12 Unsignalized Intersection Analysis: 12.1 Purpose

12 UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION ANALYSIS
12.1 Purpose
This chapter presents commonly used unsignalized intersection deterministic analysis procedures
and identifies specific methodologies and input parameters to be used on ODOT projects.
Simulation procedures are covered in APM v1 Chapter 8. Software settings are covered in
Appendix 12/13. Topics covered include:
• Turn Lane Criteria
• Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
• Traffic Signal Warrants
• Estimating Vehicle Queue Lengths at Unsignalized Intersections
The scope of this chapter is limited to auto mode analysis at unsignalized

intersections. A complete evaluation of unsignalized intersections requires a
broader evaluation including of non-auto modes. Refer to APM Chapter 10 for
modal considerations such as for left and right turn lanes, and to Chapter 14 for
multimodal analysis procedures such as MMLOS. The need for other evaluations
such as per the Traffic Manual and HDM should be coordinated with Region
Roadway/Traffic or Traffic-Roadway Section.
For software-specific settings and parameters for unsignalized intersection analysis, refer to
Appendix 12/13.
12.2 Turn Lane Criteria

Proposed left or right turn lanes at unsignalized intersections and private approach roads must
meet the installation criteria contained in the Highway Design Manual (HDM). Meeting the
criteria does not require a turn lane to be installed. Engineering judgment must be used to
determine if an installation would be safe and practical. The ODOT Traffic Manual provides
further guidance on the use of right and left turn lanes.
12.2.1 Left Turn Lane Criteria
Purpose: A left turn lane improves safety and increases the capacity of the roadway by reducing
the speed differential between the through and the left turn vehicles. Furthermore, the left turn
lane provides the turning vehicle with a potential waiting area until acceptable gaps in the
opposing traffic allow them to complete the turn. Installation of a left turn lane must be
consistent with the access management strategy for the roadway.
Analysis Procedure Manual Version 2 12-1 Last Updated 07/2018

Left Turn Lane Evaluation Process
• A left turn lane should be installed, if criterion 1 (Volume) or 2 (Crash) or 3 (Special

Cases) are met, unless a subsequent evaluation eliminate it as an option; and
• The Region Traffic Engineer must approve all proposed left turn lanes on state highways,
regardless of funding source; and
• Left turn lane complies with Access Management Spacing Standards; and
• Left turn lane conforms to applicable local, regional and state plans.
Criterion 1: Vehicular Volume

The vehicular volume criterion is intended for application where the volume of intersecting
traffic is the principal reason for considering installation of a left turn lane. The volume criterion
is determined by the Texas Transportation Institute (TTI) curves in Exhibit 12-1.
The criterion is not met from zero to ten left turn vehicles per hour, but indicates that careful
consideration be given to installing a left turn lane due to the increased potential for rear-end
collisions in the through lanes. While the turn volumes are low, the adverse safety and operations
impacts may require installation of a left turn. The final determination will be based on a field
study.
Exhibit 12-1 Left Turn Lane Criterion (TTI)
*(Advancing Volume/Number of Advancing Through Lanes) + (Opposing Volume/Number of Opposing Through

Lanes)
Opposing left turns are not counted as opposing volumes

Criterion 2: Crash Experience
The crash experience criterion is satisfied when:
1. Adequate trial of other remedies with satisfactory observance and enforcement has failed to
reduce the accident frequency; and
2. There is a history of crashes of the type susceptible to correction by a left turn lane (such as
where a vehicle waiting to make a left turn from a through lane was struck from the rear);
and
3. The safety benefits outweigh the associated improvement costs; and
4. The installation of the left turn lane does not adversely impact the operations of the roadway.
Criterion 3: Special Cases

1. Railroad Crossings: If a railroad is parallel to the roadway and adversely affects left turns,
a worst case scenario should be used in determining the storage requirements for the left turn
lane design. The left turn lane storage length depends on the amount of time the roadway is
closed, the expected number of vehicle arrivals and the location of the crossing or other
obstruction. The analysis should consider all of the variables influencing the design of the
left turn lane and may allow a design for conditions other than the worst case storage
requirements, providing safety is not compromised.
2. Passing Lane: Special consideration must be given to installing a left turn lane for those
locations where left turns may occur and other mitigation options are not acceptable.
3. Geometric/Safety Concerns: Consider sight distance, alignment, operating speeds, nearby
access movements and other safety related concerns.
4. Non-Traversable Median: As required in the Median Policy, a left turn lane must be
installed for any break in a non-traversable median (OHP Action 3B.4).
5. Signalized Intersection: Consideration shall be given to installing left turn lanes at a
signalized intersection. The State Traffic-Roadway Engineer shall review and approve all
proposed left turn lanes at signalized intersection locations on the state highway system.
6. Other Conditions: Other surrounding conditions, such as a drawbridge, could adversely
affect left turns and must be treated in a manner similar to that for railroad crossings.
Evaluation Guidelines
1. The evaluation should indicate the installation of a left turn lane will improve the overall
safety and/or operation of the intersection and the roadway. If these requirements are not met,
the left turn lane should not be installed or, if already in place, not allowed to remain in
operation.
2. Alternatives Considered: List all alternatives that were considered, including alternative
locations. Briefly discuss alternatives to the left turn lane considered to diminish
congestion/delays resulting in criteria being met.
3. Access Management: Address access management issues such as the long term access
management strategy for the state roadway, spacing standards, other accesses that may be
located nearby, breaks in barrier/curb, etc.
4. Land Use Concerns: Include how the proposed left turn lane addresses land use concerns
and transportation plans.
5. Plan: Include a plan or diagram of proposed location of left turn lane.
6. Operational Requirements: Consider storage length requirements, deceleration distance,

desired alignment distance, etc. For signalized intersections, installing a left turn lane must be
consistent with the requirements in the Traffic Signal Guidelines.
Example 12-1 Left Turn Lane Criterion
Left Turn Volume Criterion

Volume Criterion Example shown below shows an unsignalized intersection with a shared
through-right lane and a shared through-left lane on the Highway. The peak hour volumes and
lane configurations are included in the figure. The 85th percentile speed is 45 mph and the
intersection is located in a city with a population of 60,000. Do the NB and SB left turn
movements meet the volume criterion?
Volume Criterion Example
• Northbound: The northbound advancing volume is 40 + 200 + 300 + 15 = 555, and the
southbound opposing volume is 515 vehicles (the opposing left turns are not counted as
opposing volumes). The volume for the y-axis on Exhibit 12-1 is determined using the
equation:
y-axis volume = ((Advancing Volume/Number of Advancing Lanes) +

(Opposing Volume/Number of Opposing Lanes)) y-axis
= (555/2 + 515/2) = 535
To determine if the northbound left turn volume criterion is met, use the 45 mph
curve in Exhibit 12-1, 535 for the y-axis and 15 left-turns for the x-axis. The
volume criterion is not met in the northbound direction.
• Southbound: The southbound advancing volume is 90 + 250 + 200 + 15 = 555, and the
northbound opposing volume is 540 vehicles (the opposing left turns are not counted as
opposing volumes). The volume for the y-axis on Exhibit 12-1 is (555/2+ 540/2) = 548.
To determine if the southbound left turn volume criterion is met, use the 45 mph curve in
Exhibit 12-1, 548 for the y-axis and 40 left-turns for the x-axis. The volume criterion is
met in the southbound direction.

12.2.2 Right Turn Lane Criteria – Unsignalized Intersections
Not all intersections that meet the siting criteria below should have a right turn lane
installed. Refer to APM Chapter 10 for modal considerations for right turn lanes,
and to Chapter 14 for multimodal analysis procedures such as MMLOS. The need
for other evaluations such as per the Traffic Manual and HDM should be
coordinated with Region Roadway/Traffic or Traffic-Roadway Section.
Purpose
The purpose of a right turn lane at an unsignalized intersection is to improve safety and to
maximize the capacity of a roadway by reducing the speed differential between the right turning
vehicles and the other vehicles on the roadway.
Right Turn Lane Evaluation Process
1. A right turn lane should be installed, if criterion 1 (Volume) or 2 (Crash) or 3 (Special Cases)
are met, unless a subsequent evaluation eliminates it as an option; and
2. The Region Traffic Engineer must approve all proposed right turn lanes on state highways,
regardless of funding source; and
3. The right turn lane complies with Access Management Spacing Standards; and
4. The right turn lane conforms to applicable local, regional and state plans.
Criterion 1: Vehicular Volume

The vehicular volume criterion is intended for application where the volume of intersecting
traffic is the principal reason for considering installation of a right turn lane. The vehicular
volume criterion is determined using the curve in Exhibit 12-2.

Exhibit 12-2 Right Turn Lane Criterion
Note: If there is no right turn lane, a shoulder needs to be provided. If this intersection is in a
rural area and is a connection to a public street, a right turn lane is needed.
Criterion 2: Crash Experience

The crash experience criterion is satisfied when:
1. Adequate trial of other remedies with satisfactory observance and enforcement has failed to
reduce the accident frequency; and
2. A history of crashes of the type susceptible to correction by a right turn lane; and
3. The safety benefits outweigh the associated improvements costs; and
4. The installation of the right turn lane minimizes impacts to the safety of vehicles, bicycles or
pedestrians along the roadway.
Criterion 3: Special Cases
1. Railroad Crossings: If a railroad is parallel to the roadway and adversely affects right turns,
a worst case scenario should be used in determining the storage requirements for the right
turn lane design. The right turn lane storage length depends on the amount of time the
roadway is closed, the expected number of vehicle arrivals and the location of the crossing or
other obstruction. The analysis should consider all of the variables influencing the design of
the right turn lane and may allow a design for conditions other than the worst case storage
requirements, providing safety is not compromised.

2. Passing Lane: Special consideration must be given to installing a right turn lane for those
locations where right turns may occur and other mitigation options are not acceptable.
3. Geometric/Safety Concerns: Consider sight distance, alignment, operating speeds, nearby
access movements and other safety related concerns.
4. Other Conditions: Other surrounding conditions, such as a drawbridge, could adversely
affect right turns and must be treated in a manner similar to that for railroad crossings.
Evaluation Guidelines
1. The evaluation should indicate the installation of a right turn lane will improve the overall
safety and/or operation of the intersection and the roadway. If these requirements are not met,
the right turn lane should not be installed or, if already in place, should be reevaluated for
continued use.
2. Alternatives Considered: List all alternatives that were considered, including alternative
locations. Briefly discuss alternatives to the right turn lane considered to diminish
congestion/delays resulting in criteria being met.
3. Access Management: Address access management issues such as the long term access
management strategy for the state roadway, spacing standards, other accesses that may be
located nearby, breaks in barrier/curb, etc.
4. Land Use Concerns: Include how the proposed right turn lane addresses land use concerns
and transportation plans.
5. Plan: Include a plan or diagram of proposed location of right turn lane.
6. Operational Requirements: Consider storage length requirements, deceleration distance,
desired alignment distance, etc. For signalized intersections, installing a right turn lane must
be consistent with the requirements in the Traffic Signal Guidelines.
Example 12-2 Right Turn Lane Criterion
Right Turn Vehicular Volume Criterion

Volume Criterion Example shown below shows an unsignalized intersection with a shared
through-right lane and a shared through-left lane on the Highway. The peak hour volumes and
lane configurations are included in the figure. The 85th percentile speed is 45 mph and the
intersection is located in a city with a population of 60,000. Determine if a NB or SB right turn
lane meets the criterion.
Volume Criterion Example

The northbound outside lane has 400 through vehicles and 15 right turning vehicles for a total of
415 vehicles. Using the 45 mph curve in Exhibit 12-2, along with 415 approaching vehicles and
15 right turning vehicles we find that the vehicular volume criterion is not met.
The southbound outside lane has 600 through vehicles and 90 right turning vehicles for a total of
690 vehicles. Using the 45 mph curve in Exhibit 12-2, along with 690 approaching vehicles and
90 right turning vehicles we find that the vehicular volume criterion is met.
12.3 Unsignalized Intersection Capacity

Capacity analysis for unsignalized intersections should generally follow the established
methodology of the current HCM for both two-way and all-way stop control. For ODOT
facilities, the highest movement v/c ratio of the major and minor approaches at an unsignalized
intersection should be reported. Many jurisdictions require delay and level of service as the
actual threshold performance measures.
Refer to OHP Action 1F.1 for clarification on how the OHP mobility targets are
applied at different segment and intersection facilities. Different OHP v/c ratio
targets apply to mainline versus minor approaches. HDM v/c ratios apply to all
approaches as they do not specify minor or mainline.
If operational performance measure targets or criteria indicate a need, such as where the minor
approach exceeds the v/c ratio target, the analyst needs to investigate multiple traffic control type
solutions from lowest impact to highest. Potential solutions that could be considered range from,
but are not limited to additional channelization, changes to lane alignments/designations,
conversion to all-way stop, realignment, roundabout, and j turns as well as more intensive
solutions such as signals and grade separations. Supplemental operational measures and
considerations also come into play. Volume to capacity ratio is just one factor. Other operational
factors to be investigated include multimodal considerations, safety and crash history, Level of
Service and delay, sight distance, conflict points, functional area adequacy, and availability of
alternate routes. The decision making process may involve an intersection control evaluation
and/or a design exception process. For further guidance on solution development, refer to
Chapter 10.
For a sketch planning level estimation of future traffic control needs, the Planning & Preliminary
Engineering Applications Guide (PPEAG) provides a graphical method as shown in Exhibits
12-3 and 12-4. Refer to the PPEAG for guidance on appropriate use of this method.

Exhibit 12-3 Planning Level Estimate of Traffic Control Needs - 50/50 Directional Volume
Distribution
Source: PPEAG Exhibit 17

Exhibit 12-4 Planning Level Estimate of Traffic Control Needs - 67/33 Volume Distribution
Source: PPEAG Exhibit 17
12.3.1 Two-Way Stop Control
For two-way stop control, the HCM employs a procedure for analyzing unsignalized
intersections that is primarily based on an established hierarchy of intersection movements
(based on assigned ROW) and a gap acceptance model. The major components of the gap
acceptance model include the critical gap and follow-up time; where the critical gap is the
minimum time interval in the major street traffic stream that allows intersection entry for one
minor street vehicle and the follow-up time is the time between the departure of one vehicle from
the minor street and the departure of the next vehicle using the same major street gap under a
condition of continuous queuing on the minor street. A simplified planning level analysis method
is available in the PPEAG, including a simplified spreadsheet tool.

Substitution for the default values of critical gap and follow-up times used in the HCM shall only
be permitted after conducting a thorough field investigation and obtaining ODOT approval.
At two-way stop intersections, the controlling movement (usually a minor street left turn) often
controls the overall intersection performance. Therefore, the v/c ratio for that movement will
typically be the one reported and evaluated against the adopted mobility standard. This is
especially important to recognize when analyzing two-way stop-controlled intersections where
the very low v/c ratios for the unimpeded, high-volume major street movements will overshadow
the higher v/c ratios for the lower-volume minor street movements. In these situations the
unimpeded v/c ratio is often very low, even though the minor street movements are near or over
capacity. However, as there may be times when the mainline v/c ratio is near the mobility
standard, it should always be acknowledged before deferring to minor street movements. For
ODOT facilities, the mainline through movement v/c ratio should be reported, as programs
generally only report out minor v/c and mainline left.
The analyst should also check for heavy traffic flows that may occur in the opposite direction of
peak hour volumes. For example, a high volume right turn movement in the pm peak period can
be an indicator of a paired high volume left turn movement in the am peak period.
Right Turn Flares
A right turn flare is where, on the stop controlled approach at a two-way stop controlled
intersection, a shared lane allows right-turning vehicles to complete their movement while other
vehicles are occupying the lane (see Exhibit 12-5). Current analysis
procedures/processes/software differ as to how a right turn flare on the minor street is analyzed
at unsignalized intersections.
Exhibit 12-5 Right Turn Flare
Source: ODOT Traffic Line Manual 2018 Figure 150-B
The HCM 6, HCS and Vistro provide a method for directly coding and evaluating the capacity of
a flared right turn lane.
Synchro/SimTraffic and SIDRA do not allow directly for a flare, so in some cases it may be
appropriate to code in a separate (short) turn lane. However, Synchro and SIDRA both see the

added lane as having full capacity which is not the case as a flare is limited in its capacity.
Therefore the capacity of an intersection is over-estimated when a flare is coded as a separate
short turn lane regardless of the “storage” length of the flare.
If SimTraffic is being used, it may still be appropriate to include a scenario with a short turn lane
with an appropriate length taper measured from field conditions or from design guidance (i.e.,
HDM). This will reflect the impact of a flare in SimTraffic when modeling driver behavior and
vehicle characteristics for determining measures such as queuing and stop delay.
Engineering judgment is needed to determine when a right turn flare should be coded. There is
not a single way to analyze/report the v/c ratios since the factors above vary widely across
analysis areas. The analyst should observe operations in the field to understand existing usage.
Considerations include:
• Purpose: What is the purpose of the analysis – broad versus specific? Plan versus
project? What measures are needed? What is the correct effort for the work?
• Physical Conditions: Width, length, curbed section or not, available sight distance. A
flare may be created by a large radius to accommodate trucks. Are there other constraints
such as parking?
• Volumes: Total, turn moves
• Characteristics: Drivers, vehicles, traffic flow volumes, bicycles, pedestrians
• Operations – Are vehicles observed using/creating a flare? Is access to the flare blocked
by queues?
There are three ways to handle right turn flares for reporting v/c ratio:
1. The most conservative is to not code any flare (the outside lane is a full shared lane).
2. The most correct mathematical way is to input the data (directly or by importing) into the
HCM/HCS/Vistro unsignalized processes, and coding the flare to account for the partial
increase in capacity.
3. A third approach is to code the intersection both ways in HCM/HCS/Vistro and see if the
values are different enough to warrant reporting the difference (perhaps as a range).
When the decision is made to include the effects of a flare on an unsignalized intersection, the
analyst must use the HCM/HCS/Vistro process to report v/c ratios.
Shared Major Street Left Turn Approaches
There is a limitation of the HCM unsignalized intersection methodology for shared left turn
approaches. Major street left turns are always treated as exclusive turn lanes regardless of how
they are coded. This can result in very low shared left turn v/c ratios (like 0.01) on an approach
that should be over capacity.
Shared major left turn vehicles are approximated in the HCM methodology by adjusting the
potential for a "queue-free state" in the case of delaying through movement vehicles. This
calculation ratchets down the through lane capacity (1700 for an unstopped lane) to reflect the

capacity for the left turning vehicles. Note that this value is for the left turns not for the through
movement (which is ignored).
The resulting reported HCM v/c is the left turn volume divided by the capacity of the shared lane
for the lefts only. The v/c of the major street (non-stopped) left turn only reflects the left turn
volume regardless if it is in a shared or an exclusive lane (v/c = volume of left turns / shared lane
capacity). Other through movements and the stopped movements use the total lane volume
divided by the shared lane capacity to obtain v/c.
In most cases this won't make a difference as the minor approaches will tend to control.
However, in cases of small minor leg movements and a high volume on the mainline, the major
through or the major left will control.
To calculate the correct shared approach v/c requires that you add the through v/c (volume of
through vehicles divided by 1700) to the left turn v/c.
Example 12-3 Shared Through-Left V/C Calculation
Software programs that follow HCM 2010/6th Edition report out a value for the v/c ratio for the
major left turn movement. However, this v/c is only of the left turn and does not include the
through movement.
From a HCM software report: NBL v/c = 0.02
Divide the major street flow rate (pcph) by 1700 pcph to obtain the v/c of the through movement.
In this case the northbound major street flow rate is 191 pcph.
NBT v/c = 191 pcph / 1700 pcph = 0.11
Add the major left to the through movement to obtain the total reportable v/c:
NBLT v/c = NBL v/c + NBT v/c = 0.02 + 0.11 = 0.13
Unsignalized Intersection Acceleration Lanes
An unsignalized intersection acceleration lane is an added lane for vehicles turning from a side
street at an at-grade intersection that allows the turning vehicle to accelerate from the turning
speed to highway speed, typically on rural limited access highways. The v/c ratio of intersection
acceleration lanes is performed using segment analysis. The worst v/c ratio is reported out of
either the upstream segment before the merge point, or of the downstream segment after the
merge point. Refer to Chapter 11 for segment v/c ratio calculation procedures. Additional
analysis of intersection acceleration lane operations may be performed using microsimulation.
Refer to Chapter 10 for general considerations on intersection acceleration lanes. An engineering
study, Roadway Design Exception, and State Traffic-Roadway Engineer approval is required for

acceleration lanes from at-grade intersections on state highways. Refer to Chapter 8 of the HDM
and Section 6 of the ODOT Traffic Manual for more information.
Right-Turn Acceleration Lanes
A right turn acceleration lane is created in Synchro by coding a minor stop controlled approach
right turn movement with one Add Lane, entering the curb radius, and designating the sign
control as Free, Stop or Yield as appropriate. If the acceleration lane is a drop lane, a bend node
is coded at the end of the lane drop. This will draw an add lane on the departure side of the
intersection that will merge with the through travel lanes downstream. In the simulation window,
the lane alignment for through traffic is coded as L-NA so through vehicles do not enter the right
turn acceleration lane. Likewise, right turning traffic is coded as R-NA so right turn vehicles turn
into the acceleration lane and not the through lane. See Exhibit 12-6.
Exhibit 12-6 Synchro Right Turn Acceleration Lane
This coding does not provide a v/c ratio of the right turn acceleration lane. The v/c ratio analysis
is performed using segment analysis for a two-lane highway. The worst v/c ratio is reported out
of either the upstream segment before the merge point, or of the downstream segment after the
merge point. For a multilane highway a merge analysis would be performed.
Median Acceleration Lanes and Left Turn Add Lanes
A median acceleration lane is shown in Exhibit12-7. The acceleration lane drops downstream of
the intersection.

Exhibit 12-7 Median Acceleration Lane
Source: 2012 ODOT Highway Design Manual
A left turn add lane is shown in Exhibit 12-8. This differs from the median acceleration lane in
that the added lane does not drop downstream of the intersection. This design requires a barrier
separating the through lane from the add lane.
Exhibit 12-8 Left Turn Add Lane
Source: 2012 ODOT Highway Design Manual
A median acceleration lane or left turn add lane can be created in Synchro by coding the
movement as an Add Lane. Synchro provides a v/c ratio for the left turn into the median
acceleration lane using a non-HCM methodology. The segment downstream of the merge point
still needs to be evaluated using segment analysis, unless it is a left turn add lane where there is
no merge point.
For simulation of an add lane, Synchro includes a Lane Alignment setting to establish whether
vehicles are allowed to enter the added lane as they pass through an intersection or where
through movements need to stay in their own lane. For a median acceleration lane, to prevent
through vehicles from entering the median acceleration lane the movement is coded as R-NA.
The left out movement is coded as L-NA to force those vehicles to turn into the median
acceleration lane only. See Exhibits 12-9 and 12-10.

Exhibit 12-9 Synchro Lane Alignment Settings
Exhibit 12-10 Synchro Median Acceleration Lane
Two-Way Left Turn Lanes (TWLTLs)
Synchro provides a TWLTL feature. With this feature Synchro assumes two-stage left turn out
from the minor approach at an intersection, as shown in Exhibit 12-11. This is coded by inputting
a Median Width and checking the TWLTL option. Two vehicles can be stored in the median.
This does not model driveway operations along a TWLTL. Synchro allows coding of TWLTL
operation at four-leg intersections – this configuration is only allowed at minor crossroads.

Consult with Region Traffic on whether TWLTL striping is appropriate. SimTraffic does not
model two-stage gap acceptance.
Refer to Chapter 10 for general considerations on TWLTLs.
Exhibit 12-11 TWLTL 2-Stage Operation
12.3.2 All-Way Stop Control (AWSC)
Under low volume conditions, two-way stop control (TWSC) is sufficient at most intersections.
However, in some circumstances AWSC may be justified, for example as a safety treatment or as
an interim improvement such as prior to installation of a roundabout or traffic signal. An
Intersection Traffic Control Study is required for multi-way stop installation. The ODOT Traffic
Manual contains guidance on the engineering study required for AWSC as well as the approval
process. AWSC requires approval of the State Traffic-Roadway Engineer.
The MUTCD contains threshold criteria for AWSC based on crashes or volumes. These are
guidelines rather than mandatory requirements. They should not be regarded as an absolute
minimum that must be met in order to consider AWSC.
For AWSC intersection operational analysis, the HCM procedure is based on an analysis of each
approach independently. The procedure determines the capacity of each approach, which is used
to calculate v/c ratios. The highest v/c ratio approach will be the one reported and evaluated
against the adopted mobility standard. Some programs report out only degree of saturation,
which should be assumed equivalent to v/c ratio. A simplified planning level analysis method is
available in the Planning & Preliminary Engineering Applications Guide. Refer to Chapter 10 for
guidance on the consideration of AWSC as a solution.

12.3.3 Non-HCM Compatible Stop Configurations
The HCM does not include methods for analysis of certain unsignalized intersections with
unusual configurations. These configurations can be analyzed using microsimulation, but
simulation does not produce a v/c ratio. SIDRA is the only program able to compute v/c ratios
for configurations such as allway stops with more than 4 legs, or non-standard stop sign
placement such as where the mainline turns at an intersection.
An HCM based workaround procedure to obtain an approximate v/c ratio can be done for a 4-leg
two-way stop intersection where the stop signs have non-standard placement by moving the
volumes to mimic an HCM analyzable configuration. An example is shown in Exhibit 12-12. In
this example, the highest volumes occur between the SB and EB approaches which are not
stopped, as shown in the Existing configuration. The WB and NB approaches are low volume
and are stopped. The workaround to analyze this configuration is to model the approaches having
the major flow as if they were opposite each other. This was done in the Adjusted for Analysis
configuration shown in Exhibit 12-12, where the EB and NB approaches were switched with
each other. Note that Exhibit 12-12 shows turn movements rather than actual lane configurations.
All movements still go to the same departure leg as in the Existing configuration. In other words,
the directional approach and departure volumes on each leg of the intersection remain
unchanged. The Adjusted for Analysis configuration can then be analyzed using HCM TWSC
methodology. Vistro version 6 or higher is able to automatically re-sort TWSC movements in
order to perform this type of workaround analysis as well.
The v/c ratios resulting from this method should be considered as approximate only. This method
can also be used as a way to estimate preliminary signal warrants. It should be noted that the
resulting volumes are only for approximating the analysis and should not be shown on flow
diagram figures.

Exhibit 12-12 Non-HCM Compatible Intersection with Directions Adjusted for Analysis
EXISTING ADJUSTED FOR ANALYSIS
SBR SBT SBL NB SBT SBR SBL NB
WB WBR SB WBR
WBT WBL
EBL NBT
WBL WBT
EBT NBR
EBR EB NBL
EB
SB NBL NBT NBR WB EBR EBL EBT
LEGS SWITCHED
The workaround described above does not work for T intersections where the stem leg is not
stopped while the other two legs are stopped. The v/c ratio for such a configuration can be
obtained using SIDRA, or can be approximated by analyzing the intersection under all-way stop
control, or by taking the average v/c ratio between AWSC and TWSC.
12.3.4 Roundabouts
Roundabouts are a safe and efficient intersection option with more free flow than a stop sign or
signal provides. Roundabouts can be a gateway or transition feature, roadway connection point,
or key element of an access management project. Research has shown roundabouts generally
reduce crashes and vehicle delay as compared to signals. Roundabouts have fewer conflict points
and severe injury crashes in comparison to other intersection designs.
For roundabouts on state highways, refer to the ODOT Traffic Manual and HDM for roundabout
guidelines, standards, siting criteria and the approval process. The State Traffic-Roadway
Engineer has been delegated the authority to approve the installation of roundabouts on State
Highways, which is divided into two phases: Conceptual Approval and Design Approval.
Unlike traffic signals, there are no roundabout warrants because roundabouts are intersection
designs and not traffic control devices. As such the decision to convert an intersection to a
roundabout is an engineering design decision and not a traffic control device decision.
Roundabout automobile capacity analysis generally follows the current HCM method. For
further information, refer to Roundabouts: An Informational Guide (1), Second Edition, also

known as NCHRP Report 672. A simplified planning level analysis method is available in the
Planning & Preliminary Engineering Applications Guide, including a simplified spreadsheet tool.
Studies have shown that U.S. drivers use roundabouts more conservatively than international
drivers. Therefore, U.S. roundabout capacities are generally lower than international values.
ODOT HCM Roundabout Automobile Methodology
HCM6 Exhibit 22-10 shows 12 steps in the HCM 6 analysis
Step 1: Flow rates from demand volumes

Step 2: Passenger car equivalents (bicycle, medium trucks, and heavy trucks)
Step 3: Circulating and exiting flow rates, addition of movements
Step 4: Entry flow rates by lane
Step 5: Capacity of entry lanes
Step 6: Pedestrian impedance to vehicles
Step 7: Vehicles /hour /lane from capacities and factors
Step 8: Volume/capacity ratio for each lane
Step 9: Average control delay, similar to unsignalized intersections
Step 10: LOS for each lane on each approach
Step 11: Average Control Delay and LOS for entire roundabout
Step 12: Queues for each lane
Exhibit 12-13 (HCM 6 Exhibit 22-12) shows a single lane roundabout with an entry flow
conflicting with a circulatory flow. Please note the subscripts: “c” is for circulatory, “e” is for
entry, and “ex” is for exiting flow. Entry vehicles yield to circulatory vehicles.
Bicycles that enter the roundabout as a vehicle should be included in the intersection volumes for
each movement (including U-turns).

Exhibit 12-13 Analysis on One Roundabout Leg
Source: HCM 6 Exhibit 22-1
Step 1: Flow rates from demand volumes, as per count
Use HCM 6 Equation 22-8 to find the demand flow rate for each movement.
𝑉𝑉𝑖𝑖
𝑣𝑣𝑖𝑖 =
𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃
Where:
𝑣𝑣𝑖𝑖 = demand flow rate for movement (veh/h)
𝑉𝑉𝑖𝑖 = demand volume recorded for movement, include bicycles as a vehicle (veh/h)
𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 = peak hour factor
Step 2: Passenger car equivalents (bicycle, medium trucks, and heavy trucks)
Flow rates in vehicles per hour (veh/h) are converted to equivalent passenger cars per hour (pc/h)
using vehicle factors. The bicycle equivalent factor should be 1.0, rather than 0.5 as suggested in
HCM 6 (Exhibit 12-14).
Exhibit 12-14 Recommended Passenger Car Equivalents

Demand volumes (vph) are converted to equivalent passenger cars per hour (pc/h) using a heavy
vehicle factor equation similar to that found in HCM 6. Em and Eh are the equivalent factors for
medium and heavy vehicles, 1.5 and 2, respectively. Heavy vehicles should be WB-67 or long
trucks, such as fire engines. This designation is the engineer’s judgment and also dependent on
the counting methodology. The proportion that these vehicle types occur in a count is designated
as Pm and Ph.
An adjusted heavy vehicle adjustment factor equation:
1
𝑓𝑓𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻 =
1 + 𝑃𝑃𝑚𝑚 (𝐸𝐸𝑚𝑚 − 1) + 𝑃𝑃ℎ (𝐸𝐸ℎ − 1)
Where:
𝑓𝑓𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻 = heavy vehicle adjustment factor
𝑃𝑃𝑚𝑚 = proportion of demand volume that consists of medium trucks (decimal)
𝑃𝑃ℎ = proportion of demand volume that consists of heavy vehicles (decimal)
𝐸𝐸𝑚𝑚 = passenger car equivalent for medium trucks (Passenger Car Equivalents given)
𝐸𝐸ℎ = passenger car equivalent for heavy vehicles (Passenger Car Equivalents given)
This 𝑓𝑓𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻 is then used in HCM 6, Equation 22-9.
𝑣𝑣𝑖𝑖
𝑣𝑣𝑖𝑖,𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 =
𝑓𝑓𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻
Where:
𝑣𝑣𝑖𝑖,𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 = demand flow rate for movement (passenger cars per hour; pc/hr)
𝑣𝑣𝑖𝑖 = demand flow rate for movement (veh/hr)
𝑓𝑓𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻 = heavy vehicle adjustment factor
Step 3: Circulating and exiting flow rates; addition of movements
The circulating flow rates in front of each entry are summed in terms of passenger car
equivalents. See HCM 6 Equation 22-11 below.
𝑣𝑣𝑐𝑐,𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁,𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 = 𝑣𝑣𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊,𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 + 𝑣𝑣𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆,𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 + 𝑣𝑣𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆,𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 + 𝑣𝑣𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸,𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 + 𝑣𝑣𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸,𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 + 𝑣𝑣𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸,𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝
Where:
𝑣𝑣𝑐𝑐 = Circulating flow rates in front of specified entry; in passenger car equivalents
𝑣𝑣𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊,𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 = Flow rates of a specified movement

Step 3B: If considering a bypass lane, calculate the conflicting flow rates. The conflicting flow
rates for where the bypass lane merges into the exiting lane can be calculated with HCM 6
Equation 22-12, similar to Equation 22-11.
Step 4: Entry flow rates by lane, if more than one lane
This step is for a multi-lane roundabout approach with more than one entry lane.
For approaches with multiple lanes, lane utilization must be estimated. If field data are not
available, HCM 6 Exhibit 22-9 provides guidance on potential default values for different lane
configurations.
For approaches with movements that may use more than one lane, follow HCM 6 Exhibit 22-14
to determine the assumed lane assignment.
Using the assumed lane assignment, assign flow rates to each lane using the formulas provided in
HCM 6 Exhibit 22-15.
Step 5: Capacity of entry lanes; uses value from step 3
For single lane roundabouts without a capacity and headway study (i.e. Bend, Oregon) one
should use HCM 6 Equation 22-1 to find the capacity for each entry lane using the circulatory
flow rate calculated in Step 3.
𝐶𝐶 = 1,380𝑒𝑒 (−𝐵𝐵×𝑉𝑉𝑐𝑐 )
Where:
𝐶𝐶 = Entry capacity (pc/h) for single-lane roundabout
𝑉𝑉𝑐𝑐 = Circulating (conflicting) flow (pc/h)
𝐵𝐵 = Coefficient, 0.00102 for single lane roundabouts
The City of Bend, Oregon has more roundabouts than any city in Oregon. Therefore, Bend
drivers have become accustomed to roundabouts which operate at a higher capacity. A study of
single-lane roundabouts in Bend (City of Bend Roundabout Operational Analysis Guidelines,
Kittelson & Associates, Inc., 2009) developed a locally calibrated capacity equation. Rather than
the HCM equation, the Bend capacity equation is to be used for all single-lane roundabouts to be
built in the Bend area. The local calibration of headways and capacities better match Bend
driving habits.
Bend single-lane roundabout calibrated capacity equation:
𝐶𝐶𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 = 1,333𝑒𝑒 �−𝐵𝐵×𝑉𝑉𝑐𝑐,𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝�

Where:
𝐶𝐶𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 = Entry capacity (passenger cars per hour; pc/h), adjusted for heavy vehicles
𝑉𝑉𝑐𝑐,𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 = Circulating (conflicting) flow (pc/h), adjusted for heavy vehicles
𝐵𝐵 = Bend coefficient, 0.0008 for single lane roundabouts
If considering a multi-lane roundabout with more than one entry lane, a different capacity
equation is used as per HCM 6 Step 5. The appropriate equation to use for entry lanes depends
on the number of entering lanes and conflicting circulating lanes and can be determined from
Exhibit 22-16, or Exhibit 22-17 for bypass lanes.
For a Type 1 Yielding Bypass lane as shown in Exhibit 12-15, the capacity of the bypass lane
should also be calculated. The exiting flow is used as the circulating or conflicting flow and the
bypass lane volume must yield as the entry flow. Use of the single or multilane capacity equation
(HCM 6 Step 5, Equation 22-6 or 22-7) depends on the number of opposing exit lanes. No
calculation is necessary if the bypass lane is a Type 2, non-yielding bypass entering an add-lane.
The capacity of an add-lane is expected to be high.
Exhibit 12-15 Yielding and Non-Yielding

Step 6: Pedestrian impedance to vehicles
Step 6A: The following procedure is for analysis of single lane roundabouts; for two entry lanes,
see Step 6B below. For one entry lane, use one of the following three equations, similar to HCM
6 Exhibit 22-18, to find the entry capacity adjustment factor for pedestrians.
1. If the conflicting flow rate exceeds 881 pcph, or if the number of conflicting
pedestrians per hour is less than 40, the entry capacity adjustment factor for pedestrians is
1.0
If 𝑣𝑣𝑐𝑐,𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 > 881 or 𝑛𝑛𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 < 40, 𝑓𝑓𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 = 1
2. If the number of conflicting pedestrians per hour is equal to or greater than 40, but less
than 101, use the following formula to calculate the entry capacity adjustment factor for
pedestrians.
Else, if 40 ≤ 𝑛𝑛𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 ≤ 101, 𝑓𝑓𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 = 1 − 0.000137𝑛𝑛𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝
3. If either of the above two conditions are not met, use the following formula to calculate
the entry capacity adjustment factor for pedestrians.
Else
1,119.5 − 0.715𝑣𝑣𝑐𝑐,𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 + 0.00073𝑣𝑣𝑐𝑐,𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 𝑛𝑛𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝
𝑓𝑓𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 =
1,068.6 − 0.654𝑣𝑣𝑐𝑐,𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝
Where:
𝑓𝑓𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 = entry capacity pedestrian adjustment factor
𝑣𝑣𝑐𝑐 = conflicting flow (pc/h)
𝑛𝑛𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 = conflicting pedestrians (p/h)
An adjustment factor for pedestrians of 1.0 is recommended if there are fewer than 40
pedestrians crossing a leg in an hour. Less than 40 pedestrians crossing a leg in an hour do not
have a significant effect on single lane roundabout operation.
If the hourly number of passenger car equivalent vehicles circulating in front of an entrance is
over 881, then the adjustment factor for pedestrians is a factor of 1.0. If that is not the case and
the number of pedestrians crossing at a crosswalk is greater than 40 and less than or equal to 101,
then the second equation determines the adjustment factor for pedestrians.
Step 6B: If considering more than one entry lane, see HCM 6 Step 6 including Exhibits 22-20
and 22-21 for the entry capacity adjustment factor for pedestrians.

Step 7: Vehicles /hour /lane from capacities and factors
Step 7A: A weighted average of the heavy vehicle adjustment factor is created for each entry
lane with HCM 6 Equation 22-15.
𝑓𝑓𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻,𝑈𝑈 𝑣𝑣𝑈𝑈,𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 + 𝑓𝑓𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻,𝐿𝐿 𝑣𝑣𝐿𝐿,𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 + 𝑓𝑓𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻,𝑇𝑇 𝑣𝑣𝑇𝑇,𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 + 𝑓𝑓𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻,𝑅𝑅,𝑒𝑒 𝑣𝑣𝑅𝑅,𝑒𝑒,𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃

𝑓𝑓𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻 =
𝑣𝑣𝑈𝑈,𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 + 𝑣𝑣𝐿𝐿,𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 + 𝑣𝑣𝑇𝑇,𝑃𝑃𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 + 𝑣𝑣𝑅𝑅,𝑒𝑒,𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃
Where:
𝑓𝑓𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻 = averaged heavy vehicle adjustment factor for entry lane
𝑓𝑓𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻 = heavy vehicle adjustment factor for movement i
𝑣𝑣𝑖𝑖,𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 = demand flow for movement i (pc/h)
The entry lane flow rate is converted back to vehicles per hour with HCM 6, Equation 22-13, a
rearrangement of Equation 22-9.
𝑣𝑣𝑖𝑖 = 𝑣𝑣𝑖𝑖,𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 𝑓𝑓𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻,𝑒𝑒
Where:
𝑣𝑣𝑖𝑖,𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 = demand flow rate for lane i (pc/hr)
𝑣𝑣𝑖𝑖 = demand flow rate for lane i (veh/hr)
𝑓𝑓𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻,𝑒𝑒 = heavy vehicle adjustment factor
Step 7B: The capacity of a lane is converted back to vehicles per hour in Equation 22-14.
ci = ci , PCE f HVe f ped
𝑐𝑐𝑖𝑖 = 𝑐𝑐𝑖𝑖,𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 𝑓𝑓𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻 𝑓𝑓𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝

Where:
𝑐𝑐𝑖𝑖,𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 = demand flow rate for movement (Epc/hr)
𝑐𝑐𝑖𝑖 = demand flow rate for movement (veh/hr)
𝑓𝑓𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻 = heavy vehicle adjustment factor
𝑓𝑓𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 = pedestrian adjustment factor
Step 8: Volume/capacity ratio for each lane
The volume/capacity ratio of a lane is calculated in Equation 22-16.

𝑣𝑣𝑖𝑖
𝑥𝑥𝑖𝑖 =
𝑐𝑐𝑖𝑖
Where:
𝑥𝑥𝑖𝑖 = volume-to-capacity ratio of the subject lane i
𝑣𝑣𝑖𝑖 = demand flow rate of the subject lane i (veh/hr)
𝑐𝑐𝑖𝑖 = capacity of the subject lane i (veh/hr)
The v/c ratio is calculated for each lane on each approach. The highest lane v/c ratio calculated
should be reported. An approach with a v/c ratio exceeding a standard, such as the applicable
OHP/HDM v/c ratio, calls for further analysis and potential improvement, such as a bypass lane.
The decision to build a roundabout is determined by the State Traffic-Roadway Engineer (with
consultation from Region Traffic). Considerations for further study may include highway
classification, traffic characteristics, and system continuity.

Step 9: Average control delay, similar to unsignalized intersections
HCM 6 states the delay to be similar to unsignalized intersections, per United Sates roundabout
data. The HCM makes a good point about delay at peak hour or design hour:
“At higher volume-to-capacity ratios, the likelihood of coming to a complete

stop increases, thus causing behavior to resemble STOP control more closely.”
At higher volumes, it is likely that motorists may make stops before the crosswalk as well as the
yield/stop that HCM 6 describes as resembling STOP control.
The average control delay of a lane is calculated in HCM 6 Equation 22-17.
3600
3600 �(𝑥𝑥 � 𝑐𝑐 � 𝑥𝑥
𝑑𝑑 = + 900𝑇𝑇 �𝑥𝑥 − 1 + 2
− 1) + � + 5 × 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚[𝑥𝑥, 1]
𝑐𝑐 450𝑇𝑇
Where:
𝑑𝑑 = average control delay (s/veh)
𝑥𝑥 = volume-to-capacity ratio of the subject lane
𝑐𝑐 = capacity of the subject lane (veh/hr)
𝑇𝑇 = time period (h) (T = 0.25 for a 15-min analysis)
The delay is calculated for each lane on each approach.
Step 10: LOS for each lane on each approach
The delay from Step 9 and the v/c ratio from Step 8 are used with Exhibit 12-16 (HCM 6 Exhibit
22-8) to determine the LOS of each lane on each approach.
Exhibit 12-16 HCM Unsignalized LOS table
Source: HCM Exhibit 22-8

Step 11: Average Control Delay and LOS for entire roundabout
The average control delay of a roundabout is calculated in HCM 6 equations 22-18 and
22-19. For a single lane roundabout with single entry lanes, these equations will reduce to
an average of approach (HCM 6 Equation 22-19):
∑ 𝑑𝑑𝑖𝑖 𝑣𝑣𝑖𝑖
𝑑𝑑𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 =
∑ 𝑣𝑣𝑖𝑖
Where:
𝑑𝑑𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 = average control delay for entire intersection (s/veh)
𝑑𝑑𝑖𝑖 = control delay for approach i (s/veh)
𝑣𝑣𝑖𝑖 = flow rate for approach i (veh/h)
With the average intersection delay, the intersection LOS is found from Exhibit 12-16
(HCM 6 Exhibit 22-8).
For multilane approaches and approaches with bypass lanes, the full Equation 22-18 is
used, which calculates a weighted average delay for the approach. An overall intersection
delay and LOS can also be determined using Equation 22-19.
Step 12: Queues for Each Lane
The 95th percentile queue of a roundabout entry lane is calculated in HCM 6 Equation
22-20.
3600
�(1 � 𝑐𝑐 � 𝑥𝑥 𝑐𝑐
𝑄𝑄95 = 900𝑇𝑇 �𝑥𝑥 − 1 + − 𝑥𝑥)2 + ��
150𝑇𝑇 3600
Where:
𝑄𝑄95 = 95th percentile queue (veh)
𝑥𝑥 = volume-to-capacity ratio of the subject lane
𝑐𝑐 = capacity of the subject lane (veh/hr)
𝑇𝑇 = time period (h) (T = 0.25 for a 15-min analysis)

Logical Design Progression
Start analysis of a single lane roundabout with existing and future volumes. If an entry
lane exceeds the mobility standard, then analyze a bypass lane for that approach. The
bypass lane volume is subtracted out of the roundabout entry lane volume. This affects
flow rate calculations of Steps 1 through 5. This may also affect capacity, v/c, delay,
LOS, or 95th percentile queue. If a bypass lane merges into an existing lane (Yielding
Type 1), then calculate the capacity of the bypass lane (HCM 6 Chapter 33, Example
Problem 1). If not due to a heavy right turn movement, then a multilane roundabout
should be considered (not all of the circulating lanes must have more than one lane). If a
multilane roundabout entry lane exceeds the mobility standard, then again consider a
bypass lane. A flow chart showing this process is shown in Exhibit 12-17.

Exhibit 12-17 Roundabout Design Progression
Single lane roundabout meets future mobility
standard?
Yes
N P
o O
Meets mobility T
Caused by standard with bypass E
lane(s)? Yield? N
heavy right Yes Nonyielding? Yes
turn volume? T
I
N N A
o o L
R
Heavy thru, left, or Partial multilane O
conflicting volume roundabout U
causes mobility std to Yes meets mobility Yes N
be exceeded? standard? D
A
N N B
o o O
U
Full multilane roundabout meets future mobility T
standard? Yes
A
L
N
o T
Full multilane E
roundabout meets R
Caused by heavy mobility standard N
right turn volume? Yes with bypass Yes A
lane(s)? T
N I
o N V
o
E
This roundabout might not be ideal, but may be

considered, especially if safety and mobility trade-offs are
weighed and mobility design exceptions are obtained.

Reporting
ODOT required outputs:

• Highest entry lane V/C
• Each Bypass lane V/C
• Predicted queue lengths
Other jurisdictions may require:

• Intersection LOS and delay
• Bypass LOS
• Lane capacities
• Delay and LOS on each leg
• Entry and conflicting flows
12.4 Traffic Signal Warrants

Because the presence of traffic signals can degrade some aspects of overall traffic
operations on a highway in addition to the improvements they provide, traffic signal
warrants are used to determine when installation may be justified by identifying
conditions where the benefits may outweigh the costs. The Manual on Uniform Traffic
Control Devices (MUTCD) provides a set of 9 warrants to be used in determining if the
installation of a traffic signal should be considered. In addition to these, the ODOT
Transportation Planning Analysis Unit has also developed a set of “preliminary” traffic
signal warrants, which are based on a portion of the MUTCD warrants, but require less
data for analysis. The preliminary warrants are generally not accepted as a basis for
approving the installation of a traffic signal, but are useful for projecting signalization
needs for future years. Full warrants are evaluated later as part of the engineering study
required by the MUTCD. Many other considerations go into determining whether a
signal should be installed. For example, a signal installation is generally not appropriate
in a rural area. The MUTCD and Preliminary Signal Warrant (PSW) methodologies are
described below.
The MUTCD warrants are part of the Traffic-Roadway Section (TRS) signal
approval process. For more information contact TRS. For all other
applications/projections, only the ADT-based Preliminary Signal Warrant process
can be used.
When evaluating signal warrants (preliminary or MUTCD), it is important to include

only the appropriate lane configurations and traffic volumes. Incorrect modeling of
intersections is a very common mistake and can make a significant difference to the
outcome of the analysis. There may be times when minor streets need to be modeled as
major streets because of high side-street volumes (e.g., rural interchange) or left turns
behave as right turns when dealing with one-way streets. In such cases, sound

engineering judgment is critical to obtaining accurate analysis. Direction for proper
modeling of intersections when analyzing signal warrants is included in the next section.
Traffic signal warrants must be met and the State Traffic-Roadway Engineer’s approval
obtained before a traffic signal can be installed on a state highway. However, approval of
a signal depends on more than just a warrant analysis. Meeting a warrant is necessary to
install a signal, but it does not mean a signal should be recommended or guarantee its
installation. Considerations to be evaluated include safety concerns, alternatives to
signalization, signal systems, delay, queuing, bike and pedestrian needs, railroads, access,
consistency with local plans, local agency support and others. The engineering
investigation, conducted or reviewed by the Region Traffic Engineer, must demonstrate a
reduction in delay, improvements in safety, improved connectivity or some other
"benefit" and why a signal is the best solution as compared to other alternatives, such as
listed in MUTCD Section 4B.04a. During the consideration, the Region Traffic Engineer,
input from Traffic-Roadway Section (TRS) must be obtained prior to reaching any
conclusions. Coordination with TRS should occur early in the project process to allow
sufficient time to develop and evaluate alternatives to signalization if deemed necessary.
Once the investigation and recommendation is reviewed, TRS will act on the request.
If preliminary signal warrants are met, project analysts need to forward a copy of the
PSW form and analysis to Region Traffic and coordinate with Region Traffic to initiate
the traffic signal engineering investigation as outlined in the Traffic Manual. If Region
Traffic supports the concept of a signal installation, they will forward the analysis to
TRS.
12.4.1 Preliminary Signal Warrants
Introduction
The single most important criterion for preliminary signal warrant analysis is engineering
judgment. In the following procedures only the fundamental parameters of volumes and
approach lanes are provided.
Background
There are 9 traffic signal warrants found in the MUTCD, listed in Part 4. The signal
warrants are:
• Warrant 1, Eight-Hour Vehicular Volume

o Condition A – Minimum Vehicular Volume
o Condition B – Interruption of Continuous Traffic
• Warrant 2, Four-Hour Vehicular Volume
• Warrant 3, Peak Hour
• Warrant 4, Pedestrian Volume
• Warrant 5, School Crossing
• Warrant 6, Coordinated Signal System
• Warrant 7, Crash Experience

• Warrant 8, Roadway Network
• Warrant 9, Intersection Near a Grade Crossing
OAR 734-020-0460 (1) stipulates that only MUTCD Warrant 1 Condition A and
Condition B may be used to project future needs for traffic signals beyond three years
from the present time. Condition A deals primarily with high volumes on the intersecting
minor street. Condition B addresses high volumes on the major street and the delays and
hazards to vehicles on the minor street trying to either access or cross the major street.
The preliminary warrant is considered satisfied if either Condition A or Condition B is
met for either 100% of the thresholds or 70% of the thresholds when the major-street
speed exceeds 40 mph or in an isolated community with a population of less than 10,000.
The 80% and 56% thresholds that may apply after adequate trial of other remedial
measures are not used for preliminary signal warrants. MUTCD Warrant 3, Peak Hour
cannot be used to project needs for future traffic signals.
Information for Narrative

The following statement should be included in the Analysis Methodology section of the
Narrative:
TPAU uses Signal Warrant 1, Condition A and Condition B (MUTCD),

which deal primarily with high volumes on the intersecting minor street
and high volumes on the major-street. Meeting preliminary signal warrants
does not guarantee that a signal shall be installed. Before a signal can be
installed a field warrant analysis is conducted by the Region. If warrants
are met, the State Traffic-Roadway Engineer will make the final decision
on the installation of a signal.
Analysis
In MUTCD Warrant 1 the eighth highest hour of an average day is used to determine
whether a warrant is met. At the analysis stage in TPAU, ADT is used for preliminary
signal warrant analysis. A conversion factor of 5.65% is applied to the ADT to reach the
eighth highest hour. The conversion factor of 5.65% was developed based on a study of
1991 to 1994 manual counts and as agreed on by TPAU and TRS. This factor was used to
convert MUTCD hourly volumes to ADT volumes (divided the MUTCD volume by the
factor .0565). This equals the target ADT volume to meet MUTCD Warrant 1. As an
example, for Condition A to be met the MUTCD requires a minimum total of 500
vehicles per hour on both approaches of the major street, where the major and minor
streets both have only one lane for moving traffic (at 100%, assuming no reductions). To
convert this to ADT volumes, the following calculations are made:
500
ADT = = 8,850
0.0565

These calculations of ADT thresholds have already been completed for the analyst on the
Preliminary Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis Form, as can be seen in Exhibit 12-18 1
If the 85th percentile speed of major street traffic exceeds 40 mph in either an urban or
rural area or when the intersection lies within the built-up area of an isolated community
(typically non-MPO) having a population of less than 10,000, reduce the target volume
for the warrants to 70 percent of the normal requirements, as shown in the preliminary
traffic signal warrant analysis sheet in Exhibit 12-18.
1
Note that the value of 8,850 calculated in the analysis example is the same as the value on the worksheet
for this scenario.

Exhibit 12-18 Preliminary Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis Form

Determining the number of approach lanes and determining the approach volumes to use
in the warrant analysis requires knowledge of the involved intersection. A spreadsheet
calculator is available on the Technical Tools page that streamlines these calculations
including the right turn discounts.
1. Major Street (Higher Volume Street)
• Include only the through and through/turn lanes in the number of approach lanes.
• For the ADT, count total volume approaching from both directions, including all
turn movements.
2. Minor Street (Lower Volume Street)
• Include only the through, through/turn and left turn lanes in the number of
approach lanes. However, in cases of where a minor street approach is just a right
turn lane, code this as a lane in the worksheet. The right turn discount is applied
normally as described below.
• For the ADT, count the highest approaching volume (one direction only, do not
include the ADT approaching from both directions) including some or none of the
right turn volume as discussed in the following scenarios and examples:
o Scenario # 1 – Shared Left-Through-Right Lane: Some of the right
turns are included in the minor street approach ADT if the right turn
demand is greater than 85% of the capacity of the shared lane. Use
unsignalized capacity analysis to calculate the capacity of the shared lane.
The right turn discount is 85% of the shared lane capacity (85% of the
capacity is used because once the v/c exceeds 0.85, drivers suffer longer
delay and begin to take unsafe gaps). Subtract the right-turn discount from
the total right turn volume to determine the number of right turns in the
warrant. If the remainder is less than or equal to zero, do not include any
of the right turns in the approach ADT.
Example 12-4 Right Turn Discount for Shared Left/Through/Right Lane
Example Application: Right Turn Discounts (Only for the minor road.)
The diagram below shows a typical unsignalized intersection, the peak hour volumes, the
ADT volumes and lane configurations. The peak hour volumes are 10% of the ADT. The
85th percentile speed is 35 mph and the intersection is located in a city with a population
of 60,000.
• Determine the number of right-turns to include in the warrant. Using an

unsignalized intersection methodology it was determined that the eastbound
shared lane capacity is 120 vph. The right-turn discount is 85% of the shared lane
capacity, 120 x 0.85 = 102 right turns. The number of right turns included in the
warrant would be 180 – 102 = 78.
• Determine the minor approach ADT. The minor street approach peak hour

volume used in the warrant is 90+50+78 = 218. Since the peak hour volume is
10% of the ADT, the minor approach ADT is (218 / 0.10) = 2,180.
Example Volume Diagram
The figure below shows the Preliminary Signal Warrant Analysis for this example. The
preliminary signal warrant is not met because the Minor Street ADT is less than the
warrant volume in Condition A and the Major Street ADT is less than the warrant volume
in Condition B.

Warrant Analysis of Minor Approach #1 Example Conditions
Oregon Department of Transportation
Transportation Development Branch
Transportation Planning Analysis Unit
Preliminary Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis1

Major Street: Rogue Valley Highway Minor Street: Ehrman Way
Project: Ehrman Way City/County: Medford
Year: 1995 Alternative: Single Ln Minor Appr L/T/R
Preliminary Signal Warrant Volumes
Number of ADT on major street ADT on minor street, highest
Approach lanes approaching from approaching
both directions volume
Major Minor Percent of standard warrants Percent of standard warrants
Street Street 100 70 100 70
Case A: Minimum Vehicular Traffic
1 1 8850 6200 2650 1850
2 or more 1 10600 7400 2650 1850
2 or more 2 or more 10600 7400 3550 2500
1 2 or more 8850 6200 3550 2500
Case B: Interruption of Continuous Traffic
1 1 13300 9300 1350 950
2 or more 1 15900 11100 1350 950
2 or more 2 or more 15900 11100 1750 1250
1 2 or more 13300 9300 1750 1250
X 100 percent of standard warrants
70 percent of standard warrants2
Preliminary Signal Warrant Calculation
Street Number of Warrant Approach Warrant Met
Lanes Volumes Volumes
Case Major 2 10600 13000
A Minor 1 2650 2180 N
Case Major 2 15900 13000
B Minor 1 1350 2180 N
Analyst and Date: Reviewer and Date:
1 Meeting preliminary signal warrants does not guarantee that a signal will be installed. When preliminary
signal warrants are met, project analysts need to coordinate with Region Traffic to initiate the traffic signal
engineering investigation as outlined in the Traffic Manual. Before a signal can be installed, the
engineering investigation must be conducted or reviewed by the Region Traffic Manager who will forward
signal recommendations to headquarters. Traffic signal warrants must be met and the State Traffic
Engineer’s approval obtained before a traffic signal can be installed on a state highway.

Scenario # 2 – Exclusive Right-Turn Lane: Some of the right turns are included in the
approach ADT if the right turn lane demand is greater than 85% of the capacity of the
right turn lane. Use unsignalized capacity analysis to calculate the capacity of the right
turn lane. The right turn discount is 85% of the right turn lane capacity. Subtract the right
turn discount from the total right turning volume to determine the number of right turns
that will be included in the warrant. If the remainder is less than or equal to zero, do not
include any of the right turns in the approach ADT.
Example 12-5 Right Turn Discount for Exclusive Right Lane
The diagram below shows a typical unsignalized intersection with a separate right turn
lane on the eastbound approach, the peak hour volumes, the ADT volumes and lane
configurations. The peak hour volumes are 10% of the ADT. The 85th percentile speed is
35 mph and the intersection is located in a city with a population of 60,000.

unsignalized intersection methodology it was determined that the eastbound right
turn lane capacity is 639 vph. The right turn discount is 85% of the shared lane
capacity, 0.85 x 639 = 543 right turns. The number of right turns included in the
warrant is 180-543 = -363 = 0. If the number is less than or equal to zero, do not
include any right turns in the warrant. The EB right turn lane is not included in the
number of approach lanes.
• Determine the minor approach ADT. The minor approach peak hour volume used
in the warrant is 90+50+0 = 140. Since the peak hour volume is 10% of the ADT,
the minor approach ADT is (140/0.10) = 1,400.
The form below shows the Preliminary Signal Warrant Analysis for this example. The
preliminary signal warrant is not met since the Minor Street ADT is less than the warrant
volume in Condition A and the Major Street ADT is less than the warrant volume in
Condition B.
Minor Approach with Right Turn Lane Example


Year: 1995 Alternative: 2 Lane Minor Approach L/T, R
1 1 8850 6200 2650 1850
2 or more 1 10600 7400 2650 1850
2 or more 2 or more 10600 7400 3550 2500
1 2 or more 8850 6200 3550 2500
1 1 13300 9300 1350 950
2 or more 1 15900 11100 1350 950
2 or more 2 or more 15900 11100 1750 1250
1 2 or more 13300 9300 1750 1250
70 percent of standard warrants2
Case Major 2 10600 13000
A Minor 1 2650 1400 N
Case Major 2 15900 13000
B Minor 1 1350 1400 N

o Scenario # 3 – Shared Through-Right Lane: Some of the right turns are
included in the approach ADT if the right turn demand is greater than 85%
of the capacity of the shared through-right lane. Use unsignalized capacity
analysis to calculate the capacity of the through-right shared lane. The
right turn discount is 85 % of the shared lane capacity. Subtract the right
turn discount from the total right turn volume to determine the number of
right turns in the warrant. If the remainder is less than or equal to zero, do
not include any of the right turns in the approach ADT.
Example 12-6 Right Turn Discount for Shared Through/Right Lane
The diagram below shows a typical unsignalized intersection with a shared through-right
lane on the eastbound approach, the peak hour volumes, the ADT volumes and lane
configurations. The peak hour volumes are 10% of the ADT. The 85th percentile speed is
35 mph and the intersection is located in a city with a population of 60,000.

unsignalized intersection methodology it was determined that the eastbound
shared lane capacity is 277 vph. The right turn discount is 85% of the shared lane
capacity, 0.85 x 277 = 235 right turns. The number of right turns included in the
warrant is 180 – 235= -55 = 0. If the number is less than or equal to zero, do not
include any right turns in the warrant.
• Determine the minor approach ADT. The minor approach peak hour volume used
in the warrant is 90+50+0= 140. Since the peak hour volume is 10% of the ADT,
the minor approach ADT is (140 / 0.10) = 1,400.
• The form below shows the Preliminary Signal Warrant Analysis for this example.
The preliminary signal warrant is not met since the Minor Street ADT is less than
the warrant volume in Condition A and the Major/Minor Street ADT’s are both
less than the warrant volumes in Condition B.
Minor Approach with Left Turn Lane Example


Year: 1995 Alternative: 2 Lane Minor Approach L, T/R
1 1 8850 6200 2650 1850
2 or more 1 10600 7400 2650 1850
2 or more 2 or more 10600 7400 3550 2500
1 2 or more 8850 6200 3550 2500
1 1 13300 9300 1350 950
2 or more 1 15900 11100 1350 950
2 or more 2 or more 15900 11100 1750 1250
1 2 or more 13300 9300 1750 1250
2
70 percent of standard warrants
Case Major 2 10600 13000
A Minor 2 3550 1400 N
Case Major 2 15900 13000
B Minor 2 1750 1400 N

o Scenario # 4 – Double Right-Turn Lane: Include all of the right turning
volume in the approach ADT if a double right turn lane is required. If such
is the case, the number of approach lanes for warrant analysis is 2 or more.
The above information is meant to serve as general guidelines only. Engineering

judgment may be required when one or both of the streets are one way, the intersection is
not a typical four legged design or the highest volume is associated with a turn
movement. Engineering judgment must be the deciding factor in preliminary warrant
analysis.
12.4.2 MUTCD Signal Warrants
PSWs are used to project signalization needs. MUTCD warrants are limited to 3 years or
less and are for actual approval of installation of a traffic signal. This requires an
engineering study including an evaluation of the full set of 9 MUTCD signal warrants.
Provisions for this evaluation are found in the ODOT Traffic Signal Policy and
Guidelines, OAR 734-020-0400 thru 734-020-0500 and ODOT Traffic Manual.

12.5 Estimating Vehicle Queue Lengths
Vehicle queues can have a significant effect on highway safety and operation. Queues
that exceed the provided storage at turn lanes can block the adjacent through lanes
creating a temporary reduction in capacity as well as an unexpected obstruction in the
travel lane that could result in a crash. In through lanes long queues can block access to
turn lanes, driveways and minor street approaches, in addition to spilling back into
upstream intersections. Under these conditions there are significant losses in capacity that
can quickly spread to other upstream intersections and adjacent streets. There can also be
a higher potential for crashes as drivers turning onto or off of the highway are required to
pass through gaps in the queue that provide limited visibility and other drivers incurring
long delays become more aggressive. Therefore, the estimation of vehicle queue lengths
is an important traffic analysis procedure that should be included in most operational and
safety projects.
Estimates of queue lengths should be based on the anticipated arrival patterns, duration of
interruptions and the ability of the intersection to recover from momentary heavy arrival
rates. The average queue length and the 95th percentile queue length should be shown in
the report. The 95th percentile queue length shall be used for design purposes. A queue
blockage or spillback condition is considered a problem when the duration exceeds 5
percent of the peak hour. The average vehicle length, including buffer space between
vehicles, to be used in analysis shall be 25-feet, unless a local study indicates otherwise,
with all queue length calculations rounded up to the next 25-foot increment. Queue
lengths subject to over-capacity conditions can only be adequately assessed through the
use of simulation software. The 25-foot average does not apply to microsimulation,
where vehicle lengths differ by vehicle type. Refer to Chapter 15 for microsimulation
guidance.
The minimum storage length for urban or rural left turn lanes at unsignalized
intersections on state highways is 100 feet. Left Turn Lane layouts/dimensions are
available in HDM Chapter 8 Figure 8-9 and Traffic Line Manual (TLM) Section
310.
12.5.1 Two-Way Stop Control Intersection Queuing
TPAU Models
At unsignalized intersections, the movements of interest are often the major street left
turns and all minor street movements. The most common methodologies used for
estimating queue lengths for these movements include the Highway Capacity Software
(HCS) 2 and the Two-Minute Rule.
2
Highway Capacity Software, McTrans, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida.

TPAU has conducted studies on modeling queue lengths at two-way stop controlled
(TWSC) intersections 3. The studies checked the relative performance of the two-minute
rule and the HCM 2000 method. One of the conclusions was that the two-minute rule was
overestimating and the HCM methodology was under estimating the queue lengths. In
addition, existing methods were not found to be accurately predicting queue lengths for
more than 50 percent of the cases.
Poisson regression models were developed to improve the queue length estimations.
Model validation shows that the refined models are predicting queue lengths better than
other methods. The HCM methodology was found to consistently under estimate the
queue length. A Two-Way Stop Queue Length Calculator is available on the Planning
Section website under Tools. Exhibit 12-19 summarizes the developed models, and
applicable ranges of input data for each model type. When the range of independent
variables exceeds the limiting value, use queue length models with caution.
Exhibit 12-19 TPAU Two-way Stop Controlled Intersection Queue Length Models
Lane
Queue Length Model Equation1
Group
MJL2 Queue Length = e (0.3925+0.0059*VOL+0.00104*CONVOL+0.49*Signal-0.81*LT)
MNLTR3 Queue Length = e (-0.7844+0.01636*VOL+0.0006*CONVOL-0.0000043* VOL* CONVOL)
MNLR4 Queue Length = e (-0.6319+0.0173*VOL+0.00066*CONVOL-0.000007913* VOL* CONVOL)

Queue Length = 0.95+ 0.014*VOL +0.00074*CONVOL+3.01*(VOL/
MNL5
CONVOL)
Queue Length = 0.865+ 0.0000534*VOL*CONVOL
MNR6
+0.2372*(VOL/CONVOL)
1
Use this method with caution if volumes fall outside the variable ranges shown below:
2
MJL VOL = 0 to 300 vph; CONVOL = 0 to 2,000 vph; SIGNAL = 0 or 1; LT = 0 or 1
3
MNLTR VOL = 0 to 300 vph; CONVOL = 0 to 3,000 vph
4
MNLR VOL = 0 to 300 vph; CONVOL = 0 to 3,000 vph
5
MNL VOL = 0 to 300 vph; CONVOL = 0 to 2,000 vph
6
MNR VOL = 0 to 250 vph; CONVOL = 0 to 1,500 vph
3
Development of Queue Length Models at Two-way STOP Controlled Intersection: A
Surrogate Method (accessed on January 23, 2014)

Where
VOL Traffic volume on the subject approach in vehicles per hour
CONVOL Conflicting traffic volume in vehicles per hour
Presence of an upstream signal within ¼ mile of an intersection,
SIGNAL
applicable for major left turn only, 1 if there is a signal, otherwise 0
Presence of a separate left turn lane, applicable for major left turn
LT only (1 if there is an exclusive left turn lane/median left turn lane/
two-way left turn lane, otherwise 0)
MJL Major street left turn approach

or
MNLTR Minor street shared left-through-right approach
MNLR Minor street shared left-right approach
MNL Minor street exclusive left turn lane
MNR Minor street exclusive right turn lane
As the HCM method was found to consistently underestimate queue lengths, and two-
minute rule consistently overestimates queue lengths, neither method should be used for
two-way stop control queue length estimation. Either simulation or the models in Exhibit
12-19 may be used. Example 12-7 and Example 12-8 outline the step by step process of
queue length estimation using developed models. The queues in this methodology
represent the maximum queues for the peak 15-minute period which are considered to be
an acceptable approximation of the 95th percentile queue length.
This procedure estimates the number of vehicles in queue. This number is multiplied by
the appropriate average vehicle storage length obtained from Exhibit 12-20 to determine
the queue length.

Exhibit 12-20 Storage Length Adjustments for Trucks
Percent Trucks in Turning
Average Vehicle Storage Length
Volume
< 2% 25 ft
5% 27 ft
10% 29 ft
Example 12-7 Queue Length Estimation at a Three-legged Stop-controlled

Intersection
This example demonstrates the application of the TPAU queue length estimation models
at a three- legged Stop- controlled intersection.
(Source: Example Problem 1 of HCM 6 Chapter 32)
Data
• Volume (peak 15-min) and lane configuration is show below:
• Level grade on all approaches;

• Percent of heavy vehicles on all approaches is 10 percent;
• No flared approaches;
• No upstream signal;
• No pedestrians;
• Length of analysis is 1 hour ( This example in HCM 6 uses 0.25 h );
Step1: Choose Lane Groups to Apply the Queue Length Models

• MNLR: North bound (minor approach)
• MJL: West bound TWLT lane

Steps 2 and 3: Convert Movement Demand Volumes to Flow Rates and
Label Movement Priorities According HCM 6, Chapter 20 Methodology
Peak 15-min volume is multiplied by 4 to get the flow rate. Movement numbers are
circled.
Step 4: Compute Conflicting Flow Rates (CONVOL) as per HCM 6 Equations 20-4
through 20-29
WB MJL
Vc,MJL = Vc,4
Vc,4 = V2 + V3
Vc,4 = 240+40 = 280 veh/h
NB MNLR
Vc,MNLR = vc,7 + vc,9
Vc,7 = v2+ 0.5v3+ 2v4 + v5

Vc,7 = 240+ 0.5(40)+ 2(160) + 300= 880 veh/h
Vc,9 = v2+0.5v3
Vc,9 = 240 + 0.5(40) = 260 veh/h
Vc,MNLR = 880+260 = 1140 veh/h
Step 5: Compute Queue Lengths using Models

WB MJL
VOL = 160 veh/h is within the range (0, 300]
CONVOL = 280 veh/h is within the range (0, 2000]
SIGNAL = 0 ; LT = 1
QL = e (0.3925 + 0.0059 * VOL + 0.00104 * CONVOL + 0.49 * Signal - 0.81 * LT)
QL = e (0.3925 + 0.0059 * 160 + 0.00104 * 280 + 0.49 * 0 - 0.81 * 1)
QL = 2.3 ≈ 3 vehicles
NB MNLR
QL = e (-0.6319+0.0173*VOL+0.00066*CONVOL-0.000007913* VOL* CONVOL)
QL = e (-0.6319 + 0.0173*160 + 0.00066*1140 -0.000007913* 160* 1140)
QL = 4.2 ≈ 5 vehicles

Summary
Maximum QL for WB LT = 3 Vehicles
Maximum QL for NB approach = 5 Vehicles
Estimates from other queue length models are presented below:
Method Queue Length for Queue Length for NB
WB LT (veh) (veh)
HCM 2 1
Two-minute Rule 10 10
QL Model 3 5
Based on the percentage of trucks in the traffic stream, queue lengths (number of queued
vehicles) from models are converted to feet using Exhibit 12-20.
From the above heavy vehicle percentage conversion table, the queue lengths for:
WB LT = 3 x 29 ft. = 87 ft. ≈ 100 ft.
NB approach = 5 x 29 ft. =145 ft. ≈ 150 ft.
Example 12-8 Queue Length Estimation at a Four-legged Two-Way Stop-controlled

Intersection
This example demonstrates the application of the TPAU queue length estimation models
at a four-legged two-way STOP controlled intersection.
(Source: Example Problem 3 of 2010 HCM Chapter 32, Page 32-7)
Data
• Volumes and lane configurations as shown below:
• Major street with two lanes in each direction, minor street with one lane on each
approach that flares with storage for one vehicle in the flare area, and median
storage for two vehicles at one time available for minor-street through and left-
turn movements;
• Level grade on all approaches;

• Percent heavy vehicles on all approaches = 10%;
• Peak hour factor on all approaches = 0.92;
• Length of analysis period = 1.0 h.
Step1: Choose Lane Groups to Apply the Queue Length Models

• MNLTR – NB and SB
• MJL – EB and WB
Steps 2 and 3: Convert Movement Demand Volumes to Flow Rates and

Label Movement Priorities According HCM 6, Chapter 20 Methodology
For each movement, peak hour flow rate is obtained by dividing the hourly volume by the
peak hour factor. Movement numbers are circled.
Step 4: Compute Conflicting Flow Rates (CONVOL) as per HCM 6 Equations 19-4
through 19-29
EB MJL
vc, 1 = v5 + v6 + v16 = 300 + 100 + 0 = 400 veh/h
WB MJL
vc, 4 = v2 + v3 + v15 = 250 + 50 + 0 = 300 veh/h
NB MNLTR
vc,NB = vc,7 + vc,8 + vc,9
vc,7 = vc,I,7+ vc,II,7 (two-stage gap acceptance)
vc,I,7 = 2(v1 + v1u) + v2 + 0.5v3 + v15
= 2(33+0) + 250 + 0.5(50) + 0 = 341 veh/h
vc,II,7 = 2(v4 + v4u) + 0.5v5 + 0.5v11 + v13
= 2(66+0) + 0.5(300) + 0.5(110) + 0 = 337 veh/h
vc,7 = vc,I,7+ vc,II,7 = 341 + 337 = 678 veh/h
vc,I,8 = 2(v1 + v1u) + v2 + 0.5v3 + v15
= 2(33+0) + 250 + 0.5(50) + 0 = 341 veh/h
vc,II,8 = 2(v4 + v4u) + v5 + v6 + v16
= 2(66+0) + 300 + 100 + 0 = 532 veh/h
vc,8 = vc,I,8+ vc,II,8 = 341 + 532 = 873 veh/h
vc,9 = 0.5v2 + 0.5v3 + v4U + v14 + v15

= 0.5(250) + 0.5(50) + 0 + 0 + 0 = 150 veh/h
vc,NB = vc,7 + vc,8 + vc,9 = 678 + 873 + 150 = 1701 veh/h
SB MNLTR
vc,SB = vc,10 + vc,11 + vc,12
vc,I,10 = 2(v4 + v4u) + v5 + 0.5v6 + v16
= 2(66+0) + 300 + 0.5(100) + 0 = 482 veh/h
vc,II,10 = 2(v1 + v1u) + 0.5v2 + 0.5v8 + v14
= 2(33+0) + 0.5(250) + 0.5(132) + 0 = 257 veh/h
vc,10 = vc,I,10+ vc,II,10 = 482 + 257 = 739 veh/h
vc,I,11 = 2(v4 + v4u) + v5 + 0.5v6 + v16
= 2(66+0) + 300 + 0.5(100) + 0 = 482 veh/h
vc,II,11 = 2(v1 + v1u) + v2 + v3 + v15
= 2(33+0) + 250 + 50 + 0 = 366 veh/h
vc,11 = vc,I,11+ vc,II,11 = 482 + 366 = 848 veh/h
vc,12 = 0.5v5 + 0.5v6 + v1U + v13 + v16
= 0.5(300) + 0.5(100) + 0 + 0 + 0 = 200 veh/h
vc,SB = vc,10 + vc,11 + vc,12 = 739 + 848 + 200 = 1787 veh/h
Step 5: Compute Queue Lengths using Models

EB MJL
SIGNAL = 0 ; LT = 1
QL= e (0.3925 + 0.0059 * VOL + 0.00104 * CONVOL + 0.49 * Signal - 0.81 * LT)
QL= e (0.3925 + 0.0059 * 33 + 0.00104 * 400 + 0.49 * 0 - 0.81 * 1)
QL = 1.2 ≈ 2 veh
WB MJL
SIGNAL = 0 ; LT = 1
QL= e (0.3925 + 0.0059 * VOL + 0.00104 * CONVOL + 0.49 * Signal - 0.81 * LT)
QL= e (0.3925 + 0.0059 * 66 + 0.00104 * 300 + 0.49 * 0 - 0.81 * 1)
QL = 1.3 ≈ 2 veh
NB MNLTR
QL= e (-0.7844 + 0.01636 * VOL + 0.0006 * CONVOL - 0.0000043 * VOL* CONVOL)
QL= e (-0.7844 + 0.01636 * 231 + 0.0006 * 1701 - 0.0000043 * 231* 1701)
QL = 10.2 ≈ 11 veh

SB MNLTR
QL= e (-0.7844 + 0.01636 * VOL + 0.0006 * CONVOL - 0.0000043 * VOL* CONVOL)
QL= e (-0.7844 + 0.01636 * 149 + 0.0006 * 1787 - 0.0000043 * 149* 1787)
QL = 4.8 ≈ 5 veh
Summary
Maximum QL for
EB LT = 2 veh
WB LT = 2 veh
NB approach = 11 Veh
SB approach = 5 Veh
Estimates from other queue length models are presented below:
Method EB LT (Veh) WB LT (Veh) NB (Veh) SB (Veh)

HCM 0 0 6 3
Two-minute Rule 2 4 15 10
QL Model 2 2 11 5
Based on the percentage of trucks in the traffic stream, queue lengths (number of queued
vehicles) from models are converted to feet using Exhibit 12-20.
From the above heavy vehicle percentage conversion table, the queue lengths for:
EB LT = 2 x 29ft. = 58 ft. ≈ 75 ft.
WB LT ≈ 75 ft.
NB approach = 11 x 29 ft. = 319 ft. ≈ 325 ft.
SB approach = 5 x 29ft. = 145 ft. ≈ 150 ft.
Simulation
If simulation is being performed as part of the analysis, queue lengths should be taken
from the simulation results. If simulation is not being done, it should be considered
especially if the v/c ratios are approaching 0.90. If the effort to do a simulation analysis is
not desired, the TPAU queue length estimation models should be used. Refer to APM
version 1 Chapter 8 for simulation procedures.
Two-Minute Rule
The Two-Minute Rule is a rule of thumb methodology that shall only be used for sketch
planning level analysis or for lane groups not addressed in the TPAU method. This
method estimates queue lengths for major street left turns and minor street movements by
using the queue that would result from a two-minute stoppage of the turning demand
volume. This method does not consider the magnitudes and impacts of the conflicting
flows on the size of the queue. The calculation of the 95th percentile queue using the two-
minute rule methodology shall use the following equation:
S = (v) (t) (L)

where:
S = the 95th percentile queue storage length (feet)
v = the average left-turn volume arriving in a 2-minute interval
t = a variable representing the ability to store all vehicles; usually 1.75 to 2.0 (See
Exhibit 12-21)
L = average length of the vehicles being stored and the gap between vehicles; 25 ft. for
cars. This value can be increased where a significant number of trucks are present in the
turning volume using the same relationship between average vehicle storage length and
percent trucks in turning volumes shown for the signalized movement rule of thumb
method discussed earlier in this chapter.
Exhibit 12-21 Selection of "t" Values

Minimum
Percentile
"t" Value
2.0 98 %
1.85 95 %
1.75 90 %
1.0 50 %
Appendix 12A/13A – Software and Settings for Intersection Analysis
References
(1) Robinson, Bruce W., et al. Roundabouts: An Informational Guide. No. FHWA-RD-
00-067. 2000.

12 Unsignalized Intersection Analysis: 12.1 Purpose

Uploaded by

Copyright:

12 Unsignalized Intersection Analysis: 12.1 Purpose

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

12 Unsignalized Intersection Analysis: 12.1 Purpose

Uploaded by

Copyright:

12 UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION ANALYSIS

The scope of this chapter is limited to auto mode analysis at unsignalized

12.2 Turn Lane Criteria

12.2.1 Left Turn Lane Criteria

Analysis Procedure Manual Version 2 12-1 Last Updated 07/2018

• A left turn lane should be installed, if criterion 1 (Volume) or 2 (Crash) or 3 (Special

Criterion 1: Vehicular Volume

Exhibit 12-1 Left Turn Lane Criterion (TTI)

*(Advancing Volume/Number of Advancing Through Lanes) + (Opposing Volume/Number of Opposing Through

Analysis Procedure Manual Version 2 12-2 Last Updated 07/2018

Criterion 3: Special Cases

Analysis Procedure Manual Version 2 12-3 Last Updated 07/2018

Example 12-1 Left Turn Lane Criterion

Left Turn Volume Criterion

Volume Criterion Example

y-axis volume = ((Advancing Volume/Number of Advancing Lanes) +

Analysis Procedure Manual Version 2 12-4 Last Updated 07/2018

Right Turn Lane Evaluation Process

Criterion 1: Vehicular Volume

Analysis Procedure Manual Version 2 12-5 Last Updated 07/2018

Criterion 2: Crash Experience

Criterion 3: Special Cases

Analysis Procedure Manual Version 2 12-6 Last Updated 07/2018

Example 12-2 Right Turn Lane Criterion

Right Turn Vehicular Volume Criterion

Volume Criterion Example

Analysis Procedure Manual Version 2 12-7 Last Updated 07/2018

12.3 Unsignalized Intersection Capacity

Analysis Procedure Manual Version 2 12-8 Last Updated 07/2018

Source: PPEAG Exhibit 17

Analysis Procedure Manual Version 2 12-9 Last Updated 07/2018

Source: PPEAG Exhibit 17

12.3.1 Two-Way Stop Control

Analysis Procedure Manual Version 2 12-10 Last Updated 07/2018

Right Turn Flares

Exhibit 12-5 Right Turn Flare

Source: ODOT Traffic Line Manual 2018 Figure 150-B

Analysis Procedure Manual Version 2 12-11 Last Updated 07/2018

Shared Major Street Left Turn Approaches

Analysis Procedure Manual Version 2 12-12 Last Updated 07/2018

Example 12-3 Shared Through-Left V/C Calculation

From a HCM software report: NBL v/c = 0.02

NBT v/c = 191 pcph / 1700 pcph = 0.11

NBLT v/c = NBL v/c + NBT v/c = 0.02 + 0.11 = 0.13

Unsignalized Intersection Acceleration Lanes

Analysis Procedure Manual Version 2 12-13 Last Updated 07/2018

Right-Turn Acceleration Lanes

Exhibit 12-6 Synchro Right Turn Acceleration Lane

Median Acceleration Lanes and Left Turn Add Lanes

Analysis Procedure Manual Version 2 12-14 Last Updated 07/2018

Source: 2012 ODOT Highway Design Manual

Exhibit 12-8 Left Turn Add Lane

Source: 2012 ODOT Highway Design Manual

Analysis Procedure Manual Version 2 12-15 Last Updated 07/2018

Exhibit 12-10 Synchro Median Acceleration Lane

Two-Way Left Turn Lanes (TWLTLs)

Analysis Procedure Manual Version 2 12-16 Last Updated 07/2018

Refer to Chapter 10 for general considerations on TWLTLs.

Exhibit 12-11 TWLTL 2-Stage Operation

12.3.2 All-Way Stop Control (AWSC)

Analysis Procedure Manual Version 2 12-17 Last Updated 07/2018

Analysis Procedure Manual Version 2 12-18 Last Updated 07/2018