NCHRP Project 3-92

Production of the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual

Draft Chapter 27

Supplemental Information on Freeway Weaving

Prepared for:
National Cooperative Highway Research Program
Transportation Research Board
National Research Council

Transportation Research Board

NAS‐NRC
LIMITED USE DOCUMENT

This draft material, not released for publication, is furnished only for review to
members of, or participants in the work of, the National Cooperative Highway
Research Program and the Transportation Research Board. It is to be regarded as
fully privileged, and dissemination of the information included herein must be
approved by the NCHRP.

This is an uncorrected draft as submitted by the research agency. The opinions

and conclusions expressed or implied are those of the research agency. They are
not necessarily those of the Transportation Research Board, the National
Academies, or the program sponsors. The information, data, and procedures
contained herein have not been incorporated into the published Highway
Capacity Manual and are not recommended for the analysis of transportation
facilities.

December 23, 2008

Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Polytechnic Institute of NYU
Texas Transportation Institute
University of Florida
 2010 Highway Capacity Manual

CHAPTER 27
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION ON FREEWAY WEAVING

CONTENTS

1. USE OF ALTERNATIVE TOOLS .......................................................................27‐1

Use of Alternative Tools .................................................................................... 27‐1

2. ALTERNATIVE TOOL EXAMPLES FOR FREEWAY WEAVING

SEGMENTS ................................................................................................................27‐4
Determining the Weaving Segment Capacity ................................................ 27‐5
Effect of Demand on Performance ................................................................... 27‐6
Effect of Queue Backup from a Downstream Signal on the Exit Ramp...... 27‐6

Chapter 27/Supplemental Information on Freeway Weaving Page 27-i Contents

DRAFT December 2008
2010 Highway Capacity Manual

LIST OF EXHIBITS

Exhibit 27‐1 Major Weaving Segment for Example Problem 1............................ 27‐4
Exhibit 27‐2 Link‐Node Structure for the Simulated Weaving Segment ........... 27‐4
Exhibit 27‐3 Input Data for Various Demand Levels............................................ 27‐5
Exhibit 27‐4 Determining the Capacity of a Weaving Segment by Simulation. 27‐5
Exhibit 27‐5 Simulated Effect of Demand Volume on Weaving Segment Capacity
and Speed............................................................................................................. 27‐6
Exhibit 27‐6 Exit Ramp Signal Operating Parameters .......................................... 27‐7
Exhibit 27‐7 Deterioration of Weaving Segment Operation Due to Queue Backup
from a Traffic Signal ........................................................................................... 27‐7
Exhibit 27‐8 Effect of Demand on Weaving Segment Throughput with Exit Ramp
Backup.................................................................................................................. 27‐8
Exhibit 27‐9 Effect of Demand on Exit Ramp Throughput with Signal
Queuing ............................................................................................................... 27‐8

Contents Page 27-ii Chapter 27/Supplemental Information on Freeway Weaving

DRAFT December 2008
 2010 Highway Capacity Manual

This section will be moved to the final

1 1. USE OF ALTERNATIVE TOOLS draft of Chapter 12, replacing the
current sub-section on “Use of
Alternative Tools.”
2 USE OF ALTERNATIVE TOOLS General guidance for the use of
alternative traffic analysis tools for
3 General guidance for the use of alternative traffic analysis tools for capacity capacity and level-of-service analysis
4 and level of service analysis is provided in Chapter 6, Analysis Tools. This is provided in Chapter 6.

5 section contains specific guidance for the application of alternative tools to the
6 analysis of freeway weaving segments. Additional information on this topic,
7 including supplemental example problems, may be found in Chapter 27 of
8 Volume 4, Supplemental Information on Freeway Weaving.

9 Strengths of the HCM Procedure

10 The procedures in this chapter were developed based on extensive research
11 supported by a significant quantity of field data. They have evolved over a
12 number of years and represent a body of expert consensus. Most simulation
13 packages will not include the level of detail present in this methodology
14 concerning the weaving configuration and balance of weaving demand flows.
15 Specific strengths of the HCM procedure include:
16 • Providing capacity estimates for specific weaving configurations as a
17 function of various input parameters, which simulators do not provide
Question for discussion: Is the
18 directly (and in some cases may require as an input); estimation of the maximum weaving
length a useful output of the
19 • Considering geometric characteristics (such as lane widths), which are procedure or is it just an intermediate
20 rarely, if ever, incorporated into simulation algorithms; and parameter of the computations? This
measure is unique to the HCM, but
21 • Producing a single deterministic estimate of density, which is important can we really call it a strength of the
HCM procedure?
22 for some purposes, such as development impact review.

23 Limitations of the HCM Procedures that Might Be Addressed by

24 Alternative Tools
25 Weaving segments can be analyzed using a variety of stochastic and
26 deterministic simulation packages that include freeways. These packages can be
27 very useful in analyzing the extent of congestion when there are failures within
28 the simulated facility range and when interaction with other freeway segments
29 and other facilities is present.
30 The limitations stated earlier in this chapter may be addressed using
31 available simulation tools. The conditions beyond the scope of this chapter that
32 are treated explicitly by simulation tools include:
33 • Managed lanes within the weaving segment. These lanes are typically
34 modeled explicitly by simulation.
35 • Ramp metering on entrance ramps forming part of the weaving segment. These
36 features are also modeled explicitly by most tools.
37 • Specific operating conditions when oversaturated conditions exist. In this case,
38 it is necessary to ensure that both the spatial and temporal boundaries of
39 the analysis extend beyond the congested operation.
40 • Effects of intelligent transportation system (ITS) technologies on weaving
41 segment operations. Some ITS features such as dynamic message signs are

Chapter 27/Supplemental Information on Freeway Weaving Page 27-1 Use of Alternative Tools
DRAFT December 2008
2010 Highway Capacity Manual

1 offered by a few simulation tools. Some features are modeled explicitly by

2 simulation; others may be approximated using assumptions (for example,
3 by modifying origin‐destination demands by time interval).
4 • Multiple weaving segments. Multiple weaving segments were removed
5 from this edition of the manual. They may be addressed to some extent by
6 the procedures given in Chapter 10 for freeway facilities. Complex
7 combinations of weaving segments may be analyzed more effectively by
8 simulation tools.
9 Because of the interactions between adjacent freeway segments, alternative
10 tools will find their principal application to freeways containing weaving
11 segments at the facility level and not to isolated freeway weaving segments.

12 Additional Features and Performance Measures Available from

13 Alternative Tools
14 This chapter provides a methodology for estimating the speed and density in
15 a weaving segment given traffic demands from both the weaving and non‐
16 weaving movements. Capacity estimates are also produced, as well as the
17 maximum weaving lengths. Alternative tools offer additional performance
18 measures including delay, stops, queue lengths, fuel consumption, pollution, and
19 operating costs.

In addition to more
20 As with most other procedural chapters in this manual, simulation outputs,
performance measures, 21 especially graphics‐based presentations, can provide details on point problems
alternative tools can identify
specific point problems that
22 that might otherwise go unnoticed with a macroscopic analysis that yields only
could be overlooked in a 23 segment‐level measures. The effect of queuing caused by capacity constraints on
segment-level analysis.
24 the exit ramp of a weaving segment, including difficulty in making the required
25 lane changes, is a good example of a situation that can benefit from the increased
26 insight offered by a microscopic model. An example of the effect of exit ramp
27 queue backup is presented in Chapter 27 of Volume 4.

28 Development of HCM-Compatible Performance Measures Using

29 Alternative Tools
30 When using alternative tools, the analyst must be careful to note the
31 definitions of simulation outputs. The principal measures involved in the
32 performance analysis of weaving segments are speed and delay. These terms are
33 generally defined in the same manner by alternative tools; however, there are
34 subtle differences among tools that often make it difficult to apply HCM criteria
35 directly to the outputs of other tools. The subject of performance measure
36 comparisons was discussed in more detail in Chapter 7, Interpreting and
37 Presenting Results.

38 Conceptual Differences between the HCM and Simulation Modeling that

39 Preclude Direct Comparison of Results
40 There are many conceptual differences between the HCM and stochastic
41 simulation models that make direct comparison difficult for weaving segments.
42 The HCM uses a set of deterministic equations developed and calibrated with
43 field data. Simulation models treat each vehicle as a separate object to be
44 propagated through the system. The physical and behavioral characteristics of

Use of Alternative Tools Page 27-2 Chapter 27/Supplemental Information on Freeway Weaving
DRAFT December 2008
 2010 Highway Capacity Manual

1 drivers and vehicles in the HCM are represented in deterministic equations that
2 compute passenger car equivalences, lane‐changing rates, maximum weaving
3 lengths, capacity, speed, and density. Simulation models apply the characteristics
4 to each driver and vehicle, and these characteristics produce interactions
5 between vehicles, the sum total of which determines the performance measures
6 for a weaving segment.
7 One good example of the difference between microscopic and macroscopic Direct comparison of the numerical
outputs from the HCM and alternative
8 modeling is the passenger car equivalence of a truck. The HCM uses a tools can be misleading
9 conversion factor that increases the demand volumes to reflect the proportion of
10 trucks. Simulation models deal with trucks explicitly by assigning more sluggish
11 characteristics to each of them. The result is that HCM capacities, densities, etc.,
12 are expressed in equivalent passenger car units, whereas the corresponding
13 simulation values are represented in actual vehicles.
14 The HCM methodology estimates the speeds of weaving and non‐weaving
15 traffic streams, and based on these estimates, it determines the density within the
16 weaving segment. Simulators that provide outputs on a link‐by‐link basis do not
17 differentiate between weaving and non‐weaving movements within a given link;
18 thus, comparing these (intermediate) results to other tools would be somewhat
19 difficult.
20 For a given set of inputs, simulation tools should produce answers that are
21 similar to each other and to the HCM. Although most differences should be
22 reconcilable through calibration and identification of point problems within a
23 segment, precise numerical agreement is not generally a reasonable expectation.

24 Sample Calculations Illustrating Alternative Tool Applications

25 Chapter 27 in Volume 4 of this manual includes three supplemental Supplemental computational
26 problems that illustrate the application of alternative tools to freeway weaving examples illustrating the use of
alternative tools are included in
27 Segments. All of the problems are based on Example Problem 1 presented later in Chapter 27 of Volume 4.
28 this chapter. Three questions are addressed using a typical simulation tool:
29 1. Can the weaving segment capacity be estimated realistically by
30 simulation by varying the demand volumes up to and beyond capacity?
31 2. How does the demand affect the performance in terms of speed and
32 density in the weaving segment, using the default model parameters for
33 vehicle and behavioral characteristics?
34 3. How would the queue backup from a signal at the end of the off‐ramp
35 affect the weaving operation?

Chapter 27/Supplemental Information on Freeway Weaving Page 27-3 Use of Alternative Tools
DRAFT December 2008
2010 Highway Capacity Manual

1 2. ALTERNATIVE TOOL EXAMPLES FOR FREEWAY

2 WEAVING SEGMENTS

3 Chapter 12 described a methodology for analyzing freeway weaving

4 segments to estimate their capacity, speed, and density as a function of traffic
5 demand and geometric configuration. Supplemental problems involving the use
6 of alternative tools for freeway weaving sections to address limitations of the
7 Chapter 12 methodology are presented here. All of these examples are based on
8 Example Problem 1 in Chapter 12. The weaving segment configuration shown in
9 that problem is repeated here as Exhibit 27‐1 for convenience.

Exhibit 27-1
Major Weaving Segment for
Example Problem 1

LS = 1,500 ft

v FF = 1,815 veh/h
v RF = 1,037 veh/h

v FR = 692 veh/h
v RR = 1,297 veh/h

10 v = 4,841 veh/h

11 Three questions are addressed using a typical link‐node based microscopic

12 traffic simulation tool:
13 1. Can the weaving segment capacity be estimated realistically by
14 simulation by varying the demand volumes up to and beyond capacity?
15 2. How does the demand affect the performance in terms of speed and
16 density in the weaving segment, using the default model parameters for
17 vehicle and behavioral characteristics?
18 3. How would the queue backup from a signal at the end of the off‐ramp
19 affect the weaving operation?
20 The first step is to identify the link‐node structure, as shown in Exhibit 27‐2.
Exhibit 27-2
Link-Node Structure for the 1 2 3 4
Simulated Weaving Segment

5 6
21

22 The next step is to develop the input data for various demand levels. Several
23 different demand levels ranging from 80% to 180% of the original volumes were
24 analyzed by simulation. The demand data adjusted for a peak hour factor of 0.91
25 is given in Exhibit 27‐3.

Alternative Tool Examples for Freeway Weaving Segments Page 27-4 Chapter 27/Supplemental Information on Freeway Weaving
DRAFT December 2008
 2010 Highway Capacity Manual

Percent of specified demand 80 100 120 140 160 180 Exhibit 27-3
Freeway-to-freeway demand, Vff 1,596 1,995 2,393 2,792 3,191 3,590 Input Data for Various Demand
Ramp-to-freeway demand, Vrf 912 1,140 1,367 1,595 1,823 2,051 Levels
Freeway-to-ramp demand, Vfr 608 760 913 1,065 1,217 1,369
Ramp-to-ramp demand, Vrr 1,140 1,425 1,710 1,995 2,280 2,565
Total demand 4,256 5,320 6,384 7,448 8,512 9,576
Total freeway entry 2,204 2,755 3,306 3,857 4,408 4,959
Total freeway exit 2,507 3,134 3,761 4,388 5,015 5,641
Total ramp entry 2,052 2,565 3,078 3,591 4,104 4,617
Total ramp exit 1,749 2,186 2,623 3,060 3,497 3,934

1 Thirty simulation runs were made for each demand level. The results are
2 discussed in the following sections.

3 DETERMINING THE WEAVING SEGMENT CAPACITY

4 Simulation tools do not produce capacity estimates directly. The traditional
5 way to estimate the capacity of a given system element is to overload it and
6 determine the maximum throughput under the overloaded conditions. Some
7 care must be taken in this process because a severe overload can reduce the
8 throughput by introducing self‐aggregating phenomena upstream of the output
9 point.
10 Exhibit 27‐4 shows the relationship between the demand volume and
11 throughput. As expected, the throughput tracks the demand precisely up to the
12 point where no more vehicles can be accommodated. After that point it levels off
13 and reaches a constant value that indicates the capacity of the segment. In this
14 case, the capacity was reached at approximately the same value as the HCM
15 estimate.
Exhibit 27-4
12000
Determining the Capacity of a
Weaving Segment by Simulation
10000
Volume (veh/hr)

8000

6000

Demand Volume
4000 Throughput
HCM Capacity

2000

0
80 100 120 140 160 180
Percent of Original Demand
16

17 Based on observation, it is reasonable to conclude that the capacity of this

18 weaving segment can be determined by overloading the facility and that the
19 results are in general agreement with the HCM. In comparing capacity estimates,
20 it must be remembered that the HCM is dealing in passenger car equivalent
21 vehicles, while simulation tools are dealing in actual vehicles. The results will
22 diverge as the proportion of trucks increases.

Chapter 27/Supplemental Information on Freeway Weaving Page 27-5 Alternative Tool Examples for Freeway Weaving Segments
DRAFT December 2008
2010 Highway Capacity Manual

1 EFFECT OF DEMAND ON PERFORMANCE

2 Exhibit 27‐5 shows the effect of the demand on density and speed. It is
3 observed that the density increases with demand volume up to the segment
4 capacity, and then levels off at a constant value of approximately 75 vehicles per
5 lane per mile, which represents very dense conditions. The speed remains close
6 to the free‐flow speed at lower demand volumes. It then drops in a more‐or‐less
7 linear fashion and eventually levels off when the capacity is reached. The
8 minimum speed is approximately 26 mi/h.

Exhibit 27-5
Simulated Effect of Demand 80

Volume on Weaving 70

Density (vplpm) and Speed (mph)

Segment Capacity and Speed
60

50 Density
Av Spd
40

30

20

10

0
4256 5320 6384 7448 8512 9576
Dem and Volum e (vph)

10 At the originally specified demand volume level of 5,320 veh/h (peak hour
11 adjusted), the estimated speed was 62.0 mi/h and the density was 21.4 veh/mi/ln.
12 The corresponding values from simulation were 53.1 mi/h and 26.3 pce/mi/ln.
13 Because of differences in definition, these results are not easy to compare. These
14 differences illustrate the pitfalls of applying LOS thresholds to directly simulated
15 density to determine the segment LOS.

16 EFFECT OF QUEUE BACKUP FROM A DOWNSTREAM SIGNAL ON THE

17 EXIT RAMP
18 The operation of a weaving segment may be expected to deteriorate when
19 congestion on the exit ramp cause a queue to backup into the weaving segment.
20 This condition was one of the stated limitations of the methodology in
21 Chapter 12.

22 Signal Operation
23 To create this condition, a pre‐timed signal with a slightly oversaturated
24 operation will be added at a point 700 feet from the exit point. The operating
25 parameters for the signal are given in Exhibit 27‐6. Note that the right‐turn
26 capacity estimated by the HCM Chapter 18 procedure is slightly lower than the
27 left‐turn capacity because of the adjustment factors applied to turns by that
28 procedure.
29
30
31

Alternative Tool Examples for Freeway Weaving Segments Page 27-6 Chapter 27/Supplemental Information on Freeway Weaving
DRAFT December 2008
 2010 Highway Capacity Manual

Cycle length 150 s Exhibit 27-6

Green interval 95 s Exit Ramp Signal Operating
Yellow interval 4s Parameters
All red clearance 1s
Saturation flow rate 1,800 veh/hg/ln
g/C ratio 0.633
Left turn movement
• Lanes 1
• Capacity (by HCM Chapter 18) 1,083 veh/h
Right turn movement
• Lanes 1
• Capacity (by HCM Chapter 18) 969 veh/h
Link Capacity (by HCM Chapter 18) 2,052 veh/h

1 Capacity Calibration
2 To ensure that the simulation model is properly calibrated to the HCM, the
3 simulation model’s operating parameters for the link were modified by trial‐and‐
4 error to match the HCM estimate of the link capacity by overloading the link to
5 determine its throughput. With a startup lost time of 2.0 seconds and a steady‐
6 state headway of 1.8 seconds per vehicle, the simulated capacity for the link was
7 2,040 veh/h, which compares favorably with the HCM estimate of 2,052 veh/h.

8 Results with the Specified Demand

9 An initial run with the demand levels specified in the original example
10 problem indicated severe problems on the freeway caused by the backup of
11 vehicles from the signal. Two adverse conditions are observed in the graphics
12 capture shown in Exhibit 27‐7:
13 1. Some vehicles in the freeway mainline through lanes were unable to
14 access the auxiliary lane for the exit ramp because of blockage in the lane.
15 2. The resulting use of the exit ramp lanes prevented the signal operation
16 from reaching its full capacity. This caused a self‐aggravating condition in
17 which the queue backed up farther onto the freeway.
Exhibit 27-7
Deterioration of Weaving Segment
Operation Due to Queue Backup
from a Traffic Signal

Mainline vehicles unable to

reach the exit lanes

Wasted time on the

signal approach

18

19 A reasonable conclusion would be that the weaving segment would not

20 operate properly at the specified demand levels. The logical solution to the
21 problem would be to improve the signal capacity. To support a recommendation
22 for such an improvement, it might be desirable to gain further insight into the
23 operation by varying the demand levels. Since it has already been discovered
24 that the specified demand is too high, the original levels of 80 to 180 percent of
25 the specified demand are clearly inappropriate. The new demand range will
26 therefore be reduced to a level of 80 to 105 percent.

Chapter 27/Supplemental Information on Freeway Weaving Page 27-7 Alternative Tool Examples for Freeway Weaving Segments
DRAFT December 2008
2010 Highway Capacity Manual

1 Effect on Throughput of Reducing the Demand

2 Exhibit 27‐8 illustrates the self‐aggravating effect of too much demand.
3 Throughput is generally expected to increase with demand up to the capacity of
4 the facility and then to level off at that point. Notice that the anticipated
5 relationship was observed without the signal, as was shown in Exhibit 27‐4.
Exhibit 27-8
Effect of Demand on 4600
Weaving Segment
Throughput with Exit Ramp 4500

Throughput (veh/hr)
Backup
4400

4300

4200

4100

4000
80 85 90 95 100 105
Percent of Specified Demand
6
7 When the signal was added, the situation changed significantly. The
8 throughput peaked at about 95% of the specified demand and declined
9 noticeably as more vehicles were allowed to enter the freeway. Another useful
10 observation is that the peak throughput of approximately 4,560 veh/h is
11 considerably below the estimated capacity of nearly 8,000 veh/h.
12 The same phenomenon is also observed on the exit ramp approach to the
13 signal as shown in Exhibit 27‐9. The throughput declined with added demand
14 after reaching its peak value of about 1,835 veh/h. Note also that the peak
15 throughput is also well below the capacity of 2,040–2,050 veh/h estimated by
16 both the HCM and the simulation model in the absence of upstream congestion.
Exhibit 27-9
Effect of Demand on Exit 1840
Ramp Throughput with
Throughput from Signal

1820
Signal Queuing
1800

1780

1760

1740

1720

1700
80 85 90 95 100 105
Percent of Specified Demand
17
18 This example illustrates the potential benefits of using simulation tools to
19 address conditions that are beyond the scope of the HCM methodology. It also
20 points out the need to consider conditions outside of the facility under study in
21 making a performance assessment. Finally, it demonstrates that some care must
22 be taken when estimating the capacity of a facility through an arbitrary amount
23 of demand overload.

Alternative Tool Examples for Freeway Weaving Segments Page 27-8 Chapter 27/Supplemental Information on Freeway Weaving
DRAFT December 2008