1

TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, 4th Edition 
Roess, R.P., Prassas, E.S., and McShane, W.R. 
 
Solution to Problems in Chapter 14 
 
Problem 14‐1 
 
The free‐flow speed of a multilane highway is estimated using Equation 14‐6: 
 
FFS = BFFS − f LW − f LC − f M − f A  
 
Where:  BFFS  =  60 mi/h (given) 
    fLW  =  1.9 mi/h (Table 14.5, 11-ft lanes)
fLC  =  0.65 mi/h (Table 14.7, 3 + 6 = 9 ft total lateral clearance) 
    fM  =  1.6 mi/h (Table 14.8, undivided) 
    fA  =  3.75 mi/h (Table 14.9, 15 access pts/mi) 
 
FFS = 60.00 − 1.90 − 0.65 − 3.75 = 53.7 mi / h  
 
Problem 14‐2
 
The free‐flow speed of a freeway is estimated using Equation 14‐5: 
 
FFS = 75.4 − f LW − f LC − 3.22 TRD 0.84  
 
Where:  fLW  =  0.0 mi/h (Table 14.5, 12‐ft lanes) 
    fLC  =  1.6 mi/h (Table 14.6, 2‐ft clearance, 6‐lane freeway) 
    TRD  =  3.5 ramps/mi (given) 
 
FFS = 75.4 − 0.0 − 1.6 − 3.22 (3.5 0.84 ) = 75.4 − 0.0 − 1.6 − 9.2 = 64.6 mi / h  
 
Problem 14‐3
 
(a)  As the total length of the composite grade (2,000+1,000+900 = 3,900 ft) is 
less than 4,000 ft, the average grade methodology may be used. 
 
   
 
 

1
© 2011 Pearson Education, Inc., Upper Saddle River, NJ. All rights reserved. This publication is protected by Copyright and written permission should be obtained
from the publisher prior to any prohibited reproduction, storage in a retrieval system, or transmission in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying,
recording, or likewise. For information regarding permission(s), write to: Rights and Permissions Department, Pearson Education, Inc., Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458.
 2

 
  Rise on 3% Grade:    2,000*0.03  =    60 ft 
  Rise on 2% Grade:    1,000*0.02  =    20 ft 
  Rise on 4% Grade:       900*0.04  =    36 ft 
  Total              116 ft 
 
  Composite Grade = (116/3,900)*100  =  2.97% 
 
(b) As this composite grade is longer than 4,000 ft (10,000 ft), and part of the 
curve  has  a  grade  of  greater  than  4%,  this  grade  must  be  handled  using 
the graphic composite grade methodology illustrated below. 
 

 
 
After  2,000  ft  of  4%  grade,  trucks  will  be  traveling  at  approximately  36 
mi/h.  This is the speed at which trucks enter the 5,000 ft of 3%.  It is as if 
the trucks had been on the 3% grade for approximately 3,800 ft.  Traveling 
another 5,000 ft along this grade, to 8,800 ft, trucks have re‐accelerated to 
an approximate speed of 38 mi/h, at which they now enter the final 3,000 
ft of  5% grade.  Starting  as if they were  approximately  1,800 ft  along the 
5%  grade,  they  travel  another  3,000  ft  to  4,800  ft.    They’re  final  speed  is 
approximately 28 mi/h, and the composite grade is  5%, 10,000 ft long. 
 
(c)  As  the  initial  portion  of  the  grade  is  the  steepest,  the  composite  grade  is 
taken to the end of the first segment:    5%, 4,000 ft. 
 
 

2
© 2011 Pearson Education, Inc., Upper Saddle River, NJ. All rights reserved. This publication is protected by Copyright and written permission should be obtained
from the publisher prior to any prohibited reproduction, storage in a retrieval system, or transmission in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying,
recording, or likewise. For information regarding permission(s), write to: Rights and Permissions Department, Pearson Education, Inc., Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458.
 3

Problem 14‐4
 
From Table 14.11, for rolling terrain, ET = 2.5 and ER = 2.0.  Then: 
 
  PC Equivalents for Trucks:   3,200*0.12*2.5  =     960 pc/h
  PC Equivalents for RVs:    3,200*0.03*2.0  =     192 pc/h 
  PC Equivalents for Cars:    3,200*0.85*1.0  =  2,720 pc/h 
  Total Equivalent Volume:           3,872 pc/h

Problem 14-5

It is necessary to determine the free-flow speed of the subject freeway using Eqn 14-5:

FFS = 75.4 − f LW − f LC − 3.22 TRD 0.84

Where: fLW  =  1.9 mi/h  (Table 14‐5, 11‐ft lanes) 

    fLC  =  0.8 mi/h  (Table 14‐6, 2‐ft clearance, 4 lanes) 
    TRD  =  4.2 ramps/mi (given) 
 
FFS = 75.4 − 1.9 − 0.8 − 3.22 (4.2 ) = 62.0 mi / h
0.84

From 14.10, the 60-mi/h speed-flow relationship is used for this freeway.

Service flow rate are computed using Eqn 14-2; service volumes are computed using Eqn
14-3:

SF = MSF *N * f HV * f p
SV = SF * PHF

Maximum service flow rates (MSF) are selected from Table 14.3 for a FFS of 60 mi/h:

LOS A – 660 pc/h/ln; LOS B – 1,080 pc/h/ln; LOS C – 1,560 pc/h/ln; LOS D – 2,010
pc/h/ln; LOS E - 2,300 pc/h/ln.

The heavy vehicle factor is based upon passenger car equivalents for trucks on a 4%
grade of 1.5 miles. The pce values are different for the upgrade and the downgrade.

ET (upgrade) = 3.75 (Table 14.12, 4% grade, 1.5 mi, 3% trucks interpolated) 
ET (dngrade) = 1.50 (Table 14.14, 4% grade, < 4mi, 3% trucks extrapolated) 
 
 
 

3
© 2011 Pearson Education, Inc., Upper Saddle River, NJ. All rights reserved. This publication is protected by Copyright and written permission should be obtained
from the publisher prior to any prohibited reproduction, storage in a retrieval system, or transmission in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying,
recording, or likewise. For information regarding permission(s), write to: Rights and Permissions Department, Pearson Education, Inc., Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458.
 4

Then, using Eqn 14.9: 
 
1
f HV =
1 + PT ( ET − 1) + PR ( E R − 1)
1
f HV (upgrade) = = 0.924  
1 + 0.03 (3.75 − 1)
1
f HV (dngrade) = = 0.985
1 + 0.03 (1.5 − 1)
 
The PHF is given as 0.92, there are 4 lanes in each direction on the freeway, and 
the  driver  population  adjustment  factor  (fp)  is  1.00  for  a  normal  driver 
population.    Equations  14‐2  and  14‐3  are  implemented  in  the  spreadsheet  table 
shown below. 
 

 
 
Problem 14‐6 
 
To determine  the probable LOS for this existing  6‐lane  multilane  highway  with 
FFS = 45 mi/h, the equivalent ideal lane flow must be determined using Eqn 14‐1: 
 
V
vp =  
PHF * N * f HV * f p
 
Where:  V  =  4,000 veh/h (given) 
    PHF  =  0.88 (given) 
    N  =  3 lanes (given) 
    fp  =  1.00 (normal driver population assumed) 

4
© 2011 Pearson Education, Inc., Upper Saddle River, NJ. All rights reserved. This publication is protected by Copyright and written permission should be obtained
from the publisher prior to any prohibited reproduction, storage in a retrieval system, or transmission in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying,
recording, or likewise. For information regarding permission(s), write to: Rights and Permissions Department, Pearson Education, Inc., Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458.
 5

Then:    ET  =  2.5 (Table 14.11, Rolling Terrain) 

 
1
And:    f HV = = 0.847  
1 + 0.12 ( 2.5 − 1)
 
4,000
Then:    vp = = 1,789 pc / h / ln  
0.88 * 3 * 0.847 * 1
 
Comparing  this  to  the  MSF  values  of  Table  14.4  for  a  FFS  of  45  mi/h,  it  is  seen 
that the LOS is E. 
 
Problem 14‐7 
 
This is a design application for a section of freeway that goes from level terrain to 
a sustained 5%, 2‐mile grade.   LOS C is the design target.  The number of lanes 
needed to provide this on the (a) upgrade, (b) downgrade, and (c) level terrain is 
needed.   Equation 14‐4 is used: 
 
DDHV
N=  
PHF * MSF * f HV * f p
 
The FFS of the facility is needed to begin: 
 
FFS = 75.4 − f LW − f LC − 3.22 TRD 0.84
 
FFS = 75.4 − 0 − 0 − 3.22 (0.5 0.84 ) = 75.4 − 1.8 = 73.6 mi / h SAY 75 mi / h
 
DDHV  =  2,500 veh/h (given) 
MSFC    =  1,750 pc/h/ln (Table 14.3, FFS = 75 mi/h) 
PHF    =  0.92 (given) 
fp    =  1.00 (normal driver population assumed) 
 
There may be as many as three different heavy vehicle adjustment factors for the 
three segments to be analyzed.  They are based upon the appropriate passenger 
car equivalents for trucks and RVs.    Level terrain values are selected from Table 
14.11;  upgrade  (5%,  2  mi)  values  are  selected  from  Table  14.12  for  trucks  and 
14.13  for  RVs;  downgrade  values  are  selected  from  Table  14.14  for  trucks  and 
Table 14.11 for RVs (level terrain assumed for downgrade).  The resulting values 
are shown in the table that follows: 
 

5
© 2011 Pearson Education, Inc., Upper Saddle River, NJ. All rights reserved. This publication is protected by Copyright and written permission should be obtained
from the publisher prior to any prohibited reproduction, storage in a retrieval system, or transmission in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying,
recording, or likewise. For information regarding permission(s), write to: Rights and Permissions Department, Pearson Education, Inc., Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458.
 6

Equivalent  Level  Upgrade  Downgrade 

ET 1.5  2.5  1.5 
ER 1.2  4.5  1.2 
 
Then: 
 
1
f HV (level / downgrade) = = 0.949
1 + 0.10 (1.5 − 1) + 0.02 (1.2 − 1)
 
1
f HV (upgrade) = = 0.820
1 + 0.10 (2.5 − 1) + 0.02 (4.5 − 1)
 
Then: 
 
2,500
N level / down = = 1.6 lanes, SAY 2 lanes
0.92 *1,750 * 0.949 *1
 
2,500
N upgrade = = 1.9 lanes, SAY 2 lanes
0.92 *1,750 * 0.820 *1
 
It appears that the provision of a 4‐lane freeway will be sufficient to deliver LOS 
C on all of the defined segments. 
   
Problem 14‐8
 
This question concerns an old freeway with projected traffic growth in the future.  
It asks for an evaluation of LOS at various future time‐points.  The easiest way to 
approach  this  problem  is  to  create  a  table  of  service  volumes  for  the  freeway 
which can be matched against future demand levels. 
 
It is first necessary to estimate the FFS of the freeway using Eqn 14‐5: 
 
FFS = 75.4 − f LW − f LC − 3.22 TRD 0.84  
 
Where:  fLW  =  1.9 mi/h (Table 14.5, 11-ft lanes)
fLC  =  3.6 mi/h (Table 14.6, 0‐ft clearance, 2 lanes) 
    TRD  =  4.5 ramps/mi (given) 
 
FFS = 75.4 − 1.9 − 3.6 − 3.22 (4.5 084 ) = 58.5 mi / h, SAY 60 mi / h  
 
 

6
© 2011 Pearson Education, Inc., Upper Saddle River, NJ. All rights reserved. This publication is protected by Copyright and written permission should be obtained
from the publisher prior to any prohibited reproduction, storage in a retrieval system, or transmission in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying,
recording, or likewise. For information regarding permission(s), write to: Rights and Permissions Department, Pearson Education, Inc., Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458.
 7

Then, using Equations 14‐2 and 14‐3: 
 
SF = MSF *N * f HV * f p
SV = SF * PHF

Where:  N  =  2 lanes (given) 
    PHF  =  0.90 (given) 
    fp  =  1.00 (normal driver population assumed) 
    ET  =  2.5  (Table 14.11, rolling terrain) 
    fHV  =  1/[1+0.07(2.5‐1)] = 0.905 
 
and values of MSF are selected for each LOS from Table 14.3 for a FFS or 60 mi/h: 
 
LOS A – 660; LOS B – 1080; LOS C – 1560; LOS D – 2010; LOS E = 2300. 
 
Equations 14‐3 and 14‐4 are implemented in the spreadsheet table shown below: 
 

 
 
These values must be compared to the projected demand volumes over the next 
20 years to determine the likely LOS that will exist: 
 
Current Volume   =  2,100         =  2,100 veh/h (LOS C) 
5‐Year Forecast   =  2,100*1.03    
5   =  2,434 veh/h (LOS C) 
10‐Year Forecast  =  2,100*1.03    
10   =  2,822 veh/h (LOS D) 
15‐Year Forecast  =  2,100*1.03    
15   =  3,271 veh/h (LOS D) 
20‐Year Forecast  =  2,100*1.03    
20   =  3,792 veh/h (LOS F) 
 
The  demand  volume will  exceed  capacity  somewhere  in  the  period  between  15 
and 20 years, near 20 years.  Given the lead time for most major re‐construction 
projects, planning should begin no later than year 10. 
 
 
 
 

7
© 2011 Pearson Education, Inc., Upper Saddle River, NJ. All rights reserved. This publication is protected by Copyright and written permission should be obtained
from the publisher prior to any prohibited reproduction, storage in a retrieval system, or transmission in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying,
recording, or likewise. For information regarding permission(s), write to: Rights and Permissions Department, Pearson Education, Inc., Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458.
 8

Problem 14‐9 
 
The headway data shown is based upon 160 passenger cars and 40 trucks in the 
traffic  stream.      This  represents  a  truck  population  of  (40/200)*100  =  20%.    If  all 
headways  are  considered  separately,  Equation  14‐14  is  used  to  compute  the 
equivalent: 
 
(1 − PT ) (hPT + hTP − hPP ) + PT hTT
ET =
hPP
 
(1 − 0.20) (3.8 + 4.3 − 3.1) + 0.20 * 4.9
ET = = 1.61
3.1
 
If  only  the  trailing  vehicle  type  matters,  average  headways  for  each  are  as 
follows: 
 
(128 * 3.1) + (32 * 3.8)
hP = = 3.24
160
 
(32 * 4.3) + (8 * 4.9)
hT = = 4.42
40
 
The equivalent is then found using Equation 14‐15: 
 
h 4.42
ET = T = = 1.36  
hP 3.24
 
The two are different precisely because headways clearly depend upon both the 
lead and trailing vehicle types. 

8
© 2011 Pearson Education, Inc., Upper Saddle River, NJ. All rights reserved. This publication is protected by Copyright and written permission should be obtained
from the publisher prior to any prohibited reproduction, storage in a retrieval system, or transmission in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying,
recording, or likewise. For information regarding permission(s), write to: Rights and Permissions Department, Pearson Education, Inc., Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458.