The Hong Kong Polytechnic University

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering

CSE40407 DESIGN OF TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE

Tutorial 1 Priority Junction

Priority Junction
Consider a priority junction between two single 2-lane carriageways. The design flows shown below
are given in pcu/hr.
650
300
A
C
400
300

200 250
B
Task: Compute the capacity and DFC ratio for each non-priority stream, and comment on the
results.

Part (a)– Simple T Junction

A simple T-junction layout is proposed with the following geometric parameters:
𝑊 7.3m
𝑊𝐶𝑅 0 Question: what should be the value of
𝑤𝐶−𝐵 𝒘𝑪−𝑩 given that a simple T-junction design
𝑤𝐵−𝐶 3.0m
is adopted?
𝑤𝐵−𝐴 3.0m
𝑉𝑟𝐶−𝐵 250m
𝑉𝑟 200m Ans: 𝑤𝐶−𝐵 = , ∵ simple T-junction, there is
𝑉𝑙 200m no explicit waiting space for major RT vehicles.

Produce a sketch of this junction and label the geometric parameters given.

CSE40407 Tutorial 1 – Priority Junction 1

The expressions for capacity computation and DFC ratio are copied from lecture handout (and
TPDM) for reference.

To facilitate class discussion, an Excel template is available from Blackboard.

Numerical answers (please complete part (a) yourself and check against the answers below)
Stream Design flow (pcu/hr) Capacity (pcu/hr) DFC1 Comment2
B-A 250 267 94% >85%, not OK
B-C 200 608 33% <85%, OK
C-B 300 407 74% <85%, OK

As discussed in TPDM (Vol 2, Chapter 4, 4.3.6.5), it is desirable to have a lower DFC ratio, especially
for major road RT (stream C-B). Thus, let’s examine a shadow island and physical island layout.

1 Interpretation of DFC values (TPDM Vol 2 Chapter 4, 4.3.6.5) “…A DFC of 85% would indicate a reasonable
capacity provision which would prevent queuing in the majority (85%) of cases. A DFC of 70% would indicate that
queuing would theoretically be avoided in nearly all (95% of ) cases….”
2 According to the Traffic Impact Assessment guideline of TIA, DFC<=85% is considered acceptable. Transport

Department Circular No. 1/2011. Guidelines and Requirements of Traffic Impact Assessment (TIA) studies. The
softcopy can be downloaded from Blackboard.

CSE40407 Tutorial 1 – Priority Junction 2

Part (b) and (c) – Shadow Island and Physical Island
Assume the following gemoetric parameters:
(a) Simple T Junction (b) Shadow Island (c) Physical Island
𝑊 7.3m 7.3m 7.3m
𝑊𝐶𝑅 0 0 5.0m
𝑤𝐶−𝐵 0 3.5m 4.5m
𝑤𝐵−𝐶 3.0m 3.0m 3.0m
𝑤𝐵−𝐴 3.0m 3.0m 3.0m
𝑉𝑟𝐶−𝐵 250m 250m 250m
𝑉𝑟 200m 200m 200m
𝑉𝑙 200m 200m 200m

Why 𝑊𝐶𝑅 ≠ 𝑊𝐶−𝐵 ?

1
𝑊𝐶𝑅 = (𝑊5 + 𝑊6 ); 𝑊𝐶−𝐵 = (𝑎 + 𝑏 + 𝑐 + 𝑑 + 𝑒)/5
2

Results
(a) Simple T-Junction (b) Shadow island (c) Physical island
Design flow Capacity Capacity Capacity
Stream DFC DFC DFC
(pcu/hr) (pcu/hr) (pcu/hr) (pcu/hr)
B-A 250 267 94%
B-C 200 608 33%
C-B 300 407 74%

Disscussion

[Shadow island] provides explicit space for major RT (𝑤𝐶−𝐵 ), and thus 𝑄(𝐶−𝐵) is increased, but there
is no impact to the other two non-piority streams (B-A) and (B-C).
[Physical island] provides space for both major RT (𝑤𝐶−𝐵 ), and minor RT (𝑊𝐶𝑅 )
- Comparing to simple T-junction design, the capcaity for C-B and B-A both increased (and DFC
ratio reduced)
- Comparing to shadow island design, the slight increase in capacity 𝑄𝐶−𝐵 is due to the larger
value of 𝑤𝐶−𝐵 being adopted (3.5m vs 4.5m).

CSE40407 Tutorial 1 – Priority Junction 3

Part (d) Assumptions on minor road

• Recall the formulation in parts (a) to (c) assumed that there’s separate lanes for right turn and
left turning minor road traffic and no simutaneous queueing.
• Despite it is given in the question that 𝑤𝐵−𝐶 = 3.0, 𝑤𝐵−𝐴 = 3.0, it does not automatically imply
that there are separate lanes for LT and RT, and no simutaneous queueing.
• The averaged value 𝑤𝐵−𝐶 and 𝑤𝐵−𝐴 depends on
the road width as well as the way that flaring is
applied.

• Need to check whether the actual geometry (examples below) to see to whether these two
assumptions (separate lanes, no simutaneous queueing) holds, or which of the following two
“special cases” is more appropriate.

Google Map Link Google Map Link

CSE40407 Tutorial 1 – Priority Junction 4

Let’s use the part (a) Simple T-Junction as the reference case again, and examine what happens if
the above assumptions are violated.

(a) Simple T-Junction

(reference case. Assume separate lanes for LT and RT, no simultaneous queueing)
Stream Design flow (pcu/hr) Capacity (pcu/hr) DFC
B-A 250 267 94%
B-C 200 608 33%
C-B 300 407 74%

(d1) Simultaneous queue

(e.g. mostly sharing the same lane but flaring near the stop line so that minor LT and RT vehicles can exit
separately)
Stream Design flow (pcu/hr) Capacity (pcu/hr) DFC
B-A 250
B-C (o) 200
C-B 300
- Simultaneous queuing for the two movements B-C and B-A decreases the operational left
turning capacity 𝑄𝐵−𝐶 (𝑜).
- No impact to the other two priority streams

(d2) Right and left turning traffic share the same lane
(e.g. not enough flaring so that minor LT and RT vehicles cannot wait side-by-side at the stop line)
Stream Design flow (pcu/hr) Capacity (pcu/hr) DFC
B-AC 250 + 200 = 450
C-B 300
- 𝑓 = proportion of RT in minor rd traffic = 200/(250+200)
- Under the given design flows, sharing the same lane will severely block the turning flows on the
minor road.

Notice that the results for the “simultaneous queue” case is somewhat in between “two fully separate lanes”
and “share same lane”.

CSE40407 Tutorial 1 – Priority Junction 5

Part (e) Heavy major RT
Let’s neglect the special considerations about the minor road in part (d).
From parts (a) to (c), we realize that we need to adopt a physical island design in order to
accommodate the design flow in a satisfactory manner.

Now, let’s look at a revised set of design flow. Note that the total flow from approach C (sum of
Eastbound TH + RT) is still 950 pcu/hr, but now it has heavy RT volume. Let’s check whether the
physical island design in part (c) can accommodate this new design flow.
300
650

C A
400
300

200 250
B
Let’s consider the simple T-junction design again:
Why 𝑄𝐵−𝐴 is reduced (from
Stream Design flow (pcu/hr) Capacity (pcu/hr) DFC
340 to 261 pcu/hr)?
B-A 250 261 96%
B-C 200 608 33% Ans: Conflict from C-B traffic
C-B 650 669 97%

Obviously, the performance of both major road RT (C-B) and minor road RT (C-A) are not
satisfactory (DFC > 85%).
Options:
- Upgrade other design aspects of the priority junction (you will try it out as part of Lab 1); or
- Upgrade to another junction type, such as a roundabout or a signal junction that offers higher
capacity. This will be covered in the next tutorial.

Summary

- Practiced manual capacity computation of capacity of priority junctions

- Distinguished the 3 types of priority junctions
- Discussed how changes in physical design feature impacts capacities of non-priority streams
- Issue of unbalanced flow/ high RT movement

Food for thought:

- Is capacity or DFC the only criteria in priority junction design?
- Is “physical island” always the best choice? What are the other considerations?

CSE40407 Tutorial 1 – Priority Junction 6