HCM 2010 Chapter 11 Basic Freeway Segments

Highway Capacity Manual 2010
CHAPTER 11
BASIC FREEWAY SEGMENTS
CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................11Ȭ1
BaseȱConditions .................................................................................................. 11Ȭ1
FlowȱCharacteristicsȱUnderȱBaseȱConditions ................................................. 11Ȭ2
CapacityȱUnderȱBaseȱConditions ..................................................................... 11Ȭ4
LOSȱforȱBasicȱFreewayȱSegments ..................................................................... 11Ȭ5
RequiredȱInputȱData........................................................................................... 11Ȭ8
2. METHODOLOGY .................................................................................................11Ȭ9
LimitationsȱofȱMethodology ............................................................................. 11Ȭ9
OverviewȱofȱMethodology ................................................................................ 11Ȭ9
ComputationalȱSteps........................................................................................ 11Ȭ10
SensitivityȱofȱResults ........................................................................................ 11Ȭ19
3. APPLICATIONS ..................................................................................................11Ȭ21
DefaultȱValues................................................................................................... 11Ȭ21
EstablishȱAnalysisȱBoundaries........................................................................ 11Ȭ22
TypesȱofȱAnalysis ............................................................................................. 11Ȭ22
UseȱofȱAlternativeȱTools .................................................................................. 11Ȭ25
4. EXAMPLEȱPROBLEMS.......................................................................................11Ȭ29
ExampleȱProblemȱ1:ȱFourȬLaneȱFreewayȱLOS.............................................. 11Ȭ29
ExampleȱProblemȱ2:ȱNumberȱofȱLanesȱRequiredȱforȱTargetȱLOS.............. 11Ȭ31
ExampleȱProblemȱ3:ȱSixȬLaneȱFreewayȱLOSȱandȱCapacity ........................ 11Ȭ33
ExampleȱProblemȱ4:ȱLOSȱonȱUpgradesȱandȱDowngrades.......................... 11Ȭ36
ExampleȱProblemȱ5:ȱDesignȬHourȱVolumeȱandȱNumberȱofȱLanes ........... 11Ȭ39
ExampleȱProblemȱ6:ȱServiceȱFlowȱRatesȱandȱServiceȱVolumes.................. 11Ȭ41
5. REFERENCES .......................................................................................................11Ȭ44
APPENDIXȱA:ȱCOMPOSITEȱGRADES...............................................................11Ȭ45
ExampleȱProblem.............................................................................................. 11Ȭ45
ProceduralȱSteps ............................................................................................... 11Ȭ47
Discussion.......................................................................................................... 11Ȭ47
Chapter 11/Basic Freeway Segments Page 11-i Contents

December 2010
LIST OF EXHIBITS
Exhibitȱ11Ȭ1ȱThreeȱTypesȱofȱFreewayȱFlow ............................................................ 11Ȭ2

Exhibitȱ11Ȭ2ȱSpeedFlowȱCurvesȱforȱBasicȱFreewayȱSegmentsȱUnderȱBaseȱ
Conditions ........................................................................................................... 11Ȭ3
Exhibitȱ11Ȭ3ȱEquationsȱDescribingȱSpeedFlowȱCurvesȱinȱExhibitȱ11Ȭ2ȱ
(Speedsȱinȱmi/h) .................................................................................................. 11Ȭ4
Exhibitȱ11Ȭ4ȱLOSȱExamples....................................................................................... 11Ȭ5
Exhibitȱ11Ȭ5ȱLOSȱCriteriaȱforȱBasicȱFreewayȱSegments ........................................ 11Ȭ7
Exhibitȱ11Ȭ6ȱLOSȱforȱBasicȱFreewayȱSegments....................................................... 11Ȭ8
Exhibitȱ11Ȭ7ȱOverviewȱofȱOperationalȱAnalysisȱMethodologyȱforȱBasicȱ
FreewayȱSegments ............................................................................................ 11Ȭ10
Exhibitȱ11Ȭ8ȱAdjustmentȱtoȱFFSȱforȱAverageȱLaneȱWidth.................................. 11Ȭ11
Exhibitȱ11Ȭ9ȱAdjustmentȱtoȱFFSȱforȱRightȬSideȱLateralȱClearance,ȱfLCȱ(mi/h) .. 11Ȭ12
Exhibitȱ11Ȭ10ȱPCEsȱforȱHeavyȱVehiclesȱinȱGeneralȱTerrainȱSegments ............. 11Ȭ15
Exhibitȱ11Ȭ11ȱPCEsȱforȱTrucksȱandȱBusesȱ(ET)ȱonȱUpgrades.............................. 11Ȭ16
Exhibitȱ11Ȭ12ȱPCEsȱforȱRVsȱ(ER)ȱonȱUpgrades ..................................................... 11Ȭ17
Exhibitȱ11Ȭ13ȱPCEsȱforȱTrucksȱandȱBusesȱ(ET)ȱonȱSpecificȱDowngrades .......... 11Ȭ17
Exhibitȱ11Ȭ14ȱSensitivityȱofȱFFSȱtoȱTotalȱRampȱDensity ..................................... 11Ȭ19
Exhibitȱ11Ȭ15ȱSpeedȱVersusȱv/cȱȱRatio ................................................................... 11Ȭ20
Exhibitȱ11Ȭ16ȱRequiredȱInputȱDataȱandȱDefaultȱValuesȱforȱBasicȱFreewayȱ
Segments ............................................................................................................ 11Ȭ21
Exhibitȱ11Ȭ17ȱMaximumȱServiceȱFlowȱRatesȱinȱPassengerȱCarsȱperȱHourȱ
perȱLaneȱforȱBasicȱFreewayȱSegmentsȱUnderȱBaseȱConditions.................. 11Ȭ23
Exhibitȱ11Ȭ18ȱLimitationsȱofȱHCMȱBasicȱFreewayȱSegmentsȱProcedure.......... 11Ȭ26
Exhibitȱ11Ȭ19ȱListȱofȱExampleȱProblems ............................................................... 11Ȭ29
Exhibitȱ11Ȭ20ȱGraphicalȱSolutionȱforȱExampleȱProblemȱ1 .................................. 11Ȭ31
Exhibitȱ11Ȭ21ȱDeterminationȱofȱCompositeȱGradeȱEquivalentsȱforȱExampleȱ
Problemȱ4 ........................................................................................................... 11Ȭ37
Exhibitȱ11Ȭ22ȱServiceȱFlowȱRates,ȱServiceȱVolumes,ȱandȱDailyȱServiceȱ
VolumesȱforȱExampleȱProblemȱ6 .................................................................... 11Ȭ43
Exhibitȱ11ȬA1ȱPerformanceȱCurvesȱforȱ200Ȭlb/hpȱTruck .................................... 11Ȭ45
Exhibitȱ11ȬA2ȱSolutionȱUsingȱCompositeȱGradeȱProcedure .............................. 11Ȭ46
Contents Page 11-ii Chapter 11/Basic Freeway Segments

December 2010
1. INTRODUCTION
Basicȱfreewayȱsegmentsȱareȱdefinedȱasȱthoseȱfreewayȱsegmentsȱthatȱareȱ VOLUME 2: UNINTERRUPTED FLOW

10. Freeway Facilities
outsideȱtheȱinfluenceȱofȱmerging,ȱdiverging,ȱorȱweavingȱmaneuvers.ȱInȱgeneral,ȱ 11. Basic Freeway Segments
thisȱmeansȱthatȱlaneȬchangingȱactivityȱisȱnotȱsignificantlyȱinfluencedȱbyȱtheȱ 12. Freeway Weaving Segments
13. Freeway Merge and Diverge
presenceȱofȱrampsȱandȱweavingȱsegments.ȱLaneȬchangingȱactivityȱprimarilyȱ Segments
reflectsȱtheȱnormalȱdesireȱofȱdriversȱtoȱoptimizeȱtheirȱefficiencyȱthroughȱlaneȬ 14. Multilane Highways
15. Two-Lane Highways
changingȱandȱpassingȱmaneuvers.ȱ
AȱcompleteȱdiscussionȱofȱinfluenceȱareasȱisȱincludedȱinȱChapterȱ10,ȱFreewayȱ
Facilities,ȱwithȱadditionalȱdiscussionȱinȱChaptersȱ12,ȱFreewayȱWeavingȱ
Segments,ȱandȱ13,ȱFreewayȱMergeȱandȱDivergeȱSegments.ȱInȱgeneralȱterms,ȱtheȱ
influenceȱareaȱofȱmergeȱ(onȬramp)ȱsegmentsȱextendsȱforȱ1,500ȱftȱdownstreamȱofȱ
theȱmergeȱpoint;ȱtheȱinfluenceȱareaȱofȱdivergeȱ(offȬramp)ȱsegmentsȱextendsȱforȱ
1,500ȱftȱupstreamȱofȱtheȱdivergeȱpoint;ȱandȱtheȱinfluenceȱareaȱofȱweavingȱ
segmentsȱextendsȱ500ȱftȱupstreamȱandȱdownstreamȱofȱtheȱsegmentȱitself.ȱThisȱ
descriptionȱisȱnotȱtoȱsuggestȱthatȱtheȱinfluenceȱofȱtheseȱsegmentsȱcannotȱextendȱ
overȱaȱbroaderȱrange,ȱparticularlyȱunderȱbreakdownȱconditions.ȱUnderȱstableȱ
operations,ȱhowever,ȱtheseȱdistancesȱdefineȱtheȱareasȱmostȱaffectedȱbyȱmerge,ȱ
diverge,ȱandȱweavingȱmovements.ȱTheȱimpactȱofȱbreakdownsȱinȱanyȱtypeȱofȱ
freewayȱsegmentȱonȱadjacentȱsegmentsȱcanȱbeȱaddressedȱbyȱusingȱtheȱ
methodologyȱofȱChapterȱ10,ȱFreewayȱFacilities.ȱ
Chapterȱ11,ȱBasicȱFreewayȱSegments,ȱprovidesȱaȱmethodologyȱforȱanalyzingȱ
theȱcapacityȱandȱlevelȱofȱserviceȱ(LOS)ȱofȱexistingȱorȱplannedȱbasicȱfreewayȱ
segments.ȱTheȱmethodologyȱcanȱalsoȱbeȱusedȱforȱdesignȱapplications,ȱwhereȱtheȱ
numberȱofȱlanesȱneededȱtoȱprovideȱaȱtargetȱLOSȱforȱanȱexistingȱorȱprojectedȱ
demandȱflowȱrateȱcanȱbeȱfound.ȱȱ
Suchȱanalysesȱareȱappliedȱtoȱbasicȱfreewayȱsegmentsȱwithȱuniformȱ Analysis segments must have uniform
geometric and traffic conditions,
characteristics.ȱUniformȱsegmentsȱmustȱhaveȱtheȱsameȱgeometricȱandȱtrafficȱ including demand flow rates.
characteristics,ȱincludingȱaȱconstantȱdemandȱflowȱrate.ȱ
BASE CONDITIONS
Theȱbaseȱconditionsȱunderȱwhichȱtheȱfullȱcapacityȱofȱaȱbasicȱfreewayȱsegmentȱ Base conditions include good weather
and visibility and no incidents or
isȱachievedȱincludeȱgoodȱweather,ȱgoodȱvisibility,ȱnoȱincidentsȱorȱaccidents,ȱnoȱ accidents. These conditions are
workȱzoneȱactivity,ȱandȱnoȱpavementȱdeteriorationȱseriousȱenoughȱtoȱaffectȱ always assumed to exist.
operations.ȱThisȱchapter’sȱmethodologyȱassumesȱthatȱtheseȱconditionsȱexist.ȱIfȱ
anyȱofȱtheseȱconditionsȱdoȱnotȱexist,ȱtheȱspeed,ȱLOS,ȱandȱcapacityȱofȱtheȱfreewayȱ
segmentȱcanȱbeȱexpectedȱtoȱbeȱworseȱthanȱthoseȱpredictedȱbyȱthisȱmethodology.ȱ
Baseȱconditionsȱalsoȱincludeȱtheȱfollowingȱconditions,ȱwhichȱcanȱbeȱadjustedȱ
asȱtheȱmethodologyȱisȱappliedȱtoȱaddressȱsituationsȱinȱwhichȱtheseȱconditionsȱdoȱ
notȱexist:ȱ
Chapter 11/Basic Freeway Segments Page 11-1 Introduction

December 2010
Base conditions also include x Noȱheavyȱvehiclesȱ[trucks,ȱbuses,ȱrecreationalȱvehiclesȱ(RVs)]ȱinȱtheȱtrafficȱ

0% heavy vehicles, a driver
population composed of stream;ȱ
regular users of the freeway,
and 12-ft lane widths and x Aȱdriverȱpopulationȱcomposedȱprimarilyȱofȱregularȱusersȱwhoȱareȱ
minimum 6-ft right-side familiarȱwithȱtheȱfacility;ȱandȱ
clearances.
The methodology provides x Minimumȱ12Ȭftȱlaneȱwidthsȱandȱ6ȬftȱrightȬsideȱclearances.ȱ
adjustments for situations
when these conditions do not
apply.
FLOW CHARACTERISTICS UNDER BASE CONDITIONS
Trafficȱflowȱwithinȱbasicȱfreewayȱsegmentsȱcanȱbeȱhighlyȱvariedȱdependingȱ
onȱtheȱconditionsȱconstrictingȱflowȱatȱupstreamȱandȱdownstreamȱbottleneckȱ
locations.ȱSuchȱbottlenecksȱcanȱbeȱcreatedȱbyȱmerging,ȱdiverging,ȱorȱweavingȱ
traffic;ȱlaneȱdrops;ȱmaintenanceȱandȱconstructionȱactivities;ȱtrafficȱaccidentsȱorȱ
incidents;ȱobjectsȱinȱtheȱroadway;ȱorȱallȱofȱtheȱforegoing.ȱBottlenecksȱcanȱexistȱ
evenȱwhenȱaȱlaneȱisȱnotȱfullyȱblocked.ȱPartialȱblockagesȱwillȱcauseȱdriversȱtoȱslowȱ
andȱdivertȱtheirȱpaths.ȱInȱaddition,ȱtheȱpracticeȱofȱrubberneckingȱnearȱroadsideȱ
incidentsȱorȱaccidentsȱcanȱcauseȱfunctionalȱbottlenecks.ȱ
Types of Flow
Chapter 2 describes in more AsȱwasȱdiscussedȱinȱmoreȱdetailȱinȱChapterȱ2,ȱApplications,ȱtrafficȱflowȱ
detail the types of traffic flow
on basic freeway segments. withinȱaȱbasicȱfreewayȱsegmentȱcanȱbeȱcategorizedȱasȱoneȱofȱthreeȱgeneralȱtypes:ȱ
undersaturated,ȱqueueȱdischarge,ȱandȱoversaturated.ȱ
x Undersaturatedȱflowȱrepresentsȱconditionsȱunderȱwhichȱtheȱtrafficȱstreamȱisȱ
unaffectedȱbyȱupstreamȱorȱdownstreamȱbottlenecks.ȱ
x Queueȱdischargeȱflowȱrepresentsȱtrafficȱflowȱthatȱhasȱjustȱpassedȱthroughȱaȱ
bottleneckȱandȱisȱacceleratingȱbackȱtoȱdrivers’ȱdesiredȱspeedsȱforȱtheȱ
prevailingȱconditions.ȱAsȱlongȱasȱanotherȱdownstreamȱbottleneckȱdoesȱ
notȱexist,ȱqueueȱdischargeȱflowȱisȱrelativelyȱstableȱuntilȱtheȱqueueȱisȱfullyȱ
discharged.ȱ
x Oversaturatedȱflowȱrepresentsȱtheȱconditionsȱwithinȱaȱqueueȱthatȱhasȱ
backedȱupȱfromȱaȱdownstreamȱbottleneck.ȱTheseȱflowȱconditionsȱdoȱnotȱ
reflectȱtheȱprevailingȱconditionsȱofȱtheȱsiteȱitself,ȱbutȱratherȱtheȱ
consequencesȱofȱaȱdownstreamȱproblem.ȱAllȱoversaturatedȱflowȱisȱ
consideredȱtoȱbeȱcongested.ȱ
Anȱexampleȱofȱeachȱofȱtheȱthreeȱtypesȱofȱflowȱdiscussedȱisȱillustratedȱinȱ
Exhibitȱ11Ȭ1,ȱusingȱdataȱfromȱaȱfreewayȱinȱCalifornia.ȱȱ
Exhibit 11-1 80
UNDERSATURATED FLOW
Three Types of Freeway 70
Flow 60
Speed (mi/h)
50
QUEUE DISCHARGE FLOW
40
30
20
10
OVERSATURATED FLOW
0
0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500
Flow Rate (veh/h/ln) ȱ
Note: I-405, Los Angeles, Calif.
Source: California Department of Transportation, 2008.
Introduction Page 11-2 Chapter 11/Basic Freeway Segments

December 2010
Theȱanalysisȱmethodologyȱforȱbasicȱfreewayȱsegmentsȱisȱbasedȱentirelyȱonȱ The basic freeway segment

methodology is based on
calibrationsȱofȱtheȱspeedflowȱrelationshipsȱunderȱbaseȱconditionsȱwithȱ undersaturated flow conditions.
undersaturatedȱflow.ȱTheȱmethodologyȱidentifiesȱcasesȱinȱwhichȱfailureȱhasȱ
occurredȱbutȱdoesȱnotȱattemptȱtoȱdescribeȱoperatingȱconditionsȱwhenȱaȱsegmentȱ
hasȱfailed.ȱTheȱmethodologyȱofȱChapterȱ10,ȱFreewayȱFacilities,ȱshouldȱbeȱusedȱforȱ
oversaturatedȱconditions.ȱ
SpeedFlow Curves for Base Conditions

Aȱsetȱofȱspeedflowȱcurvesȱforȱbasicȱfreewayȱsegmentsȱoperatingȱunderȱbaseȱ
conditionsȱisȱshownȱinȱExhibitȱ11Ȭ2.ȱThereȱareȱfiveȱcurves,ȱoneȱforȱeachȱofȱfiveȱ
levelsȱofȱfreeȬflowȱspeedȱ(FFS):ȱ75ȱmi/h,ȱ70ȱmi/h,ȱ65ȱmi/h,ȱ60ȱmi/h,ȱandȱ55ȱmi/h.ȱ
Technicallyȱspeaking,ȱtheȱFFSȱisȱtheȱspeedȱatȱtheȱyȬinterceptȱofȱeachȱcurve.ȱInȱ
practicalȱterms,ȱthereȱareȱtwoȱrangesȱinȱtheȱshapeȱofȱtheȱcurves:ȱ
x Forȱeachȱcurve,ȱaȱrangeȱofȱflowsȱexistsȱfromȱ0ȱpc/h/lnȱtoȱaȱbreakpointȱinȱ
whichȱspeedȱremainsȱconstantȱatȱtheȱFFS.ȱTheȱrangesȱvaryȱforȱeachȱofȱtheȱ
curvesȱasȱfollows:ȱ
FFSȱ=ȱ75ȱmi/h:ȱ 0–1,000ȱpc/h/ln;ȱ
FFSȱ=ȱ55ȱmi/h:ȱ 0–1,800ȱpc/h/ln.ȱ
x Atȱflowȱratesȱaboveȱtheȱbreakpointȱofȱeachȱcurve,ȱspeedsȱdeclineȱatȱanȱ
increasingȱrateȱuntilȱcapacityȱisȱreached.ȱ
80 Exhibit 11-2
75 mi/h free-flow speed SpeedFlow Curves for Basic
Freeway Segments Under Base
70 mi/h
70 Conditions
65 mi/h
60 mi/h
60
55 mi/h
50
Speed (mi/h)
40
30
20
10
0 2,250 2,350
0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,300 2,4002,500
Flow Rate (pc/h/ln)

ȱ
Exhibitȱ11Ȭ3ȱshowsȱtheȱequationsȱthatȱdefineȱeachȱofȱtheȱcurvesȱinȱExhibitȱ11Ȭ
2.ȱBecauseȱestimatingȱorȱmeasuringȱFFSȱisȱdifficult,ȱandȱthereȱisȱconsiderableȱ
variationȱinȱobservedȱandȱpredictedȱvalues,ȱnoȱattemptȱshouldȱbeȱmadeȱtoȱ

December 2010
FFS should be rounded to the interpolateȱbetweenȱtheȱbasicȱcurves.ȱFFSȱshouldȱbeȱroundedȱtoȱtheȱnearestȱ5ȱ

nearest 5 mi/h.
mi/hȱasȱfollows:ȱ
x ǃ72.5ȱmi/hȱ<ȱ77.5ȱmi/h:ȱuseȱFFSȱ=ȱ75ȱmi/h,ȱ
x ǃ52.5ȱmi/hȱ<ȱ57.5ȱmi/h:ȱuseȱFFSȱ=ȱ55ȱmi/h.ȱ
Exhibit 11-3 Flow Rate Range

Equations Describing FFS Breakpoint
SpeedFlow Curves in (mi/h) (pc/h/ln) 0 Breakpoint >Breakpoint Capacity
Exhibit 11-2 (Speeds in mi/h) 75 1,000 75 75 – 0.00001107 (vp – 1,000)2
70 1,200 70 70 – 0.00001160 (vp – 1,200)2
65 1,400 65 65 – 0.00001418 (vp – 1,400)2
60 1,600 60 60 – 0.00001816 (vp – 1,600)2
55 1,800 55 55 – 0.00002469 (vp – 1,800)2
Notes: FFS = free-flow speed, vp = demand flow rate (pc/h/ln) under equivalent base conditions.
Maximum flow rate for the equations is capacity: 2,400 pc/h/ln for 70- and 75-mph FFS; 2,350 pc/h/ln for
65-mph FFS; 2,300 pc/h/ln for 60-mph FFS; and 2,250 pc/h/ln for 55-mph FFS.
Theȱresearchȱleadingȱtoȱtheseȱcurvesȱ(1,ȱ2)ȱfoundȱthatȱseveralȱfactorsȱaffectȱ
theȱFFSȱofȱaȱbasicȱfreewayȱsegment,ȱincludingȱtheȱlaneȱwidth,ȱrightȬshoulderȱ
clearance,ȱandȱrampȱdensity.ȱRampȱdensityȱisȱtheȱaverageȱnumberȱofȱonȬrampsȱ
plusȱoffȬrampsȱinȱaȱ6Ȭmiȱrange,ȱ3ȱmiȱupstreamȱandȱ3ȱmiȱdownstreamȱofȱtheȱ
midpointȱofȱtheȱstudyȱsegment.ȱManyȱotherȱfactorsȱareȱlikelyȱtoȱinfluenceȱFFS:ȱ
horizontalȱandȱverticalȱalignment,ȱpostedȱspeedȱlimits,ȱlevelȱofȱspeedȱ
enforcement,ȱlightingȱconditions,ȱandȱweather.ȱAlthoughȱtheseȱfactorsȱmayȱaffectȱ
FFS,ȱlittleȱinformationȱisȱavailableȱthatȱwouldȱallowȱtheirȱquantification.ȱ
CAPACITY UNDER BASE CONDITIONS

Theȱcapacityȱofȱaȱbasicȱfreewayȱsegmentȱunderȱbaseȱconditionsȱvariesȱwithȱ
theȱFFS.ȱForȱ70Ȭȱandȱ75Ȭmi/hȱFFS,ȱtheȱcapacityȱisȱ2,400ȱpc/h/ln.ȱForȱlesserȱlevelsȱofȱ
FFS,ȱcapacityȱdiminishesȱslightly.ȱForȱ65Ȭmi/hȱFFS,ȱtheȱcapacityȱisȱ2,350ȱpc/h/ln;ȱ
forȱ60Ȭmi/hȱFFS,ȱ2,300ȱpc/h/ln;ȱandȱforȱ55Ȭmi/hȱFFS,ȱ2,250ȱpc/h/ln.ȱ
Chapterȱ10,ȱFreewayȱFacilities,ȱcontainsȱinformationȱthatȱwouldȱallowȱtheseȱ
Base capacity values refer to
the average flow rate across valuesȱtoȱbeȱreducedȱtoȱreflectȱlongȬȱandȱshortȬtermȱconstructionȱandȱ
all lanes. Individual lanes could maintenanceȱactivities,ȱadverseȱweatherȱconditions,ȱandȱaccidentsȱorȱincidents.ȱ
have stable flows in excess of
these values. Theseȱvaluesȱrepresentȱnationalȱnorms.ȱItȱshouldȱbeȱrememberedȱthatȱ
Since freeways usually do not capacityȱvariesȱstochasticallyȱandȱthatȱanyȱgivenȱlocationȱcouldȱhaveȱaȱlargerȱorȱ
operate under base conditions,
observed capacity values will smallerȱvalue.ȱItȱshouldȱalsoȱbeȱrememberedȱthatȱcapacityȱrefersȱtoȱtheȱaverageȱ
typically be lower than the flowȱrateȱacrossȱallȱlanes.ȱThus,ȱaȱthreeȬlaneȱbasicȱfreewayȱsegmentȱwithȱaȱ70Ȭmi/hȱ
base capacity values.
FFSȱwouldȱhaveȱanȱexpectedȱbaseȱcapacityȱofȱ3ȱ×ȱ2,400ȱ=ȱ7,200ȱpc/h.ȱThisȱflowȱ
wouldȱnotȱbeȱuniformlyȱdistributedȱacrossȱallȱlanes.ȱThus,ȱoneȱorȱtwoȱlanesȱcouldȱ
haveȱstableȱbaseȱflowsȱinȱexcessȱofȱ2,400ȱpc/h/ln.ȱ
AsȱshownȱinȱExhibitȱ11Ȭ2,ȱitȱisȱbelievedȱthatȱbasicȱfreewayȱsegmentsȱreachȱ
capacityȱatȱaȱdensityȱofȱapproximatelyȱ45ȱpassengerȱcarsȱperȱmileȱperȱlaneȱ
(pc/mi/ln),ȱwhichȱmayȱvaryȱslightlyȱfromȱlocationȱtoȱlocation.ȱAtȱthisȱdensity,ȱ

December 2010
vehiclesȱareȱtooȱcloselyȱspacedȱtoȱdampenȱtheȱimpactȱofȱanyȱperturbationȱinȱflow,ȱ
suchȱasȱaȱlaneȱchangeȱorȱaȱvehicleȱenteringȱtheȱfreeway,ȱwithoutȱcausingȱaȱ
disruptionȱthatȱpropagatesȱupstream.ȱ
LOS FOR BASIC FREEWAY SEGMENTS

LOSȱonȱaȱbasicȱfreewayȱsegmentȱisȱdefinedȱbyȱdensity.ȱAlthoughȱspeedȱisȱaȱ LOS for basic freeway segments is
defined by density.
majorȱconcernȱofȱdriversȱasȱrelatedȱtoȱserviceȱquality,ȱitȱwouldȱbeȱdifficultȱtoȱ
describeȱLOSȱbyȱusingȱspeed,ȱsinceȱitȱremainsȱconstantȱupȱtoȱflowȱratesȱofȱ1,000ȱ
toȱ1,800ȱpc/h/ln,ȱdependingȱonȱtheȱFFS.ȱDensityȱdescribesȱtheȱproximityȱtoȱotherȱ
vehiclesȱandȱisȱrelatedȱtoȱtheȱfreedomȱtoȱmaneuverȱwithinȱtheȱtrafficȱstream.ȱ
Unlikeȱspeed,ȱhowever,ȱdensityȱisȱsensitiveȱtoȱflowȱratesȱthroughoutȱtheȱrangeȱofȱ
flows.ȱ
Exhibitȱ11Ȭ4ȱvisuallyȱdemonstratesȱtheȱsixȱLOSȱdefinedȱforȱbasicȱfreewayȱ
segments.ȱLOSȱareȱdefinedȱtoȱrepresentȱreasonableȱrangesȱinȱtheȱthreeȱcriticalȱ
flowȱvariables:ȱspeed,ȱdensity,ȱandȱflowȱrate.ȱ
Exhibit 11-4
LOS Examples
LOS A LOS B
LOS C LOS D
ȱ ȱ ȱ
LOS E LOS F

December 2010
Freeway LOS Described

LOSȱAȱdescribesȱfreeȬflowȱoperations.ȱFFSȱprevailsȱonȱtheȱfreeway,ȱandȱ
vehiclesȱareȱalmostȱcompletelyȱunimpededȱinȱtheirȱabilityȱtoȱmaneuverȱwithinȱ
theȱtrafficȱstream.ȱTheȱeffectsȱofȱincidentsȱorȱpointȱbreakdownsȱareȱeasilyȱ
absorbed.ȱ
LOSȱBȱrepresentsȱreasonablyȱfreeȬflowȱoperations,ȱandȱFFSȱonȱtheȱfreewayȱisȱ
maintained.ȱTheȱabilityȱtoȱmaneuverȱwithinȱtheȱtrafficȱstreamȱisȱonlyȱslightlyȱ
restricted,ȱandȱtheȱgeneralȱlevelȱofȱphysicalȱandȱpsychologicalȱcomfortȱprovidedȱ
toȱdriversȱisȱstillȱhigh.ȱTheȱeffectsȱofȱminorȱincidentsȱandȱpointȱbreakdownsȱareȱ
stillȱeasilyȱabsorbed.ȱ
LOSȱCȱprovidesȱforȱflowȱwithȱspeedsȱnearȱtheȱFFSȱofȱtheȱfreeway.ȱFreedomȱ
toȱmaneuverȱwithinȱtheȱtrafficȱstreamȱisȱnoticeablyȱrestricted,ȱandȱlaneȱchangesȱ
requireȱmoreȱcareȱandȱvigilanceȱonȱtheȱpartȱofȱtheȱdriver.ȱMinorȱincidentsȱmayȱ
stillȱbeȱabsorbed,ȱbutȱtheȱlocalȱdeteriorationȱinȱserviceȱqualityȱwillȱbeȱsignificant.ȱ
Queuesȱmayȱbeȱexpectedȱtoȱformȱbehindȱanyȱsignificantȱblockages.ȱ
LOSȱDȱisȱtheȱlevelȱatȱwhichȱspeedsȱbeginȱtoȱdeclineȱwithȱincreasingȱflows,ȱ
withȱdensityȱincreasingȱmoreȱquickly.ȱFreedomȱtoȱmaneuverȱwithinȱtheȱtrafficȱ
streamȱisȱseriouslyȱlimitedȱandȱdriversȱexperienceȱreducedȱphysicalȱandȱ
psychologicalȱcomfortȱlevels.ȱEvenȱminorȱincidentsȱcanȱbeȱexpectedȱtoȱcreateȱ
queuing,ȱbecauseȱtheȱtrafficȱstreamȱhasȱlittleȱspaceȱtoȱabsorbȱdisruptions.ȱ
LOSȱEȱdescribesȱoperationȱatȱcapacity.ȱOperationsȱonȱtheȱfreewayȱatȱthisȱ
levelȱareȱhighlyȱvolatileȱbecauseȱthereȱareȱvirtuallyȱnoȱusableȱgapsȱwithinȱtheȱ
trafficȱstream,ȱleavingȱlittleȱroomȱtoȱmaneuverȱwithinȱtheȱtrafficȱstream.ȱAnyȱ
disruptionȱtoȱtheȱtrafficȱstream,ȱsuchȱasȱvehiclesȱenteringȱfromȱaȱrampȱorȱaȱ
vehicleȱchangingȱlanes,ȱcanȱestablishȱaȱdisruptionȱwaveȱthatȱpropagatesȱ
throughoutȱtheȱupstreamȱtrafficȱflow.ȱAtȱcapacity,ȱtheȱtrafficȱstreamȱhasȱnoȱ
abilityȱtoȱdissipateȱevenȱtheȱmostȱminorȱdisruption,ȱandȱanyȱincidentȱcanȱbeȱ
expectedȱtoȱproduceȱaȱseriousȱbreakdownȱandȱsubstantialȱqueuing.ȱTheȱphysicalȱ
andȱpsychologicalȱcomfortȱaffordedȱtoȱdriversȱisȱpoor.ȱ
LOSȱFȱdescribesȱbreakdown,ȱorȱunstableȱflow.ȱSuchȱconditionsȱexistȱwithinȱ
queuesȱformingȱbehindȱbottlenecks.ȱBreakdownsȱoccurȱforȱaȱnumberȱofȱreasons:ȱ
x Trafficȱincidentsȱcanȱtemporarilyȱreduceȱtheȱcapacityȱofȱaȱshortȱsegment,ȱ
soȱthatȱtheȱnumberȱofȱvehiclesȱarrivingȱatȱaȱpointȱisȱgreaterȱthanȱtheȱ
numberȱofȱvehiclesȱthatȱcanȱmoveȱthroughȱit.ȱ
x Pointsȱofȱrecurringȱcongestion,ȱsuchȱasȱmergeȱorȱweavingȱsegmentsȱandȱ
laneȱdrops,ȱexperienceȱveryȱhighȱdemandȱinȱwhichȱtheȱnumberȱofȱvehiclesȱ
arrivingȱisȱgreaterȱthanȱtheȱnumberȱofȱvehiclesȱthatȱcanȱbeȱdischarged.ȱ
x Inȱanalysesȱusingȱforecastȱvolumes,ȱtheȱprojectedȱflowȱrateȱcanȱexceedȱtheȱ
estimatedȱcapacityȱofȱaȱgivenȱlocation.ȱ
Breakdown (LOS F) occurs Inȱallȱcases,ȱbreakdownȱoccursȱwhenȱtheȱratioȱofȱexistingȱdemandȱtoȱactualȱ
whenever the demand-to-
capacity ratio exceeds 1.00. capacity,ȱorȱofȱforecastȱdemandȱtoȱestimatedȱcapacity,ȱexceedsȱ1.00.ȱOperationsȱ
immediatelyȱdownstreamȱof,ȱorȱevenȱat,ȱsuchȱaȱpoint,ȱhowever,ȱareȱgenerallyȱatȱ
orȱnearȱLOSȱE,ȱandȱdownstreamȱoperationsȱimproveȱ(assumingȱthatȱthereȱareȱnoȱ
additionalȱdownstreamȱbottlenecks)ȱasȱdischargingȱvehiclesȱmoveȱawayȱfromȱtheȱ
bottleneck.ȱ

December 2010
LOSȱFȱoperationsȱwithinȱaȱqueueȱareȱtheȱresultȱofȱaȱbreakdownȱorȱbottleneckȱ The effects of a breakdown may

extend upstream for a considerable
atȱaȱdownstreamȱpoint.ȱInȱpracticalȱterms,ȱtheȱpointȱofȱtheȱbreakdownȱhasȱaȱv/cȱ distance.
ratioȱgreaterȱthanȱ1.00,ȱandȱisȱalsoȱlabeledȱLOSȱF,ȱalthoughȱactualȱoperationsȱatȱ
theȱbreakdownȱpointȱandȱimmediatelyȱdownstreamȱmayȱactuallyȱreflectȱLOSȱEȱ
conditions.ȱWheneverȱqueuesȱdueȱtoȱaȱbreakdownȱexist,ȱtheyȱhaveȱtheȱpotentialȱ
toȱextendȱupstreamȱforȱconsiderableȱdistances.ȱ
LOS Criteria
Aȱbasicȱfreewayȱsegmentȱcanȱbeȱcharacterizedȱbyȱthreeȱperformanceȱ
measures:ȱdensityȱinȱpassengerȱcarsȱperȱmileȱperȱlaneȱ(pc/mi/ln),ȱspaceȱmeanȱ
speedȱinȱmilesȱperȱhourȱ(mi/h),ȱandȱtheȱratioȱofȱdemandȱflowȱrateȱtoȱcapacityȱ
(v/c).ȱEachȱofȱtheseȱmeasuresȱisȱanȱindicationȱofȱhowȱwellȱtrafficȱisȱbeingȱ
accommodatedȱbyȱtheȱbasicȱfreewayȱsegment.ȱ
Becauseȱspeedȱisȱconstantȱthroughȱaȱbroadȱrangeȱofȱflowsȱandȱtheȱv/cȱratioȱisȱ
notȱdirectlyȱdiscernibleȱtoȱroadȱusersȱ(exceptȱatȱcapacity),ȱtheȱserviceȱmeasureȱforȱ
basicȱfreewayȱsegmentsȱisȱdensity.ȱExhibitȱ11Ȭ5ȱshowsȱtheȱcriteria.ȱ
LOS Density (pc/mi/ln) Exhibit 11-5

A 11 LOS Criteria for Basic Freeway
B >11–18 Segments
C >18–26
D >26–35
E >35–45
Demand exceeds capacity
F
>45
ForȱallȱLOS,ȱtheȱdensityȱboundariesȱonȱbasicȱfreewayȱsegmentsȱareȱtheȱsameȱ
asȱthoseȱforȱsurfaceȱmultilaneȱhighways,ȱexceptȱatȱtheȱLOSȱEFȱboundary.ȱTrafficȱ
characteristicsȱareȱsuchȱthatȱtheȱmaximumȱflowȱratesȱatȱanyȱgivenȱLOSȱareȱlowerȱ
onȱmultilaneȱhighwaysȱthanȱonȱsimilarȱbasicȱfreewayȱsegments.ȱ
TheȱspecificationȱofȱmaximumȱdensitiesȱforȱLOSȱAȱtoȱDȱisȱbasedȱonȱtheȱ
collectiveȱprofessionalȱjudgmentȱofȱtheȱmembersȱofȱtheȱTransportationȱResearchȱ
Board’sȱHighwayȱCapacityȱandȱQualityȱofȱServiceȱCommittee.ȱTheȱupperȱvalueȱ
shownȱforȱLOSȱFȱ(45ȱpc/mi/ln)ȱisȱtheȱmaximumȱdensityȱatȱwhichȱsustainedȱflowsȱ
atȱcapacityȱareȱexpectedȱtoȱoccur.ȱInȱeffect,ȱasȱindicatedȱinȱtheȱspeedflowȱcurvesȱ
ofȱExhibitȱ11Ȭ2,ȱwhenȱaȱdensityȱofȱ45ȱpc/mi/lnȱisȱreached,ȱflowȱisȱatȱcapacity,ȱandȱ
theȱv/cȱratioȱisȱ1.00.ȱ
Inȱtheȱapplicationȱofȱthisȱchapter’sȱmethodology,ȱhowever,ȱLOSȱFȱisȱ
identifiedȱwhenȱdemandȱexceedsȱcapacityȱbecauseȱtheȱanalyticȱmethodologyȱdoesȱ
notȱallowȱtheȱdeterminationȱofȱdensityȱwhenȱdemandȱexceedsȱcapacity.ȱAlthoughȱ
theȱdensityȱwillȱbeȱgreaterȱthanȱ45ȱpc/h/ln,ȱtheȱmethodologyȱofȱChapterȱ10,ȱ
FreewayȱFacilities,ȱmustȱbeȱappliedȱtoȱdetermineȱaȱmoreȱpreciseȱdensityȱforȱsuchȱ
cases.ȱ
Exhibitȱ11Ȭ6ȱillustratesȱtheȱdefinedȱLOSȱonȱtheȱbaseȱspeedflowȱcurves.ȱOnȱaȱ
speedflowȱplot,ȱdensityȱisȱaȱlineȱofȱconstantȱslopeȱbeginningȱatȱtheȱorigin.ȱTheȱ
LOSȱboundariesȱwereȱdefinedȱtoȱproduceȱreasonableȱrangesȱwithinȱeachȱLOSȱonȱ
theseȱspeedflowȱrelationships.ȱ

December 2010
Exhibit 11-6 80
75 mi/h free-flow speed
LOS for Basic Freeway
70 mi/h
Segments 70
65 mi/h
60 mi/h
60
55 mi/h
50
Speed (mi/h)
LOS A LOS B LOS C LOS D LOS E
40
30
LOS F
20
10
0
0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500
Flow Rate (pc/h/ln) ȱ
REQUIRED INPUT DATA
Theȱanalysisȱofȱaȱbasicȱfreewayȱsegmentȱrequiresȱdetailsȱconcerningȱtheȱ
geometricȱcharacteristicsȱofȱtheȱsegmentȱandȱtheȱdemandȱcharacteristicsȱofȱtheȱ
usersȱofȱtheȱsegment.ȱThisȱsectionȱpresentsȱtheȱrequiredȱinputȱdataȱforȱtheȱbasicȱ
freewayȱsegmentȱmethodology;ȱspecificsȱaboutȱindividualȱparametersȱareȱgivenȱ
inȱtheȱMethodologyȱsection.ȱ
Freeway Data
Theȱfollowingȱinformationȱonȱtheȱsegment’sȱgeometricȱfeaturesȱisȱneededȱtoȱ
conductȱanȱanalysisȱ(typicalȱrangesȱforȱtheseȱparametersȱareȱshown):ȱ
1. FFS:ȱ55ȱtoȱ75ȱmi/h;ȱ
2. Numberȱofȱmainlineȱfreewayȱlanesȱ(oneȱdirection):ȱatȱleastȱtwo;ȱ
3. Laneȱwidth:ȱ10ȱftȱtoȱ12ȱftȱorȱmore;ȱ
4. RightȬsideȱlateralȱclearance:ȱ0ȱftȱtoȱmoreȱthanȱ6ȱft;ȱȱ
5. Totalȱrampȱdensity:ȱ0ȱtoȱ6ȱramps/mi;ȱandȱ
6. Terrain:ȱlevel,ȱrolling,ȱorȱmountainous,ȱorȱspecificȱlengthȱandȱpercentȱ
grade.ȱ
Demand Data
Theȱfollowingȱinformationȱonȱtheȱsegment’sȱusersȱisȱrequired:ȱ
1. DemandȱduringȱtheȱanalysisȱhourȱorȱdailyȱdemandȱandȱKȬȱandȱDȬfactors;ȱ
2. HeavyȬvehicleȱpresenceȱ(proportionȱofȱtrucks,ȱbuses,ȱandȱRVs):ȱ0ȱtoȱ100%ȱ
inȱgeneralȱterrain,ȱorȱ0ȱtoȱ25%ȱorȱmoreȱforȱspecificȱgrades;ȱ
3. PeakȬhourȱfactorȱ(PHF):ȱupȱtoȱ1.00;ȱandȱ
4. Driverȱpopulationȱfactor:ȱ0.85ȱtoȱ1.00.ȱ
Length of Analysis Period

Theȱanalysisȱperiodȱforȱanyȱfreewayȱanalysisȱisȱgenerallyȱtheȱpeakȱ15Ȭminȱ
periodȱwithinȱtheȱpeakȱhour.ȱAnyȱ15Ȭminȱperiodȱcanȱbeȱanalyzed,ȱhowever.ȱ

December 2010
2. METHODOLOGY
Thisȱchapter’sȱmethodologyȱcanȱbeȱusedȱtoȱanalyzeȱtheȱcapacity,ȱLOS,ȱlaneȱ
requirements,ȱandȱeffectsȱofȱdesignȱfeaturesȱonȱtheȱperformanceȱofȱbasicȱfreewayȱ
segments.ȱTheȱmethodologyȱisȱbasedȱonȱtheȱresultsȱofȱanȱNCHRPȱstudyȱ(1),ȱ
whichȱhasȱbeenȱpartiallyȱupdatedȱ(2).ȱAȱnumberȱofȱsignificantȱpublicationsȱwereȱ
alsoȱusedȱinȱtheȱdevelopmentȱofȱtheȱmethodologyȱ(3–12).ȱȱ
LIMITATIONS OF METHODOLOGY
Thisȱchapter’sȱmethodologyȱdoesȱnotȱapplyȱtoȱorȱtakeȱintoȱaccountȱ(withoutȱ
modificationȱbyȱtheȱanalyst)ȱtheȱfollowing:ȱ
x Specialȱlanesȱreservedȱforȱaȱsingleȱvehicleȱtype,ȱsuchȱasȱhighȬoccupancyȬ
vehicleȱ(HOV)ȱlanes,ȱtruckȱlanes,ȱandȱclimbingȱlanes;ȱ
x Laneȱcontrolȱ(toȱrestrictȱlaneȱchanging);ȱ
x Extendedȱbridgeȱandȱtunnelȱsegments;ȱ
x Segmentsȱnearȱaȱtollȱplaza;ȱ
x FacilitiesȱwithȱFFSȱlessȱthanȱ55ȱmi/hȱorȱmoreȱthanȱ75ȱmi/h;ȱ
x Theȱinfluenceȱofȱdownstreamȱqueuingȱonȱaȱsegment;ȱ
x Postedȱspeedȱlimitȱandȱenforcementȱpractices;ȱ
x Presenceȱofȱintelligentȱtransportationȱsystemsȱ(ITS)ȱrelatedȱtoȱvehicleȱorȱ
driverȱguidance;ȱ
x CapacityȬenhancingȱeffectsȱofȱrampȱmetering;ȱ
x Operationalȱeffectsȱofȱoversaturatedȱconditions;ȱandȱ
x Operationalȱeffectsȱofȱconstructionȱoperations.ȱ
Inȱmostȱofȱtheȱcasesȱjustȱcited,ȱtheȱanalystȱwouldȱhaveȱtoȱutilizeȱalternativeȱ Active traffic management measures
for freeways discussed in Chapter 35
toolsȱorȱdrawȱonȱotherȱresearchȱinformationȱandȱdevelopȱspecialȬpurposeȱ consist of
modificationsȱofȱthisȱmethodologyȱtoȱincorporateȱtheȱeffectsȱofȱanyȱofȱtheȱcitedȱ x Dynamic demand metering,
x Congestion pricing,
conditions.ȱOperationalȱeffectsȱofȱoversaturatedȱconditions,ȱincidents,ȱworkȱ x Traveler information systems,
zones,ȱandȱweatherȱandȱlightingȱconditionsȱcanȱbeȱevaluatedȱwithȱtheȱ x Dynamic lane and shoulder
management,
methodologyȱofȱChapterȱ10,ȱFreewayȱFacilities.ȱOperationalȱeffectsȱofȱactiveȱ x Speed harmonization,
trafficȱmanagementȱmeasuresȱareȱdiscussedȱinȱChapterȱ35.ȱȱ x Incident management, and
x Work zone traffic management.
OVERVIEW OF METHODOLOGY
Theȱmethodologyȱofȱthisȱchapterȱisȱforȱtheȱanalysisȱofȱbasicȱfreewayȱ
segments.ȱAȱmethodȱforȱanalysisȱofȱextendedȱlengthsȱofȱfreewayȱcomposedȱofȱaȱ
combinationȱofȱbasicȱfreewayȱsegments,ȱweavingȱsegments,ȱandȱmergeȱorȱ
divergeȱsegmentsȱisȱfoundȱinȱChapterȱ10,ȱFreewayȱFacilities.ȱ
Exhibitȱ11Ȭ7ȱillustratesȱtheȱbasicȱmethodologyȱusedȱinȱoperationalȱanalysis.ȱ
Theȱmethodologyȱcanȱalsoȱbeȱdirectlyȱappliedȱtoȱdetermineȱtheȱnumberȱofȱlanesȱ
requiredȱtoȱprovideȱaȱtargetȱLOSȱforȱaȱgivenȱdemandȱvolume.ȱ
Chapter 11/Basic Freeway Segments Page 11-9 Methodology

December 2010
Exhibit 11-7
Overview of Operational
Step 1: Input Data
Analysis Methodology for Geometric data
Basic Freeway Segments Demand volume
Measured FFS (if available)
Measured FFS is not available
Exhibit 11-7 illustrates the

methodology for operational Step 2: Compute FFS
analysis. Other types of Lane width adjustment
analysis are described in the Lateral clearance adjustment Measured FFS is available
Applications section.
Use Equation 11-1
Step 3: Select FFS Curve
Step 4: Adjust Demand Volume

Peak hour factor
Number of lanes (one direction)
Heavy vehicle adjustment
Driver population adjustment
Use Equation 11-2
Compare adjusted demand flow rate

to base capacity
Demand flow rate > capacity
LOS = F Demand flow rate capacity

Go to Chapter 10,
Freeway Facilities
Step 5: Estimate Speed and Density

Exhibit 11-3 or Exhibit 11-2
Equation 11-4
Step 6: Determine LOS (A-E)

Exhibit 11-5
ȱ
COMPUTATIONAL STEPS
Step 1: Input Data

Forȱaȱtypicalȱoperationalȱanalysis,ȱasȱnotedȱpreviously,ȱtheȱanalystȱwouldȱ
haveȱtoȱspecifyȱ(withȱeitherȱsiteȬspecificȱorȱdefaultȱvalues)ȱdemandȱvolume,ȱ
numberȱandȱwidthȱofȱlanes,ȱrightȬsideȱlateralȱclearance,ȱtotalȱrampȱdensity,ȱ
percentȱofȱheavyȱvehiclesȱ(trucks,ȱbuses,ȱandȱRVs),ȱPHF,ȱterrain,ȱandȱtheȱdriverȱ
populationȱfactor.ȱ
Step 2: Compute FFS

FFSȱcanȱbeȱdeterminedȱdirectlyȱfromȱfieldȱmeasurementsȱorȱcanȱbeȱestimatedȱ
asȱdescribedȱbelow.ȱ
Methodology Page 11-10 Chapter 11/Basic Freeway Segments

December 2010
Field Measurement of FFS

FFSȱisȱtheȱmeanȱspeedȱofȱpassengerȱcarsȱmeasuredȱduringȱperiodsȱofȱlowȱtoȱ FFS is the mean speed of passenger
cars during periods of low to
moderateȱflowȱ(upȱtoȱ1,000ȱpc/h/ln).ȱForȱaȱspecificȱfreewayȱsegment,ȱaverageȱ moderate flow.
speedsȱareȱvirtuallyȱconstantȱinȱthisȱrangeȱofȱflowȱrates.ȱIfȱtheȱFFSȱcanȱbeȱfieldȱ
measured,ȱthisȱisȱtheȱpreferableȱwayȱtoȱmakeȱtheȱdetermination.ȱIfȱtheȱFFSȱisȱ
measuredȱdirectly,ȱnoȱadjustmentsȱareȱappliedȱtoȱtheȱmeasuredȱvalue.ȱ
Theȱspeedȱstudyȱshouldȱbeȱconductedȱatȱaȱlocationȱthatȱisȱrepresentativeȱofȱ
theȱsegmentȱatȱaȱtimeȱwhenȱflowȱratesȱareȱlessȱthanȱ1,000ȱpc/h/ln.ȱTheȱspeedȱ
studyȱshouldȱmeasureȱtheȱspeedsȱofȱallȱpassengerȱcarsȱorȱuseȱaȱsystematicȱsampleȱ
(e.g.,ȱeveryȱtenthȱcarȱinȱeachȱlane).ȱAȱsampleȱofȱatȱleastȱ100ȱpassengerȬcarȱspeedsȱ
shouldȱbeȱobtained.ȱAnyȱspeedȱmeasurementȱtechniqueȱthatȱhasȱbeenȱfoundȱ
acceptableȱforȱotherȱtypesȱofȱtrafficȱengineeringȱapplicationsȱmayȱbeȱused.ȱ
Furtherȱguidanceȱonȱtheȱconductȱofȱspeedȱstudiesȱisȱprovidedȱinȱstandardȱtrafficȱ
engineeringȱpublications,ȱsuchȱasȱtheȱInstituteȱofȱTransportationȱEngineersȱ
ManualȱofȱTrafficȱEngineeringȱStudiesȱ(11).ȱ
Estimating FFS
Itȱisȱnotȱpossibleȱtoȱmakeȱfieldȱmeasurementsȱforȱfutureȱfacilities,ȱandȱfieldȱ
measurementȱmayȱnotȱbeȱpossibleȱorȱpracticalȱinȱallȱexistingȱcases.ȱInȱsuchȱcases,ȱ
theȱsegment’sȱFFSȱmayȱbeȱestimatedȱbyȱusingȱEquationȱ11Ȭ1,ȱwhichȱisȱbasedȱonȱ
theȱphysicalȱcharacteristicsȱofȱtheȱsegmentȱunderȱstudy:ȱ
Equation 11-1
FFS 75.4 f LW f LC 3.22 TRD 0.84
whereȱ
ȱ FFSȱ =ȱ FFSȱofȱbasicȱfreewayȱsegmentȱ(mi/h),ȱ
ȱ fLWȱ =ȱ adjustmentȱforȱlaneȱwidthȱ(mi/h),ȱ
ȱ fLCȱ =ȱ adjustmentȱforȱrightȬsideȱlateralȱclearanceȱ(mi/h),ȱandȱ
ȱ TRDȱ =ȱ totalȱrampȱdensityȱ(ramps/mi).ȱ
Base FFS
ThisȱmethodologyȱcoversȱbasicȱfreewayȱsegmentsȱwithȱFFSsȱrangingȱfromȱ55ȱ
mi/hȱtoȱ75ȱmi/h.ȱThus,ȱtheȱpredictiveȱalgorithmȱmustȱstartȱwithȱaȱbaseȱspeedȱofȱ75ȱ
mi/hȱorȱhigher.ȱAȱvalueȱofȱ75.4ȱmi/hȱwasȱchosen,ȱsinceȱitȱresultedȱinȱtheȱmostȱ
accurateȱpredictionsȱversusȱdataȱcollectedȱinȱ2008.ȱ
Adjustment for Lane Width

Theȱbaseȱconditionȱforȱlaneȱwidthȱisȱ12ȱftȱorȱgreater.ȱWhenȱtheȱaverageȱlaneȱ
widthȱacrossȱallȱlanesȱisȱlessȱthanȱ12ȱft,ȱtheȱFFSȱisȱnegativelyȱaffected.ȱ
Adjustmentsȱtoȱreflectȱtheȱeffectȱofȱnarrowerȱaverageȱlaneȱwidthȱareȱshownȱinȱ
Exhibitȱ11Ȭ8.ȱ
Average Lane Width (ft) Reduction in FFS, fLW (mi/h) Exhibit 11-8
12 0.0 Adjustment to FFS for Average
11–12 1.9 Lane Width
10–11 6.6

December 2010
Adjustment for Lateral Clearance

TheȱbaseȱconditionȱforȱrightȬsideȱlateralȱclearanceȱisȱ6ȱftȱorȱgreater.ȱTheȱ
lateralȱclearanceȱisȱmeasuredȱfromȱtheȱrightȱedgeȱofȱtheȱtravelȱlaneȱtoȱtheȱnearestȱ
lateralȱobstruction.ȱCareȱmustȱbeȱtakenȱtoȱidentifyȱaȱ“lateralȱobstruction.”ȱSomeȱ
obstructionsȱmayȱbeȱcontinuous,ȱsuchȱasȱretainingȱwalls,ȱconcreteȱbarriers,ȱ
guardrails,ȱorȱbarrierȱcurbs.ȱOthersȱmayȱbeȱperiodic,ȱsuchȱasȱlightȱsupportsȱorȱ
bridgeȱabutments.ȱInȱsomeȱcases,ȱdriversȱmayȱbecomeȱaccustomedȱtoȱcertainȱ
typesȱofȱobstructions,ȱoftenȱmakingȱtheirȱinfluenceȱonȱtrafficȱnegligible.ȱ
Exhibitȱ11Ȭ9ȱshowsȱtheȱadjustmentsȱtoȱtheȱbaseȱFFSȱdueȱtoȱtheȱexistenceȱofȱ
obstructionsȱcloserȱthanȱ6ȱftȱtoȱtheȱrightȱtravelȱlaneȱedge.ȱMedianȱclearancesȱofȱ2ȱ
ftȱorȱmoreȱgenerallyȱhaveȱlittleȱimpactȱonȱtraffic.ȱNoȱadjustmentsȱareȱavailableȱtoȱ
reflectȱtheȱpresenceȱofȱleftȬsideȱlateralȱobstructionsȱcloserȱthanȱ2ȱftȱtoȱtheȱleftȱ
travelȱlaneȱedge.ȱSuchȱsituationsȱare,ȱhowever,ȱquiteȱrareȱonȱmodernȱfreeways,ȱ
exceptȱinȱconstrainedȱworkȱzones.ȱ
Exhibit 11-9 Right-Side

Adjustment to FFS for Right- Lateral Lanes in One Direction
Side Lateral Clearance, fLC Clearance (ft) 2 3 4 5
(mi/h)
6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
5 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.1
4 1.2 0.8 0.4 0.2
3 1.8 1.2 0.6 0.3
2 2.4 1.6 0.8 0.4
1 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.5
0 3.6 2.4 1.2 0.6
TheȱimpactȱofȱaȱrightȬsideȱlateralȱclearanceȱrestrictionȱdependsȱonȱbothȱtheȱ
distanceȱtoȱtheȱobstructionȱandȱtheȱnumberȱofȱlanesȱinȱoneȱdirectionȱonȱtheȱbasicȱ
freewayȱsegment.ȱAȱlateralȱclearanceȱrestrictionȱcausesȱvehiclesȱinȱtheȱrightȱlaneȱ
toȱmoveȱsomewhatȱtoȱtheȱleft.ȱThisȱmovement,ȱinȱturn,ȱaffectsȱvehiclesȱinȱtheȱnextȱ
lane.ȱAsȱtheȱnumberȱofȱlanesȱincreases,ȱtheȱoverallȱeffectȱonȱfreewayȱoperationsȱ
decreases.ȱ
Total Ramp Density

Equationȱ11Ȭ1ȱincludesȱaȱtermȱthatȱaccountsȱforȱtheȱimpactȱofȱtotalȱrampȱ
densityȱonȱFFS.ȱTotalȱrampȱdensityȱisȱdefinedȱasȱtheȱnumberȱofȱrampsȱ(onȱandȱ
off,ȱoneȱdirection)ȱlocatedȱbetweenȱ3ȱmiȱupstreamȱandȱ3ȱmiȱdownstreamȱofȱtheȱ
midpointȱofȱtheȱbasicȱfreewayȱsegmentȱunderȱstudy,ȱdividedȱbyȱ6ȱmi.ȱTheȱtotalȱ
rampȱdensityȱhasȱbeenȱfoundȱtoȱbeȱaȱmeasureȱofȱtheȱimpactȱofȱmergingȱandȱ
divergingȱvehiclesȱonȱFFS.ȱ

Asȱnotedȱpreviously,ȱonceȱtheȱFFSȱofȱtheȱbasicȱfreewayȱsegmentȱisȱ
determined,ȱoneȱofȱtheȱfiveȱbaseȱspeedflowȱcurvesȱ(Exhibitȱ11Ȭ2)ȱisȱselectedȱforȱ
useȱinȱtheȱanalysis.ȱInterpolationȱbetweenȱcurvesȱisȱnotȱrecommended.ȱCriteriaȱ
forȱselectingȱanȱappropriateȱcurveȱwereȱgivenȱinȱtheȱtextȱfollowingȱExhibitȱ11Ȭ2.ȱ

SinceȱtheȱbasicȱspeedflowȱcurvesȱofȱExhibitȱ11Ȭ2ȱareȱbasedȱonȱflowȱratesȱinȱ
equivalentȱpassengerȱcarsȱperȱhour,ȱwithȱtheȱdriverȱpopulationȱdominatedȱbyȱ

December 2010
regularȱusersȱofȱtheȱbasicȱfreewayȱsegment,ȱdemandȱvolumesȱexpressedȱasȱ
vehiclesȱperȱhourȱunderȱprevailingȱconditionsȱmustȱbeȱconvertedȱtoȱthisȱbasis.ȱ
Equationȱ11Ȭ2ȱisȱusedȱforȱthisȱadjustment:ȱ
V
vp Equation 11-2
PHF u N u f HV u f p
whereȱ
ȱ vpȱ =ȱ demandȱflowȱrateȱunderȱequivalentȱbaseȱconditionsȱ(pc/h/ln),ȱ
ȱ Vȱ =ȱ demandȱvolumeȱunderȱprevailingȱconditionsȱ(veh/h),ȱ
ȱ PHFȱ =ȱ peakȬhourȱfactor,ȱ
ȱ Nȱ =ȱ numberȱofȱlanesȱinȱanalysisȱdirection,ȱ
ȱ fHVȱ =ȱ adjustmentȱfactorȱforȱpresenceȱofȱheavyȱvehiclesȱinȱtrafficȱstream,ȱandȱ
ȱ fpȱ =ȱ adjustmentȱfactorȱforȱunfamiliarȱdriverȱpopulations.ȱ
Peak Hour Factor

TheȱPHFȱrepresentsȱtheȱvariationȱinȱtrafficȱflowȱwithinȱanȱhour.ȱObservationsȱ
ofȱtrafficȱflowȱconsistentlyȱindicateȱthatȱtheȱflowȱratesȱfoundȱinȱtheȱpeakȱ15ȱminȱ
withinȱanȱhourȱareȱnotȱsustainedȱthroughoutȱtheȱentireȱhour.ȱTheȱapplicationȱofȱ
theȱPHFȱinȱEquationȱ11Ȭ2ȱaccountsȱforȱthisȱphenomenon.ȱ
Onȱfreeways,ȱtypicalȱPHFsȱrangeȱfromȱ0.85ȱtoȱ0.98ȱ(13).ȱLowerȱvaluesȱwithinȱ
thatȱrangeȱareȱtypicalȱofȱlowerȬvolumeȱconditions.ȱHigherȱvaluesȱwithinȱthatȱ
rangeȱareȱtypicalȱofȱurbanȱandȱsuburbanȱpeakȬhourȱconditions.ȱFieldȱdataȱshouldȱ
beȱusedȱifȱpossibleȱtoȱdevelopȱPHFsȱthatȱrepresentȱlocalȱconditions.ȱ
Adjustment for Heavy Vehicles

Aȱheavyȱvehicleȱisȱdefinedȱasȱanyȱvehicleȱwithȱmoreȱthanȱfourȱwheelsȱonȱtheȱ
groundȱduringȱnormalȱoperation.ȱSuchȱvehiclesȱareȱgenerallyȱcategorizedȱasȱ
trucks,ȱbuses,ȱorȱRVs.ȱTrucksȱcoverȱaȱwideȱvarietyȱofȱvehicles,ȱfromȱsingleȬunitȱ
trucksȱwithȱdoubleȱrearȱtiresȱtoȱtripleȬunitȱtractortrailerȱcombinations.ȱSmallȱ
panelȱorȱpickupȱtrucksȱwithȱonlyȱfourȱwheelsȱare,ȱhowever,ȱclassifiedȱasȱ
passengerȱcars.ȱBusesȱincludeȱintercityȱbuses,ȱpublicȱtransitȱbuses,ȱandȱschoolȱ
buses.ȱBecauseȱbusesȱareȱinȱmanyȱwaysȱsimilarȱtoȱsingleȬunitȱtrucks,ȱbothȱtypesȱ
ofȱvehiclesȱareȱconsideredȱinȱoneȱcategory.ȱRVsȱincludeȱaȱwideȱvarietyȱofȱvehiclesȱ
fromȱselfȬcontainedȱmotorȱhomesȱtoȱcarsȱandȱsmallȱtrucksȱwithȱtrailersȱ(forȱboats,ȱ
allȬterrainȱvehicles,ȱorȱotherȱconveyances).ȱItȱshouldȱbeȱnotedȱthatȱmostȱsportȬ
utilityȱvehiclesȱhaveȱonlyȱfourȱwheelsȱandȱareȱthusȱcategorizedȱasȱpassengerȱcars.ȱ
TheȱheavyȬvehicleȱadjustmentȱfactorȱfHVȱisȱcomputedȱasȱfollows:ȱ
1
f HV Equation 11-3
1 PT ET 1 PR ER 1

December 2010
whereȱ
ȱ fHVȱ =ȱ heavyȬvehicleȱadjustmentȱfactor,ȱ
ȱ PTȱȱ =ȱ proportionȱofȱtrucksȱandȱbusesȱinȱtrafficȱstream,ȱ
ȱ PRȱȱ =ȱ proportionȱofȱRVsȱinȱtrafficȱstream,ȱ
ȱ ETȱ ȱ=ȱ passengerȬcarȱequivalentȱ(PCE)ȱofȱoneȱtruckȱorȱbusȱinȱtrafficȱstream,ȱ
andȱ
ȱ ERȱ =ȱ PCEȱofȱoneȱRVȱinȱtrafficȱstream.ȱ
ȱ
TheȱadjustmentȱfactorȱisȱfoundȱinȱaȱtwoȬstepȱprocess.ȱFirst,ȱtheȱPCEȱforȱeachȱ
truckȱorȱbusȱandȱRVȱisȱfoundȱforȱtheȱprevailingȱconditionsȱunderȱstudy.ȱTheseȱ
equivalencyȱvaluesȱrepresentȱtheȱnumberȱofȱpassengerȱcarsȱthatȱwouldȱuseȱtheȱ
sameȱamountȱofȱfreewayȱcapacityȱasȱoneȱtruckȱorȱbusȱorȱRVȱunderȱtheȱprevailingȱ
conditions.ȱSecond,ȱEquationȱ11Ȭ3ȱisȱusedȱtoȱconvertȱtheȱPCEȱvaluesȱtoȱtheȱ
adjustmentȱfactor.ȱ
Inȱmanyȱcases,ȱtrucksȱwillȱbeȱtheȱonlyȱheavyȬvehicleȱtypeȱpresentȱinȱtheȱ
trafficȱstream.ȱInȱothers,ȱtheȱpercentageȱofȱRVsȱwillȱbeȱsmallȱinȱcomparisonȱwithȱ
trucksȱandȱbuses.ȱIfȱtheȱratioȱofȱtrucksȱandȱbusesȱtoȱRVsȱisȱ5:1ȱorȱgreater,ȱallȱ
heavyȱvehiclesȱmayȱbeȱ(butȱdoȱnotȱhaveȱtoȱbe)ȱconsideredȱtoȱbeȱtrucks.ȱȱ
Theȱeffectȱofȱheavyȱvehiclesȱonȱtrafficȱflowȱdependsȱonȱterrainȱandȱgradeȱ
conditionsȱasȱwellȱasȱtrafficȱcomposition.ȱPCEsȱcanȱbeȱselectedȱforȱoneȱofȱthreeȱ
conditions:ȱ
x Extendedȱfreewayȱsegmentsȱinȱgeneralȱterrain,ȱ
x Specificȱupgrades,ȱorȱ
x Specificȱdowngrades.ȱ
Eachȱofȱtheseȱconditionsȱisȱmoreȱpreciselyȱdefinedȱandȱdiscussedȱnext.ȱ
Equivalents for General Terrain Segments

Generalȱterrainȱrefersȱtoȱextendedȱlengthsȱofȱfreewayȱcontainingȱaȱnumberȱofȱ
upgradesȱandȱdowngradesȱwhereȱnoȱoneȱgradeȱisȱlongȱenoughȱorȱsteepȱenoughȱ
toȱhaveȱaȱsignificantȱimpactȱonȱtheȱoperationȱofȱtheȱoverallȱsegment.ȱAsȱaȱ
guidelineȱforȱthisȱdetermination,ȱextendedȱsegmentȱanalysisȱcanȱbeȱappliedȱ
whereȱgradesȱareȱǂ2%ȱandȱǂ0.25ȱmiȱlong,ȱorȱwhereȱgradesȱbetweenȱ2%ȱandȱ3%ȱ
areȱǂ0.50ȱmiȱlong.ȱForȱthisȱdetermination,ȱeachȱupgradeȱandȱdowngradeȱisȱ
consideredȱtoȱbeȱaȱsingleȱgrade,ȱevenȱifȱtheȱgradeȱisȱnotȱuniform.ȱTheȱtotalȱlengthȱ
ofȱtheȱupgradeȱorȱdowngradeȱisȱusedȱwithȱtheȱsteepestȱgradeȱitȱcontains.ȱThereȱ
areȱthreeȱcategoriesȱofȱgeneralȱterrain:ȱ
x Levelȱterrain:ȱAnyȱcombinationȱofȱgradesȱandȱhorizontalȱorȱverticalȱ
alignmentȱthatȱpermitsȱheavyȱvehiclesȱtoȱmaintainȱtheȱsameȱspeedȱasȱ
passengerȱcars.ȱThisȱtypeȱofȱterrainȱtypicallyȱcontainsȱshortȱgradesȱofȱ
noȱmoreȱthanȱ2%.ȱ
x Rollingȱterrain:ȱAnyȱcombinationȱofȱgradesȱandȱhorizontalȱorȱverticalȱ
alignmentȱthatȱcausesȱheavyȱvehiclesȱtoȱreduceȱtheirȱspeedȱ
substantiallyȱbelowȱthoseȱofȱpassengerȱcarsȱbutȱthatȱdoesȱnotȱcauseȱ
heavyȱvehiclesȱtoȱoperateȱatȱcrawlȱspeedsȱforȱanyȱsignificantȱlengthȱ

December 2010
ofȱtimeȱorȱatȱfrequentȱintervals.ȱCrawlȱspeedȱisȱtheȱmaximumȱ
sustainedȱspeedȱthatȱtrucksȱcanȱmaintainȱonȱanȱextendedȱupgradeȱofȱ
aȱgivenȱpercent.ȱIfȱtheȱgradeȱisȱlongȱenough,ȱtrucksȱwillȱbeȱforcedȱtoȱ
decelerateȱtoȱtheȱcrawlȱspeed,ȱwhichȱtheyȱcanȱmaintainȱforȱextendedȱ
distances.ȱAppendixȱAȱcontainsȱtruckȬperformanceȱcurvesȱ
illustratingȱcrawlȱspeedȱandȱlengthȱofȱgrade.ȱ
x Mountainousȱterrain:ȱAnyȱcombinationȱofȱgradesȱandȱhorizontalȱandȱ The mountainous terrain category is
rarely used, because individual
verticalȱalignmentȱthatȱcausesȱheavyȱvehiclesȱtoȱoperateȱatȱcrawlȱ grades will typically be longer,
speedȱforȱsignificantȱdistancesȱorȱatȱfrequentȱintervals.ȱ steeper, or both, than the criteria for
general terrain analysis.
Mountainousȱterrainȱisȱrelativelyȱrare.ȱGenerally,ȱinȱsegmentsȱsevereȱenoughȱ
toȱcauseȱtheȱtypeȱofȱoperationȱdescribedȱforȱmountainousȱterrain,ȱindividualȱ
gradesȱwillȱbeȱlongerȱorȱsteeper,ȱorȱboth,ȱthanȱtheȱcriteriaȱforȱgeneralȱterrainȱ
analysis.ȱ
Exhibitȱ11Ȭ10ȱshowsȱPCEsȱforȱtrucksȱandȱbusesȱandȱRVsȱinȱgeneralȱterrainȱ
segments.ȱ
PCE by Type of Terrain Exhibit 11-10

Vehicle Level Rolling Mountainous PCEs for Heavy Vehicles in General
Trucks and buses, ET 1.5 2.5 4.5 Terrain Segments
RVs, ER 1.2 2.0 4.0
Equivalents for Specific Upgrades

Anyȱfreewayȱgradeȱbetweenȱ2%ȱandȱ3%ȱandȱlongerȱthanȱ0.5ȱmiȱorȱ3%ȱorȱ
greaterȱandȱlongerȱthanȱ0.25ȱmiȱshouldȱbeȱconsideredȱaȱseparateȱsegment.ȱTheȱ
analysisȱofȱsuchȱsegmentsȱmustȱconsiderȱtheȱupgradeȱconditionsȱandȱtheȱ
downgradeȱconditionsȱseparately,ȱasȱwellȱasȱwhetherȱtheȱgradeȱisȱaȱsingle,ȱ
isolatedȱgradeȱofȱconstantȱpercentageȱorȱpartȱofȱaȱseriesȱformingȱaȱcompositeȱ
grade.ȱTheȱanalysisȱofȱcompositeȱgradesȱisȱdiscussedȱinȱAppendixȱA.ȱ
Severalȱstudiesȱhaveȱshownȱthatȱfreewayȱtruckȱpopulationsȱhaveȱanȱaverageȱ
weightȬtoȬhorsepowerȱratioȱbetweenȱ125ȱandȱ150ȱlb/hp.ȱThisȱmethodologyȱ
adoptsȱPCEsȱthatȱareȱcalibratedȱforȱaȱmixȱofȱtrucksȱandȱbusesȱinȱthisȱrange.ȱRVsȱ
varyȱconsiderablyȱinȱbothȱtypeȱandȱcharacteristicsȱandȱincludeȱeverythingȱfromȱ
carsȱwithȱtrailersȱtoȱselfȬcontainedȱmobileȱcampers.ȱInȱadditionȱtoȱtheȱvariabilityȱ
ofȱvehicleȱcharacteristics,ȱRVȱdriversȱareȱtypicallyȱnotȱprofessionals,ȱandȱtheirȱ
degreeȱofȱskillȱinȱhandlingȱsuchȱvehiclesȱalsoȱvariesȱwidely.ȱTypicalȱRVȱweightȬ
toȬhorsepowerȱratiosȱrangeȱfromȱ30ȱtoȱ60ȱlb/hp.ȱ
Exhibitȱ11Ȭ11ȱandȱExhibitȱ11Ȭ12ȱgiveȱvaluesȱofȱETȱforȱtrucksȱandȱbusesȱandȱERȱ
forȱRVs,ȱrespectively.ȱTheseȱfactorsȱvaryȱwithȱtheȱpercentȱofȱgrade,ȱlengthȱofȱ
grade,ȱandȱtheȱproportionȱofȱheavyȱvehiclesȱinȱtheȱtrafficȱstream.ȱMaximumȱ
valuesȱoccurȱwhenȱthereȱareȱonlyȱaȱfewȱheavyȱvehiclesȱinȱtheȱtrafficȱstream.ȱTheȱ
equivalentsȱdecreaseȱasȱtheȱnumberȱofȱheavyȱvehiclesȱincreasesȱbecauseȱtheseȱ
vehiclesȱtendȱtoȱformȱplatoons.ȱBecauseȱheavyȱvehiclesȱhaveȱmoreȱuniformȱ
operatingȱcharacteristics,ȱfewerȱlargeȱgapsȱareȱcreatedȱinȱtheȱtrafficȱstreamȱwhenȱ
theyȱplatoon,ȱandȱtheȱimpactȱofȱaȱsingleȱheavyȱvehicleȱinȱaȱplatoonȱisȱlessȱsevereȱ
thanȱthatȱofȱaȱsingleȱheavyȱvehicleȱinȱaȱstreamȱofȱprimarilyȱpassengerȱcars.ȱTheȱ
aggregateȱimpactȱofȱheavyȱvehiclesȱonȱtheȱtrafficȱstream,ȱhowever,ȱincreasesȱasȱ
numbersȱandȱpercentagesȱofȱheavyȱvehiclesȱincrease.ȱ

December 2010
The grade length should Theȱlengthȱofȱtheȱgradeȱisȱgenerallyȱtakenȱfromȱaȱhighwayȱprofile.ȱItȱtypicallyȱ

include 25% of the length of
the vertical curves at the start includesȱtheȱstraightȱportionȱofȱtheȱgradeȱplusȱsomeȱportionȱofȱtheȱverticalȱcurvesȱ
and end of the grade. atȱtheȱbeginningȱandȱendȱofȱtheȱgrade.ȱItȱisȱrecommendedȱthatȱ25%ȱofȱtheȱlengthȱ
With two consecutive ofȱtheȱverticalȱcurvesȱatȱbothȱendsȱofȱtheȱgradeȱbeȱincludedȱinȱtheȱlength.ȱWhereȱ
upgrades, 50% of the length
of the vertical curve joining twoȱconsecutiveȱupgradesȱareȱpresent,ȱ50%ȱofȱtheȱlengthȱofȱtheȱverticalȱcurveȱ
them should be included. joiningȱthemȱisȱincludedȱinȱtheȱlengthȱofȱeachȱgrade.ȱ
The point of interest is usually Inȱtheȱanalysisȱofȱupgrades,ȱtheȱpointȱofȱinterestȱisȱgenerallyȱatȱtheȱendȱofȱtheȱ
the spot where heavy vehicles
would have the greatest grade,ȱwhereȱheavyȱvehiclesȱwouldȱhaveȱtheȱmaximumȱeffectȱonȱoperations.ȱ
impact on operations: the top However,ȱifȱaȱrampȱjunctionȱisȱbeingȱanalyzed,ȱforȱexample,ȱtheȱlengthȱofȱtheȱ
of a grade, the top of the
steepest grade in a series, or a gradeȱtoȱtheȱmergeȱorȱdivergeȱpointȱwouldȱbeȱused.ȱ
ramp junction, for example.
Onȱcompositeȱgrades,ȱtheȱrelativeȱsteepnessȱofȱsegmentsȱisȱimportant.ȱIfȱaȱ5%ȱ
upgradeȱisȱfollowedȱbyȱaȱ2%ȱupgrade,ȱforȱexample,ȱtheȱmaximumȱimpactȱofȱ
heavyȱvehiclesȱisȱmostȱlikelyȱatȱtheȱendȱofȱtheȱ5%ȱsegment.ȱHeavyȱvehiclesȱwouldȱ
beȱexpectedȱtoȱaccelerateȱafterȱenteringȱtheȱ2%ȱsegment.ȱ
Exhibit 11-11 Upgrade Length Proportion of Trucks and Buses

PCEs for Trucks and Buses (%) (mi) 2% 4% 5% 6% 8% 10% 15% 20% 25%
(ET) on Upgrades 2 All 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5
0.00–0.25 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5
>0.25–0.50 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5
>0.50–0.75 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5
>2–3
>0.75–1.00 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5
>1.00–1.50 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
>1.50 3.0 3.0 2.5 2.5 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
0.00–0.25 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5
>0.25–0.50 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.5 1.5 1.5
>0.50–0.75 2.5 2.5 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
>3–4
>0.75–1.00 3.0 3.0 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.0 2.0 2.0
>1.00–1.50 3.5 3.5 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.5 2.5 2.5
>1.50 4.0 3.5 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.5 2.5 2.5
0.00–0.25 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5
>0.25–0.50 3.0 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
>4–5 >0.50–0.75 3.5 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5
>0.75–1.00 4.0 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
>1.00 5.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.5 3.5 3.0 3.0 3.0
0.00–0.25 2.0 2.0 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5
>0.25–0.30 4.0 3.0 2.5 2.5 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
>0.30–0.50 4.5 4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5
>5–6
>0.50–0.75 5.0 4.5 4.0 3.5 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
>0.75–1.00 5.5 5.0 4.5 4.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
>1.00 6.0 5.0 5.0 4.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
0.00–0.25 4.0 3.0 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.0 2.0 1.0
>0.25–0.30 4.5 4.0 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.5 2.5
>0.30–0.50 5.0 4.5 4.0 4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.5 2.5
>6
>0.50–0.75 5.5 5.0 4.5 4.5 4.0 3.5 3.0 3.0 3.0
>0.75–1.00 6.0 5.5 5.0 5.0 4.5 4.0 3.5 3.5 3.5
>1.00 7.0 6.0 5.5 5.5 5.0 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.0
Note: Interpolation for percentage of trucks and buses is recommended to the nearest 0.1.

December 2010
Upgrade Length Proportion of RVs Exhibit 11-12

(%) (mi) 2% 4% 5% 6% 8% 10% 15% 20% 25% PCEs for RVs (ER) on Upgrades
2 All 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2
0.00–0.50 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2
>2–3
>0.50 3.0 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.2 1.2 1.2
0.00–0.25 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2
>3–4 >0.25–0.50 2.5 2.5 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.5 1.5 1.5
>0.50 3.0 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.5 1.5
0.00–0.25 2.5 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5
>4–5 >0.25–0.50 4.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.5 2.5 2.0 2.0 2.0
>0.50 4.5 3.5 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.5 2.5 2.0 2.0
0.00–0.25 4.0 3.0 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.5
>5 >0.25–0.50 6.0 4.0 4.0 3.5 3.0 3.0 2.5 2.5 2.0
>0.50 6.0 4.5 4.0 4.0 3.5 3.0 3.0 2.5 2.0
Note: Interpolation for percentage of RVs is recommended to the nearest 0.1.
Equivalents for Specific Downgrades

Knowledgeȱofȱspecificȱimpactsȱofȱheavyȱvehiclesȱonȱoperatingȱconditionsȱonȱ
downgradesȱisȱlimited.ȱInȱgeneral,ȱifȱtheȱdowngradeȱisȱnotȱsevereȱenoughȱtoȱ
causeȱtrucksȱtoȱshiftȱintoȱaȱlowerȱgearȱ(toȱengageȱengineȱbraking),ȱheavyȱvehiclesȱ
mayȱbeȱtreatedȱasȱifȱtheyȱwereȱonȱlevelȱterrainȱsegments.ȱWhereȱaȱdowngradeȱisȱ
severe,ȱtrucksȱmustȱoftenȱuseȱlowȱgearsȱtoȱavoidȱgainingȱtooȱmuchȱspeedȱandȱ
runningȱoutȱofȱcontrol.ȱInȱsuchȱcases,ȱtheirȱeffectȱonȱoperatingȱconditionsȱisȱmoreȱ
significantȱthanȱonȱlevelȱterrain.ȱExhibitȱ11Ȭ13ȱgivesȱvaluesȱofȱETȱforȱthisȱsituation.ȱ
Downgrade Length of Proportion of Trucks and Buses Exhibit 11-13

(%) PCEs for Trucks and Buses (ET) on
Grade (mi) 5% 10% 15% 20%
Specific Downgrades
<4 All 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5
4 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5
4–5 >4 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.5
4 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5
>5–6 >4 5.5 4.0 4.0 3.0
4 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5
>6
>4 7.5 6.0 5.5 4.5
Onȱdowngrades,ȱRVsȱareȱalwaysȱtreatedȱasȱifȱtheyȱwereȱonȱlevelȱterrain;ȱERȱisȱ ER is always 1.2 on downgrades.

thereforeȱalwaysȱ1.2ȱonȱdowngradesȱregardlessȱofȱtheȱlengthȱorȱseverityȱofȱtheȱ
downgradeȱorȱtheȱpercentageȱofȱRVsȱinȱtheȱtrafficȱstream.ȱ
Equivalents for Composite Grades

Theȱverticalȱalignmentȱofȱmostȱfreewaysȱresultsȱinȱaȱcontinuousȱseriesȱofȱ
grades.ȱItȱisȱoftenȱnecessaryȱtoȱdetermineȱtheȱeffectȱofȱaȱseriesȱofȱgradesȱinȱ
succession.ȱTheȱmostȱstraightforwardȱtechniqueȱisȱtoȱcomputeȱtheȱaverageȱgradeȱ
fromȱtheȱbeginningȱofȱtheȱcompositeȱgradeȱtoȱtheȱpointȱofȱinterest.ȱTheȱaverageȱ
gradeȱisȱdefinedȱasȱtheȱtotalȱriseȱfromȱtheȱbeginningȱofȱtheȱcompositeȱgradeȱtoȱtheȱ
pointȱinȱquestionȱdividedȱbyȱtheȱlengthȱofȱtheȱgradeȱ(toȱtheȱpointȱofȱinterest).ȱ
TheȱaverageȬgradeȱtechniqueȱisȱanȱacceptableȱapproachȱforȱgradesȱinȱwhichȱ The average grade can be used when
allȱsubsectionsȱareȱlessȱthanȱ4%ȱorȱtheȱtotalȱlengthȱofȱtheȱgradeȱisȱlessȱthanȱ4,000ȱ all component grades are <4% or the
total length of the grades is <4,000
ft.ȱForȱmoreȱsevereȱcompositeȱgrades,ȱaȱdetailedȱtechniqueȱisȱpresentedȱinȱ ft.
AppendixȱA.ȱThisȱtechniqueȱusesȱvehicleȱperformanceȱcurvesȱandȱequivalentȱ Appendix A provides a method for
speedsȱtoȱdetermineȱtheȱequivalentȱsimpleȱgradeȱforȱanalysis.ȱ addressing more severe composite
grades.

December 2010
Adjustment for Driver Population

Theȱbaseȱtrafficȱstreamȱcharacteristicsȱforȱbasicȱfreewayȱsegmentsȱareȱ
representativeȱofȱtrafficȱstreamsȱcomposedȱprimarilyȱofȱcommuters,ȱorȱdriversȱ
whoȱareȱfamiliarȱwithȱtheȱfacility.ȱItȱisȱgenerallyȱacceptedȱthatȱtrafficȱstreamsȱwithȱ
differentȱcharacteristicsȱ(e.g.,ȱrecreationalȱdrivers)ȱuseȱfreewaysȱlessȱefficiently.ȱ
Althoughȱdataȱareȱsparseȱandȱreportedȱresultsȱvaryȱsubstantially,ȱsignificantlyȱ
lowerȱcapacitiesȱhaveȱbeenȱreportedȱonȱweekends,ȱparticularlyȱinȱrecreationalȱ
areas.ȱItȱmayȱgenerallyȱbeȱassumedȱthatȱtheȱreductionȱinȱcapacityȱ(LOSȱE)ȱ
extendsȱtoȱserviceȱflowȱratesȱandȱserviceȱvolumesȱforȱotherȱLOSȱasȱwell.ȱ
An fp-value of 1.00 should Theȱadjustmentȱfactorȱfpȱisȱusedȱtoȱreflectȱtheȱeffectȱofȱdriverȱpopulation.ȱTheȱ
generally be used, reflective of valuesȱofȱfpȱrangeȱfromȱ0.85ȱtoȱ1.00ȱinȱmostȱcases,ȱalthoughȱlowerȱvaluesȱhaveȱ
drivers who are regular users
of the freeway. beenȱobservedȱinȱisolatedȱcases.ȱInȱgeneral,ȱtheȱanalystȱshouldȱuseȱaȱvalueȱofȱ1.00,ȱ
whichȱreflectsȱcommutersȱorȱotherwiseȬaccustomedȱdrivers,ȱunlessȱthereȱisȱ
sufficientȱevidenceȱthatȱaȱlowerȱvalueȱshouldȱbeȱused.ȱWhereȱgreaterȱaccuracyȱisȱ
needed,ȱcomparativeȱfieldȱstudiesȱofȱcommuterȱandȱrecreationalȱtrafficȱflowȱandȱ
speedsȱareȱrecommended.ȱ
Does LOS F Exist?

Atȱthisȱpoint,ȱtheȱdemandȱvolumeȱhasȱbeenȱconvertedȱtoȱaȱdemandȱflowȱrateȱ
inȱpassengerȱcarsȱperȱhourȱperȱlaneȱunderȱequivalentȱbaseȱconditions.ȱThisȱ
demandȱrateȱmustȱbeȱcomparedȱwithȱtheȱbaseȱcapacityȱofȱtheȱbasicȱfreewayȱ
segmentȱ(2,400ȱpc/h/lnȱforȱFFSȱ=ȱ75ȱmi/hȱandȱ70ȱmi/h;ȱ2,350ȱpc/h/lnȱforȱFFSȱ=ȱ65ȱ
mi/h;ȱ2,300ȱpc/h/lnȱforȱFFSȱ=ȱ60ȱmi/h;ȱ2,250ȱpc/h/lnȱforȱFFSȱ=ȱ55ȱmi/h).ȱȱ
Ifȱtheȱdemandȱexceedsȱcapacity,ȱtheȱLOSȱisȱF,ȱandȱaȱbreakdownȱhasȱbeenȱ
identified.ȱToȱanalyzeȱtheȱimpactsȱofȱsuchȱaȱbreakdown,ȱtheȱmethodologyȱofȱ
Chapterȱ10,ȱFreewayȱFacilities,ȱmustȱbeȱused.ȱNoȱfurtherȱanalysisȱusingȱtheȱ
methodologyȱofȱtheȱcurrentȱchapterȱisȱpossible.ȱ
Ifȱtheȱdemandȱisȱlessȱthanȱorȱequalȱtoȱcapacity,ȱtheȱanalysisȱcontinuesȱtoȱ
Stepȱ5.ȱ

Atȱthisȱpointȱinȱtheȱmethodology,ȱtheȱfollowingȱhaveȱbeenȱdetermined:ȱ(a)ȱ
theȱFFSȱandȱappropriateȱFFSȱcurveȱforȱuseȱinȱtheȱanalysis,ȱandȱ(b)ȱtheȱdemandȱ
flowȱrateȱexpressedȱinȱpassengerȱcarsȱperȱhourȱperȱlaneȱunderȱequivalentȱbaseȱ
conditions.ȱWithȱthisȱinformation,ȱtheȱestimatedȱspeedȱandȱdensityȱofȱtheȱtrafficȱ
streamȱmayȱbeȱdetermined.ȱ
WithȱtheȱequationsȱspecifiedȱinȱExhibitȱ11Ȭ3,ȱtheȱexpectedȱmeanȱspeedȱofȱtheȱ
trafficȱstreamȱcanȱbeȱcomputed.ȱAȱgraphicalȱsolutionȱwithȱExhibitȱ11Ȭ2ȱcanȱalsoȱ
beȱperformed.ȱ
Withȱtheȱestimatedȱspeedȱdetermined,ȱEquationȱ11Ȭ4ȱisȱusedȱtoȱestimateȱtheȱ
densityȱofȱtheȱtrafficȱstream:ȱ

December 2010
vp
D Equation 11-4
S
whereȱ
ȱ Dȱ =ȱ densityȱ(pc/mi/ln),ȱ
ȱ vpȱ =ȱ demandȱflowȱrateȱ(pc/h/ln),ȱandȱ
ȱ Sȱ =ȱ meanȱspeedȱofȱtrafficȱstreamȱunderȱbaseȱconditionsȱ(mi/h).ȱ
Asȱhasȱbeenȱnoted,ȱEquationȱ11Ȭ4ȱisȱonlyȱusedȱwhenȱtheȱvp/c isȱlessȱthanȱorȱ
equalȱtoȱ1.00.ȱAllȱcasesȱinȱwhichȱthisȱratioȱisȱgreaterȱthanȱ1.00ȱareȱLOSȱF.ȱInȱtheseȱ
cases,ȱtheȱspeedȱSȱwillȱbeȱoutsideȱtheȱrangeȱofȱExhibitȱ11Ȭ3ȱandȱExhibitȱ11Ȭ4,ȱandȱ
noȱspeedȱcanȱbeȱestimated.ȱ
WhereȱLOSȱFȱexists,ȱtheȱanalystȱisȱurgedȱtoȱconsultȱChapterȱ10,ȱFreewayȱ
Facilities,ȱwhichȱallowsȱanȱanalysisȱofȱtheȱtimeȱandȱspatialȱimpactsȱofȱaȱ
breakdown,ȱincludingȱitsȱeffectsȱonȱupstreamȱandȱdownstreamȱsegments.ȱ
Step 6: Determine LOS

Exhibitȱ11Ȭ5ȱisȱenteredȱwithȱtheȱdensityȱobtainedȱfromȱEquationȱ11Ȭ4ȱtoȱ
determineȱtheȱexpectedȱprevailingȱLOS.ȱ
SENSITIVITY OF RESULTS
TheȱFFSȱofȱbasicȱfreewayȱsegmentsȱisȱmostȱsensitiveȱtoȱtheȱtotalȱrampȱ The freeway FFS is most sensitive to
the total ramp density.
density.ȱExhibitȱ11Ȭ14ȱillustratesȱtheȱresultingȱFFSȱwhenȱtotalȱrampȱdensityȱvariesȱ
fromȱ0ȱramps/miȱtoȱ6ȱramps/mi.ȱStandardȱlaneȱwidthsȱandȱrightȬsideȱclearancesȱ
areȱassumed.ȱAȱfreewayȱwithȱ0ȱramps/miȱrepresentsȱaȱcaseȱinȱwhichȱthereȱareȱnoȱ
rampsȱwithinȱ3ȱmiȱonȱeitherȱsideȱofȱtheȱstudyȱlocation.ȱThisȱsituationȱoccursȱ
primarilyȱinȱruralȱareas,ȱwhereȱinterchangesȱmayȱbeȱ10ȱorȱmoreȱmilesȱapart.ȱInȱ
rareȱcases,ȱrampȱdensitiesȱinȱexcessȱofȱ6ȱramps/miȱmayȱexist,ȱparticularlyȱinȱ
denseȱurbanȱareas.ȱ
80
Exhibit 11-14
Sensitivity of FFS to Total Ramp
Density
75
Free-Flow Speed (mi/h)
70
65
60
55
50
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Total Ramp Density (ramps/mi) ȱ

December 2010
Each on- and off-ramp in the Higherȱtotalȱrampȱdensitiesȱrepresentȱsuburbanȱandȱurbanȱsituationsȱasȱwellȱ

direction of travel is counted
when total ramp density is asȱtheȱtypeȱofȱinterchangesȱpresent.ȱMostȱinterchangesȱinvolveȱtwoȱtoȱfourȱ
determined. ramps.ȱAȱfullȱcloverleaf,ȱforȱexample,ȱhasȱfourȱramps:ȱtwoȱonȬrampsȱandȱtwoȱoffȬ
rampsȱinȱeachȱdirection.ȱAȱdiamondȱinterchangeȱhasȱtwoȱrampsȱinȱeachȱ
direction:ȱoneȱonȬrampȱandȱoneȱoffȬramp.ȱThus,ȱaȱfreewayȱwithȱtwoȱcloverleafȱ
interchangesȱfullyȱcontainedȱwithinȱ1ȱmiȱwouldȱhaveȱaȱtotalȱrampȱdensityȱofȱ8ȱ
ramps/mi.ȱAȱfreewayȱwithȱtwoȱdiamondȱinterchangesȱfullyȱcontainedȱwithinȱ1ȱ
miȱwouldȱhaveȱaȱtotalȱdensityȱofȱ4ȱramps/mi.ȱThisȱfindingȱsuggestsȱthatȱinȱanyȱ
givenȱsituationȱ(withȱcomparableȱdemandȱflows),ȱcloverleafȱinterchangesȱwillȱ
haveȱaȱgreaterȱnegativeȱimpactȱonȱFFSȱthanȱdiamondȱinterchanges.ȱ
AlthoughȱExhibitȱ11Ȭ14ȱisȱnotȱaȱstraightȱline,ȱtheȱslopeȱisȱrelativelyȱconstant.ȱ
Onȱaverage,ȱanȱincreaseȱofȱ2ȱramps/miȱinȱtotalȱrampȱdensityȱcausesȱaȱdropȱinȱFFSȱ
ofȱapproximatelyȱ5ȱmi/h.ȱAȱreductionȱinȱFFS,ȱofȱcourse,ȱimpliesȱreductionsȱinȱ
capacityȱandȱserviceȱvolumes.ȱ
Exhibitȱ11Ȭ15ȱshowsȱtheȱrelationshipȱbetweenȱspeedȱandȱv/cȱratio.ȱNotȱ
unexpectedly,ȱtheȱshapesȱofȱtheseȱcurvesȱareȱsimilarȱtoȱtheȱbasicȱspeedflowȱ
curvesȱofȱExhibitȱ11Ȭ2.ȱSpeedȱdoesȱnotȱbeginȱtoȱdeclineȱuntilȱaȱv/cȱratioȱofȱ0.42ȱtoȱ
0.80ȱisȱreached,ȱdependingȱonȱtheȱFFS.ȱȱ
Exhibit 11-15 80
Speed Versus v/c Ratio
70
Speed (mi/h)
60
50
40
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
v/c Ratio
FFS = 75 mi/h FFS = 70 mi/h FFS = 65 mi/h FFS = 60 mi/h FFS = 55 mi/h
ȱ

December 2010
3. APPLICATIONS
Theȱmethodologyȱinȱthisȱchapterȱisȱrelativelyȱstraightforward,ȱsoȱitȱcanȱbeȱ
directlyȱusedȱinȱanyȱoneȱofȱfourȱapplications:ȱ
1. Operationalȱanalysis:ȱAllȱtrafficȱandȱroadwayȱconditionsȱareȱspecifiedȱforȱanȱ
existingȱfacilityȱorȱaȱfutureȱfacilityȱwithȱforecastȱconditions.ȱTheȱexistingȱ
orȱexpectedȱLOSȱisȱdetermined.ȱ
2. Designȱanalysis:ȱAȱforecastȱdemandȱvolumeȱisȱused,ȱandȱkeyȱdesignȱ
parametersȱareȱspecifiedȱ(e.g.,ȱlaneȱwidthȱandȱlateralȱclearance).ȱTheȱ
numberȱofȱlanesȱrequiredȱtoȱdeliverȱaȱtargetȱLOSȱisȱdetermined.ȱ
3. Planningȱandȱpreliminaryȱengineering:ȱTheȱbasicȱscenarioȱisȱtheȱsameȱasȱthatȱ
forȱdesignȱanalysis,ȱexceptȱthatȱtheȱanalysisȱisȱconductedȱatȱaȱmuchȱearlierȱ
stageȱofȱtheȱdevelopmentȱprocess.ȱInputsȱincludeȱdefaultȱvalues,ȱandȱtheȱ
demandȱvolumeȱisȱusuallyȱstatedȱasȱanȱannualȱaverageȱdailyȱtrafficȱ
(AADT)ȱvalue.ȱ
4. Serviceȱflowȱratesȱandȱserviceȱvolumes:ȱTheȱserviceȱflowȱrate,ȱserviceȱvolume,ȱ
orȱdailyȱserviceȱvolume,ȱorȱallȱthree,ȱareȱestimatedȱforȱeachȱLOSȱforȱanȱ
existingȱorȱfutureȱfacility.ȱAllȱtrafficȱandȱroadwayȱconditionsȱmustȱbeȱ
specifiedȱforȱthisȱtypeȱofȱanalysis.ȱ
Becauseȱtheȱmethodologyȱandȱitsȱalgorithmsȱareȱsimpleȱandȱdoȱnotȱinvolveȱ
iterations,ȱallȱofȱtheȱtypesȱofȱanalysisȱcitedȱcanȱbeȱdoneȱwithoutȱtheȱtrialȬandȬ
errorȱapproachȱrequiredȱbyȱmanyȱotherȱHighwayȱCapacityȱManualȱ(HCM)ȱ
methodologies.ȱ
DEFAULT VALUES
Inȱusingȱthisȱchapter’sȱmethodology,ȱaȱrangeȱofȱinputȱdataȱisȱneeded.ȱMostȱofȱ
theseȱdataȱshouldȱbeȱfieldȬmeasuredȱorȱestimatedȱvaluesȱforȱtheȱspecificȱsegmentȱ
underȱconsideration.ȱWhenȱsomeȱofȱtheȱdataȱareȱnotȱavailable,ȱdefaultȱvaluesȱ
mayȱbeȱused.ȱHowever,ȱtheȱuseȱofȱdefaultȱvaluesȱwillȱaffectȱtheȱaccuracyȱofȱtheȱ
output.ȱExhibitȱ11Ȭ16ȱshowsȱtheȱdataȱthatȱareȱrequiredȱtoȱconductȱanȱoperationalȱ
analysisȱandȱtheȱrecommendedȱdefaultȱvaluesȱwhenȱsiteȬspecificȱdataȱareȱ
unavailableȱ(13).ȱ
Required Data Default Values Exhibit 11-16

Geometric Data Required Input Data and Default
Values for Basic Freeway Segments
Number of lanes in one direction No default, must have site-specific value
Lane width (ft) 12 ft
Right-side lateral clearance (ft) 10 ft
Ramp density (ramps/mi) No default, must have site-specific value
Terrain or specific grade (%, length) No default, must have site-specific value
FFS (mi/h) Urban, 70 mi/h; rural, 75 mi/h
Demand Data
Length of analysis period (min) 15 min
PHF 0.94
Proportion of heavy vehicles (%) Urban, 5%; rural, 12%*
Driver population factor 1.00
* Alternative state-specific default values for percentage of heavy vehicles are given in Chapter 26.
Chapter 11/Basic Freeway Segments Page 11-21 Applications

December 2010
TheȱanalystȱmayȱalsoȱreplaceȱtheȱdefaultȱvaluesȱofȱExhibitȱ11Ȭ16ȱwithȱdefaultsȱ
thatȱhaveȱbeenȱlocallyȱcalibrated.ȱ
ResearchȱintoȱtheȱpercentageȱofȱheavyȱvehiclesȱonȱuninterruptedȬflowȱ
facilitiesȱ(13)ȱfoundȱaȱwideȱrangeȱofȱaverageȱvaluesȱfromȱstateȱtoȱstate.ȱChapterȱ26ȱ
providesȱalternativeȱdefaultȱvaluesȱforȱpercentageȱofȱheavyȱvehiclesȱbyȱstateȱandȱ
areaȱpopulationȱonȱtheȱbasisȱofȱdataȱfromȱtheȱ2004ȱHighwayȱPerformanceȱ
MonitoringȱSystem.ȱWhereȱstatesȱorȱlocalȱjurisdictionsȱhaveȱdevelopedȱtheirȱownȱ
values,ȱtheseȱmayȱbeȱsubstituted.ȱAnalystsȱmayȱalsoȱwishȱtoȱdevelopȱtheirȱownȱ
defaultȱvaluesȱbasedȱonȱmoreȱrecentȱdata.ȱ
ESTABLISH ANALYSIS BOUNDARIES

DeterminingȱcapacityȱorȱLOSȱrequiresȱuniformȱtrafficȱandȱroadwayȱ
conditionsȱonȱtheȱanalysisȱsegment.ȱThus,ȱanyȱpointȱwhereȱroadwayȱorȱtrafficȱ
conditionsȱchangeȱmustȱmarkȱaȱboundaryȱofȱtheȱanalysisȱsegment.ȱ
Atȱeveryȱrampfreewayȱjunction,ȱtheȱdemandȱvolumeȱchangesȱ(asȱsomeȱ
vehiclesȱenterȱorȱleaveȱtheȱtrafficȱstream).ȱThus,ȱanyȱrampȱjunctionȱshouldȱmarkȱaȱ
boundaryȱbetweenȱadjacentȱbasicȱfreewayȱsegments.ȱ
Ramp junctions, grade Inȱadditionȱtoȱrampfreewayȱjunctions,ȱtheȱfollowingȱconditionsȱgenerallyȱ
changes of 2% or more,
changes in the freeway’s dictateȱthatȱaȱboundaryȱshouldȱbeȱestablishedȱbetweenȱbasicȱfreewayȱsegments:ȱ
geometric characteristics, and
changes in speed limit are x Changeȱinȱtheȱnumberȱofȱlanesȱ(crossȱsection),ȱ
places where basic freeway
segment boundaries should be x Changesȱinȱlaneȱwidthȱorȱlateralȱclearance,ȱ
established.
x Gradeȱchangeȱofȱ2%ȱorȱmoreȱonȱaȱspecificȱorȱcompositeȱgrade,ȱ
x Changeȱinȱterrainȱcategoryȱ(forȱgeneralȱterrainȱsegments),ȱorȱ
x Changeȱinȱpostedȱspeedȱlimit.ȱ
Theȱlastȱisȱnotȱdirectlyȱinvolvedȱinȱtheȱanalysisȱofȱaȱbasicȱfreewayȱsegmentȱ
butȱwouldȱprobablyȱreflectȱchangesȱinȱrampȱdensityȱorȱotherȱfreewayȱfeatures.ȱ
TYPES OF ANALYSIS
Operational Analysis
Operational analyses find the TheȱoperationalȱanalysisȱapplicationȱwasȱfullyȱspecifiedȱinȱtheȱMethodologyȱ
expected LOS for specified
roadway and traffic conditions. sectionȱofȱthisȱchapter.ȱOperationalȱanalysisȱbeginsȱwithȱallȱinputȱparametersȱ
specifiedȱandȱisȱusedȱtoȱfindȱtheȱexpectedȱLOSȱthatȱwouldȱresultȱfromȱtheȱ
prevailingȱroadwayȱandȱtrafficȱconditions.ȱ
Design Analysis
Design analyses find the Inȱdesignȱanalysis,ȱaȱknownȱdemandȱvolumeȱisȱusedȱtoȱdetermineȱtheȱ
number of lanes required for a
target LOS, given a specified numberȱofȱlanesȱneededȱtoȱdeliverȱaȱtargetȱLOS.ȱTwoȱmodificationsȱareȱrequiredȱ
demand volume. toȱtheȱoperationalȱanalysisȱmethodology.ȱFirst,ȱsinceȱtheȱnumberȱofȱlanesȱisȱtoȱbeȱ
determined,ȱtheȱdemandȱvolumeȱisȱconvertedȱtoȱaȱdemandȱflowȱrateȱinȱ
passengerȱcarsȱperȱhour,ȱnotȱperȱlane,ȱusingȱEquationȱ11Ȭ5ȱinsteadȱofȱEquationȱ
11Ȭ2:ȱ
V
Equation 11-5 v
PHF u f HV u f p
Applications Page 11-22 Chapter 11/Basic Freeway Segments

December 2010
whereȱvȱisȱtheȱdemandȱflowȱrateȱinȱpassengerȱcarsȱperȱhourȱandȱallȱotherȱ
variablesȱareȱasȱpreviouslyȱdefined.ȱ
Second,ȱaȱmaximumȱserviceȱflowȱrateȱforȱtheȱtargetȱLOSȱisȱthenȱselectedȱfromȱ
Exhibitȱ11Ȭ17.ȱTheseȱvaluesȱareȱselectedȱfromȱtheȱbaseȱspeedflowȱcurvesȱofȱ
Exhibitȱ11Ȭ6ȱforȱeachȱLOS.ȱȱ
FFS Target Level of Service Exhibit 11-17

(mi/h) A B C D E Maximum Service Flow Rates in
75 820 1,310 1,750 2,110 2,400 Passenger Cars per Hour per Lane
70 770 1,250 1,690 2,080 2,400 for Basic Freeway Segments Under
65 710 1,170 1,630 2,030 2,350 Base Conditions
60 660 1,080 1,560 2,010 2,300
55 600 990 1,430 1,900 2,250
Note: All values rounded to the nearest 10 pc/h/ln.
NextȱtheȱnumberȱofȱlanesȱrequiredȱtoȱdeliverȱtheȱtargetȱLOSȱcanȱbeȱfoundȱ
fromȱEquationȱ11Ȭ6:ȱ
v
N Equation 11-6
MSFi
whereȱNȱisȱtheȱnumberȱofȱlanesȱrequiredȱandȱMSFiȱisȱtheȱmaximumȱserviceȱflowȱ
rateȱforȱLOSȱiȱfromȱExhibitȱ11Ȭ17.ȱEquationȱ11Ȭ5ȱandȱEquationȱ11Ȭ6ȱcanȱbeȱ
convenientlyȱcombinedȱasȱEquationȱ11Ȭ7:ȱȱ
V
N Equation 11-7
MSFi u PHF u f HV u f p
whereȱallȱvariablesȱareȱasȱpreviouslyȱdefined.ȱ
TheȱvalueȱofȱNȱresultingȱfromȱEquationȱ11Ȭ6ȱorȱEquationȱ11Ȭ7ȱwillȱmostȱlikelyȱ All fractional values of N must be
rounded up.
beȱfractional.ȱSinceȱonlyȱintegerȱnumbersȱofȱlanesȱcanȱbeȱconstructed,ȱtheȱresultȱisȱ
alwaysȱroundedȱtoȱtheȱnextȬhigherȱvalue.ȱThus,ȱifȱtheȱresultȱisȱ3.2ȱlanes,ȱ4ȱmustȱ
beȱprovided.ȱTheȱ3.2ȱlanesȱis,ȱinȱeffect,ȱtheȱminimumȱnumberȱofȱlanesȱneededȱtoȱ
provideȱtheȱtargetȱLOS.ȱIfȱtheȱresultȱwereȱroundedȱtoȱ3,ȱaȱpoorerȱLOSȱthanȱtheȱ
targetȱvalueȱwouldȱresult.ȱȱ
ThisȱroundingȬupȱprocessȱwillȱoccasionallyȱproduceȱanȱinterestingȱresult:ȱitȱisȱ Because only whole lanes can be
built, it may not be possible to
possibleȱthatȱaȱtargetȱLOSȱ(forȱexample,ȱLOSȱC)ȱcannotȱbeȱachievedȱforȱaȱgivenȱ achieve the target LOS for a given
demandȱvolume.ȱIfȱ2.1ȱlanesȱareȱrequiredȱtoȱproduceȱLOSȱC,ȱprovidingȱ2ȱlanesȱ demand volume.
wouldȱdropȱtheȱLOS,ȱmostȱlikelyȱtoȱD.ȱHowever,ȱifȱthreeȱlanesȱareȱprovided,ȱtheȱ
LOSȱmightȱactuallyȱimproveȱtoȱB.ȱThus,ȱsomeȱjudgmentȱmayȱbeȱrequiredȱtoȱ
interpretȱtheȱresults.ȱInȱthisȱcase,ȱtwoȱlanesȱmightȱbeȱprovidedȱevenȱthoughȱtheyȱ
wouldȱresultȱinȱaȱborderlineȱLOSȱD.ȱEconomicȱconsiderationsȱmightȱleadȱaȱ
decisionȱmakerȱtoȱacceptȱaȱslightlyȱlowerȱoperatingȱconditionȱthanȱthatȱoriginallyȱ
targeted.ȱ
Planning and Preliminary Engineering

Theȱobjectiveȱofȱplanningȱorȱpreliminaryȱengineeringȱisȱtoȱgetȱaȱgeneralȱideaȱ Planning and preliminary engineering
applications also find the number of
ofȱtheȱnumberȱofȱlanesȱthatȱwillȱbeȱrequiredȱtoȱdeliverȱaȱtargetȱLOS.ȱTheȱprimaryȱ lanes required to deliver a target LOS
differencesȱareȱthatȱmanyȱdefaultȱvaluesȱwillȱbeȱusedȱandȱtheȱdemandȱvolumeȱ but provide more generalized input
values to the methodology.
willȱbeȱusuallyȱexpressedȱasȱanȱAADT.ȱThus,ȱaȱplanningȱandȱpreliminaryȱ
engineeringȱanalysisȱstartsȱbyȱconvertingȱtheȱdemandȱexpressedȱasȱanȱAADTȱtoȱ

December 2010
anȱestimateȱofȱtheȱdirectionalȱpeakȬhourȱdemandȱvolumeȱ(DDHV)ȱwithȱEquationȱ
11Ȭ8:ȱȱ
Equation 11-8 V DDHV AADT u K u D
whereȱKȱisȱtheȱproportionȱofȱAADTȱoccurringȱduringȱtheȱpeakȱhourȱandȱDȱisȱtheȱ
proportionȱofȱpeakȬhourȱvolumeȱtravelingȱinȱtheȱpeakȱdirection;ȱallȱotherȱ
variablesȱareȱasȱpreviouslyȱdefined.ȱ
Chapter 3 provides additional Onȱurbanȱfreeways,ȱtheȱtypicalȱrangeȱofȱKȬfactorsȱisȱfromȱ0.08ȱtoȱ0.10.ȱOnȱ
guidance on K- and D-factors.
ruralȱfreeways,ȱvaluesȱtypicallyȱrangeȱbetweenȱ0.09ȱandȱ0.13.ȱDirectionalȱ
distributionsȱalsoȱvary,ȱasȱwasȱillustratedȱinȱChapterȱ3,ȱModalȱCharacteristics,ȱ
butȱaȱtypicalȱvalueȱforȱbothȱurbanȱandȱruralȱfreewaysȱisȱ0.55.ȱAsȱwithȱallȱdefaultȱ
values,ȱlocallyȱorȱregionallyȱcalibratedȱvaluesȱareȱpreferredȱandȱyieldȱmoreȱ
accurateȱresults.ȱBothȱtheȱKȬfactorȱandȱtheȱDȬfactorȱhaveȱaȱsignificantȱimpactȱonȱ
theȱestimatedȱhourlyȱdemandȱvolume.ȱ
Onceȱtheȱhourlyȱdemandȱvolumeȱisȱestimated,ȱtheȱmethodologyȱfollowsȱtheȱ
sameȱpathȱasȱthatȱforȱdesignȱanalysis.ȱȱ
Service Flow Rates, Service Volumes, and Daily Service Volumes

Thisȱchapter’sȱmethodologyȱcanȱbeȱeasilyȱmanipulatedȱtoȱproduceȱserviceȱ
flowȱrates,ȱserviceȱvolumes,ȱandȱdailyȱserviceȱvolumesȱforȱaȱbasicȱfreewayȱ
segment.ȱ
Exhibitȱ11Ȭ17ȱgaveȱvaluesȱofȱtheȱmaximumȱserviceȱflowȱrates,ȱMSFi,ȱforȱeachȱ
LOSȱforȱfreewaysȱofȱvariousȱFFSs.ȱTheseȱvaluesȱareȱgivenȱinȱtermsȱofȱpassengerȱ
carsȱperȱhourȱperȱlaneȱunderȱequivalentȱbaseȱconditions.ȱAȱserviceȱflowȱrate,ȱSFi,ȱ
isȱtheȱmaximumȱrateȱofȱflowȱthatȱcanȱexistȱwhileȱLOSȱiȱisȱmaintainedȱduringȱtheȱ
15Ȭminȱanalysisȱperiodȱunderȱprevailingȱconditions.ȱItȱcanȱbeȱcomputedȱfromȱtheȱ
maximumȱserviceȱflowȱrateȱbyȱusingȱEquationȱ11Ȭ9:ȱ
Equation 11-9 SFi MSFi u N u f HV u f p
Aȱserviceȱflowȱrateȱcanȱbeȱconvertedȱtoȱaȱserviceȱvolume,ȱSVi,ȱbyȱapplyingȱaȱ
PHF,ȱasȱshownȱinȱEquationȱ11Ȭ10.ȱAȱserviceȱvolumeȱisȱtheȱmaximumȱhourlyȱ
volumeȱthatȱcanȱexistȱwhileȱLOSȱiȱisȱmaintainedȱduringȱtheȱworstȱ15Ȭminȱperiodȱ
ofȱtheȱanalysisȱhour.ȱ
Equation 11-10 SV i SFi u PHF
Aȱdailyȱserviceȱvolume,ȱDSVi,ȱisȱtheȱmaximumȱAADTȱthatȱcanȱbeȱ
accommodatedȱbyȱtheȱfacilityȱunderȱprevailingȱconditionsȱwhileȱLOSȱiȱisȱ
maintainedȱduringȱtheȱworstȱ15Ȭminȱperiodȱofȱtheȱanalysisȱday.ȱItȱisȱestimatedȱ
fromȱEquationȱ11Ȭ11:ȱ
SV i
Equation 11-11 DSV i
KuD

December 2010
ServiceȱflowȱratesȱSFȱandȱserviceȱvolumesȱSVȱareȱstatedȱforȱaȱsingleȱdirectionȱ
ofȱtheȱfreeway.ȱDailyȱserviceȱvolumesȱDSVȱareȱstatedȱasȱtotalȱvolumesȱinȱbothȱ
directionsȱofȱtheȱfreeway.ȱ
USE OF ALTERNATIVE TOOLS

Generalȱguidanceȱforȱtheȱuseȱofȱalternativeȱtrafficȱanalysisȱtoolsȱforȱcapacityȱ
andȱLOSȱanalysisȱisȱprovidedȱinȱChapterȱ6,ȱHCMȱandȱAlternativeȱAnalysisȱTools.ȱ
Thisȱsectionȱcontainsȱspecificȱguidanceȱforȱtheȱapplicationȱofȱalternativeȱtoolsȱtoȱ
theȱanalysisȱofȱbasicȱfreewayȱsegments.ȱAdditionalȱinformationȱonȱthisȱtopicȱmayȱ
beȱfoundȱinȱChapterȱ26,ȱBasicȱFreewayȱSegments:ȱSupplemental.ȱ
Strengths of HCM Procedure

Thisȱchapter’sȱproceduresȱwereȱdevelopedȱonȱtheȱbasisȱofȱextensiveȱresearchȱ The HCM methodology provides FFS
as an output, incorporates geometric
supportedȱbyȱaȱsignificantȱquantityȱofȱfieldȱdata.ȱTheyȱhaveȱevolvedȱoverȱaȱ characteristics, provides explicit
numberȱofȱyearsȱandȱrepresentȱaȱbodyȱofȱexpertȱconsensus.ȱ capacity estimates, and produces a
single deterministic estimate of traffic
SpecificȱstrengthsȱofȱtheȱHCMȱbasicȱfreewayȱsegmentȱmethodologyȱincludeȱ density.
theȱfollowing:ȱ
x ItȱprovidesȱaȱdetailedȱmethodologyȱforȱobtainingȱFFS.ȱThisȱmethodologyȱ
isȱbasedȱonȱvariousȱgeometricȱcharacteristics.ȱInȱsimulationȱpackagesȱFFSȱ
(orȱanȱequivalent,ȱsuchȱasȱdesiredȱspeed)ȱisȱanȱinput.ȱȱ
x Itȱconsidersȱgeometricȱcharacteristicsȱ(suchȱasȱlaneȱwidths),ȱwhichȱareȱ
rarely,ȱifȱever,ȱincorporatedȱintoȱsimulationȱalgorithms.ȱȱ
x Itȱprovidesȱexplicitȱcapacityȱestimates.ȱSimulationȱpackagesȱdoȱnotȱ
provideȱcapacityȱestimatesȱdirectly.ȱCapacityȱestimatesȱcanȱonlyȱbeȱ
obtainedȱfromȱsimulatorsȱthroughȱmultipleȱrunsȱwithȱoversaturatedȱ
conditions.ȱTheȱuserȱcanȱmodifyȱsimulatedȱcapacitiesȱbyȱmodifyingȱ
specificȱinputȱvaluesȱsuchȱasȱtheȱminimumȱacceptableȱheadway.ȱȱ
x Itȱproducesȱaȱsingleȱdeterministicȱestimateȱofȱtrafficȱdensity,ȱwhichȱisȱ
importantȱforȱsomeȱpurposesȱsuchȱasȱdevelopmentȱimpactȱreview.ȱ
Limitations of HCM Procedures That Might Be Addressed by Alternative

Tools
Basicȱfreewayȱsegmentsȱcanȱbeȱanalyzedȱbyȱusingȱaȱvarietyȱofȱstochasticȱandȱ Deterministic models yield the same
results for the same inputs each time
deterministicȱsimulationȱpackagesȱthatȱincludeȱfreeways.ȱTheseȱpackagesȱcanȱbeȱ they are implemented; stochastic
veryȱusefulȱinȱanalyzingȱtheȱextentȱofȱcongestionȱwhenȱthereȱareȱfailuresȱwithinȱ models incorporate statistical
variability. The same inputs yield
theȱsimulatedȱfacilityȱrangeȱandȱwhenȱinteractionȱwithȱotherȱfreewayȱsegmentsȱ different results in each use. For such
andȱotherȱfacilitiesȱisȱpresent.ȱȱ models, an average result of X
usages is employed as output.
Exhibitȱ11Ȭ18ȱtabulatesȱtheȱHCMȱlimitationsȱforȱbasicȱfreewayȱsegmentsȱ
alongȱwithȱtheȱpotentialȱforȱimprovedȱtreatmentȱbyȱalternativeȱtools.ȱ
Additional Features and Performance Measures Available from

Alternative Tools
Thisȱchapterȱprovidesȱaȱmethodologyȱforȱestimatingȱtheȱcapacity,ȱspeed,ȱandȱ
densityȱofȱaȱbasicȱfreewayȱsegment,ȱgivenȱtheȱsegment’sȱtrafficȱdemandȱandȱ
characteristics.ȱAlternativeȱtoolsȱofferȱadditionalȱperformanceȱmeasures,ȱ

December 2010
includingȱdelay,ȱstops,ȱqueueȱlengths,ȱfuelȱconsumption,ȱpollution,ȱandȱ
operatingȱcosts.ȱ
Exhibit 11-18 Potential for Improved Treatment by

Limitations of HCM Basic Limitation Alternative Tools
Freeway Segments
Special lanes reserved for a single vehicle type,
Procedure Modeled explicitly by simulation
such as HOV, truck, and climbing lanes
Can be approximated by using assumptions
Extended bridge and tunnel segments related to desired speed and number of lanes
along each segment
Can be approximated by using assumptions
Segments near a toll plaza
related to discharge at toll plaza
Facilities with FFS less than 55 mi/h or more
Modeled explicitly by simulation
than 75 mi/h
Oversaturated conditions (refer to Chapters 10
and 26 for further discussion)
Influence of downstream blockages or queuing
on a segment
Posted speed limit and extent of police Can be approximated by using assumptions
enforcement related to desired speed along a given segment
Several features modeled explicitly by
Presence of ITS features related to vehicle or simulation; others may be approximated by
driver guidance using assumptions (for example, by modifying
origindestination demands by time interval)
AsȱwithȱmostȱotherȱproceduralȱchaptersȱinȱtheȱHCM,ȱsimulationȱoutputs,ȱ
especiallyȱgraphicsȬbasedȱpresentations,ȱcanȱprovideȱdetailsȱonȱpointȱproblemsȱ
thatȱmightȱotherwiseȱgoȱunnoticedȱwithȱaȱmacroscopicȱanalysisȱthatȱyieldsȱonlyȱ
segmentȬlevelȱmeasures.ȱTheȱeffectȱofȱdownstreamȱconditionsȱonȱlaneȱutilizationȱ
andȱbackupȱbeyondȱtheȱsegmentȱboundaryȱisȱaȱgoodȱexampleȱofȱaȱsituationȱthatȱ
canȱbenefitȱfromȱtheȱincreasedȱinsightȱofferedȱbyȱaȱmicroscopicȱmodel.ȱȱ
Development of HCM-Compatible Performance Measures Using

Alternative Tools
TheȱLOSȱforȱbasicȱfreewayȱsegmentsȱisȱbasedȱonȱtrafficȱdensityȱexpressedȱinȱ
passengerȱcarsȱperȱmileȱperȱlane.ȱTheȱHCMȱmethodologyȱestimatesȱdensityȱbyȱ
dividingȱtheȱflowȱrateȱbyȱtheȱaverageȱpassengerȬcarȱspeed.ȱSimulationȱmodelsȱ
typicallyȱestimateȱdensityȱbyȱdividingȱtheȱaverageȱnumberȱofȱvehiclesȱinȱtheȱ
segmentȱbyȱtheȱareaȱofȱtheȱsegmentȱ(inȱlaneȱmiles).ȱTheȱresultȱisȱvehiclesȱperȱlaneȱ
mile.ȱ̖hisȱmeasurementȱcorrespondsȱtoȱdensityȱbasedȱonȱspaceȱmeanȱspeed.ȱTheȱ
HCMȬreportedȱdensityȱisȱalsoȱbasedȱonȱspaceȱmeanȱspeed,ȱbutȱbecauseȱthereȱisȱ
noȱvariabilityȱinȱtheȱspeeds,ȱtheȱspaceȱmeanȱspeedȱisȱequalȱtoȱtheȱtimeȱmeanȱ
speed.ȱGenerally,ȱincreasedȱspeedȱvariabilityȱinȱdriverȱbehaviorȱ(whichȱ
simulatorsȱusuallyȱinclude)ȱresultsȱinȱlowerȱaverageȱspaceȱmeanȱspeedȱandȱ
higherȱdensity.ȱȱ
Inȱobtainingȱdensityȱfromȱalternativeȱmodels,ȱitȱisȱimportantȱtoȱtakeȱintoȱ
accountȱtheȱfollowing:ȱȱ
x Theȱvehiclesȱincludedȱinȱtheȱdensityȱestimationȱ(forȱexample,ȱwhetherȱ
onlyȱtheȱvehiclesȱthatȱhaveȱexitedȱtheȱlinkȱareȱconsidered);ȱȱ
x Theȱmannerȱinȱwhichȱauxiliaryȱlanesȱareȱconsidered;ȱȱ

December 2010
x Theȱunitsȱusedȱforȱdensity,ȱsinceȱaȱsimulationȱpackageȱwouldȱtypicallyȱ
provideȱdensityȱinȱunitsȱofȱvehiclesȱratherȱthanȱpassengerȱcars;ȱconvertingȱ
theȱsimulationȱoutputsȱtoȱpassengerȱcarsȱwithȱtheȱHCMȱPCEȱvaluesȱisȱ
typicallyȱnotȱappropriate,ȱgivenȱthatȱtheȱsimulationȱshouldȱalreadyȱ
accountȱforȱtheȱeffectsȱofȱheavyȱvehiclesȱonȱaȱmicroscopicȱbasiswithȱ
heavyȱvehiclesȱoperatingȱatȱlowerȱspeedsȱandȱatȱlongerȱheadwaysthusȱ
makingȱanyȱadditionalȱadjustmentsȱduplicative;ȱȱ
x Theȱunitsȱusedȱinȱtheȱreportingȱofȱdensityȱ(e.g.,ȱwhetherȱitȱisȱreportedȱperȱ
laneȱmile);ȱ
x Theȱhomogeneityȱofȱtheȱanalysisȱsegment,ȱsinceȱtheȱHCMȱdoesȱnotȱuseȱtheȱ
segmentȱlengthȱasȱanȱinputȱ(unlessȱitȱisȱaȱspecificȱupgradeȱorȱdowngradeȱ
segment,ȱwhereȱtheȱlengthȱisȱusedȱtoȱestimateȱtheȱPCEȱvalues),ȱandȱ
conditionsȱareȱassumedȱtoȱbeȱhomogeneousȱforȱtheȱentireȱsegment;ȱandȱ
x Theȱdriverȱvariabilityȱassumedȱinȱtheȱsimulationȱpackage,ȱsinceȱincreasedȱ
driverȱvariabilityȱwillȱgenerallyȱincreaseȱtheȱaverageȱdensity.ȱȱ
Regardingȱcapacity,ȱtheȱHCMȱprovidesȱcapacityȱestimatesȱinȱpassengerȱcarsȱ
perȱhourȱperȱlaneȱasȱaȱfunctionȱofȱFFS.ȱToȱcompareȱtheȱHCM’sȱestimatesȱwithȱ
capacityȱestimatesȱfromȱaȱsimulationȱpackage,ȱtheȱfollowingȱshouldȱbeȱ
considered:ȱ
x Theȱmannerȱinȱwhichȱaȱsimulationȱpackageȱprovidesȱtheȱnumberȱofȱ
vehiclesȱexitingȱaȱsegment;ȱinȱsomeȱcasesȱitȱmayȱbeȱnecessaryȱtoȱprovideȱ
virtualȱdetectorsȱatȱaȱspecificȱpointȱonȱtheȱsimulatedȱsegmentȱsoȱthatȱtheȱ
maximumȱthroughputȱcanȱbeȱobtained;ȱȱ
x Theȱunitsȱusedȱtoȱspecifyȱmaximumȱthroughput,ȱsinceȱaȱsimulationȱ
packageȱwouldȱdoȱthisȱinȱunitsȱofȱvehiclesȱratherȱthanȱpassengerȱcars;ȱ
convertingȱtheseȱtoȱpassengerȱcarsȱbyȱusingȱtheȱHCMȱPCEȱvaluesȱisȱ
typicallyȱnotȱappropriate,ȱsinceȱdifferencesȱbetweenȱautomobileȱandȱ
heavyȬvehicleȱperformanceȱshouldȱalreadyȱbeȱaccountedȱforȱ
microscopicallyȱwithinȱaȱsimulation;ȱandȱ
x Theȱincorporationȱofȱotherȱsimulationȱinputs,ȱsuchȱasȱtheȱ“minimumȱ
separationȱofȱvehicles,”ȱthatȱaffectȱtheȱcapacityȱresult.ȱȱ
Conceptual Differences Between HCM and Simulation Modeling That

Preclude Direct Comparison of Results
TheȱHCM’sȱmethodologyȱisȱbasedȱonȱtheȱrelationshipȱbetweenȱspeedȱandȱ
flowȱforȱvariousȱvaluesȱofȱFFS.ȱOneȱfundamentalȱpotentialȱdifferenceȱbetweenȱ
theȱHCMȱandȱotherȱmodelsȱisȱthisȱrelationship.ȱForȱexample,ȱtheȱHCMȱassumesȱaȱ
constantȱspeedȱforȱaȱbroadȱrangeȱofȱflows.ȱHowever,ȱthisȱisȱnotȱnecessarilyȱtheȱ
caseȱforȱanyȱgivenȱsimulationȱpackage,ȱsomeȱofȱwhichȱassumeȱaȱcontinuouslyȱ
decreasingȱspeedȱwithȱincreasingȱflow.ȱFurthermore,ȱinȱsomeȱsimulationȱ
packages,ȱthatȱrelationshipȱchangesȱwhenȱcertainȱparametersȱareȱmodified.ȱ
Therefore,ȱifȱperformanceȱmeasuresȱareȱcompatibleȱbetweenȱtheȱHCMȱandȱanȱ
alternativeȱmodelȱforȱaȱgivenȱsetȱofȱflows,ȱthisȱwillȱnotȱnecessarilyȱbeȱtheȱcaseȱforȱ
allȱotherȱsetsȱofȱflows.ȱȱ

December 2010
Adjustment of Simulation Parameters to HCM Results

Theȱmostȱimportantȱelementsȱtoȱbeȱadjustedȱwhenȱaȱbasicȱfreewayȱsegmentȱisȱ
analyzedȱareȱtheȱspeedflowȱrelationshipȱorȱtheȱcapacity,ȱorȱboth.ȱTheȱ
speedflowȱrelationshipȱshouldȱbeȱexaminedȱasȱaȱfunctionȱofȱtheȱgivenȱFFS.ȱThatȱ
FFSȱshouldȱmatchȱtheȱfieldȬȱorȱHCMȬestimatedȱvalue.ȱSomeȱtoolsȱonlyȱacceptȱ
integerȱvaluesȱofȱFFS,ȱwhereasȱtheȱHCMȱmayȱprovideȱaȱfractionalȱvalueȱasȱanȱ
intermediateȱcalculationȱresult.ȱȱ
Step-by-Step Recommendations for Applying Alternative Tools

Thisȱsectionȱprovidesȱrecommendationsȱspecificallyȱforȱfreewayȱsegmentsȱ
(generalȱguidanceȱonȱselectingȱandȱapplyingȱsimulationȱpackagesȱisȱprovidedȱinȱ
Chapterȱ6,ȱHCMȱandȱAlternativeȱAnalysisȱTools).ȱToȱapplyȱanȱalternativeȱtoolȱtoȱ
theȱanalysisȱofȱbasicȱfreewayȱsegments,ȱtheȱfollowingȱstepsȱshouldȱbeȱtaken:ȱ
1. Determineȱwhetherȱtheȱchosenȱtoolȱcanȱprovideȱdensityȱandȱcapacityȱforȱaȱ
basicȱfreewayȱsegmentȱandȱtheȱapproachȱusedȱtoȱobtainȱthoseȱvalues.ȱ
Onceȱtheȱanalystȱisȱsatisfiedȱthatȱdensityȱandȱcapacityȱcanȱbeȱobtainedȱandȱ
thatȱvaluesȱcompatibleȱwithȱthoseȱofȱtheȱHCMȱcanȱalsoȱbeȱobtained,ȱ
proceedȱwithȱtheȱanalysis.ȱȱ
2. DetermineȱtheȱFFSȱofȱtheȱstudyȱsite,ȱeitherȱfromȱfieldȱdataȱorȱbyȱ
estimatingȱitȱaccordingȱtoȱthisȱchapter’sȱmethodology.ȱ
3. Enterȱallȱavailableȱgeometricȱandȱtrafficȱcharacteristicsȱintoȱtheȱsimulationȱ
packageȱandȱinstallȱvirtualȱdetectorsȱalongȱtheȱstudyȱsegment,ȱifȱ
necessary,ȱtoȱobtainȱspeedsȱandȱflows.ȱȱ
4. Byȱloadingȱtheȱstudyȱnetworkȱoverȱcapacity,ȱobtainȱtheȱmaximumȱ
throughputȱandȱcompareȱitȱwithȱtheȱHCMȱestimate.ȱCalibrateȱtheȱ
simulationȱpackageȱbyȱmodifyingȱparametersȱrelatedȱtoȱtheȱminimumȱ
timeȱheadway,ȱsoȱthatȱtheȱcapacityȱobtainedȱbyȱtheȱsimulatorȱcloselyȱ
matchesȱtheȱHCMȱestimate.ȱEstimateȱtheȱrequiredȱnumberȱofȱrunsȱtoȱbeȱ
conductedȱsoȱthatȱtheȱcomparisonȱisȱstatisticallyȱvalid.ȱȱ
5. Ifȱtheȱanalysisȱrequiresȱevaluatingȱvariousȱdifferentȱdemandȱconditionsȱ
forȱtheȱsegment,ȱplotȱtheȱsimulator’sȱspeedflowȱcurveȱandȱcompareȱitȱ
withȱtheȱHCMȱrelationship.ȱAttemptȱtoȱcalibrateȱtheȱsimulationȱpackageȱ
byȱmodifyingȱparametersȱrelatedȱtoȱdriverȱbehavior,ȱsuchȱasȱtheȱ
distributionȱofȱdriverȱtypes.ȱItȱisȱpossibleȱthatȱtheȱsimulationȱcannotȱbeȱ
calibratedȱtoȱmatchȱtheȱHCMȱspeedflowȱrelationship.ȱInȱthatȱcase,ȱtheȱ
resultsȱshouldȱbeȱviewedȱwithȱcautionȱinȱtermsȱofȱtheirȱcompatibilityȱwithȱ
theȱHCMȱmethods.ȱȱ
Sample Calculations Illustrating Alternative Tool Applications

Chapterȱ26,ȱinȱVolumeȱ4ȱofȱtheȱHCM,ȱprovidesȱtwoȱsupplementalȱproblemsȱ
thatȱexamineȱsituationsȱbeyondȱtheȱscopeȱofȱthisȱchapter’sȱmethodologyȱbyȱusingȱ
aȱtypicalȱmicrosimulationȬbasedȱtool.ȱBothȱproblemsȱareȱbasedȱonȱExampleȱ
Problemȱ3ȱ(foundȱinȱtheȱnextȱsectionȱofȱthisȱchapter),ȱwhichȱanalyzesȱaȱsixȬlaneȱ
freewayȱsegmentȱinȱaȱgrowingȱurbanȱarea.ȱTheȱfirstȱsupplementalȱproblemȱ
evaluatesȱtheȱfacilityȱwhenȱanȱHOVȱlaneȱisȱadded,ȱandȱtheȱsecondȱproblemȱ
analyzesȱoperationsȱwithȱanȱincidentȱwithinȱtheȱsegment.ȱȱ

December 2010
4. EXAMPLE PROBLEMS
Example Exhibit 11-19

Problem Description Application List of Example Problems
1 Four-lane freeway LOS Operational analysis
2 Number of lanes required for target LOS Design analysis
3 Six-lane freeway LOS and capacity Operational and planning analysis
4 LOS on upgrades and downgrades Operational analysis
5 Design-hour volume and number of lanes Planning analysis
6 Service flow rates and service volumes Planning analysis
ȱ
EXAMPLE PROBLEM 1: FOUR-LANE FREEWAY LOS
The Facts
x FourȬlaneȱfreewayȱ(twoȱlanesȱinȱeachȱdirection);ȱ
x Laneȱwidthȱ=ȱ11ȱft;ȱ
x RightȬsideȱlateralȱclearanceȱ=ȱ2ȱft;ȱ
x Commuterȱtrafficȱ(regularȱusers);ȱ
x PeakȬhour,ȱpeakȬdirectionȱdemandȱvolumeȱ=ȱ2,000ȱveh/h;ȱ
x Trafficȱcomposition:ȱ5%ȱtrucks,ȱ0%ȱRVs;ȱ
x PHFȱ=ȱ0.92;ȱ
x Oneȱcloverleafȱinterchangeȱperȱmile;ȱandȱ
x Rollingȱterrain.ȱ
Comments
TheȱtaskȱisȱtoȱfindȱtheȱexpectedȱLOSȱforȱthisȱfreewayȱduringȱtheȱworstȱ15ȱminȱ
ofȱtheȱpeakȱhour.ȱWithȱoneȱcloverleafȱinterchangeȱperȱmile,ȱtheȱtotalȱrampȱ
densityȱwillȱbeȱ4ȱramps/mi.ȱ
Step 1: Input Data

Allȱinputȱdataȱareȱspecifiedȱabove.ȱ
Step 2: Compute FFS

TheȱFFSȱofȱtheȱfreewayȱisȱestimatedȱasȱfollows:ȱ
FFS 75.4 f LW f LC 3.22 TRD 0.84
TheȱadjustmentȱforȱlaneȱwidthȱisȱselectedȱfromȱExhibitȱ11Ȭ8ȱforȱ11Ȭftȱlanesȱ(1.9ȱ
mi/h).ȱTheȱadjustmentȱforȱrightȬsideȱlateralȱclearanceȱisȱselectedȱfromȱExhibitȱ11Ȭ9ȱ
forȱaȱ2Ȭftȱclearanceȱonȱaȱfreewayȱwithȱtwoȱlanesȱinȱoneȱdirectionȱ(2.4ȱmi/h).ȱTheȱ
totalȱrampȱdensityȱisȱ4ȱramps/mi.ȱThenȱ
FFS 75.4 1.9 2.4 3.22 4 0.84 60.8 mi/h

AsȱtheȱFFSȱcalculatedȱinȱStepȱ2ȱisȱgreaterȱthanȱorȱequalȱtoȱ57.5ȱandȱlessȱthanȱ
62.5ȱmi/h,ȱtheȱ60Ȭmi/hȱspeedflowȱcurveȱwillȱbeȱusedȱforȱthisȱanalysis.ȱ
Chapter 11/Basic Freeway Segments Page 11-29 Example Problems

December 2010

Theȱdemandȱvolumeȱmustȱbeȱadjustedȱtoȱaȱflowȱrateȱthatȱreflectsȱpassengerȱ
carsȱperȱhourȱperȱlaneȱunderȱequivalentȱbaseȱconditionsȱbyȱusingȱEquationȱ11Ȭ2:ȱ
V
vp
Theȱdemandȱvolumeȱisȱgivenȱasȱ2,000ȱveh/h.ȱTheȱPHFȱisȱspecifiedȱtoȱbeȱ0.92,ȱ
andȱthereȱareȱtwoȱlanesȱinȱeachȱdirection.ȱTheȱdriverȱpopulationȱfactorȱisȱ1.00,ȱ
sinceȱregularȱusersȱ(commuters)ȱareȱalsoȱspecified.ȱTrucksȱmakeȱupȱ5%ȱofȱtheȱ
trafficȱstream,ȱsoȱaȱheavyȬvehicleȱadjustmentȱfactorȱmustȱbeȱdetermined.ȱ
FromȱExhibitȱ11Ȭ10,ȱtheȱPCEȱforȱtrucksȱisȱ2.5ȱforȱrollingȱterrain.ȱTheȱheavyȬ
vehicleȱadjustmentȱfactorȱisȱthenȱcomputedȱbyȱusingȱEquationȱ11Ȭ3:ȱ
1
f HV
1 PT ET 1 PR ER 1
1
f HV 0.930
1 0.05 2.5 1 0
Thenȱ
2 ,000
vp 1,169 ȱpc/h/ln
0.92 u 2 u 0.93 u 1.00
ȱ
Sinceȱȱthisȱvalueȱisȱlessȱthanȱtheȱbaseȱcapacityȱofȱ2,300ȱpc/h/lnȱforȱaȱfreewayȱwithȱ
FFSȱ=ȱ60ȱmi/h,ȱLOSȱFȱdoesȱnotȱexist,ȱandȱtheȱanalysisȱcontinuesȱtoȱStepȱ5.ȱ

TheȱFFSȱofȱtheȱbasicȱfreewayȱsegmentȱisȱnowȱestimatedȱalongȱwithȱtheȱ
demandȱflowȱrateȱinȱpassengerȱcarsȱperȱhourȱperȱlaneȱunderȱequivalentȱbaseȱ
conditions.ȱFromȱExhibitȱ11Ȭ3,ȱtheȱequationȱforȱestimatingȱtheȱspeedȱofȱtheȱtrafficȱ
streamȱisȱselectedȱforȱaȱ60Ȭmi/hȱFFS,ȱwithȱaȱflowȱrateȱlessȱthanȱ1,600ȱpc/h/ln.ȱThisȱ
isȱtheȱconstantȬspeedȱportionȱofȱtheȱcurve,ȱsoȱSȱ=ȱ60ȱmi/h.ȱTheȱdensityȱofȱtheȱ
trafficȱstreamȱmayȱnowȱbeȱcomputedȱasȱ
vp 1,169
D 19.5 pc/mi/ln
S 60

FromȱExhibitȱ11Ȭ5,ȱaȱdensityȱofȱ19.5ȱpc/mi/lnȱcorrespondsȱtoȱLOSȱCȱbutȱisȱ
closeȱtoȱtheȱboundaryȱforȱLOSȱB,ȱwhichȱisȱaȱmaximumȱofȱ18ȱpc/mi/ln.ȱThisȱ
solutionȱcouldȱalsoȱbeȱcalculatedȱgraphicallyȱbyȱusingȱExhibitȱ11Ȭ6ȱasȱaȱbaseȱ
(Exhibitȱ11Ȭ20).ȱ
Example Problems Page 11-30 Chapter 11/Basic Freeway Segments

December 2010
80 Exhibit 11-20
75 mi/h free-flow speed Graphical Solution for Example
70 mi/h Problem 1
70
65 mi/h
60 mi/h
60
55 mi/h
50
Speed (mi/h)
LOS A LOS B LOS C LOS D LOS E

40
30
LOS F
20
10
0
0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500
Flow Rate (pc/h/ln) ȱ
Discussion
ThisȱbasicȱfreewayȱsegmentȱofȱaȱfourȬlaneȱfreewayȱisȱexpectedȱtoȱoperateȱatȱ
LOSȱCȱduringȱtheȱworstȱ15ȱminȱofȱtheȱpeakȱhour.ȱItȱisȱimportantȱtoȱnoteȱthatȱtheȱ
operation,ȱalthoughȱatȱLOSȱC,ȱisȱcloseȱtoȱtheȱLOSȱBȱboundary.ȱInȱmostȱ
jurisdictions,ȱthisȱoperationȱwouldȱbeȱconsideredȱtoȱbeȱquiteȱacceptable;ȱ
therefore,ȱnoȱremediationȱwouldȱnormallyȱbeȱrequired.ȱ
EXAMPLE PROBLEM 2: NUMBER OF LANES REQUIRED FOR TARGET LOS
The Facts
x Demandȱvolumeȱ=ȱ4,000ȱveh/hȱ(oneȱdirection);ȱ
x Levelȱterrain;ȱ
x Provisionȱofȱ12Ȭftȱlanes;ȱ
x Provisionȱofȱ6ȬftȱrightȬsideȱlateralȱclearance;ȱȱ
x Commuterȱtrafficȱ(regularȱusers);ȱ
x PHFȱ=ȱ0.85;ȱ
x Rampȱdensityȱ=ȱ3ȱramps/mi;ȱandȱ
x TargetȱLOSȱ=ȱD.ȱ
Comments
Thisȱisȱaȱclassicȱdesignȱapplicationȱofȱtheȱmethodology.ȱTheȱnumberȱofȱlanesȱ
neededȱtoȱprovideȱLOSȱDȱduringȱtheȱworstȱ15ȱminȱofȱtheȱpeakȱhourȱisȱtoȱbeȱ
determined.ȱ
Step 1: Input Data

Allȱinputȱdataȱwereȱspecifiedȱpreviously.ȱ

December 2010
Step 2: Compute FFS

TheȱFFSȱisȱestimatedȱbyȱusingȱEquationȱ11Ȭ1.ȱBecauseȱtheȱlaneȱwidthȱandȱ
lateralȱclearanceȱtoȱbeȱprovidedȱonȱtheȱnewȱfreewayȱwillȱbeȱ12ȱftȱandȱ6ȱft,ȱ
respectively,ȱthereȱareȱnoȱadjustmentsȱforȱtheseȱfeatures.ȱTheȱtotalȱrampȱdensityȱ
isȱgivenȱasȱ3ȱramps/mi.ȱThenȱ
FFS 75.4 f LW f LC 3.22 TRD 0.84
FFS
75.4 0.0 0.0 3.22 30.84 67.3 mi/h

SinceȱtheȱFFSȱcalculatedȱinȱStepȱ2ȱisȱgreaterȱthanȱorȱequalȱtoȱ62.5ȱandȱlessȱ
thanȱ67.5ȱmi/h,ȱtheȱ65Ȭmi/hȱspeedflowȱcurveȱwillȱbeȱusedȱforȱthisȱanalysis.ȱ
Step 4: Estimate Number of Lanes Needed

Becauseȱthisȱisȱaȱdesignȱanalysis,ȱStepȱ4ȱofȱtheȱoperationalȱanalysisȱ
methodologyȱisȱmodified.ȱEquationȱ11Ȭ7ȱmayȱbeȱusedȱdirectlyȱtoȱdetermineȱtheȱ
numberȱofȱlanesȱneededȱtoȱprovideȱforȱatȱleastȱLOSȱD:ȱ
V
N
AȱvalueȱofȱtheȱmaximumȱserviceȱflowȱrateȱmustȱbeȱselectedȱfromȱExhibitȱ11Ȭ
17ȱforȱaȱFFSȱofȱ65ȱmi/hȱandȱLOSȱD.ȱThisȱvalueȱisȱ2,030ȱpc/h/ln.ȱTheȱPHFȱisȱgivenȱ
asȱ0.85.ȱTheȱdriverȱpopulationȱfactorȱisȱ1.00,ȱsinceȱcommutersȱareȱinvolved.ȱAȱ
heavyȬvehicleȱfactorȱforȱ15%ȱtrucksȱandȱ3%ȱRVsȱmustȱbeȱdeterminedȱbyȱusingȱ
Exhibitȱ11Ȭ10ȱforȱlevelȱterrain.ȱTheȱPCEsȱofȱtrucksȱandȱRVsȱinȱlevelȱterrainȱareȱ1.5ȱ
andȱ1.2,ȱrespectively.ȱThenȱ
1
f HV
1 PT ET 1 PR ER 1
1
f HV 0.925
1 0.15 1.5 1 0.03 1.2 1
andȱ
4 ,000
N 2.51 lanes
2030 u 0.85 u 0.925 u 1.00
Itȱisȱnotȱpossibleȱtoȱbuildȱ2.51ȱlanes.ȱToȱprovideȱaȱminimumȱofȱLOSȱD,ȱitȱwillȱ
beȱnecessaryȱtoȱprovideȱthreeȱlanesȱinȱeachȱdirection,ȱorȱaȱsixȬlaneȱfreeway.ȱ
Atȱthisȱpoint,ȱtheȱdesignȱapplicationȱends.ȱItȱisȱpossible,ȱhowever,ȱtoȱconsiderȱ
whatȱspeed,ȱdensity,ȱandȱLOSȱwillȱprevailȱwhenȱthreeȱlanesȱareȱactuallyȱ
provided.ȱTherefore,ȱtheȱexampleȱproblemȱcontinuesȱwithȱStepsȱ5ȱandȱ6.ȱ

Inȱpursuingȱadditionalȱinformation,ȱtheȱproblemȱnowȱrevertsȱtoȱanȱ
operationalȱanalysisȱofȱaȱthreeȬlaneȱbasicȱfreewayȱsegmentȱwithȱaȱdemandȱ
volumeȱofȱ4,000ȱpc/h.ȱ

December 2010
Equationȱ11Ȭ2ȱisȱusedȱtoȱcomputeȱtheȱactualȱdemandȱflowȱrateȱperȱlaneȱunderȱ
equivalentȱbaseȱconditions:ȱ
V
vp
4 ,000
vp 1,696 pc/h/ln
0.85 u 3 u 0.925 u 1.00
Theȱexpectedȱspeedȱofȱtheȱtrafficȱstreamȱmayȱbeȱestimatedȱeitherȱbyȱusingȱ
Exhibitȱ11Ȭ6ȱ(forȱaȱgraphicalȱsolution)ȱorȱbyȱselectingȱtheȱappropriateȱequationȱ
fromȱExhibitȱ11Ȭ3inȱthisȱcase,ȱusingȱFFSȱ=ȱ65ȱmi/hȱandȱaȱdemandȱflowȱrateȱoverȱ
1,400ȱpc/h/ln.ȱWithȱtheȱlatterȱapproach,ȱ

S 65 0.00001418 vp 1,400 2
S 65 0.00001418 1,696 1,400 2 63.8ȱmi/h

Theȱdensityȱmayȱnowȱbeȱcomputed:ȱ
vp 1,696
D 26.6 pc/mi/ln ȱ
S 63.8

EnteringȱExhibitȱ11Ȭ5ȱwithȱaȱdensityȱofȱ26.6ȱpc/mi/ln,ȱtheȱLOSȱisȱDȱbutȱisȱveryȱ
closeȱtoȱtheȱboundaryȱofȱLOSȱC,ȱwhichȱisȱ26ȱpc/mi/ln.ȱ
Discussion
TheȱresultingȱLOSȱisȱD,ȱwhichȱwasȱtheȱtargetȱforȱtheȱdesign.ȱAlthoughȱtheȱ
minimumȱnumberȱofȱlanesȱneededȱwasȱ2.51,ȱwhichȱwouldȱhaveȱprovidedȱforȱaȱ
minimalȱLOSȱD,ȱprovidingȱthreeȱlanesȱyieldsȱaȱdensityȱthatȱisȱcloseȱtoȱtheȱLOSȱCȱ
boundary.ȱInȱanyȱevent,ȱtheȱtargetȱLOSȱofȱtheȱdesignȱwillȱbeȱmetȱbyȱprovidingȱaȱ
sixȬlaneȱbasicȱfreewayȱsegment.ȱ
EXAMPLE PROBLEM 3: SIX-LANE FREEWAY LOS AND CAPACITY
The Facts
x Volumeȱofȱ5,000ȱveh/hȱ(oneȱdirection,ȱexisting);ȱ
x Volumeȱofȱ5,600ȱveh/hȱ(oneȱdirection,ȱinȱ3ȱyears);ȱ
x Trafficȱcomposition:ȱ10%ȱtrucks,ȱnoȱRVs;ȱ
x Levelȱterrain;ȱ
x Threeȱlanesȱinȱeachȱdirection;ȱ
x FFSȱ=ȱ70ȱmi/hȱ(measured);ȱ
x PHFȱ=ȱ0.95;ȱ
x Commuterȱtrafficȱ(regularȱusers);ȱandȱ
x Trafficȱgrowthȱafterȱ3ȱyearsȱ=ȱ4%ȱperȱyear.ȱ

December 2010
Comments
Thisȱexampleȱconsistsȱofȱtwoȱoperationalȱanalyses,ȱoneȱforȱtheȱpresentȱ
demandȱvolumeȱofȱ5,000ȱpc/hȱandȱoneȱforȱtheȱdemandȱvolumeȱofȱ5,600ȱpc/hȱ
expectedȱinȱ3ȱȱyears.ȱInȱaddition,ȱaȱplanningȱelementȱisȱintroduced:ȱAssumingȱ
thatȱtrafficȱgrowsȱasȱexpected,ȱwhenȱwillȱtheȱcapacityȱofȱtheȱroadwayȱbeȱ
exceeded?ȱThisȱanalysisȱrequiresȱthatȱcapacityȱbeȱdeterminedȱinȱadditionȱtoȱtheȱ
normalȱoutputȱofȱoperationalȱanalyses.ȱ
Step 1: Input Data

Allȱinputȱdataȱwereȱgivenȱpreviously.ȱ
Step 2: Compute FFS

Stepȱ2ȱisȱnotȱneededȱsinceȱaȱmeasuredȱFFSȱisȱgivenȱ(70ȱmi/h).ȱ

Stepȱ3ȱisȱnotȱneeded.ȱTheȱFFSȱcurveȱforȱ70ȱmi/hȱwillȱbeȱused,ȱbasedȱonȱtheȱ
measuredȱvalue.ȱ

Inȱthisȱcase,ȱtwoȱdemandȱvolumesȱwillȱbeȱadjustedȱbyȱusingȱEquationȱ11Ȭ2:ȱ
V
vp ȱ
TheȱPHFȱisȱgivenȱasȱ0.95,ȱandȱthereȱareȱthreeȱlanesȱinȱeachȱdirection.ȱTheȱ
driverȱpopulationȱadjustmentȱfactorȱwillȱbeȱ1.00,ȱforȱregularȱusers.ȱTheȱheavyȬ
vehicleȱfactorȱmustȱreflectȱ10%ȱtrucksȱinȱlevelȱterrain.ȱFromȱExhibitȱ11Ȭ10,ȱtheȱ
PCEȱforȱtrucksȱinȱlevelȱterrainȱisȱ1.5.ȱEquationȱ11Ȭ3ȱthenȱgivesȱtheȱfollowing:ȱ
1
f HV
1 PT ET 1 PR E R 1
1
f HV 0.952
1 0.10 1.5 1 0
Twoȱvaluesȱofȱvpȱwillȱbeȱcomputed:ȱoneȱforȱpresentȱconditionsȱandȱoneȱforȱ
conditionsȱinȱ3ȱyears:ȱȱ
5 ,000
v p ( present) 1,843 pc/h
0.95 u 3 u 0.952 u 1.00
5,600
v p (future) 2 ,064 pc/h
0.95 u 3 u 0.952 u 1.00

December 2010

Twoȱvaluesȱofȱspeedȱandȱdensityȱwillȱbeȱestimated,ȱoneȱeachȱforȱtheȱpresentȱ
andȱfutureȱconditionsȱstated.ȱTheȱequationsȱofȱExhibitȱ11Ȭ3ȱwillȱbeȱusedȱtoȱ
estimateȱspeeds.ȱOneȱequationȱappliesȱtoȱbothȱcases,ȱaȱ70Ȭmi/hȱFFSȱwithȱaȱflowȱ
rateȱoverȱ1,200ȱpc/h/ln:ȱ

S( present) 70 0.00001160 vp 1,200 ȱ2
S( present) 70 0.00001160 1,843 1,200 ȱ2 65.2ȱmi/h

S( future) 70 0.00001160 vp 1,200
ȱ2
S(future) 70 0.000011602 ,064 1,200 ȱ2 61.3ȱmi/h

Theȱcorrespondingȱdensitiesȱmayȱnowȱbeȱestimatedȱasȱfollows:ȱ
vp
D
S
1,843
D ( present) 28.3 pc/mi/ln
65.2
2,064
D (future) 33.7 pc/mi/ln
61.3

FromȱExhibitȱ11Ȭ5,ȱtheȱLOSȱforȱtheȱpresentȱsituationȱisȱD,ȱandȱtheȱLOSȱforȱtheȱ
futureȱscenarioȱ(inȱ3ȱyears)ȱisȱalsoȱD,ȱdespiteȱtheȱincreaseȱinȱdensity.ȱ
Step 7: When Will Capacity Be Reached?

Stepȱ7ȱisȱanȱadditionalȱstepȱforȱthisȱproblem.ȱToȱanswerȱtheȱquestion,ȱtheȱ
capacityȱofȱtheȱbasicȱfreewayȱsegmentȱmustȱbeȱestimated.ȱFromȱExhibitȱ11Ȭ17,ȱtheȱ
maximumȱserviceȱflowȱrateȱforȱLOSȱEȱonȱaȱbasicȱfreewayȱsegmentȱwithȱaȱ70Ȭmi/hȱ
FFSȱisȱ2,400ȱpc/h/ln.ȱThisȱflowȱrateȱisȱsynonymousȱwithȱcapacity.ȱ
Theȱanalystȱmustȱbeȱsureȱthatȱtheȱcapacityȱandȱdemandȱflowȱratesȱcomparedȱ
inȱStepȱ7ȱareȱonȱtheȱsameȱbasis.ȱTheȱ2,400ȱpc/h/lnȱisȱaȱflowȱrateȱunderȱequivalentȱ
baseȱconditions.ȱTheȱdemandȱflowȱrateȱinȱ3ȱyearsȱwasȱestimatedȱtoȱbeȱ2,064ȱ
pc/h/lnȱonȱthisȱbasis.ȱTheseȱtwoȱvalues,ȱtherefore,ȱmayȱbeȱcompared.ȱAsȱanȱ
alternative,ȱtheȱcapacityȱcouldȱbeȱcomputedȱforȱprevailingȱconditions:ȱ
SFE MSFE u N u f HV u f p
SFE 2 ,400 u 3 u 0.952 u 1.00 6 ,854 veh/h
Thisȱcapacity,ȱhowever,ȱisȱstatedȱasȱaȱflowȱrate.ȱTheȱdemandȱvolumeȱisȱstatedȱ
asȱanȱhourlyȱvolume.ȱThus,ȱaȱserviceȱvolumeȱforȱLOSȱEȱisȱneeded:ȱ
SV E SFE u PHF 6 ,854 u 0.95 6 ,511 veh/h
Theȱproblemȱmayȱbeȱsolvedȱeitherȱbyȱcomparingȱtheȱdemandȱvolumeȱofȱ
5,600ȱveh/hȱ(inȱ3ȱyears)ȱwithȱtheȱhourlyȱcapacityȱofȱ6,511ȱveh/hȱorȱbyȱcomparingȱ
theȱdemandȱflowȱrateȱunderȱequivalentȱbaseȱconditionsȱofȱ2,064ȱpc/h/lnȱwithȱtheȱ

December 2010
baseȱcapacityȱofȱ2,400ȱpc/h/ln.ȱWithȱtheȱhourlyȱdemandȱvolumeȱandȱhourlyȱ
capacity,ȱ
6 ,511 5 ,600 1.04 n
n 3.85 years
Onȱtheȱbasisȱofȱtheȱforecastsȱofȱtrafficȱgrowth,ȱtheȱbasicȱfreewayȱsegmentȱ
describedȱwillȱreachȱcapacityȱwithinȱ7ȱyearsȱ(theȱdemandȱofȱ5,600ȱveh/hȱoccursȱ3ȱ
yearsȱfromȱtheȱpresent).ȱ
Discussion
TheȱLOSȱonȱthisȱsegmentȱwillȱremainȱDȱwithinȱ3ȱyearsȱdespiteȱtheȱincreaseȱinȱ
density.ȱTheȱdemandȱisȱexpectedȱtoȱexceedȱcapacityȱwithinȱ7ȱyears.ȱGivenȱtheȱ
normalȱleadȱtimesȱforȱplanning,ȱdesign,ȱandȱapprovalsȱbeforeȱtheȱstartȱofȱ
construction,ȱitȱisȱprobableȱthatȱplanningȱandȱpreliminaryȱdesignȱforȱanȱ
improvementȱshouldȱbeȱstartedȱimmediately.ȱ
EXAMPLE PROBLEM 4: LOS ON UPGRADES AND DOWNGRADES
The Facts
x Demandȱvolumeȱ=ȱ2,300ȱveh/hȱ(oneȱdirection);ȱ
x Trafficȱcomposition:ȱ15%ȱtrucks,ȱnoȱRVs;ȱ
x PHFȱ=ȱ0.90;ȱ
x FFSȱ=ȱ70ȱmi/hȱupgrade,ȱ75ȱmi/hȱdowngradeȱ(measured);ȱ
x Unfamiliarȱdriversȱ(fpȱ=ȱ0.95);ȱandȱ
x Compositeȱgrade:ȱ3,000ȱftȱatȱ3%,ȱfollowedȱbyȱ2,600ȱftȱatȱ5%.ȱ
Comments
Thisȱisȱaȱtypicalȱoperationalȱanalysis.ȱTheȱexpectedȱoutcomeȱisȱanȱassessmentȱ
ofȱtheȱLOSȱonȱbothȱtheȱupgradeȱandȱtheȱdowngrade.ȱHowever,ȱtheȱproblemȱdealsȱ
withȱaȱspecificȱgradeȱandȱaȱcompositeȱgrade.ȱBecauseȱthereȱisȱaȱsegmentȱofȱtheȱ
gradeȱthatȱisȱgreaterȱthanȱ4%ȱandȱtheȱtotalȱlengthȱofȱtheȱcompositeȱgradeȱexceedsȱ
4,000ȱft,ȱtheȱspecialȱprocedureȱinȱAppendixȱAȱmustȱbeȱapplied.ȱThatȱprocedureȱ
willȱyieldȱanȱequivalentȱconstantȬpercentȱgradeȱofȱ3,000ȱ+ȱ2,600ȱ=ȱ5,600ȱftȱ(1.06ȱ
mi),ȱwhichȱhasȱtheȱsameȱimpactȱonȱheavyȱvehiclesȱasȱtheȱcompositeȱgradeȱ
described.ȱ
Composite Grade
Exhibitȱ11Ȭ21ȱshowsȱtheȱconversionȱofȱtheȱcompositeȱgradeȱtoȱaȱgradeȱofȱ
constantȱpercentȱ5,600ȱftȱlong.ȱAtȱtheȱendȱofȱsuchȱaȱgrade,ȱtheȱfinalȱspeedȱofȱ
heavyȱvehiclesȱisȱapproximatelyȱtheȱsameȱasȱthatȱonȱtheȱcompositeȱgrade.ȱȱ
Aȱverticalȱlineȱentersȱtheȱtruckȱperformanceȱcurvesȱatȱ3,000ȱftȱextendingȱtoȱ
theȱ+3%ȱgradeȱcurve,ȱindicatingȱthatȱtheȱspeedȱofȱtrucksȱafterȱ3,000ȱftȱofȱ+3%ȱ
gradeȱisȱapproximatelyȱ42ȱmi/h.ȱThisȱisȱalsoȱtheȱspeedȱatȱwhichȱtheȱtruckȱentersȱ
theȱ+5%ȱgrade;ȱitȱcorrespondsȱtoȱtheȱsameȱspeedȱasȱthatȱofȱaȱtruckȱonȱaȱ+5%ȱgradeȱ
afterȱ1,300ȱft.ȱTheȱtruckȱtravelsȱanotherȱ2,600ȱftȱ(toȱ3,900ȱft)ȱonȱtheȱ+5%ȱcurve,ȱ

December 2010
whereȱaȱfinalȱspeedȱofȱ27ȱmi/hȱisȱreached.ȱTheȱintersectionȱofȱaȱhorizontalȱdrawnȱ
atȱ27ȱmi/hȱandȱaȱverticalȱdrawnȱatȱaȱtotalȱlengthȱofȱgradeȱofȱ5,600ȱftȱyieldsȱtheȱ
equivalentȱofȱ+5%.ȱInȱeffect,ȱbecauseȱtrucksȱonȱthisȱgradeȱareȱatȱcrawlȱspeed,ȱitȱ
doesȱnotȱmatterȱhowȱlongȱtheȱgradeȱis:ȱ27ȱmi/hȱcanȱbeȱmaintainedȱindefinitely.ȱ
Exhibit 11-21
Determination of Composite Grade
Equivalents for Example Problem 4
Theȱequivalentȱgradeȱisȱ5%,ȱ5,600ȱft.ȱThisȱequivalentȱshouldȱbeȱappliedȱtoȱ
bothȱtheȱupgradeȱandȱtheȱdowngrade,ȱevenȱthoughȱitȱisȱdevelopedȱspecificallyȱforȱtheȱ
upgrade.ȱȱ
AlthoughȱtheȱtruckȱaccelerationȱcurvesȱofȱAppendixȱAȱcouldȱbeȱusedȱtoȱ
developȱaȱseparateȱdowngradeȱcompositeȱequivalent,ȱitȱwouldȱbeȱveryȱ
misleading.ȱTheȱtruckȱperformanceȱcurvesȱassumeȱaȱmaximumȱspeedȱofȱ60ȱmi/h.ȱ
Onȱaȱlong,ȱsteepȱdowngrade,ȱtrucksȱwillȱachieveȱmuchȱhigherȱspeeds.ȱ
Itȱisȱhighlyȱlikelyȱthatȱtrucksȱwillȱbeȱforcedȱtoȱuseȱaȱlowȱgearȱtoȱapplyȱengineȱ
brakingȱonȱtheȱgradeȱdescribed.ȱThus,ȱPCEsȱforȱtheȱdowngradeȱwillȱbeȱselectedȱ
fromȱExhibitȱ11Ȭ13.ȱ
Step 1: Input Data

Allȱinputȱdataȱwereȱspecifiedȱpreviously.ȱ
Step 2: Compute FFS

FFSsȱwereȱmeasuredȱinȱtheȱfield.ȱTheȱupgradeȱFFSȱisȱ70ȱmi/h;ȱtheȱdowngradeȱ
FFSȱisȱ75ȱmi/h.ȱ

Theȱ70Ȭmi/hȱcurveȱwillȱbeȱusedȱforȱtheȱupgrade;ȱtheȱ75Ȭmi/hȱcurveȱwillȱbeȱ
usedȱforȱtheȱdowngrade.ȱ

Theȱdemandȱflowȱratesȱinȱpassengerȱcarsȱperȱhourȱperȱlaneȱforȱtheȱupgradeȱ
andȱdowngradeȱareȱestimatedȱbyȱusingȱEquationȱ11Ȭ2:ȱ

December 2010
V
vp ȱ
TheȱPHFȱisȱ0.90,ȱthereȱareȱtwoȱlanesȱonȱtheȱupgradeȱandȱtwoȱlanesȱonȱtheȱ
downgrade,ȱandȱfpȱisȱspecifiedȱasȱ0.95.ȱHeavyȬvehicleȱadjustmentȱfactors,ȱ
however,ȱmustȱbeȱdeterminedȱseparatelyȱforȱtheȱupgradeȱandȱtheȱdowngrade.ȱ
TheȱPCEȱforȱtrucksȱ(ET)ȱonȱtheȱupgradeȱisȱselectedȱfromȱExhibitȱ11Ȭ11ȱforȱaȱ
gradeȱofȱ5%,ȱ>1.00ȱmiȱlong,ȱwithȱ15%ȱtrucks:ȱ3.0.ȱTheȱPCEȱforȱtheȱtrucksȱonȱtheȱ
downgradeȱisȱselectedȱfromȱExhibitȱ11Ȭ13ȱforȱaȱgradeȱofȱ4%ȱtoȱ5%,ȱǂ4ȱmiȱlong:ȱ1.5.ȱȱ
TheȱheavyȬvehicleȱadjustmentȱfactors,ȱfHV,ȱareȱcomputedȱbyȱusingȱEquationȱ
11Ȭ3:ȱ
1
f HV
1 PT ET 1 PR ER 1
1
f HV ( upgrade) 0.769
1 0.15 3 1 0
f HV downgrade
1
0.930
1 0.15 1.5 1 0
Thenȱ
v p upgrade
2 ,300
1,749 pc/h/ln
0.90 u 2 u 0.769 u 0.95
v p downgrade
2 ,300
1,446 pc/h/ln
0.90 u 2 u 0.930 u 0.95
SinceȱneitherȱofȱtheseȱvaluesȱexceedsȱtheȱbaseȱcapacityȱofȱaȱfreewayȱwithȱFFSȱ
=ȱ75ȱmi/hȱ(downgrade)ȱorȱFFSȱ=ȱ70ȱmi/hȱ(upgrade),ȱLOSȱFȱdoesȱnotȱexist,ȱandȱtheȱ
analysisȱcontinuesȱtoȱStepȱ5.ȱ

WithȱtheȱFFSȱandȱtheȱdemandȱflowȱrateȱdeterminedȱforȱbothȱtheȱupgradeȱandȱ
theȱdowngrade,ȱtheȱexpectedȱspeedȱandȱdensityȱonȱeachȱmayȱnowȱbeȱestimated.ȱ
SpeedȱisȱestimatedȱbyȱusingȱtheȱequationsȱofȱExhibitȱ11Ȭ3.ȱ
Forȱtheȱupgrade,ȱtheȱFFSȱisȱ70ȱmi/h,ȱandȱtheȱdemandȱflowȱrateȱisȱgreaterȱthanȱ
1,200ȱpc/h/ln.ȱThenȱ
S
70 0.00001160 v p 1,200 2
S 70 0.00001160 1,749 1,200 2 66.5 mi/h

Forȱtheȱdowngrade,ȱtheȱFFSȱisȱ75ȱmi/h,ȱandȱtheȱdemandȱflowȱrateȱisȱgreaterȱ
thanȱ1,000ȱpc/h/ln.ȱThenȱ
S
75 0.00001107 v p 1,000 2
S 75 0.00001107 1,446 1,000 2 72.8 mi/h

December 2010
Densitiesȱmayȱnowȱbeȱestimatedȱfromȱtheȱdemandȱflowȱratesȱandȱestimatedȱ
speeds:ȱ
vp
D
S
D upgrade
1,749
26.3 pc/mi/ln
66.5
D downgrade
1,446
19.9 pc/mi/ln
72.8

AsȱshownȱinȱExhibitȱ11Ȭ5,ȱtheȱupgradeȱLOSȱisȱD;ȱtheȱdowngradeȱLOSȱisȱC.ȱ
Bothȱlevels,ȱhowever,ȱareȱcloseȱtoȱtheȱboundariesȱforȱbetterȱoperationstheȱ
upgradeȱisȱcloseȱtoȱtheȱboundaryȱforȱLOSȱCȱ(Dȱ=ȱ26ȱpc/mi/ln)ȱandȱtheȱdowngradeȱ
isȱcloseȱtoȱtheȱboundaryȱforȱLOSȱBȱ(Dȱ=ȱ18ȱpc/mi/ln).ȱ
Discussion
Bothȱtheȱupgradeȱandȱtheȱdowngradeȱareȱoperatingȱatȱwhatȱwouldȱgenerallyȱ
beȱcalledȱacceptableȱlevels.ȱIfȱtrafficȱgrowsȱoverȱtime,ȱtheȱadditionȱofȱaȱtruckȱ
climbingȱlaneȱonȱtheȱupgradeȱmightȱbeȱconsidered.ȱ
EXAMPLE PROBLEM 5: DESIGN-HOUR VOLUME AND NUMBER OF LANES
The Facts
x Demandȱvolumeȱ=ȱ75,000ȱveh/day,ȱ
x ProportionȱofȱAADTȱinȱtheȱpeakȱhour:ȱ0.09,ȱ
x Directionalȱdistribution:ȱ55/45,ȱ
x Rollingȱterrain,ȱandȱ
x TargetȱLOSȱ=ȱD.ȱ
Comments
Inȱthisȱplanningȱandȱpreliminaryȱengineeringȱapplication,ȱseveralȱinputȱ
variablesȱareȱnotȱspecified,ȱsoȱdefaultȱvaluesȱwillȱhaveȱtoȱbeȱused.ȱWithȱ
knowledgeȱofȱlocalȱconditionsȱandȱfreewayȱdesignȱstandards,ȱtheȱfollowingȱ
defaultȱvaluesȱwillȱbeȱusedȱinȱtheȱsolution:ȱFFSȱ=ȱ65ȱmi/h;ȱ5%ȱtrucks,ȱnoȱRVs;ȱPHFȱ
=ȱ0.95;ȱandȱfpȱ=ȱ1.00.ȱ
Determining Opening-Day Directional Design-Hour Volume

BecauseȱtheȱdemandȱvolumeȱisȱgivenȱasȱanȱAADT,ȱitȱmustȱbeȱconvertedȱtoȱaȱ
directionalȱdesignȬhourȱvolumeȱ(DDHV)ȱbyȱusingȱEquationȱ11Ȭ8:ȱ
V DDHV AADT u K u D
V DDHV 75,000 u 0.09 u 0.55 3,713 veh/h
Step 1: Input Data

Allȱinputȱdataȱwereȱspecified.ȱ

December 2010
Step 2: Compute FFS

Aȱdefaultȱvalueȱofȱ65ȱmi/hȱwillȱbeȱusedȱinȱthisȱproblem.ȱ

Theȱ65Ȭmi/hȱspeedflowȱcurveȱwillȱbeȱusedȱinȱthisȱproblem.ȱ
Step 4: Determine Number of Lanes Required

Afterȱestimatingȱtheȱdemandȱvolumeȱonȱanȱhourlyȱbasis,ȱtheȱremainderȱofȱ
thisȱsolutionȱfollowsȱtheȱdesignȱapplication.ȱTheȱnumberȱofȱlanesȱneededȱisȱ
estimatedȱbyȱusingȱEquationȱ11Ȭ7:ȱ
V
N ȱ
TheȱmaximumȱserviceȱflowȱrateȱisȱselectedȱfromȱExhibitȱ11Ȭ17ȱforȱLOSȱDȱonȱaȱ
65Ȭmi/hȱbasicȱfreewayȱsegment:ȱ2,030ȱpc/h/ln.ȱTheȱPHFȱisȱaȱdefaultȱvalue:ȱ0.95.ȱ
Theȱdriverȱpopulationȱfactorȱisȱalsoȱaȱdefaultȱvalue:ȱ1.00.ȱTheȱfreewayȱisȱinȱrollingȱ
terrainȱandȱisȱexpectedȱtoȱhaveȱ5%ȱtrucksȱ(anotherȱdefaultȱvalue).ȱFromȱEquationȱ
11Ȭ10,ȱforȱrollingȱterrain,ȱETȱ=ȱ2.5.ȱThenȱ
1
f HV 0.930
1 0.05 2.5 1 0
3 ,713
N 2.07 lanes
2 ,030 u 0.95 u 0.93 u 1.00
Becauseȱfractionalȱlanesȱcannotȱbeȱbuilt,ȱthreeȱlanesȱwillȱhaveȱtoȱbeȱprovidedȱ
inȱeachȱdirectionȱtoȱensureȱthatȱLOSȱDȱisȱprovidedȱduringȱtheȱworstȱ15ȱminȱofȱtheȱ
peakȱhour.ȱTherefore,ȱtheȱresultingȱLOSȱmayȱbeȱbetterȱthanȱtheȱdesignȱtarget.ȱ

InȱorderȱtoȱdetermineȱtheȱlikelyȱLOSȱresultingȱfromȱaȱsixȬlaneȱfreeway,ȱtheȱ
speedȱandȱdensityȱshouldȱbeȱestimated.ȱEquationȱ11Ȭ2ȱisȱusedȱtoȱdetermineȱtheȱ
actualȱdemandȱflowȱrateȱforȱthreeȱlanes:ȱ
V
vp
3 ,713
vp 1,401 pc/h/ln
0.95 u 3 u 0.93 u 1.00
FromȱExhibitȱ11Ȭ3,ȱforȱaȱ65Ȭmi/hȱbasicȱfreewayȱsegmentȱwithȱmoreȱthanȱ1,400ȱ
pc/h/ln,ȱtheȱexpectedȱspeedȱisȱ
S
65 0.00001418 v p 1,400 2
S 65 0.00001418 1,401 1,400 2 65.0 mi/h

December 2010
andȱtheȱdensityȱisȱ
vp 1,401
D 21.6 pc/mi/ln
S 65.0

AsȱshownȱinȱExhibitȱ11Ȭ5,ȱtheȱexpectedȱLOSȱisȱC.ȱ
Discussion
Thisȱproblemȱillustratesȱanȱinterestingȱpoint:ȱgivenȱtheȱparametersȱofȱthisȱ
exampleȱproblem,ȱtheȱtargetȱLOSȱofȱDȱcannotȱbeȱachievedȱonȱopeningȱday.ȱIfȱaȱ
fourȬlaneȱfreewayȱ(twoȱlanesȱinȱeachȱdirection)ȱisȱbuilt,ȱLOSȱEȱwillȱresult.ȱIfȱaȱsixȬ
laneȱfreewayȱ(threeȱlanesȱinȱeachȱdirection)ȱisȱbuilt,ȱLOSȱCȱwillȱresult.ȱȱ
EXAMPLE PROBLEM 6: SERVICE FLOW RATES AND SERVICE VOLUMES
The Facts
x EightȬlaneȱfreeway;ȱ
x FFSȱ=ȱ70ȱmi/hȱ(measured);ȱ
x Rollingȱterrain;ȱ
x PHFȱ=ȱ0.87;ȱ
x Driverȱpopulationȱfactorȱfpȱ=ȱ1.00;ȱ
x ProportionȱofȱAADTȱinȱpeakȱhourȱ(KȬfactor):ȱ0.08;ȱandȱ
x Directionalȱdistributionȱ(DȬfactor):ȱ60/40.ȱ
Comments
Inȱthisȱproblem,ȱtheȱserviceȱflowȱrate,ȱserviceȱvolume,ȱandȱdailyȱserviceȱ
volumeȱforȱeachȱLOSȱwillȱbeȱcomputed.ȱTheseȱvaluesȱcouldȱthenȱbeȱcomparedȱ
withȱanyȱexistingȱorȱforecastȱdemandȱvolumesȱtoȱdetermineȱtheȱLOS.ȱ
Step 1: Input Data

Allȱinputȱdataȱwereȱspecified.ȱ
Step 2: Compute FFS

TheȱFFSȱhasȱbeenȱfieldȬmeasuredȱasȱ70ȱmi/h.ȱ

TheȱcurveȱforȱFFSȱ=ȱ70ȱmi/hȱwillȱbeȱused.ȱ
Step 4: Compute Service Flow Rates, SF

Forȱaȱ70Ȭmi/hȱbasicȱfreewayȱsegment,ȱmaximumȱserviceȱflowȱrates,ȱMSF,ȱcanȱ
beȱselectedȱfromȱExhibitȱ11Ȭ17.ȱTheseȱareȱtheȱmaximumȱserviceȱflowȱratesȱthatȱ
canȱbeȱsustainedȱwhileȱaȱgivenȱLOSȱisȱmaintained.ȱTheyȱareȱstatedȱasȱflowȱratesȱ
inȱpassengerȱcarsȱperȱhourȱperȱlaneȱforȱequivalentȱbaseȱconditions.ȱTheȱvaluesȱareȱ

December 2010
x MSFAȱ =ȱ ȱ770ȱpc/h/ln,ȱ
x MSFBȱ =ȱ 1,250ȱpc/h/ln,ȱ
B
x MSFCȱ =ȱ 1,690ȱpc/h/ln,ȱ
x MSFDȱ =ȱ 2,080ȱpc/h/ln,ȱandȱ
x MSFEȱ =ȱ 2,400ȱpc/h/ln.ȱ
Serviceȱflowȱrates,ȱSF,ȱareȱestimatedȱbyȱusingȱEquationȱ11Ȭ9:ȱ
SFi MSFi u N u f HV u f p ȱ
whereȱtheȱmaximumȱserviceȱflowȱratesȱareȱasȱcited,ȱNȱ=ȱ4ȱlanesȱinȱeachȱdirection,ȱ
andȱtheȱdriverȱpopulationȱfactorȱfpȱisȱ1.00.ȱTheȱheavyȬvehicleȱadjustmentȱfactorȱ
mustȱbeȱdeterminedȱforȱ8%ȱtrucksȱandȱ1%ȱRVsȱinȱrollingȱterrain.ȱFromȱExhibitȱ
11Ȭ10,ȱforȱrollingȱterrain,ȱETȱ=ȱ2.5ȱandȱERȱ=ȱ2.0.ȱThenȱ
1
f HV 0.885 ȱ
1 0.08 2.5 1 0.01 2.0 1
Serviceȱflowȱratesȱmayȱnowȱbeȱcomputed:ȱ
SFA 770 u 4 u 0.885 u 1.00 2 ,726 veh/h
SFB 1,250 u 4 u 0.885 u 1.00 4 ,425 veh/h
SFC 1,690 u 4 u 0.885 u 1.00 5,983 veh/h
SFD 2 ,080 u 4 u 0.885 u 1.00 7 ,363 veh/h
SFE 2 ,400 u 4 u 0.885 u 1.00 8 ,496 veh/h
Serviceȱflowȱratesȱareȱtheȱmaximumȱratesȱofȱflowȱthatȱmayȱexistȱinȱtheȱworstȱ15Ȭ
minȱperiodȱofȱtheȱpeakȱhourȱwhileȱtheȱstatedȱLOSȱisȱmaintained.ȱ
Step 5: Compute Service Volumes, SV

Equationȱ11Ȭ10ȱisȱusedȱtoȱconvertȱserviceȱflowȱratesȱtoȱserviceȱvolumes.ȱTheȱ
conversionȱmultipliesȱtheȱserviceȱflowȱratesȱbyȱtheȱPHFȱtoȱproduceȱmaximumȱ
hourlyȱvolumesȱthatȱcanȱbeȱaccommodatedȱwhileȱtheȱgivenȱLOSȱisȱmaintainedȱ
duringȱtheȱworstȱ15ȱminȱofȱtheȱhour.ȱ
SV i SFi u PHF
SV A 2 ,726 u 0.87 2 ,372 veh/h
SV B 4 ,425 u 0.87 3,850 veh/h
SVC 5 ,983 u 0.87 5,205 veh/h
SV D 7 ,363 u 0.87 6 ,406 veh/h
SV E 8 ,496 u 0.87 7 ,392 veh/h

December 2010
Step 6: Compute Daily Service Volumes, DSV

Equationȱ11Ȭ11ȱisȱusedȱtoȱconvertȱserviceȱvolumesȱtoȱdailyȱserviceȱvolumes.ȱ
DailyȱserviceȱvolumesȱareȱtheȱmaximumȱAADTsȱthatȱcanȱbeȱaccommodatedȱ
whileȱtheȱgivenȱLOSȱisȱmaintainedȱduringȱtheȱworstȱ15ȱminȱofȱtheȱpeakȱhourȱinȱ
theȱpeakȱdirectionȱofȱflow.ȱ
SV i
DSV i
KuD
2 ,372
DSV A 49 ,417 veh/day
0.08 u 0.60
3,850
DSV B 80 ,208 veh/day
0.08 u 0.60
5 ,205
DSV C 108 ,438 veh/day
0.08 u 0.60
6 ,406
DSV D 133 ,458 veh/day
0.08 u 0.60
7 ,392
DSV E 154 ,000 veh/day
0.08 u 0.60
Discussion
Theseȱresultsȱcanȱbeȱconvenientlyȱshownȱinȱtheȱformȱofȱaȱtable,ȱasȱillustratedȱ
inȱExhibitȱ11Ȭ22.ȱGivenȱtheȱapproximateȱnatureȱofȱtheseȱcomputationsȱandȱtheȱ
defaultȱvaluesȱused,ȱitȱisȱappropriateȱtoȱroundȱtheȱDSVȱvaluesȱtoȱtheȱnearestȱ100ȱ
veh/day,ȱandȱSFȱandȱSVȱvaluesȱtoȱtheȱnearestȱ10ȱveh/h.ȱ
LOS SF (veh/h) SV (veh/h) DSV (veh/day) Exhibit 11-22

A 2,730 2,370 49,400 Service Flow Rates, Service
B 4,430 3,850 80,200 Volumes, and Daily Service
C 5,980 5,210 108,400 Volumes for Example Problem 6
D 7,360 6,410 133,500
E 8,500 7,390 154,000
Exhibitȱ11Ȭ22,ȱofȱcourse,ȱappliesȱonlyȱtoȱtheȱbasicȱfreewayȱsegmentȱasȱ
described.ȱShouldȱanyȱofȱtheȱprevailingȱconditionsȱchange,ȱtheȱvaluesȱinȱtheȱ
exhibitȱwouldȱalsoȱchange.ȱHowever,ȱforȱaȱgivenȱsegment,ȱforecastȱdemandȱ
volumes,ȱwhetherȱgivenȱasȱflowȱrates,ȱhourlyȱvolumes,ȱorȱAADTs,ȱcouldȱbeȱ
comparedȱwithȱtheȱcriteriaȱinȱExhibitȱ11Ȭ22ȱtoȱdetermineȱtheȱlikelyȱLOSȱ
immediately.ȱForȱexample,ȱifȱtheȱ10ȬyearȱforecastȱAADTȱforȱthisȱsegmentȱisȱ
125,000ȱveh/day,ȱtheȱexpectedȱLOSȱwouldȱbeȱD.ȱ

December 2010
5. REFERENCES
Many of these references can 1. Schoen,ȱJ.ȱA.,ȱA.ȱMay,ȱW.ȱReilly,ȱandȱT.ȱUrbanik.ȱSpeedȬFlowȱRelationshipsȱforȱ

be found in the Technical
Reference Library in Volume 4. BasicȱFreewayȱSections.ȱFinalȱReport,ȱNCHRPȱProjectȱ3Ȭ45.ȱJHKȱ&ȱAssociates,ȱ
Tucson,ȱAriz.,ȱMayȱ1995.ȱ
2. Roess,ȱR.ȱReȬCalibrationȱofȱtheȱ75Ȭmi/hȱSpeedȬFlowȱCurveȱandȱtheȱFFSȱPredictionȱ
AlgorithmȱforȱHCMȱ2010.ȱResearchȱMemorandum,ȱNCHRPȱProjectȱ3Ȭ92.ȱ
PolytechnicȱInstituteȱofȱNewȱYorkȱUniversity,ȱBrooklyn,ȱN.Y.,ȱJan.ȱ2009.ȱ
3. Reilly,ȱW.,ȱD.ȱHarwood,ȱJ.ȱSchoen,ȱandȱM.ȱHolling.ȱCapacityȱandȱLOSȱ
ProceduresȱforȱRuralȱandȱUrbanȱMultilaneȱHighways.ȱFinalȱReport,ȱNCHRPȱ
Projectȱ3Ȭ33.ȱJHKȱ&ȱAssociates,ȱTucson,ȱAriz.,ȱMayȱ1990.ȱ
4. BasicȱFreewayȱSections.ȱInȱSpecialȱReportȱ209:ȱHighwayȱCapacityȱManual,ȱ
Chapterȱ3,ȱTransportationȱResearchȱBoard,ȱNationalȱResearchȱCouncil,ȱ
Washington,ȱD.C.,ȱ1994.ȱ
5. Urbanik,ȱT.,ȱII,ȱW.ȱHinshaw,ȱandȱK.ȱBarnes.ȱEvaluationȱofȱHighȬVolumeȱ
UrbanȱTexasȱFreeways.ȱInȱTransportationȱResearchȱRecordȱ1320,ȱTransportationȱ
ResearchȱBoard,ȱNationalȱResearchȱCouncil,ȱWashington,ȱD.C.,ȱ1991,ȱpp.ȱ
110–118.ȱ
6. Banks,ȱJ.ȱH.ȱFlowȱProcessesȱatȱaȱFreewayȱBottleneck.ȱInȱTransportationȱ
ResearchȱRecordȱ1287,ȱTransportationȱResearchȱBoard,ȱNationalȱResearchȱ
Council,Washington,ȱD.C.,ȱ1990,ȱpp.ȱ20–28.ȱ
7. Hall,ȱF.ȱL.,ȱandȱL.ȱM.ȱHall.ȱCapacityȱandȱSpeedȬFlowȱAnalysisȱofȱtheȱQueenȱ
ElizabethȱWayȱinȱOntario.ȱInȱTransportationȱResearchȱRecordȱ1287,ȱ
TransportationȱResearchȱBoard,ȱNationalȱResearchȱCouncil,ȱWashington,ȱ
D.C.,ȱ1990,ȱpp.ȱ108–118.ȱ
8. Hall,ȱF.ȱL.,ȱandȱK.ȱAgyemangȬDuah.ȱFreewayȱCapacityȱDropȱandȱtheȱ
DefinitionȱofȱCapacity.ȱInȱTransportationȱResearchȱRecordȱ1320,ȱTransportationȱ
ResearchȱBoard,ȱNationalȱResearchȱCouncil,ȱWashington,ȱD.C.,ȱ1991,ȱpp.ȱ91–
98.ȱ
9. Chin,ȱH.ȱC.,ȱandȱA.ȱD.ȱMay.ȱExaminationȱofȱtheȱSpeedȬFlowȱRelationshipȱatȱ
theȱCaldecottȱTunnel.ȱInȱTransportationȱResearchȱRecordȱ1320,ȱTransportationȱ
ResearchȱBoard,ȱNationalȱResearchȱCouncil,ȱWashington,ȱD.C.,ȱ1991,ȱpp.ȱ75–
82.ȱ
10. Banks,ȱJ.ȱH.ȱEvaluationȱofȱtheȱTwoȬCapacityȱPhenomenonȱasȱaȱBasisȱforȱRampȱ
Metering.ȱFinalȱReport.ȱSanȱDiegoȱStateȱUniversity,ȱSanȱDiego,ȱCalif.,ȱ1991.ȱ
11. Robertson,ȱH.ȱD.ȱ(ed.).ȱManualȱofȱTrafficȱEngineeringȱStudies.ȱInstituteȱofȱ
TransportationȱEngineers,ȱWashington,ȱD.C.,ȱ2000.ȱ
12. Webster,ȱN.,ȱandȱL.ȱElefteriadou.ȱAȱSimulationȱStudyȱofȱTruckȱPassengerȱCarȱ
Equivalentsȱ(PCE)ȱonȱBasicȱFreewayȱSegments.ȱTransportationȱResearch,ȱVol.ȱ
33B,ȱNo.ȱ5,ȱ1999,ȱpp.ȱ323–336.ȱ
13. Zegeer,ȱJ.ȱD.,ȱM.ȱA.ȱVandehey,ȱM.ȱBlogg,ȱK.ȱNguyen,ȱandȱM.ȱEreti.ȱNCHRPȱ
Reportȱ599:ȱDefaultȱValuesȱforȱHighwayȱCapacityȱandȱLevelȱofȱServiceȱAnalyses.ȱ
TransportationȱResearchȱBoardȱofȱtheȱNationalȱAcademies,ȱWashington,ȱ
D.C.,ȱ2008.ȱ
References Page 11-44 Chapter 11/Basic Freeway Segments

December 2010
APPENDIX A: COMPOSITE GRADES
Inȱaȱbasicȱfreewayȱsegmentȱanalysis,ȱanȱoverallȱaverageȱgradeȱcanȱbeȱ The composite grade procedure

should be used for a series of grades
substitutedȱforȱaȱseriesȱofȱgradesȱifȱnoȱsingleȱportionȱofȱtheȱgradeȱisȱsteeperȱthanȱ that are t4,000 ft in length and that
4%ȱorȱtheȱtotalȱlengthȱofȱtheȱgradeȱisȱlessȱthanȱ4,000ȱft.ȱForȱgradesȱoutsideȱtheseȱ have a portion of the grade steeper
than 4%.
limitsȱ(i.e.,ȱaȱportionȱofȱtheȱgradeȱisȱgreaterȱthanȱ4%ȱandȱtheȱtotalȱlengthȱofȱtheȱ
The procedure finds the equivalent
gradeȱisȱgreaterȱthanȱorȱequalȱtoȱ4,000ȱft),ȱtheȱcompositeȱgradeȱprocedureȱ single grade that results in the same
presentedȱinȱthisȱappendixȱisȱrecommended.ȱTheȱcompositeȱgradeȱprocedureȱisȱ final truck speed as the series of
grades would.
usedȱtoȱdetermineȱanȱequivalentȱgradeȱthatȱwillȱresultȱinȱtheȱsameȱfinalȱspeedȱofȱ
trucksȱasȱwouldȱtheȱseriesȱofȱgradesȱmakingȱupȱtheȱcomposite.ȱ
Theȱaccelerationȱandȱdecelerationȱcurvesȱpresentedȱhereȱareȱforȱvehiclesȱwithȱ
anȱaverageȱweightȬtoȬhorsepowerȱratioȱofȱ200ȱlb/hp,ȱheavierȱthanȱtypicalȱtrucksȱ
foundȱonȱfreeways,ȱwhichȱrangeȱbetweenȱ125ȱlb/hpȱandȱ150ȱlb/hp.ȱThisȱisȱdoneȱinȱ
recognitionȱofȱtheȱfactȱthatȱheavierȱtrucksȱwillȱhaveȱmoreȱofȱanȱimpactȱonȱtheȱ
trafficȱstreamȱthanȱlighterȱtrucks.ȱ
Exhibitȱ11ȬA1ȱshowsȱtypicalȱaccelerationȱ(dashedȱlines)ȱandȱdecelerationȱ(solidȱ
lines)ȱperformanceȱforȱaȱtruckȱwithȱaȱratioȱofȱ200ȱlb/hp.ȱTheȱcurvesȱareȱ
conservativeȱinȱthatȱtheyȱassumeȱaȱmaximumȱtruckȱspeedȱofȱ55ȱmi/hȱforȱtrucksȱ
enteringȱaȱgradeȱandȱ60ȱmi/hȱforȱtrucksȱacceleratingȱonȱaȱgrade.ȱ
Exhibit 11-A1
Performance Curves for 200-lb/hp
Truck
EXAMPLE PROBLEM
Anȱexampleȱisȱprovidedȱtoȱillustrateȱtheȱprocessȱinvolvedȱinȱdeterminingȱanȱ
equivalentȱgradeȱforȱaȱcompositeȱgradeȱonȱaȱfreeway.ȱTheȱexampleȱhasȱtwoȱ
segments,ȱbutȱtheȱprocedureȱisȱvalidȱforȱanyȱnumberȱofȱsegments.ȱTheȱcompositeȱ
gradeȱisȱ
x Upgradeȱofȱ2%ȱforȱ5,000ȱft,ȱfollowedȱbyȱ
x Upgradeȱofȱ6%ȱforȱ5,000ȱft.ȱ
Thisȱgradeȱshouldȱnotȱbeȱanalyzedȱwithȱanȱaverageȱgradeȱapproach,ȱbecauseȱ
oneȱportionȱofȱtheȱgradeȱisȱsteeperȱthanȱ4%ȱandȱtheȱtotalȱlengthȱofȱtheȱgradeȱisȱinȱ
Chapter 11/Basic Freeway Segments Page 11-45 Appendix A: Composite Grades

December 2010
excessȱofȱ4,000ȱft.ȱAsȱaȱcomparison,ȱapplicationȱofȱtheȱaverageȱgradeȱapproachȱinȱ
thisȱcaseȱwouldȱyieldȱtheȱfollowing:ȱ
x Totalȱriseȱalongȱcomposite:ȱ(5,000ȱ×ȱ0.02)ȱ+ȱ(5,000ȱ×ȱ0.06)ȱ=ȱ400ȱft.ȱ
x Averageȱgrade:ȱ400/10,000ȱ=ȱ0.04,ȱorȱ4%.ȱ
Withȱtheȱaverageȱgradeȱapproach,ȱtheȱcompositeȱwouldȱbeȱanalyzedȱasȱifȱitȱ
wereȱaȱsingleȱupgradeȱofȱ4%,ȱ10,000ȱftȱ(1.89ȱmi)ȱlong.ȱ
Exhibitȱ11ȬA2ȱillustratesȱtheȱrecommendedȱsolution.ȱ
Exhibit 11-A2
Solution Using Composite
Grade Procedure
The flat portions of the

upgrade curves indicate the
truck crawl speed for that
grade.
Aȱverticalȱlineȱisȱdrawnȱatȱ5,000ȱftȱtoȱtheȱintersectionȱwithȱtheȱcurveȱforȱtheȱ
+2%ȱgradeȱ(Pointȱ1).ȱAȱhorizontalȱlineȱisȱdrawnȱfromȱtheȱintersectionȱpointȱtoȱtheȱ
yȬaxisȱ(Pointȱ2).ȱThisȱprocedureȱindicatesȱthatȱafterȱ5,000ȱftȱofȱ+2%ȱupgrade,ȱ
trucksȱwillȱbeȱoperatingȱatȱaȱspeedȱofȱapproximatelyȱ46ȱmi/h.ȱȱ
Thisȱspeedȱisȱalsoȱtheȱspeedȱatȱwhichȱtrucksȱenterȱtheȱ+6%ȱsegmentȱofȱtheȱ
compositeȱgrade.ȱTheȱintersectionȱofȱtheȱ46Ȭmi/hȱhorizontalȱlineȱwithȱtheȱcurveȱ
forȱtheȱ+6%ȱgradeȱ(Pointȱ3)ȱisȱfound.ȱAȱverticalȱlineȱisȱdroppedȱfromȱthisȱpointȱtoȱ
theȱxȬaxisȱ(Pointȱ4).ȱThisȱprocedureȱindicatesȱthatȱtrucksȱenterȱtheȱ+6%ȱsegmentȱofȱ
theȱcompositeȱasȱifȱtheyȱhadȱalreadyȱbeenȱonȱtheȱ+6%ȱgradeȱforȱapproximatelyȱ
800ȱft.ȱTrucksȱwillȱtravelȱanotherȱ5,000ȱftȱalongȱtheȱ+6%ȱgrade,ȱstartingȱfromȱPointȱ
4.ȱAȱverticalȱlineȱisȱdrawnȱatȱaȱdistanceȱofȱ800ȱ+ȱ5,000ȱ=ȱ5,800ȱftȱ(Pointȱ5)ȱtoȱtheȱ
intersectionȱwithȱtheȱcurveȱforȱtheȱ+6%ȱgradeȱ(Pointȱ6).ȱAȱhorizontalȱlineȱdrawnȱ
fromȱthisȱpointȱtoȱtheȱyȬaxisȱ(Pointȱ7)ȱindicatesȱthatȱtheȱspeedȱofȱtrucksȱatȱtheȱendȱ
ofȱtheȱtwoȬsegmentȱcompositeȱgradeȱwillȱbeȱapproximatelyȱ23ȱmi/h.ȱ
Theȱsolutionȱpointȱisȱfoundȱasȱtheȱintersectionȱofȱaȱverticalȱlineȱdrawnȱatȱ
10,000ȱftȱ(theȱtotalȱlengthȱofȱtheȱcompositeȱgrade)ȱandȱaȱhorizontalȱlineȱdrawnȱatȱ
23ȱmi/h.ȱTheȱsolutionȱisȱreadȱasȱtheȱpercentȱgradeȱonȱwhichȱtheȱsolutionȱpointȱliesȱ
(Pointȱ8).ȱInȱthisȱcase,ȱtheȱpointȱliesȱexactlyȱonȱtheȱcurveȱforȱtheȱ6%ȱgrade.ȱ
Interpolationsȱbetweenȱcurvesȱareȱpermissible.ȱ
Inȱthisȱcase,ȱtheȱgradeȱthatȱisȱequivalentȱtoȱtheȱcompositeȱgradeȱisȱaȱsingleȱ
gradeȱofȱ6%,ȱ10,000ȱftȱ(1.89ȱmi)ȱlong.ȱThisȱgradeȱisȱ2%ȱhigherȱthanȱtheȱ4%ȱaverageȱ
grade.ȱTheȱappropriateȱequivalentȱgradeȱisȱtheȱsameȱpercentageȱasȱtheȱsecondȱ
Appendix A: Composite Grades Page 11-46 Chapter 11/Basic Freeway Segments

December 2010
segmentȱofȱtheȱcompositeȱgradeȱbecauseȱtrucksȱhaveȱalreadyȱreachedȱcrawlȱ
speed.ȱOnceȱtrucksȱhitȱcrawlȱspeed,ȱitȱdoesȱnotȱmatterȱhowȱfarȱfromȱtheȱ
beginningȱofȱtheȱgradeȱtheyȱare;ȱtheirȱspeedȱwillȱremainȱconstant.ȱ
PROCEDURAL STEPS
TheȱgeneralȱstepsȱtakenȱinȱsolvingȱforȱaȱcompositeȬgradeȱequivalentȱareȱ
summarizedȱasȱfollows:ȱ
1. EnterȱExhibitȱ11ȬA1ȱwithȱtheȱlengthȱofȱtheȱfirstȱsegmentȱofȱtheȱcompositeȱ
grade.ȱ
2. Findȱtheȱtruckȱspeedȱatȱtheȱendȱofȱtheȱfirstȱsegmentȱofȱtheȱgrade.ȱ
3. Findȱtheȱlengthȱalongȱtheȱsecondȱsegmentȱofȱtheȱgradeȱthatȱresultsȱinȱtheȱ
sameȱspeedȱasȱthatȱfoundȱinȱStepȱ2.ȱ
4. AddȱtheȱlengthȱofȱtheȱSegmentȱ2ȱgradeȱtoȱtheȱlengthȱdeterminedȱinȱStepȱ3.ȱ
5. RepeatȱStepsȱ2ȱthroughȱ4ȱforȱeachȱsubsequentȱgradeȱsegment.ȱ
6. Findȱtheȱintersectionȱofȱaȱverticalȱlineȱdrawnȱatȱtheȱtotalȱlengthȱofȱtheȱ
compositeȱgradeȱandȱaȱhorizontalȱlineȱdrawnȱatȱtheȱfinalȱspeedȱofȱtrucksȱ
atȱtheȱendȱofȱtheȱcompositeȱgrade.ȱ
7. DetermineȱtheȱpercentȱofȱgradeȱforȱtheȱsolutionȱpointȱofȱStepȱ6.ȱ
DISCUSSION
Inȱtheȱanalysisȱofȱcompositeȱgrades,ȱtheȱpointȱofȱinterestȱisȱnotȱalwaysȱatȱtheȱ
endȱofȱtheȱgrade.ȱItȱisȱimportantȱtoȱidentifyȱtheȱpointȱatȱwhichȱtheȱspeedȱofȱtrucksȱ
isȱtheȱlowestȱbecauseȱthisȱisȱwhereȱtrucksȱwillȱhaveȱtheȱmaximumȱimpactȱonȱ
operatingȱconditions.ȱThisȱpointȱmayȱbeȱanȱintermediateȱpoint.ȱIfȱaȱ+3%ȱgradeȱofȱ
1,000ȱftȱisȱfollowedȱbyȱaȱ+4%ȱgradeȱofȱ2,000ȱft,ȱthenȱbyȱaȱ+2%ȱgradeȱofȱ1,500ȱft,ȱtheȱ
speedȱofȱtrucksȱwillȱbeȱslowestȱatȱtheȱendȱofȱtheȱ+4%ȱgradeȱsegment.ȱThus,ȱaȱ
compositeȱgradeȱsolutionȱwouldȱbeȱsoughtȱforȱtheȱfirstȱtwoȱsegmentsȱofȱtheȱ
grade,ȱwithȱaȱtotalȱgradeȱlengthȱofȱ1,000ȱ+ȱ2,000ȱ=ȱ3,000ȱft.ȱ
Theȱcompositeȱgradeȱprocedureȱisȱnotȱapplicableȱinȱallȱcases,ȱespeciallyȱifȱtheȱ
firstȱsegmentȱisȱaȱdowngradeȱandȱtheȱsegmentȱlengthȱisȱlongȱorȱifȱtheȱsegmentsȱ
areȱtooȱshort.ȱInȱtheȱuseȱofȱperformanceȱcurves,ȱcasesȱthatȱcannotȱbeȱsolvedȱwithȱ
thisȱprocedureȱwillȱbecomeȱapparentȱtoȱtheȱanalystȱbecauseȱtheȱlineȱwillȱnotȱ
intersectȱorȱtheȱpointsȱwillȱfallȱoutsideȱtheȱlimitsȱofȱtheȱcurves.ȱInȱsuchȱcases,ȱfieldȱ
measurementsȱofȱspeedsȱshouldȱbeȱusedȱasȱinputsȱtoȱtheȱselectionȱofȱappropriateȱ
truckȱequivalencyȱvalues.ȱ
Chapter 11/Basic Freeway Segments Page 11-47 Appendix A: Composite Grades

December 2010

HCM 2010 Chapter 11 Basic Freeway Segments

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

HCM 2010 Chapter 11 Basic Freeway Segments

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Highway Capacity Manual 2010

Chapter 11/Basic Freeway Segments Page 11-i Contents

Exhibitȱ11Ȭ1ȱThreeȱTypesȱofȱFreewayȱFlow ............................................................ 11Ȭ2

Contents Page 11-ii Chapter 11/Basic Freeway Segments

Basicȱfreewayȱsegmentsȱareȱdefinedȱasȱthoseȱfreewayȱsegmentsȱthatȱareȱ VOLUME 2: UNINTERRUPTED FLOW

Chapter 11/Basic Freeway Segments Page 11-1 Introduction

Base conditions also include x Noȱheavyȱvehiclesȱ[trucks,ȱbuses,ȱrecreationalȱvehiclesȱ(RVs)]ȱinȱtheȱtrafficȱ

Introduction Page 11-2 Chapter 11/Basic Freeway Segments

Theȱanalysisȱmethodologyȱforȱbasicȱfreewayȱsegmentsȱisȱbasedȱentirelyȱonȱ The basic freeway segment

SpeedFlow Curves for Base Conditions

Flow Rate (pc/h/ln)

Chapter 11/Basic Freeway Segments Page 11-3 Introduction

FFS should be rounded to the interpolateȱbetweenȱtheȱbasicȱcurves.ȱFFSȱshouldȱbeȱroundedȱtoȱtheȱnearestȱ5ȱ

Exhibit 11-3 Flow Rate Range

CAPACITY UNDER BASE CONDITIONS

Introduction Page 11-4 Chapter 11/Basic Freeway Segments

LOS FOR BASIC FREEWAY SEGMENTS

Chapter 11/Basic Freeway Segments Page 11-5 Introduction

Freeway LOS Described

Introduction Page 11-6 Chapter 11/Basic Freeway Segments

LOSȱFȱoperationsȱwithinȱaȱqueueȱareȱtheȱresultȱofȱaȱbreakdownȱorȱbottleneckȱ The effects of a breakdown may

LOS Density (pc/mi/ln) Exhibit 11-5

Chapter 11/Basic Freeway Segments Page 11-7 Introduction

Length of Analysis Period

Introduction Page 11-8 Chapter 11/Basic Freeway Segments

Chapter 11/Basic Freeway Segments Page 11-9 Methodology

Exhibit 11-7 illustrates the

Step 3: Select FFS Curve

Step 4: Adjust Demand Volume

Compare adjusted demand flow rate

Demand flow rate > capacity

LOS = F Demand flow rate  capacity

Step 5: Estimate Speed and Density

Step 6: Determine LOS (A-E)

Step 1: Input Data

Step 2: Compute FFS

Methodology Page 11-10 Chapter 11/Basic Freeway Segments

Field Measurement of FFS

Adjustment for Lane Width

Chapter 11/Basic Freeway Segments Page 11-11 Methodology

Adjustment for Lateral Clearance

Exhibit 11-9 Right-Side

Total Ramp Density

Step 3: Select FFS Curve

Step 4: Adjust Demand Volume

Methodology Page 11-12 Chapter 11/Basic Freeway Segments

Peak Hour Factor

Adjustment for Heavy Vehicles

Chapter 11/Basic Freeway Segments Page 11-13 Methodology

Equivalents for General Terrain Segments

Methodology Page 11-14 Chapter 11/Basic Freeway Segments

PCE by Type of Terrain Exhibit 11-10

Equivalents for Specific Upgrades

Chapter 11/Basic Freeway Segments Page 11-15 Methodology

The grade length should Theȱlengthȱofȱtheȱgradeȱisȱgenerallyȱtakenȱfromȱaȱhighwayȱprofile.ȱItȱtypicallyȱ

Exhibit 11-11 Upgrade Length Proportion of Trucks and Buses

Methodology Page 11-16 Chapter 11/Basic Freeway Segments

Upgrade Length Proportion of RVs Exhibit 11-12

Equivalents for Specific Downgrades

Downgrade Length of Proportion of Trucks and Buses Exhibit 11-13

Onȱdowngrades,ȱRVsȱareȱalwaysȱtreatedȱasȱifȱtheyȱwereȱonȱlevelȱterrain;ȱERȱisȱ ER is always 1.2 on downgrades.

Equivalents for Composite Grades

Chapter 11/Basic Freeway Segments Page 11-17 Methodology

SpeedFlow Curves for Base Conditions

LOS = F Demand flow rate capacity

S 65 0.00001418 1,696 1,400 2 63.8ȱmi/h

S( present) 70 0.00001160 1,843 1,200 ȱ2 65.2ȱmi/h

S(future) 70 0.000011602 ,064 1,200 ȱ2 61.3ȱmi/h