl ____________________________________RESULTS____________________________________ Direction 1 2 Flow rate, vp 474 pcphpl pcphpl Free-flow speed, FFS 58.1 mph 60.0 mph Avg. passenger-car travel speed, S 58.1 mph mph Level of service, LOS A Density, D 8.2 pc/mi/ln pc/mi/ln Overall results are not computed when free-flow speed is less than 45 mph. Figure 1: Multi-Lane Problem #1 (Solution)
S-6
HCS2000: Multilane Highways Release 4.1c Phone: Fax: E-mail: ___________________________OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS________________________________ Analyst: Solution Agency/Co: HCM_Short_Course_2006 Date: 6/18/2006 Analsis Period: PM peak Highway: US 52 (Tippecanoe County) From/To: 350 South to 550 South Jurisdiction: INDOT Analysis Year: 2006 Project ID: check boundary volume for LOS C _______________________________FREE-FLOW SPEED_________________________________ Direction 1 2 Lane width 12.0 ft 12.0 ft Lateral clearance: Right edge 2.0 ft 6.0 ft Left edge 6.0 ft 6.0 ft Total lateral clearance 8.0 ft 12.0 ft Access points per mile 4 0 Median type Divided Free-flow speed: Base Measured FFS or BFFS 60.0 mph 60.0 mph Lane width adjustment, FLW 0.0 mph 0.0 mph Lateral clearance adjustment, FLC 0.9 mph 0.0 mph Median type adjustment, FM 0.0 mph 0.0 mph Access points adjustment, FA 1.0 mph 0.0 mph Free-flow speed 58.1 mph 60.0 mph ____________________________________VOLUME_____________________________________ Direction 1 2 Volume, V 2694 vph 0 vph Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.90 Peak 15-minute volume, v15 732 Trucks and buses 5 % 0 % Recreational vehicles 1 % 0 % Terrain type Rolling Level Grade 0.00 % 0.00 % Segment length 0.00 mi 0.00 mi Number of lanes 2 2 Driver population adjustment, fP 1.00 1.00 Trucks and buses PCE, ET 1.5* 1.5 Recreational vehicles PCE, ER 1.2* 1.2 Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 0.974 1.000 Flow rate, vp 1503 pcphpl pcphpl ____________________________________RESULTS____________________________________ Direction 1 2 Flow rate, vp 1503 pcphpl pcphpl Free-flow speed, FFS 58.1 mph 60.0 mph Avg. passenger-car travel speed, S 57.8 mph mph Level of service, LOS C Density, D 26.0- pc/mi/ln pc/mi/ln Overall results are not computed when free-flow speed is less than 45 mph.
Figure 2: Multi-Lane Problem #2 (check of highest volume that still provides LOS C)
S-7
HCS2000: Multilane Highways Release 4.1c Phone: Fax: E-mail: ___________________________OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS________________________________ Analyst: Solution Agency/Co: HCM_Short_Course_2006 Date: 6/18/2006 Analsis Period: PM peak Highway: US 52 (Tippecanoe County) From/To: 350 South to 550 South Jurisdiction: INDOT Analysis Year: Project ID: check boundary volume for LOS C _______________________________FREE-FLOW SPEED_________________________________ Direction 1 2 Lane width 12.0 ft 12.0 ft Lateral clearance: Right edge 2.0 ft 6.0 ft Left edge 6.0 ft 6.0 ft Total lateral clearance 8.0 ft 12.0 ft Access points per mile 4 0 Median type Divided Free-flow speed: Base Measured FFS or BFFS 60.0 mph 60.0 mph Lane width adjustment, FLW 0.0 mph 0.0 mph Lateral clearance adjustment, FLC 0.9 mph 0.0 mph Median type adjustment, FM 0.0 mph 0.0 mph Access points adjustment, FA 1.0 mph 0.0 mph Free-flow speed 58.1 mph 60.0 mph ____________________________________VOLUME_____________________________________ Direction 1 2 Volume, V 2695 vph 0 vph Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.90 Peak 15-minute volume, v15 732 Trucks and buses 5 % 0 % Recreational vehicles 1 % 0 % Terrain type Rolling Level Grade 0.00 % 0.00 % Segment length 0.00 mi 0.00 mi Number of lanes 2 2 Driver population adjustment, fP 1.00 1.00 Trucks and buses PCE, ET 1.5* 1.5 Recreational vehicles PCE, ER 1.2* 1.2 Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 0.974 1.000 Flow rate, vp 1504 pcphpl pcphpl ____________________________________RESULTS____________________________________ Direction 1 2 Flow rate, vp 1504 pcphpl pcphpl Free-flow speed, FFS 58.1 mph 60.0 mph Avg. passenger-car travel speed, S 57.8 mph mph Level of service, LOS D Density, D 26.0+ pc/mi/ln pc/mi/ln Overall results are not computed when free-flow speed is less than 45 mph. Figure 3: Multi-Lane Problem #2 (verify LOS D for 2695 vph)