7 Edition of Highway Capacity Manual: What Is New in The

WHAT IS NEW IN THE
7th Edition of Highway Capacity Manual
Behzad Aghdashi, PhD, PMP

Fabio Sasahara, PhD, PMP
PART OF
Copyright © McTrans Center 1

Agenda Overview of Changes in HCM 7th Edition
• HCM Overview
• Capacity effects of CAVs
• Two-Lane highways
• New pedestrian methods
• Network analysis
• Updates on HCS features
HCM OVERVIEW
What is HCM?
Overseen by TRB committee on Highway Capacity and Quality of Service (hcqstrb.org)
Most methods are developed via national level projects such as NCHRPs*.
Four Volumes:
I. Concepts
II. Uninterrupted Flow
III. Interrupted Flow
IV. Applications Guide (Online only)
(*) NCHRP: National Cooperative Highway Research Program

HCM OVERVIEW
HCM and HCS History
HCM Releases:
1950 1965 1985 1994 1997 2000 2010 2016 2022
1st Edition 3rd Edition 4th Edition 6th Edition

Bureau of Public Transportation Completely Much Research
Records Research Board Reorganized with 37 Chapters
2nd Edition Major updates 5th Edition 7th Edition

Highway Capacity to the 3rd Edition Much Research, 38 Chapters, first
Committee Some Engines fully digital
HCS Releases: 1987 1994 1997 2000 2010 2016 2022
Release 1 HCS-3 HCS 2010 HCS 2022
Release 2 HCS 2000 HCS 7

HCM OVERVIEW
New Research – Updating to HCM 7th Edition
Research Project Project Title HCM Chapter(s) Updated
Enhancing Pedestrian Volume Estimation and Developing HCM Updated Chapters

NCHRP 17-87
Pedestrian Methodologies for Safe and Sustainable Communities 18, 19, 20, 30, 31 & 32
FHWA Pooled Fund Capacity Adjustment Factors for Connected and Updated Chapter
TPF-5(371) Automated Vehicles (CAV) in the Highway Capacity Manual 26, 31 & 33
Improved Analysis of Two-Lane Highway Capacity and

NCHRP 17-65 New Chapter 15
Operational Performance
FHWA Active Transportation and Demand Management (ATDM) Updated Chapters

(FHWA-HOP-16-088) Analytical Methods for Urban Streets 17 & 37
Highway Capacity Manual Methodologies for Corridors

NCHRP 15-57 New Chapter 38
Involving Freeways and Surface Streets
Various errata changes and interpretations

Over 350 pages of new/updated material

Capacity Impact for Connected
and Automated Vehicles
C O N N E C T E D & A U T O M AT E D V E H I C L E S
Supported Agency Decision Making
Typical planning horizon of 25 years Connected and Automated Vehicles (CAVs)

• State Transportation Improvement Programs (STIP) • Vehicles communicate with each other and roadside infrastructure
• Funding decisions made for traffic in 2045-2050! • Cooperative Adaptive Cruise Control (CACC) features enabling
platooning operation
Image Credit: The Economist Image Credit: PCQuest

Updates in HCM 7th Edition
Chapter 26
Freeway Facility Supplemental
Chapter 31
Signalized Intersections Supplemental
Chapter 33
Roundabouts Supplemental

Capacity Adjustment for CAVs
Designed for planning level analyses

State Transportation Improvement Programs (STIP)
Capacity Adjustment Factors (CAFs) for CAVs

Given a market penetration rate of CAVs, what percent increase in capacity can
be expected?
Service Volume Tables for CAVs

Given a market penetration rate of CAVs, what hourly and/or daily service
volumes are achievable for planning applications?

CAV Capacity Adjustment - Freeways
3,400
CAV Adjusted capacity (pc/h/ln)

3,200
Capacity Adjustment Factor (CAFCAV) 3,000
with a multiplicative effect 2,800
2,600
Main user input: % Market Penetration (0 to 100%) 2,400
• What percentage of the traffic stream is comprised of CAVs? 2,200
2,000
Intended for planning-level applications 1,800
0 20 40 60 80 100
Does not consider: CAV Market Penetration (%)
Base cap: 2400 pc/h/ln Base cap: 2100 pc/h/ln
• Oversaturated conditions
Base cap: 1800 pc/h/ln
• CAVs on Managed Lanes
• Truck platooning / connected and autonomous trucks
Capacity adjustments – Basic Segments

CAV Service Volume Tables - Freeways
CAV input – HCS Freeway analysis
HCS Freeway report – CAV Service Volume tables

CAV Capacity Adjustment: Signalized Intersections
3,000
CAV Base Saturation Flow Rate

Adjustment to Saturation Flow Rate 2,800
2,600
(pc/h/ln)
Main user input: % Market Penetration (0 to 100%)
2,400
• What percentage of the traffic stream is comprised of CAVs?
2,200
Addresses protected and permitted phases 2,000
1,800
Does not consider: 0 20 40 60 80 100
• Interactions with pedestrians and other modes CAV Market Penetration (%)
• Driveways or access points impacting saturation flow rates
Saturation Flow Rate adjustments – Through movements

CAV Capacity Adjustment - Roundabouts

3600 tf: Follow-up headway (s)

𝐴=
𝑡𝑓
𝑐 = 𝒇𝑨 𝐴𝑒 (−𝒇𝑩 𝐵𝑣𝐶 ) tC: Critical headway (s)
𝑡𝑐 − (𝑡𝑓 /2)
𝐵=
3,600


One-lane entry, One-lane entry, Two-lane entry, Two-lane entry,

one-lane circulating two-lane circulating one-lane circulating two-lane circulating
2000 2000 2000 2000
1800 1800 1800 1800
1600 1600 1600 1600

Capacity (pc/h)
Capacity (pc/h)
Capacity (pc/h)
1400 1400 1400 1400
Capacity (pc/h)
1200 1200 1200 1200
1000 1000 1000 1000
800 800 800 800
600 600 600 600
400 400 400 400
200 200 200 200
0 0 0 0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 0 500 1000 1500 2000 0 500 1000 1500 2000 0 500 1000 1500 2000
Conflicting Flow Rate (pc/h) Conflicting Flow Rate (pc/h) Conflicting Flow Rate (pc/h) Conflicting Flow Rate (pc/h)
Base conditions (0% CAVs) 100% CAVs



C AS E E X AM P L E I
CAVs - Freeways

Case Example - Freeways
What are the expected traffic conditions on California roads by 2050?
Source: CSF2TDM Source: Litman, 2017
35% increase in traffic demand 50% CAV market penetration rate

Case Example
2022 BASE CONDITIONS

I-10 WB @ Los Angeles, CA
LOS – AM Peak (7 AM – 8:15 PM)
Time 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
7:00 - 7:15 D D C C C B B B C C D C C C C
7:15 - 7:30 D C D C C C C C D D D D D C D
7:30 - 7:45 C C C C C C B B C C D D C C D
7:45 - 8:00 C C C C C B B B B C C C B C C
Case Example
2050 – No CAVs
What is the expected LOS in 2050?
LOS – AM Peak (7AM – 8:15 PM) – no CAV considerations

Time 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
7:00 - 7:15 E E D E D C C D D D E E D D E
7:15 - 7:30 E E E E F F F F F F F F F F F
7:30 - 7:45 F D D F F F F F F E E E D F E
7:45 - 8:00 D D D E D D C F F D E E D D E
8:00 - 8:15 E D D D D D C D D D E E D D E
Case Example
2050 – 50% CAVs

What is the expected LOS in 2050?
LOS – AM Peak (7 AM – 8:15 PM) – 50% CAVs
Time 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
7:00 - 7:15 E E D E D C C D D D E E D D D
7:15 - 7:30 E E E E D D D E E E E E E E E
7:30 - 7:45 D D D E D C C D D E E E D D E
7:45 - 8:00 D D D D C C C C C C D D C D D
8:00 - 8:15 D D D D D C C B C C D D C D D
Case Example
Scenario Comparison
Time 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
7:00 - 7:15 D D C C C B B B C C D C C C C
2022 Base 7:15 - 7:30 D C D C C C C C D D D D D C D
Conditions 7:30 - 7:45 C C C C C C B B C C D D C C D
Time 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
7:00 - 7:15 E E D E D C C D D D E E D D E
2050 7:15 - 7:30 E E E E F F F F F F F F F F F
No CAVs 7:30 - 7:45 F D D F F F F F F E E E D F E
7:45 - 8:00 D D D E D D C F F D E E D D E
8:00 - 8:15 E D D D D D C D D D E E D D E
Time 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
7:00 - 7:15 E E D E D C C D D D E E D D D
2050 7:15 - 7:30 E E E E D D D E E E E E E E E
50% CAVs 7:30 - 7:45 D D D E D C C D D E E E D D E
7:45 - 8:00 D D D D C C C C C C D D C D D
8:00 - 8:15 D D D D D C C B C C D D C D D

Case Example
Assuming a Market Penetration Rate of 50% at 2050:
200 65
180
160 60
140
Speed (mi/h)
VHD (veh-h)
55
120
100
50
80
60 45
40
40
20
7:00 - 7:15 7:15 - 7:30 7:30 - 7:45 7:45 - 8:00 8:00 - 8:15
0
Base Scenario Future Scenario Future Scenario
(2022) (2050) - 0% CAVs (2050) - 50% Base Scenario (2022)
CAVs Future Scenario (2050) - 0% CAVs
Future Scenario (2050) - 50% CAVs

C AS E E X AM P L E I I
CAVs - Roundabouts

Case Example - Roundabouts
What is the capacity achievable by this roundabout at different CAV penetration rates?
Best Scenario:
360 225 450
• 5% heavy vehicles on EB-WB movements
• 2% heavy vehicles on NB-SB movements
• PHF: 0.95
230 90
• Negligible pedestrian activity
540 250
80 400
50 60 120

Best Scenario:

Capacity effects of CAVs:
50
45
40
Control delay (s/veh)
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
EB WB NB SB
Base scenario 20% CAVs 40% CAVs 60% CAVs 80% CAVs 100% CAVs

New Two-Lane Highways
Method
T W O - L A N E H I G H W AY S
Chapter 15
Two-Lane Highways
• Completely revised methodology

Background:
• Draft chapter approved in 2019 by the Highway Capacity and Quality of Service Committee
• Implemented in HCS 7
• Updated in HCM 7th Edition in 2022 to reflect final changes

Revised Chapter 15: Two-Lane Highways
HCM 6th Edition Methodology HCM 7th Edition Methodology
Segmentation • None - % of passing zones and length of • Segment types: Passing zones, passing constrained and
passing lanes are provided passing lanes
• Subsegments based on horizontal alignment
Classification • Class I, Class II, Class III • N/A
Passing
Passing Zone Constrained Passing Lanes
Two-Lane Highway Facility

Revised Chapter 15: Two-Lane Highways
HCM 6th Edition Methodology HCM 7th Edition Methodology

Performance • Average Travel Speed • Average Speed
Measures • Percent Time Spent Following • Percent Followers
• Percent of Free-Flow Speed • Follower Density (Service Measure)
Heavy vehicles • Passenger Car Equivalent (pc/h) • Flow as veh/h

• % HV as a direct input for performance measures
Capacity • 1,700 pc/h • 1,700 veh/h for passing zones and passing constrained
• Variable for passing lanes
HCM 6th Edition – LOS criteria HCM 7th Edition – LOS criteria
Sensitivity to Horizontal Curvature
Estimated speeds – new method x old method

Speeds can change significantly in curve segments
60
50
Speed (mi/h)
40
30
20
10
0
Seg 1 Seg 2 Seg 3 Seg 4 Seg 5 Seg 6 Seg 7 Seg 8 Seg 9 Seg Seg
(T) (C) (T) (C) (T) (C) (T) (C) (T) 10 (C) 11 (T)
HCM7 (subsegments) HCM6 (segment average)

Super 2 Highways
• Continuous 3-lane sections

• Middle lane is a passing lane that alternates directions
• More common in Europe, still rare in the USA
Source: Texas Transportation Institute (TTI)

C AS E E X AM P L E I I I
Two-Lane Highways

Case Example – Two-Lane Highways
Evaluate LOS of a Two-Lane Highway Facility – Eastbound Direction

Juniper Springs is a popular spring serviced by FL-40, a scenic two-lane highway in Ocala/FL
Seg. 1 (PZ) Seg. 2 (PC) Seg. 3 (PC) Seg. 4 (PL) Seg. 5 (PC)
PZ: Passing zone; PC: Passing constrained; PL: Passing lane; Copyright © McTrans Center 35
Input Data
Segment # Directional Volume (veh/h) Opposing Volume (veh/h)
Highway schematic (Eastbound direction):
• Posted speed limit = 55 mi/h 1 470 380
• Level terrain (0% grade) 2 500 -

3 500 -
• 8% heavy vehicles
4 500 -
• PHF: 0.95
5 500 -
1045 ft 7150 ft 4500 ft 4615 ft 950 ft
PZ: Passing zone; PC: Passing constrained; PL: Passing lane;


Segment # Type Length (ft) Curve radius (ft) Superelevation (%)
Input Data 1 Tangent 1045 - -

2 Tangent 7150 - -
Additional geometric data: 3 Tangent 650 - -
• Shoulder width: 6 ft 3 Horizontal Curve 1990 5730 3
3 Tangent 1860 - -
• Access Point Density: 0
4 Tangent 700 - -
• Lane width: 12 ft 4 Horizontal Curve 1480 2860 5
4 Tangent 2435 - -
5 Tangent 950 - -

Results
1045 ft 7150 ft 4500 ft 4615 ft 950 ft
Speed Distribution Follower Density Distribution

10
Follower Density
(followes/mi/ln)
65
Speed (mi/h)
60 5
55
0
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
Segment
Segment

How would this facility be modeled with HCM 6 methods?

• Single segment (3.5 mi)1
• 69% passing zones 2
• 0.9 mi passing lane, located 2.4 mi
Seg. 1 (PZ) Seg. 2 (PC) Seg. 3 (PC) Seg. 4 (PL) Seg. 5 (PC) upstream the segment start 3
1045 ft 7150 ft 4500 ft 4615 ft 950 ft
(1)
(3)
(2)
Level of Service D (based on ATS and PTSF)

Enhanced Pedestrian Volume
Estimation and Evaluation
Method
NEW PEDESTRIAN METHODS
NCHRP 17-87 | Existing HCM Pedestrian Methods
Many pedestrian methods (and metrics) already in HCM
• Urban streets
• Signalized intersections
• TWSC intersections and midblock crossings
• Off-street paths (pedestrian-only and multi-use)

Chapter 18
Urban Streets Segments
Chapter 19
Signalized Intersections
Chapter 20
Two-Way Stop-Controlled Intersections

What’s New: Uncontrolled Crossings (TWSC & Midblock)
HCM 6th Edition method HCM 7th Edition method

▪ LOS based on pedestrian delay ▪ LOS based on percentage (dis)satisfied pedestrians
▪ LOS sensitive to: ▪ LOS sensitive to:
• Hourly traffic flow rate • Hourly traffic flow rate
• Motorist yielding rate • AADT
• Motorist yielding rate
• Specific crossing treatments
• (marked crosswalk, median island, RRFB)
▪ Delay is still calculated and is sensitive to the design pedestrian
(assumed pedestrian speed)
▪ Corrections to the HCM6 motorist yielding procedure

TWSC – New Level of Service Criteria
HCM 6th Edition – LOS criteria
HCM 7th Edition – LOS criteria

HCS Implementation – crossing treatments

What’s New: Signalized Crossing Delay
HCM 6th Edition methods HCM 7th Edition methods

• Delay estimated for single-leg, single-
• Multiple-leg and multiple-stage crossings
stage crossings
• Second stage/leg arrival is not random
• LOS based on “pedestrian LOS score”
(multiple factors relating to crossing • LOS continues to be based on pedestrian LOS score
experience)
Single-stage crossing Two-leg crossing Two-stage crossing with Barnes dance / pedestrian
median refuge scramble

HCM 6th Edition: Current method HCM 7th Edition: New methods
Corner and crosswalk circulation area calculated before Corner and crosswalk circulation area become optional calculation steps
delay & LOS

HCM 6th Edition: Current method

• Segment pedestrian LOS influenced by ease of
crossing the street between signalized intersections
• Method has little sensitivity to diversion length
HCM 7th Edition: Revised methods

• Increased sensitivity to diversion length

C AS E E X AM P L E I V
TWSC – Pedestrian Analysis

Case Example - TWSC
23 26 10
Pedestrian LOS for a TWSC intersection with different crossing treatments
Base scenario:
• No crosswalk
• Pedestrian demand: 50 ped/h on every approach
46 ft
• Total crossing distance: 46 ft
80 100
• Average walking speed: 3.5 ft/s 550 550
• Motorist yield rate: 10% 100 30
? How different crossing treatments affect pedestrians crossing the EB approach?

355060

Case Example - TWSC
Base scenario – no treatment

EB WB
Average delay (s) 497.5 442.1
Probability of non-delayed crossing 0.6% 0.8%
Average proportion of dissatisfied pedestrians 82% 81.6%
LOS F F

Case Example - TWSC
20 ft
20 ft
46 ft
20 ft
20 ft
Option A Option B Option C

Pedestrian crosswalks Crosswalk + median refuge Crosswalk + median refuge + RRFB

Case Example - TWSC Pedestrian LOS for a TWSC intersection with different crossing treatments
A) Pedestrian crosswalks B) Crosswalk + median refuge C) Crosswalk + median refuge + RRFB
Average delay (s) 53.6 Average delay (s) 14.9 Average delay (s) 4.2
Probability of non-delayed crossing 4.7% Probability of non-delayed crossing 37.8% Probability of non-delayed crossing 68.6%
Avg. proportion of dissatisfied pedestrians 61.4% Avg. proportion of dissatisfied pedestrians 18.7% Avg. proportion of dissatisfied pedestrians 2.1%
LOS F LOS C LOS A
New Network Method
NETWORK METHOD
Chapter 38
Network Analysis

NETWORK METHOD
NCHRP 15-57: New HCM Chapter 38 on Network Analysis
• Evaluate spillback between arterials and freeways

• Estimate travel time across facilities
• Conduct lane-by-lane analysis for freeways

NETWORK METHOD
Analyzing Corridors with Freeways and Streets
How to analyze a trip from A to F? HCM Current methods – analyze two different facilities:
Facility 1 (Urban Street): Facility 2 (Freeway):
I-10 WB
I-10 EB
HCM New methods – integrates analyses and overcomes limitations:
• Travel time as common performance measure
• Congestion propagation at interchanges (queue spillback)
Acadian Center
• Lane selection at freeway depending on O-D
• Travel time at freeway ramps
Perkins St.

NETWORK METHOD
Analyzing Corridors with Freeways and Streets
On-Ramp Queue Spillback

Occurs when:
• Insufficient capacity at:
a
a) freeway merge
b) ramp meter or
b
c) ramp roadway
c • Insufficient storage length at the on-ramp
User Inputs
• Available queue storage at the on-ramp (ft)
• Ramp metering rate, if applicable (veh/h)
• Intersection and Freeway inputs per existing HCM methods

NETWORK METHOD
Queue Spillback Analysis – Freeway Off-ramps
Freeway impact is more localized close to exit and spreads further upstream:
Capacity Adjustment Factors - Modeling framework:
Queue influence area

CAFBL – “friction factor” for through vehicles
adjacent to blocked lanes
CAFUP – “increased turbulence” within the QIA

NETWORK METHOD
Queue Spillback Analysis – Freeway Off-ramps
User Inputs:
• Available queue storage at the off-ramp (ft)

• Queue spillback regime
• Queue extends through one or two mainline lanes?
Available queue storage at the off-ramp (ft) Queue spillback regime

NETWORK METHOD
Freeway Lane-by-Lane Performance
Instrumental to analyze O-D based travel times – affects lane choice
Estimation of capacity and speeds for individual lanes
Flow distribution for individual lanes as function of:
• Segment and ramp flow rate; % grade; nearby ramps; number of lanes
How do travel times between these two O-D pairs differ?

NETWORK METHOD
Numerical Example
HCM 6th Edition - Current methods HCM 7th Edition - New methods
Facility 1 (Urban Street):
LOS=F
3 O-D Travel Time
TT=478 s
(TT)=1406 s
Facility 2 (Freeway): 1
2
LOS=D
TT=735 s
Facility 3 (Urban Street):

LOS=E
TT=193 Sec

NETWORK METHOD
Addressing Long Routes (TT>15mins)
HCM 6th Edition HCM 7th Edition

Current methods Network methods

What is new in the
HCS 2022 Release?
HCS 2022
HCS 2022 Release – What is New?
New features
• Metric unit support for all modules
• Redesigned user interface
• Analysis of new Managed Lane geometries
• Enhanced data entry through import CSV
• New MOEs:
• VMT and VHD for Freeways
• Emissions and crashes for Streets

HCS 2022
HCM 7th Edition – Implementation Schedule

HCS 2022 (Jan/2022) HCS 2023 (Sep/2022)
Capacity Effects of CAVs
• Freeways
• Roundabouts
• Signalized Intersections
Pedestrian LOS methods
• Two-Way Stop Control
• Urban Streets
• Signalized Intersections
Two-Lane Highways
Network Analysis
• Freeways lane-by-lane analysis
• Corridor analysis
• Queue spillback analysis

HCS 2022
About Us
Other training courses:
15,000+ worldwide users across 77+ • Transportation Equity (TE) Certification Training (16 PDHs)
countries
• Highway Capacity Analysis (12 PDHs)
Reliable customer support (average

• Highway Safety Analysis (8 PDHs)
response time under 5 hours)
• Traffic Engineering Fundamentals (12 PDHs)
5,400+ hours taught annually

Questions / Thank you!
Behzad Aghdashi, PhD, PMP /company/mctrans-center

McTrans Center
Director
saghdashi@ufl.edu HCS User Group
TSIS-CORSIM User Group

Fabio Sasahara, PhD, PMP
McTrans Center HSS User Group
Outreach and Training Team Lead
fsasahara@ufl.edu

7 Edition of Highway Capacity Manual: What Is New in The

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

7 Edition of Highway Capacity Manual: What Is New in The

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

WHAT IS NEW IN THE

7th Edition of Highway Capacity Manual

Behzad Aghdashi, PhD, PMP

Copyright © McTrans Center 1

Overseen by TRB committee on Highway Capacity and Quality of Service (hcqstrb.org)

(*) NCHRP: National Cooperative Highway Research Program

Copyright © McTrans Center 3

HCM and HCS History

1950 1965 1985 1994 1997 2000 2010 2016 2022

1st Edition 3rd Edition 4th Edition 6th Edition

2nd Edition Major updates 5th Edition 7th Edition

HCS Releases: 1987 1994 1997 2000 2010 2016 2022

Release 1 HCS-3 HCS 2010 HCS 2022

Release 2 HCS 2000 HCS 7

Copyright © McTrans Center 4

New Research – Updating to HCM 7th Edition

Research Project Project Title HCM Chapter(s) Updated

Enhancing Pedestrian Volume Estimation and Developing HCM Updated Chapters

Improved Analysis of Two-Lane Highway Capacity and

FHWA Active Transportation and Demand Management (ATDM) Updated Chapters

Highway Capacity Manual Methodologies for Corridors

Various errata changes and interpretations

Copyright © McTrans Center 5

Supported Agency Decision Making

Typical planning horizon of 25 years Connected and Automated Vehicles (CAVs)

Image Credit: The Economist Image Credit: PCQuest

Copyright © McTrans Center 7

Updates in HCM 7th Edition

Copyright © McTrans Center 8

Capacity Adjustment for CAVs

Designed for planning level analyses

Capacity Adjustment Factors (CAFs) for CAVs

Service Volume Tables for CAVs

Copyright © McTrans Center 9

CAV Capacity Adjustment - Freeways

CAV Adjusted capacity (pc/h/ln)

Capacity adjustments – Basic Segments

Copyright © McTrans Center 10

CAV Service Volume Tables - Freeways

CAV input – HCS Freeway analysis

HCS Freeway report – CAV Service Volume tables

Copyright © McTrans Center 11

CAV Capacity Adjustment: Signalized Intersections

CAV Base Saturation Flow Rate

Saturation Flow Rate adjustments – Through movements

Copyright © McTrans Center 12

CAV Capacity Adjustment - Roundabouts

Main user input: % Market Penetration (0 to 100%)

3600 tf: Follow-up headway (s)

Copyright © McTrans Center 13

CAV Capacity Adjustment - Roundabouts

Main user input: % Market Penetration (0 to 100%)

One-lane entry, One-lane entry, Two-lane entry, Two-lane entry,

1800 1800 1800 1800

1600 1600 1600 1600

1000 1000 1000 1000

800 800 800 800

600 600 600 600

400 400 400 400

200 200 200 200

Base conditions (0% CAVs) 100% CAVs

Copyright © McTrans Center 14

CAV Capacity Adjustment - Roundabouts