77 tayangan

Diunggah oleh Isabel Pimenta

- اجوبة المرور - الدور الاول
- 1021
- Ann Johnson, an Individual, Vivian Johnson and Bedene Johnson, Plaintiffs-Intervenors-Appellants v. Lewis Matlock, an Individual, Lewis Matlock and John Doe's 1 Through 10 D/B/A Matlock Coal Company A/K/A Matlock & Sons Trucking Company, and Matlock & Sons, Inc., an Idaho Corporation and Linda Firkins as Personal Representative of Estate of Steven Eugene Firkins, Deceased, 771 F.2d 1432, 10th Cir. (1985)
- Evaluation of Lane Reduction "Road Diet" Measures on Crashes
- Battle at Brookside
- Audit!
- AS 2890.5
- 2025 Traffic (US 231 Extension)
- Project Traff
- 1964 US Army Vietnam War Military Police Traffic Control 203p
- 2011-05-23 king drive streetscape plan final
- p07.pdf
- Highway Traffic Act
- Inadequate Guardrails Cause Lethal Car Crash
- Chapter 33
- parentguide math 4
- adding fractions lesson plan
- Lesson Plan Week 5
- fractions stage 3-4
- pizza pie fractions lesson plan

Anda di halaman 1dari 19

Highway Capacity Manual 2000

Unless stated otherwise, corrections apply to both the U.S. Customary and Metric versions.

APPROVAL

NEW PAGE ITEM CORRECTION DATE

Î Chapter 6 Update variable symbol and definition according to changes 10/13/2004

made in Equation 20-16.

7-3 Last sentence on Change the last sentence to read “The space mean speed is 1/13/2003

page 38.3 mi/h, calculated as (60)[3 ÷ (2.0 + 1.5 + 1.2)].”

7-6 4th paragraph Change first sentence to read "The slope of any ray line 6/29/2002

drawn from the origin of the speed-flow curve represents the

inverse of density, based …"

8-2 Pedestrian Change the third sentence to read “An average walking speed 1/13/2003

Characteristics of 4.0-ft/s is appropriate…”.

8-12 Exhibit 8-12 Change Facility descriptions for Detroit, MI to be “I-96 1/13/2003

Jeffries Freeway at Warren” and “Lodge at W. Grand Blvd.”

10-10 Exhibit 10-7 Correct service volumes (see attached tables). 6/29/2002

10-11 Exhibit 10-8 Delete middle yellow interval and associated dotted line to 7/26/2003

reflect a standard green-yellow-red phasing sequence (see

attached revised exhibit)

10-24 Correct chapter Change the third sentence following Exhibit 10-19 to read: 1/12/2004

reference “Chapter 16 provides…”

10-36 Reference 6 Add at the end, “…1982, specifically citing Mekky, A., On 1/13/2003

Estimating Turning Flows at Road Junctions, Traffic

Engineering and Control Journal, Vol. 20:10, October 1979,

pp. 486-487.

10-45, Equations A10-1 Correct equations A10-1 and A10-3 and associated text and 1/13/2003

10-46 and A10-3, Exhibit A10-9 for the Quick Estimation Method for

Exhibit A10-9 Signalized Intersections in Appendix A (see attached

material)

Î 12-15 Replace Exhibit Replace with Figure 7, NCHRP Project 20-7 (160). (See 10/13/2004

12–7b attached material.)

13-18 1st paragraph Revise first sentence to read "Procedures in Chapter 24 6/29/2002

generally apply to weaving segments between 500 to 2,500 ft

long." For the metric version, "…segments between 150 to

750 m long."

15-2 Exhibit 15-1 Revise first item in Input box to read “Define segments” 6/29/2002

15-8 Equation 15-6 Replace with Equations 15-6a and 15-6b and redefine terms 6/29/2002

(see attached material). For the U.S. Customary version of

the manual, substitute English units for the metric units

shown.

15-16 Example Prob. 1 In the table under Step 1, column two, change PF = 0.0 to PF 6/29/2002

= 1.0.

15-19 Example Prob. 2, Revise worksheet numbers, metric version (see revised 6/29/2002

Worksheet material)

Page 1 of 7

Updated 7/8/2005

Previous update 2/27/2004

APPROVAL

NEW PAGE ITEM CORRECTION DATE

15-20 Correct appendix Change the fourth checked sentence under The Facts to read: 1/12/2004

reference “Segment lengths…described in Appendix B,”

15-22, Example Prob. 4, Revise value in Step 4 for k = 0.4. Revise calculated values 6/29/2002

15-23 solution steps and based on this change in other steps and worksheet on next

worksheet page (see revised material).

15-24, Example Prob. 5, Revise formula in Step 3 for d. Revise value in Step 4 for 6/29/2002

15-25 solution steps k = 0.4. Revise subsequent values in other steps based on

these changes (see revised material).

15-25 Appendix A Revise step 3 under LOS analysis to be: 6/29/2002

movement 15-min flow rates by subtracting the turn

movement volumes served by exclusive turn-lane lane

groups and then divide this difference by the PHF.

15-25, Appendix A Revise the second set of seven steps under the planning 6/29/2002

15-26 analysis procedures (see revised material)

4. Make test-car travel time runs over each street segment

during the…

5. Total travel speed for the entire urban street section

should also…

16-19, Equation 16-10, Apply the following constraints for the delay and queuing May 2001

16-152 Equation G16-8 progression factor formulas:

(i) PF ≥ 1.0 and PF2 ≥ 1.0 for Arrival Types 1 and 2

(ii) PF ≤ 1.0 and PF2 ≤ 1.0 for Arrival Types 4 to 6

(iii) P ≤ 0.95 (Rp ≤ 0.95/u) for both PF and PF2

(iv) Rp ≤ 0.95/yL for both PF and PF2

(v) PF2 = 1.0 for yL ≥ u (XL ≥ 1.0)

(vi) Rp ≥(1 − 0.95*(1 − u)/yL)/u for both PF and PF2, and

(vii) Rp = 1.0 (P = u), therefore, PF = 1.0 and PF2 = 1.0 for

yL ≥ 0.95

(viii) If conditions (iii), (iv) and (vi) create inconsistent

constraints on Rp and P, set Rp = 1.0 and P = u,

therefore, PF = 1.0 and PF2 = 1.0

16-39 Box 19 Change v/c to v/s Feb. 2004

16-47 Capacity Add flow ratios to WB direction = 0.313 Feb. 2004

worksheet And to NB direction = 0.289

16-50 Box 24 Change v/c to v/s Feb. 2004

16-61 Example Prob. 2, The EB left effective pedestrian green time should be 23.4 7/28/2001

Supplemental seconds. The subsequent calculations for the EB left will

Worksheet for change slightly, with no change in the final ped-bike left turn

Ped/Bike Effects adjustment factor. The WB right is already shown as 23.4

on Permitted Left seconds, thus no change is required.

and Right Turns

Page 2 of 7

Updated 7/8/2005

Previous update 2/27/2004

APPROVAL

NEW PAGE ITEM CORRECTION DATE

16-73 Capacity Add flow ratios:

worksheet NBpro = 0.084

NBper =0.000

SBper = 0.418

SBThRt = 0.322

EBper = 0.237

EBThRt = 0.170

WBThRt = 0.233.

16-144 Correct Equation The last part of Equation F16-3 should read: 1/12/2004

[1 − min(1, X )]

F16-3 (both cT

versions) ...u = 1 −

Qb

16-151, Equations G16-2 Replace NLG in the denominator of each equation with 1/14/2002

16-152 through G16-5 (fLU*NLG)

16-153 Equation G16-9 All places where (XL−1) appears should be replaced with 1/14/2002

(XL−1) + QbL/(cL*T). All places where kBXL appears should

be replaced with kBX. The results should be expressed in its

simplest form.

16-153 Terms under Define kB as "second-term incremental factor" 1/14/2002

Equation G16-9

17-7 1st paragraph and Change the third sentence in top paragraph to read "Base 7/28/2001,

sidebar values of tc and tf are shown for two- and four-lane major 6/29/2002

streets. Due to limitations in the available data, this

procedure is not applicable to intersections with six-lane

major streets."

are assumed to be the same as those for a four-lane major

street." and replace with "This procedure is not applicable to

intersections with six-lane major streets."

17-15 Equations 17-18, “ The time to discharge the vehicles that arrive during the 6/29/2002

17-19 and red is given by Equation 17-18.

surrounding text

v C (1− P)

g q1 = (17-18)

s

green and join the back of the queue is given by equation 17-

19.

v C P g q1

g q2 = (17-19)

s geff − v C P

Page 3 of 7

Updated 7/8/2005

Previous update 2/27/2004

APPROVAL

NEW PAGE ITEM CORRECTION DATE

17-16 Exhibit 17-12 Replace with two figures (see attached figures). 6/29/2002

17-16 Redefining f “f = the proportion of through and protected left turn traffic 6/29/2002

which departs the upstream signalized intersection and

subsequently arrives at the subject two-way stop-

controlled intersection with respect to the through and

protected left turn traffic departing the upstream

signalized intersection. If there are no opportunities for

vehicles to leave the roadway between the upstream

signalized intersection and the TWSC intersection, then

f is equal to 1.”

17-16 Add Equation 17- “The downstream flow after a period equal to the green time 6/29/2002

21b and text after the platoon reaches the unsignalized intersection is vc,g

and is given by:

g −gq

v c, g = vR p f + ( v c, max − vR p f )(1 − F)

17-17 Equation 17-22 Replace with the multi-part equation and following text (see 6/29/2002

attached material).

17-19 Equation 17-28 The equation 17-28 should read 6/29/2002,

modified

7/26/2003

⎧ v c , x − 1.5v c , min (1 − p x )

⎪ if v c , x > 1.5v c , min (1 − p x )

v c ,u , x = ⎨ px

⎪0

⎩ otherwise

Remove the definition “s” under equation 17-28 and add

Page 4 of 7

Updated 7/8/2005

Previous update 2/27/2004

APPROVAL

NEW PAGE ITEM CORRECTION DATE

17-19 New Equation Below equation 17-28 and the references to the 7/26/2003

17-28a variables in the equation, insert the following:

unblocked time for a particular unsignalized intersection

movement caused by upstream signals, the px values.

Similarly the flow in the blocked period can also be

given as vblock in veh/h. The appropriate conflicting

flow for the unblocked period is given by Equation 17-

28a.

⎧ vc , x − vblock (1 − p x )

⎪ if vc , x > vblock (1 − p x )

v c ,u , x =⎨ px

⎪0

⎩ otherwise

17-21 Flared Minor- Modify procedure (see attached material) 6/29/2002

Street Approaches

17-36 4th paragraph, 2nd “The volume on the subject approach is increased 1/12/2004

sentence incrementally until the degree of utilization on any one

approach exceeds 1.0.”

17-53, Correct Worksheet Correct Worksheet 5a and 5b by changing the left column 1/12/2004

17-61, 5a and 5b heading under “Movement 2” and “Movement 5” to VT

17-62, instead of VT,prog.

17-71,

App. A

18-24 Correct Example The top equation in step 4 should read: 1/12/2004

Problem 3, Step 4 vtot = 48 + 27 + 40 + 21 + 20 = 156 p/cycle

18-25 Correct Example The last equation in step 5 should read: 1/12/2004

Problem 3, Step 5 46.0 ⎛ 14 ⎞

t = 3.2 + + ⎜ 2.7 * ⎟ = 17.1s

4 .0 ⎝ 16.0 ⎠

Î 20-1 Revise text Paragraph to be added after the first paragraph under the 10/13/2004

section titled - Limitations of the Methodology

" The operational analysis methodologies in this chapter are

not intended to address capacity and traffic flow on two-lane

highways in developed areas. Typically, two-lane highway

segments in these areas (for example, a two-lane highway

through a small town) are subject to lower speed limits and

have few to no passing zones. In addition, the effects of

operations at signalized and/or unsignalized intersections,

which may be significant, are not accounted for in the current

methodology."

Page 5 of 7

Updated 7/8/2005

Previous update 2/27/2004

APPROVAL

NEW PAGE ITEM CORRECTION DATE

20-3 Correct sentence Change the second sentence, sentence paragraph, under 1/12/2004

LEVELS OF SERVICE to read: “Exhibit 20-2 reflects the

boundary maximum values of percent…”

Î 20-10 Equation 20-7 To reduce the potential for misunderstanding, HCM Equation 10/13/2004

(20–7) should be rewritten using the exp function, as shown

below, rather than as e raised to a power:

BPTSF = 100 (1 – exp (–0.000879vp))

Î 20-20 Replace Equation Replace with Equation 7, NCHRP Project 20-7 (160). (See 10/13/2004

20–16 attached material.)

20-22 Equation 20-17 To reduce the potential for misunderstanding, HCM Equation 10/13/2004

(20–17) should be rewritten using the exp function, as shown

below, rather than as e raised to a power:

BPTSFd = 100 (1 – exp (avdb))

Î 20-23 Replace Exhibit Replace with Table 10, NCHRP Project 20-7 (160). (See 10/13/2004

20–20 attached material.)

Î 20-24 Replace Exhibit Replace with Table 9, NCHRP Project 20-7 (160). (See 10/13/2004

20–21 attached material.)

Î 20-39 to Update Example According to changes in Exhibit 20-20 and 20-21, and 10/13/2004

20-41 Problem 3 Equation 20-16.

20-41 Correct exhibit In the fourth box under “Average Travel Speed,” change the 1/12/2004

references references to “(Exhibit 20-7 or 20-13)”

Î 20-42 Correct equation Change the coefficient to 2 as the multiplier for 1.7 in the 7/24/2004

in Step 2 denominator (numerator not shown) of the ATSpl calculation

as follows:

⎛ 1 ⎞ 2(1.7)

1 + 2 .3 + ⎜ ⎟+

⎝ 1.11 ⎠ 1 + 1.11

Î 20-42 to Update Example According to changes in Exhibit 20-20 and 20-21, and 10/13/2004

20-43 Problem 4 Equation 20-16.

22-19, Correct box In the hexagonal box titled “Adjust HCM capacities?” delete 1/12/2004

22-46 numbering the number 5 reference to a step.

Î 22-56 Correct term in Revise the last term in the equation to read: 10/13/2004

equation A22-3 …− OFRD (i − 1,p)

23-5 Exhibit 23-3 Correct Exhibit 23-3 figure to comply with Exhibit 23-2 6/29/2002

values [no curves going beyond max flow rate of 2400

pc/h/ln nor dropping below 50mph; LOS A density line

angled to the left to intersect the 55mph curve at 600 pc/h/ln]

(see revised figure)

24-8 Exhibit 24-7 Correct the Nw equation for Type C configuration: the 6/29/2002

middle term should be … 0.00011L … and not 0.00011.

25-3 2nd paragraph Revise first bullet to read "Maximum total flow approaching 6/29/2002

a merge or diverge area on the freeway (vF)"

25-6 Exhibit 25-5 Correct Equation 2 under 6-lane freeways: the third term 6/29/2002

should be …–0.003296SFR … and not –0.003296.

25-17 Equation 25-12 Change the units in the definition for vF to (pc/h) from 6/29/2002

(pc/h/ln)

Page 6 of 7

Updated 7/8/2005

Previous update 2/27/2004

APPROVAL

NEW PAGE ITEM CORRECTION DATE

27-10 Top paragraph Revise last sentence of top paragraph to read, “For certain 1/13/2003

special conditions, users should multiply the base values by

1.2 (12) for heavy two-way flow (25-50% of passengers

moving in the opposite direction) through a single door

channel, and by 0.9 (16) for a low-floor bus. For primarily

single-direction flow through either double-stream doors or

two single-stream doors, the exhibit reduces the base values

for a single door channel by a factor of 0.6 (14,15).”

27-38 Correct chapter In the first checked sentence under “Comments” change the 1/12/2004

reference last reference to “(from Chapter 16);”

30-6 to Equations 30-5, Correct equations and exhibit under section titled 6/29/2002

30-8 30-6, 30-7, 30-8, “Determining Link Speed” (see attached material)

Exhibit 30-4

30-35 Correct Equation Correct Equation A30-15 by adding brackets as shown: 1/12/2004

A30-15 (both

3600 X ⎡ 8X2 ⎤

versions) D=5+ + 900T ⎢( X − 1 ) + ( x − 1 ) 2 + ⎥

v ⎢⎣ Tv ⎥⎦

Î 31-31 Add a reference Add an additional reference after number 1: 10/13/2004

1a. Elefteriadou, L., G. List, J. Leonard, H. Lieu, M.

Thomas, R. Giguere, R. Brewish, G. Johnson. Beyond

the Highway Capacity Manual: A Framework for

Selecting Simulation Models in Traffic Operational

Analyses. In Transportation Research Record 1678,

TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C.,

1999, pp. 96−106.

Page 7 of 7

Highway Capacity Manual 2000

(SEE FOOTNOTES FOR ASSUMED VALUES)

This table contains

approximate values. It is Service Volumes (veh/h)

meant for illustrative Lanes A B C D E

purposes only. The values

are highly dependent on Class I

the assumptions used. It 1 N/A 850 920 1010 1130

should not be used for

operational analyses or 2 N/A 1710 1850 2020 2280

final design. This table 3 N/A 2570 2770 3050 3420

was derived using

assumed values listed in 4 N/A 3440 3700 4060 4560

the footnote. Class II

1 N/A N/A 670 840 880

2 N/A N/A 1470 1690 1770

3 N/A N/A 2280 2540 2660

4 N/A N/A 3090 3390 3550

Class III

1 N/A N/A 480 780 840

2 N/A N/A 1020 1600 1680

3 N/A N/A 1560 2410 2530

4 N/A N/A 2130 3220 3380

Class IV

1 N/A N/A N/A 780 800

2 N/A N/A N/A 1570 1620

3 N/A N/A N/A 2370 2430

4 N/A N/A N/A 3160 3250

Notes

N/A - not achievable given assumptions below.

This table was derived from the conditions listed in the following table.

Class

I II III IV

Signal density (sig/mi) 0.8 3 5 10

Free-flow speed (mi/h) 50 40 35 30

Cycle length (s) 110 90 80 70

Effective green ratio 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45

Adj. sat. flow rate 1850 1800 1750 1700

Arrival type 3 4 4 5

Unit extension (s) 3 3 3 3

Initial queue 0 0 0 0

Other delay 0 0 0 0

Peak-hour factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92

% lefts, % rights 10 10 10 10

Left-turn bay Yes Yes Yes Yes

Lane utilization factor According to Exhibit 10-23, Default Lane Utilization

Factors

Signalized Intersections

Highway Capacity Manual 2000

(SEE FOOTNOTES FOR ASSUMED VALUES)

This table contains

approximate values. It is Service Volumes (veh/h)

meant for illustrative Lanes A B C D E

purposes only. The values

are highly dependent on Class I

the assumptions used. It 1 N/A 830 940 1030 1130

should not be used for

operational analyses or 2 N/A 1690 1900 2060 2270

final design. This table 3 N/A 2550 2850 3110 3400

was derived using

assumed values listed in 4 N/A 3410 3800 4150 4530

the footnote. Class II

1 N/A N/A 710 840 870

2 N/A N/A 1540 1690 1750

3 N/A N/A 2370 2540 2630

4 N/A N/A 3210 3390 3510

Class III

1 N/A N/A 570 800 830

2 N/A N/A 1230 1610 1680

3 N/A N/A 1930 2430 2520

4 N/A N/A 2650 3240 3360

Class IV

1 N/A N/A N/A 660 780

2 N/A N/A N/A 1460 1570

3 N/A N/A N/A 2260 2370

4 N/A N/A N/A 3050 3170

Notes

N/A - not achievable given assumptions below.

This table was derived from the conditions listed in the following table.

Class

I II III IV

Signal density (sig/km) 0.5 2 3 6

Free-flow speed (km/h) 80 65 55 45

Cycle length (s) 110 90 80 70

Effective green ratio 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45

Adj. sat. flow rate 1850 1800 1750 1700

Arrival type 3 4 4 5

Unit extension (s) 3 3 3 3

Initial queue 0 0 0 0

Other delay 0 0 0 0

Peak-hour factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92

% lefts, % rights 10 10 10 10

Left-turn bay Yes Yes Yes Yes

Lane utilization factor According to Exhibit 10-23, Default Lane Utilization

Factors

Signalized Intersections

Replace Exhibit 12-7b with the following figure:

100

90

80

70

Percent Time-Spent-Following

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 1,800 2,000

Directional Flow Rate (pc/h)

7/7/2005

Replace Exhibit 20-12 with the following:

Exhibit 20-12. Adjustment (fnp) To Percent Time-Spent Following for Percentage of No-

Passing Zones in Directional Segments

flow rate, No-passing zones (%)

vp (pc/h) 0 20 40 60 80 100

Directional split = 50/50

≤ 200 9.0 29.2 43.4 49.4 51.0 52.6

400 16.2 41.0 54.2 61.6 63.8 65.8

600 15.8 38.2 47.8 53.2 55.2 56.8

800 15.8 33.8 40.4 44.0 44.8 46.6

1400 12.8 20.0 23.8 26.2 27.4 28.6

2000 10.0 13.6 15.8 17.4 18.2 18.8

2600 5.5 7.7 8.7 9.5 10.1 10.3

3200 3.3 4.7 5.1 5.5 5.7 6.1

Directional split = 60/40

≤ 200 11.0 30.6 41.0 51.2 52.3 53.5

400 14.6 36.1 44.8 53.4 55.0 56.3

600 14.8 36.9 44.0 51.1 52.8 54.6

800 13.6 28.2 33.4 38.6 39.9 41.3

1400 11.8 18.9 22.1 25.4 26.4 27.3

2000 9.1 13.5 15.6 16.0 16.8 17.3

2600 5.9 7.7 8.6 9.6 10.0 10.2

Directional split = 70/30

≤ 200 9.9 28.1 38.0 47.8 48.5 49.0

400 10.6 30.3 38.6 46.7 47.7 48.8

600 10.9 30.9 37.5 43.9 45.4 47.0

800 10.3 23.6 28.4 33.3 34.5 35.5

1400 8.0 14.6 17.7 20.8 21.6 22.3

2000 7.3 9.7 15.7 13.3 14.0 14.5

Directional split = 80/20

≤ 200 8.9 27.1 37.1 47.0 47.4 47.9

400 6.6 26.1 34.5 42.7 43.5 44.1

600 4.0 24.5 31.3 38.1 39.1 40.0

800 4.8 18.5 23.5 28.4 29.1 29.8

1400 3.5 10.3 13.3 16.3 16.9 32.2

2000 3.5 7.0 8.5 10.1 10.4 10.7

Directional split = 90/10

≤ 200 4.6 24.1 33.6 43.1 43.4 43.6

400 0.0 20.2 28.3 36.3 36.7 37.0

600 -3.1 16.8 23.5 30.1 30.6 31.1

800 -2.8 10.5 15.2 19.9 20.3 20.8

1400 -1.2 5.5 8.3 11.0 11.5 11.9

7/7/2005

Replace Exhibit 20-21 with the following:

Following for Directional Segments.

≤ 200 –0.0014 0.973

400 –0.0022 0.923

600 –0.0033 0.870

800 –0.0045 0.833

1000 –0.0049 0.829

1200 –0.0054 0.825

1400 –0.0058 0.821

≥ 1600 –0.0062 0.817

⎛ Vd ⎞

PTSFd = BPTSFd + f np ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟

⎝ d

V + V0 ⎠

where:

BPTSFd = base percent time-spent-following in the direction analyzed,

fnp = adjustment for percent no-passing zones in the direction analyzed

Vd = directional passenger-car equivalent flow rate (pc/h)

V0 = opposing direction passenger-car equivalent flow rate (pc/h)

7/7/2005

Highway Capacity Manual 2000

f ID = adjustment for interchange density from Exhibit 23-7 (mi/h).

EXHIBIT 23-3. SPEED-FLOW CURVES AND LOS FOR BASIC F REEWAY SEGMENTS

80

Free-Flow Speed, FFS = 75 mi/h

70 mi/h 1300

70

65 mi/h 1450

Average Passenger-Car Speed (mi/h)

60 mi/h 1600

60

55 mi/h 1750

LOS A B C D E

50

40

ln

mi/

pc/

30 n

i/l

11

p c/m i/ln

ty =

m

20 18 6 pc/ /mi/ln

nsi

2 5 pc

3 pc/mi/ln

De

45

10

0

0 400 800 1200 1600 2000 2400

Flow Rate (pc/h/ln)

Note:

Capacity varies by free-flow speed. Capacity is 2400, 2350, 2300, and 2250 pc/h/ln at free-flow speeds of 70 and greater, 65,

60, and 55 mi/h, respectively.

For 70 < FFS ≤ 75

(3400 – 30FFS) < vp ≤ 2400

2.6

160 vp + 30FFS − 3400

S = FFS − FFS −

3 30FFS − 1000

For 55 ≤ FFS ≤ 70 and for flow rate (vp )

(3400 – 30FFS) < vp ≤ (1700 + 10FFS),

v + 30FFS − 3400

2.6

1

(

S = FFS − 7FFS − 340 p

9 )

40FFS − 1700

For 55 ≤ FFS ≤ 75 and

vp ≤ (3400 – 30FFS),

S = FFS

BFFS

Estimation of FFS for an existing or future freeway segment is accomplished by

adjusting a base free-flow speed downward to reflect the influence of four factors: lane

width, lateral clearance, number of lanes, and interchange density. Thus, the analyst is

required to select an appropriate BFFS as a starting point.

The base condition for lane width is 12 ft or greater. When the average lane width

across all lanes is less than 12 ft, the base free-flow speed (e.g., 75 mi/h) is reduced.

Adjustments to reflect the effect of narrower average lane width are given in Exhibit

23-4.

Methodology

Highway Capacity Manual 2000

where

c = capacity (veh/h),

PHF = peak-hour factor, and

g/C = effective green time per cycle.

Refer to Equation 16-4 for definitions of all other factors.

See Chapter 16, “Signalized Intersections,” for the adjustment factor values. See

Chapter 10, “Urban Street Concepts,” for default values and approximation procedures

for adjustment factors.

For arterials with all-way stops controlling the link capacity, procedures in Chapter

17, “Unsignalized Intersections,” should be used to estimate the through movement

capacity at each intersection.

Capacity Tables

The accuracy of the speed estimates are highly dependent on the accuracy of the

estimated capacity for the facility. Consequently, it is recommended that each analyst use

capacities that are specific to each link whenever possible. However, it is recognized that

this procedure is not always feasible. The analyst may select sets of default values for the

various capacity adjustment factors that vary by functional class (freeway, highway,

arterial, collector, local), area type (downtown, urban, suburban, rural), terrain type

(level, rolling, mountainous), and other conditions. These default values may be

substituted into the above capacity equations to develop tables of link capacity values that

vary by functional class, area type, general terrain, and number of lanes.

Traversal time plus node

delay equals segment The vehicle speed for the link is computed using Equation 30-4.

travel time L

S= (30-4)

D

R+

3600

where

S = link speed (mi/h),

L = link length (mi),

R = link traversal time (h), and

D = node delay for link (s).

methods to estimate Node delay is computed only for signal- or stop-sign-controlled intersections at the

node delay end of the link. All other intersection-related delays that occur in the middle of the link

are incorporated into the link traversal time calculation. The node delay estimation

procedure is described in Appendix A. The calculation requires information on all of the

intersection approaches at the node in order to compute the delay on each link feeding the

intersection.

If the available travel demand model software package is unable to compute node

delay, it can be approximated by using the node approach capacity rather than the link

capacity in the computation of traversal time. In this situation the node delay is set to

zero in Equation 30-4.

The link traversal time, R, is computed using Equation 30-5.

16 J * X * L2

See following page for R = Ro + Do + 0. 25T (X −1) + (X −1)2 + (30-5)

new equation T2

where

R = link traversal time (h),

Ro = link traversal time at link FFS (h),

Do = zero-flow control delay at signalized intersection (h),

Methodology

Revisions

[new equation]

(30-5)

2

( X − 1) 2 16 J ∗ X * L

R = Ro + Do + DM + 0.25 NT (X − 1) + +

N 2T 2

where: [add the following]

N = number of Signals (equals one if no signals)

Highway Capacity Manual 2000

X = link demand to capacity ratio,

J = calibration parameter, and

L = link length (mi).

The link traversal time for free-flow conditions (Ro) is computed from the FFS,

using Equation 30-6.

L

Ro = (30-6)

So

where

Ro = FFS link traversal time (h),

L = link length (mi), and

So = link FFS (mi/h).

Place "Note that the free flow speed..." text on the following page here.

The zero-flow control delay for signalized intersections (if any) on the link is

computed using Equation 30-7.

2

N C g

Do = * DF * 1 − (30-7)

3600 2 C

where

Do = zero-flow control delay at signal (h),

N = number of signals on link,

3600 = conversion from seconds to hours,

g/C = average effective green time per cycle for signals on link (see Exhibit

10-12 for default values) (s),

C = average cycle length for all signals on link (see Exhibit 10-12 for

default values) (s), and

DF = adjustment factor to compute zero-flow control delay (0.9 for

uncoordinated traffic-actuated signals, 1.0 for uncoordinated fixed-time

signals, 1.2 for coordinated signals with unfavorable progression, 0.90

for coordinated signals with favorable progression, and 0.60 for

coordinated signals with highly favorable progression).

Place "Insert 1" text here

Calibration parameter J is

The calibration parameter J is selected so that the traversal time equation will predict used to arrive at a predicted

the mean speed of traffic when demand is equal to capacity. Substituting x = 1.00 in the mean speed when demand

equals capacity

traversal time equation and solving for J yields Equation 30-8:

See new equation for 30-8 (R − R )2

J = c o

(30-8)

L2

where

J = calibration parameter,

Rc = link traversal time when demand equals capacity (h),

Ro = FFS link traversal time (h), and

L = link length (mi).

Exhibit 30-4 shows values for J that were selected to reproduce the traversal times at alternative approach using

capacity predicted by the analysis procedures in Part III of this manual. Some older BPR curve

software may not be able to implement Equation 30-8, so the formula and recommended

parameters for the more traditional BPR curve are provided in Appendix C as an

alternative method for estimating link traversal times.

Methodology

(30-6)

Note that the free flow speed (SO) for signalized streets is defined as the mid-block free flow

speed between signals. For this reason a zero flow control delay (DO) and a segment delay (DM )

are added to the link travel time at zero flow.

(30-7)

Insert 1:

The segment delay between signals (DM) is computed by subtracting the Segment Running Time

per mile (TR) (obtained from Exhibit 15-3) from the free flow travel time per mile for the

signalized urban street and multiplying the result by the total length of the street. DM equals zero

if there are no signals on the street or if they are so far apart that they do not affect the speed of

traffic between signals.

where: [add the following]

DM = segment delay (h)

L = link length (mi)

TR = running time per mile (sec)

TO = running time per mile at free flow speed (sec)

The running time per mile (TR) is obtained from Exhibit 15-3 according to the urban street class,

free flow speed, and the average distance between signals on the link.

The running time per mile at free flow speed (TO) is computed according to Equation 30-7b.

To = L S o (30-7b)

where:

L = Link length (mi)

TO = running time per mile at free flow speed (sec)

SO = free flow speed (mi/h)

(30-8)

(Rc − Ro − Do − DM ) 2

J=

L2

D0 = zero flow control Delay (h)

DM = segment delay between signals (h)

Highway Capacity Manual 2000

See revised Exhibit

30-4 on the following EXHIBIT 30-4. RECOMMENDED PARAMETERS FOR TRAVERSAL TIME J

page

Facility Type Signals per mi Free-Flow Speed Speed at Capacity J

(mi/h) (mi/h) (h 2/mi2)

Freeway N/A 75 54 2.69 x 10-5

Freeway N/A 70 53 2.10 x 10-5

Freeway N/A 65 52 1.48 x 10-5

Freeway N/A 60 51 8.65 x 10-6

Freeway N/A 55 50 3.31 x 10-6

Multilane Highway N/A 60 55 2.30 x 10-6

Multilane Highway N/A 55 51 2.03 x 10-6

Multilane Highway N/A 50 47 1.63 x 10-6

Multilane Highway N/A 45 42 2.52 x 10-6

Two-Lane Highway N/A 69 44 6.91 x 10-5

Two-Lane Highway N/A 63 38 1.14 x 10-4

Two-Lane Highway N/A 56 31 2.02 x 10-4

Two-Lane Highway N/A 50 25 4.00 x 10-4

Two-Lane Highway N/A 44 19 9.29 x 10-4

Arterial Class I 0.2 50 33 5.67 x 10-5

Arterial Class I 0.6 50 19 4.68 x 10-4

Arterial Class I 1.6 50 10 3.32 x 10-3

Arterial Class II 0.3 40 25 1.28 x 10-4

Arterial Class II 0.6 40 18 5.02 x 10-4

Arterial Class II 1.3 40 11 2.03 x 10-3

Arterial Class III 1.3 35 11 2.24 x 10-3

Arterial Class III 1.9 35 8 4.55 x 10-3

Arterial Class III 2.5 35 6 8.13 x 10-3

Arterial Class IV 2.5 30 6 8.12 x 10-3

Arterial Class IV 3.1 30 5 1.37 x 10-2

Arterial Class IV 3.8 30 4 1.82 x 10-2

Note:

N/A = not applicable.

Computation of performance measures for intensity, duration, extent, variability, and

accessibility is described.

Intensity

The possible performance measures for measuring the intensity of congestion on one

of the highway subsystems (freeway, rural highway, and arterial) are computed from one

or more of the following: person-hours of travel, person-hours of delay, mean trip speed,

and mean trip delay. If average vehicle occupancy (AVO) data are not available, the

performance measures are computed in terms of vehicle-hours rather than person-hours.

Equation 30-9 is used to compute person-hours of travel.

Li

PHT = AVO i * v i * (30-9)

Si

where

PHT = total person-hours of travel,

vi = vehicle demand on Link i,

AVOi = average vehicle occupancy on Link i,

Li = length of Link i (mi), and

Si = mean speed of Link i (mi/h).

Methodology

Revised information for:

EXHIBIT 30-4. RECOMMENDED PARAMETERS FOR TRAVERSAL TIME J

J

Facility type Signals per mi Free-Flow Speed Speed at Capacity

(h2/mi2)

Freeway 53 2.95 x 10-5

Freeway

Freeway

Freeway

Freeway

Multilane Highway

Multilane Highway

Multilane Highway

Multilane Highway

Two-Lane Highway 65 40 9.04 x 10-5

Two-Lane Highway 60 35 1.39 x 10-4

Two-Lane Highway 55 30 2.24 x 10-4

Two-Lane Highway 50 25 3.89 x 10-4

Two-Lane Highway 45 20 7.48 x 10-4

Arterial Class I 0.5 2.21 x 10-5

Arterial Class I 2.0 2.04 x 10-4

Arterial Class I 4.0 1.25 x 10-3

Arterial Class II 1.0 4.99 x 10-5

Arterial Class II 2.0 2.00 x 10-4

Arterial Class II 3.0 7.91 x 10-4

Arterial Class III 3.0 8.01 x 10-4

Arterial Class III 5.0 1.78 x 10-3

Arterial Class III 6.0 3.18 x 10-3

Arterial Class IV 6.0 3.17 x 10-3

Arterial Class IV 8.0 4.99 x 10-3

Arterial Class IV 10.0 7.11 x 10-3

Note:

N/A = not applicable

This table is provided for the convenience of the analyst and should be considered approximate.

Precise values of “J” can be computed using Equation 30-8.

- اجوبة المرور - الدور الاولDiunggah olehnouri
- 1021Diunggah olehAhmed Sayed Ahmed Ali
- Ann Johnson, an Individual, Vivian Johnson and Bedene Johnson, Plaintiffs-Intervenors-Appellants v. Lewis Matlock, an Individual, Lewis Matlock and John Doe's 1 Through 10 D/B/A Matlock Coal Company A/K/A Matlock & Sons Trucking Company, and Matlock & Sons, Inc., an Idaho Corporation and Linda Firkins as Personal Representative of Estate of Steven Eugene Firkins, Deceased, 771 F.2d 1432, 10th Cir. (1985)Diunggah olehScribd Government Docs
- Evaluation of Lane Reduction "Road Diet" Measures on CrashesDiunggah olehLeague of Michigan Bicyclists
- Battle at BrooksideDiunggah olehChristian Sweryda
- Audit!Diunggah olehSyahir Kamal
- AS 2890.5Diunggah olehKen Bridges
- 2025 Traffic (US 231 Extension)Diunggah olehAfaq Khattak
- Project TraffDiunggah olehRamanan Shanmugam
- 1964 US Army Vietnam War Military Police Traffic Control 203pDiunggah olehwwwsurvivalebookscom
- 2011-05-23 king drive streetscape plan finalDiunggah olehapi-272667969
- p07.pdfDiunggah olehshaikh a n
- Highway Traffic ActDiunggah olehBarbara Wiśniewska
- Inadequate Guardrails Cause Lethal Car CrashDiunggah olehSheridan and Murray
- Chapter 33Diunggah olehDe Silva Manimeldura Chandrasiri
- parentguide math 4Diunggah olehapi-262122532
- adding fractions lesson planDiunggah olehapi-242060776
- Lesson Plan Week 5Diunggah olehvpienaar
- fractions stage 3-4Diunggah olehapi-281198656
- pizza pie fractions lesson planDiunggah olehapi-271259462
- Fraction LessonDiunggah olehamf7279
- whiteboard activity pdfDiunggah olehapi-347036264
- newsletterDiunggah olehapi-269741188
- Mathematics Activites FractionsDiunggah olehmsysareen
- Multiplying fractions lesson planDiunggah olehJonathan Robinson
- adding fractions short form lessonDiunggah olehapi-313636775
- form 7 update 2 17Diunggah olehapi-248674494
- n2e2e3l1fractionwallDiunggah olehAnya Stojanovic Chand
- Online Fraction Teaching ConceptsDiunggah olehWilliam K. McIntosh
- Collaborative UnitDiunggah olehlatosha_bacon

- quim monzó.pdfDiunggah olehIsabel Pimenta
- quim monzó.pdfDiunggah olehIsabel Pimenta
- 180356762-Monzo-Quim-El-porque-de-las-cosas-pdf.pdfDiunggah olehIsabel Pimenta
- 180356762-Monzo-Quim-El-porque-de-las-cosas-pdf.pdfDiunggah olehIsabel Pimenta
- vantagens de praticar desporto.docxDiunggah olehIsabel Pimenta
- vantagens de praticar desporto.docxDiunggah olehIsabel Pimenta
- vantagens de praticar desporto.docxDiunggah olehIsabel Pimenta
- Frango com molho de açafrão.docxDiunggah olehIsabel Pimenta
- Euro TransportDiunggah olehIsabel Pimenta
- Projecto Mobilidade Sustentável – PosterDiunggah olehIsabel Pimenta
- Temas de PNLDiunggah olehSu1977
- Temas de PNLDiunggah olehSu1977
- Medias-Sec+Acesso-v8-2014-2015Diunggah olehIsabel Pimenta
- Bolo de ChocolateDiunggah olehIsabel Pimenta
- McDonalds-Cupoes-2011[1]Diunggah olehIsabel Pimenta

- Microsoft Visual Studio - Team Foundation Server 2013.pdfDiunggah olehmarcosmail
- From AdechawDiunggah olehadikehira
- Pharmaceutical Technology_ Challenges and Strategies for ImpleDiunggah olehVinicius Barros
- CORROSIVE EFFECTS OF CHLORIDES ON METALS.pdfDiunggah oleholivo farrera jr
- Cc607 Topic 1 Water Resources and QualityDiunggah olehAfifuddin Azizuddin
- roll_conditions.pdfDiunggah olehBedry Nurhadi
- Nikon d700 popupflash repair1Diunggah olehd1kh3d
- 06 BipolarDiunggah olehv2304451
- NSN NetAct Radio Resource MgmtDiunggah olehDmitry Moshkovsky
- Acer Aspire 7736 Laptop User ManualDiunggah olehmeatherecom
- Sensor InformationDiunggah olehSebastin Ashok
- 17ab ManualDiunggah olehHarraKiri
- Quantum Mechanics AssignmentDiunggah olehsubhankarsarthak1
- Dip Ipm App NoteDiunggah olehamateur123456
- Physics Refraction FinalDiunggah olehduran.castelino
- UPLOAD Boerger Appl in Gaobeidian WWTPDiunggah olehgohvicc
- 426(1)Diunggah olehJaleed Ahmed
- Housing Case StudiesDiunggah olehJoanne Wu
- Poseidon Resources’ Carlsbad Desalination Plant Is a Bad Deal for Southern CaliforniaDiunggah olehFood and Water Watch
- FrigosorbDiunggah olehValentin Lupascu
- Cryogenic separation plants.pdfDiunggah olehHemanth Kumar Sarosh Kiran
- 3. Gas Dehydration MaddoxDiunggah olehFitriyanti Izinilah
- Physics I Problems (208).pdfDiunggah olehbosschellen
- GTC-691-Valuation - 53E.XLSXDiunggah olehRhea Vevo
- CADS RC Tutorial 2nd EditionDiunggah olehAjayi Tunde
- Electronics Systems and Technologies Questions - DifficultDiunggah olehgiophilip
- Analysis of Pocket Double Gate Tunnel FET for Low Stand by Power Logic CircuitsDiunggah olehAnonymous e4UpOQEP
- Olp Gce Mech & Heat Ct 5Diunggah olehShabbir H. Khan
- Environmental Review Tribunal final decision on Skydive Burnaby vs. Ministry of EnvironmentDiunggah olehDave Johnson
- Various Lab Tests on Bitumen for Pavement ConstructionDiunggah olehOctavian Stoichita