Chapter 34 - Interchange Ramp Terminals Supplemental - 601

HIGHWAY CAPACITY MANUAL
6 T H E D IT ION | A G U I D E F O R M U LT IM O D A L M OBIL I T Y A N A LYS I S
VO L U M E 4 : A P P L I C AT IO N S G U ID E
T R A N SP ORTAT IO N R E S E A R C H B OA RD
WA S H I N G T ON , D .C . | W W W.T RB.O RG
TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD
2016 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE*
Chair: James M. Crites, Executive Vice President of Operations, Marie Therese Dominguez, Administrator, Pipeline and Hazardous
Dallas–Fort Worth International Airport, Texas Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation
Vice Chair: Paul Trombino III, Director, Iowa Department of (ex officio)
Transportation, Ames Sarah Feinberg, Administrator, Federal Railroad Administration,
Executive Director: Neil J. Pedersen, Transportation Research Board U.S. Department of Transportation (ex officio)
Carolyn Flowers, Acting Administrator, Federal Transit Administration,
U.S. Department of Transportation (ex officio)
Victoria A. Arroyo, Executive Director, Georgetown Climate Center;
LeRoy Gishi, Chief, Division of Transportation, Bureau of Indian
Assistant Dean, Centers and Institutes; and Professor and Director,
Affairs, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. (ex officio)
Environmental Law Program, Georgetown University Law Center,
John T. Gray II, Senior Vice President, Policy and Economics,
Washington, D.C.
Association of American Railroads, Washington, D.C. (ex officio)
Scott E. Bennett, Director, Arkansas State Highway and Transportation
Michael P. Huerta, Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration,
Department, Little Rock
Jennifer Cohan, Secretary, Delaware Department of Transportation, Dover
Paul N. Jaenichen, Sr., Administrator, Maritime Administration,
Malcolm Dougherty, Director, California Department of
Transportation, Sacramento
Bevan B. Kirley, Research Associate, University of North Carolina
A. Stewart Fotheringham, Professor, School of Geographical Sciences
Highway Safety Research Center, Chapel Hill, and Chair, TRB Young
and Urban Planning, Arizona State University, Tempe
Members Council (ex officio)
John S. Halikowski, Director, Arizona Department of Transportation,
Gregory G. Nadeau, Administrator, Federal Highway Administration,
Phoenix
Susan Hanson, Distinguished University Professor Emerita, Graduate
Wayne Nastri, Acting Executive Officer, South Coast Air Quality
School of Geography, Clark University, Worcester, Massachusetts
Management District, Diamond Bar, California (ex officio)
Steve Heminger, Executive Director, Metropolitan Transportation
Mark R. Rosekind, Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety
Commission, Oakland, California
Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation (ex officio)
Chris T. Hendrickson, Hamerschlag Professor of Engineering, Carnegie
Craig A. Rutland, U.S. Air Force Pavement Engineer, U.S. Air Force
Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Civil Engineer Center, Tyndall Air Force Base, Florida (ex officio)
Jeffrey D. Holt, Managing Director, Power, Energy, and Infrastructure
Reuben Sarkar, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Transportation,
Group, BMO Capital Markets Corporation, New York
U.S. Department of Energy (ex officio)
S. Jack Hu, Vice President for Research and J. Reid and Polly Anderson
Richard A. White, Acting President and CEO, American Public
Professor of Manufacturing, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
Transportation Association, Washington, D.C. (ex officio)
Roger B. Huff, President, HGLC, LLC, Farmington Hills, Michigan
Gregory D. Winfree, Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology,
Geraldine Knatz, Professor, Sol Price School of Public Policy, Viterbi
Office of the Secretary, U.S. Department of Transportation (ex officio)
School of Engineering, University of Southern California, Los Angeles
Frederick G. (Bud) Wright, Executive Director, American Association
Ysela Llort, Consultant, Miami, Florida
of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, D.C.
Melinda McGrath, Executive Director, Mississippi Department of
(ex officio)
Transportation, Jackson
Paul F. Zukunft (Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard), Commandant, U.S. Coast
James P. Redeker, Commissioner, Connecticut Department of
Guard, U.S. Department of Homeland Security (ex officio)
Transportation, Newington
Mark L. Rosenberg, Executive Director, The Task Force for Global
Health, Inc., Decatur, Georgia
Kumares C. Sinha, Olson Distinguished Professor of Civil Engineering,
Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana
Daniel Sperling, Professor of Civil Engineering and Environmental
Science and Policy; Director, Institute of Transportation Studies,
University of California, Davis
Kirk T. Steudle, Director, Michigan Department of Transportation,
Lansing (Past Chair, 2014)
Gary C. Thomas, President and Executive Director, Dallas Area Rapid
Transportation Research Board publications are available by ordering
Transit, Dallas, Texas
individual publications directly from the TRB Business Office, through
Pat Thomas, Senior Vice President of State Government Affairs, United
the Internet at www.TRB.org, or by annual subscription through
Parcel Service, Washington, D.C.
organizational or individual affiliation with TRB. Affiliates and library
Katherine F. Turnbull, Executive Associate Director and Research
subscribers are eligible for substantial discounts. For further information,
Scientist, Texas A&M Transportation Institute, College Station
contact the Transportation Research Board Business Office, 500 Fifth
Dean Wise, Vice President of Network Strategy, Burlington Northern
Street, NW, Washington, DC 20001 (telephone 202-334-3213;
Santa Fe Railway, Fort Worth, Texas
fax 202-334-2519; or e-mail [email protected]).
Thomas P. Bostick (Lieutenant General, U.S. Army), Chief of Engineers
Copyright 2016 by the National Academy of Sciences.
and Commanding General, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington,
All rights reserved.
D.C. (ex officio)
Printed in the United States of America.
James C. Card (Vice Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, retired), Maritime
Consultant, The Woodlands, Texas, and Chair, TRB Marine Board
ISBN 978-0-309-36997-8 [Slipcased set of three volumes]
(ex officio)
ISBN 978-0-309-36998-5 [Volume 1]
T. F. Scott Darling III, Acting Administrator and Chief Counsel, Federal
ISBN 978-0-309-36999-2 [Volume 2]
Motor Carrier Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation
ISBN 978-0-309-37000-4 [Volume 3]
(ex officio)
ISBN 978-0-309-37001-1 [Volume 4, online only]
* Membership as of June 2016.
The National Academy of Sciences was established in 1863 by an Act of Congress,
signed by President Lincoln, as a private, nongovernmental institution to advise the
nation on issues related to science and technology. Members are elected by their peers
for outstanding contributions to research. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone is president.
The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964 under the charter of
the National Academy of Sciences to bring the practices of engineering to advising
the nation. Members are elected by their peers for extraordinary contributions to
engineering. Dr. C. D. Mote, Jr., is president.
The National Academy of Medicine (formerly the Institute of Medicine) was
established in 1970 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to advise
the nation on medical and health issues. Members are elected by their peers for
distinguished contributions to medicine and health. Dr. Victor J. Dzau is president.
The three Academies work together as the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering,
and Medicine to provide independent, objective analysis and advice to the nation and
conduct other activities to solve complex problems and inform public policy decisions.
The Academies also encourage education and research, recognize outstanding
contributions to knowledge, and increase public understanding in matters of science,
engineering, and medicine.
Learn more about the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine at
www.national-academies.org.
The Transportation Research Board is one of seven major programs of the National
Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. The mission of the Transportation
Research Board is to increase the benefits that transportation contributes to society by
providing leadership in transportation innovation and progress through research and
information exchange, conducted within a setting that is objective, interdisciplinary, and
multimodal. The Board’s varied committees, task forces, and panels annually engage about
7,000 engineers, scientists, and other transportation researchers and practitioners from the
public and private sectors and academia, all of whom contribute their expertise in the public
interest. The program is supported by state transportation departments, federal agencies
including the component administrations of the U.S. Department of Transportation, and
other organizations and individuals interested in the development of transportation.
Learn more about the Transportation Research Board at www.TRB.org.
Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis
CHAPTER 34
INTERCHANGE RAMP TERMINALS: SUPPLEMENTAL
CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................. 34-1
2. EXAMPLE PROBLEMS......................................................................................... 34-2

Introduction.......................................................................................................... 34-2
Intersection Traffic Movements ......................................................................... 34-2
Example Problem 1: Diamond Interchange ..................................................... 34-3
Example Problem 2: Parclo A-2Q Interchange ................................................ 34-9
Example Problem 3: Diamond Interchange with Queue Spillback ............ 34-16
Example Problem 4: Diamond Interchange with Demand Starvation ....... 34-23
Example Problem 5: Diverging Diamond Interchange with Signal
Control ......................................................................................................... 34-30
Example Problem 6: Diverging Diamond Interchange with Yield
Control ......................................................................................................... 34-34
Example Problem 7: Single-Point Urban Interchange .................................. 34-37
Example Problem 8: Diamond Interchange with Adjacent Intersection .... 34-43
Example Problem 9: Diamond Interchange with Roundabouts ................. 34-51
Example Problem 10: Operational Analysis for Type Selection .................... 34-53
Example Problem 11: Alternative Analysis Tool........................................... 34-58
Example Problem 12: Four-Legged Restricted Crossing U-Turn
Intersection with Merges ........................................................................... 34-64
Example Problem 13: Three-Legged Restricted Crossing U-Turn
Intersection with Stop Signs...................................................................... 34-67
Example Problem 14: Four-Legged Restricted Crossing U-Turn
Intersection with Signals ........................................................................... 34-71
Example Problem 15: Four-Legged Median U-Turn Intersection with
Stop Signs .................................................................................................... 34-75
Example Problem 16: Partial Displaced Left-Turn Intersection .................. 34-79
Example Problem 17: Full Displaced Left-Turn Intersection....................... 34-84
3. OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS FOR INTERCHANGE TYPE

SELECTION .............................................................................................................. 34-91
Introduction........................................................................................................ 34-91
Inputs and Applications ................................................................................... 34-92
Saturation Flow Rates ....................................................................................... 34-92
Computational Steps ......................................................................................... 34-93
Chapter 34/Interchange Ramp Terminals: Supplemental Contents

Version 6.0.1 Page 34-i
4. O-D AND TURNING MOVEMENTS ...........................................................34-100

O-D and Turning Movements for Interchanges with Roundabouts ........34-100
O-D and Turning Movements for Conventional Interchanges .................34-102
5. REFERENCES .....................................................................................................34-108
Contents Chapter 34/Interchange Ramp Terminals: Supplemental

Page 34-ii Version 6.0.1
LIST OF EXHIBITS
Exhibit 34-1 Example Problem Descriptions ........................................................... 34-2

Exhibit 34-2 Intersection Traffic Movements and Numbering Scheme .............. 34-2
Exhibit 34-3 Example Problem 1: Interchange Volumes and
Channelization ..................................................................................................... 34-3
Exhibit 34-4 Example Problem 1: Signalization Information ................................ 34-3
Exhibit 34-5 Example Problem 1: Adjusted O-D Table.......................................... 34-4
Exhibit 34-6 Example Problem 1: Lane Utilization Adjustment
Calculations .......................................................................................................... 34-4
Exhibit 34-7 Example Problem 1: Saturation Flow Rate Calculation for
Eastbound and Westbound Approaches .......................................................... 34-5
Northbound and Southbound Approaches ..................................................... 34-5
Exhibit 34-9 Example Problem 1: Common Green Calculations .......................... 34-6
Exhibit 34-10 Example Problem 1: Lost Time due to Downstream Queues ....... 34-6
Exhibit 34-11 Example Problem 1: Lost Time due to Demand Starvation .......... 34-7
Exhibit 34-12 Example Problem 1: Queue Storage Ratio for Eastbound
and Westbound Movements .............................................................................. 34-7
Exhibit 34-13 Example Problem 1: Queue Storage Ratio for Northbound
and Southbound Movements ............................................................................. 34-8
Exhibit 34-14 Example Problem 1: Control Delay for Eastbound and
Westbound Movements ...................................................................................... 34-8
Exhibit 34-15 Example Problem 1: Control Delay for Northbound and
Southbound Movements .................................................................................... 34-9
Exhibit 34-16 Example Problem 1: O-D Movement LOS ....................................... 34-9
Exhibit 34-17 Example Problem 2: Intersection Plan View ................................. 34-10
Exhibit 34-18 Example Problem 2: Signalization Information ............................ 34-10
Exhibit 34-19 Example Problem 2: Adjusted O-D Table...................................... 34-11
Calculations ........................................................................................................ 34-11
Northbound and Southbound Approaches ................................................... 34-11
Eastbound and Westbound Approaches ........................................................ 34-12
Exhibit 34-23 Example Problem 2: Common Green Calculations ...................... 34-12
Exhibit 34-24 Example Problem 2: Lost Time due to Downstream Queues ..... 34-13
and Westbound Movements ............................................................................ 34-13

Version 6.0.1 Page 34-iii

and Southbound Movements ...........................................................................34-14
Westbound Movements ....................................................................................34-14
Southbound Movements...................................................................................34-15
Exhibit 34-29 Example Problem 2: O-D Movement LOS .....................................34-15
Exhibit 34-30 Example Problem 3: Intersection Plan View .................................34-16
Exhibit 34-31 Example Problem 3: Signalization Information ............................34-16
Exhibit 34-32 Example Problem 3: Adjusted O-D Table ......................................34-17
Calculations ........................................................................................................34-17
Eastbound and Westbound Approaches ........................................................34-18
Northbound and Southbound Approaches ...................................................34-18
Exhibit 34-36 Example Problem 3: Common Green Calculations ......................34-19
Exhibit 34-37 Example Problem 3: Lost Time due to Downstream Queues .....34-19
Exhibit 34-38 Example Problem 3: Lost Time due to Demand Starvation
Calculations ........................................................................................................34-20
and Westbound Movements ............................................................................34-20
Southbound Movements ..................................................................................34-22
Exhibit 34-46 Example Problem 4: Adjusted O-D Table ......................................34-24
Calculations ........................................................................................................34-24
Eastbound and Westbound Approaches ........................................................34-25
Northbound and Southbound Approaches ...................................................34-25

Page 34-iv Version 6.0.1
Exhibit 34-52 Example Problem 4: Lost Time due to Demand Starvation

Calculations ........................................................................................................ 34-27
and Westbound Movements ............................................................................ 34-27
and Southbound Movements ........................................................................... 34-28
Westbound Movements .................................................................................... 34-28
Southbound Movements .................................................................................. 34-29
Exhibit 34-57 Example Problem 4: O-D Movement LOS ..................................... 34-29
Exhibit 34-58 Example Problem 5: DDI Geometry, Lane, and Volume
Inputs .................................................................................................................. 34-30
Exhibit 34-59 Example Problem 5: Signal Timing and Volume Inputs ............. 34-31
Calculations ........................................................................................................ 34-32
All Approaches .................................................................................................. 34-32
Exhibit 34-63 Example Problem 5: Lost Time and Effective Green
Calculations ........................................................................................................ 34-33
Exhibit 34-64 Example Problem 5: Performance Results ..................................... 34-33
Exhibit 34-65 Example Problem 5: ETT and LOS Results.................................... 34-34
Exhibit 34-66 Example Problem 6: Geometry, Lane, and Volume Inputs ......... 34-34
Exhibit 34-67 Example Problem 6: Capacity of Blocked Regime ....................... 34-35
Exhibit 34-68 Example Problem 6: Capacity of Gap Acceptance Regime ......... 34-36
Exhibit 34-69 Example Problem 6: Capacity of No-Opposing-Flow
Regime ................................................................................................................ 34-36
Exhibit 34-70 Example Problem 6: Performance Results ..................................... 34-36
Exhibit 34-71 Example Problem 6: ETT and LOS Results.................................... 34-37
Exhibit 34-72 Example Problem 7: Intersection Plan View ................................. 34-37
Exhibit 34-73 Example Problem 7: Signalization Information ............................ 34-37
Eastbound and Westbound Approaches ........................................................ 34-39
Northbound and Southbound Approaches ................................................... 34-39
Exhibit 34-77 Example Problem 7: Uniform Delay Calculations for Left
Turns Featuring Both Permissive and Protected Phasing ............................ 34-40

Version 6.0.1 Page 34-v

and Westbound Movements ............................................................................34-41
Southbound Movements ..................................................................................34-42
Calculations ........................................................................................................34-44
Interchange Eastbound and Westbound Approaches ..................................34-44
Interchange Northbound and Southbound Approaches .............................34-45
Adjacent Intersection.........................................................................................34-45
Exhibit 34-91 Example Problem 8: Queue Storage Ratio for Interchange
Eastbound and Westbound Movements ........................................................34-48
Exhibit 34-92 Example Problem 8: Queue Storage Ratio for Interchange
Northbound and Southbound Movements ....................................................34-48
Exhibit 34-93 Example Problem 8: Queue Storage Ratio for Adjacent
Intersection Movements....................................................................................34-49
Exhibit 34-94 Example Problem 8: Control Delay for Interchange
Eastbound and Westbound Movements ........................................................34-49
Exhibit 34-95 Example Problem 8: Control Delay for Interchange
Northbound and Southbound Movements ....................................................34-50
Exhibit 34-96 Example Problem 8: Control Delay for Adjacent
Intersection Movements....................................................................................34-50
Exhibit 34-97 Example Problem 8: Interchange O-D Movement LOS ...............34-51
Exhibit 34-98 Example Problem 8: Adjacent Intersection Movement LOS .......34-51
Exhibit 34-100 Example Problem 9: Adjusted O-D Table ....................................34-52
Exhibit 34-101 Example Problem 9: Approach Capacity and Delay
Calculations ........................................................................................................34-52

Page 34-vi Version 6.0.1
Exhibit 34-102 Example Problem 9: Control Delay and LOS for Each O-D
Movement ........................................................................................................... 34-53
Exhibit 34-103 Example Problem 10: O-D Demand Information for the
Interchange ......................................................................................................... 34-54
Exhibit 34-104 Example Problem 10: NEMA Flows (veh/h) for the
Interchange ......................................................................................................... 34-54
Exhibit 34-105 Example Problem 10: NEMA Flows for the Interchange
Without Channelized Right Turns .................................................................. 34-55
Exhibit 34-106 Example Problem 10: SPUI Critical Flow Ratio
Calculations ........................................................................................................ 34-55
Exhibit 34-107 Example Problem 10: TUDI Critical Flow Ratio
Calculations ........................................................................................................ 34-55
Exhibit 34-108 Example Problem 10: CUDI Critical Flow Ratio
Calculations ........................................................................................................ 34-55
Exhibit 34-109 Example Problem 10: CDI Critical Flow Ratio Calculations ..... 34-56
Exhibit 34-110 Example Problem 10: Parclo A-4Q Critical Flow Ratio
Calculations ........................................................................................................ 34-56
Exhibit 34-111 Example Problem 10: Parclo A-2Q Critical Flow Ratio
Calculations ........................................................................................................ 34-57
Exhibit 34-112 Example Problem 10: Parclo B-4Q Critical Flow Ratio
Calculations ........................................................................................................ 34-57
Exhibit 34-113 Example Problem 10: Parclo B-2Q Critical Flow Ratio
Calculations ........................................................................................................ 34-57
Exhibit 34-114 Example Problem 10: Interchange Delay for the Eight
Interchange Types ............................................................................................. 34-58
Exhibit 34-115 Example Problem 11: Interchange Configuration and
Demand Volumes .............................................................................................. 34-59
Exhibit 34-116 Example Problem 11: Signal Timing Plan ................................... 34-59
Exhibit 34-117 Example Problem 11: Physical Configurations Examined ........ 34-60
Exhibit 34-118 Example Problem 11: Congested Approaches to Diamond
Interchange ......................................................................................................... 34-60
Exhibit 34-119 Example Problem 11: Discharge from the Diamond
Interchange Under the Full Range of Arterial Demand ............................... 34-61
Exhibit 34-120 Example Problem 11: Discharge from the Southbound Exit
Ramp Under the Full Range of Ramp Demand ............................................ 34-62
Exhibit 34-121 Example Problem 11: Congested Approaches to the TWSC
Intersection ......................................................................................................... 34-62
Exhibit 34-122 Example Problem 11: Effect of Arterial Demand on Minor-
Street Discharge at the TWSC Intersection .................................................... 34-63
Exhibit 34-123 Example Problem 12: Turning Movement Demands ................. 34-64

Version 6.0.1 Page 34-vii
Exhibit 34-124 Example Problem 12: Demands Converted to the RCUT

Geometry ............................................................................................................34-64
Exhibit 34-125 Example Problem 12: Flow Rates in the RCUT Geometry ........34-65
Exhibit 34-126 Example Problem 13: Turning Movement Demands .................34-67
Geometry ............................................................................................................34-68
Exhibit 34-129 Example Problem 14: Turning Movement Demands .................34-71
Geometry ............................................................................................................34-72
Exhibit 34-132 Example Problem 14: Control Delay for Each Junction .............34-73
Exhibit 34-133 Example Problem 14: ETT and LOS Results ................................34-74
Exhibit 34-134 Example Problem 15: Turning Movement Demands and
Average Interval Durations ..............................................................................34-75
Exhibit 34-135 Example Problem 15: Demands Converted to the MUT
Geometry ............................................................................................................34-76
Exhibit 34-136 Example Problem 15: Flow Rates in the MUT Geometry ..........34-76
Exhibit 34-137 Example Problem 15: Control Delay for Each Junction .............34-77
Exhibit 34-138 Example Problem 15: ETT and LOS Results ................................34-78
Exhibit 34-139 Example Problem 16: Intersection Volumes and
Channelization ...................................................................................................34-79
Exhibit 34-140 Example Problem 16: Intersection Signalization ........................34-79
Exhibit 34-141 Example Problem 16: Flow Rates at the Supplemental and
Main Intersections .............................................................................................34-80
Exhibit 34-142 Example Problem 16: Lane Geometries at the
Supplemental and Main Intersections ............................................................34-80
Exhibit 34-143 Example Problem 16: Signalization at the DLT
Intersections........................................................................................................34-81
Exhibit 34-144 Example Problem 16: Maximum Phase Times at the Main
Intersection .........................................................................................................34-82
Exhibit 34-145 Example Problem 16: Weighted Average Control Delays.........34-83
Exhibit 34-146 Example Problem 17: Flow Rates at the Supplemental and
Main Intersections .............................................................................................34-85
Exhibit 34-147 Example Problem 17: Lane Geometries at the
Supplemental and Main Intersections ............................................................34-85
Exhibit 34-148 Example Problem 17: East–West Signalization at the DLT
Intersections........................................................................................................34-86
Exhibit 34-149 Example Problem 17: North–South Signalization at the
DLT Intersections ...............................................................................................34-88

Page 34-viii Version 6.0.1
Exhibit 34-150 Example Problem 17: Weighted Average Control Delays ........ 34-89
Exhibit 34-151 Default Values of Saturation Flow Rate for Use with the
Operational Analysis for Interchange Type Selection .................................. 34-93
Exhibit 34-152 Mapping of Interchange Origins and Destinations into
Phase Movements for Operational Interchange Type Selection
Analysis............................................................................................................... 34-94
Exhibit 34-153 Phase Movements in a SPUI .......................................................... 34-94
Exhibit 34-154 Phase Movements in a Tight Urban or Compressed Urban
Diamond Interchange ....................................................................................... 34-95
Exhibit 34-155 Default Values for yt ....................................................................... 34-95
Exhibit 34-156 Phase Movements in a CDI ........................................................... 34-96
Exhibit 34-157 Phase Movements in Parclo A-2Q and A-4Q Interchanges ...... 34-97
Exhibit 34-158 Phase Movements in Parclo B-2Q and B-4Q Interchanges ........ 34-97
Exhibit 34-159 Estimation of Interchange Delay dI for Eight Basic
Interchange Types ............................................................................................. 34-99
Exhibit 34-160 Illustration and Notation of O-D Demands at an
Interchange with Roundabouts ..................................................................... 34-100
Exhibit 34-161 Notation of O-D Demands at Interchanges with
Roundabouts .................................................................................................... 34-101
Exhibit 34-162 O-D Flows for Each Interchange Configuration ....................... 34-102
Exhibit 34-163 Worksheet for Obtaining O-D Movements from Turning
Movements for Parclo A-2Q Interchanges ................................................... 34-103
Movements for Parclo A-4Q Interchanges ................................................... 34-103
Movements for Parclo AB-2Q Interchanges................................................. 34-103
Movements for Parclo B-2Q Interchanges.................................................... 34-104
Movements for Parclo B-4Q Interchanges.................................................... 34-104
Movements for Diamond Interchanges ........................................................ 34-105
Movements for SPUIs ..................................................................................... 34-105
Exhibit 34-171 Worksheet for Obtaining Turning Movements from O-D
Movements for Parclo A-2Q and Parclo A-4Q Interchanges ..................... 34-105

Version 6.0.1 Page 34-ix

Movements for Parclo AB-4Q Interchanges .................................................34-106
Movements for Parclo B-2Q Interchanges ....................................................34-106
Movements for Parclo B-4Q Interchanges ....................................................34-107
Movements for Diamond Interchanges ........................................................34-107
Movements for SPUIs......................................................................................34-107

Page 34-x Version 6.0.1
1. INTRODUCTION
Chapter 34 is the supplemental chapter for Chapter 23, Ramp Terminals and VOLUME 4: APPLICATIONS
GUIDE
Alternative Intersections, which is found in Volume 3 of the Highway Capacity 25. Freeway Facilities:
Manual (HCM). This chapter provides 17 example problems demonstrating the Supplemental
26. Freeway and Highway
application of the Chapter 23 methodologies for evaluating the performance of Segments: Supplemental
distributed intersections, including restricted crossing U-turn (RCUT), median 27. Freeway Weaving:
Supplemental
U-turn (MUT), and displaced left-turn (DLT) intersections. It also presents a 28. Freeway Merges and
procedure for interchange type selection, which can be used to evaluate the Diverges: Supplemental
29. Urban Street Facilities:
operational performance of various interchange types. Finally, this chapter Supplemental
provides worksheets for converting origin–destination (O-D) flows to turn 30. Urban Street Segments:
Supplemental
movement flows, and vice versa, for various interchange types. 31. Signalized Intersections:
Supplemental
Methodologies for the analysis of interchanges involving freeways and 32. STOP-Controlled
surface streets (i.e., service interchanges) were developed primarily on the basis Intersections:
Supplemental
of research conducted through the National Cooperative Highway Research 33. Roundabouts:
Program (1–3) and elsewhere (4). Development of HCM analysis procedures for Supplemental
34. Interchange Ramp
alternative intersection and interchange designs was conducted through the Terminals:
Federal Highway Administration (5). Supplemental
35. Pedestrians and Bicycles:
Supplemental
36. Concepts: Supplemental
37. ATDM: Supplemental
Chapter 34/Interchange Ramp Terminals: Supplemental Introduction

Version 6.0.1 Page 34-1
2. EXAMPLE PROBLEMS
INTRODUCTION
This section describes the application of each of the final design, operational
analysis for interchange type selection, and roundabouts analysis methods
through the use of example problems. Exhibit 34-1 describes each of the example
problems included in this chapter and indicates the methodology applied.
Exhibit 34-1 Example

Example Problem Descriptions Problem Description Application
1 Diamond interchange Operational
2 Parclo A-2Q interchange Operational
3 Diamond interchange with four-phase signalization and queue spillback Operational
4 Diamond interchange with demand starvation Operational
5 Diverging diamond interchange with signalized control Operational
6 Diverging diamond interchange with YIELD-controlled turns Operational
7 Single-point urban interchange Operational
8 Diamond interchange with closely spaced intersections Operational
9 Diamond interchange with roundabouts Operational
Interchange type
10 Compare eight types of signalized interchanges
selection
11 Diamond interchange analysis using simulation Alternative tools
12 Four-legged RCUT with merges Operational
13 Three-legged RCUT with STOP signs Operational
14 Four-legged RCUT with signals Operational
15 Four-legged MUT with STOP signs Operational
16 Partial DLT intersection Operational
17 Full DLT intersection Operational
Note: Parclo = partial cloverleaf, RCUT = restricted crossing U-turn, MUT = median U-turn, DLT = displaced left
turn.
INTERSECTION TRAFFIC MOVEMENTS

Exhibit 34-2 illustrates typical vehicle and pedestrian traffic movements for
the intersections in this chapter. Three vehicular traffic movements and one
pedestrian traffic movement are shown for each intersection approach. Each
movement is assigned a unique number or a number and letter combination. The
letter P denotes a pedestrian movement. The number assigned to each left-turn
and through movement is the same as the number assigned to each phase by
National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA) specification.
Exhibit 34-2 Minor Street

Intersection Traffic Vehicle Movements 14 4 7
Movements and
Numbering Scheme Pedestrian Movements
6P
Major Street 16
5 8P 6
4P 1
2
12
2P
3 8 18
Example Problems Chapter 34/Interchange Ramp Terminals: Supplemental

Page 34-2 Version 6.0.1
Intersection traffic movements are assigned the right-of-way by the signal

controller. Each movement is assigned to one or more signal phases. A phase is
defined as the green, yellow change, and red clearance intervals in a cycle that
are assigned to a specified traffic movement (or movements) (6). The assignment
of movements to phases varies in practice with the desired phase sequence and
the movements present at the intersection.
EXAMPLE PROBLEM 1: DIAMOND INTERCHANGE

The Interchange
The interchange of I-99 (northbound/southbound, NB/SB) and University
Drive (eastbound/westbound, EB/WB) is a diamond interchange. Exhibit 34-3
provides the interchange volumes and channelization, and Exhibit 34-4 provides
the signalization information. The offset is referenced to the beginning of green
on the EB direction of the arterial.
2%
grade = _________ = Pedestrian Button Exhibit 34-3
Example Problem 1:
Interchange Volumes and
= Lane Width
400 ft
= Through Channelization
= Right
600 ft 0%
grade = _________
156 185 135 = Left
795 797
200 ft
212 200 ft 96 = Through + Right
781 870
80 210 204 600 ft = Left + Through
0%
grade = _________ University Drive
______________
Street
= Left + Right
I-99
_____________
400 ft
400 ft
Freeway
= Left + Through + Right
2%
grade = _________
D= 500 ft
Intersection I Intersection II Exhibit 34-4

Phase 1 2 3 1 2 3 Example Problem 1:
NEMA Φ (2+6) Φ (1+6) Φ (4+7) Φ (2+6) Φ (3+8) Φ (2+5) Signalization Information
Green time (s) 63 43 39 63 53 29
Yellow + all red (s) 5 5 5 5 5 5
Offset (s) 19 9
The Question
What are the control delay, queue storage ratio, and level of service (LOS) for
this interchange?
The Facts
There are no closely spaced intersections to this interchange, and it operates
as a pretimed signal with no right turns on red allowed. Travel path radii are 50
ft for all right-turning movements and 75 ft for all left-turning movements.
Arrival Type 4 is assumed for all arterial movements and Arrival Type 3 for all
other movements. Extra distance traveled along each freeway ramp is 100 ft.
Chapter 34/Interchange Ramp Terminals: Supplemental Example Problems

Heavy vehicles account for 6.1% of both the external and the internal
through movements, and the peak hour factor (PHF) for the interchange is
estimated to be 0.90. Start-up lost time and extension of effective green are both
2 s for all approaches. During the analysis period, there is no parking, and no
buses, bicycles, or pedestrians utilize the interchange. The grade is 2% on the NB
and SB approaches.
Solution
Calculation of Origin–Destination Movements
O-D movements through this diamond interchange are calculated on the
basis of the worksheet provided in Exhibit 34-169 in Section 4. Since all
movements utilize the signal, O-Ds can be calculated directly from the turning
movements at the two intersections. The results of these calculations and the
PHF-adjusted values are presented in Exhibit 34-5.
Exhibit 34-5 O-D Movement Demand (veh/h) PHF-Adjusted Demand (veh/h)

Example Problem 1: Adjusted A 210 233
O-D Table B 204 227
C 156 173
D 185 206
E 96 107
F 80 89
G 135 150
H 212 236
I 685 761
J 585 650
K 0 0
L 0 0
M 0 0
N 0 0
Lane Utilization and Saturation Flow Rate Calculations

Both external approaches to this interchange consist of a two-lane shared
right and through lane group. Lane utilization factors for the external through
approaches are presented in Exhibit 34-6.
Exhibit 34-6 Maximum Lane Lane Utilization

Example Problem 1: Lane Approach V1 V2 Utilization Factor
Utilization Adjustment Eastbound external 0.5056 0.4944 0.5056 0.9890
Calculations Westbound external 0.5181 0.4819 0.5181 0.9651
Saturation flow rates are calculated on the basis of reductions in the base
saturation flow rate of 1,900 pc/hg/ln by using Equation 23-14. The lane
utilization of the approaches external to the interchange is obtained as shown
above in Exhibit 34-6. Traffic pressure is calculated by using Equation 23-15. The
left- and right-turn adjustment factors are estimated by using Equations 23-20
through 23-23. These equations use an adjustment factor for travel path radius
calculated by Equation 23-19. The remaining adjustment factors are calculated as
indicated in Chapter 19, Signalized Intersections. The estimated saturation flow
rates for all approaches are shown in Exhibit 34-7 and Exhibit 34-8.

Eastbound Westbound Exhibit 34-7

Value EXT-TH&R INT-TH INT-L EXT-TH&R INT-TH INT-L Example Problem 1:
Base saturation flow Saturation Flow Rate
1,900 1,900 1,900 1,900 1,900 1,900 Calculation for Eastbound and
(s0, pc/hg/ln)
Number of lanes (N) 2 2 1 2 2 1 Westbound Approaches
Lane width adjustment (fw) 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
Heavy vehicle and grade
0.952 0.952 1.000 0.952 0.952 1.000
adjustment (fHVg)
Parking adjustment (fp) 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
Bus blockage adjustment (fbb) 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
Area type adjustment (fa) 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
Lane utilization adjustment (fLU) 0.989 0.952 1.000 0.965 0.952 1.000
Left-turn adjustment (fLT) 1.000 1.000 0.930 1.000 1.000 0.930
Right-turn adjustment (fRT) 0.999 1.000 1.000 0.998 1.000 1.000
Left-turn pedestrian–bicycle
1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
adjustment (fLpb)
Right-turn pedestrian–bicycle
1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
adjustment (fRpb)
Turn radius adjustment for lane
0.991 1.000 0.930 0.985 1.000 0.930
group (fR)
Traffic pressure adjustment for
1.034 1.036 0.963 1.044 1.026 1.000
lane group (fv)
Adjusted saturation flow
3,700 3,568 1,703 3,637 3,535 1,767
(s, veh/hg/ln)
Notes: EXT = external, INT = internal, TH = through, R = right, L = left.
Northbound Southbound Exhibit 34-8

Value Left Right Left Right Example Problem 1:
Base saturation flow (s0, pc/hg/ln) 1,900 1,900 1,900 1,900 Saturation Flow Rate
Number of lanes (N) 1 1 1 1 Calculation for Northbound
Lane width adjustment (fw) 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 and Southbound Approaches
Heavy vehicle and grade adjustment (fHVg) 0.990 0.990 0.990 0.990
Parking adjustment (fp) 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
Bus blockage adjustment (fbb) 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
Area type adjustment (fa) 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
Lane utilization adjustment (fLU) 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
Left-turn adjustment (fLT) 0.930 1.000 0.930 1.000
Right-turn adjustment (fRT) 1.000 0.899 1.000 0.899
Left-turn pedestrian–bicycle adjustment (fLpb) 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
Right-turn pedestrian–bicycle adjustment (fRpb) 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
Turn radius adjustment for lane group (fR) 0.930 0.899 0.930 0.899
Traffic pressure adjustment for lane group (fv) 1.000 0.979 0.991 0.968
Adjusted saturation flow (s, veh/hg/ln) 1,749 1,656 1,734 1,638
Common Green and Lost Time due to Downstream Queue and Demand
Starvation Calculations
Exhibit 34-9 first provides the beginning and end times of the green for each
phase at the two intersections on the assumption that Phase 1 of the first
intersection begins at time zero. On the basis of the information provided in
Exhibit 34-9, the relative offset between the two intersections is Offset 2 – Offset 1
+ n × cycle length = 9 – 19 + 160 = 150 s. Next, the exhibit provides the beginning
and end of green for the six pairs of movements between the two intersections
and the respective common green time for each pair of movements. For example,
the EB external through movement has the green between 0 and 63 s, while the
EB internal through movement has the green twice during the cycle, between 150
and 53 s and between 116 and 150 s. The common green time when both
movements have the green is between 0 and 53 s, for a duration of 53 s.

Exhibit 34-9 Intersection I Intersection II

Example Problem 1: Common Phase Green Begin Green End Green Begin Green End
Green Calculations Phase 1 0 63 150 53
Phase 2 68 111 58 111
Phase 3 116 155 116 145
First Green Time Second Green Time Common
Within Cycle Within Cycle Green
Movement Begin End Begin End Time
EB EXT THRU 0 63
53
EB INT THRU 150 53 116 150
WB EXT THRU 150 53
53
WB INT THRU 0 111
SB RAMP 116 155
34
EB INT THRU 150 53 116 150
NB RAMP 58 111
53
WB INT THRU 0 111
WB INT LEFT 68 111
0
EB INT THRU 150 53
EB INT LEFT 116 145
0
WB INT THRU 0 111
Notes: EXT = external, INT = internal, THRU = through, EB = eastbound, WB = westbound, SB = southbound,
NB = northbound.
The next step involves the calculation of lost time due to downstream
queues. First, the queues at the beginning of the upstream arterial phase and at
the beginning of the upstream ramp phase must be calculated by using Equation
23-33 and Equation 23-34, respectively. Exhibit 34-10 presents the calculation of
these downstream queues followed by the calculation of the respective lost time
due to those queues.
Exhibit 34-10 Movement

Example Problem 1: Lost Time Value EB EXT-TH SB-L WB EXT-TH NB-L
due to Downstream Queues Downstream Queue Calculations
VR or VA (veh/h) 206 868 233 886
NR or NA 1 2 1 2
GR or GA (s) 39 63 53 63
GD (s) 97 97 111 111
C (s) 160 160 160 160
CGUD or CGRD (s) 53 34 53 53
Queue length (QA or QR) (ft) 0.0 4.1 0.0 0.0
Lost Time Calculations
GR or GA (s) 63 39 63 53
C (s) 160 160 160 160
DQA or DQR (ft) 500 496 500 500
CGUD or CGRD (s) 53 34 53 53
Additional lost time, LD-A or LD-R (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total lost time, t'L (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Effective green time, g' (s) 63.0 39.0 63.0 53.0
Notes: EXT = external, TH = through, L = left, EB = eastbound, WB = westbound, NB = northbound, SB =
southbound.
The lost time due to demand starvation is calculated by using Equation 23-
38. The respective calculations are presented in Exhibit 34-11. As shown, in this
case there is no lost time due to demand starvation (LDS = 0).

Movement Exhibit 34-11

Value EB-INT-TH WB-INT-TH Example Problem 1: Lost Time
vRamp-L (veh/h) 206 233 due to Demand Starvation
vArterial (veh/h) 868 886
C (s) 160 160
NRamp-L 1 1
NArterial 2 2
CGRD (s) 34 53
CGUD (s) 53 53
HI 2.02 2.04
Qinitial (ft) 0 0
CGDS (s) 0 0
LDS (s) 0 0
t”L (s) 5 5
Effective green time, g'' (s) 97 111
Notes: EB-INT-TH = eastbound internal through, WB-INT-TH = westbound internal through.
Queue Storage and Control Delay

The queue storage ratio is estimated as the ratio of the average maximum
queue to the available queue storage by using Equation 31-154. Exhibit 34-12 and
Exhibit 34-13 present the calculations of the queue storage ratio for all
movements in Example 1. Those exhibits also show the volume-to-capacity (v/c)
ratio for each movement. Control delay for each movement is calculated
according to Equation 19-18. Exhibit 34-14 and Exhibit 34-15 provide the control
delay for each movement of the interchange.
Eastbound Movements Westbound Movements Exhibit 34-12

Value EXT-TH&R INT-L INT-TH EXT-TH&R INT-L INT-TH Example Problem 1: Queue
QbL (ft) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Storage Ratio for Eastbound
v (veh/h/ln group) 957 107 967 1,036 236 883 and Westbound Movements
s (veh/h/ln) 1,850 1,703 1,784 1,819 1,768 1,768
g (s) 63 29 97 63 43 111
g/C 0.39 0.18 0.61 0.39 0.27 0.69
I 1.00 0.71 0.71 1.00 0.62 0.62
c (veh/h/ln group) 1,459 309 2,163 1,437 475 2,452
X = v/c 0.66 0.35 0.45 0.72 0.50 0.36
ra (ft/s2) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
rd (ft/s2) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Ss (mi/h) 5 5 5 5 5 5
Spl (mi/h) 40 40 40 40 40 40
Sa (mi/h) 39.96 39.96 39.96 39.96 39.96 39.96
da (s) 12.04 12.04 12.04 12.04 12.04 12.04
Rp 1.000 1.333 1.333 1.000 1.333 1.333
P 0.39 0.24 0.81 0.39 0.36 0.92
r (s) 97 131 63 97 117 49
tf (s) 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00
q (veh/s) 0.27 0.03 0.27 0.27 0.07 0.25
qg (veh/s) 0.27 0.04 0.36 0.28 0.13 0.25
qr (veh/s) 0.27 0.03 0.13 0.72 0.50 0.36
Q1 (veh) 15.2 3.5 3.8 13.9 6.9 1.2
Q2 (veh) 0.9 0.2 0.1 1.2 0.3 0.1
T 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
Qeo (veh) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
tA 0 0 0 0 0 0
Qe (veh) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Qb (veh) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Q3 (veh) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Q (veh) 16.2 3.7 4.0 15.2 7.2 1.3
Lh (ft) 25.01 25.00 25.01 25 25 25
La (ft) 600 200 500 600 200 500
RQ 0.67 0.46 0.20 0.63 0.90 0.06
Notes: EXT = external, INT = internal, TH = through, R = right, L= left.

Exhibit 34-13 Northbound Movements Southbound Movements

Example Problem 1: Queue Value Left Right Left Right
Storage Ratio for Northbound QbL (ft) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
and Southbound Movements v (veh/h/ln group) 233 227 206 173
s (veh/h/ln) 1,749 1,656 1,734 1,638
g (s) 53 53 39 39
g/C 0.33 0.33 0.24 0.24
I 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
c (veh/h/ln group) 580 549 423 399
X = v/c 0.40 0.41 0.49 0.43
ra (ft/s2) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
rd (ft/s2) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Ss (mi/h) 5 5 5 5
Spl (mi/h) 40 40 40 40
Sa (mi/h) 39.96 39.96 39.96 39.96
da (s) 12.04 12.04 12.04 12.04
Rp 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
P 0.33 0.33 0.24 0.24
r (s) 107.00 107.00 121.00 121.00
tf (s) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
q (veh/s) 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.05
qg (veh/s) 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.05
qr (veh/s) 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.05
Q1 (veh) 7.1 6.9 7.1 5.9
Q2 (veh) 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.4
T 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
Qeo (veh) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
tA 0 0 0 0
Qe (veh) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Qb (veh) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Q3 (veh) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Q (veh) 7.4 7.3 7.5 6.2
Lh (ft) 25 25 25 25
La (ft) 400 400 400 400
RQ 0.46 0.45 0.47 0.39
Exhibit 34-14 Eastbound Movements Westbound Movements

Example Problem 1: Control Value EXT-TH&R INT-L INT-TH EXT-TH&R INT-L INT-TH
Delay for Eastbound and g (s) - 29 97 - 43 111
Westbound Movements g' (s) 63 - - 63 - -
g/C or g'/C 0.39 0.18 0.61 0.39 0.27 0.69
c (veh/h) 1,459 309 2,163 1,437 475 2,452
X = v/c 0.66 0.35 0.45 0.72 0.50 0.36
d1 (s/veh) 39.6 52.8 7.3 31.3 42.9 2.0
k 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
d2 (s/veh) 4.6 2.2 0.5 6.2 2.3 0.3
d3 (s/veh) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
PF 1.000 1.000 0.560 1.000 1.000 0.283
kmin 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04
u 0 0 0 0 0 0
t 0 0 0 0 0 0
d (s/veh) 44.1 55.0 7.8 37.5 45.2 2.3
Notes: EXT = external, INT = internal, TH = through, R = right, L= left.

Northbound Movements Southbound Movements Exhibit 34-15

Value Left Right Left Right Example Problem 1: Control
g (s) - 53 - 39 Delay for Northbound and
g' (s) 53 - 39 - Southbound Movements
g/C or g'/C 0.33 0.33 0.24 0.24
c (veh/h) 580 549 423 399
X = v/c 0.42 0.41 0.49 0.43
d1 (s/veh) 41.3 41.5 51.9 51.2
k 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
d2 (s/veh) 2.1 2.1 4.0 3.4
d3 (s/veh) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
kmin 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04
u 0 0 0 0
t 0 0 0 0
d (s/veh) 43.4 43.4 55.9 54.6
Results
Delay for each O-D is estimated as the sum of the movement delays for each
movement utilized by the O-D, as indicated in Equation 23-2. Next, the v/c and
queue storage ratios are checked. If either of these parameters exceeds 1, the LOS
for all O-Ds that utilize that movement is F. Exhibit 34-16 summarizes the results
for all O-D movements at this interchange. As shown, all the movements have v/c
and queue storage ratios less than 1; for these O-D movements, the LOS is
determined by using Exhibit 23-10. After extra distances are measured according
to the Exhibit 23-8 discussion, EDTT can be obtained from Equation 23-50 [i.e.,
EDTT = 100 / (1.47 × 35) + 0 = 1.9 s/veh]. Intersection-wide performance measures
are not calculated for interchange ramp terminals.
O-D Control Delay EDTT ETT Exhibit 34-16

Movement (s/veh) (s/veh) (s/veh) v/c > 1? RQ > 1? LOS Example Problem 1: O-D
A 45.6 1.9 47.5 No No C Movement LOS
B 43.7 −1.9 41.8 No No C
C 54.6 −1.9 52.7 No No C
D 63.6 1.9 65.5 No No D
E 99.2 1.9 101.1 No No E
F 44.2 −1.9 42.3 No No C
G 37.5 −1.9 35.6 No No C
H 82.7 1.9 84.6 No No D
I 52.0 0.0 52.0 No No C
J 39.8 0.0 39.8 No No C
EXAMPLE PROBLEM 2: PARCLO A-2Q INTERCHANGE

The Interchange
The interchange of I-75 (NB/SB) and Newberry Avenue (EB/WB) is a Parclo
A-2Q interchange. Exhibit 34-17 provides the interchange volumes and
channelization, while Exhibit 34-18 provides the signalization information. The
offset is referenced to the beginning of green on the EB direction of the arterial.

Exhibit 34-17 2%
grade = _________
= Pedestrian Button
Example Problem 2:
Intersection Plan View = Lane Width
400 ft
= Through
= Right
0%
grade = _________
800 ft 350
120 275 = Left
1187
200 ft 1055
300 165 = Through + Right
200 ft
1100
1013 188
218 250 800 ft
= Left + Through
0%
grade = _________ Newberry Avenue
______________
I-75 = Left + Right

_____________
Freeway
400 ft
2%
grade = _________
D= 800 ft

Example Problem 2: Phase 1 2 3 1 2 3
Signalization Information NEMA Φ (2+5) Φ (2+6) Φ (4+7) Φ (1+6) Φ (3+8) Φ (2+6)
Green time (s) 25 60 40 25 35 65
Offset (s) 0 0
The Question
What are the control delay, queue storage ratio, and LOS for this interchange?
The Facts
as a pretimed signal with no right turns on red allowed. The eastbound and
westbound left-turn radii are 80 ft, while all remaining turning movements have
radii of 50 ft. The arrival type is assumed to be 4 for all arterial movements and 3
for all other movements. Extra distance traveled along each freeway loop ramp is
1,600 ft. The grade is 2% on the NB and SB approaches.
There are 11.7% heavy vehicles on both the external and the internal through
movements, and the PHF for the interchange is estimated to be 0.95. Start-up lost
time is 3 s for all approaches, while the extension of effective green is 2 s for all
approaches. During the analysis period, there is no parking, and no buses,
bicycles, or pedestrians utilize the interchange.
Solution
O-Ds through this parclo interchange are calculated on the basis of the
worksheet provided in Exhibit 34-163 in Section 4. Since all movements utilize
the signal, O-Ds can be calculated directly from the turning movements at the
two intersections. The results of these calculations and the PHF-adjusted values
are presented in Exhibit 34-19.

O-D Movement Demand (veh/h) PHF-Adjusted Demand (veh/h) Exhibit 34-19

A 218 229 Example Problem 2: Adjusted
B 250 263 O-D Table
C 120 126
D 275 289
E 188 198
F 300 316
G 165 174
H 350 368
I 825 868
J 837 881
K 0 0
L 0 0
M 0 0
N 0 0

The external approaches to this interchange consist of a three-lane through
lane group. Use of the three-lane model from Exhibit 23-24 results in the
predicted lane utilization percentages for the external through approaches that
Exhibit 34-20
Maximum Lane Lane Utilization
Example Problem 2: Lane
Approach V1 V2 V3 Utilization Factor
Utilization Adjustment
Eastbound external 0.2660 0.2791 0.4549 0.4549 0.7328 Calculations
Westbound external 0.2263 0.2472 0.5265 0.5265 0.6332
above in Exhibit 34-20. Traffic pressure is calculated by using Equation 23-15.
The left- and right-turn adjustment factors are estimated by using Equations 23-
20 through 23-23. These equations use an adjustment factor for travel path radius
calculated by Equation 23-19. The remaining adjustment factors are calculated
according to Chapter 19, Signalized Intersections. The results of these
calculations for all approaches are presented in Exhibit 34-21 and Exhibit 34-22.
Exhibit 34-21
Northbound Southbound
Example Problem 2:
Value Left Right Left Right
Saturation Flow Rate
Base saturation flow (s0, pc/hg/ln) 1,900 1,900 1,900 1,900 Calculation for Northbound
Number of lanes (N) 1 1 1 1 and Southbound Approaches
Lane width adjustment (fw) 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

Exhibit 34-22 Eastbound Westbound

Example Problem 2: Value EXT-TH EXT-L INT-TH&R EXT-TH EXT-L INT-TH&R
Saturation Flow Rate Base saturation flow
Calculation for Eastbound and 1,900 1,900 1,900 1,900 1,900 1,900
(s0, pc/hg/ln)
Westbound Approaches Number of lanes (N) 3 1 3 3 1 3
0.909 1.000 0.909 0.909 1.000 0.909
adjustment (fHVg)
1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
adjustment (fLpb)
1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
adjustment (fRpb)
1.000 0.934 0.985 1.000 0.934 0.975
group (fR)
0.997 1.013 1.016 1.009 0.976 1.024
lane group (fv)
3,786 1,798 5,253 3,310 1,733 5,271
(s, veh/hg/ln)
Exhibit 34-23 provides the beginning and end times of the green for each
phase followed by the beginning and end of green for the four pairs of
movements at the two intersections. Phase 1 of the first intersection is assumed to
begin at time zero (in this case the offset for both intersections is zero, and
therefore the beginning of Phase 1 for the second intersection is also zero).

Phase 2 30 90 30 65
Phase 3 95 135 70 135
EB EXT THRU 0 90
20
EB INT THRU 70 135
WB EXT THRU 0 25 70 135
20
WB INT THRU 30 90
SB RAMP 95 135
40
EB INT THRU 70 135
NB RAMP 30 65
35
WB INT THRU 30 90
Notes: EXT = external, INT = internal, EB = eastbound, WB = westbound, NB = northbound, SB = southbound,
THRU = through.
due to those queues.


Value EB EXT-TH SB-L WB EXT-TH NB-L Example Problem 2: Lost Time
Downstream Queue Calculations due to Downstream Queues
VR or VA (veh/h) 289 1,066 229 1,249
NR or NA 1 3 1 3
GR or GA (s) 40 90 35 95
GD (s) 65 65 60 60
C (s) 140 140 140 140
CGUD or CGRD (s) 20 40 20 35
GR or GA (s) 90 40 95 35
C (s) 140 140 140 140
DQA or DQR (ft) 799 751 800 711
CGUD or CGRD (s) 20 40 20 35
Additional lost time, LD-A or LD-R (s) 0 0 0 0
Total lost time, t'L (s) 6 6 6 6
Effective green time, g' (s) 89 39 94 34
southbound.

Exhibit 34-26 present the calculation of the queue storage ratio for all movements
in Example Problem 2. The exhibit also shows the v/c ratio for each movement.
Control delay for each movement is calculated according to Equation 19-18.
Exhibit 34-27 and Exhibit 34-28 provide the control delay for each movement of
this interchange.

Example Problem 2: Queue
Value EXT-TH EXT-L INT-TH&R EXT-TH EXT-L INT-TH&R
Storage Ratio for Eastbound
QbL (ft) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
and Westbound Movements
v (veh/h/ln group) 1,066 316 1,282 1,249 174 1,479
s (veh/h/ln) 1,262 1,798 1,751 1,103 1,733 1,757
g (s) 89 24 64 94 24 59
g/C 0.64 0.17 0.46 0.67 0.17 0.42
I 1.00 1.00 0.90 1.00 1.00 0.81
c (veh/h/ln group) 2,407 308 2,401 2,222 297 2,221
X = v/c 0.44 1.02 0.54 0.56 0.58 0.67
ra (ft/s2) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
rd (ft/s2) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Ss (mi/h) 5 5 5 5 5 5
Spl (mi/h) 40 40 40 40 40 40
Sa (mi/h) 39.96 39.96 39.96 39.96 39.96 39.96
da (s) 12.04 12.04 12.04 12.04 12.04 12.04
Rp 1.000 1.000 1.333 1.000 1.000 1.333
P 0.636 0.171 0.609 0.671 0.171 0.562
r (s) 51 116 76 46 116 81
tf (s) 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01
q (veh/s) 0.30 0.09 0.38 0.35 0.05 0.41
qg (veh/s) 0.30 0.09 0.50 0.35 0.05 0.55
qr (veh/s) 0.30 0.09 0.27 0.35 0.05 0.31
Q1 (veh) 5.4 10.7 6.9 6.3 5.6 10.4
Q2 (veh) 0.1 4.9 0.3 0.2 0.7 0.5
T 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
Qeo (veh) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
tA 0 0 0 0 0 0
Qe (veh) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Qb (veh) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Q3 (veh) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Q (veh) 5.5 15.7 7.2 6.5 6.3 10.9
Lh (ft) 25.02 25.00 25.02 25.02 25.00 25.02
La (ft) 800 200 800 800 200 800
RQ 0.17 1.96 0.23 0.20 0.78 0.34


s (veh/h/ln) 1,674 1,658 1,701 1,617
g (s) 34 34 39 39
g/C 0.24 0.24 0.28 0.28
I 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
c (veh/h/ln group) 407 403 474 450
X = v/c 0.56 0.65 0.61 0.28
ra (ft/s2) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
rd (ft/s2) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Ss (mi/h) 5 5 5 5
Spl (mi/h) 40 40 40 40
Sa (mi/h) 39.96 39.96 39.96 39.96
da (s) 12.04 12.04 12.04 12.04
Rp 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
P 0.243 0.243 0.279 0.279
r (s) 106 106 101 101
tf (s) 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00
q (veh/s) 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.04
qg (veh/s) 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.04
qr (veh/s) 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.04
Q1 (veh) 7.8 9.2 9.8 3.4
Q2 (veh) 0.6 0.9 0.8 0.2
T 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
Qeo (veh) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
tA 0 0 0 0
Qe (veh) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Qb (veh) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Q3 (veh) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Q (veh) 8.5 10.1 10.5 3.6
Lh (ft) 25 25 25 25
La (ft) 400 400 400 400
RQ 0.53 0.63 0.66 0.22

Example Problem 2: Control Value EXT-TH EXT-L INT-TH&R EXT-TH EXT-L INT-TH&R
g/C or g'/C 0.64 0.17 0.46 0.67 0.17 0.42
c (veh/h) 2,407 308 2,401 2,222 297 2,221
X = v/c 0.44 1.02 0.56 0.56 0.58 0.67
d1 (s/veh) 12.9 58.0 18.8 12.1 53.4 24.1
k 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
d2 (s/veh) 0.6 57.7 1.5 1.0 8.2 2.6
d3 (s/veh) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
PF 1.000 1.000 0.827 1.000 1.000 0.871
kmin 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04
u 0 0 0 0 0 0
t 0 0 0 0 0 0
d (s/veh) 13.5 115.7 20.3 13.2 61.6 26.8


g (s) - 34 39 - Delay for Northbound and
g' (s) 34 - - 39 Southbound Movements
g/C or g'/C 0.24 0.24 0.28 0.28
c (veh/h) 407 403 474 450
X = v/c 0.56 0.65 0.61 0.28
d1 (s/veh) 46.5 47.7 43.9 39.5
k 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
d2 (s/veh) 5.6 8.0 5.8 1.6
d3 (s/veh) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
kmin 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04
u 0 0 0 0
t 0 0 0 0
d (s/veh) 52.1 55.7 49.7 41.1
Results
for all O-Ds that utilize that movement is F. Exhibit 34-29 presents the resulting
delay, v/c ratio, and RQ for each O-D movement. As shown, O-D Movement F
(which consists of the EB external left movement) has v/c and RQ ratios greater
than 1, resulting in LOS F. For the remaining movements, the LOS is determined
by using Exhibit 23-10. After extra distances are measured according to the
Exhibit 23-9 discussion, EDTT can be obtained from Equation 23-50 [i.e., EDTT =
1,200 / (1.47 × 25) + 5 = 37.7 s/veh]. Intersectionwide performance measures are
not calculated for interchange ramp terminals.
O-D Control EDTT ETT Exhibit 34-29

Movement Delay (s/veh) (s/veh) (s/veh) v/c > 1? RQ > 1? LOS Example Problem 2: O-D
A 78.9 20.6 99.5 No No E Movement LOS
B 55.7 −15.6 40.1 No No C
C 41.1 −15.6 25.5 No No B
D 70.0 20.6 90.6 No No E
E 33.8 37.7 71.5 No No D
F 115.7 20.6 136.3 Yes Yes F
G 61.6 20.6 82.2 No No D
H 40.0 37.7 77.7 No No D
I 33.8 0.0 33.8 No No C
J 40.0 0.0 40.0 No No C

EXAMPLE PROBLEM 3: DIAMOND INTERCHANGE WITH QUEUE

SPILLBACK
The Interchange
The interchange of I-95 (NB/SB) and 22nd Avenue (EB/WB) is a diamond
interchange. The traffic, geometric, and signalization conditions for this study
site are provided in Exhibit 34-30 and Exhibit 34-31. The offset is referenced to
the beginning of green on the EB direction of the arterial.
Exhibit 34-30 2%
grade = _________ = Pedestrian Button
Example Problem 3: = Lane Width
Intersection Plan View
400 ft
= Through
= Right
600 ft
0%
grade = _________
104 56 68 = Left
860 1020
2000 801
300 135 460 600 ft = Left + Through
0%
grade = _________ 22nd Avenue
______________
= Left + Right
I-95
_____________
400 ft
Freeway
2%
grade = _________
D= 300 ft

Example Problem 3: Phase 1 2 3 1 2 3
Signalization Information NEMA Φ (4+7) Φ (2+6) Φ (1+6) Φ (2+5) Φ (2+6) Φ (3+8)
Green time (s) 27 59 19 27 39 39
Offset (s) 0 0
The Question
The Facts
ft for all turning movements except the eastbound and westbound left
movements, which have radii of 75 ft. Extra distance traveled along each freeway
ramp is 60 ft. The grade is 2% on the NB and SB approaches.
There are 6.1% heavy vehicles on both the external and the internal through
movements, and the PHF for the interchange is 0.97. Start-up lost time and
extension of effective green are both 2 s for all approaches. During the analysis
period, there is no parking, and no buses, bicycles, or pedestrians utilize the
interchange.
Solution
O-Ds through this diamond interchange are calculated on the basis of the
worksheet provided in Exhibit 34-169 in Section 4. Since all movements utilize

the signal, O-Ds can be calculated directly from the turning movements at the
two intersections. The results of these calculations and the PHF-adjusted values

B 460 474 O-D Table
C 104 107
D 56 58
E 1,255 1,294
F 300 309
G 68 70
H 295 304
I 745 768
J 725 747
K 0 0
L 0 0
M 0 0
N 0 0

This interchange consists of external approaches with three through lanes
and an exclusive right-turn lane. The lane utilization for Lane 1 is predicted by
using the three-lane model of Exhibit 23-24. Since there is an exclusive right-turn
lane for both external approaches, according to the first note of Exhibit 23-24 the
lane utilization for Lane 3 should be estimated by assuming that the right-
turning O-D (vF, vG) is zero. Exhibit 34-33 presents the calculation results and the
lane utilization factor for each approach.
Maximum Exhibit 34-33

Lane Lane Utilization Example Problem 3: Lane
Approach V1 V2 V3 Utilization Factor Utilization Adjustment
3-lane EB 0.5551 0.2224 0.2224 0.5551 0.6005 Calculations
3-lane WB 0.4441 0.2779 0.2779 0.4441 0.7506
Notes: EB = eastbound, WB = westbound.
indicated in Chapter 19, Signalized Intersections. The results of these calculations
for all approaches are presented in Exhibit 34-34 and Exhibit 34-35.


Example Problem 3: Value EXT-TH EXT-R INT-TH INT-L EXT-TH EXT-R INT-TH INT-L
Calculation for Eastbound and 1,900 1,900 1,900 1,900 1,900 1,900 1,900 1,900
(s0, pc/hg/ln)
Westbound Approaches Number of lanes (N) 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1
Lane width adjustment (fw) 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
0.952 1.000 0.952 1.000 0.952 1.000 0.952 1.000
adjustment (fHVg)
Parking adjustment (fp) 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
Bus blockage adjustment (fbb) 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
Area type adjustment (fa) 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
Lane utilization adjustment
0.600 1.000 0.908 1.000 0.751 1.000 0.908 1.000
(fLU)
Left-turn adjustment (fLT) 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.930 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.930
Right-turn adjustment (fRT) 1.000 0.899 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.899 1.000 1.000
1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
adjustment (fLpb)
1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
adjustment (fRpb)
Turn radius adjustment for
1.000 0.899 1.000 0.930 1.000 0.899 1.000 0.930
lane group (fR)
1.043 0.980 0.975 0.948 0.987 0.945 0.978 0.998
lane group (fv)
3,400 1,675 4,807 1,676 4,021 1,614 4,822 1,764
(s, veh/hg/ln)
Exhibit 34-35 Northbound Southbound

Example Problem 3: Value Left Right Left Right
Saturation Flow Rate Base saturation flow (s0, pc/hg/ln) 1,900 1,900 1,900 1,900
Calculation for Northbound Number of lanes (N) 1 1 1 1
and Southbound Approaches Lane width adjustment (fw) 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
Heavy vehicle adjustment (fHV) 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
Grade adjustment (fg) 0.990 0.990 0.990 0.990
Exhibit 34-36 first provides the beginning and ending of the green time for
each phase at the two intersections, on the assumption that Phase 1 of the first
intersection begins at time zero. In this case, the offset for both intersections is
zero; therefore, the beginning of Phase 1 for the second intersection is also zero.


Green Example Problem 3: Common
Phase Begin Green End Green Begin Green End Green Calculations
Phase 1 0 27 0 27
Phase 2 32 91 32 71
Phase 3 96 115 76 115
EB EXT THRU 32.0 91.0
39
EB INT THRU 0.0 71.0
WB EXT THRU 32.0 71.0
39
WB INT THRU 32.0 115.0
SB RAMP 0.0 27.0
27
NB RAMP 76.0 115.0
39
WB INT LEFT 96.0 115.0
0
EB INT LEFT 0.0 27.0
0
THRU = through.
due to those queues. As shown, the SB-L movement has additional lost time of
5.5 s due to the downstream queue.
The lost time due to demand starvation is calculated by using Equation 23-
38. The respective calculations are presented in Exhibit 34-38. As shown, in this
case there is no lost time due to demand starvation.

Value EB EXT-TH SB-L WB EXT-TH NB-L Example Problem 3: Lost Time
Downstream Queue Calculations due to Downstream Queues
VR or VA (veh/h) 58 2,062 139 1,052
NR or NA 1 3 1 3
GR or GA (s) 27 59 39 39
GD (s) 71 71 83 83
C (s) 120 120 120 120
CGUD or CGRD (s) 39.0 27.0 39.0 39.0
GR or GA (s) 59 27 39 39
C (s) 120 120 120 120
DQA or DQR (ft) 300 191 300 300
CGUD or CGRD (s) 39.0 27 39 39
Effective green time, g' (s) 59.0 21.5 39.0 39.0
southbound.


Example Problem 3: Lost Time Value EB-INT-TH WB-INT-TH
due to Demand Starvation vRamp-L (veh/h) 58 139
Calculations vArterial (veh/h) 2,062 1,052
C (s) 120 120
NRamp-L 1 1
NArterial 3 3
CGRD (s) 27 39
CGUD (s) 39 39
HI 2.25 2.24
Qinitial (ft) 0 0
CGDS (s) 0 0
LDS (s) 0 0
t”L (s) 5 5
Effective green time, g'' (s) 71 83

movements. Those exhibits also provide the v/c ratio for each movement. Control
delay for each movement is calculated according to Equation 19-18. Exhibit 34-41
and Exhibit 34-42 provide the control delay for each movement of the interchange.

Example Problem 3: Queue Value EXT-TH EXT-R INT-L INT-TH EXT-TH EXT-R INT-L INT-TH
Storage Ratio for Eastbound QbL (ft) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
and Westbound Movements v (veh/h/ln group) 2,062 309 67 826 1,052 70 304 887
s (veh/h/ln) 1,133 1,675 1,676 1,602 1,340 1,614 1,764 1,607
g (s) 59.0 59.0 27.0 71.0 39.0 39.0 19.0 83.0
g/C 0.49 0.49 0.23 0.59 0.33 0.33 0.16 0.69
I 1.00 1.00 0.09 0.09 1.00 1.00 0.49 0.49
c (veh/h/ln group) 1,672 824 377 2,844 1,307 524 279 3,336
X = v/c 1.23 0.38 0.18 0.29 0.80 0.13 1.09 0.27
ra (ft/s2) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
rd (ft/s2) 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
Ss (mi/h) 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
Spl (mi/h) 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40
Sa (mi/h) 39.96 39.96 39.96 39.96 39.96 39.96 39.96 39.96
da (s) 12.04 12.04 12.04 12.04 12.04 12.04 12.04 12.04
Rp 1 1 1 1.333 1 1 1 1.333
P 0.49 0.49 0.23 0.79 0.33 0.33 0.16 0.92
r (s) 61.00 61.00 93.00 49.00 81.00 81.00 101.00 37.00
tf (s) 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00
q (veh/s) 0.57 0.09 0.02 0.23 0.29 0.02 0.08 0.25
qg (veh/s) 0.57 0.09 0.02 0.31 0.29 0.02 0.08 0.33
qr (veh/s) 0.57 0.09 0.02 0.12 0.29 0.02 0.08 0.06
Q1 (veh) 14.9 5.2 1.6 1.6 9.1 1.4 8.2 0.5
Q2 (veh) 17.1 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.1 5.0 0.1
T 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
Qeo (veh) 97.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.22 0.00
tA 0.25 0 0 0 0 0 0.25 0
Qe (veh) 97.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.22 0.00
Qb (veh) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Q3 (veh) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Q (veh) 32.0 5.5 1.6 1.6 9.7 1.5 13.2 0.6
Lh (ft) 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25
La (ft) 600 600 200 300 600 600 200 300
RQ 1.33 0.23 0.20 0.13 0.41 0.06 1.65 0.12


Value Left Right Left Right Example Problem 3: Queue
QbL (ft) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Storage Ratio for Northbound
v (veh/h/ln group) 139 474 58 107 and Southbound Movements
s (veh/h/ln) 1,628 1,703 1,600 1,607
g (s) 39.0 39.0 22.0 27.0
g/C 0.33 0.33 0.18 0.23
I 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
c (veh/h/ln group) 529 553 287 362
X = v/c 0.26 0.86 0.20 0.30
ra (ft/s2) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
rd (ft/s2) 4 4 4 4
Ss (mi/h) 5 5 5 5
Spl (mi/h) 40 40 40 40
Sa (mi/h) 39.96 39.96 39.96 39.96
da (s) 12.04 12.04 12.04 12.04
Rp 1 1 1 1
P 0.33 0.33 0.18 0.23
r (s) 81.00 81.00 98.50 93.00
tf (s) 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00
q (veh/s) 0.04 0.13 0.02 0.03
qg (veh/s) 0.04 0.13 0.02 0.03
qr (veh/s) 0.04 0.13 0.02 0.03
Q1 (veh) 2.9 12.6 1.4 2.6
Q2 (veh) 0.2 2.4 0.1 0.2
T 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
Qeo (veh) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
tA 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Qe (veh) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Qb (veh) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Q3 (veh) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Q (veh) 3.1 15.0 1.6 2.8
Lh (ft) 25 25 25 25
La (ft) 400 400 400 400
RQ 0.19 0.94 0.10 0.17

Value EXT-TH EXT-R INT-L INT-TH EXT-TH EXT-R INT-L INT-TH Example Problem 3: Control
g (s) - 59 27 71 - 39 19 83 Delay for Eastbound and
g' (s) 59 - - - 39 - - - Westbound Movements
g/C or g'/C 0.49 0.49 0.23 0.59 0.33 0.33 0.16 0.69
c (veh/h) 1,672 824 377 2,844 1,307 524 279 3,336
X = v/c 1.23 0.38 0.18 0.29 0.80 0.13 1.09 0.27
d1 (s/veh) 30.5 19.0 37.5 5.8 37.0 28.6 50.5 1.5
k 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
d2 (s/veh) 110.5 1.3 0.1 0.0 5.4 0.5 64.1 0.1
d3 (s/veh) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.595 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.291
kmin 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04
u 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
t 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
d (s/veh) 141.0 20.3 37.6 5.8 42.4 29.1 114.6 1.6


Example Problem 3: Control Value Left Right Left Right
Delay for Northbound and g (s) - 39 - 27
Southbound Movements g' (s) 39 - 21.5 -
g/C or g'/C 0.33 0.33 0.18 0.23
c (veh/h) 529 553 287 361
X = v/c 0.26 0.86 0.20 0.30
d1 (s/veh) 29.9 37.9 41.9 38.6
k 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
d2 (s/veh) 1.2 15.7 1.6 2.1
d3 (s/veh) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
kmin 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04
u 0 0 0 0
t 0 0 0 0
d (s/veh) 31.1 53.6 43.5 40.7
Results
movement utilized by the O-D, as indicated in Equation 23-2. Next, the v/c ratio
and queue storage ratio are checked. If either of these parameters exceeds 1, the
LOS for all O-Ds that utilize that movement is F. Exhibit 34-43 presents a summary
of the results for all O-D movements at this interchange. As shown, v/c and RQ for
parts of O-Ds E, H, I, and M exceed 1; therefore, these O-Ds operate in LOS F.
O-D E and O-D I include the EB external through movement, while O-D H and
O-D M include the WB internal left. These movements have v/c ratios exceeding
1. The remaining movements have v/c and queue storage ratios less than 1; the
LOS for these O-D movements is determined by using Exhibit 23-10. After extra
distances are measured according to the Exhibit 23-8 discussion, EDTT can be
obtained from Equation 23-50 [i.e., EDTT = 60 / (1.47 × 35) + 0 = 1.2 s/veh].
Intersectionwide performance measures are not calculated for interchange ramp
terminals.
Exhibit 34-43 Control Delay EDTT ETT

Example Problem 3: O-D O-D Movement (s/veh) (s/veh) (s/veh) v/c > 1? RQ > 1? LOS
Movement LOS A 32.7 1.2 33.9 No No C
B 53.6 −1.2 52.4 No No C
C 40.7 −1.2 39.5 No No C
D 49.3 1.2 50.5 No No C
E 178.6 1.2 179.8 Yes Yes F
F 20.3 −1.2 19.1 No No B
G 29.1 −1.2 27.9 No No B
H 157.0 1.2 158.2 Yes Yes F
I 146.8 0.0 146.8 Yes Yes F
J 44.0 0.0 44.0 No No C

EXAMPLE PROBLEM 4: DIAMOND INTERCHANGE WITH DEMAND

STARVATION
The Interchange
The interchange of I-75 (NB/SB) and Archer Road (EB/WB) is a diamond
interchange. The traffic, geometric, and signalization conditions for this
interchange are provided in Exhibit 34-44 and Exhibit 34-45. The offset is
referenced to the beginning of green on the EB direction of the arterial.
2%
= Lane Width
Example Problem 4:
400 ft
= Through
= Right
600 ft 0%
grade = _________
120 185 180 = Left
925 1085
1100
1085
110 125 210 600 ft = Left + Through
0%
grade = _________ Archer Road
______________
Street
= Left + Right
I-75
_____________
400 ft
Freeway
2%
grade = _________
D= 400 ft

Green time (s) 30 25 30 30 25 30
Offset (s) 0 0
The Question
What are the control delay, queue storage ratio, and LOS for this
interchange?
The Facts
ft for all turning movements except the eastbound and westbound left, which are
75 ft. Extra distance traveled along each freeway ramp is 100 ft.
There are 6.1% heavy vehicles on both external and internal through
movements, and the PHF for the interchange is estimated to be 0.97. Start-up lost
time and extension of effective green are both 2 s for all approaches. During the
analysis interval, there is no parking, and no buses, bicycles, or pedestrians
utilize the interchange. The grade is 2% on the NB and SB approaches.

Solution
O-Ds through this diamond interchange are calculated by using the
worksheet given in Exhibit 34-169 in Section 4. Since all movements utilize the
signal, O-Ds can be calculated directly from the turning movements at the two
intersections. The results of these O-D calculations and the PHF-adjusted values

O-D Table B 210 216
C 120 124
D 185 191
E 200 206
F 110 113
G 180 186
H 285 294
I 900 928
J 800 825
K 0 0
L 0 0
M 0 0
N 0 0

This interchange consists of a three-lane shared right and through lane group
for the external approaches. Use of the three-lane model from Exhibit 23-24
results in the predicted lane utilization percentages for the external through
approaches that are presented in Exhibit 34-47.
Exhibit 34-47 Maximum Lane Lane Utilization

Example Problem 4: Lane Approach V1 V2 V3 Utilization Factor
Utilization Adjustment 3-lane EB 0.3879 0.2773 0.3348 0.3879 0.8593
Calculations 3-lane WB 0.4032 0.2502 0.3465 0.4032 0.8266
Notes: EB = eastbound, WB = westbound.
indicated in Chapter 19, Signalized Intersections. The results of the saturation
flow rate calculations for all approaches are presented in Exhibit 34-48 and
Exhibit 34-49.


Value EXT-TH&R INT-TH INT-L EXT-TH&R INT-TH INT-L Example Problem 4:
Base saturation flow Saturation Flow Rate
1,900 1,900 1,900 1,900 1,900 1,900 Calculation for Eastbound and
(s0, pc/hg/ln)
Number of lanes (N) 3 3 1 3 3 1 Westbound Approaches
0.952 0.952 1.000 0.952 0.952 1.000
adjustment (fHVg)
1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
adjustment (fLpb)
1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
adjustment (fRpb)
0.991 1.000 0.930 0.986 1.000 0.930
group (fR)
0.986 0.981 0.969 0.989 0.974 0.985
lane group (fv)
4,597 4,834 1,714 4,428 4,799 1,741
(s, veh/hg/ln)

Number of lanes (N) 1 1 1 1 Calculation for Northbound
Lane width adjustment (fw) 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 and Southbound Approaches
Exhibit 34-50 presents the beginning and end times of the green for each
phase at the two intersections. Phase 1 of the first intersection is assumed to
begin at time zero. In this case the offset for both intersections is zero; therefore
the beginning of Phase 1 for the second intersection is also zero.


Phase 2 35 60 35 60
Phase 3 65 95 65 95
EB EXT THRU 35 60
25
EB INT THRU 0 60
WB EXT THRU 0 30
30
WB INT THRU 0 60
SB RAMP 65 95
0
EB INT THRU 35 60
NB RAMP 65 95
0
WB INT THRU 0 60
WB INT LEFT 0 30
30
EB INT THRU 0 60
EB INT LEFT 35 60
25
WB INT THRU 0 60
THRU = through.
due to those queues. As shown, there is no additional lost time due to
downstream queues.

Example Problem 4: Lost Time Value EB EXT-TH SB-L WB EXT-TH NB-L
due to Downstream Queues Downstream Queue Calculations
VR or VA (veh/h) 191 1,134 129 1,119
NR or NA 1 3 1 3
GR or GA (s) 30 25 30 30
GD (s) 60 60 60 60
C (s) 100 100 100 100
CGUD or CGRD (s) 25 0 30 0
Queue length (QA or QR) (ft) 0.0 31.5 0.0 40
GR or GA (s) 25 30 30 30
C (s) 100 100 100 100
DQA or DQR (ft) 400 369 400 360
CGUD or CGRD (s) 25 0 30 0
Additional lost time, LD-A or LD-R (s) 0 0 0 0
Total lost time, t'L (s) 5 5 5 5
Notes: EXT = external, EB = eastbound, WB = westbound, NB = northbound, SB = southbound, TH = through,
L = left.
The lost time due to demand starvation is calculated by using Equation

23-38. The respective calculations are presented in Exhibit 34-52. As shown, both
internal through movements experience lost time due to demand starvation.


Value EB-INT-TH WB-INT-TH Example Problem 4: Lost Time
vRamp-L (veh/h) 191 129 due to Demand Starvation
vArterial (veh/h) 1,134 1,119 Calculations
C (s) 100 100
NRamp-L 1 1
NArterial 3 3
CGRD (s) 5 5
CGUD (s) 25 30
HI 2.23 2.25
Qinitial (ft) 6.8 2.8
CGDS (s) 30 25
LDS (s) 14.7 18.6
t”L (s) 19.7 23.6
Effective green time, g'' (s) 45.3 41.4

Exhibit 34-54 present the calculations of the queue storage ratio for all movements.
These exhibits also provide the v/c ratios for all movements. Control delay for
each movement is calculated according to Equation 19-18. Exhibit 34-55 and
Exhibit 34-56 provide the control delay for each movement of the interchange.

Value EXT-TH&R INT-L INT-TH EXT-TH&R INT-L INT-TH Example Problem 4: Queue
v (veh/h/ln group) 1,247 206 1,119 1,304 294 954 and Westbound Movements
s (veh/h/ln) 1,532 1,714 1,611 1,476 1,741 1,600
g (s) 25 25 45 30 30 41
g/C 0.25 0.25 0.45 0.30 0.30 0.41
I 1.00 0.09 0.09 1.00 0.13 0.13
c (veh/h/ln group) 1,198 428 2,190 1,383 522 1,987
X = v/c 1.04 0.48 0.51 0.94 0.56 0.48
ra (ft/s2) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
rd (ft/s2) 4 4 4 4 4 4
Ss (mi/h) 5 5 5 5 5 5
Spl (mi/h) 40 40 40 40 40 40
Sa (mi/h) 39.96 39.96 39.96 39.96 39.96 39.96
da (s) 12.04 12.04 12.04 12.04 12.04 12.04
Rp 1.000 1.000 1.333 1.000 1.000 1.333
P 0.25 0.25 0.60 0.30 0.30 0.55
r (s) 75.00 75.00 54.71 70.00 70.00 58.64
tf (s) 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00
q (veh/s) 0.35 0.06 0.31 0.36 0.08 0.26
qg (veh/s) 0.35 0.06 0.41 0.36 0.08 0.35
qr (veh/s) 0.35 0.06 0.23 0.36 0.08 0.20
Q1 (veh) 9.2 4.1 3.8 9.8 5.7 3.7
Q2 (veh) 5.5 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.1 0.0
T 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
Qeo (veh) 24.54 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
tA 0.25 0 0 0 0 0
Qe (veh) 24.54 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Qb (veh) 0 0 0 0 0 0
Q3 (veh) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Q (veh) 14.7 4.1 3.9 12.8 5.8 3.7
Lh (ft) 25 25 25 25 25 25
La (ft) 600 200 400 600 200 400
RQ 0.61 0.52 0.24 0.53 0.72 0.23


s (veh/h/ln) 1,617 1,625 1,635 1,606
g (s) 30 30 30 30
g/C 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30
I 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
c (veh/h/ln group) 485 487 491 482
X = v/c 0.27 0.44 0.39 0.26
ra (ft/s2) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
rd (ft/s2) 4 4 4 4
Ss (mi/h) 5 5 5 5
Spl (mi/h) 40 40 40 40
Sa (mi/h) 39.96 39.96 39.96 39.96
da (s) 12.04 12.04 12.04 12.04
Rp 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
P 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30
r (s) 70.00 70.00 70.00 70.00
tf (s) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
q (veh/s) 0.04 0.06 0.05 0.03
qg (veh/s) 0.04 0.06 0.05 0.03
qr (veh/s) 0.04 0.06 0.05 0.03
Q1 (veh) 2.3 4.0 3.5 2.2
Q2 (veh) 0.2 0.4 0.3 0.2
T 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
Qeo (veh) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
tA 0 0 0 0
Qe (veh) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Qb (veh) 0 0 0 0
Q3 (veh) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Q (veh) 2.4 4.4 3.8 2.3
Lh (ft) 25 25 25 25
La (ft) 400 400 400 400
RQ 0.15 0.28 0.24 0.15

Example Problem 4: Control Value EXT-TH&R INT-L INT-TH EXT-TH&R INT-L INT-TH
g/C or g'/C 0.25 0.25 0.45 0.30 0.30 0.41
c (veh/h) 1,198 428 2,190 1,385 522 1,985
X = v/c 1.04 0.48 0.51 0.94 0.56 0.48
d1 (s/veh) 37.4 32.0 13.5 34.2 29.5 15.8
k 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
d2 (s/veh) 50.3 0.3 0.1 23.7 0.6 0.1
d3 (s/veh) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
PF 1.000 1.000 0.863 1.000 1.000 0.902
kmin 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04
u 0 0 0 0 0 0
t 0 0 0 0 0 0
d (s/veh) 87.6 32.3 13.5 57.9 30.1 16.0


g (s) - 30 - 30 Delay for Northbound and
g' (s) 30 - 30 - Southbound Movements
g/C or g'/C 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30
c (veh/h) 485 487 490 482
X = v/c 0.27 0.44 0.39 0.26
d1 (s/veh) 26.6 28.3 27.7 26.5
k 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
d2 (s/veh) 1.3 2.9 2.3 1.3
d3 (s/veh) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
kmin 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04
u 0 0 0 0
t 0 0 0 0
d (s/veh) 28.0 31.2 30.1 27.8
Results
for all O-Ds that utilize that movement is F. Exhibit 34-57 summarizes the results
for all O-D movements at this interchange. As shown, the v/c ratio exceeds 1 for
O-D Movements E, F, and I, all of which include the EB external through and
right movements. Therefore, these O-D movements operate in LOS F. The
remaining movements have v/c and queue storage ratios less than 1; the LOS is
determined by using Exhibit 23-10 for these movements. After extra distances are
measured according to the Exhibit 23-8 discussion, EDTT can be obtained from
Equation 23-50 [i.e., EDTT = 80 / (1.47 × 35) + 0 = 1.6 s/veh]. Intersectionwide
performance measures are not calculated for interchange ramp terminals.

Movement (s/veh) (s/veh) (s/veh) v/c > 1? RQ > 1? LOS Example Problem 4: O-D
A 43.9 1.6 45.5 No No C Movement LOS
B 31.2 −1.6 29.6 No No B
C 27.8 −1.6 26.2 No No B
D 43.6 1.6 45.2 No No C
E 119.9 1.6 121.5 Yes No F
F 87.6 −1.6 86.0 Yes No F
G 57.9 −1.6 56.3 No No D
H 88.0 1.6 89.6 No No E
I 101.1 0.0 101.1 Yes No F
J 73.9 0.0 73.9 No No D

EXAMPLE PROBLEM 5: DIVERGING DIAMOND INTERCHANGE WITH

SIGNAL CONTROL
The Interchange
The interchange of Main Street at Interstate I-40 is a diverging diamond
interchange (DDI) with signalized right turns and left turns controlling
movements from the freeway onto the Main Street arterial. The turning
movements onto the freeway from Main Street are not signalized. The traffic,
geometric, and signalization conditions of the interchange are provided in
Exhibit 34-58 and Exhibit 34-59.
Exhibit 34-58
Example Problem 5: DDI
Geometry, Lane, and Volume
Inputs
Exhibit 34-58 shows movement numbers M1 through M8, their associated

volume levels (in vehicles per hour), and the number of lanes for each movement
approach. Note that the eastbound movement has an exclusive left-turn lane
onto the freeway between crossovers, which is carried through the external
crossover at Movement M6. For the westbound movement, the left turn onto the
freeway is made from a shared lane, which is expected to affect the lane
utilization of Movement M2.
The Question
What are the control delays, experienced travel time, and LOS for this
interchange?
The Facts
There are no closely spaced intersections to this interchange, and it operates as
a pretimed signal with no right turns on red allowed. Travel path radii are 75 ft
for right-turn movements and 150 ft for left turns.
There are 6.1% heavy vehicles for all movements, and the PHF for the
interchange is 0.95. Start-up lost time and extension of effective green are both 2 s
for all approaches. During the analysis period, there is no parking, and no buses,
bicycles, or pedestrians utilize the interchange.

Exhibit 34-59 provides basic signal timing information for the DDI. The cycle
length is set at 70 s for this pretimed signal. The arterial street free-flow speed is
35 mi/h.
West Crossover East Crossover Exhibit 34-59

Movement M5 M6 M7 M8 M1 M2 M3 M4 Example Problem 5: Signal
Green time (s) 25 35 25 35 35 25 35 25 Timing and Volume Inputs
Yellow time (s) 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
All-red time (s) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Phase split (s) 30 40 30 40 40 30 40 30
Turn radius (ft) 150 75 150 75
Width of clear zone (ft) 200 100 200 100
Shortest distance, stop bar
20 60 20 60
to conflict point (ft)
Volume (veh/h) 500 1,300 300 200 1,000 450 350 200
The DDI is timed with two critical phases to allow the northbound and
southbound through movements to be processed through the interchange
sequentially. The signalized right-turn movements from the freeway move
concurrently with the inbound through movement into the interchange at each
crossover, and the left turns move concurrently with the outbound through
movements. Overlap phasing is used to reduce the lost time for the through
movement while providing adequate clearance times for the turning traffic. In
the methodology, this results in additional lost time applied to the ramp
movements (Step 4 of DDI methodology in Chapter 23).
Solution
O-D movements through this diamond interchange are calculated by using
the worksheet in Exhibit 34-169 in Section 4. Because all movements utilize the
signal, O-Ds can be calculated directly from the turning movements at the two
intersections. The results of these calculations and the PHF-adjusted values are
presented in Exhibit 34-60.

B 200 211 O-D Table
C 200 211
D 300 316
E 600 632
F 200 211
G 300 316
H 300 316
I 700 737
J 150 158
K 0 0
L 0 0
M 0 0
N 0 0


Lane utilization for DDIs is calculated by using Exhibit 23-26 for the two
external approaches to the DDI. The eastbound movement has an exclusive left-
turn lane onto the freeway between crossovers, which is carried through the
external crossover at Movement M6. For the westbound movement, the left turn
onto the freeway is made from a shared lane, which is expected to affect lane
utilization at Movement M2. The calculated maximum lane utilization and
associated lane utilization factors are shown in Exhibit 34-61.
Exhibit 34-61 Left-Turn Maximum Lane

Example Problem 5: Lane Lane Demand Lane Utilization
Utilization Adjustment Approach Configuration Ratio Utilization Factor
Calculations Eastbound external 3-lane exclusive 0.46 0.45 0.74
Westbound external 2-lane shared 0.67 0.77 0.65
above. Traffic pressure is calculated by using Equation 23-15. The left- and right-
turn adjustment factors are estimated by using Equation 23-20 through Equation
23-23. These equations use an adjustment factor for travel path radius calculated
by Equation 23-19. The DDI adjustment factor is applied to the internal and
external through movements at both crossovers. The remaining adjustment
factors are calculated as indicated in Chapter 19, Signalized Intersections. The
estimated saturation flow rates for all approaches are shown in Exhibit 34-62.
Exhibit 34-62 West Crossover East Crossover

Example Problem 5: Value M5 M6 M7 M8 M1 M2 M3 M4
Calculation for All Approaches 1,900 1,900 1,900 1,900 1,900 1,900 1,900 1,900
(s0, pc/hg/ln)
Number of lanes (N) 2 3 1 1 2 2 1 1
0.952 0.952 0.952 0.952 0.952 0.952 0.952 0.952
adjustment (fHVg)
Bus blockage adjustment
1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
(fbb)
Lane utilization adjustment
1.000 0.740 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.649 1.000 1.000
(fLU)
1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
adjustment (fLpb)
Right-turn pedestrian–
1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
bicycle adjustment (fRpb)
Turn radius adjustment for
1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
lane group (fR)
Traffic pressure adjustment
0.956 0.972 0.960 0.951 0.978 0.954 0.964 0.951
for lane group (fv)
DDI adjustment factor (fDDI) 0.913 0.913 1.000 1.000 0.913 0.913 1.000 1.000
Adjusted saturation flow per
1,578 1,188 1,674 1,601 1,615 1,022 1,682 1,601
lane (s, veh/hg/ln)
Adjusted approach
3,156 3,563 1,674 1,601 3,229 2,045 1,682 1,601
saturation flow (s, veh/hg)

Effective Green and Lost Time Calculations

Next, effective green time adjustments for the DDI movements are calculated
according to Step 4 of the DDI methodology, as shown in Exhibit 34-63. The lost
time adjustment due to internal queues was illustrated in previous examples and
is assumed to be 4 s/veh for this example. Lost time due to demand starvation
does not apply to DDIs and is set at zero. Lost time due to overlap phasing for
the DDI ramp movements is calculated from Equation 23-37.

Value M5 M6 M7 M8 M1 M2 M3 M4 Example Problem 5:
Lost time due to internal queues (s) 0 4 4 0 0 4 4 0 Lost Time and Effective
Lost time due to demand starvation (s) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Green Calculations
Lost time on DDI ramps from overlap
0 0 6.5 4.9 0 0 6.5 4.9
phasing (s)
Start-up lost time (s) 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Extension of effective green (s) 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Adjusted lost time, external (s) 8 15 9 9 15 9
Adjusted lost time, internal (s) 4 4
Effective green time (s) 25 31 14 30 35 20 24 20
Results
With the effective green time and saturation flow adjustments complete, the
volume-to-capacity ratios for each lane group are calculated from Equation 23-
48. Because this is an isolated DDI, no adjustments due to closely spaced
intersections apply. Because all turning movements from the freeway are
signalized, Step 6 for estimating performance of YIELD-controlled turns also does
not apply. The results are shown in Exhibit 34-64.
Control delay and its various components (uniform delay, incremental delay,
and initial queue delay) are calculated by using the procedures in Chapter 19,
and the results are shown in Exhibit 34-64.

Value M5 M6 M7 M8 M1 M2 M3 M4 Example Problem 5:
Demand flow rate, lane group (veh/h) 500 1,300 300 200 1,000 450 350 200 Performance Results
Saturation flow rate, lane group (veh/h) 3,156 3,563 1,674 1,601 3,229 2,045 1,682 1,601
Effective green time (s) 25 31 14 30 35 20 24 20
Cycle length (s) 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70
g/C ratio 0.36 0.44 0.21 0.43 0.50 0.29 0.35 0.29
v/c ratio for lane group 0.44 0.82 0.87 0.29 0.62 0.77 0.60 0.44
Uniform delay (s/veh) 16.0 17.6 26.8 13.2 21.7 25.4 19.1 22.3
Incremental delay (s/veh) 1.2 5.2 25.7 0.1 0.2 23 1.9 0.6
Initial queue delay (s/veh) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Control delay (s/veh) 17.2 22.8 52.5 13.3 21.9 48.4 21.0 22.9
From these results, the performance measures are aggregated for each O-D
movement. The naming convention for converting turning movements to O-Ds is
followed. Furthermore, for each O-D movement, the EDTT is calculated with
Equation 23-50. The LOS for each lane group can then be determined from
Exhibit 23-10. The results of all steps are shown in Exhibit 34-65.
In the exhibit, the extra distance traveled is 100 ft for the left turn from the
freeway (Movements A and D), reflecting some out-of-direction travel distance at
the interchange. Similarly, 40 ft of added travel distance is applied to the arterial
through movements (I and J) to account for the two crossover shifts. For an

actual site, these distances should be measured from design drawings or aerial
images. The EDTT is then calculated on the assumption of a travel speed of 35
mi/h for that added distance. Note that the methodology does not consider
delays for the free-flow right-turn bypass movements onto the freeway, which
are therefore assumed to be zero. Intersectionwide performance measures are not
calculated for interchange ramp terminals.
Exhibit 34-65 PHF- Total Extra

Example Problem 5: ETT and Adjusted Control Control Dis-
LOS Results Demand Delay Delay tance EDTT ETT
O-D (veh/h) Movement Components (s/veh) (ft) (s/veh) (s/veh) LOS
A 368 NB L M3 + M5 38.2 100 1.9 40.1 C
B 211 NB R M4 22.9 −100 −1.9 21.0 B
C 211 SB R M8 13.3 −100 −1.9 11.4 A
D 316 SB L M7 + M1 74.4 100 1.9 76.3 D
E 632 EB L M6 22.8 100 1.9 24.7 B
F 211 EB R N/A 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 A
G 316 WB R N/A 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 A
H 316 WB L M2 48.4 100 1.9 50.3 C
I 737 EB T M6 + M1 44.7 40 0.8 45.5 C
J 158 WB T M2 + M5 65.6 40 0.8 66.4 D
Note: NB = northbound, SB = southbound, EB = eastbound, WB = westbound, L = left, R = right, T = through,
N/A = not applicable.
EXAMPLE PROBLEM 6: DIVERGING DIAMOND INTERCHANGE WITH

YIELD CONTROL
The Interchange
In this example, the same DDI is used that was introduced in Example
Problem 5. The only difference is that the left turns (M3 and M7) and right turns
(M4 and M8) from the freeway off-ramps are now YIELD-controlled movements.
The estimation of control delays for Movements M1, M2, M5, and M6 is
unchanged from the previous example. The geometry is shown in Exhibit 34-66.
Exhibit 34-66
Example Problem 6:
Geometry, Lane, and Volume
Inputs
200 300 600 300

M8 M7
1,200 550
1,600 M1 M2 850
1,500 M6 M5 900
1,300 500
M3
350 M4 200
200
300

The Question
What are the control delays, experienced travel time, and LOS for the turning
movements off the freeway for this interchange if they are controlled by YIELD
signs?
The Facts
The basic assumptions for this freeway are the same as for Example Problem
5. Similarly, Steps 1 through 5 are unchanged for the signalized movements.
Solution
Capacity of YIELD-Controlled Movement
Step 6 of the interchange methodology evaluates the capacity of the YIELD-
controlled movement in three regimes: (a) Regime 1blocked by conflicting
platoon when the conflicting signal has just turned green, with zero capacity for
turning movement; (b) Regime 2gap acceptance in conflicting traffic after the
initial platoon has cleared, with gap acceptance controlled by the critical gap,
follow-up time, and conflicting flow rate; and (c) Regime 3no conflicting flow
when the conflicting signal is red, with full capacity, controlled by the follow-up
time of the YIELD-controlled approach.
For each regime, the methodology computes the proportion of time the
regime is active, as well as the capacity that applies over that period of time. The
evaluation is performed for the two right-turn movements (M4 and M8) and the
two left-turn movements (M3 and M7).
In Regime 1, the capacity is equal to zero, since no YIELD-controlled
movements can enter the interchange while the opposing queue clears. The
duration of the blocked period is estimated from Equation 23-51. For an isolated
interchange, Equation 23-52 and Equation 23-54 are used to estimate the time to
clear the opposing queue and the time for the last queued vehicle to clear the
conflict point, respectively. The calculation results are shown in Exhibit 34-67.
Value M7 M8 M3 M4 Exhibit 34-67

Green time for opposing movement (s) 31 25 20 35 Example Problem 6: Capacity
Red time for opposing movement (s) 39 45 50 35 of Blocked Regime
Volume of opposing movement per lane (veh/h/ln) 433 250 225 500
Saturation flow rate for opposing movement (veh/h) 1,188 1,578 1,022 1,615
Time to clear queue, tCQ (s) 22.4 8.5 14.1 15.7
Distance to clear, xclear (ft) 200.0 100.0 200.0 100.0
Speed of opposing movement (mi/h) 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0
Time to clear last vehicle, tclear (s) 5.5 2.7 5.5 2.7
Proportion of time blocked, pb 0.40 0.16 0.28 0.26
Capacity of blocked period, cb (veh/h) 0 0 0 0
In Regime 2, the capacity of the YIELD-controlled movement when gaps are

accepted in opposing traffic is estimated by using Equation 23-42. The proportion
of time for that gap acceptance regime is estimated from Equation 23-43. The
computation results are shown in Exhibit 34-68. Note that in the exhibit, the pGA
time calculated for M3 was originally negative and therefore was set to zero.

Exhibit 34-68 Value M7 M8 M3 M4

Example Problem 6: Capacity Critical gap, tc (s) 3.9 1.8 3.9 1.8
of Gap Acceptance Regime Follow-up time, tf (s) 2.6 2.4 2.6 2.4
Conflicting flow rate, qc (veh/h) 1,300 500 450 1,200
Capacity of gap acceptance regime, cGA (veh/h) 541 1,380 1,000 1,228
Proportion of time of gap acceptance, pGA 0.04 0.20 0.00a 0.24
a
Note: Set to zero to avoid negative numbers.
In Regime 3, conflicting flow is stopped at the crossover signal, and the

capacity is estimated from Equation 23-44. The proportion of time for this regime
is estimated from Equation 23-45. The results are shown in Exhibit 34-69.

Example Problem 6: Capacity Capacity of no-opposing-flow regime, cNOF (veh/h) 1,385 1,500 1,385 1,500
of No-Opposing-Flow Regime Proportion of time with no opposing flow, pNOF 0.56 0.64 0.71 0.50
Results
The combined capacity of the YIELD-controlled movement is estimated from
Equation 23-46 or Equation 23-47. With that capacity and the movement demand,
a volume-to-capacity ratio can be estimated. The control delay for the movement
is then estimated by using the control delay procedure for roundabouts given in
Equation 22-17. The computations of other terms contributing to the experienced
travel time service measure are consistent with Example Problem 5. The results
are shown in Exhibit 34-70.

Example Problem 6: Demand flow rate for lane group (veh/h) 300 200 350 200
Performance Results v/c ratio for lane group (decimal) 0.38 0.16 0.35 0.19
Control delay (s/veh) 34.7 13.4 31.0 16.3
The results suggest that under these assumptions, YIELD-controlled left-turn

Movements M7 and M4 perform better than the signalized alternatives evaluated
in Example Problem 5, while unsignalized right-turn Movements M8 and M3
show slightly higher delay than with the signal.
From these results, the performance measures are aggregated for each O-D
movement. The naming convention for converting turning movements to O-Ds is
followed. Furthermore, for each O-D movement, the EDTT is calculated with
Equation 23-50. From the O-D ETT, the LOS for each lane group is estimated
from Exhibit 23-10. The results of all steps are shown in Exhibit 34-71.
In the exhibit, the extra distance traveled is 100 ft for the left turn from the
freeway (Movements A and D), reflecting some out-of-direction travel distance at
the interchange. For right turns from the freeway (Movements B and C), an
equivalent negative extra travel distance is applied. Similarly, 40 ft of added
travel distance is applied to the arterial through movements (I and J) to account
for the two crossover shifts. For an actual site, these distances should be
measured from design drawings or aerial images. The EDTT is then calculated
on the assumption of a travel speed of 35 mi/h for that added distance. Note that
the methodology does not consider delays for the free-flow right-turn bypass
movements onto the freeway, which are therefore assumed to be zero.


terminals.
PHF- Total Extra Exhibit 34-71

Adjusted Control Dis- Example Problem 6: ETT and
Demand Control Delay Delay tance EDTT ETT LOS Results
O-D (veh/h) Movement Components (s/veh) (ft) (s/veh) (s/veh) LOS
A 368 NB L M3 + M5 48.2 100 1.9 50.2 D
B 211 NB R M4 16.3 −100 −1.9 14.3 A
C 211 SB R M8 13.4 −100 −1.9 11.5 A
D 316 SB L M7 + M1 56.6 100 1.9 58.5 D
E 632 EB L M6 22.8 100 1.9 24.7 B
F 211 EB R N/A 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 A
G 316 WB R N/A 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 A
H 316 WB L M2 48.4 100 1.9 50.3 C
I 737 EB T M6 + M1 44.7 40 0.8 45.5 C
J 158 WB T M2 + M5 65.6 40 0.8 66.4 D
Note: NB = northbound, SB = southbound, EB = eastbound, WB = westbound, L = left, R = right, T = through,
N/A = not applicable.
EXAMPLE PROBLEM 7: SINGLE-POINT URBAN INTERCHANGE

The Interchange
The interchange of I-95 (NB/SB) and University Drive (EB/WB) is a single-
point urban interchange (SPUI). The traffic, geometric, and signalization
conditions of the interchange are provided in Exhibit 34-72 and Exhibit 34-73.
0%
grade = _________ 0%
grade = _________ Exhibit 34-72
Example Problem 7:
600 ft = Pedestrian Button
= Lane Width
= Through
520 2%
grade = _________
= Right
210 600 ft
= Left
120
200 ft 837
184 = Through + Right
168
200 ft
865 = Left + Through
160
600 ft 80 165 = Left + Right
2%
_____________
Street
I-95
_____________ 600 ft
Freeway
0%
grade = _________ 0%
grade = _________
SPUI Interchange Exhibit 34-73

Phase 1 2 3 Example Problem 7:
NEMA Φ (1+5+4R+8R) Φ (2+6) Φ (3+8+2R+6R) Signalization Information
Green time (s) 16 32 38
Yellow + all red (s) 8 8 8
The Question
The Facts

ft and 50 ft for all left-turn and right-turn movements, respectively. Lane widths
are 10.3 ft for all lanes. There is no extra distance traveled along the freeway
ramps. The grade is 2% on the eastbound and westbound approaches.
There are 3.4% heavy vehicles on all eastbound and westbound movements.
There are 5% heavy vehicles on all northbound and southbound movements. The
PHF for the interchange is 0.95. Start-up lost time and extension of effective
green are both 2 s for all approaches. During the analysis period, there is no
parking, and no buses, bicycles, or pedestrians utilize the interchange.
Solution
O-Ds through this SPUI are calculated on the basis of the worksheet
provided in Exhibit 34-170. O-Ds can be calculated directly from the turning
movements at a SPUI because it has only one intersection. The O-Ds and the
corresponding PHF-adjusted values are presented in Exhibit 34-74.

O-D Table B 160 168
C 120 126
D 520 547
E 168 177
F 80 84
G 210 221
H 184 194
I 865 911
J 837 881
K 0 0
L 0 0
M 0 0
N 0 0
Saturation Flow Rate Calculations

saturation flow rate of 1,900 pc/hg/ln by using Equation 23-14. Traffic pressure is
calculated by using Equation 23-15. The left- and right-turn adjustment factors
are estimated by using Equation 23-20 through Equation 23-23. These equations
use an adjustment factor for travel path radius calculated by Equation 23-19. The
remaining adjustment factors are calculated as indicated in Chapter 19,
Signalized Intersections. The results of the saturation flow rate calculations for all
approaches are presented in Exhibit 34-75 and Exhibit 34-76.


Left Left Left Left Example Problem 7:
Value Prot. Perm. Through Right Prot. Perm. Through Right Saturation Flow Rate
Calculation for Eastbound and
Base saturation flow
1,900 1,900 1,900 1,900 1,900 1,900 1,900 1,900 Westbound Approaches
(s0, pc/hg/ln)
Number of lanes (N) 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1
0.961 0.961 0.961 0.961 0.961 0.961 0.961 0.961
adjustment (fHVg)
Bus blockage adjustment (fbb) 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
Lane utilization adjustment (fLU) 1.000 1.000 0.952 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.952 1.000
1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
adjustment (fLpb)
1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
adjustment (fRpb)
0.930 0.930 1.000 0.899 0.930 0.930 1.000 0.899
group (fR)
0.950 0.951 0.998 0.946 0.950 0.954 0.995 0.964
lane group (fv)
1,560 228 3,353 1,659 1,561 211 3,346 1,673
(s, veh/hg/ln)
Note: Prot. = protected, Perm. = permitted.

Value Left Through Right Left Through Right Example Problem 7:
Base saturation flow (s0, pc/hg/ln) 1,900 1,900 1,900 1,900 1,900 1,900
Calculation for Northbound
Number of lanes (N) 1 1 1 1 1 1 and Southbound Approaches
Heavy vehicle and grade adjustment (fHVg) 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
Left-turn pedestrian–bicycle adjustment
1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
(fLpb)
Right-turn pedestrian–bicycle adjustment
1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
(fRpb)
Turn radius adjustment for lane group (fR) 0.899 1.000 0.899 0.899 1.000 0.899
Traffic pressure adjustment for lane group
0.967 0.935 0.957 1.044 0.935 0.951
(fv)
Adjusted saturation flow (s, veh/hg/ln) 1,597 1,717 1,580 1,724 1,717 1,571

Supplemental Uniform Delay Worksheet for Left Turns from Exclusive Lanes with
Protected and Permitted Phases
Uniform delay for the eastbound and westbound left-turn movements must
be calculated with a supplemental worksheet since both of these exclusive left-
turn lanes have both protected and permitted movements. The intermediate
calculations and uniform delay for the eastbound and westbound left turns are
completed according to the methodology of Chapter 19, Signalized Intersections,
and are shown in Exhibit 34-77.
Exhibit 34-77 Value Eastbound Left Westbound Left

Example Problem 7: Uniform C (s) 110 110
Delay Calculations for Left Leading left? Yes Yes
Turns Featuring Both g (s) 16 16
Permissive and Protected gq (s) 17 20
Phasing gu (s) 13.01 11.78
r (s) 62.00 62.00
X = v/c 0.60 0.67
qa (veh/s) 0.05 0.05
sp (veh/s) 0.43 0.43
ss (veh/s) 0.16 0.16
Xperm 0.78 0.92
Xprot 0.55 0.60
Case 1 1
QA (ft) 3.0 3.3
Qu (ft) 0.9 1.1
Qr (ft) 0.0 0.0
d1 (s/veh) 22.1 22.7

movements. These exhibits also show the v/c ratio for each movement. Control
delay for each movement is calculated according to Equation 19-18. Exhibit 34-80
and Exhibit 34-81 provide the control delay for each movement of the
interchange. The eastbound left turns for the permissive and protected phases
are treated in combination in these calculations.


Value Left Through Right Left Through Right Example Problem 7: Queue
v (veh/h/ln group) 177 911 84 194 881 221 and Westbound Movements
s (veh/h/ln) 672 1,676 1,659 661 1,673 1,673
g (s) 48.0 32.0 38.0 48.0 32.0 38.0
g/C 0.44 0.29 0.35 0.44 0.29 0.35
I 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
c (veh/h/ln group) 293 975 573 288 973 578
X = v/c 0.60 0.93 0.15 0.67 0.91 0.38
ra (ft/s2) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
rd (ft/s2) 4 4 4 4 4 4
Ss (mi/h) 5 5 5 5 5 5
Spl (mi/h) 40 40 40 40 40 40
Sa (mi/h) 39.96 39.96 39.96 39.96 39.96 39.96
da (s) 12.04 12.04 12.04 12.04 12.04 12.04
Rp 1 1 1 1 1 1
P 0.44 0.29 0.35 0.44 0.29 0.35
r (s) 62.0 78.0 72.0 62.0 78.0 72.0
tf (s) 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00
q (veh/s) 0.05 0.25 0.02 0.05 0.24 0.06
qg (veh/s) 0.05 0.25 0.02 0.05 0.24 0.06
qr (veh/s) 0.05 0.25 0.02 0.05 0.24 0.06
Q1 (veh) 4.1 14.2 1.8 4.7 13.6 5.1
Q2 (veh) 0.7 2.3 0.1 0.9 1.9 0.3
T 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
Qeo (veh) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
tA 0 0 0 0 0 0
Qe (veh) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Qb (veh) 0 0 0 0 0 0
Q3 (veh) 0 0 0 0 0 0
Q (veh) 4.9 16.5 1.9 5.7 15.4 5.4
Lh (ft) 25.006 25.006 25.006 25.006 25.006 25.006
La (ft) 200 600 600 200 600 600
RQ 0.61 0.69 0.08 0.71 0.64 0.23

Value Left Through Right Left Through Right Example Problem 7: Queue
QbL (ft) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Storage Ratio for Northbound
v (veh/h/ln group) 174 0 168 547 0 126 and Southbound Movements
s (veh/h/ln) 1,597 1,717 1,580 1,724 1,717 1,571
g (s) 38.0 38.0 16.0 38.0 38.0 16.0
g/C 0.35 0.35 0.15 0.35 0.35 0.15
I 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
c (veh/h/ln group) 552 593 230 596 593 228
X = v/c 0.31 0.00 0.73 0.92 0.00 0.55
ra (ft/s2) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
rd (ft/s2) 4 4 4 4 4 4
Ss (mi/h) 5 5 5 5 5 5
Spl (mi/h) 40 40 40 40 40 40
Sa (mi/h) 39.96 39.96 39.96 39.96 39.96 39.96
da (s) 12.04 12.04 12.04 12.04 12.04 12.04
Rp 1 1 1 1 1 1
P 0.35 0.35 0.15 0.35 0.35 0.15
r (s) 72.0 72.0 94.0 72.0 72.0 94.0
tf (s) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00
q (veh/s) 0.05 0.00 0.05 0.15 0.00 0.04
qg (veh/s) 0.05 0.00 0.05 0.15 0.00 0.04
qr (veh/s) 0.05 0.00 0.05 0.15 0.00 0.04
Q1 (veh) 3.9 0.0 4.9 16.0 0.0 3.6
Q2 (veh) 0.2 0.0 1.2 3.6 0.0 0.6
T 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
Qeo (veh) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
tA 0 0 0 0 0 0
Qe (veh) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Qb (veh) 0 0 0 0 0 0
Q3 (veh) 0 0 0 0 0 0
Q (veh) 4.1 0.0 6.1 19.6 0.0 4.2
Lh (ft) 25 25 25 25 25 25
La (ft) 600 600 600 600 600 600
RQ 0.17 0.00 0.25 0.82 0.00 0.17


Example Problem 7: Control Value Left Through Right Left Through Right
g/C or g'/C 0.44 0.29 0.35 0.44 0.29 0.35
c (veh/h) 293 975 573 288 973 578
X = v/c 0.60 0.93 0.15 0.67 0.91 0.38
d1 (s/veh) 22.1 38.0 24.8 22.8 37.5 27.2
k 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
d2 (s/veh) 8.9 16.6 0.5 11.8 13.4 1.9
d3 (s/veh) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
kmin 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04
u 0 0 0 0 0 0
t 0 0 0 0 0 0
d (s/veh) 31.0 54.6 25.4 34.6 51.0 29.1

Example Problem 7: Control Value Left Through Right Left Through Right
Delay for Northbound and g (s) - 38 16 - 38 16
Southbound Movements g' (s) 38 - - 38 - -
g/C or g'/C 0.35 0.35 0.15 0.35 0.35 0.15
c (veh/h) 552 593 230 596 593 228
X = v/c 0.31 0.00 0.73 0.92 0.00 0.55
d1 (s/veh) 26.4 23.6 45.0 34.5 23.6 43.7
k 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
d2 (s/veh) 1.5 0.0 18.6 21.5 0.0 9.3
d3 (s/veh) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
kmin 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04
u 0 0 0 0 0 0
t 0 0 0 0 0 0
d (s/veh) 27.9 23.6 63.6 56.0 23.6 53.0
Results
Delay for each O-D is estimated as the movement delay for the corresponding
movement, as shown in Exhibit 34-82. Next, the v/c and queue storage ratios are
checked. If either of these parameters exceeds 1, the LOS for the respective O-D is
F. As shown, no movements have a v/c ratio or RQ exceeding 1, and therefore the
LOS result is based on the second column of Exhibit 23-10. Intersectionwide
performance measures are not calculated for interchange ramp terminals.
Exhibit 34-82 O-D Movement ETT (s/veh) v/c > 1? RQ > 1? LOS
Example Problem 7: O-D A 27.9 No No B
Movement LOS B 63.6 No No D
C 53.0 No No C
D 56.0 No No D
E 31.0 No No C
F 25.4 No No B
G 29.1 No No B
H 34.6 No No C
I 54.6 No No C
J 51.0 No No C

EXAMPLE PROBLEM 8: DIAMOND INTERCHANGE WITH ADJACENT

INTERSECTION
The Interchange
At the diamond interchange described in Example Problem 1 (I-99 and
University Drive), an adjacent intersection was built 300 ft to the west of the
interchange (Spring Street, NB/SB, and University Drive, EB/WB). The traffic,
geometric, and signalization conditions are shown in Exhibit 34-83 and Exhibit
34-84. The offset is referenced to the beginning of the green for the respective EB
arterial approach.
0%
grade = _________ 0%
= Lane Width Example Problem 8:
400 ft = Through Intersection Plan View
200 ft
98 = Right
800 ft
600 ft 0%
grade = _________
165 280160 185 135
156 = Left
400 795 797
200 ft 200 ft
220 150 200 ft
212 200 ft 96 = Through + Right
780 781 870
200
60 105 180 80 210 204 600 ft = Left + Through
0%
______________
Street
University Drive
200 ft
______________ = Left + Right

EB/WB I-99
_____________
400 ft
400 ft
Freeway
Spring Street
_____________
NB/SB
2%
grade = _________
D= 300 ft D= 500 ft

Green time (s) 63 43 39 63 53 29
Offset (s) 19 9
Adjacent Intersection
Phase 1 2 3 4
NEMA Φ (1+5) Φ (2+6) Φ (4+7) Φ (3+8)
Green time (s) 33 59 24 24
Yellow + all red (s) 5 5 5 5
Offset (s) 19
The Question
What are the control delay, queue storage ratio, and LOS for this interchange
and the adjacent intersection?
The Facts
The closely spaced intersection operates as a pretimed signal with no right
turns on red allowed. Travel path radii at the interchange are 50 ft for all right-
turning movements and 75 ft for all left-turning movements. Extra distance
traveled along each freeway ramp is 100 ft.
There are 6.1% heavy vehicles on eastbound and westbound through
movements of the interchange and all movements of the adjacent intersection.
The PHF for the interchange–intersection system is 0.97. Start-up lost time and
extension of effective green are both 2 s for all approaches. During the analysis
period, there is no parking, and no buses, bicycles, or pedestrians utilize the
interchange. The grade is 2% on the northbound approach.

Solution
The O-Ds for the interchange are obtained as explained in Example Problem
1 and were presented in Exhibit 34-5.

The adjacent intersection has a two-lane shared right and through lane group
for both the inbound (arriving at the interchange) and the outbound (leaving the
interchange) approaches. The lane utilization factors for the inbound and
outbound approaches of the closely spaced intersection are estimated by
obtaining the respective lane utilization values (through or shared) from Exhibit
19-15 and subtracting 0.05. The resulting lane utilization factors are shown in
Exhibit 34-85.
Exhibit 34-85 Lane Group Lane Utilization Factor

Example Problem 8: Lane 2-lane group eastbound (inbound) 0.902
Utilization Adjustment 2-lane group westbound (outbound) 0.902
Calculations
saturation flow rate of 1,900 pc/h/ln by using Equation 23-14. The saturation
flows for each lane group of the adjacent intersection are estimated according to
Chapter 19, Signalized Intersections. The results of the saturation flow rate
calculations for all movements of the adjacent intersection and the interchange
are presented in Exhibit 34-86 through Exhibit 34-88. Note that turn radius and
traffic pressure adjustments are not considered in the adjacent intersection.

Example Problem 8: Value EXT-TH&R INT-TH INT-L EXT-TH&R INT-TH INT-L
Calculation for Interchange 1,900 1,900 1,900 1,900 1,900 1,900
(s0, pc/hg/ln)
Eastbound and Westbound
Approaches Number of lanes (N) 2 2 1 2 2 1
0.952 0.952 1.000 0.952 0.952 1.000
adjustment (fHVg)
1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
adjustment (fLpb)
1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
adjustment (fRpb)
0.991 1.000 0.930 0.985 1.000 0.930
group (fR)
1.027 1.028 0.961 1.044 1.019 0.995
lane group (fv)
3,670 3,540 1,698 3,637 3,510 1,759
(s, veh/hg/ln)


Number of lanes (N) 1 1 1 1 Calculation for Interchange
Lane width adjustment (fw) 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Northbound and Southbound
Heavy vehicle and grade adjustment (fHVg) 0.990 0.990 0.990 0.990 Approaches
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Exhibit 34-88

Value TH&R L TH&R L TH R L TH&R L Example Problem 8:
1,900 1,900 1,900 1,900 1,900 1,900 1,900 1,900 1,900 Calculation for Adjacent
(s0, pc/hg/ln)
Intersection
Number of lanes (N) 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 1
Lane width adjustment
1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
(fw)
Heavy vehicle and
grade adjustment 0.952 0.952 0.952 0.952 0.952 0.952 0.952 0.952 0.952
(fHVg)
Parking adjustment
1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
(fp)
Bus blockage
1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
adjustment (fbb)
Area type adjustment
1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
(fa)
Lane utilization
0.902 1.000 0.902 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
adjustment (fLU)
Left-turn adjustment
1.000 0.930 1.000 0.930 1.000 1.000 0.899 1.000 0.899
(fLT)
Right-turn adjustment
1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.899 1.000 1.000 1.000
(fRT)
Left-turn pedestrian–
bicycle adjustment 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
(fLpb)
Right-turn pedestrian–
bicycle adjustment 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
(fRpb)
Adjusted saturation
3,359 1,680 3,251 1,645 1,765 1,580 1,568 3,434 1,654
flow (s, veh/hg/ln)
Notes: TH = through, R = right, L = left.
Common Green and Lost Time due to Downstream Queue Calculations

Common green is calculated between certain movements that can contribute
to excessive downstream queues or demand starvation, depending on the signal
phasing sequence. The adjacent intersection is offset by 10 s from Intersection 2
and by 0 s from Intersection 1. Exhibit 34-89 presents the beginning and end of
each phase at the three intersections and the calculations of common green
between the relevant movements at the three intersections.


Phase 2 68 111 58 111
Phase 3 116 155 116 145
Adjacent Intersection
Phase Phase Begin Phase End
Phase 1 0 33
Phase 2 38 62
Phase 3 67 96
Phase 4 96 155
EB EXT THRU 0 63
53
EB INT THRU 150 53 116 150
WB EXT THRU 150 53
53
WB INT THRU 0 111
SB RAMP 116 155
34
EB INT THRU 150 53 116 150
NB RAMP 58 111
53
WB INT THRU 0 111
WB INT LEFT 68 111
0
EB INT THRU 150 53
EB INT LEFT 116 145
0
WB INT THRU 0 111
EB EXT THRU 0 63
25
ADJ EB THRU 38 97
EB EXT THRU 0 63
0
ADJ SB LEFT 102 126
EB EXT THRU 0 63
0
ADJ NB RIGHT 131 155
ADJ WB THRU 38 97
59
WB INT THRU 0 111
ADJ WB THRU 38 97
0
SB RAMP 116 155
Notes: ADJ = adjacent, EXT = external, INT = internal, THRU = through, EB = eastbound, WB =
westbound, NB = northbound, SB = southbound.
The next step is the calculation of lost time due to downstream queues. At an
adjacent intersection, additional lost time due to interchange operations may
occur at the intersection’s eastbound, southbound left-turn, and northbound
right-turn approaches. Furthermore, the interchange westbound internal link
and southbound ramp may experience additional lost time due to operations at
the adjacent closely spaced intersection.
To estimate whether these approaches experience additional lost time, the
procedure determines the queue at the beginning of the intersection’s eastbound
through arterial phase, southbound left-turn phase, and northbound right-turn
phase. They are calculated by using Equation 23-24 and Equation 23-25. The
resulting queues are subtracted from the downstream link length (link between
the closely spaced intersection and the interchange) to determine the storage at
the beginning of each phase. Exhibit 34-90 presents the calculation of lost time
due to downstream queues. The results indicate that the southbound left-turn
and northbound right-turn movements of the adjacent intersection experience
additional lost time of 2.10 and 3.07 s, respectively.

Interchange Exhibit 34-90

Movement EB EXT-TH SB-L WB EXT-TH NB-L Example Problem 8: Lost Time
VR or VA (veh/h) 191 805 216 822 due to Downstream Queues
NR or NA 1 2 1 2
GR or GA (s) 39 63 53 63
GD (s) 97 97 111 111
C (s) 160 160 160 160
CGUD or CGRD (s) 53 34 53 53
Lost Time due to Downstream Queue
Interchange
Effective Green Adjustment EB EXT-TH SB-L WB EXT-TH NB-L
GR or GA (s) 63 39 63 53
C (s) 160 160 160 160
DQA or DQR (ft) 500 500 500 500
CGUD or CGRD (s) 53 34 53 53
Adjacent Intersection Interchange
Movement EB-TH SB-L NB-R WB INT-TH SB-R
VR or VA (veh/h) 474 804 804 156 795
NR or NA 1 2 2 1 2
GR or GA (s) 48 59 59 39 111
GD (s) 63 63 63 59 59
C (s) 160 160 160 160 160
CGUD or CGRD (s) 25.0 0.0 0.0 15 39
Queue length (QA or QR) (ft) 56.9 102.6 102.6 0.0 91.1
Lost Time due to Downstream Queue
Adjacent Intersection Interchange
Effective Green Adjustment EB-TH SB-L NB-R WB INT-TH SB-R
GR or GA (s) 59 24 24 119 39
C (s) 160 160 160 160 160
DQA or DQR (ft) 243 197 197 300 209
CGUD or CGRD (s) 25.0 29 0 15 39
Additional lost time, LD-A or LD-R (s) 0.00 2.10 3.07 0.0 0.0
Total lost time, t'L (s) 5.00 7.10 8.07 5.0 5.0
Effective green time, g' (s) 59.0 21.9 20.9 119 39
Notes: EXT = external, INT = internal, TH = through, L = left, R = right, EB = eastbound, WB = westbound,
NB = northbound, SB = southbound.

The queue storage ratio is estimated as the average maximum queue divided
by the available queue storage by using Equation 31-154. Exhibit 34-91 and
approaches of the interchange, while Exhibit 34-93 gives the results of all
approaches of the adjacent intersection. The v/c ratio for the respective
movements is also provided in these exhibits.
Control delay for each movement is calculated according to Equation 19-18.
Exhibit 34-94 through Exhibit 34-96 summarize the control delay estimates for all
approaches of the interchange and adjacent signalized intersection.


Example Problem 8: Queue Value EXT-TH&R INT-L INT-TH EXT-TH&R INT-L INT-TH
Storage Ratio for Interchange QbL (ft) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Eastbound and Westbound v (veh/h/ln group) 888 99 897 961 219 820
Movements s (veh/h/ln) 1,835 1,699 1,770 1,819 1,759 1,755
g (s) 63 29 97 63 43 111
g/C 0.39 0.18 0.61 0.39 0.27 0.69
I 1.00 0.75 0.75 1.00 0.68 0.68
c (veh/h/ln group) 1,448 308 2,146 1,448 473 2,435
X = v/c 0.61 0.32 0.42 0.66 0.46 0.34
ra (ft/s2) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
rd (ft/s2) 4 4 4 4 4 4
Ss (mi/h) 5 5 5 5 5 5
Spl (mi/h) 40 40 40 40 40 40
Sa (mi/h) 39.96 39.96 39.96 39.96 39.96 39.96
da (s) 12.04 12.04 12.04 12.04 12.04 12.04
Rp 1.000 1.000 1.333 1.000 1.000 1.333
P 0.39 0.18 0.81 0.39 0.27 0.92
r (s) 97.00 131.00 63.00 97.00 117.00 49.00
tf (s) 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00
q (veh/s) 0.25 0.03 0.25 0.27 0.06 0.23
qg (veh/s) 0.25 0.03 0.33 0.27 0.06 0.30
qr (veh/s) 0.25 0.03 0.12 0.27 0.06 0.06
Q1 (veh) 13.8 3.5 8.5 13.0 7.3 1.1
Q2 (veh) 0.8 0.2 0.1 1.1 0.3 0.1
T 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
Qeo (veh) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
tA 0 0 0 0 0 0
Qe (veh) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Qb (veh) 0 0 0 0 0 0
Q3 (veh) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Q (veh) 14.6 3.7 8.6 14.1 7.6 1.2
Lh (ft) 25 25 25 25 25 25
La (ft) 600 200 500 600 200 500
RQ 0.61 0.46 0.43 0.59 0.95 0.06
Notes: EXT = external, INT = internal, TH = through, L = left, R = right.

Storage Ratio for Interchange QbL (ft) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Northbound and Southbound v (veh/h/ln group) 216 210 191 161
Movements s (veh/h/ln) 1,682 1,651 1,669 1,634
g (s) 53 53 39 39
g/C 0.33 0.33 0.24 0.24
I 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
c (veh/h/ln group) 557 547 407 398
X = v/c 0.39 0.38 0.47 0.40
ra (ft/s2) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
rd (ft/s2) 4 4 4 4
Ss (mi/h) 5 5 5 5
Spl (mi/h) 40 40 40 40
Sa (mi/h) 39.96 39.96 39.96 39.96
da (s) 12.04 12.04 12.04 12.04
Rp 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
P 0.33 0.33 0.24 0.24
r (s) 107.00 107.00 121.00 121.00
tf (s) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
q (veh/s) 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.04
qg (veh/s) 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.04
qr (veh/s) 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.04
Q1 (veh) 6.6 6.4 6.5 5.4
Q2 (veh) 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.3
T 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
Qeo (veh) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
tA 0 0 0 0
Qe (veh) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Qb (veh) 0 0 0 0
Q3 (veh) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Q (veh) 6.9 6.7 7.0 5.7
Lh (ft) 25 25 25 25
La (ft) 400 400 400 400
RQ 0.43 0.42 0.43 0.36

Eastbound Westbound Southbound Exhibit 34-93

Through Through Northbound Through Example Problem 8: Queue
Value & Right Left & Right Left Through Right Left & Right Left Storage Ratio for Adjacent
QbL (ft) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Intersection Movements
v (veh/h/ln group) 866 227 577 309 206 186 108 542 289
s (veh/h/ln) 1,679 1,680 1,650 1,722 1,765 1,580 1,568 1,717 1,654
g (s) 59.0 33 59 33 24.0 20.9 24.0 24 21.9
g/C 0.37 0.21 0.37 0.21 0.15 0.13 0.15 0.15 0.14
I 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
c (veh/h/ln group) 1,288 346 1,218 355 265 237 235 515 248
X = v/c 0.67 0.65 0.47 0.46 0.78 0.90 0.46 1.05 1.28
ra (ft/s2) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
rd (ft/s2) 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
Ss (mi/h) 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
Spl (mi/h) 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40
Sa (mi/h) 39.96 39.96 39.96 39.96 39.96 39.96 39.96 39.96 39.96
da (s) 12.04 12.04 12.04 12.04 12.04 12.04 12.04 12.04 12.04
Rp 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
P 0.37 0.21 0.37 0.21 0.15 0.13 0.15 0.15 0.14
r (s) 101.00 127.00 101.00 127.00 136.00 139.07 136.00 136.00 138.10
tf (s) 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01
q (veh/s) 0.24 0.06 0.16 0.04 0.06 0.05 0.03 0.08 0.08
qg (veh/s) 0.24 0.06 0.16 0.04 0.06 0.05 0.03 0.08 0.08
qr (veh/s) 0.24 0.06 0.16 0.04 0.06 0.05 0.03 0.08 0.08
Q1 (veh) 14.3 8.4 8.7 5.5 8.0 7.4 4.0 10.4 9.2
Q2 (veh) 1.1 0.9 0.5 0.4 1.5 2.3 0.4 5.0 9.7
T 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
Qeo (veh) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.39 15.6
tA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.25 0.25
Qe (veh) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.39 15.6
Qb (veh) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Q3 (veh) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Q (veh) 15.4 9.3 9.1 5.9 9.5 9.8 4.4 15.5 18.8
Lh (ft) 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25
La (ft) 800 200 300 200 800 800 200 800 200
RQ 0.48 1.16 0.76 0.73 0.30 0.30 0.55 0.48 2.36

Value EXT-TH&R INT-L INT-TH EXT-TH&R INT-L INT-TH Example Problem 8: Control
g (s) - 29 97 - 43 111 Delay for Interchange
g' (s) 63 - - 63 - - Eastbound and Westbound
g/C or g'/C 0.39 0.18 0.61 0.39 0.27 0.69 Movements
c (veh/h) 1,448 308 2,146 1,448 473 2,435
X = v/c 0.61 0.32 0.42 0.68 0.46 0.34
d1 (s/veh) 38.8 56.9 16.6 30.6 48.8 2.0
k 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
d2 (s/veh) 3.9 2.1 0.5 5.4 2.2 0.3
d3 (s/veh) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
PF 1.000 1.000 0.560 1.000 1.000 0.283
kmin 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04
u 0 0 0 0 0 0
t 0 0 0 0 0 0
d (s/veh) 42.6 59.0 17.1 36.0 51.0 2.2
Notes: EXT = external, INT = internal, TH = through, L = left, R = right.


Example Problem 8: Control Value Left Right Left Right
Delay for Interchange g (s) - 53 - 39
Northbound and Southbound g' (s) 53 - 39 -
Movements g/C or g'/C 0.33 0.33 0.24 0.24
c (veh/h) 557 547 407 398
X = v/c 0.39 0.38 0.47 0.40
d1 (s/veh) 41.1 41.0 51.7 50.7
k 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
d2 (s/veh) 2.0 2.0 3.8 3.0
d3 (s/veh) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
PF 1 1 1 1
kmin 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04
u 0 0 0 0
t 0 0 0 0
d (s/veh) 43.1 43.0 55.5 53.8
Exhibit 34-96 Eastbound Westbound Southbound

Example Problem 8: Control Through Through Northbound Through
Delay for Adjacent Value & Right Left & Right Left Through Right Left & Right Left
Intersection Movements
g (s) - 33.0 59.0 33.0 24.0 - 24.0 24.0 -
g' (s) 59.0 - - - - 20.9 - - 21.9
g/C or g'/C 0.37 0.21 0.37 0.21 0.15 0.13 0.15 0.15 0.14
c (veh/h) 1,288 346 1,218 355 265 237 235 258 248
X = v/c 0.67 0.65 0.47 0.87 0.78 0.78 0.46 1.05 1.28
d1 (s/veh) 42.5 58.3 38.7 55.6 65.4 68.5 62.1 68.0 69.0
k 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
d2 (s/veh) 6.0 9.3 2.7 4.4 20.0 40.7 6.4 70.6 153.6
d3 (s/veh) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
kmin 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04
u 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
t 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
d (s/veh) 48.5 67.6 41.4 60.0 85.4 109.1 68.4 138.6 226.6
Results
movement utilized by the O-D, as indicated in Equation 23-2. The v/c and queue
storage ratios are checked next. If either of these parameters exceeds 1, the LOS
for all O-Ds that utilize that movement is F. The final delay calculations and
resulting LOS for each O-D and each lane group are presented in Exhibit 34-97
and Exhibit 34-98. As shown, the v/c ratio and RQ for all O-Ds are all below 1, and
therefore the LOS for all O-Ds is determined by using the second column of
Exhibit 23-10. The LOS for each lane group at the adjacent intersection is
assigned on the basis of Chapter 19, Signalized Intersections. After extra
distances are measured according to the Exhibit 23-8 discussion, EDTT can be
obtained from Equation 23-50 [i.e., EDTT = 100 / (1.47 × 35) + 0 = 1.9 s].
terminals.


Movement (s/veh) (s/veh) (s/veh) v/c > 1? RQ > 1? LOS Example Problem 8:
A 45.3 1.9 47.2 No No C Interchange O-D Movement
B 43.0 −1.9 41.1 No No C LOS
C 53.8 −1.9 51.9 No No C
D 72.6 1.9 74.5 No No D
E 98.1 1.9 100.0 No No E
F 39.1 −1.9 37.2 No No C
G 36.0 −1.9 34.1 No No C
H 87.0 1.9 88.9 No No E
I 56.2 0.0 56.2 No No D
J 38.2 0.0 38.2 No No C
Approach Lane Group Control Delay (s) LOS Exhibit 34-98

Through and right 48.5 C Example Problem 8: Adjacent
EB Intersection Movement LOS
Left 67.6 D
Through and right 41.4 C
WB
Left 60.0 D
Through 85.4 E
NB Right 109.1 E
Left 68.4 D
Through and right 138.6 F
SB
Left 226.6 F
Notes: EB = eastbound, WB = westbound, NB = northbound, SB = southbound.
EXAMPLE PROBLEM 9: DIAMOND INTERCHANGE WITH ROUNDABOUTS

The Interchange
The interchange of I-99 (NB/SB) and University Drive (EB/WB) is a diamond
interchange featuring roundabouts. The traffic conditions of the interchange are
provided in Exhibit 34-99.
2%
grade = _________ = Pedestrian Button
Exhibit 34-99
Example Problem 9:
= Lane Width
400 ft
0%
grade = _________ = Through
156 235 134 = Right

855 831
600 ft 186
= Left
= Through + Right
96 600 ft = Left + Through

821
960 210 204
80
= Left + Right
0%
400 ft
400 ft
______________
Street = Left + Through + Right
I-99
_____________
Freeway 2%
grade = _________
D= 500 ft
The Question
What are the control delay and LOS for this interchange?
The Facts
There are no closely spaced intersections to this interchange. This
interchange has 3% heavy vehicles and a PHF of 0.97. During the analysis period,
there is no parking, and no buses, bicycles, or pedestrians utilize the interchange.

Extra distance traveled along each freeway ramp is 100 ft. The grade is 2% on the
NB and SB approaches.
Solution
O-Ds through this diamond interchange are calculated by using the worksheet
provided in Exhibit 34-169 in Section 4. The results of the O-D calculations and
the resulting PHF-adjusted values are presented in Exhibit 34-100.
Exhibit 34-100 Heavy Vehicle–

Example Problem 9: Adjusted PHF-Adjusted Adjusted Demand
O-D Table O-D Movement Demand (veh/h) Demand (veh/h) (pc/h)
A 179 185 191
B 169 174 179
C 122 126 130
D 228 235 242
E 93 96 99
F 78 80 82
G 94 97 100
H 119 123 127
I 509 525 541
J 529 545 561
K 0 0 0
L 0 0 0
M 0 0 0
N 0 0 0
Calculation of Approach Capacity and Control Delay

To estimate the delay of each approach to the roundabout, the procedures
outlined in Section 4 are used to estimate the entering and conflicting flow rates
and the resulting capacity of each approach. Exhibit 34-160 and Exhibit 34-161
are used to determine the entering and conflicting flow rates for each approach
of the interchange. For example, the northbound ramp movement (Number 13 in
Exhibit 34-160) consists of O-D Movements A, B, K, and M at a diamond
interchange (Exhibit 34-161). The conflicting flow (Number 12) consists of O-D
Movements D, E, I, and N. Exhibit 34-101 shows the entering and conflicting flow
for each approach, along with the corresponding capacity and delay.
Exhibit 34-101 Entering Flow Conflicting Flow Capacity Control Delay

Example Problem 9: Approach Approach (pc/h) (pc/h) (pc/h) (s/veh)
Capacity and Delay EB EXT 722 369 782 34.5
Calculations EB INT 882 0 1,130 13.4
WB EXT 788 289 846 33.8
WB INT 879 0 1,130 13.3
NB RAMP 370 882 468 30.9
SB RAMP 372 879 469 31.1
Notes: EXT = external, INT = internal, EB = eastbound, WB = westbound, NB = northbound, SB = southbound.
O-D Movement Control Delay and LOS

Delay for each O-D is estimated as the sum of approach delays for each
approach utilized by the O-D. For example, O-D Movement A will utilize the
northbound ramp approach and westbound internal through approach. Control
delays for these approaches are then summed to estimate control delay for O-D
Movement A. LOS for each O-D is assigned on the basis of Exhibit 23-14. The

resulting control delay and LOS for all movements are shown in Exhibit 34-102.
After extra distances are measured according to the Exhibit 23-8 discussion,
EDTT can be obtained from Equation 23-50 [i.e., EDTT = 100 / (1.47 × 35) + 0 =
1.9 s]. Intersectionwide performance measures are not calculated for interchange
ramp terminals.
O-D Control Delay (s/veh) EDTT (s/veh) ETT (s/veh) LOS Exhibit 34-102
A 44.2 1.9 46.1 D Example Problem 9: Control
B 30.9 −1.9 29.0 C Delay and LOS for Each O-D
C 31.1 −1.9 29.2 C Movement
D 44.5 1.9 46.4 D
E 47.9 1.9 49.8 D
F 34.5 −1.9 32.6 C
G 33.8 −1.9 31.9 C
H 47.1 1.9 49.0 D
I 47.9 0.0 47.9 D
J 47.1 0.0 47.1 D
EXAMPLE PROBLEM 10: OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS FOR TYPE SELECTION

The Interchange
An interchange is to be built at the junction of I-83 (NB/SB) and Archer Road
(EB/WB) in an urban area. The interchange type selection methodology described
in Section 3 is used.
The Question
Which interchange type is likely to operate better under the given demands?
The Facts
This interchange will have two-lane approaches with single left-turn lanes on
the arterial approaches. Freeway ramps will consist of two-lane approaches with
channelized right turns in addition to the main ramp lanes. Default saturation
flow rates for use in the type selection analysis are given in Exhibit 34-151. The
O-D movements of traffic through this interchange are shown in Exhibit 34-103.

Exhibit 34-103 O-D Movement Volume (veh/h)

Example Problem 10: O-D A 400
Demand Information for the B 350
Interchange C 400
D 550
E 150
F 200
G 225
H 185
I 600
J 800
K 2,500
L 3,200
M 0
N 10
Outline of Solution
Mapping O-D Flows into Interchange Movements
The primary objective of this example is to compare up to eight interchange
types against a given set of design volumes. The first step is to convert these O-D
flows into movement flows through the signalized interchange. The interchange
type methodology uses the standard NEMA numbering sequence for
interchange phasing, and Exhibit 34-152 in Section 3 demonstrates which O-Ds
make up each NEMA phase at the eight interchange types. Exhibit 34-104 shows
the corresponding volumes for this example on the basis of the O-Ds from
Exhibit 34-103. Since this interchange has channelized right turns, Exhibit 34-105
shows only the NEMA phasing volumes utilizing the signals.
Exhibit 34-104 Interchange NEMA Phase Movement Number

Example Problem 10: NEMA Type 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Flows (veh/h) for the SPUI 185 800 400 400 150 1,025 560 350
Interchange TUDI /CUDI 185 950 -- 960 160 1,210 -- 750
CDI (I) 185 950 -- 960 -- 1,200 -- --
CDI (II) -- 1,150 -- -- 160 1,210 -- 750
Parclo A-4Q (I) -- 750 -- 960 -- 1,385 -- --
Parclo A-4Q (II) -- 1,310 -- -- -- 985 -- 750
Parclo A-2Q (I) -- 750 -- 960 200 1,385 -- --
Parclo A-2Q (II) 225 1,310 -- -- -- 985 -- 750
Parclo B-4Q (I) 185 950 -- -- -- 1,200 -- --
Parclo B-4Q (II) -- 1,150 -- -- 160 1,210 -- --
Parclo B-2Q (I) 185 950 -- -- -- 1,200 -- 400
Parclo B-2Q (II) -- 1,150 -- 350 160 1,210 -- --
Notes: SPUI = single-point urban interchange, TUDI = tight urban diamond interchange, CUDI = compressed
urban diamond interchange, CDI = conventional diamond interchange, Parclo = partial cloverleaf.
(I) and (II) indicate the intersections within the interchange type.
-- indicates that the movement does not exist in this interchange type.

Interchange NEMA Phase Movement Number Exhibit 34-105

Type 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Example Problem 10: NEMA
SPUI 185 600 400 0 150 1,025 560 350 Flows for the Interchange
TUDI /CUDI 185 750 -- 560 160 1,210 -- 750 Without Channelized Right
CDI (I) 185 750 -- 560 -- 1,200 -- -- Turns
CDI (II) -- 1,150 -- -- 160 1,210 -- 750
Parclo A-4Q (I) -- 750 -- 560 -- 1,385 -- --
Parclo A-4Q (II) -- 1,150 -- -- -- 985 -- 750
Parclo A-2Q (I) -- 750 -- 560 200 1,385 -- --
Parclo A-2Q (II) 225 1,150 -- -- -- 985 -- 750
Parclo B-4Q (I) 185 750 -- -- -- 1,200 -- --
Parclo B-4Q (II) -- 1,150 -- -- 160 1,210 -- --
Parclo B-2Q (I) 185 750 -- -- -- 1,200 -- 400
Parclo B-2Q (II) -- 1,150 -- 350 160 1,210 -- --
Notes: (I) and (II) indicate the intersections within the interchange type.
-- indicates that the movement does not exist in this interchange type.
Computation of Critical Flow Ratios

Comparison between the eight intersection types begins with computation of
the critical flow ratio at each interchange type. The first intersection type to be
calculated is the SPUI by using Equation 34-1. On the basis of the default
saturation flow rate for a SPUI and the values for the NEMA phases, Exhibit 34-
106 shows the output from these calculations for a SPUI. The TUDI critical flow
ratios are calculated by using Equation 34-4. Exhibit 34-107 shows these
calculations for a 300-ft distance between the two TUDI intersections.
Value Signalized Right Turns Channelized Right Turns Exhibit 34-106

Critical flow ratio for the Example Problem 10: SPUI
0.368 0.306 Critical Flow Ratio Calculations
arterial movements, A
Critical flow ratio for the ramp
0.350 0.156
movements, R
Sum of critical flow ratios, Yc 0.718 0.462

Effective flow ratio for Example Problem 10: TUDI
concurrent phase when 0.070 0.070 Critical Flow Ratio Calculations
dictated by travel time, yt
Effective flow ratio for
0.070 0.070
concurrent Phase 3, y3
Effective flow ratio for
0.070 0.070
concurrent Phase 7, y7
Critical flow ratio for the
0.461 0.294
arterial movements, A
0.474 0.315
movements, R

Flow ratio for Phase 2 with Example Problem 10: CUDI
0.264 0.208 Critical Flow Ratio Calculations
consideration of pre-positioning, y2
Flow ratio for Phase 6 with
0.208 0.208
consideration of pre-positioning, y6
Critical flow ratio for the arterial
0.373 0.332
movements, A
0.267 0.156
movements, R

Exhibit 34-109
Value Signalized Right Turns Channelized Right Turns
Example Problem 10: CDI
Critical Flow Ratio Calculations Critical flow ratio for the arterial
0.373 0.333
movements at Intersection I, AI
0.282 0.165
movements at Intersection I, RI
Sum of critical flow ratios at
0.655 0.498
Intersection I, Yc,I
0.430 0.368
movements at Intersection II, AII
0.221 0.118
movements at Intersection II, RII
0.651 0.486
Intersection II, Yc,II
Maximum sum of critical flow ratios,
0.655 0.498
Yc
The CUDI critical flow ratios are calculated by using Equation 34-9. Exhibit
34-108 shows these calculations for a CUDI with the given O-D flows.
The CDI, Parclo A-4Q, Parclo A-2Q, Parclo B-4Q, and Parclo B-2Q all use
separate controllers. For these interchanges the critical flow ratios are calculated
for each intersection, and then the maximum is taken for the overall interchange
critical flow ratio. These numbers are all calculated by using Equation 34-14 and
the default saturation flows. Exhibit 34-109 through Exhibit 34-113 show the
calculations for these interchanges utilizing two controllers.
Exhibit 34-110 Value Signalized Right Turns Channelized Right Turns

Example Problem 10: Parclo Critical flow ratio for the arterial
A-4Q Critical Flow Ratio 0.385 0.333
Calculations Critical flow ratio for the ramp
0.282 0.282
0.667 0.615
0.364 0.333
0.208 0.111
0.572 0.444
0.667 0.615
Yc


Example Problem 10: Parclo
Critical flow ratio for the arterial A-2Q Critical Flow Ratio
0.502 0.451
movements at Intersection I, AI Calculations
0.282 0.165
0.784 0.616
0.430 0.452
0.221 0.111
0.651 0.563
0.784 0.616
Yc

Example Problem 10: Parclo
Critical flow ratio for the arterial B-4Q Critical Flow Ratio
0.373 0.333
movements at Intersection I, AI Calculations
0.000 0.000
0.373 0.333
0.430 0.368
0.000 0.000
0.430 0.368
0.430 0.368
Yc

Critical flow ratio for the arterial Example Problem 10: Parclo
0.373 0.333 B-2Q Critical Flow Ratio
Critical flow ratio for the ramp Calculations
0.111 0.111
0.484 0.444
0.430 0.368
0.103 0.103
0.533 0.471
0.533 0.471
Yc
Estimation of Interchange Delay

Estimation of interchange delay is the final step when interchange types are
compared. On the basis of the critical flow ratios calculated previously, Exhibit
34-159 in Section 3 can be used to calculate the delay at the eight interchange
types. Exhibit 34-114 shows the solutions to these calculations.

Exhibit 34-114 Intersection Interchange Delay dI (s/veh) Interchange Delay dI (s/veh)

Example Problem 10: Type Right Turns Signalized Right Turns Free or YIELD-Controlled
Interchange Delay for the SPUI 62.9 22.0
Eight Interchange Types TUDI 217.7 33.3
CUDI 35.9 27.4
CDI 26.6 21.7
Parclo A-4Q 26.2 21.6
Parclo A-2Q 47.4 29.0
Parclo B-4Q 11.9 11.3
Parclo B-2Q 30.7 29.0
Results
As demonstrated by Exhibit 34-114, a Parclo B-4Q would be the best
interchange type to select in terms of operational performance for the given O-D
flows at this interchange. For the final interchange type selection, however,
additional criteria should be considered, including those related to economic,
environmental, and land use concerns.
EXAMPLE PROBLEM 11: ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS TOOL

This example presents a simulation analysis of the diamond interchange
configuration originally described in Example Problem 1. A few changes have
been made to introduce elements that are beyond the stated limitations of the
interchange ramp terminal procedures. The use of a typical simulation tool to
address the limitations is described in this section. The need to determine
performance measures from analysis of vehicle trajectories was emphasized in
Chapter 7, Interpreting HCM and Alternative Tool Results. Specific procedures
for defining measures in terms of vehicle trajectories were proposed to guide the
development of alternative tools. Pending further development, the example
presented in this chapter applied existing versions of alternative tools and thus
does not reflect the trajectory-based measures described in Chapter 7.
Operational Characteristics
A two-way STOP-controlled (TWSC) intersection was introduced 600 ft west
of the first signalized intersection of the interchange. Ramp metering signals
were installed on both of the freeway entrance ramps. Right-turn storage bays
were introduced on all approaches to the interchange that accommodated right
turns. The demand volumes were modified to introduce conditions that varied
from undersaturated to heavily oversaturated. The signal timing plan was
modified to accommodate the distribution of volumes. Exhibit 34-115 shows the
interchange configuration and demand volumes. The demand volumes are
referenced to the total directional arterial demand d, which varies from 600 to
1,800 veh/h. The turning movement volumes entering and leaving the arterial
have been balanced for continuity of traffic flow. The turning movements
entering and leaving the freeway were set at 25% of the total approach volumes
and were adjusted proportionally to match the arterial demand volumes. The
cross-street entry demand from the TWSC intersection was held constant at 100
veh/h in each direction, with 50% assigned to the left and right turns. No through
vehicles were assigned from the cross street at this intersection.

Exhibit 34-115
Example Problem 11:
Interchange Configuration and
Demand Volumes
Note: TWSC = two-way STOP control.
Exhibit 34-116 shows the signal timing plan for both intersections of the
diamond interchange. A simple three-phase operation at each intersection is
depicted in this table. No attempt has been made to optimize the phasing or
timing since the main purpose of this example is to demonstrate self-aggravating
phenomena that are not recognized by the Chapter 23 procedures. The ramp
metering signals installed on each of the entrance ramps were set to release a
single vehicle at 10-s intervals, giving a capacity of 360 veh/h for each ramp.
Movement Green (s) Yellow (s) All Red (s) Exhibit 34-116
Entry through/left 20 4 1 Example Problem 11: Signal
Entry and exit through/right 45 4 1 Timing Plan
Ramp 20 4 1
Cycle length (s) 100
Summary of Simulation Runs

Operation of this interchange was simulated by using demand volumes d
ranging from 600 veh/h (very undersaturated) to 1,800 veh/h (very
oversaturated). The volume increment was 200 veh/h. Thirty simulations were
run for each condition to capture stochastic variations inherent to simulation.
Two configurations were examined for each of the demand levels:
1. A single intersection at the west end of the diamond interchange and
2. The full diamond interchange with ramp metering.
Both of these configurations are illustrated in Exhibit 34-117. The west
intersection was examined separately to show the difference between a
signalized intersection operating independently and one operating as part of a
diamond interchange with mutual interactions between intersections at each end.

Exhibit 34-117
Example Problem 11: Physical
West intersection
Configurations Examined only
Full diamond
interchange with
ramp metering
Diamond Interchange Operation

Exhibit 34-118 illustrates the self-aggravating effects from interactions among
the two signals that make up the interchange and the ramp metering. Backup
and congestion are observed at high demands on all approaches. The left-turn
bays on the internal interchange segments spill over to block through traffic.
Backup from the ramp metering signals causes additional impediment to traffic
trying to leave the interchange.
Exhibit 34-118
Example Problem 11:
Congested Approaches to
Diamond Interchange
Excessive delays will be associated with the oversaturated operation.

However, for purposes of this example, the reduction in capacity is of more
interest because capacity reductions due to self-aggravating phenomena are not
fully recognized by the Chapter 23 methodology. Proper assessment of delay
with heavy oversaturation would require a more complex procedure involving
multiperiod analysis with possible consideration of route diversion due to the
excessive congestion. Therefore, this example will be limited to examining the

capacity reduction that results from interaction between the elements within this
system. The extent of the capacity reduction will be estimated by the relationship
between demand (input) and discharge (output) on the various segments.
Exhibit 34-119 shows the westbound arterial discharge from the diamond
interchange (through plus left turns) as a function of arterial demand d. Note that
the discharge tracks the demand at low volumes, which indicates that all arrivals
were accommodated. As the demand increases, the discharge levels off at a point
that indicates the capacity of the approach. When the approach is a part of an
isolated intersection, the capacity nears 1,600 veh/h. A much lower capacity
(about 850 veh/h) is attainable in the case of the diamond interchange with ramp
metering. A number of self-aggravating phenomena reduce the capacity. Some
westbound vehicles are unable to enter the east intersection because of backup
from internal westbound left-turn bay spillover. Other westbound vehicles are
unable to exit the interchange because of backup from the ramp metering signal
and because of blockage of the intersection by left-turning exit ramp vehicles.
The net result is a substantial reduction in capacity that would not be evident
from application of the Chapter 23 methodology.
Exhibit 34-120 shows the effect of the demand volume on the southbound
exit ramp discharge at the west signal of the diamond interchange. With an
isolated signal, the discharge levels off at the approach capacity. As shown, the
capacity is reduced slightly when the signal is part of a diamond interchange.
The reduction was not as apparent as it was for the arterial movements because
the blockage effects are not as significant. Some left turns were unable to enter
the intersection because of backup from the east signal. The right turns from the
ramp were not subject to any blockage effects.
2,000 Exhibit 34-119

Example Problem 11:
1,800 Discharge from the Diamond
Interchange Under the Full
1,600
Range of Arterial Demand
Westbound Discharge (veh/h)
1,400
1,200
1,000
800
600
400
200
0
600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 1,800
Arterial Demand, d (veh/h)

Demand Diamond Intersection

Exhibit 34-120 1,000

Example Problem 11:
900
Discharge from the
Southbound Exit Ramp Under
800
the Full Range of Ramp
Demand
Ramp Discharge (veh/h)

700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
300 400 500 600 700 800 900
Ramp Demand (veh/h)
Demand Intersection Diamond
TWSC Intersection Operation

The TWSC analysis procedures prescribed in Chapter 20 recognize the effects
of adjacent signalized intersections to some extent, but they do not address cases
in which an approach is blocked throughout part of a cycle by stationary queues
that prevent vehicles from entering on the minor street. This situation is depicted
in Exhibit 34-121, in which a stationary queue of eastbound vehicles backed up
from the west intersection of the diamond interchange has blocked the entry to
the intersection for three of the four minor-street movements.
Exhibit 34-121
Example Problem 11:
Congested Approaches to the
TWSC Intersection
Exhibit 34-122 shows the minor-street entry as a function of the arterial

demand. Unlike the other movements in this example, the minor-street demand
was kept constant throughout the entire range of arterial demand. According to a
well-established principle of TWSC analysis, the entry capacity for minor-street
movements diminishes with increasing major-street volumes. That phenomenon
is depicted clearly for northbound traffic in Exhibit 34-121. It is evident here that
capacity begins to drop below demand at about 800 veh/h in each arterial
direction. The southbound situation, on the other hand, presents some surprising

results. The southbound left turn is impeded by a queue of westbound vehicles

backed up from the interchange, as expected. The southbound right turn,
assisted by gaps created by the interchange signal, experiences an increase in
capacity, producing entry volumes that exceed the original demand. Animated
graphics indicate that some of the southbound left-turn vehicles were unable to
maneuver into the proper lane. The driver behavior model of the simulation tool
reassigned these vehicles to right turns because of excessive waiting times. This
effect provides a clear example of the difference between simulation modeling
and the analytical approach presented throughout the HCM.
Exhibit 34-122
Example Problem 11: Effect of
Arterial Demand on Minor-
Street Discharge at the TWSC
Intersection
(a) Northbound
(b) Southbound

EXAMPLE PROBLEM 12: FOUR-LEGGED RESTRICTED CROSSING

U-TURN INTERSECTION WITH MERGES
The Intersection
An RCUT with merges in a rural area has four approaches.
The Question
What is the LOS for each of the 12 movements at the intersection?
The Facts
The geometry is as pictured in Exhibit 23-42, with the main street running
east–west. The distance from the main intersection to each U-turn crossover is
2,000 ft. The storage bay length for each left-turn crossover is 300 ft. The PHF is
0.92. Free-flow speed on the major street is 60 mi/h. The truck percentages are
zero, and there are no significant grades on any approach. Exhibit 34-123 shows
the vehicular demands (veh/h).
Exhibit 34-123
Example Problem 12: Turning
Movement Demands
Solution
The solution follows the 10-step procedure outlined in Chapter 23. Once the
v/c ratio, 95% queue-to-storage ratio, and experienced travel time have been
determined for a movement, its LOS will be found by using Exhibit 23-13.
Determination of O-D Demands and Movement Demands

Exhibit 34-124 shows the demands (veh/h) redistributed to the different
junctions of the RCUT.
Exhibit 34-124
Example Problem 12:
Demands Converted to the
RCUT Geometry
Determination of Lane Groups

RCUTs with merges do not have signals, so there is no need to determine
lane or movement groups at each approach. Exhibit 34-125 shows the redistributed
demands converted to flow rates (veh/h) by using the PHF and Equation 23-55.

Exhibit 34-125
Example Problem 12: Flow
Rates in the RCUT Geometry
Determination of Lane Utilization

This step is not needed for an RCUT with merges.
Calculation of Signal Progression Adjustments

This step is not needed for an RCUT with merges.
Calculation of Additional Control-Based Adjustments

For an RCUT with merges, the analyst may use judgment to determine
whether significant weaving delay exists. When significant weaving delay exists,
the analyst must develop an estimate of this delay from field measurements or an
alternative tool and add it to the EDTT estimate calculated later.
Calculation of Junction-Specific Performance Measures

At an RCUT with merges that passes the weaving area tests in Step 5, control
delay is only experienced by the major-street left turns. Use of the methods of
Chapter 20 with the inputs listed above, and with default values for all other
factors provided, produces the following results:
• For the eastbound left turn (at the north main intersection), v/c = 0.18, 95%
queue length = 0.66 veh or 16.5 ft at 25 ft/veh, and control delay = 11.2
s/veh; and
• For the westbound left turn (at the south main intersection), v/c = 0.35, 95%
queue length = 1.58 veh or 39.5 ft at 25 ft/veh, and control delay = 15.0 s/veh.
Calculation of Extra Distance Travel Time

The bottom portion of Exhibit 23-48 shows that at a four-legged RCUT with
merges, extra travel distance is experienced by the left turns from the minor
street and by the through movements on the minor street. Both minor left turns
will experience the same extra distance travel time (EDTT) since the distances
from the main intersection to both U-turn crossovers are the same. Use of
Equation 23-56 results in the following EDTT:
𝐷𝑡 + 𝐷𝑓
𝐸𝐷𝑇𝑇 = +𝑎
1.47 × 𝐹𝐹𝑆
2,000 + 2,000
𝐸𝐷𝑇𝑇 = + 10 = 55.4 s/veh
1.47 × 60
Both minor-street through movements will experience the same EDTT, since
the distances from the main intersection to both U-turn crossovers are the same.
Use of Equation 23-56 results in the following EDTT:

2,000 + 2,000
𝐸𝐷𝑇𝑇 = + 15 = 60.4 s/veh
1.47 × 60
Calculation of Additional Weaving Delay

In this example problem, it is assumed that no significant weaving delay exists,
in the analyst’s judgment. Therefore, there are no adjustments to make in this step.
Calculation of Experienced Travel Time

Experienced travel time (ETT) is computed with Equation 23-58:
𝐸𝑇𝑇 = ∑ 𝑑𝑖 + ∑ 𝐸𝐷𝑇𝑇
The bottom portion of Exhibit 23-48 gives the following:

• For the EB left from the major street, ETT = 11.2 + 0 = 11.2 s/veh.
• For the WB left from the major street, ETT = 15.0 + 0 = 15.0 s/veh.
• For the major-street through movements, ETT = 0 + 0 = 0 s/veh.
• For the major-street right-turn movements, ETT = 0 + 0 = 0 s/veh.
• For the left turns from the minor street, ETT = (0 + 0) + 55.4 = 55.4 s/veh.
• For the through movements from the minor street, ETT = (0 + 0) + 60.4 =
60.4 s/veh.
• For the right turns from the minor street, ETT = 0 + 0 = 0 s/veh.
Determination of Level of Service

The LOS for each movement is obtained with Exhibit 23-13 (it has been
established that the v/c ratio was less than 1.0 at all junctions and that the queue-
to-storage ratios were well below 1.0 for the 300-ft bay lengths provided):
• For the eastbound left from the major street, LOS = B.
• For the westbound left from the major street, LOS = B.
• For the major-street through movements, LOS = A.
• For the major-street right-turn movements, LOS = A.
• For the minor-street left turns, LOS = E.
• For the minor-street through movements, LOS = E.
• For minor-street right turns, LOS = A.
Discussion
The minor-street left-turn and through movements experience LOS E
because of the distances from the main intersection to the U-turn crossovers and
the major-street free-flow speed. Chapter 23 explores the sensitivity of EDTT and
LOS to these factors. It shows that, over typical ranges, there is some change in
EDTT and LOS as a result of these factors but that achievement of a LOS better
than D or E for minor-street left-turn and through movements with this design
will be difficult.

EXAMPLE PROBLEM 13: THREE-LEGGED RESTRICTED CROSSING

U-TURN INTERSECTION WITH STOP SIGNS
The Intersection
An RCUT with STOP signs in a rural area has three approaches.
The Question
What is the LOS for each of the six movements at the intersection?
The Facts
The main street runs north–south. The distance from the main intersections
to the U-turn crossover is 700 ft. The storage bay lengths for the left-turn and U-
turn crossovers are 400 ft. The PHF is 0.90. The free-flow speed on the major
street is 60 mi/h. The truck percentage is 5.9% on the EB approach and 6.1% on
all other approaches. The grade on the EB approach is 2%, there are no
pedestrians, and there are no nearby traffic signals. Exhibit 34-126 shows the
vehicular demands (veh/h).
Exhibit 34-126
Movement Demands
Solution
v/c ratio, queue-to-storage ratio, and experienced travel time have been
determined for a movement, its LOS will be found with Exhibit 23-13.

Exhibit 34-127 shows the demands (veh/h) redistributed to the various

Exhibit 34-127
Example Problem 13:
RCUT Geometry

RCUTs with STOP signs do not have traffic signals, so there is no need to
determine lane or movement groups at each approach. Exhibit 34-128 shows the
redistributed demands converted to flow rates (veh/h) on the basis of the PHF
and Equation 23-55.
Exhibit 34-128

This step is not needed for an RCUT with STOP signs.

This step is not needed for an RCUT with STOP signs.


For this RCUT with STOP signs, no field data on the base critical headway
and base follow-up time are available, so the solution will use the default values
suggested in Chapter 23.

The bottom of Exhibit 23-49 shows that, for a three-legged RCUT with STOP
signs, control delay is experienced by the major-street left-turn and minor-street
left-turn and right-turn vehicles at the main junction and by the minor-street left-
turn vehicles at the U-turn crossover. The methods of Chapter 20, with the inputs
listed above and default values for all other factors, provide the following
results:
• For the eastbound minor-street left-turn and through vehicles at the main
junction, v/c = 0.59, 95% queue length = 3.8 veh or 95 ft at 25 ft/veh, and
control delay = 19.4 s/veh.
• For the northbound major-street left turn at the main junction, v/c = 0.29,
95% queue length = 1.2 veh or 30 ft at 25 ft/veh, and control delay = 12.9
s/veh.
• For the eastbound minor-street left turn at the U-turn crossover, v/c = 0.19,
95% queue length = 0.69 veh or 17 ft at 25 ft/veh, and control delay = 10.0
s/veh.

The bottom portion of Exhibit 23-49 shows that at a three-legged RCUT with
STOP signs, extra travel distance is experienced by the left turns from the minor
street. Use of Equation 23-57 gives the extra distance travel time (EDTT):
𝐷𝑡 + 𝐷𝑓
𝐸𝐷𝑇𝑇 =
1.47 × 𝐹𝐹𝑆
700 + 700
𝐸𝐷𝑇𝑇 = = 15.9 s/veh
1.47 × 60

For an RCUT with STOP signs there are no adjustments to make in this step.

Use of the bottom portion of Exhibit 23-49 gives the following:

• For the northbound left from the major street, ETT = 12.9 + 0 = 12.9 s/veh.
• For the major-street through movements, ETT = 0 + 0 = 0 s/veh.
• For the major-street right-turn movement, ETT = 0 + 0 = 0 s/veh.
• For the left turn from the minor street, ETT = (19.4 + 10.0) + 15.9 = 45.3 s/veh.
• For the right turn from the minor street, ETT = 19.4 + 0 = 19.4 s/veh.


LOS for each movement is obtained with Exhibit 23-13 (it has been
established that the v/c ratio was less than 1.0 at all junctions and that the queue-
to-storage ratios were well below 1.0 for the 400-ft bay lengths provided):
• For the eastbound left from the major street, LOS = B.
• For the major-street through movements, LOS = A.
• For the major-street right-turn movement, LOS = A.
• For the left turn from the minor street, LOS = D.
• For the right turn from the minor street, LOS = B.
Discussion
Interesting factors to examine in this problem are the base critical headway
and base follow-up time at the U-turn crossover and the minor-street left-turn
demand. Recalculation of the example by using the default values for base
critical headway and base follow-up time for minor-street left turns (7.1 s and 3.5
s, respectively) results in control delay at the U-turn crossover rising from 10.0 to
18.6 s/veh. In turn, this changes the EDTT value for the minor-street left-turn
movement to 52.7 s/veh, which is still LOS D. It is apparent that the base critical
headway and base follow-up time values used in the U-turn crossover analysis
could affect LOS by one level.
In general, the RCUT design requires extra travel time for the minor-street
left-turn and through movements while minimizing delays for the major-street
movements. Chapter 23 shows, for the conditions in this example, how far the
minor street can be pushed before it reaches LOS F. In this case, a demand of
more than 250 veh/h minor-street left turns in conjunction with 250 veh/h minor-
street right turns results in LOS F. If these are peak-period flows and typical K-
and D-factors apply, these demand levels translate to annual average daily traffic
values of 8,000 to 10,000 veh/day. Of course, better levels of service can be
achieved on the minor-street approach with an additional lane. Chapter 23 also
illustrates that minor-street left-turn LOS at an RCUT with STOP signs will rarely
achieve better than LOS D. It is apparent that the LOS constraint at an RCUT will
typically be the minor-street approach, which serves more movements than the
major-street left-turn crossover or the U-turn crossover.

EXAMPLE PROBLEM 14: FOUR-LEGGED RESTRICTED CROSSING

U-TURN INTERSECTION WITH SIGNALS
The Intersection
An RCUT with signals in a suburban area has four approaches.
The Question
What is the LOS for each of the 12 movements at the intersection and for the
facility as a whole?
The Facts
to the U-turn crossovers is 800 ft. The storage bay lengths for the left-turn and U-
turn crossovers are 400 ft. The median is 40 ft wide. All crossovers have a single
lane. The major street has two through lanes and exclusive right-turn lanes at the
main junction in each direction. The minor street has two lanes on each of the
approaches to the main junctions. The PHF is 0.93. Free-flow speed on the major
street is 50 mi/h. The truck percentages are 3.7%. Grades are flat on all
approaches. There are no pedestrians, and there are no significant volumes
turning on a red signal. Exhibit 34-129 shows the vehicular demands (veh/h).
The signals are pretimed as part of a longer RCUT corridor. The arrival type
is 6 on the major street at the U-turn crossover signals in both directions and 3 for
the minor street. At both southbound signals, the cycle length is 90 s, with 60 s of
major-street green, 20 s of minor-street or crossover green, 4 s of yellow, and 1 s
of all-red. At both northbound signals, the cycle length is 60 s, with 25 s of major-
street green, 25 s of minor-street or crossover green, 4 s of yellow, and 1 s of all-red.
Exhibit 34-129
Movement Demands
Solution
v/c ratio, queue-to-storage ratio, and experienced travel time have been
determined for a movement, its LOS will be found with Exhibit 23-13.


Exhibit 34-130
Example Problem 14:
RCUT Geometry

Lane and movement groups at each approach are determined with the
methods of Chapter 19. Exhibit 34-131 shows the redistributed demands
converted to flow rates (veh/h) obtained by using the PHF and Equation 23-55.
Exhibit 34-131

With no field data on hand, the default lane distribution is applied to all
approaches to signals.


The top portion of Exhibit 23-51 is used to find arrival types for each
approach to each signal after the first signal encountered.

For this RCUT with signals, no field data are available on the saturation flow
rate for traffic in the U-turn crossover, so the solution will use the default value
of 0.85 suggested in Exhibit 23-52 for a 40-ft median width.

The top portion of Exhibit 23-48 shows that, for a four-legged RCUT with
signals, one to three increments of control delay are experienced by each
movement. The methods of Chapter 19 are applied to calculate these delays, on
the basis of the inputs listed above and defaults for all other values. The results
are shown in Exhibit 34-132.
95% Queue Control Delay Exhibit 34-132

Junction Movement v/c Length (veh) (s/veh) Example Problem 14: Control
North crossover SB through 0.92 4.4 7.6 Delay for Each Junction
WB crossover 0.40 5.0 33.3
West main SB through 0.89 3.2 5.4
intersection SB right turn 0.16 0.2 0.3
EB right turn 0.58 6.4 35.1
NB left turn 0.41 5.7 33.2
South crossover NB through 0.43 1.4 4.1
EB crossover 0.53 5.9 16.1
East main intersection NB through 0.32 1.7 6.4
NB right turn 0.51 3.1 9.1
WB right turn 0.31 2.4 12.4
SB left turn 0.09 0.8 10.8

The top portion of Exhibit 23-48 shows that at a four-legged RCUT with
signals, extra travel distance is experienced by the left turns and through
movements from the minor street. Use of Equation 23-57 gives the following
extra distance travel time (EDTT):
𝐷𝑡 + 𝐷𝑓
𝐸𝐷𝑇𝑇 =
1.47 × 𝑆𝑓
800 + 800
1.47 × 50

For an RCUT with signals, there are no adjustments to make in this step.

Use of the top portion of Exhibit 23-48 gives the results in Exhibit 34-133.

Exhibit 34-133 Control Delay (s/veh) by

Example Problem 14: ETT and Traffic Control Device EDTT ETT
LOS Results Movement First Second Third (s/veh) (s/veh) LOS
NB left 4.1 33.2 None 0 37.3 D
SB left 7.6 10.8 None 0 18.4 B
NB through 4.1 6.4 None 0 10.5 B
SB through 7.6 5.4 None 0 13.0 B
NB right 4.1 9.1 None 0 13.2 B
SB right 7.6 0.3 None 0 7.9 A
EB left 35.1 16.1 6.4 21.8 79.4 E
WB left 12.4 33.3 5.4 21.8 72.9 E
EB through 35.1 16.1 9.1 21.8 82.1 F
WB through 12.4 33.3 0.3 21.8 67.8 E
EB right 35.1 None None 0 35.1 D
WB right 12.4 None None 0 12.4 B

Levels of service for each movement are shown above in Exhibit 34-133. The
results were obtained with Exhibit 23-13, after establishing that the v/c ratio was
less than 1.0 at all junctions and that the queue-to-storage ratios were well below
1.0 for the 400-ft bay lengths provided.
The ETT for the entire intersection is obtained from Equation 23-60:
∑(𝐸𝑇𝑇𝑗 × 𝑣𝑗 )
𝐸𝑇𝑇𝐼 =
∑ 𝑣𝑗
ETTI is 79,900 / 3,500 = 22.8 s/veh, which corresponds to LOS C.
Discussion
One of the concerns at an RCUT is the possibility of uneven lane distribution
on a multilane minor-street approach or a multilane U-turn crossover. The
results above were produced by assuming a relatively even lane distribution on
the two-lane minor-street approaches. On the westbound minor-street approach,
there was a demand of 200 veh/h to turn right and 130 veh/h to turn left or make
a through movement. Placing all of the right-turn vehicles in the right lane and
all of the other vehicles in the left lane would add just 0.3 s/veh of control delay
to those movements, which indicates that for situations like the one in this
example, lane distribution may not matter too much.
The effect of the saturation flow adjustment factor for U-turns can also be
examined. The default suggested in Exhibit 23-52 for this case, with a 40-ft-wide
median, is 0.85. If field data showed that the factor should be 0.8, control delay
for each movement using a crossover would increase by 0.7 to 0.9 s/veh from the
results in Exhibit 34-133. On the other hand, if field data showed that the factor
should be 0.9, the control delay for each movement using a crossover would
decrease by 0.6 to 0.7 s/veh, compared with the results in Exhibit 34-133. Overall,
the U-turn saturation flow adjustment factor only makes a small difference in
this problem.

EXAMPLE PROBLEM 15: FOUR-LEGGED MEDIAN U-TURN

INTERSECTION WITH STOP SIGNS
The Intersection
An MUT with STOP signs at the U-turn crossovers in a suburban area has
four approaches.
The Question
What is the LOS for each of the 12 movements at the intersection?
The Facts
to the U-turn crossovers is 600 ft. The storage bay lengths for the left-turn and U-
turn crossovers are 500 ft. Both U-turn crossovers have a single lane. The major
street has two through lanes at the main junction, with shared right-turn lanes.
The minor street has one through lane and one exclusive right-turn lane on each
approach to the main junction. The PHF is 0.95. Free-flow speed on the major
street is 40 mi/h. The truck percentages are 2.6%. Grades are flat on all
approaches. There are 100 pedestrians per hour on each crosswalk at the main
junction, and there are no turns on red at the signal due to the pedestrians.
Exhibit 34-134 shows the vehicular demands (veh/h). The signal is actuated and
not coordinated. The yellow time is 4 s and the all-red is 1 s. Maximum green
times are 30 s for east–west phases and 50 s for north–south phases.
Exhibit 34-134
Movement Demands and
Average Interval Durations
Green (s) 39.8 18.9

Yellow (s) 4.0 4.0
Red (s) 1.0 1.0
Solution

junctions of the MUT.

Exhibit 34-135
Example Problem 15:
MUT Geometry

Lane and movement groups at each approach are determined with the
methods of Chapter 19. Exhibit 34-136 shows the redistributed demands
converted to flow rates (veh/h) obtained by using the PHF and Equation 23-55.
Exhibit 34-136
Rates in the MUT Geometry


With no field data on hand, the default lane distribution is applied to the
major-street approaches to the signal.

Because the signal is not coordinated, arrival types of 3 will be used on all
approaches to the signal.

For this MUT with STOP signs at the U-turn crossovers, no field data on the
base critical headway and no base follow-up time are available, so the solution
uses the default values suggested in Chapter 23.

The middle portion of Exhibit 23-50 shows that, for a four-legged MUT with
STOP signs at the U-turn crossovers, one to three increments of control delay are
experienced by each movement. The methods of Chapters 19 and 20 are applied,
by using the inputs listed above and defaults for all other values. The results are
shown in Exhibit 34-137.
95% Queue Control Delay Exhibit 34-137

Junction Movement v/c Length (veh) (s/veh) Example Problem 15: Control
North crossover WB crossover 0.78 7.1 34.6 Delay for Each Junction
Main intersection EB through 0.82 10.2 25.1
EB right turn 0.74 7.1 23.7
WB through 0.62 7.5 22.2
WB right turn 0.35 3.0 20.2
NB through 0.58 8.3 9.3
NB right turn 0.58 8.0 9.4
SB through 0.76 12.2 12.3
SB right turn 0.80 12.0 13.7
South crossover EB crossover 0.24 0.9 14.0

The middle portion of Exhibit 23-50 shows that at a four-legged MUT with
STOP signs at the U-turn crossovers, extra travel distance is experienced by the
left turns from the major and minor streets. Use of Equation 23-57 gives the extra
distance travel time (EDTT) as follows:
𝐷𝑡 + 𝐷𝑓
𝐸𝐷𝑇𝑇 =
1.47 × 𝑆𝑓
800 + 800
1.47 × 50

For an MUT, there are no adjustments to make in this step.


Use of the middle portion of Exhibit 23-50 gives the results in Exhibit 34-138.
Exhibit 34-138 Control Delay (s/veh) by

Example Problem 15: ETT and Traffic Control Device EDTT ETT
LOS Results Movement First Second Third (s/veh) (s/veh) LOS
NB left 9.3 34.6 13.7 20.4 78.0 E
SB left 12.3 14.0 9.4 20.4 56.1 E
NB through 9.3 None None 0 9.3 A
SB through 12.3 None None 0 12.3 B
NB right 9.4 None None 0 9.4 A
SB right 13.7 None None 0 13.7 B
EB left 23.7 14.0 9.3 20.4 67.4 E
WB left 20.2 34.6 12.3 20.4 87.5 F
EB through 25.1 None None 0 25.1 C
WB through 22.2 None None 0 22.2 C
EB right 23.7 None None 0 23.7 C
WB right 20.2 None None 0 20.2 C

LOS for each movement is shown above in Exhibit 34-138. The results were
obtained by using Exhibit 23-13, having established that the v/c ratio was less
than 1.0 at all junctions and that the queue-to-storage ratios were well below 1.0
for the 500-ft bay lengths provided.
Discussion
MUT and RCUT intersections are particularly aided by right turns and U-
turns on red because the demands for those movements are relatively higher
than at conventional intersections. If right turns on red were allowed from the
minor-street approaches in this case, where there are exclusive right-turn lanes,
the Chapter 23 example results in Part C show the effects on ETT. If 40% of the
right-turning volume (which includes the traffic that will eventually turn left) is
able to turn on red, with an estimated zero control delay, ETT will be reduced by
more than 11 s/veh for some of the minor-street movements, which will change
LOS by one level in some cases.

EXAMPLE PROBLEM 16: PARTIAL DISPLACED LEFT-TURN

INTERSECTION
The Intersection
The intersection of Speedway Boulevard (east–west) and Campbell Avenue
(north–south) has multiple failing movements and heavy left-turn demands.
Many of the nonfailing movements are close to failing, and future traffic growth
is a concern. Exhibit 34-139 provides the intersection volumes and channelization,
and Exhibit 34-140 provides the signalization information. Volumes (hourly flow
rates) listed in Exhibit 34-139 are only valid during the peak 15-min period.
Exhibit 34-139
Example Problem 16:
Intersection Volumes and
Channelization
(a) Peak 15-min Volumes (veh/h) (b) Lane Channelization
Exhibit 34-140
Example Problem 16:
Intersection Signalization
Green (s) 20.9 5.9 23.0 21.6 4.4 26.0

Yellow (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Red (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
The Question
Will displacing the left turns on the major street significantly improve
performance of this intersection?
The Facts
No other signalized intersections exist within 1 mi. The intersection is
controlled by a fully actuated signal, with no right turns on red allowed. There
are no heavy vehicles, and the PHF is estimated to be 0.92. The start-up lost time
and the extension of effective green are both 2 s for all approaches. During the
analysis period, there is no parking, and no buses, bicycles, or pedestrians utilize
the intersection.

Solution
The analyst wishes to evaluate potential improvements when the east–west
left turns are displaced 350 ft upstream of the main intersection. These upstream
locations are now classified as the supplemental intersections. In the HCM
context, a DLT intersection analysis can be considered an extension of the urban
streets procedure. Thus, definitions of volume, geometric, and signalization data
for an urban street having three intersections are necessary at this stage.
Determination of Movement Demands

Exhibit 34-141 illustrates the demand volumes at each intersection in the
partial DLT configuration. The displaced eastbound and westbound left-turn
volumes are assumed to be zero at the main intersection, according to Step 1 of
the DLT computational procedure. At the western supplemental intersection,
eastbound through (709 veh/h) and right-turn (81 veh/h) demands at the main
intersection are combined into a single through (790 veh/h) demand. Similarly,
three feeding demands (northbound left, westbound through, and southbound
right) at the main intersection are combined into a westbound through (1,285
veh/h) demand. Similar flow aggregations are made at the eastern supplemental
intersection. Exhibit 34-142 illustrates lane geometries in the DLT configuration.
Exhibit 34-141
Rates at the Supplemental
and Main Intersections
Exhibit 34-142
Geometries at the
Supplemental and Main
Intersections
Determination of Lane Groups, Lane Utilization, and Signal Progression

Adjustments
Steps 2 through 4 of the DLT procedure involve lane group determination,
lane utilization, and arrival type adjustments, respectively. Lane group
determination and lane utilization are performed by the Chapter 19, Signalized
Intersections, procedures. Arrival type adjustments are handled by the flow
profile analysis from Chapter 18, Urban Street Segments.


In Step 5 of the DLT procedure, a right-turn saturation flow rate adjustment
factor is applied to the left-turn movements at the supplemental intersections. In
addition, signalization offsets must be set such that displaced left-turn vehicles
always arrive during the guaranteed green window at the main intersection. The
signalization information provided in Exhibit 34-140 should no longer be used in
a potential DLT configuration, because the major-street left-turn phases will no
longer exist at the main intersection. To ensure proper coordination, the
supplemental intersections must have the same cycle length as the main
intersection, and major-street through phases must now be treated as non-
actuated phases. Exhibit 34-143 provides the new timing plans at each
intersection. The new timing plans were generated by an alternative tool for
signal optimization.
Supplemental Intersection Timing Plans Exhibit 34-143

Example Problem 16:
Signalization at the DLT
Intersections
Green (s) 18.7 36.3 17.0 11.8 4.8 16.4 12.7 42.3
Yellow (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Red (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Main Intersection Timing Plan
After the overall new timing plans are determined, the signalization offsets
can be recalculated according to Step 5. The following steps represent the offset
computation process for DLT intersections in Chapter 23:
1. Determine the travel distance for (i.e., segment length of) the displaced
left-turn roadway TDDLT, in feet. The displaced left-turn roadway is the
roadway used by displaced left-turning vehicles as they travel from the
upstream crossover at the supplemental intersection to the stop bar at
the main intersection. In this case, the distance is 350 ft.
2. Compute the left-turn travel time TTDLT with Equation 23-61:
𝑇𝐷𝐷𝐿𝑇
𝑇𝑇𝐷𝐿𝑇 =
𝑆𝑓,𝐷𝐿𝑇 × 1.47
350
𝑇𝑇𝐷𝐿𝑇 = = 6.8 s
35 × 1.47
3. For the upstream supplemental intersection, obtain the duration between
the reference point and the start of the displaced left-turn phase LAGDLT,
in seconds. For the downstream main intersection, obtain the duration
between the reference point and the start of the major-street through
phase LAGTH, in seconds. These durations should be based on input
phase splits instead of output phase durations.
In this example, the reference point at all intersections is assumed to be
the end of the major-street through phase. From Exhibit 34-143, the
supplemental intersection’s displaced left-turn phases always begin

exactly when the major-street through phases end, so that LAGDLT is equal
to zero.
Exhibit 34-143 indicates that at the main intersection, after the major-
street through phase ends, the signal must cycle through all minor-street
phases before reaching a point where the major-street through phase
begins. However, Exhibit 34-143 illustrates average phase durations. To
determine the window of green time that is guaranteed to occur on the
major street, it is necessary to observe what the timing plan would be if
actuated phases were driven to their maximum durations. Exhibit 34-144
illustrates this timing plan.
Exhibit 34-144
Example Problem 16:
Maximum Phase Times at the
Main Intersection
Green (s) 8.0 21.0 1.0 15.0
Yellow (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Red (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Thus LAGTH is equal to 21 + 4 + 1 + 1 + 4 + 1 + 15 + 4 + 1 = 52 s. This means

that the major-street through phase begins 52 s after the reference point.
4. Obtain the offsets at the upstream supplemental intersection OSUPP and
the downstream main intersection OMAIN, both in seconds.
In this example, the initial offsets at all intersections are assumed equal
to 0 s. When an existing DLT intersection having nonzero offsets is
evaluated, the existing offsets would be assigned here.
5. Compute the system start time of the displaced left-turn phase STDLT, in
seconds, for the upstream crossover at the supplemental intersection, by
using Equation 23-62:
𝑆𝑇𝐷𝐿𝑇 = 𝐿𝐴𝐺𝐷𝐿𝑇 + 𝑂𝑆𝑈𝑃𝑃
𝑆𝑇𝐷𝐿𝑇 = 0 + 0 = 0 s
6. Compute the system start time of the major-street through phase STTH at
the main intersection by using Equation 23-63:
𝑆𝑇𝑇𝐻 = 𝐿𝐴𝐺𝑇𝐻 + 𝑂𝑀𝐴𝐼𝑁
𝑆𝑇𝑇𝐻 = 52 + 0 = 52 s
7. Change OSUPP so that STTH is equal to STDLT + TTDLT by using Equation
23-64:
𝑂𝑆𝑈𝑃𝑃 = 𝑂𝑆𝑈𝑃𝑃 − 𝑆𝑇𝐷𝐿𝑇 + 𝑆𝑇𝑇𝐻 − 𝑇𝑇𝐷𝐿𝑇
𝑂𝑆𝑈𝑃𝑃 = 0 − 0 + 52 − 7 = 45 s
8. If the offset value is greater than the background cycle length value,
decrement the offset value by the cycle length C to obtain an equivalent
offset within the valid range.
In this example, the new offset value of 45 s is not greater than the cycle
length value of 65 s.

9. If any offset value is lower than zero, increment the offset value by the
cycle length to obtain an equivalent offset within the valid range.
In this example, the new offset value of 45 s is not lower than zero. Thus,
when the offset is set to 45 s at the supplemental intersections, displaced
left-turn vehicles are expected to pass through the main intersection
without stopping.

After the offset calculation in Step 5, Step 6 of the alternative intersection
procedure estimates the v/c ratio and control delay at each intersection. Steps 7
through 9 are not applicable to DLT intersections, and Step 10 is the LOS
determination.
For the conventional intersection design from Exhibit 34-139, intersection-
wide control delay is calculated as 64.1 s/veh by using Chapter 19 methods. For
the DLT intersection design from Exhibit 34-141, after Steps 1 through 5 of the
alternative intersection procedure are used to adjust the input data, v/c and
control delay for each isolated turn movement can be calculated by using
methods from Chapters 18 and 19. However at the overall DLT facility, turn
movement–specific control delays are encountered sequentially at each
intersection, as shown in Exhibit 34-145.
Move- Flows Delays Products Exhibit 34-145

Example Problem 16:
ment Orig. Int 1 Int 2 Int 3 Int 1 Int 2 Int 3 Int 1 Int 2 Int 3
Weighted Average Control
EB L 761 761 22.5 17,123 0 0 Delays
EB TH 437 859 437 1,352 0.4 41.9 2.5 344 18,310 3,380
EB R 422 422 42.5 0 17,935 0
WB L 486 486 25.7 0 0 12,490
WB TH 340 1,397 340 667 4.0 29.3 0.4 5,588 9,962 267
WB R 328 328 29.7 0 9,742 0
NB L 739 739 23.7 0 17,514 0
NB TH 439 439 19.8 0 8,692 0
NB R 425 425 19.8 0 8,415 0
SB L 500 500 26.2 0 13,100 0
SB TH 364 364 23.4 0 8,518 0
SB R 353 353 23.5 0 8,296 0
Total 5,594 159,675
Avg. 28.5
Notes: EB = eastbound, WB = westbound, NB = northbound, SB = southbound, TH = through, L = left, R = right,
Orig. = original (non-DLT) intersection, Int = intersection, Avg. = average.

Comparison of the conventional intersection delay of 64.1 s/veh with the
alternative intersection delay of 28.5 s/veh indicates that the alternative design is
expected to offer a 55% average delay reduction while processing the same
number (5,594) of vehicle trips. For DLT intersections, experienced travel time
(ETT) can be assumed as equal to control delay. According to the LOS thresholds
given in Chapter 19, Signalized Intersections, the overall DLT intersection would
operate at LOS C, in contrast to the conventional intersection operating at LOS E.
This raises the question of what might happen if left turns could be displaced on
all four intersection approaches. This is the subject of Example Problem 17.

Validity Checks
Chapter 23 cites a number of conditions that would invalidate the DLT
analysis method. If any of these conditions are met, the analysis results are
unreliable, and alternative tool analysis is recommended:
• Displaced left-turn vehicles are significantly delayed at the main
intersection,
• Displaced left-turn approach’s through and left-turning movements are
not served by exactly the same signal phasing and timing,
• Green times at the main intersection are not long enough to serve
displaced left-turning vehicle demands fully, or
• Side street green durations do not exceed the sum of (a) main street travel
time between supplemental and main intersections and (b) displaced left-
turn queue clearance time.
EXAMPLE PROBLEM 17: FULL DISPLACED LEFT-TURN INTERSECTION

The Intersection
The conventional intersection conditions in Example Problem 17 are identical
to those given in Example Problem 16, before DLT conversion.
The Question
Will displacement of left-turn movements on all four approaches
significantly improve performance of this intersection?
The Facts
The facts of the example problem are the same as in Example Problem 16.
Solution
The analyst wishes to evaluate potential improvements when left turns on all
four approaches are displaced 350 ft upstream of the main intersection. In this
case, two partial DLT analyses must be performed: one for the major street and
one for the minor street.
Determination of Movement Demands (East–West Partial DLT Analysis)

Exhibit 34-146 illustrates the major-street flow rates. Displaced left-turn
volumes are again assumed to be zero at the main intersection, according to Step
1 of the DLT computational procedure. Unlike partial DLT intersections, pseudo
right-turn modeling adjustments are needed at full DLT intersections. Minor-
street left-turn lanes have been converted to pseudo right-turn lanes on the
opposite side of the intersection. Similarly, minor-street left-turn volumes have
been combined with right-turn volumes on the opposite side of the intersection.
Exhibit 34-147 further illustrates the lane geometries at all three intersections in
the DLT configuration.

Exhibit 34-146
Rates at the Supplemental
and Main Intersections
Exhibit 34-147
Geometries at the
Supplemental and Main
Intersections
Determination of Lane Groups, Lane Utilization, and Signal Progression

Adjustments (East–West Partial DLT Analysis)
Steps 2 through 4 of the DLT procedure involve lane group determination,
lane utilization, and arrival type adjustments, respectively. Lane group
determination and lane utilization are performed by the Chapter 19, Signalized
Intersections, procedures. Arrival type adjustments should be handled by the
flow profile analysis from Chapter 18, Urban Street Segments.
Determination of Additional Control-Based Adjustments (East–West Partial DLT

Analysis)
In Step 5 of the DLT procedure, a right-turn saturation flow rate adjustment
factor is applied to the left-turn movements at the supplemental intersections. A
left-turn saturation flow rate adjustment factor is applied to both pseudo right-
turn movements at the main intersection. A start-up lost time of 0 s is assumed
for both pseudo right-turn movements at the main intersection.
Signalization offsets must then be set to allow displaced left-turn vehicles to
arrive during the guaranteed green window at the main intersection. The
signalization information provided in Exhibit 34-140 should no longer be used in
a potential DLT configuration, because the major-street left-turn phases will no
longer exist at the main intersection. To ensure proper coordination, the
supplemental intersections must have the same cycle length as the main
intersection. Because of the full DLT configuration, all phases at the main
intersection are nonactuated phases. Exhibit 34-148 illustrates new timing plans
(in units of seconds) at each intersection. The new timing plans were generated
by an alternative tool for signal optimization.

Exhibit 34-148 Supplemental Intersection Timing Plans

Example Problem 17: East–
West Signalization at the DLT
Intersections
Green (s) 13.4 21.6 17.0 18.0 9.2 25.8

Yellow (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Red (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
After the overall new timing plans are determined, signalization offsets can
be recalculated according to Step 5. The following steps represent the offset
computation process for DLT intersections in Chapter 23:
1. Determine the travel distance for (i.e., segment length of) the displaced
left-turn roadway TDDLT, in feet. The displaced left-turn roadway is the
roadway used by displaced left-turning vehicles as they travel from the
upstream crossover at the supplemental intersection to the stop bar at
the main intersection. In this case, the distance is 350 ft.
2. Compute the left-turn travel time TTDLT by using Equation 23-61:
𝑇𝐷𝐷𝐿𝑇
𝑇𝑇𝐷𝐿𝑇 =
𝐹𝐹𝑆𝐷𝐿𝑇 × 1.47
350
𝑇𝑇𝐷𝐿𝑇 = = 6.8 s
35 × 1.47
3. For the upstream supplemental intersection, obtain the duration between
the reference point and the start of the displaced left-turn phase LAGDLT,
in seconds. For the downstream main intersection, obtain the duration
between the reference point and the start of the major-street through
phase LAGTH, in seconds. These durations should be based on input
phase splits instead of output phase durations.
In this example, the reference point at all intersections is assumed to be
the end of the major-street through phase. From Exhibit 34-148, the
supplemental intersection’s displaced left-turn phases always begin
exactly when the major-street through phases end, so that LAGDLT is
equal to zero.
From Exhibit 34-148 at the main intersection, after the major-street
through phase ends, the signal must cycle through the minor-street
phase before reaching a point where the major-street through phase
begins. For partial DLTs, it is necessary to observe what the timing plan
would be if actuated phases were driven to their maximum durations,
but for full DLTs, no phases are allowed to be actuated at the main
intersection. Thus LAGTH is equal to 18 + 4 + 1 = 23 s. This means that the
major-street through phase begins 23 s after the reference point.

4. Obtain the offsets at the upstream supplemental intersection OSUPP and

the downstream main intersection OMAIN, both in seconds.
For this example, the initial offsets at all intersections are assumed equal
to 0 s. When an existing DLT intersection having nonzero offsets is
evaluated, the existing offsets would be assigned here.
5. Compute the system start time of the displaced left-turn phase STDLT, in
seconds, for the upstream crossover at the supplemental intersection by
using Equation 23-62:
𝑆𝑇𝐷𝐿𝑇 = 𝐿𝐴𝐺𝐷𝐿𝑇 + 𝑂𝑆𝑈𝑃𝑃
𝑆𝑇𝐷𝐿𝑇 = 0 + 0 = 0 s
6. Compute the system start time of the major-street through phase STTH at
the main intersection by using Equation 23-63:
𝑆𝑇𝑇𝐻 = 𝐿𝐴𝐺𝑇𝐻 + 𝑂𝑀𝐴𝐼𝑁
𝑆𝑇𝑇𝐻 = 23 + 0 = 23 s
7. Change OSUPP so that STTH is equal to STDLT + TTDLT by using Equation
23-64:
𝑂𝑆𝑈𝑃𝑃 = 𝑂𝑆𝑈𝑃𝑃 − 𝑆𝑇𝐷𝐿𝑇 + 𝑆𝑇𝑇𝐻 − 𝑇𝑇𝐷𝐿𝑇
𝑂𝑆𝑈𝑃𝑃 = 0 − 0 + 23 − 7 = 16 s
8. If the offset value is greater than the background cycle length value,
decrement the offset value by the cycle length C to obtain an equivalent
offset within the valid range.
In this example, the new offset value of 16 s is not greater than the cycle
length value of 45 s.
9. If any offset value is lower than zero, increment the offset value by the
cycle length to obtain an equivalent offset within the valid range.
In this example, the new offset value of 16 is not lower than zero. Thus,
with offset values of 16 s at the east–west supplemental intersections,
displaced left-turn vehicles are expected to pass through the main
intersection without stopping. This completes the input data adjustments
for a partial DLT analysis in the east–west direction.
North–South Partial DLT Analysis

Input data adjustments must now be performed for a second partial DLT
analysis in the north–south direction. The cycle length of 45 s from the east–west
partial DLT analysis must now be applied to the north–south partial DLT
analysis. The main intersection timing plan from Exhibit 34-148 must not be
changed in the north–south partial DLT analysis.
Step 1 of the north–south partial DLT analysis is similar to what was
illustrated in Exhibit 34-146 and Exhibit 34-147. Steps 2 through 4 are again
handled by the Chapter 19, Signalized Intersections, and Chapter 18, Urban
Street Segments, procedures. In Step 5, a right-turn saturation flow rate
adjustment factor is again applied to the supplemental intersection left-turn
movements. A left-turn saturation flow rate adjustment factor is applied to both

pseudo right-turn movements at the main intersection. A start-up lost time of 0 s

is assumed for both pseudo right-turn movements at the main intersection.
Signalization offsets must now be set to allow displaced left-turn vehicles to
arrive during the guaranteed green window at the main intersection. Before the
offsets are calculated, green splits must be optimized in the north–south
direction, while constrained to the cycle length of 45 s. Exhibit 34-149 illustrates
new timing plans (in units of seconds) at each intersection. The new timing plans
were generated by an alternative tool for signal optimization.
After the overall new timing plans are determined, signalization offsets can be
recalculated according to Step 5. The north–south and east–west offset calculations
are mostly identical. However, LAGTH is now equal to 17 + 4 + 1 = 22 s, ultimately
leading to 15-s offsets at the north–south supplemental intersections. With offset
values of 15 s at the north–south supplemental intersections, displaced left-turn
vehicles are expected to pass through the main intersection without stopping.
Exhibit 34-149 Supplemental Intersection Timing Plans

Example Problem 17: North–
South Signalization at the DLT
Intersections
Green (s) 13.3 21.7 17.0 18.0 9.4 25.6

Yellow (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Red (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

After the offset calculation in Step 5, Step 6 of the alternative intersection
procedure estimates the v/c ratio and control delay at each intersection. Steps 7
through 9 are not applicable to DLT intersections, and Step 10 is the LOS
determination.
For the conventional intersection design from Exhibit 34-139, intersectionwide
control delay is calculated as 64.1 s/veh by using Chapter 19’s methods.
For the DLT intersection design, after Steps 1 through 5 of the alternative
intersection procedure are used to adjust the input data, v/c ratio and control
delay for each isolated turn movement can be calculated with methods from
Chapter 19, Signalized Intersections, and Chapter 18, Urban Street Segments.
However, for the overall DLT facility, turn movement–specific control delays are
encountered sequentially at each intersection, as shown in Exhibit 34-150. To
avoid double counting, minor-street performance measures are not tabulated in
either of the two partial DLT analyses.
The full DLT delay computed here (29.0 s/veh) is similar to the partial DLT
delay (28.5 s/veh) from Example Problem 16. For DLT intersections, experienced
travel time can be assumed equal to control delay. According to Chapter 19’s
LOS thresholds, the overall DLT intersection would operate at LOS C, in contrast
to the conventional intersection operating at LOS E.

Since the major-street and minor-street demands were all relatively heavy in
Example Problems 16 and 17, the failure of the full DLT configuration to
outperform the partial DLT configuration was surprising. However, when the
same exercise was performed with 800-ft spacings between supplemental and
main intersections, the full DLT (25.3 s/veh) outperformed the partial DLT (28.4
s/veh) by more than 10%. This shows that the DLT results are sensitive to
intersection spacings and that intersection spacings should be taken into
consideration in designing a new DLT facility.
Exhibit 34-150
Move- Flows Delays
Example Problem 17:
ment Orig. Int 1 Int 2 Int 3 Int 4 Int 5 Int 1 Int 2 Int 3 Int 4 Int 5 Weighted Average Control
EB L 761 761 15.8 Delays
EB TH 437 859 437 1,352 0.6 14.5 10.4
EB R 422 422 14.6
WB L 486 486 17.5
WB TH 340 1,397 340 667 17.9 12.8 0.5
WB R 328 328 12.9
NB L 739 739 15.2
NB TH 439 439 864 1,618 13.1 0.6 14.2
NB R 425 425 13.2
SB L 500 500 17.4
SB TH 364 364 1,226 717 12.2 13.8 0.5
SB R 353 353 12.3
Total 5,594
Products
Movement Int 1 Int 2 Int 3 Int 4 Int 5
EB L 12,024 0 0 0 0
EB TH 515 6,337 14,061 0 0
EB R 0 6,161 0 0 0
WB L 0 0 8,505 0 0
WB TH 25,006 4,352 334 0 0
WB R 0 4,231 0 0 0
NB L 0 0 0 11,233 0
NB TH 0 5,751 0 518 22,976
NB R 0 5,610 0 0 0
SB L 0 0 0 0 8,700
SB TH 0 4,441 0 16,919 359
SB R 0 4,342 0 0 0
Total 162,373
Average 29.0
Notes: EB = eastbound, WB = westbound, NB = northbound, SB = southbound, TH = through, L = left, R = right,
Orig. = original (non-DLT) intersection, Int = intersection.
Validity Checks
Chapter 23 cites a number of conditions that would invalidate the DLT
analysis method. If any of these conditions are met, the analysis results are
unreliable, and alternative tool analysis is recommended:
• Displaced left-turn vehicles are significantly delayed at the main
intersection,
• The displaced left-turn approach’s through and left-turning movements
are not served by exactly the same signal phasing and timing,

• Green times at the main intersection are not large enough to serve
displaced left-turning vehicle demands fully, or
• Side street green durations do not exceed the sum of (a) main street travel
time between supplemental and main intersections and (b) displaced left-
turn queue clearance time.

3. OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS FOR

INTERCHANGE TYPE SELECTION
INTRODUCTION
The operational analysis for interchange type selection can be used to
evaluate the operational performance of various interchange types. It allows the
user to compare eight fundamental types of interchanges for a given set of
demand flows. The eight signalized interchange types covered by the
interchange type selection analysis methodology are as follows:
1. SPUI,
2. Tight urban diamond interchange (TUDI),
3. Compressed urban diamond interchange (CUDI),
4. Conventional diamond interchange (CDI),
5. Parclo A—four quadrants (Parclo A-4Q),
6. Parclo A—two quadrants (Parclo A-2Q),
7. Parclo B—four quadrants (Parclo B-4Q), and
8. Parclo B—two quadrants (Parclo B-2Q).
Other types of signalized interchanges cannot be investigated with this
interchange type selection analysis methodology. Also, the operational analysis
methodology does not distinguish between the TUDI, CUDI, and CDI types. In
general, the interchange type selection analysis methodology categorizes
diamond interchanges by the distance between the centerlines of the ramp
roadways that form the signalized intersections. This distance is generally
between 200 and 400 ft for the TUDI, between 600 and 800 ft for the CUDI, and
between 1,000 and 1,200 ft for the CDI.
The method is based on research (4). The research also provides a
methodology for selecting unsignalized interchanges. Since unsignalized
interchanges are not covered by Chapter 23, users should consult the original
source for this information.
The methodology is based on the estimation of the sums of critical flow
ratios through the interchange and their use to estimate interchange delay. A
combination of simulation and field data was used to develop critical
relationships for the methodology.
The sum of critical flow ratios is based on an identification of all flows served
during a particular signal phase and the determination of maximum flow ratios
among the movements served by that phase. The models are similar to those
used in Chapter 19 for signalized intersections; they are modified to take into
account the fact that each signal phase involves two signalized intersections.
Interchange delay is defined as the total of all control delays experienced by all
interchange movements involved in signalized ramp terminal movements
divided by the sum of all external movement flows. Additional information is
available in the source report (4).
Chapter 34/Interchange Ramp Terminals: Supplemental Operational Analysis for Interchange Type Selection
Because signalization is not specified for an interchange type selection

analysis, the following interchange types are assumed to be operated by a single
signal controller: SPUI, TUDI, and CUDI. All other types are assumed to be
operated by separate controllers at each signalized ramp terminal. In all cases,
optimal signal timing and phasing are assumed.
INPUTS AND APPLICATIONS

This interchange type selection analysis methodology can be used in several
ways:
1. For a given set of O-D interchange movements, eight basic types of
signalized interchanges may be compared on the basis of interchange
delay.
2. For a given type of interchange, the impact of intersection spacing on
interchange delay can be examined (within the range of applicability for
each interchange type).
3. For a given type of interchange, the impact of the number of lanes on
ramp and surface arterial approaches and the movements assigned to
these lanes can be examined, again by using interchange delay as the
measure of effectiveness.
For any of these applications, all interchange O-D movements must be
specified, generally by using full peak-hour volumes. The interchange type
selection methodology is not detailed enough to use flow rates or to consider
such factors as the presence of heavy vehicles.
In addition, for any given computation, the number of lanes assigned to each
phase movement and the distance between the centerlines of the two ramps,
measured along the surface arterial, must be specified.
SATURATION FLOW RATES

Implementation of the interchange type selection methodology requires the
adoption of default values for saturation flow rate. Research (3) suggests the use
of 1,900 veh/hg/ln for some basic cases. However, this is based on a suggested
base saturation flow rate of 2,000 pc/hg/ln, which is higher than the default
values suggested in Chapter 19, Signalized Intersections. For consistency with
the base saturation flow rate of 1,900 pc/hg/ln specified in Chapter 19 and to
recognize the impact of various movements on saturation flow rate, the default
values shown in Exhibit 34-151 are recommended for use in conjunction with the
interchange type selection methodology. Alternatively, if relevant information is
available, the default values provided in Chapter 19 (Exhibit 19-11 and Exhibit
19-12) may be used. Where turning movements are in shared lanes, the
“through” saturation flow rates should be used for analysis.
Operational Analysis for Interchange Type Selection Chapter 34/Interchange Ramp Terminals: Supplemental
Default Saturation Flow Rate (veh/hg/ln) Exhibit 34-151

Default Values of Saturation
Interchange Type Left Turns Through Right Turns
Flow Rate for Use with the
SPUI 1,800 1,800 1,800
Operational Analysis for
TUDI 1,700 1,800 1,800
Interchange Type Selection
CUDI 1,700 1,800 1,800
CDI 1,700 1,800 1,800
Parclo A-4Q 1,700 1,800 1,800
Parclo A-2Q 1,700 1,800 1,800
Parclo B-4Q 1,700 1,800 1,800
Parclo B-2Q 1,700 1,800 1,800
COMPUTATIONAL STEPS
Step 1: Mapping O-D Flows into Interchange Movements
Since the primary objective of an interchange type selection analysis is to
compare up to eight interchange types against a given set of design volumes,
conversion of a given set of design origin and destination volumes to movement
flows through the signalized interchange is necessary first. The methodology
identifies volumes by signal phase by using the standard NEMA numbering
sequence for interchange phasing. Thus, movements are numbered 1 through 8
on the basis of the signal phase that accommodates the movement. Not all
configurations and signalizations include all eight NEMA phases, and for some
interchange forms some movements are not signalized and do not, therefore,
contribute to interchange delay.
As for the operational analysis methodology, to simplify the mapping
process, the freeway is assumed to be oriented north–south and the surface
arterial east–west. If the freeway is oriented in the east–west direction, rotate the
interchange drawing or diagram clockwise until the freeway is in the north–
south direction. In rotating clockwise, the westbound freeway direction becomes
northbound and the eastbound freeway direction becomes southbound; the
northbound arterial direction becomes eastbound and the southbound arterial
direction becomes westbound. The methodology allows for separate
consideration of freeway U-turn movements through the interchange. Thus, 14
basic movements must be mapped for each interchange type.
For interchange types using two controllers, phase movements through the
left (Intersection I) and right (Intersection II) intersections of the interchange are
separately mapped and used in the procedure.
Exhibit 34-152 indicates the appropriate mapping of O-D demand volumes
into phase movement volumes for the eight covered interchange types. The
designation of the O-D demands is shown in Exhibit 34-162. The mapped phase
movement volumes are then used in Step 2 to compute critical flow ratios.
Exhibit 34-152 Interchange NEMA Phase Movement Number

Mapping of Interchange Type 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Origins and Destinations into
SPUI H I+F A+M C E J+G D+N B
Phase Movements for
TUDI /CUDI H+M E+I+F -- D+C+N E+N H+J+G -- A+M+B
Operational Interchange Type
CDI (I) H+M E+I+F -- D+C+N -- J+A -- --
Selection Analysis
CDI (II) -- I+D -- -- E+N H+J+G -- A+M+B
Parclo A-4Q (I) -- E+I -- D+N+C -- J+A+M+H -- --
Parclo A-4Q (II) -- I+D+N+E -- -- -- J+H -- A+M+B
Parclo A-2Q (I) -- E+I -- D+N+C F J+A+H+M -- --
Parclo A-2Q (II) G I+D+E+N -- -- -- H+J -- A+M+B
Parclo B-4Q (I) H+M I+E+F -- -- -- J+A -- --
Parclo B-4Q (II) -- I+D -- -- E+N H+J+G -- --
Parclo B-2Q (I) H+M E+I+F -- -- -- J+A -- C
Parclo B-2Q (II) -- I+D -- B E+N H+J+G -- --
Notes: -- indicates that phase movement does not exist for this interchange configuration.
Bold indicates movements not included when they operate from a separate lane with YIELD or STOP control.
Step 2: Computation of Critical Flow Ratios

The subsections that follow detail the computation of the critical flow ratio Yc
for the interchange for the eight basic configurations covered by this
methodology.
Single-Point Urban Interchange

The phase movements in a SPUI are illustrated in Exhibit 34-153. The sum of
critical flow ratios is estimated as follows:
Equation 34-1 𝑌𝑐 = 𝐴 + 𝑅
with
𝑣1 𝑣2 𝑣5 𝑣6
Equation 34-2 𝐴 = max [( + ),( + )]
𝑠1 𝑛1 𝑠2 𝑛2 𝑠5 𝑛5 𝑠6 𝑛6
𝑣3 𝑣4 𝑣7 𝑣8
Equation 34-3 𝑅 = max [( + ),( + )]
𝑠3 𝑛3 𝑠4 𝑛4 𝑠7 𝑛7 𝑠8 𝑛8
where
Yc = sum of the critical flow ratios,
vi = phase movement volume for phase i (veh/h),
ni = number of lanes serving phase movement i,
si = saturation flow rate for phase movement i (veh/hg/ln),
A = critical flow ratio for the arterial movements, and
R = critical flow ratio for the exit ramp movements.
Exhibit 34-153
Phase Movements in a SPUI
Source: Bonneson et al. (4).
Tight Urban Diamond Interchange

Phase movements in a TUDI are illustrated in Exhibit 34-154.
Exhibit 34-154
Phase Movements in a Tight
Urban or Compressed Urban
Diamond Interchange
The sum of critical flow ratios is computed as follows:

𝑌𝑐 = 𝐴 + 𝑅 Equation 34-4
with
𝑣2 𝑣4 𝑣5
𝐴 = max [( + ) − 𝑦3 , ( + 𝑦7 )] Equation 34-5
𝑠2 𝑛2 𝑠4 𝑛4 𝑠5 𝑛5
𝑣1 𝑣6 𝑣8 Equation 34-6
𝑅 = max [( + 𝑦3 ) , ( + − 𝑦7 )]
𝑠1 𝑛1 𝑠6 𝑛6 𝑠8 𝑛8
𝑣4
𝑦3 = min ( ,𝑦 ) Equation 34-7
𝑠4 𝑛4 𝑡
𝑣8
𝑦7 = min ( ,𝑦 ) Equation 34-8
𝑠8 𝑛8 𝑡
where y3 and y7 are the effective flow ratios for concurrent (or transition) Phases 3
and 7, respectively; and yt is the effective flow ratio for the concurrent phase
when dictated by travel time.
For preliminary design applications, the default values of Exhibit 34-155 are
recommended for yt. The distance between the two intersections is measured
from the centerline of the left ramp roadway to the centerline of the right ramp
roadway.
Distance Between Intersections Dʹ(ft) Default Value for yt Exhibit 34-155

200 0.050 Default Values for yt
300 0.070
400 0.085
For Phase Movements 2 and 6, the number of assigned lanes (n2 and n6) is
related to the arterial left-turn bay design. If the left-turn bay extends back to the
external approach to the interchange, the number of lanes on these external
approaches is the total number of approaching lanes, including the left-turn bay.
If the left-turn bay is provided only on the internal arterial link, n2 or n6, or both,
would not include this lane.
Compressed Urban Diamond Interchange

Exhibit 34-154 illustrates the phase movement volumes for a CUDI. They are
the same as for a TUDI. The sum of critical flow ratios is computed as follows:
Equation 34-9 𝑌𝑐 = 𝐴 + 𝑅
with
𝑣1 𝑣5
Equation 34-10 𝐴 = max [( + 𝑦2 ) , ( + 𝑦6 )]
𝑠1 𝑛1 𝑠5 𝑛5
𝑣4 𝑣8
Equation 34-11 𝑅 = max ( , )
𝑠4 𝑛4 𝑠8 𝑛8
𝑣2 𝑣5
Equation 34-12 𝑦2 = max ( , )
𝑠2 𝑛2 𝑠2
𝑣8 𝑣1
Equation 34-13 𝑦6 = max ( , )
𝑠8 𝑛8 𝑠6
where y2 and y6 are the flow ratios for Phases 2 and 6, respectively, with
consideration of pre-positioning.
All Interchanges with Two Signalized Intersections and Separate Controllers

These interchange types include CDI, Parclo A-4Q, Parclo A-2Q, Parclo B-4Q,
and Parclo B-2Q. The computation of the maximum sum of critical volumes is
the same for each. Each has two signalized intersections, and each is generally
operated with two controllers.
While the equations for estimating the maximum sum of critical volumes are
the same, the phase movement volumes differ for each type of interchange, as
was indicated in Exhibit 34-152. Exhibit 34-156 through Exhibit 34-158 illustrate
the phase movements for each of these interchange types.
Exhibit 34-156
Phase Movements in a CDI
Exhibit 34-157
Phase Movements in Parclo A-
2Q and A-4Q Interchanges
Source: Messer and Bonneson (3).
Exhibit 34-158
Phase Movements in Parclo B-
2Q and B-4Q Interchanges
Source: Messer and Bonneson (3).
For all conventional diamond, Parclo A, and Parclo B interchanges, the sum
of critical flow ratios is computed as follows:
𝑌𝑐,𝑚𝑎𝑥 = max(𝑌𝑐,I , 𝑌𝑐,II ) Equation 34-14
with
𝑌𝑐,I = 𝐴I + 𝑅I Equation 34-15
𝑌𝑐,II = 𝐴II + 𝑅II Equation 34-16
𝑣1 𝑣2 𝑣5 𝑣6 Equation 34-17
𝐴I,II = max [( + ),( + )]
𝑠1 𝑛1 𝑠2 𝑛2 𝑠5 𝑛5 𝑠6 𝑛6
𝑣4 𝑣8 Equation 34-18
𝑅I,II = max ( , )
𝑠4 𝑛4 𝑠8 𝑛8
where
Yc,I = sum of the critical flow ratios for Intersection I,
Yc,II = sum of the critical flow ratios for Intersection II,
Yc,max = sum of the critical flow ratios for the interchange,
AI = critical flow ratio for the arterial movements for Intersection I,
AII = critical flow ratio for the arterial movements for Intersection II,
AI,II = critical flow ratio for the arterial movements for the interchange,
RI = critical flow ratio for the exit-ramp movements for Intersection I,
RII = critical flow ratio for the exit-ramp movements for Intersection II, and
RI,II = critical flow ratio for the exit-ramp movements for the interchange.
Note that when values of AI, AII, RI, and RII are computed, the movement
volumes vary for Intersections I and II, even though the phase movement
designations are the same (Exhibit 34-152).
Some of the phase movement volumes do not exist in either Intersection I or
II. A value of 0 is used for the volume in each case where this occurs.
Step 3: Estimation of Interchange Delay

Interchange delay for each interchange type or design is estimated by using
regression models that were developed primarily from simulation output but
validated with a limited amount of field data (4). In each case, two delay
estimators are provided on the basis of the control of the off-ramp right-turn
movements:
• Case A, used where the right-turn movements from freeway off-ramps
are controlled by the signal.
• Case B, used where the right-turn movements from freeway off-ramps
have a separate lane or lanes that are either free (uncontrolled) or
controlled by a YIELD sign.
For SPUIs, a third condition is added. Where the right turns from the
freeway ramps are controlled by a signal and right turn on red is allowed, both
cases are used, and the results are weighted by the proportions of right turns
made during the red and green indications. Since the signal timing is unknown
for an interchange type selection application, the assumption of a 50%/50% split
is recommended.
This modification, applied only to SPUIs, is necessary due to difficulties
experienced in simulating right turn on red at these interchanges.
Exhibit 34-159 gives the delay equations used to estimate interchange delay
for the eight interchange types covered by the interchange type selection
procedure. In each case, the variables used are defined as follows:
d = interchange delay (s/veh);
Yc = critical or controlling flow ratio from Step 1; and
Dʹ = distance between the two intersections, measured between the
centerlines of the two ramp roadways along the surface arterial (ft).
Exhibit 34-159 also shows the ranges of Dʹ over which these equations are
valid. They generally represent the normal design range for these interchange
types. These equations should be used with great caution beyond these ranges.
Inter- Valid Case B: Exhibit 34-159

change Range Case A: Right Turns Free or Estimation of Interchange
Type of Dʹ (ft) Right Turns Signalized YIELD-Controlled Delay dI for Eight Basic
𝑌𝑐 𝑌𝑐 Interchange Types
SPUI 150–400 15.1 + (16.0 + 0.01𝐷) ( ) 15.1 + (5.9 + 0.008𝐷) ( )
1 − 𝑌𝑐 1 − 𝑌𝑐
𝑌𝑐 𝑌𝑐
TUDI 200–400 13.4 + 14.2 ( ) 13.4 + 12.8 ( )
1 − 𝑌𝑐 1 − 𝑌𝑐
𝑌𝑐 𝑌𝑐
CUDI 600–800 19.2 + [9.4 − 0.011(𝐷 − 700)] ( ) 19.2 + [8.6 − 0.009(𝐷 − 700)] ( )
1 − 𝑌𝑐 1 − 𝑌𝑐
𝑌𝑐 𝑌𝑐
CDI 900–1,300 17.1 + [5.0 − 0.011(𝐷 − 1,100)] ( ) 17.1 + [4.6 − 0.009(𝐷 − 1,100)] ( )
1 − 𝑌𝑐 1 − 𝑌𝑐
𝑌𝑐 𝑌𝑐
Parclo A-4Q 700–1,000 11.7 + [7.8 − 0.011(𝐷 − 800)] (
1 − 𝑌𝑐
) 11.7 + [6.6 − 0.009(𝐷 − 800)] (
1 − 𝑌𝑐
)
𝑌𝑐 𝑌𝑐
Parclo A-2Q 700–1,000 19.1 + [8.3 − 0.011(𝐷 − 800)] (
1 − 𝑌𝑐
) 19.1 + [8.3 − 0.009(𝐷 − 800)] (
1 − 𝑌𝑐
)
𝑌𝑐 𝑌𝑐
Parclo B-4Q 1,000–1,400 9.3 + [3.5 − 0.011(𝐷 − 1,200)] ( ) 9.3 + [3.4 − 0.009(𝐷 − 1,200)] ( )
1 − 𝑌𝑐 1 − 𝑌𝑐
𝑌𝑐 𝑌𝑐
Parclo B-2Q 1,000–1,400 26.2 + [3.9 − 0.011(𝐷 − 1,200)] ( ) 26.2 + [3.2 − 0.009(𝐷 − 1,200)] ( )
1 − 𝑌𝑐 1 − 𝑌𝑐
Delay estimates can be related to LOS. For consistency, the same criteria as
used for the operational analysis methodology (4) are applied. Because LOS F is
based on a v/c ratio greater than 1.00 or a queue storage ratio greater than 1.00,
this interchange type selection methodology will never predict LOS F, because it
does not predict these ratios. Users should be exceedingly cautious of results
when interchange delay exceeds 85 to 90 s/veh.
In evaluating alternative interchange types, the exact distance, Dʹ, may not be
known for each of the alternatives. It is recommended that all lengths be selected
at the midpoint of the range shown in Exhibit 34-159 for this level of analysis.
Interpretation of Results
The output of the interchange type selection procedure for signalized
interchanges is a set of delay predictions for (a) various interchange types, (b)
various distances Dʹ between the two intersections, or (c) various numbers and
assignments of lanes on ramps and the surface arterials.
Although a lower interchange delay is generally better, a final choice must
consider a number of other criteria that are not part of this methodology,
including the following:
• Availability of right-of-way,
• Environmental impacts,
• Social impacts,
• Construction cost, and
• Benefit–cost analysis.
This methodology provides valuable information that can be used, in
conjunction with other analyses, in making an appropriate choice of an interchange
type and some of the primary design parameters. However, the final design will
be based on many other criteria in addition to the output of this methodology.
Users are also cautioned that while the definition of interchange delay is
similar for the interchange type selection methodology and the operational analysis
methodology, different modeling approaches to delay prediction were taken, and
there is no guarantee that the results of the two methodologies will be consistent.
4. O-D AND TURNING MOVEMENTS
O-D AND TURNING MOVEMENTS FOR INTERCHANGES WITH

ROUNDABOUTS
Roundabouts are generally analyzed with the procedures of Chapter 22 of the
HCM. This chapter provides guidance for translating O-D demands into
movement demands at a roundabout to apply the procedures of Chapter 22.
Exhibit 34-160 defines the movements traveling through an interchange with
two roundabouts, while Exhibit 34-161 lists the O-D demands contributing to
each of these movements. For example, for diamond interchanges, O-D
Movements G, H, and J constitute Movement 15 in Exhibit 34-160.
In analyzing interchanges with roundabouts, Exhibit 34-160 and Exhibit 34-
161 should be used to establish the roundabout movements. The procedures of
Chapter 22 should then be applied to estimate the capacity and delay for each
roundabout approach. Finally, Exhibit 23-14 should be used to determine the
LOS for each O-D demand through the interchange.
Exhibit 34-160
Illustration and Notation of
O-D Demands at an
Interchange with
Roundabouts
O-D and Turning Movements Chapter 34/Interchange Ramp Terminals: Supplemental

Movement Diamond Parclo A-2Q Parclo B-2Q Parclo B-4Q Exhibit 34-161
1 C, D, L, N C, D, N -- C Notation of O-D Demands at
Interchanges with
2 D, H, L, M, N D, N H, M, N H, M
Roundabouts
3 E, F, I E, F E, F, I E, F, I
4 D, E, F, H, I, L, M, N D, E, F, I, N E, F, H, I, M E, F, H, I, M
5 -- -- C D, N
6 -- F C --
7 A, H, J, M A, H, J, M A, H, J, M A, H, J, M
8 J, M A, F, H, J, M A, C, H, J, M A, H, J, M
9 -- -- A, B, M A, M
10 -- G B -
11 D, E, I, N D, E, I, N D, E, I, N D, E, I, N
12 D, E, I, N D, E, G, I, N B, D, E D, E, I, N
13 A, B, K, M A, B, M -- B
14 A, E, K, M, N A, M E, N E, N
15 G, H, J G, H, J G, H, J G, H, J
16 A, E, G, H, J, K, M, N A, G, H, J, M E, G, H, J, N E, G, H, J, N
Movement SPUI Parclo AB-4Q Parclo A-4Q Parclo AB-2Q
1 C, D, L, N C C, D, N --
2 D, H, L, M, N H, M D, N H, M
3 E, F, I E, F, I E, F, I E, F, I
4 D, E, I, N E, F, H, I, M D, E, F, I, N E, F, H, I, M
5 A, B, K, M D, N -- C, D, N
6 A, E, K, M, N -- -- C
7 G, H, J A, H, J, M A, H, J, M A, H, J, M
8 A, H, J, M A, H, J, M A, H, J, M A, C, H, J, M
9 -- -- -- --
10 -- -- -- G
11 -- D, E, I, N D, E, I, N D, E, I, N
12 -- D, E, I, N D, E, I, N D, E, G, I, N
13 -- A, B, M A, B, M A, B, M
14 -- A, M A, M A, M
15 -- G, H, J G, H, J G, H, J
16 -- A, G, H, J, M A, G, H, J, M A, G, H, J, M
Note: -- indicates movements that do not exist for a given interchange form.
Chapter 34/Interchange Ramp Terminals: Supplemental O-D and Turning Movements

O-D AND TURNING MOVEMENTS FOR CONVENTIONAL INTERCHANGES

Exhibit 34-162 illustrates how O-D movements can be obtained from turning
movements for each type of interchange considered in this methodology. Exhibit
34-163 through Exhibit 34-177 provide the corresponding calculations for
obtaining turning movements from O-D movements.
Exhibit 34-162
O-D Flows for Each
Interchange Configuration

Input Output Exhibit 34-163

Intersection I Intersection II Worksheet for Obtaining O-D
Turning Turning Movements from Turning
Move- Volume Move- Volume Volume Movements for Parclo A-2Q
Approach ment (veh/h) ment (veh/h) O-D Movement Calculation (veh/h) Interchanges
EXT-LT LT A = (NB LT) – (NB UT)
Eastbound
RT INT-RT B = NB RT
(EB)
EXT-TH INT-TH C = SB RT
LT EXT-LT D = (SB LT) – (SB UT)
Westbound
INT-RT RT E = (EB INT-RT) – (SB UT)
(WB)
INT-TH EXT-TH F = EB EXT-LT
LT LT G = WB EXT-LT
Northbound RT RT H = (WB INT-RT) – (NB UT)
(NB) TH TH I = (EB INT-TH) – (SB LT) + (SB UT)
UT UT J = (WB INT-TH) – (NB LT) + (NB UT)
LT LT K
Southbound RT RT L
(SB) TH TH M = NB UT
UT UT N = SB UT
Notes: LT = left turn, RT = right turn, UT = U-turn, TH = through, INT = internal, EXT = external.
The flows of the two U-turn movements from the freeway (SB UT and NB UT) are user-specified.
Shading indicates movements that do not occur in this interchange form.

Move- Volume Move- Volume Volume Movements for Parclo A-4Q
LT LT A = (NB LT) – (NB UT)
Eastbound
EXT-RT INT-RT B = NB RT
(EB)
LT LT D = (SB LT) – (SB UT)
Westbound
INT-RT EXT-RT E = (EB INT-RT) – (SB UT)
(WB)
INT-TH EXT-TH F = EB EXT-RT
LT LT G = WB EXT-RT
Northbound RT RT H = (WB INT-RT) – (NB UT)
LT LT K
Southbound RT RT L
UT UT N = SB UT
The flows of the two U-turn movements from the freeway (SB UT and NB UT) are user-specified.

Move- Volume Move- Volume Volume Movements for Parclo AB-2Q
LT LT A = (NB LT(II)) – (NB UT(II))
Eastbound
EXT-RT INT-RT B = NB RT(II)
(EB)
EXT-TH INT-TH C = NB LT(I)
INT-LT EXT-LT D = (NB RT(I)) – (NB UT(I))
Westbound
RT RT E = (EB INT-RT) – (NB UT(I))
(WB)
LT(I) LT(II) G = WB EXT-LT
Northbound RT(I) RT(II) H = (WB INT-LT) – (NB UT(II))
(NB) TH TH I = (EB INT-TH) – (NB RT(I)) + (NB UT(I))
UT(I) UT(II) J = (WB INT-TH) – (NB LT(II)) + (NB UT(II))
LT LT K
Southbound RT RT L
(SB) TH TH M = NB UT(II)
UT UT N = NB UT(I)
The flows of the two U-turn movements from the freeway [NB UT(I) and NB UT(II)] are user-specified.

Exhibit 34-166 Input Output

Worksheet for Obtaining O-D Intersection I Intersection II
Movements from Turning Turning Turning
Movements for Parclo AB-4Q Move- Volume Move- Volume Volume
Interchanges Approach ment (veh/h) ment (veh/h) O-D Movement Calculation (veh/h)
LT LT A = (NB LT(II)) – (NB UT(II))
Eastbound
EXT-RT INT-RT B = NB RT(II)
(EB)
EXT-TH INT-TH C = SB RT(I)
INT-LT LT D = (NB RT(I)) – (NB UT(I))
Westbound
RT EXT-RT E = (EB INT-RT) – (NB UT(I))
(WB)
LT LT(II) G = WB EXT-LT
Northbound RT(I) RT(II) H = (WB INT-LT) – (NB UT(II))
(NB) TH TH I = (EB INT-TH) – (NB RT(I)) + (NB UT(I))
UT(I) UT(II) J = (WB INT-TH) – (NB LT(II)) + (NB UT(II))
LT LT K
Southbound RT(I) RT L
(SB) TH TH M = NB UT(II)
UT UT N = NB UT(I)
The flows of the two U-turn movements from the freeway [NB UT(I) and NB UT(II)] are user-specified.

Movements from Turning
Turning Turning
Movements for Parclo B-2Q
Move- Volume Move- Volume Volume
Interchanges
Approach ment (veh/h) ment (veh/h) O-D Movement Calculation (veh/h)
LT INT-LT A = (SB RT) – (SB UT)
Eastbound
EXT-RT RT B = SB LT
(EB)
EXT-TH INT-TH C = NB LT
INT-LT LT D = (NB RT) – (NB UT)
Westbound
RT EXT-RT E = (EB INT-LT) – (NB UT)
(WB)
INT-TH EXT-TH F = (EB EXT-RT)
LT LT G = (WB EXT-RT)
Northbound RT RT H = (WB INT-LT) – (SB UT)
(NB) TH TH I = (EB INT-TH) – (NB RT) + (NB UT)
UT UT J = (WB INT-TH) – (SB RT) + (SB UT)
LT LT K
Southbound RT RT L
(SB) TH TH M = SB UT
UT UT N = NB UT
The flows of the two U-turn movements from the freeway (NB UT and SB UT) are user-specified.

Turning Turning
Interchanges
LT INT-LT A = (SB RT(II)) – (SB UT)
Eastbound
EXT-RT RT B = NB RT(II)
(EB)
EXT-TH INT-TH C = SB RT(I)
INT-LT LT D = (NB RT(I)) – (NB UT)
Westbound
RT EXT-RT E = (EB INT-LT) – (NB UT)
(WB)
LT LT G = WB EXT-RT
Northbound RT(I) RT(II) H = (WB INT-LT) – (SB UT)
(NB) TH TH I = (EB INT-TH) – (NB RT(I)) + (NB UT)
UT UT J = (WB INT-TH) – (SB RT(II)) + (SB UT)
LT LT K
Southbound RT(I) RT(II) L
(SB) TH TH M = SB UT
UT UT N = NB UT


Turning Turning
Movements for Diamond
Interchanges
LT INT-LT A = (NB LT) – (NB UT)
Eastbound
EXT-RT RT B = NB RT
(EB)
INT-LT LT D = (SB LT) – (SB UT)
Westbound
RT EXT-RT E = (EB INT-LT) – (SB UT)
(WB)
LT LT G = WB EXT-RT
Northbound RT RT H = (WB INT-LT) – (NB UT)
LT LT K = NB TH
Southbound RT RT L = SB TH
UT UT N = SB UT

Turning Volume Volume Worksheet for Obtaining O-D
Approach Movement (veh/h) O-D Movement Calculation (veh/h) Movements from Turning
LT A= NB LT Movements for SPUIs
Eastbound
RT B= NB RT
(EB)
TH C= SB RT
LT D= SB LT
Westbound
RT E= EB LT
(WB)
TH F= EB RT
LT G= WB RT
Northbound RT H= WB LT
(NB) TH I= EB TH
UT J= WB TH
LT K= NB TH
Southbound RT L= SB TH
(SB) TH M
UT N
Notes: LT = left turn, RT = right turn, UT = U-turn, TH = through.
The flow of the two U-turn movements from the freeway (NB UT and SB UT) are user-specified.

O-D Intersection I Intersection II Worksheet for Obtaining
Move- Volume Turning Movement Volume Turning Movement Volume Turning Movements from O-D
ment (veh/h) Approach Calculation (veh/h) Calculation (veh/h) Movements for Parclo A-2Q
A EXT-LT = F LT and Parclo A-4Q Interchanges
Eastbound
B RT INT-RT = E+N
(EB)
C EXT-TH = I+E INT-TH = I+D
D LT EXT-LT = G
Westbound
E INT-RT = H+M RT
(WB)
F INT-TH = J+A EXT-TH = J+H
G LT LT = A+M
H Northbound RT RT = B
I (NB) TH TH
J UT UT = M
K LT = D+N LT
L Southbound RT = C RT
M (SB) TH TH
N UT = N UT


Worksheet for Obtaining Intersection I Intersection II
O-D
Turning Movements from O-D
Move- Volume Turning Movement Volume Turning Movement Volume
Movements for Parclo AB-2Q
ment (veh/h) Approach Calculation (veh/h) Calculation (veh/h)
Interchanges
A LT LT
Eastbound
B EXT RT = F INT-RT = E+N
(EB)
D INT-LT = H+M EXT-LT = G
Westbound
E RT RT
(WB)
G LT(I) = C LT(II) = A+M
H Northbound RT(I) = D+N RT(II) = B
I (NB) TH TH
J UT(I) = N UT(II) = M
K LT LT
L Southbound RT RT
M (SB) TH TH
N UT UT

O-D
Movements for Parclo AB-4Q
Interchanges
A LT LT
Eastbound
B EXT RT = F INT-RT = E+N
(EB)
D INT-LT = H+M LT
Westbound
E RT EXT-RT = G
(WB)
G LT LT(II) = A+M
I (NB) TH TH
J UT(I) = N UT(II) = M
K LT LT
L Southbound RT(I) = C RT
M (SB) TH TH
N UT UT

O-D
Interchanges
A LT INT-LT = E+N
Eastbound
B EXT RT = F RT
(EB)
D INT-LT = H+M LT
Westbound
E RT EXT-RT = G
(WB)
G LT = C LT
H Northbound RT = D+N RT
I (NB) TH TH
J UT = N UT
K LT LT = B
L Southbound RT RT = A+M
M (SB) TH TH
N UT UT = M


Intersection I Intersection II Worksheet for Obtaining
O-D
Interchanges
A LT INT-LT = E+N
Eastbound
B EXT RT = F RT
(EB)
D INT-LT = H+M LT
Westbound
E RT EXT-RT = G
(WB)
G LT LT
I (NB) TH TH
J UT = N UT
K LT LT
L Southbound RT(I) = C RT(II) = A+M
M (SB) TH TH
N UT UT = M

Intersection I Intersection II Worksheet for Obtaining
O-D
Movements for Diamond
Interchanges
A LT INT-LT = E+N
Eastbound
B EXT RT = F RT
(EB)
D INT-LT = H+M LT
Westbound
E RT EXT-RT = G
(WB)
G LT LT = A+M
H Northbound RT RT = B
I (NB) TH TH = K
J UT UT = M
K LT = D+N LT
L Southbound RT = C RT
M (SB) TH = L TH
N UT = N UT

O-D Volume Volume Worksheet for Obtaining
Movement (veh/h) Approach Turning Movement Calculation (veh/h) Turning Movements from O-D
Movements for SPUIs
A LT = E
Eastbound
B RT = F
(EB)
C TH = I
D LT = H
Westbound
E RT = G
(WB)
F TH = J
G LT = A
H Northbound RT = B
I (NB) TH = K
J UT
K LT = D
L Southbound RT = C
M (SB) TH = L
N UT
Notes: LT = left turn, RT = right turn, UT = U-turn, TH = through.

5. REFERENCES
1. Elefteriadou, L., C. Fang, R. P. Roess, E. Prassas, J. Yeon, X. Cui, A. Kondyli,

H. Wang, and J. M. Mason. Capacity and Quality of Service of Interchange Ramp
Terminals. Final Report, National Cooperative Highway Research Program
Project 3-60. Pennsylvania State University, University Park, March 2005.
2. Elefteriadou, L., A. Elias, C. Fang, C. Lu, L. Xie, and B. Martin. Validation and
Enhancement of the Highway Capacity Manual’s Interchange Ramp Terminal
Methodology. Final Report, National Cooperative Highway Research Program
Project 3-60A. University of Florida, Gainesville, 2009.
3. Messer, C. J., and J. A. Bonneson. Capacity of Interchange Ramp Terminals. Final
Report, National Cooperative Highway Research Program Project 3-47.
Texas A&M Research Foundation, College Station, April 1997.
4. Bonneson, J., K. Zimmerman, and M. Jacobson. Review and Evaluation of
Interchange Ramp Design Considerations for Facilities Without Frontage Roads.
Research Report 0-4538-1. Cooperative Research Program, Texas
Transportation Institute, Texas A&M University System, College Station,
2004.
5. Federal Highway Administration. EDC2 Intersection and Interchange
Geometrics website. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/everydaycounts/edctwo/
2012/. Accessed Dec. 30, 2014.
6. National Transportation Communications for ITS Protocol: Object Definitions for
Actuated Traffic Signal Controller (ASC) Units–1202. National Electrical
Manufacturers Association, Rosslyn, Va., Jan. 2005.
References Chapter 34/Interchange Ramp Terminals: Supplemental


Chapter 34 - Interchange Ramp Terminals Supplemental - 601

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chapter 34 - Interchange Ramp Terminals Supplemental - 601

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chapter 34 - Interchange Ramp Terminals Supplemental - 601

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

HIGHWAY CAPACITY MANUAL

6 T H E D IT ION | A G U I D E F O R M U LT IM O D A L M OBIL I T Y A N A LYS I S

2. EXAMPLE PROBLEMS......................................................................................... 34-2

3. OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS FOR INTERCHANGE TYPE

Chapter 34/Interchange Ramp Terminals: Supplemental Contents

4. O-D AND TURNING MOVEMENTS ...........................................................34-100

Contents Chapter 34/Interchange Ramp Terminals: Supplemental

Exhibit 34-1 Example Problem Descriptions ........................................................... 34-2

Chapter 34/Interchange Ramp Terminals: Supplemental Contents

Exhibit 34-26 Example Problem 2: Queue Storage Ratio for Northbound

Contents Chapter 34/Interchange Ramp Terminals: Supplemental

Exhibit 34-52 Example Problem 4: Lost Time due to Demand Starvation

Chapter 34/Interchange Ramp Terminals: Supplemental Contents

Exhibit 34-78 Example Problem 7: Queue Storage Ratio for Eastbound

Contents Chapter 34/Interchange Ramp Terminals: Supplemental

Chapter 34/Interchange Ramp Terminals: Supplemental Contents

Exhibit 34-124 Example Problem 12: Demands Converted to the RCUT

Contents Chapter 34/Interchange Ramp Terminals: Supplemental

Chapter 34/Interchange Ramp Terminals: Supplemental Contents

Exhibit 34-173 Worksheet for Obtaining Turning Movements from O-D

Contents Chapter 34/Interchange Ramp Terminals: Supplemental

Chapter 34/Interchange Ramp Terminals: Supplemental Introduction

Exhibit 34-1 Example

INTERSECTION TRAFFIC MOVEMENTS

Exhibit 34-2 Minor Street

Example Problems Chapter 34/Interchange Ramp Terminals: Supplemental

Intersection traffic movements are assigned the right-of-way by the signal

EXAMPLE PROBLEM 1: DIAMOND INTERCHANGE

Intersection I Intersection II Exhibit 34-4

Chapter 34/Interchange Ramp Terminals: Supplemental Example Problems

Exhibit 34-5 O-D Movement Demand (veh/h) PHF-Adjusted Demand (veh/h)

Lane Utilization and Saturation Flow Rate Calculations

Exhibit 34-6 Maximum Lane Lane Utilization

Example Problems Chapter 34/Interchange Ramp Terminals: Supplemental

Eastbound Westbound Exhibit 34-7

Northbound Southbound Exhibit 34-8

Chapter 34/Interchange Ramp Terminals: Supplemental Example Problems

Exhibit 34-9 Intersection I Intersection II

Exhibit 34-10 Movement

Example Problems Chapter 34/Interchange Ramp Terminals: Supplemental

Movement Exhibit 34-11

Queue Storage and Control Delay

Eastbound Movements Westbound Movements Exhibit 34-12

Chapter 34/Interchange Ramp Terminals: Supplemental Example Problems

Exhibit 34-13 Northbound Movements Southbound Movements

Exhibit 34-14 Eastbound Movements Westbound Movements

Example Problems Chapter 34/Interchange Ramp Terminals: Supplemental

Northbound Movements Southbound Movements Exhibit 34-15

O-D Control Delay EDTT ETT Exhibit 34-16

EXAMPLE PROBLEM 2: PARCLO A-2Q INTERCHANGE

Chapter 34/Interchange Ramp Terminals: Supplemental Example Problems

I-75 = Left + Right

Exhibit 34-18 Intersection I Intersection II

Example Problems Chapter 34/Interchange Ramp Terminals: Supplemental

O-D Movement Demand (veh/h) PHF-Adjusted Demand (veh/h) Exhibit 34-19

Lane Utilization and Saturation Flow Rate Calculations

Chapter 34/Interchange Ramp Terminals: Supplemental Example Problems

Exhibit 34-22 Eastbound Westbound

Exhibit 34-23 Intersection I Intersection II

Example Problems Chapter 34/Interchange Ramp Terminals: Supplemental