Chapter 38 - Network Analysis - 700

HIGHWAY CAPACITY
MANUAL 7th Edition

A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis
Transportation Research Board publications are available by ordering individual publications
directly from the TRB Business Office, through the Internet at www.TRB.org or
nationalacademies.org/trb, or by annual subscription through organizational or individual
affiliation with TRB. Affiliates and library subscribers are eligible for substantial discounts. For
further information, contact the Transportation Research Board Business Office, 500 Fifth
Street, NW, Washington, DC 20001 (telephone 202-334-3213; fax 202-334-2519; or e-mail
TRBsales@nas.edu).
Copyright 2022 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Printed in the United States of America
Hardcover International Standard Book Number-13: 978-0-309-08766-7

Volume 1 International Standard Book Number-13: 978-0-309-27566-8
eBook International Standard Book Number-13: 978-0-309-27562-0
Digital Object Identifier: https://doi.org/10.17226/26432
Library of Congress Control Number: 2022930290
Suggested citation: National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Highway
Capacity Manual 7th Edition: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis. Washington, DC: The
National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/26432.
The National Academy of Sciences was established in 1863 by an Act of Congress,
signed by President Lincoln, as a private, nongovernmental institution to advise the
nation on issues related to science and technology. Members are elected by their peers
for outstanding contributions to research. Dr. Marcia McNutt is president.
The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964 under the charter of the
National Academy of Sciences to bring the practices of engineering to advising the
nation. Members are elected by their peers for extraordinary contributions to
engineering. Dr. John L. Anderson is president.
The National Academy of Medicine (formerly the Institute of Medicine) was established
in 1970 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to advise the nation on
medical and health issues. Members are elected by their peers for distinguished
contributions to medicine and health. Dr. Victor J. Dzau is president.
The three Academies work together as the National Academies of Sciences,

Engineering, and Medicine to provide independent, objective analysis and advice to the
nation and conduct other activities to solve complex problems and inform public policy
decisions. The Academies also encourage education and research, recognize
outstanding contributions to knowledge, and increase public understanding in matters
of science, engineering, and medicine.
Learn more about the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine at
www.nationalacademies.org.
The Transportation Research Board is one of seven major programs of the National
Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. The mission of the Transportation
Research Board is to provide leadership in transportation improvements and innovation
through trusted, timely, impartial, and evidence-based information exchange,
research, and advice regarding all modes of transportation. The Board’s varied
activities annually engage about 8,000 engineers, scientists, and other transportation
researchers and practitioners from the public and private sectors and academia, all of
whom contribute their expertise in the public interest. The program is supported by
state departments of transportation, federal agencies including the component
administrations of the U.S. Department of Transportation, and other organizations and
individuals interested in the development of transportation.
Learn more about the Transportation Research Board at www.TRB.org.

Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis
CHAPTER 38
NETWORK ANALYSIS
CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................. 38-1
Overview ............................................................................................................. 38-1
Chapter Organization ........................................................................................ 38-1
Related HCM Content ........................................................................................ 38-1
2. CONCEPTS ............................................................................................................. 38-3

Overview ............................................................................................................. 38-3
Spillback Impact on Freeways .......................................................................... 38-3
Spillback Impact on Urban Streets ................................................................... 38-6
Lane-by-Lane Analysis ...................................................................................... 38-7
Performance Measurement for Networks and O-D Pairs ............................. 38-8
3. METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................. 38-9

Scope of the Methodology ................................................................................. 38-9
Required Data and Sources ..............................................................................38-11
Computational Steps .........................................................................................38-12
4. EXAMPLE PROBLEMS....................................................................................... 38-28

Example Problem 1: O-D–Based Travel Time Estimation ...........................38-28
Example Problem 2: On-Ramp Spillback Analysis .......................................38-38
Example Problem 3: Off-Ramp Queue Spillback Analysis ..........................38-65
Example Problem 4: On-Ramp Queue Spillback Analysis into a
Single-Lane Roundabout ...........................................................................38-74
5. REFERENCE.......................................................................................................... 38-80
APPENDIX A: OFF-RAMP QUEUE SPILLBACK ANALYSIS ....................... 38-81

Capacity Checks.................................................................................................38-82
Queue Length Estimation .................................................................................38-83
Queue Storage Ratios and Spillback Chcecks ................................................38-86
Off-Ramp Queue Spillback Evaluation ..........................................................38-88
References .........................................................................................................38-129
Chapter 38/Network Analysis Contents

Version 7.0 Page 38-i
APPENDIX B: ON-RAMP QUEUE SPILLBACK ANALYSIS .......................38-130

Demand Estimation ........................................................................................ 38-130
Capacity Estimation ....................................................................................... 38-137
Evaluation of On-Ramp Queue Spillback Impacts .................................... 38-137
References ........................................................................................................ 38-154
APPENDIX C: LANE-BY-LANE ANALYSIS FOR FREEWAY

FACILITIES ............................................................................................................38-155
Lane-by-Lane Flow Models by Segment Type ........................................... 38-155
Lane Flow Ratio Distribution as a Function of the Demand-to-
Capacity Ratio .......................................................................................... 38-159
Checking for Negative Flows and Lane Capacities ................................... 38-160
Speed–Flow Curves by Lane and Segment Type ....................................... 38-162
Application Examples .................................................................................... 38-165
References ........................................................................................................ 38-173
Contents Chapter 38/Network Analysis

Page 38-ii Version 7.0
LIST OF EXHIBITS
Exhibit 38-1 Off-Ramp Components ........................................................................ 38-4

Exhibit 38-2 Definition of Spillback Regimes .......................................................... 38-4
Exhibit 38-3 Capacity Adjustment Factors (CAFBL) for Through Lanes
Adjacent to Blocked Lanes during Queue Spillback....................................... 38-6
Exhibit 38-4 Queue Influence Area with Increased Turbulence........................... 38-6
Exhibit 38-5 Length of Queue Influence Area as a Function of the
Segment Free-Flow Speed (FFS) ........................................................................ 38-6
Exhibit 38-6 Queue Spillback from an On-Ramp into Urban Street
Intersections ......................................................................................................... 38-7
Exhibit 38-7 Required Input Data, Potential Data Sources, and Default
Values for the Network Analysis Methodology............................................ 38-11
Exhibit 38-8 Default Spillback Regimes as a Function of Ramp Geometry
and Driver Aggressiveness .............................................................................. 38-12
Exhibit 38-9 Network Analysis Methodology Flowchart .................................... 38-12
Exhibit 38-10 Sample Study Network, with Multiple Origins and
Destinations ........................................................................................................ 38-13
Exhibit 38-11 Potential Bottlenecks Constraining the Ramp Terminal
Demand ............................................................................................................... 38-14
Exhibit 38-12 Potential Bottlenecks Constraining the On-Ramp Demand ....... 38-15
Exhibit 38-13 Spillback Check Procedure for Off-Ramps .................................... 38-17
Exhibit 38-14 Spillback Check Procedure for On-Ramps .................................... 38-18
Exhibit 38-15 Probability of Lane Choice for Entry/Exit Segments on
Freeway Facilities .............................................................................................. 38-20
Exhibit 38-16 Illustration of Lane Choice Probabilities Along a Freeway
Facility ................................................................................................................. 38-20
Exhibit 38-17 Speed–Flow Curves for Freeway Ramps ....................................... 38-22
Exhibit 38-18 Sample Calculation of Total Travel Time Using Multiperiod
Analysis............................................................................................................... 38-24
Exhibit 38-19 Reference Input Values for O-D Analysis under Free-Flow
Conditions .......................................................................................................... 38-24
Exhibit 38-20 List of Example Problems ................................................................ 38-28
Exhibit 38-21 Example Problem 1: Network Interchanges, Intersections,
and O-D Points................................................................................................... 38-28
Exhibit 38-22 Example Problem 1: Freeway Facility Segmentation and
O-D Entry and Exit Points ................................................................................ 38-29
Exhibit 38-23 Example Problem 1: O-D Matrix..................................................... 38-29
Exhibit 38-24 Example Problem 1: Urban Street Facilities .................................. 38-30

Version 7.0 Page 38-iii
Exhibit 38-25 Example Problem 1: List of Intersections, Ramps, and

Segments Traversed for O-D Pair D-H ...........................................................38-30
Exhibit 38-26 Example Problem 1: Input Data for Freeway Facility
Analysis ...............................................................................................................38-31
Exhibit 38-27 Example Problem 1: Input Data for Intersection Analysis –
Archer Rd. WB ...................................................................................................38-31
Exhibit 38-28 Example Problem 1: Input Data for Segment Analysis –
Archer Rd. WB ...................................................................................................38-32
Exhibit 38-29 Example Problem 1: Input Data for Intersection Analysis –
NW 39th Ave. EB ...............................................................................................38-32
Exhibit 38-30 Example Problem 1: Input Data for Segment Analysis –
NW 39th Ave. EB ...............................................................................................38-32
Exhibit 38-31 Example Problem 1: On-Ramp Demands Along the
Freeway Facility .................................................................................................38-33
Exhibit 38-32 Example Problem 1: Freeway Segment LOS .................................38-33
Exhibit 38-33 Example Problem 1: Off-Ramp Demands Along the
Freeway Facility .................................................................................................38-33
Exhibit 38-34 Example Problem 1: Off-Ramp Queue Length Estimation
and Queue Storage Checks ...............................................................................38-34
Exhibit 38-35 Example Problem 1: Flow Distribution and Speeds for
Freeway Segments .............................................................................................38-35
Exhibit 38-36 Example Problem 1: Estimated Speeds by Segment Based
on Lane Choice Probability and Speeds .........................................................38-35
Exhibit 38-37 Example Problem 1: Urban Street Segment Speeds .....................38-36
Exhibit 38-38 Example Problem 1: Urban Streets Segment Travel Times .........38-36
Exhibit 38-39 Example Problem 1: Freeway Segment Travel Times ..................38-36
Exhibit 38-40 Example Problem 1: Ramp Roadway Travel Times .....................38-36
Exhibit 38-41 Example Problem 1: Cumulative Travel Time Computation......38-37
Exhibit 38-42 Example Problem 2: Network Interchanges, Intersections,
and O-D Points ...................................................................................................38-38
Exhibit 38-43 Example Problem 2: Freeway Facility Segmentation and
O-D Entry and Exit Points ................................................................................38-39
Exhibit 38-44 Example Problem 2: Urban Street Facility .....................................38-39
Exhibit 38-45 Example Problem 2A: Signalized Intersection Geometry:
I-10 EB Ramps ....................................................................................................38-40
Exhibit 38-46 Example Problem 2A: Phasing Sequence: I-10 EB Ramps ...........38-40
Exhibit 38-47 Example Problem 2A: Demand Flow Rates (veh/h): I-10 EB
Ramps ..................................................................................................................38-41
Exhibit 38-48 Example Problem 2A: Other Input Data: I-10 EB Ramps ............38-41
Exhibit 38-49 Example Problem 2A: Freeway Facility Segments .......................38-41

Page 38-iv Version 7.0
Exhibit 38-50 Example Problem 2A: Freeway Facility Geometric Features ...... 38-42
Exhibit 38-51 Example Problem 2A: Calculation of NB Right Turn
Capacity for a Single Cycle: Analysis Period 2 .............................................. 38-44
Exhibit 38-52 Example Problem 2A: NBR Capacity by Analysis Period ........... 38-44
Exhibit 38-53 Example Problem 2A: Calculation of the On-Ramp
Demand vR Based on the Intersection Operation .......................................... 38-45
Exhibit 38-54 Example Problem 2A: Freeway Facility Demand Inputs ............ 38-45
Exhibit 38-55 Example Problem 2A: Freeway Facility LOS ................................ 38-45
Exhibit 38-56 Example Problem 2A: Spillback Check: I-10 EB On-Ramp ......... 38-46
Exhibit 38-57 Example Problem 2A: Freeway Segment 5 Merge Capacity
and Queue Lengths ........................................................................................... 38-47
Exhibit 38-58 Example Problem 2A: Freeway Performance During
Analysis Period 4 with and without the Queue Storage Constraint .......... 38-47
Exhibit 38-59 Example Problem 2A: Estimated Queue Lengths and
Merge Capacities During Analysis Period 2 .................................................. 38-48
Exhibit 38-60 Example Problem 2A: Discharge Flow Rates into the On-
Ramp for Each Phase Throughout the Cycle During Analysis
Period 2 ............................................................................................................... 38-51
Exhibit 38-62 Example Problem 2A: Discharge Flow Rates into the On-
Ramp for Each Phase Throughout the Cycle During Analysis
Period 3 ............................................................................................................... 38-54
Exhibit 38-63 Example Problem 2A: Calculation of the Spillback Capacity
Reduction Factor for the SBL Movement for Analysis Period 3 ................. 38-55
Exhibit 38-65 Example Problem 2A: Calculation of the Spillback Capacity
Reduction Factor for the SBL Movement for Analysis Period 4 ................. 38-56
Exhibit 38-66 Example Problem 2A: Performance Measure Comparison
with and without Consideration of Spillback Effects ................................... 38-57
Exhibit 38-67 Example Problem 2B: TWSC Intersection Geometry: I-10 EB
Ramps .................................................................................................................. 38-58
Exhibit 38-68 Example Problem 2B: Calculation of the On-Ramp Demand
vR Based on the Intersection Operation .......................................................... 38-59
Exhibit 38-69 Example Problem 2B: Queue Accumulation Plot
Calculations for the On-Ramp ......................................................................... 38-60
Exhibit 38-70 Example Problem 2B: Queue Accumulation Polygon for the
On-Ramp............................................................................................................. 38-60

Version 7.0 Page 38-v
Exhibit 38-71 Example Problem 2B: Performance Measure Comparison

with and without Consideration of Spillback Effects—Analysis
Period 3 ...............................................................................................................38-61
Exhibit 38-72 Example Problem 2C: AWSC Intersection Geometry: I-10
EB Ramps ............................................................................................................38-62
Exhibit 38-73 Example Problem 2C: Calculation of the On-Ramp Demand
vR Based on the Intersection Operation ..........................................................38-63
Exhibit 38-74 Example Problem 2C: Spillback Occurrence Check .....................38-63
Exhibit 38-75 Example Problem 2C: Queue Accumulation Plot
Calculations for the On-Ramp .........................................................................38-64
Exhibit 38-76 Example Problem 2C: Queue Accumulation Polygon for
the On-Ramp ......................................................................................................38-64
Exhibit 38-77 Example Problem 2C: Equivalent Capacities and Headways
for the On-Ramp: Analysis Period 3 ...............................................................38-64
Exhibit 38-78 Example Problem 2C: Performance Measure Comparison
with and without Consideration of Spillback Effects—Analysis
Period 3 ...............................................................................................................38-65
Exhibit 38-79 Example Problem 3: Study Site .......................................................38-65
Exhibit 38-80 Example Problem 3: Freeway Facility Geometry .........................38-66
Exhibit 38-81 Example Problem 3: Traffic Demands ............................................38-66
Exhibit 38-82 Example Problem 3: Freeway Facility 1 (I-75) LOS ......................38-67
Exhibit 38-83 Example Problem 3: Freeway Facility 2 (SR-826) LOS .................38-67
Exhibit 38-84 Example Problem 3: Queue Length and Storage Ratio at the
SR-826 On-Ramp ................................................................................................38-68
Exhibit 38-85 Example Problem 3: Link–Node Structure for Spillback
Analysis: I-75 SB.................................................................................................38-69
Exhibit 38-86 Example Problem 3: Queued Vehicles and Total Number of
Vehicles RNV in the Ramp: Analysis Period 2 ...............................................38-70
Exhibit 38-87 Example Problem 3: Ramp Capacity RSTG and Ramp Input
RI: Analysis Period 2 .........................................................................................38-70
Exhibit 38-88 Example Problem 3: Ramp Capacity RSTG and Ramp Input
RI: Analysis Period 3 .........................................................................................38-71
Exhibit 38-89 Example Problem 3: Spillback Queue Length on I-75 SB:
Analysis Period 3 ...............................................................................................38-72
Exhibit 38-90 Example Problem 3: Available Queue Storage on I-75 SB ...........38-72
Exhibit 38-91 Example Problem 3: Back of Queue Length, Including
Queue Influence Area, at the End of Analysis Period 3 ...............................38-73
Exhibit 38-92 Example Problem 4: Study Interchange Schematic ......................38-74
Exhibit 38-93 Example Problem 4: Roundabout Flows and Queues .................38-76
Exhibit 38-94 Example Problem 4: Roundabout Approach Priority Order ......38-76

Page 38-vi Version 7.0
Exhibit 38-A1 Off-Ramp Queue Spillback Check Flowchart .............................. 38-81

Exhibit 38-A2 Capacity of Ramp Roadways (pc/h) .............................................. 38-82
Exhibit 38-A3 Examples of Unbalanced Ramp Lane Usage ............................... 38-84
Exhibit 38-A4 Illustrative Assignment of Intersection Lane Groups to
Ramp Lanes ........................................................................................................ 38-85
Exhibit 38-A5 Expanded Link–Node Structure to Evaluate Off-Ramp
Segments ............................................................................................................. 38-89
Exhibit 38-A6 Example Off-Ramp Geometry with Heavy Left-Turn
Demand at a Signalized Intersection .............................................................. 38-90
Exhibit 38-A7 Off-Ramp Queue Spillback Regimes ............................................. 38-91
Exhibit 38-A8 Freeway Facility Oversaturated Analysis Procedure,
Adapted for Off-Ramp Queue Spillback Evaluation .................................... 38-96
Exhibit 38-A9 Capacity Adjustment Factors for Lane Blockage CAFBL ........... 38-100
Exhibit 38-A10 Equivalent Segment Capacity for Unblocked Lanes When
Lane Blockage Occurs ..................................................................................... 38-100
Exhibit 38-A11 Maximum Off-Ramp Queue Storage Length at Diverge
Segments with Regime 3 or 4 Queue Spillback and No Shoulder
Available ........................................................................................................... 38-102
Exhibit 38-A12 Maximum Off-Ramp Queue Storage Length at Diverge
Segments with Regime 3 or 4 Queue Spillback and Shoulder
Available ........................................................................................................... 38-102
Exhibit 38-A13 Node Structure for Example 1 .................................................... 38-103
Exhibit 38-A16 Default Spillback Regime as a Function of Ramp
Geometry and Driver Aggressiveness .......................................................... 38-105
Exhibit 38-A17 Queue Influence Area with Increased Turbulence ................. 38-105
Exhibit 38-A18 Queue Influence Area as Function of the Segment Free-
Flow Speed ....................................................................................................... 38-106
Exhibit 38-A19 Capacity of Ramp Roadways (pc/h) .......................................... 38-106
Exhibit 38-A20 Freeway Ramp Speed–Flow Curves ......................................... 38-107
Exhibit 38-A21 Ramp Density at Capacity as a Function of Ramp FFS .......... 38-107
Exhibit 38-A22 Reference Equations for Back-of-Queue Length
Estimation ......................................................................................................... 38-108
Exhibit 38-A23 Selection of a Cycle Reference Point to Determine the
Initial Number of Vehicles Within the Approach ....................................... 38-109
Exhibit 38-A24 Example Signalized Intersection Approach from an Off-
Ramp ................................................................................................................. 38-109
Exhibit 38-A25 Assignment of Green Times to Time Steps .............................. 38-110

Version 7.0 Page 38-vii
Exhibit 38-A26 Illustration of Mainline Flow Rate Split into Blocked and
Unblocked Lanes .............................................................................................38-111
Exhibit 38-A27 Procedure for Evaluating the Impact of Queue Spillback
on Upstream Nodes and Determining the Queue Length within
Upstream Segments .........................................................................................38-118
Exhibit 38-A28 Potential Effects of an Off-Ramp Queue on Node i ................38-119
Exhibit 38-A29 Distribution of pi as Function of Distance from the
Diverge Point, for a 3-Lane Segment ............................................................38-120
Exhibit 38-A30 Illustration of Lane-Change Maneuvers within the Queue
Influence Area in a 4-Lane Segment under Regime 3 .................................38-121
Exhibit 38-A31 Illustration of Lane-Change Maneuvers within the Queue
Influence Area in a 4-Lane Segment under Regime 4 .................................38-121
Exhibit 38-A32 Effect of Queue Spillback on the Discharge Capacity of an
Upstream On-Ramp ........................................................................................38-123
Exhibit 38-A33 Illustration of Different Density Values within One
Diverge Segment ..............................................................................................38-124
Exhibit 38-B1 Procedure for Detecting Spillback Occurrence at an On-
Ramp .................................................................................................................38-131
Exhibit 38-B2 Schematic of Movements Turning to an On-Ramp from a
TWSC Intersection ...........................................................................................38-133
Exhibit 38-B3 Schematic of Movements Turning to an On-Ramp from an
AWSC Intersection ..........................................................................................38-135
Exhibit 38-B4 Schematic of Movements Turning to an On-Ramp from a
Roundabout ......................................................................................................38-135
Exhibit 38-B5 Signalized Intersection Methodology With Adjustments to
Address On-Ramp Queue Spillback .............................................................38-138
Exhibit 38-B6 Typical Signalized Intersection Ramp Terminal in a
Diamond Interchange .....................................................................................38-139
Exhibit 38-B7 Estimation of Freeway On-Ramp Merging Capacity ................38-140
Exhibit 38-B8 Sample Intersection for Calculation of a QAP for the On-
Ramp .................................................................................................................38-141
Exhibit 38-B9 On-Ramp Queue Accumulation Polygon During Queue
Spillback ............................................................................................................38-141
Exhibit 38-B10 Illustration of Cooperative Behavior in Unsignalized
Intersections with Queue Spillback ...............................................................38-143
Exhibit 38-B11 TWSC intersections Core Methodology with Adjustments
to Address On-Ramp Queue Spillback .........................................................38-144
Exhibit 38-B12 On-Ramp Queue Accumulation Polygon: TWSC
Intersection .......................................................................................................38-145
Exhibit 38-B13 AWSC Intersection Core Methodology with Adjustments
to Address On-Ramp Queue Spillback .........................................................38-148

Page 38-viii Version 7.0
Exhibit 38-B14 Roundabouts Methodology With Adjustments to Address

On-Ramp Queue Spillback ............................................................................. 38-149
Exhibit 38-B15 Required Data and Potential Data Sources for
Roundabout Queue Spillback Evaluation .................................................... 38-149
Exhibit 38-B16 Example Priority Order for a Roundabout Upstream of an
On-Ramp........................................................................................................... 38-150
Exhibit 38-C1 Lane Flow Distribution Model Coefficients for Basic,
Merge, and Diverge Segments ....................................................................... 38-157
Exhibit 38-C2 Lane Flow Distribution Model Coefficients for Weaving
Segments ........................................................................................................... 38-159
Exhibit 38-C3 LFR Distribution for a Sample 2-Lane Basic Freeway
Segment ............................................................................................................. 38-159
Segment ............................................................................................................. 38-160
Segment ............................................................................................................. 38-160
Exhibit 38-C6 Check for Negative Lane Flows ................................................... 38-161
Exhibit 38-C7 Check for Lane Capacity ............................................................... 38-162
Exhibit 38-C8 Multipliers to Estimate Lane FFS from Segment FFS ................ 38-163
Exhibit 38-C9 Multipliers to Estimate Lane Capacity from Segment
Capacity for Basic, Merge, and Diverge Segments ..................................... 38-163
Exhibit 38-C10 Comparison of Speed–Flow Curves by Lane and for the
Segment ............................................................................................................. 38-168
Exhibit 38-C11 Example of LFR Calculation for a Weaving Segment ............. 38-168
Exhibit 38-C12 Comparison of Predicted and Field-Measured Lane-by-
Lane Speeds ...................................................................................................... 38-173

Version 7.0 Page 38-ix
1. INTRODUCTION
OVERVIEW VOLUME 4: APPLICATIONS

GUIDE
This chapter provides methodologies for evaluating the interactions between 25. Freeway Facilities:
Supplemental
freeways and urban streets and the effects of spillback from one facility to 26. Freeway and Highway
another. This chapter’s methodology can be applied to a network of Segments: Supplemental
27. Freeway Weaving:
interconnected freeways and to freeway-to-arterial connections. It can also be Supplemental
applied when the freeway–arterial interchange consists of signalized 28. Freeway Merges and
Diverges: Supplemental
intersections, STOP-controlled intersections, or roundabouts. This chapter’s 29. Urban Street Facilities:
analysis tools provide travel times and speeds for networks and for origin– Supplemental
30. Urban Street Segments:
destination pairs (O-D) within these networks. Supplemental
31. Signalized Intersections:
The methodology builds on the analysis methods of individual points and Supplemental
segments and extends them in several ways to consider spillback effects from the 32. STOP-Controlled
Intersections:
downstream facility. First, because spillback affects each lane differently, the
Supplemental
analysis is conducted on a lane-by-lane basis. Second, supplemental performance 33. Roundabouts:
Supplemental
measures are provided at the network level and at the O-D level for
34. Interchange Ramp
undersaturated and oversaturated conditions. Travel time measures are also Terminals: Supplemental
provided for segments and facilities, and their values are consistent with the 35. Pedestrians and Bicycles:
Supplemental
analysis methods described in other parts of the Highway Capacity Manual 36. Concepts: Supplemental
(HCM). 37. ATDM: Supplemental
38. Network Analysis
CHAPTER ORGANIZATION
Section 2 provides the performance measures used at the network level and An O-D pair represents the
includes example calculations of O-D travel time and network travel time. route between two specific
points in the analysis network.
Section 3 describes procedures to evaluate spillback impact on a freeway due Points are defined in Chapter
2, Applications.
to congestion on a ramp or urban street.
Section 4 describes procedures to evaluate spillback impact on an urban
street due to congestion on the freeway or on-ramp.
Section 5 provides case studies to illustrate the application of this chapter’s
methods.
A series of appendices provide detailed information about specific models
and analysis steps.
RELATED HCM CONTENT

Other HCM content related to this chapter includes:
• Chapters 10 and 25, which present the freeway facilities analysis
methodology;
• Chapters 12, 13, and 14, which present the freeway segment
methodologies for basic freeway segments, freeway weaving segments,
and freeway merge and diverge segments, respectively;
• Chapter 26, which provides additional details for basic freeway segments
capacity measurement and driver population factors;
• Chapters 16 and 18, which provide methodologies for evaluating urban
street facilities and urban street segments, respectively;
Chapter 38/Network Analysis Introduction

Version 7.0 Page 38-1
• Chapters 19, 20, 21, and 22, which provide analysis tools for signalized
intersections, two-way STOP-controlled intersections, all-way STOP-
controlled intersections, and roundabouts, respectively; and
• Chapter 23, which provides methods for evaluating ramp terminals and
alternative intersections.
Introduction Chapter 38/Network Analysis

Page 38-2 Version 7.0
2. CONCEPTS
OVERVIEW
This section discusses concepts related to spillback on the freeway, spillback
on the urban street, lane-by-lane analysis, and performance measurement for
networks and O-Ds. Concepts related to freeway analysis and urban street
analysis are described in their respective chapters elsewhere in the HCM.
SPILLBACK IMPACT ON FREEWAYS

Spillback on the freeway may occur either due to inadequate capacity of the
ramp roadway or due to inadequate capacity at the ramp terminal (typically the
intersection at the downstream interchange). The capacity of the ramp roadway
is defined as the off-ramp’s maximum allowable hourly flow rate based on its
geometric characteristics (mainly the number of lanes and the free-flow speed).
The capacity of the ramp terminal is defined as the capacity of the signalized or
unsignalized approach to the surface street.
The methodology compares demand and capacity at the off-ramp and at the
ramp terminal to determine whether oversaturation conditions will occur. If
demand exceeds capacity at either of those two locations, then the queue length
is estimated and compared to the available storage on the ramp and along the
deceleration lane. When the queue extends beyond the ramp roadway, blockage
may occur on one or more mainline freeway lanes. In that case, the methodology
estimates the impact of this queue spillback along the freeway by reducing the
segment capacity dependent on the number of blocked lanes and the effects of
that blockage on adjacent lanes.
Off-Ramp Elements
A freeway off-ramp typically consists of three components, as illustrated in
Exhibit 38-1.
• Deceleration lane(s), measured from the beginning of the taper of the
auxiliary lane to the gore.
• Ramp roadway, connecting the deceleration lane and the downstream
ramp terminal and measured from the gore to the taper of the ramp
terminal.
• Ramp terminal, connecting the ramp roadway to the urban street facility
and measured from the point where additional lanes are added to the
intersection approaches to the stop bar of the approach. This component’s
length should be at least as long as the approach’s turn bay lengths. The
ramp terminal can be uncontrolled, STOP- or YIELD-controlled, or
signalized.
When the ramp connects two freeway facilities, the downstream ramp
terminal is replaced by the merge section of the on-ramp, with no storage length.
Chapter 38/Network Analysis Concepts

Exhibit 38-1
Off-Ramp Components
Queue Spillback Regimes

The impact of queue spillback on the freeway mainline varies as a function of
the queue length and the lanes blocked. Five spillback regimes are defined, as
illustrated in Exhibit 38-2.
Exhibit 38-2
Definition of Spillback
Regimes
(a) Regine 0: No queue or queue contained within the ramp roadway
(b) Regine 1: Queue within the deceleration lane (c) Regime 2: Queue along the shoulder
(d) Regime 3: Queue in the rightmost lane (e) Regime 4: Queue blockage of the adjacent lane
Regime 0
Under this regime, shown in Exhibit 38-2(a), there are no queues in the ramp
roadway or the queue, if it exists, is contained within the ramp roadway
boundaries. There are no operational effects in the ramp influence area.
Regime 1
Under this regime, shown in Exhibit 38-2(b), the queue ends within the
deceleration lane and does not spill back into the mainline freeway. Deceleration
lanes typically serve as a transition zone between speeds on the mainline
(typically 55–75 mi/h) and advisory speeds posted along the off-ramp roadway
(typically 20–50 mi/h). When queues begin to form on the deceleration lane, the
Concepts Chapter 38/Network Analysis

available deceleration distance is reduced, and speeds begin to be affected in the

rightmost lane.
Regime 2
Under this regime, shown in Exhibit 38-2(c), the queue of vehicles extends
upstream beyond the deceleration lane, but sufficient lateral clearance on the
right-hand shoulder allows for additional queue storage. In this case, the
deceleration lane does not serve as a transition zone and drivers decelerate and
join the back of the queue more abruptly, resulting in turbulence and reduced
speeds in the rightmost lane. If no lateral clearance exists immediately upstream
of the deceleration lane, Regime 2 conditions are not possible. In some cases, this
regime does not occur even if storage is available; this occurrence is site-specific
and depends on local driver behavior.
Regime 3
Under this regime, shown in Exhibit 38-2(d), the queue extends to the
rightmost lane of the freeway mainline. This regime may occur either when no
shoulder is available for additional queue storage, or when drivers choose to
queue in the rightmost lane once the deceleration lane is entirely occupied. Non-
exiting vehicles on the rightmost lane are delayed or change lanes, which causes
increased turbulence and reduced speeds in the two rightmost lanes.
Regime 4
Under this regime, shown in Exhibit 38-2(e), the queue blocks the rightmost
lane, and drivers occasionally or often use the adjacent freeway mainline lane
next to the rightmost freeway mainline lane to force their way into the queue,
thus blocking an additional lane. During this regime, mainline speed and
capacity are significantly reduced.
Capacity Adjustment Factors

The effects of spillback vary by site and analysis period due to driver
behavior and site geometry. Data collection has shown drivers block the adjacent
lane at some sites, but not at others, regardless of the queue spillback length at a
given site.
For unblocked lanes adjacent to those completely or temporarily blocked, the
methodology uses a “friction factor” in the form of a capacity adjustment factor
CAFBL. This adjustment factor is applied only to segments where Regime 3 or
Regime 4 occur.
The values for CAFBL are equal to the CAFs given for incidents in Chapter 11,
Freeway Reliability Analysis (Exhibit 11-23), as there are no data currently
available to accurately assess friction impacts on capacity for this case. These
values may be conservative, because capacities during incidents may be also be
reduced due to rubbernecking and the presence of police vehicles. Exhibit 38-3
presents adjustment factors to be applied to determine the capacity of through
lanes adjacent to blocked lanes during queue spillback. This adjustment factor is
not applicable to 2-lane segments under Regime 4, as there are no unblocked lanes.

Exhibit 38-3 Directional Lanes 1 Queued Lane 2 Queued Lanes

Capacity Adjustment Factors 2 0.70 N/A
(CAFBL) for Through Lanes 3 0.74 0.51
Adjacent to Blocked Lanes 4 0.77 0.50
during Queue Spillback 5 0.81 0.67
6 0.85 0.75
7 0.88 0.80
8 0.89 0.84
A capacity adjustment factor CAFUP is applied to the queue influence area

(QIA) upstream of the back of the queue (Exhibit 38-4). Within this area,
additional turbulence exists due to increased lane changing, which results in a
reduction of capacity.
Exhibit 38-4
Queue Influence Area with
Increased Turbulence
The length of the QIA is estimated as function of the segment free-flow speed
Additional discussion on the
determination of the Queue (FFS), as shown in Exhibit 38-5. During undersaturated operations, drivers have
Influence Area (QIA) is adequate warnings about the presence of a ramp through signage and navigation
presented in Appendix A.
aids and can position themselves according to their destination. However, when
queue spillback occurs ,drivers can only detect a downstream queue visually and
therefore have less time to react, resulting in more aggressive lane changes and
additional turbulence.
Exhibit 38-5 Segment Free-Flow Speed (mi/h) Queue Influence Area (ft)
Length of Queue Influence 50 810
Area as a Function of the 55 900
Segment Free-Flow Speed 60 980
(FFS) 65 1,060
70 1,140
75 1,220
SPILLBACK IMPACT ON URBAN STREETS

Spillback onto urban streets may occur due to oversaturated conditions on
freeways. Exhibit 38-6(a) illustrates spillback at a signalized intersection, while
Exhibit 38-6(b) illustrates spillback at a roundabout. Using the procedures of
Chapter 13, Freeway Merge and Diverge Segments, or Chapter 12, Freeway
Weaving Segments, the analyst can determine whether oversaturated conditions
will occur for a given freeway segment during a given analysis period. This
chapter’s methodology provides an estimate of the discharge rate from the
intersection to the on-ramp during congested conditions, while also considering
any effects from ramp metering. Estimating this discharge rate is necessary to
estimate the resulting queue length along the on-ramp. If the ramp is metered,
the metering rate should be used instead.

Exhibit 38-6
Queue Spillback from an On-
Ramp into Urban Street
Intersections
(a) Signalized intersection spillback (b) Roundabout spillback
The on-ramp queue length also depends on the upstream demands. In the
example shown in Exhibit 38-6(a), three movements contribute to this demand:
northbound (NB) right, southbound (SB) left, and eastbound (EB) through. If the
NB right movement is very heavy or has the right-of-way for a significant
amount of time, the SB left movement may not have much opportunity to
contribute to the demand and may spill back upstream, affecting the adjacent SB
through movement as well as the upstream intersection. Thus, in the case of
signalized intersections, the relative contribution of demands to the queue length
will depend on the relative demands of these movements and the respective
signal timings and right-of-way allocation. The discharge rate of these upstream
intersection movements will depend on the on-ramp’s storage availability during
the respective signal phase. The analysis estimates the additional lost time due to
the presence of the downstream queue and adjusts the effective green of the
affected movements.
In the roundabout example shown in Exhibit 38-6(b), the same three
movements contribute to the on-ramp demand. However, in this case, the
movements have priority in the following order: (a) SB left, (b) EB through, and
(c) NB right. A high-priority movement with a heavy demand may constrain the
entry capacity of lower-priority movements, resulting in total throughput that is
lower than the sum of the three contributing movement demands.
LANE-BY-LANE ANALYSIS
Spillback affects each lane of a facility differently. For example, when
spillback occurs at a freeway off-ramp, the rightmost lanes of the freeway may be
blocked, while the leftmost lanes operate in free-flow conditions. Therefore, the
methodology estimates operating conditions by lane as well as by segment. The
lane-by-lane performance metrics are also used to obtain O-D–based travel times.
The lane-by-lane analysis provides lane flow ratios (LFRs) representing the The demand flow rates by lane
are estimated as a percentage
percentage of the entering demand by lane. The LFR is a function of the segment- of the segment demand.
wide volume-to-capacity (v/c) ratio and values are provided for each segment
type (basic, merge, diverge, and weaving). In addition, FFS, speed, and capacity
are estimated by lane. When the facility becomes oversaturated, speeds are
estimated using the method of Chapter 10, Freeway Facilities, which is based on
interactions between successive segments.

PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT FOR NETWORKS AND O-D PAIRS

When evaluating network and O-D performance, it is necessary to have a
common performance measure across the different types of facilities forming the
network. Therefore, the methodology estimates travel time by segment and lane,
and aggregates these times for O-D pairs and for the network.
Chapter 16, Urban Street Facilities, provides tools for obtaining speeds for all
urban street segments, and these speeds are used in the network analysis
methodology. Chapter 10, Freeway Facilities Core Methodology, determines
operational performance based on the density and speed of each freeway
segment in the network. Each segment’s average travel time can be derived from
its average speed. The average travel time for the entire facility is then the sum of
the segments’ average travel times. However, the travel time for some O-D pairs
cannot be accurately obtained this way, as the travel path may predominantly or
exclusively use specific lanes. The speeds in these lanes could differ substantially
from the average segment speed, especially during congested conditions caused
by off-ramp bottlenecks. For example, motorists exiting at a congested off-ramp
will experience a much different segment travel time than motorists continuing
on the freeway using the leftmost lanes of the same segment.
Therefore, the O-D–based analysis along a freeway network incorporates:
• Prevailing speeds by individual lanes—A set of models has been developed
for estimating the speeds and capacities of each lane for each type of
freeway segment.
• Selected travel lanes for each O-D pair—The set of lanes used by an O-D pair
in every segment of the freeway facility is also necessary to calculate the
corresponding travel times within each segment. For every feasible O-D
pair, the set of lanes that may be selected are obtained and considered in
the travel time estimation.

3. METHODOLOGY
This chapter’s methodology provides tools for evaluating the performance of

networks consisting of freeway and urban street facilities. It also provides
methods to evaluate the interactions between freeway and urban street facilities
and to assess the impact of queue spillback if it occurs. The methodology is based
on lane-by-lane analysis for freeway facilities. For signalized and unsignalized
intersections, the methodology relies on lane group analysis, while for urban
street segments there is no differentiation between travel lanes. The methodology
provides travel times and speeds for the network, each segment, and by O-D pair.
HCM chapters that address segments and
SCOPE OF THE METHODOLOGY facilities are:
10. Freeway Facilities Core
The methodology builds on the freeway facility and urban street facility Methodology
methods, and therefore incorporates the scope and all aspects of those chapters’ 12. Basic Freeway and Multilane
Highway Segments
methodologies. This chapter’s methodology can evaluate interconnected freeway
13. Freeway Weaving Segments
facilities as well as interconnected freeway and urban street facilities. It can 14. Freeway Merge and Diverge
consider signalized intersections, two-way STOP-controlled intersections, all-way Segments
STOP-controlled intersections, and roundabouts, as well as a wide range of 16. Urban Street Facilities
18. Urban Street Segments
interchange ramp terminal configurations.
19. Signalized Intersections
20. Two-Way STOP-Controlled
Spatial and Temporal Limits Intersections
The spatial scope of the analysis is a function of the network to be studied, 21. All-Way STOP-Controlled
Intersections
the extent of congestion, and the specific O-D pairs of interest. The external links 22. Roundabouts
to the network should remain uncongested throughout the study period. 23. Ramp Terminals and Alternative
Intersections
The definition of analysis boundaries, in practical terms, follows the
guidance of Chapter 10, Freeway Facilities Core Methodology. The analysis’
spatial extent should be sufficiently long to fully contain the formation and
dissipation of all queues within the network. Similarly, the analysis’ temporal
scope must be compatible with the selected O-D pairs, the study period, and the
duration of congestion. The first and last analysis periods should be free of
congestion. The methodology can perform multi-period analysis when an O-D
travel time is longer than 15 minutes.
Performance Measures
The methodology of this chapter generates the following performance
measures:
• Freeway facilities:
o Flow, free-flow speed (FFS), operating speed, and capacity for
individual lanes
o Expected travel speed along each segment
• Urban street facilities:
o Travel time along each segment
o Expected travel speed along each segment
Chapter 38/Network Analysis Methodology

• Networks:
o Total and free-flow travel times
o Travel time index (TTI)
o Average speed
Strengths of the Methodology

The strengths of the methodology include:
1. The methodology evaluates the effects of spillback from one facility to
another and considers the interactions between urban streets and
freeways.
2. The methodology evaluates oversaturated and undersaturated conditions
by lane, by segment, and for the entire network.
3. The methodology produces travel times and other performance measures
by O-D pair within the network.
4. The methodology tracks the formation and dissipation of queues across
lanes, segments, and facilities.
5. The methodology can be used to evaluate the impacts of modifications to
one facility on an adjacent facility.
Limitations
The methodology has the following limitations:
1. Multiple overlapping breakdowns or bottlenecks cannot be fully
evaluated by this methodology. Consult Chapter 6, HCM and Alternative
Analysis Tools, for a discussion of simulation and other models.
2. Demand is an input into the process, and the methodology does not
address any changes in demand that are due to traffic operation conditions.
3. Managed lanes can be analyzed as part of the freeway system. However,
the interaction of managed lane operations with spillback conditions are
not addressed.
4. The methodology does not explicitly consider alternative intersection and
interchange designs, such as diverging diamond interchanges (DDIs) and
single-point urban interchanges (SPUIs). However, it can be extended to
consider these designs, assuming turning movements, demands, and
queues can be accurately estimated for the movements of interest.
5. The methodology does not consider two-lane roundabouts and their
interaction with freeway on-ramps.
6. The HCM’s reliability methods cannot be applied to network analysis
because the process for developing reliability scenarios is different for
freeways and arterials.
Methodology Chapter 38/Network Analysis

REQUIRED DATA AND SOURCES

General Input Data
A network analysis requires details concerning each freeway and urban
street segment’s geometric characteristics, as well as each segment’s demand
characteristics during each analysis time period. Exhibit 38-7 shows the data
inputs required for an operational analysis of a network, potential sources for
these data, and suggested default values.
Required Input Potential Data Source(s) Suggested Default Value Exhibit 38-7
Trajectory Parameters by O-D Pair Required Input Data, Potential
Data Sources, and Default
Origin and destination points Set by analyst Must be provided
Values for the Network
Route between origin and destination Set by analyst Must be provided
Analysis Methodology
Freeway Facilities
Input data for facility and segment As shown in Chapters 10, As shown in Chapters 10, 12,
methods 12, 13, and 14 13, and 14
Ramp access density
Road geometry Must be provided
(number of ramps within 1 mi)
Grade (%) Road geometry Must be provided
Urban Street Facilities
Input data for facility and segment As shown in Chapters 16 As shown in Chapters 16 and
methods and 18–23 18–23
Urban street segments: corresponding Set by analyst, according to
Must be provided
movement at downstream intersection the selected route
Off-Ramp Queue Spillback
Off-ramp queue spillback: Road geometry, Function of diverge geometry
expected number of queued lanes field observations and driver aggressiveness
Length of available shoulder (ft) Road geometry Must be provided
Off-ramp detailed geometry Road geometry Must be provided
On-Ramp Queue Spillback
On-ramp metering rate (veh/h)
Field data Must be provided
(if applicable)
On-ramp detailed geometry Road geometry Must be provided
Roundabouts: exit capacity (pc/h) Field data, past counts 1,300 pc/h
Off-Ramp Queue Spillback: Expected Number of Queued Lanes

If queue spillback from the off-ramp is expected to extend beyond the length
of the deceleration lane, the expected prevailing spillback regime (3 or 4) must be
provided by the analyst.
Field observations (1) have shown that locations experiencing recurring
queue spillback always have the same type of spillback regime when the queue
extends beyond the deceleration lane (Regime 3 or 4). Regime 4 occurs often at
ramp junctions with a lane drop. At these locations, the exiting traffic can access
the off-ramp with a single lane change. Therefore, drivers are more likely to wait
until they are closer to the exit to change lanes, blocking the adjacent through
lane. However, not all lane drop exits experience a Regime 4 queue spillback.
Generally, Regime 4 occurs more frequently in locations with more aggressive
driver behavior. Local information and driver behavior should be taken into
consideration in determining the prevailing regime at a given site.
For operational analyses of existing locations, it is recommended that the
analyst provide the expected spillback regime based on observed field
conditions. For planning-level purposes where no field data is available, Exhibit
38-8 provides the expected queue spillback regime as a function of the number of
exiting lanes and driver aggressiveness.

Exhibit 38-8 Driver Aggressiveness

Default Spillback Regimes as a Ramp Geometry Low Medium High
Function of Ramp Geometry
Diverge with deceleration lane Regime 3 Regime 3 Regime 3
and Driver Aggressiveness
Diverge with lane drop Regime 3 Regime 4 Regime 4
COMPUTATIONAL STEPS
This section describes the methodology’s computational steps. Exhibit 38-9
illustrates the process used to evaluate network operations.
Exhibit 38-9
Network Analysis Methodology
Flowchart

Step 1: Define Spatial and Temporal Analysis Scope

The first step in the analysis requires identifying the spatial and temporal
extent of the network to be evaluated. To accurately evaluate traffic operations, it
is essential that the spatial and temporal extent of congestion is contained within
the network. If an initial analysis determines that queues extend beyond the
limits of the network, the analysis area should be modified accordingly to
contain all congestion effects.
The analyst should also select the O-D pairs to be evaluated, if any, along
with the respective set of links to be traveled for each selected O-D pair. Exhibit
38-10 illustrates a sample network with six possible O-D nodes.
Exhibit 38-10
Sample Study Network, with
Multiple Origins and
Destinations
Step 2: Provide Input Parameters for Freeway and Urban Street

Analysis
The urban street and freeway facilities are first modeled separately using the
methodologies from their respective chapters. If multiple facilities of the same
type are to be analyzed (for example, two distinct urban street facilities), each
facility must first be modeled separately. The performance measures for each of
these facilities must also be computed at this step, as they are used next to
analyze the freeway–arterial interactions.
Step 3: Balance Demands at Freeway–Urban Street Interface

When urban street and freeway facilities are modeled independently, the
analyst is required to provide demand flow rate values for both facilities. In the
case of an interface between a freeway and an urban street, the demand flows
traveling through a freeway ramp and the demands at the ramp terminal should
be the same when conducting a network analysis.
The presence of any bottlenecks upstream of the freeway exit may reduce the
demand to the ramp junction. If the total off-ramp demand is greater than the
ramp roadway capacity, the intersection demand will be reduced accordingly.
Similarly, any movements operating above capacity at the ramp–urban street
junction would constrain the demand to the downstream freeway on-ramp.
This process must be performed for every time period in the analysis,
starting from the upstream end of the facility. When demand exceeds capacity at
any given location, the downstream demands must be recalculated considering
the throughput from the bottleneck.

Off-Ramp Demand vs. Downstream Ramp Terminal Demand

The turning movement demand at the ramp terminal downstream of an off-
ramp can be metered by insufficient capacity of the upstream freeway or of the
ramp roadway, as shown by bottlenecks 1 and 2, respectively, in Exhibit 38-11. If
these bottlenecks are not active, the sum of intersection demands vlt and vrt is
equal to the off-ramp demand vR.
Exhibit 38-11
Potential Bottlenecks
Constraining the Ramp
Terminal Demand
However, if the demand at the upstream freeway segment or at the off-ramp

exceeds its capacity, the flow that will reach the ramp terminal will be lower than
the off-ramp demand vR. In this case, one or both of the following adjustments are
performed.
Insufficient Capacity at a Bottleneck Freeway Segment

To balance demands, the off-ramp flow OFRF is first aggregated for a 15-
minute analysis period as follows:
𝑆
𝑇
Equation 38-1 𝑣𝑅,𝑎𝑑𝑗 = ∑𝑂𝐹𝑅𝐹(𝑖, 𝑡, 𝑝)
𝑆
𝑖=1
where
vR,adj = adjusted demand at the subject off-ramp (pc/h),
T = number of time steps in 1 h,
S = number of computational time steps in an analysis period
(typically 240 for time steps of 15 s), and
The parameter OFRF(i, t, p) is OFRF (i, t, p) = actual flow that can exit at off-ramp i during time step t in time
defined as the “actual flow that
can exit at off-ramp i during interval p.
time step t in time interval p”
(Chapter 25). It can account If the freeway facility operates under undersaturated conditions, the value of
for the effects of bottlenecks vR,adj is equal to the off-ramp demand vR.
upstream of the off-ramp that
can meter the traffic that If the subject freeway facility operates under oversaturated conditions, the
arrives to the ramp.
off-ramp demand may be metered at an upstream bottleneck segment. The
Oversaturated Segment Evaluation methodology in Chapter 25, Freeway and
Highway Segments: Supplemental, provides equations to estimate the off-ramp
flow parameter OFRF at every 15-s time step (Equations 25-23 through 25-25).
Insufficient Capacity at the Ramp Roadway

If the total demand at a freeway exit is greater than the capacity of the ramp
roadway cR, the flow that will reach the downstream ramp terminal will be
constrained by the ramp roadway capacity. For each movement 𝑖 at the
intersection, the adjusted demand is calculated as follows:

𝑣𝑅 𝑐𝑅
𝑣𝑖, 𝑎𝑑𝑗 = 𝑣𝑖 × × min ( , 1) Equation 38-2
∑𝑖 𝑣𝑖 𝑣𝑅,𝑎𝑑𝑗
where
vi,adj = adjusted demand for movement 𝑖 at the downstream intersection
(pc/h);
vi = demand for movement 𝑖 at the downstream intersection (pc/h);
vR = off-ramp demand (pc/h);
vR,adj = adjusted off-ramp demand, from Equation 38-1) (pc/h); and
cR = capacity of ramp roadway, from Exhibit 14-12 (pc/h).
On-Ramp Demand vs. Upstream Ramp Terminal Demand

At a freeway merge segment the on-ramp demand flow rate vR can be
constrained by the following bottlenecks:
1. Insufficient capacity of one or more movements in the ramp terminal, and
2. Insufficient capacity at the ramp roadway.
These potential bottlenecks are illustrated in Exhibit 38-12. If capacity is not
exceeded at any of those locations, the on-ramp demand vR is equal to the sum of
intersection demands that contribute to the on-ramp (in Exhibit 38-12, vNBR, vEBT,
and vSBL).
Exhibit 38-12
Potential Bottlenecks
Constraining the On-Ramp
Demand
However, if capacity is exceeded at any of those locations, the flow that will
reach the freeway merge will be lower than the on-ramp demand vR and
adjustments should be made to the respective volumes.
If any of the ramp terminal movements that discharge into the on-ramp
operate over capacity, the total throughput to the on-ramp is given by
𝑁
1
𝑣𝑅,𝑎𝑑𝑗 = × ∑ min(𝑣𝑖 , 𝑐𝑖 ) Equation 38-3
𝑓𝐻𝑉
1

where
To keep the units of vR,adj = adjusted on-ramp demand (pc/h);
intersection throughput
(veh/h) and freeway on-ramp
demand (pc/h) consistent,
vHV = heavy vehicle adjustment factor (decimal), from Equation 12-10;
Equation 38-3 applies the
heavy vehicle adjustment vi = demand for movement i at the intersection (veh/h);
factor given by Equation 12-10.
ci = capacity of movement i at the intersection (veh/h); and
N = number of intersection movements that discharge into the on-ramp.
If the total on-ramp demand vR is greater than the ramp roadway capacity cR,
the adjusted on-ramp demand is:
Equation 38-4 𝑣𝑅,𝑎𝑑𝑗 = min(𝑣𝑅 , 𝑐𝑅 )
where
vR,adj = adjusted on-ramp demand (pc/h);
vR = on-ramp demand (pc/h); and
cR = ramp roadway capacity (pc/h), from Exhibit 14-12.
Step 4A: Check for Queue Spillback (Off-Ramp)

During this step, the methodology evaluates the network to determine
whether queue spillback exists from a freeway off-ramp. The analysis is first
conducted using 15-min analysis periods (single-period or multi-period) to
determine whether queue spillback is expected to occur. If spillback is expected,
Step 5 will perform an analysis using 15-s time steps; if not, Step 5 will use 15-
min intervals.
Exhibit 38-13 summarizes the process for conducting a spillback check at off-
ramps. The process evaluates whether the spillback originates from the demand
to the ramp roadway, from the demand to the ramp junction at the surface street,
or from the downstream freeway on-ramp. Based on this determination, the
procedure uses the demand and the capacity for the analysis interval, along with
the previous queue length, to calculate the anticipated queue length for the
current interval. The detailed calculations for an off-ramp spillback check are
presented in Appendix A.

Exhibit 38-13
Spillback Check Procedure for
Off-Ramps
Step 4B: Check for Queue Spillback (On-Ramp)

Queue spillback into a surface street intersection (or upstream freeway facility)
can occur when the freeway merge segment has insufficient capacity to process
the ramp demand. During this step, the methodology evaluates the network to
determine whether queue spillback occurs from a freeway on-ramp onto
upstream facilities. Exhibit 38-14 illustrates the process for conducting a queue
spillback analysis at on-ramps.
When the freeway facility operates in oversaturated conditions (i.e., at least
one segment with LOS F), on-ramp queues are computed using the Freeway
Facility Oversaturated Segment evaluation procedure (Chapter 25), using the
parameter ONRQ (Equation 25-21). The parameter ONRQ(i, t, p) is defined as the
unmet demand, in vehicles, that is stored as a queue on the on-ramp roadway at
node i during time step t in time interval p.
Appendix B details the calculations used to estimate the on-ramp demand
based on the intersection operation, as well as the procedures for conducting the
on-ramp spillback check.

Exhibit 38-14
Spillback Check Procedure for
On-Ramps

Step 5A: Compute Operating Speeds for Individual Lanes Along the
Freeway Facility
The operational performance of a freeway facility is determined from the
density and speed of each segment along the facility. The average travel time for
a given segment can be derived from its average speed.
For a network analysis, the segment speed is function of:
• Estimated speeds for individual lanes, and
• Probability that a lane will be selected for the subject O-D pair.
To estimate the speeds and capacities for individual lanes, a set of models
have been developed for each type of freeway segment considering the total
number of mainline freeway lanes. These models are valid only for
undersaturated conditions, and they predict the lane flow ratio (LFR) for each
lane. These models are of the form:
𝐿𝐹𝑅𝑖 = 𝑎 × ln(𝑣/𝑐) + 𝑏 Equation 38-5
𝑁−1
𝐿𝐹𝑅𝑁 = 1 − ∑ 𝐿𝐹𝑅𝑖 Equation 38-6

1
where
a = multiplicative calibration parameter, from Equation 38-C3, Equation The full methodology to predict lane-by-
lane speeds on freeway facilities is given
38-C5, or Equation 38-C7;
in Appendix C.
b = additive calibration parameter, from Equation 38-C4, Equation 38-C6,
or Equation 38-C8;
LFRi = share of the total flow on lane 𝑖, where 𝑖 ranges from 1 to N – 1;
N = total number of lanes in the segment;
LFRN = share of the total flow on the leftmost lane (lane N); and
v/c = volume-to-capacity ratio (0 < v/c ≤ 1).
Using the calculated LFRs, the methodology next estimates the lane-by-lane
free-flow speeds and capacities. These values are used to obtain each lane’s
speed using the speed–flow model given by Equation 12-1.
The LFR models, their coefficients, and the procedures for estimating lane-
by-lane free-flow speeds, capacities, and speeds are provided in Appendix C.
These models can be used to analyze basic, merge, diverge, and weaving
segments with two to four lanes.
Freeway segments with 5 or more lanes were not modeled due to insufficient
data. Limited field observations for these facilities indicate that flow distributions
become more homogeneous in wider segments. Therefore, the flow distribution
for these segments can be estimated as:
𝑣
𝐿𝐹𝑅𝑖 = Equation 38-7
𝑁
where
LFRi = share of the total flow on lane 𝑖, where 𝑖 ranges from 1 to N – 1;
v = segment entering demand (pc/h); and
N = total number of lanes in the segment.

For all segment types, the share of flow is estimated on the mainline
upstream of the segment. The oversaturated portion of the speed–flow curve
(when density is greater than the density at capacity) cannot be addressed by the
speed–flow models, as this is a limitation of the existing methods. The lane-by-
lane flows for oversaturated conditions are estimated using the procedures of
Chapter 25, adjusted to determine the incoming and outgoing flow on a lane-by-
lane basis. However, if off-ramp queue spillback occurs in the freeway facility,
then the methodology in Appendix A is used to determine the lane-by-lane flow
distribution.
The probability that a given lane is selected when traveling between a given
O-D pair depends on the segment’s location. For segments where a motorist
driving between the O-D pair would enter (merge segment) or leave the freeway
facility (diverge segment), the probability of lane selection is shown in Exhibit 38-
15 (assuming right-side ramps).
Exhibit 38-15 Number of Lanes in the Segment

Probability of Lane Choice for Lane Choice Probability for Lane i 2 3 4+
Entry/Exit Segments on p1 0.90 0.90 0.90
Freeway Facilities p2 0.10 0.05 0.05
p3 — 0.05 0.05
p4+ — — 0.00
For other segments within the freeway facility, the probability pi,j of choosing
a given lane i on segment j is equal to the lane’s LFR, defined as the percentage of
the total flow assigned to lane i:
Equation 38-8 𝑝𝑖,𝑗 = 𝐿𝐹𝑅𝑖,𝑗
This concept is illustrated in Exhibit 38-16 for a 3-lane freeway facility with
nine segments. The exhibit shows the lane choice probabilities for the O-D pair
where the traveler enters the freeway facility on segment 2 (merge) and leaves
the freeway on segment 8 (diverge). For segments 2 and 8, the choice
probabilities for lanes 1, 2 and 3 are 0.90, 0.05 and 0,05 respectively, from Exhibit
38-15. For segments 3 through 8, the lane choice probabilities are equal to the
LFR (Equation 38-3), calculated for each lane of each segment.
Exhibit 38-16
Illustration of Lane Choice
Probabilities Along a Freeway
Facility
Each segment’s speed is then computed as the sum of products of speeds for
each lane and the corresponding probability of lane choice:
𝑁
Equation 38-9 𝑆𝑒,𝑗 = ∑(𝑝𝑖,𝑗 × 𝑠𝑖,𝑗 )

𝑖=1

where
Se,j = expected speed for segment j (mi/h),
N = total number of lanes in the segment,
pi,j = probability that lane i is selected (decimal) on segment j, and
Si = speed of lane i (mi/h), from Equation 38-C12.
A special case occurs when a weaving segment is defined as an entry or exit
segment. The methodology for estimating lane-by-lane speeds cannot evaluate
auxiliary lanes in weaving segments; therefore, the expected speed equation
should be replaced by the average speed of weaving vehicles in the segment.
Additional details are provided in Appendix C: Lane-by-Lane Analysis for
Freeway Facilities.
Step 5B: Compute Speeds for Urban Street Segments

For urban street facilities, the speed along each segment is calculated using
the procedures of Chapter 18, Urban Streets Segments. However, for the
intersection at the ramp junction, the control delay value for the corresponding
movement (typically a right- or left-turn movement into the on-ramp) must be
used in the analysis. If there is queue spillback from the on-ramp into the urban
street intersection, the increased control delay of the movement towards the on-
ramp is obtained using the methodology given in Appendix B.
Step 6: Compute Travel Times for Each Segment

This step calculates the travel times for each segment using the speeds
obtained in Steps 5A and 5B by dividing each segment’s length by its respective
speed:
𝐿𝑖
𝑇𝑇𝑖 = Equation 38-10
1.47 × 𝑆𝑖
where
TTi = travel time for segment i (s);
Li = length of segment i (mi); and
Si = speed for segment i (mi/h), depending on the facility type:
if a freeway, Si = Se (expected speed), from Equation 38-9; or
if an urban street, Si = St,seg (travel speed), from Equation 18-15.
Step 7: Compute Travel Time for Freeway Ramps

Ramp speeds can be obtained using the following equation:
𝑣𝑅
𝑆ramp = (1 − 0.109 × ) × 𝑆𝐹𝑅 Equation 38-11
1000
where
Sramp = ramp speed (mi/h),
vR = ramp demand flow rate (pc/h), and
SFR = ramp free-flow speed (mi/h).

The speed–flow relationship for ramps is linear and speed decreases with
higher ramp flows, as shown in Exhibit 38-17. The maximum allowed values of
vR are bounded by ramp capacity, consistent with guidance provided by Chapter
14, Freeway Merge and Diverge Segments (Exhibit 14-12).
Exhibit 38-17
Speed–Flow Curves for
Freeway Ramps
For ramps with lower free-flow

speeds, the threshold value of
45 pc/h/ln for density at
capacity is not feasible as it
would result in ramp capacity
values inconsistent with Exhibit
14-12. The value of density at
capacity increases as free-flow
speed decreases. These values
are used to estimate ramp
queue lengths when off-ramp
queue spillback occurs, as
discussed in Appendix A.
The travel time along freeway ramps is calculated by dividing the ramp
length by its respective speed. When an O-D pair includes an off-ramp, the
control delay for the corresponding movement at the at-grade intersection must
also be added to the off-ramp travel time. This calculation is consistent with the
urban street facility methods, where each segment’s travel time includes the
control delay of the corresponding movement at the downstream intersection.
For off-ramps:
𝐿𝑅
Equation 38-12 𝑇𝑇ramp = + 𝑑𝑖 + 5
1.47 × 𝑆ramp
For on-ramps:
𝐿𝑅
Equation 38-13 𝑇𝑇ramp = +5
1.47 × 𝑆ramp
The constant value of 5 in where
Equation 38-12 and Equation
38-13 accounts for delay due TTramp = ramp travel time (s),
to vehicle deceleration and
acceleration along off-ramps Sramp = ramp speed (mi/h),
and on-ramps, respectively.
LR = ramp length (ft), and
di = control delay at the downstream ramp terminal for the O-D pair’s
corresponding movement (s) (applicable for off-ramps only).
In the case of queue spillback, Appendix A describes the procedure for
estimating the ramp speed, which is similar to the Oversaturated Segment
Evaluation method described in Chapter 25.

If the ramp roadway is the bottleneck, the off-ramp flow will be constant
(equal to the ramp roadway capacity), with the prevailing density equal to the
ramp density at capacity. The ramp speed is then computed as equal to the ramp
free-flow speed.

If the downstream intersection is the bottleneck, queues will build at the

intersection and limit the number of vehicles that can exit the ramp roadway and
enter the intersection. As a result, the number of vehicles NV stored inside the
ramp roadway will increase until the limit value of jam density is reached. The
NV parameter for the ramp roadway is computed every time step (15 s) and then
aggregated to the 15-min analysis period to compute the ramp roadway’s
average density. Similarly, the flow through the ramp roadway is aggregated to
15-min analysis periods and the speed at the off-ramp is obtained through
Equation 38-A14 (similar to Equation 12-1):
𝑆 = 𝐹𝐹𝑆𝑎𝑑𝑗 𝑣𝑝 ≤ 𝐵𝑃
𝑐𝑎𝑑𝑗 Equation 38-14
𝑎
(𝐹𝐹𝑆𝑎𝑑𝑗 − 𝐷 ) (𝑣𝑝 − 𝐵𝑃)
𝑆 = 𝐹𝐹𝑆𝑎𝑑𝑗 − 𝑐 𝐵𝑃 < 𝑣𝑝 ≤ 𝑐
𝑎
(𝑐𝑎𝑑𝑗 − 𝐵𝑃)
where
S = mean speed of a basic segment (mi/h),
FFSadj = adjusted free-flow speed (mi/h),
vp = adjusted 15-min demand flow rate (pc/h/ln),
BP = breakpoint (pc/h/ln),
cadj = adjusted segment capacity (pc/h/ln),
Dc = density at capacity, typically 45 pc/mi/ln, and
c = base segment capacity (pc/h/ln).

If the on-ramp demand is greater than the merge capacity or the throughput
of any active ramp metering, the number of vehicles stored in the on-ramp will
increase at every time step by the difference between the vehicles that are
discharged from the upstream intersection and the number of vehicles that are
discharged into the freeway. Similar to off-ramp bottlenecks that form due
constraints at a downstream intersection, on-ramp flow and density are
computed at every time step (15 s) and then aggregated to a 15-min analysis
period. The speed is then computed through Equation 38-A14.
Step 8: Compute Travel Times for the Network and Each O-D Pair
This step computes the total travel time TTO-D for the network as the sum of
the travel times over all segments along the route. For multiperiod analysis, it is
important to select the travel time for the correct analysis period at each segment,
as a long O-D route may encompass several analysis periods. Exhibit 38-18
presents a sample calculation for a facility with two analysis periods (15 min
each). The first segment in the O-D route is traversed during analysis period 1,
and the cumulative travel time column is updated with the respective value.
Subsequent segments follow the same procedure until the cumulative travel time
exceeds the length of the first analysis period (900 s). For the next segment in the
network, travel times from analysis period 2 are added to the cumulative travel
time column. This procedure is then repeated until the final segment is reached.

The total travel time is obtained as the last value in the cumulative travel time
column.
Exhibit 38-18 Segment Travel Time (s) Selected Active Cumulative

Sample Calculation of Total Analysis Analysis Travel Time Analysis Travel Time
Travel Time Using Multiperiod Segment ID Period 1 Period 2 (s) Period (s)
Analysis
1 34 28 34 1 34
2 26 29 26 1 60
3 73 86 73 1 133
4 345 390 345 1 478
5 185 195 185 1 663
6 310 359 310 1 973
7 240 240 240 2 1,213
8 120 122 122 2 1,335
9 20 18 18 2 1,353
10 45 53 53 2 1,406
Total travel time (s): 1,406
Note: Cells shaded in gray highlight the analysis period applicable to each segment along the O-D route.
Step 9: Compute Performance Measures for Segments

The last step in the methodology computes performance measures for each
segment in the network, using the methods of the respective segment chapters.
In addition, the mean travel time index TTImean,O-D for a specific O-D pair can be
calculated for each segment and for the network by dividing the total travel time
for the O-D pair TTO-D by the respective free-flow total time (Equation 38-14). The
free-flow travel time for the O-D pair TTFF,O-D can be obtained by repeating Steps
1 through 8 for free-flow conditions. Exhibit 38-19 provides guidance on key
input parameters to be considered for such analysis.
𝑇𝑇𝑂-𝐷
Equation 38-15 𝑇𝑇𝐼mean,𝑂-𝐷 =
𝑇𝑇𝐹𝐹,𝑂-𝐷
where
TTO-D = total travel time for a specific O-D pair (s), and
TTFF,O-D = free-flow travel time for a specific O-D pair (s).
Exhibit 38-19 Performance Measure Reference Parameter Input Value

Reference Input Values for Freeway Facilities
O-D Analysis under Free-Flow
Lane flow ratio (LFR) v/c 0.1
Conditions
Speed by lane Free-flow speed by lane FFSi Equation 38-C9
Urban Street Segments
Travel speed Running time Equation 18-7
Urban Street Intersections
Control delay: signalized intersections Demand-to-capacity ratio X 0
Control delay: TWSC intersections Movement demand vi 0
Control delay: AWSC intersections Demand-to-capacity ratio X 0
Control delay: roundabouts Demand-to-capacity ratio X 0
Freeway Ramps
Ramp speed Ramp free-flow speed Analyst input
Note: TWSC = two-way STOP-controlled, AWSC = all-way STOP-controlled.
The computation of free-flow performance measurements for different

facility types is discussed next.

Freeway Facilities
At free-flow, the speed of freeway segments is computed as being equal to
their free-flow speed. When a lane-by-lane analysis is applied, the methodology
computes the free-flow speed for each lane (Equation 38-C9).
Next, the probabilities of lane choice on each segment are calculated for each
segment. If the subject segment is a entry or exit segment (segments where the
driver on a particular O-D route enters or leaves the freeway facility, as
illustrated in Exhibit 38-16), the lane choice probabilities are obtained from
Exhibit 38-15. For other segments, the lane choice probability is equal to the LFR
(Equation 38-5). When calculating the LFR under free-flow conditions, a v/c value
of 0.1 is recommended to provide results consistent with field data. Due to the
logarithmic form of the LFR equation, using v/c = 0 is mathematically infeasible,
and very low v/c values yield unrealistic results.
Urban Street Segments

The travel speed along urban street segments (Equation 38-16, based on
Equation 18-15) is calculated as a function of the segment running time (Equation
38-17, based on Equation 18-7), as shown:
3,600𝐿
𝑆𝑇,𝑠𝑒𝑔 = Equation 38-16
5,280(𝑡𝑅 + 𝑑𝑡 )
𝑁𝑎𝑝
6.0 − 𝑙1 3,600𝐿 Equation 38-17
𝑡𝑅 = 𝑓𝑥 + 𝑓 + ∑ 𝑑𝑎𝑝,𝑖 + 𝑑other
0.0025𝐿 5,280 𝑆𝑓 𝑣
𝑖=1
where
ST,seg = travel speed of through vehicles for the segment (mi/h);
L = segment length (ft);
tR = segment running time (s);
dt = control delay at the downstream intersection (s);
l1 = start-up lost time (2 s if signalized, 2.5 s if STOP- or YIELD-controlled);
fx = control-type adjustment factor, from Equation 18-8;
Sf = segment free-flow speed (mi/h);
fv = proximity adjustment factor, from Equation 18-6;
Nap = number of influential access points along the segment (points), from
Equation 18-8;
dap,i = delay due to left and right turns into access point intersection i (s/veh);
and
dother = delay due to other sources along the segment (e.g., curb parking or
pedestrians) (s/veh).
As shown by Equation 38-17, the running time along an urban street segment
is not directly affected by variations in demand. Therefore, free-flow running
time is calculated according to Equation 38-17. The only parameter in the segment

travel speed that accounts for congestion is the control delay for the specific O-D
related movement at the downstream intersection, which is discussed next.
Urban Street Intersections

When intersections are analyzed as part of an urban street facility, the
computed control delay is taken into account when estimating the travel speed of
the upstream segment. Even at free-flow, intersections still experience a small
amount of delay intrinsic to their operation.
Signalized Intersections
The control delay for a given lane at a signalized intersection is provided by
Equation 19-18, repeated here as Equation 38-18:
Equation 38-18 𝑑 = 𝑑1 + 𝑑2 + 𝑑3
where
d = control delay (s/veh);
d1 = uniform delay (s/veh), from Equation 19-19;
d2 = incremental delay (s/veh), from Equation 19-26; and
d3 = initial queue delay (s/veh), from Equation 19-44.
Under free-flow conditions, the values of d2 and d3 are equal to zero.
Therefore, the free-flow control delay is equal to the value of uniform delay (d1)
computed for a demand-to-capacity ratio X of 0.
Two-Way STOP-Controlled Intersections

The control delay d for two-way STOP-controlled (TWSC) intersections (Rank
2 through Rank 4 movements) is computed by Equation 20-64, repeated here as
Equation 38-19:
3,600 𝑣
3,600 𝑣𝑥 𝑣
2 ( )( 𝑥 )
𝑐 𝑐
− 1 + √(
𝑥 𝑚,𝑥 𝑚,𝑥
Equation 38-19 𝑑= + 900𝑇 − 1) + +5
𝑐𝑚,𝑥 𝑐𝑚,𝑥 𝑐𝑚,𝑥 450𝑇
[ ]
where
d = control delay (s/veh);
vx = flow rate for movement x (veh/h);
cm,x = capacity of movement x (veh/h), from Chapter 20; and
T = analysis time period (0.25 h for a 15-min period) (h).
Under free-flow conditions, the demand vx is set to zero, which allows
Equation 38-19 to be reduced to the following:
3,600
Equation 38-20 𝑑= +5
𝑐𝑚,𝑥
where all variables are as defined previously.

All-Way STOP-Controlled Intersections

The control delay for all-way STOP-controlled intersections is computed by
Equation 21-30, repeated here as Equation 38-21:
ℎ𝑑 𝑥
𝑑 = 𝑡𝑠 + 900𝑇 [𝑥 − 1 + √(𝑥 − 1)2 + ]+5 Equation 38-21
450𝑇
where
d = average control delay (s/veh);
x = vhd/3,600 = degree of utilization (unitless);
ts = service time (s), from Equation 21-29;
hd = departure headway (s), from Equation 21-28; and
T = length of analysis period (0.25 h for a 15-min period) (h).
Under free-flow conditions, the degree of utilization x is set to zero, which
allows Equation 38-21 to be reduced to the following:
𝑑 = 𝑡𝑠 + 5 Equation 38-22

The estimation of the service time ts requires an iterative and
computationally intensive procedure described in Chapter 21, All-Way STOP-
Controlled Intersections. It should be performed setting x to 0.
Roundabouts
The control delay for roundabouts is computed by Equation 22-17, repeated
here as Equation 38-23:
3,600
3,600 √(𝑥 ( 𝑐 )𝑥
𝑑= + 900𝑇 [𝑥 − 1 + 2
− 1) + ] + 5 × min[𝑥, 1] Equation 38-23
𝑐 450𝑇
where
d = average control delay (s/veh);
x = volume-to-capacity ratio of the subject lane;
c = capacity of the subject lane (veh/h), from Equation 22-14; and
T = time period (h) (T = 0.25 h for a 15-min analysis).
Similar to TWSC intersections, setting the volume-to-capacity ratio x to 0
reduces Equation 38-23 to a simpler form:
3,600
𝑑= Equation 38-24
𝑐𝑚,𝑥
Freeway Ramps
Freeway ramp speeds at free-flow are equal to the ramp free-flow speed SFR
provided by the analyst and do not require additional adjustments.

4. EXAMPLE PROBLEMS
This section presents four example problems (Exhibit 38-20) illustrating the
evaluation of networks and addressing several cases of spillback onto freeways
and onto urban street facilities.
Exhibit 38-20 Example

List of Example Problems Application
Problem Description
1 O-D–based travel time estimation Operational analysis
2 On-ramp spillback check for different ramp terminal types Operational analysis
2a Signalized intersection Operational analysis
2b Two-way STOP-controlled intersection Operational analysis
2c All-way STOP-controlled intersection Operational analysis
3 Queue spillback analysis for a freeway-to-freeway ramp Operational analysis
4 On-ramp queue spillback into a single-lane roundabout Operational analysis
EXAMPLE PROBLEM 1: O-D–BASED TRAVEL TIME ESTIMATION

An 8.72-mi section of northbound (NB) I-75 in Gainesville, Florida is
evaluated to obtain selected O-D travel times. Four consecutive interchanges are
evaluated: (a) Williston Rd., (b) Archer Rd., (c) Newberry Rd., and (d) NW 39th
Ave., as shown in Exhibit 38-21.
Exhibit 38-21
Example Problem 1: Network
Interchanges, Intersections,
and O-D Points
Example Problems Chapter 38/Network Analysis

When a freeway facility is analyzed in isolation, each on-ramp is a unique

origin and each off-ramp is a unique destination. However, for a network
analysis approach, O-D routes must be expanded to include turning movements
at the urban street intersections. Each turning movement is part of a different
O-D route with a distinct travel time.
The subject freeway facility has three freeway lanes throughout its entire
length. Four on-ramps and four off-ramps are connected to surface streets.
Exhibit 38-22 provides a schematic representation of the freeway facility and its
19 component segments, with five possible origins (A and merge segments 4, 8,
13, and 18) and five possible destinations (J and diverge segments 2, 6, 11, and 16).
Exhibit 38-22
Example Problem 1:
Freeway Facility Segmentation
and O-D Entry and Exit Points
The analysis steps for evaluating this network are discussed below.
Step 1: Define Spatial and Temporal Analysis Scope

The first step is to select the network’s origin and destination nodes. For each
selected O-D pair, the methodology identifies the segments traversed and
estimates their travel times.
As shown in Exhibit 38-21, the network has 9 nodes, which produce the 72
O-D pairs shown in Exhibit 38-23. This example problem estimates the travel time
from Archer Rd. East (D) to NW 39th Ave. East (H), highlighted in Exhibit 38-21.
Destinations Exhibit 38-23

Origins A B C D E F G H J Example Problem 1:
A — A-B A-C A-D A-E A-F A-G A-H A-J O-D Matrix
B B-A — B-C B-D B-E B-F B-G B-H B-J
C C-A C-B — C-D C-E C-F C-G C-H C-J
D D-A D-B D-C — D-E D-F D-G D-H D-J
E E-A E-B E-C E-D — E-F E-G E-H E-J
F F-A F-B F-C F-D F-E — F-G F-H F-J
G G-A G-B G-C G-D G-E G-F — G-H G-J
H H-A H-B H-C H-D H-E H-F H-G — H-J
J J-A J-B J-C J-D J-E J-F J-G J-H —
The average total travel time between each O-D pair can be obtained by
adding the average travel times on each segment and ramp roadway traversed,
plus the average delay experienced at all intersections along the route.
The O-D route from node D to node H will traverse two urban street
facilities, as shown in Exhibit 38-24:
• Archer Rd. westbound (WB), consisting of two urban street segments and
two signalized intersections (SW 40th Blvd. and I-75 NB on-ramp); and
• NW 39th Ave. eastbound (EB), consisting of one urban street segment and
two signalized intersections (I-75 NB off-ramp and NW 95th Blvd).
Chapter 38/Network Analysis Example Problems

Exhibit 38-24
Example Problem 1:
Urban Street Facilities
(a) Urban Street Facility 1: Archer Rd. WB (b) Urban Street Facility 2: NW 39th Ave. EB
Notes: The movements whose control delay will be used in the analysis are indicated in parentheses.
WBR = westbound right turn, WBT = westbound through, NBR = northbound right turn, EBT = eastbound
through.
The O-D route also includes the freeway facility (I-75 NB), starting at
segment 8 and ending at segment 16, as shown in Exhibit 38-22. The on-ramp
and off-ramp at the boundary ends of the facility are also included in the travel
time evaluation.
Exhibit 38-25 lists the segments, ramps, and intersections traversed for the
route connecting O-D pair D-H.
Exhibit 38-25 Facility 1: Archer Rd WB Facility 2: I-75 NB Facility 3: NW 39th Ave.

Example Problem 1: Intersections Ramp Intersections
List of Intersections, Ramps, (Movements) Segments Junctions Segments (Movements) Segments
and Segments Traversed for 8, 9, 10, 11, I-75 NB to
O-D Pair D-H SW 40th Blvd. SW 37th Blvd. to Archer Rd. I-75 NB
12, 13, 14, NW 95th
(WB through) SW 40th Blvd. On-Ramp (NB right turn)
15, 16 Blvd.
I-75 NB SW 40th Blvd. to NW 39th Ave. NW 95th Blvd.
— —
(WB right turn) I-75 NB Off-Ramp (EB through)
The analysis’ temporal scope must also be defined. Given the short length of
the subject network, a single-period analysis will be performed initially. The
average travel time obtained will be compared to the 15-min analysis period
length; if the travel time is longer than 15 min, the study’s temporal scope will be
reevaluated.
Step 2: Provide Input Parameters for Freeway and Urban Street

Analysis
For this step, the facilities connecting the subject O-D pair must be modeled
individually using their respective HCM methods.
Freeway Facility: I-75 NB

The freeway facility was divided into 19 segments for capacity analysis and
modeled as described in Chapter 10, Freeway Facilities Core Methodology. The
detailed input data for each segment are presented in Exhibit 38-26.

Ramp Accel/ Ramp Exhibit 38-26

Segment Length Mainline Flow Grade Flow Rate Decel Lane Length Example Problem 1:
ID Type (ft) Rate (veh/h) (%) (veh/h) Length (ft) (ft) Input Data for Freeway
1 Basic 2,220 4,800 0 — — — Facility Analysis
2 Diverge 1,500 4,800 −2 480 800 900
3 Basic 990 4,320 0 — — —
4 Merge 1,500 4,240 0.5 580 1,124 1,000
5 Basic 1,600 4,900 3 — — —
6 Diverge 1,500 4,900 0 364 541 1,650
7 Basic 1,800 4,536 0 — — —
8 Merge 1,500 4,536 1.7 868 438 2,250
9 Basic 6,300 5,404 0 — — —
10 Basic 5,385 5,404 0 — — —
11 Diverge 1,500 5,404 −1 936 490 660
12 Basic 2,014 4,468 0 — — —
13 Merge 1,500 4,468 1.8 380 1,443 1,850
14 Basic 6,494 4,848 0 — — —
15 Basic 2,480 4,848 0 — — —
16 Diverge 1,500 4,848 1 960 377 2,380
17 Basic 1,000 3,888 0 — — —
18 Merge 1,500 3,888 −2.2 148 747 2,200
19 Basic 3,760 4,036 0 — — —
Additional input parameters for the freeway facility are as follows:

• Urban area
• 3 travel lanes in each direction
• Base FFS: 75.4 mi/h
• Ramp FFS: 35 mi/h
• Ramp side: right
• Lane width: 12 ft
• Right-side clearance: 10 ft
• Traffic composition: 2% trucks on both freeway and ramps
• Familiar facility users
Urban Street Facility 1: Archer Road Westbound

This facility contains two signalized intersections and two segments, as
shown in Exhibit 38-24(a). The corresponding input data for intersection and
segment analysis are presented in Exhibit 38-27 and Exhibit 38-28 respectively.
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Exhibit 38-27

Example Problem 1:
Intersection Parameter L T R L T R L T R L T R
Input Data for Intersection
Archer Rd. @ Demand (veh/h) 320 2,064 — — 524 548 104 — 260 — — — Analysis – Archer Rd. WB
I-75 NB Phase split (s) 20 80 — 70 20 30 — — — — — —
Archer Rd. @ Demand (veh/h) 120 2,348 88 36 864 548 60 208 96 36 480 304
SW 40th Blvd. Phase split (s) 20 50 — 20 50 — 20 30 — 20 30 —
Note: L = left, T = through, R = right.

Exhibit 38-28 SW 40th Blvd. to SW 37th Blvd. to

Example Problem 1: Input Parameter I-75 WB SW 40th Blvd.
Input Data for Segment Segment length (ft) 530 1,288
Analysis – Archer Rd. WB Speed limit (mi/h) 45 45
Through lanes 3 3
Restrictive median length (ft) 0 0
Upstream intersection width (ft) 50 50
Curb proportion (%) 70 70
Base FFS (mi/h) 46.42 46.42
Running speed (mi/h) 32.24 41.37
Running time (s) 11.21 21.23
Percent of base FFS 50.84 52.04
Urban Street Facility 2: NW 39th Avenue Eastbound

This facility contains two signalized intersections and one segment, as shown
in Exhibit 38-24(b). The corresponding intersection and segment input data are
presented in Exhibit 38-29 and Exhibit 38-30, respectively.
Exhibit 38-29 Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

Example Problem 1: Intersection Parameter L T R L T R L T R L T R
Input Data for Intersection
NW 39th @ Demand (veh/h) 72 1,416 — — 872 76 336 — 624 — — —
Analysis – NW 39th Ave. EB
I-75 NB Phase split (s) 20 80 — — 70 — 20 30 — — — —
NW 39th @ Demand (veh/h) 180 1,772 68 96 640 128 84 160 76 60 228 120
NW 95th Blvd. Phase split (s) 20 50 — 20 50 — 20 30 — 20 30 —
Exhibit 38-30 Input Parameter I-75 NB to NW 95th Blvd.

Example Problem 1: Segment length (ft) 510
Input Data for Segment Speed limit (mi/h) 45
Analysis – NW 39th Ave. EB Through lanes 2
Restrictive median length (ft) 0
Upstream intersection width (ft) 50
Curb proportion (%) 70
Base FFS (mi/h) 46.42
Running speed (mi/h) 31.53
Running time (s) 11.03
Percent of base FFS 58.38
Additional input parameters for Urban Street Facilities 1 and 2 are as follows:
• Base saturation flow rate: 1,900 veh/h/ln
• Traffic composition: 0% heavy vehicles
• Cycle length: 120 s
• Grade: 0%
• Arrival type: 3
• Speed limit: 45 mi/h
• Yellow change interval: 4 s
• Red clearance interval: 0 s
• No pedestrians

Step 3: Balance Demands at the Freeway–Urban Street Interface

After each facility along the O-D route is modeled individually, this step
checks the consistency of traffic flows at the interfaces between the urban street
and freeway facilities.
For each of the four on-ramps along the freeway facility, there are two
movements at the corresponding urban street intersection that contribute to the
on-ramp demand: the eastbound left-turn and the westbound right-turn. Exhibit
38-31 compares the demand volumes v at the intersection with their respective
movement capacities c, with the smaller of the two values added to the total on-
ramp demand vR. No movement operates with v/c > 1; therefore, no adjustments
are required and the on-ramp demands are equal to the sum of the turning
movement demands at the ramp intersection.
Parameter Exhibit 38-31

Demand v Capacity c min (v, c) Merge Demand Example Problem 1:
Intersection Movement (veh/h) (veh/h) v/c (veh/h) vR (veh/h) On-Ramp Demands Along the
Freeway Facility
Williston Rd. @ EBL 160 1,055 0.15 160
580
I-75 NB WBR 420 985 0.43 420
Archer Rd. @ EBL 320 935 0.34 320
868
I-75 NB WBR 548 1,037 0.53 548
Newberry Rd. EBL 216 862 0.25 216
380
@ I-75 NB WBR 164 1,163 0.14 164
NW 39th Ave. EBL 72 501 0.14 72
148
@ I-75 NB WBR 76 1,012 0.075 76
Note: EBL = eastbound left, WBR = westbound right.
Next, the off-ramp volumes are checked against the intersection turning
movement demands. The first check determines whether there are bottlenecks
along the freeway facility that may meter off-ramp demands. Exhibit 38-32
shows the estimated LOS for all 19 segments in the freeway facility. Since no
segment is oversaturated, the off-ramp demand is not metered, and no
adjustments are necessary.
Segment Number Exhibit 38-32

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Example Problem 1:
Type B D B M B D B M B B D B M B B D B M B Freeway Segment LOS
LOS D D D D D D D E E E D D C D D D C C C
Note: Segment types: B = basic, M = merge, D = diverge.
The second check compares the off-ramp demands to the respective ramp
roadway capacity, as shown in Exhibit 38-33. Demand does not exceed capacity
for any of the ramps; therefore, no adjustments to the intersection volumes are
performed.
Off-Ramp Demand Ramp Ramp Roadway Ramp Exhibit 38-33

Segment (pc/h) Lanes Capacity (pc/h) v/c Example Problem 1:
2 480 1 2,000 0.24 Off-Ramp Demands Along the
6 364 1 2,000 0.18 Freeway Facility
11 936 1 2,000 0.47
16 960 2 4,000 0.24

Step 4: Check for Queue Spillback

The next step determines whether bottlenecks exist at the on- and off-ramps.
Off-Ramp Spillback Check

The procedure presented in Exhibit 38-10 is applied to each of the four off-
ramps in the freeway facility:
• Ramp roadway capacity: The off-ramp demand was previously compared to
ramp roadway capacity (Exhibit 38-33) and no capacity constraint was
detected.
• Queue length estimation: The back-of-queue length (95th percentile) for the
downstream terminals (signalized intersections) are obtained from the
Chapter 31, Signalized Intersections: Supplemental, methodology and are
presented in Exhibit 38-34. The 95th percentile queues are expected to be
shorter than the available turn bay lengths at the intersections, except for
the left-turn movement at Williston Rd. (freeway segment 2). Here, the
queue length will spill back into the ramp roadway, and the next check
will evaluate whether its storage is adequate.
Exhibit 38-34 Ramp 2: Ramp 6: Ramp 11: Ramp 16:

Example Problem 1: Off-Ramp Williston Rd. Archer Rd. Newberry Rd. NW 39th Ave.
Queue Length Estimation and Parameter LT RT LT RT LT RT LT RT
Queue Storage Checks Ramp length (ft) 900 1650 660 2,380
Number of ramp lanes 1 1 1 2
Upstream ramp lane L1 L1 L1 L2 L1
Turn bay length (ft) 250 210 480 480 800 800 1,260 1,200
Back-of-queue length Q95 (ft/ln) 689 21 120 363 223 363 193 482
Queue spillback length (ft) 439 — — — — — — —
Queue storage ratio (RQ) 0.49 — — — — — — —
Note: LT = left turn, RT = right turn.
• Queue storage ratio: Any queues exceeding the available turn bay length at
the intersection must be checked against the available storage along the
ramp roadway. For single-lane off-ramps, any queues upstream of the
intersection will share the same storage and must be aggregated. If a
ramp has two or more lanes, the analyst must determine how ramp lanes
are channelized relative to intersection approaches, based on the off-ramp
geometry. As shown in Exhibit 38-33, only the off-ramp at segment 16
(NW 39th Ave.) has two lanes—the leftmost ramp lane L2 is connected to
the left-turn movement, while the rightmost ramp lane L1 is connected to
the right-turn movement. In this step, the only movement that must be
evaluated is the left turn at Williston Rd. The queue length upstream of
the intersection is compared to the available ramp length, with a resulting
queue storage ratio RQ = 439 / 900 = 0.49 < 1.0. Therefore, spillback is not
expected to occur along the off-ramps.
On-Ramp Spillback Check

On-ramp queue spillback is expected to occur when a freeway merge segment
operates above capacity or when there is active ramp metering with a rate lower
than demand. As shown in Exhibit 38-32, no merge segments operate at LOS F
and no ramp metering is present; therefore, spillback is not expected to occur.

Step 5A: Obtain Speeds for Individual Lanes in the Freeway Facility
First, the flow distribution among freeway lanes must be determined for the
segments in the freeway facility. Using the estimated flow rates, lane speeds are
computed as shown in Exhibit 38-35. The highlighted rows (8 through 16)
represent the segments included in the O-D route and used to compute the
overall travel time. The rightmost lane is labeled Lane 1.
Segment Segment Lane Flow Ratio Lane Speed (mi/h) Exhibit 38-35
ID LOS Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 Example Problem 1:
1 C 0.286 0.351 0.362 66.5 71.3 77.7 Flow Distribution and Speeds
2 C 0.338 0.319 0.343 56.7 73.1 77.5 for Freeway Segments
3 C 0.279 0.356 0.365 68.3 71.6 77.2
4 C 0.259 0.388 0.353 72.0 72.4 77.3
5 C 0.281 0.348 0.371 66.4 69.9 75.6
6 C 0.336 0.326 0.337 55.3 72.2 77.4
7 C 0.286 0.354 0.360 67.7 70.6 76.5
8 C 0.253 0.387 0.359 71.7 71.5 76.8
9 C 0.294 0.346 0.360 56.3 67.3 74.0
10 C 0.288 0.344 0.368 58.2 67.7 73.9
11 D 0.358 0.290 0.352 41.6 71.7 75.2
12 C 0.286 0.355 0.359 67.8 70.8 76.6
13 B 0.253 0.382 0.365 71.9 72.1 76.8
14 C 0.281 0.349 0.370 66.8 70.0 75.7
15 C 0.281 0.349 0.370 66.8 70.0 75.7
16 C 0.350 0.296 0.354 50.6 74.1 76.8
17 B 0.278 0.362 0.361 68.3 72.6 78.1
18 B 0.252 0.383 0.365 72.0 74.2 77.7
19 B 0.272 0.358 0.370 68.7 72.7 78.1
Note: Bold rows represent the segments included in the O-D route that are used to compute the total travel time.
The step by step calculations
to determine lane-by-lane
Next, the expected speed for each segment is computed as the sum of flows and speeds on segment
products of speeds for each lane and the corresponding probability of lane 16 (diverge) are presented in
Example 1 in Appendix C.
choice, as provided in Equation 38-9. The results are shown in Exhibit 38-36.
Lane Choice Probability Exhibit 38-36

for the Subject O-D Lane Speeds (mi/h) Example Problem 1:
Segment Expected
Estimated Speeds by Segment
ID Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 Speed (mi/h)
Based on Lane Choice
8* 90.0% 5.0% 5.0% 71.7 71.5 76.8 71.9
Probability and Speeds
9 29.4% 34.6% 36.0% 55.2 68.7 75.8 67.3
10 28.8% 34.4% 36.8% 57.3 68.8 75.4 67.9
11 35.8% 29.0% 35.2% 41.6 71.7 75.2 62.2
12 28.6% 35.5% 35.9% 69.3 72.5 78.7 73.8
13 25.3% 38.2% 36.5% 71.9 72.1 76.8 73.8
14 28.1% 34.9% 37.0% 67.0 71.3 77.2 72.3
15 28.1% 34.9% 37.0% 67.0 71.3 77.2 72.3
16* 90.0% 5.0% 5.0% 50.6 74.1 76.8 53.1
Note: *Entry and exit segments require the mandatory use of the rightmost lane.
Even though the remaining segments’ travel times segments are not directly
used in calculating the O-D travel time, the entire facility must be analyzed, as
any existing bottleneck would affect the performance of other segments along the
facility. In this example, no segment operates at LOS F, and no queues develop at
the ramps connecting to urban streets.

Step 5B: Compute Travel Speeds for Urban Street Segments

The travel speeds for the urban street segments are calculated using the
core methodology of Chapter 16, Urban Street Facilities, adjusted to consider the
relevant turning movements. Exhibit 38-37 shows the three urban street
segments analyzed, with their associated movements at the intersection.
Exhibit 38-37 Input Parameters

Example Problem 1: Segment Base Running Segment Downstream Control Travel
Urban Street Segment Speeds Length FFS Speed Running Intersection Delay Speed
Facility Segment (ft) (mi/h) (mi/h) Time (s) Movement (s) (mi/h)
SW 40th Blvd. to
530 46.42 32.24 11.21 Right 7.6 19.21
Archer I-75 NB
Road WB SW 37th Blvd. to
1,288 46.42 41.37 21.23 Through 15.1 24.16
SW 40th Blvd.
NW 39th I-75 NB to
510 46.42 31.53 11.03 Through 26.2 9.34
St. EB NW 95th Blvd.
Note: FFS = free-flow speed, WB = westbound, NB = northbound, EB = eastbound.
Step 6: Compute Travel Times for Each Segment

The travel times for each segment on the urban street and freeway facilities
are computed by dividing the segment length by the travel speed (Exhibit 38-38
and Exhibit 38-39, respectively).
Exhibit 38-38 Travel Speed Length Travel

Example Problem 1: Urban Facility Segment (mi/h) (ft) Time (s)
Streets Segment Travel Times SW 40th Blvd. @ I-75 NB 19.21 530 18.8
Archer Rd. WB
SW 37th Blvd. @ SW 40th Blvd. 24.16 1,288 36.4
NW 39th Ave. EB I-75 NB @ NW 95th Blvd. 9.34 1,040 75.9
Exhibit 38-39 Segment ID Expected Speed (mi/h) Segment Length (ft) Travel Time (s)
Example Problem 1: Freeway 8 68.4 1,500 15.0
Segment Travel Times 9 66.5 6,300 64.6
10 67.2 5,385 54.6
11 64.4 1,500 15.9
12 72.0 2,014 19.1
13 73.8 1,500 13.9
14 71.2 6,494 62.2
15 71.2 2,480 23.7
16 53.1 1,500 19.3
Step 7: Obtain Travel Times for Freeway Ramps

As shown, the ramps to and from the freeway facility operate in a state of
undersaturated flow. Therefore, ramp roadway speeds can be estimated using
Equation 38-11, as shown in Exhibit 38-40. For the off-ramp at segment 16, the
control delay at the downstream ramp terminal is included in the computation of
the ramp total travel time.
Exhibit 38-40 Ramp Ramp

Example Problem 1: Ramp Ramp Ramp Roadway Control Delay Total
Ramp Roadway Travel Times Segment Flow FFS Speed Length Travel at Ramp Travel
ID (pc/h) (mi/h) (mi/h) (ft) Time (s) Terminal (s) Time (s)
8 886 35 31.6 2,250 48.5 — 48.5
16 980 35 31.3 1,200 26.2 96.6 122.8
Note: FFS = free-flow speed.

Step 8: Compute Travel Times for the Network and Each O-D
All segments within the subject O-D route (D-H) are sorted according to their
travel sequence and their respective travel times are listed as shown in Exhibit
38-41. The cumulative travel time for the O-D route must also be computed to
evaluate whether the network analysis is being contained correctly within the
temporal scope defined in Step 1. For this example, a single 15-min analysis
period was considered, for a total time of 900 s. Because the cumulative travel
time does not exceed this boundary value, all travel times obtained from analysis
period 1 are valid for the analysis.
Facility Travel Cumulative Exhibit 38-41

Time Travel Time Analysis Example Problem 1:
Type Name Segment Name or ID (s) (s) Period Cumulative Travel Time
Urban Archer SW 37th Blvd. to SW 40th Blvd. 18.8 40.5 1 Computation
Street 1 Rd. WB SW 40th Blvd. to I-75 NB 36.4 76.8 1
On-ramp to I-75 NB 48.5 125.3 1
8* 15.0 140.3 1
9 63.8 204.1 1
10 54.1 258.2 1
11 16.5 274.6 1
Freeway I-75 NB 12 18.6 293.2 1
13 13.9 307.1 1
14 61.3 368.4 1
15 23.4 391.8 1
16* 19.3 411.0 1
Off-ramp to NW 39th Ave. 122.8 533.8 1
Urban NW 39th
I-75 NB to NW 95th Blvd. 75.9 609.7 1
Street 2 Ave. EB
Total travel time (s) 609.7
Notes: *Segments that are the entry to or exit from the freeway facility for the subject O-D route.
WB = westbound, NB = northbound, EB = eastbound.
Step 9: Compute Performance Measures for Segments

Because no spillback occurred in the subject study period, the performance
measures obtained by the respective methods for each segment type are valid.

EXAMPLE PROBLEM 2: ON-RAMP SPILLBACK ANALYSIS

This example problem illustrates the application of the on-ramp spillback
methodology by evaluating operations at an interchange when queue spillback
originates from the on-ramp. The example problem has three parts, each
analyzing a different intersection type at the ramp terminal: signalized, two-way
STOP-controlled (TWSC), and all-way STOP-controlled (AWSC). The main
objective in each scenario is to determine the new control delay for the
movements affected by queue spillback. All other network parameters (freeway
design and traffic demand, and intersection demand) are kept the same between
scenarios.
Elements Common to All Scenarios

A network in Baton Rouge, LA consists of the following facilities:
• One freeway facility (I-10)
• One urban street facility (Acadian Thruway) with four signalized
intersections:
o Perkins Rd.
o Acadian Center Rd.
o I-10 WB ramps
o I-10 EB ramps
The subject network has three freeway lanes throughout its entire length.
One interchange connects the freeway to an urban street facility (Acadian
Thruway), as illustrated in Exhibit 38-42. The selected origin and destination
points for analysis are H and F, respectively, with the traveled segments
highlighted in red.
Exhibit 38-42
Example Problem 2: Network
Interchanges, Intersections,
and O-D Points

The freeway facility (I-10 EB) will be modeled according to the freeway
facilities core methodology (Chapter 10), while the ramp terminal will be
modeled according to its respective intersection methodology (Chapter 19, 20, or
21). First, a check will be performed to confirm the occurrence of queue spillback.
Next, the respective spillback analysis method will be applied to evaluate the
impacts of queue spillback on the capacity of each movement at the intersection.
These reduced capacities will be used to compute control delay values
considering queue spillback and the results will be compared to the delay values
without queue spillback.
Exhibit 38-43 provides a schematic representation of the freeway facility in
the eastbound direction. Segments 3 (merge) and 5 (diverge) connect the freeway
to the urban street facility (Acadian Thruway).
Exhibit 38-43
Example Problem 2: Freeway
Facility Segmentation and O-D
Entry and Exit Points
The urban street facility consists of four signalized intersections and three
segments, as shown in Exhibit 38-44. The on-ramp terminal being analyzed is the
I-10 EB Ramps intersection.
Exhibit 38-44
Example Problem 2:
Urban Street Facility

Example Problem 2A: Signalized Ramp Terminal

This scenario evaluates the impacts of queue spillback originating from the
I-10 EB on-ramp when the upstream ramp terminal is signalized.
Input Data
Signalized Intersection
The geometry of the intersection connected to the I-10 EB on-ramp is shown
in Exhibit 38-45. Three movements lead onto the on-ramp:
• NB right-turn (NBR): One channelized, unsignalized right-turn lane
• SB left-turn (SBL): One exclusive left turn lane with a protected phase
• EB through (EBT): One through lane
Exhibit 38-45
Example Problem 2A:
Geometry: I-10 EB Ramps
Exhibit 38-46 presents the subject intersection’s phasing. The north–south

direction corresponds to the major street, while the minor streets correspond to
the freeway off- and on-ramps. The intersection has a leading left-turn phase
with a protected left-turn movement (SBL).
Exhibit 38-46
Example Problem 2A: Phasing
Sequence: I-10 EB Ramps
The demand volumes for each analysis period are presented in Exhibit 38-47.
Additional input data are summarized in Exhibit 38-48.

Eastbound Northbound Southbound Exhibit 38-47

Analysis Period L T R T R L T Example Problem 2A:
1 8 8 87 362 315 652 804 Demand Flow Rates (veh/h):
2 16 96 20 1,812 521 586 1,759 I-10 EB Ramps
3 16 96 20 271 630 1,071 717
4 8 24 28 845 80 463 201
Eastbound Northbound Southbound Exhibit 38-48

L T R T R L T Example Problem 2A: Other
General Information Input Data: I-10 EB Ramps
Base saturation flow rate, s0 (veh/h) 1,900 1,900 1,900 1,900 1,900 1,900 1,900
Arrival type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Lane width, W (ft) 11 11 11 11 11 11 11
Heavy vehicle percentage, PHV (%) 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
Grade, Pg (%) 0 0 0
Speed limit (mi/h) 35 35 35 35 35 35 35
Phase Information
Maximum green, Gmax (s) 20 20 — 53 — 47 100
Yellow change interval, Y (s) 4.7 4.7 — 4.7 — 4.7 4.7
Red clearance interval, Rc (s) 1 1 — 1 — 1 1
Minimum green, Gmin (s) 5 5 — 15 — 5 15
Start-up lost time, lt (s) 2 2 — 2 — 2 2
Green extension, e (s) 2 2 — 2 — 2 2
Passage time, PT (s) 2 2 — 2 — 2 2
Recall mode Off Off — Off — Off Off
Dual entry No No — Yes — No Yes
Freeway Facility
The freeway facility (I-10 EB) is divided into seven segments, as shown in
Exhibit 38-49, where segment 3 (diverge) and segment 5 (merge) connect to the
subject signalized intersection (Acadian Thruway). Exhibit 38-50 summarizes the
facility’s geometric features.
Exhibit 38-49
Example Problem 2A:
Freeway Facility Segments

Exhibit 38-50 Segment Segment Grade Acceleration/Deceleration Ramp

Example Problem 2A: Freeway ID Type Length (ft) (%) Lane Length (ft) Length (ft)
Facility Geometric Features 1 Basic 5,280 0 — —
2 Diverge 1,500 0 800 1,139
3 Diverge 720 0 0 965
4 Basic 732 0 — —
5 Merge 1,000 0 1,000 924
6 Basic 1,200 0 — —
7 Basic 900 0 — —

The first step in the spillback check analysis is to determine the on-ramp
demand flow rates for each time period, based on the demands at the signalized
intersection. For each time period, the demand v and capacities c are compared
for each movement that flows into the on-ramp (EBT, NBR, and SBL). The
minimum value between demand and capacity for each movement is computed
and the merge demand vR is then computed as the sum of the three movements.
The capacities for protected movements (EBT and SBL) are computed for
each time period. Due to the actuated control operation, the green times for these
movements vary by time period; therefore the method uses the average green
time for each phase and for each time period. The NBR movement is
unsignalized and therefore no capacity estimation is provided. The movement’s
capacity is computed by calculating the maximum throughput during one cycle
and then aggregating to an hourly flow rate. During the phases when no
conflicting movements discharge into the on-ramp, the NBR maximum
throughput is computed as its respective saturation flow rate, considering the
applicable adjustment factors fRT (for right-turn movements) and fHV (for the
presence of heavy vehicles). During the transition time between consecutive
phases, the unsignalized turning movement’s throughput is also assumed to be
equal to its saturation flow rate. Therefore:
Equation 38-25 𝑠𝑁𝐵𝑅,𝐹𝐹 = 𝑠0,𝑁𝐵𝑅 × 𝑓𝑅𝑇 × 𝑓𝐻𝑉𝑔
where
sNBR,FF = saturation flow rate of the NBR movement during the phases with
no conflicting flows (veh/h/ln),
s0,NBR = base saturation flow rate (1,900 pc/h/ln),
fRT = adjustment factor for right-turn vehicle presence in a lane group, and
fHVg = adjustment factor for heavy vehicles and grade.
The adjustment factor for right-turn vehicle presence is computed using
Equation 19-13, reproduced here as Equation 38-26:
1 1
Equation 38-26 𝑓𝑅𝑇 = =
𝐸𝑇 1.18
where ET is the equivalent number of through cars for a protected right-turning
vehicle (1.18). The adjustment factor for heavy vehicles and grade is computed
using Equation 19-10:

100 − 0.78𝑃𝐻𝑉 − 0.31𝑃𝑔2

𝑓𝐻𝑉𝑔 =
100
100 − 0.78 × 5 − 0.31 × 02
𝑓𝐻𝑉𝑔 = = 0.961
100
where
PHV = percentage heavy vehicles in the corresponding movement group (%),
and
Pg = approach grade for the corresponding movement group (%).
The saturation flow rate is therefore
1
𝑠𝑁𝐵𝑅,𝐹𝐹 = 1,900 × × 0.961 = 1,547 veh/h
1.18
Because there are conflicting movements discharging into the on-ramp (for
example, a protected left turn), the NBR capacity is constrained as drivers yield
to the higher-priority movement. The estimated discharge flow rate for the NBR
movement with a conflicting protected flow vprot can be obtained from Equation
31-100, reproduced here as Equation 38-27:
𝑣𝑜 𝑒 −𝑣𝑜 𝑡𝑐𝑔/3,600
𝑠𝑝 = Equation 38-27
1 − 𝑒 −𝑣𝑜 𝑡𝑓ℎ/3,600
where
sp = saturation flow rate of a permitted movement (veh/h/ln),
v0 = opposing demand flow rate (veh/h),
tcg = critical headway = 4.5 (s), and
tfh = follow-up headway = 2.5 (s).
The computation of the permitted saturation flow rates must take into
consideration that the conflicting phase may have two distinct flow rates on
signalized intersection operation, as discussed in Chapter 31, Signalized
Intersections Supplemental:
• During the queue service time (gs) portion of the conflicting phase green,
the opposing movement flow rate is equal to its saturation flow rate; and
• During the green extension time (ge), the opposing movement flow rate is
equal to its arrival flow rate during the effective green (qg).
Exhibit 38-51 illustrates the calculation of the NBR capacity for a single cycle
during analysis period 1. For each active phase, the procedure identifies the
respective conflicting flow to the on-ramp along with its duration and flow rate.
The NBR saturation flow rate is then computed using Equation 38-27. The last
column computes the maximum number of vehicles that can be discharged
during each phase as the product of the NBR saturation flow rate and the phase
duration. Clearance times between consecutive phases are also taken into
consideration assuming that they have no conflicting flow rate to the on-ramp.

Exhibit 38-51 NBR NBR

Example Problem 2A: Conflicting Saturation Discharge
Calculation of NB Right Turn Conflicting Duration Flow Rate Flow Rate Volume
Capacity for a Single Cycle: Active Phase Flow (s) (veh/h) (veh/h) (veh)
Analysis Period 2 Φ1 (SBL) – gs,SBL sSBL 40.2 1,739 282 3.1
Φ 1 (SBL) – ge,SBL qg,SBL 3.7 128 1,282 1.3
Clearance time 1 — 5.7 — 1,547 2.5
Φ 2 (NBT) — 50.7 — 1,547 21.8
Clearance time 2 — 5.7 — 1,547 2.5
Φ 7 (EBT) – gs,EBT sEBT 6.3 1,811 263 0.5
Φ 7 (EBT) – ge,EBT qg,EBT 2.0 97.2 1,319 0.8
Clearance time 7 — 5.7 — 1,547 2.5
Total 120.0 34.8
Note: gs = queue service time, ge = green extension time, qg = arrival flow rate during effective green,
s = saturation flow rate, NBR = northbound right turn, SBL = southbound left turn, EBT = eastbound
through.
As shown, for a 120-s cycle, the capacity of the unsignalized NBR movement
is 34.8 vehicles. Aggregated to an hourly flow rate, the capacity is:
3,600
𝑐𝑁𝐵𝑅 = 34.8 × = 1,045 veh/h
120
Because of the actuated control operation, the discharge rate to the on-ramp
is different during each cycle and during each analysis period. Therefore, this
procedure must be repeated for every analysis period to compute the capacity of
the NBR unsignalized movement cNBR, as shown in Exhibit 38-52.
Exhibit 38-52 Analysis Northbound Right-Turn

Example Problem 2A: NBR Period Capacity (veh/h)
Capacity by Analysis Period 1 1,213
2 1,045
3 978
4 1,182
Exhibit 38-53 summarizes the calculations for this step. During analysis
period 3, the SBL movement operates over capacity (v/c = 1.56, highlighted in
red); therefore, its throughput to the ramp is constrained by its capacity of 685
veh/h. For all other movements and analysis periods, the throughput to the on-
ramp equals the demand because v/c < 1.
The calculated on-ramp demand is then provided as an input to the freeway
facility analysis (Exhibit 38-54). As shown, the ramp flow rates for the merge
segment (segment 5) are obtained from Exhibit 38-53 (highlighted in bold).
The results of the freeway facility analysis are provided in Exhibit 38-55.
Oversaturated conditions (LOS F) occur during analysis periods 2 and 3
(highlighted in red), therefore queueing may occur along the on-ramp.

Movement Exhibit 38-53

Analysis Period Parameter EBT NBR SBL Example Problem 2A:
Calculation of the On-Ramp
Demand v (veh/h) 8 315 652
Demand vR Based on the
v/c 0.064 — 0.96 Intersection Operation
1 Capacity c (veh/h) 125 1,213 677
min (v, c) 8 315 652
Merge demand vR (veh/h) 975
v/c 0.768 — 0.93
2 Capacity c (veh/h) 125 1045 630
min (v, c) 96 521 586
Merge demand vR (veh/h) 1,203
Demand v (veh/h) 96 630 1,071
v/c 0.77 — 1.56
3 Capacity c (veh/h) 125 978 685
min (v, c) 96 630 685
v/c 0.39 — 0.62
4 Capacity c (veh/h) 62 1,182 746
min (v, c) 24 80 463
Note: NBR = northbound right turn, SBL = southbound left turn, EBT = eastbound through.
Time Period 1 Time Period 2 Time Period 3 Time Period 4 Exhibit 38-54
Mainline Ramp Mainline Ramp Mainline Ramp Mainline Ramp Example Problem 2A: Freeway
Flow Flow Flow Flow Flow Flow Flow Flow Facility Demand Inputs
Segment Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate
ID (veh/h) (veh/h) (veh/h) (veh/h) (veh/h) (veh/h) (veh/h) (veh/h)
1 5,209 — 6,300 — 5,300 — 5,000 —
2 5,209 348 6,300 450 5,300 1,200 5,000 50
3 4,861 135 5,850 116 4,100 1,000 4,950 96
4 4,726 — 5,734 — 3,100 — 4,854 —
5 4,726 975 5,734 1,203 3,100 1,411 4,854 567
6 5,701 — 6,937 — 4,511 — 5,421 —
7 5,701 — 6,937 — 4,511 — 5,421 —
Segment ID and Type Exhibit 38-55

Analysis 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Example Problem 2A:
Period Basic Diverge Diverge Basic Merge Basic Basic Freeway Facility LOS
1 D C D C D D D
2 E F F F F F E
3 D D F F F E E
4 D C C B C C C
The next step estimates the on-ramp queue length and compares the result to
the available queue storage length to determine whether spillback is expected to
occur. Exhibit 38-56 shows the expected on-ramp queues from the freeway
facility analysis. For each analysis period, the ramp storage ratio RQ is computed
by dividing the ramp queue by the available storage length (924 ft). During
analysis period 2, a queue is expected on the ramp, but it is not long enough to
cause queue spillback (RQ < 1). During analysis period 3, however, the on-ramp is
expected to have RQ = 2.31 (highlighted in red), which indicates that spillback will
occur at the intersection during this analysis period.

Exhibit 38-56 Analysis Ramp Flow Ramp Queue Ramp Ramp Storage Spillback
Example Problem 2A: Period Rate (veh/h) (veh) Queue (ft) Ratio (RQ) Expected?
Spillback Check: I-10 EB 1 975 0.0 0.0 0.00 No
On-Ramp 2 1,203 15.0 388.6 0.42 No
3 1,411 82.1 2,133.6 2.31 Yes
4 567 0.0 0.0 0.00 No
Because spillback will occur during at least one analysis period, its impacts
on the operation of the signalized intersection must be evaluated. The next
section illustrates the application of the methodology to evaluate spillback effects
at a signalized intersection.
Evaluation of Queue Spillback Impacts

The evaluation of queue spillback impacts on the signalized intersection
follows the procedure detailed in the methodology in Appendix B (Exhibit 38-
B5). Because this is a multiperiod analysis, the procedure must be applied for
every analysis period. In this example, analysis periods 2, 3, and 4 will be
evaluated. Analysis period 1 is not analyzed here since it does not have
oversaturated conditions.
Analysis Period 2
The procedure to evaluate queue spillback into intersections is applied for
analysis period 2, even though spillback is not expected to occur during this
analysis period. The application of the methodology is presented for this analysis
period to facilitate the understanding of the calculations.
Step 7A: Determine intersection throughput to on-ramp. The throughput
of movements into the on-ramp were determined previously as part of the queue
spillback check, as shown in Exhibit 38-53.
Step 7B: Obtain merging capacity with the freeway facilities method.
When the freeway facility operates in oversaturated conditions, the capacity of
the subject merge section may be constrained by the presence of queues along
the mainline. The Oversaturated Segment Evaluation procedure (Chapter 25)
computes the on-ramp queue ONRQ and on-ramp capacity ONRO every 15 s.
The merge capacity cmerge is then obtained by aggregating the ONRO parameter
into an hourly flow rate for each analysis period. Exhibit 38-57 shows the values
of ONRQ and ONRO over the study period (60 min), converted to hourly flow
rates.
Exhibit 38-57(a) compares the on-ramp capacity ONRO to the on-ramp
demand. During the first analysis period, undersaturated conditions exist along
the freeway, thus ONRO equals 2,000 pc/h, corresponding to the ramp roadway
capacity given in Exhibit 14-12, or 1,903 veh/h. During analysis periods 2 and 3,
oversaturated conditions occur and the on-ramp capacity drops to 5 pc per time
step, corresponding to 1,142 veh/h. During analysis period 4, the lower demand
along the freeway allows the mainline queue to clear within 4 time steps (60 s).
Therefore, during the first 60 s, the on-ramp capacity remains 1,142 veh/h. From
the fifth time step to the end of analysis period 4, there is no congestion at the
merge and therefore the on-ramp capacity is again 1,903 veh/h.

Exhibit 38-57(b) provides the on-ramp queue estimated by the Chapter 25

Oversaturated Segment Evaluation procedure. Because spillback is expected to
occur, an adjustment to the freeway facility oversaturated segment procedure is
necessary to account for the maximum ramp storage (35.5 veh). This value is the
upper boundary of the on-ramp queue length. At the end of analysis period 3,
the predicted on-ramp queue length would be 82 veh if there were no storage
constraints (shown as the black curve). The red curve represents the adjusted
queue profile for the on-ramp considering the maximum storage capacity. At the
start of analysis period 4, having an on-ramp queue of 35.5 veh instead of 82 veh
results in a shorter queue clearance time, with a slight positive impact on the
freeway performance. In other words, the intersection has a metering effect,
which may improve freeway operations. Exhibit 38-58 compares the performance
results of the freeway segments downstream of the merge (see Exhibit 38-49)
with and without consideration of the maximum storage constraint.
Exhibit 38-57
Example Problem 2A:
Freeway Segment 5 Merge
Capacity and Queue Lengths
(a) Merge Capacity
(b) Queue Length
Segment 5 (Merge) Segment 6 (Basic) Segment 7 (Basic) Exhibit 38-58

Without With Without With Without With Example Problem 2A: Freeway
Storage Storage Storage Storage Storage Storage Performance During Analysis
Constraint Constraint Constraint Constraint Constraint Constraint Period 4 with and without the
Speed (mi/h) 67.2 67.4 67.7 67.8 72.2 72.5 Queue Storage Constraint
Density (pc/mi/ln) 20.9 19.9 20.8 19.7 19.5 18.4

Step 7C: Plot queue accumulation polygons (QAPs) for the on-ramp and
unsignalized movements. In this step, a QAP is plotted for the on-ramp as a
function of all protected and permitted movements entering the on-ramp, on a
cycle-by-cycle basis. Because an unsignalized movement (NBR) also discharges
into the on-ramp, a QAP must be developed for this movement as well. The
latter QAP is required to: (a) determine the discharge pattern of the unsignalized
movement throughout the cycle, and (b) allow the estimation of control delay for
this movement.
Exhibit 38-59 presents the QAPs for analysis period 2 for both the on-ramp
and the NBR movement.
Exhibit 38-59
Example Problem 2A:
Estimated Queue Lengths and
Merge Capacities During
Analysis Period 2
The cycle starts with a permitted left-turn movement (Φ1: SBL) discharging
into the on-ramp with a green time g1 = 43.9 s, divided in a queue service time gs1
= 40.2 s and a queue extension time ge1 = 3.7s (as defined in Chapter 31). During
the green interval for SBL, the capacity of the NBR movement is constrained
because drivers must yield to the protected left-turn vehicles. The saturation flow
rate for the NBR movement with a conflicting flow vSBL can be estimated from
Equation 38-27:
𝑣𝑜 𝑒 −𝑣𝑜 𝑡𝑐𝑔/3,600
𝑠𝑝 =
1 − 𝑒 −𝑣𝑜 𝑡𝑓ℎ/3,600

𝜆𝑆𝐵𝐿 𝑒 −𝜆𝑆𝐵𝐿 𝑡𝑐𝑔/3,600

𝑠𝑁𝐵𝑅,𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑚 =
1 − 𝑒 −𝜆𝑆𝐵𝐿 𝑡𝑓ℎ/3,600
where
sNBR,perm = saturation flow rate of the NBR movement (veh/h/ln),
λSBL = throughput of the opposing SBL movement (veh/h),
tcg = critical headway = 4.5 s, and
tfh = follow-up headway = 2.5 s.
The saturation flow rates of the NBR movement during Φ1 are determined
next. During the SBL queue service time, the saturation flow rate is:
𝜆𝑆𝐵𝐿 = 𝑠𝑆𝐵𝐿 = 1,739 𝑣𝑒ℎ/ℎ/𝑙𝑛 → 𝑠𝑁𝐵𝑅,𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑚1 = 282 veh/h/ln
where sSBL is the saturation flow rate of the SBL movement (veh/h/ln) and sNBR,perm1
is the saturation flow rate of the NBR movement during the SBL queue service
time (veh/h/ln).
The throughput for the NBR movement is obtained as the minimum of the
demand and the saturation flow rate. Because the demand flow rate is greater
than the saturation flow rate, a queue will develop for the NBR movement:
𝜆𝑁𝐵𝑅,1 = min(𝑠𝑁𝐵𝑅,𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑚1 , 𝑣𝑁𝐵𝑅 ) = min(282, 521)
𝜆𝑁𝐵𝑅,1 = 282 veh/h
where λNBR,1 is the throughput for the NBR movement during the SBL queue
service time (veh/h/ln) and vNBR is the demand flow rate of the NBR movement
(veh/h).
During the SBL green extension time ge, the SBL throughput λSBL is equal to
the arrival flow rate during the effective green (qg,SBL, from Equation 19-32):
𝑣𝑆𝐵𝐿 𝐶
𝜆𝑆𝐵𝐿 = 𝑞𝑔,𝑆𝐵𝐿 = 𝑃𝑆𝐵𝐿 × ×
3,600 𝑔𝑆𝐵𝐿
586 120
𝜆𝑆𝐵𝐿 = 0.08 × × = 0.0356 veh/s/ln = 128 veh/h/ln
3,600 43.9
where
P = proportion of vehicles arriving during the green indication (decimal),
VSBL = SBL demand flow rate (veh/h),
C = cycle time (s), and
gSBL = SBL effective green time (s).
For this conflicting flow, therefore, the NBR saturation flow rate sNBR,perm2 is
obtained using Equation 38-27:
𝜆𝑆𝐵𝐿 𝑒 −𝜆𝑆𝐵𝐿 𝑡𝑐𝑔/3,600
𝑠𝑁𝐵𝑅,𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑚2 =
1 − 𝑒 −𝜆𝑆𝐵𝐿 𝑡𝑓ℎ/3,600
586 120
𝜆𝑆𝐵𝐿 = 0.08 × × = 0.0356 veh/s/ln = 128 veh/h/ln
3600 43.9
with all variables previously defined.

Because a queue is present in the NBR movement, the throughput for the
NBR movement is equal to its saturation flow rate:
𝜆𝑁𝐵𝑅,2 = 𝑠𝑁𝐵𝑅,𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑚2 = 1,282 veh/h
where λNBR,2 is the throughput for the NBR movement during the SBL green
extension (veh/h/ln) and sNBR,perm2 is the saturation flow rate of the NBR
movement during the SBL green extension time (veh/h/ln).
With the discharge patterns for the NBR determined, the on-ramp’s queue
profile during Φ1 can be determined. During the SBL queue service time (cycle
time t = 0 to t = 40.2 s), the throughput to the on-ramp is given by:
𝜆𝑂𝑁𝑅 = 𝜆𝑆𝐵𝐿 + 𝜆𝑁𝐵𝑅,1 = 1,739 + 282 = 2,021 veh/h = 0.561 veh/s
Given that the merge capacity cmerge is 1,142 veh/h for the current analysis
period, the on-ramp queue will grow at the following rate during the SBL queue
service time:
𝜆𝑂𝑁𝑅 − 𝑐merge = 2,021 − 1,142 = 879 veh/h = 0.244 veh/s
Therefore, at the end of the SBL queue service time (t = 40.2s), the queue at
the on-ramp will be 0.244 x 40.2 = 9.8 vehicles (Exhibit 38-59a).
This process is then repeated for all phases throughout the cycle. The results
for a single cycle (120 s) are presented in Exhibit 38-60, where the maximum on-
ramp queue occurs at t = 50.48 s, with 10.82 veh. The expected on-ramp queue at
the end of the cycle is 2.02 veh. The remaining cycles within analysis period 2
show the same pattern, where the on-ramp queue at the end of each cycle
becomes the initial queue at the start of the next cycle.
Each row in Exhibit 38-60 describes a portion of the cycle, as follows:
• gs1 is the queue service time for SBL (Φ1), as previously discussed.
• ge1 is the green extension time for SBL (Φ1). The NBR movement
discharges at the permitted saturation flow rate due to the queue that has
developed during gs1 and the on-ramp queue grows at a rate of 0.07 veh/s.
• r1 is the effective red time for SBL (Φ1). There is no throughput from
protected movements and the NBR movement discharges freely at the
saturation flow rate. The on-ramp queue grows at a rate of 0.11 veh/s.
• g2* is the effective green for NBT (Φ2), with no throughput from protected
movements. The duration of 0.88 s is calculated based on the queue
service time of the NBR approach. The on-ramp queue grows at a rate of
0.11 veh/s.
• g2** is the remaining effective green for NBT (Φ2). For this portion, no
queue remains on the NBR approach, therefore the NBR throughput is
equal to its demand flow rate vNBR. The on-ramp queue discharges at a
rate of 0.17 veh/s.
• r2 is the effective red time for NBT (Φ2). There is no throughput from
protected movements and the NBR throughput is equal to its demand
flow rate vNBR. The on-ramp queue discharges at a rate of 0.17 veh/s.

• gs7 is the queue service time for EBT (Φ7). The EBT discharges into the on-
ramp at the saturation flow rate. The throughput of the NBR movement is
restricted to the permitted saturation flow rate, causing queues to develop
in the NBR approach. The on-ramp queue grows at a rate of 0.26 veh/s.
• ge7* is the green extension time for EBT (Φ7). The duration of 0.03 s is
calculated based on the queue service time of the NBR approach. The
NBR movement discharges at the permitted saturation flow rate. The on-
ramp queue grows at a rate of 0.08 veh/s.
• ge7** is the remaining extension time for EBT (Φ7). The EBT movement
discharges at a rate equal to its arrival flow rate during the effective
green. For this portion, no queue remains on the NBR approach, therefore
the NBR throughput is equal to its demand flow rate vNBR. The on-ramp
queue discharges at a rate of 0.15 veh/s.
• r7 is the effective red time for EBT (Φ7). There is no throughput from
protected movements and the NBR throughput is equal to its demand
flow rate vNBR. The on-ramp queue discharges at a rate of 0.17 veh/s.
Protected Exhibit 38-60

Movement Permitted Movement On-Ramp Analysis Example Problem 2A:
λONR − On-Ramp Discharge Flow Rates into the
NBR
On-Ramp for Each Phase
Active Duration λprot vNBR λNBR Queue λONR cmerge Queue
Throughout the Cycle During
Phase t (s) (s) (veh/s) (veh/s) (veh/s) (veh) (veh/s) (veh/s) (veh)
Analysis Period 2
gs1 0.00 40.16 0.483 0.145 0.078 0.00 0.56 0.24 0.00
ge1 40.16 3.74 0.036 0.145 0.356 2.66 0.39 0.07 9.80
r1 43.90 5.70 0.000 0.145 0.430 1.87 0.43 0.11 10.08
g2* 49.60 0.88 0.000 0.145 0.430 0.25 0.43 0.11 10.72
g2** 50.48 49.82 0.000 0.145 0.145 0.00 0.14 −0.17 10.82
r2 100.30 5.70 0.000 0.145 0.145 0.00 0.14 −0.17 2.22
gs7 106.00 6.25 0.503 0.145 0.073 0.00 0.58 0.26 1.24
ge7* 112.25 2.02 0.027 0.145 0.366 0.45 0.39 0.08 2.85
ge7** 114.27 0.03 0.027 0.145 0.145 0.00 0.17 −0.15 3.01
r7 114.30 5.70 0.000 0.145 0.145 0.00 0.14 −0.17 3.01
Cycle
120 2.02
end
At the end of the analysis period, a residual queue of 23.32 veh is expected
along the on-ramp, and this value is carried to the start of the next analysis
period. The analysis period length of 900 s does not correspond to an exact
number of signal cycles, and the last cycle is interrupted at t = 60 s. Therefore, the
next analysis period will start the analysis from the same timestamp to maintain
consistency.
Step 7D: Calculate equivalent capacities for the affected movements.
Because spillback does not occur during analysis period 2, no adjustment to the
intersection capacity is necessary.
Analysis Period 3
The same analysis steps performed for analysis period 2 are applied again
for analysis period 3.


for movements that discharge into the on-ramp were previously determined as
part of the queue spillback check and were shown in Exhibit 38-53.
Step 7B: Obtain merging capacity with the freeway facilities method. As in
the analysis of the previous analysis period, the merging capacity cmerge is
obtained as an output from the freeway facility method (Exhibit 38-57a). The
merging capacity for analysis period 3 is 1,142 veh/h.
Step 7C: Plot QAPs for the on-ramp and unsignalized movements. The
procedure described earlier is applied again, using an initial on-ramp queue of
23.32 veh, which was the estimated queue at the end of analysis period 2. The
analysis begins at the middle of the cycle (t = 60 s), which was the end of the
previous analysis period. Exhibit 38-61 illustrates the QAPs for both the on-ramp
and the NBR movement.
Exhibit 38-61
Example Problem 2A:
Analysis Period 3
Queue spillback occurs during the third cycle (SBL queue service time),
when the on-ramp queue reaches the maximum storage LONR of 35.5 veh. At this
time, the maximum flow rate that can enter the on-ramp is constrained by the
merge capacity cmerge. In other words, the maximum number of vehicles allowed
to enter the ramp is equal to the number of vehicles that are able to merge to the
freeway mainline. In addition, the queues developed in the NBR are longer
during cycles 3 through 8, causing an increased delay for this movement due to
the queue spillback conditions at the on-ramp.

The on-ramp queue at the start of cycle 3 is 27.9 veh. The cycle starts with the
SBL movement, with an effective green time g1 of 47.3 s. Because this movement
already operates with v/c > 1, the queue service time gs1 is equal to g1, and no
green extension time is available (ge1 = 0). The protected movement then
discharges at a saturation flow rate sSBL of 0.483 veh/s, while the NBR movement
discharges at a permitted saturation flow rate sNBR of 0.078 veh/s. At the same
time, the on-ramp discharges to the freeway at a rate cmerge of 1,142 veh/h, equal
to 0.317 veh/s. Therefore, the on-ramp queue grows at the following rate:
𝜆𝑂𝑁𝑅 − 𝑐merge = (0.483 + 0.078) − 0.317 = 0.244 veh/s
The time remaining until spillback occurs is calculated by dividing the
remaining on-ramp queue storage by the queue growth rate:
35.5 − 27.9
Time to spillback = = 31.2 s
0.244
Spillback is expected to occur within 31.2 s of the onset of g1. The total
effective green g1 value of 47.3 s is then divided into two portions:
• gs1* (31.2 s), discharging at the saturation flow rate; and
• gs1,sp (16.1s), the remaining time that is affected by queue spillback,
limiting the maximum discharge to the on-ramp to the merge capacity
cmerge of 0.317 veh/s. Note that this constraint is shared by two movements
entering the on-ramp (SBL and NBR).
The effect of queue spillback on the intersection capacity during gs1,sp is then
measured by the capacity reduction factor β1,sp, defined as the ratio between the
maximum on-ramp capacity during queue spillback and the throughput from
the intersection movements (SBL and NBR):
𝑐merge 0.317
𝛽1,𝑠𝑝 = = = 0.565
𝜆𝑆𝐵𝐿 + 𝜆𝑁𝐵𝑅 (0.483 + 0.078)
A capacity reduction of 0.565 means that only 56.5% of the expected
intersection throughput is able to enter the on-ramp when queue spillback occurs
during phase gs1,sp. The capacity adjustment factor is applied to each movement
to obtain their adjusted throughputs for this analysis period:
𝜆𝑆𝐵𝐿,𝑎𝑑𝑗 = 𝜆𝑆𝐵𝐿 × 𝛽1,𝑠𝑝 = 0.483 × 0.565 = 0.273 veh/s
𝜆𝑁𝐵𝑅,𝑎𝑑𝑗 = 𝜆𝑁𝐵𝑅 × 𝛽1,𝑠𝑝 = 0.078 × 0.565 = 0.044 veh/s
The procedure is then repeated for the remaining movements of the cycle, as
shown in Exhibit 38-62.

Exhibit 38-62 Protected

Example Problem 2A: Movement Permitted Movement On-Ramp Analysis
Discharge Flow Rates into the λONR,adj −
On-Ramp for Each Phase Active Duration QONR λprot vNBR λNBR Queue λONR λONR,adj cmerge
Throughout the Cycle During Phase t (s) (s) (veh) (veh/s) (veh/s) (veh/s) (veh) (veh/s) (veh/s) (veh/s) βsp
Analysis Period 3 gs1* 0.0 31.2 27.9 0.483 0.175 0.078 0.00 0.561 0.561 0.244 1
gs1,sp 31.2 16.1 35.5 0.483 0.175 0.078 3.01 0.561 0.317 0.000 0.565
r1 47.3 5.7 35.5 0.000 0.175 0.430 5.12 0.430 0.317 0.000 0.739
g2* 53.0 30.3 35.5 0.000 0.175 0.430 4.31 0.430 0.317 0.000 0.739
g2** 83.3 17.0 35.4 0.000 0.175 0.175 0.00 0.175 0.175 −0.142 1
r2 100.3 5.7 33.1 0.000 0.175 0.175 0.00 0.175 0.175 −0.142 1
gs7 106.0 6.3 32.3 0.503 0.175 0.073 0.00 0.576 0.576 0.259 1
ge7 112.3 2.0 33.9 0.027 0.175 0.366 0.64 0.393 0.393 0.076 1
r7* 114.3 1.0 34.1 0.000 0.175 0.430 0.25 0.430 0.430 0.113 1
r7** 115.3 4.7 34.2 0.000 0.175 0.175 0.00 0.175 0.175 −0.142 1
Cycle
120 33.5
end
As shown, at time t = 31.2 s, the maximum storage length of the on-ramp is

reached and spillback occurs. From this time through t = 83.3 s, the throughput
from intersection movements to the on-ramp λONR is greater than the merge
capacity cmerge. Therefore, the maximum allowed throughput λONR,ajd is
constrained by the on-ramp discharge capacity cmerge of 0.137 veh/s. For these
cases, the spillback capacity reduction factor fsp is computed as the ratio of λONR,ajd
and λONR. Note that during this time range, the on-ramp queue is constant at the
maximum storage of 35.5 veh.
From t = 83.3 s, the on-ramp queue begins to discharge at a rate of 0.142
veh/s, followed by a small increase during the green time of phase 7 (EBT) that is
insufficient to cause spillback. At the end of the cycle, the residual on-ramp
queue is 33.5 veh.
The subsequent cycles follow a recurring pattern, with the on-ramp reaching
maximum storage early in the cycle and the queue diminishing slightly at the
end of the cycle.
Step 7D: Calculate adjusted capacities for the affected movements. The
adjusted capacities of the affected movements are estimated based on the volume
of vehicles that can actually be discharged during each analysis period. Exhibit
38-63 shows the calculation of the SBL movement’s adjusted capacity during
analysis period 3. The table lists all occurrences of green times for the SBL
movement during the analysis time period and their respective durations. For
each row, the expected throughput from the intersection λONR and the actual
throughput λONR,adj are computed. Next, the capacity reduction factor βsp is
computed as the ratio of λONR and λONR,adj. A βsp value < 1.0 indicates the
occurrence of queue spillback in the subject phase. The expected and actual
discharge volumes are obtained by multiplying the values of λONR and λONR,adj,
respectively, by their duration. At the end of the table, the expected and actual
volumes are aggregated and a capacity reduction factor βsp,SBL of 0.704 is obtained
as the ratio of these values.

On-Ramp Analysis Spillback Adjustment Exhibit 38-63

On-Ramp On-Ramp Example Problem 2A:
Expected Actual Calculation of the Spillback
Discharge Discharge Capacity Reduction Factor for
Active Duration λONR λONR,adj Volume Volume the SBL Movement for
Cycle Phase (s) (veh/s) (veh/s) βsp (veh) (veh) Analysis Period 3
2 gs1 47.3 0.561 0.561 1 26.56 26.56
3 gs1* 31.2 0.561 0.561 1 17.51 17.51
3 gs1,sp 16.1 0.561 0.317 0.565 9.04 5.11
4 gs1 8.3 0.561 0.561 1 4.67 4.67
4 gs1,sp 39.0 0.561 0.317 0.565 21.89 12.37
5 gs1 5.1 0.561 0.561 1 2.87 2.87
5 gs1,sp 42.2 0.561 0.317 0.565 23.68 13.39
6 gs1 4.7 0.561 0.561 1 2.62 2.62
6 gs1,sp 42.6 0.561 0.317 0.565 23.93 13.53
7 gs1 4.6 0.561 0.561 1 2.59 2.59
7 gs1,sp 42.7 0.561 0.317 0.565 23.97 13.55
8 gs1 4.6 0.561 0.561 1 2.58 2.58
8 gs1,sp 42.7 0.561 0.317 0.565 23.97 13.55
Total 185.89 130.89
Capacity reduction factor βsp,SBL 0.704
The SBL movement’s capacity without consideration of queue spillback is

685 veh/h (Exhibit 38-53). The adjusted capacity is calculated by applying the
spillback capacity reduction factor βsp calculated in Exhibit 38-63:
𝑐𝑆𝐵𝐿,𝑎𝑑𝑗 = 𝑐𝑆𝐵𝐿 × 𝛽𝑠𝑝,𝑆𝐵𝐿 = 685 × 0.704 = 482.2 veh/h
This step is not required for the EBT movement in this example, because the
EBT movement does not experience effects of queue spillback. As shown in
Exhibit 38-61, the on-ramp queue during the EBT green does not reach the
maximum storage length of 35.5 veh.
Analysis Period 4
The same steps performed for analysis periods 2 and 3 are applied again in
analysis period 4.
for movements that enter the on-ramp was previously determined as part of the
queue spillback check and shown in Exhibit 38-53.
Step 7B: Obtain merging capacity with the freeway facility method. The
merge capacity for analysis period 4 was previously determined, as shown in
Exhibit 38-57a. Because the congestion along the freeway mainline is dissipating
during this analysis period, the merge capacity is not constant: from time steps 1
through 4, the merge capacity is 1,142 veh/h, consistent with oversaturated
conditions from previous time periods. After time step 5, the merge capacity is
equal to the ramp roadway capacity (1,904 veh/h).
Step 7C: Plot QAPs for the on-ramp and unsignalized movements. The
procedure described earlier is applied to plot the QAPs, shown in Exhibit 38-64.
Queue spillback occurs during the first cycle, due to the residual queue from the
previous time period. However, due to low volumes at the intersection and
improvement of performance along the freeway mainline, the on-ramp clears
quickly. The queue has cleared by the end of the second cycle.

Exhibit 38-64
Example Problem 2A:
Analysis Period 4
Step 7D: Calculate adjusted capacities for the affected movements. The
procedure described earlier is used to calculate the capacity reduction factor for
the SBL movement, as shown in Exhibit 38-65. The estimated capacity reduction
is minor, as spillback only occurs during the first cycle. The EBT movement does
not experience queue spillback, therefore no adjustment is necessary.
Exhibit 38-65 On-Ramp Analysis Spillback Adjustment

Example Problem 2A: On-Ramp On-Ramp
Calculation of the Spillback Expected Actual
Capacity Reduction Factor for Active Duration QONR λONR λONR,adj Throughput Throughput
the SBL Movement for Cycle Phase (s) (veh) (veh/s) (veh/s) βsp (veh) (veh)
Analysis Period 4
1 gs1 6.0 34.4 0.505 0.505 1 3.02 3.02
1 gs1,sp 29.9 35.5 0.505 0.317 0.628 15.12 9.50
1 ge1 0.0 35.5 0.388 0.317 0.818 0.00 0.00
2 gs1 31.2 13.2 0.505 0.505 1 15.79 15.79
2 ge1 4.7 19.1 0.095 0.095 1 0.44 0.44
3 gs1 31.2 0.0 0.505 0.505 1 15.79 15.79
3 ge1 4.7 5.9 0.058 0.058 1 0.27 0.27
4 gs1 40.2 0.0 0.561 0.561 1 22.55 22.55
4 ge1 3.7 9.8 0.392 0.392 1 1.46 1.46
5 gs1 40.2 0.0 0.561 0.561 1 22.55 22.55
5 ge1 3.7 1.3 0.392 0.392 1 1.46 1.46
6 gs1 40.2 0.0 0.561 0.561 1 22.55 22.55
6 ge1 3.7 1.3 0.392 0.392 1 1.46 1.46
7 gs1 40.2 0.0 0.561 0.561 1 22.55 22.55
7 ge1 3.7 1.3 0.392 0.392 1 1.46 1.46
8 gs1 40.2 0.0 0.561 0.561 1 22.55 22.55
8 ge1 3.7 1.3 0.392 0.392 1 1.46 1.46
Total 170.49 164.86
Spillback capacity reduction factor 0.967

The adjusted capacity of the SBL movement is calculated by applying the

spillback capacity reduction factor βsp from Exhibit 38-65:
𝑐𝑆𝐵𝐿,𝑎𝑑𝑗 = 𝑐𝑆𝐵𝐿 × 𝛽𝑠𝑝,𝑆𝐵𝐿 = 746 × 0.967 = 721.4 veh/h
Intersection Performance Measures

With the adjusted capacity values obtained, the performance measures for
the intersection can be computed using the remaining steps from the signalized
intersections methodology (Chapter 19): compute the adjusted demand-to-
capacity ratio (Step 8) and compute control delay (Step 9). Exhibit 38-66
compares the performance measures for the affected movement (SBL) for the
cases with and without accounting for spillback effects.
Time SBL Movement capacity (veh/h) SBL Control delay (s/veh) Exhibit 38-66
Period Without spillback With spillback Without spillback With spillback Example Problem 2A:
1 652 652 60.3 60.3 Performance Measure
2 586 586 55.9 55.9 Comparison with and without
3 685 482 293.5 589.2 Consideration of Spillback
4 746 721 575.2 609.5 Effects
There is no change in the performance measures during analysis period 2

even though the on-ramp demand is greater than the merge capacity, because the
queue can be stored within the on-ramp. Analysis period 3 yields a significant
increase in the SBL control delay due to the queue spillback. With consideration
of spillback effects the average SBL control delay is 589.2 s/veh, compared to
293.5 s/veh without consideration of spillback. A small increase in control delay
occurs during analysis period 4, from 575.2 s/veh to 609.5 s/veh. Even though
spillback occurs for only a short time during this time period, the high value of
control delay obtained is due to the initial queue delay d3 resulting from the
unmet demand at the end of analysis period 3.
Example Problem 2B: TWSC Ramp Terminal

This scenario replaces the signalized intersection from Example Problem 2A
with a TWSC intersection, while keeping the freeway facility characteristics
unchanged. Similar to before, the control delay for the intersection movements
will be evaluated and compared with and without the occurrence of queue
spillback
Exhibit 38-67 shows the study intersection’s geometry.

Exhibit 38-67
Example Problem 2B: TWSC
Intersection Geometry: I-10
EB Ramps

demand flow rates for each analysis period, based on the TWSC intersection’s
demand inputs. The demand v and capacity c are compared for each movement
that enters the on-ramp (EBT, NBR, and SBL) during each analysis period. The
minimum value of each movement’s demand and capacity is computed and the
merge demand vR is then computed as the sum of the three values.
The capacities of minor rank movements (EBT and SBL) are computed for
each analyzed period because they change as a function of the conflicting
demand. The NBR movement is uncontrolled; therefore, its capacity is computed
from its saturation flow rate, considering the applicable adjustment factors fRT
(for right-turn movements) and fHV (for the presence of heavy vehicles):
𝑠𝑁𝐵𝑅 = 𝑠0,𝑁𝐵𝑅 × 𝑓𝑅𝑇 × 𝑓𝐻𝑉
1
𝑠𝑁𝐵𝑅 = 1,900 × × 0.961 = 1,547 veh/h
1.18
Unlike the previous signalized intersection scenario, there are no conflicting
flows to the unsignalized right turn because it is a Rank 1 (i.e., highest priority)
movement. Exhibit 38-68 summarizes the calculations for this step.


Analysis Period Parameter EBT NBR SBL Example Problem 2B:
1 c (veh/h) 125 1,547 677
min (v, c) 8 315 652
v/c 2.29 — 1.81
2 c (veh/h) 42 1,547 323
min (v, c) 42 521 323
Demand v (veh/h) 96 630 1,071
v/c 48 — 0.84
3 c (veh/h) 2 1,547 1268
min (v, c) 2 630 1,071
v/c 1.00 — 0.60
4 c (veh/h) 24 1,547 768
min (v, c) 24 80 463
The on-ramp demand estimates are then used as inputs to the freeway
facility analysis. In this example, spillback will occur in analysis period 3.

The evaluation of queue spillback impacts on the TWSC intersection follows
the procedure detailed in Exhibit 38-B11 in Appendix B. Because this is a
multiperiod analysis, the procedure must be applied for each analysis period. In
this example, analysis periods 2, 3, and 4 will be evaluated. Analysis period 1
will be excluded because the freeway operates in an undersaturated state.
Step 9A: Determine Intersection Throughput to the On-ramp

The throughput for movements that enter the on-ramp was previously
determined as part of the queue spillback check; these values are shown in
Exhibit 38-68.
Step 9B: Obtain Merging Capacity Using the Freeway Facility Methodology
This step computes the merging capacity into the freeway cmerge. The freeway
facility inputs are obtained from Exhibit 38-68, yielding the following results:
• Analysis period 2: No queue spillback.
• Analysis period 3: 1,142 veh/h.
• Analysis period 4: 1,142 veh/h during 15 time steps (222 s), and then 1,903
veh/h. This analysis period considers a lower merge capacity while a
mainline queue is present during the first 222 s. For the remainder of the
analysis period, the merge capacity is constrained only by the on-ramp
capacity, similar to the scenario presented in Example Problem 2A.

Step 9C: Determine Proportion of Analysis Period with Queue Spillback

A QAP is developed for the on-ramp to determine the spillback time Tsp.
Exhibit 38-69 shows the calculations for plotting the on-ramp queue. First, the
difference between the on-ramp throughput λONR and the merge capacity cmerge is
calculated for each analysis period. Then, the time to spillback is obtained
considering the queue growth and the available queue storage.
Exhibit 38-69 On-Ramp Queue Initial Final On-

Example Problem 2B: Queue On-Ramp Growth Rate On-Ramp Time to Spillback Ramp
Accumulation Plot Calculations Analysis Duration Demand vR λONR − cmerge Queue Spillback Time Tsp Queue
for the On-Ramp Period (min) (veh/h) (veh/s) (veh) (min) (min) (veh)
2 15 886 — 0.0 — — —
3 15 1,703 0.156 15.2 3.80 11.20 35.5
4 15 567 −0.160 35.5 — — 26.0
The results show that queue spillback occurs only during analysis period 3.
The initial queue of analysis period 3 is 0 and it takes 3.8 min for the on-ramp to
reach its maximum storage capacity. Therefore, the spillback time Tsp is computed
as 15 – 3.8 = 11.2 min. Exhibit 38-70 depicts the on-ramp’s QAP, based on the
table results.
Exhibit 38-70
Example Problem 2B: Queue
Accumulation Polygon for the
On-Ramp
Step 10: Final Capacity Adjustments

When queue spillback occurs at a TWSC intersection, movements
discharging towards the on-ramp tend to follow a cooperative approach instead
of the priority-based regular operation. Therefore, the merge capacity cmerge is
shared among the three movements that enter the on-ramp:
𝑐𝑠𝑝,𝑆𝐵𝐿 + 𝑐𝑠𝑝,𝑁𝐵𝑅 + 𝑐𝑠𝑝,𝐸𝐵𝑇 = 𝑐merge = 1,142 veh/h
The capacities during spillback conditions are then obtained proportionally
to their demand flow rates (Equation 38-B22):
𝑐merge × 𝑣𝑆𝐵𝐿 1,142 × 1,071
𝑐𝑠𝑝,𝑆𝐵𝐿 = = = 681 veh/h
𝑣𝑆𝐵𝐿 + 𝑣𝑁𝐵𝑅 + 𝑣𝐸𝐵𝑇 1,071 + 630 + 96
𝑐merge × 𝑣𝑁𝐵𝑅 1,142 × 630

𝑐𝑠𝑝,𝑁𝐵𝑅 = = = 400 veh/h
𝑣𝑆𝐵𝐿 + 𝑣𝑁𝐵𝑅 + 𝑣𝐸𝐵𝑇 1,071 + 630 + 96

𝑐merge × 𝑣𝐸𝐵𝑇 × 96
𝑐𝑠𝑝,𝐸𝐵𝑇 = = = 61 veh/h
𝑣𝑆𝐵𝐿 + 𝑣𝑁𝐵𝑅 + 𝑣𝐸𝐵𝑇 1,071 + 630 + 96
The equivalent capacities cEQ,i for each movement i, aggregated for the 15-
min analysis period, are obtained proportionately to the spillback time Tsp:
𝑐𝑠𝑝,𝑆𝐵𝐿 × 𝑇𝑠𝑝 + 𝑐𝑆𝐵𝐿 × (𝑇 − 𝑇𝑠𝑝 )

𝑐𝐸𝑄,𝑆𝐵𝐿 =
𝑇
681 × 11.2 + 1,268 × 3.8
𝑐𝐸𝑄,𝑆𝐵𝐿 = = 830 veh/h
15
𝑐𝑠𝑝,𝑁𝐵𝑅 × 𝑇𝑠𝑝 + 𝑐𝑁𝐵𝑅 × (𝑇 − 𝑇𝑠𝑝 )

𝑐𝐸𝑄,𝑁𝐵𝑅 =
𝑇
401 × 11.2 + 1,547 × 3.8
𝑐𝐸𝑄,𝑁𝐵𝑅 = = 691 veh/h
15
𝑐𝑠𝑝,𝐸𝐵𝑇 × 𝑇𝑠𝑝 + 𝑐𝐸𝐵𝑇 × (𝑇 − 𝑇𝑠𝑝 )

𝑐𝐸𝑄,𝐸𝐵𝑇 =
𝑇
61 × 11.2 + 2 × 3.8
𝑐𝐸𝑄,𝐸𝐵𝑇 = = 46 veh/h
15

With the adjusted capacity values obtained, the intersection’s performance
measures can be computed using Step 11, Compute Movement Control Delay, of
the Chapter 20 TWSC methodology.
Exhibit 38-71 compares the performance measures of the affected intersection
movements for the cases with and without spillback effects during analysis
period 3. All three movements discharging to the on-ramp experienced
significant increase in the control delay.
Capacity (veh/h) Control Delay (s/veh) Exhibit 38-71

Demand Without With Without With Example Problem 2B:
Movement (veh/h) Spillback Spillback Spillback Spillback Performance Measure
Comparison with and without
EBT 96 2 61 3366.8 691.5
Consideration of Spillback
NBR 630 1,547 401 0.0 40.61
Effects—Analysis Period 3
SBL 1071 1,268 161 20.9 157.2

Example Problem 2C: AWSC Intersection Ramp Terminal

This example problem replaces the signalized intersection from Example
Problem 2A with an AWSC intersection, while keeping the freeway facility
characteristics unchanged. Unlike the previous examples, a ramp meter is active
on the freeway on-ramp, with a constant metering rate of 900 veh/h (4 s/veh). In
addition, the NBR movement is not channelized and now conflicts with the other
intersection movements. Exhibit 38-72 shows the intersection’s geometry.
Exhibit 38-72
Example Problem 2C: AWSC
Intersection Geometry: I-10
EB Ramps

demand flow rates for each analysis period, based on the AWSC intersection’s
demand inputs of the AWSC intersection. For each analysis period, the demand v
and capacity c is compared for each movement feeding the on-ramp (EBT, NBR,
and SBL). The minimum value of each movement’s demand and capacity is
computed and the merge demand vR is then computed as the sum of three
movements. Exhibit 38-73 summarizes the calculations for this step.


Analysis Period Parameter EBT NBR SBL Example Problem 2C:
min (v, c) 54 467 313
v/c 0.11 — 0.98
min (v, c) 40 512 432
v/c 0.05 — 1.18
min (v, c) 19 539 462
v/c 0.06 — 0.62
min (v, c) 28 160 316
The estimated on-ramp demand values are provided as inputs to the freeway
facility analysis. The freeway facility is then analyzed and the expected on-ramp
queues are determined as shown in Exhibit 38-74.
On-Ramp Ramp Exhibit 38-74

Analysis Demand vR On-Ramp On-Ramp Storage Ratio Spillback Example Problem 2C:
Period (veh/h) Queue (veh) Queue (ft) RQ Expected? Spillback Occurrence Check
1 834 0 0 0 No
2 984 14.9 21.9 0.62 No
3 1,020 82.1 53.4 1.5 Yes
4 504 0 0 0 No
Because spillback will occur during analysis period 3, its impacts on the
intersection’s operation must be evaluated. The next section illustrates the
application of the queue spillback evaluation methodology at an AWSC
intersection.

The evaluation of queue spillback impacts on the AWSC intersection follows
the procedure detailed in Exhibit 38-B13 in Appendix B. Because this is a
multiperiod analysis, the procedure must be applied for each analysis period. In
this example, analysis periods 2, 3, and 4 will be evaluated. Analysis period 1
will be excluded because oversaturated conditions do not exist on the freeway
during this analysis period.
Step 13A: Determine Intersection Throughput to On-Ramp

The intersection throughput to the on-ramp was previously determined at
the spillback check (Exhibit 38-73).

Step 13B: Obtain Merging Capacity with the Freeway Facilities Method
In this example, the ramp metering rate (900 veh/h) is an additional input to
the freeway facility analysis and acts as a constraint to the merge capacity.
Therefore, the merge capacity for this analysis is kept constant at 900 veh/h.
Step 13C: Determine Fraction of Time Period with Queue Spillback

The procedure to evaluate the spillback time Tsp is similar to the TWSC
procedure. The calculations are provided in Exhibit 38-75.
Exhibit 38-75 On-Ramp

Example Problem 2C: Queue Queue Initial Final On-
Accumulation Plot Calculations On-Ramp Growth Rate On-Ramp Time to Spillback Ramp
for the On-Ramp Analysis Duration Demand vR λONR − cmerge Queue Spillback Time Tsp Queue
Period (min) (veh/h) (veh/s) (veh) (min) (min) (veh)
2 15 984 0.023 0.0 — — 21.0
3 15 1,020 0.033 21.0 7.25 7.75 35.5
4 15 504 −0.110 35.5 — — 0.0
Exhibit 38-76 illustrates the QAP for the on-ramp, based on the results shown
in Exhibit 38-75.
Exhibit 38-76
Example Problem 2C: Queue
Accumulation Polygon for the
On-Ramp
Step 13D: Compute Spillback Departure Headway

This step is similar to the calculation of adjusted capacities in the TWSC
procedure. The same calculations are performed and adjusted capacity values are
converted into headways hsp, as shown in Exhibit 38-77.
Exhibit 38-77 Capacity during Capacity without Equivalent Spillback

Example Problem 2C: Spillback csp Spillback c Capacity cEQ Departure
Equivalent Capacities and Movement (veh/h) (veh/h) (veh/h) Headway hsp (s)
Headways for the On-Ramp: EBT 15 396 212.1 17.0
Analysis Period 3 NBR 439 550 496.5 7.3
SBL 445 462 453.7 7.9
With the adjusted capacity values obtained, the intersection’s performance

measures can be computed using the remaining steps from the Chapter 21
AWSC methodology: Step 13 (compute service times) and Steps 14 and 15
(compute control delay by lane and approach).


Exhibit 38-78 compares the intersection movements’ performance measures
with and without spillback effects during analysis period 3. The three
movements that discharge into the on-ramp (EBT, NBR and SBL) experience
increased delay, while the remaining movements have unchanged performance.
Capacity (veh/h) Control Delay (s/veh) Departure Headway (s) Exhibit 38-78
Demand Without With Without With Without With Example Problem 2C:
Movement (veh/h) Spillback Spillback Spillback Spillback Spillback Spillback Performance Measure
Comparison with and without
EBL 75 359 359 15.6 15.6 10.0 10.0
Consideration of Spillback
EBT 19 396 212 12.6 21.7 9.1 17.0
Effects—Analysis Period 3
NBT 229 497 497 16.3 16.3 7.2 7.2
NBR 539 550 497 58.9 92.3 6.5 7.3
SBL 546 462 454 128.0 136.5 7.8 7.9
SBT 220 494 494 16.0 16.0 7.3 7.3
Note: EBL = eastbound left turn, EBT = eastbound through, NBT = northbound through, NBR = northbound right
turn, SBL = southbound left turn, SBT = southbound through.
EXAMPLE PROBLEM 3: OFF-RAMP QUEUE SPILLBACK ANALYSIS

This example problem illustrates the application of the off-ramp spillback
methodology to a network consisting of two freeway facilities (I-75 SB to SR-826
SB in Miami, Florida), as shown in Exhibit 38-79. Due to congested conditions at
the downstream merge segment (SR-826), spillback is expected to affect the
operations of the upstream freeway facility (I-75). Vehicles traveling from node A
to D are likely to have their travel time severely affected if spillback occurs.
Exhibit 38-79
Example Problem 3:
Study Site

This freeway-to-freeway network is modeled as two separate freeway

facilities. The upstream freeway (Facility 1, I-75) is modeled as a diverge section
connected to the downstream freeway (Facility 2, SR-826). The network’s
geometry is shown in Exhibit 38-80.
Exhibit 38-80
Example Problem 3:
Freeway Facility Geometry
(a) Facility 1: I-75 SB
(b) Facility 2: SR-826 SB
Input Data
Traffic demands for the freeway facilities and ramps are provided in Exhibit
38-81 for each 15-min analysis period.
Exhibit 38-81 Freeway Facility 1 (I-75 SB) Freeway Facility 2 (SR-826 SB)
Example Problem 3: Mainline Demand Diverge Demand Mainline Demand Merge Demand
Traffic Demands Analysis Flow Rate Flow Rate Flow Rate Flow Rate
Period (veh/h) (veh/h) (veh/h) (veh/h)
1 5,400 1,400 4,000 1,400
2 6,200 3,000 5,700 3,000
3 6,000 3,400 5,600 3,400
4 4,500 800 4,500 800
Additional input parameters are as follows:

• Urban area
• Level terrain
• Grade: 0%
• Queue spillback regime 4 is expected
• Base FFS: 65 mi/h (I-75), 67.1 mi/h (SR-826)
• Ramp FFS: 55 mi/h
• Ramp side: right for both facilities
• Lane width: 12 ft
• Right-side clearance: 10 ft

• Traffic composition: 12% trucks on both freeway and ramps

• Ramp length: 3,588 ft
• Acceleration lane length: 1,500 ft
• No shoulder available
• Deceleration lane length: 700 ft
• Number of ramp lanes: 2
• Familiar facility users
Performance Measures for the Individual Facilities

The LOS of the two freeway facilities, when analyzed independently, is
presented in Exhibit 38-82 and Exhibit 38-83. Facility 1 (I-75) is undersaturated
throughout the study period, while Facility 2 (SR-826) experiences congestion
during analysis periods 2 and 3. Ignoring the interactions between the two
facilities would lead to an inaccurate estimation of the performance of the
upstream facility (Facility 1). Facility 2’s merge segment operates at LOS F, and
the on-ramp capacity may therefore be affected, leading to queue formation and
potential spillback.

1-1 1-2 1-3 1-4 Example Problem 3:
Freeway Facility 1 (I-75) LOS
Analysis Period Basic Basic Diverge Basic
1 C C B B
2 C C C A
3 C C C A
4 B B A B

Analysis 2-1 2-2 2-3 2-4 2-5 Example Problem 3: Freeway
Period Basic Merge Basic Diverge Basic Facility 2 (SR-826) LOS
1 B C C B C
2 C F E F E
3 C F F F E
4 C C C C C
Spillback Check
Analyzing SR-826 using Chapter 25’s Freeway Facilities Oversaturated
Segment Evaluation methodology provides the expected on-ramp queue for
every analysis period. The first check compares the off-ramp demand to the
ramp roadway capacity, as shown in Exhibit 38-84. The ramp queue starts to
develop during analysis period 2. At the end of this time period, a ramp queue
length of 1,188 ft is expected, yielding a queue storage ratio of 0.33. Therefore,
spillback onto I-75 is not expected during analysis period 2. However, during
analysis period 3, a ramp queue length of 5,160 ft is expected, yielding a queue
storage ratio of 1.41. Therefore, spillback onto I-75 will occur during analysis
period 3.

Exhibit 38-84 Total

Example Problem 3: Queue Number Number of Average
Length and Storage Ratio at of Queued Vehicle Ramp Queue
the SR-826 On-Ramp Queued Vehicles in Spacing Queue Length Length Storage
Analysis Vehicles each Lane (ft) (ft) (ft) Ratio Spillback
Period [A] [B] = [A]/2 [C] [D] = [B]×[C] [E] [F] = [D]/[E] Occurs?
1 0.0 0.00 — 0 0.00 No
2 38.3 19.15 62 1,188 0.33 No
3,588
3 159.1 79.55 65 5,160 1.44 Yes
4 0.0 0.00 — 0 0.00 Yes
Spillback Analysis
Because spillback is expected to occur, the methodology described in
Appendix A (Exhibit 38-A8) is applied to evaluate how it affects I-75 SB. The
methodology’s application to each analysis period is presented below.
Analysis Period 1
No oversaturated conditions occur; therefore, no additional calculations are
needed for this analysis period.
Analysis Period 2
During analysis period 2, the downstream merge segment operates at LOS F
and the on-ramp capacity is expected to be reduced.
Step 1: Calculate Background Density for Unblocked Lanes on each Segment

in the Case of Queue Spillback
The I-75 diverge segment has 5 lanes and queue spillback Regime 4 (two
blocked lanes) is expected. Therefore, when queue spillback occurs, this segment
is expected to operate with two blocked lanes (lanes 1 and 2, with lane 1 being
the rightmost lane) and three unblocked lanes (lanes 3 through 5).
The per-lane capacity lane at the diverge segment SC(3) is 2,350 pc/h/ln or
11,750 pc/h. For the 15-s time-step-level analysis, this capacity is converted to
48.95 passenger cars per time step (pc/ts). Therefore, the capacity of the
segment’s unblocked portion is given by Equation 38-A12:
𝑆𝐶𝐸𝑄(𝑖, 𝑁, 𝑁𝑄) = 𝑆𝐶(𝑖, 𝑁 − 𝑁𝑄) × 𝐶𝐴𝐹𝐵𝐿
The capacity adjustment factor CAFBL is obtained from Exhibit 38-3. For a
segment with 5 directional lanes and 2 blocked lanes, a CAF of 0.67 is applied.
Therefore, the equivalent capacity of the unblocked portion is given by:
𝑆𝐶𝐸𝑄(3, 5, 3) = 48.95 × 0.67 = 38.8 pc/ts or 7,872 pc/h
The unblocked background density KBUB is calculated next. During analysis
period 2, an expected mainline demand of 4,165.8 pc/h is used in the calculations.
The KBUB parameter for the unblocked lanes is computed as the density of a 3-
lane basic segment with a capacity SCEQ of 7,872 pc/h:
𝐾𝐵𝑈𝐵(3, 5, 3) = 30.4 pc/h/mi

Step 2: Initialize the Freeway Facility

When spillback occurs, the subject freeway facility is analyzed as a link–node
structure similar to the oversaturated procedure for freeway facilities. However,
the facility structure is expanded to consider the ramp segments. Exhibit 38-85
illustrates the structure for this analysis. Node 4.1 represents the interface between
the diverge segment and the ramp roadway, while node 4.2 represents the
interface between the ramp roadway and the merge at the downstream facility.
Exhibit 38-85
Example Problem 3:
Link–Node Structure for
Spillback Analysis: I-75 SB
Step 2C: Determine Queue Influence Area

The queue influence area (QIA) is obtained as function of the segment FFS,
as shown in Exhibit 38-5. Therefore, for a FFS of 65mi/h, the QIA length is equal
to 1,060 ft.
Step 2F: Determine the Initial Number of Vehicles at the Off-Ramp

The ramp speed at the expected demand is obtained as:
𝑣𝑅
𝑆𝑅 = (1 − 0.109 × ) × 𝑆𝐹𝑅
1,000
1,679
𝑆𝑅 = (1 − 0.109 × ) × 55 = 44.9 mi/h
1,000
Next, the ramp background density is obtained:
𝑣𝑅 1,679
𝑅𝐾𝐵 = = = 37.4 pc/mi/ln
𝑆𝑟𝑎𝑚𝑝 44.9
The initial number of vehicles in the ramp is then computed as:
3,588
𝑅𝑁𝑉(3,0,2,1) = 37.4 × × 2 = 50.8 pc
5,280
Step 2G: Determine the Capacity of the Downstream Terminal

The merge capacity is obtained by analyzing the downstream freeway
facility using the Chapter 25 oversaturated segment evaluation procedure and
aggregating the parameter ONRO for an hourly flow rate. During this analysis

period, the merge capacity is constant at 13.4 pc/ts or 3,217 pc/h, while the ramp
demand is 14.0 pc/ts or 3,369 pc/h.
Given the merge’s demand and capacity, the queue in the ramp roadway
increases by 0.6 pc during every time step. Exhibit 38-86 illustrates the ramp
queue and the total number of vehicles in the ramp, considering an initial value
of 50.8 pc in the ramp at the start of the analysis period, as previously computed.
Exhibit 38-86
Example Problem 3: Queued
Vehicles and Total Number of
Vehicles RNV in the Ramp:
Analysis Period 2
Step 9A: Perform Spillback Analysis

The flow RF that can travel across the ramp node 4.1 and enter the ramp
roadway is obtained as the minimum of demand RI, ramp roadway capacity RC,
and constrained capacity due to a downstream queue in the ramp RSTG, as given
by Equation 38-A22:
𝑅𝐹(𝑖, 𝑡, 𝑝) = min(𝑅𝐼(𝑖, 𝑡, 𝑝, 𝑘), 𝑅𝐶(𝑖, 𝑘), 𝑅𝑆𝑇𝐺(𝑖, 𝑡, 𝑝, 𝑘))
The capacity of a 2-lane ramp roadway with a FFS of 55 mi/h is 4,400 pc/h or
18.3 pc/ts. Therefore, ramp roadway’s capacity is not a constraint to ramp flow.
The other potential capacity constraint RSTG is calculated using Equation 38-A24:
𝑅𝑆𝑇𝐺(𝑖, 𝑡, 𝑝, 𝑘) = 𝑅𝐹(𝑖, 𝑡 − 1, 𝑝, 𝑘)
+ 𝑅𝐾𝑄(𝑖, 𝑡, 𝑝, 𝑘)𝑥[𝑅𝐿(𝑘)𝑥 𝑅𝑁(𝑘)]– 𝑅𝑁𝑉(𝑖, 𝑡 − 1, 𝑝, 𝑘)
The constraint RSTG is dependent on the number of vehicles in the ramp
RNV, which increases progressively as the ramp queue grows. Exhibit 38-87
compares the decreasing value of RSTG with the ramp input RI during analysis
period 2. At the end of the analysis period, the ramp capacity is still greater than
demand; therefore, no spillback occurs at the end of this analysis period,
consistent with the queue spillback check previously performed.
Exhibit 38-87
Example Problem 3: Ramp
Capacity RSTG and Ramp
Input RI: Analysis Period 2

Because spillback does not occur, no additional calculations for the mainline
are required.
Step 30: Calculate Segment Performance Measures

Because spillback does not occur during this analysis period, the mainline’s
performance measures do not need to be recalculated. The ramp, however,
experiences queueing. Therefore, the ramp speed during this analysis period is
calculated using Equation 38-A65 through Equation 38-A67:
𝑆
𝑅𝐹(𝑖, 𝑝, 𝑘) = 4 × ∑ 𝑅𝐹(𝑖, 𝑡, 𝑝, 𝑘) = 1679.5 pc/h/ln

𝑡=1
𝑆
1
𝑅𝐾(𝑖, 𝑝, 𝑘) = × ∑ 𝑅𝑁𝑉(𝑖, 𝑡, 𝑝, 𝑘) = 71.6 pc/mi/ln
60
𝑡=1
𝑅𝐹(𝑖, 𝑝, 𝑘) 1,679.5
𝑆𝑅(𝑖, 𝑝, 𝑘) = = = 31.9 mi/h
𝑅𝐾(𝑖, 𝑝, 𝑘) 71.6
Analysis Period 3
Steps 1, 2, and 9: Ramp Analysis
The same steps are repeated for analysis period 3. The ramp analysis is
summarized in Exhibit 38-88. During this analysis period, the ramp demand is
15.4 pc/ts, while the merge capacity is 13.9 pc/ts. Because demand is greater than
capacity, the number of vehicles increases gradually, causing the capacity
constraint RSTG to decrease each time step. At time step 14, the value of RSTG
becomes equal to the merge capacity (13.9 pc/ts), which implies that the ramp has
reached jam density and the maximum flow that can enter the ramp is equal to
the flow departing the ramp. Therefore, queue spillback into the mainline starts
at time step 15.
Exhibit 38-88
Example Problem 3: Ramp
Capacity RSTG and Ramp
Input RI: Analysis Period 3
After the onset of queue spillback, the number of unserved vehicles at the
exit is computed every time step through the parameter OFRUV(i, t, p). Then, the
expected length of the mainline queue OFRLQ(i, t, p) is computed based on the
number of unserved vehicles and the ramp queue density RKQ, as given by
Equation 38-A35:
𝑂𝐹𝑅𝑈𝑉(𝑖, 𝑡, 𝑝)
𝑂𝐹𝑅𝐿𝑄(𝑖, 𝑡, 𝑝) =
𝑅𝐾𝑄 (𝑖, 𝑡, 𝑝)

The ramp queue density RKQ is obtained using Equation 38-A23:

[(𝐾𝐽 – 𝑅𝐾𝐶) × 𝑅𝐹(𝑖, 𝑡 − 1, 𝑝)]
𝑅𝐾𝑄(𝑖, 𝑡, 𝑝, 𝑘) = 𝐾𝐽–
𝑅𝐶(𝑖, 𝑡, 𝑝)
𝑅𝐾𝑄(𝑖, 𝑡, 𝑝, 𝑘) = 190 − [(190 – 46.5) × 13.87)] / 18.33 = 81.4 pc/mi/ln
Exhibit 38-89 illustrates the expected spillback queue length during analysis
period 3.
Exhibit 38-89
Example Problem 3: Spillback
Queue Length on I-75 SB:
Analysis Period 3
The parameter OFRLQ represents the length of the queue if all unserved
vehicles were queued in a single line. Given the segment geometry (Exhibit 38-
90), the operating regimes and flow modes can be obtained as a function of
OFRLQ:
• 0 < OFRLQ ≤ 1,400 ft: Regime 1
• 1,400 ft < OFRLQ ≤ 3,000 ft: Regime 4, with increased turbulence
• 3,000 ft < OFRLQ: Regime 4, with lane blockage (queue extends upstream
beyond the diverge)
Exhibit 38-90
Example Problem 3: Available
Queue Storage on I-75 SB
As previously shown in Exhibit 38-89, the maximum queue length OFRLQ

during analysis period 3 is 4,696 ft. Because queues develop along mainline lanes
1 and 2, at the end of analysis period 3, the back of queue will be located 848 ft
upstream of the boundary of segments 1-2 and 1-3. The length of the QIA is 1,060
ft, and when it is added to the back of the queue it does not reach the upstream
node of segment 1-2. Therefore, segment 1-2’s capacity is not affected by the
turbulence area upstream of the queue, as illustrated in Exhibit 38-91.

Exhibit 38-91
Example Problem 3: Back of
Queue Length, Including
Queue Influence Area, at the
End of Analysis Period 3

The ramp speed is computed similarly to analysis period 2:
𝑆
𝑅𝐹(𝑖, 𝑝, 𝑘) = 4 × ∑ 𝑅𝐹(𝑖, 𝑡, 𝑝, 𝑘) = 1,707 pc/h/ln

𝑡=1
𝑆
1
𝑅𝐾(𝑖, 𝑝, 𝑘) = × ∑ 𝑅𝑁𝑉(𝑖, 𝑡, 𝑝, 𝑘) = 108.4 pc/mi/ln
60
𝑡=1
𝑅𝐹(𝑖, 𝑝, 𝑘) 1,707
𝑆𝑅(𝑖, 𝑝, 𝑘) = = = 21.5 mi/h
𝑅𝐾(𝑖, 𝑝, 𝑘) 108.4
Performance measures are computed for the blocked and unblocked portions
of each segment of the freeway facility.
Segment 1-3 (diverge)—blocked portion. Similar to the ramp, the flow
through the blocked portion is aggregated for this time period:
𝑆
𝑆𝐹𝐵𝐿(𝑖, 𝑝) = 4 × ∑ 𝑆𝐹𝐵𝐿(𝑖, 𝑡, 𝑝) = 3,030 pc/h

𝑡=1
The average density is obtained as the sum of two separate components. The
average number of vehicles in the blocked portion of the segment is computed as:
𝑆
1
𝐾𝐵𝐿(𝑖, 𝑝) = × ∑ 𝑁𝑉(𝑖, 𝑡, 𝑝) = 51 pc/mi/ln
60
𝑡=1
The increase in density due to the lane blockage ΔK is obtained as:
𝑆
1
∆𝐾(𝑖, 𝑝) = ∑ ∆𝑁𝑉(𝑖, 𝑡, 𝑝) = 20.1 pc/mi/ln
𝑆 × 𝑁𝑄
𝑡=1
The total density is then computed as:
𝐾(𝑖, 𝑝) = 𝐾𝐵𝐿(𝑖, 𝑝) + ∆𝐾(𝑖, 𝑝) = 70.1 pc/mi/ln
Finally, the speed in the blocked lanes is obtained through the fundamental
equation:
𝑆𝐹𝐵𝐿(𝑖, 𝑝) 3,030
𝑆𝐵𝐿(𝑖, 𝑝) = = = 21.2 mi/h
𝑁(𝑖, 𝑝) × 𝐾(𝑖, 𝑝) 2 × 70.1

Segment 1-3 (diverge)—unblocked portion. The same process is repeated

for the segment’s unblocked portion, except that the ΔK component is omitted
because no queues occur in those lanes:
𝑆𝑈𝐵(𝑖, 𝑝) = 56.1 mi/h
Analysis Period 4
During analysis period 4, the congestion at the downstream facility (SR-826)
dissipates, which allows the ramp to discharge at the ramp roadway capacity
(4,400 pc/h, or 18.33 pc/ts). Given the low ramp demand during this time period,
the queue clears quickly (9 time steps, or 135 s). After the 10th time step, the
freeway facility returns to undersaturated conditions.
EXAMPLE PROBLEM 4: ON-RAMP QUEUE SPILLBACK ANALYSIS INTO A

SINGLE-LANE ROUNDABOUT
This example problem illustrates the analysis methodology when spillback
occurs from an on-ramp into a single-lane roundabout. The example is based on
a ramp terminal on I-105 at Bellflower Blvd. in Los Angeles, California.
Input Data
The site layout is shown in Exhibit 38-92. The location’s traffic and geometric
characteristics are as follows:
• Single-lane approaches on all roundabout entries
• Adjusted demand flow rates in pc/h for all movements are as shown in
Exhibit 38-92
• No heavy vehicles
• U-turn movements are negligible
• Pedestrian activity limits the exit capacity to the on-ramp to 1,300 pc/h.
• Ramp length = 1,657 ft
• The on-ramp connecting the roundabout to the freeway is metered at a
rate cRM = 800 pc/h.
Exhibit 38-92
Example Problem 4:
Study Interchange Schematic

Step 3: Determine Circulating Flow Rates

This step calculates all circulating flow rates at the roundabout. For example,
for the NB approach, the circulating flow is calculated using Equation 22-11:
𝑣𝑐,𝑁𝐵,𝑝𝑐𝑒 = 𝑣𝑆𝐵𝐿,𝑝𝑐𝑒 + 𝑣𝐸𝐵𝑇,𝑝𝑐𝑒 + 𝑣𝐸𝐵𝐿,𝑝𝑐𝑒 = 100 + 500 + 100 = 700 pc/h
Similarly, the conflicting flows for the other approaches are:
𝑣𝑐,𝑆𝐵,𝑝𝑐𝑒 = 0 pc/h
𝑣𝑐,𝐸𝐵,𝑝𝑐𝑒 = 300 pc/h
Step 4: Determine Entry Flow Rates per Approach

The entry flow rate at each approach is calculated by adding the movement
flow rates that enter the roundabout.
The entry flow rates are calculated as follows:
𝑣𝑒,𝑆𝐵,𝑝𝑐𝑒 = 𝑣𝑆𝐵𝐿,𝑝𝑐𝑒 + 𝑣𝑆𝐵𝑇,𝑝𝑐𝑒 = 100 + 200 = 300 pc/h
𝑣𝑒,𝐸𝐵,𝑝𝑐𝑒 = 700 pc/h
𝑣𝑒,𝑁𝐵,𝑝𝑐𝑒 = 1,600 pc/h
Step 5: Determine the Capacity of Each Entry Lane in Passenger Car

Equivalents
Using the single-lane capacity equation (Equation 22-1), the capacity for each
entry lane is calculated as follows:
−3 )𝑣 −3 )(0)
𝑐𝑝𝑐𝑒,𝑆𝐵 = 1,380𝑒 (−1.02×10 𝑐,𝑝𝑐𝑒,𝑆𝐵 = 1,380𝑒 (−1.02×10 = 1,380 pc/h
(−1.02×10−3 )𝑣𝑐,𝑝𝑐𝑒,𝐸𝐵 (−1.02×10−3 )(300)
𝑐𝑝𝑐𝑒,𝐸𝐵 = 1,380𝑒 = 1,380𝑒 = 1,016 pc/h
(−1.02×10−3 )𝑣𝑐,𝑝𝑐𝑒,𝑁𝐵 (−1.02×10−3 )(700)
𝑐𝑝𝑐𝑒,𝑁𝐵 = 1,380𝑒 = 1,380𝑒 = 676 pc/h
Step 8: Compute the Volume-to-Capacity Ratio for Each Lane

The volume-to-capacity ratios for each entry lane are calculated using
Equation 22-16 as follows:
300
𝑥𝑆𝐵 = = 0.22
1,380
700
𝑥𝐸𝐵 = = 0.69
1,016
1,600
𝑥𝑁𝐵 = = 2.37
676
Step 12: Compute 95th Percentile Queues for Each Lane

The 95th percentile queue is first computed for each lane without
considering spillback effects. For example, the queue for the southbound
approach is given as follows, applying Equation 22-20:
3,600
√(1 ( 𝑐 )𝑥 𝑐
𝑄95,𝑆𝐵 = 900𝑇 [𝑥 − 1 + 2
− 𝑥) + ]( )
150𝑇 3,600

3,600
(1,380) 0.22 1,380
𝑄95,𝑆𝐵 √ 2
= 900(0.25) 0.22 − 1 + (1 − 0.22) + ( ) = 1 veh
150(0.25) 3,600
[ ]
Similarly,
𝑄95,𝐸𝐵 = 6 veh
𝑄95,𝑁𝐵 = 121 veh
These values are rounded to the nearest vehicle.
Exhibit 38-93 provides the flows and resulting queues at the roundabout.
Exhibit 38-93 Circulating Entry Flow Volume-to-

Example Problem 4: Flow Rates Rates Capacity Capacity 95th Percentile
Roundabout Flows and Approach (pc/h) (pc/h) (pc/h) Ratio Queues (veh)
Queues SB 0 300 1,380 0.22 1
EB 300 700 1,016 0.69 6
NB 700 1,600 676 2.37 121
Note: SB = southbound, EB =eastbound, NB = northbound.
Step 13: Maximum Throughput for each O-D Movement

The first task in calculating the maximum throughput per movement is to
define the priority order, as shown in Exhibit 38-94. The SB approach is the Rank
1 leg because it is the upstream approach to the on-ramp. The EB approach is the
Rank 2 leg, while the NB approach is the Rank 3 leg. Each approach’s capacity
(previously calculated in Step 5) is used to determine the maximum throughput
for each approach and O-D pair.
Exhibit 38-94
Example Problem 4:
Roundabout Approach Priority
Order
Starting with the Rank 1 (SB) approach, the maximum throughput for the
movement exiting through the EB leg (the on-ramp) is calculated as follows:
3,600
Equation 38-28 𝜆𝑆𝐵𝐿,𝑝𝑐𝑒 = min (𝑣𝑆𝐵𝐿,𝑝𝑐𝑒 , 𝑐𝑝𝑐𝑒,𝑆𝐵 × 𝑝𝑆𝐵𝐿 , )
ℎ𝑠

where
λSBL,pce = maximum throughput for the SB left-turn movement (pc/h),
vSBL,pce = flow rate for the SB left-turn movement (pc/h),
cpce,SB = entry lane capacity for the SB roundabout approach (pc/h),
pSBL = percent of demand from the SB approach into the on-ramp
= vSBL,pce divided by the total flow rate for the SB approach, and
hs = departure saturation headway into the on-ramp (s/veh).
Then:
100 3,600
𝜆𝑆𝐵𝐿,𝑝𝑐𝑒 = min (100, [1,380 × ], ) = 100 pc/h
300 2.77
Because the Rank 3 (NB) approach is the only one with a volume-to-capacity
ratio over 1, the conflicting flows and capacity values calculated above are valid.
The next calculation is the maximum throughput for the remaining
movements of the approach that contribute to the conflicting flows for
downstream approaches. This calculation is performed as follows:
𝜆𝑆𝐵𝑇,𝑝𝑐𝑒 = min(𝑣𝑆𝐵𝑇,𝑝𝑐𝑒 , 𝑐𝑝𝑐𝑒,𝑆𝐵 × 𝑝𝑆𝐵𝑇 ) Equation 38-29
where
λSBT,pce = maximum throughput for the southbound-through movement (pc/h),
vSBT,pce = flow rate for the southbound-through movement (pc/h),
cpce,SB = entry lane capacity for the southbound roundabout approach (pc/h), and
pSBL = percent of demand from SB approach for through movement
= vSBT,pce divided by the total flow rate for the SB approach.
Then:
200
𝜆𝑆𝐵𝑇,𝑝𝑐𝑒 = min (200, [1,380 × ]) = 200 pc/h
300
The maximum throughput for each approach and O-D pair is calculated
considering the maximum throughput on the on-ramp and accounting for
higher-rank approaches:
3,600
𝜆𝐸𝐵𝑇,𝑝𝑐𝑒 = min (𝑣𝐸𝐵𝑇,𝑝𝑐𝑒 , 𝑐𝑝𝑐𝑒,𝐸𝐵 × 𝑝𝐸𝐵𝑇 , − 𝜆𝑆𝐵𝐿 )
ℎ𝑠
500 3,600
𝜆𝐸𝐵𝑇,𝑝𝑐𝑒 = min (500, [1,016 × ],[ − 100]) = 500 pc/h
700 2.77
𝜆𝐸𝐵𝐿,𝑝𝑐𝑒 = min(𝑣𝐸𝐵𝐿,𝑝𝑐𝑒 , 𝑐𝑝𝑐𝑒,𝐸𝐵 × 𝑝𝐸𝐵𝐿 )

100
𝜆𝐸𝐵𝐿,𝑝𝑐𝑒 = min (100, [1,016 × ]) = 100 pc/h
700
3,600
𝜆𝑁𝐵𝑅,𝑝𝑐𝑒 = min (𝑣𝑁𝐵𝑅,𝑝𝑐𝑒 , 𝑐𝑝𝑐𝑒,𝑁𝐵𝑅 × 𝑝𝑁𝐵𝑅 , − 𝜆𝑆𝐵𝐿 − 𝜆𝐸𝐵𝑇 )
ℎ𝑠
1,500 3,600
𝜆𝑁𝐵𝑅,𝑝𝑐𝑒 = min (1,500, [678 × ],[ − 100 − 500]) = 634 pc/h
1,600 2.77

The maximum throughput to the on-ramp is lower than the exit capacity
(1,300 pc/h), thus the northbound approach flow rate is limited by its own
approach capacity.
Step 14: Maximum Exit Flow Rate into the On-Ramp

The maximum throughput from the roundabout to the on-ramp λR,pce is
calculated by adding up the maximum throughput to the on-ramp from the
higher-rank approaches:
𝜆𝑅,𝑝𝑐𝑒 = 𝜆𝑆𝐵𝐿,𝑝𝑐𝑒 + 𝜆𝐸𝐵𝑇,𝑝𝑐𝑒 + 𝜆𝑁𝐵𝑅,𝑝𝑐𝑒 = 100 + 500 + 634 = 1,234 pc/h
This maximum on-ramp demand flow rate is lower than the exit capacity. It
is also lower than the total O-D demand to the ramp, which has a rate of:
𝑣𝑒𝑥,𝐸𝐵,𝑝𝑐𝑒 = 𝑣𝑆𝐵𝐿,𝑝𝑐𝑒 + 𝑣𝐸𝐵𝑇,𝑝𝑐𝑒 + 𝑣𝑁𝐵𝑅,𝑝𝑐𝑒 = 100 + 500 + 1500 = 2,100 pc/h
Step 15: On-Ramp Metering Capacity

The departure saturation headway into the on-ramp is 3,600 s/h divided by
the exit capacity of 1,300 pc/h, or 2.77 s/pc. The demand flow rate from the on-
ramp onto the freeway is then the smaller of the exit capacity and the metering
rate:
3600 3,600
𝑐𝑅,𝑝𝑐𝑒 = min (𝑐𝑅𝑀 , ) = min (800, ) = 800 pc/h
ℎ𝑠 2.77
Step 16: On-Ramp Storage Ratio and Queue Spillback Length

The on-ramp storage LONR is calculated in passenger cars, considering an
average spacing of 25 ft and given that the total ramp length is 1,657 ft:
1,657
𝐿𝑂𝑁𝑅 = = 66 pc
25
Knowing the ramp’s maximum exit flow rate, the number of passenger car
equivalents that exit the roundabout through the on-ramp during a 15-min
analysis period is obtained from the difference between the on-ramp throughput
λR,pce and the ramp metering rate cRM:
𝜆𝑅,𝑝𝑐𝑒 − 𝑐𝑅𝑀 1,234 − 800
𝑄𝑠𝑝 = = = 108 pc
4 4
The queue storage ratio RQ is then calculated as the ratio between the
expected queue and the on-ramp storage:
𝑄𝑠𝑝 108
𝑅𝑄 = = = 1.63
𝐿𝑂𝑁𝑅 66
Because RQ > 1.0, queues will develop on each roundabout approach due to
spillback.
Step 17: Queue Spillback Distribution per Approach

The number of vehicles queued during the 15-min analysis period
𝑄spillback = 𝑄𝑂𝑁𝑅 − 𝐿𝑂𝑁𝑅 = 42 pc
The queues due to the on-ramp spillback are assumed to be distributed
proportionally to each approach’s demand flow rate to the on-ramp, and are

added to the 95th percentile queues estimated for undersaturated conditions

(Equation 22-20):
𝜆𝑆𝐵𝐿,𝑝𝑐𝑒 100
𝑄𝑠𝑝,𝑆𝐵 = 𝑄spillback × + 𝑄95,𝑆𝐵 = 42 × + 1 = 4 pc
𝑣𝑅 1234
𝜆𝐸𝐵𝑇,𝑝𝑐𝑒
𝑄𝑠𝑝,𝐸𝐵 = 𝑄spillback × + 𝑄95,𝐸𝐵 = 17 + 6 = 23 pc
𝑣𝑅
𝜆𝑁𝐵𝑅,𝑝𝑐𝑒
𝑄𝑠𝑝,𝑁𝐵 = 𝑄spillback × + 𝑄95,𝑁𝐵 = 22 + 121 = 142 pc
𝑣𝑅
Step 18: Average Delay per Approach

To estimate the average delay on each approach, both the approach’s control
delay and the delay due to the on-ramp capacity limitation must be estimated.
The average control delay per approach is given by Equation 22-17.
3,600
3,600 × 0.22
√ 1,380
𝑑𝑆𝐵 = + 900(0.25) 0.22 − 1 + (0.22 − 1)2 +
1,380 450(0.25)
[ ]
+ 5 × min[0.22,1]
𝑑𝑆𝐵 = 4.44 s/veh

Similarly:
𝑑𝐸𝐵 = 14.47 s/veh
𝑑𝑁𝐵 = 635.86 s/veh
The additional delay due to the on-ramp spillback is given by Equation 38-B41.
2 3,600 2,100
3,600 2,100 2,100 ×
𝑑𝑠𝑝 = + 900(0.25) [ √
−1+ ( − 1) + 800 800 ]
800 800 800 450(0.25)
2,100
+ 5 × min [ , 1]
800
𝑑𝑠𝑝 = 747.94 s/veh
Therefore, the total average delay per approach is:
100
𝑑𝑆𝐵,𝑇 = 𝑑𝑆𝐵 + 𝑑𝑠𝑝 × = 65.05 s/veh
1,234
500
𝑑𝐸𝐵.𝐿 = 𝑑𝐸𝐵 + 𝑑𝑠𝑝 × = 317.54 s/veh
1,234
634
𝑑𝑁𝐵,𝑅 = 𝑑𝑁𝐵 + 𝑑𝑠𝑝 × = 1,020.14 s/veh
1,234

5. REFERENCE
This reference can be found in 1. University of Florida Transportation Institute; Cambridge Systematics, Inc.;
the Technical Reference
Library in Volume 4. and A. Skabardonis. NCHRP Web-Only Document 290: Highway Capacity
Manual Methodologies for Corridors Involving Freeways and Surface Streets.
Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2020.

APPENDIX A: OFF-RAMP QUEUE SPILLBACK ANALYSIS
Chapter 10, Freeway Facilities Core Methodology, evaluates the performance

of each segment individually using standard 15-min analysis periods. If any
segment within the facility yields LOS F (v/c > 1), the analysis continues with the
oversaturated procedure, using smaller time steps.
Similarly, when determining whether queue spillback occurs from a freeway
off-ramp, network analysis is first conducted using 15-min analysis periods. If
the analysis shows that any of the ramps are expected to experience queue
spillback, the oversaturated procedure must be used to estimate the spillback
effects on the freeway mainline lanes, even if the segment-wide performance is
not at LOS F.
The methodology’s framework for conducting a spillback check at diverge
points is presented in Exhibit 38-A1 and described in more detail in the
remainder of this appendix.
Exhibit 38-A1
Check Flowchart
Chapter 38/Network Analysis Appendix A: Off-Ramp Queue Spillback Analysis

CAPACITY CHECKS
The procedure first determines whether capacity is exceeded at any of the
critical points along the diverge section.
Case A: Ramp Roadway

Demand at the study diverge ramp (𝑣𝑅 , as defined in Chapter 14, Freeway
Merge and Diverge Segments) is compared against the ramp roadway’s capacity
using Exhibit 14-12, replicated as Exhibit 38-A2.
Exhibit 38-A2 Ramp FFS, SFR (mi/h) Single-Lane Ramps Two-Lane Ramps
Capacity of Ramp Roadways >50 2,200 4,400
(pc/h) >40–50 2,100 4,200
>30–40 2,000 4,000
≥20–30 1,900 3,800
<20 1,800 3,600
Notes: Capacity of a ramp roadway does not ensure an equal capacity at its freeway or other high-speed junction.
Junction capacity must be checked against criteria in Exhibit 14-10 and Exhibit 14-11.
FFS = free-flow speed.
Case B: Ramp Terminal

Demand at the downstream urban street intersection approach is compared
against the approach’s estimated capacity. If the ramp terminal consists of two
interdependent intersections, the analyst must proceed to Chapter 23, Ramp
Terminals and Alternative Intersections. Otherwise, depending on the type of
intersection located at the end of the ramp roadway, the capacity is obtained
from one of the following chapters: Chapter 19, Signalized Intersections; Chapter
20, Two-Way STOP-Controlled Intersections; Chapter 21, All-Way STOP
Controlled Intersections; or Chapter 22, Roundabouts.
The ramp terminal control will generate queues even during undersaturated
operations. The recommended approach for evaluating queues is as follows:
• Signalized intersections: Although an oversaturated approach is expected to
create longer queues that grow over time and are more likely to spill back
into the freeway diverge, it cannot be guaranteed that the queues from an
undersaturated approach will not affect the freeway mainline. Therefore,
in each analysis period, the methodology estimates the queue length and
compares it to the available storage length. The demand arriving at the
intersection may be constrained by the ramp roadway capacity; for this
reason, the ramp roadway capacity check must be conducted first.
• Unsignalized intersections: Intersection operation better than LOS F does
not guarantee that spillback will not occur. The recommended approach
is to proceed to Case B of the queue length estimation methodology.
Case C: Downstream Merge Junction

Queue spillback may also occur on freeway-to-freeway connectors, and this
is a common issue at high-demand urban interchanges. In this case, the
bottleneck is located at the downstream merge segment and occurs when the
discharge rate into the downstream merge is lower than the off-ramp demand.
As a result, the queue may spill back into the upstream freeway lanes. In this
case, the downstream freeway facility’s merge capacity must be modeled using
Appendix A: Off-Ramp Queue Spillback Analysis Chapter 38/Network Analysis

the Chapter 10 method. For oversaturated conditions, the methodology estimates

the queue length at the on-ramp as described in Chapter 25, Freeway Facilities:
Supplemental. This queue length value should be used as the input to the queue
spillback analysis described next.
The arriving demand at a downstream merge may be constrained by the
ramp roadway capacity. Therefore, the entering ramp demand at the merge is
the minimum value of the exiting flow rate at the diverge and the ramp roadway
capacity.
QUEUE LENGTH ESTIMATION

In this stage, the procedure estimates the expected queue length for any
condition where demand exceeds capacity. Three cases may occur.

A queue forms as a result of demand exceeding capacity at the entrance to
the ramp roadway and is expected to affect operations. To determine the extent
of this effect, the queue growth during each analysis period is estimated as:
𝑄𝑔,𝑖 = (𝑣𝑅 − 𝑐𝑅 ) × 𝑓𝐻𝑉 × 𝑃𝐻𝐹 × 𝑇 Equation 38-A1
where
Qg,i = queue growth during analysis period i (veh),
vR = off‐ramp demand (pc/h),
cR = off-ramp roadway capacity (pc/h),
fHV = adjustment factor for heavy vehicle presence,
PHF = peak hour factor, and
T = analysis time period (0.25 h for a 15-min period) (h).
The ramp queue during the first time period of the analysis must be zero,
otherwise the analysis’ time–space domain boundaries need to be re-evaluated.
The accumulated queue length at the end of analysis period t is the cumulative
value of Qg,i until t:
𝑡
𝑄𝑡 = ∑ 𝑄𝑔,𝑖 Equation 38-A2

𝑖=0
where
Qt = accumulated queue length at the end of analysis period t (veh),
Qg,i = queue growth during analysis period i (veh), and
t = the current analysis period.
Chapter 9, Glossary and Symbols, defines the study period as “the time
interval within a day for which facility performance is evaluated, consisting of
one or more consecutive analysis periods.” Therefore, the study period t refers to
the time boundaries defined in Step A-1 of the freeway facilities methodology. It
is composed of N analysis periods, which typically have 15-min durations.

The maximum queue length Qmax during the entire study period is the
maximum value of Qt obtained using Equation 38-A2 and is used as an input for
the next stage of the spillback check procedure.
Case B: Ramp Terminal

Spillback occurs when the queue from the downstream ramp terminal
intersection exceeds the available ramp storage. For all cases, the procedure
estimates the maximum throughput v at the downstream intersection approach.
That maximum throughput is limited by the ramp roadway’s capacity cR:
Equation 38-A3 𝑣 = min(𝑣𝑅 , 𝑐𝑅 ) × 𝑓𝐻𝑉 × 𝑃𝐻𝐹
where
v = maximum entering flow rate for the intersection approach (veh/h),
vR = off-ramp demand for the period (pc/h),
cR = capacity of the off-ramp roadway (pc/h),
fHV = adjustment factor for heavy vehicle presence, and
PHF = peak hour factor.
If the off-ramp demand exceeds its capacity, the ramp roadway acts as an
upstream bottleneck and limits the demand arriving at the intersection approach.
This step ensures that the incoming demand at the intersection does not exceed
the ramp roadway’s capacity. The throughput calculations for each intersection
type are described below.
The methodology of Chapters 19 and 31 evaluates the performance of
individual lane groups for a subject approach. It also estimates the back-of-queue
length Q (Equation 31-149) or a percentile back-of-queue length Q% (Equation
31-150). In some cases, only one high-demand movement on the intersection
approach is the bottleneck that results in spillback, yielding an unbalanced lane
usage pattern at the ramp. Field observations have shown that urban street
intersection failures may occur for one lane group. As drivers position themselves
in a specific lane at the ramp in anticipation of the downstream signal, the ramp’s
lane usage becomes unbalanced, as illustrated in Equation 38-A3.
Exhibit 38-A3
Examples of Unbalanced
Ramp Lane Usage
(a) Norfolk, VA (b) Tampa, FL

Sources: (a) RITIS CATT Lab, (b) Florida Department of Transportation.

When off-ramps have two or more lanes, the estimated queue length for each
intersection lane group must be associated with specific ramp lanes. Exhibit 38-
A4 illustrates an example of a typical ramp terminal for a two-lane off-ramp.
Drivers that desire to make a left turn at the intersection will position themselves
in the leftmost lane (ramp lane 2), while drivers who intend to turn right will
likely choose the rightmost lane (ramp lane 1). Analyst judgement is required to
define the grouping of intersection lane groups into ramp lanes.
Exhibit 38-A4
Illustrative Assignment of
Intersection Lane Groups to
Ramp Lanes
By using the results of the queue estimation procedure, the number of

queued vehicles in a given ramp lane k is estimated as follows:
𝑄𝑙,𝑘 = ∑ 𝑄𝐿𝐺,𝑚 = 𝑄%,𝐿𝐺𝑛 × 𝑁𝐿𝐺𝑚 Equation 38-A4
where
Ql,k = number of queued vehicles in ramp lane k during a 15-min interval
(veh);
QLG,m = number of queued vehicles from lane group m associated with ramp
lane k during a 15-min interval (veh);
Q%,LGn = estimated back of queue length (nth percentile), from Equation 38-A5
(derived from Equation 31-150) (veh/ln); and
NLG.m = number of approaching lanes for lane group m.
with
𝑄%,𝐿𝐺𝑛 = (𝑄1 + 𝑄2 )𝑓𝐵% + 𝑄3 Equation 38-A5
where
𝑄𝑖 = ith-term back-of-queue size (veh/ln), from Equation 31-141 to Equation
31-143; and
𝑓𝐵% = percentile back-of-queue factor corresponding to the nth percentile,
from Equation 31-151 or 31-153.
Unsignalized Intersections
Each unsignalized intersection type has its own methodology to estimate
queue length. The TWSC methodology estimates the 95th percentile queue
length for minor movements with Equation 20-68, while the 95th percentile
queue length for AWSC approaches is estimated with Equation 21-33. For
roundabouts, the 95th percentile queue length for a given lane is provided by
Equation 22-20. Once the lane group queue(s) have been determined, they are

assigned to ramp lanes following the same procedure described above for
signalized intersections.
Case C: Downstream Merge

For freeway-to-freeway connectors, the estimated queue length at the
downstream merge is estimated using Equation 25-21, from the Chapter 25
oversaturated segment evaluation methodology. For this specific type of
connector, the demand difference between ramp lanes can be considered
negligible for the purposes of this analysis.
QUEUE STORAGE RATIOS AND SPILLBACK CHCECKS

The next stage of the procedure estimates the queue storage ratio RQ for the
ramp roadway queues. If RQ exceeds 1.00, spillback is expected to occur. The
calculations for each of the three possible cases are provided below.

If the demand exceeds the capacity of the ramp roadway, this step estimates
the queue storage ratio RQ for the ramp roadway queues as follows:
𝐿ℎ 𝑄𝑚𝑎𝑥
Equation 38-A6 𝑅𝑄 =
𝐿𝑅 𝑁
Equation 38-A6 assumes all where
lanes provide the same
storage. If that is not the case, RQ = queue storage ratio (decimal),
the analyst should calculate
the total queue storage as a Lh = average vehicle spacing in a stationary queue (ft/veh),
sum of each lane’s storage.
Qmax = maximum number of vehicles queued on the ramp (veh),
LR = available queue storage (ft/ln), and
N = number of ramp lanes.
In Case A, the bottleneck is the entry to the off-ramp, and the ramp itself
would not necessarily have a queue present. This case estimates the impacts of
the queue as it extends along the deceleration lane. The queue length upstream
of the ramp roadway QSP is estimated based on the “leftover” demand not served
by the off-ramp’s available capacity:
Equation 38-A7 𝑄𝑆𝑃 = (𝑣𝑅 − 𝑐𝑅 ) × 𝑓𝐻𝑉 × 𝑃𝐻𝐹 × 𝐿ℎ × 𝑇
where
QSP = length of queue beyond the ramp storage distance (ft),
vR = off-ramp demand (pc/h),
cR = off-ramp capacity (pc/h),
fHV = adjustment factor for heavy vehicle presence,
PHF = peak hour factor,
Lh = average vehicle spacing in a stationary queue (ft/veh), and
T = analysis time period (0.25 h for a 15-min period (h).

Case B: Downstream Intersection

When demand exceeds capacity at the intersection, the methodology
considers the queues for all lanes from the ramp gore to the stop bar, as well as
the channelization at the stop bar. The total ramp storage length LR can be
estimated as the sum of lane lengths for i different sections, with a section
defined as a uniform length of ramp roadway with a homogenous number of
lanes:
𝐿𝑅 = ∑ 𝑁𝑖 × 𝐿𝑖 Equation 38-A8
𝑖
where
LR = ramp storage length (ft),
Ni = number of lanes in section i, and
Li = length of section 𝑖 (ft).
The individual ramp storage for each of the k lanes in the off-ramp LR.k can be
estimated by assigning the intersection lane groups to ramp lanes, as previously
described:
𝐿𝑅,𝑘 = ∑ 𝑁𝑖,𝑘 × 𝐿𝑖 Equation 38-A9

𝑖
where
LR,k = ramp storage length for lane k (ft),
Ni,k = number of lanes in section 𝑖 associated with ramp lane k, and
Li = length of section 𝑖 (ft).
Finally, the ramp queue ratio for every ramp lane k is obtained as:
𝑄𝐿,𝑘 × 𝐿ℎ
𝑅𝑄,𝑘 = Equation 38-A10
𝐿𝑅,𝑘
where
RQ,k = ramp queue ratio for ramp lane k (decimal),
QL,k = queue length associated with ramp lane k (veh),
LR,k = ramp storage length for lane k (ft).
Next, the total storage length is calculated. The example from Exhibit 38-A4
illustrates a common off-ramp geometry with three different sections from the
stop bar to the gore point:
• Section 1: 4 lanes with length L1; two lanes (LG1) are associated with
ramp lane 1, and two lanes (LG2) are associated with ramp lane 2.
• Section 2: 3 lanes with length L2; one lane (LG1) is associated with ramp
lane 1, and two lanes (LG2) are associated with ramp lane 2.
• Section 3: 2 lanes with length L3; one lane (LG1) is associated with ramp
lane 1, and one lane (LG2) is associated with ramp lane 2.

Therefore, the available ramp storage LR is calculated as:

𝐿𝑅 = (4 × 𝐿1 ) + (3 × 𝐿2 ) + (2 × 𝐿3 )
The ramp storage for each ramp lane is as follows:
𝐿𝑅,1 = (2 × 𝐿1 ) + (1 × 𝐿2 ) + (1 × 𝐿3 )
𝐿𝑅,2 = (2 × 𝐿1 ) + (2 × 𝐿2 ) + (1 × 𝐿3 )
Case C: Downstream Merge

The queue storage ratio for freeway-to-freeway connections is estimated as
follows:
𝑄𝑂𝑁𝑅 × 𝐿ℎ
Equation 38-A11 𝑅𝑄 =
𝐿𝑅 𝑁
where
RQ = queue storage ratio (decimal),
QONR = downstream on-ramp queue length (veh);
LR = ramp storage length (ft),
N = number of ramp lanes.
The queue length at the downstream on-ramp QONR is obtained from the
Chapter 25 oversaturated segment evaluation procedure through the parameter
ONRQ (Equation 25-21). The parameter ONRQ(i, t, p) is defined as the unmet
demand that is stored as a queue on the merge ramp roadway at node i during
time step t in time interval p (veh), and is computed at every 15-s time step. The
on-ramp queue length at the end of a time interval p is obtained by the ONRQ
value at the last time step of time interval p.
OFF-RAMP QUEUE SPILLBACK EVALUATION

Chapter 14 provides three LOS checks for diverge segments, and failure
(LOS F) may occur in either of the following two cases:
• Total demand flow rate on the approaching upstream freeway segment
exceeds the upstream freeway segment’s capacity, or
• Off-ramp demand exceeds the off-ramp capacity.
Chapter 14 also provides a LOS evaluation based on the density of the ramp
influence area (Exhibit 14-3), but it only yields a LOS range of A through E;
failure due to excessive density is not considered in the network analysis
methodology. The first case of LOS F is addressed by the Chapter 25
oversaturated segment evaluation procedure (HCM Chapter 10) and is not the
focus of the network analysis methodology. This section addresses the second
case of LOS F, when the off-ramp demand exceeds the off-ramp capacity, as well
as cases of spillback due to insufficient capacity at the ramp terminal
downstream of an off-ramp.
The methodology described in this section presents the steps applied to
determine whether spillback from an off-ramp is expected to occur during a

standard 15-min analysis period. If spillback is expected to occur, this section

then provides the methodology for evaluating the spillback’s effects on freeway
performance. The approach is based on the Chapter 25 oversaturated segment
evaluation procedure, where performance measures are computed at the 15-s
time step level.
Off-Ramp Operations
To evaluate the interaction between the freeway mainline and the
downstream off-ramp terminal, the link–node approach used by Chapter 25 to
evaluate oversaturated freeway segments is expanded, with additional links and
nodes used to represent the off-ramp segment. As shown in Exhibit 38-A5, the
mainline node for the off-ramp (node 3) is connected to the off-ramp segment,
which has a three-node structure:
• Ramp node 3.1: Interface between the freeway diverge segment (exit lanes)
and the upstream end of the ramp roadway. The volume that flows
through this node is equivalent to the number of vehicles that are able to
leave the freeway.
• Ramp node 3.2: Interface between the ramp roadway and the arterial
intersection approach. The volume that flows through this node is
equivalent to the number of vehicles that are able to leave the ramp
roadway and approach the intersection;
• Ramp node 3.3: Discharge capacity of the arterial intersection approach.
The volume that flows through this node is equivalent to the number of
vehicles that are able to enter the intersection.
Exhibit 38-A5
Expanded Link–Node
Structure to Evaluate Off-
Ramp Segments
An off-ramp is seldom a homogenous road segment, and additional lanes are

frequently added closer to the arterial intersection approach. Exhibit 38-A6
illustrates an example off-ramp, considering its entire length from the
deceleration lane to the stop bar at the downstream signalized intersection. The
ramp roadway is the uniform ramp segment with a downstream boundary

defined by the point where additional lanes are provided. When modeling the
off-ramp geometry, the method considers the channelization at the intersection
approach, because imbalances in the turning movement demands may cause
queues on a subset of lanes. Exhibit 38-A6 shows a typical queue formation
resulting from a left-turn movement that operates with insufficient capacity. In
this scenario, the approaching left-turn vehicles are positioned in the leftmost
lane and spillback may occur even when some approach lanes are undersaturated.
Exhibit 38-A6
Example Off-Ramp Geometry
with Heavy Left-Turn Demand
at a Signalized Intersection
The type of ramp terminal is an important input into the analysis. Signalized
intersections operate in cyclical patterns, and therefore have fluctuating queue
lengths. For certain demand scenarios, this pattern can result in queues backing
up into the freeway and then discharging multiples times within a 15-min
analysis period.
STOP-controlled intersections and downstream merge segments (in the case
of a freeway-to-freeway connection) have more uniform discharging rates. For
cases other than signalized intersections, off-ramp queues are assumed to develop
or discharge linearly based on the relationship between demand and capacity.
Freeway Mainline Operations
Spillback Regimes
The impact of queue spillback on the freeway mainline varies as a function of
the queue length and the lanes blocked. Five spillback regimes are defined (A-1)
and are illustrated in Exhibit 38-A7.
Regime 0
Under this regime, shown in Exhibit 38-2(a), there are no queues in the ramp
roadway or the queue, if it exists, is contained within the ramp roadway
boundaries. There are no operational effects in the ramp influence area.
Regime 1
The queue ends within the deceleration lane and does not spill back into the
freeway mainline, as shown in Exhibit 38-A7(b). During undersaturated
conditions, the deceleration lane serves as a transition zone between speeds on
the mainline (typically 55–75 mi/h) and the advisory speed posted for the off-
ramp (typically 20–50 mi/h). When queues begin to form on the deceleration
lane, the available deceleration distance is reduced and speeds along the
rightmost lane are affected.

Exhibit 38-A7
Regimes
(a) Regine 0: No queue or queue contained within the ramp roadway
(b) Regime 1: Queue at the deceleration lane (c) Regime 2: Queue along the shoulder
(d) Regime 3: Queue along the rightmost lane (e) Regime 4: Queue blockage of the adjacent lane
Regime 2
The queue extends upstream beyond the deceleration lane, but sufficient
lateral clearance on the right-hand shoulder provides additional queue storage.
As shown in Exhibit 38-A7(c), there is no transition zone within the deceleration
lane. Drivers decelerate and join the back of the queue more abruptly, resulting
in turbulence and reduced speeds in the rightmost lane. If no lateral clearance
exists immediately upstream of the deceleration lane, Regime 2 conditions are
not possible. In some cases, this regime does not occur even when storage is
available, depending on site-specific driver behavior.
Regime 3
The queue extends to the rightmost freeway mainline lane, as shown in
Exhibit 38-A7(d). This regime may occur when no shoulder is available for
additional queue storage or when drivers choose to queue in the rightmost lane
once the deceleration lane is entirely occupied. Non-exiting vehicles on the
rightmost lane are delayed or change lanes, which causes increased turbulence
and reduced speeds in the two rightmost lanes.
Regime 4
The queue blocks the rightmost lane, and drivers occasionally or often use
the next freeway mainline lane to the left to force their way into the queue, thus
blocking an additional lane, as shown in Exhibit 38-A7(e). During this regime,
freeway speed and capacity are significantly reduced. The effects of spillback
vary by site and time interval due to differences in driver behavior and site
geometry. Data collection at locations around the United States has shown that
drivers block the adjacent lane at some sites, but do not at other sites, regardless
of the queue spillback length at a given site.

Glossary of Variable Definitions

This glossary defines internal variables used by the off-ramp queue spillback
evaluation methodology. The structure of the variables is similar to that used in
Chapter 25.
Facility Variable
• QIA(i, p)—Length of the queue influence area (ft) for segment i during
analysis period p, measured from the back of the queue.
Segment Variables
• ΔK(i, p)— additional density in the queued mainline lines in segment i
during analysis period p (pc/mi/ln).
• ΔNV (i, t, p) — additional number of passenger cars in the congested
portion of segment i due to an off-ramp queue during time step t in
analysis period p (pc),
• KBBL(i, j)—background density (pc/mi/ln) at the blocked lanes in segment
i, when queue spillback occurs at a downstream segment j.
• KBUB(i, j)—background density (pc/mi/ln) at the unblocked lanes in
segment i, when queue spillback occurs at a downstream segment j.
• KQBL(i, t, p)— queue density (pc/mi/ln) of the blocked portion of segment
i during time step t in analysis period p.
• KQUB(i, t, p)— queue density in the unblocked portion of segment i
during time step t in analysis period p (pc/mi/ln).
• L(i) —length of segment i (ft).
• LCR(i, t, p)—rate of lane change maneuvers in the queue influence area
upstream of a queue from an off-ramp, for segment i during time step t in
analysis period p.
• LD(i, p)—available deceleration lane length (ft) for segment i during
analysis period p. This variable is used to calculate performance measures
for ramp segments.
• MO2UB(i, t, p) —maximum number of passenger cars that can enter the
unblocked portion of segment i during time step t in analysis period p due
to the presence of a queue in the downstream ramp segment.
• MO2BL(i, t, p) —maximum number of passenger cars that can enter the
blocked portion of segment i during time step t in analysis period p due to
the presence of a queue in the downstream ramp segment.
• MQ1(i, t, p)—queue length of off-ramp unserved vehicles in the rightmost
mainline lane for segment i during time step t in analysis period p.
• MQ2(i, t, p)—queue length of off-ramp unserved vehicles in the second-to-
the-right mainline lane, for segment i during time step t in analysis period
p. If Regime 4 is not expected to occur, this parameter value is set to zero.
• NQ(i)—number of blocked lanes if the off-ramp queue backs up into the
freeway mainline. This parameter is a function of the prevailing spillback
regime at segment i as provided by the analyst. The value for this

parameter is an input and can be either 1 (Regime 3, one blocked lane) or 2

(Regime 4 , two blocked lanes).
• OFRFUP(i, t, p)—flow that can exit at the closest off-ramp downstream of
segment i during time step t in analysis period p.
• OFRLQ(i, t, p)—queue length of off-ramp unserved vehicles for diverge
segment i during time step t in analysis period p.
• OFRUV(i, t, p)—number of off-ramp unserved passenger cars for segment
i during time step t in analysis period p.
• SBKQ(i, t, p)—spillback queue density for segment i during time step t in
analysis period p.
• SBLQ(i, t, p)—queue length (ft) within segment i during time step t in
analysis period p, caused by a downstream off-ramp bottleneck.
• SBQS(i, p)—total available off-ramp queue storage (ft) for a diverge
segment i during analysis period p, if the subject segment has an off-ramp
bottleneck. It is calculated as a function of the available storage lengths in
the deceleration lane and shoulder and the prevailing spillback regime.
• SCEQ(i, N, NQ)—equivalent capacity of the unblocked portion of a
segment i with N total lanes and NQ blocked lanes.
• SF(i, t, p)—segment flow out of segment i during time step t in analysis
period p (veh/ts).
• SL(i, p)—available shoulder length (ft) for segment i during analysis period p.
If the value of SL is greater than zero, any off-ramp queues that exceed the
deceleration lane will occupy the shoulder before blocking mainline lanes.
• TIA(i, t, p)—total influence area (ft) upstream of a queue from an off-ramp
bottleneck on segment i during time step t in analysis period p. It is
calculated as the sum of parameters QIA(i, t, p) and MQ(i, t, p).
Node Variables
• CAFBL(i, t, p)—capacity adjustment when one or more lanes of segment i
are entirely blocked during time step t in analysis period p. This variable
is used to calculate friction effects that cause through vehicles to slow
down due to the presence of a queue in the rightmost lanes.
• CAFUP(i, t, p)—capacity adjustment factor for node i during time step t in
analysis period p. This variable affects approaching vehicles within the
queue influence area (QIA) upstream of an off-ramp queue. It accounts for
the turbulence caused by intense lane changing within the QIA as vehicles
adjust their position when there is a downstream off-ramp queue.
• MFBL(i, t, p)—mainline flow rate that can cross the blocked portion of
node i during time step t in analysis period p.
• MFUB(i, t, p)—mainline flow rate that can cross the unblocked portion of
• MIBL(i, t, p)—maximum flow desiring to enter the blocked portion of

• MIUB(i, t, p)—maximum flow desiring to enter the unblocked portion of

• MO2BL(i, t, p)—maximum number of passenger cars that can enter the
blocked portion of segment i during time step t and analysis period p due
to the presence of a queue in the downstream ramp segment.
• MO2UB(i, t, p)—maximum number of passenger cars that can enter the
unblocked portion of segment i during time step t and analysis period p
due to the presence of a queue in the downstream ramp segment.
• NEXTOFR(i)—index of the nearest downstream diverge segment relative
to subject node i.
• OFRDIST(i)—distance (ft) from node i to the start of the deceleration lane
of the nearest downstream off-ramp.
• OFRPCT(i, j)—percent of the off-ramp demand at segment j over the
mainline entering volume at segment i.
• SBLC(i, t, p)—number of lane change maneuvers within the QIA at node i
during time step t in analysis period p.
Ramp Variables
• RC(i, t, p)—capacity of the ramp roadway (pc/ts) from segment i during
time step t in analysis period p. Obtained by dividing the capacity values
for the ramp roadway (pc/h) provided in Exhibit 14-12 in Chapter 14 by
the number of time steps in one hour (240).
• RF(i, t, p, k)—flow (pc/ts) that can enter the ramp roadway at segment i
during time step t in analysis period p using branch k.
• RI(i, t, p, k)—maximum flow (pc/ts) desiring to enter the off-ramp on
segment i during time step t in analysis period p using branch k, including
queues accumulated from previous time periods.
• RKC—ramp density at capacity (pc/mi/ln).
• RKQ(i, t, p, k)—ramp roadway queue density (pc/mi/ln) for segment i
during time step t in analysis period p using branch k.
• RL(i)—ramp roadway length (ft) for segment i.
• RN(i, p, k)—number of ramp lanes for branch k of segment i in analysis
period p. Similar to the number of mainline lanes, it could vary by time
interval if a temporary lane closure is in effect.
• RNV(i, t, p, k)—maximum number of passenger cars within the ramp of
segment i at the end of time step t during analysis period p using branch
k. The number of passenger cars is based initially on the calculations of
Chapters 12, 13, and 14, but as queues grow and dissipate, input–output
analysis updates these values during each time step.
• RO(i, t, p, k)—maximum flow (pc/ts) allowed to leave the ramp roadway
on segment i during time step t in analysis period p using branch k, due to
limited available storage at the downstream ramp terminal.

• RSTG(i, t, p, k)—maximum number of passenger cars that can enter

branch k of segment i during time step t in analysis period p, due to the
presence of a queue in the downstream ramp segment.
• RUV(i, t, p, k)—number of unserved passenger cars at the entrance of the
ramp roadway of segment i at the end of time step t during analysis
period p desiring to use branch k. Any values of RUV greater than zero
indicate the occurrence of queue spillback from an off-ramp.
• SR(i, p, k)—average speed on ramp roadway (mi/h) on branch k of
segment i during analysis period p.
Intersection (Ramp Terminal) Variables

• fHV(i, p)—adjustment factor for heavy vehicle presence for segment i
during analysis period p.
• GT(i, t, p, k)—green time (s) for lane group l from segment i during time
step t in analysis period p (s).
• ID(i, t, p, k)—discharge capacity (veh/ts) from branch k in segment i
during time step t in analysis period p.
• IF(i, t, k, p)—flow (veh/ts) that can enter the intersection on segment i
from branch k during time step t in analysis period p.
• II(i, t, p, k)—maximum flow (veh/ts) desiring to enter the intersection on
segment i using branch k during time step t in analysis period p, including
queues accumulated from previous time periods.
• IL(i, k)—storage length (ft) of movements at the intersection of segment i
using branch k.
• IN(i, k)—number of lanes serving the branch k of segment i,
• INV(i, t, p, k)—number of vehicles at the intersection of segment i using
branch k at the end of time step t in analysis period p.
• IO(i, t, p)—flow (veh/ts) that can be discharged from the intersection on
segment i using branch k during time step t in analysis period p.
• ISTG(i, k)—total available storage length (ft) from branch k at the
intersection of segment i.
• IUV(i, t, p, k)—number of unserved vehicles at the entrance of the
intersection of segment i using branch k at the end of time step t during
analysis period p.

Methodology
The methodology for evaluating off-ramp queue spillback is integrated with
the freeway facility oversaturated segment procedure given in Chapter 25.
Exhibit 38-A8 depicts the methodology, highlighting additions and changes to
the Chapter 25 methodology to address off-ramp queue spillback.
Exhibit 38-A8
Freeway Facility
Oversaturated Analysis
Procedure, Adapted for
Evaluation

Exhibit 38-A8 (cont’d.)

Freeway Facility
Procedure, Adapted for Off-
Ramp Queue Spillback
Evaluation


Freeway Facility
Evaluation


Freeway Facility
Evaluation

Step 1: Calculate Background Density for Unblocked Lanes on each Segment

in the Case of Queue Spillback
The first step in the oversaturated segment evaluation procedure computes a
background density KB for each segment at the start of each analysis period,
defined as the expected density when there is no queueing on the segment. It
estimates how many vehicles occupy a given segment during undersaturated
conditions, creating an initial reference point for oversaturated analyses.
When Regime 3 or Regime 4 occur, one or more freeway lanes in the affected
segments are blocked, and through vehicles try to move to the unblocked lanes.
The capacity of the unblocked lanes must be calculated at the initialization step,
to be used as a reference value.
For a segment i with N lanes, a subset NQ of lanes will be blocked when
spillback occurs (NQ = 1 for Regime 3 and NQ = 2 for Regime 4). The capacity of
the unblocked lanes is equivalent to that of a similar segment with (N − NQ)
lanes, adjusted for the blockage impact of the blockage using a capacity
adjustment factor CAFBL. The CAFBL values are equal to the incident CAFs given
in Chapter 11, Freeway Reliability Analysis (Exhibit 11-23), because no data are
available currently to accurately assess the impacts of blockage due to spillback.
These CAF values may be conservative, because capacities may be further
reduced during incidents due to the presence of police vehicles. Exhibit 38-A9
presents the recommended values for CAFBL.
Exhibit 38-A9 Directional Lanes 1 Blocked Lane 2 Blocked Lanes

Capacity Adjustment Factors 2 0.70 N/A
for Lane Blockage CAFBL 3 0.74 0.51
4 0.77 0.50
5 0.81 0.67
6 0.85 0.75
7 0.88 0.80
8 0.89 0.84
The equivalent capacity SCEQ (in pc/h) of segment i with N lanes and NQ
blocked lanes is estimated as:
Equation 38-A12 𝑆𝐶𝐸𝑄(𝑖, 𝑁, 𝑁𝑄) = 𝑆𝐶(𝑖, 𝑁 − 𝑁𝑄) × 𝐶𝐴𝐹𝐵𝐿
Exhibit 38-A10 presents an example of a basic 4-lane directional segment
operating in Regime 4 (2 blocked lanes). The capacity of the unblocked lanes will
be equivalent to the capacity of a 2-lane basic segment with a capacity
adjustment factor CAFBL of 0.50 (4 directional lanes with 2 blocked lanes).
Exhibit 38-A10
Equivalent Segment Capacity
for Unblocked Lanes When
Lane Blockage Occurs
For the segment of Exhibit 38-A10, capacity under ideal conditions is:
• c = 2,400 pc/h (capacity per lane), or
• SC = 9,600 pc/h (segment capacity).

When Regime 4 occurs (2 blocked lanes), the equivalent capacity SCEQ is

obtained as the equivalent capacity of a 2-lane segment multiplied by a CAFBL of
0.50 from Exhibit 38-A9:
𝑆𝐶𝐸𝑄 = 2 × 2,400 × 0.5 = 2,400 pc/h
Next, the unblocked queue density KBUB is calculated. This parameter
estimates the queue density of the uncongested portion of a segment operating
under a two-pipe regime due to queue spillback from a downstream off-ramp.
To estimate this value, the method first determines the ratio of the expected
demand ED that will move to the uncongested side of the segment. When queue
spillback occurs in a diverge segment j, the parameter OFRPCT(j) is defined as
the off-ramp demand divided by the mainline entering volume:
𝑣𝑅 (𝑗)
𝑂𝐹𝑅𝑃𝐶𝑇(𝑗) = Equation 38-A13
𝑣𝐹 (𝑗)
For any segment i upstream of segment j and affected by off-ramp spillback
from segment j, the proportion of vehicles traveling towards the off-ramp at
segment i is given by OFRPCT(j), while the proportion of vehicles continuing
through in the unblocked lanes is 1 − OFRPCT(j). Therefore, the unblocked queue
density KBUB at any segment i upstream of off-ramp spillback in segment j is
given by:
𝐾𝐵𝑈𝐵(𝑖, 𝑗) = 𝐾𝐵[𝐸𝐷(𝑖) × (1 − 𝑂𝐹𝑅𝑃𝐶𝑇(𝑖)), 𝑆𝐶𝐸𝑄(𝑗)] Equation 38-A14
where
KBUB(i, j) = background density at the unblocked lanes in segment i, when
queue spillback occurs at the downstream segment;
ED(i) = expected demand at segment i, as defined in Chapter 25;
OFRPCT(i) = rate of off-ramp flow and mainline flow at segment i; and
KB[v, c] = density of a segment with demand flow rate v and capacity c, as
provided by Chapter 12 (basic segments), Chapter 13 (weaving
segments), or Chapter 14 (merge and diverge segments).
Step 2: Initialize the Freeway Facility

These calculations are performed at the start of the analysis, to prepare the
flow calculations for the first time step and to specify return points, such as
background density KB, for later time steps. This subsection presents the
additional parameters required for queue spillback analysis.
Number of mainline blocked lanes. The number of mainline blocked lanes
is stored in the parameter NQ(i) and is determined by the prevailing queue
spillback regime provided by the analyst. If the back of an off-ramp queue is
calculated to reach the freeway mainline, two possible spillback regimes may
occur:
• Regime 3: one lane blocked on the freeway mainline—set NQ(i) = 1; or
• Regime 4: two lanes blocked on the freeway mainline—set NQ(i) = 2.
The analyst should select one of these two regimes based on the prevailing
driver behavior at the site and in the vicinity of the site.

Shoulder length. The available shoulder length must be input by the analyst
for queue spillback analysis and is stored in the parameter SL(i) for
oversaturated calculations.
Deceleration lane length. The deceleration lane length is provided by the
analyst for the analysis of diverge segments. It is stored in the parameter LD(i)
for oversaturated calculations.
Spillback queue storage length. The maximum storage length for off-ramp
queues on segment i is computed as a function of the segment length L(i), the
deceleration lane length LD(i), and the number of queued lanes NQ(i). Exhibit 38-
A11 provides guidance on measuring each of the components required for
Regimes 3 and 4.
Exhibit 38-A11
Maximum Off-Ramp Queue
Storage Length at Diverge
Segments with Regime 3 or 4
Queue Spillback and
No Shoulder Available
(a) Regime 3 (b) Regime 4
Exhibit 38-A12 illustrates queue length measurements for special cases of

queue spillback when a shoulder is present, but its storage length is not sufficient
to accommodate the unserved vehicles. Regime 3A, shown in Exhibit 38-A12(a),
occurs when one mainline lane is blocked in addition to the shoulder. Regime
4A, shown in Exhibit 38-A12 (b) occurs when two mainline lanes are blocked in
addition to the shoulder.
Exhibit 38-A12
Maximum Off-Ramp Queue
Storage Length at Diverge
Segments with Regime 3 or 4
Queue Spillback and
Shoulder Available
(a) Regime 3A (b) Regime 4A
Step 2A: Model Off-Ramp Geometry

The three-branch node structure for the off-ramp shown in Exhibit 38-A5
must be modeled to reflect the site’s geometric characteristics, as illustrated in
Exhibit 38-A6. This is accomplished by setting a branch structure where a node
can connect to multiple downstream links. If a node is connected to more than
one downstream link, the flow through the node will be constrained by the
downstream link with the highest queue storage ratio.

The ramp structure must be modeled from the downstream end towards the
upstream end:
• For the location farthest downstream, provide one node for each lane
group or movement on the approach.
• At each subsequent upstream change in alignment, provide one node for
each ramp roadway lane connecting to a distinct lane group downstream.
The data structure used in the computations should be adjusted according to
this branch structure. Most parameters in the Chapter 25 oversaturated segment
evaluation methodology are computed as three-dimensional arrays (i, t, p),
where i is the segment’s index within the freeway facility and t refers to a specific
time step within a given analysis period p. In the case of two-lane ramps that
need to be evaluated independently, an extra dimension k is added to the ramp
parameter arrays to account for the specific lane under analysis. Lanes are
numbered right from left; therefore, k = 1 indicates the right ramp lane and k = 2
indicates the left ramp lane.
Example 1. In this example, shown in Exhibit 38-A13, only one lane connects
the freeway exit to the entry leg of the downstream roundabout. Therefore, only
one node is required at each location (i.e., a single branch structure, with k = 1 at
all nodes).
Exhibit 38-A13
Node Structure for Example 1
Example 2. A single-lane ramp connects to a STOP-controlled T-intersection

ramp terminal, as shown in Exhibit 38-A14. The intersection node has two lanes
serving different turning movements and therefore has two branches (k = 2). Each
turning movement (left turn and right turn) is represented by a node, and when
a queue develops for either movement, the longer queue will constrain the flow
of vehicles from the ramp roadway. The ramp roadway itself has only one lane
and therefore only one branch (k = 1).

Exhibit 38-A14
Example 3. A two-lane ramp connects to a signalized intersection ramp

terminal (Exhibit 38-A15). Both the intersection and the ramp roadway nodes
have two branches each (k = 2). At the downstream end of the ramp, one node is
defined for each lane group at the intersection (left turn and right turn). Based on
the ramp geometry, left-turning vehicles will use ramp lane 2, while right-
turning vehicles will use ramp lane 1. Therefore, two nodes are also defined at
the upstream location. If the queue storage ratio for any of the ramp lanes
reaches 1, vehicle flow in the respective upstream node will be constrained,
resulting in queue spillback on the freeway mainline.
Exhibit 38-A15
Step 2B: Determine Spillback Regime for each Diverge Segment

Field observations (A-2) have shown that locations that experience recurring
queue spillback always have the same type of spillback regime when the queue
extends beyond the deceleration lane (i.e., Regime 3 or 4). Regime 4 occurs often
at ramp junctions with a lane drop. At these locations, the exiting traffic can access
the off-ramp with a single lane change. Therefore, drivers are more likely to wait
until they are closer to the exit to change lanes and block the adjacent through

lane when spillback occurs. However, not all lane drop exits experience Regime 4
queue spillback. Regime 4 also occurs more frequently in locations with more
aggressive driver behavior. Local information and driver behavior should be
taken into consideration in determining the prevailing regime at a given site.
For operational analyses of existing locations, it is recommended that the
analyst provide the expected spillback regime based on observed field
conditions. For planning-level purposes where no field data are available, Exhibit
38-A16 provides the expected queue spillback regime as a function of the number
of exiting lanes and driver aggressiveness.
Driver Aggressiveness Exhibit 38-A16

Ramp Geometry Low Medium High Default Spillback Regime as a
Function of Ramp Geometry
Diverge Regime 3 Regime 3 Regime 3
and Driver Aggressiveness
Lane Drop Regime 3 Regime 4 Regime 4
Step 2C: Determine Queue Influence Area

Chapter 14 defines the ramp influence area of right-hand off-ramps
operating under steady conditions as the deceleration lane(s) and Lanes 1 and 2
of the freeway for a distance of 1,500 ft upstream of the diverge point. When
queue spillback occurs in one or more freeway lanes, drivers react to the
presence of the queue further upstream of the ramp, resulting in increasing lane
changes and additional turbulence upstream of the ramp influence area, as
illustrated in Exhibit 38-A17. This step estimates the QIA length, measured
upstream from the back of queue.
Exhibit 38-A17
Queue Influence Area with
Increased Turbulence
The QIA length is based on the time needed by arriving drivers to react to
partial lane blockage and to adjust their speeds and positions. Research (A-1) has
shown that traffic speeds upstream of the back of queue are negatively affected
at a headway distance of 10.95 s. Therefore, the influence area represents the
distance traversed by a vehicle during 10.95 s with a speed consistent with the
traffic stream.
The length is estimated as a function of the segment free-flow speed (FFS), as
shown in Exhibit 38-A18. The exact location of the QIA varies as a function of the
queue length. QIA lengths are shorter than the ramp influence distance of 1,500
ft. However, the two concepts are very different and are used differently in
analyzing ramp operations: the ramp influence area is used to analyze
undersaturated conditions, while the QIA is used to analyze oversaturated
conditions. Because drivers can only detect a downstream queue visually, they
have shorter reaction times compared to arriving at undersaturated off-ramps,
where signing and navigation information is provided in advance and allows
drivers to adjust their position earlier.

Exhibit 38-A18 Segment FFS (mi/h) Queue Influence Area (ft)

Queue Influence Area as 50 810
Function of the Segment Free- 55 900
Flow Speed 60 980
65 1,060
70 1,140
75 1,220
When Regimes 3 or 4 occur and lane blockage occurs on the mainline, the
QIA is added to the queue length to determine the extent of spillback effects. If
an upstream node is located within the combined length of the queue and QIA, a
capacity adjustment factor CAFUP (Equation 38-A39) must be applied to account
for the spillback effects.
Step 2D: Determine Ramp Roadway Capacity and Speed

The first off-ramp parameter to be determined is its capacity RC. This value
is a function of the ramp FFS and is obtained from Exhibit 14-12 in Chapter 14,
reproduced below as Exhibit 38-A19. The ramp capacity is compared to the off-
ramp demand. If the demand-to-capacity ratio is greater than 1.0, queue
spillback is expected to occur.
Exhibit 38-A19 Ramp FFS, SFR (mi/h) Single-Lane Ramps Two-Lane Ramps
Capacity of Ramp Roadways >50 2,200 4,400
(pc/h) >40–50 2,100 4,200
>30–40 2,000 4,000
≥20–30 1,900 3,800
<20 1,800 3,600
Determining the ramp roadway’s speed–flow relationship is also required

for the analysis. Ramp speeds can be obtained through the following equation:
𝑣𝑅
Equation 38-A15 𝑆ramp = (1 − 0.109 × ) × 𝑆𝐹𝑅
1000
where
Sramp = ramp speed (mi/h),
vR = ramp demand flow rate (pc/h), and
SFR = ramp free-flow speed (mi/h).
The ramp speed–flow relationship is linear, with speed decreasing at higher
ramp flows, as shown in Exhibit 38-A20. The maximum value of vR is governed
by the ramp capacity given in Exhibit 38-A19.

Exhibit 38-A20
Freeway Ramp Speed–Flow
Curves
The ramp density at capacity RKC is not necessarily the same as the 45
pc/mi/ln value used for freeway mainline lanes. This parameter is used to
evaluate the queue density at the ramp roadway during oversaturated conditions.
The ramp density at capacity is found by dividing the capacity by the speed.
Exhibit 38-A21 lists RKC values as a function of the ramp FFS.
Ramp Free-Flow Speed Ramp Capacity Ramp Density at Capacity Exhibit 38-A21
(mi/h) (pc/h/ln) (pc/mi/ln) Ramp Density at Capacity as a
Function of Ramp FFS
55 2,200 40.0
50 2,100 42.0
45 2,100 46.7
40 2,000 50.0
35 2,000 57.1
30 1,900 63.3
25 1,900 76.0
20 1,900 90.0
15 1,800 120.0
Step 2E: Determine Intersection Storage Capacity

The intersection storage capacity ISTG is obtained as the sum of the available
storage of every lane group, multiplied by the number of lanes. If the off-ramp
has multiple branches at the intersection (i.e., k > 1), the available storage capacity
must be computed for each branch k individually. This distinction is necessary to
evaluate cases with unbalanced demands at the intersection, when the queues
developed in one oversaturated movement may extend upstream and block the
throughput of all off-ramp movements. ISTG is estimated as:
𝑀
𝐼𝑆𝑇𝐺(𝑖, 𝑘) = (∑ 𝑁𝑚 × 𝐿𝑚 ) × 𝐿ℎ Equation 38-A16
𝑚
where
ISTG(i, k) = total available storage length from branch k at the intersection of
segment i (ft),
Nm = number of lanes serving movement m at the intersection,
Lm = storage length for movement m at the intersection (ft),
M = number of movements at the approach, and
Lh = average vehicle spacing in a stationary queue (ft/veh), from
Equation 31-155.

Step 2F: Determine Initial Number of Vehicles at the Off-Ramp

The computation of the number of vehicles in the off-ramp at every time step
is required to derive performance measures during oversaturated conditions.
Similar to the Chapter 25 Oversaturated Segment Evaluation methodology,
estimating the number of vehicles in the off-ramp under oversaturated
conditions first requires a reference value for undersaturated conditions to be
computed during the initialization steps.
The density of an off-ramp segment is the off-ramp flow rate vR divided by
its speed Sramp. The total number of vehicles RNV is obtained next by multiplying
the ramp density by the ramp length and number of lanes, as follows:
𝑣𝑅,0
Equation 38-A17 𝑅𝑁𝑉(𝑖, 0,0, 𝑘) = × 𝑅𝐿(𝑖) × 𝑅𝑁(𝑖, 𝑝, 𝑘)
𝑆ramp,0
where
RNV(i, 0, 0, k) = number of vehicles in the ramp roadway at the initialization
step (veh),
vR,0 = off-ramp demand during the first time interval (pc/h),
Sramp,0 = off-ramp speed during the first time interval (mi/h),
RL(i) = ramp roadway length for segment i (ft), and
RN(i, p, k) = number of ramp lanes for branch k of segment i in analysis
period p.
The initial number of vehicles in the intersection approach are also
determined as an initial reference point, as follows:
Equation 38-A18 𝐼𝑁𝑉(𝑖, 0, 𝑝, 𝑘) = 𝐼𝑁(𝑖, 𝑘) × 𝑄𝑘
where
INV(i, t, p, k) = number of vehicles at the intersection of segment i using branch
k at the end of time step t during analysis period p (veh),
IN(i, k) = number of lanes serving branch k of segment i, and
Qk = back-of-queue length for branch k (veh).
The back-of-queue length Qk is estimated from the appropriate equation for
the intersection type at the ramp terminal, as shown in Exhibit 38-A22.
Exhibit 38-A22 Intersection Type Reference Equation

Reference Equations for Back-
Signalized 31-149
of-Queue Length Estimation
Two-way STOP-controlled 20-68
All-way STOP-controlled 21-33
Roundabout 22-20
At signalized intersections, due to their cyclic nature, queues form and

discharge at different times for different movements. Therefore, a reference point
within the cycle must be selected as a starting point. The methodology assumes
pretimed control or converts actuated control to the equivalent pretimed pattern.
Typical signalized intersections at ramp terminals have the off-ramp approach as
the minor movement, with a start of green on the right side of the barrier, as

shown in Exhibit 38-A23. It is recommended setting a reference point at the onset

of green for phases 3 and 7, because the back-of-queue lengths at this time can be
readily estimated using the methodology of Chapter 31, Section 4.
Exhibit 38-A23
Selection of a Cycle Reference
Point to Determine the Initial
Number of Vehicles Within the
Approach
(a) Phase numbers corresponding to movements (b) Phase sequence
Step 2G: Determine the Capacity of the Downstream Terminal

The methodology for evaluating the capacity of the ramp terminal is specific
to each intersection type and relies mostly on the methodology of the chapter
corresponding to the intersection type (Chapters 19 through 23). However, due
to the cyclic nature of signalized intersections, additional analysis steps are
required when performing a time step analysis, as described in the remainder of
this step.
The capacity of each movement of a signalized intersection approach at each
time step is a function of the signal phase sequence and the capacities of the
individual movements at the intersection. Equation 38-A24 illustrates a sample
signalized intersection approach from an off-ramp, with two lane groups: left
turn (Phase 3) and right turn (Phase 8).
Exhibit 38-A24
Example Signalized
Intersection Approach from an
Off-Ramp
Input Parameters. The required parameters for evaluating ramp terminal

capacity are generally the same as those listed in Exhibit 19-11 for standard
signalized intersection analyses.
Arrival type. Exhibit 19-14 in Chapter 19 provides guidance for selecting the
appropriate arrival types based on the arterial’s operations characteristics, such as
quality of progression and coordination. Vehicle arrivals on an off-ramp approach
can be considered to be random. Therefore, Arrival Type 3 (random arrivals) is
recommended to analyze the off-ramp approach at a signalized ramp terminal.

Phase duration and effective green time. The duration of each phase at the signal
can be fixed (pre-timed control), or variable (semi-actuated or actuated control).
For the former case, phase duration is known. For the latter, an average phase
duration is estimated as described in Chapter 31, Section 2. The effective green
time g for each phase can then be computed according to Equation 19-3,
reproduced here as:
Equation 38-A19 𝑔 = 𝐷𝑝 − 𝑙1 − 𝑙2
where
g = effective green time (s),
Dp = phase duration (s),
l1 = start-up lost time = 2.0 (s),
l2 = clearance lost time = Y + Rc – e (s),
Y = yellow change interval (s),
Rc = red clearance interval (s), and
e = extension of effective green = 2.0 (s).
Converting approach capacity from analysis periods to time steps. The
standard signalized intersection analysis is performed in 15-min analysis
periods, while the queue spillback evaluation requires a 15-s time step approach
compatible with the freeway facilities oversaturated methodology. Therefore, an
adjustment is necessary to calculate each movement’s capacity in 15-s intervals.
The cycle length C can be divided into n time steps, with a duration of 15 s
each, as seen in Exhibit 38-A25. If an integer number of time steps is not
obtained, the difference is included in the first time-step of the next cycle. Next,
green times for each time step from 1 to n are computed. This procedure must be
repeated for every time step within the 15-min analysis period, resulting in a
total of 900 / 15 = 60 time steps.
Exhibit 38-A25
Assignment of Green Times to
Time Steps

The capacity ID for each movement, corresponding to a branch, for each time
step is obtained by multiplying the movement’s green time by its capacity:
𝐼𝐷(𝑖, 𝑡, 𝑝, 𝑘) = 𝑁𝑘 𝑠𝑘 𝐺𝑇(𝑖, 𝑡, 𝑝, 𝑘) × 𝑓𝐻𝑉 Equation 38-A20
where
ID(i, t, p, k) = discharge capacity from branch k in segment i during time step t
in analysis period p (veh/ts),
Nk = number of lanes serving movement k,
sk = saturation flow rate for movement k (veh/h/ln),
GT(i, t, p, l) = green time for lane group l from segment i during time step t in
analysis period p (s), and
fHV = adjustment factor for heavy vehicle presence (decimal).
The green time parameter GT(i, t, p, k) can range from 0 s (when the movement
has red through the entire time step length) to 15 s (when the movement has
green through the entire time step length). The heavy vehicle factor fHV is applied
to make the units used for intersection capacity (veh/h) consistent with the flow
rates used by the uninterrupted flow methods (pc/h).
Step 2H: Determine Reference Index for the Next Downstream Off-Ramp
This step is required to build this procedure’s computational engine, but it is
unimportant for understanding the overall methodology. The freeway facilities
methodology uses the parameter OFRF(i, t, p) to store the off-ramp flow rate at
diverge segment i. When a segment upstream of an off-ramp is evaluated for
queue spillback, the off-ramp flow rate must be referenced to estimate the
incoming flows for the blocked and non-blocked lanes. Therefore, a new variable
NEXTOFR(i) is introduced to reference the index of the closest diverge segment
downstream of segment i. This process is illustrated in Exhibit 38-A26, where the
node (i + 2) represents a diverge segment with an off-ramp flow vR. When the
queue extends upstream to node i, the approaching flow vf is split into two
groups: the exiting vehicles that will join the back of the queue, and the through
vehicles that will use the non-blocked lanes.
Exhibit 38-A26
Illustration of Mainline Flow
Rate Split into Blocked and
Unblocked Lanes
For nodes i and i + 1, the closest downstream off-ramp is located at node i + 2,

therefore the following parameter is computed:
𝑁𝐸𝑋𝑇𝑂𝐹𝑅(𝑖) = 𝑖 + 2

The parameter NEXTOFR facilitates referencing diverge segments

downstream of a given segment i. It will be used for the spillback analysis
procedure described in the next section.
Step 9A: Perform Spillback Analysis

This is a new step in the freeway facilities method (Exhibit 38-A8). In this
step, spillback effects in a diverge segment are determined after the off-ramp
flow OFRF is determined in steps 7 and 8.
Determine ramp input. The ramp input RI represents demand and it is the
number of passenger cars that wish to travel through the ramp roadway node
during a given time step. It takes into account the off-ramp demand OFRF (as
defined in the freeway facilities oversaturated methodology) and the number of
off-ramp unserved vehicles from the previous time step RUV. The OFRF
parameter takes into consideration any bottleneck segments upstream of the
diverge that may meter the off-ramp demand (Equations 25-23 through 25-25 in
Chapter 25). The ramp input is calculated as:
Equation 38-A21 𝑅𝐼(𝑖, 𝑡, 𝑝) = 𝑂𝐹𝑅𝐹(𝑖, 𝑡, 𝑝) + 𝑅𝑈𝑉(𝑖, 𝑡 − 1, 𝑝)
where
RI(i, t, p) = maximum flow desiring to enter the off-ramp on segment i
during time step t in analysis period p, including queues
accumulated from previous time periods (pc/ts);
OFRF(i, t, p) = flow that can exit the off-ramp i during time step t in time period p
(pc/ts);
RUV(i, t, p) = number of unserved passenger cars at the entrance of the ramp
roadway of segment i at the end of time step t during analysis
period p.
Calculate flow to the off-ramp and number of unserved vehicles. The ramp
maximum flow RF represents capacity, i.e., the number of vehicles that are able
to enter the ramp roadway by crossing the boundary node between the diverge
segment and the ramp roadway. It is calculated as the minimum of three
variables: RI, RC, and RSTG.
Equation 38-A22 𝑅𝐹(𝑖, 𝑡, 𝑝) = min[𝑅𝐼(𝑖, 𝑡, 𝑝, 𝑘), 𝑅𝐶(𝑖, 𝑡, 𝑝), 𝑅𝑆𝑇𝐺(𝑖, 𝑡, 𝑝, 𝑘)]
where
RF(i, t, p) = flow that can enter the ramp roadway at segment i during time
step t in analysis period p (pc/ts);
RI(i, t, p, k) = maximum flow desiring to enter the off-ramp using branch k
of segment i during time step t in analysis period p, including
queues accumulated from previous time periods (pc/ts);
RC(i, t, p) = capacity of the ramp roadway from segment i during time step
t in analysis period p (pc/ts); and
RSTG(i, t, p, k) = maximum number of passenger cars that can enter branch k of
segment i during time step t in analysis period p, due to the
presence of a queue in the downstream ramp segment (pc).

The calculation of RSTG starts by calculating the maximum number of

passenger cars allowed on the ramp at a given ramp queue density RKQ. The
calculation of RKQ, in turn, takes an approach similar to the calculation of the
mainline queue density KQ (Equation 25-10), with the following remarks on the
inputs:
• The jam density parameter KJ uses the same value adopted for the
mainline calculations.
• The ramp density at capacity RKC is determined from the ramp FFS, as
given in Exhibit 38-A21.
• The parameters SF (segment flow) and SC (segment capacity) from
Equation 25-10 are replaced with RF (ramp flow) and RC (ramp capacity).
[(𝐾𝐽 – 𝑅𝐾𝐶) × 𝑅𝐹(𝑖, 𝑡 − 1, 𝑝)]
𝑅𝐾𝑄(𝑖, 𝑡, 𝑝, 𝑘) = 𝐾𝐽– Equation 38-A23
𝑅𝐶(𝑖, 𝑝)
where
RKQ(i, t, p, k) = ramp roadway queue density for segment i during time step t
in analysis period p using branch k (pc/mi/ln),
KJ = facilitywide jam density (pc/mi/ln),
RKC = ramp density at capacity (pc/mi/ln),
RF(i, t, p) = flow that can enter the ramp roadway at segment i during time
step t in analysis period p (pc/ts), and
RC(i, p) = capacity of the ramp roadway from segment i in analysis
period p (pc/h).
The parameter RSTG is then calculated using a similar approach to that
taken by the mainline output 2 parameter MO2 (Equation 25-11 in Chapter 25):
𝑅𝑆𝑇𝐺(𝑖, 𝑡, 𝑝, 𝑘) = 𝑅𝐹(𝑖, 𝑡 − 1, 𝑝, 𝑘) + 𝑅𝐾𝑄(𝑖, 𝑡, 𝑝, 𝑘) × [𝑅𝐿(𝑖) × 𝑅𝑁(𝑖, 𝑘)]
Equation 38-A24
− 𝑅𝑁𝑉(𝑖, 𝑡 − 1, 𝑝, 𝑘)
where
RSTG(i, t, p, k) = maximum number of passenger cars that can enter branch k of
segment i during time step t in analysis period p, due to the
presence of a queue in the downstream ramp segment (pc);
RF(i, t, p, k) = flow that can enter the ramp roadway at segment i using
branch k during time step t in analysis period p (pc/ts);
RKQ(i, t, p, k) = ramp roadway queue density for segment i during time step t
in analysis period p using branch k (pc/mi/ln);
RL(i) = ramp roadway length for segment i (ft);
RN(i, k) = number of ramp lanes for branch k of segment i; and
RNV(i, t, p, k) = maximum number of passenger cars within the ramp of
segment i at the end of time step t during analysis period p
using branch k (pc).
Next, the number of unserved passenger cars at the ramp entrance RUV is
calculated. For each time step, the number of unserved passenger cars is

computed as the value from the previous time step, plus the difference between
demand RI and throughput RF at the ramp node. RUV is calculated as:
Equation 38-A25 𝑅𝑈𝑉(𝑖, 𝑡, 𝑝, 𝑘) = 𝑅𝑈𝑉(𝑖, 𝑡 − 1, 𝑝 , 𝑘) + 𝑅𝐼(𝑖, 𝑡, 𝑝, 𝑘) − 𝑅𝐹(𝑖, 𝑡, 𝑝, 𝑘)
where
RUV(i, t, p, k) = number of unserved passenger cars at the entrance of the ramp
roadway of segment i at the end of time step t during analysis
period p desiring to use branch k (pc);
RI(i, t, p, k) = maximum flow desiring to enter the off-ramp using branch k
of segment i during time step t in analysis period p, including
queues accumulated from previous time periods (pc/ts); and
branch k during time step t in analysis period p (pc/ts).
If there are multiple branches k at the ramp roadway (e.g., two lane ramps),
RI and RF are compared for each branch k to obtain RUV for each branch k. The
total number of unserved passenger cars at the ramp RUV(i, t, p) is then obtained
as the sum of RUV for each branch:
𝐾
Equation 38-A26 𝑅𝑈𝑉(𝑖, 𝑡, 𝑝) = ∑ 𝑅𝑈𝑉(𝑖, 𝑡, 𝑝, 𝑘)

𝑘
where K is the total number of branches and other variables are as defined
previously.
Calculate intersection approach input. The intersection approach input II is
the number of vehicles that wish to travel through the intersection node during a
given time step, i.e., its demand. It takes into account the off-ramp flow RF and
the number of unserved vehicles on the approach from the previous time step
IUV. The intersection approach input is calculated as:
Equation 38-A27 𝐼𝐼(𝑖, 𝑡, 𝑝, 𝑘) = 𝑓𝐻𝑉(𝑖, 𝑝) × 𝑅𝐹(𝑖, 𝑡, 𝑝, 𝑘) + 𝐼𝑈𝑉(𝑖, 𝑡, 𝑝, 𝑘)
where
II(i, t, p, k) = maximum flow desiring to enter the intersection on segment i
using branch k during time step t in analysis period p, including
queues accumulated from previous analysis periods (veh/ts);
fHV(i, p) = adjustment factor for heavy vehicle presence for segment i
during analysis period p;
branch k during time step t in analysis period p (pc/ts); and
IUV(i, t, p, k) = number of unserved vehicles at the entrance of the intersection
of segment i using branch k at the end of time step t during
analysis period p (veh).
Calculate maximum allowable ramp output. The maximum allowable ramp
output RO is calculated as the available storage space within the intersection
approach, minus the number of vehicles present at the previous time step and
the number of vehicles discharged during the present time period.

𝑅𝑂(𝑖, 𝑡, 𝑝, 𝑘) = 𝐼𝑆𝑇𝐺(𝑖, 𝑘) − 𝐼𝑈𝑉(𝑖, 𝑡 − 1, 𝑝, 𝑘) + 𝐼𝐷(𝑖, 𝑡, 𝑝, 𝑘) Equation 38-A28
where
RO(i, t, p, k) = maximum flow allowed to leave the ramp roadway on
segment i during time step t in analysis period p using branch
k, due to limited available storage at the downstream ramp
terminal (veh/ts);
ISTG(i, k) = total available storage length from branch k at the intersection
of segment i (ft);
IUV(i, t, p, k) = number of unserved vehicles at the entrance of the intersection
of segment i using branch k at the end of time step t during
analysis period p (veh); and
ID(i, t, p, k) = discharge capacity (veh/ts) from branch k in segment i during
time step t in analysis period p (veh/ts).
Calculate intersection approach flow and number of unserved vehicles.
The intersection flow IF represents the number of vehicles that are able to cross
the boundary node between the ramp roadway and the intersection (i.e., its
capacity). It is computed as the smaller of the number of vehicles wishing to
enter the intersection and the maximum number of vehicles allowed to enter the
intersection due to the available queue storage at the intersection:
𝐼𝐹(𝑖, 𝑡, 𝑝, 𝑘) = min[𝐼𝐼(𝑖, 𝑡, 𝑝, 𝑘), 𝑅𝑂(𝑖, 𝑡, 𝑝, 𝑘)] Equation 38-A29
where IF(i, t, p, k) is the flow that can enter the intersection on segment i from
branch k during time step t in analysis period p (veh/ts), and other variables are
as defined previously.
If the number of vehicles trying to enter the intersection exceeds the amount
of vehicles allowed to enter the intersection, the number of total unserved
vehicles must be computed and considered in the intersection input II during the
next time period:
𝐼𝑈𝑉(𝑖, 𝑡, 𝑝, 𝑘) = 𝐼𝑈𝑉(𝑖, 𝑡 − 1, 𝑝, 𝑘) + 𝐼𝐼(𝑖, 𝑡, 𝑝, 𝑘) − 𝑅𝑂(𝑖, 𝑡, 𝑝, 𝑘) Equation 38-A30

Update number of vehicles at the ramp terminal intersection. The number
of vehicles at the intersection INV is updated every time step based on the value
of INV from the previous time step, plus the number of vehicles that enter the
intersection approach, minus the number of vehicles that are discharged. The
maximum allowable total number of vehicles is a function of the available
storage at the intersection ISTG.
𝐼𝑁𝑉(𝑖, 𝑡, 𝑝) = 𝐼𝑁𝑉(𝑖, 𝑡 − 1, 𝑝) + 𝐼𝐹(𝑖, 𝑡, 𝑝, 𝑘) − 𝐼𝐶(𝑖, 𝑡, 𝑝, 𝑘) Equation 38-A31
where INV(i, t, p) is the number of vehicles at the intersection of segment i using

branch k at the end of time step t in analysis period p, and other variables are as
defined previously.
Calculate number of unserved passenger cars at the off-ramp. The number
of unserved passenger cars OFRUV at the entrance of the ramp roadway is
updated every time step as the difference between the number of passenger cars
that wish to enter the ramp roadway RI and the flow through the ramp node RF:

Equation 38-A32 𝑂𝐹𝑅𝑈𝑉(𝑖, 𝑡, 𝑝) = 𝑅𝐼(𝑖, 𝑡, 𝑝) − 𝑅𝐹(𝑖, 𝑡, 𝑝)

where OFRUV(i, t, p) is the number of off-ramp unserved passenger cars for
segment i during time step t in analysis period p, and other variables are as
defined previously.
Calculate intersection approach output. The intersection flow IO represents
the actual number of vehicles discharging from the intersection approach. It is
computed as the smaller of the intersection discharge capacity and the sum of
number of vehicles present in the intersection and the intersection input demand:
Equation 38-A33 𝐼𝑂(𝑖, 𝑡, 𝑝, 𝑘) = min[𝐼𝐷𝐶(𝑖, 𝑡, 𝑝, 𝑘), 𝐼𝑁𝑉(𝑖, 𝑡 − 1, 𝑝, 𝑘) + 𝐼𝐼(𝑖, 𝑡, 𝑝, 𝑘)]
where IO(i, t, p, k) is the flow that can be discharged from the intersection on
segment i using branch k during time step t in analysis period p (veh/ts), and
other variables are as defined previously.
Update number of passenger cars at the ramp roadway. The number of
vehicles at the ramp roadway RNV at the end of each time step is calculated
based on the number of vehicles from the previous time step, plus the number of
vehicles that entered the ramp, minus the number of vehicles that left the ramp:
Equation 38-A34 𝑅𝑁𝑉(𝑖, 𝑡, 𝑝, 𝑘) = 𝑅𝑁𝑉(𝑖, 𝑡 − 1, 𝑝, 𝑘) + 𝑅𝐹(𝑖, 𝑡, 𝑝, 𝑘) − 𝐼𝐹(𝑖, 𝑡, 𝑝, 𝑘)
where RNV(i, t, p, k) is the maximum number of passenger cars within the ramp
of segment i at the end of time step t during analysis period p using branch k, and
other variables are as defined previously.
Determine the back-of-queue length and spillback regime. Field
observations have shown that off-ramp queues blocking mainline lanes are
typically not stationary. These queues usually consist of a platoon of closely
spaced vehicles moving at very low speeds (< 15 mi/h). The spacing between
vehicles is also longer than the average vehicle spacing in stationary queues,
represented by Lh (Equation 31-155). Therefore, the density of the spillback queue
follows the queue density at the ramp RKQ, which allows the queue length
OFRLQ to be estimated. This parameter estimates the total queue length
upstream of the off-ramp if all unserved vehicles formed a single queue.
𝑂𝐹𝑅𝑈𝑉(𝑖, 𝑡, 𝑝, 𝑘)
Equation 38-A35 𝑂𝐹𝑅𝐿𝑄(𝑖, 𝑡, 𝑝) = max ( ) for every branch 𝑘
𝑅𝐾𝑄(𝑖, 𝑡, 𝑝, 𝑘)
where OFRLQ(i, t, p) is the queue length of off-ramp unserved vehicles for
diverge segment i during time step t in analysis period p (ft), and other variables
are as defined previously. If the ramp roadway has two or more lanes, Equation
38-A35 considers the queues from multiple branches and uses the worst case.
Next, the mainline queue length SBLQ from the previous time step is
compared to the available spillback queue storage for the prevalent spillback
regime for the given time step, as follows:

If OFRLQ(i, t − 1, p) = 0 → Regime 0 Equation 38-A36
If 0 < OFRLQ(i, t − 1, p) ≤ LD(i, p) → Regime 1

If OFRLQ(i, t − 1, p) > LD(i, p):
If SL(i, p) > 0:
If OFRLQ(i, t − 1, p) < LD(i, p) + SL(i, p) → Regime 2
Else: Regime 3 or 4
where
OFRLQ(i, t, p) = queue length of off-ramp unserved vehicles for diverge
segment i during time step t in analysis period p (ft),
LD(i, p) = available deceleration lane length on segment i in analysis
period p (ft),
SBLQ(i, t, p) = queue length within segment i during time step t in analysis
period p (ft), and
SL(i, p) = available shoulder length for segment i during analysis period p
(ft).
Finally, the queue length in the mainline lanes MQ1 (lane 1) and MQ2 (lane
2) are obtained as a function of the expected spillback regime. The total queue
length OFRLQ minus the available storage lengths of the deceleration lane and
shoulder produces the queue length associated with the blockage.
If the site experiences Regime 3:
𝑀𝑄1(𝑖, 𝑡, 𝑝, 𝑘) = 𝑂𝐹𝑅𝐿𝑄(𝑖, 𝑡, 𝑝, 𝑘) − 𝐿𝐷 (𝑖, 𝑝) − 𝑆𝐿(𝑖, 𝑝) Equation 38-A37
𝑀𝑄2(𝑖, 𝑡, 𝑝, 𝑘) = 0
If the site experiences Regime 4:

𝑀𝑄1(𝑖, 𝑡, 𝑝) = 𝑀𝑄2(𝑖, 𝑡, 𝑝) = [𝑂𝐹𝑅𝐿𝑄(𝑖, 𝑡, 𝑝) − 𝐿𝐷(𝑖)– 𝑆𝐿(𝑖) ] / 2 Equation 38-A38
where MQ1(i, t, p) is the queue length of off-ramp unserved vehicles in the

rightmost mainline lane for segment i during time step t in analysis period p (ft),
MQ2(i, t, p) is the queue length of off-ramp unserved vehicles in the second-to-to-
the-right mainline lane for segment i during time step t in analysis period p (ft),
and other variables are as defined previously.
Check for effects on upstream nodes. The freeway nodes upstream of a
congested off-ramp may be affected by spillback as queues grow. When this
event occurs, the methodology calculates the length of the queue in the upstream
segment. The length of the queue within the subject segment will then be used to
evaluate whether the capacity of any upstream node is affected by the queue.
For upstream segments that may be affected by spillback, the queue length
within the segment (measured from its downstream end) is computed and stored
in the parameter SBLQ. This check is performed for every node upstream of a
congested off-ramp, as shown in Exhibit 38-A27.

Exhibit 38-A27
Procedure for Evaluating the
Impact of Queue Spillback on
Upstream Nodes and
Determining the Queue
Length within Upstream
Segments
When queue spillback occurs at a downstream off-ramp, the length of the

mainline queue measured from the start of the deceleration lane is known from
the previous step. If a given segment has a queue blocking one or more lanes,
three possible scenarios may occur at the node, as shown in Exhibit 38-A28:
1. Lane blockage—Queues extend through the entire segment and reach the
upstream node, causing the subject node to operate in a two-pipe regime.
The blocked lanes operate in a congested regime, with their capacity
constrained by the off-ramp capacity. The unblocked lanes operate in an
uncongested state, with a small reduction in capacity due to the friction of
through vehicles passing next to congested lanes. An adjustment factor
CAFBL is applied to the through lanes. This condition occurs when the
spillback queue length SBLQ(i) is greater than or equal to the segment
length L(i).
2. Increased turbulence—Queues extend partially through the segment; the
upstream node is located within the QIA. This region is characterized by
intense turbulence as drivers quickly perform lane changes to adjust their
position in reaction to the queue ahead. All lanes in node i have their
capacity reduced by an adjustment factor CAFUP. This condition occurs
when the sum of the spillback queue length SBLQ(i) and the queue
influence area length QIA(i) is greater than or equal to the segment length
L(i).

3. No effect—Queues extend partially through the segment, but the upstream

node is located within the QIA. No capacity adjustment factors are
applied to the node i for this condition, which occurs when the sum of the
spillback queue length SBLQ(i) and the queue influence area length QIA(i)
is less than the segment length L(i).
Exhibit 38-A28
Potential Effects of an Off-
Ramp Queue on Node i
(a) Lane Blockage (b) Increased Turbulence (c) No Effect
Calculate capacity adjustment factors. Depending on how the upstream

node is affected as described above (lane blockage, increased turbulence, or no
effect), this step computes the corresponding effects on capacity.
Lane blockage adjustment factor. When one or more lanes are blocked, the
subject node is analyzed as a two-pipe operation, with congested flow in one or
more lanes on the ramp side and uncongested flow in the remaining lanes. The
capacity of these lanes is equal to the number of queued vehicles discharged at
the downstream segment. The flow rate attempting to cross the node through the
congested lanes is equal to the off-ramp flow rate OFRF at the closest downstream
off-ramp.
Increased turbulence adjustment factor. When a node experiences the increased
turbulence case shown in Exhibit 38-A28(b), all lanes are affected by the
turbulence caused by the intense lane changing. In this case, an adjustment factor
CAFUP is applied uniformly to the node capacity:
𝐶𝐴𝐹UP (𝑖, 𝑡, 𝑝) = 1 − 0.52 × 𝐿𝐶𝑅(𝑖, 𝑡, 𝑝)0.81 Equation 38-A39
with
𝑆𝐵𝐿𝐶(𝑖, 𝑡, 𝑝)
𝐿𝐶𝑅(𝑖, 𝑡, 𝑝) = Equation 38-A40
𝑆𝐹(𝑖, 𝑡, 𝑝)
where
CAFUP(i, t, p) = capacity adjustment factor for node i during time step t in
analysis period p;
LCR(i, t, p) = rate of lane change maneuvers in the QIA upstream of a queue
from an off-ramp, for segment i during time step t in analysis
period p;
SBLC(i, t, p) = number of lane change maneuvers within the QIA at node i
during time step t in analysis period p; and
SF(i, t, p) = segment flow out of segment i during time step t in analysis
period p (veh/ts).

The parameter LCR estimates the rate of lane change maneuvers performed
by drivers within the QIA trying to adjust their position when spillback occurs.
The parameter SBLC estimates the number of lane change maneuvers performed.
Exiting vehicles move to the shoulder lane to attempt to join the back of the queue,
while through vehicles move toward the median lanes to avoid the queue.
The computation of SBLC for a given node requires an estimate of the
number of vehicles in each freeway lane that plan to exit at the off-ramp. For
each lane 𝑖, the parameter pi represents the percentage of the off-ramp demand vR
traveling in the subject lane. The value of pi is a function of the distance from the
off-ramp to the subject node, as follows:
1. Within the ramp influence area (1,500 ft upstream from the diverge
point), the off-ramp demand flow rate vR is entirely positioned in the two
rightmost lanes, based on the Chapter 14 diverge segment methodology.
Therefore, the sum of the off-ramp flow rate percentages in the ramp
influence area p1,R and p2,R is equal to 1. The Appendix C methodology to
estimate lane-by-lane flow distribution in freeway segments is used to
estimate the lane flow ratio LFR for lanes 1 and 2. The values of p1,R and
p2,R are then estimated as follows:
𝐿𝐹𝑅1
𝑝1,𝑅 =
𝐿𝐹𝑅1 + 𝐿𝐹𝑅2
Equation 38-A41
𝐿𝐹𝑅2
𝑝2,𝑅 =
𝐿𝐹𝑅1 + 𝐿𝐹𝑅2
2. Beyond 8,000 ft upstream from the diverge point, the off-ramp has
negligible influence, again based on the Chapter 14 methodology.
Therefore, for any nodes located more than 8,000 ft from the off-ramp, pi
is assumed to be equally distributed among all N freeway lanes:
1
Equation 38-A42 𝑝𝑖 =
𝑁
3. Between 1,500 and 8,000 ft upstream from the diverge point, pi can be
obtained through linear interpolation between the first two cases as a
function of the distance from the diverge point dOFR in feet, as given by
Equation 38-A43. Exhibit 38-A29 illustrates the distribution of pi for a 3-
lane freeway segment.
Equation 38-A43 1
(𝑁 − 𝑝1,𝑅 ) × (𝑑𝑂𝐹𝑅 − 1,500)
𝑝𝑖 = 𝑝𝑖,𝑅 +
6500
Exhibit 38-A29
Distribution of pi as Function
of Distance from the Diverge
Point, for a 3-Lane Segment

Once the lane-by-lane distribution of the off-ramp flow is known, the

number of lane change maneuvers SBLC can be estimated. For Regime 3 cases
(one blocked lane), the number of lane changes is:
𝑁
𝑆𝐵𝐿𝐶(𝑖, 𝑡, 𝑝) = 𝑣1 (1 − 𝑝𝑖 ) + ∑(𝑖 − 1) × 𝑣𝑖 𝑝𝑖 Equation 38-A44

𝑖=2
where
SBLC(i, t, p) = number of lane change maneuvers within the QIA at node i
during time step t in analysis period p;
vi = demand flow rate in lane i (pc/h), from Appendix C;
pi = percentage of the off-ramp demand traveling in lane i
(decimal); and
N = number of freeway lanes.
Equation 38-A44 adds the number of through vehicles in lane 1 that move to
lane 2 to avoid the queue and the number of exiting vehicles in the remaining
lanes that adjust their position to join the back of the queue, multiplied by the
necessary number of lane changes. Equation 38-A30 illustrates Equation 38-A44
applied to a 4-lane segment.
Exhibit 38-A30
Illustration of Lane-Change
Maneuvers within the Queue
Influence Area in a 4-Lane
Segment under Regime 3
For Regime 4 cases, the following equation is applied to obtain SBLC:

𝑁
𝑆𝐵𝐿𝐶(𝑖, 𝑡, 𝑝) = 2 × 𝑣1 (1 − 𝑝𝑖 ) + 𝑣2 (1 − 𝑝2 ) + ∑(𝑖 − 2) × 𝑣𝑖 𝑝𝑖 Equation 38-A45

3
where all variables are as defined previously. Exhibit 38-A31 illustrates Equation
38-A45 applied to a 4-lane segment.
Exhibit 38-A31
Illustration of Lane-Change
Maneuvers within the Queue
Influence Area in a 4-Lane
Segment under Regime 4
Step 9: Calculate Mainline Input

The Chapter 25 oversaturated segment procedure computes the mainline
input MI for each node in every time step. It is defined as the maximum flow
desiring to enter the subject node during the current time step.
An adjustment is necessary when the subject node operates in a two-pipe
regime, as the blocked and unblocked portions experience different input

demands. Because exiting and through drivers segregate when approaching a

queue, the mainline input demand on the blocked side consists of the off-ramp
demand, while the remaining demand moves to the unblocked side.
When node i operates in a two-pipe regime, the MI parameter is split into
two components: MIUB, representing the mainline input in the unblocked lanes,
and MIBL, representing the mainline input joining the back of the queue. These
parameters are computed as follows:
Equation 38-A46 𝑀𝐼𝐵𝐿(𝑖, 𝑡, 𝑝) = 𝑂𝐹𝑅𝐹(𝑁𝐸𝑋𝑇𝑂𝐹𝑅(𝑖), 𝑡, 𝑝)
Equation 38-A47 𝑀𝐼𝑈𝐵(𝑖, 𝑡, 𝑝) = 𝑀𝐼(𝑖, 𝑡, 𝑝) − 𝑀𝐼𝐵𝐿(𝑖, 𝑡, 𝑝)
where
MIBL(i, t, p) = maximum flow desiring to enter the blocked portion of node i
during time step t in analysis period p,
OFRF(i, t, p) = actual flow that can exit at off-ramp i during time step t in
analysis period p,
NEXTOFR(i) = index of the nearest downstream diverge segment relative to
subject node i,
MIUB(i, t, p) = maximum flow desiring to enter the unblocked portion of
node i during time step t in analysis period p, and
MO3(i, t, p) = maximum flow desiring to enter node i during time step t in
analysis period p.
Step 12: Calculate On-Ramp Maximum Output

If a merge segment is located upstream of an off-ramp bottleneck, the
capacity of the on-ramp output may be affected by the blockage caused by the
spillback queue. The on-ramp maximum output is calculated by Equation 25-18
in Chapter 25, based on a series of potential constraints that include ramp
metering, the on-ramp capacity, the merge capacity, and the presence of
downstream queues. At high demands on both the freeway and the on-ramp,
zipper merging (one-to-one) is expected to occur. Therefore, a new capacity
constraint is added to Equation 25-18, shown in bold font in Equation 38-A48 and
illustrated in Exhibit 38-A32:
Equation 38-A48 𝑂𝑁𝑅𝑂(𝑖, 𝑡, 𝑝)
𝑅𝑀(𝑖, 𝑡, 𝑝)
𝑂𝑁𝑅𝐶(𝑖, 𝑡, 𝑝)
𝑆𝐶(𝑖, 𝑡, 𝑝)
min {𝑀𝐹(𝑖 + 1, 𝑡 − 1, 𝑝) + 𝑂𝑁𝑅𝐹(𝑖, 𝑡 − 1, 𝑝)} − 𝑀𝐼(𝑖, 𝑡, 𝑝)
𝑀𝑂3 (𝑖, 𝑡 − 1, 𝑝) + 𝑂𝑁𝑅𝐹(𝑖, 𝑡 − 1, 𝑝)
= min
𝑆𝐶(𝑖, 𝑡, 𝑝)
max
min {𝑀𝐹(𝑖 + 1, 𝑡 − 1, 𝑝) + 𝑂𝑁𝑅𝐹(𝑖, 𝑡 − 1, 𝑝)} /2𝑁(𝑖, 𝑝)
𝑀𝑂3 (𝑖, 𝑡 − 1, 𝑝) + 𝑂𝑁𝑅𝐹(𝑖, 𝑡 − 1, 𝑝)
𝑹𝑭(𝑶𝑭𝑹𝑵𝑬𝑿𝑻(𝒊), 𝒕, 𝒑))
{ { 𝟐 × 𝑵𝑸(𝑶𝑭𝑹𝑵𝑬𝑿𝑻(𝒊)) }}

where
ONRO(i, t, p) = maximum output flow rate that can enter the merge point
from on-ramp i during time step t in analysis period p;
RM(i, t, p) = maximum allowable rate of an on-ramp meter at the on-ramp
at node i during time step t in analysis period p;
ONRC(i, t, p) = geometric carrying capacity of the on-ramp at node i during
time step t in analysis period p;
MF(i, t, p) = actual mainline flow rate that can cross node i during time step
t in analysis period p;
ONRF(i, t, p) = actual ramp flow rate that can cross on-ramp node i during
time step t in time interval p;
MO3(i, t, p) = maximum allowable mainline flow rate across node i during
time step t in time interval p, limited by the presence of
queued vehicles at the upstream end of segment i while the
queue clears from the downstream end of segment i;
SC(i, t, p) = maximum flow rate that can pass through segment i at the end
of time step t in analysis period p based strictly on traffic and
geometric properties;
N(i, p) = number of lanes on segment i in analysis period p; and
all other variables are as defined previously.
Exhibit 38-A32
Effect of Queue Spillback on
the Discharge Capacity of an
Upstream On-Ramp
If one or more lanes are blocked due to a downstream off-ramp bottleneck,

the throughput in lane 1 will be equal to the maximum exit throughput in the
congested off-ramp if the site operates in Regime 3, or 50% of the maximum exit
throughput, if it operates in Regime 4. It is assumed that the on-ramp and the
flow arriving from upstream on Lane 1 contribute equally to the downstream
Lane 1 flow and thus the on-ramp maximum output. In this case, it is assumed to
be half of the downstream throughput in Lane 1.
Step 21: Calculate Mainline Output 2

The Chapter 25 oversaturated segment procedure calculates the maximum
number of vehicles MO that can exit a node, constrained by a downstream
bottleneck or by merging on-ramp traffic. Among the potential constraints used
in calculating MO, the Mainline Output 2 parameter MO2 accounts for queue

The freeway facilities

oversaturated methodology growth on a downstream segment, eventually limiting the maximum number of
calculates the number of
vehicles in a given segment vehicles that can enter it.
during every 15-s timestep and
aggregates them to a 15-min When a queue exists in a downstream segment caused by a downstream off-
analysis period to calculate the ramp bottleneck, the segment is expected to operate under two distinct densities,
average segment density.
Similarly, the parameters RKQ as illustrated in Exhibit 38-A33. Therefore, the total number of vehicles in the
and SBLQ are used to compute downstream segment takes into account two different density values: the ramp
the number of vehicles in the
congested portion of the queue density RKQ prevailing within the queued area (shown in red), and the
segment in order to aggregate background density KB prevailing in the remaining portion of the segment
density at the congested
portion of the segment. (shown in blue).
Exhibit 38-A33
Illustration of Different
Density Values within One
Diverge Segment
If there are no spillback effects, the segment operates with a uniform density.
In this case, the constraints for the unblocked and blocked portions (MO2UB and
MO2BL, respectively) are calculated proportionately to the number of unblocked
and blocked lanes:
(1 − 𝑁𝑄(𝑖))
Equation 38-A49 𝑀𝑂2𝑈𝐵(𝑖, 𝑡, 𝑝) = 𝑀𝑂2(𝑖, 𝑡, 𝑝) ×
𝑁(𝑖)
𝑁𝑄(𝑖)
Equation 38-A50 𝑀𝑂2𝐵𝐿(𝑖, 𝑡, 𝑝) = 𝑀𝑂2(𝑖, 𝑡, 𝑝) ×
𝑁(𝑖)
where
MO2UB(i, t, p) = maximum number of passenger cars that can enter the
unblocked portion of segment i during time step t and analysis
period p due to the presence of a queue in the downstream
ramp segment;
MO2(i, t, p) = maximum allowable mainline flow rate across node i during
time step t in time interval p, limited by available storage on
segment i due to a downstream queue;
NQ(i) = number of blocked lanes if the off-ramp queue backs up into
the freeway mainline in segment i;
N(i) = number of lanes in segment i; and
MO2BL(i, t, p) = maximum number of passenger cars that can enter the blocked
portion of segment i during time step t and analysis period p
due to the presence of a queue in the downstream ramp
segment.

If node i operates under increased turbulence (i.e., the node is in the QIA),
the unblocked portion of segment i will operate similar to a regular segment.
Therefore, the component MO2UB is equal to MO2 but proportional to the
number of lanes in the unblocked portion:
(1 − 𝑁𝑄(𝑖))
𝑀𝑂2𝑈𝐵(𝑖, 𝑡, 𝑝) = 𝑀𝑂2(𝑖, 𝑡, 𝑝) × Equation 38-A51
𝑁(𝑖)
For the blocked portion of segment i, MO2BL is calculated as equal to MO2
proportional to the number of lanes in the blocked portion plus an additional
number of vehicles due to the presence of a partial queue. This additional number
of vehicles is obtained by the bold terms in the following equation, which takes
into account the difference between the queue spillback density RKQ and the
segment queue density KQ, multiplied by the queue length:
𝑁𝑄(𝑖)
𝑀𝑂2𝐵𝐿(𝑖, 𝑡, 𝑝) = 𝑀𝑂2(𝑖, 𝑡, 𝑝) × Equation 38-A52
𝑁(𝑖)
+ 𝑺𝑩𝑳𝑸(𝒊, 𝒕 − 𝟏, 𝒑) × 𝑵𝑸(𝒊, 𝒕 − 𝟏, 𝒑)
× [𝑹𝑲𝑸(𝑶𝑭𝑹𝑵𝑬𝑿𝑻(𝒊), 𝒕 − 𝟏, 𝒑) − 𝑲𝑸(𝒊 − 𝟏, 𝒕 − 𝟏, 𝒑)]
where KQ(i, t, p) is the queue density (pc/mi/ln) of segment i during time step t in
analysis period p, and all other variables are as defined previously.
If node i experiences lane blockage, the values of queue density must be
computed for both the unblocked KQUB and blocked KQBL portions of segment
i. For the unblocked portion, KQUB is calculated similarly to Equation 25-10 in
Chapter 25, but the inputs for segment flow SF and segment capacity SC are
replaced by their equivalent parameters SFUB and SCEQ:
𝐾𝑄𝑈𝐵(𝑖, 𝑡, 𝑝) = 𝐾𝐽 − [(𝐾𝐽 − 𝐾𝐶) × 𝑆𝐹𝑈𝐵(𝑖, 𝑡 − 1, 𝑝)]/𝑆𝐶𝐸𝑄(𝑖, 𝑝) Equation 38-A53
where
KQUB(i, t, p) = queue density in the unblocked portion of segment i during
time step t in analysis period p (pc/mi/ln),
KJ = facilitywide jam density (pc/mi/ln),
KC = ideal density at capacity (pc/mi/ln),
SFUB(i, t, p) = segment flow out of the unblocked portion of segment i during
time step t in analysis period p (pc/ts), and
SCEQ(i, p) = equivalent capacity of the unblocked portion of segment i in
analysis period p (pc/ts).
The queue density for the blocked portion is equal to the ramp queue density:
𝐾𝑄𝐵𝐿(𝑖, 𝑡, 𝑝) = 𝑅𝐾𝑄(𝑂𝐹𝑅𝑁𝐸𝑋𝑇(𝑖), 𝑡 − 1, 𝑝) Equation 38-A54
where KQBL(i, t, p) is the queue density (pc/mi/ln) of the blocked portion of

segment i during time step t in analysis period p, and all other variables are as
defined previously.
With the queue density values for both the blocked and unblocked portions
of the segment known, the MO2 components MO2BL and MO2UB can be
computed:

Equation 38-A55 𝑀𝑂2𝑈𝐵(𝑖, 𝑡, 𝑝) = 𝑆𝐹𝑈𝐵(𝑖, 𝑡 − 1, 𝑝) − 𝑂𝑁𝑅𝐹(𝑖, 𝑡, 𝑝)

+ [𝐾𝑄𝑈𝐵(𝑖, 𝑡, 𝑝) × 𝐿(𝑖) × (𝑁(𝑖, 𝑝) − 𝑁𝑄(𝑖, 𝑝))] − 𝑁𝑉(𝑖, 𝑡 − 1, 𝑝)
Equation 38-A56 𝑀𝑂2𝐵𝐿(𝑖, 𝑡, 𝑝) = 𝑆𝐹𝐵𝐿(𝑖, 𝑡 − 1, 𝑝) − 𝑂𝑁𝑅𝐹(𝑖, 𝑡, 𝑝)

+ [𝐾𝑄𝐵𝐿(𝑖, 𝑡, 𝑝) × 𝐿(𝑖) × 𝑁𝑄(𝑖, 𝑝)] − 𝑁𝑉(𝑖, 𝑡 − 1, 𝑝)
where
MO2UB(i, t, p) = maximum number of passenger cars that can enter the
unblocked portion of segment i during time step t in analysis
period p due to the presence of a queue in the downstream
ramp segment,
L(i) = length of segment i (ft),
MO2BL(i, t, p) = maximum number of passenger cars that can enter the blocked
portion of segment i during time step t in analysis period p
due to the presence of a queue in the downstream ramp
segment, and
all other variables as previously defined.
Step 22: Calculate Mainline Flow

The Chapter 25 oversaturated segment evaluation procedure computes the
mainline flow through a subject node as the minimum of several variables, as
presented in Equation 25-16. If the node experiences spillback, the calculation of
mainline flow must consider the flow through both the blocked and the
unblocked portions of the node. Therefore, the Mainline Flow parameter MF is
split into two components in an approach similar to the Mainline Input
parameter: the component MFUB represents flow across the node in the
unblocked lanes, while the component MFBL represents the flow across the node
in the blocked lanes. For both components, the resulting flow is computed as the
minimum value between the input and the maximum allowed flow.
For MFUB, the maximum allowed flow is equal to the capacity of unblocked
lanes in the segment downstream of the node, represented by the parameter
SCEQ as computed in the initialization step:
Equation 38-A57 𝑀𝐹𝑈𝐵(𝑖, 𝑡, 𝑝) = min[𝑀𝐼𝑈𝐵(𝑖, 𝑡, 𝑝), 𝑆𝐶𝐸𝑄(𝑖, 𝑡, 𝑝), 𝑀𝑂2𝑈𝐵(𝑖, 𝑡, 𝑝)]
where MFUB(i, t, p) is the mainline flow rate (pc/h) that can cross the unblocked
portion of node i during time step t in analysis period p, and all other variables
are as previously defined.
For MFBL, the maximum allowed flow is equal to the flow allowed to enter the
nearest downstream off-ramp RF:
Equation 38-A58 𝑀𝐹𝐵𝐿(𝑖, 𝑡, 𝑝) = min[𝑀𝐼𝐵𝐿(𝑖, 𝑡, 𝑝), 𝑅𝐹(𝑁𝐸𝑋𝑇𝑂𝐹𝑅(𝑖), 𝑡, 𝑝), 𝑀𝑂2𝐵𝐿(𝑖, 𝑡, 𝑝)]
where MFBL(i) is the mainline flow rate (pc/h) that can cross the unblocked
portion of node i during time step t in analysis period p, and all other variables
are as previously defined.
Finally, the mainline flow through node i is computed as the sum of the
blocked and unblocked portions, as follows:
Equation 38-A59 𝑀𝐹(𝑖, 𝑡, 𝑝) = 𝑀𝐹𝑈𝐵(𝑖, 𝑡, 𝑝) + 𝑀𝐹𝐵𝐿(𝑖, 𝑡, 𝑝)

where MF(i, t, p) is the actual mainline flow rate (pc/h) that can cross node i
during time step t in analysis period p, and other variables are as previously
defined.
Step 25: Update Number of Passenger Cars in the Blocked Portion of the
Segment
The number of passenger cars in the blocked portion NVBL during increased
turbulence is updated based on the number of vehicles in the previous time step
and considers the number of passenger cars that are able to leave the current and
upstream segments:
𝑁𝑉𝐵𝐿(𝑖, 𝑡, 𝑝) = 𝑁𝑉𝐵𝐿(𝑖, 𝑡 − 1, 𝑝) + 𝑀𝐹𝐵𝐿(𝑖 − 1, 𝑡, 𝑝) + 𝑂𝑁𝑅𝐹(𝑖 − 1, 𝑡, 𝑝) Equation 38-A60
− 𝑀𝐹𝐵𝐿(𝑖, 𝑡, 𝑝) − 𝑂𝐹𝑅𝐹(𝑖, 𝑡, 𝑝)
where NVBL(i, t, p) is the number of passenger cars present on the blocked
portion of segment i at the end of time step t during analysis period p, and all
other variables are as previously defined.

The aggregated segment flow for a 15-min analysis period is obtained as the
sum of flows for every time step based on Equation 25-30, reproduced here as
Equation 38-A61:
𝑆
𝑇
𝑆𝐹(𝑖, 𝑝) = ∑ 𝑆𝐹(𝑖, 𝑡, 𝑝) Equation 38-A61
𝑆
𝑡=1
where
SF(i, p) = segment flow out of segment i during analysis period p (pc/h),
T = number of time steps in 1 h (integer),
S = number of time steps in an analysis period (integer), and
SF(i, t, p) = segment flow out of segment i during time step t in analysis
period p (pc/ts).
Similarly, the aggregated off-ramp flow is aggregated to 15-min analysis
periods:
𝑆
𝑇
𝑂𝐹𝑅𝐹(𝑖, 𝑝) = ∑ 𝑂𝐹𝑅𝐹(𝑖, 𝑡, 𝑝) Equation 38-A62
𝑆
𝑡=1
where OFRF(i, p) is the flow (pc/h) that can exit off-ramp i during analysis period p,
and all other variables are as previously defined.
The additional density in the queued lanes is obtained by aggregating the
additional number of vehicles NV(i, t, p) in the off-ramp queue:
𝑆
1
∆𝐾(𝑖, 𝑝) = ∑ ∆𝑁𝑉(𝑖, 𝑡, 𝑝) Equation 38-A63
𝑆 × 𝑁𝑄(𝑖) × 𝐿(𝑖)
𝑡=1
with
𝑂𝐹𝑅𝐿𝑄(𝑖, 𝑡, 𝑝) × [𝑆𝐵𝐾𝑄(𝑖, 𝑡, 𝑝) − 𝐾𝐵(𝑖, 𝑝)/𝑓𝐻𝑉(𝑖, 𝑝)]
∆𝑁𝑉(𝑖, 𝑡, 𝑝) = Equation 38-A64
5,280

where
ΔK(i, p) = additional density in the queued mainline lines in segment i
during analysis period p (pc/mi/ln);
S = number of time steps in an analysis period (integer);
NQ(i) = number of blocked lanes in segment i (integer);
L(i) = length of segment i (mi);
ΔNV (i, t, p) = additional number of passenger cars in the congested portion
of a segment i due to an off-ramp queue during time step t in
analysis period p (pc);
OFRLQ(i, t, p) = queue length of off-ramp unserved vehicles for diverge
segment i during time step t in analysis period p (ft);
SBKQ(i, t, p) = spillback queue density for segment i during time step t in
analysis period p (pc/mi/ln), defined as equal to the ramp
roadway density RKQ(i, t, p) of the downstream off-ramp
segment experiencing queue spillback during the same time
step t in analysis period p;
KB(i, t, p) = background density (veh/h/ln), from Chapter 25; and
fHV(i, p) = adjustment factor for heavy vehicle presence for segment i
during analysis period p.
Similar to the mainline, the flow in the ramp roadway is also aggregated:
𝑆
𝑇
Equation 38-A65 𝑅𝐹(𝑖, 𝑝, 𝑘) = ∑ 𝑅𝐹(𝑖, 𝑡, 𝑝, 𝑘)
𝑆
𝑡=1
where RF(i, p, k) is the flow that can enter the ramp roadway at segment i using
branch k in analysis period p (pc/h), and all other variables are as previously
defined.
The aggregated density at the ramp is calculated as the average of the
number of vehicles inside the ramp during the analysis period:
𝑆
1
Equation 38-A66 𝑅𝐾(𝑖, 𝑝, 𝑘) = ∑ 𝑅𝑁𝑉(𝑖, 𝑡, 𝑝, 𝑘)
𝑆
𝑡=1
where RK(i, p, k) is the ramp roadway density for segment i using branch k in
analysis period p (pc/mi/ln), and all other variables are as previously defined.
Finally, the average speed SR(i, p, k) on branch k of the ramp roadway of
segment i during analysis period p (mi/h) is obtained by dividing the total ramp
flow using the branch in the analysis period by its average density:
𝑅𝐹(𝑖, 𝑝, 𝑘)
Equation 38-A67 𝑆𝑅(𝑖, 𝑝, 𝑘) =
𝑅𝐾(𝑖, 𝑝, 𝑘)
where other variables are as previously defined.

REFERENCES
A-1. Elefteriadou, L., M. Armstrong, Y. Zheng and G. Riente. Highway These references can be found
in the Technical Reference
Capacity Manual (HCM) Systems Analysis Methodology. Federal Highway Library in Volume 4.
Administration, Washington, D.C., 2016.
A-2. University of Florida Transportation Institute; Cambridge Systematics,
Inc.; and A. Skabardonis. NCHRP Web-Only Document 290: Highway
Capacity Manual Methodologies for Corridors Involving Freeways and Surface
Streets. Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2020.

APPENDIX B: ON-RAMP QUEUE SPILLBACK ANALYSIS
Queue spillback into an urban street intersection may occur when the
freeway merge segment has insufficient capacity to process the ramp’s demand.
Spillback may also occur in cases of ramp metering. This appendix presents the
methodology for determining whether spillback will occur from an on-ramp into
the upstream intersection.
As shown in the framework in Exhibit 38-B1, the methodology considers
signalized intersections, two-way and all-way STOP-controlled intersections, and
roundabouts. The procedure first estimates the demand approaching the on-
ramp (determined based on the upstream intersection’s configuration), and then
estimates the on-ramp’s capacity. The Chapter 10 freeway facilities methodology
for oversaturated conditions can estimate the resulting queue length; however,
the user must input the on-ramp demand flow rate.
DEMAND ESTIMATION
The first step in the methodology calculates the entering demand flow rate vR
at the on-ramp as a function of the upstream intersection configuration and
operations. Under low-demand conditions, the on-ramp demand flow rate is
calculated as the sum of the demands on each of the intersection approaches that
discharge into the ramp. However, if any of these movements operates over
capacity, the total throughput to the ramp will be constrained by the capacity of
these oversaturated movements. Hence, this check ensures that the on-ramp
demand is not overestimated. The analysis approach for each of four intersection
types is presented next.
Case A: Signalized intersections

The throughputs of a signalized intersection are highly dependent on several
parameters, including phasing sequences, actuation, cycle lengths, and use of
permitted–protected phasing, among others. The methodology identifies the
movements that discharge to the on-ramp and their operational characteristics
(permitted or protected). For example, typical diamond interchanges will include
a left-turn movement, a right-turn movement and a through movement (which
will typically have negligible flow).
The on-ramp demand vR is computed as the sum of the throughputs of each
movement that discharges into the on-ramp. The throughput of a given
movement i is obtained as the minimum value of its demand and capacity:
𝑁
Equation 38-B1 𝑣𝑅 = ∑ min(𝑣𝑖 , 𝑐𝑖 )

1
where
vR = on-ramp demand (veh/h),
vi = demand for movement 𝑖 at the intersection (veh/h),
ci = demand for movement 𝑖 at the intersection (veh/h), and
N = number of intersection movements that discharge into the on-ramp.
Appendix B: On-Ramp Queue Spillback Analysis Chapter 38/Network Analysis

Exhibit 38-B1
Procedure for Detecting
Spillback Occurrence at an
On-Ramp
Chapter 38/Network Analysis Appendix B: On-Ramp Queue Spillback Analysis

If all movements operate below capacity, the on-ramp demand is the sum of
the movement demands. However, if any movement that discharges into the on-
ramp operates over capacity, the total throughput to the on-ramp will be lower
than the sum of the corresponding intersection movements.
In the case of movements not controlled by the traffic signal discharging into
the on-ramp, those movements’ demands must also be compared to their
capacities. The potential capacity cp,i of an unsignalized movement can be
computed by aggregating its saturation flow rates during different phases of a
cycle.
If the unsignalized movement is free-flowing and there are no other
conflicting movements discharging to the on-ramp, its saturation flow rate sFF is
obtained from Equation 19-8, reproduced below as Equation 38-B2, applying the
applicable adjustment factors:
Equation 38-B2 𝑠𝐹𝐹 = 𝑠0 𝑓𝑤 𝑓𝐻𝑉𝑔 𝑓𝑔 𝑓𝑏𝑏 𝑓𝑎 𝑓𝐿𝑈 𝑓𝐿𝑡 𝑓𝑅𝑇 𝑓𝐿𝑝𝑏 𝑓𝑅𝑝𝑏 𝑓𝑤𝑧 𝑓𝑚𝑠 𝑓𝑠𝑝
where
sFF = saturation flow rate for the unsignalized movement during free-flow
(veh/h/ln),
s0 = base saturation flow rate (pc/h/ln), and
all other adjustment factors are as described with Equation 19-8.
If the unsignalized movement must yield to a conflicting movement
discharging to the on-ramp, the permitted saturation flow rate sp is calculated
based on Equation 31-100, reproduced below as Equation 38-B3:
𝜆0 𝑒 −𝜆0 𝑡𝑐𝑔/3,600
Equation 38-B3 𝑠𝑝 =
1 − 𝑒 −𝜆0 𝑡𝑓ℎ/3,600
where
sp = permitted saturation flow rate for unsignalized movement (veh/h/ln),
λ0 = throughput of the conflicting movement (veh/h/ln),
tcg = critical headway = 4.5 (s), and
tfh = follow-up headway = 2.5 (s).
The throughput of the conflicting movement λ0 is determined as a function of
the flow profile of the respective conflicting movement. The effective green g of
the conflicting movement is divided into a queue service time gs and a green
extension time ge, each with a specific flow profile:
• If the conflicting movement occurs during the queue service time gs, λ0 is
equal to the saturation flow rate s of the conflicting movement.
• If the conflicting movement occurs during the green extension time ge, λ0
is equal to the arrival flow rate during the green qg (Equation 19-32) of the
conflicting movement.

Case B: Two-Way STOP-Controlled Intersections

The two-way STOP-controlled (TWSC) intersection analysis is based on the
calculation of each movement’s potential capacity, based on such factors as
priority order, conflicting flow, and critical gap. Estimating the on-ramp
throughput from this intersection type is a relatively straightforward task,
involving few adjustments.
The procedure first identifies the movements that discharge to the on-ramp
and their respective ranks (priority orders). The evaluation of freeway–arterial
interactions assumes that the arterial will always be the major street at TWSC
interchanges.
Exhibit 38-B2 illustrates a typical TWSC intersection at a freeway
interchange, where movements discharging into the on-ramp are numbered
according to their ranks, using the default movement numbering of Chapter 20
(Exhibit 20-1).
Exhibit 38-B2
Schematic of Movements
Turning to an On-Ramp from
a TWSC Intersection
Similar to signalized intersections, three movements turn into the ramp.

Their respective flows are discussed below.
Rank 1 Movement (Right Turn from the Major Street)

This movement is considered unimpeded, experiencing zero delay. The only
physical constraint able to limit the throughput of this movement is its saturation
flow rate, if demand is very high. Therefore, the maximum throughput λRT for
this movement is given by:
𝜆𝑅𝑇 = min(𝑣𝑅𝑇 , 𝑠𝑅𝑇 ) Equation 38-B4
where
λRT = departure rate from major street right turn into the on-ramp (veh/h),
vRT = demand flow rate for the major street right turn (veh/h), and
sRT = saturation flow rate for a right-turn movement (veh/h).

Rank 2 Movement (Left Turn from the Major Street)

This movement’s maximum throughput is limited by its potential capacity
cp,j, as defined in Equation 20-36. Therefore, the movement’s maximum
throughput is given by:
Equation 38-B5 𝜆𝐿𝑇 = min(𝑣𝐿𝑇 , 𝑐𝑝,𝑗 )
where
λLT = departure rate from the major-street left-turn into the on-ramp (veh/h),
vLT = demand flow rate for the major-street left turn (veh/h), and
cp,j = potential capacity for the major-street left turn (veh/h).
Rank 3 Movement (Through Movement from the Minor Street)

Similar to rank 2 movements, this movement’s maximum throughput is
limited by its potential capacity cm,k, as defined in Equation 20-47. Therefore, the
movement’s maximum throughput is given by:
Equation 38-B6 𝜆𝑡ℎ = min(𝑣𝑡ℎ , 𝑐𝑚,𝑘 )
where
λth = departure rate from the minor-street through into the on-ramp (veh/h),
vth = demand flow rate for the minor-street through (veh/h), and
cm,k = potential capacity for the minor-street through (veh/h).
Total On-Ramp Demand Flow Rate

The total on-ramp demand flow rate vR is estimated as follows:
Equation 38-B7 𝑣𝑅 = 𝜆𝑅𝑇 + 𝜆𝐿𝑇 + 𝜆𝑡ℎ
where all variables are as previously defined.
Case C: All-Way STOP-Controlled Intersections

The all-way STOP-controlled intersection methodology uses departure
headways hd for each approach, making the calculation of the on-ramp flow
straightforward. The on-ramp demand flow rate can be obtained directly from
the departure headways of the three movements combined:
3,600 3,600 3,600
Equation 38-B8 𝑣𝑅 = + +
ℎ𝑑,𝑅𝑇 ℎ𝑑,𝐿𝑇 ℎ𝑑,𝑡ℎ
where
vR = on-ramp flow rate (veh/h),
hd,RT = departure headway for the major-street right turn (s),
hd,LT = departure headway for the major-street left turn (s), and
hd,th = departure headway for the minor-street through (s).
Exhibit 38-B3 illustrates the movements discharging into an on-ramp from an
AWSC intersection.

Exhibit 38-B3
an AWSC Intersection
Case D: Roundabouts
The roundabouts methodology is based on calculating the potential capacity
of each approach, based on three main variables: the critical headway, the
follow-up headway, and the circulating flow (Equation 22-21 through Equation
22-23). Critical and follow-up headway values can be obtained from Chapter 33,
Roundabouts: Supplemental. The methodology considers each approach
independently. To analyze roundabouts within a network, it is first necessary to
estimate the on-ramp throughput from a roundabout.
The procedure first identifies the movements that discharge to the on-ramp
and their respective ranks (priority orders). Exhibit 38-B4 illustrates a typical
roundabout, where movements discharging into the on-ramp are numbered
according to their ranks. In contrast to other types of intersections, the approach
furthest from the on-ramp has priority as it enters the circulating stream without
any significant conflicting traffic (other than occasional U-turns).
Exhibit 38-B4
a Roundabout

Rank 1 Movement (Left Turn from the Third Upstream Approach from the
On-Ramp)
This movement has priority over the other movements because it enters the
circulating stream first. In addition, because the on-ramp does not have an
approach into the roundabout, this movement is most often unopposed by the
circulating stream (except for occasional U-turns in the intersection). Therefore,
the maximum throughput 𝜆1−4 (veh/h) for this left-turn movement is given by:
Equation 38-B9 𝜆1−4 = min(𝑣1−4 , 𝑐1 )
where
λ1–4 = departure rate from the third upstream approach into the on-ramp
(veh/h),
v1–4 = demand flow rate for the third upstream approach into the on-ramp
(veh/h), and
c1 = potential capacity for the third upstream (rank 1) approach (veh/h).
Rank 2 Movement (Through from the Second Upstream Approach, Most Likely an
Off-Ramp):
This movement’s maximum throughput is limited by the upstream approach
departure rate and its own potential lane capacity c2, as defined in Equations 22-
21 through 22-23. Therefore, its maximum throughput is given by:
where
λ2–4 = departure rate from the second upstream approach into the on-ramp
(veh/h),
v2–4 = demand flow rate for the second upstream approach into the on-ramp
(veh/h), and
c2 = potential capacity for the second upstream (rank 2) approach (veh/h).
Rank 3 Movement (Right-Turn for the First Upstream Approach):

Similar to rank 2 movements, this movement’s maximum throughput is
limited by the upstream approach and its own potential capacity, as defined in
Equation 22-21 through Equation 22-23. Therefore, its maximum throughput is
given by:
where
λ3–4 = departure rate from the first upstream approach into the on-ramp
(veh/h),
v3–4 = demand flow rate for the first upstream approach into the on-ramp,
and
c3 = potential capacity for the first upstream (rank 3) approach (veh/h).

Total On-Ramp Demand Flow Rate

Finally, the total on-ramp demand flow rate is estimated as follows:
𝑣𝑅 = 𝜆1−4 + 𝜆2−4 + 𝜆3−4 Equation 38-B12

The total on-ramp demand flow rate can be determined using a similar
method for roundabouts with more than three upstream approaches.
CAPACITY ESTIMATION
The on-ramp’s capacity is estimated in order to predict the occurrence of
queue spillback. The maximum output flow rate ONRO(i, t, p) that can enter the
merge point from on-ramp i during time step t in analysis period p can be
constrained by (a) the ramp metering rate, if ramp metering is active, or (b)
oversaturated conditions in the downstream merge segment.
Case 1: Ramp Metering is Active

In this case, the metering rate in veh/h is a required user input and is stored RM(i,t,p) is defined in Chapter
25 as the maximum allowable
in the parameter RM defined in Chapter 25. The maximum output flow rate rate of an on-ramp meter at
ONRO that can enter the merge point is adjusted when ramp metering is a the on-ramp node i during time
interval p, measured in veh/h.
constraining factor to the on-ramp discharge. RM(i,t,p) is also one of the
inputs used in calculating the
maximum on-ramp output
Case 2: No Ramp Metering, Oversaturated Merge Segment (Equation 25-18).
In this case, the ramp merge capacity is computed by aggregating the ONRO
parameter to a 15-min analysis period and then converting the result into an
hourly flow rate.
Case 3: No Ramp Metering, Undersaturated Merge Segment

This case does not require any adjustments to the Chapter 10 freeway
facilities methodology.
EVALUATION OF ON-RAMP QUEUE SPILLBACK IMPACTS

This section describes the methodological modifications required to address
the occurrence of queue spillback from an on-ramp. The occurrence of queue
spillback affects each type of intersection differently. The methods outlined here
address signalized intersections, TWSC intersections, AWSC intersections, and
roundabouts.
Exhibit 38-B5 presents the core methodology for evaluating the performance
of signalized intersections, modified to address the effects of on-ramp queue
spillback. The new and modified steps to the methodology are described below.

Exhibit 38-B5
Methodology With
Adjustments to Address On-

The volume of vehicles that enters a freeway on-ramp is a function of the
demands and capacities of the individual intersection movements that discharge
into the ramp. A typical signalized intersection within a diamond interchange is
shown in Exhibit 38-B6, with three movements discharging into the on-ramp,
southbound left turn (SBL), eastbound through (EBT), and northbound right turn
(NBR).

Exhibit 38-B6
Typical Signalized Intersection
Ramp Terminal in a Diamond
Interchange
The total throughput from the intersection into the on-ramp λONR in veh/h is
the sum of the throughput from each of the contributing movements:
𝜆𝑂𝑁𝑅 = 𝜆𝑆𝐵𝐿 + 𝜆𝐸𝐵𝑇 + 𝜆𝑁𝐵𝑅 Equation 38-B13
The throughput for each movement i is the minimum value of its demand
and capacity:
𝜆𝑖 = min(𝑣𝑖 , 𝑐𝑖 ) Equation 38-B14
where
vi = demand flow rate for intersection movement i (veh/h), and
ci = capacity for intersection movement i (veh/h), from Equation 19-16.
Unsignalized movements, which are common for right-turn movements to
an on-ramp, are unrestricted. The capacity of these movements can be estimated
as the saturation flow rate (Equation 19-8) multiplied by the adjustment factor for
right turns fRT (Equation 19-13).
If all movements at the intersection are undersaturated, (i.e., vi ≤ ci for every
movement i), then Equation 38-B13 is simplified and the total on-ramp demand
throughput λONR is as follows:
𝜆𝑂𝑁𝑅 = ∑ 𝑣𝑖 Equation 38-B15

𝑖
Step 7B: Obtain Merging Capacity Using the Freeway Facilities Methodology
This step computes the merging capacity into the freeway cmerge. Three
potential bottlenecks can limit the on-ramp discharge into the freeway:
• The on-ramp capacity (Exhibit 14-12 or Exhibit 38-A2);
• The merge segment capacity, when the freeway facility is oversaturated; or
• The ramp metering rate, when ramp metering is active.
The procedure to obtain cmerge is presented in Exhibit 38-B7. The freeway
facility must be analyzed using the Chapter 10 methodology to evaluate whether

the merging capacity is constrained by oversaturated conditions on the mainline.

If the freeway facility is undersaturated (LOS A-E), the merging capacity takes
the minimum value between the on-ramp capacity and the ramp metering rate, if
ramp metering is active.
Exhibit 38-B7
Estimation of Freeway On-
Ramp Merging Capacity
If the freeway facility is oversaturated (LOS F), the Chapter 25 oversaturated

segment procedure provides the maximum on-ramp output parameter ONRO,
computed at a time-step level (15 s). The merging capacity cmerge is then computed
by aggregating ONRO to an hourly flow rate:
𝑆
𝑇
Equation 38-B16 𝑐merge = ∑ 𝑂𝑁𝑅𝑂(𝑖, 𝑡, 𝑝)
𝑆
𝑡=1
where
cmerge = capacity of the freeway merge section (pc/h),
T = number of time steps in 1 h (integer),
S = number of time steps in an analysis period (integer), and
ONRO(i, t, p) = maximum output flow rate that can enter the merge point
from on-ramp 𝑖 during time step t in analysis period p.

Step 7C: Plot Queue Accumulation Polygon for the On-Ramp

In this step, a Queue Accumulation Polygon (QAP) is built for the on-ramp,
considering the throughput from all contributing movements during the cycle.
Exhibit 38-B8 shows a sample intersection that will be used in describing this step.
Exhibit 38-B8
Sample Intersection for
Calculation of a QAP for the
On-Ramp
The methodology requires that the first analysis period be undersaturated.

Based on this requirement, the QAP starts with no vehicles inside the on-ramp.
The on-ramp QAP for this example is provided in Exhibit 38-B9.
Exhibit 38-B9
On-Ramp Queue
Accumulation Polygon During
Queue Spillback

The cycle starts with the SBL green discharging into the on-ramp at a
throughput rate λSBL, while the on-ramp discharges to the freeway merge at a
rate cmerge. Therefore, the number of vehicles within the on-ramp grows at a rate
equal to (λSBL − cmerge). When the number of vehicles along the on-ramp reaches
the maximum ramp storage length LONR, vehicles from the intersection can only
be discharged to the on-ramp at the same the rate they are discharged from the
on-ramp into the freeway. The number of vehicles within the on-ramp is then
maintained and it is equal to LONR until the end of the green for the SBL
movement. At the end of the SBL green, the vertical difference between the
projected number of vehicles (dashed line) and the actual number of vehicles
inside the on-ramp represent the number of unserved vehicles for the SBL
approach. This additional queue can be considered in a multiperiod analysis for
the signalized intersection or interchange, using the methods provided in
Chapter 23, Ramp Terminals and Alternative Intersections.
The slope of the red line connecting the number of vehicles at the end and at
the start of green represent the reduced capacity of the SBL movement due to
queue spillback. For the remainder of the cycle, the NBR movement discharges at
a constant rate into the on-ramp, as this is an unsignalized movement. Given that
the discharge capacity cmerge is greater than the on-ramp demand λNBR, the vehicles
along the on-ramp are discharged to the freeway until the on-ramp is cleared.
Therefore, the NBR movement’s capacity is not affected by queue spillback.
This procedure can be applied for both pretimed and actuated control types,
because the core methodology can address both controller types. If the signal is
actuated, the average phase durations are applied, as obtained in Step 6.
Step 7D: Calculate Adjusted Capacities for the Affected Movements

Based on the on-ramp QAP developed in the previous step, the adjusted
capacity cSP must be calculated for every movement affected by the queue
spillback. For the example of Exhibit 38-B9, the adjusted capacity for the SBL
movement cSBL,SP can be obtained from the QAP as the slope of the red line (cSBL,SP
− cmerge) as follows:
𝑁(𝑔1 ) − 𝑁(0)
Equation 38-B17 𝑐𝑆𝐵𝐿,𝑠𝑝 − 𝑐merge −
𝑔1
where
N(g1) = number of queued vehicles along the on-ramp at t = g1 (end of green
for phase 1),
N(0) = number of queued vehicles along the on-ramp at t = 0 (start of the
cycle),
g1 = effective green time for phase 1, and
other variables as previously defined.
The adjusted capacity of the SBL movement cSBL,SP is then computed as:
𝑁(𝑔1 ) − 𝑁(0)
Equation 38-B18 𝑐𝑆𝐵𝐿,𝑠𝑝 = 𝑐merge +
𝑔1


If the queue develops and fully discharges during every cycle, then
subsequent cycles will have the same discharge pattern. However, if there are
residual queues on the on-ramp at the end of the cycle, the QAP must be plotted
again for the following cycle with an initial queue equal to the number of queued
vehicles at the end of the present cycle. This process is repeated for a number of
cycles N = 900 / C sufficient to analyze the entire 15-min period. The adjusted
capacity for each movement is estimated as the average of the discharge rates
during each cycle.
Step 8: Determine Delay

The calculations for obtaining delay at the intersection approaches do not
need to be modified. The only change needed is to replace the input value for the
demand-to-capacity ratio X (Equation 19-17) with the adjusted value Xsp,
estimated using the adjusted capacity due to spillback:
𝑣
𝑋𝑠𝑝 = Equation 38-B19
𝑐𝑠𝑝
Two-Way STOP-Controlled Intersections

The operation of TWSC intersections is based on the priorities of movements
arriving at the intersection. Minor-street movements have lower priority and
must stop before entering the intersection. Left-turning drivers from the major
street must yield to oncoming major-street through or right turning traffic, but
are not required to stop in the absence of conflicting traffic or pedestrians.
The methodology for evaluating TWSC intersection operation is based on
gap-acceptance theory. Drivers from lower-priority movements must select a
suitable gap to proceed through the intersection. During oversaturated
conditions and when queue spillback occurs, drivers show cooperative behavior,
with higher-priority vehicles often yielding to those with lower priority (B-1), as
illustrated in Exhibit 38-B10. In such cases, the gap-acceptance model is no longer
valid, and a different approach must be used to evaluate the intersection
performance.
Exhibit 38-B10
Illustration of Cooperative
Behavior in Unsignalized
Intersections with Queue
Spillback

When queue spillback occurs at a TWSC intersection, the maximum

throughput to the on-ramp (exit capacity) is constrained by the discharge capacity
of the freeway merge. It is assumed that during oversaturated conditions, the
intersection movements that discharge to the on-ramp share the exit capacity
proportionately to their demands.
Exhibit 38-B11 presents the core methodology for evaluating the
performance of TWSC intersections, with modifications to address the effects of
on-ramp queue spillback. New and modified methodological steps are described
in the following paragraphs.
Exhibit 38-B11
TWSC intersections Core
Methodology with
Adjustments to Address On-

The throughput to the on-ramp is calculated using the approach described in
Step 7A of the queue spillback analysis for signalized intersections (Exhibit 38-
B5). The total throughput from the intersection into the on-ramp λONR is the sum
of the throughput from each of the contributing movements. For each movement

i discharging into the on-ramp, the throughput is the minimum value of its
demand and the movement capacity:
𝜆𝑖 = min(𝑣𝑖 , 𝑐𝑚,𝑖 ) Equation 38-B20
where
vi = demand flow rate for movement i, and
cm,i = movement capacity for movement i (Equations 20-36, 20-37, and 20-40).
Step 9B: Obtain Merging Capacity Using the Freeway Facilities Methodology
This step computes the merging capacity into the freeway cmerge. The
procedure described in Step 7B of the queue spillback analysis for signalized
intersections (Exhibit 38-B5) is applied.
Step 9C: Determine Fraction of Analysis Period with Queue Spillback

While signalized intersections operate in a cyclical pattern, STOP-controlled
intersections have relatively uniform patterns of demand and capacity within a
given analysis period. Therefore, the 15-min aggregated demand and capacity
values are assumed to be constant, and the growth and discharge of queues are
assumed to be linear.
The QAP is used to illustrate the development of queues along the on-ramp,
as illustrated in Exhibit 38-B12. For a given time interval of T minutes (typically
T = 15 min), the intersection discharges a throughput λONR to the ramp (Step 5B),
while the merge has capacity cmerge. If λONR > cmerge, queues will develop along the
on-ramp until the number of vehicles reaches the maximum ramp storage LONR,
when queue spillback begins. When that occurs, the maximum rate of vehicles
that can enter the on-ramp is limited by the merging capacity cmerge for the rest of
the time period.
Exhibit 38-B12
On-Ramp Queue
Accumulation Polygon: TWSC
Intersection

From the relationship shown in Exhibit 38-B12, the spillback time Tsp is
defined as the amount of time within an analysis period when spillback occurs:
𝐿𝑂𝑁𝑅 − 𝑁(0)
Equation 38-B21 𝑇𝑠𝑝 = 𝑇 −
𝜆𝑂𝑁𝑅 − 𝑐merge
where
Tsp = amount of time with active spillback (min),
T = analysis period duration (min),
LONR = available queue storage at the on-ramp (veh),
N(0) = number of queued vehicles along the on-ramp at t = 0 (start of the
cycle),
λONR = discharge from the intersection into the on-ramp (veh/h), and
cmerge = merging capacity of the on-ramp (veh/h).
Estimating the spillback time Tsp is a key element of the methodology,
because the aggregated calculations of capacity for each movement depend on
the amount of time that the intersection operates under queue spillback.
Step 10: Final Capacity Adjustments

In this step, the capacities of the movements affected by spillback are
obtained and then aggregated to an analysis period level. When on-ramp queue
spillback occurs at an intersection, movements discharging to the on-ramp
switch to a cooperative approach instead of the priority-based regular operation.
When there is queue spillback, the maximum throughput to the on-ramp is
equal to the merging capacity cmerge. This capacity is then used by all movements
traveling into the on-ramp. The capacity of each affected movement i during
spillback csp,i is obtained proportionally to its demand flow rate:
𝑐merge × 𝑣𝑖
Equation 38-B22 𝑐𝑠𝑝,𝑖 =
∑𝑁
𝑖
𝑂𝑁𝑅
𝑣𝑖
where
csp,i = capacity during spillback for movement i (veh/h),
vi = demand flow rate for movement i (veh/h),
cmerge = merging capacity of the on-ramp (veh/h), and
NONR = number of movements at the intersection discharging to the on-ramp.
Finally, the adjusted capacity of each affected movement cEQ,,i is obtained as a
function of the amount of time within the analysis period when spillback was
present. The adjusted capacity considers the proportion of time that blockage
occurs during queue spillback. It consists of the aggregation, at an analysis
period level, of the movement capacities cm,i observed during undersaturated
conditions and the spillback capacities csp,i observed during oversaturated
conditions:

𝑐𝑠𝑝,𝑖 × 𝑇𝑠𝑝 + 𝑐𝑚,𝑖 × (𝑇 − 𝑇𝑠𝑝 )

𝑐𝐸𝑄,𝑖 = Equation 38-B23
𝑇
where
cEQ,,i = adjusted capacity for movement i (veh/h);
csp,i = capacity during spillback for movement i (veh/h);
Tsp = duration of active spillback during the analysis period (min);
cm,i = capacity for movement i without spillback (veh/h), from Chapter 20; and
T = analysis period duration (min), usually 15 min.
When queue spillback lasts for the entire analysis period T (for example, in a
multi-period analysis), the spillback time Tsp is equal to T, and the capacity of
each movement i is obtained as the capacity during spillback. In this case,
Equation 38-B23 simplifies to:
𝑐𝐸𝑄,𝑖 = 𝑐𝑠𝑝,𝑖 Equation 38-B24
Step 11: Compute Movement Control Delay

The average control delay considering the effects of queue spillback dsp
(s/veh) is obtained based on Equation 20-64, but replacing the movement
capacity cm,i by the adjusted capacity cEQ,,i:
3,600 𝜆𝑂𝑁𝑅
𝑐𝐸𝑄,𝑖 × 𝑐𝐸𝑄,𝑖
2
3,600 𝑣𝑖 √ 𝑣𝑖
𝑑𝑠𝑝 = + 900𝑇 −1+ ( − 1) + +5 Equation 38-B25
𝑐𝐸𝑄,𝑖 𝑐𝐸𝑄,𝑖 𝑐𝐸𝑄,𝑖 450𝑇
[ ]
All-Way STOP-Controlled Intersections

The methodology to evaluate queue spillback into AWSC intersections
follows the approach presented above for TWSC intersections. As shown in
Exhibit 38-B13, after the capacities of individual movements during
undersaturated conditions are computed (Step 12), the process described above
for TWSC intersections is performed by new steps 13A through 13D.
The only step that differs from the TWSC method is Step 13D, Compute
Spillback Departure Headway. The AWSC methodology calculates the delay for
each approach based on its departure headway instead of its capacity. The
estimated spillback capacity csp,i is converted to a spillback headway hsp (in
seconds) as follows:
3,600
ℎ𝑠𝑝 = Equation 38-B26
𝑐𝑠𝑝,𝑖

Exhibit 38-B13
AWSC Intersection Core
Methodology with
Adjustments to Address
Roundabouts
The methodology presented in Chapter 22, Roundabouts, is shown in Exhibit
38-B14. The steps added to the methodology to evaluate queue spillback effects
are shown in red. Each of the new steps is discussed in the subsections below.
This methodology is applicable only to single-lane roundabouts. Exhibit 22-9
provides the required input data and potential data sources for the core
roundabout methodology. Exhibit 38-B15 lists the additional input data required
for queue spillback analysis.

Exhibit 38-B14
Roundabouts Methodology
With Adjustments to Address
Required Data and Units Potential Data Source(s) Suggested Default Exhibit 38-B15
On-Ramp Data Required Data and Potential
Data Sources for Roundabout
On-ramp metering rate (veh/h) Design plans, field data Must be provided
Queue Spillback Evaluation
On-ramp storage length LONR (ft) Field data Must be provided
Roundabout Data
Departure saturation headway into
Field data 3 s/veh
the on-ramp hs (s/veh)
Step 13: Compute the Maximum Throughput Into the On-Ramp for Each O-D
Movement
The maximum throughput into the on-ramp for each movement is calculated
using the roundabout priority order, starting with the most upstream approach
from the on-ramp exit leg and proceeding counterclockwise. The Rank 1
approach (Exhibit 38-B16) is the one whose flow has the highest priority, given
that it enters the circulating stream upstream of all other approaches. The next-
highest priority movement is the Rank 2 approach, and the lowest-priority
movement is the Rank 3 approach.

Exhibit 38-B16
Example Priority Order for a
Roundabout Upstream of an
On-Ramp
Next, the methodology calculates the capacity of the roundabout’s exit lane
into the on-ramp. Research (B-2, B-3) suggests that the capacity of an exit lane,
accounting for pedestrian and bicycle traffic in a typical urban area, is in the
range of 1,200 to 1,300 veh/h. Starting from the Rank 1 approach, and proceeding
counterclockwise with the remaining approaches, each approach’s capacity is
used to determine the maximum throughput for every movement discharging to
the on-ramp.
Rank 1 Approach
The Rank 1 approach (the SB approach in the example in Exhibit 38-B16) has
priority over the other movements connecting to the on-ramp because it enters
the circulating stream first. In addition, because the on-ramp leg usually does not
have an approach into the roundabout, the Rank 1 movement is most often
unopposed by the circulating stream (except for occasional U-turns along the
arterial). Therefore, the maximum throughput λSB-ONR for this left-turn movement
is limited by its own lane capacity cSB and the maximum throughput to the on-
ramp:
3,600
Equation 38-B27 𝜆𝑆𝐵−𝑂𝑁𝑅 = min (𝑣𝑆𝐵−𝑂𝑁𝑅 , 𝑐𝑆𝐵 × 𝑝𝑆𝐵−𝑂𝑁𝑅 , )
ℎ𝑠
with
𝑣𝑆𝐵−𝑂𝑁𝑅
Equation 38-B28 𝑝𝑆𝐵−𝑂𝑁𝑅 =
𝑣𝑆𝐵𝑈 + 𝑣𝑆𝐵−𝑂𝑁𝑅 + 𝑣𝑆𝐵𝑇
where
λSB-ONR = departure rate from the SB approach into the on-ramp (veh/h);
vSB-ONR = demand flow rate for the SB approach into the on-ramp (veh/h);
cSB = lane capacity for the SB approach, from Equation 22-21 (veh/h);
pSB-ONR = percentage of on-ramp demand from the SB approach, from Equation

38-B28 (decimal); and
hs = departure saturation headway into the on-ramp (s/veh).

Rank 2 Approach
The maximum throughput for the Rank 2 movement (the EB approach in the
example in Exhibit 38-B16) is limited by its own lane capacity cEB, as defined in
Equations 22-21 through Equation 22-23, and the maximum throughput after
considering the departure rate of the upstream Leg 1. Therefore, the maximum
throughput λEB-ONR for this movement is given by:
3,600
𝜆𝐸𝐵−𝑂𝑁𝑅 = min (𝑣𝐸𝐵−𝑂𝑁𝑅 , 𝑐𝐸𝐵 × 𝑝𝐸𝐵−𝑂𝑁𝑅 , − 𝜆𝑆𝐵−𝑂𝑁𝑅 ) Equation 38-B29
ℎ𝑠
with
𝑣𝐸𝐵−𝑂𝑁𝑅
𝑝𝐸𝐵−𝑂𝑁𝑅 = Equation 38-B30
𝑣𝐸𝐵𝐿 + 𝑣𝐸𝐵−𝑂𝑁𝑅 + 𝑣𝐸𝐵𝑅
where
λEB-ONR = departure rate from the EB approach into the on-ramp (veh/h);
vEB-ONR = demand flow rate for the EB approach into the on-ramp (veh/h);
cEB = lane capacity for the EB approach, from Equation 22-21 (veh/h);
pEB-ONR = percentage of on-ramp demand from the EB approach, from Equation

Rank 3 Approach
Similar to Rank 2 movements, the maximum throughput for the Rank 3
movement (the NB approach in the example in Exhibit 38-B16) is limited by its
own lane capacity cNB, as defined in Equation 22-21 through Equation 22-23, and
the maximum throughput to the on-ramp after considering departure rates from
the upstream approaches. Therefore, the maximum throughput λNB-ONR for this
right-turn movement is given by:
3,600
𝜆𝑁𝐵−𝑂𝑁𝑅 = min (𝑣𝑁𝐵−𝑂𝑁𝑅 , 𝑐𝑁𝐵 × 𝑝𝑁𝐵−𝑂𝑁𝑅 , − 𝜆𝑆𝐵−𝑂𝑁𝑅 − 𝜆𝐸𝐵−𝑂𝑁𝑅 ) Equation 38-B31
ℎ𝑠
with
𝑣𝑁𝐵−𝑂𝑁𝑅
𝑝𝑁𝐵−𝑂𝑁𝑅 = Equation 38-B32
𝑣𝑁𝐵𝑈 + 𝑣𝑁𝐵𝑇 + 𝑣𝑁𝐵−𝑂𝑁𝑅
where
λNB-ONR = departure rate from the NB approach into the on-ramp (veh/h);
vNB-ONR = demand flow rate for the NB approach into the on-ramp (veh/h);
cNB = lane capacity for the NB approach, from Equation 22-21 (veh/h);
pNB-ONR = percentage of on-ramp demand from the NB approach, from Equation

The total on-ramp demand flow rate can be calculated in a similar manner if
the roundabout has more than three approaches.

Step 14: Calculate the Maximum Throughput into the On-Ramp

The maximum throughput from the roundabout to the on-ramp λONR in
veh/h is calculated as:
Equation 38-B33 𝜆𝑂𝑁𝑅 = 𝜆𝑆𝐵−𝑂𝑁𝑅 + 𝜆𝐸𝐵−𝑂𝑁𝑅 + 𝜆𝑁𝐵−𝑂𝑁𝑅
Step 15: Compute On-Ramp Merging Capacity and Compare to the Maximum
Throughput to the On-Ramp
The on-ramp merging capacity is calculated exactly the same as in Step 7B of
the queue spillback methodology for signalized intersections (Exhibit 38-B5). The
maximum number of vehicles that can merge into the on-ramp cmerge (from
Equation 25-18) is compared to the maximum throughput from the roundabout
to the on-ramp λONR. If cmerge > λONR, then spillback is not expected to occur, and
no adjustments are necessary. If cmerge ≤ λONR, queues will develop along the on-
ramp, and spillback may occur if the queue storage is insufficient. In this case,
the analyst proceeds to Step 16 to evaluate the on-ramp queue storage ratio to
evaluate whether spillback will occur.
Step 16: Determine the On-Ramp Storage Ratio and Queue Spillback Length
Given the throughput from the roundabout into the on-ramp λONR, the queue
length QONR (in veh) along the on-ramp during a 15-min analysis period is:
𝜆𝑂𝑁𝑅 − 𝑐merge
Equation 38-B34 𝑄𝑂𝑁𝑅 =
4
If a multi-period analysis is performed, the queue length for the current analysis
period p must be added to the queue length from the previous analysis period:
𝜆𝑂𝑁𝑅,𝑝 − 𝑐merge,𝑝
Equation 38-B35 𝑄𝑂𝑁𝑅,𝑝 = 𝑄𝑂𝑁𝑅,𝑝−1 +
4
The on-ramp storage ratio is calculated by dividing the available on-ramp
storage length by the average vehicle spacing:
𝐿ℎ × 𝑄𝑂𝑁𝑅
Equation 38-B36 𝑅𝑄 =
𝐿𝑂𝑁𝑅
where
RQ = on-ramp storage ratio (decimal);
Lh = average vehicle spacing (ft/veh), from Equation 31-155;
QONR = on-ramp queue length (veh); and
LONR = on-ramp length (ft).
If the on-ramp storage ratio RQ is greater than 1, queues will form along each
roundabout approach due to spillback. The value of RQ is specific to a given
analysis period. If congestion is expected, but RQ < 1 for a single analysis period,
multi-period analysis may have to be conducted.

Step 17: Compute the Queue Spillback Distribution by Approach

When spillback occurs, the total number of vehicles queued Qsp during a 15-
min analysis period is:
𝑄𝑠𝑝 = 𝑄𝑂𝑁𝑅 − 𝐿ℎ × 𝐿𝑂𝑁𝑅 Equation 38-B37
These queues are assumed to be distributed in proportional to the demand

flow rates from each approach to the on-ramp, and are added to the 95th
percentile queues estimated for undersaturated conditions. For the example
roundabout given in Exhibit 38-B16, these queues are:
𝜆𝑆𝐵−𝑂𝑁𝑅
𝑄𝑠𝑝,𝑆𝐵 = 𝑄𝑠𝑝 × + 𝑄95,𝑆𝐵 Equation 38-B38
𝜆𝑂𝑁𝑅
𝜆𝐸𝐵−𝑂𝑁𝑅
𝑄𝑠𝑝,𝐸𝐵 = 𝑄𝑠𝑝 × + 𝑄95,𝐸𝐵 Equation 38-B39
𝜆𝑂𝑁𝑅
𝜆𝑁𝐵−𝑂𝑁𝑅
𝑄𝑠𝑝,𝑁𝐵 = 𝑄𝑠𝑝 × + 𝑄95,𝑁𝐵 Equation 38-B40
𝜆𝑂𝑁𝑅
where
Qsp,i = queue on approach i due to on-ramp spillback (veh);
Qsp = total intersection queue due to on-ramp spillback (veh);
λi-ONR = maximum throughput for approach i into the on-ramp (veh);
λONR = maximum throughput into the on-ramp, considering all approaches

(veh); and
Q95,i = 95th percentile queue on approach i (veh), from Equation 22-20.
Step 18: Calculate the Average Delay by Approach and Aggregate to the Average
Control Delay
To estimate the average delay per approach, the delay due to the on-ramp
capacity limitation is estimated and added to the approach control delay
calculated by Equation 22-17. This equation assumes no residual queue at the
start of the analysis period. If queue spillback occurs, the average control delay is
significantly affected by the analysis period length. However, Chapter 22 does
not provide a multiperiod analysis method. Therefore, the delay results may not
be accurate when a queue exists at the start of the analysis period.
As an alternative, an iterative process that carries over queues from one time
period to the next (B-4) may be used. The additional delay (in sec/veh) due to the
on-ramp spillback is calculated as follows:
3,600 𝜆𝑂𝑁𝑅
𝑐merge × 𝑐merge
2
3,600 𝜆𝑂𝑁𝑅 𝜆
√ 𝑂𝑁𝑅
𝑑𝑠𝑝 = + 900𝑇 −1+ ( − 1) + Equation 38-B41
𝑐merge 𝑐merge 𝑐merge 450𝑇
[ ]
𝜆𝑂𝑁𝑅
+ 5 × min [ , 1]
𝑐merge

REFERENCES
Some of these references can B-1. Aakre, E., and A. Aakre. Modeling cooperation in unsignalized
be found in the Technical
Reference Library in Volume 4. intersections. Procedia Computer Science, Vol. 109, 2017, pp. 875–880.
B-2. Robinson, B., L. Rodegerdts, W. Scarbrough, W. Kittelson, R. Troutbeck,
W. Brilon, L. Bondzio, K. Courage, M. Kyte, J. Mason, A. Flannery, E.
Myers, and J. Bunker. Roundabouts: An Informational Guide. Federal
Highway Administration, Washington, D.C., 2000.
B-3. Rodegerdts, L. A., and G. E. Blackwelder. Analytical Analysis of
Pedestrian Effects on Roundabout Exit Capacity. In Transportation Research
Circular E-C083, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2005.
B-4. Kimber, R. M. and E. M. Hollis. Traffic queues and delays at road junctions.
Transport and Road Research Laboratory, Wokingham, Berkshire, U.K.,
1979.

APPENDIX C: LANE-BY-LANE ANALYSIS FOR FREEWAY

FACILITIES
LANE-BY-LANE FLOW MODELS BY SEGMENT TYPE

The lane flow ratio (LFR) model for each lane is estimated as a function of
the logarithm of the segment volume-capacity ratio v/c (C-1). The LFR equation is
applied to each lane in the segment except for the leftmost lane, which is
estimated as the remaining flow, to ensure the sum of the flow shares from each
lane always equals 100%. The equations to estimate LFR are as follows:
Equation 38-C1
𝐿𝐹𝑅𝑖 = 𝑎 × ln(𝑣/𝑐) + 𝑏
𝑁−1
𝐿𝐹𝑅𝑁 = 1 − ∑ 𝐿𝐹𝑅𝑖 Equation 38-C2

𝑖=1
where
LFRi = share of the total flow on lane i, where i ranges from 1 to N−1 (decimal);
N = number of lanes in the segment;
a = multiplicative calibration parameter, from Equation 38-C3, Equation
38-C5, or Equation 38-C7;
v/c = volume-to-capacity ratio (0 < v/c ≤ 1), with volume and capacity given
in veh/h;
b = additive calibration parameter, from Equation 38-C4, Equation 38-C6,
or Equation 38-C8; and
LFRN = share of the total flow on the leftmost lane, lane N (decimal).
The model in Equation 38-C1 and Equation 38-C2 can be applied to basic,
merge, diverge, and weaving segments. For merge and diverge segments, the
share of flow is estimated in the area upstream of the ramp; therefore, the inputs
for demand and capacity must also be measured upstream of the ramp.
For weaving segments, the share of flow is estimated on the mainline
upstream the on-ramp. Flow distribution on auxiliary lanes is not addressed by
this methodology, as the flow in these lanes is not expected to be constant along
their length. The auxiliary lane flow will be similar to the on-ramp flow rate
upstream and to the off-ramp flow downstream. Therefore, the estimation of the
lane flow ratio in a weaving segment addresses the mainline lanes only, with
lane 1 defined as the rightmost mainline lane.
The following subsections show how the model’s calibration parameters are
determined for each freeway segment type.
Chapter 38/Network Analysis Appendix C: Lane-by-Lane Analysis for Freeway Facilities

Basic Segments
The calibration parameters a and b used to analyze basic segments are
computed as follows:
Equation 38-C3 𝑎 = 𝑎0 + 𝐺 × 𝑎𝐺 + 𝐻𝑉% × 𝑎𝐻𝑉 + 𝑟𝑑 × 𝑎𝑟𝑑
Equation 38-C4 𝑏 = 𝑏0 + 𝐺 × 𝑏𝐺 + 𝐻𝑉% × 𝑏𝐻𝑉 + 𝑟𝑑 × 𝑏𝑟𝑑
where
a = multiplicative calibration parameter;
a0 = empirical constant, from Exhibit 38-C1;
G = grade (%);
ag = empirical coefficient due to the effect of grade, from Exhibit 38-C1;
HV% = heavy vehicle percentage (%);
aHV = empirical coefficient due to the effect of trucks, from Exhibit 38-C1;
rd = ramp density = total number of ramps 0.5 mi upstream and 0.5 mi
downstream of the segment;
ard = empirical coefficient due to the effect of ramp density, from Exhibit
38-C1;
b = additive calibration parameter;
b0 = empirical constant, from Exhibit 38-C1;
bg = empirical coefficient due to the effect of grade, from Exhibit 38-C1;
bHV = empirical coefficient due to the effect of trucks, from Exhibit 38-C1; and
brd = empirical coefficient due to the effect of ramp density, from Exhibit
38-C1.
Exhibit 38-C1 provides the coefficients used in the LFD model for basic,
merge, and diverge segments. The coefficients are specific for each combination
of lane number, segment type, and total number of lanes in the segment.
Appendix C: Lane-by-Lane Analysis for Freeway Facilities Chapter 38/Network Analysis

Lane Para- Basic Segments Diverge Segments Merge Segments Exhibit 38-C1
# meter 2 lanes 3 lanes 4 lanes 2 lanes 3 lanes 4 lanes 2 lanes 3 lanes 4 lanes Lane Flow Distribution Model
a0 0.18 0.027 0.068 0.0097 −0.075 0.31 0.015 0.0029 −0.077 Coefficients for Basic, Merge,
b0 and Diverge Segments
0.52 0.27 0.22 0.44 0.27 0.25 0.59 0.28 0.24
ag 0.024 0.021 −0.011 0.0097 0.0077 −0.034 0.015 −0.0029 −0.0030
aHV −0.048 −0.0036 −0.0021 −0.0093 0.00080 −0.057 −0.0093 −0.0029 0.011
ard −0.095 −0.0083 −0.059 −0.0097 0.014 −0.028 −0.0047 −0.0029 0.014
L1
bg 0.0030 0.0097 −0.034 −0.0098 −0.0081 −0.00016 0.020 0.031 0.040
bHV 0.008 −0.0029 0.0024 0.0078 0.0014 −0.019 −0.014 −0.0018 −0.027
brd 0.0013 0.032 −0.035 0.00057 0.031 0.0052 −0.040 −0.042 −0.041
avr −0.21 −0.067 −0.0087 −0.035 −0.10 0.026
bvr −0.13 0.013 −0.021 −0.070 −0.030 0.0091
a0 −0.063 −0.025 0.0096 0.29 −0.0082 −0.080
b0 0.31 0.29 0.34 0.25 0.38 0.24
ag −0.0060 0.0015 −0.0096 −0.035 −0.0082 0.00048
aHV 0.0011 0.00027 −0.00054 −0.052 −0.00082 0.013
ard 0.0037 −0.0085 −0.0096 −0.030 −0.0026 0.018
L2
bg −0.017 −0.024 −0.0019 0.0019 0.0079 −0.019
bHV 0.0024 −0.00036 0.00089 −0.0041 −0.00048 −0.0067
brd 0.01 −0.041 0.0052 0.0044 −0.0060 0.0010
avr −0.048 −0.0065 −0.12 −0.033
bvr −0.073 −0.0091 −0.039 −0.013
a0 −0.045 0.27 0.029
b0 0.28 0.25 0.25
ag −0.0017 −0.036 −0.0017
aHV 0.0021 −0.044 −0.0058
ard 0.0081 −0.034 −0.0068
L3
bg 0.011 0.0034 0.00060
bHV −0.0011 0.0092 0.014
brd 0.015 0.0016 0.018
avr 0.021 −0.079
bvr −0.0064 −0.041
Note: Empty cells indicate the factor is not used in the model for the given combination of lane number, segment
type, and number of lanes in the segment (i.e., substitute a value of 0 for the coefficient).
Merge and Diverge Segments

The calibration parameters a and b used to analyze merge and diverge
segments are computed by Equation 38-C5 and Equation 38-C6. Compared to the
basic segment model, two additional coefficients, avr and bvr, are included to
address ramp demand.
𝑣𝑅
𝑎 = 𝑎0 + 𝐺 × 𝑎𝐺 + 𝐻𝑉% × 𝑎𝐻𝑉 + 𝑛 × 𝑎𝑛 + × 𝑎𝑣𝑟 Equation 38-C5
1,000
𝑣𝑅
𝑏 = 𝑏0 + 𝐺 × 𝑏𝐺 + 𝐻𝑉% × 𝑏𝐻𝑉 + 𝑛 × 𝑏𝑛 + × 𝑏𝑣𝑟 Equation 38-C6
1,000
where
avr = empirical coefficient due to effect of ramp flow, from Exhibit 38-C1;
bvr = empirical coefficient due to effect of ramp flow, from Exhibit 38-C1; and
all other variables are as previously defined.

Weaving Segments
The calibration parameters a and b used to analyze weaving segments are
computed by Equation 38-C7 and Equation 38-C8. The coefficients in these
equations include factors addressing the effects of weaving-specific properties.
Equation 38-C7
𝑣𝑅,𝑚 𝑣𝑅,𝑑
𝑎 = 𝑎0 + 𝐺 × 𝑎𝐺 + 𝐻𝑉% × 𝑎𝐻𝑉 + 𝐼𝐷 × 𝑎𝐼 + × 𝑎𝑣𝑚 + × 𝑎𝑣𝑑
1,000 1,000
𝐿𝑠
+ × 𝑎𝐿𝑆 + 𝑉𝑅 × 𝑎𝑉𝑅
1,000
Equation 38-C8 𝑏 = 𝑏0 + 𝐺 × 𝑏𝐺 + 𝐻𝑉% × 𝑏𝐻𝑉 + 𝐼𝐷 × 𝑏𝐼 + × 𝑏𝑣𝑚 + × 𝑏𝑣𝑑
1,000 1,000
𝐿𝑠
+ × 𝑏𝐿𝑆 + 𝑉𝑅 × 𝑏𝑉𝑅
1,000
where
Chapter 13, Freeway Weaving
Segments, defines interchange ID = interchange density (interchanges/mi);
density as the number of
interchanges within 3 mi aI = empirical coefficient due to effect of interchange density, from Exhibit
upstream and downstream of 38-C2;
the center of the subject
weaving segment, divided vR.m = on-ramp flow (veh/h);
by 6.
avm = empirical coefficient for on-ramp flow, from Exhibit 38-C2;
vR.d = off-ramp flow (veh/h);
avd = empirical coefficient for off-ramp flow, from Exhibit 38-C2;
Ls = weaving segment length (ft);
aLS = empirical coefficient for weaving segment length, from Exhibit 38-C2;
VR = volume ratio = weaving volume / total volume (decimal);
aVR = empirical coefficient for volume ratio, from Exhibit 38-C2;
bI = empirical coefficient due to effect of interchange density, from Exhibit
38-C2;
bvm = empirical coefficient for on-ramp flow, from Exhibit 38-C2;
bvd = empirical coefficient for off-ramp flow, from Exhibit 38-C2;
bLS = empirical coefficient for weaving segment length, from Exhibit 38-C2;
bVR = empirical coefficient for volume ratio, from Exhibit 38-C2; and
all other variables are as previously defined.
Exhibit 38-C2 provides the coefficients used in the LFD model for weaving
segments. The coefficients are specific for each combination of lane number,
segment type, and total number of lanes in the segment.

2-Lane Exhibit 38-C2

Segments 3-Lane Segments 4-Lane Segments Lane Flow Distribution Model
Parameter L1 L1 L2 L1 L2 L3 Coefficients for Weaving
a0 0.99 0.64 0.48 −0.13 0.0048 0.12 Segments
b0 0.40 0.40 0.33 0.24 0.26 0.27
ag −0.21 −0.28 0.11 0.13 −0.0048 −0.12
aHV −0.12 −0.055 −0.033 −0.012 −0.0048 0.019
aI 0.13 0.0037 −0.035 −0.0025 −0.0048 −0.12
avm 0.022 0.075 −0.090 0.072 −0.031 −0.011
avd −0.19 −0.036 0.017 −0.13 0.030 0.051
aLS −0.20 0.098 −0.031 0.056 0.0020 −0.041
aVR 0.0080 0.024 0.089 −0.11 −0.0045 0.12
bg 0.069 −0.40 0.039 −0.030 0.045 0.041
bHV 0.0032 −0.051 0.0045 −0.0043 −0.011 −0.0043
bI −0.016 0.40 −0.020 −0.0067 −0.0050 −0.0026
bvm −0.048 −0.14 0.0047 0.065 −0.0089 −0.038
bvd 0.040 0.039 −0.047 0.063 −0.015 −0.037
bLS −0.011 0.15 0.0050 −0.030 0.011 0.020
bVR 0.078 0.40 0.018 −0.14 0.040 0.15
Note: The number of lanes reflects the freeway upstream of the weave. Lanes connecting the on-ramp and off-
ramp are not included.
LANE FLOW RATIO DISTRIBUTION AS A FUNCTION OF THE DEMAND-

TO-CAPACITY RATIO
As discussed in the previous section, the LFR is obtained as a function of a
series of operational factors. Of these, the most influencing factor is the demand-
to-capacity ratio, as research (C-2) shows that LFR distributions follow typical
patterns depending on the number of lanes.
Exhibit 38-C3 demonstrates that, for 2-lane segments, flow distribution
follows a “scissors” pattern, with the flow highly concentrated in lane 1 during
free-flow conditions. As the segment’s demand flow rate increases, flow
gradually migrates to lane 2. During oversaturated conditions, flow is more
concentrated in lane 2.
Exhibit 38-C3
LFR Distribution for a Sample
2-Lane Basic Freeway
Segment
Note: I-694 in Minneapolis, MN.
Exhibit 38-C4 illustrates the LFR distribution for a 3-lane segment. At low
demand, most of the flow is concentrated in the center lane (Lane 2), followed by
Lane 1 and Lane 3. As demand increases, the LFR increases in Lane 3 and
decreases in Lanes 1 and 2.

Exhibit 38-C4
Segment
Note: I-4 in Tampa, FL.
Exhibit 38-C5 shows the LFR distribution for a 4-lane segment. Under free-
flow conditions, Lanes 2 and 3 carry the majority of flow. Lane 4 is typically
underused during undersaturated conditions, but at higher demands it carries
the majority of the flow.
Exhibit 38-C5
Segment
Note: I-275 in Tampa, FL.
The flow distribution patterns shown in the exhibits above for basic
segments are also observed in merge, diverge, and weaving segments.
Additional factors such as ramp volume, grade, and truck percentage influence
the boundary values and slopes of the curves, but do not change the typical LFR
distribution as a function of the v/c ratio.
CHECKING FOR NEGATIVE FLOWS AND LANE CAPACITIES

After lane flow ratios are obtained, a two-step check must be performed to
ensure the estimated flow distribution is reasonable. The first check identifies
any estimated negative flows. This issue is more likely to occur in the leftmost
lane, as the flows on this lane are obtained by the difference between the total
segment flow and the sum of estimated flows in the other lanes. Therefore, if
flows on the remaining lanes are overestimated, the estimated flow in the
leftmost lane may be negative. Exhibit 38-C6 illustrates the procedure for this
check.

Exhibit 38-C6
Check for Negative Lane
Flows
The variables in Exhibit 38-C6 are defined as follows:

i = index for the subject lane,
vi = flow rate on lane i (veh/h), and
N = number of lanes in the segment.
The second check compares the estimated flow by lane with the respective
lane capacities to ensure no lane operates with a demand-to-capacity ratio
greater than 1. This procedure is illustrated in Exhibit 38-C7, where ci is the
capacity of lane i (veh/h) and other variables are as previously defined. If any
lane is estimated to operate above its capacity, the flow in this given lane is
constrained by the capacity value and the exceeding demand is moved to the
adjacent lane.

Exhibit 38-C7
Check for Lane Capacity
SPEED–FLOW CURVES BY LANE AND SEGMENT TYPE

This section presents the models used to obtain speed–flow curves for each
lane in a freeway segment as a function of two key inputs: free-flow speed (FFS)
and lane capacity. The first part discusses the estimation of lane FFS, while the
second part presents models for obtaining lane capacities. The last part provides
the speed–flow models as a function of lane FFS and lane capacities.
Lane-by-Lane FFS
Field observations have shown that speeds differ among lanes, with speeds
typically lower in shoulder lanes and higher in median lanes. The model for
estimating individual lane FFS applies a multiplicative factor xFFS to the segment
FFS as follows:
Equation 38-C9 𝐹𝐹𝑆𝑖 = 𝐹𝐹𝑆𝑎𝑑𝑗 × 𝑥𝐹𝐹𝑆
where
FFSi = free-flow speed for lane i (mi/h);
FFSadj = adjusted free-flow speed for the segment (mi/h), from Equation 12-5;
and
xFFS = FFS multiplier, from Exhibit 38-C8.
Exhibit 38-C8 presents the recommended multipliers, which are provided as
a function of the segment type and the number of lanes in the segment. As shown,
when the number of lanes increases, the range of FFS multipliers increases as
well (i.e., lower speeds exist in the shoulder lanes and higher speeds exist in the
median lanes). For 2-lane segments, merge and diverge segments have a higher
FFS differential between the two lanes, compared to basic segments. For 3-lane
segments, basic segments have the greatest FFS range, while merge segments

have more uniform lane FFS. Finally, for 4-lane segments, merge segments have
the greatest FFS range, while basic and merge segments have similar ranges.
FFS Multiplier xFFS Exhibit 38-C8

Segment Type Number of Lanes Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 Lane 4 Multipliers to Estimate Lane
2 0.965 1.032 — — FFS from Segment FFS
Basic 3 0.934 1.010 1.087 —
4 0.924 0.989 1.028 1.079
2 0.964 1.044 — —
Merge 3 0.955 1.015 1.045 —
4 0.935 0.991 1.036 1.091
2 0.961 1.035 — —
Diverge 3 0.943 1.024 1.068 —
4 0.933 0.975 1.018 1.074
2 0.969 1.018 — —
Weaving 3 0.968 1.023 1.062 —
4 0.910 0.988 1.053 1.110
Lane-by-Lane Capacity
Basic, Merge, and Diverge Segments
Similar to the case of free-flow speeds, capacities also differ among lanes, with
capacities typically lower in shoulder lanes and higher in median lanes. Center
lanes typically have values similar to the segment average. The model for
estimating individual lane FFS in basic, merge, and diverge segments applies a
multiplicative factor xc to the segment capacity as follows:
𝑐𝑖 = 𝑐𝑎𝑑𝑗 × 𝑁 × 𝑥𝑐 Equation 38-C10
where
ci = capacity of lane i (pc/h);
cadj = adjusted capacity for the segment (pc/h/ln), from Equation 12-8;
N = number of lanes in the segment; and
xc = capacity multiplier, from Exhibit 38-C9.
Exhibit 38-C9 presents the percent of the total segment capacity distributed
to each lane in the segment, defining a capacity multiplier xc for each
combination of segment type and number of lanes.
Capacity Multiplier xc Exhibit 38-C9

Segment Type Number of Lanes Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 Lane 4 Multipliers to Estimate Lane
2 0.44 0.56 — — Capacity from Segment
Capacity for Basic, Merge, and
Basic 3 0.25 0.35 0.40 —
Diverge Segments
4 0.19 0.25 0.28 0.28
2 0.42 0.58 — —
Merge 3 0.23 0.36 0.41 —
4 0.21 0.24 0.25 0.30
2 0.42 0.58 — —
Diverge 3 0.26 0.34 0.40 —
4 0.21 0.24 0.27 0.28
Segment capacities measured from field data may not equal the estimated
capacities from the Chapter 12 methodology for basic freeway segments. Field
measurements of capacity have been found to be lower than HCM estimates (C-3).

Such differences can result in overestimating a segment’s performance. Therefore,

it is recommended that a calibration capacity adjustment factor (CAF) be applied
using Equation 12-8 to adjust the HCM base capacity to local conditions.
Weaving Segments
Capacity distributions are observed to be significantly more complex in
weaving segments compared to other types of freeway segments, and the
breakdown method does not provide reliable results. Capacity is assumed to be
uniform for all lanes within a weaving segment, and is obtained from Equation
13-5, adapted here as Equation 38-C11, based on a maximum density of 43 pc/h/ln:
Equation 38-C11 𝑐𝐼𝑊𝐿 = 𝑐𝐼𝐹𝐿 − [438.2 (1 + 𝑉𝑅)1.6] + (0.0765 𝐿𝑆 ) + (119.8𝑁𝑊𝐿 )
where
cIWL = per-lane capacity of the weaving segment under equivalent ideal
conditions (pc/h/ln),
cIFL = per-lane capacity of a basic freeway segment with the same FFS as the
weaving segment under equivalent ideal conditions (pc/h/ln),
VR = volume ratio,
LS = weaving segment length (ft), and
NWL = number of lanes from which weaving maneuvers may be made with
either one or no lane changes.
Lane-by-Lane Speed
With flow, capacity, and FFS determined by lane, the speed–flow model for
freeway segments given by Equation 12-1 and Exhibit 12-6 is then adapted to
estimate the speeds in individual lanes. Speed in each lane i is determined as:
𝑆𝑖 = 𝐹𝐹𝑆𝑖 if 𝑣𝑖 ≤ 𝐵𝑃𝑖
Equation 38-C12
𝑐
(𝐹𝐹𝑆𝑖 − 𝑖 ) (𝑣𝑖 − 𝐵𝑃𝑖 )2
𝑆𝑖 = 𝐹𝐹𝑆𝑖 − 45 if 𝑣𝑖 > 𝐵𝑃𝑖
(𝑐𝑖 − 𝐵𝑃𝑖 )2
with
Equation 38-C13 𝑣𝑖 = 𝑣 × 𝐿𝐹𝑅𝑖
where
Si = speed in lane i (mi/h);
FFSi = free-flow speed for lane i (mi/h);
ci = capacity of lane i (pc/h/ln);
vi = demand flow rate for lane i (pc/h/ln);
BPi = breakpoint value for lane i (pc/h/ln), from Equation 38-C14;
v = demand flow rate for the segment (pc/h); and
LFRi = share of the total flow on lane i.

The breakpoint value is also determined for each lane:

𝐵𝑃𝑖 = [1000 + 40 × (75 − 𝐹𝐹𝑆𝑖 )] × 𝐶𝐴𝐹 2 Equation 38-C14
where
BPi = breakpoint value for lane i (pc/h/ln),
FFSi = free-flow speed for lane i (mi/h), and
CAF = capacity adjustment factor, from Exhibit 12-6.
For auxiliary lanes in weaving segments, individual lane speeds cannot be
addressed by this methodology because conditions vary widely along the
auxiliary lane’s length, as discussed previously. For the O-D analysis described
in Section 3 of this chapter, auxiliary lane speeds are only relevant when the
subject weaving segment is the entry or exit point of a freeway facility for a
particular O-D pair. In this case, the expected speed for the segment described by
Equation 38-9 can be replaced by the average speed of weaving vehicles
described in Chapter 13:
𝐹𝐹𝑆 × 𝑆𝐴𝐹 − 15
𝑆𝑊 = 15 + ( ) Equation 38-C15
1+𝑊
with
𝐿𝐶ALL 0.789
𝑊 = 0.226 + ( ) Equation 38-C16
𝐿𝑆
where
SW = average speed of weaving vehicles within the weaving segment (mi/h),
FFS = free-flow speed of the weaving segment (mi/h),
SAF = speed adjustment factor,
W = weaving intensity factor (unitless),
LCALL = speed adjustment factor (unitless), and
LS = weaving intensity factor (unitless).
APPLICATION EXAMPLES
Example 1: Diverge Segment from Example Problem 1

This section presents an application of the LFR model for a freeway segment
extracted from Example Problem 1. A 3-lane diverge segment (segment 16 of the
freeway facility) was selected for lane-by-lane analysis, with the following input
data:
• Grade G = 1%
• Heavy vehicle percentage HV% = 2%
• PHF = 0.989
• Ramp density rd = 1 adjacent ramp
• Mainline hourly demand volume V = 4,848 veh/h
• Capacity adjustment factor CAF = 1.0

• Off-ramp demand vR = 960 veh/h
• Measured segment capacity c = 2,400 pc/h/ln (7,200 pc/h).

The mainline hourly demand volume (in veh/h) is first converted to a
demand flow rate under equivalent base conditions (in pc/h), by applying the
heavy vehicle adjustment factor fHV of 0.980 determined from Equation 12-10:
𝑉 4,848
𝑣= = = 5,003 pc/h
𝑃𝐻𝐹 × 𝑓𝐻𝑉 0.989 × 0.980
The flow ratio for lane 1 (right lane) is obtained from Equation 38-C1:
𝐿𝐹𝑅1 = 𝑎1 × ln(𝑣/𝑐) + 𝑏1
This is a diverge segment; therefore, the calibration parameters a and b for
lane 1 are obtained from Equation 38-C5, Equation 38-C6, and Exhibit 38-C1 as
follows:
𝑣𝑅
𝑎1 = 𝑎0 + 𝐺 × 𝑎𝐺 + 𝐻𝑉% × 𝑎𝐻𝑉 + 𝑟𝑑 × 𝑎𝑟𝑑 + × 𝑎𝑣𝑟
1,000
960
𝑎1 = −0.075 + 1 × 0.0077 + 2 × 0.0008 + 1 × 0.014 + × (−0.067)
1,000
𝑎1 = −0.116
𝑣𝑅
𝑏1 = 𝑏0 + 𝐺 × 𝑏𝐺 + 𝐻𝑉% × 𝑏𝐻𝑉 + 𝑟𝑑 × 𝑏𝑟𝑑 + × 𝑏𝑣𝑟
1,000
960
𝑏1 = 0.27 + 1 × (−0.00810) + 2 × 0.00140 + 1 × 0.031 + × 0.013
1000
𝑏1 = 0.308
The lane flow ratio for lane 1 is then:
5,003
𝐿𝐹𝑅1 = −0.116 × ln ( ) + 0.308 = 0.350
7,200
The same procedure is applied to obtain the lane flow ratio for lane 2, using
the respective coefficients from Exhibit 38-C1:
𝑣𝑅
𝑎2 = 𝑎0 + 𝐺 × 𝑎𝐺 + 𝐻𝑉% × 𝑎𝐻𝑉 + 𝑟𝑑 × 𝑎𝑟𝑑 + × 𝑎𝑣𝑟
1,000
𝑎2 = 0.0096 + 1 × (−0.00960) + 2 × (−0.00054) + 1 × (−0.0096)
960
+ × (−0.048)
1,000
𝑎2 = −0.0568
𝑣𝑅
𝑏2 = 𝑏0 + 𝐺 × 𝑏𝐺 + 𝐻𝑉% × 𝑏𝐻𝑉 + 𝑟𝑑 × 𝑏𝑟𝑑 + × 𝑏𝑣𝑟
1,000
960
𝑏2 = 0.34 + 1 × (−0.0019) + 2 × (0.00089) + 1 × 0.0052 + × (−0.073)
1,000
𝑏2 = 0.275
5,003
𝐿𝐹𝑅2 = −0.0568 × ln ( ) + 0.275 = 0.296
7,200
Finally, the LFR for the leftmost lane (lane 3) is obtained from Equation 38-C2:
𝐿𝐹𝑅3 = 1 − 𝐿𝐹𝑅2 − 𝐿𝐹𝑅1 = 1 − 0.350 − 0.296 = 0.354

Lane flows can be obtained by multiplying the segment demand by

respective LFR values for each lane, using Equation 38-C13:
𝑣1 = 𝑣 × 𝐿𝐹𝑅1 = 5,003 × 0.350 = 1,751 pc/h/ln
𝑣2 = 𝑣 × 𝐿𝐹𝑅2 = 5,003 × 0.296 = 1,481 pc/h/ln
𝑣3 = 𝑣 × 𝐿𝐹𝑅3 = 5,003 × 0.354 = 1,771 pc/h/ln
Lane-by-lane FFS is obtained by multiplying the segment FFS (75.4 mi/h) by
the appropriate multipliers from Exhibit 38-C8:
𝐹𝐹𝑆1 = 𝐹𝐹𝑆 × 0.943 = 75.4 × 0.943 = 71.10 mi/h
𝐹𝐹𝑆2 = 𝐹𝐹𝑆 × 1.024 = 75.4 × 1.024 = 77.21 mi/h
𝐹𝐹𝑆3 = 𝐹𝐹𝑆 × 1.064 = 75.4 × 1.068 = 80.53 mi/h
Lane-by-lane capacities are obtained by multiplying the segment capacity
(7,200 pc/h) by the appropriate multipliers from Exhibit 38-C9:
𝑐1 = 𝑐 × 0.26 = 7200 × 0.26 = 1,872 pc/h
𝑐2 = 𝑐 × 0.34 = 7200 × 0.34 = 2,448 pc/h
𝑐3 = 𝑐 × 0.40 = 7200 × 0.40 = 2,880 pc/h
Breakpoint values for each lane are obtained from Equation 38-C14:
𝐵𝑃1 = [1,000 + 40 × (75 − 𝐹𝐹𝑆1 ) × 𝐶𝐴𝐹2 ]
𝐵𝑃1 = [1,000 + 40 × (75 − 71.10) × 1] = 1,156 pc/h
𝐵𝑃2 = [1,000 + 40 × (75 − 𝐹𝐹𝑆2) × 𝐶𝐴𝐹2 ]
𝐵𝑃2 = [1,000 + 40 × (75 − 77.21) × 1] = 912 pc/h
𝐵𝑃3 = [1,000 + 40 × (75 − 𝐹𝐹𝑆3) × 𝐶𝐴𝐹2 ]
𝐵𝑃1 = [1,000 + 40 × (75 − 80.53) × 1] = 779 pc/h
The average speed of each lane is obtained by applying Equation 38-C12:
𝑐𝑖
(𝐹𝐹𝑆𝑖 − 45 ) (𝑣𝑖 − 𝐵𝑃𝑖 )2
𝑆𝑖 = 𝐹𝐹𝑆𝑖 −
(𝑐𝑖 − 𝐵𝑃𝑖 )2
1,872
(71.10 − 45 ) (1,751 − 1,156)2
𝑆1 = 71.10 − = 50.7 mi/h
(1,872 − 1,156)2
2,448
(77.21 − 45 ) (1,481 − 912)2
𝑆2 = 77.21 − = 74.1 mi/h
(2,448 − 912)2
2,880
(80.53 − 45 ) (1,771 − 779)2
𝑆3 = 80.53 − = 76.8 mi/h
(2,880 − 779)2
The lane-by-lane speed–flow curves are compared to the overall segment
curve in Exhibit 38-C10.

Exhibit 38-C10
Comparison of Speed–Flow
Curves by Lane and for the
Segment
Example 2: Weaving Segment

This section presents an application of the LFR model for the weaving
segment depicted in Exhibit 38-C11 to estimate the upstream lane flow shares.
Exhibit 38-C11
Example of LFR Calculation for
a Weaving Segment
The following input data are available:

• Number of lanes within the weave N = 5
• Number of upstream lanes NUP = 4
• Grade G = −0.5%
• Level terrain
• Heavy vehicle percentage HV% = 3.3%
• Interchange density ID = 0.67
• Weaving length LS = 3,920 ft
• Upstream mainline demand flow rate vUP = 4,512 veh/h
• On-ramp demand flow rate vR,m = 428 veh/h
• Freeway-to-freeway demand vFF = 3,312 veh/h
• Freeway-to-ramp demand vFR = 1,200 veh/h
• Ramp-to-freeway demand vRF = 404 veh/h
• Ramp-to-ramp demand vRR = 24 veh/h
• Off-ramp flow rate vR,d = 1,224 veh/h
• Number of weaving lanes NWL = 2
• Measured segment FFS = 70 mi/h

The heavy vehicle adjustment factor is calculated from Equation 12-10, using
a passenger car equivalency ET of 2:
1 1
𝑓𝐻𝑉 = = = 0.968
1 + 𝑃𝑇 (𝐸𝑇 − 1) 1 + 0.03(2 − 1)
The weaving and non-weaving demands are adjusted to flow rates under
ideal conditions. Because the demands are estimated based on 15-min intervals,
it is assumed the PHF is set to 1.
𝑉
𝑣=
𝑃𝐻𝐹 × 𝑓𝐻𝑉
24
𝑣𝑅𝑅 = = 24.8 pc/h
1 × 0.968
404
𝑣𝑅𝐹 = = 417.3 pc/h
1 × 0.968
1200
𝑣𝐹𝑅 = = 1,239.6 pc/h
1 × 0.968
3312
𝑣𝐹𝐹 = = 3,421.3 pc/h
1 × 0.968
The weaving and non-weaving flows are given by:
𝑣𝑊 = 𝑣𝐹𝑅 + 𝑣𝑅𝐹 = 1,239.6 + 417.3 = 1,656.9 pc/h
𝑣𝑁𝑊 = 𝑣𝑅𝑅 + 𝑣𝐹𝐹 = 24.8 + 3,421.3 = 3,446.1 pc/h
The volume ratio is computed as:
𝑣𝑊 1,656.9
𝑉𝑅 = = = 0.325
𝑣 1,656.9 + 3,446.1
A weaving segment’s capacity is the smaller of the density-based capacity
cIWL from Equation 13-5 and the weaving-demand-based capacity cIW from
Equation 13-7. The segment’s base capacity cIFL is 2,400 pc/h based on the
measured FFS of 70 mi/h. Because the LFR is calculated in the next step using
flows and capacities in veh/h/ln, the capacities calculated in this step are
converted from units of pc/h/ln by applying the heavy vehicle factor.
𝑐′𝐼𝑊𝐿 = 𝑐𝐼𝐹𝐿 − [438.2(1 + 𝑉𝑅)1.6 ] + (0.0765𝐿𝑠 ) + (119.8𝑁𝑊𝐿 )
𝑐′𝐼𝑊𝐿 = 2,400 − [438.2(1 + 0.325)1.6 ] + (0.0765 × 3,920) + (119.8 × 2)
𝑐′𝐼𝑊𝐿 = 2,252.3 pc/h/ln
𝑐𝐼𝑊𝐿 = 𝑐′𝐼𝑊𝐿 × 𝑓𝐻𝑉 = 2,252.3 × 0.968 = 2,180.4 veh/h/ln
2,400 2,400
𝑐′𝐼𝑊 = = = 7,385 pc/h
𝑉𝑅 0.325
𝑐′𝐼𝑊𝐿 × 𝑓𝐻𝑉 7,385 × 0.968
𝑐𝐼𝑊 = = = 1,787 veh/h/ln
𝑁UP 4
𝑐 = min(𝑐𝐼𝑊𝐿 , 𝑐𝐼𝑊 ) = min(2,180.4, 1,787) = 1,787 veh/h/ln

The capacity of the weaving segment upstream the weave is obtained by:
𝑐UP = 𝑐 × 𝑁UP = 1,787 × 4 = 7,148 veh/h
The flow ratio for lane 1 (right lane) is obtained from Equation 38-C1:
𝑣up
𝐿𝐹𝑅1 = 𝑎1 × ln ( ) + 𝑏1
𝑐UP
Because this a weaving segment, the calibration parameters 𝑎 and 𝑏 for lane 1
are obtained using Equation 38-C7, Equation 38-C8, and Exhibit 38-C2 as follows:
𝑎1 = 𝑎0 + 𝐺 × 𝑎𝐺 + 𝐻𝑉% × 𝑎𝐻𝑉 + 𝐼𝐷 × 𝑎𝐼 + × 𝑎𝑣𝑚 + × 𝑎𝑣𝑑
1,000 1,000
𝐿𝑠
1,000
𝑎1 = −0.13 + (−0.5) × 0.13 + 3.3 × (−0.012) + 0.67 × (−0.0025)

428 1,224 3,920
+ × 0.072 + × (−0.13) + × 0.056
1,000 1,000 1,000
+ 0.325 × (−0.11)
𝑎1 = −0.181
𝑏1 = 𝑏0 + 𝐺 × 𝑏𝐺 + 𝐻𝑉% × 𝑏𝐻𝑉 + 𝐼𝐷 × 𝑏𝐼 + × 𝑏𝑣𝑚 + × 𝑏𝑣𝑑
1,000 1,000
𝐿𝑠
1,000
𝑏1 = 0.24 + (−0.5) × (−0.03) + 3.3 × (−0.0043) + 0.67 × (−0.0067)

428 1,224 3,920
+ × 0.065 + × 0.063 + × (−0.03)
1,000 1,000 1,000
+ 0.325 × (−0.14)
𝑏1 = 0.178
The lane flow ratio for lane 1 is then:
4,512
𝐿𝐹𝑅1 = −0.181 × ln ( ) + 0.178
7,148
𝐿𝐹𝑅1 = 0.261
The same procedure is applied to estimate the LFR for lane 2, using the
respective coefficients from Exhibit 38-C2:
1,000 1,000
𝐿𝑠
1,000
𝑎2 = 0.0048 + (−0.5) × (−0.0048) + 3.3 × (−0.0048) + 0.67 × (−0.0048)

428 1224 3920
+ × (−0.031) + × 0.03 + × 0.002
1,000 1,000 1,000
+ 0.325 × (−0.0045)
𝑎2 = 0.01797

1,000 1,000
𝐿𝑠
1,000
𝑏2 = 0.26 + (−0.5) × 0.045 + 3.3 × (−0.011) + 0.67 × (−0.005)

428 1,224 3,920
+ × (−0.0089) + × (−0.015) + × 0.011
1,000 1,000 1,000
+ 0.325 × 0.04
𝑏2 = 0.2318
4,512
𝐿𝐹𝑅2 = 0.01797 × ln ( ) + 0.2318 = 0.224
7,148
The same procedure is applied to obtain the LFR for lane 3, using the
respective coefficients from Exhibit 38-C2:
1,000 1,000
𝐿𝑠
1,000
𝑎3 = 0.12 + (−0.5) × (−0.12) + 3.3 × 0.019 + 0.67 × (−0.12)

428 1,224 3,920
+ × (−0.011) + × 0.051 + × (−0.041)
1,000 1,000 1,000
+ 0.325 × 0.12
𝑎3 = 0.09830
1,000 1,000
𝐿𝑠
1,000
𝑏3 = 0.27 + (−0.5) × 0.041 + 3.3 × (−0.0043) + 0.67 × (−0.0026)

428 1,224 3,920
+ × (−0.038) + × (−0.037) + × 0.02
1,000 1,000 1,000
+ 0.325 × 0.15
𝑏3 = 0.2992
4,512
𝐿𝐹𝑅3 = 0.09830 × ln ( ) + 0.2992 = 0.254
7,148
Finally, the LFR for the leftmost lane (lane 4) is obtained from Equation 38-C2:
𝐿𝐹𝑅4 = 1 − 𝐿𝐹𝑅3 − 𝐿𝐹𝑅2 − 𝐿𝐹𝑅1 = 1 − 0.254 − 0.224 − 0.261 = 0.261
It is worth noting that the methodology predicts flow distribution and
speeds for lanes upstream of the on-ramp, which means the weaving auxiliary
lane is not covered by the scope of this example problem.

Example 3: Basic Segment

In this example, a 2-lane basic segment on northbound Highway 1 in Santa
Cruz, CA is modeled, and the lane-by-lane performance is compared to field
data. Field-measured parameters are as follows:
• Segment FFS = 69.1 mi/h
• Segment capacity = 3,993 veh/h = 1,996.5 veh/h/ln
• % heavy vehicles = 1.7%
• Grade = 3% (rolling)
The FFS multipliers for a 2-lane basic segment given in Exhibit 38-C8 are
applied to the segment FFS to obtain lane-by-lane FFS:
𝐹𝐹𝑆1 = 𝐹𝐹𝑆 × 0.965 = 69.1 × 0.965 = 66.68 mi/h
𝐹𝐹𝑆2 = 𝐹𝐹𝑆 × 1.032 = 69.1 × 1.032 = 71.31 mi/h
Next, individual lane capacities are obtained by applying the capacity
multipliers for a 2-lane basic segment (Exhibit 38-C9) to the segment capacity:
𝑐1 = 𝑐 × 0.44 = 3,993 × 0.44 = 1,757 veh/h
𝑐2 = 𝑐 × 0.56 = 3,993 × 0.56 = 2,236 veh/h
For comparison, the Chapter 12 method produces the following theoretical
capacity:
𝑐 = [2200 + 10 × (𝐹𝐹𝑆 – 50)] × 𝑓𝐻𝑉
𝑐 = [2200 + 10 × (69.1 − 50) )] × 0.967
𝑐 = 2,312 veh/h/ln
Therefore, a calibration CAF for this location can be obtained by dividing the
field-measured capacity by the theoretical capacity:
𝑐𝑎𝑑𝑗 1,996.5
𝐶𝐴𝐹 = = = 0.864
𝑐 2,312
Next, the breakpoint values for each lane are obtained using Equation 38-C14:
𝐵𝑃1 = [1,000 + 40 × (75 − 𝐹𝐹𝑆1)] × 𝐶𝐴𝐹 2
𝐵𝑃1 = [1,000 + 40 × (75 − 66.68)] × 0.8642
𝐵𝑃1 = 995 pc/h
𝐵𝑃2 = [1,000 + 40 × (75 − 𝐹𝐹𝑆2)] × 𝐶𝐴𝐹 2
𝐵𝑃2 = [1,000 + 40 × (75 − 71.31)] × 0.8642
𝐵𝑃2 = 857 pc/h
Lane flow ratios are obtained by applying Equation 38-C1 to the flow rate
entering the segment. Next, speeds on individual lanes are obtained using the
speed–flow relationship described in Equation 38-C12. For this location, a sample
of 14,690 observations (15 min each) was randomly selected. Predicted speeds
were compared to field data as shown in Exhibit 38-C12.

Exhibit 38-C12
Comparison of Predicted and
Field-Measured Lane-by-Lane
Speeds
(a) Lane 1 (Right Lane)
(b) Lane 2 (Left Lane)
As shown in the figures, the lane-by-lane speed–flow models can replicate

field conditions with good accuracy. Naturally, the oversaturated portion of the
speed–flow curve cannot be addressed by the model, because this is a limitation
of the core Chapter 12 method.
REFERENCES
C-1. University of Florida Transportation Institute; Cambridge Systematics, Some of these references can
be found in the Technical
Inc.; and A. Skabardonis. NCHRP Web-Only Document 290: Highway Reference Library in Volume 4.
Capacity Manual Methodologies for Corridors Involving Freeways and Surface
Streets. Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2020.
C-2. Sasahara, F., L. Elefteriadou, and S. Dong. Lane-by-Lane Analysis
Framework for Conducting Highway Capacity Analyses at Freeway
Segments. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation
Research Board, Vol. 2673, Issue 8, 2019, pp. 523–535.
C-3. Sasahara, F., L. Carvalho, T. Chowdhury, Z. Jerome, L. Elefteriadou, and A.
Skabardonis. Predicting Lane-by-Lane Flows and Speeds for Freeway
Segments. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation
Research Board, Vol. 2674, Issue 9, 2020, pp. 1052–1068.


Chapter 38 - Network Analysis - 700

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Chapter 38 - Network Analysis - 700

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

Chapter 38 - Network Analysis - 700

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

HIGHWAY CAPACITY

MANUAL 7th Edition

Copyright 2022 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Printed in the United States of America

Hardcover International Standard Book Number-13: 978-0-309-08766-7

The three Academies work together as the National Academies of Sciences,

Learn more about the Transportation Research Board at www.TRB.org.

2. CONCEPTS ............................................................................................................. 38-3

3. METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................. 38-9

4. EXAMPLE PROBLEMS....................................................................................... 38-28

APPENDIX A: OFF-RAMP QUEUE SPILLBACK ANALYSIS ....................... 38-81

Chapter 38/Network Analysis Contents

APPENDIX B: ON-RAMP QUEUE SPILLBACK ANALYSIS .......................38-130

APPENDIX C: LANE-BY-LANE ANALYSIS FOR FREEWAY

Contents Chapter 38/Network Analysis

Exhibit 38-1 Off-Ramp Components ........................................................................ 38-4

Chapter 38/Network Analysis Contents

Exhibit 38-25 Example Problem 1: List of Intersections, Ramps, and

Contents Chapter 38/Network Analysis

Chapter 38/Network Analysis Contents

Exhibit 38-71 Example Problem 2B: Performance Measure Comparison

Contents Chapter 38/Network Analysis

Exhibit 38-A1 Off-Ramp Queue Spillback Check Flowchart .............................. 38-81

Chapter 38/Network Analysis Contents

Contents Chapter 38/Network Analysis

Exhibit 38-B14 Roundabouts Methodology With Adjustments to Address

Chapter 38/Network Analysis Contents

OVERVIEW VOLUME 4: APPLICATIONS

RELATED HCM CONTENT

Chapter 38/Network Analysis Introduction

Introduction Chapter 38/Network Analysis

SPILLBACK IMPACT ON FREEWAYS

Chapter 38/Network Analysis Concepts

Queue Spillback Regimes

(a) Regine 0: No queue or queue contained within the ramp roadway

Concepts Chapter 38/Network Analysis

available deceleration distance is reduced, and speeds begin to be affected in the

Capacity Adjustment Factors

Chapter 38/Network Analysis Concepts

Exhibit 38-3 Directional Lanes 1 Queued Lane 2 Queued Lanes

A capacity adjustment factor CAFUP is applied to the queue influence area

SPILLBACK IMPACT ON URBAN STREETS

Concepts Chapter 38/Network Analysis

(a) Signalized intersection spillback (b) Roundabout spillback

Chapter 38/Network Analysis Concepts

PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT FOR NETWORKS AND O-D PAIRS

Concepts Chapter 38/Network Analysis

This chapter’s methodology provides tools for evaluating the performance of

Chapter 38/Network Analysis Methodology

Strengths of the Methodology

Methodology Chapter 38/Network Analysis

REQUIRED DATA AND SOURCES

Off-Ramp Queue Spillback: Expected Number of Queued Lanes

Chapter 38/Network Analysis Methodology

Exhibit 38-8 Driver Aggressiveness

Methodology Chapter 38/Network Analysis

Step 1: Define Spatial and Temporal Analysis Scope

Step 2: Provide Input Parameters for Freeway and Urban Street

Step 3: Balance Demands at Freeway–Urban Street Interface