Determination of Interchange Types on Freeway Facilities Systems Engineering Approach by Jack E Leisch ‘The selection of the appropriate form of interchange for a given set of conditions has been aecordexl consid erable study. This paper presents a systematic ap. proach and recommended procedure for accomplish ing the basic task. Freeway systems are made up of several elements consisting of freeway segments (portions of freeways between intersecting freeways or nodes), system inter- charges (providing for transler of vehicles from one freeway to another, located at system nodes), and service interchanges (providing for ingress and egress between freeway and. street system, located along, freeway segments). The elficiency of the system de pends to a large extent on the ability of its interchan. ges to input and discharge traffic and to operate concert with the freeway segments, ‘The design of the most suitable interchange at every location is Imperative wt bulaed system sad harmonious operation. systems engineering framework Using an engineering systems approach, the gent Jo0h Leitch (Member ET Fond ‘er amt President of Jack Beisel and ‘Awsacater,consallants afering services inn puanning, ces, vesemrce and de welopunent, nd tring. Leis i Loe titer at. Northwestern Univerily, Eo fanston Campus, and Program Consult fant at the University Traffic Insitute, ‘Peeviowsly, tees associated wth Det ans Catter Organizations as. Vice President and Chie} Higheay Engineer Prior to thet, he served with the US Bureae of Public Roads Jor 20-year Teich holds BSCE. and MS. de green and. ie 0 vegistered Profesional Bugineer. Me ism member of ASCE. During 1961-66 he served as Head of Department 5 (Tonic Design) of the ITE Technical Counrl. He i provently Educational Direclor iv the develop sent and presentation of the ITE Dy. nits Design for Safety Senay Series, 16 ning the best alternative de- sigh is outlined as follows: PROBLEM DEFINITION within a Treeway system puts ‘rosa clasieaton Teafhe characteristics Deniga sancards and polices oapats is and existing standards and potices Vln Bunctéon ‘Measure of slaptability through subjective value vnits DMaximuny index value to deter SOLUTION GENERATION General Adeplebility of Inerchonge Forms (ubsaysem) Tccatiiestion of system aren environment Fatablishment of basie geometric forms of interchanges Determination of conlignrations within each basic form ling af interchanges (raious, configurations) with re pert to capacity and operational features Selection of alternative incevshanges for etch system-area Genertion of Alternative Solutions Exploration of alvernatives through single-tine sketch study Selection of likely schemes (eliminating obsionsly Teme de le arrangements) sol oF Prelioutcy ahetrat) plats ‘of output variables and throughputs on pro evel alternatives Genmetsie and physical characterises ional characteristics ronmental and socn-cconomic consklerations Innplerventation characteristics Derivation of magnitudes of output vat EVALUATION AND OPTIMIZATION Avsgument of subjective vale nits teach Outpt category Evaluation of outputs for each alternative with respect 10 Incremental changes between alternatives Invoking the decison criterion Arriving at single index vale for cach alternative Choosing best alternative “TrarricIMPLEMENT NTION Design Operation PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT: jon of perfomance thiough measurement of through jevtvely evaluating the wuipits previously ‘of feedback information €© reline and improve inter: change selection provelure and design erteta problem definition ‘The objective is to determine a procedure for establishing the mest appropriate interchange for a given set of conditions, with respect to capacity, case of operation, safety, uniformity of operation, level of sevice, llexibility of operation, and coordination of Ineeway and arterial street systems. A further objective is to accomplish this with litle if any additional capital cost but at the same time minimize operating costs, and, in the process, evolve a design which has the least disturbing effects upon the adjoining com: munity ‘The inputs are of primary significance in defining the problem and in establishing the basis upon which the solution is predicated. Compared with an intersect ing highway, the freeway serves as the primary facili ly, (urnishing a sense of continuity. Therefore, it is the type and nature of the intersecting facility which have the greatest influence on the form of interchange to be provided. OF nearly equal importance, in terms of area development, are the environmental condi tions—urban, suburban, rural, or residential, commer- cial, industrial. Traffic characteristics dealing with volume, pattern and speed are necessary inputs in determining the configuration of interchanges, Plan nning policies and design standards also play a vital role in scheme selection, ‘The owputs generated by an interchange design are evaluated to find the solution, ‘The more impor- tant output variables associated with the problem are those deal sasures of: capital costs, includ- and Tandl costs; operating costs at tributed to vehicle operations, time losses and acci- dents; comfort and convenience, which embodies as- pects of speed and delay, operational uniformity, level of service and capacity; and safety characteristics May, 1972 Planning: Table 1 Identification of System-Area Environment for Planning of Interchanges sewer wrens S wwitthtnces Figure 1: Variatio ‘geometric for of interchange types within each basic 7Community effects as an ouput variable are difficutt to measure, but may be a significant factor in some problems, The constraints in choosing the best interchange for a given set of conditions are those {crces which limit the extent of feasible solutions. Constraints may. be of several varieties. Sometimes the most stringent control has to do with political, ecological, adminis: uative or budgetary asprets, Programming and finan- ing considerations frequently set the stage for the solution, Auitudes toward taking of property and disrupting people in certain localities and. jurisdic. tions can be highly restricting. A further restraint may be in the form of existing standards and planning and, design policies, which arz not sufficiently updated and cannot be altered toward producing a more desirable solution, The value function is the device that can be used to transform an output variable into a system objective, Outputs relating to capital and operating costs of interchanges can be expressed in dollar units, rep- resented by an annual cost function. However, a multitude of other outpat variables (such as comfort il convenience, levels of service and capacity, safety characteristics, community effects, ete.) cannot be sat- isfactorily designated in monetary terms and, there fore, must be expressed in subjective value units. ‘The decision criterion in the case of interchange selection has to be reduced to a common scale. In so doing, the individual measures of value associated with each objective, including those which are also assessed in dollars, must be judged and all predicated fon a common scale in order io arrive at an index value for each alternative interchange scheme. solu mn generation In this phase of the planning process the various broad ive schemes or classes of solutions are developed, in accordance with the objectives outlined above. Identification of System-Avea Environment for Inter: changes: Before an array of solutions can be generat- ed, it is necessary to devise a system of identifying base conditions for interchange planning in terms of broad environmental controls. A study of freeway systems indicates a positive distinction between system inter changes, which are located at freeway network nodes, providing for transfer of vehicles from one freeway to another, and service interchanges, which are located along freeway segments (between system interchanges) providing for ingress and egress to and from the street system. This is the First and most important general 18 idemtfication step with respect to interchange func- tion and freeway system eavironment. liwestigation of the problem also indicates that the aspects of crossroad and area environments can be exprsed in. further interchange eategorintion in Mlealing with the type ancl class of facility intersecting the freeway and with the character of the area in which the interchange is sitated=urban, sub aban or varal, On this basis, identification of the general {composite) environment condition for planning of interchanges may be expressed as shown in Table This results in the identification of she system-area environments, forming the first-step of the inter: change selection procedure, a8 follows: 1 Pwy-Loeal Ri, Roral Trey-Primary Fwy, Rural Twy-Fwy, Rural Fwy-Minor Street, Urban Fwy-Major Street, Urban 6. Twy-Fwy, Urban Establishment of Basic Geometric Forms of Inter- hhanges: A related siep to the general identifieation of innterchange environments is the establishment of spe- ‘ific geometric Forms and the identification of each by mame ot symbol. This “ias generally been accom: plished in the AASHO design policies and other geometric design literanwe.t2 ‘The basic forms re ferred to in Figure 1 are: diamond, parelo, eloverleaf, directional and allirec ional interchanges Other forms, such as 8- and ‘leg, odd or irregular arrange. ments, combinations and special adaptations, are not illustrated, Some of the sariations within each basie are illustrated in Figure 1. Research on operation and adaptability in the field, and study and evaluation in the office of the various interchanges have formed a general basis, group have been developed a or identifying and rating their performance and. capacity, Grouping and Rating of Interchanges with Respect @ Operational Characteristics: There are. approx imately two hundred interchange variations, most of which are in the directional and all-directional clas. The great majority of these, wader normal circum: stances, can he discarded Kecause of certain recogniza- ble drawbacks when compared with other interchan- ges. To perform this broad selective analysis, it is Hecessiry. first to group or classify the variations, within each basic geomettie form identified atove, on me systematic bass ‘This may be done from the geometr tof poi Trarric ENcINerrineview, using such breakdown of elements as: direction: al, semidirectional loop ramps, and various combina- tions thereol; symmetvieal and assymetrical arrange ments; 2lev | evel; righthand ramps, and combi jght- and lefthand ramps; two- exit designs, one-exit designs, and combinations there of; without weaving and with weaving: Freeflow ar rangements and those with atgrade ramp terminals This kind of classification has been accomplished but is not included in this dissertation, ‘The breakilown of interchanges by geometric feauues are of interest; however, this does not allow for appropriate comparison and evaluation of alterna tives, which must be done from the point of view of operational characteristics, Some of the geometric features have a significant effect on operations, while Finding alternatives: others have little i any effect. The more important nuuwes dealing with the quality of operation outputs are: speed and delay; comfort, convenience, safety ‘aspects; clarity of paths to be followed; uniformity of ‘uperition at exits of successive interchanges; and level ol service or capacity Selection of Alternative Interchange: for Each Sys tamrArea Environrients "The full anilysis of oper: fvional characterises and the identifeation and ra ting to establish the “better” group of interchanges has’ been accomplished. through the same. systems engincering framework, dlagramamed in the introdc- tory part of the artile, The conclusions drawn from that analysis area signiicane step within the framework of interchange selection, ‘These my be expressed a a TYPE OF INTERSECTING FACILITY URBAN SUBURBAN LOCAL ROAD OR MINOR STREET = PRIMARY HIGHWAY OR MAJOR STREET FREEWAY Ecco) Fon bia mesrow) Figure 2: Adaptability of interchanges on freeways as related to types of intersecting facilities, May, 1972 19planning policy, which provides for simplicity and uniformity of operacion on the freeway system, with emphasis on safety, by incorporating in the design of interchanges the following features: Single exit at the erchange from each direction on the freeway; all Fighthand ramps; no weaving on or contiguous with the freeway uaveled way (Weaving may be provided on adjoining collector-dlistributor roads). Adhering to this policy, the number of adaptable interchange forms—other than for Seg and. 5-leg forms and special wrangements—is only about 25 From this group approximately 15 varieties are appli. cable to system interchanges and about an equal number to service interchanges. (Four to five of the irectional forms are applicable to both system and. servi hanges), policy and having the knowledge of operational characteristics and capacity potentials of these interchanges, alternative forms can be selected for the six systemarc environments identified previ. ously. The alternatives are summarized in . AU ive Solutions: The develop solutions must satisfy the objec tives outlined and not violate the constraints imposed. Proceeding within the framework established, the alternative solutions would be developed as follows: a, Identification of system-area environment b Application of « planning policy, if not a res: waine © Generating an array of interchange schemes for the systemvarea environment. These are all pos- sible adaptations as deseribed under the previous heading. 4, Exploration of these schemes by the singledine studly technique determine the better schemes and narrow the field of choice €. Development of more detailed preliminary (func tional) plans. malyaing tuterchanges Yor thove highway authorities hich do not accept thes W general poly or eee et basis fora specific iterchange problem, the olection proce Becomes inuch more diffcull and involved. aitditiondl oars ories of interchange forms, such as having. featines of to) fo ents (b) eftind vamp, and () wean, ald he 10 be included. The best interchange fram cach catenin would then have to be eampared with cach other, aa one finally selected. In this cate the final telecon ‘oboe would be much’ more laborious and nol ax postere as in le se of wing the recommended planning policy with a dngie category. May, 1972 solution analysis The functional plans of the several alternatives selected for further s-udy are analyzed here through the determination and measure of the various through pats and output variables Geometric and physical characteristics of the alter- hatives are first examined and compared with respect or curvature, grades, sight distances, cross-sectional Features, grade separation levels, elevation and depres: sion, rightofway area, etc. Geometric character te largely measures used to qualily or rate operation. al and other outputs listed below: normally they are not used! in theanselves in the analysis, Output variables fer interchange alternatives may be grouped into four classifications: Operational Characteristies: Speeds, travel dis ‘siaees, rise and fall, and, if appropriate, delay charac tecistics; comfort and convenience; operational ‘uni formity (comprehension and clarity of paths to be folowed); capacity and operational flexibility; safety Ispects; compatability with downstream ard upstream inierchanges. Evaluation: Table 2 Comparison of Alternative Soluticns Ilustrative Example pine Yh 4 sa, a ate, has CaS) as oh Oat 21Costs: Capital edits; operating costs Implementation Characteristics: Adaptability to construction sequences and construction staging, Maintenance of taffic during construction. Environmental and Socio-economic Considerat Land area occupied; trafic disturbances—noise, fumes, tifect on Jocal_ street systems operations; aesthetic {qualities; neighborhood barrier or intrusion effects: Jnpact_on development, viz, effect om land! values, fect on development growth, displacement of people. The magnitudes of pertinent output variables at this point are estimated in whatever units they can be meagared—miles per hour, minutes, feet, dollars, ete: ‘These are tabulated for each scheme so comparisons ‘can be made, With respect to implementation charac teristics and to environmental and socio-economic considerations as well as to some aspects of operation: cI characteristics, direct measurements for the most part camot be made, Hence subjective judgments Trust be applied whieh, at this stage, may he on a comparative basis of A, B, or C-good, moderate or poor evaluation and optimization The decision criterion in this case must be predi- cated on subjective value units. An interval measure- ment seale is propesed, to which each output variable for comparison item may be related. Then, the summa. tion of all the rated variables for each alternative solution would produce an index value for that native. ‘The highest index value among the alter- we solutions would indicate the best solution. Several types of scales and means of manipntating Individual values to produce a single index value may he devised. The one suggested here is to apply relative judgment values to cach of the applicable output Variables, This is first cone by appraising each of the Four output categories, subjectively weighting the values and having them add up to 100, For example: 1. Operational characteristies ae) 2 Costs Sa 3. Implementation = i 4. Environmental considerations — 30 Total 100 “These values are then broken down to individual values of outpat variables, again using judgment values: Operational Characteristics Speain of operation 5 ‘Kev ttn od a ‘ Fee Gee By echcalan cod anticipatory. qualitic gr aa perce athe 3 capaci 6 Gosts : Capital cont 6 ueauee cin ro} Implementation Characteristics Adaptability 19 contvcion staging —— 10] Maint nee of traffic ev Ib Trae dsnances 5 Aethete quaides Barrier effects ar ae eer iaeree al Each of these outputs with respect to exch alterna: ive solution can be rated. This may be done several The Finished Product: \ service interchange with single-exit design on the freeway. (Photo courtesy of the Ontario Department of Tighvrays) Prarric ENCINPrRNG