HCM 2010 Chapter 10

HCM2010
HIGHWAY CAPACITY MANUAL
CHAPTER 10
FREEWAY FACILITIES
WASHINGTON, DC
Downloaded from hcm.trb.org
WWW.TRB.ORG
HCM2010
HIGHWAY CAPACITY MANUAL
The HCM 2010 signicantly enhances how engineers and
planners assess the trafc and environmental effects of
highway projects by
Providing an integrated multimodal approach to the
analysis and evaluation of urban streets from the points
of view of automobile drivers, transit passengers,
bicyclists, and pedestrians;
Addressing the proper application of microsimulation
analysis and the evaluation of the results;
Examining active trafc management in relation to
demand and capacity; and
Exploring specic tools and generalized service volume
tables to assist planners in quickly sizing future facilities.
The HCM 2010 consists of four volumes:
Volume 1: Concepts;
Volume 2: Uninterrupted Flow;
Volume 3: Interrupted Flow; and
Volume 4: Applications Guide (electronic only).
The four-volume format provides information at several levels of detail, to help
users more easily apply and understand the concepts, methodologies, and
potential applications.
Volumes 1, 2, and 3 are issued as a boxed set. Volume 4 is electronic only,
accessible to registered HCM users via the Internet, and includes four types of
content: supplemental chapters on methodological details and emerging issues;
interpretations, clarications, and corrections; comprehensive case studies; and
a technical reference library.
To order HCM 2010, go to http://books.trbbookstore.org/hcm10.aspx.

For more information about HCM 2010 and TRB publications, contact the
Transportation Research Board Business Ofce, 500 Fifth Street, NW, Washington,
DC 20001 (telephone 202-334-3213; fax 202-334-2519; e-mail TRBsales@nas.edu;
or through the Internet, www.trb.org).
Highway Capacity Manual 2010, copyright 2010 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Highway Capacity Manual 2010
CHAPTER 10
FREEWAY FACILITIES
CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................101
SegmentsandInfluenceAreas.......................................................................... 102
FreeFlowSpeed ................................................................................................. 103
CapacityofFreewayFacilities .......................................................................... 104
LOS:ComponentSegmentsandtheFreewayFacility .................................. 108
ServiceFlowRates,ServiceVolumes,andDailyServiceVolumesfora
FreewayFacility......................................................................................... 1010
GeneralizedDailyServiceVolumesforFreewayFacilities ........................ 1011
ActiveTrafficManagementandOtherMeasurestoImprove
Performance ............................................................................................... 1014
2. METHODOLOGY ...............................................................................................1016
ScopeoftheMethodology............................................................................... 1016
LimitationsoftheMethodology ..................................................................... 1017
Overview ........................................................................................................... 1018
ComputationalSteps........................................................................................ 1019
3. APPLICATIONS ..................................................................................................1040
OperationalAnalysis........................................................................................ 1040
Planning,PreliminaryEngineering,andDesignAnalysis ......................... 1041
TrafficManagementStrategies ....................................................................... 1041
UseofAlternativeTools .................................................................................. 1042
4. EXAMPLEPROBLEMS.......................................................................................1048
ExampleProblem1:EvaluationofanUndersaturatedFacility ................. 1048
ExampleProblem2:EvaluationofanOversaturatedFacility ................... 1054
ExampleProblem3:CapacityImprovementstoanOversaturated
Facility......................................................................................................... 1058
5. REFERENCES .......................................................................................................1063
Chapter 10/Freeway Facilities

December 2010
Page 10-i
Contents
LIST OF EXHIBITS
Exhibit101InfluenceAreasofMerge,Diverge,andWeavingSegments ........ 102
Exhibit102BasicFreewaySegmentsonanUrbanFreeway .............................. 103
Exhibit103RampDensityDetermination............................................................. 104
Exhibit104ExampleoftheEffectofSegmentCapacityonaFreeway
Facility.................................................................................................................. 105
Exhibit105FreeFlowSpeedvs.BaseCapacityforFreeways............................ 106
Exhibit106BaseCapacityvs.TotalRampDensity.............................................. 107
Exhibit107LOSCriteriaforFreewayFacilities.................................................... 109
Exhibit108GeneralizedDailyServiceVolumesforUrbanFreeway
Facilities(1,000veh/day) ................................................................................. 1013
Exhibit109GeneralizedDailyServiceVolumesforRuralFreeway
Facilities(1,000veh/day) ................................................................................. 1014
Exhibit1010FreewayFacilityMethodology....................................................... 1018
Exhibit1011ExampleTimeSpaceDomainforFreewayFacilityAnalysis ... 1020
Exhibit1012DefiningAnalysisSegmentsforaRampConfiguration ............ 1022
Exhibit1013DefiningAnalysisSegmentsforaWeavingConfiguration ....... 1023
Exhibit1014CapacityofLongTermConstructionZones(veh/h/ln) ............. 1028
Exhibit1015CapacityReductionsduetoWeatherandEnvironmental
ConditionsinIowa........................................................................................... 1029
Exhibit1016CapacitiesonGermanAutobahnsUnderVariousConditions
(veh/h/ln) ........................................................................................................... 1029
Exhibit1017ProportionofFreewaySegmentCapacityAvailableUnder
IncidentConditions.......................................................................................... 1030
Exhibit1018IllustrationofSpeedFlowCurvesforDifferentWeather
Conditions ......................................................................................................... 1031
Exhibit1019IllustrationofAdjustedSpeedFlowCurvesforIndicated
CapacityReductions ........................................................................................ 1032
Exhibit1020NodeSegmentRepresentationofaFreewayFacility ................ 1035
Exhibit1021MainlineandSegmentFlowatOnandOffRamps................... 1035
Exhibit1022RequiredInputDataforFreewayFacilityAnalysis.................... 1040
Exhibit1023LimitationsoftheHCMFreewayFacilitiesAnalysis
Procedure .......................................................................................................... 1043
Exhibit1024ListofExampleProblems ............................................................... 1048
Exhibit1025FreewayFacilityinExampleProblem1........................................ 1048
Exhibit1026GeometryofDirectionalFreewayFacilityforExample
Problem1........................................................................................................... 1048
Exhibit1027DemandInputsforExampleProblem1 ....................................... 1050
Exhibit1028SegmentCapacitiesforExampleProblem1................................. 1050
Contents
Page 10-ii

December 2010

Exhibit1029SegmentDemandtoCapacityRatiosforExampleProblem1.. 1051
Exhibit1030VolumeServedMatrixforExampleProblem1........................... 1051
Exhibit1031SpeedMatrixforExampleProblem1 ........................................... 1052
Exhibit1032DensityMatrixforExampleProblem1 ........................................ 1052
Exhibit1033LOSMatrixforExampleProblem1 .............................................. 1052
Exhibit1034FacilityPerformanceMeasureSummaryforExample
Problem1........................................................................................................... 1053
Exhibit1035DemandInputsforExampleProblem2 ....................................... 1055
Exhibit1036SegmentCapacitiesforExampleProblem2 ................................ 1055
Exhibit1038VolumeServedMatrixforExampleProblem2........................... 1057
Exhibit1041ExpandedLOSMatrixforExampleProblem2 ........................... 1057
Problem2........................................................................................................... 1058
Exhibit1043FreewayFacilityinExampleProblem3 ....................................... 1058
Exhibit1044GeometryofDirectionalFreewayFacilityinExample
Problem3........................................................................................................... 1058
Exhibit1045SegmentCapacitiesforExampleProblem3 ................................ 1060
Exhibit1049LOSMatrixforExampleProblem3 .............................................. 1061
Problem3........................................................................................................... 1062

December 2010
Page 10-iii
Contents
1. INTRODUCTION
Afreewayisaseparatedhighwaywithfullcontrolofaccessandtwoor
morelanesineachdirectiondedicatedtotheexclusiveuseoftraffic.Freeways
arecomposedofvariousuniformsegmentsthatmaybeanalyzedtodetermine
capacityandlevelofservice(LOS).Threetypesofsegmentsarefoundon
freeways:
Freewaymergeanddivergesegments:Segmentsinwhichtwoormoretraffic
streamscombinetoformasingletrafficstream(merge)orasingletraffic
streamdividestoformtwoormoreseparatetrafficstreams(diverge).
VOLUME 2: UNINTERRUPTED FLOW

10. Freeway Facilities
11. Basic Freeway Segments
12. Freeway Weaving Segments
13. Freeway Merge and Diverge
Segments
14. Multilane Highways
15. Two-Lane Highways
Freewayweavingsegments:Segmentsinwhichtwoormoretrafficstreams
travelinginthesamegeneraldirectioncrosspathsalongasignificant
lengthoffreewaywithouttheaidoftrafficcontroldevices(exceptfor
guidesigns).Weavingsegmentsareformedwhenadivergesegment
closelyfollowsamergesegmentorwhenaonelaneofframpclosely
followsaonelaneonrampandthetwoareconnectedbyacontinuous
auxiliarylane.
Basicfreewaysegments:Allsegmentsthatarenotmerge,diverge,or
weavingsegments.
AnalysismethodologiesaredetailedforbasicfreewaysegmentsinChapter
11,forweavingsegmentsinChapter12,andformergeanddivergesegmentsin
Chapter13.
Chapter10,FreewayFacilities,providesamethodologyforanalyzing
extendedlengthsoffreewaycomposedofcontinuouslyconnectedbasicfreeway,
weaving,merge,anddivergesegments.Suchextendedlengthsarereferredtoas
afreewayfacility.Inthisterminology,thetermfacilitydoesnotrefertoanentire
freewayfrombeginningtoend;instead,itreferstoaspecificsetofconnected
segmentsthathavebeenidentifiedforanalysis.Inaddition,thetermdoesnot
refertoafreewaysystemconsistingofseveralinterconnectedfreeways.
ThemethodologiesofChapters11,12,and13focusonasingletimeperiod
ofinterest,generallythepeak15minwithinapeakhour.Thischapters
methodologyallowsfortheanalysisofmultipleandcontinuous15mintime
periodsandiscapableofidentifyingbreakdownsandtheimpactofsuch
breakdownsoverspaceandtime.
ThemethodologyisintegralwiththeFREEVAL2010model,which
implementsthecomplexcomputationsinvolved.Thischapterdiscussesthebasic
principlesofthemethodologyanditsapplication.Chapter25,FreewayFacilities:
Supplemental,providesacompleteanddetaileddescriptionofallthealgorithms
thatdefinethemethodology.TheTechnicalReferenceLibraryinVolume4
containsausersguidetoFREEVAL2010andanexecutablespreadsheetthat
implementsthemethodology.

December 2010
Page 10-1
Introduction

SEGMENTS AND INFLUENCE AREAS
Itisimportantthatthedefinitionoffreewaysegmentsandtheirinfluence
areasbeclearlyunderstood.Theinfluenceareasofmerge,diverge,andweaving
segmentsareasfollows:
Weavingsegment:Thebaselengthoftheweavingsegmentplus500ft
upstreamoftheentrypointtotheweavingsegmentand500ft
downstreamoftheexitpointfromtheweavingsegment;entryandexit
pointsaredefinedasthepointswheretheappropriateedgesofthe
merginganddiverginglanesmeet.
Mergesegment:Fromthepointwheretheedgesofthetravellanesofthe
mergingroadwaysmeettoapoint1,500ftdownstreamofthatpoint.
Divergesegment:Fromthepointwheretheedgesofthetravellanesofthe
mergingroadwaysmeettoapoint1,500ftupstreamofthatpoint.
Pointswheretheedgesoftravellanesmeetaremostoftendefinedby
pavementmarkings.
Theinfluenceareasofmerge,diverge,andweavingsegmentsareillustrated
inExhibit101.
Exhibit 10-1
Influence Areas of Merge,
Diverge, and Weaving
Segments
1,500 ft
1,500 ft
(a) Merge Influence Area
(b) Diverge Influence Area
Base Length, LB
500 ft
500 ft
(c) Weaving Influence Area
Basicfreewaysegmentsareanyothersegmentsalongthefreewaythatare
notwithinthesedefinedinfluenceareas,whichisnottosaythatbasicfreeway
segmentsarenotaffectedbythepresenceofadjacentandnearbymerge,diverge,
andweavingsegments.Particularlywhenasegmentbreaksdown,itseffectswill
propagatetobothupstreamanddownstreamsegments,regardlessoftype.
Furthermore,thegeneralimpactofthefrequencyofmerge,diverge,and
weavingsegmentsonthegeneraloperationofallsegmentsistakenintoaccount
bythefreeflowspeedofthefacility.
Basicfreewaysegments,therefore,doexistevenonurbanfreewayswhere
mergeanddivergepoints(mostoftenramps)arecloselyspaced.Exhibit102
illustratesthispoint.Itshowsa9,100ft(1.7mi)lengthoffreewaywithfour
rampterminals,twoofwhichformaweavingsegment.Evenwithanaverage
rampspacinglessthan0.5mi,thislengthoffreewaycontainsthreebasicfreeway
segments.Thelengthsofthesesegmentsarerelativelyshort,but,intermsof
Introduction
Page 10-2

December 2010

analysismethodologies,theymustbetreatedasbasicfreewaysegments.Thus,
whileitistruethatmanyurbanfreewayswillbedominatedbyfrequentmerge,
diverge,andweavingsegments,therewillstillbesegmentsclassifiedand
analyzedasbasicfreewaysegments.
1,500 ft
1,000 ft
Basic
1,600 ft
2,600 ft
Weaving
2,000 ft
1,500 ft
Basic
2,500 ft
1,500 ft
1,000 ft
Merge
Basic
Exhibit 10-2
Basic Freeway Segments on an
Urban Freeway
1,500 ft
1,500 ft
Merge
FREE-FLOW SPEED
Freeflowspeedisstrictlydefinedasthetheoreticalspeedwhenthedensity
andflowrateonthestudysegmentarebothzero.Chapter11,BasicFreeway
Segments,presentsspeedflowcurvesthatindicatethatthefreeflowspeedon
freewaysisexpectedtoprevailatflowratesbetween0and1,000passengercars
perhourperlane(pc/h/ln).Inthisbroadrangeofflows,speedisinsensitiveto
flowrates.Thischaracteristicsimplifiesandallowsformeasurementoffreeflow
speedsinthefield.
Chapter11alsopresentsamethodologyforestimatingthefreeflowspeedof
abasicfreewaysegmentifitcannotbedirectlymeasured.Thefreeflowspeedof
abasicfreewaysegmentissensitivetothreevariables:
Lanewidths,
Lateralclearances,and
Totalrampdensity.
Themostcriticalofthesevariablesistotalrampdensity.Totalrampdensityis
definedastheaveragenumberofonramp,offramp,majormerge,andmajor
divergejunctionspermile.Itappliestoa6misegmentoffreewayfacility,3mi
upstreamand3midownstreamofthemidpointofthestudysegment.
Whilethemethodologyfordeterminingfreeflowspeedisprovidedin
Chapter11,BasicFreewaySegments,itisalsoappliedinChapter12,Freeway
WeavingSegments,andChapter13,FreewayMergeandDivergeSegments.
Thus,freeflowspeedaffectstheoperationofallbasic,weaving,merge,and
divergesegmentsonafreewayfacility.
Thefreeflowspeedisanimportantcharacteristic,asthecapacityc,service
flowratesSF,servicevolumesSV,anddailyservicevolumesDSValldependon
it.

December 2010
Page 10-3
Introduction

Exhibit103illustratesthedeterminationoftotalrampdensityona6mi
lengthoffreewayfacility.
Exhibit 10-3
Ramp Density Determination
6 mi
AsillustratedinExhibit103,therearefourrampterminalsandonemajor
divergepointinthe6misegmentillustrated.Thetotalrampdensityis,
therefore,5/6=0.83ramp/mi.
CAPACITY OF FREEWAY FACILITIES
Capacitytraditionallyhasbeendefinedforsegmentsofuniformroadway,
traffic,andcontrolconditions.Whenfacilitiesconsistingofaseriesofconnected
segmentsareconsidered,theconceptofcapacityismorecomplicated.
ThemethodologiesofChapters11,12,and13allowthecapacityofeachbasic
freeway,freewayweaving,freewaymerge,andfreewaydivergesegmenttobe
estimated.Itishighlyunlikelythateverysegmentofafacilitywillhavethesame
roadway,traffic,andcontrolconditions andevenlesslikelythattheywillhave
thesamecapacity.
Conceptual Approach to the Capacity of a Freeway Facility
ConsidertheexampleshowninExhibit104.Itillustratesfiveconsecutive
segmentsthataretobeanalyzedasonefreewayfacility.Demandflowratesvd,
capacitiesc,andactualflowratesvaareshown,asaretheresultingvd/candva/c
ratios.AlaneisaddedinSegment3(eventhoughthissegmentbeginswithan
offramp),providinghighercapacitiesforSegments3,4,and5thaninSegments
1and2.Theexampleanalyzesthreescenarios.
InScenario1,noneofthedemandflowratesexceedsthecapacitiesofthe
segmentsthatmakeupthefacility.Thus,nobreakdownsoccur,andtheactual
flowratesarethesameasthedemandflowrates(i.e.,vd=vaforthisscenario).
Noneofthevd/corva/cratiosexceeds1.00,althoughthehighestratios(0.978)
occurinSegment5.
Scenario2adds200vehiclesperhour(veh/h)ofdemandtoeachsegment
(essentiallyanother200veh/hofthroughfreewayvehicles).Inthiscase,Segment
5willexperienceabreakdownthatis,thedemandflowratewillexceedthe
capacity.Inthissegment,demandflowratevddiffersfromtheactualflowrateva,
astheactualflowratevacanneverexceedthecapacityc.
InScenario3,alldemandflowratesareincreasedby10%,which,ineffect,
keepstherelativevaluesofthesegmentdemandflowratesconstant.Inthiscase,
demandflowratewillexceedcapacityinSegments4and5.Again,thedemand
flowratesandactualflowrateswilldifferinthesesegments.
Introduction
Page 10-4

December 2010

2
Exhibit 10-4
Example of the Effect of Segment
Capacity on a Freeway Facility
Scenario
Scenario 1
(stable flow)
Scenario 2
(add 200 veh/h
to each
segment)
Scenario 3
(increase
demand
by 10% in all
segments)
Note:
Performance
Measures
Demand vd, veh/h
Capacity c, veh/h
Volume va, veh/h
vd/c ratio
va/c ratio
Demand vd, veh/h
Capacity c, veh/h
Volume va, veh/h
vd/c ratio
va/c ratio
Demand vd, veh/h
Capacity c, veh/h
Volume va, veh/h
vd/c ratio
va/c ratio
1
3,400
4,000
3,400
0.850
0.850
3,600
4,000
3,600
0.900
0.900
3,740
4,000
3,740
0.935
0.935
Freeway Segment
2
3
4
4,200
3,400
3,500
4,500
4,500
4,000
4,200
3,400
3,500
0.933
0.756
0.875
0.933
0.756
0.875
4,400
3,600
3,700
4,500
4,500
4,000
4,400
3,600
3,700
0.978
0.800
0.925
0.978
0.800
0.925
3,740
3,850
4,840
4,500
4,000
4,500
3,740
3,850
4,500
0.831
0.963
1.078
0.831
0.963
1.000
5
4,400
4,500
4,400
0.978
0.978
4,600
4,500
4,500
1.022
1.000
5,060
4,500
4,500
1.120
1.000
Shaded cells indicate segments where demand exceeds capacity.
Thisexamplehighlightsanumberofpointsthatmaketheanalysisof
freewayfacilitiesverycomplicated:
1. Itiscriticaltothismethodologythatthedifferencebetweendemandflow
ratevdandactualflowratevabehighlightedandthatbothvaluesbe
clearlyandappropriatelylabeled.
2. InScenarios2and3,theanalysisofExhibit104isinadequateand
misleading.InScenario2,whenSegment5breaksdown,queuesbeginto
formandtopropagateupstream.Thus,eventhoughthedemandsin
Segments1through4arelessthanthecapacityofthosesegments,the
queuesgeneratedbySegment5overtimewillpropagatethrough
Segments1through4andsignificantlyaffecttheiroperation.InScenario
3,Segments4and5fail,andqueuesaregenerated,whichalsopropagate
upstreamovertime.
3. ItmightbearguedthattheanalysisofScenario1issufficientto
understandthefacilityoperationaslongasallsegmentsare
undersaturated(i.e.,allsegmentvd/cratiosarelessthanorequalto1.00).
However,whenanysegmentvd/cratioexceeds1.00,suchasimple
analysisignoresthespreadingimpactofbreakdownsinspaceandtime.
4. InScenarios2and3,thesegmentsdownstreamofSegment5willalsobe
affected,asdemandflowispreventedfromreachingthosesegmentsby
theSegment5(andSegment4inScenario3)breakdownsandqueues.
5. Inthisexample,itisalsoimportanttonotethatthesegment(s)thatbreak
downfirstdonothavethelowestcapacities.Segments1and2,with
lowercapacities,donotbreakdowninanyofthescenarios.Breakdown
occursfirstinSegment5,whichhasoneofthehighercapacities.
Consideringallthesecomplications,thecapacityofafreewayfacilityis
definedasfollows:
December 2010
Page 10-5
Introduction

Freewayfacilitycapacityisthecapacityofthecriticalsegmentamongthose
segmentscomposingthedefinedfacility.Thiscapacitymust,foranalysispurposes,
becomparedwiththedemandflowrateonthecriticalsegment.
Thecriticalsegmentisdefinedasthesegmentthatwillbreakdownfirst,
giventhatalltraffic,roadway,andcontrolconditionsdonotchange,including
thespatialdistributionofdemandsoneachcomponentsegment.Thisdefinition
isnotasimpleone.Itdependsontherelativedemandcharacteristicsandcan
changeovertimeasthedemandpatternchanges.Facilitycapacitymaybemore
thanthecapacityofthecomponentsegmentwiththelowestcapacity.Therefore,
itisimportantthatindividualsegmentdemandsandcapacitiesbeevaluated.
Thefactthatoneofthesesegmentswillbethecriticaloneandwilldefinethe
facilitycapacitydoesnotdiminishtheimportanceofthecapacitiesofother
segmentsinthedefinedfacility.
Base Capacity of Freeway Facilities
InthemethodologiesofChapters11,12,and13,abasecapacityisused.The
basecapacityrepresentsthecapacityofthefacility,assumingthatthereareno
heavyvehiclesinthetrafficstreamandthatalldriversareregularusersofthe
segment.Thebasecapacityforallfreewaysegmentsvarieswiththefreeflow
speed,asindicatedinExhibit105.
Exhibit 10-5
Free-Flow Speed vs. Base
Capacity for Freeways
Free-Flow Speed (mi/h)

75
70
65
60
55
Base Capacity (pc/h/ln)

2,400
2,400
2,350
2,300
2,250
TheequationgiveninChapter11,BasicFreewaySegments,forestimating
thefreeflowspeedofasegmentisasshowninEquation101:
Equation 10-1
FFS = 75.4 f LW f LC 3.22 TRD 0.84

where
FFS = freeflowspeed(mi/h),
fLW = adjustmentforlanewidth(mi/h),
fLC = adjustmentforlateralclearance(mi/h),and
TRD = totalrampdensity(ramps/mi).
Theprocessfordeterminingthevalueofadjustmentfactorsisdescribedin
Chapter11.
Becausethebasecapacityofafreewaysegmentisdirectlyrelatedtothefree
flowspeed,itispossibletoconstructarelationshipbetweenbasecapacityand
thelanewidth,lateralclearance,andtotalrampdensityofthesegment.Ifthe
lanewidthandlateralclearancearetakentobetheirbasevalues(12and6ft,
respectively),arelationshipbetweenbasecapacityandtotalrampdensity
emerges,asshowninExhibit106.
Introduction
Page 10-6

December 2010

Basecapacityisexpressedasaflowratefora15minanalysisperiod,nota
fullhourvolume.Italsorepresentsaflowrateinpc/h,withnoheavyvehicles,
andadriverpopulationfamiliarwiththecharacteristicsoftheanalysissegment.
Exhibit 10-6
Base Capacity vs. Total Ramp
Density
2,425
Base Capacity (pc/mi/ln)
2,400
2,375
2,350
2,325
2,300
2,275
2,250
0
Total Ramp Density (ramps/mi)
Segment Capacity vs. Facility Capacity

Freeflowspeedisacharacteristicofalengthoffreewayextending3mi
upstreamand3midownstreamofthecenterpointofananalysissegment.The
segmentmaybeabasicfreewaysegment,aweavingsegment,amergesegment,
oradivergesegment.Inessence,itisameasureoftheimpactofoverallfacility
characteristicsontheoperationoftheindividualanalysissegmentcenteredin
thedefined6mirange.
Thisconceptcanbesomewhatgeneralizedwherefreewayfacilityanalysisis
involved.Ifconditions(particularlyrampdensity)aresimilaralongagreater
lengthoffreeway,itisacceptabletocomputethetotalrampdensityforthe
greaterlengthandapplyittoallsegmentswithintheanalysislength.This
processassumesthatmovingthecenterofa6milengthforeachcomponent
segmentwillnotresultinasignificantchangeinthefreeflowspeed.
Thecapacityofanearlyhomogeneousfreewayfacilityis,forallpractical
purposes,thesameasthecapacityofabasicfreewaysegmentwiththesame
roadwayandtrafficcharacteristics.Considerthefollowing:
Mergeanddivergesegmentshavethesamecapacityasasimilarbasic
freewaysegment.AsdiscussedinChapter13,thepresenceofmergeand
divergesegmentsonafreewaymayaffectoperatingcharacteristics,
generallyreducingspeedsandincreasingdensities,butdoesnotreduce
capacity.
Weavingsegmentsoftenhaveperlanecapacitiesthatarelessthanthose
oftheenteringandleavingbasicfreewaysegments.Inalmostallcases,
however,weavingsegmentshavemorelanesthantheenteringand
December 2010
Page 10-7
Introduction

leavingbasicfreewaysegments.Thus,theimpactonthecapacityofthe
mainlinefreewaymostoftenisnegligible.
Thisdoesnotmean,however,thatthecapacityofeachcomponentsegment
ofafacilityisthesame.Eachsegmenthasitsowndemandanddemand
characteristics.Demandflowratecanchangeateveryentryandexitpointalong
thefreeway,andthepercentofheavyvehiclescanchangetoo.Terrainalsocan
changeatvariouspointsalongthefreeway.
Changesinheavyvehiclepresencecanchangethecapacityofindividual
segmentswithinadefinedfacility.Changesinthesplitofmovementsina
weavingsegmentcanchangeitscapacity.Inthesameway,changesinthe
relativedemandflowsatonandofframpscanchangethelocationofthecritical
segmentwithinadefinedfacilityanditscapacity.
Asnotedpreviously,thecapacityofafreewayfacilityisdefinedasthe
capacityofitscriticalsegment.
LOS: COMPONENT SEGMENTS AND THE FREEWAY FACILITY
LOS of Component Segments
Chapters11,12,and13providemethodologiestodeterminetheLOSin
basic,weaving,merge,anddivergesegments.Inallcases,LOSFisidentified
whenvd/cisgreaterthan 1.00. Suchbreakdownsareeasilyidentified,andusers
arereferredtothischapter.
Thischaptersmethodologyprovidesananalysisofbreakdownconditions,
includingthespatialandtimeimpactsofabreakdown.Thus,intheperformance
ofafacilitylevelanalysis,LOSFinacomponentsegmentcanbeidentified(a)
whenthesegmentvd/cisgreaterthan1.00and(b)whenaqueuefroma
downstreambreakdownextendsintoanupstreamsegment.Thelattercannotbe
donebyusingtheindividualsegmentanalysisproceduresofChapters11,12,
and13.
Thus,whenfacilitylevelanalysisisundertakenbyusingthemethodologyof
thischapter,LOSFforacomponentsegmentwillbeidentifiedintwodifferent
ways:
Whenvd/cisgreaterthan1.00,or
Whenthedensityisgreaterthan45pc/mi/lnforbasicfreewaysegments
or43pc/mi/lnforweaving,merge,ordivergesegments.
Thelatteridentifiessegmentsinwhichqueueshaveformedasaresultof
downstreambreakdowns.
LOS for a Freeway Facility
BecauseLOSforbasic,weaving,merge,anddivergesegmentsonafreeway
isdefinedintermsofdensity,LOSforafreewayfacilityisalsodefinedonthe
basisofdensity.
AfacilityanalysiswillresultinadensitydeterminationandLOSforeach
componentsegment.ThefacilityLOSwillbebasedontheweightedaverage
densityforallsegmentswithinthedefinedfacility.Weightingisdoneonthe
Introduction
Page 10-8

December 2010

basisofsegmentlengthandthenumberoflanesineachsegment,asshownin
Equation102:
n
DF =
D
i =1
Li N i
L
i =1
Equation 10-2
Ni
where
DF = averagedensityforthefacility(pc/mi/ln),
Di = densityforsegmenti(pc/mi/ln),
Li = lengthofsegmenti(ft),
Ni = numberoflanesinsegmenti,and
n = numberofsegmentsinthedefinedfacility.
TheLOScriteriaforafreewayfacilityareshowninExhibit107.Theyarethe
samecriteriausedforbasicfreewaysegments.
Level of Service
A
B
C
D
E
F
Density (pc/mi/ln)
11
>1118
>1826
>2635
>3545
>45 or
any component vd/c ratio > 1.00
Exhibit 10-7
LOS Criteria for Freeway Facilities
UseofaLOSdescriptorfortheoverallfreewayfacilitymustbedonewith
care.ItiscriticalthattheLOSforindividualsegmentscomposingthefacilityalso
bereported.BecausetheoverallLOSisanaverage,itmaymaskserious
problemsinindividualsegmentsofthefacility.
Thisisparticularlyimportantifoneormoreofthecomponentsegmentsare
operatingatLOSF.Asdescribedinthischaptersmethodologysection,the
freewayfacilitymethodologyappliesmodelstoestimatethepropagationofthe
effectsofabreakdownintimeandspace.Wherebreakdownsexistinoneor
moresegmentsofafacility,theaverageLOSisoflimiteduse.TheaverageLOS
appliestoaspecifictimeperiod,usually15min.
WhileLOSAthroughDaredefinedbyusingthesamedensitiesthatapply
tobasicfreewaysegments,LOSFforafacilityisdefinedasacaseinwhichany
componentsegmentofthefreewayexceedsavd/cratioof1.00ortheaverage
densityoverthedefinedfacilityexceeds45pc/mi/ln.Insuchacase,thischapters
methodologyallowstheanalysttomaptheimpactsofthisbreakdownintime
andspace,andcloseattentiontotheindividualLOSofcomponentsegmentsis
necessary.

December 2010
Page 10-9
Introduction

SERVICE FLOW RATES, SERVICE VOLUMES, AND DAILY SERVICE
VOLUMES FOR A FREEWAY FACILITY
Justaseachsegmentofafreewayfacilityhasitsowncapacity,eachsegment
alsohasasetofserviceflowratesSFiforeachLOS.Aserviceflowrateisthe
maximumdirectionalrateofflowthatcanbesustainedinagivensegment
withoutviolatingthecriteriaforLOSi.Serviceflowratesarestatedinvehicles
perhourunderprevailingroadway,traffic,andcontrolconditions.Bydefinition,
theserviceflowrateforLOSEissynonymouswithcapacityforall
uninterruptedflowfacilitiesandtheircomponentsegments.
Chapters11,12,and13providecompletediscussionsofhowtodetermine
serviceflowratesforbasic,weaving,merge,anddivergefreewaysegments.
AservicevolumeSViisthemaximumhourlydirectionalvolumethatcanbe
sustainedinagivensegmentwithoutviolatingthecriteriaforLOSiduringthe
worst15minofthehour(periodwiththehighestdensity)underprevailing
roadway,traffic,andcontrolconditions.Onceasetofserviceflowrateshasbeen
establishedforasegment,theservicevolumeisfoundfromEquation103:
SVi = SFi PHF
Equation 10-3
where
SVi = servicevolumeforLOSi(veh/h),
SFi = serviceflowrateforLOSi(veh/h),and
PHF = peakhourfactor.
AdailyservicevolumeDSViisthemaximumtotaldailyvolumeinboth
directionsthatcanbesustainedinagivensegmentwithoutviolatingthecriteria
forLOSiinthepeakdirectionintheworst15minofthepeakhourunder
prevailingroadway,traffic,andcontrolconditions.Givenasetofservice
volumesforasegment,thedailyservicevolumeisfoundfromEquation104:
DSVi =
Equation 10-4
SVi
KD
where
DSVi = dailyservicevolume(veh/day),
K = proportionofdailytrafficoccurringinthepeakhouroftheday,and
D = proportionoftrafficinthepeakdirectionduringthepeakhourofthe
day.
Thecapacityofafreewayfacilityhasbeendefinedasthecapacity(under
prevailingconditions)ofthecriticalsegment.Forconsistency,therefore,other
serviceflowratesmustalsobeappliedtothecriticalsegment.
Foranoverallunderstandingofthefreewayfacility,theLOSandservice
flowrates(orservicevolumesordailyservicevolumes)oftheindividual
componentsegmentsmustbeconsideredalongwiththeoverallaverageLOSfor
thedefinedfacilityanditsserviceflowrate.
Introduction
Page 10-10

December 2010

GENERALIZED DAILY SERVICE VOLUMES FOR FREEWAY FACILITIES
Generalizeddailyservicevolumetablesprovideameanstoassessall
freewaysinaregionorjurisdictionquicklytodeterminewhichsegmentsneedto
beassessedmorecarefully(usingoperationalanalysis)toameliorateexistingor
pendingproblems.
Togenerateageneralizeddailyservicevolumetableforfreewayfacilities,
severalsimplifyingassumptionsmustbemade.Theassumptionsmadehere
includethefollowing:
1. Allsegmentsofthefreewayhavethesamebasicnumberoflanes(two,
three,orfourineachdirection).
2. Lanewidthsare12ft,andlateralclearancesare6ft.
3. Allonrampsandofframpshandlethesamepercentageoffreeway
traffic.Thissetupmaintainsareasonablyconsistentdemandflowrateon
eachsegmentofthefacility.
4. Thefirstramponthedefinedfreewayfacilityisanofframp.This
assumptionisnecessarytoimplementItem5,below.
5. GiventhedemandcharacteristicsofItems2and3,alldailyservice
volumesarestatedintermsofthedemandenteringthedefinedfreeway
facilityatitsupstreamboundary.
6. Theterrainisthesameinallsegmentsofthefacility.
7. Theheavyvehiclepercentageisthesameinallsegmentsofthefacility.
Onthebasisoftheseassumptions,generalizeddailyservicevolumetables
areshowninExhibit108(forurbanfreeways)andExhibit109(forrural
freeways).
Generalizedservicevolumesareprovidedforlevelandrollingterrain;for
fourlane,sixlane,andeightlanefreeways(bothdirections);andforavarietyof
combinationsoftheKfactorandDfactor.Tousethetable,analystsmustselecta
combinationofKandDappropriatefortheirstateorregion.Additional
assumptionsmadeforurbanandruralfreewaysarelistedhere.
Assumptionsforurbanfreeways:
Totalrampdensity=3.00ramps/mi(i.e.,miaveragespacingbetween
ramps);
5%trucks,norecreationalvehicles(RVs),andnobuses;
PHF=0.95;and
fp=1.00.
Assumptionsforruralfreeways:
Totalrampdensity=0.20ramp/mi(i.e.,5miaveragespacingbetween
ramps);
12%trucks,noRVs,andnobuses;
PHF=0.88;and
fp=0.85.

December 2010
Page 10-11
Introduction

Generalizeddailyservicevolumesarebasedonthemaximumserviceflow
ratevaluesforbasicfreewaysegments.Exhibit1117(Chapter11)shows
maximumserviceflowratesMSFforbasicfreewaysegments.Theyare
convertedtoserviceflowratesunderprevailingconditionsbymultiplyingbythe
numberoflanesinonedirectionN,theheavyvehicleadjustmentfactorfHV,and
thedriverpopulationadjustmentfactorfp.Equation103andEquation104are
thenusedtoconverttheserviceflowrateSFtoaservicevolumeSVandadaily
servicevolumeDSV.
Bycombiningtheseequations,thedailyservicevolumesDSVofExhibit108
andExhibit109areestimatedfromEquation105:
DSV i =
Equation 10-5
MSFi N f HV f p PHF
KD
whereallvariablesareaspreviouslydefined.
InapplyingEquation105,thevaluesofMSFareselectedfromExhibit1117
(Chapter11),andvaluesfortheheavyvehicleanddriverpopulationadjustment
factorsarecomputedinaccordancewiththemethodologyofChapter11.The
MSFforLOSE,whichiscapacity,maybetakendirectlyfromExhibit105,based
onthetotalrampdensity,aslanewidthsandlateralclearancesarestandardand
havenoeffectontheFFSandthusnoeffectontheresultingcapacities.
Exhibit108andExhibit109areprovidedforgeneralplanninguseand
shouldnotbeusedtoanalyzeanyspecificfreewayortomakefinaldecisionson
importantdesignfeatures.Afulloperationalanalysisusingthischapters
methodologyisrequiredforsuchspecificapplications.
Theexhibitsareuseful,however,inevaluatingtheoverallperformanceof
manyfreewayswithinajurisdiction,asafirstpassindeterminingwhere
problemsmightexistorarise,andindecidingwhereimprovementsmightbe
needed.Anyfreewaysidentifiedaslikelytoexperienceproblemsortoneed
improvement,however,shouldbesubjectedtoafulloperationalanalysisbefore
anydetaileddecisionsonimplementingspecificimprovementsaremade.
DailyservicevolumesareheavilyaffectedbytheKandDfactorschosenas
typicalfortheanalysis.Itisimportantthattheanalystusevaluesthatare
reasonableforthefacilitiesunderstudy.Also,ifanycharacteristicdiffers
significantlyfromthetypicalvaluesusedtodevelopExhibit108andExhibit10
9,thevaluestakenfromtheseexhibitswillnotberepresentativeofthestudy
facilities.
Introduction
Page 10-12

December 2010

KDFour-Lane Freeways
Six-Lane Freeways
Eight-Lane Freeways
Factor Factor LOS B LOS C LOS D LOS E LOS B LOS C LOS D LOS E LOS B LOS C LOS D LOS E
Level Terrain
0.50
54.2 75.5 94.1 108.9 81.3 113.3 141.1 163.4 108.4 151.1 188.1 217.8
0.55
49.3 68.7 85.5 99.0 73.9 103.0 128.3 148.5 98.6 137.3 171.0 198.0
0.08
0.60
45.2 62.9 78.4 90.8 67.8 94.4 117.6 136.1 90.4 125.9 156.8 181.5
0.65
41.7 58.1 72.4 83.8 62.6 87.2 108.5 125.7 83.4 116.2 144.7 167.5
0.50
48.2 67.1 83.6 96.8 72.3 100.7 125.4 145.2 96.4 134.3 167.2 193.6
0.55
43.8 61.0 76.0 88.0 65.7 91.6 114.0 132.0 87.6 122.1 152.0 176.0
0.09
0.60
40.2 56.0 69.7 80.7 60.2 83.9 104.5 121.0 80.3 111.9 139.4 161.3
0.65
37.1 51.6 64.3 74.5 55.6 77.5 96.5 111.7 74.1 103.3 128.6 148.9
0.50
43.4 60.4 75.3 87.1 65.1 90.6 112.9 130.7 86.8 120.9 150.5 174.2
0.55
39.4 54.9 68.4 79.2 59.1 82.4 102.6 118.8 78.9 109.9 136.8 158.4
0.10
0.60
36.1 50.4 62.7 72.6 54.2 75.5 94.1 108.9 72.3 100.7 125.4 145.2
0.65
33.4 46.5 57.9 67.0 50.0 69.7 86.8 100.5 66.7 93.0 115.8 134.0
0.50
39.4 54.9 68.4 79.2 59.1 82.4 102.6 118.8 78.9 109.9 136.8 158.4
0.55
35.8 49.9 62.2 72.0 53.8 74.9 93.3 108.0 71.7 99.9 124.4 144.0
0.11
0.60
32.9 45.8 57.0 66.0 49.3 68.7 85.5 99.0 65.7 91.6 114.0 132.0
0.65
30.3 42.3 52.6 60.9 45.5 63.4 78.9 91.4 60.7 84.5 105.3 121.8
Rolling Terrain
0.50
51.7 72.0 89.7 103.8 77.5 108.0 134.5 155.8 103.4 144.0 179.4 207.7
0.55
47.0 65.5 81.5 94.4 70.5 98.2 122.3 141.6 94.0 131.0 163.1 188.8
0.08
0.60
43.1 60.0 74.7 86.5 64.6 90.0 112.1 129.8 86.2 120.0 149.5 173.1
0.65
39.8 55.4 69.0 79.9 59.7 83.1 103.5 119.8 79.5 110.8 138.0 159.7
0.50
46.0 64.0 79.7 92.3 68.9 96.0 119.6 138.4 91.9 128.0 159.5 184.6
0.55
41.8 58.2 72.5 83.9 62.7 87.3 108.7 125.9 83.6 116.4 145.0 167.8
0.09
0.60
38.3 53.4 66.4 76.9 57.4 80.0 99.7 115.4 76.6 106.7 132.9 153.8
0.65
35.3 49.2 61.3 71.0 53.0 73.9 92.0 106.5 70.7 98.5 122.7 142.0
0.50
41.4 57.6 71.8 83.1 62.0 86.4 107.6 124.6 82.7 115.2 143.5 166.1
0.55
37.6 52.4 65.2 75.5 56.4 78.6 97.9 113.3 75.2 104.8 130.5 151.0
0.10
0.60
34.5 48.0 59.8 69.2 51.7 72.0 89.7 103.8 68.9 96.0 119.6 138.4
0.65
31.8 44.3 55.2 63.9 47.7 66.5 82.8 95.8 63.6 88.6 110.4 127.8
0.50
37.6 52.4 65.2 75.5 56.4 78.6 97.9 113.3 75.2 104.8 130.5 151.0
0.55
34.2 47.6 59.3 68.7 51.3 71.4 89.0 103.0 68.4 95.2 118.6 137.3
0.11
0.60
31.3 43.7 54.4 62.9 47.0 65.5 81.5 94.4 62.7 87.3 108.7 125.9
0.65
28.9 40.3 50.2 58.1 43.4 60.4 75.3 87.1 57.8 80.6 100.4 116.2
Note:
Exhibit 10-8
Generalized Daily Service
Volumes for Urban Freeway
Facilities (1,000 veh/day)
Assumptions include the following: 5% trucks, 0% buses, 0% RVs, 0.95 PHF, 3 ramps/mi, fp = 1.00, 12-ft
lanes, and 6-ft lateral clearance. Values do not represent specific segment characteristics.

December 2010
Page 10-13
Introduction

Exhibit 10-9
Generalized Daily Service Volumes
for Rural Freeway Facilities
(1,000 veh/day)
KDFour-Lane Freeways
Six-Lane Freeways
Factor Factor LOS B LOS C LOS D LOS E LOS B LOS C LOS D LOS E
Level Terrain
0.50
41.1 54.9 66.2 75.3 61.6 82.3 99.3 112.9
0.55
37.4 49.9 60.2 68.4 56.0 74.8 90.2 102.6
0.09
0.60
34.2 45.7 55.1 62.7 51.4 68.6 82.7 94.1
0.65
31.6 42.2 50.9 57.9 47.4 63.3 76.4 86.9
0.50
37.0 49.4 59.6 67.7 55.5 74.1 89.3 101.6
0.55
33.6 44.9 54.1 61.6 50.4 67.4 81.2 92.4
0.10
0.60
30.8 41.2 49.6 56.5 46.2 61.7 74.4 84.7
0.65
28.4 38.0 45.8 52.1 42.7 57.0 68.7 78.2
0.50
33.6 44.9 54.1 61.6 50.4 67.4 81.2 92.4
0.55
30.6 40.8 49.2 56.0 45.8 61.2 73.8 84.0
0.11
0.60
28.0 37.4 45.1 51.3 42.0 56.1 67.7 77.0
0.65
25.9 34.5 41.6 47.4 38.8 51.8 62.5 71.1
0.50
30.8 41.2 49.6 56.5 46.2 61.7 74.4 84.7
0.55
28.0 37.4 45.1 51.3 42.0 56.1 67.7 77.0
0.12
0.60
25.7 34.3 41.4 47.0 38.5 51.5 62.0 70.6
0.65
23.7 31.7 38.2 43.4 35.6 47.5 57.3 65.1
Rolling Terrain
0.50
36.9 49.3 59.4 67.6 55.4 74.0 89.2 101.4
0.55
33.6 44.8 54.0 61.5 50.3 67.2 81.1 92.2
0.09
0.60
30.8 41.1 49.5 56.3 46.1 61.6 74.3 84.5
0.65
28.4 37.9 45.7 52.0 42.6 56.9 68.6 78.0
0.50
33.2 44.4 53.5 60.9 49.8 66.6 80.3 91.3
0.55
30.2 40.3 48.6 55.3 45.3 60.5 73.0 83.0
0.10
0.60
27.7 37.0 44.6 50.7 41.5 55.5 66.9 76.1
0.65
25.6 34.1 41.2 46.8 38.3 51.2 61.7 70.2
0.50
30.2 40.3 48.6 55.3 45.3 60.5 73.0 83.0
0.55
27.5 36.7 44.2 50.3 41.2 55.0 66.3 75.4
0.11
0.60
25.2 33.6 40.5 46.1 37.7 50.4 60.8 69.2
0.65
23.2 31.0 37.4 42.6 34.8 46.5 56.1 63.8
0.50
27.7 37.0 44.6 50.7 41.5 55.5 66.9 76.1
0.55
25.2 33.6 40.5 46.1 37.7 50.4 60.8 69.2
0.12
0.60
23.1 30.8 37.2 42.3 34.6 46.2 55.7 63.4
0.65
21.3 28.4 34.3 39.0 31.9 42.7 51.4 58.5
Note:
Eight-Lane Freeways
LOS B LOS C LOS D LOS E
82.2 109.8 132.4 150.5
74.7 99.8 120.3 136.9
68.5 91.5 110.3 125.5
63.2 84.4 101.8 115.8
74.0 98.8 119.1 135.5
67.2 89.8 108.3 123.2
61.6 82.3 99.3 112.9
56.9 76.0 91.6 104.2
67.2 89.8 108.3 123.2
61.1 81.6 98.4 112.0
56.0 74.8 90.2 102.6
51.7 69.1 83.3 94.7
61.6 82.3 99.3 112.9
56.0 74.8 90.2 102.6
51.4 68.6 82.7 94.1
47.4 63.3 76.4 86.9
73.8
67.1
61.5
56.8
66.4
60.4
55.4
51.1
60.4
54.9
50.3
46.5
55.4
50.3
46.1
42.6
98.6 118.9 135.2

89.6 108.1 122.9
82.2 99.1 112.7
75.9 91.5 104.0
88.7 107.0 121.7
80.7 97.3 110.6
74.0 89.2 101.4
68.3 82.3 93.6
80.7 97.3 110.6
73.3 88.4 100.6
67.2 81.1 92.2
62.1 74.8 85.1
74.0 89.2 101.4
67.2 81.1 92.2
61.6 74.3 84.5
56.9 68.6 78.0
Assumptions include the following: 12% trucks, 0% buses, 0% RVs, 0.88 PHF, 0.2 ramp/mi, fp = 0.85, 12ft lanes, and 6-ft lateral clearance. Values do not represent specific segment characteristics.
ACTIVE TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT AND OTHER MEASURES TO IMPROVE

PERFORMANCE
Activetrafficmanagement(ATM)consistsofthedynamicandcontinuous
monitoringandcontroloftrafficoperationsonafacilitytoimproveits
performance.ExamplesofATMmeasuresincludecongestionpricing,ramp
metering,changeablemessagesigns,incidentresponseprograms,andspeed
harmonization(variablespeedlimits).
ATMmeasurescaninfluenceboththenatureofdemandforthefacilityand
theabilityofthefacilitytodeliverthecapacitytailoredtoservethedemand.
ATMmeasurescanimprovefacilityperformance,sometimessignificantly.
Otheradvanceddesignandmanagementmeasures,notspecificallyincluded
inthedefinitionofATM,canalsosignificantlyimprovefacilityperformance.
Thesemeasuresincludeauxiliarylanes,narrowlanes,highoccupancyvehicle
(HOV)lanes,temporaryuseofshoulders,anddesignatedtrucklanesandramps.
Thismethodologydoesnotreflectallthesemeasures.However,ramp
meteringcanbetakenintoaccountbyalteringonrampdemandsinaccordance
Introduction
Page 10-14

December 2010

withmeteringrates.Auxiliarylanesandnarrowlanesaretakenintoaccountin
thesegmentmethodologiesforbasicfreewaysegmentsandweavingsegments.
Othermeasuresarenotaccountedforinthismethodology.Chapter35
providesamoredetaileddiscussionofATMandotheradvanceddesignand
managementstrategiesandinsightintohowtheirimpactsmaybeevaluated.

December 2010
Page 10-15
Introduction
2. METHODOLOGY
Themethodologypresentedinthischapterprovidesfortheintegrated
analysisofafreewayfacilitycomposedofconnectedsegments.Themethodology
buildsonthemodelsandproceduresforindividualsegments,asdescribedin
Chapter11,BasicFreewaySegments;Chapter12,FreewayWeavingSegments;
andChapter13,FreewayMergeandDivergeSegments.
SCOPE OF THE METHODOLOGY
Becausethefreewayfacilitymethodologybuildsonthesegment
methodologiesofChapters11,12,and13,itincorporatesallaspectsofthose
chaptersmethodologies.Thismethodologyaddstheabilitytoconsidera
numberoflinkedsegmentsoveranumberoftimeperiodsandtodetermine
someoveralloperationalparametersthatallowfortheassessmentofafacility
LOSandcapacity.
ThismethodologyalsoaddstheabilitytoanalyzeoperationswhenLOSF
existsononeormoresegmentsofthedefinedfacility.InChapters11,12,and13,
theexistenceofabreakdown(LOSF)isidentifiedforagivensegment,as
appropriate.Thesegmentmethodologiesdonot,however,providetoolsfor
analyzingtheimpactsofsuchbreakdownsovertimeandspace.
Themethodologyanalyzesasetofconnectedsegmentsoverasetof
sequential15minperiods.Indecidingwhichsegmentsandtimeperiodsto
analyze,twoprinciplesshouldbeobserved:
1.
Thefirstandlastsegmentsofthedefinedfacilityshouldnotoperateat
LOSF.
2.
Thefirstandlasttimeperiodsoftheanalysisshouldnotincludeany
segmentsthatoperateatLOSF.
WhenthefirstsegmentoperatesatLOSF,thereisaqueueextending
upstreamthatisnotincludedinthefacilitydefinitionandthatthereforecannot
beanalyzed.WhenthelastsegmentoperatesatLOSF,theremaybea
downstreambottleneckoutsidethefacilitydefinition.Again,theimpactsofthis
congestioncannotbeevaluatedwhenitisnotfullycontainedwithinthedefined
facility.LOSFineitherthefirstorlasttimeperiodcreatessimilarproblemswith
regardtotime.IfthefirsttimeperiodisatLOSF,thenLOSFmayexistin
previoustimeperiodsaswell.IfthelasttimeperiodisatLOSF,subsequent
periodsmaybeatLOSFaswell.Theimpactsofabreakdowncannotbefully
analyzedunlessitisfullycontainedwithinthedefinedfacilityanddefinedtotal
analysisperiod.Thesameproblemswouldexistiftheanalysiswereconducted
byusingsimulation.
Thereisnolimittothenumberoftimeperiodsthatcanbeanalyzed.The
lengthofthefreewayshouldbelessthanthedistanceavehicletravelingatthe
averagespeedcanachievein15min.Thisspecificationgenerallyresultsina
maximumfacilitylengthbetween9and12mi.
ThismethodologyisbasedonresearchsponsoredbytheFederalHighway
Administration(1).
Methodology
Page 10-16

December 2010

LIMITATIONS OF THE METHODOLOGY
Themethodologyhasthefollowinglimitations:
1. Themethodologydoesnotaccountforthedelayscausedbyvehicles
usingalternativeroutesorvehiclesleavingbeforeoraftertheanalysis
period.
2. Multipleoverlappingbreakdownsorbottlenecksaredifficulttoanalyze
andcannotbefullyevaluatedbythismethodology.Othertoolsmaybe
moreappropriateforspecificapplicationsbeyondthecapabilitiesofthe
methodology.ConsultChapter6,HCMandAlternativeAnalysisTools,
foradiscussionofsimulationandothermodels.
3. Spatial,temporal,modal,andtotaldemandresponsestotraffic
managementstrategiesarenotautomaticallyincorporatedintothe
methodology.Onviewingthefacilitytrafficperformanceresults,the
analystcanmodifythedemandinputmanuallytoanalyzetheeffectof
userdemandresponsesandtrafficgrowth.Theaccuracyoftheresults
dependsontheaccuracyoftheestimationofuserdemandresponses.
4. Themethodologycanaddresslocaloversaturatedflowbutcannot
directlyaddresssystemwideoversaturationflowconditions.
5. Thecompletenessoftheanalysiswillbelimitediffreewaysegmentsin
thefirsttimeinterval,thelasttimeinterval,andthefirstfreewaysegment
(inalltimeperiods)havedemandtocapacityratiosgreaterthan1.00.The
rationalefortheselimitationsisdiscussedinthesectionondemandto
capacityratio.
6. TheexistenceofHOVlanesonfreewaysraisestheissuesoftheoperating
characteristicsofsuchlanesandtheireffectonoperatingcharacteristics
ontheremainderofthefreeway.Themethodologydoesnotdirectly
addressseparatedHOVfacilitiesanddoesnotaccountfortheinteractions
betweenHOVlanesandmixedflowlanesandtheweavingthatmaybe
produced.
7. Themethoddoesnotaddressconditionsinwhichofframpcapacity
limitationsresultinqueuesthatextendontothefreewayoraffectthe
behaviorofofframpvehicles.
8. Themethoddoesnotaddresstollplazaoperationsortheireffecton
freewayfacilityoperations.
Givenenoughtime,theanalystcananalyzeacompletelyundersaturated
timespacedomainmanually,althoughitisverydifficultandtimeconsuming.It
isnotexpectedthatanalystswillevermanuallyanalyzeatimespacedomain
thatincludesoversaturation.FREEVAL2010isacomputationalenginethatcan
beusedtoimplementthemethodology,regardlessofwhetherthetimespace
domaincontainsoversaturatedsegmentsandtimeperiods.Itisavailableinthe
TechnicalReferenceLibrarysectionofVolume4oftheHighwayCapacityManual
(HCM).

December 2010
Page 10-17
Methodology

Becausethischaptersmethodologyincorporatesthemethodologiesfor
basic,weaving,merging,anddivergingfreewaysegments,thelimitationsof
thoseproceduresalsoapplyhere.
Themethoddoesnotincludeanalysisofthestreetsideterminalsoffreeway
onandofframps.ThemethodologiesofChapters18,19,20,and21shouldbe
usedforintersectionsthataresignalized,twowaySTOPcontrolled,allwaySTOP
controlled,androundabouts,respectively.Chapter22,InterchangeRamp
Terminals,providesamorecomprehensiveanalysisoffreewayinterchanges
wherethestreetsiderampterminalsaresignalizedintersectionsorroundabouts.
OVERVIEW
Exhibit1010summarizesthemethodologyforanalyzingfreewayfacilities.
Themethodologyadjustsvehiclespeedsappropriatelytoaccountfortheeffects
inadjacentsegments.Themethodologycananalyzefreewaytrafficmanagement
strategiesonlyincasesforwhich15minintervalsareappropriateandforwhich
reliabledataforestimatedcapacityanddemandexist.
Exhibit 10-10
Freeway Facility
Methodology
Step 1: Input data

Demand
Geometry
Time-Space Domain
Step 2:
Adjust demand according to spatial
and time units established
Step 3:
Compute segment capacities
according to Chapter 11, 12, and 13
methodologies
Step 4: Adjust segment capacities
Step 5:
Compute demand-to-capacity ratios (vd/c)
All segments, on-ramps, and off-ramps
Undersaturated
Step 6A:
Compute undersaturated segment
service measures and other
performance measures
Assign segment levels of service
Oversaturated
Step 6B:
Compute oversaturated segment
service measures and other
performance measures
Assign segment levels of service
Step 7:
Compute freeway facility service
measures and other performance
measures
Assign appropriate level of service
Methodology
Page 10-18

December 2010

COMPUTATIONAL STEPS
Thepurposeofthissectionistodescribethemethodologyscomputational
modules.Tosimplifythepresentation,thefocusisonthefunctionof,and
rationalefor,eachmodule.Chapter25presentsanexpandedversionofthis
section,includingallthesupportinganalyticalmodelsandequations.
Step 1: Input Data
Dataconcerningdemand,geometry,andthetimespacedomainmustbe
specified.Asthemethodologybuildsonsegmentanalysis,alldataforeach
segmentandeachtimeperiodmustbeprovided,asindicatedinChapter11for
basicfreewaysegments,Chapter12forweavingsegments,andChapter13for
mergeanddivergesegments.
Demand
Demandflowratesmustbespecifiedforeachsegmentandtimeperiod.
Becauseanalysisofmultipletimeperiodsisbasedonconsecutive15min
periods,thedemandflowratesforeachperiodmustbeprovided.Thiscondition
isinadditiontotherequirementsforisolatedsegmentanalyses.
Demandflowratesmustbespecifiedfortheenteringfreewaymainlineflow
andforeachonrampandofframpwithinthedefinedfacility.Thefollowing
informationisneededforeachtimeperiodtodeterminethedemandflowrate:
Demandflowrate(veh/h),
Percenttrucks(%),
PercentRVs(%),and
Driverpopulationfactor(fp).
Forweavingsegments,demandflowratesmustbeidentifiedbycomponent
movement:freewaytofreeway,ramptofreeway,freewaytoramp,andrampto
ramp.Wherethislevelofdetailisnotavailable,thefollowingproceduremaybe
usedtoestimatethecomponentflows.Itisnotrecommended,however,as
weavingsegmentperformanceissensitivetothesplitofdemandflows.
Rampweavesegments:Assumethattheramptorampflowis0.Theramp
tofreewayflowisthenequaltotheonrampflow;thefreewaytoramp
flowisthenequaltotheofframpflow.
Majorweavesegments:Onrampflowisapportionedtothetwoexitlegs
(freewayandramp)inthesameproportionasthetotalflowontheexit
legs(freewayandramp).
Thedriverpopulationfactorisnormally1.00,unlessthedriverpopulationis
dominatedbyunfamiliarusers,inwhichcaseavaluebetween0.85and1.00is
assigned,onthebasisoflocalcharacteristicsandknowledge.

December 2010
Page 10-19
Methodology
Geometry
Allgeometricfeaturesforeachsegmentofthefacilitymustbespecified,
includingthefollowing:
Numberoflanes;
Averagelanewidth;
Rightsidelateralclearance;
Terrain;
Freeflowspeed;and
Locationofmerge,diverge,andweavingsegments,withallinternal
geometryspecified,includingthenumberoflanesonrampsandatramp
freewayjunctionsorwithinweavingsegments,lanewidths,existenceand
lengthofaccelerationordecelerationlanes,distancesbetweenmergeand
divergepoints,andthedetailsoflaneconfigurationwhererelevant.
Geometrydoesnotchangebytimeperiod,sothisinformationisgivenonly
once,regardlessofthenumberoftimeperiodsunderstudy.
TimeSpace Domain
Atimespacedomainfortheanalysismustbeestablished.Thedomain
consistsofaspecificationofthefreewaysectionsincludedinthedefinedfacility
andanidentificationofthetimeintervalsforwhichtheanalysisistobe
conducted.AtypicaltimespacedomainisshowninExhibit1011.
Exhibit 10-11
Example TimeSpace
Domain for Freeway Facility
Analysis
Section 1
Section 2
Section 3
Section 4
Section 5
Section 6
Section 7
Section 8
Time
Step
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Section
1
Section
2
Section
3
Section
4
Section
5
Section
6
Section
7
Section
8
Thehorizontalscaleindicatesthedistancealongthefreewayfacility.A
freewaysectionboundaryoccurswherethereisachangeindemandthatis,at
eachonramporofframporwherealaneisaddedordropped.Theseareasare
referredtoassections,becauseadjustmentswillbemadewithintheprocedureto
determinewheresegmentboundariesshouldbeforanalysis.Thisprocessrelies
ontheinfluenceareasofmerge,diverge,andweavingsegments,discussed
earlierinthischapter,andonvariablelengthlimitationsspecifiedinChapter12
forweavingsegmentsandinChapter13formergeanddivergesegments.
Methodology
Page 10-20

December 2010

Theverticalscaleindicatesthestudytimeduration.Timeextendsdownthe
timespacedomain,andthescaleisdividedinto15minintervals.Intheexample
shown,thereare8sectionsand8timesteps,yielding88=64timespacecells,
eachofwhichwillbeanalyzedwithinthemethodology.
Theboundaryconditionsofthetimespacedomainareextremelyimportant.
Thetimespacedomainwillbeanalyzedasanindependentfreewayfacility
havingnointeractionswithupstreamordownstreamportionsofthefreeway,or
anyconnectingfacilities,includingotherfreewaysandsurfacefacilities.
Therefore,nocongestionshouldoccuralongthefourboundariesofthetime
spacedomain.Thecellslocatedalongthefourboundariesshouldallhave
demandslessthancapacityandshouldcontainundersaturatedflowconditions.
Aproperanalysisofcongestionwithinthetimespacedomaincanoccuronlyif
thecongestionislimitedtointernalcellsnotalongthetimespaceboundaries.
Converting the Horizontal Scale from Sections to Analysis Segments

Thesectionsofthedefinedfreewayfacilityareestablishedbyusingpoints
wheredemandchangesorwherelanesareaddedorsubtracted.This,however,
doesnotfullydescribeindividualsegmentsforanalysiswithinthemethodology.
Theconversionfromsectionstoanalysissegmentscanbedonemanuallyby
applyingtheprinciplesdiscussedhere.
Chapter13,FreewayMergeandDivergeSegments,indicatesthateach
mergesegmentextendsfromthemergepointtoapoint1,500ftdownstreamof
it.Eachdivergesegmentextendsfromthedivergepointtoapoint1,500ft
upstreamofit.Thisallowsforanumberofscenariosaffectingthedefinitionof
analysissegmentswithinthedefinedfreeway.
ConsidertheillustrationofExhibit1012.Itshowsaonelaneonramp
followedbyaonelaneofframpwithnoauxiliarylanebetweenthem.The
illustrationassumesthattherearenoupstreamordownstreamrampsor
weavingsegmentsthatimpingeonthissection.
InExhibit1012(a),thereare4,000ftbetweenthetworamps.Therefore,the
mergesegmentextends1,500ftdownstream,andthedivergesegmentextends
1,500ftupstream,whichleavesa1,000ftbasicfreewaysegmentbetweenthem.
InExhibit1012(b),thereare3,000ftbetweenthetworamps.Thetwo1,500ft
rampinfluenceareasdefinetheentirelength.Therefore,thereisnobasicfreeway
segmentbetweenthemergeanddivergesegments.
InExhibit1012(c),thesituationismorecomplicated.Withonly2,000ft
betweentheramps,themergeanddivergeinfluenceareasoverlapforadistance
of1,000ft.

December 2010
Page 10-21
Methodology

Exhibit 10-12
Defining Analysis Segments
for a Ramp Configuration
Length, L = 4,000 ft
Basic
1,500 ft
1,000 ft
1,500 ft
Diverge
Basic
Merge
Basic
Basic
(a) Length between ramps = 4,000 ft
1,500 ft
1,500 ft
Basic
Diverge
Merge
(b) Length between ramps = 3,000 ft
Basic
500 ft
Merge
1,000 ft
Merge/Diverge
Overlap
500 ft
Diverge
Basic
(c) Length between ramps = 2,000 ft
Chapter13,FreewayMergeandDivergeSegments,coversthissituation.
Whererampinfluenceareasoverlap,theanalysisisconductedforeachramp
separately.TheanalysisproducingtheworstLOS(orservicemeasurevalueif
theLOSisequivalent)isusedtodefineoperationsintheoverlaparea.
Thefacilitymethodologygoesthroughthelogicofdistancesandsegment
definitionstoconvertsectionboundariestosegmentboundariesforanalysis.If
thedistancebetweenanonrampandofframpislessthanthefullinfluencearea
of1,500ft,theworstcaseisappliedtothedistancebetweentheramps,while
basicsegmentcriteriaareappliedtosegmentsupstreamoftheonrampand
downstreamoftheofframp.
Asimilarsituationcanarisewhereweavingconfigurationsexist.Exhibit10
13illustratesaweavingconfigurationwithinadefinedfreewayfacility.Inthis
case,thedistancebetweenthemergeanddivergeendsoftheconfigurationmust
becomparedwiththemaximumlengthofaweavingsegment,LwMAX.Ifthe
distancebetweenthemergeanddivergepointsislessthanorequaltoLwMAX,
thentheentiresegmentisanalyzedasaweavingsegment,asshowninExhibit
1013(a).
Methodology
Page 10-22

December 2010

Exhibit 10-13
Defining Analysis Segments for a
Weaving Configuration
LS = Short Length, ft
500 ft
500 ft
LB = Base Length, ft
LWI = Weaving Influence Area, ft
(a) Case I: LB LwMAX (weaving segment exists)
1,500 ft
Merge
3,000 ft
Basic
1,500 ft
Diverge
(b) Case II: LB > LwMAX (isolated merge and diverge exists)
Threelengthsareinvolvedinanalyzingaweavingsegment:
Thebaselengthofthesegment,measuredfromthepointswherethe
edgesofthetravellanesofthemerginganddivergingroadways
converge(LB);
B
Theinfluenceareaoftheweavingsegment(LWI),whichincludes500ft
upstreamanddownstreamofLB;and
B
Theshortlengthofthesegment,definedasthedistanceoverwhichlane
changingisnotprohibitedordissuadedbymarkings(LS).
Thelatteristhelengththatisusedinallthepredictivemodelsforweaving
segmentanalysis.Theresultsofthesemodels,however,applytoadistanceofLB
+500ftupstreamandLB+500ftdownstream.Forfurtherdiscussionofthe
variouslengthsappliedtoweavingsegments,consultChapter12.
B
IfthedistancebetweenthemergeanddivergepointsisgreaterthanLwMAX,
thenthemergeanddivergesegmentsaretoofaraparttoformaweaving
segment.AsshowninExhibit1013(b),themergeanddivergesegmentsare
treatedseparately,andanydistanceremainingbetweenthemergeanddiverge
influenceareasistreatedasabasicfreewaysegment.
IntheChapter12weavingmethodology,thevalueofLwMAXdependsona
numberoffactors,includingthesplitofcomponentflows,demandflows,and
othertrafficfactors.Aweavingconfigurationcouldthereforequalifyasa
weavingsegmentinsomeanalysisperiodsandasseparatemerge,diverge,and
possiblybasicsegmentsinothers.
Insegmentingthefreewayfacilityforanalysis,merge,diverge,andweaving
segmentsareidentifiedasillustratedinExhibit1012andExhibit1013.All
segmentsnotqualifyingasmerge,diverge,orweavingsegmentsarebasic
freewaysegments.

December 2010
Page 10-23
Methodology

However,alongbasicfreewaysectionmayhavetobedividedintomultiple
segments.Thissituationoccurswhenthereisasharpbreakinterrainwithinthe
section.Forexample,a5misectionmayhaveaconstantdemandandaconstant
numberoflanes.Ifthereisa2milevelterrainportionfollowedbya4%grade
thatis3milong,thenthelevelterrainportionandthespecificgradeportion
wouldbeestablishedastwoseparate,consecutivebasicfreewaysegments.
Step 2: Adjust Demand According to Spatial and Time Units Established
Trafficcountstakenateachentrancetoandexitfromthedefinedfreeway
facility(includingthemainlineentranceandmainlineexit)foreachtimeinterval
serveasinputstothemethodology.Whileentrancecountsareconsideredto
representthecurrententrancedemandsforthefreewayfacility(providedthat
thereisnotaqueueonthefreewayentrance),theexitcountsmaynotrepresent
thecurrentexitdemandsforthefreewayfacilitybecauseofcongestionwithin
thedefinedfacility.
Forplanningapplications,estimatedtrafficdemandsateachentrancetoand
exitfromthefreewayfacilityforeachtimeintervalserveasinputtothe
methodology.Thesumoftheinputdemandsmustequalthesumoftheoutput
demandsineverytimeinterval.
Oncetheentranceandexitdemandsarecalculated,thedemandsforeach
cellineverytimeintervalcanbeestimated.Thesegmentdemandscanbe
thoughtofasfilteringacrossthetimespacedomainandfillingeachcellofthe
timespacematrix.
Demandestimationisneededifthemethodologyusesactualfreeway
counts.Ifdemandflowsareknownorcanbeprojected,theyareuseddirectly
withoutmodification.
Themethodologyincludesademandestimationmodelthatconvertsthe
inputsetoffreewayexit15mincountstoasetofvehicleflowsthatdesiretoexit
thefreewayinagiven15minperiod.Thisdemandmaynotbethesameasthe
15minexitcountbecauseofupstreamcongestionwithinthedefinedfreeway
facility.
Theproceduresumsthefreewayentrancedemandsalongtheentire
directionalfreewayfacility,includingtheenteringmainlinesegment,and
comparesthissumwiththesumoffreewayexitcountsalongthedirectional
freewayfacility,includingthedepartingmainlinesegment.Thisprocedureis
repeatedforeachtimeinterval.Theratioofthetotalfacilityentrancecountsto
totalfacilityexitcountsiscalledthetimeintervalscalefactorandshouldapproach
1.00whenthefreewayexitcountsare,infact,freewayexitdemands.
Scalefactorsgreaterthan1.00indicateincreasinglevelsofcongestionwithin
thefreewayfacility,withexitcountsunderestimatingtheactualfreewayexit
demands.Toprovideanestimateoffreewayexitdemand,eachfreewayexit
countismultipliedbythetimeintervalscalefactor.
Equation106andEquation107summarizethisprocess.
Methodology
Page 10-24

December 2010
ON15ij
fTISi =
Equation 10-6
OFF15ij
VdOFF15ij = VOFF15ij fTISi
Equation 10-7
where
fTISi = timeintervalscalefactorfortimeperiodi,
VON15ij = 15minenteringcountfortimeperiodiandenteringlocationj(veh),
VOFF15ij = 15minexitcountfortimeperiodiandexitinglocationj(veh),and
VdOFF15ij = adjusted15minexitdemandfortimeperiodiandexitinglocationj
(veh).
Oncetheentranceandexitdemandsaredetermined,thetrafficdemandsfor
eachsectionandeachtimeperiodcanbecalculated.Onthetimespacedomain,
sectiondemandscanbeviewedasprojectinghorizontallyacrossExhibit1011,
witheachcellcontaininganestimateofits15mindemand.
Becauseeachtimeperiodisseparatelybalanced,itisadvisabletolimitthe
totallengthofthedefinedfacilitytoadistancethatcanbetraversedwithin15
min.Inpracticalterms,thispracticelimitsthelengthofthefacilityto9to12mi.
Step 3: Compute Segment Capacities According to Chapter 11, 12, and
13 Methodologies
SegmentcapacityestimatesaredeterminedbythemethodologiesofChapter
11forbasicfreewaysegments,Chapter12forweavingsegments,andChapter13
formergeanddivergesegments.Allestimatesofsegmentcapacityshouldbe
carefullyreviewedandcomparedwithlocalknowledgeandavailabletraffic
informationforthestudysite,particularlywhereknownbottlenecksexist.
Onrampandofframproadwaycapacitiesarealsodeterminedinthisstep
withtheChapter13methodology.Onrampdemandsmayexceedonramp
capacitiesandlimitthetrafficdemandenteringthefacility.Offrampdemands
mayexceedofframpcapacitiesandcausecongestiononthefreeway,although
thatimpactisnotaccountedforinthismethodology.
Allcapacityresultsarestatedinvehiclesperhourunderprevailingroadway
andtrafficconditions.
Theeffectofapredeterminedrampmeteringplancanbeevaluatedinthis
methodologybyoverridingthecomputedramproadwaycapacities.The
capacityofeachentrancerampineachtimeintervalischangedtoreflectthe
specifiedrampmeteringrate.Thisfeaturenotonlyallowsforevaluatinga
prescribedrampmeteringplanbutalsopermitstheusertoimprovetheramp
meteringplanthroughexperimentation.
Freewaydesignimprovementscanbeevaluatedwiththismethodologyby
modifyingthedesignfeaturesofanyportionofthefreewayfacility.Forexample,
theeffectsofaddingauxiliarylanesatcriticallocationsandfulllanesover
multiplesegmentscanbeassessed.

December 2010
Page 10-25
Methodology

Step 4: Adjust Segment Capacities
Segmentcapacitiescanbeaffectedbyanumberofconditionsnotnormally
accountedforinthesegmentmethodologiesofChapters11,12,and13.These
reductionsincludetheeffectsofshorttermandlongtermlaneclosuresfor
constructionormajormaintenanceoperations,theeffectsofadverseweather
conditions,andtheeffectsofotherenvironmentalfactors.
Atlanedrops,permanentreductionsincapacityoccur.Theyareincludedin
thebasemethodology,whichautomaticallyaccountsforthecapacityof
segmentsonthebasisofthenumberoflanesinthesegmentandotherprevailing
conditions.
Capacity Reductions due to Construction and Major Maintenance Operations

Capacityreductionsduetoconstructionactivitiescanbedividedintoshort
termworkzonelaneclosures,typicallyformaintenance,andlongtermlane
closures,typicallyforconstruction.Aprimarydistinctionbetweenshortterm
workzonesandlongtermconstructionzonesisthenatureofthebarriersusedto
demarcatetheworkarea.Longtermconstructionzonesgenerallyuseportable
concretebarriers,whileshorttermworkzonesusestandardchannelingdevices
(e.g.,trafficcones,drums)inaccordancewiththeManualonUniformTraffic
ControlDevicesforStreetsandHighways(2).Capacityreductionsduetolongterm
constructionormajormaintenanceoperationsgenerallylastseveralweeks,
months,orevenyears,dependingonthenatureofthework.Shorttermclosures
generallylastafewhours.
Short-Term Work Zones

Research(3)suggeststhatacapacityof1,600pc/h/lnbeusedforshortterm
freewayworkzones,regardlessofthelaneclosureconfiguration.However,for
sometypesofclosures,ahighervaluecouldbeappropriate.
Thisbasevalueshouldbeadjustedforotherconditions,asfollows:
1. Intensityofworkactivity:Theintensityofworkactivityreferstothe
numberofworkersonthesite,thenumberandsizeofworkvehiclesin
use,andtheproximityoftheworkactivitytothetravellanes.Unusual
typesofworkalsocontributetointensityintermsofrubberneckingby
driverspassingthroughthesite.Research(3)suggeststhatthebasevalue
of1,600pc/h/lnbeadjustedbyasmuchas10%forworkactivitythatis
moreorlessintensivethannormal.Itdoesnot,however,definewhat
constitutesnormalintensity,sothisfactorshouldbeappliedonthe
basisofprofessionaljudgmentandlocalexperience.
6. Effectsofheavyvehicles:Becausethebasevalueisgivenintermsofpc/h/ln,
itisrecommendedthattheheavyvehicleadjustmentfactor(fHV)be
applied.Acompletediscussionoftheheavyvehicleadjustmentfactor
anditsdeterminationareincludedinChapter11,BasicFreeway
Segments.Equation108showshowthefactorisdetermined.
Methodology
Page 10-26

December 2010
f HV =
1 + PT (ET 1) + PR (ER 1)
Equation 10-8
where
fHV = heavyvehicleadjustmentfactor,
PT = proportionoftrucksandbusesinthetrafficstream,
PR = proportionofRVsinthetrafficstream,
ET = passengercarequivalentfortrucksandbuses,and
ER = passengercarequivalentforRVs.
PassengercarequivalentsfortrucksandbusesandforRVsmaybefound
inChapter11,BasicFreewaySegments.
7. Presenceoframps:Ifthereisanentrancerampwithinthetaperarea
approachingthelaneclosureorwithin500ftdownstreamofthe
beginningofthefulllaneclosure,therampwillhaveanoticeableeffect
onthecapacityoftheworkzoneforhandlingmainlinetraffic.This
situationarisesintwoways:(a)theramptrafficgenerallyforcesitsway
in,soitdirectlyreducestheamountofmainlinetrafficthatcanbe
handled,and(b)theaddedturbulenceinthemergeareamayslightly
reducecapacity(eventhoughsuchturbulencedoesnotreducecapacityon
anormalfreewaysegmentwithoutlaneclosures).Ifatallpossible,on
rampsshouldbelocatedatleast1,500ftupstreamofthebeginningofthe
fulllaneclosuretomaximizethetotalworkzonethroughput.Ifthat
cannotbedone,theneithertherampvolumeshouldbeaddedtothe
mainlinevolumetobeservedorthecapacityoftheworkzoneshouldbe
decreasedbytherampvolume(uptoamaximumofonehalfofthe
capacityofonelane)ontheassumptionthat,atveryhighvolumes,
mainlineandrampvehicleswillalternate.
Equation109isusedtoestimatetheresultingreducedcapacityinvehicles
perhour.
ca = {[(1,600 + I ) f HV ] N} R
Equation 10-9
where
ca = adjustedmainlinecapacity(veh/h);
I = adjustmentfactorfortype,intensity,andproximityofworkactivity,
pc/h/ln(rangesbetween160pc/h/ln);
fHV = heavyvehicleadjustmentfactor;
N = numberoflanesopenthroughtheworkzone;and
R = manualadjustmentforonramps(veh/h).

December 2010
Page 10-27
Methodology
Long-Term Construction Zones

Therehavebeenmanystudiesoflongtermconstructionzonecapacities.
TheyaresummarizedinExhibit1014.
Exhibit 10-14
Capacity of Long-Term
Construction Zones
(veh/h/ln)
State
TX
NC
CT
MO
NV
OR
SC
WA
WI
FL
VA
IA
MA
Default
2 to 1
1,340
1,690
1,5001,800
1,240
1,3751,400
1,4001,600
950
1,350
1,5601,900
1,800
1,300
1,4001,600
1,340
1,400
Normal Lanes to Reduced Lanes

3 to 1
4 to 3
4 to 2
1,170
1,640
1,5001,800
1,430
960
1,480
1,420
1,3751,400
1,4001,600
950
1,450
1,6002,000
1,8002,100
1,800
1,300
1,300
1,300
1,300
1,4001,600 1,4001,600 1,4001,600 1,4001,600
1,490
1,170
1,520
1,480
1,450
1,450
1,500
1,450
3 to 2
4 to 1
1,300
1,4001,600
1,170
1,350
Source
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(6)
(6)
(6)
(6)
(6, 8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
(12)
Source: Adapted from Chatterjee et al. (13).
ItiseasytoseefromExhibit1014thatcapacitiesthroughlongterm
constructionzonesarehighlyvariableanddependonmanysitespecific
characteristics.Therefore,itisbettertobasethisadjustmentonlocaldataand
experience.Ifsuchdatadonotexistandcannotbereasonablyacquired,the
defaultvaluesofExhibit1014maybeusedtoprovideanapproximateestimate
ofconstructionzonecapacity.
Lane-Width Consideration
Theimpactoflanewidthongeneralfreewayoperationsisincorporatedinto
themethodologyofChapter11,BasicFreewaySegments,fordeterminingfree
flowspeed.Asfreeflowspeedaffectscapacity,itfollowsthatrestrictedlane
widthswillnegativelyaffectcapacity.
Asfreeflowspeedsarenotestimatedspecificallyforworkorconstruction
zones,itisappropriatetoaddanadjustmentfactorfortheeffectoflanewidths
narrowerthan12ftinaworkorconstructionzone.ThefactorfLWwouldbe
addedtoEquation109,asshowninEquation1010:
ca = ca f LW
Equation 10-10
wherecaistheadjustedcapacityoftheworkorconstructionzonereflectingthe
impactofrestrictedlanewidth,invehiclesperhour,andallothervariablesare
aspreviouslydefined.
ThevalueoftheadjustmentfactorfLWis1.00for12ftlanes,0.91forlanes
between10.0and11.9ft,and0.86forlanesbetween9.0and9.9ft.Iflanes
narrowerthan9.0ftareinuse,localobservationsshouldbemadetocalibratean
appropriateadjustment.
Methodology
Page 10-28

December 2010
Capacity Reductions due to Weather and Environmental Conditions

Anumberofstudieshaveattemptedtoaddresstheimpactsofadverse
weatherandenvironmentalconditionsonthecapacityoffreeways.
ComprehensiveresultsforarangeofconditionsinIowa,summarizedinExhibit
1015,areprovidedelsewhere(14).
Type of
Condition
Rain
Snow
Temperature
Wind
Visibility
Intensity of
Condition
>0 0.10 in./h
>0.10 0.25 in./h
>0.25 in./h
>0 0.05 in./h
>0.05 0.10 in./h
>0.10 0.50 in./h
>0.50 in./h
<50oF 34oF
<34oF 4oF
<4oF
>10 20 mi/h
>20 mi/h
<1 0.50 mi
<0.50 0.25 mi
<0.25 mi
Percent Reduction in Capacity

Average
Range
2.01
1.173.43
7.24
5.6710.10
14.13
10.7217.67
4.29
3.445.51
8.66
5.4811.53
11.04
7.4513.35
22.43
19.5327.82
1.07
1.061.08
1.50
1.481.52
8.45
6.6210.27
1.07
0.731.41
1.47
0.742.19
9.67
One site
11.67
One site
10.49
One site
Exhibit 10-15
Capacity Reductions due to
Weather and Environmental
Conditions in Iowa
Source: Adapted from Agarwal et al. (14).
Additionalinformationisavailableintheliterature.Additionaldataand
informationontheimpactsofrainonfreewaycapacityareprovidedelsewhere
(15,16),asareinformationontheeffectsofsnow(16)andinsightsand
informationontheeffectsoffog(17,18).
AstudyofcapacityonGermanautobahnsprovidesdataonthedifference
betweendaytimeandnighttimeconditionsonwetordrypavements(19).Exhibit
1016summarizestheseresults.
Freeway
Lanes
Weekday or
Weekend
Daylight
Dry
Dark
Dry
Daylight
Wet
Dark
Wet
Weekday
(% change*)
1,489
1,299
(13%)
1,310
(12%)
923
(38%)
Weekend
(% change*)
1,380
1,084
(21%)
1,014
(27%)
Weekday
(% change*)
1,739
1,415
(19%)
1,421
(18%)
913
(47%)
Weekend
(% change*)
1,551
1,158
(25%)
1,104
(29%)
Exhibit 10-16
Capacities on German Autobahns
Under Various Conditions
(veh/h/ln)
Note: *Percent change from daylight, dry conditions for the same day of week.
Source: Adapted from Brilon and Ponzlet (19).
Thisexhibitisinterestinginthatthedaylight,drycapacitiesofGerman
autobahnsaresomewhatlessthanmightbeexpectedonU.S.freeways.This
situationcouldbeduetothehigherspeedsthatprevailontheautobahnsand
heavyvehiclepresence,whicharenotreflectedintheseveh/h/lnstatistics.
ThedaylightwetversusdrycapacityreductionsaregreaterinExhibit1016
thanthoseshowninExhibit1015,whichmayagainbeareflectionofdifferent
driverbehaviorcharacteristicsinGermanyandtheUnitedStates.Darknessalone
hasasignificantimpactonautobahncapacities.Sincewinterpeakhoursoccur
December 2010
Page 10-29
Methodology

whenitisdarkinmanyareasofthecountry,suchreductionsareimportantto
recognize.
Thedifferencebetweenweekdayandweekendcapacitiesisalsointeresting
andisontheorderof7%to10%inExhibit1016.Thisimpactisgenerally
reflectedintheuseofadriverpopulationfactorfp(seeChapter11).Weekend
drivingpopulationsmaynotbeasfamiliarwiththefacilityasweekday
commuters.Evenfamiliarusersmaynotdriveasaggressivelyonweekend
recreationalorothertripswhenthepressureofaspecificschedulemaybeless
thanispresentduringtheweek.
Capacity Reductions due to Traffic Accidents or Vehicular Breakdowns

Capacityreductionsduetotrafficaccidentsorotherincidentsaregenerally
shortlived,rangingfromlessthan1hbeforetheycanbeclearedtoaslongas
12hforanaccidentinvolvingsevereinjuries,fatalities,hazardousmaterials
cleanup,orcleanupofothermaterialsfromvehiclesinvolvedinaccidents.
Onestudy(20)reportedthemeandurationofatrafficincidenttobe37min,
withmorethanhalftheincidentslasting30minorlessand82%lastinglessthan
1h.
Exhibit1017summarizestheresultsoftwostudies(21,22)onthecapacity
impactsoflaneblockagesduetoincidents,includingaccidents.Anincidents
effectoncapacitydependsontheproportionofthetraveledroadwaythatis
blockedandonthenumberoflanesonthefreewayatthatpoint.
Exhibit 10-17
Proportion of Freeway
Segment Capacity Available
Under Incident Conditions
Number of
Lanes
(One
Direction)
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Shoulder
Disablement
0.95
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.99
Shoulder
Accident
0.81
0.83
0.85
0.87
0.89
0.91
0.93
One Lane
Blocked
0.35
0.49
0.58
0.65
0.71
0.75
0.78
Two Lanes
Blocked
0.00
0.17
0.25
0.40
0.50
0.57
0.63
Three Lanes
Blocked
N/A
0.00
0.13
0.20
0.26
0.36
0.41
Inablockedlane,thelossofcapacityislikelytobegreaterthanthe
proportionoftheroadwaythatisblocked.Aonelaneblockageonatwolane
directionalfreewaysegment(50%oftheroadwayblocked)reducescapacityto
35%oftheoriginalvalue,forexample.Theaddedlossofcapacityarisesbecause
driversslowtolookattheincidentwhiletheyareabreastofitandareslowto
reacttothepossibilityofspeedinguptomovethroughtheincidentarea.
Therubberneckingfactorisalsoresponsibleforareductionincapacityin
thedirectionoftraveloppositetothatinwhichtheaccidentorincidentoccurred.
Whilenoquantitativestudiesofthisimpacthavebeenconducted,experience
suggeststhattheseverityoftheaccidentorincidentplaysasignificantroleinthe
impactofrubbernecking.Thereductionincapacitymayrangefrom5%fora
singlevehicleaccidentwithoneemergencyvehiclepresenttoashighas25%for
amultivehicleaccidentwithseveralemergencyvehicles.
Methodology
Page 10-30

December 2010
Applying Capacity Reductions

Thereareseveralwaystousetheinformationonreducedcapacities
discussedinthissection.
Quickapproximationssimplyrequirethatthecapacityofeachfreeway
facilitysegment(asestimatedbyusingthemethodologiesofChapters11,12,and
13)bereducedbyalltheimpactsofworkzones,weather,environment,and
accidentsorincidentsthatarepresent,inaccordwiththeinformationprovided
here.Themethodologycontinuesusingthesereducedcapacities.
Ifspeedinformationisavailable,thenthefreeflowspeedthroughthe
restrictedcapacityareacanbeusedtoselectanappropriatespeedflowcurvefor
analysis(fromChapter11).Thereducedfreeflowspeedresultsinareduced
capacity.AnexampleofthisapproachisillustratedinExhibit1018,whichis
basedonspeeddatapresentedelsewhere(16,19).
Exhibit 10-18
Illustration of SpeedFlow Curves
for Different Weather Conditions
Note:
Free-flow speed = 75 mi/h (base conditions).
Formosttemporarycapacityreductions,theonlyinformationavailable
relatestocapacity.Inmostofthesecases,speedconditionscanbereasonably
estimated.Forexample,inconstructionzones,areducedspeedlimitisusually
posted,andlowerspeedscanbeexpectedtooccur,particularlywhenactual
constructionoperationsaretakingplace.Likewise,forincidents,trafficnaturally
slowsasdriverspasstheincidentsite,whererubberneckingtakesplace.Exhibit
1019showsanexampleofmodelingsuchcasesonthebasisofadownward
shiftedspeedflowcurve.

December 2010
Page 10-31
Methodology

Exhibit 10-19
Illustration of Adjusted
SpeedFlow Curves for
Indicated Capacity
Reductions
Note:
Free-flow speed = 75 mi/h (base conditions); CAF = capacity adjustment factor (proportion of available
capacity).
Iftheanalysthasnointerestinspeeds,thecapacityreductioncouldbe
modeledbyusingafractionalnumberoflanesthatwouldreflectthenew
capacityoftheroadwayratherthantheactualnumberoflanespresent.For
example,inthecaseofafourlanedirectionalfreewaysegmentwithtwolanes
blocked,Exhibit1017indicatesthatonly25%ofcapacitywouldbeavailable.
Thissegmentcouldbemodeledasifonlyonelanewereavailablethroughthe
incident(eventhoughtwoareactuallyinuse).
Someoftheperformancemeasuresthatresultfromthismethodology,
however,relyonspeed.Asimpleapproachthatdoesnotdealwithspeed
consequenceswouldresultinanincompleteanalysis.Consequently,an
approachthatusesmodifiedspeedflowcurves,asillustratedhere,is
recommended.
Step 5: Compute Demand-to-Capacity Ratios
Eachcellofthetimespacedomainnowcontainsanestimateofdemandand
capacity.Ademandtocapacityratiocanbecalculatedforeachcell.Thecell
valuesmustbecarefullyreviewedtodeterminewhetherallboundarycellshave
vd/cratiosof1.00orlessandtodeterminewhetheranycellsintheinteriorofthe
timespacedomainhavevd/cvaluesgreaterthan1.00.
Ifanyboundarycellshaveavd/cratiogreaterthan1.00,furtheranalysismay
besignificantlyflawed:
1. Ifanycellinthefirsttimeintervalhasavd/cratiogreaterthan1.00,there
mayhavebeenoversaturatedconditionsinearliertimeintervalswithout
transferofunsatisfieddemandintothetimespacedomainofthe
analysis.
2. Ifanycellinthelasttimeintervalhasavd/cratiogreaterthan1.00,the
analysiswillbeincompletebecausetheunsatisfieddemandinthelast
timeintervalcannotbetransferredtolatertimeintervals.
3. Ifanycellinthelastdownstreamsegmenthasavd/cratiogreaterthan
1.00,theremaybedownstreambottlenecksthatshouldbecheckedbefore
Methodology
Page 10-32

December 2010

proceedingwiththeanalysis.Ifanycellinthefirstsegmenthasavd/c
ratiogreaterthan1.00,thenoversaturationwillextendupstreamofthe
definedfreewayfacility,butitseffectswillnotbeanalyzedwithinthe
timespacedomain.
Thesechecksdonotguaranteethattheboundarycellswillnotshowvd/c
ratiosgreaterthan1.00laterintheanalysis.Iftheseinitialchecksreveal
boundarycellswithvd/cratiosgreaterthan1.00,thenthetimespacedomainof
theanalysisshouldbeadjustedtoeliminatetheproblem.
Astheanalysisofthetimespacedomainproceeds,subsequentdemand
shiftsmaycausesomeboundarycellvd/cratiostoexceed1.00.Inthesecases,the
problemshouldbereformulatedoralternativetoolsapplied.Mostalternative
toolswillhavethesameproblemiftheboundaryconditionsexperience
congestion.
Anotherimportantcheckistoobservewhetheranycellintheinteriorofthe
timespacedomainhasavd/cratiogreaterthan1.00.Therearetwopossible
outcomes:
1. Ifallcellshavevd/cratiosof1.00orless,thentheentiretimespace
domaincontainsundersaturatedflow,andtheanalysisisgreatly
simplified.
2. Ifanycellinthetimespacedomainhasavd/cratiogreaterthan1.00,then
thetimespacedomainwillcontainbothundersaturatedand
oversaturatedcells.Analysisofoversaturatedconditionsismuchmore
complexbecauseoftheinteractionsbetweenfreewaysegmentsandthe
shiftingofdemandinbothtimeandspace.
IfCase1exists,theanalysismovestoStep6A.IfCase2exists,theanalysis
movestoStep6B.
Thevd/c ratioforallonrampsandofframpsshouldalsobeexamined.Ifan
onrampdemandexceedstheonrampcapacity,therampdemandflowrates
shouldbeadjustedtoreflectcapacity.Offrampsgenerallyfailbecauseof
deficienciesattherampstreetjunction.Theymaybeanalyzedbyproceduresin
Chapters1822,dependingonthetypeoftrafficcontrolusedattherampstreet
junction.Thesechecksaredonemanually,andinputstothismethodologymust
berevisedaccordingly.
Steps 6A and 6B: Compute Undersaturated (6A)/Oversaturated (6B)
Service Measures and Other Performance Measures
Theanalysisbeginsinthefirstcellintheupperleftcornerofthetimespace
domain(thefirstsegmentinthefirsttimeinterval)andcontinuesdownstream
alongthefreewayfacilityforeachsegmentinthefirsttimeinterval.Theanalysis
thenreturnstothefirstupstreamsegmentinthesecondtimeintervaland
continuesdownstreamalongthefreewayforeachsegmentinthesecondtime
interval.Thisprocesscontinuesuntilallcellsinthetimespacedomainhave
beenanalyzed.
Aseachcellisanalyzedinturn,itsvd/cratioischecked.Ifthevd/cratiois1.00
orless,thecellisnotabottleneckandisabletohandlealltrafficdemandthat
December 2010
Page 10-33
Methodology

wishestoenter.Theprocessiscontinuedintheordernotedintheprevious
paragraphuntilacellwithavd/cratiogreaterthan1.00isencountered.Sucha
cellislabeledasabottleneck.Becauseitcannothandleaflowgreaterthanits
capacity,thefollowingimpactswilloccur:
1. Thevd/cratioofthebottleneckcellwillbeexactly1.00,asthecell
processesaflowrateequaltoitscapacity.
2. Flowratesforallcellsdownstreamofthebottleneckmustbeadjusted
downwardtoreflectthefactthatnotallthedemandflowatthe
bottleneckgetsthrough.Downstreamcellsaresubjecttodemand
starvationduetothebottleneck.
3. Theunsatisfieddemandatthebottleneckcellmustbestoredinthe
upstreamsegments.Flowconditionsandperformancemeasuresinthese
upstreamcellsareaffected.Shockwaveanalysisisappliedtoestimate
theseimpacts.
4. Theunsatisfieddemandstoredupstreamofthebottleneckcellmustbe
transferredtothenexttimeinterval.Thistransferisaccomplishedby
addingtheunsatisfieddemandbydesireddestinationtotheorigin
destinationtableofthenexttimeinterval.
Thisfourstepprocessisimplementedforeachbottleneckencountered,
followingthespecifiedsequenceofcellanalysis.Ifnobottlenecksareidentified,
theentiredomainisundersaturated,andthesequenceofstepsforoversaturated
conditionsisnotapplied.
Ifabottleneckissevere,thestorageofunsatisfieddemandmayextend
beyondtheupstreamboundaryofthefreewayfacilityorbeyondthelasttime
intervalofthetimespacedomain.Insuchcases,theanalysiswillbeflawed,and
thetimespacedomainshouldbereconstituted.
Afteralldemandshifts(inthecaseofoneormoreoversaturatedcells)are
estimated,eachcellisanalyzedbythemethodologiesofChapter11,Basic
FreewaySegments;Chapter12,FreewayWeavingSegments;andChapter13,
FreewayMergeandDivergeSegments.Facilityserviceandperformance
measuresmaythenbeestimated.
Undersaturated Conditions
Forundersaturatedconditions,theprocessisstraightforward.Becausethere
arenocellswithvd/cratiosgreaterthan1.00,theflowrateineachcell,va,isequal
tothedemandflowrate,vd.Eachsegmentanalysisusingthemethodologiesof
Chapters11,12,and13willresultinestimatingadensityDandaspacemean
speedS.
Whentheanalysismovesfromisolatedsegmentstoasystem,additional
constraintsmaybenecessary.Amaximumachievablespeedconstraintis
imposedtolimitthepredictionofspeedsinsegmentsdownstreamofasegment
experiencinglowspeeds.Thisconstraintpreventslargespeedfluctuationsfrom
segmenttosegmentwhenthesegmentmethodologiesaredirectlyapplied.This
processresultsinsomechangesinthespeedsanddensitiespredictedbythe
segmentmethodologies.
Methodology
Page 10-34

December 2010

Foreachtimeinterval,Equation102isusedtoestimatetheaveragedensity
forthedefinedfreewayfacility.Thisresultiscomparedwiththecriteriaof
Exhibit107todeterminethefacilityLOSforthetimeperiod.Eachtimeperiod
willhaveaseparateLOS.AlthoughLOSisnotaveragedovertimeintervals,if
desired,densitycanbeaveragedovertimeintervals.
Oversaturated Conditions
Onceoversaturationisencountered,themethodologychangesitstemporal
andspatialunitsofanalysis.Thespatialunitsbecomenodesandsegments,and
thetemporalunitmovesfromatimeintervalof15mintosmallertimeperiods,
asrecommendedinChapter25,FreewayFacilities:Supplemental.
Exhibit1020illustratesthenodesegmentconcept.Anodeisdefinedasthe
junctionoftwosegments.Giventhatthereisanodeatthebeginningandendof
thefreewayfacility,therewillalwaysbeonemorenodethanthenumberof
segmentsonthefacility.
Seg. 2
Seg. 1
N1
Seg. 3
N4
N3
N2
Seg. 6
Seg. 5
Seg. 4
N7
N6
N5
Ramp 2
Ramp 1
Exhibit 10-20
NodeSegment Representation of a
Freeway Facility
Thenumberingofnodesandsegmentsbeginsattheupstreamendofthe
definedfreewayfacilityandmovestothedownstreamend.Thesegment
upstreamofnodeiisnumberedi1,andthedownstreamsegmentisnumbered
i,asshowninExhibit1021.
Seg. i - 1
Node i
Seg. i
MF
ONRF
SF (i - 1) =
MF (i)
Note:
Seg. i - 1
Node i
Exhibit 10-21
Mainline and Segment Flow at Onand Off-Ramps
Seg. i
MF
OFRF
SF (i - 1) =
MF (i) + OFRF (i)
SF = segment flow, MF = mainline flow, ONRF = on-ramp flow, and OFRF = off-ramp flow.
Theoversaturatedanalysismovesfromthefirstnodetoeachdownstream
nodeforatimestep.Aftertheanalysisforthefirsttimestepiscomplete,the
samenodalanalysisisperformedforeachsubsequenttimestep.
Whenoversaturatedconditionsexist,manyflowvariablesmustbeadjusted
toreflecttheupstreamanddownstreameffectsofbottlenecks.Theseadjustments
areexplainedingeneraltermsinthesectionsthatfollowandarefullydetailedin
Chapter25.
Flow Fundamentals
Asnotedpreviously,segmentflowratesmustbecalculatedforeachtime
step.Theyareusedtoestimatethenumberofvehiclesoneachsegmentatthe

December 2010
Page 10-35
Methodology

endofeverytimestep.Thenumberofvehiclesoneachsegmentisusedtotrack
queueaccumulationanddischargeandtoestimatetheaveragesegmentdensity.
Theconversionfromstandard15mintimeintervalstotimesteps(oflesser
duration)occursduringthefirstoversaturatedinterval.Timestepsarethenused
untiltheanalysisiscomplete.Thistransitiontotimestepsiscriticalbecause,at
certainpointsinthemethodology,futureperformanceisestimatedfrompast
performanceofanindividualvariable.Useoftimestepsalsoallowsforamore
accurateestimationofqueues.
Serviceandotherperformancemeasuresforoversaturatedconditionsusea
simplified,linearflowdensityrelationship,asdetailedinChapter25.
Segment Initialization
Toestimatethenumberofvehiclesoneachsegmentforeachtimestepunder
oversaturatedconditions,itisnecessarytobegintheprocesswiththe
appropriatenumberofvehiclesineachsegment.Determiningthisnumberis
referredtoassegmentinitialization.
Asimplifiedqueuinganalysisisinitiallyperformedtoaccountfortheeffects
ofupstreambottlenecks.Thebottleneckslimitthenumberofvehiclesthatcan
proceeddownstream.
Toobtainthepropernumberofvehiclesoneachsegment,theexpected
demandiscalculatedfromthedemandsforandcapacitiesofthesegment,
includingtheeffectsofallupstreamsegments.Theexpecteddemandrepresents
theflowthatwouldarriveateachsegmentifallqueueswerestackedvertically
(i.e.,asifthequeueshadnoupstreamimpacts).Forallsegmentsupstreamofa
bottleneck,theexpecteddemandwillequaltheactualdemand.
Forthebottlenecksegmentandallfurtherdownstreamsegments,acapacity
restraintisappliedatthebottleneckwhenexpecteddemandiscomputed.From
theexpectedsegmentdemand,thebackgrounddensitycanbeobtainedforeach
segmentbyusingtheappropriateestimationalgorithmsfromChapters11,12,
and13.
Mainline Flow Calculation

Flowsanalyzedinoversaturatedconditionsarecalculatedforeverytime
stepandareexpressedinvehiclespertimestep.Theyareanalyzedseparatelyon
thebasisoftheoriginanddestinationoftheflowacrossthenode.Thefollowing
flowsaredefined:
1. Theflowfromthemainlineupstreamsegmenti1tothemainline
downstreamsegmentiisthemainlineflowMF.
2. TheflowfromthemainlinetoanofframpistheofframpflowOFRF.
3. TheflowfromanonramptothemainlineistheonrampflowONRF.
EachoftheseflowsisillustratedinExhibit1021.
Mainline Input
Themainlineinputisthenumberofvehiclesthatwishtotravelthrougha
nodeduringthetimestep.Thecalculationincludestheeffectsofbottlenecks
Methodology
Page 10-36

December 2010

upstreamofthesubjectnode.Theeffectsincludethemeteringoftrafficduring
queueaccumulationandthepresenceofadditionalvehiclesduringqueue
discharge.
Themainlineinputiscalculatedbytakingthenumberofvehiclesentering
thenodeupstreamoftheanalysisnode,addingonrampflowsorsubtracting
offrampflows,andaddingthenumberofunservedvehiclesontheupstream
segment.Theresultisthemaximumnumberofvehiclesthatdesiretoentera
nodeduringatimestep.
Mainline Output
Themainlineoutputisthemaximumnumberofvehiclesthatcanexita
node,constrainedbydownstreambottlenecksorbymergingtraffic.Different
constraintsontheoutputofanoderesultinthreedifferenttypesofmainline
outputs(MO1,MO2,andMO3).
Mainlineoutputfromramps(MO1):MO1istheconstraintcausedbythe
flowofvehiclesfromanonramp.Thecapacityofanonrampflowis
sharedbytwocompetingflows:flowfromtheonrampandflowfromthe
mainline.Thetotalflowthatcanpassthenodeisestimatedasthe
minimumofthesegmenticapacityandthemainlineoutputs(MO2and
MO3)calculatedintheprecedingtimestep.
Mainlineoutputfromsegmentstorage(MO2):Theoutputofmainlineflow
throughanodeisalsoconstrainedbythegrowthofqueuesonthe
downstreamsegment.Thepresenceofaqueuelimitstheflowintothe
segmentoncethequeuereachesitsupstreamend.Thequeuepositionis
calculatedbyshockwaveanalysis.TheMO2limitationisdeterminedfirst
bycalculatingthemaximumnumberofvehiclesallowedonasegmentat
agivenqueuedensity.Themaximumflowthatcanenteraqueued
segmentisthenumberofvehiclesleavingthesegmentplusthedifference
betweenthemaximumnumberofvehiclesallowedonasegmentandthe
numberofvehiclesalreadyonthesegment.Thequeuedensityis
determinedfromthelinearcongestedportionofthedensityflow
relationshipshowninChapter25.
Mainlineoutputfromfrontclearingqueue(MO3):Thefinallimitationon
exitingmainlineflowsatanodeiscausedbyfrontclearingdownstream
queues.Thesequeuestypicallyoccurwhentemporaryincidentsclear.
Twoconditionsmustbesatisfied:(a)thesegmentcapacity(minustheon
rampdemandifpresent)forthecurrenttimeintervalmustbegreater
thanthesegmentcapacity(minusonrampdemand)inthepreceding
timeinterval,and(b)thesegmentcapacityminustherampdemandfor
thecurrenttimeintervalmustbegreaterthanthesegmentdemandinthe
sametimeinterval.Frontclearingqueuesdonotaffectthesegment
throughput(whichislimitedbyqueuethroughput)untiltherecovery
wavehasreachedtheupstreamendofthesegment.Theshockwave
speedisestimatedfromtheslopeofthelineconnectingthebottleneck
throughputandthesegmentcapacitypoints.

December 2010
Page 10-37
Methodology
Mainline Flow
Themainlineflowacrossnodeiistheminimumofthefollowingvariables:
Nodeimainlineinput,
NodeiMO2,
NodeiMO3,
Segmenti1capacity,and
Segmenticapacity.
Determining On-Ramp Flow

Theonrampflowistheminimumoftheonrampinputandoutput.Ramp
inputinatimestepistherampdemandplusanyunservedrampvehiclesfroma
previoustimestep.
Onrampoutputislimitedbytheramproadwaycapacityandtheramp
meteringrate.Itisalsoaffectedbythevolumesonthemainlinesegments.The
latterisaverycomplexprocessthatdependsonthevariousflowcombinations
onthesegment,thesegmentcapacity,andtheramproadwayvolumes.Detailsof
thecalculationsarepresentedinChapter25.
Determining Off-Ramp Flow

Theofframpflowisdeterminedbycalculatingadivergepercentagebased
onthesegmentandofframpdemands.Thedivergepercentagevariesonlyby
timeintervalandremainsconstantforvehiclesthatareassociatedwitha
particulartimeinterval.Ifthereisanupstreamqueue,thentraffictothisoff
rampmaybemetered.Thiswillcauseadecreaseintheofframpflow.When
vehiclesthatweremeteredarriveinthenexttimeinterval,theyusethediverge
percentageassociatedwiththeprecedingtimeinterval.Thismethodology
ensuresthatallofframpvehiclespreventedfromexitingduringthepresenceof
abottleneckareappropriatelydischargedinlatertimeintervals.
Determining Segment Flow

Segmentflowisthenumberofvehiclesthatflowoutofasegmentduringthe
currenttimestep.Thesevehiclesenterthecurrentsegmenteithertothemainline
ortoanofframpatthecurrentnodeasshowninExhibit1020.Thenumberof
vehiclesoneachsegmentinthecurrenttimestepiscalculatedwiththefollowing
information:
Thenumberofvehiclesthatwereinthesegmentintheprevioustime
step,
Thenumberofvehiclesthatenteredthesegmentinthecurrenttimestep,
and
Thenumberofvehiclesthatcanleavethesegmentinthecurrenttime
step.
Becausethenumberofvehiclesthatleaveasegmentmustbeknown,the
numberofvehiclesonthecurrentsegmentcannotbedetermineduntilthe
upstreamsegmentisanalyzed.
Methodology
Page 10-38

December 2010

Thenumberofunservedvehiclesstoredonasegmentiscalculatedasthe
differencebetweenthenumberofvehiclesonthesegmentandthenumberof
vehiclesthatwouldbeonthesegmentatthebackgrounddensity.
Determining Segment Service Measures

Inthelasttimestepofatimeinterval,thesegmentflowsineachtimestep
areaveragedoverthetimeinterval,andtheservicemeasuresforeachsegment
arecalculated.Iftherewerenoqueuesonaparticularsegmentduringtheentire
timeinterval,thentheperformancemeasuresarecalculatedfromChapters11,
12,and13asappropriate.
Iftherewasaqueueonthecurrentsegmentduringthetimeinterval,then
theperformancemeasuresarecalculatedinfoursteps:
1. Theaveragenumberofvehiclesoveratimeintervaliscalculatedforeach
segment.
2. Theaveragesegmentdensityiscalculatedbytakingtheaveragenumber
ofvehiclesinalltimesteps(inthetimeinterval)anddividingitbythe
segmentlength.
3. Theaveragespeedonthecurrentsegmentduringthecurrenttime
intervaliscalculatedastheratioofsegmentflowtodensity.
4. Thefinalsegmentperformancemeasureisthelengthofthequeueatthe
endofthetimeinterval(ifoneexists),whichiscalculatedbyusingshock
wavetheory.
Onrampqueuelengthscanalsobecalculated.Aqueuewillformontheon
ramproadwayonlyiftheflowislimitedbyameterorbyfreewaytrafficinthe
gorearea.Iftheflowislimitedbytheramproadwaycapacity,unservedvehicles
willbestoredonafacilityupstreamoftheramproadway,mostlikelyasurface
street.Themethodologydoesnotaccountforthisdelay.Ifthequeueisona
ramproadway,itslengthiscalculatedbyusingthedifferenceinbackgroundand
queuedensities.
Step 7: Compute Freeway Facility Service Measures and Other
Performance Measures by Time Interval
Thepreviouslydiscussedtrafficperformancemeasurescanbeaggregated
overthelengthofthedefinedfreewayfacilityforeachtimeinterval.
Aggregationsovertheentiretimespacedomainoftheanalysisarealso
mathematicallypossible,althoughLOSisdefinedonlyfor15mintimeintervals.
FreewayfacilityLOSisdefinedforeachtimeintervalincludedinthe
analysis.Anaveragedensityforeachtimeinterval,weightedbylengthof
segmentsandnumbersoflanesinsegments,iscalculated(withEquation102)
andusedtocomparewiththecriteriaofExhibit107.

December 2010
Page 10-39
Methodology
3. APPLICATIONS
Specificcomputationalstepsforthefreewayfacilitymethodologywere
conceptuallydiscussedandpresentedinthischaptersmethodologysection.
AdditionalcomputationaldetailsareprovidedinChapter25,FreewayFacilities:
Supplemental.
Thischaptersmethodologyissufficientlycomplextorequiresoftwareforits
application.Evenforfullyundersaturatedanalyses,thenumberandcomplexity
ofcomputationsmakeitdifficultandextremelytimeconsumingtoanalyzea
casemanually.Oversaturatedanalysesareconsiderablymorecomplex,and
manualsolutionswouldbeimpractical.Thecomputationalengineforthis
methodologyisFREEVAL2010.Acompleteusersguideandexecutable
spreadsheetareavailableintheTechnicalReferenceLibraryinVolume4.
OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS
Theonlymodeinwhichthemethodologycanbedirectlyimplementedis
operationalanalysisthatis,givenacompletedescriptionofafreewayfacility,
itscomponentsegmentgeometries,andallrelevantdemandflowrates,a
complexanalysisisconductedofeachsegment,andofthefreewayfacility,by
timeinterval.Outputswillincludesegmentflowrates,densities,andaverage
speedsaswellasaveragefacilitydensityandspeedforeachtimeinterval.By
usingtheestimatedfacilitydensityforeachtimeinterval,afacilityLOScanbe
assigned.
Exhibit1022showsthedatainputsthatarerequiredforanoperational
analysisofafreewayfacility.
Exhibit 10-22
Required Input Data for
Freeway Facility Analysis
Geometric Data for Each Section

Section length (ft)
Mainline number of lanes
Mainline average lane width (ft)
Mainline lateral clearance (ft)
Terrain (level, rolling, or mountainous), or specific grade (% grade, length in mi)
Ramp number of lanes
Ramp acceleration or deceleration lane length (ft)
Existence of independent HOV lane
Traffic Characteristic Data for Each Segment
Mainline free-flow speed (mi/h), optional
Vehicle occupancy (passengers/veh)
Percent trucks and buses (%)
Percent RVs (%)
Driver population (commuter or recreational)
Ramp free-flow speeds (mi/h)
Demand Data for Each Segment
Mainline entry demand for each time interval (veh/h)
On-ramp demands for each time interval (veh/h)
Off-ramp demands for each time interval (veh/h)
Weaving demand on weaving segments, by movement (veh/h)
HOV lane demand (veh/h), if present
Wherealldataarenotreadilyavailableorcollectable,theanalysismaybe
supplementedbyusingconsistentdefaultvaluesforeachsegment.Listsand
discussionsofdefaultvaluesarefoundinChapter11,BasicFreewaySegments;
Applications
Page 10-40

December 2010

Chapter12,FreewayWeavingSegments;andChapter13,FreewayMergeand
DivergeSegments.
Performancemeasuresoutputbythemethodologyforindividualsegments
andthefacility(foragiventimeinterval)includethefollowing:
Averagespeed(mi/h),
Averagedensity(pc/mi/ln),
Vehiclemilesoftravel,
Vehiclehoursoftravel,and
Traveltime(min/veh).
Chapter25detailsfacilitywideperformancemeasurecalculationsbytime
interval.
PLANNING, PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING, AND DESIGN ANALYSIS
Thismethodologycannotbedirectlyusedinplanning,preliminary
engineering,anddesignapplications.However,forgeneralizedplanning,
Exhibit108(urbanfreeways)andExhibit109(ruralfreeways)providedaily
servicevolumetablesforavarietyoftypicalfreewayconditions.Thesetables
maybeappliedforgeneralevaluationsofanumberoffreewayfacilitiesina
specifiedregion.Theyshouldnotbeusedfordirectlyevaluatingaspecific
freewayfacilityorfordevelopingdetailedfacilityimprovementplans.Afull
operationalanalysiswouldnormallybeappliedtoanyfreewayfacilityidentified
aspotentiallyneedingimprovement.
Preliminaryengineeringanddesignapplicationsofthemethodologyare
possiblebyusingthesegmentproceduresdescribedinChapters11,12,and13.
Variousgeometricscenarioscanbeevaluatedandcomparedbyusingatravel
demandmatrixandthefacilitymethodologyonthebasisofthesegmentresults.
TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES
Thefreewayfacilitiesmethodologyhasincorporatedproceduresfor
assessingavarietyoftrafficmanagementstrategies.Themethodologypermits
modifyingpreviouslycalculatedcelldemandsorcapacities(orboth)withinthe
timespacedomaintoassessatrafficmanagementstrategyoracombinationof
strategies.
1. Agrowthfactorparameterhasbeenincorporatedtoevaluatetraffic
performancewhentrafficdemandsarehigherorlowerthanthedemand
calculatedfromthetrafficcounts.Thisparameterwouldbeusedto
undertakeasensitivityanalysisoftheeffectofdemandonfreeway
performanceandtoevaluatefuturescenarios.Inthesecases,allcell
demandestimatesaremultipliedbythegrowthfactorparameter.
2. Theeffectofapredeterminedrampmeteringplancanbeevaluatedby
modifyingtheramproadwaycapacities.Thecapacityofeachentrance
rampineachtimeintervalischangedtothedesiredmeteringrate.This
featurepermitsevaluatingapredeterminedrampmeteringplanand
experimentingtoobtainanimprovedrampmeteringplan.

December 2010
Page 10-41
Applications

3. Freewaydesignimprovementscanbeevaluatedwiththismethodology
bymodifyingthedesignfeaturesofanyportionofthefreewayfacility.
Forexample,theeffectofaddinganauxiliarylaneatacriticallocationor
addingmergingordiverginglanescanbeassessed.
4. Reducedcapacitysituationscanbeinvestigated.Thecapacityinanycell
orcellsofthetimespacedomaincanbereducedtorepresentsituations
suchasconstructionandmaintenanceactivities,adverseweather,and
trafficaccidentsandvehiclebreakdowns.
5. Userdemandresponsessuchasspatial,temporal,modal,andtotal
demandresponsescausedbyatrafficmanagementstrategyarenot
automaticallyincorporatedintothemethodology.Onviewingthenew
freewaytrafficperformanceresults,theusercanmodifythedemand
inputmanuallytoevaluatetheeffectofanticipateddemandresponses.
USE OF ALTERNATIVE TOOLS
Generalguidancefortheuseofalternativetrafficanalysistoolsforcapacity
andLOSanalysisisprovidedinChapter6,HCMandAlternativeAnalysisTools.
Thissectioncontainsspecificguidanceforapplyingalternativetoolstothe
analysisoffreewayfacilities.Additionalinformationonthistopicmaybefound
inChapter25,FreewayFacilities:Supplemental.
Strengths of the HCM Procedure
Thischaptersprocedureswerebasedonextensiveresearchsupportedbya
significantquantityoffielddata.Theyhaveevolvedoveranumberofyearsand
representaconsensusofexperts.SpecificstrengthsoftheHCMfreewayfacilities
proceduresincludethefollowing:
Theyprovidemoredetailedalgorithmsforconsideringgeometric
elementsofthefacility(suchaslaneandshoulderwidth).
Theyprovidecapacityestimatesforeachsegmentofthefacility,which
simulationtoolsdonotprovidedirectly(andinsomecasesmayrequire
asaninput).
Thecapacitycanbeexplicitlyadjustedtoaccountforweatherconditions,
lightingconditions,workzonesetupandactivity,andincidents.
Thecalculationofkeyperformancemeasures,suchasspeedanddensity,
istransparent.Simulationtoolsoftenusestatisticsaccumulatedoverthe
simulationperiodtoderivevariouslinkortimeperiodspecificresults,
andthederivationoftheseresultsmaynotbeobvious.Thus,theuserofa
simulationtoolmustknowexactlywhichmeasureisbeingreported(e.g.,
spacemeanspeedversustimemeanspeed).Furthermore,simulation
toolsmayapplythesemeasuresinwaysdifferentfromtheHCMtoarrive
atothermeasures.
Applications
Page 10-42

December 2010

Limitations of the HCM Procedures That Might Be Addressed by
Alternative Tools
Freewayfacilitiescanbeanalyzedwithavarietyofstochasticand
deterministicsimulationtools.Thesetoolscanbeusefulinanalyzingtheextent
ofcongestionwhentherearefailureswithinthesimulatedfacilityrangeand
wheninteractionwithotherfreewaysegmentsandotherfacilitiesispresent.
Exhibit1023providesalistofthelimitationsstatedearlierinthischapter,
alongwiththeirpotentialforimprovedtreatmentbyalternativetools.
Limitation
Changes in travel time caused by
vehicles using alternate routes
Multiple overlapping bottlenecks
User-demand responses (spatial,
temporal, modal)
Systemwide oversaturated flow
conditions
Potential for Improved Treatment

by Alternative Tools
Modeled explicitly by dynamic traffic assignment tools
Exhibit 10-23
Limitations of the HCM Freeway
Facilities Analysis Procedure
Modeled explicitly by simulation tools

Modeled explicitly by dynamic traffic assignment tools
Modeled explicitly by simulation tools
First/last time interval or first/last

segment demand-to-capacity ratio >
1.0
Modeled explicitly by simulation tools, except that a

simulation analysis may also be inaccurate if it does
not fully account for a downstream bottleneck that
causes congestion in the last segment during the last
time period
Interaction between managed lanes

and mixed-flow lanes
Modeled explicitly by some simulation tools
Additional Features and Performance Measures Available from

Alternative Tools
Thischapterprovidesamethodologyforestimatingavarietyofperformance
measuresforindividualsegmentsalongafreewayfacility,andtheentirefacility,
giveneachsegmentstrafficdemandandcharacteristics.Thefollowing
performancemeasuresarereportedbythefreewayfacilitiesprocedure:
Traveltime,
Freeflowtraveltime,
Trafficdelay,
Vehiclemilesoftravel,
Personmilesoftravel,
Speed,and
Density(segmentonly).
Alternativetoolscanofferadditionalperformancemeasures,suchasqueue
lengths,fuelconsumption,vehicleemissions,andoperatingcosts.Aswithmost
otherproceduralchaptersintheHCM,simulationoutputsespeciallygraphics
basedpresentationsmayprovidedetailsonpointproblemsthatmightgo
unnoticedwithamacroscopicanalysis.
Development of HCM-Compatible Performance Measures Using
Alternative Tools
LOSforalltypesoffreewaysegmentsisestimatedbythedensityoftraffic
(pc/mi/ln)oneachsegment.TheguidanceprovidedinChapter11,BasicFreeway
December 2010
Page 10-43
Applications

Segments,fordevelopingcompatibledensityestimatesappliestofreeway
facilitiesaswell.
Withtheexceptionoffreeflowtraveltime,theadditionalperformance
measureslistedabovethatareproducedbytheproceduresinthischapterare
alsoproducedbytypicalsimulationtools.Forthemostpart,thedefinitionsare
compatible,and,subjecttotheprecautionsandcalibrationrequirementsthat
follow,theperformancemeasuresfromalternativetoolsmaybeconsidered
equivalenttothosethatareproducedbytheproceduresinthischapter.
Conceptual Differences Between the HCM and Simulation Modeling
That Preclude Direct Comparison of Results
Tobetterdeterminewhensimulationofafreewayfacilitymaybemore
appropriatethananHCManalysis,thefundamentaldifferencesbetweenthetwo
approachesmustbeunderstood.TheHCMandsimulationanalysisapproaches
arereviewedinthefollowingsubsections.
HCM Approach
TheHCManalysisprocedureusesoneoftwoapproachesonefor
undersaturatedconditionsandoneforoversaturatedconditions.For
undersaturatedconditionsthatis,vd/cislessthan1.0forallsegmentsandtime
periodstheapproachisgenerallydisaggregate.Inotherwords,thefacilityis
subdividedintosegmentscorrespondingtobasicfreeway,weaving,and
merge/divergesegments,andtheLOSresultsarereportedforindividual
segmentsonthebasisoftheanalysisproceduresofChapters11,12,and13,
respectively.However,LOSresultsarenotreportedforthefacilityasawhole.
Foroversaturatedconditions,thefacilityisanalyzedinadifferentmanner.
First,thefacilityisconsideredinitsentiretyratherthanattheindividual
segmentlevel.Second,theanalysistimeinterval,typically15min,issubdivided
intotimestepsof15to60s,dependingonthelengthoftheshortestsegment.
Thisapproachisnecessarysothatflowscanbereducedtocapacitylevelsat
bottlenecklocationsandqueuescanbetrackedinspaceandtime.For
oversaturatedsegments,theaveragesegmentdensityiscalculatedbydividing
theaveragenumberofvehiclesforalltimesteps(inthetimeinterval)bythe
segmentlength.Theaveragesegmentspeediscalculatedbydividingtheaverage
segmentflowratebytheaveragesegmentdensity.Facilitywideperformance
measuresarecalculatedbyaggregatingsegmentperformancemeasuresacross
spaceandtime,asoutlinedinChapter25.ALOSforthefacilityisassignedon
thebasisofdensityforeachtimeinterval.
Whentheoversaturationanalysisprocedureisapplied,ifanysegmentis
undersaturatedforanentiretimeinterval,itsperformancemeasuresare
calculatedaccordingtotheappropriateprocedureinChapters11,12,and13.
Simulation Approach
Simulationtoolsmodelthefacilityinitsentiretyandfromthatperspective
havesomesimilaritytotheoversaturatedanalysisapproachoftheHCM.
Microscopicsimulationtoolsoperatesimilarlyunderbothsaturatedand
undersaturatedconditions,trackingeachvehiclethroughtimeandspaceand
Applications
Page 10-44

December 2010

generallyhandlingtheaccumulationandqueuingofvehiclesinsaturated
conditionsinarealisticmanner.Macroscopicsimulationtoolsvaryintheir
treatmentofsaturatedconditions.Sometoolsdonothandleoversaturated
conditionsatall,whileothersmayqueuevehiclesinthevertical,ratherthan
horizontal,dimension.Thesetoolsmaystillprovidereasonablyaccurateresults
underslightlyoversaturatedconditions,buttheresultswillclearlybeinvalidfor
heavilycongestedconditions.
Thetreatmentofoversaturatedconditionsisafundamentalissuethatmust
beunderstoodwhenconsideringwhethertoapplysimulationinlieuoftheHCM
foranalysisofcongestedconditions.Areviewofsimulationmodeling
approachesisbeyondthescopeofthisdocument.Moredetailedinformationon
thetopicmaybefoundintheTechnicalReferenceLibraryinVolume4.
Adjustment of Simulation Parameters to the HCM Results
Somecalibrationisgenerallyrequiredbeforeanalternativetoolcanbeused
effectivelytosupplementorreplacetheHCMprocedure.Thefollowing
subsectionsdiscusskeyvariablesthatshouldbecheckedforconsistencywiththe
HCMprocedurevalues.
Capacity
IntheHCM,capacityisafunctionofthespecifiedfreeflowspeed(which
canbeadjustedbylanewidth,shoulderwidth,andrampdensity).Ina
simulationtool,capacityistypicallyafunctionofthespecifiedminimumvehicle
entryheadway(intothesystem)andcarfollowingparameters(assuming
microscopicsimulation).
Whilethedeterminationofcapacityforabasicfreewaysegmentisclearly
describedinChapter11,thischapterdoesnotofferspecificguidanceon
determiningtheappropriatecapacityfordifferentsegmenttypeswithina
facility,otherthantoreferthereadertotheindividualchapters(basicsegments,
weavingsegments,mergesegments,divergesegments)forappropriatecapacity
values.TheHCMspecifiesthecapacityofafreewayfacilityinunitsofveh/h
ratherthanpc/h.
Inmacroscopicsimulationtools,capacityisgenerallyaninput.Thus,forthis
situation,itisstraightforwardtomatchthesimulationcapacitytotheHCM
capacity.Microscopicsimulationtools,however,donothaveanexplicitcapacity
input.Mostmicroscopictoolsprovideaninputthataffectstheminimum
separationforthegenerationofvehiclesintothesystem.Therefore,specifyinga
valueof1.5sforthisinputwillresultinamaximumvehicleentryrateof2,400
(3,600/1.5)veh/h/ln.Oncevehiclesenterthesystem,vehicleheadwaysare
governedbythecarfollowingmodel.Thus,givenotherfactorsandcar
followingmodelconstraints,themaximumthroughputonanyonesegmentmay
notreachthisvalue.Consequently,someexperimentingisusuallynecessaryto
findtherightminimumentryseparationvaluetoachieveacapacityvalue
comparablewiththatintheHCM.Again,theanalystneedstobecarefulofthe
unitsbeingusedforcapacityinmakingcomparisons.

December 2010
Page 10-45
Applications

Theotherissuetobeawareofisthat,whilegeometricfactorssuchaslane
andshoulderwidthaffectthefreeflowspeed(whichinturnaffectscapacity)in
theHCMprocedure,somesimulationtoolsdonotaccountfortheseeffects,or
theymayaccountforotherfactors,suchashorizontalcurvature,thattheHCM
proceduredoesnotconsider.
Lane Distribution
IntheHCMprocedure,thereisanimplicitassumptionthat,foranygiven
vehicledemand,thevehiclesareevenlydistributedacrossalllanesofabasic
freewaysegment.Formergeanddivergesegments,theHCMprocedureincludes
calculationstodeterminehowvehiclesaredistributedacrosslanesasaresultof
mergingordivergingmovements.Forweavingsegments,thereisnotanexplicit
determinationofflowratesinparticularlanes,butconsiderationofweavingand
nonweavingflowsandthenumberoflanesavailableforeachisanessential
elementoftheanalysisprocedure.
Insimulationtools,thedistributionofvehiclesacrosslanesistypically
specifiedonlyfortheentrypointofthenetwork.Oncevehicleshaveenteredthe
network,theyaredistributedacrosslanesaccordingtocarfollowingandlane
changinglogic.Thisinputvalueshouldreflectfielddataiftheyareavailable.If
fielddataindicateanimbalanceofflowsacrosslanes,thissituationmayleadtoa
differencebetweentheHCMandsimulationresults.Iffielddataarenot
available,specifyinganevendistributionoftrafficacrossalllanesisprobably
reasonablefornetworksthatbeginwithalongbasicsegment.Ifthereisaramp
junctionwithinashortdistancedownstreamoftheentrypointofthenetwork,
settingthelanedistributionvaluestobeconsistentwiththosefromChapter13of
theHCMwilllikelyyieldmoreconsistentresults.
Traffic Stream Composition

TheHCMdealswiththepresenceofnonpassengercarvehiclesinthetraffic
streambyapplyingpassengercarequivalentvalues.Thesevaluesarebasedon
thepercentageoftrucks,buses,andRVsinthetrafficstreamaswellastypeof
terrain(gradeprofileanditslength).Thus,thetrafficstreamisconvertedinto
someequivalentnumberofpassengercarsonly,andtheanalysisresultsare
basedonflowratesintheseunits.
In the case of stochastic-based
simulators, the generated
vehicle type percentages may
only approximate the specified
percentages.
Simulationtoolsdealwiththetrafficstreamcompositionjustasitis
specified;thatis,thespecificpercentagesofeachvehicletypearegeneratedinto
andmovedthroughthesystemaccordingtotheirspecificvehicleattributes(e.g.,
accelerationanddecelerationcapabilities).Thus,simulation,particularly
microscopicsimulation,resultslikelybetterreflecttheeffectsofnonpassenger
carvehiclesonthetrafficstream.Althoughinsomeinstancesthepassengercar
equivalentvaluescontainedintheHCMweredevelopedfromsimulationdata,
simplifyingassumptionsmadetomakethemimplementableinananalytical
procedureresultinsomelossoffidelityinthetreatmentofdifferentvehicle
types.
Furthermore,itshouldberecognizedthattheHCMproceduresdonot
explicitlyaccountfordifferencesindrivertypes.Microscopicsimulationtools
explicitlyprovideforarangeofdrivertypesandallowanumberoffactors
Applications
Page 10-46

December 2010

relatedtodrivertypetobemodified(e.g.,freeflowspeed,gapacceptance
threshold).However,itshouldalsoberecognizedthattheempiricaldatasome
HCMproceduresarebasedonincludetheeffectsofthevariousdrivertypes
presentintrafficstreams.
Free-Flow Speed
IntheHCM,freeflowspeediseithermeasuredinthefieldorestimatedwith
calibratedpredictivealgorithms.Insimulation,freeflowspeedisalmostalways
aninputvalue.Wherefieldmeasurementsarenotavailable,simulationusers
maywishtousetheHCMpredictivealgorithmstoestimatefreeflowspeed.
Step-by-Step Recommendations for Applying Alternative Tools
GeneralguidanceforapplyingalternativetoolsisprovidedinChapter6,
HCMandAlternativeAnalysisTools.Thechaptersthatcoverspecifictypesof
freewaysegmentsoffermoredetailedstepbystepguidancespecifictothose
segments.Allthesegmentspecificguidanceappliestofreewayfacilities,which
areconfiguredascombinationsofdifferentsegments.
Thefirststepistodeterminewhetherthefacilitycanbeanalyzed
satisfactorilybytheproceduresdescribedinthischapter.Ifthefacilitycontains
geometricoroperationalelementsbeyondthescopeoftheseprocedures,thenan
alternativetoolshouldbeselected.Thestepsinvolvedintheapplicationwill
dependonthereason(s)forchoosinganalternativetool.Insomecases,thestep
bystepsegmentguidancewillcoverthesituationadequately.Inmorecomplex
cases(e.g.,thosethatinvolveintegratedanalysisofafreewaycorridor),more
comprehensiveguidancefromoneormoredocumentsintheTechnical
ReferenceLibraryinVolume4maybeneeded.
Sample Calculations Illustrating Alternative Tool Applications
Thelimitationsofthischaptersproceduresaremainlyrelatedtothelackofa
comprehensivetreatmentoftheinteractionbetweensegmentsandfacilities.
Manyoftheselimitationscanbeaddressedbysimulationtools,whichgenerally
takeamoreintegratedapproachtotheanalysisofcomplexnetworksof
freeways,ramps,andsurfacestreetfacilities.Supplementalexamplesillustrating
interactionsbetweensegmentsarepresentedinChapter26,Freewayand
HighwaySegments:Supplemental,andChapter34,InterchangeRamp
Terminals:Supplemental.Acomprehensiveexampleoftheapplicationof
simulationtoolstoamajorfreewayreconstructionprojectispresentedasCase
Study6intheHCMApplicationsGuidelocatedinVolume4.

December 2010
Page 10-47
Applications
4. EXAMPLE PROBLEMS
Exhibit 10-24
List of Example Problems
Example
Problem
1
2
3
Description
Evaluation of an undersaturated facility
Evaluation of an oversaturated facility
Capacity improvements to an oversaturated facility
Application
Operational analysis
EXAMPLE PROBLEM 1: EVALUATION OF AN UNDERSATURATED

FACILITY
The Facility
Thesubjectofthisoperationalanalysisisanurbanfreewayfacility6milong
andcomposedof11individualanalysissegments,asshowninExhibit1025.
Exhibit 10-25
Freeway Facility in Example
Problem 1
Thefacilityhasthreeonrampsandthreeofframps.Geometricdetailsare
giveninExhibit1026.
Exhibit 10-26
Geometry of Directional
Freeway Facility for Example
Problem 1
Segment No.
1
2
3
Segment type
B
ONR
B
Segment length
5,280 1,500 2,280
(ft)
No. of lanes
3
3
3
Note:
4
OFR
1,500
3
5
B
6
B or W
5,280 2,640
3
7
B
8
ONR
5,280 1,140
3
9
R
360
3
10
OFR
11
B
1,140 5,280
3
B = basic freeway segment, W = weaving segment, ONR = on-ramp (merge) segment, OFR = off-ramp
(diverge) segment, R = overlapping ramp segment.
TheonandofframpsinSegment6areconnectedbyanauxiliarylaneand
thesegmentmaythereforeoperateasaweavingsegment,dependingontraffic
patterns.TheseparationoftheonrampinSegment8andtheofframpin
Segment10islessthan3,000ft.Sincetherampinfluenceareaofonrampsand
offrampsis1,500ft,accordingtoChapter13,thesegmentaffectedbyboth
rampsisanalyzedasaseparateoverlappingrampsegment(Segment9),labeled
R.
Theanalysisquestionathandisthefollowing:Whatistheoperational
performanceandLOSofthedirectionalfreewayfacilityshowninExhibit1025?
Example Problems
Page 10-48

December 2010

The Facts
InadditiontotheinformationcontainedinExhibit1025andExhibit1026,
thefollowingcharacteristicsofthefreewayfacilityareknown:
Heavyvehicles = 5%trucks,0%RVs(allmovements);
Driverpopulation = regularcommuters;
FFS = 60mi/h(allmainlinesegments);
RampFFS = 40mi/h(allramps);
Accelerationlanelength = 500ft(allramps);
Decelerationlanelength = 500ft(allramps);
Djam = 190pc/mi/ln;
cIFL = 2,300pc/h/ln(forFFS=60mi/h);
Ls = 1,640ft(forWeavingSegment6);
TRD = 1.0ramp/mi;
Terrain = level;and
Analysisduration = 75min(dividedintofive15minintervals).
Comments
Thefacilitywassegmentedintoanalysissegmentsonthebasisofthe
guidancegiveninthischapter.ThefacilityshowninExhibit1025initially
depictssevenfreewaysections(measuredbetweenramps)thataredividedinto
11analysissegments.Thefacilitycontainseachofthepossiblesegmenttypesfor
illustrativepurposes,includingbasicsegment(B),weavingsegment(W),merge
segment(ONR),divergesegment(OFR),andoverlappingrampsegment(R).The
inputdatacontaintherequiredinformationneededforeachofthesegment
methodologies.
TheclassificationoftheweaveinSegment6ispreliminaryuntilitis
determinedwhetherthesegmentoperatesasaweave.Forthispurpose,theshort
lengthmustbecomparedwiththemaximumlengthforweavinganalysisto
determinewhethertheChapter12,WeavingSegments,methodologyorthe
Chapter11,BasicFreewaySegments,methodologyisapplicable.Theshort
lengthoftheweavingsegmentusedforcalculationisshorterthantheweaving
influenceareaoverwhichthecalculatedspeedanddensitymeasuresare
applied.
Chapter11mustbeconsultedtofindappropriatevaluesfortheheavy
vehicleadjustmentfactorfHVandthedriverpopulationadjustmentfactorfp.
FREEVAL2010automaticallydeterminestheseadjustmentfactorsforgeneral
terrainconditions,butuserinputisneededforspecificupgradesandcomposite
grades.
Allinputparametershavebeenspecified,sodefaultvaluesarenotneeded.
Fifteenminutedemandflowratesaregiveninvehiclesperhourunder
prevailingconditions.Thesedemandsmustbeconvertedtopassengercarsper

December 2010
Page 10-49
Example Problems

hourunderequivalentidealconditionsforuseinthepartsofthemethodology
relatedtosegmentLOSestimation.
Step 1: Input Data
Trafficdemandinputsforall11segmentsandfiveanalysisintervalsare
giveninExhibit1027.
Exhibit 10-27
Demand Inputs for Example
Problem 1
Time
Step
(15 min)
1
2
3
4
5
Entering
Flow Rate
(veh/h)
4,505
4,955
5,225
4,685
3,785
Ramp Flow Rates by Time Period (veh/h)

ONR1
ONR2*
ONR3 OFR1 OFR2 OFR3
450
540 (50)
450
270
360
270
540
720 (100)
540
360
360
270
630
810 (150)
630
270
360
450
360
360 (80)
450
270
360
270
180
270 (50)
270
270
180
180
Exiting
Flow Rate
(veh/h)
5,045
5,765
6,215
4,955
3,875
* Numbers in parentheses indicate ONR-2 to OFR-2 demand flow rates in Weaving Segment 6.
ThevolumesinExhibit1027representthe15mindemandflowratesonthe
facilityasdeterminedfromfieldobservationsorothersources.Theactual
volumeservedineachsegmentwillbedeterminedbythemethodology.The
demandflowsaregivenfortheextendedtimespacedomain,consistentwith
thischaptersrecommendations.Peakingoccursinthethird15minperiod.Since
inputsareintheformof15minflowrates,nopeakhourfactoradjustmentis
necessary.Additionalgeometricandtrafficrelatedinputsareasspecifiedin
Exhibit1025andthefactssectionoftheproblemstatement.
Step 2: Demand Adjustments
ThetrafficflowsinExhibit1027arealreadygivenintheformofactual
demands.Therefore,noadditionaldemandadjustmentisnecessary,sincethe
flowsrepresenttruedemand.Demandadjustmentisnecessaryonlyiffield
measuredvolumesareusedthatmaybeaffectedbyupstreamcongestion
(bottleneck)onthefacility.Themethodology(andFREEVAL2010)assumethat
theuserinputstruedemandflows.
Step 3: Compute Segment Capacities
SegmentcapacitiesaredeterminedbyusingthemethodologiesofChapter11
forbasicfreewaysegments,Chapter12forweavingsegments,andChapter13
formergeanddivergesegments.TheresultingcapacitiesareshowninExhibit
1028.Sincethecapacityofaweavingsegmentdependsontrafficpatterns,
includingtheweavingratio,itvariesbytimeperiod.Theremainingsegment
capacitiesareconstantinallfivetimeintervals.ThecapacitiesforSegments15
and711arethesame,sincethesegmentshavethesamebasiccrosssection.The
unitsshownareinvehiclesperhour.
Exhibit 10-28
Segment Capacities for
Example Problem 1
Example Problems
Time
Step
1
2
3
4
5
6,732
6,732
6,732
Capacities (veh/h) by Segment

4
5
6
7
8
8,252
8,261
6,732 6,732 8,303 6,732 6,732
8,382
8,442
Page 10-50
10
11
6,732
6,732
6,732

December 2010

Thissteptypicallyallowstheusertoadjustcapacitiesofspecificsegmentsor
timeperiodstomodeltheeffectsofshorttermworkzones,longterm
construction,inclementweatherconditions,orincidents.Sinceitisthebase
scenariointhissequenceofexampleproblems,noadditionalcapacity
adjustmentsareperformed.
Thedemandtocapacityratiosarecalculatedfromthedemandflowsin
Exhibit1027andfromthesegmentcapacitiesinExhibit1028.
Time
Step
1
2
3
4
5
1
0.67
0.74
0.78
0.70
0.56
2
0.74
0.82
0.87
0.75
0.59
Demand-to-Capacity Ratios by Segment

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0.74 0.74 0.70 0.63 0.72 0.79 0.79
0.82 0.82 0.76 0.71 0.82 0.90 0.90
0.87 0.87 0.83 0.77 0.90 0.99 0.99
0.75 0.75 0.71 0.61 0.71 0.78 0.78
0.59 0.59 0.55 0.47 0.56 0.60 0.60
10
0.79
0.90
0.99
0.78
0.60
11
0.75
0.86
0.92
0.74
0.58
Exhibit 10-29
Segment Demand-to-Capacity
Ratios for Example Problem 1
ThecomputeddemandtocapacityratiomatrixinExhibit1029showsno
segmentswithavd/cratiogreaterthan1.0inanytimeinterval.Consequently,the
facilityiscategorizedasgloballyundersaturatedandtheanalysisproceedswith
computingtheundersaturatedservicemeasuresinStep6a.Further,itisexpected
thatnoqueuingwilloccuronthefacilityandthatthevolumeservedineach
segmentisidenticaltotheinputdemandflows.Consequently,thematrixof
volumetocapacityratioswouldbeidenticaltothedemandtocapacityratiosin
Exhibit1029.Theresultingmatrixofvolumesservedbysegmentandtime
intervalisshowninExhibit1030.
Time
Step
1
2
3
4
5
1
4,505
4,955
5,225
4,685
3,785
2
4,955
5,495
5,855
5,045
3,965
3
4,955
5,495
5,855
5,045
3,965
Volumes Served (veh/h) by Segment

4
5
6
7
8
4,955 4,685 5,225 4,865 5,315
5,495 5,135 5,855 5,495 6,035
5,855 5,585 6,395 6,035 6,665
5,045 4,775 5,135 4,775 5,225
3,965 3,695 3,965 3,785 4,055
9
5,315
6,035
6,665
5,225
4,055
10
5,315
6,035
6,665
5,225
4,055
11
5,045
5,765
6,215
4,955
3,875
Exhibit 10-30
Volume-Served Matrix for Example
Problem 1
Step 6a: Compute Undersaturated Segment Service Measures

Sincethefacilityisgloballyundersaturated,themethodologyproceedsto
calculateservicemeasuresforeachsegmentandeachtimeperiod,startingwith
thefirstsegmentinTimeStep1.Thecomputationaldetailsforeachsegmenttype
areexactlyasdescribedinChapters11,12,and13.Theweavingmethodologyin
Chapter13checkswhethertheweavingshortlengthLSislessthanorequalto
themaximumweavinglengthLmax.Itisassumedthat,foranytimeintervalwhere
LSislongerthanLmax,theweavingsegmentwilloperateasabasicfreeway
segment.
Thebasicperformancemeasurescomputedforeachsegmentandeachtime
steparethesegmentspeed(Exhibit1031),density(Exhibit1032),andLOS
(Exhibit1033).

December 2010
Page 10-51
Example Problems

Exhibit 10-31
Speed Matrix for Example
Problem 1
Time
Step
1
2
3
4
5
1
60.0
59.8
59.4
60.0
60.0
2
53.9
53.2
52.5
53.8
54.9
3
59.7
58.6
57.1
59.7
59.8
Speed (mi/h) by Segment

4
5
6
7
8
56.1 60.0 48.0 59.9 53.4
55.8 59.6 46.7 58.6 52.2
55.7 58.3 46.1 56.1 50.6
56.1 60.0 49.7 60.0 53.5
56.3 60.0 52.5 60.0 54.8
9
53.4
52.2
50.6
53.5
54.8
10
56.0
55.6
55.2
56.0
56.5
11
59.7
57.5
55.0
59.8
60.0
1
25.0
27.6
29.3
26.0
21.0
2
30.7
34.5
37.2
31.3
24.1
3
27.7
31.3
34.2
28.2
22.1
Density (veh/mi/ln) by Segment

4
5
6
7
8
29.4 26.0 27.2 27.1 33.2
32.8 28.7 31.3 31.3 38.5
35.0 31.9 34.6 35.8 43.9
30.0 26.5 25.8 26.5 32.5
23.5 20.5 18.9 21.0 24.7
9
33.2
38.5
43.9
32.5
24.7
10
31.7
36.2
40.3
31.1
23.9
11
28.2
33.4
37.7
27.6
21.5
10
D
D
E
D
C
11
D
D
E
D
C
Exhibit 10-32
Density Matrix for Example
Problem 1
Time
Step
1
2
3
4
5
Exhibit 10-33
LOS Matrix for Example
Problem 1
Time
Step
1
2
3
4
5
1
C
D
D
D
C
2
C
D
D
C
C
3
D
D
D
D
C
LOS by Segment
5
6
7
D
C
D
D
D
D
D
E
E
D
C
D
C
B
C
4
C
D
D
D
C
8
D
D
E
D
C
9
D
D
E
D
C
Step 7: Compute Facility Service Measures and Determine LOS

Inthefinalanalysisstep,facilitywideperformanceandservicemeasuresare
calculatedforeachtimestep.Examplecalculationsareprovidedforthefirsttime
steponly;summaryresultsareshownforallfivetimesteps.
First,thefacilityspacemeanspeedSiscalculatedfortimeintervalt=1from
the11individualsegmentflowsSF(i,t),segmentlengthsL(i),andspacemean
speedsineachsegmentandtimeperiodU(i,t).
11
S(t = 1) =
SF(i ,1) L(i)
i =1
11
L(i )
SF(i ,1) U(i ,1)

i =1
11
SF(i ,1) L(i)
=4,5055,280+4,9551,500+4,9552,280+4,9551,500
+4,6855,280+5,2252,640+4,8655,280+5,3151,140
+5,315360+5,3151,140+5,0455,280
=154,836,000vehft
11
=(4,5055,280/60.00)+(4,9551,500/53.9)
+(4,9552,280/59.70)+(4,9551,500/56.10)
+(4,6855,280/60.00)+(5,2252,640/48.00)
+(4,8655,280/59.90)+(5,3151,140/53.40)
+(5,315360/53.40)+(5,3151,140/56.00)
+(5,0455,280/59.70)
=2,688,024vehft/mi/h
i =1
L(i )
SF(i ,1) U(i ,1)

i =1
S(t = 1) =
Example Problems
154 ,836 ,000

= 57.6mi/h
2 ,688 ,024
Page 10-52

December 2010

Second,theaveragefacilitydensityiscalculatedforTimeStep1fromthe
individualsegmentdensitiesD,segmentlengthsL,andnumberofvehiclesin
eachsegmentN:
D(t = 1) =
11
i =1
11
i =1
D(i ,1) L(i ) N(i ,1)
11
i =1
L(i )N(i ,1)
D(i ,1) L(i ) N (i ,1) =(25.05,2803)+(30.71,5003)+(27.72,2803)
+(29.41,5003)+(26.05,2803)+(27.22,6404)
+(27.15,2803)+(33.21,1403)+(33.23603)
+(31.71,1403)+(28.25,2803)
=2,687,957(veh/mi/ln)(lnft)
11
i =1
=(5,2803)+(1,5003)+(2,2803)+(1,5003)
+(5,2803)+(2,6404)+(5,2803)+(1,1403)
+(3603)+(1,1403)+(5,2803)
=97,680lnft
L(i )N (i,1)
D(t = 1) =
2 ,687 ,957
= 27.5veh/mi/ln
97 ,680
Thesecalculationsarerepeatedforallfivetimesteps.Theoverallspace
meanspeedacrossalltimeintervalsiscalculatedasfollows:
5
S( p = 5) =
11
SF(i , p)L(i)
5
p =1 i =1
11
L(i )
SF(i , p) U(i , p)
p =1 i =1
Theoverallaveragedensityacrossalltimeintervalsiscalculatedasfollows:
5
D( p = 5) =
11
D(i , p) L(i) N(i , p)

p =1 i =1
11
L(i)N(i , p)
p =1 i =1
TheresultingperformanceandservicemeasuresforTimeSteps15andthe
facilitytotalsareshowninExhibit1034.TheLOSforeachtimeintervalis
determineddirectlyfromtheaveragedensityforeachtimeintervalbyusing
Exhibit107.NoLOSisdefinedfortheaverageacrossalltimeintervals.
Time
Step
1
2
3
4
5
Total

December 2010
Performance Measures
Average
Space Mean
Density
Speed
(veh/mi/ln)
(mi/h)
57.6
27.5
56.6
31.3
55.1
34.8
57.9
27.5
58.4
21.4
56.9
28.5
Page 10-53
Exhibit 10-34
Facility Performance Measure
Summary for Example Problem 1
LOS
D
D
E
D
C
Example Problems

Discussion
Thisfacilityturnedouttobegloballyundersaturated.Consequently,the
facilityaggregatedperformancemeasurescouldbecalculateddirectlyfromthe
individualsegmentperformancemeasures.Anassessmentofthesegment
servicemeasuresacrossthetimespacedomaincanbegintohighlightareasof
potentialcongestion.Visually,thisprocesscanbefacilitatedbyplottingthevd/c,
va/c,speed,ordensitymatricesincontourplots.
EXAMPLE PROBLEM 2: EVALUATION OF AN OVERSATURATED FACILITY
The Facility
ThefacilityusedinExampleProblem2isidenticaltotheoneinExample
Problem1,whichisshowninExhibit1025andExhibit1026.
The Facts
InadditiontotheinformationinExhibit1025andExhibit1026,the
followingcharacteristicsofthefreewayfacilityareknown:
Djam = 190pc/mi/ln;
TRD = 1.0ramp/mi;
Terrain = level;
Analysisduration = 75min(dividedintofive15mintimesteps);and
Demandadjustment = +11%increaseindemandvolumesacrossall
segmentsandtimestepscomparedwithExample
Problem1.
Comments
ThefacilityandallgeometricinputsareidenticaltoExampleProblem1.The
samegeneralcommentsapply.TheresultsofExampleProblem1suggesteda
globallyundersaturatedfacility,butsomesegmentswereclosetotheircapacity
(vd/cratiosapproaching1.0).Inthesecondexample,afacilitywidedemand
increaseof11%isappliedtoallsegmentsandalltimeperiods.Consequently,it
isexpectedthatpartsofthefacilitymaybecomeoversaturatedandthatqueues
mayformonthefacility.
Example Problems
Page 10-54

December 2010

Step 1: Input Data
Therevisedtrafficdemandinputsforall11segmentsandfiveanalysis
intervalsareshowninExhibit1035.
Entering
Flow Rate
(veh/h)
5,001
5,500
5,800
5,200
4,201
Time Step
(15 min)
1
2
3
4
5
Ramp Flow Rates by Time Period (veh/h)

ONR1
ONR2*
ONR3 OFR1 OFR2 OFR3
500
599 (56)
500
600
400
300
599
799 (111)
599
400
400
300
699
899 (167)
699
300
400
500
400
400 (89)
500
300
400
300
200
300 (56)
300
300
200
200
Exiting
Flow Rate
(veh/h)
5,600
6,399
6,899
5,500
4,301
Exhibit 10-35
Demand Inputs for Example
Problem 2
* Numbers in parentheses indicate ONR-2 to OFR-2 demand flow rates in Weaving Segment 6.
ThevaluesinExhibit1035representtheadjusteddemandflowsonthe
facilityasdeterminedfromfieldobservationsordemandprojections.Theactual
volumeservedineachsegmentwillbedeterminedduringapplicationofthe
methodologyandisexpectedtobelessdownstreamofacongestedsegment.The
demandflowsaregivenfortheextendedtimespacedomain,consistentwith
thischaptersmethodology.Peakingoccursinthethird15minperiod.Since
inputsareintheformof15minobservations,nopeakhourfactoradjustmentis
necessary.Additionalgeometricandtrafficrelatedinputsareasspecifiedin
Exhibit1025andthefactssectionoftheproblemstatement.
ThetrafficflowsinExhibit1035havealreadybeengivenintheformof
actualdemandsandnofurtherdemandadjustmentsarenecessary.
Sincenochangestosegmentgeometryweremade,thesegmentcapacitiesfor
basicandrampsegmentsareconsistentwithExampleProblem1andExhibit10
28.Capacitiesforweavingsegmentsareafunctionofweavingflowpatterns,and
theincreaseddemandflowsresultedinslightchangesasshowninExhibit1036.
Time
Step
1
2
3
4
5
6,732
6,732
6,732

4
5
6
7
8
8,253
8,260
6,732 6,732 8,303 6,732 6,732
8,382
8,443
10
11
6,732
6,732
6,732
Exhibit 10-36
Segment Capacities for Example
Problem 2

Nocapacityadjustmentsaremadeinthisexample.
ThedemandtocapacityratiosinExhibit1037arecalculatedfromthe
demandflowsinExhibit1035andfromthesegmentcapacitiesinExhibit1036.

December 2010
Page 10-55
Example Problems

Exhibit 10-37
Segment Demand-toCapacity Ratios for Example
Problem 2
Time
Step
1
2
3
4
5
1
0.74
0.82
0.86
0.77
0.62
2
0.82
0.91
0.97
0.83
0.65
Demand-to-Capacity Ratios by Segment

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0.82 0.82 0.77 0.70 0.80 0.88
0.88
0.91 0.91 0.85 0.79 0.91 1.00
1.00
0.97 0.97 0.92 0.85 1.00 1.10 1.10
0.83 0.83 0.79 0.68 0.79 0.86
0.86
0.65 0.65 0.61 0.52 0.62 0.67
0.67
10
0.88
1.00
1.10
0.86
0.67
11
0.83
0.95
1.02
0.82
0.64
Thecomputedvd/cmatrixinExhibit1037showsthatSegments811now
havevd/cratiosgreaterthan1.0(boldvalues).Consequently,thefacilityis
categorizedasoversaturatedandtheanalysisproceedswithcomputingthe
oversaturatedservicemeasuresinStep6b.Further,itisexpectedthatqueuing
willoccuronthefacilityupstreamofthecongestedsegmentsandthatthe
volumeservedineachsegmentdownstreamofthecongestedsegmentswillbe
lessthanthedemand.Thisresidualdemandwillbeservedinlatertimeintervals,
providedthatupstreamdemanddropsandqueuesareallowedtoclear.
Step 6b: Compute Oversaturated Segment Service Measures
Theoversaturatedcomputationsapplytoanysegmentwithavd/cratio
greaterthan1.0aswellasanysegmentsupstreamofthosesegmentsthat
experiencequeuingasaresultofthebottleneck.Allremainingsegmentsare
analyzedbyusingtheindividualsegmentmethodologiesofChapters11,12,and
13,asapplicable,withthecaveatthatvolumesservedmaydifferfromdemand
flows.
SimilartoExampleProblem1,themethodologycalculatesperformance
measuresforeachsegmentandeachtimeperiod,startingwiththefirstsegment
inTimeStep1.ThecomputationsarerepeatedforallsegmentsforTimeSteps1
and2withoutencounteringasegmentwithvd/c>1.0.Oncethemethodology
entersTimePeriod3andSegment8,theoversaturatedcomputationalmoduleis
invoked.
Asthefirstactivebottleneck,theva/cratioforSegment8willbeexactly1.0
andwillprocesstrafficatitscapacity.Consequently,demandforalldownstream
segmentswillbemeteredbythatbottleneck.Theunsatisfieddemandisstoredin
upstreamsegments,whichcausesqueuinginSegment7andperhapsfurther
upstreamsegmentsdependingonthelevelofexcessdemand.Therateofgrowth
ofthevehiclequeue(wavespeed)isestimatedfromshockwavetheory,as
discussedindetailinChapter25,FreewayFacilities:Supplemental.The
performancemeasures(speedanddensity)ofanysegmentwithqueuingare
recomputedasdiscussedinChapter25,andthenewlycalculatedvaluesoverride
theresultsfromthesegmentspecificprocedures.
Anyunsatisfieddemandisservicedinlatertimeperiods.Asaresult,
volumesservedinlatertimeperiodsmaybehigherthantheperioddemand
flows.TheresultingmatrixofvolumesservedforExampleProblem2isshown
inExhibit1038.Thetableemphasizescellswherevolumesservedarelessthan
demandflows(inbold)andwherevolumesservedaregreaterthandemand
flows(italicized).
Example Problems
Page 10-56

December 2010

Time
Step
1
2
3
4
5
1
5,001
5,500
5,800
5,200
4,201
2
5,500
6,099
6,499
5,600
4,401
3
5,500
6,099
6,499
5,600
4,401
Volumes Served (veh/h) by Segment

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
5,500 5,200 5,800
5,400 5,900 5,900 5,900 5,600
6,099 5,700 6,400 6,099 6,699 6,699 6,699 6,399
6,499 6,111 6,625 6,032 6,732 6,732 6,732 6,277
5,600 5,389 6,173 5,967 6,466 6,466 6,466 6,121
4,401 4,101 4,401 4,201 4,501 4,501 4,501 4,301
Exhibit 10-38
Volume-Served Matrix for Example
Problem 2
AsaresultofthebottleneckactivationinSegment8inTimePeriod3,queues
forminupstreamSegments7,6,and5.Thequeuingisassociatedwithreduced
speedsandincreaseddensitiesinthosesegments.Detailsonhowthesemeasures
arecalculatedforoversaturatedsegmentsaregiveninChapter25.Theresultsin
thischapterwereobtainedfromtheFREEVAL2010engine.Theresulting
performancemeasurescomputedforeachsegmentandtimeintervalarethe
speed(Exhibit1039),density(Exhibit1040),andLOS(Exhibit1041).
Time
Step
1
2
3
4
5
1
59.8
58.6
57.4
59.4
60.0
2
53.1
52.1
51.0
53.0
54.5
3
58.6
55.7
53.0
58.2
59.7

4
5
6
7
8
55.9 59.4 46.8 58.9 52.5
55.5 57.8 45.4 55.7 50.5
55.4 53.6 28.2 34.8 50.2
55.8 49.9 39.2 53.9 51.2
56.2 60.0 51.7 60.0 54.4
9
52.5
50.5
50.2
51.2
54.4
10
55.7
55.3
55.1
55.3
56.3
11
58.2
53.8
54.6
55.6
60.0
1
27.9
31.3
33.7
29.2
23.3
2
34.5
39.0
42.5
35.2
26.9
3
31.3
36.5
40.9
32.1
24.6

4
5
6
7
8
32.8 29.2 31.0 30.6 37.5
36.7 32.9 35.8 36.5 44.2
39.1 38.0 58.8 57.7 44.7
33.4 36.0 39.4 36.9 42.1
26.1 22.8 21.3 23.3 27.6
9
37.5
44.2
44.7
42.1
27.6
10
35.3
40.4
40.7
38.9
26.6
11
32.1
39.7
38.3
36.7
23.9
Exhibit 10-39
Problem 2
Time
Step
1
2
3
4
5
Exhibit 10-40
Problem 2
Time
Step
1
2
3
4
5
Time
Step
1
2
3
4
5
1
D
D
D
D
C
2
D
D
D
D
C
3
D
E
E
D
C
Density-Based LOS by Segment

4
5
6
7
8
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
E
E
E
D
E
F
F
E
D
E
E
E
D
C
C
C
C
C
Demand-Based LOS by Segment
4
5
6
7
8
9
D
E
E
D
C
10
D
E
E
D
C
11
D
E
E
E
C
10
11
Exhibit 10-41
Expanded LOS Matrix for Example
Problem 2
TheLOStableforoversaturatedfacilities(Exhibit1041)distinguishes
betweentheconventionaldensitybasedLOSandasegmentdemandbasedLOS.
Thedensitybasedstratificationstrictlydependsontheprevailingaverage
densityoneachsegment.Segmentsdownstreamofthebottleneck,whose
capacitiesaregreaterthanorequaltothebottleneckcapacity,operateatLOSE
(orbetter),eventhoughtheirvd/cratiosweregreaterthan1.0.Thedemandbased
LOSidentifiesthosesegmentswithdemandtocapacityratiosexceeding1.0asif
theyhadbeenevaluatedinisolation(i.e.,usingmethodologiesofChapters11,
December 2010
Page 10-57
Example Problems

12,and13).BycontrastingthetwopartsoftheLOStable,theanalystcan
developanunderstandingofthemeteringeffectofthebottleneck.
calculatedforeachtimeinterval(Exhibit1042),consistentwithExample
Problem1.Onlysummaryresultsareshowninthiscase,sincethecomputations
havealreadybeenshown.ThefacilityoperatesatLOSFinTimePeriod3,since
oneormoreindividualsegmentshaved/cratios1.0,eventhoughtheaverage
facilitydensityisbelowtheLOSFthreshold.
Exhibit 10-42
Facility Performance
Measure Summary for
Example Problem 2
Time
Interval
1
2
3
4
5
Total
Performance Measure
Average
Space Mean
Density
Speed
(veh/mi/ln)
(mi/h)
56.7
31.0
54.5
36.1
46.3
43.7
52.8
35.4
58.2
23.8
52.9
34.0
LOS
D
E
F
E
C
EXAMPLE PROBLEM 3: CAPACITY IMPROVEMENTS TO AN

OVERSATURATED FACILITY
The Facility
Inthisexample,portionsofthecongestedfacilityinExampleProblem2are
beingimprovedinanattempttoalleviatethecongestionresultingfromthe
Segment8bottleneck.Exhibit1043showstheupgradedfacilitygeometry.
Exhibit 10-43
Problem 3
Themodifiedgeometryofthe6midirectionalfreewayfacilityisreflectedin
Exhibit1044.
Exhibit 10-44
Geometry of Directional
Problem 3
Segment No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Segment type
B
ONR
B
OFR
B
B or W
B
ONR
Segment length
5,280 1,500 2,280 1,500 5,280 2,640 5,280 1,140
(ft)
No. of lanes
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
Note:
Example Problems
9
R
360
4
10
OFR
11
B
1,140 5,280
4
B = basic freeway segment, W = weaving segment, ONR = on-ramp (merge) segment, OFR = off-ramp
(diverge) segment, R = overlapping ramp segment.
Bold type indicates geometry changes from Example Problems 1 and 2.
Page 10-58

December 2010

ThefacilityimprovementsconsistedofaddingalanetoSegments711to
givethefacilityacontinuousfourlanecrosssectionstartinginSegment6.While
theactivebottleneckinExampleProblem2wasinSegment8,theprioranalysis
showedthatothersegments(Segments911)showedsimilardemandto
capacityratiosgreaterthan1.0.Consequently,anycapacityimprovementsthat
arelimitedtoSegment8wouldhavemerelymovedthespatiallocationofthe
bottleneckfurtherdownstreamratherthanimprovingtheoverallfacility.
Segments911mayalsobereferredtoashiddenorinactivebottlenecks,
becausetheirpredictedcongestionismitigatedbytheupstreammeteringof
traffic.
The Facts
InadditiontotheinformationcontainedinExhibit1043andExhibit1044,
thefollowingcharacteristicsofthefreewayfacilityareknown:
Djam = 190pc/mi/ln;
TRD = 1.0ramp/mi;
Terrain = level;
Analysisduration = 75min(dividedintofive15minintervals);and
Demandadjustment = +11%(allsegmentsandalltimeintervals).
Comments
ThetrafficdemandflowinputsareidenticaltothoseinExampleProblem2,
whichreflectedan11%increaseintrafficappliedtoallsegmentsandalltime
periods.Inanattempttosolvethecongestioneffectfoundintheearlierexample,
thefacilitywaswidenedinSegments7and11.Thischangedirectlyaffectsthe
capacitiesofthosesegments.
Inamoresubtleway,theproposedmodificationsalsochangesomeofthe
definingparametersofWeavingSegment6aswell.Withtheaddedcontinuous
lanedownstreamofthesegment,therequirednumberoflanechangesfromthe
ramptothefreewayisreducedfromonetozero,followingtheguidelinesin
Chapter12.Thesechangesneedtobeconsideredwhentheundersaturated
performanceofthatsegmentisevaluated.Theweavingsegmentscapacityis
unchangedrelativetoExampleProblem2,since,evenwiththeproposed
improvements,thenumberofweavinglanesremainstwo.

December 2010
Page 10-59
Example Problems

Step 1: Input Data
Trafficdemandinputsforall11segmentsandfiveanalysisintervalsare
identicaltothoseinExampleProblem2asshowninExhibit1035.Thevaluesin
Exhibit1035representtheadjusteddemandflowsonthefacilityasdetermined
fromfieldobservationsorothersources.Theactualvolumeservedineach
segmentwillbedeterminedduringthemethodologiesandisexpectedtobeless
downstreamofacongestedsegment.Additionalgeometricandtrafficrelated
inputsareasspecifiedinExhibit1044andthefactssectionoftheproblem
statement.
ThetrafficflowsinExhibit1035havealreadybeengivenintheformof
actualdemandsandnofurtherdemandadjustmentsarenecessary.
SegmentcapacitiesaredeterminedbyusingthemethodologiesofChapter11
forbasicfreewaysegments,Chapter12forweavingsegments,andChapter13
formergeanddivergesegments.TheresultingcapacitiesareshowninExhibit
1045.Sincethecapacityofaweavingsegmentdependsontrafficpatterns,it
variesbytimeperiod.Theremainingcapacitiesareconstantforallfivetime
steps.ThecapacitiesforSegments15andforSegments711arethesame,since
thesegmentshavethesamebasiccrosssection.
Exhibit 10-45
Segment Capacities for
Example Problem 3
Time
Step
1
2
3
4
5
6,732
6,732
6,732

4
5
6
7
8
8,253
8,260
6,732 6,732 8,303 8,976 8,976
8,382
8,443
10
11
8,976
8,976
8,976

Noadditionalcapacityadjustmentsaremadeinthisexample.
Thedemandtocapacityratiosarecalculatedfromthedemandflowsin
Exhibit1035andsegmentcapacitiesinExhibit1045.
Exhibit 10-46
Segment Demand-toCapacity Ratios for Example
Problem 3
Time
Step
1
2
3
4
5
1
0.74
0.82
0.86
0.77
0.62
2
0.82
0.91
0.97
0.83
0.65
Demand-to-Capacity Ratio by
3
4
5
6
7
0.82 0.82 0.77 0.70 0.60
0.91 0.91 0.85 0.79 0.68
0.97 0.97 0.92 0.85 0.75
0.83 0.83 0.79 0.68 0.59
0.65 0.65 0.61 0.52 0.47
Segment
8
9
0.66 0.66
0.75 0.75
0.82 0.82
0.65 0.65
0.50 0.50
10
0.66
0.75
0.82
0.65
0.50
11
0.62
0.71
0.77
0.61
0.48
ThedemandtocapacityratiomatrixforExampleProblem3(Exhibit1046)
showsthatthecapacityimprovementssuccessfullyreducedallthepreviously
congestedsegmentstovd/c<1.0.Therefore,itisexpectedthatthefacilitywill
operateasgloballyundersaturatedandthatallsegmentperformancemeasurescan
Example Problems
Page 10-60

December 2010

bedirectlycomputedbyusingthemethodologiesinChapters11,12,and13in
Step6a.
Step 6a: Compute Undersaturated Segment Service Measures
Sincethefacilityisgloballyundersaturated,themethodologyproceedsto
calculateperformanceandservicemeasuresforeachsegmentandeachtimestep,
startingwiththefirstsegmentinTimeInterval1.Thecomputationaldetailsfor
eachsegmenttypeareexactlyasdescribedinChapters11,12,and13.The
weavingmethodologyinChapter13checkswhethertheweavingshortlengthLS
islessthanorequaltothemaximumweavinglengthLmax.Itisassumedthat,for
anytimeintervalwhereLSislongerthanLmax,theweavingsegmentwilloperate
asabasicfreewaysegment.
Thebasicperformanceservicemeasurescomputedforeachsegmentand
eachtimeintervalincludethesegmentspeed(Exhibit1047),density(Exhibit10
48),andLOS(Exhibit1049).
Time
Step
1
2
3
4
5
1
59.8
58.6
57.4
59.4
60.0
2
53.1
52.1
51.0
53.0
54.5
3
58.6
55.7
53.0
58.2
59.7

4
5
6
7
8
55.9 59.4 50.4 60.0 54.9
55.5 57.8 50.0 60.0 54.3
55.4 55.1 49.7 59.8 53.6
55.8 59.2 50.7 60.0 55.0
56.2 60.0 53.4 60.0 55.9
9
54.9
54.3
53.6
55.0
55.9
10
58.1
57.7
57.2
58.1
58.8
11
60.0
60.0
59.5
60.0
60.0
1
27.9
31.3
33.7
29.2
23.3
2
34.5
39.0
42.5
35.2
26.9
3
31.3
36.5
40.9
32.1
24.6

4
5
6
7
8
32.8 29.2 28.8 22.5 26.9
36.7 32.9 32.5 25.4 30.9
39.1 37.5 35.7 28.0 34.5
33.4 29.8 28.1 22.1 26.4
26.1 22.8 20.6 17.5 20.1
9
26.9
30.9
34.5
26.4
20.1
10
25.4
29.0
32.4
24.9
19.1
11
23.3
26.7
29.0
22.9
17.9
1
D
D
D
D
C
2
D
D
D
D
C
3
D
E
E
D
C
LOS for Segment

5
6
7
D
D
C
D
D
D
E
E
D
D
D
C
C
C
B
9
C
C
D
C
B
10
C
C
D
C
B
11
C
D
D
C
C
Exhibit 10-47
Problem 3
Time
Step
1
2
3
4
5
Exhibit 10-48
Problem 3
Time
Step
1
2
3
4
5

December 2010
4
D
D
D
D
C
8
C
C
D
C
B
Page 10-61
Exhibit 10-49
LOS Matrix for Example Problem 3
Example Problems

calculatedforeachtimestep(Exhibit1050),consistentwithExampleProblem2.
Onlysummaryresultsareshowninthiscase,sincethecomputationshave
alreadybeenshown.TheimprovementhasbeenabletorestorethefacilityLOS
tothevaluesexperiencedintheoriginalpregrowthscenarioshowninExhibit10
34.
Exhibit 10-50
Facility Performance
Measure Summary for
Example Problem 3
Time
Step
1
2
3
4
5
Total
Example Problems
Performance Measure
Average
Space
Density
Mean Speed
(veh/mi/ln)
(mi/h)
57.9
26.8
57.1
30.4
56.0
33.5
57.8
26.9
58.6
20.8
57.3
27.7
Page 10-62
LOS
D
D
D
D
C

December 2010
5. REFERENCES
1. May,A.D.,Jr.,etal.CapacityandLevelofServiceAnalysisforFreewayFacilities.
FourthInterimReport.SAICCorporation,McLean,Va.,March1999.
Some of these references can be

found in the Technical Reference
Library in Volume 4.
2. ManualonUniformTrafficControlDevicesforStreetsandHighways.Federal
HighwayAdministration,Washington,D.C.,2009.
http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov.AccessedFeb.1,2010.
3. Krammes,R.A.,andG.O.Lopez.UpdatedCapacityValuesforShortTerm
FreewayWorkZoneLaneClosures.InTransportationResearchRecord1442,
TransportationResearchBoard,NationalResearchCouncil,Washington,
D.C.,1994,pp.4956.
4. Dudek,C.L.,andS.H.Richards.TrafficCapacityThroughUrbanFreeway
WorkZonesinTexas.InTransportationResearchRecord869,Transportation
ResearchBoard,NationalResearchCouncil,Washington,D.C.,1982,pp.14
18.
5. Dixon,K.K.,J.E.Hummer,andA.R.Lorscheider.CapacityforNorth
CarolinaFreewayWorkZones.InTransportationResearchRecord1529,
D.C.,1996,pp.2734.
6. Sarasua,W.A.,W.J.Davis,D.B.Clarke,J.Kottapally,andP.Mulukatla.
EvaluationofInterstateHighwayCapacityforShortTermWorkZoneLane
Closures.InTransportationResearchRecord:JournaloftheTransportation
ResearchBoard,No.1877,TransportationResearchBoardoftheNational
Academies,Washington,D.C.,2004,pp.8594.
7. MoDOTWorkZoneGuidelines2004.MissouriDepartmentofTransportation,
JeffersonCity,2004.
8. Notbohm,T.,A.Drakopoulos,andA.Dehman.FreewayWorkZoneLane
Capacity.MarquetteUniversity,Milwaukee,Wis.,2007.
9. Elefteriadou,L.,D.Arguea,A.Kondyli,andK.Heaslip.ImpactofTruckson
ArterialLOSandFreewayWorkZonesCapacityPartB:FreewayWorkZone
Capacity.FinalReport.FloridaDepartmentofTransportation,Tallahassee,
July2007.
10. OnlinedatafromtheVirginiaDepartmentofTransportation.
www.virginiadot.org.
11. Maze,T.,S.Schrock,andA.Kamyab.CapacityofFreewayWorkZoneLane
Closures.ProceedingsoftheMidContinentTransportationSymposium,Iowa
StateUniversity,Ames,2000.
12. MassHighway,Chapter17WorkZoneManagement.MassachusettsDepartment
ofPublicWorks,Boston,2006.
13. Chatterjee,I.,P.K.Edara,S.Menneni,andC.Sun.ReplicationofWorkZone
CapacityValuesinaSimulationModel.InTransportationResearchRecord:
JournaloftheTransportationResearchBoard,No.2130,TransportationResearch
BoardoftheNationalAcademies,Washington,D.C.,2009,pp.138148.

December 2010
Page 10-63
References

14. Agarwal,M.,T.H.Maze,andR.Souleyrette.ImpactofWeatheronUrban
FreewayTrafficFlowCharacteristicsandFacilityCapacity.Centerfor
TransportationResearchandEducation,IowaStateUniversity,Ames,Aug.
2005.
15. Lamm,R.,E.M.Choueiri,andT.Mailaender.ComparisonofOperating
SpeedsonDryandWetPavementsofTwoLaneRuralHighways.In
TransportationResearchRecord1280,TransportationResearchBoard,National
ResearchCouncil,Washington,D.C.,1990,pp.199207.
16. Ibrahim,A.T.,andF.L.Hall.EffectofAdverseWeatherConditionson
SpeedFlowOccupancyRelationships.InTransportationResearchRecord1457,
D.C.,1994,pp.184191.
17. Hogema,J.H.,andR.vanderHorst.EvaluationofA16MotorwayFog
SignalingSystemwithRespecttoDrivingBehavior.InTransportation
ResearchRecord1573,TransportationResearchBoard,NationalResearch
Council,Washington,D.C.,1997,pp.6367.
18. Aron,M.,M.Ellenberg,P.Fabre,andP.Veyre.WeatherRelatedTraffic
Management.TowardsanIntelligentTransportSystem:Proc.,1stWorldCongress
onApplicationsofTransportTelematicsandIntelligentVehicleHighwaySystems,
Paris,Vol.3,Ertico,Brussels,Belgium,1994,pp.10891096.
19. Brilon,W.,andM.Ponzlet.AuswirkungenonZeitlichVeraenderlichen
Leistungsfaehigkeiten,Schlussbericht.LehrsthlfrVerkehrswesen,Ruhr
Universitt,Bochum,Germany,1995.
20. Giuliano,G.IncidentCharacteristics,Frequency,andDurationonaHigh
VolumeUrbanFreeway.TransportationResearch,Vol.23A,No.5,1989,pp.
387396.
21. PBFarradyne.TrafficIncidentManagementHandbook.ReportFHWASA91
056.FederalHighwayAdministration,OfficeofTravelManagement,
Washington,D.C.,Nov.2000.
22. DunnEngineeringAssociatesandSiemensIntelligentTransportation
Systems.TrafficControlSystemsHandbook.ReportFHWAHOP06006.
FederalHighwayAdministration,OfficeofTransportationManagement,
Washington,D.C.,Oct.2005.
References
Page 10-64

December 2010

HCM 2010 Chapter 10

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

HCM 2010 Chapter 10

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

HCM2010

HIGHWAY CAPACITY MANUAL

Downloaded from hcm.trb.org

To order HCM 2010, go to http://books.trbbookstore.org/hcm10.aspx.

Highway Capacity Manual 2010

Chapter 10/Freeway Facilities

Downloaded from hcm.trb.org

Highway Capacity Manual 2010

Downloaded from hcm.trb.org

Chapter 10/Freeway Facilities

Highway Capacity Manual 2010

Chapter 10/Freeway Facilities

Downloaded from hcm.trb.org

Highway Capacity Manual 2010

VOLUME 2: UNINTERRUPTED FLOW

Chapter 10/Freeway Facilities

Downloaded from hcm.trb.org

Highway Capacity Manual 2010

(a) Merge Influence Area

(b) Diverge Influence Area

(c) Weaving Influence Area

Downloaded from hcm.trb.org

Chapter 10/Freeway Facilities

Highway Capacity Manual 2010

Chapter 10/Freeway Facilities

Downloaded from hcm.trb.org

Highway Capacity Manual 2010

Downloaded from hcm.trb.org

Chapter 10/Freeway Facilities

Highway Capacity Manual 2010

Shaded cells indicate segments where demand exceeds capacity.

Downloaded from hcm.trb.org

Highway Capacity Manual 2010

Free-Flow Speed (mi/h)

Base Capacity (pc/h/ln)

FFS = 75.4 f LW f LC 3.22 TRD 0.84

Downloaded from hcm.trb.org

Chapter 10/Freeway Facilities

Highway Capacity Manual 2010

Base Capacity (pc/mi/ln)

Total Ramp Density (ramps/mi)

Segment Capacity vs. Facility Capacity

Downloaded from hcm.trb.org

Highway Capacity Manual 2010

Downloaded from hcm.trb.org

Chapter 10/Freeway Facilities

Highway Capacity Manual 2010

Chapter 10/Freeway Facilities

Downloaded from hcm.trb.org

Highway Capacity Manual 2010

SVi = SFi PHF

Downloaded from hcm.trb.org

Chapter 10/Freeway Facilities

Highway Capacity Manual 2010

Chapter 10/Freeway Facilities

Downloaded from hcm.trb.org

Highway Capacity Manual 2010

Downloaded from hcm.trb.org

Chapter 10/Freeway Facilities

Highway Capacity Manual 2010

Chapter 10/Freeway Facilities

Downloaded from hcm.trb.org

Highway Capacity Manual 2010

98.6 118.9 135.2