Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Chapter 32 - Stop-Controlled Intersections Supp - 700
Chapter 32 - Stop-Controlled Intersections Supp - 700
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.
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.
CHAPTER 32
STOP-CONTROLLED INTERSECTIONS: SUPPLEMENTAL
CONTENTS
LIST OF EXHIBITS
Exhibit 32-1 Potential Capacity cp,x for Two-Lane Major Streets ..........................32-2
Exhibit 32-2 Potential Capacity cp,x for Four-Lane Major Streets ..........................32-3
Exhibit 32-3 Potential Capacity cp,x for Six-Lane Major Streets .............................32-3
Exhibit 32-4 TWSC Example Problems ....................................................................32-4
Exhibit 32-5 TWSC Example Problem 1: 15-min Volumes and Lane
Configurations .....................................................................................................32-4
Exhibit 32-6 TWSC Example Problem 1: Movement Numbers and
Calculation of Peak 15-min Flow Rates ............................................................32-5
Exhibit 32-7 TWSC Example Problem 2: Pedestrian Satisfaction Results
for Scenarios B and C ........................................................................................32-15
Exhibit 32-8 TWSC Example Problem 3: 15-min Volumes and Lane
Configurations ...................................................................................................32-15
Exhibit 32-9 TWSC Example Problem 3: Movement Numbers and
Calculation of Peak 15-min Flow Rates ..........................................................32-16
Exhibit 32-10 TWSC Example Problem 4: TWSC Intersection Within a
Signalized Urban Street Segment ....................................................................32-29
Exhibit 32-11 TWSC Example Problem 4: 15-min Flow Rates and Lane
Configurations ...................................................................................................32-29
Exhibit 32-12 TWSC Example Problem 4: Movement-Based Access Point
Output (from Chapter 30, Example Problem 1) ............................................32-30
Exhibit 32-13 TWSC Example Problem 4: Movement Numbers and
Calculation of Peak 15-min Flow Rates ..........................................................32-30
Exhibit 32-14 TWSC Example Problem 5: Volumes and Lane
Configurations ...................................................................................................32-40
Exhibit 32-15 TWSC Example Problem 5: Movement Numbers and
Calculation of Peak 15-min Flow Rates ..........................................................32-40
Exhibit 32-16 Probability of Degree-of-Conflict Case: Multilane AWSC
Intersections (Three-Lane Approaches, by Lane) (Cases 1–49) ...................32-48
Exhibit 32-17 AWSC Example Problems ................................................................32-57
Exhibit 32-18 AWSC Example Problem 1: Volumes and Lane Configurations ..32-57
Exhibit 32-19 AWSC Example Problem 1: Applicable Degree-of-Conflict
Cases ....................................................................................................................32-59
Exhibit 32-20 AWSC Example Problem 1: Eastbound Saturation Headways ....32-60
Exhibit 32-21 AWSC Example Problem 1: Convergence Check ............................ 32-61
Exhibit 32-22 AWSC Example Problem 2: 15-min Volumes and Lane
Configurations ....................................................................................................32-63
Exhibit 32-23 AWSC Example Problem 2: 15-min Volumes Converted to
Hourly Flow Rates..............................................................................................32-63
Exhibit 32-24 AWSC Example Problem 2: Convergence Check ...........................32-67
INTRODUCTION
Chapter 32 is the supplemental chapter for Chapter 20, Two-Way STOP- VOLUME 4: APPLICATIONS
GUIDE
Controlled Intersections, and Chapter 21, All-Way STOP-Controlled Intersections, 25. Freeway Facilities:
which are found in Volume 3 of the Highway Capacity Manual. This chapter Supplemental
26. Freeway and Highway
provides supplemental material on (a) determining the potential capacity of two- Segments: Supplemental
way STOP-controlled (TWSC) intersections and (b) identifying the 512 27. Freeway Weaving:
Supplemental
combinations of degree-of-conflict cases for all-way STOP-controlled (AWSC) 28. Freeway Merges and
intersections with three-lane approaches. The chapter also provides example Diverges: Supplemental
29. Urban Street Facilities:
problems demonstrating the application of the TWSC and AWSC methodologies. Supplemental
30. Urban Street Segments:
Supplemental
31. Signalized Intersections:
Supplemental
32. STOP-Controlled
Intersections:
Supplemental
33. Roundabouts:
Supplemental
34. Interchange Ramp
Terminals: Supplemental
35. Pedestrians and Bicycles:
Supplemental
36. Concepts: Supplemental
37. ATDM: Supplemental
38. Network Analysis
Exhibit 32-1
Potential Capacity cp,x for
Two-Lane Major Streets
Exhibit 32-2
Potential Capacity cp,x for
Four-Lane Major Streets
Exhibit 32-3
Potential Capacity cp,x for
Six-Lane Major Streets
This section provides example problems for use of the TWSC methodology.
Exhibit 32-4 provides an overview of these problems. The examples focus on the
operational analysis level. The planning and preliminary engineering analysis
level is identical to the operations analysis level in terms of the calculations,
except that default values are used when available.
Exhibit 32-5
TWSC Example Problem 1:
15-min Volumes and Lane
Configurations
Comments
All input parameters are known, so no default values are needed or used.
Exhibit 32-6
TWSC Example Problem 1:
Movement Numbers and
Calculation of Peak 15-min
Flow Rates
𝑓7 = ∏ 𝑝0,𝑗 = 0.871
𝑗
The movement capacity for the minor-street left-turn movement (Rank 3) cm,7
is computed with Equation 20-33:
𝑐𝑚,7 = 𝑐𝑝,7 × 𝑓7 = 308(0.871) = 268 veh/h
3,600 𝑣
3,600 𝑣𝑥 𝑣
2 (𝑐 ) (𝑐 𝑥 )
− 1 + √(
𝑥 𝑚,𝑥 𝑚,𝑥
𝑑= + 900𝑇 − 1) + +5
𝑐𝑚,𝑥 𝑐𝑚,𝑥 𝑐𝑚,𝑥 450𝑇
[ ]
3,600 160
3,600 160 160 2 (1,238) (1,238)
𝑑4 = + 900(0.25) √
−1+ ( − 1) + +5
1,238 1,238 1,238 450(0.25)
[ ]
𝑑4 = 8.3 s
On the basis of Exhibit 20-2, the westbound left-turn movement is assigned
level of service (LOS) A.
The control delay for the minor-street right-turn and left-turn movements is
computed by using the same formula; however, one significant difference from
the major-street left-turn computation of control delay is that these movements
share the same lane. Therefore, the control delay is computed for the approach as
a whole, and the shared-lane volume and shared-lane capacity must be used as
follows:
2
3,600 160
3,600 160 160 ( 521 ) (521)
𝑑𝑆𝐻,𝑁𝐵 = + 900(0.25) √
−1+ ( − 1) + +5
521 521 521 450(0.25)
[ ]
𝑑𝑆𝐻,𝑁𝐵 = 14.9 s
On the basis of Exhibit 20-2, the northbound approach is assigned LOS B.
3,600 𝑣
𝑣4
2 ( )( 𝑥 ) 𝑐
√ 𝑣4 𝑐𝑚,4 𝑐𝑚,4 𝑚,4
𝑄95,4 ≈ 900𝑇 −1+ ( − 1) + ( )
𝑐𝑚,4 𝑐𝑚,4 150𝑇 3,600
[ ]
3,600 160
160 160 2 (1,238) (1,238) 1,238
𝑄95,4 ≈ 900(0.25) − 1 + √( − 1) + ( )
1,238 1,238 150(0.25) 3,600
[ ]
𝑄95,4 = 0.4 veh
The result of 0.4 vehicles for the 95th percentile queue indicates a queue of
more than one vehicle will occur very infrequently for the major-street left-turn
movement.
The 95th percentile queue length for the northbound approach is computed
by using the same formula. Similar to the control delay computation, the shared-
lane volume and shared-lane capacity must be used as shown:
2
3,600 160
160 160 ( )( )
𝑄95,𝑁𝐵 ≈ 900(0.25) √
−1+ ( − 1) + 521 521 ( 521 )
521 521 150(0.25) 3,600
[ ]
𝑄95,𝑁𝐵 = 1.3 veh
The result suggests that a queue of more than one vehicle will occur only
occasionally for the northbound approach.
Discussion
Overall, the results indicate this three-leg TWSC intersection will operate
well with brief delays and little queuing for all minor movements.
The Facts
The following data are available to describe the traffic and geometric
characteristics of this location:
• Four-lane major street;
• 1,700 peak hour vehicles, bidirectional;
• K-factor = 0.08;
• Crosswalk length without median = 46 ft;
• Crosswalk length with median = 20 ft each side of median;
• Observed pedestrian walking speed = 4.0 ft/s;
• Observed pedestrian start-up and end clearance time = 1.0 s; and
• No pedestrian platooning.
Comments
In addition to the input data listed above, information is required on motor
vehicle yield rates under the various scenarios. On the basis of an engineering
study of similar intersections in the vicinity, it is determined that average motor
vehicle yield rates are 0% with unmarked crosswalks, 50% with marked
crosswalks and median islands, and 80% with marked crosswalks, median
islands, and RRFBs.
𝑃𝑑 = 1 − (1 − 𝑃𝑏 )𝑁𝐿
−12.5(0.472)
𝑃𝑏 = 1 − 𝑒 4 = 0.771
4
𝑃𝑑 = 1 − (1 − 0.771) = 0.997
Scenarios B and C:
−6.0(0.236)
𝑃𝑏 = 1 − 𝑒 2 = 0.508
2
𝑃𝑑 = 1 − (1 − 0.508) = 0.758
1
𝑑𝑔 = (𝑒 0.472(12.5) − 0.472(12.5) − 1) = 761 s
0.472
𝑑𝑔 761
𝑑𝑔𝑑 = = = 763 s
𝑃𝑑 0.997
Scenarios B and C:
1
𝑑𝑔 = (𝑒 0.236(6.0) − 0.236(6.0) − 1) = 7.2 s
0.236
7.2
𝑑𝑔𝑑 = = 9.5 s
0.758
𝑃(𝑌0 ) = 0
(2[0.508][1 − 0.508][0.50]) + (0.50820.502 )
𝑃(𝑌1 ) = [0.758 − 0] [ ] = 0.314
0.758
(2[0.508][1 − 0.508][0.50]) + (0.5082 0.502 )
𝑃(𝑌2 ) = [0.758 − 0.314] [ ] = 0.184
0.758
(2[0.508][1 − 0.508][0.50]) + (0.5082 0.502 )
𝑃(𝑌3 ) = [0.758 − 0.498] [ ] = 0.108
0.758
(2[0.61][1 − 0.61][0.5]) + (0.612 0.502 )
𝑃(𝑌4 ) = [0.758 − 0.606] [ ] = 0.063
0.85
variable IRFFB is also 1 because RFFBs are provided. Exhibit 32-7 provides the
calculation results for Scenarios B and C.
Exhibit 32-7
Variable Scenario B Scenario C TWSC Example Problem 2:
O (S/D, no delay) 13.44 95.15 Pedestrian Satisfaction Results
P (S, no delay) 93.1% 99.0% for Scenarios B and C
P (D, no delay) 6.9% 1.0%
O (S/D, delay) 2.00 14.15
P (S, delay) 66.6% 93.4%
P (D, delay) 33.4% 6.6%
Pd 0.758 0.758
P (Y1) 0.314 0.565
Pnd 0.481 0.670
P (D) 0.207 0.029
LOS C A
Discussion
Providing a marked crosswalk and a median refuge island improves the LOS
from F to C in Scenario B, and the further addition of RRFBs improves the LOS to
A in Scenario C.
Exhibit 32-8
TWSC Example Problem 3:
15-min Volumes and Lane
Configurations
Comments
All relevant input parameters are known, so no default values are needed or
used.
Exhibit 32-9
TWSC Example Problem 3:
Movement Numbers and
Calculation of Peak 15-min
Flow Rates
this movement, the conflicting flow rates shown in Stage I and Stage II must be
computed separately. The conflicting flow for Stage I vc,I,8 is computed from
Equation 20-8 and Exhibit 20-13:
𝑣𝑐,I,8 = 𝑓𝑐,8,1 𝑣1 + 𝑓𝑐,8,1𝑈 𝑣1𝑈 + 𝑓𝑐,8,2 𝑣2 + 𝑓𝑐,8,3 𝑣3 + 𝑓𝑐,8,15 𝑣15
𝑣𝑐,I,8 = 2(33) + 2(0) + 1(250) + 0.5(50) + 1(0) = 341 veh/h
The conflicting flow for Stage II vc,II,8 is computed from Equation 20-10 and
Exhibit 20-13:
𝑣𝑐,II,8 = 𝑓𝑐,8,4 𝑣4 + 𝑓𝑐,8,4𝑈 𝑣4𝑈 + 𝑓𝑐,8,5 𝑣5 + 𝑓𝑐,8,6 𝑣6 + 𝑓𝑐,8,16 𝑣16
𝑣𝑐,II,8 = 2(66) + 2(0) + 1(300) + 1(100) + 1(0) = 532 veh/h
The total conflicting flow for the northbound through movement vc,8 is
computed as follows:
𝑣𝑐,8 = 𝑣𝑐,I,8 + 𝑣𝑐,II,8 = 341 + 532 = 873 veh/h
Similarly, the conflicting flow for the southbound minor-street through
movement vc,11 is computed in two stages as follows:
𝑣𝑐,I,11 = 2(66) + 2(0) + 1(300) + 0.5(100) + 1(0) = 482 veh/h
𝑣𝑐,II,11 = 2(33) + 2(0) + 1(250) + 1(50) + 1(0) = 366 veh/h
𝑣𝑐,11 = 𝑣𝑐,I,11 + 𝑣𝑐,II,11 = 482 + 366 = 848 veh/h
Next, the conflicting flow for the northbound minor-street left-turn
movement vc,7 is computed. Because two-stage gap acceptance is available for
this movement, the conflicting flow rates shown in Stage I and Stage II must be
computed separately. The conflicting flow for Stage I vc,I,7 is computed with
Equation 20-12 and Exhibit 20-16 as follows:
𝑣𝑐,I,7 = 𝑓𝑐,7,1 𝑣1 + 𝑓𝑐,7,1𝑈 𝑣1𝑈 + 𝑓𝑐,7,2 𝑣2 + 𝑓𝑐,7,3 𝑣3 + 𝑓𝑐,7,15 𝑣15
𝑣𝑐,I,7 = 2(33) + 2(0) + 1(250) + 0.5(50) + 1(0) = 341 veh/h
The conflicting flow for Stage II vc,II,7 is computed with Equation 20-26 as
follows:
𝑣𝑐,II,7 = 𝑓𝑐,7,4 𝑣4 + 𝑓𝑐,7,4𝑈 𝑣4𝑈 + 𝑓𝑐,7,5 𝑣5 + 𝑓𝑐,7,6 𝑣6 + 𝑓𝑐,7,13 𝑣13
𝑣𝑐,II,7 = 2(66) + 2(0) + 0.5(300) + 0.5(110) + 1(0) = 337 veh/h
The total conflicting flow for the northbound left-turn movement vc,7 is
computed as follows:
𝑣𝑐,7 = 𝑣𝑐,I,7 + 𝑣𝑐,II,7 = 341 + 337 = 678 veh/h
Similarly, the conflicting flow for the southbound minor-street left-turn
movement vc,10 is computed in two stages as follows:
𝑣𝑐,I,10 = 2(66) + 2(0) + 1(300) + 0.5(100) + 1(0) = 482 veh/h
𝑣𝑐,II,10 = 2(33) + 2(0) + 0.5(250) + 0.5(132) + 1(0) = 257 veh/h
𝑣𝑐,10 = 𝑣𝑐,I,10 + 𝑣𝑐,II,10 = 482 + 257 = 739 veh/h
headways for the eastbound and westbound major-street left turns tc,1 and tc,4 (in
this case, tc,1 = tc,4) are computed as follows:
𝑡𝑐,1 = 𝑡𝑐,4 = 𝑡𝑐,base + 𝑡𝑐,𝐻𝑉 𝑃𝐻𝑉 + 𝑡𝑐,𝐺 𝐺 − 𝑡3,𝐿𝑇
𝑡𝑐,1 = 𝑡𝑐,4 = 4.1 + 2.0(0.1) + 0(0) − 0 = 4.3 s
Next, the critical headways for the northbound and southbound minor-street
right-turn movements tc,9 and tc,12 (in this case, tc,9 = tc,12) are computed as follows:
𝑡𝑐,9 = 𝑡𝑐,12 = 6.9 + 2.0(0.1) + 0.1(0) − 0 = 7.1 s
Next, the critical headways for the northbound and southbound minor-street
through movements tc,8 and tc,11 (in this case, tc,8 = tc,11) are computed. Because
two-stage gap acceptance is available for these movements, the critical headways
for Stage I and Stage II must be computed, along with the critical headways for
these movements assuming single-stage gap acceptance. The critical headways
for Stage I and Stage II, tc,I,8, tc,I,11 and tc,II,8, tc,II,11, respectively (in this case, tc,I,8 = tc,II,8
= tc,I,11 = tc,II,11), are computed as follows:
𝑡𝑐,I,8 = 𝑡𝑐,II,8 = 𝑡𝑐,I,11 = 𝑡𝑐,II,11 = 5.5 + 2.0(0.1) + 0.2(0) − 0 = 5.7 s
The critical headways for tc,8 and tc,11 (in this case, tc,8 = tc,11), assuming single-
stage gap acceptance, are computed as follows:
𝑡𝑐,8 = 𝑡𝑐,11 = 6.5 + 2.0(0.1) + 0.2(0) − 0 = 6.7 s
Finally, the critical headways for the northbound and southbound minor-
street left-turn movements tc,7 and tc,10 (in this case, tc,7 = tc,10) are computed.
Because two-stage gap acceptance is available for these movements, the critical
headways for Stage I and Stage II must be computed, along with the critical
headways for these movements assuming single-stage gap acceptance. The
critical headways for Stage I and Stage II, tc,I,7, tc,I,10 and tc,II,7, tc,II,10, respectively (in
this case, tc,I,7 = tc,II,7 = tc,I,10 = tc,II,10), are computed as follows:
𝑡𝑐,I,7 = 𝑡𝑐,II,7 = 𝑡𝑐,I,10 = 𝑡𝑐,II,10 = 6.5 + 2.0(0.1) + 0.2(0) − 0 = 6.7 s
The critical headways for tc,7 and tc,10 (in this case, tc,7 = tc,10), assuming single-
stage gap acceptance, are computed as follows:
𝑡𝑐,7 = 𝑡𝑐,10 = 7.5 + 2.0(0.1) + 0.2(0) − 0 = 7.7 s
The follow-up headway for each minor movement is computed beginning
with the base follow-up headway given in Exhibit 20-18. The base follow-up
headway for each movement is then adjusted according to Equation 20-17. The
follow-up headways for the northbound and southbound major-street left-turn
movements tf,1 and tf,4 (in this case, tf,1 = tf,4) are computed as follows:
𝑡𝑓,1 = 𝑡𝑓,4 = 𝑡𝑓,𝑏𝑎𝑠𝑒 + 𝑡𝑓,𝐻𝑉 𝑃𝐻𝑉
𝑡𝑓,1 = 𝑡𝑓,4 = 2.2 + 1.0(0.1) = 2.3 s
Next, the follow-up headways for the northbound and southbound minor-
street right-turn movements tf,9 and tf,12 (in this case, tf,9 = tf,12) are computed as
follows:
𝑡𝑓,9 = 𝑡𝑓,12 = 3.3 + 1.0(0.1) = 3.4 s
Next, the follow-up headways for the northbound and southbound minor-
street through movements tf,8 and tf,11 (in this case, tf,8 = tf,11) are computed as
follows:
𝑡𝑓,8 = 𝑡𝑓,11 = 4.0 + 1.0(0.1) = 4.1 s Follow-up headways for the
minor-street through and left-
Finally, the follow-up headways for the northbound and southbound minor- turn movements are computed
for the movement as a whole.
street left-turn movements tf,7 and tf,10 (in this case, tf,7 = tf,10) are computed as Follow-up headways are not
follows: broken up by stage because
they apply only to vehicles as
𝑡𝑓,7 = 𝑡𝑓,10 = 3.5 + 1.0(0.1) = 3.6 s they exit the approach and
enter the intersection.
𝑒 −(482)(6.7)/3,600
𝑐𝑝,𝐼,10 = 482 = 514 veh/h
1 − 𝑒 −(482)(3.6)/3,600
Next, the potential capacity must be computed for Stage II for each
movement, cp,II,8, cp,II,11, cp,II,7, and cp,II,10, as follows:
𝑒 −(532)(5.7)/3,600
𝑐𝑝,𝐼𝐼,8 = 532 = 504 veh/h
1 − 𝑒 −(532)(4.1)/3,600
𝑒 −(366)(5.7)/3,600
𝑐𝑝,𝐼𝐼,11 = 366 = 601 veh/h
1 − 𝑒 −(366)(4.1)/3,600
𝑒 −(337)(6.7)/3,600
𝑐𝑝,𝐼𝐼,7 = 337 = 629 veh/h
1 − 𝑒 −(337)(3.6)/3,600
𝑒 −(257)(6.7)/3,600
𝑐𝑝,𝐼,10 = 257 = 703 veh/h
1 − 𝑒 −(257)(3.6)/3,600
Finally, the potential capacity must be computed assuming single-stage gap
acceptance for each movement, cp,8, cp,11, cp,7, and cp,10, as follows:
𝑒 −(873)(6.7)/3,600
𝑐𝑝,8 = 873 = 273 veh/h
1 − 𝑒 −(873)(4.1)/3,600
𝑒 −(848)(6.7)/3,600
𝑐𝑝,11 = 848 = 283 veh/h
1 − 𝑒 −(848)(4.1)/3,600
𝑒 −(678)(7.7)/3,600
𝑐𝑝,7 = 678 = 323 veh/h
1 − 𝑒 −(678)(3.6)/3,600
𝑒 −(739)(7.7)/3,600
𝑐𝑝,10 = 739 = 291 veh/h
1 − 𝑒 −(739)(3.6)/3,600
𝑎11 𝑛
𝑐𝑚,𝑇,11 = 𝑛𝑚 +1 [𝑦11 (𝑦11𝑚 − 1)(𝑐𝑚,𝐼𝐼,11 − 𝑣4 ) + (𝑦11 − 1)𝑐𝑚,11 ]
𝑦11 − 1
0.949
𝑐𝑚,𝑇,11 = [(0.946)(0.9462 − 1)(583 − 66) + (0.946 − 1)(260)]
0.9462+1 − 1
𝑐𝑚,𝑇,11 = 405 veh/h
28
𝑝0,12 = 1 − = 0.964
783
To compute the adjustment factors that account for the probability that both
the major-street left-turn movements and the minor-street crossing movements
will operate in a queue-free state simultaneously, the analyst must first compute
p0,8 and p0,11 as follows:
𝑣8 132
𝑝0,8 = 1 − = 1− = 0.662
𝑐𝑚,𝑇,8 390
110
𝑝0,11 = 1 − = 0.728
405
Next, with the probabilities computed above, capacity adjustment factors fp,7
and fp,10 can be computed according to Equation 20-38 and Equation 20-39,
respectively:
1
𝑓𝑝,7 = ( ) 𝑝0,12
1 1
+ −1
𝑝0,1 𝑝0,4 𝑝0,11
1
=( ) (0.964) = 0.658
1 1
+ −1
0.970 × 0.945 0.728
1
𝑓𝑝,10 = ( ) 𝑝0,9
1 1
+ −1
𝑝0,1 𝑝0,4 𝑝0,8
1
=( ) (0.935) = 0.584
1 1
+ 0.662 − 1
0.970 × 0.945
Finally, under the single-stage gap-acceptance assumption, the movement
capacities cm,7 and cm,10 can be computed according to Equation 20-40 and
Equation 20-41, respectively:
𝑐𝑚,7 = 𝑐𝑝,7 × 𝑓𝑝,7 = (323)(0.658) = 213 veh/h
𝑐𝑚,10 = 𝑐𝑝,10 × 𝑓𝑝,10 = (291)(0.584) = 170 veh/h
𝑎10 𝑛
𝑐𝑇,10 = 𝑛𝑚 +1 [𝑦10 (𝑦10𝑚 − 1)(𝑐𝑚,𝐼𝐼,10 − 𝑣4 ) + (𝑦10 − 1)𝑐𝑚,10 ]
𝑦10 − 1
0.949
𝑐𝑇,10 = [(1.211)(1.2112 − 1)(497 − 66) + (1.211 − 1)(170)]
1.2112+1 − 1
𝑐𝑇,10 = 342 veh/h
∑𝑦 𝑣𝑦 11 + 110 + 28
𝑐𝑆𝐻,𝑆𝐵 = 𝑣𝑦 = 11 110 28 = 439 veh/h
∑𝑦
𝑐𝑚,𝑦 342 + 405 + 783
∑𝑦 𝑣𝑦 11 + 110
𝑐𝑚,10+11 = 𝑣𝑦 = 11 110 = 398 veh/h
∑𝑦
𝑐𝑚,𝑦 342 + 405
𝑣𝑅 + 𝑣𝐿+𝑇𝐻
𝑐𝐹 =
(𝑛𝑅 +1)
𝑣 (𝑛𝑅+1) 𝑣𝐿+𝑇𝐻 (𝑛𝑅+1)
√( 𝑅 ) + ( )
𝑐 𝑅 𝑐 𝐿+𝑇𝐻
55 + (44 + 132)
𝑐𝐹,𝑁𝐵 = = 498 veh/h
(1+1) (1+1) (1+1)
√( 55 ) 44 + 132
+ ( 383 )
845
11 + (110 + 28)
𝑐𝐹,𝑆𝐵 = = 487 veh/h
(1+1) (1+1) (1+1)
√( 11 ) +(
110 + 28
783 398 )
3,600 33
3,600 33 33 2 (1,100) (1,100)
𝑑1 = + 900(0.25) √
−1+ ( − 1) + +5
1,100 1,100 1,100 450(0.25)
[ ]
𝑑1 = 8.4 s
3,600 66
3,600 66 66 2 (1,202) (1,202)
𝑑4 = + 900(0.25) √
−1+ ( − 1) + +5
1,202 1,202 1,202 450(0.25)
[ ]
𝑑4 = 8.2 s
2
3,600 231
3,600 231 √ 231 ( 498 ) (498)
𝑑𝑁𝐵 = + 900(0.25) [ −1+ ( − 1) + ]+5
498 498 498 450(0.25)
𝑑𝑁𝐵 = 18.3 s
2
3,600 149
3,600 149 √ 149 ( 487 ) (487)
𝑑𝑆𝐵 = + 900(0.25) [ −1+ ( − 1) + ]+5
487 487 487 450(0.25)
𝑑𝑆𝐵 = 15.6 s
According to Exhibit 20-2, LOS for the major-street left-turn movements and
the minor-street approaches are as follows:
3,600 𝑣
𝑣1 𝑣1
2 (𝑐 ) (𝑐 𝑥 ) 𝑐
𝑄95,1 ≈ 900𝑇 √
−1+ ( − 1) +
𝑚,1 𝑚,1
(
𝑚,1
)
𝑐𝑚,1 𝑐𝑚,1 150𝑇 3,600
[ ]
3,600 33
33 33 2 (1,100) (1,100) 1,100
𝑄95,1 ≈ 900(0.25) √
−1+ ( − 1) + ( )
1,100 1,100 150(0.25) 3,600
[ ]
𝑄95,1 ≈ 0.1 veh
The result of 0.1 vehicles for the 95th percentile queue indicates a queue of
more than one vehicle will occur very infrequently for the eastbound major-street
left-turn movement.
The 95th percentile queue length for the major-street westbound left-turn
movement Q95,4 is computed as follows:
3,600 66
66 66 2 (1,202) (1,202) 1,202
𝑄95,4 ≈ 900(0.25) √
−1+ ( − 1) + ( )
1,202 1,202 150(0.25) 3,600
[ ]
𝑄95,4 ≈ 0.2 veh
The result of 0.2 vehicles for the 95th percentile queue indicates a queue of
more than one vehicle will occur very infrequently for the westbound major-
street left-turn movement.
The 95th percentile queue length for the northbound approach is computed
by using the same formula, but similar to the control delay computation, the
shared-lane volume and shared-lane capacity must be used.
2
3,600 231
231 √ 231 ( 498 ) (498) 498
𝑄95,𝑁𝐵 ≈ 900(0.25) [ −1+ ( − 1) + ]( )
498 498 150(0.25) 3,600
2
3,600 149
149 √ 149 ( 487 ) (487) 487
𝑄95,𝑆𝐵 ≈ 900(0.25) [ −1+ ( − 1) + ]( )
487 487 150(0.25) 3,600
Discussion
Overall, the results indicate the four-leg TWSC intersection with two-stage
gap acceptance and flared minor-street approaches will operate satisfactorily
with low delays for major-street movements and average delays for the minor-
street approaches.
Exhibit 32-10
1800 ft N TWSC Example Problem 4:
600 ft 600 ft TWSC Intersection Within a
Signalized Urban Street
Segment
1 2
AP1 AP2
From Example Problem 1 in Chapter 30, the following data are relevant:
• Major street with two lanes in each direction,
• Minor street with separate left-turn and right-turn lanes in each direction
(through movements considered negligible) and STOP control on minor-
street approach,
• Level grade on all approaches,
• Percentage heavy vehicles on all approaches = 1%,
• Length of analysis period = 0.25 h, and
• Flow rates and lane configurations as shown in Exhibit 32-11.
Exhibit 32-11
TWSC Example Problem 4:
15-min Flow Rates and Lane
Configurations
The proportion time blocked and delay to through vehicles from the
methodology of Chapter 18, Urban Street Segments, are as shown in Exhibit
32-12.
Movement-Based Access Point 1: Volume, veh/h 74.80 981.71 93.50 75.56 991.70 94.45 80.00 0.00 100.00 80.00 0.00 100.00
Comments
Default values are needed for the saturation flow rates of the major-street
through and right-turn movements for the analysis of shared or short major-
street left-turn lanes:
• Major-street through movement, si1 = 1,800 veh/h; and
• Major-street right-turn movement, si2 = 1,500 veh/h.
All other input parameters are known.
Exhibit 32-13
TWSC Example Problem 4:
Movement Numbers and
Calculation of Peak 15-min
Flow Rates
𝑒 −(694)(4.12)/3,600
𝑐𝑝,1 = (1 − 0.170)(694) = 750 veh/h
1 − 𝑒 −(694)(2.21)/3,600
𝑒 −(682)(4.12)/3,600
𝑐𝑝,4 = (1 − 0.170)(682) = 758 veh/h
1 − 𝑒 −(682)(2.21)/3,600
𝑒 −(34)(6.92)/3,600
𝑐𝑝,9 = (1 − 0.170)(34) = 859 veh/h
1 − 𝑒 −(34)(3.31)/3,600
𝑒 −(40)(6.92)/3,600
𝑐𝑝,12 = (1 − 0.170)(40) = 852 veh/h
1 − 𝑒 −(40)(3.31)/3,600
𝑒 −(1,415)(7.52)/3,600
𝑐𝑝,7 = (1 − 0.260)(1,415) = 73 veh/h
1 − 𝑒 −(1,415)(3.51)/3,600
𝑒 −(1,422)(7.52)/3,600
𝑐𝑝,10 = (1 − 0.260)(1,422) = 72 veh/h
1 − 𝑒 −(1,422)(3.51)/3,600
∗
1 − 𝑝0,1+1𝑈 1 − 0.900
𝑝0,1+1𝑈 =1− =1− = 0.856
1 − 𝑥2+3 1 − 0.304
∗
1 − 𝑝0,4+4𝑈 1 − 0.900
𝑝0,4+4𝑈 =1− =1− = 0.856
1 − 𝑥5+6 1 − 0.307
These values of p*0,1+1U and p*0,4+4U are used in lieu of p0,1+1U and p0,4+4U for the
remaining calculations.
1
𝑓𝑝,7 = ( ) 𝑝0,12
1 1
∗ ∗ +𝑝 −1
𝑝0,1 𝑝0,4 0,11
1
=( ) (0.883) = 0.647
1 1
+1−1
(0.856)(0.856)
1
𝑓𝑝,10 = ( ) 𝑝0,9
1 1
∗ ∗ +𝑝 −1
𝑝0,1 𝑝0,4 0,8
1
=( ) (0.884) = 0.648
1 1
+1−1
(0.856)(0.856)
Finally, the movement capacities cm,7 and cm,10 can be computed as follows:
𝑐𝑚,7 = 𝑐𝑝,7 × 𝑓7 = (73)(0.647) = 47 veh/h
𝑐𝑚,10 = 𝑐𝑝,10 × 𝑓10 = (72)(0.648) = 47 veh/h
𝑣2 + 𝑣3 982 + 94
𝑠2+3 = 𝑣 𝑣 = = 3,208
2
+ 3 982 94
+
𝑁𝑠2 𝑠3 (2)(1,800) 1,500
75 + 982 + 94
𝑐𝑆𝑆,1+1𝑈+2+3 = min ( , 3,208) = 3,208
0.144
and
𝑣4+4𝑈 76
𝑥4+4𝑈 = = = 0.100
𝑐𝑚,4+4𝑈 758
𝑣5 𝑣6 992 94
𝑥5+6 = 𝑓𝐿𝐿,5+6 ( + ) = 0.5 ( + ) = 0.307
𝑠5 𝑠6 1,800 1,500
(𝑛𝐿 +1) (𝑛 +1)
𝐿
𝑥5+6 0.307
𝑥4+4𝑈+5+6 = 𝑥4+4𝑈 [ √1 + ] = 0.100 [1 + ] = 0.144
1 − 𝑥5+6 1 − 0.307
𝑣5 + 𝑣6 992 + 94
𝑠5+6 = 𝑣 𝑣 = = 3,211
5
+ 6 992 94
+
𝑁𝑠5 𝑠6 (2)(1,800) 1,500
76 + 992 + 94
𝑐𝑆𝑆,4+4𝑈+5+6 = min ( , 3,211) = 3,211
0.144
2 3,600 75
3,600 75 75 ( 750 ) (750)
𝑑1 = + 900(0.25) √
−1+ ( − 1) + +5
750 750 750 450(0.25)
[ ]
𝑑1 = 10.3 s
2
3,600 76
3,600 76 √ 76 ( 758 ) (758)
𝑑4 = + 900(0.25) [ −1+ ( − 1) + ]+5
758 758 758 450(0.25)
𝑑4 = 10.3 s
2
3,600 100
3,600 100 √ 100 ( 859 ) (859)
𝑑9 = + 900(0.25) [ −1+ ( − 1) + ]+5
859 859 859 450(0.25)
𝑑9 = 9.7 s
2
3,600 100
3,600 100 √ 100 ( )( )
𝑑12 = + 900(0.25) [ −1+ ( − 1) + 851 851 ] + 5
851 851 851 450(0.25)
𝑑12 = 9.8 s
2
3,600 80
3,600 80 √ 80 ( 47 ) (47)
𝑑7 = + 900(0.25) [ − 1 + ( − 1) + ]+5
47 47 47 450(0.25)
𝑑7 = 529 s
2
3,600 80
3,600 80 √ 80 ( 47 ) (47)
𝑑10 = + 900(0.25) [ − 1 + ( − 1) + ]+5
47 47 47 450(0.25)
𝑑10 = 529 s
According to Exhibit 20-2, the LOS for the major-street left-turn movements
and the minor-street approaches are as follows:
• Eastbound major-street left turn (Movement 1): LOS B,
• Westbound major-street left turn (Movement 4): LOS B,
• Northbound minor-street right turn (Movement 9): LOS A,
• Southbound minor-street right turn (Movement 12): LOS A,
• Northbound minor-street left turn (Movement 7): LOS F, and
• Southbound minor-street left turn (Movement 10): LOS F.
(1 − 𝑝∗0,1+1𝑈 ) 𝑓𝐿𝐿,2+3(𝑣2 + 𝑣3 )
𝑑2+3 = 𝑑1+1𝑈
𝑣1+1𝑈 + 𝑓𝐿𝐿,2+3 (𝑣2 + 𝑣3 )
(1 − 0.856)(0.5)(982 + 94)
𝑑2+3 = (10.3)
75 + 0.5(982 + 94)
𝑑2+3 = 1.3 s
(1 − 𝑝∗0,4+4𝑈 ) 𝑓𝐿𝐿,5+6(𝑣5 + 𝑣6 )
𝑑5+6 = 𝑑4+4𝑈
𝑣4+4𝑈 + 𝑓𝐿𝐿,5+6 (𝑣5 + 𝑣6 )
(1 − 0.856)(0.5)(992 + 94)
𝑑5+6 = (10.3)
76 + 0.5(992 + 94)
𝑑5+6 = 1.3 s
The procedures in Chapter 18 provide a better estimate of delay to major-
street through vehicles: d2 = 0.2 and d5 = 0.2. These values account for the
likelihood of major-street through vehicles shifting out of the shared left–through
lane to avoid being delayed by major-street left-turning vehicles.
9.8(100) + 0 + 529(80)
𝑑𝐴,𝑆𝐵 = = 241 s
100 + 0 + 80
The intersection control delay dI is computed as follows:
𝑑𝐴,𝐸𝐵 𝑣𝐴,𝐸𝐵 + 𝑑𝐴,𝑊𝐵 𝑣𝐴,𝑊𝐵 + 𝑑𝐴,𝑁𝐵 𝑣𝐴,𝑁𝐵 + 𝑑𝐴,𝑆𝐵 𝑣𝐴,𝑆𝐵
𝑑𝐼 =
𝑣𝐴,𝐸𝐵 + 𝑣𝐴,𝑊𝐵 + 𝑣𝐴,𝑁𝐵 + 𝑣𝐴,𝑆𝐵
1.9(1,151) + 1.9(1,162) + 241(180) + 241(180)
𝑑𝐼 = = 34.1 s
1,151 + 1,162 + 180 + 180
LOS is not defined for the intersection as a whole or for the major-street
approaches. This fact is particularly important for this problem, as the
assignment of LOS to the intersection as a whole would mask the severe LOS F
condition on the minor-street left-turn movement. However, this control delay
value may be useful for intersection control evaluation comparisons across a
range of intersection forms and controls.
3,600 𝑣
𝑣1
2 (𝑐 ) (𝑐 1 ) 𝑐
√ 𝑣1 𝑚,1 𝑚,1 𝑚,1
𝑄95,1 ≈ 900𝑇 −1+ ( − 1) + ( )
𝑐𝑚,1 𝑐𝑚,1 150𝑇 3,600
[ ]
2 3,600 75
75 75 ( 750 ) (750) 750
𝑄95,1 ≈ 900(0.25) √
−1+ ( − 1) + ( )
750 750 150(0.25) 3,600
[ ]
𝑄95,1 ≈ 0.3 veh
2
3,600 76
76 √ 76 ( 758 ) (758) 758
𝑄95,4 ≈ 900(0.25) [ −1+ ( − 1) + ]( )
758 758 150(0.25) 3,600
2
3,600 100
100 √ 100 ( 859 ) (859) 859
𝑄95,9 ≈ 900(0.25) [ −1+ ( − 1) + ]( )
859 859 150(0.25) 3,600
2
3,600 100
100 100 ( )( )
𝑄95,12 ≈ 900(0.25) [ √
−1+ ( − 1) + 851 851 ] ( 851 )
851 851 150(0.25) 3,600
2
3,600 80
80 √ 80 ( 47 ) (47) 47
𝑄95,7 ≈ 900(0.25) [ − 1 + ( − 1) + ]( )
47 47 150(0.25) 3,600
2
3,600 80
80 √ 80 ( 47 ) (47) 47
𝑄95,10 ≈ 900(0.25) [ − 1 + ( − 1) + ]( )
47 47 150(0.25) 3,600
Discussion
The results indicate that Access Point 1 will operate over capacity (LOS F) for
the minor-street left-turn movements. All other movements are expected to
operate at LOS B or better, with low average delays and short queue lengths.
Exhibit 32-14
TWSC Example Problem 5:
Volumes and Lane
Configurations
Comments
The assumed walking speed of pedestrians is 3.5 ft/s.
Exhibit 32-15
TWSC Example Problem 5:
Movement Numbers and
Calculation of Peak 15-min
Flow Rates
𝑒 −(1,120)(5,3)/3,600
𝑐𝑝,4 = 1,120 = 348 veh/h
1 − 𝑒 −(1,120)(3.1)/3,600
𝑒 −(730)(5,6)/3,600
𝑐𝑝,4𝑈 = 730 = 629 veh/h
1 − 𝑒 −(730)(2.3)/3,600
𝑒 −(520)(7.1)/3,600
𝑐𝑝,9 = 520 = 433 veh/h
1 − 𝑒 −(520)(3.9)/3,600
𝑒 −(1,870)(5,7)/3,600
𝑐𝑝,7 = 1,870 = 112 veh/h
1 − 𝑒 −(1,870)(3.8)/3,600
𝑒 −(1,120)(6.6)/3,600
𝑐𝑝,𝐼,7 = 1,120 = 207 veh/h
1 − 𝑒 −(1,120)(3.8)/3,600
𝑒 −(750)(6.0)/3,600
𝑐𝑝,𝐼𝐼,7 = 750 = 393 veh/h
1 − 𝑒 −(750)(3.8)/3,600
𝑤 12
𝑣13 ×
𝑆𝑝 20 × 3.5
𝑓𝑝𝑏,13 = = = 0.019
3,600 3,600
12
20 ×
𝑓𝑝𝑏,15 = 3.5 = 0.019
3,600
The pedestrian impedance factor for each pedestrian movement x, pp,x is
computed by Equation 20-68 as follows:
𝑝𝑝,13 = 1 − 𝑓𝑝𝑏,13 = 1 − 0.019 = 0.981
𝑝𝑝,15 = 1 − 𝑓𝑝𝑏,15 = 1 − 0.019 = 0.981
2 3,600 50
3,600 50 50 ( 523 ) (523)
𝑑1𝑈 = + 900(0.25) √
−1+ ( − 1) + +5
523 523 523 450(0.25)
[ ]
𝑑1 = 12.6 s
This movement would be assigned LOS B.
2 3,600 125
3,600 125 125 ( 362 ) (362)
𝑑4+4𝑈 = + 900(0.25) √
−1+ ( − 1) + +5
362 362 362 450(0.25)
[ ]
𝑑4+4𝑈 = 20.1 s
This movement would be assigned LOS C.
2
3,600 100
3,600 100 √ 100 ( 425 ) (425)
𝑑9 = + 900(0.25) [ −1+ ( − 1) + ]+5
425 425 425 450(0.25)
𝑑9 = 16.1 s
This movement would be assigned LOS C.
2 3,600 75
3,600 75 75 ( 98 ) (98)
𝑑7 = + 900(0.25) √
− 1 + ( − 1) + +5
98 98 98 450(0.25)
[ ]
𝑑1 = 113 s
This movement would be assigned LOS F.
0(1,200) + 20.1(125)
𝑑𝐴,𝑊𝐵 = = 1.9 s
1,200 + 125
16.1(100) + 113(75)
𝑑𝐴,𝑁𝐵 = = 57.6 s
100 + 75
2 3,600 50
50 50 ( 523 ) (523) 523
𝑄95,1𝑈 ≈ 900(0.25) √
−1+ ( − 1) + ( )
523 523 150(0.25) 3,600
[ ]
𝑄95,1 ≈ 0.3 veh
2 3,600 125
125 125 ( 362 ) (362) 362
𝑄95,4+4𝑈 ≈ 900(0.25) √
−1+ ( − 1) + ( )
362 362 150(0.25) 3,600
[ ]
𝑄95,4+4𝑈 ≈ 1.5 veh
2
3,600 100
100 √ 100 ( 425 ) (425) 425
𝑄95,9 ≈ 900(0.25) [ −1+ ( − 1) + ]( )
425 425 150(0.25) 3,600
2 3,600 75
75 75 ( 98 ) (98) 98
𝑄95,7 ≈ 900(0.25) √
− 1 + ( − 1) + ( )
98 98 150(0.25) 3,600
[ ]
𝑄95,7 ≈ 4.1 veh
Discussion
Overall, the results indicate that although most minor movements are
operating at low to moderate delays and at LOS C or better, the minor-street left
turn experiences high delays and operates at LOS F.
AWSC Supplemental Analysis for Three-Lane Approaches Chapter 32/STOP-Controlled Intersections: Supplemental
Page 32-48 Version 7.0
Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis
Chapter 32/STOP-Controlled Intersections: Supplemental AWSC Supplemental Analysis for Three-Lane Approaches
Version 7.0 Page 32-49
Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis
AWSC Supplemental Analysis for Three-Lane Approaches Chapter 32/STOP-Controlled Intersections: Supplemental
Page 32-50 Version 7.0
Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis
Chapter 32/STOP-Controlled Intersections: Supplemental AWSC Supplemental Analysis for Three-Lane Approaches
Version 7.0 Page 32-51
Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis
AWSC Supplemental Analysis for Three-Lane Approaches Chapter 32/STOP-Controlled Intersections: Supplemental
Page 32-52 Version 7.0
Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis
Chapter 32/STOP-Controlled Intersections: Supplemental AWSC Supplemental Analysis for Three-Lane Approaches
Version 7.0 Page 32-53
Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis
AWSC Supplemental Analysis for Three-Lane Approaches Chapter 32/STOP-Controlled Intersections: Supplemental
Page 32-54 Version 7.0
Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis
Chapter 32/STOP-Controlled Intersections: Supplemental AWSC Supplemental Analysis for Three-Lane Approaches
Version 7.0 Page 32-55
Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis
AWSC Supplemental Analysis for Three-Lane Approaches Chapter 32/STOP-Controlled Intersections: Supplemental
Page 32-56 Version 7.0
Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis
This part of the chapter provides example problems for use of the AWSC
methodology. Exhibit 32-17 provides an overview of these problems. The
examples focus on the operational analysis level. The planning and preliminary
engineering analysis level is identical to the operations analysis level in terms of
the calculations, except default values are used when available.
Exhibit 32-18
AWSC Example Problem 1:
Volumes and Lane
Configurations
Comments
All input parameters are known, so no default values are needed or used. The use of a spreadsheet or
software for AWSC intersection
The use of a spreadsheet or software is recommended because of the repetitive analysis is recommended
computations required. Slight differences in reported values may result from because of the repetitive and
iterative computations
rounding differences between manual and software computations. Because required.
showing all the individual computations is not practical, this example problem
shows how one or more computations are made. All computational results can
be found in the spreadsheet output located in the Volume 4 Technical Reference
Library section for Chapter 32.
For example, the probability state for the eastbound leg under the condition
of no opposing vehicles on the other approaches (degree-of-conflict Case 1, i = 1)
is as follows:
𝑃(𝑎𝑂 ) = 1 − 𝑥𝑂 = 1 − 0.374 = 0.626 (no opposing vehicle present)
𝑃(𝑎𝐶𝐿 ) = 1 − 𝑥𝐶𝐿 = 1 − 0.140 = 0.860 (no conflicting vehicle from left)
𝑃(𝑎𝐶𝑅 ) = 1 (no approach conflicting from right)
Therefore,
𝑃(1) = 𝑃(𝑎𝑂 ) × 𝑃(𝑎𝐶𝐿 ) × 𝑃(𝑎𝐶𝑅 ) = (0.626)(0.860)(1) = 0.538
Similarly,
𝑃(2) = (0.374)(0.860)(1) = 0.322
𝑃(5) = (0.626)(0.140)(1) = 0.088
𝑃(7) = (0.626)(0.860)(0) = 0
𝑃(13) = (0.626)(0.140)(0) = 0
𝑃(16) = (0.374)(0.140)(1) = 0.052
𝑃(21) = (0.374)(0.860)(0) = 0
𝑃(45) = (0.374)(0.140)(0) = 0
The probability adjustment factors for the nonzero cases are calculated from
Equation 21-21 through Equation 21-25:
𝐴𝑑𝑗𝑃(1) = 0.01[0.322 + 2(0.088) + 3(0.052) + 0]/1 = 0.0065
𝐴𝑑𝑗𝑃(2) = 0.01[0.088 + 2(0.052) + 0 − 0.322]/3 = −0.0004
𝐴𝑑𝑗𝑃(5) = 0.01[0.052 + 2(0) − 3(0.088)]/6 = −0.0004
𝐴𝑑𝑗𝑃(16) = 0.01[0 − 6(0.052)]/27 = −0.0001
Therefore, the adjusted probability for Combination 1, for example, is as
follows from Equation 21-16:
𝑃′ (1) = 𝑃(1) + 𝐴𝑑𝑗𝑃(1) = 0.538 + 0.0065 = 0.5445
ℎ𝑑 = ∑ 𝑃′ (𝑖)ℎ𝑠𝑖
𝑖=1
ℎ𝑑,𝐸𝐵 = (0.5445)(3.963) + (0.3213)(4.763) + (0.0875)(5.863) + (0.0524)(7.063)
ℎ𝑑,𝐸𝐵 = 4.57 s
EB EB WB WB NB NB SB SB Exhibit 32-21
L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 AWSC Example Problem 1:
Total Lane Flow Rate 368 421 158 Convergence Check
hd, initial value, iteration 1 3.2 3.2 3.2
x, initial, iteration 1 0.327 0.374 0.140
hd, computed value, iteration 1 4.57 4.35 5.14
Convergence? N N N
Step 14: Compute Control Delay and Determine LOS for Each Lane
The control delay for each lane is computed with Equation 21-30 as follows
(eastbound illustrated):
ℎ𝑑,𝐸𝐵 𝑥𝐸𝐵
𝑑𝐸𝐵 = 𝑡𝑠,𝐸𝐵 + 900𝑇 [(𝑥𝐸𝐵 − 1) + √(𝑥𝐵 − 1)2 + ]+5
450𝑇
4.97(0.508)
𝑑𝐸𝐵 = 2.97 + 900(0.25) [(0.508 − 1) + √(0.508 − 1)2 + ]+5
450(0.25)
𝑑𝐸𝐵 = 13.0 s
By using Exhibit 21-8, the eastbound lane (and thus approach) is assigned
LOS B. A similar calculation for the westbound and southbound lanes (and thus
approaches) yields 13.5 and 10.6 s, respectively.
Step 15: Compute Control Delay and Determine LOS for the
Intersection
The control delays for the approaches can be combined into an intersection
control delay by using a weighted average as follows:
∑ 𝑑𝑎 𝑣𝑎
𝑑intersection =
∑ 𝑣𝑎
(13.0)(368) + (13.5)(421) + (10.6)(158)
𝑑intersection = = 12.8 s
368 + 421 + 158
This value of delay is assigned LOS B.
900(0.25) 4.97(0.508)
𝑄95,𝐸𝐵 ≈ [(0.508 − 1) + √(0.508 − 1)2 + ] = 2.9 veh
4.97 150(0.25)
Discussion
The results indicate the intersection operates well with brief delays.
Exhibit 32-22
AWSC Example Problem 2:
15-min Volumes and Lane
Configurations
Comments
All input parameters are known, so no default values are needed or used.
The use of a spreadsheet or software is required because of the several thousand
repetitive computations needed. Slight differences in reported values may result
from rounding differences between manual and software computations. Because
showing all the individual computations is not practical, this example problem
shows how one or more computations are made. All computational results can
be found in the spreadsheet output located in the Volume 4 Technical Reference
Library section for Chapter 32.
Exhibit 32-23
AWSC Example Problem 2:
15-min Volumes Converted to
Hourly Flow Rates
south approaches, the through volumes are assigned to the through lanes and
the right-turn volumes are assigned to the right-turn lanes.
𝑣ℎ𝑑 (48)(3.2)
𝑥𝑆𝐵,1 = = = 0.0427
3,600 3,600
𝑣ℎ𝑑 (124)(3.2)
𝑥𝑆𝐵,2 = = = 0.1102
3,600 3,600
𝑣ℎ𝑑 (88)(3.2)
𝑥𝑆𝐵,3 = = = 0.0782
3,600 3,600
EB EB EB WB WB WB NB NB NB SB SB SB Exhibit 32-24
L1 L2 L3 L1 L2 L3 L1 L2 L3 L1 L2 L3
Total lane flow rate 56 216 156 164 76 164 116 48 124 88 AWSC Example Problem 2:
hd, initial value, Iteration 1 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Convergence Check
x, initial, Iteration 1 0.0498 0.192 0.1387 0.1458 0.0676 0.1458 0.1031 0.0427 0.1102 0.0782
hd, computed value, Iteration 1 6.463 5.755 6.405 5.597 6.440 5.935 5.228 6.560 6.055 5.347
Convergence? N N N N N N N N N N
hd, initial value, Iteration 2 6.463 5.755 6.405 5.597 6.440 5.935 5.228 6.560 6.055 5.347
x, initial, Iteration 2 0.1005 0.3453 0.2776 0.255 0.136 0.2704 0.1685 0.0875 0.2086 0.1307
hd, computed value, Iteration 2 7.550 6.838 7.440 6.629 7.537 7.027 6.313 7.740 7.230 6.515
Convergence? N N N N N N N N N N
hd, initial value, Iteration 3 7.550 6.838 7.440 6.629 7.537 7.027 6.313 7.740 7.230 6.515
x, initial, Iteration 3 0.1174 0.4103 0.3224 0.302 0.1591 0.3201 0.2034 0.1032 0.249 0.1593
hd, computed value, Iteration 3 7.970 7.257 7.854 7.041 7.954 7.442 6.725 8.187 7.675 6.957
Convergence? N N N N N N N N N N
hd, initial value, Iteration 4 7.970 7.257 7.854 7.041 7.954 7.442 6.725 8.187 7.675 6.957
x, initial, Iteration 4 0.124 0.4354 0.3404 0.3208 0.1679 0.339 0.2167 0.1092 0.2643 0.17
hd, computed value, Iteration 4 8.130 7.416 8.010 7.196 8.114 7.601 6.884 8.359 7.845 7.126
Convergence? N N N N N N N N N N
hd, initial value, Iteration 5 8.130 7.416 8.010 7.196 8.114 7.601 6.884 8.359 7.845 7.126
x, initial, Iteration 5 0.1265 0.445 0.3471 0.3278 0.1713 0.3463 0.2218 0.1115 0.2702 0.1742
hd, computed value, Iteration 5 8.191 7.476 8.069 7.255 8.174 7.661 6.943 8.424 7.910 7.190
Convergence? Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Step 14: Compute Control Delay and Determine LOS for Each Lane
The control delay for each lane is computed with Equation 21-30 as follows
(eastbound Lane 1 illustrated):
ℎ𝑑,𝐸𝐵,1 𝑥𝐸𝐵,1
𝑑𝐸𝐵,1 = 𝑡𝑠,𝐸𝐵,1 + 900𝑇 [(𝑥𝐸𝐵,1 − 1) + √(𝑥𝐸𝐵,1 − 1)2 + ]+5
450𝑇
8.19(0.1274)
𝑑𝐸𝐵,1 = 5.89 + 900(0.25) [(0.1274 − 1) + √(0.1274 − 1)2 + ]+5
450(0.25)
𝑑𝐸𝐵,1 = 12.1 s
On the basis of Exhibit 20-2, eastbound Lane 1 is assigned LOS B.
Step 15: Compute Control Delay and Determine LOS for Each Approach
and the Intersection
The control delay for each approach is calculated using Equation 21-31 as
follows (eastbound approach illustrated):
(12.1)(272) + (16.1)(216)
𝑑EB = = 15.3 s
56 + 216
This value of delay is assigned LOS C.
Similarly, the control delay for the intersection is calculated as follows:
(15.3)(272) + (14.3)(320) + (13.1)(356) + (12.6)(260)
𝑑intersection = = 14.0 s
272 + 320 + 356 + 260
This value of delay is assigned LOS B.
900(0.25) 8.19(0.1274)
𝑄95,𝐸𝐵1 ≈ [(0.1274 − 1) + √(0.1274 − 1)2 + ]
8.19 150(0.25)
Discussion
The overall results can be found in the “DelayLOS” spreadsheet tab. As
indicated in the output, all movements at the intersection are operating well with
small delays. The worst-performing movement is eastbound Lane 2, which is
operating with a volume-to-capacity ratio of 0.45 and a control delay of 16.1
s/veh, which results in LOS C. The intersection as a whole operates at LOS B, so
the reporting of individual movements is important to avoid masking results
caused by aggregating delays.