Capacity and Level of Service Analysis: Basic Freeway and Multilane Highway Segments ‘The procedures in this chapter cover the capacity and level of service analysis of multilane highway segments under uninterrupted flow. These include freeway segments out- side the influence of turbulence areas (ramps, weaving segments) and multilane highway segments far enough away from the nearest traffic signal (approximately 2 miles) to be considered as uninterrupted flow facilities. 28.1 Facility Types Included Freeways are the only types of facilities providing pure uninterrupted flow. All entries to and exits from free ways are made using ramps designed to allow such movements to occur without interruption to the freeway 671 traffic stream. There are no at-grade intersections (either signalized or unsignalized), no driveway access, and no parking permitted within the right-of-way. Full control of access is provided. Freeways are generally classified by the total number of lanes provided in both directions, for example, a six-lane freeway has three lanes in each direc- tion. Common categories are four-, six-, and eight-lane freeways, although some freeway sections in major urban areas may have ten or more lanes in specific segments. Multilane surface facilities should be classified and analyzed as urban streets (arterials) if signal spacing is less than 2 miles. Uninterrupted flow can exist on multi lane facilities where the segment is at least 2 miles away from the nearest signal. Multilane highway segments are classified by the number of lanes and the type of median treatmentCHAPTER 28 provided. Surt facilities generally consist of four. or six-lat ignments. They can be undivided (.c k ating the Iwo directions of Mow), oF divided, havi median but with a double-solid yellow m: with a physical redian separating the (wo directions of How. In suburban areas, a third median treatment ts also This treat sires used: the Qvo-Way left-turn lane pst con ment with an odd number of lanes —n lane is used monly three, five, or seven, The cent ne for both directions of flow. treatment of a surface multilane high continuous eft-tum The med \ay can have a significant impact on operations. A physi cal median prevents mid-block left tums across the median except at locations where a break in the median barrier is provided. Mid-block left turns can be made at any point on an undivided alignment, Where a two-way left-turn lane is provided, mid-block left turns are permitted without restriction, but vehicles waiting to turn do so in the spe and do not unduly restrict through vehicles, In terms of capacity analysis procedures, both basic freeway sections and multilane highways are categorized by the free-flow speed (FFS). By definition, the FFS is the speed intercept when flow is “zero” on a calibrated speed-flow curve. In practical terms, it is the average speed of the traffic stream when flow rates are less than approximately 1,000 veh/h/In. Figure 28.1 illustrates some common freeway and multilane alignments. 28.2 Segment Types on Freeways and Some Multilane Highways Freeways are comprised of four types of segments. Three are areas of high turbulence within the traffic stream, and are treated by separate methodologies dis cussed in Chapters 29 and 30 of this text. Weaving that effectively cross segments involve traffic stream: cach-others path over a length of highway without the aid of traffic control devices (other than guide or warning Signs). Merge segments occur at on-ramps or other seg- ments where two or more separate flows are merging to form a single traffic stream. Diverge segments occur at oft-ramps or other segments where a single traffic stream separates into two or more separate flows. Figure 28.2 illustrates merge, diverge, and weaving segments and their operational influence areas. CAPACITY AND LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS The influence area for merge segments extends 1,500 feet downstream of the merge point. For divers segments, the influence area extends 1,500 feet upstream of the diverge point, Por weaving segments, the inti ea extends 500 feet upstream and downstream of th beginning and end of the segment Baste freeway segments are all parts of the free at are not part of a merge, diverge, or weavinj way 1 influence It sho ind weaving segments highways. rea Id be noted that merge. diverg y also exist on n 28.3 Generic Speed-Flow Characteristics on Freeways and Multilane Highways Capacity analysis procedures for basic freeway segments and multilane highways are based upon calibrated speed- flow curves for segments with various free-flow speeds. operating under base conditions. There is only one base condition for such segments in the 2016 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM): The traffic stream consists of only passenger cars. All other elements, such as lane widths and lateral clearances, driver population, ramp or roadside access density and others, are taken into account in establishing the base speed-flow curve for analysis in any given case. Figure 28.3 shows the generic form of speed- flow curves used in the methodology. The figure shows a broad range of flow rates over which average speeds remain constant—at the FFS. Modern drivers maintain high average speeds at relatively high rates of flow on freeways and multilane highways. In most cases, flow rates have no impact on average speeds for flow rates up to 1,000 pe/h/In, and in some cases considerably higher. Region 1 is that portion of the curve where the FFS prevails. Region 2 defines that portion of the curve where increasing flows result in decreasing speeds. Point 2 represents operation at capacity, which is highly unsta~ ble. Additional demand flows beyond capacity cause a breakdown, and the development of a queue. Region 3 represents the departure flow from the queue, or quewe discharge flow. In most cases, it is less than capacity, with default values in the range of 5% to 10% less than capacity in common use. Region 4 represents unstable flow within the queue.28.3. GENERIC SPEED. > G ICs FLOW CHARACTERISTICS ON FREEWAYS 673 (6) A Divided Muttilane Suburban Highway (d) An Undivided Multila 1 Suburban Highway (c) An Multikane Highway w/TWLTL (0) An Undivided Muttilane Rural Highway igure 28.1: Typical Freeway and Multilane Highway Alignments (Source: Photo (a) courtesy of J. Ulerio; (b)(c)(d).D) Used with permission of Transportation Research Board, National Research Council “Highway Capacity Manual,” Special Report 209, 1994, Illustrations 7-1 through 7-4, pg 7—3 (e) Used with pennission of Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Highway Capacity Manual, Dee 2000, Mustation 12-8, py 12-6)674 CHAPTER 28 = soo - (a) Merge Segment CAPACITY AND LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS 1.500 - (b) Diverge Segment al Base Length, Ly || 500 fe 500 ft Figure 28.2: Types of Segments on Freeways and Some Multilane Highways (Source: Reprinted with permission from Highway Capacity Manual, 6th Edition: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis, Transportation Research Board, National Academy of Sciences, Courtesy of the National Academies Press, Washington, Dec, 2016) ’ cy tn? ~—-—'|: 28-4 Levels of Service for io : : Freeways and Multilane speed Region 3 = > Flow Breakpoint flow — ee) ueve discarge Capacity flow Figure 28.3: Generic Speed-Flow Curve for | Freeways and Multilane Highways Figure 28.4 shows real speed-flow data from 1-405 (Los Angeles) from 2004. It clearly shows three distinct. regions of the curve: undersaturated flow (before capac- ity is reached), queue discharge flow, and oversaturated flow within the queue, Note that queue discharge flow is not a clear-cut value, but rather a broad range of points. An average value is normally adopted, but discharge rates can vary substantially over time. Highways For freeways and multilane highways, the measure of effectiveness used to define levels of service is density. The use of density, rather than speed, is based primarily ‘on the shape of the speed-flow relationships depicted in Figures 28.3 and 28.4, Because average speed rem: constant through most of the range of flows and because the total difference between FFS and the speed at ca- pacity is relatively small, defining five level-of-service boundaries based on speed would be problematic. If flow rates vary while speeds remain relatively sta- ble, then density must be varying throughout the range of flows, given the basic relationship that v = $ X D. Further, density describes the proximity of vehicles to each other, which is the principal determinant of freedom to maneuver. Thus, itis an appropriate descriptor of service quality. For uninterrupted flow facilities, the density boundary between levels of service E and F is defined as the density at which capacity occurs. For both free- ways and multilane highways, the density at capacity is approximately 45 pe/mi/In. Other level-of-service boundaries are set judg- mentally by the HCQSC to provide reasonable ranges of28.4 LEVELS OF SERVICE FOR FREEWAYS AND MULTILANE HIGHWAYS. 675 $ Speed (mith) e6 1,500 Flow Rate (vel/I/in) Figure 28.4: Speed-Flow Data from California | Gource: Reprinted with permission from Highway Capacity Manual, 6th Edition: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis, Transporation Research Board, National Academy of Sciences, Courtesy ofthe National Academies Press, Washington ) th density and service flow rates. Table 28.1 shows the defined level-of-service criteria for basic freeway sec- tions and multilane highways, which are the same. ‘The general operating conditions for these levels of service can be described as follows: vehicles is a minimum of 480 ft, or approxi- mately 24 car lengths, at this level of service. + At level of service B, drivers begin to respond to the existence of other vehicles in the traffic stream, although operation is still at the FFS. + Level of service A is intended to describe free- flow operations. At these low densities, the op- eration of each vehicle is not greatly influenced by the presence of others. Speeds are not affected. by flow in this level of service, and operation is at the FFS. Lane changing, merging, and diverg- ing maneuvers are easily accomplished, as many large gaps in lane flow exist. Short-duration lane blockages may cause the level of service to de- teriorate somewhat, but do not cause significant disruption to flow. Average spacing between ‘Maneuvering within the traffic stream is still rel- atively easy, but drivers must be more vigilant in searching for gaps in lane flows. The traffic stream still has sufficient gaps to dampen the impact of most minor lane disruptions. Average spacing is a minimum of 293 feet, or approxi- mately 15 car lengths. + At level of service C, the presence of other vehi- cles begins to restrict maneuverability within the traffic stream. Operations remain at the FFS, but drivers now need to adjust their course to find ‘Table 28.1: Level of Service Criteria for Basic Freeway Segments and Multilane Highways a =e "Density Range for Basic Density Range for Multilane Level of Service Freeway Sections (pc/mi/n) Highways (pe/mi/n) x 7 =0s1 | 20st B >is 1B > sis c > 18 5 26 > 18 = 26 D > 26 = 35 > 26 = 35 E >35=45 >35s45 F Demand Exceeds Demand Exceeds Capacity>45 | __ Capacity >456 CHAPTER 28 gaps they e in driver vigilance is required at this though there are still sufficient gaps in the impact of minor An use to pass or merge. A significant increa level the traffic stre lane blockages. any significant blockage could lead to breakdown and queuing. Average spac ing is a minimum of 203 feet, or approximately 10 car lengths. m to damp + Level of service D is the range in which average speeds begin to dectine with increasing flows. Density deteriorates more quickly with flow in this range. At level of service D, breakdowns can occur quickly in response to small increases in flow, Maneuvering within the traffic stream is now quite difficult, and drivers often have to search for gaps for some time before success- fully passing or merging. The ability of the traf- fic stream to dampen the impact of even minor lane disruptions is severely restricted, and most such blockages result in queue formation unless removed very quickly. Average spacing is a min- imum of 151 feet, or approximately seven car lengths. Level of service E represents operation in the vi- cinity of capacity. The maximum density limit of level of service E is capacity operation. For such an operation there are few or no usable gaps in the traffic stream, and any perturbation caused by lane-changing or merging maneuvers will create a shock wave in the traffic stream. Even the smallest lane disruptions may cause extensive queuing, Maneuvering within the traf- fic stream is now very difficult, as other vehicles must give way to accommodate a lane-changing or merging vehicle. The average spacing is a minimum of 117 feet, or approximately six car lengths. + Level of service F describes operation within the (queue that forms upstream of a breakdown point Such breakdowns may be caused by accidents or incidents, or may occur at locations where arrival demand exceeds the capacity of the section on a regular basis. Actual operating conditions vary widely, and are subject to short-term perturba- tions. As vehicles “shuffle” through the queue, there are times when they are standing still, and times when they move briskly for short distances. Level of service F is also used to describe the point of the breakdown, where demand flow (v) CAPACITY AND LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS exceeds capac In reality. ope y (0) breakdown is usually good, as arge from the queue. Nevertheless, the point of break the point of th vehicles disc it is insufficient capacity and level of service down that causes the qui F provides an appropriate descriptor for this condition. Note that in Table 28.1, LOS F is identified when the density is higher than 45 pc/mifin or when “demand exceeds capacity,” that is, the v/c ratio > 1.00, That is because no density can be predicted for such cases. Thus, in analysis, LOS F exists when demand exceeds capacity and the density will be higher than 45 pe/hiin. 28.5 Base Speed-Flow Curves In the 2016 HCM, the discrete speed-flow curves of the 2010 HCM were replaced with a procedure in which a base FFS for a given segment is developed for use. This, accommodates the reality that FFS, which characterizes each curve, is a continuous variable, not a series of dis- crete options. It also reflects the development of sev eral new approaches to adjustments implemented in the 2016 HCM. In essence, however, the 2016 HCM is still based upon the calibrated curves in the 2010 HCM, as no new data were collected or analyzed. Several problems with the calibration of the 2010 curves, therefore, still remain [2]: + The multilane highway speed-flow curves have not been calibrated with new data for over 25 years, * At the direction of the Highway Capacity and Quality of Service Committee (HCQSC), freeway speed-flow curves were “adjusted” to guarantee that service flow rates on multilane highways were always lower than on freeways with the same FFS, + While the 2010 curves showed that the constant- speed portion was smaller than previous editions, particularly at high values of FES, the actual data showed that they should have been even smaller. + The arbitrary adjustments made suggest that at LOS C and D, service flow rates are being over- predicted by the curves.28.5_ BASE SPEED-FLOW CURVES Breakpoint (BP) Capac Flow Rate (pein) Figure 28.5: Base Form of Speed-Flow Curves. for Freeways and Multilane Highways (Source: Reprinted with permission from Highway Capacity Manual, 6th Edition: A Guide for Multimodal ‘Mobility Analysis, Transportation Research Board, National Academy of Sciences, Courtesy of the National Academies Press, Washington, D.C. 2016.) All of these problems were transferred to the 2016 urves. Figure 28.5 shows the format of the speed-flow curves used in the 2016 HCM. Developing a specific curve for an analysis seg- ment involves determining the FFS, the breakpoint flow rate (BP), and the capacity (¢), All other elements of the curve follow a standard form, 677 28.5.1 Base Equation for Speed-Flow Curves ‘The equation for all speed-flow curves has two portions: (a) for values of flow rate less than or equal to the break point flow (BP), speed is a constant—the FFS; (b) for flow between the breakpoint and capacity (c), a curve of standard format is applied. The form of the base speed flow curve is as follows: S= FPS. BP (eF5u - ‘at (v)~ BP)* $= FFSqy - |_| vp > BP (aaj — BP) (28-1) where: FFS,y = adjusted free-flow speed, mi/h, aay = adjusted capacity, pc/h/In, BP = breakpoint flow rate, pe/h/In, and @ = constant of calibration Table 28.2 shows how determined. ‘There are some clear differences between free- ways and multilane highways in the base curves. The these parameters are Table 28.2: Determining Parameters for a Specific Speed-Flow Curve Parameter Basic Freeway Segment Muttilane Highway FFS (min) | Measure or Predict" "Measure or Predict! FES, (mi¢h) | FFS x SAF | FES SAF* See Factors” No Adjustment Permitted cc (pe/h/in) 2,200 + 10 (FFS-SO) 1,900 + 20(FFS-45) © = 2,400 pe/h/In and | © S 2,300 pe/h/In and 59 = FFS = 75 45 = FFS = 70 cq (pelbvin) | eX CAF c CAF* See Factors* No Adjustment Permitted BP. [1000 + 40 x (75-FFS,4j)] x CAF? 1,400 pe/h/In a 2.00 131 1. Methodology for pred 0 of FFS is discussed in subsequent section of this chapter. AP = speed adjustment factor; accounts for impacts of poor weather, incidents, work zones, and driver population; SAF discussed in a subsequent section of this chapter. 3, CAF = capacity adjustment factor; accounts for impacts of poor weather, incidents, work zones, and driver population; CAF discussed in a subsequent section of this chapter. Modified from Highway Capacity Manual, 6th Edition: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility on Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2016, Exhibit 12-6, pg 12-10.) (Source Analysis, Transporta678 CHAPTER 28 CAPACITY AND LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS biggest difference is that the breakpoint for freeways 1s ariable, based upon the FPS and the SAF, For multilane highways, all curves break at 1.400 pe/tvin, ‘This may represent a real difference in the operating characteristics of these facilities, but more likely occurs due to the age of the multilane calibrations compared to those for free: ways, which use far more recent data, In general, speed adjustment factors (SAF) and capacity adjustment factors (CAF) may be applied to basic freeway segments, but may not be applied to mul- tilane highways, as these effects (weather, incidents, work zones, driver population) have not been specifi- cally studied for this class of highway, Determination of the SAF and CAF is discussed in a later section of this chapter, 28.5.2 Measuring or Predicting the Free-Flow Speed The free-flow speed of a facility is best determined by field measurement. Given the shape of speed-flow rela- tionships for freeways and multilane highways, an aver- age speed measured when flow is less than or equal to 1,000 velvi/in may be taken to represent the FES. When new facilities or redesigned facilities are under consideration, it is not possible to measure FFS. Even for existing facilities, the time and cost of conduct- ing field studies may not be warranted. For such cases, models have been developed that allow the analyst to estimate the FFS based upon charac- teristics of the segment under study. Estimating FFS for Freeways ‘The FFS of a freeway can be estimated as: S$ = 75.4 — fiw — foc — 3.22 TRD" — [28-2] where: FFS = free-flow speed of the freeway, mi/h, fiw = adjustment for lane width, mi/h, Suc = adjustment for right-side lateral clearance, mi/h, and TRD = total ramp density, ramps/mi.. ‘The base condition for lane width is an average width of 12 feet or greater. For narrower lanes, the base FFS is reduced by the factors shown in Table 28.3. ‘Table 28.3: Adjustment to Free-Flow Speed for Lane Width on a Freeway Reduction in Free-Flow Speed, Lane Width (f) Siw (milh) = 12 | 00 " 19 10 | 66 (Source: Reprinted with permission from Transportation Research Board, National Research Council. Highway Capacity Manual, National Academy of Sciences, Courtesy of the National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 2000.) The base lateral clearance is 6 feet or greater on the right side and 2 feet or greater on the median, or left, side of the basic freeway section. Adjustments for right-side lateral clearances less than 6 feet are given in Table 28.4, There are no adjustments provided for median clearances less than 2 feet, as such conditions are considered rare. Care should be taken in assessing whether an “obstruction” exists on the right side of the freeway Obstructions may be continuous, such as a guardrail or retaining wall, or they may be periodic, such as light sup- ports and bridge abutments. In some cases, drivers may become accustomed to some obstructions, and the impact of these on FFSs may be minimal. Table 28.4: Adjustment to Free-Flow Speed for Lateral Clearance on a Freeway Reduction in Free-Flow Speed, Sic (min) i cheese parent! Lanes in One Direction Clearance (ft) 2 3 4 [2s 26 00 | 00 | 00 | 00 5 06 | 04 | 02 | o1 4 12 | os | 04 | 02 3 18 | 12 | 06 | 03 2 24 | 16 | 08 | 04 1 20 | 20 | 10 | 0s 0 36 | 24 | 12 | 06 (Source: Reprinted with permission from Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Highway Capacity Manual, National Academy of Sciences, Courtesy of the National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 2000.)28.5_ BASE SPEED-FLOW CURVES Right-side obstructions primarily influence driver behavior in the right lane. Drivers “shy away" from such obstructions, moving further to the left in the lane. Drivers in adjacent lanes may also shift somewhat to the left in response to vehicle placements in the right lane The overall effect is to cause vehicles to travel closer to each other laterally than would normally be the case, thus making flow less efficient. This is the same effect as for narrow lanes. Since the primary impact is on the right lane, the total impact on FFS declines as the number of lanes increases. Total ramp density is the total number of on-ramps and off-ramps within 3 miles of the midpoint of the study segment, divided by 6 miles. Ramp density is a sur- rogate measure that relates to the intensity of land use activity in the vicinity of the study segment. In practi- cal terms, drivers will drive at lower speeds where there are frequent on- and off-ramps creating turbulence in the traffic stream, Estimating FFS for Multilane Highways. ie FFS for a multilane highway may be estimated as: FFS = BFFS — fiw ~ fic — fu ~ fa where: FFS = speed of the multilane highway, mi/h, BFFS = base free-flow speed (as discussed below), mi/h, fuw = adjustment for lane width, mi/n, fic = adjustment for total lateral clearance, mi/h, fw = adjustment for type of median, mi/h, and ‘Ja = adjustment for access points, min. [28-3] here is not a great deal of guidance in the HCM as the base FFS for use in Equation 28-2, The design speed may be used as a reasonable surrogate, if it is known, The speed limit can be used to develop a rough estimate: BFFS can be roughly estimated as the speed limit + 7 mi/h for speed limits less than 45 mi/h, or the speed limit + 5 mi/h for speed limits over 45 mi/h. In the complete absence of any other information, a default value of 60 mi/h may be used as a last resort, The base lane width for multilane highways is 12 ft, as was the case for freeways. For narrower lanes, the FFS is reduced by the values shown in Table 28.4. This adjustment is the same for multilane highways as for freeways. 679 al clearance For multilane highways, the Ia adjustment is based on the total lateral clearance, which is the sum of the lateral clearances on the right side of the roadway and on the left (median) side of the road ay. Although this seems like a simple concept, there are some details that must be observed: * A lateral clearance of 6 it is the base condition. ‘Thus, no right- or left-side lateral clearance is ever taken to be greater than 6 ft, even if greater clearance physically exists. Thus, the base total lateral clearance is 12 ft (6 ft for the right side. 6 fi for the left or median side) + For an undivided mukilane highway, there is no left- or median-side lateral clearance. However, there is a separate adjustment taken for type of median, including the undivided case, To avoid double-counting the impact of an undivided highway, the left or median lat eral clearance on an undivided highway is as- sumed to be 6 ft. + For multilane highways with two-way left-turn lanes, the left or median lateral clearance is also taken as 6 ft + Foradivided multilane highway, the left or median side lateral clearance may be based on the location of a median barrier, periodic objects (light stan- dards, abutments, etc.) in the median, or the distance to the opposing traffic lane. As noted previously, the ‘maximum value is 6 ft. The adjustments to FFS for total lateral clearance on a multilane highway are shown in Table 28.5. ‘The median-type adjustment is shown in Table 28.6. A reduction of 1.6 mi/h is made for undivided configurations, whereas divided multilane highways, or multilane highways with two-way left-turn lanes, repre- sent base conditions. A critical adjustment to base FFS is related to point density. Access-point density is the aver age number of unsignalized driveways or roadways per mile that provide access to the multilane highway on the right side of the roadway (for the subject direction of traffic). Driveways or other entrances with little traffic, that, for other reasons, do not affect driver behavior should not be included in the access-point density. Adjustments are shown in Table 28.7. acce:CHAPTER 28 CAPACITY AND LEVEL OF SERVICE ANAL YSIS Table 28.8: Adjusiment tof Flow Speed for Total Lateral Clearance on a Multilane Highway 4 Multitane Highways 6-Lane Multilane Highways Total Lateral Reduction in Free-Flow I Lateral Reduction in Free- Clearance (f0) fc amiy Clearan Flow Speed, fy (mi¢h) n 00 2 00 0 04 10 04 8 09 6 6 3 4 4 7 a 2 28 0 54 0 39 sce: Reprinted with permission from Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Mighywa acity Manual, National Academy of Sciences, Courtesy of the National Academies Press, Washington D.C. 2000) Table 28.6: Adjustment to Free-Flow Speed for Table 28.7: Adjustment to Free-Flow Speed for Median Type on Multilane Highways Access-Point Density on a Multilane Highway Reduction in Free-Flow Access Density Reduction in Free-Flow Median Type ‘Speed, fyx (mi/h) (Access Points/Mi) Speed, f, (mish) Undivided 16 7 00 TWLTL 00 10 25 ided 0. 20 5.0 (Source: Reprinted with permission from Transportation 30 75 Research Board, National Research Council, Highway =40 100 Capacity Manual, National Academy of Sciences, Courtesy of | — AP the National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 2000.) (Source: Reprinted with permission from Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Highwo Capacity Manual, National Academy of Sciences, Courtesy of the National Academies Press, Washington, D.C.. 2000.) ‘Sample Problem 28-1: Determing the Free-Flow Speed A basic freeway segment and a multilane highway segment are described in Table 28.8, From the information given, estimate the FFS for each segment, Equations 28-2 and 28-3 are used to estimate FFS for freeways and multilane highway segments, respectively. The Number of Lanes 6 [ FES for the basic freeway segment is computed as ae et FES = 754 ~ fiw ~ fue ~ 322 TRO Lateral Clearance, 4 2h Right Side where: fy ~ 0.0 mi/h (Table 28.3, 12 ft lanes), Alignment NA Undivided fic ~ 0.8 mi/h (Table 28.4, 4 ft clearance, Base Free-Flow Speed NA 65.0 mh 3 lanes in one direction), and Ramps/Mile 4 NA TRD = 4 ramps/mi (given) Access Points Per Mile NA 2»5_BASE SPEED-FLOW CURVES Then: FFS = 75.4 ~ 0.0 ~ 0.9 ~ 3.22 (4°) = 64,3 mi/h The FFS for the multilane highway segment is computed is: FES = BFFS ~ fiw ~ fie ~ fu — tn where: fiw = 1.9 mi/h (Table 28.3, 11 ft lanes), fic = 0.9 mi/h (Table 28.5, 2 + 6 = 8 fe total lateral clearance, 4 lanes), 681 fy ~ \.6mi/h (Table 28.6, undivided), fy = 50mi/h BFFS ble 28.7, 20 access pUmi), and 65 mi/h (given) FES = 650 ~ 1.9 ~ 09 ~ 1.6 ~ $0 = 55.6mi/h 28.5.3 Capacity Adjustment Factors and Speed Adjustment Factors The vast majority of capacity or level of service analyses are conducted for assumed conditions which include the following: * Good weather + No traffic incidents or accidents + No work zones + Motorists who are regular and familiar users of the facility Over the years, there has been considerable interest in assessing the impact of such conditions when one or more of these assumed conditions do not exist. The 2016 HCM introduces the CAF and the SAF to allow this. ‘The normal capacity value can be multiplied by 4 CAF to reflect the impact of adverse weather, lane blockages due to incidents or accidents, work zones, and motorist populations that are not regular users of the facility in question. Similarly, the FFS (or a base speed estimate) can be adjusted by a SAF to reflect impact of these situations on speed. ‘There are four components that impact the appli- cable CAF in any given case, and three components that impact the applicable SAF. Table 28.9 illustrates these. Note that an adjustment for incidents is only recom- ‘mended for capacity. No speed adjustment is permitted to be ‘made for incidents, due to a lack of research on the subject IL is possible to apply CAFS and SAFs for more than one factor in any given situation, as indicated in Equations 28-4: CAF = CAFy X CAF, X CAFpp X CAF wz SAF = SAFy X SAFpp X SAFwz [28-4] ‘Table 28.9: Factors Considered in CAF and SAF Condition CAF SAF Weather Nee (ye Incidents Ne | No Driver Population Yes Yes Work Zones Yes Yes where: CAFiy = capacity adjustment factor for adverse weather, SAFy = speed adjustment factor for adverse weather, capacity adjustment factor for incidents, capacity adjustment factor for non standard driver population, SAF pp = speed adjustment factor for non- standard driver population, CAF yz = capacity adjustment factor for work zones, and speed adjustment factor for work zon CAF, CAF pp SAF wz, While the use of multiple factors is permitted, it should be done with great caution, as each of these ad- justment factors was researched and calibrated in isola- tion, No field calibrations have considered whether the impacts of several are fully multiplicative, as there may be overlapping operational effects. In other words, using these factors to estimate a capacity and FFS in a work zone with an incident on a snowy day with weekend driv- ers is probably not a good idea. As indicated in Table 28.9, the CAF is used to modify the estimated capacity under base conditions, and the SAF is used to modify the FFS. Both, in turn, affect the base equation for the speed-flow curve in any given application.682 CHAPTER 28 CAPACITY AND LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS Adjustments for Inclement Weather CAF for Tratfic Incidents Tables 28.10 and 28.11 show CAFs and SAFs for vari The CAF for the occurrence of traffic incidents is shown ous forms of inclement weather. They are based upon a in Table 28.12. Values are based on an NCHRP study of comprehensive NCHRP study of default values for use in default values (3 capacity analysis [3] Table 28.10: Capacity Adjustment Factors (CAF) for Inclement Weather CAF for Unadjusted FFS of: (mith) Weather Definition of Conditions 55 60 65 7 78 Medium Rain © 0,100.25 in/h \ 09s | 093 | 092 | 091 | 090 Heavy Rain 25 in/h | 0.89 0.88 0.86 | 084 | 0.82 Light Snow >0.00-0.05 in/h 0.97 0.96 0.96 095 | 0.95 Light-Medium Snow 0.05—0.10 in/h 0.95 094 | 0.92 0.90 | 0.88 Medium-Heavy Snow >0.10-0.50 in/h 0.93 0.91 090 | 088 | 087 Heavy Snow >0.50in/h 0.80 0.78 0.76 074 | 072 Severe Cold <-4°F 0.93 0.92 0.92 091 | 0.90 Low Visibility 0.50-0.99 mi 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 | 0.90 Very Low Visibility 0.25-0.49 mi 0.88 0.88 0.88 | 0.88 | 0.88 Minimal Visibility <0.25 mi 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 | 0.90 Normal Weather None of the Above 1.00 1.00 100 | 1.00 | 1.00 (Source: Reprinted with permission from Highway Capacity Manual, 6th Edition: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis Transportation Research Board, National Academy of Sciences, Courtesy of the National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 2016.) Table 28.11: Speed Adjustment Factors (SAF) for Inclement Weather ] SAF for Unadjusted FFS of: (mi/’n) Weather Definition of Conditions 55 60 68 70 5 Medium Rain “50.10 — 0.25 in/h 0.96 0.95 094 | 093 | 093 Heavy Rain >0.25 in/h 094 | 093 | 093 | 092 | o1 Light Snow $0.00 ~ 0.08 in/h oo4 | o92 | o89 | o87 | oss Light-Medium Snow 0.05 — 0.10 in/h 092 | 090 | 088 | o86 | 083 Medium-Heavy Snow 0.10 ~ 0.50 in/h eo | Oss | ose | oad | 007 Heavy Snow 50.50 in/ ee | 086 | O8s | Gas | O81 Severe Cold <-4F oss | 095 | 094 | 094 | 092 Low Visibility 0.50 = 0.99 mi 09 | 095 | 094 | 094 | 093 Very Low Visibility 0.25 ~ 0.49 mi oss | 094 | 093 | 092 | o91 Minimal Visibility <0.25 mi oss | 094 | 093 | 092 | o1 Normal Weather None of the Above 1100) 1.0018 | 100-2) 1.007 |.1.00 (Source: Reprinted with permission from Highway Capacity Manual, 6th Edition: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis ‘Transportation Research Board, National Academy of Sciences, Courtesy of the National Academies Press, Washington, D.C. 2016.)28.5_ BASE SPEED-FLOW CURVES 683 Table 28.12: CAF for the Effect of Traffic Incidents il CAF for Incidents with the Following Effects ba acilt No Shoulder TLane | 2Lanes 3Lanes | 4 Lanes au Incidents - Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed ; 1.00 0.81 0.70 NA | NA NA 7 1.00 0.83 0.74 051 NA NA : 1.00 0.85 0.77 0.50 0.52 NA 7 1.00 0.87 081 0.67 0.50 0.50 S 1.00 0.89 0.85 0.75 0.52 0.52 Z 1.00 0.89 0.88 0.80 0.63 0.63 | 1.00 0.89 089 | 08a | 0.66 0.66 (Source: Reprinted with permis mn from Highway Capacity Manual, 6th Edition: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis, Transportation Research Board, National Academy of Sciences, Courtesy of the National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 2016.) It should be noted that the CAFs in Table 28.12 apply only to those lanes that remain open during the cident. For example, a four-lane freeway segment in one direction with two lanes closed due to a traffic incident, has only two lanes open. From Table 28.12, the remaining two lanes will carry only 0.50 of their normal capacity. The two lanes blocked by the incident can process no vehicles. Adjustments for a Non-Standard Driver Population ‘An adjustment for driver population has been in the HCM since 1985 in one form or another. Prior to the 2016 HCM, it was applied to demand volumes. The 2016 HCM applies adjustments to both FFS and capacity for this characteristic. Standard analysis procedures assume a regular driver population that is familiar with the facility and its rounding environment, that is, primarily commuters. n adjustment has always been available to account for ituations in which weekend or recreational traffic might be the dominant demand problem. Table 28.13 shows the CAF and SAF for various driver populations. ‘Adjustment factors for driver population were alge- braically developed from the range of driver population adjustments to demand flows given in previous editions of the HCM. The definition of intermediate ranges is entirely the result of judgmental interpolation. It should also be noted that there is no substantial research data to support these specific values. Adjustments for Work Zones “The approach to work zone adjustments is quite different from those for other categories of CAFs and SAFs. Instead, Table 28.13: CAF and SAF for Non-Standard Driver Populations Driver Familiarity : Classification car | SAF ‘All Familiar Drivers | 1.0000 1.000 Mostly Familiar Drivers aves | 0975 Balanced Mix of Familiar 0.939 0.950 and Unfamiliar Drivers | Mostly Unfamiliar Drivers | 0.898 | 0.913, All Unfamiliar Drivers | _0.852__| 0.863 (Source: Reprinted with permission from Highway Capacity Manual, 6th Edition: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis, ‘Transportation Research Board, National Academy of Sciences, Courtesy of the National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 2016.) complete methodology to predict the capacity and FFS in, a work zone is provided. CAFs and SAFs are determined from the results of those analyses. The methodology is based upon a national study of work zone operations (4, 5]. Both the capacity and FFS of a work zone are based upon the lane closure severity index (LSCI), which is defined as follows: LCSI = = [28-5] OR XN, where: OR = open ratio, N,/N, 'N = number of lanes in normal operation (without work zone), and N,, = number of lanes open through work zone.684 CHAPTER 28 CAPACITY AND LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS Table 28.14: Values of the Lane Closure Severity Index Lanes in | Normal Open Lanes | Open Operation Through Work | Ratio (Ny) Zone (N,) (OR) LOSI 2 100 | 038 2 2 | 1.00 0.50 | 3 07s | 04a 3 = 0.67 0.75 4 2 0.50 1.00 2 I | 0.50 2.00 3 1 033 | 3.00 4 I 02 4.00 (Source: Reprinted with permission from Highway Capacity Manual, 6th Edition: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis, Transportation Research Board, National Academy of Sciences, Courtesy of the National Academies Press, Washington, D.C,, 2016.) Table 28.14 shows the normal range of LCSI values. Work zone capacity is based upon a prediction of the queue discharge rate from the work zone (QDRy). Research found that it was extremely difficult to actu- ally observe pre-breakdown capacity in a work zone. ‘On the other hand, queue discharge when a breakdown ‘was already in place was relatively easy to observe. The queue discharge rate is estimated as: 2,093 — (154 LCST) = (194 fg) — (179 far) + (9fiar) — (59 fow) QDRwz [28-6] where: ODRwz = queue discharge rate from work zone (pe/h/open lane), LCS! = lane closure severity index (Table 28.14), ur = adjustment for barrier type (0 for concrete or other hard barriers; 1 for cones or other soft barriers), far = adjustment for area type (0 for urban, 1 for rural), Siar = adjustment for lateral clearance to barrier (012 ft), and Jp = adjustment for day/night (0 for day, 1 for night). opty, ( 24.7 we = ODRW:( Top age) (28-71 where: ay ~ percentage reduction from capacity to QDR, and «7 = capacity ofthe work zone (pfvopen lane) The value of «WZ should be locally calibrated. If no calibration is possible, a default value of 13.4% may be used, Essentially, the default value assumes that the QDR for a work zone is 13.4% less than its capacity Once the capacity of the work zone is estimated the CAFwz is computed as: CAF yz = Cv (28-8) where c is the base capacity (pc/h/In) for the freeway based upon its FFS. The FFS in a work zone is estimated as: FFSwz = 9.95 + (33.49 fsx) + (0.53 SLwz) — (5.60 LCST) — (3.84 fag) — (1.71 fow) — (8.7 TRD) [28-9] where: SLwz = speed limit in the work zone (mi/h), fsx = speed limit ratio (SL/SLyyz), SL = base speed limit of the freeway (mi/h), LCST = lane closure severity index (Table 28.14), fan = adjustment for barrier type (as above), fon = adjustment for day/night (as above), and TRD = total ramp density (ramps/mi), Again, once the FFSyz is estimated, the SAF yz is computed as: _ FFSw2 2 acres, [28-10] where the FFS is the free-flow speed of the freeway out side of the work zone. Because of the approach taken, it is rare that a CAF wz oF a SAF wz would be applied as such. Rather, the capacity and FFS of the work zone would be directly computed from the methodology described, with the work zone being treated as a separate segment for analysis.28.5_ BASE SPEED-FLOW CUR’ ‘Sample Problem 28-2: Work Zone Analysis Consider the of long-term work zone on a freeway. The fee Ma eight lanes ou Tans each dota oo which are closed due to major maintenance operations. ‘The freeway itself has a FFS of 70 mish outside of the work zone The work zone is delineated by concrete barriers, which are lo cated 0 feet from the edge of travel lanes. The work zone is in a generally rural area, and the critical period for operations is daring the day. The sped limit trough the wor one #5 mi, while the speed limit for the freeway is 70 mish, The total ramp density on the freeway is 3 ramps/mile. For these condi- tions, estimate the capacity and the FFS of the work zone. From Table 28.14, the LCSI for this case is 1.00 (four lanes, two open). Equations 28-6, 28-7, and 28-9 are now applied to estimate the capacity and FFS for the work zone. ‘The queue discharge rate from the work zone is computed as: QDRyz = 2,093 ~ (154 LSI) — (194 fgn) + (9fiar) — (179 far) — (59 fow) where: LCST = 1.00 (Table 28.14), Jax = 0 (concrete barrier), Siar = Oft (given), Sar = 1 (rural), and fon = 0 (day). ‘Then: ODRwz = 2,093 — (154 X 1) — (194 x 0) + (9 X 0) = (9 x0) — (179 x1) = (59 x 0) = 1,760 pefh open lane Equation 28-7 is then used to estimate the capacity of the work zone: 100 owe = 00 ro iO aaa) 685 Using the default value for awz of 13.4%, the capacity of the work 7 ewe = 1.160 (1/109 2.032 pe/h/open lane 14) Because there are two open lanes in the work zone, it will be able to handle a total of 2,032 % 2 = 4,064 pe/h. Note that this capacity is still stated in pe/h, and that it would have to be converted to veh/h to account for the impact of trucks using the methodology discussed later in this chapter. Equation 28-9 is used to estimate the FFS of the work FFSyz = 9.95 + (3349 fon) + (0.53 SLwz) = (6.60 LCSI) ~ (3.84 far) ~ (1.71 fon) ~ (8.7 TRD) where: fog = 70/45 = 1.56, SLyz = 45 mi/h (given), LCSI = 1.00 (Table 28.14), Jon = Ot (given), Jon = 0 (day), and TRD = 3 ramps/mi (given). Then: FFSyz = 9.95 + (33.49 X 1.56) + (0.53 x 45) = (5.60 X 1) ~ (3.84 x 0) ~ (1.71 x0) = (87 X 3)= 55.3 mifh Note that, in this case, the FFSwz is higher than the speed limit in the work zone. A Final Word on CAFs and SAFs As initially noted, most capacity and level of service analyses are conducted assuming “normal” conditions, that is, good weather, no incidents, no work zones, and a typical driver population with regular familiar users of a facility. The existence of these factors, however, allows analysts to consider the likely impacts of periodic or long-term disruptions to those normal conditions. “These factors can be applied to freeways, but they ‘are not intended to be used with multilane highway meth- ‘odologies. This was a judgment of the HCQSC, recog- nizing that virtually ali of the research and data behind the factors came from freeways. Logically, one would expect to find similar impacts on multilane highways, but none have been calibrated to date Finally, these factors are presented here as part of the analysis methodology for basic freeway segments. As will be seen in subsequent chapters, they may also be applied to weaving, merging, and diverging segments on freeways. 28.5.4 Sample Curves for a Selection of Free-Flow Speeds ‘The 2016 HCM provides base curves for selected values of FFS: 55, 60, 65, 65, 70, and 75 mish for freeways, and 45, 50, 55, 60, 65, and 70 mi/h for multilane highways. ‘These are shown in Figures 28.6 and 28.7. ‘These curves also show the levels of service. LOS boundaries are defined by density (pc/mi/In), as indicated686 CHAPTER 28 CAPACITY AND LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS o . SS | in Ze | | ° Lose | Flow Rate (pe/h/in) Figure 28.6: Example Base Speed-Flow Curves for Freeways | Source: Reprinted with permission from Highway Capacity Manual, 6th Edition: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis, | Transportation Research Board, National Academy of Sciences, Courtesy of the National Academies Press, Washington, D.C, 2016.) Speed (mi/h) s 6 8 o 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 Flow Rate (peftvlane) Figure 28.7: Example Base Speed-Flow Curves for Multilane Highways (Source: Reprinted with permission from Highway Capacity Manual, 6th Edition: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis, ‘Transportation Research Board, National Academy of Sciences, Courtesy of the National Academies Press, Washington, D.C.. 2016.) in Table 28,1. On a speed-flow plot, the density boundaries __can be accommodated with operating conditions consistent represent uniform slopes from the origin (remember that with the defined LOS. These are referred to as “maximum, D = v/S). The point at which each LOS boundary crosses service flow rates,” and are shown in Tables 28.15 and each speed: flow curve defines the maximum flow rate that 28.16 for freeways and multilane highways, respectively.28.6 APPLICATIONS Maximum Service Flow Rates (MSF) for Freeways (pe/W/In) Level of Service FFS (mit) A B | c D K 820 | 1310 | 1.750 | 2.110 | 2,400 770 | 1.250 | 1,690 | 2,080 | 2,400 65 710 1,170, 1,630 | 2,030 | 2,350 60 660 1,080 1,560 | 2,010 | 2,300 a 5S 600 990 | 1,430 1,900, 1 2,250 Nore:All values rounded (o the nearest 10 pe/h/n, (Source: Reprinted with permission from Highway Capacity Manual, 6th Edition: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis, ‘Transportation Research Board, National Academy of Sciences, ‘Courtesy of the National Academies Press, Washington, D.C. 2016) Table 28.16: Maximum Service Flow Rates (MSF) for Multilane Highways (pe/h/In) Level of Sei FFS a (mim) A B c D E 70 | 760 | 1,260 | 1,700 | 2,020 | 2.300 65 | 710 | 1,170 | 1,630 | 2,000 | 2,250 60 660 | 1,080 | 1,550 | 1,980 | 2,200 3s | 600 | 990 | 1,430 | 1,850 | 2,100 so | ss0 | 900 | 1,300 | 1,710 | 2,000 45 | 290 | 810 | 1,170 | 1,550 | 1,900 fote:All values rounded to the nearest 10 pe/b/In. wurce: Reprinted with permission from Highway Capacity fanual, 6h Edition: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis, Transportation Research Board, National Academy of Sciences, Courtesy of the National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 2016.) Note that maximum service flow rates for any given LOS and FFS are always higher on freeways than on mul- tilane highways. Historically, this has not always been the ase in previous editions of the HCM. Ona policy level, a suggestion that capacity (and by implication, operations) would improve by turning a freeway into a surface multi- Jane highway, would be thoroughly illogical. While these curves are presented for information and insight, the HCM methodology assumes that profes- sionals will develop a specific speed-flow curve for the prevailing conditions at hand, working with an exact esti- mation of the FFS that applies. OF BASE CURVES TO CAPACITY AND LOS ANALYSIS, 687 28.6 Applications of Base Curves to Capacity and LOS Analysis of Freeways and Multilane Highways In the previous section, the process for developing a speed-flow curve for some prevailing conditions for a specific freeway or multilane highway segment was de scribed. Development of a base curve includes consider ation of the following prevailing conditions. + Lane widths * Lateral clearance(s) + Total ramp or access point density + Type of median (multilane highways) * Driver population While the development of a base curve will ad dress these conditions, there are two major remaining prevailing conditions that are not included in the base curves: heavy vehicle presence and peak hour factor (PHF). Base curves are developed with a flow rate scale in units of pe/h/In, Prevailing conditions include demand volumes in veh/h that include heavy vehicles such as trucks, buses, and recreational vehicles. Their operating characteristics are not the same as passenger cars, and they can have a serious deleterious impact on both capacity and speed. The adjustment for heavy vehicles, however, is made on the demand side of the equation through the use of an adjustment factor (fj) that converts a traffic stream in pe/h to an equivalent one in veh/h (or vice-versa). ‘There are, however, three different types of appli- cations within which this conversion will take place: + Operational analysis + Design analysis + Service flow rate and service volume analysis In addition to these, the HCM defines “planning analysis.” This, however, consists of beginning the anal- ysis with an AADT as a demand input, rather than a peak-hour volume. Planning analysis begins with a con- version of an AADT to a directional design-hour volume (DDHV) using the traditional procedure as described in Chapter 5CHAPTER 28.6.1 Operational Analysis The most common form of analysis is operational analy sis. In this form of analysis, all traffic, roadway, and con, trol conditions are defined for an existing oF projected highway section, and the expected level of service and operating parameters are determined. The basic approach is t conv‘ forecast demand volumes to an eq under ideal conditions: tthe existing or lent flow rate Vv » = DHF X GDN (28-11) 0 ~ PHF & fav XN where: vj, = flow rate per lane under equivalent ideal conditions (pe/hv/in), V = demand volume (velv/h), PHF = peak-hour factor, fay = adjustment factor for presence of heavy vehicles, and N = number of lanes in one direction. The result is used in one of two ways. The computed value of v,, may be entered into the equation for the base specd-flew curve developed for the segment under study. It will be in the form of Equation 28-1, and will result in a prediction of average speed for the flow rate entered. Density may then be computed as D = y)/S, and compared to the LOS criteria in Table 28.1. Alternatively, the base speed-flow curve devel- oped can be entered graphically with a value of v, to determine the average speed and LOS. Both techniques will be illustrated in the sample problems at the end of this chapter. 28.6.2 Design Analysis In design analysis, an existing or forecast demand vol- ed to determine the number of lanes needed to provide for a specified level of service. The number of lanes may be computed as: ume is u - DDHV oo PHF X MSF, X fuy eae) Where: N; = number of lanes (in one direction) required to provide for level of servi 28 CAPACITY AND LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS, DDHV ~ directional design-hour volume (veh/h), MSF, = maximum service flow rate for LOS i fror Table 28.15 for freeways and Table 28.16 for multilane highways (pe/h/in). and fay = adjustment factor for heavy vehicles Equation 28-12, however, will almost always result in a fractional answer. If the equation indicates that 3.1 lanes are needed to provide LOS i, then four lanes will have to be provided. Because of this, it is often more convenient to compute the service flow rate and service volume for the desired level of service for a range of rea sonable values of N (usually two, three, four, and possibly five lanes). Then the demand volume or flow rate can be compared to the results for a simpler determination of the required number of lanes. 28.6.3 Service Flow Rate and Service Volume Analysis It is often useful to determine the service flow rates and ¢ volumes for the various levels of service under prevailing conditions. Various demand levels may then be compared to these estimates for a speedy determina tion of expected level of service. The service flow rate for a given level of service is computed as: serv SF, = MSF, x N X fy service flow rate for level of servi (velvh), MSF, = maximum service flow rate for level of service “i” (pefh/In), number of lanes in one direction, and adjustment factor for heavy vehicles. N Juv The maximum service flow rates for each level of service, MSF, are taken from Table 28.15 (for tree- ways) and Table 28.16 (for multilane highways). The tables, however, only provide values for FFS in even 5 mifh increments. If the segment under study has an intermediate FFS, a plot of the speed-flow curve for the segment, with LOS lines, must be constructed to obtain values. Service flow rates are stated in terms of peak flows within the peak hour, usually for a 15-minute analysis period. Itis often convenient to convert service flow rates8.7, THE HEAVY VEHICLE ADJUSTME! to service volumes over the full peak hour, This is done using the peak-hour. tor s = SEX PHF (28-14) where: SV; = service volume over a full peak hour for level of service “i” (veh/h) All other variables as previously defined. 28.7 The Heavy Vehicle Adjustment Factor and Related Issues ‘The common feature of operational analysis, design anal- ysis. and service volume analysis is the need to determine fan adjustment factor that accounts for the presence of heavy vehicles in the traffic stream (fyy). While in ap- pearance, the adjustment is similar to those in previous editions of the HCM, the 2016 HCM is substantially dif- ferent in its approach to heavy vehicles. Previous HCMs have dealt with three different cat- egories of heavy vehicles: trucks, buses, and recreational Vehicles. The 2016 HCM deals with only wo categories single-unit truck (SUT) and tractor-trailer combinations (TT), All buses and recreational vehicles are now classified as SUTs. Further, the 2016 HCM does not treat the two truck categories separately, but rather looks at the traffic stream in terms of the mix of trucks that might be present. .7.1 Passenger Car Equivalents e heavy vehicle adjustment factor (yy) is actually algebraic manipulation of passenger-car equivalents (Ey). The passenger car equivalent is a concept that pro- poses that for every heavy vehicle present in the traffic stream, Eyy passenger cars are displaced. Consider the following situation: A traffic stre contains. 15% (0.15) heavy vehicles, each of which dis- places 3.0 (Ejjy) passenger cars from the traffic stream. If the traffic stream volume is 3,000 veh/h, what is the volume stated as passenger car equivalents? The calculation is rel- atively simple. Of the 3,000 vehMh, 15% or 450 veh/h are heavy vehicles. The remainder, of 2,550 vehy/h, are passen- ger cars. Each heavy vehicle is the equivalent of 3.0 pas- senger cars, Therefore, the equivalent passenger-car traffic stream is n T FACTOR AND RELATED ISSUES 689 450 3.0 = 1,350 2,550 1.0 = 2,550 3,900 pe/h ‘The prevailing traffic stre: re 3,900 p/h The heavy vehicle adjustment factor is designed to convert a traffic stream in pe/h to one in veh/h under prevailing conditions, oF vseh/i = Ypejn * Suv. The heavy vehicle adjustment factor. therefore, is calibrated 8 fav = Vvenjn/Ypejn- Calibration, however. requires that equivalent flow rates in veh/h and pe/h be defined. This requires extensive effort, and can be done in many different ways, depending upon the desired outcome. The relationship between fiyy and E; relatively straightforward. The small example above can be used to illustrate it. By definition, the heavy vehicle adjustment factor is computed as: pf 3,000 vel/h operates as if rv. however, is Yoeh/ fav [28-15] Ypc/h For the example above, this yields fy = 3,000/3,900 = 0.76923. Using Equation 28-15 as a start- ing point, we can substitute an equation for the process used t0 compute v in pe/h, Then, fav = hy Vent X Pav X Env] + [Wvenyh (1 Pav) XV) where: Pyy = proportion of heavy vehicles, given as 0.15. and Eny = heavy vehicle equivalent, given as 3.0. EE Juv ~ 73.900 x 0.15 X 3.0] + [3,000 Xx (1 — 0.15) x1] 3,000 = = 0.1692: 1380+ 2.550 — 76973 We could now use this factor to make the original com- putation, that is, knowing the flow rate in pe/h, we could now convert it back to veh/h, 3,900 X 0.76923 = 000 veh/h Yveh/h The equation for fy could then be simplified algebraically to yield the general equation used throughout the HCM: 1 1+ Pay ( fie = [28-16] ny — 1) where all terms have been previously defined690 A number of different approaches have been used over the years to define the equivalence of a mixed traffic stream to one with only passenger cars: + In the 1965 HCM, Powell Walker developed a methodology based on the relative numbers of passing maneuvers of passenger cars passing trucks, and passenger cars passing other pas- senger cars. The methodology was not based on observed passing behavior, but on the pass- ing implications of measured speed distribu- tions for trucks and passenger cars. The method was developed for two-lane rural highways, but was applied to multilane facilities as well. The calibration was never documented. Years later, Werner documented the methodology using more modern data from Canadian two-lane high- ways [6] + A modification of the Walker method used rel- ative delay caused by one class of vehicles to other vehicles in the traffic stream. + For the 1985 HCM, Krammas and Crowley [7] calibrated equivalents for level terrain based on relative observed headways in the traffic stream. for passenger cars following passenger cars, pas- senger cars following trucks, trucks following passenger cars, and trucks following trucks. The method was applied to equivalents on general terrain segments. + For the 1985 HCM, Linzer, Roess, and McShane [8] used simulation outputs to determine equiv- alent v/c ratios in mixed and passenger car only streams, which were used to determine equiva- lents for trucks on specific grades. + For 2000, Webster and Elefteriadou [9] used new simulations to develop revised passenger car equivalents, modifying earlier work based upon ‘economic equivalence, that is, the cost of pave- ment generated by truck usage vs. passenger car usage. These are just a few of the ideas that have been used to define equivalence and calibrate passenger car equivalence for trucks. Others include defining equiv- alence based upon the speed or density of the traffic stream (mixed flow versus passenger car only flow). ‘There are flaws in all of these approaches. The concept of equivalence is not simple or straightforward, and it is, CHAPTER 28 CAPACITY AND LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS virtually impossible to develop an approach that does not have some deficiencies. For the 2016 HCM, an entirely new modeling approach and concept has been developed. Using the kinematic relationships governing truck and passenger car performance on grades and more gentle terrains. speed-flow curves for passenger car only traffic streams and mixed traffic streams can be developed and com pared. For 2016, equivalents are based upon capacity that is, use of the equivalents estimates a mixed flow capacity from a passenger car only capacity. Capacity is, of course, a single point on a speed-flow curve, and equivalents calibrated by comparing capacities are differ- ent from those that would arise from considering a range of points in the speed-flow continuum. This approach is documented in the 2016 HCM for the first time. At the time of publication of this text, research papers on the calibration of this approach have not yet been published. Another difference between 2016 and previous methodologies is that previous HCMs focused on the speed-density behavior of the traffic stream at the end of a sustained grade (as this is where truck performance would be the worst); the new approach considers the space mean speed of trucks and passenger cars over the full length of the grade, The latter is obviously faster than the former. The 2016 HCM presents passenger car equivalents for heavy vehicles under a variety of situations. A single heavy-vehicle equivalent is used, and tables have been prepared for traffic streams with various percentages of heavy vehicles, with a mix of trucks made up of: + 10% SUT, 30% TT (default mix) + 50% SUT, 50% TT (equal mix) + 30% SUT, 70% TT (heavy mix) Further, passenger car equivalents have been cali- brated for: + Extended segments of general terrain (level or rolling), and + Specific grades. ‘The procedures presented are generally sufficient for the purposes of determining level of service. In some cases, where there are many trucks in conjunction with long and/or steep grades, the average speeds predicted by the methodology may be too high. For these cases, the 2016 HCM contains a detailed model for directly