Problem 4:
Okeechobee Road
Stopped Control
Analysis
N
Location and Configuration
N
T Intersection Observations?
Very wide median
Might operate as
separate conflict
points
Right turns removed
Peak Hour Volumes
Left Thru Right
NB257 --- 433
EB --- 2,010 389
Observations? WB 120 358 ---
What’s missing and why?
What’s critical?
How Critical?
What do we need to analyze?
Sub-problem 4a
Examine the capacity of the critical minor
street movement (the northbound left turn)
using the graphical solution presented in the
HCM, without going through the full procedure
HCM Exhibit 17-7
Conclusion:
Volume > Capacity
NBLT
Conflicting Flow = 2010 vph
Volume (257) vph
Capacity (< 100 vph)
What to do next?
Normally we would stop at this
Conclusion:
point and declare that TWSC is
not a viable choice Volume > Capacity
In this case, we will proceed with more problems
to illustrate more features of the TWSC procedure
Sub-problem 4b
Invoke the full HCM procedure, treating the operation as a
conventional TWSC intersection and ignoring the unusual
separation between the conflict points.
Then examine the results to
determine if our treatment
was appropriate.
Conventional T
Intersection Conflict
Points
LOS Thresholds for TWSC Intersections (HCM Exhibit 17-2)
LOS Average Control Delay
(sec/veh)
A ≤ 10
B > 10–15
C > 15-25
D > 25-35
E > 35-50
F >50
Assumptions
Analysis period=15 min
No pedestrians
No upstream signals
PHF = 0.93 for all movements
Level Terrain
Input Data
EBT WBT NBL WBL NBR
Volume 2010 358 257 120 433
Number 2 2 1 1 1
of lanes
Median N/A N/A 4 veh N/A N/A
storage
Percent 20 41 10
trucks
Results
EBT WBT NBL WBL NBR
Whilegap
Critical the(sec)
HCM equations
N/A doN/Anot limit Observations?
7.2 the4.9
range of
7.1
v/c ratios
Follow for(sec)
up time which delay
N/A mayN/Abe computed,
3.7 2.6 some
3.4
software
Adjusted products
flow rate impose
2010 limitations
358 257as a 120
practical
433
consideration
(vph)
Adjusted capacity N/A N/A 69 168 226
(vph)
v/c ratio N/A N/A 3.72 0.71 1.92
95% queue length N/A N/A 27.1 4.4 31.1
(veh)
Delay (sec/veh) N/A N/A ??? 67 464
LOS N/A N/A F F F
Results
EBT WBT NBL WBL NBR
Critical gap (sec) N/A N/A 7.2 4.9 7.1
Follow up time (sec) N/A N/A 3.7 2.6 3.4
Adjusted flow rate 2010 358 257 120 433
(vph)
Adjusted capacity N/A N/A 69 168 226
(vph)
v/c ratio N/A N/A 3.72 0.71 1.92
95% queue length N/A
Why does the
(veh)
WBL have N/A 27.1
a higher 4.4
capacity 31.1
than the
NBL when both movements have to yield to same
Delay (sec/veh) N/A N/A ??? 67 464
conflicting volume of EB through traffic?
LOS N/A N/A F F F
Results
EBT WBT NBL WBL NBR
Critical gap (sec) N/A N/A 7.2 4.9 7.1
Follow up time (sec) N/A N/A 3.7 2.6 3.4
Adjusted flow rate 2010 358 257 120 433
(vph)
Adjusted capacity N/A N/A 69 168 226
(vph)
v/c ratio N/A N/A
Because the HCM tells us that the3.72 0.71
critical 1.92
gap and
95% queueup
follow length N/A lower
times are both N/A for27.1 4.4 from
a left turn 31.1
(veh)
the major street than from the minor street. In other
Delay (sec/veh) N/A N/A ??? 67 464
words drivers on the major street are willing to
LOS N/A N/A F F F
accept smaller gaps, so more vehicles can get
through the same volume of conflicting traffic
Because of the wide separation
of conflicts at this intersection,
it should occur to us that we N
probably shouldn’t treat this
situation as a typical urban
intersection.
So, we will examine the separation of conflict points
in the next subproblem.
Sub-problem 4c
Separate the conflict points for TWSC control and treat each
conflict point individually.
Then compare the results
with the treatment of the
previous sub-problem.
Separated Conflict
Points
Why will the separation of conflict points usually give a more optimistic
assessment of the operation than the aggregation of conflict points into a
single intersection?
Because there is no need to adjust the
potential capacity of any movement
because of impedance from other
movements
Conventional T
Intersection Conflict Separated Conflict
Points Points
When is it appropriate to separate the conflict points?
Only when the queue from one conflict
point does not back up into an upstream
conflict point
Conventional T
Intersection Conflict Separated Conflict
Points Points
Input Data
Input Data EBT WBT NBL WBL NBR
Volume 2010 358 257 120 433
Number of lanes 2 2 1 1 1
Percent trucks 20 41 10
NB Left vs EB Through
Subproblem 4b Capacity 69
Observations?
Subproblem 4c Capacity 99
95% queue length (veh) 24
Queue storage (veh) N/A
Is storage adequate? N/A
v/c ratio 2.6
Delay 814
LOS F
NB Left vs WB Through and Left
Subproblem 4b Capacity N/A
Subproblem 4c Capacity
Observations? 559
95% queue length (veh) 2.4
Queue storage (veh) 4
Is storage adequate? Yes
v/c ratio 0.46
Delay 17
LOS C
WB Left vs EB Through
Subproblem 4b Capacity 168
Subproblem 4c Capacity
Observations? 213
95% queue length (veh) 2.07
Queue storage (veh) 3.06
Is storage adequate? Yes
v/c ratio 0.56
Delay 41.7
LOS E
NB Right vs EB Through
Subproblem 4b Capacity 226
Observations?Subproblem 4c Capacity 283
95% queue length (veh) 25
Queue storage (veh) N/A
Is storage adequate? N/A
v/c ratio 1.53
Delay 287
LOS F
NB Right vs EB Through
Is this really a
TWSC
operation?
Have we used the proper procedure for
analyzing the operation of the NB right
turn?
NB Right vs EB Through
Is this really a
TWSC
operation?
Would it be better to consider this
operation in the context of freeway
merging
Sub-problem 4d
Intersection
Merge
Area
Further Consideration of the
Northbound Right Turn
The HCM does not prescribe an explicit
procedure for at-grade intersections with
merge area characteristics.
We must view the TWSC procedure as
pessimistic because of the design of the
merge area.
The logical next step would be to treat this
entrance as a freeway merge, using HCM
Chapter 25, which prescribes a procedure for
estimating freeway merge area performance
in terms of the traffic density.
Density is used in all HCM freeway-related
chapters as an indicator of congestion level.
The density thresholds for each LOS are
given in HCM Exhibit 25-4.
LOS Thresholds for Merging
(HCM Exhibit 25-4)
LOS Density
(pc/mi/ln)
A ≤ 10
B > 10–20
C > 20–28
D > 28–35
E > 35
F V/C>1.0
Assumptions and Parameters
Right side entry, No other ramps present
Driver pop. adjustment =1.0, PHF =1
10% Trucks and RVs
Level terrain, 1200 foot acceleration lane
Input Data EBT NBR
Volume 2010 433
Number of lanes 2 1
Free flow speed 55 35
Observations?
Results
EBT NBR
Adjusted flow rate 2010 433
Merge area density 17.7 pc/mile/lane
LOS B
Problem 4 Conclusions
HCM TWSC procedure applies to all movements
except the channelized right turns, which may be
eliminated from the analysis
Conflict points may be separated because queues
do not block upstream conflict points
TWSC is not a viable control mode because it will
not provide adequate capacity for all movements
Problem 5 will therefore examine signalization of
this intersection.
End of Presentation …
