NCHRP 03-115 - Uninterrupted Flow - WP 4 - Freeway Method Integration - 20140415

CopyNo.
_____
NCHRPProject03115
ProductionofaMajorUpdatetothe
HighwayCapacityManual2010
UninterruptedFlowWorkingPaper#4
FreewayMethodologyIntegrationPlan
Preparedby:
BastianSchroeder,NaguiRouphail,BehzadAghdashi,andAliHajbabaie
ITREatN.C.StateUniversity
Preparedfor:
NationalCooperativeHighwayResearchProgram
TransportationResearchBoard
NationalResearchCouncil
TransportationResearchBoard
NASNRC
LIMITEDUSEDOCUMENT
Thisreport,notreleasedforpublication,isfurnishedonlyfortomembersof,orparticipantsintheworkof,theNational
CooperativeHighwayResearchProgram.Itistoberegardedasfullyprivileged,anddisseminationoftheinformationincluded
hereinmustbeapprovedbytheNCHRP.
April2014

Kittelson&Associates,Inc.
ITREatNorthCarolinaStateUniversity
McTransCenterUniversityofFlorida
Dr.RogerRoess
StrongConcepts
WriteRhetoric

NCHRP03115:ProductionofaMajorUpdatetotheHighwayCapacityManual2010
UninterruptedFlowWorkingPaper#4:FreewayMethodologyIntegrationPlan TableofContents
ii
TableofContents
Table of Contents ....................................................................................................................................... ii
1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................................... 1
2. Review of Existing Methodologies ....................................................................................................... 1
3. Methodology Framework......................................................................................................................... 2
4. Proposed Methodology FlowCharts .................................................................................................... 3
5. Part A: Core Freeway Facility Analysis Computational Steps ............................................... 6
6. Part B: Comprehensive Reliability Analysis Computational Steps ...................................... 9
7. Part C: Reliability Strategy Assessment (ATDM Effect) Computational Steps ........... 11
Appendix Existing Methodology Flow Charts ............................................................................ 13

UninterruptedFlowWorkingPaper#3:FreewayMethodologyIntegrationPlanTableofContents
1
1. INTRODUCTION
This working paper describes a proposed integrated methodology for freeway facility
evaluation in the HCM2010 Major Update to be prepared under the auspices of NCHRP 03
115. As part of that project, the core freeway facilities methodology (HCM2010 Chapter 10)
is enhanced through three principal research activities:
1. Freeway Facility with Managed Lanes Analysis (NCHRP 396),
2. Freeway Facility Reliability Analysis (SHRP2 L08), and
3. Freeway Facility with Active Traffic and Demand Management (ATDM, FHWA).
In addition to these three core enhancements, additional research on work zone effects,
truck impacts, and others enhancements need to be integrated in the core methodology.
The focus of this paper is on the methodology itself, and not the specific organization of the
material within the HCM2010 Major Update. A separated working paper will describe
proposed outlines and options for the freeway facilities chapter(s).
2. REVIEWOFEXISTINGMETHODOLOGIES
The team carefully reviewed the existing methodologies of the various sources mentioned
above, which are also provided in the appendix of this working paper. Several observations
are made:
The managed lane methodology developed under NCHRP 396 assumes integration
within the current Chapter 10 freeway facilities methodology;
The reliability and ATDM methodologies are designed to build upon the existing
HCM2010 Chapter 10, and treat the current method as the computational core;
Both reliability and ATDM methods rely on the concept of scenario generation to
consider impact of weather, incidents, demand variability, etc. on the facility. The
two methods differ in their approach to scenario generation, and a consistent
approach is highly desirable to achieve integration in HCM2010 Major Update;
The ATDM method could be considered as building upon the reliability
methodology, where the ATDM before analysis is conceptually similar to the
wholeyear analysis performed in the reliability project albeit with some
differences in scenario generation as discussed in the previous bullet;
All existing methodologies could be considered high level, where important
individual steps that could help user understanding are left out;
All methodologies rely on the use of computational engines (various forms of
FREEVAL), but in the methodology it is unclear, which steps are performed
manually by the user, and which are automated in the engine;
None of the methodologies include designated steps on calibration and validation,
which have been identified by the project panel, AHB40, and the user community as
being highly desirable;
2
The core methodology for the freeway facility methodology lacks sufficient detail for
a user to understand what steps should be conducted prior to applying the
computational engine, and how to gather valid data. More detail is desired to meet
the practitioner focus desired for HCM2010 Major Update; and
Work zones can take the form of longterm and shortterm work zones, where long
term work zones (duration of many months, or even years) are often treated as
entirely separate base analysis files. Short term work zones behave similar to
incidents (capacity and speed adjustments), but with the difference that they are
often scheduled. However, some work zones are more random, such as pavement
repair and maintenance work, which happens on an asneeded basis without
significant advance scheduling. The presence of work zone activity during the peak
study period depends on the type of facility, with many agencies limiting
construction activities to offpeak periods on urban freeways serving critical
mobility needs.
3. METHODOLOGYFRAMEWORK
From the observations above, the team proposes a framework that divides the integrated
freeway facilities methodology into three distinct parts:
Part A: Core Freeway Facility Analysis (Single Study Period) This is a
modification of the existing HCM2010 methodology, with integrated managed lane
analysis steps from NCHRP 396, and with critical enhancements to aid user
understanding. The number of steps has been expanded to clearly designate each
step in the methodology, with a focus on assisting practitioners apply the
methodology correctly. The method further has been augmented with calibration
and validation steps, and more clearly distinguishes steps required to be performed
manually by the users, vs. those typically automated in a computational engine or
software.
Part B: Comprehensive Reliability Analysis (WholeYear Analysis) This
second part integrates the reliability methodology and scenario generation process
from SHRP2 L08. It builds upon the core methodology from Part A, and provides
detailed steps for conducting a reliability analysis. The computational steps have
been expanded from the SHRP2 L08 method to integrate scenario generation within
the overall method, as well as providing clear guidance to the user on each step.
Similar to part A, the method includes a calibration/validation step, and clearly
distinguishes manual from automated steps.
Part C: Reliability Strategy Assessment (ATDM Effect Analysis) This third part
builds upon the completed reliability analysis with an assessment of ATDM
strategies. The part C methodology is consistent with the methodology developed
for FHWA on ATDM evaluation, with the key difference that the before ATDM
analysis is synonymous with Part B above. Further, the methodology has been
expanded to include a calibration/validation step, to distinguish manual from
automated steps, and to provide consistency in terminology with other parts.
3
It is assumed that Part A would constitute the core methodology, while parts B and C
represent adaptations and extensions of the methodology for reliability and ATDM
assessment, respectively.
The method further assumes that longterm work zones are treated as a standalone
evaluation for parts A, B, and C, as their duration often spans many months or even years
(i.e. most or all of the reliability reporting period). As such, only shortterm work zones
should be included in the reliability scenariogeneration process, using userdefined inputs
for frequency, location, severity, and probability. In the scenario generation steps, these
shortterm work zones will then be considered as a subcategory of incidents.
4. PROPOSEDMETHODOLOGYFLOWCHARTS
The proposed methodology flow charts for the three parts are shown on the next few pages,
followed by a discussion of computational steps for each part.
4
Legend
*StepautomaticallyexecutedbyComputationalEngine(doubleborder)
+StepappliestoManagedLaneAnalysisOnly
LQ=LengthofQueue
LQ=LengthofQueue
ACoreFreewayFacilityAnalysis(SingleStudyPeriod)
StepA1:DefineStudyScope
SpatialExtent, TemporalExtent,Extensions
StepA2:Divide FacilityintoValidationSections
andSegments
StepA3:GatherInputData
Demand,GeometryDetails, HeavyVehicles,etc.
StepA4:BalanceDemands
StepA5:CodeBaseandManagedLaneFacility
FREEVALComputationalEngine
StepA7:ComputeSegmentCapacities*
HCM2010 segmentmethodologies
StepA8:Calibrate withAdjustmentFactors
Forinitialrun,CAF=SAF=DAF=1.0for entirefacility
StepA9:MLCrossWeaveAdjustment
+
(AppliestoManagedLaneAnalysisOnly)
StepA10:ComputeDemandtoCapacityRatios
(v
d
/c)*
v
d
/c<=
1.0?
StepA11:ComputeUndersaturated
PerformanceMeasures*
LQ<=
0.0
StepA12:ComputeOversaturated Performance
Measures*
StepA13:Apply MLAdjacentFrictionFactor*
,+
StepA14:ComputeLaneGroupPerformance*
,+
StepA16:ValidateAgainstFieldDataorExpert
Judgment
Accept.
Match?
StepA17:EstimateLOSandReportPerformance
MeasuresforLaneGroups
+
andFacility*
OPTIONAL:Continue toReliability
Analysis StepB1
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
StepA6:SetGlobalParameters
Userdefinedglobal calibrationparameters
StepA15:ComputeFacilityPerformance
Measures*
LQ(Max)
<=Facility
Yes
No

Figure 1: Proposed Methodology for Part A Core Freeway Facility Analysis (Single Study Period)
LQ = Length of Queue
5
Legend
*StepautomaticallyexecutedbyEngine(doubleborder)
BComprehensiveReliabilityAnalysis(WholeYearAnalysis)
StepB2:GatherReliabilityInputs
Demand, weather,incidents,etc.
CalibratedBaseFilefromSingle
Scenario Anysis(StepA17)
StepB5:CombineDemand PatternsforSimilar
DaysofWeekorMonthsofYears
StepB6:DefineDemandVariabilityperDayand
MonthandAssigntoScenarios
StepB7:DefineWeatherProbabilitiesand
ImpactsandAssigntoScenarios
StepB8:DefineIncident Probabilitiesand
ImpactsandAssigntoScenarios
StepB9:DefineShortTermWorkZoneand
SpecialEventProbabilitiesandAdjustments
StepB10:GenerateFullScenarioListand
ScenarioProbabilities*
StepB11:PerformAnalysisforeachScenario*
StepB12:ComputeReliabilityPerformance
Measures*
StepB13:ValidateAgainstFieldDataorExpert
Judgment
Accept.
Match?
StepB14:EstimateLOSandReportPerformance
Measures*
Yes
No
OPTIONAL: Continue toATDMAnalysis
StepC1
StepB1:DefineReliabilityReportingPeriod
(RRP)andExclude Days
StepB3:Define orRefineGlobalInputs
Userdefinedglobal calibrationparameters
StepB4:DefineorRedefineNumberof
ScenariosforReliabilityAnalysis

Figure 2: Proposed Methodology for Part B Comprehensive Reliability Analysis (WholeYear
Analysis)
6
Legend
*StepautomaticallyexecutedbyEngine(doubleborder)
CReliabilityStrategyAssessment(ATDMEffectAnalysis)
StepC1:LimitScenarioList (Optionalto
StreamlineApplicationofATDMStrategies)
StepC2:SelectPoolofATDMStrategies
CalibratedReliabilityAnysis
(StepB14)
StepC3:DesignATDMStrategyforFacility
StepC4: ConvertATDMInfotoOperational
Inputs
StepC5:ProcessATDMScenarios*
StepC6:Compute PerformanceMeasures*
StepC8:Validate ResultsAgainstFieldDataor
ExpertJudgment
Accept.
Match?
Yes
No
StepC9:EstimateLOSandReportPerformance
Measures*
StepC7:Process Before&AfterComparison*

Figure 3: Proposed Methodology for Part C Reliability Strategy Assessment (ATDM Effect Analysis)

5. PARTA:CoreFreewayFacilityAnalysisComputationalSteps
The first part of the freeway facilities analysis consists of seventeen computational steps as
discussed below:
Step A1: Define Study Scope In this step initial step, the analyst defines the spatial
extent of the facility (start and end points, total length) and the temporal extent of
the analysis (number of 15minute time periods). The analyst should further decide
which study extensions (if any) apply to the analysis (managed lanes, reliability,
ATDM)
Step A2: Divide Facility into Validation Sections and Segments In this step, the
analyst first defines the number of validation sections from gore point to gore point
along the selected facility. While the HCM analysis does not directly use the concept
7
of validation sections, they are believed to be more intuitive and understandable by
users, and further match most freeway databases (e.g. INRIX, PEMS, etc.), which all
provide performance measures from gore to gore. This consistency is considered
critical for calibration and validation of the freeway facility.
The analyst then further divides validation sections into HCM segments (basic,
merge, diverge, weave, overlapping ramp, or managed lane segment). Expert
judgment may be needed for segments that do not cleanly fit the HCM definitions.
The first and last segment must always be a basic segment, and these may be
considered as half validation sections, as only one gore point is included in each.
For facilities with managed lanes, this step includes the definition of parallel lane
groups for managed lanes and generalpurpose lanes.
Step A3: Gather Input Data This step gathers detailed input data including vehicle
demands, geometric details (number of lanes, segment lengths, lengths of
acceleration and deceleration lanes), heavy and recreational vehicle percentages,
free flow speeds, and weaving segment details. Data are needed in 15minute
intervals, and the user needs to carefully distinguish between demand and volume
served, where the latter may be metered relative to the true demand due to
congestion.
Step A4: Balance Demands For forecasted data (from a traffic model) this step
balances flows throughout the facility. For field data, this step balances the sums of
inputs and outputs. If necessary, offramp demands downstream of congestion may
need to be adjusted to achieve demand balance.
Step A5: Code Base Facility This is the first step requiring the use of a
computational engine or software. The step references the FREEVAL user guide for
detailed guidance for coding the base facility.
Step A6: Set Global Parameters This step defines global parameters that are
needed for computation and calibration. The calibration/validation loop returns to
this step to adjust global parameters, including jam density, queue discharge
capacity drop, terrain type, etc.
Step A7: Compute Segment Capacities This step computes segment capacities
based on the respective HCM chapters for basic, merge and diverge, and weaving
segments. No capacity adjustments are performed in this step.
Step A8: Calibrate with Adjustment Factors This step allows the user to adjust
demands, capacities, and freeflow speeds for the purpose of calibration. The
demand adjustment factors (DAF), capacity adjustment factors (CAF), and speed
adjustment factors (SAF) can be modified for each segment and each time period. It
is recommended that the base run does not included any adjustments, but that DAF,
CAF, and SAF are used as calibration tools in one or more iteration to match field
data.
Step A9: ML CrossWeave Adjustment This step is only required for facilities with
managed lanes, and implements a friction factor for traffic from a general purpose
(GP) lane onramp weaving across GP main line lanes to get to a managed lane
8
access point (or vice versa). The crossweave adjustment factor is conceptually
similar to a capacity adjustment factor as used in step A8.
Step A10: Compute DemandtoCapacity Ratios This step estimates the demand
tocapacity ratio for each segment in each time period. This step is the first point
where the method can jump into the oversaturated computational modules, as
opposed to using the HCM segment chapters for performance estimation.
The oversaturated module (step A13) is invoked as soon as any one segment has a
demandtocapacity ratio greater than 1.0. The computations remain in the
oversaturated module as long as demand exceeds capacity on any segments, and as
long as there are any residual queues on any segment (queue dissipation after
demand has dropped). As such, the methodology checks for residual queues on the
facility, and decides whether to stay in the oversaturated module, or whether to
return to undersaturated computations.
Step A11: Compute Undersaturated Performance Measures This step computes
the performance of each segment with demandtocapacity ratio less than 1.0 and
without any queuing at any time during the 15minute analysis period.
Step A12: Compute Oversaturated Performance Measures This step is invoked if
any segment has a demandtocapacity ratio greater than 1.0, and persists as long as
any segment has a queue length greater than zero. Step A12 represents a number of
substeps in the oversaturated procedure, which are described in detail in Chapter
25.
Step A13: Apply ML Adjacent Friction Factor This step adjusts the performance of
(undersaturated) managed lanes for adjacent general purpose lanes with a density
greater than 35 passenger cars per mile per lane (pcpmpln), depending on the
separation type between the two lane groups (paint, buffer, barrier). This step only
applies to facilities with managed lanes.
Step A14: Compute Lane Group Performance This step computes the performance
measure for the length of the facility for each lane group separately. This step only
applies to facilities with managed lanes.
Step A15: Compute Facility Performance Measures This step computes overall
facility performance measures for each time period by aggregating the individual
segment performance.
Following this step, the maximum queue length is compared to the facility length,
and the analyst is encouraged to expand the length of the facility if the base
maximum queue length (reoccurring congestion) exceeds the facility length. For the
reliability evaluation in part B, the queue is expected to extend beyond the facility
length more frequently, due to impacts of weather and incidents.
Step A16: Validate Against Field Data or Expert Judgment In this step, the
methodology results are compared to field data, results from another model, or
expert judgment. Additional details on criteria for calibration and validation of the
facility will be provided in a separate working paper. If an acceptable match is not
obtained, the analysis returns to step A6 and following steps for calibration
adjustments.
9
Step A17: Estimate LOS and Report Performance Measures for Lane Groups and
Facility This final step of the core methodology estimates the LOS for each
segment, lane group, and the overall facility for each time period.
Step A17 concludes the core freeway facility methodology for a single study period
analysis. At this time, the analyst may choose to continue to perform a reliability analysis.
It is noted that the AHB40 committee may decide to select a reliability performance
measure as the service measure for freeway facilities and to define LOS (at least for
urban freeways). In this case, the continuation to Part B is no longer optional.
6. PARTB:ComprehensiveReliabilityAnalysisCOMPUTATIONALSTEPS
The second part of the freeway facilities analysis consists of fourteen computational steps
as discussed below:
Step B1: Define Reliability Reporting Period (RRP) and Exclude Days In this step
the analyst defines the length of the RRP, which is typically one calendar year, and
decides on any days to exclude from the analysis (e.g. holidays). The analyst also
needs to define the calendar date for the seed file, which is used as a basis for any
demand adjustments in the reliability analysis.
Step B2: Gather Reliability Inputs This step collects additional inputs needed for
conducting a reliability analysis, including demand variability (by day of week and
month of year), weather data, incident records, work zone inputs, and other special
events. Some defaults and quick estimation methods are provided to aid the user,
which will be described in more detail in the chapter.
Step B3: Define or Refine Global Inputs In this step the analyst has a chance to
revise global inputs for the analysis, including jam density and the queue discharge
capacity drop. This step should ideally not be necessary, as these should have been
defined and calibrated in the core analysis in Part A. While these parameters
provide additional calibration tools in the reliability analysis, a wellcalibrated base
file is highly recommended, and additional changes during the reliability
assessment discouraged. In general, the reliability output is better calibrated by
changing other adjustment factors, as well as the underlying scenario probabilities.
The primary adjustment factors for scenario are demand adjustment factor (DAF),
capacity adjustment factor (CAF), and speed adjustment factor (SAF).
Step B4: Define or Redefine Number of Scenarios for Reliability Analysis This step
is a new step for the hybrid scenario generation approach that will be proposed for
the HCM2010 Major Update in a separate working paper. The goal of the hybrid
approach is to reduce the number of scenarios from several thousand to less than
one hundred scenarios, while still capturing effects of all sources of nonrecurring
congestion. For most reliability applications, a list of 100 scenarios is often sufficient
to capture the oneyear variability in performance. However, the analyst may
choose to include more rare scenarios (e.g. a 5year or 10year storm), to evaluate
10
impacts of very rare events. For ATDM evaluation, a smaller number of scenarios is
recommended to allow for scenariospecific selection of ATDM strategies.
Step B5: Combine Demand Patterns for Similar Days of Week or Months of Year
This step combines days of the week and months of the year with similar demands
into the same category to streamline the scenario generation approach. At this stage,
the analyst further decides whether or not to include weekends in the reliability
analysis.
Step B6: Define Demand Variability per Day and Month and Assign to Scenarios
This step defines demand adjustment factors (DAF) by day of the week and by
month of the year based on facilityspecific data. The DAF is expressed relative to
the seed file date from Part A. Defaults for urban and rural demand patterns are
provided, although facilityspecific data are preferred.
Step B7: Define Weather Probabilities and Impacts and Assign to Scenarios This
step defines weather probabilities for each of the HCM weather categories, along
with CAF, SAF, and DAF adjustment factors. Weather probability defaults are
provided for the 101 largest US metropolitan areas. CAF and SAF defaults are
provided, while DAF have to be userdefined.
Step B8: Define Incident Probabilities and Impacts and Assign to Scenarios This
step defines incident probabilities for each of the HCM incident categories, along
with CAF, SAF, and DAF adjustment factors, as well as the number of lanes lost due
to the incident. CAF and SAF defaults are provided, while DAF have to be user
defined. Two quick estimation methods for estimating incident probabilities are
provided, or facilityspecific data can be used.
Step B9: Define ShortTerm Work Zone and Special Event Probabilities and
Adjustments This step defines probabilities for any shortterm work zone or
special event, along with CAF, SAF, and DAF adjustment factors, as well as the
number of lanes lost due to the work zone. Longterm work zones should be
evaluated as a standalone reliability analysis. Probabilities and DAFs for shortterm
work zones or special events need to be userdefined; CAF and SAF defaults for
work zones are provided. In the scenario generation step, these probabilities will be
treated as a subset of incident scenarios.
Step B10: Generate Full Scenario List and Scenario Probabilities This step
generates the listing of scenarios for reliability analysis based on user inputs on
previous steps
Step B11: Perform Analysis for each Scenario This step automatically processes
each scenario in the FREEVAL computational engine.
Step B12: Compute Reliability Performance Measures This step computes
reliability performance measures from the results of all scenarios. Performance
11
measures include the travel time distribution, as well as reliability measures like
different percentiles of TTI, buffer index, and the reliability rating.
Step B13: Validate Against Field Data or Expert Judgment In this step, the
reliability results are compared to field data, results from another model, or expert
judgment. Additional details on criteria for calibration and validation of the facility
will be provided in a separate working paper. If an acceptable match is not obtained,
the analysis returns to step B3 and following steps for calibration adjustments.
Step B14: Estimate LOS and Report Performance Measures This final step of the
reliability assessment methodology estimates the reliability LOS for the facility.
Step B14 concludes the comprehensive reliability analysis methodology. At this time, the
analyst may choose to continue to perform an ATDM evaluation.

7. PARTC:RELIABILITYSTRATEGYASSESSMENT(ATDMEFFECT)
COMPUTATIONALSTEPS
The third part of the freeway facilities analysis consists of nine computational steps as
discussed below:
Step C1: Limit Scenario List In this step, the analyst may elect to reduce the
number of scenarios from Part B to a more manageable size for the purpose of
assessing ATDM strategies. Since the application of strategies has to be performed
manually at this point, a list of 30 scenarios may be more reasonable than 100. The
methodology will automatically adjust the probabilities of each scenario to match
the probability distribution of the population of scenarios.
The user may select a subset of scenarios to reflect a certain condition that is
targeted by the ATDM strategy in question (e.g. snow removal for inclement
weather days), but should always include other (nonweather) scenarios, as to not
overestimate the effect of the strategy on the entire reliability reporting period.
Statistical tests of how well the reduced scenario list reflects the overall population
will be included in the calibration step.
Step C2: Select Pool of ATDM Strategies This step allows the analyst to select
which ATDM strategy to include in the evaluation. Various strategies and their
effectiveness are described in HCM2010 Chapter 35.
Step C3: Design ATDM Strategy for Facility From the pool of strategies, the
analyst manually selects which strategy to apply to which scenario. The analyst may
select to apply a strategy uniformly across all scenarios, but more commonly would
match a specific strategy with a given scenario (e.g. weather management for snow
events, freeway service patrols for incidents, etc.).
Step C4: Convert ATDM Info to Operational Inputs This step converts the ATDM
strategy into operational inputs including demand adjustment factor (DAF),
12
capacity adjustment factor (CAF), speed adjustment factor (SAF), and number of
lanes.
Step C5: Process ATDM Scenarios This step evaluates each scenario based on the
given inputs.
Step C6: Compute Performance Measures This step calculates performance
measures for the facility with the ATDM strategies applied. Results are provided for
each scenario, as well as in the form of the overall travel time distribution.
Step C7: Process Before & After Comparison This step conducts a before and after
comparison of ATDM strategy effectiveness, by comparing the results from Part B
with the results of the ATDM analysis of Part C.
Step C8: Validate Results Against Field Data or Expert Judgment In this step, the
ATDM results are compared to field data, results from another model, or expert
judgment. Additional details on criteria for calibration and validation of the facility
will be provided in a separate working paper. If an acceptable match is not obtained,
the analysis returns to step C4 and following steps for calibration adjustments.
Step C9: Estimate LOS and Report Performance Measures This final step of the
ATDM assessment methodology estimates the reliability LOS for the facility.
Step C9 concludes the comprehensive reliability analysis methodology.
UninterruptedFlowWorkingPaper#3:FreewayMethodologyIntegrationPlanAppendixExistingMethodologyFlowCharts
13

AppendixExistingMethodologyFlowCharts
This appendix presents the existing outlines of HCM2010 Chapter 10, as well as the various
enhancement projects for reference.

Figure 4: HCM2010 Chapter 10 Core Freeway Facilities Methodology (adapted from HCM Exhibit 10
10)

14
Step1:InputData
Demand(GP+ML)
Geometry(GP+ML)
TimeSpace Domain
Step2:Adjustdemandaccordingto
spatialandtimeunitsestablished
(ifnecessary)
Step3:ComputeSegmentCapacities
GPsegmentsusingexistingmethods
MLsegments usingnew/revisedmethods
Step4a:AdjustSegmentCapacities
Effectsofweather andworkzones
Step4b:CrossWeaveAdjustment
ReductioninGPSegment Capacity
resultingfromMLCrossWeaveFlows
Step5:Computed/c ratios
Alllanegroups
Step7:AdjacentFrictionEffects
Evaluateinteraction betweenadjacent
GPandMLlanegroups
Step9:ComputeFacilityMOEs
Assignappropriatelevelofservice
Step6a:ComputeUndersaturated
ServiceMeasures
Computed foreachlanegroup
Step6b:ComputeOversaturatedService
Measures
Computedfor eachlanegroup
Legend
ExistingHCM2010Step
ExistingHCM2010StepwithMLmodifications
NewComputationalStepforMLanalysis
Step8:LaneGroupLOS
AssignLOStoeachlanegroupconsidering
allfrictionandinteractioneffects

Figure 5: Managed Lane Methodology (adapted from NCHRP 396 Draft HCM Chapter Exhibit 22)
15

Figure 6: HCM2010 Freeway Reliability Methodology (adapted from HCM Exhibit 3613)

Figure 7: HCM2010 Freeway Reliability Scenario Generation Methodology (adapted from HCM Exhibit
3712)
16

Figure 8: HCM2010 ATDM Methodology (adapted from HCM Chapter 35 Exhibit 1)

NCHRP 03-115 - Uninterrupted Flow - WP 4 - Freeway Method Integration - 20140415

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

NCHRP 03-115 - Uninterrupted Flow - WP 4 - Freeway Method Integration - 20140415

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

CopyNo.

Anda mungkin juga menyukai