Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis

CHAPTER 20
TWO-WAY STOP-CONTROLLED INTERSECTIONS

CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 20-1

Chapter Organization ........................................................................................ 20-1
Related HCM Content........................................................................................ 20-2

2. CONCEPTS ............................................................................................................. 20-3

Intersection Analysis Boundaries and Travel Modes .................................... 20-3
Gap Acceptance Theory ..................................................................................... 20-4
Level-of-Service Criteria .................................................................................... 20-6

3. MOTORIZED VEHICLE CORE METHODOLOGY ....................................... 20-7

Scope of the Methodology ................................................................................. 20-7
Required Input Data And Sources ..................................................................20-10
Computational Steps .........................................................................................20-11

4. EXTENSION TO THE MOTORIZED VEHICLE METHODOLOGY ........ 20-37

Introduction........................................................................................................20-37
Replacement Steps to Incorporate Pedestrian Effects on Motorized
Vehicle Capacity .........................................................................................20-37

5. PEDESTRIAN MODE ......................................................................................... 20-41

Scope of the Methodology ................................................................................20-41
Required Input Data And Sources ..................................................................20-42
Computational Steps .........................................................................................20-43

6. BICYCLE MODE .................................................................................................. 20-53

7. APPLICATIONS .................................................................................................. 20-54

Types of Analysis ..............................................................................................20-54
Example Problems .............................................................................................20-54
Example Results .................................................................................................20-55

8. REFERENCES ....................................................................................................... 20-57

Chapter 20/Two-Way STOP-Controlled Intersections Contents

Version 7.0 Page 20-i
Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis

LIST OF EXHIBITS

Exhibit 20-1 Vehicular and Pedestrian Movements at a TWSC

Intersection ...........................................................................................................20-5
Exhibit 20-2 LOS Criteria: Motorized Vehicle Mode .............................................20-6
Exhibit 20-3 LOS Criteria: Pedestrian Mode ...........................................................20-6
Exhibit 20-4 Limitations of the HCM TWSC Intersection Motorized
Vehicle Procedure ................................................................................................20-8
Exhibit 20-5 Required Input Data, Potential Data Sources, and Default
Values for TWSC Motorized Vehicle Analysis ..............................................20-10
Exhibit 20-6 TWSC Intersection Methodology......................................................20-11
Exhibit 20-7 Illustration of Conflicting Movements for Major-Street Left-
Turn Movements................................................................................................20-13
Exhibit 20-8 Conflicting Flow Factors for Major-Street Left-Turn
Movements 1 and 4............................................................................................20-13
Exhibit 20-9 Illustration of Conflicting Movements for Minor-Street
Right-Turn Movements.....................................................................................20-14
Exhibit 20-10 Conflicting Flow Factors for Minor-Street Right-Turn
Movements 9 and 12..........................................................................................20-15
Exhibit 20-11 Illustration of Conflicting Movements for Major-Street
U-Turn Movements ...........................................................................................20-15
Exhibit 20-12 Conflicting Flow Factors for Major-Street U-Turn
Movements 1U and 4U .....................................................................................20-16
Exhibit 20-13 Illustration of Conflicting Movements for Minor-Street
Through Movements .........................................................................................20-17
Exhibit 20-14 Conflicting Flow Factors for Minor-Street Through
Movements 8 and 11..........................................................................................20-18
Exhibit 20-15 Illustration of Conflicting Movements for Minor-Street
Left-Turn Movements .......................................................................................20-19
Exhibit 20-16 Conflicting Flow Factors for Minor-Street Left-Turn
Movements 7 and 10..........................................................................................20-20
Exhibit 20-17 Base Critical Headways for TWSC Intersections ..........................20-21
Exhibit 20-18 Base Follow-Up Headways for TWSC Intersections ....................20-22
Exhibit 20-19 Proportion of Analysis Period Blocked for Each Movement ......20-23
Exhibit 20-20 Short Left-Turn Pocket on Major-Street Approach ......................20-26
Exhibit 20-21 Capacity of a Flared-Lane Approach .............................................20-30
Exhibit 20-22 Relative Pedestrian–Vehicle Hierarchy for Rank 2
Movements .........................................................................................................20-38
Exhibit 20-23 Relative Pedestrian–Vehicle Hierarchy for Rank 3
Movements .........................................................................................................20-39

Contents Chapter 20/Two-Way STOP-Controlled Intersections

Page 20-ii Version 7.0
 Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis

Exhibit 20-24 Relative Pedestrian–Vehicle Hierarchy for Rank 4

Movements ......................................................................................................... 20-40
Exhibit 20-25 Limitations of the HCM TWSC Pedestrian Procedure ................ 20-42
Exhibit 20-26 Required Input Data, Potential Data Sources, and Default
Values for TWSC Pedestrian Analysis ............................................................ 20-42
Exhibit 20-27 TWSC Pedestrian Methodology ..................................................... 20-43
Exhibit 20-28 Effect of Pedestrian Crossing Treatments on Motorist Yield
Rates .................................................................................................................... 20-47
Exhibit 20-29 Interpretation of Different Levels of Pedestrian Control
Delay ................................................................................................................... 20-50

Chapter 20/Two-Way STOP-Controlled Intersections Contents

Version 7.0 Page 20-iii
 Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis

1. INTRODUCTION

Two-way STOP-controlled (TWSC) intersections are common in the United VOLUME 3: INTERRUPTED FLOW
16. Urban Street Facilities
States. One typical configuration is a four-leg intersection in which one street— 17. Urban Street Reliability and
the major street—is uncontrolled, and the other street—the minor street—is ATDM
18. Urban Street Segments
controlled by STOP signs. The other typical configuration is a three-leg 19. Signalized Intersections
intersection in which the single minor-street approach (i.e., the stem of the T 20. TWSC Intersections
21. AWSC Intersections
configuration) is controlled by a STOP sign. Minor-street approaches can be public 22. Roundabouts
streets or private driveways. This chapter presents concepts and procedures for 23. Ramp Terminals and Alternative
Intersections
analyzing these types of intersections. Chapter 9 provides a glossary and list of 24. Off-Street Pedestrian and Bicycle
symbols, including those used for TWSC intersections. Facilities

Capacity analysis of TWSC intersections requires a clear description and Three-leg intersections in
which the stem of the T is
understanding of the interaction between travelers on the minor (i.e., STOP- controlled by a STOP sign are
controlled) approach with travelers on the major street. Both analytical and considered a standard type of
TWSC intersection.
regression models have been developed to describe this interaction. Procedures
described in this chapter rely primarily on field measurements of TWSC
performance in the United States (1) that have been applied to a gap acceptance
model developed and refined in Germany (2).

CHAPTER ORGANIZATION
This chapter is organized into the following sections:
x Section 1 (this section) introduces the chapter.
x Section 2 describes the basic concepts of the TWSC procedure. Most
notably, the concept of gap acceptance—which is the basis of TWSC
intersection operations—is described. Performance measures and level-of-
service (LOS) criteria are also discussed.
x Section 3 provides the details of the TWSC intersection analysis procedure
for the motorized vehicle mode, including required input data and
detailed computational steps.
x Section 4 extends the motorized vehicle mode procedure to account for
the effects of pedestrians on capacity.
x Section 5 presents a procedure for analyzing pedestrian operations at
TWSC intersections and uncontrolled midblock crossings, including
required data and computational steps.
x Section 6 qualitatively discusses bicycle operations at a TWSC intersection
and directs the reader to related research.
x Section 7 describes example problems included in Volume 4, suggests
applications for alternative tools, and provides guidance on interpreting
analysis results.

Chapter 20/Two-Way STOP-Controlled Intersections Introduction

Version 7.0 Page 20-1
Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis

RELATED HCM CONTENT

Other HCM content related to this chapter includes the following:
x Chapter 4, Traffic Operations and Capacity Concepts, introduces concepts
of traffic flow and capacity that apply to TWSC intersections, including
peak hour factor, gap acceptance, and control delay.
x Chapter 5, Quality and Level-of-Service Concepts, provides an overview
of the LOS concept used throughout the HCM.
x Chapter 32, STOP-Controlled Intersections: Supplemental, provides
example problems demonstrating the TWSC methodology.
x Case Study 1, U.S. 95 Corridor, and Case Study 5, Museum Road, in the
HCM Applications Guide in Volume 4, demonstrate how this chapter’s
methods can be applied to the evaluation of an actual TWSC intersection.
x Section M, STOP-Controlled Intersections, in the Planning and Preliminary
Engineering Applications Guide to the HCM in Volume 4, provides guidance
on analyzing TWSC intersections in the context of a planning study.

Introduction Chapter 20/Two-Way STOP-Controlled Intersections

Page 20-2 Version 7.0
 Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis

2. CONCEPTS

TWSC intersections are unsignalized intersections at which drivers on the

major street have priority over drivers on the minor-street approaches. Minor-
street drivers must stop before entering the intersection. Left-turning drivers
from the major street must yield to oncoming major-street through or right-
turning traffic, but they are not required to stop in the absence of oncoming
traffic.
The methodologies presented rely on the required input data listed in
Section 3 to compute the potential capacity of each minor movement, which is
ultimately adjusted, if appropriate, to compute a movement capacity for each
movement. The movement capacity can be used to estimate the control delay by
movement, by approach, and for the intersection as a whole. Queue lengths can
also be estimated once movement capacities are determined.
At TWSC intersections, drivers on the STOP-controlled approaches are The capacity of the controlled
legs is based primarily on three
required to select gaps in the major-street flow in order to execute crossing or factors: the distribution of gaps
turning maneuvers. In the presence of a queue, each driver on the controlled in the major stream, driver
judgment in selecting the gaps,
approach must also spend time moving to the front-of-queue position and and the follow-up headways
prepare to evaluate gaps in the major-street flow. Thus, the capacity of the required by each driver in a
queue.
controlled legs is based primarily on three factors: the distribution of gaps in the
major-street traffic stream, driver judgment in selecting gaps through which to
execute the desired maneuvers, and the follow-up headways required by each
driver in a queue.
The basic capacity model assumes gaps in the conflicting movements are When traffic signals are
present on the major street
randomly distributed. When traffic signals are present on the major street upstream of the subject
upstream of the subject intersection, flows may not be random but will likely intersection, flows may not be
random but will likely have
have some platoon structure. some platoon structure.
For the analysis of the motorized vehicle mode, the methodology addresses
special circumstances that may exist at TWSC intersections, including the
following:
x Two-stage gap acceptance,
x Approaches with shared lanes,
x The presence of upstream traffic signals, and
x Flared approaches for minor-street right-turning vehicles.

INTERSECTION ANALYSIS BOUNDARIES AND TRAVEL MODES

The intersection boundaries for a TWSC intersection analysis are assumed to
be those of an isolated intersection (i.e., not affected by upstream or downstream
intersections), with the exception of TWSC intersections that may be affected by
vehicle platoons from upstream signals. This chapter presents methodologies to
assess TWSC intersections for both pedestrians and motor vehicles. A discussion
of how the procedures for motor vehicles could potentially apply to an analysis
of bicycle movements is also provided.

Chapter 20/Two-Way STOP-Controlled Intersections Concepts

Version 7.0 Page 20-3
Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis

GAP ACCEPTANCE THEORY

Gap acceptance models begin with the recognition that TWSC intersections
give no positive indication or control to the driver on the minor street as to when
it is appropriate to leave the stop line and enter the major street. The driver must
determine when a gap on the major street is large enough to permit entry and
when to enter on the basis of the relative priority of the competing movements.
This decision-making process has been formalized analytically into what is
commonly known as gap acceptance theory. Gap acceptance theory includes
three basic elements: the size and distribution (availability) of gaps on the major
street, the usefulness of these gaps to the minor-street drivers, and the relative
priority of the various movements at the intersection.

Availability of Gaps
The first element in gap acceptance theory is the proportion of gaps of a
particular size on the major street offered to the driver entering from a minor
movement, as well as the pattern of vehicle arrival times. The distribution of
gaps between the vehicles in the different streams has a major effect on the
performance of the intersection.

Usefulness of Gaps
The second element is the extent to which drivers find gaps of a particular
size useful when they attempt to enter the intersection. It is generally assumed in
gap acceptance theory that drivers are both consistent and homogeneous. This
assumption is not entirely correct. Studies have demonstrated not only that
drivers have different gap acceptance thresholds but that the gap acceptance
threshold of an individual driver often changes over time (3). In this manual, the
critical headways and follow-up headways are considered representative of a
statistical average of the driver population in the United States.

Relative Priority of Various Movements at the Intersection

The third element in gap acceptance theory concerns the ranking of each
movement in a priority hierarchy. Typically, gap acceptance processes assume
drivers on the major street are unaffected by the minor movements. If this
assumption is not the case at a given intersection, the gap acceptance process has
to be modified.
In using the TWSC intersection methodology, the priority of right-of-way
given to each movement must be identified. Some movements have absolute
priority; other movements must yield to higher-order movements. Movements
can be categorized by right-of-way priority as follows:
Pedestrian movements x Movements of Rank 1 include through traffic on the major street, right-
crossing the major street are
assumed to be Rank 2 for the turning traffic from the major street, and pedestrian movements crossing
automobile analysis procedure. the minor street.
The effect of Rank 1 vehicles
yielding to pedestrians is x Movements of Rank 2 (subordinate to Rank 1) include left-turning and U-
included in the pedestrian
analysis procedure. turning traffic from the major street, right-turning traffic onto the major
street, and pedestrian movements crossing the major street (assumed for
this procedure).

Concepts Chapter 20/Two-Way STOP-Controlled Intersections

Page 20-4 Version 7.0
 Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis

x Movements of Rank 3 (subordinate to Ranks 1 and 2) include through

traffic on the minor street (in the case of a four-leg intersection) and left-
turning traffic from the minor street (in the case of a T-intersection).
x Movements of Rank 4 (subordinate to all others) include left-turning The minor-street left-turn
movement is assigned Rank 3
traffic from the minor street. Rank 4 movements occur only at four-leg priority at a T-intersection and
intersections. Rank 4 priority at a four-leg
intersection.
Exhibit 20-1 shows the assumed numbering of movements at both T- and
four-leg intersections.

Exhibit 20-1
Vehicular and Pedestrian
Movements at a TWSC
Intersection

Solid arrows indicate vehicular

movements; dashed arrows
indicate pedestrian
movements.

As an example of the application of right-of-way priority, assume the

situation of a left-turning vehicle on the major street and a through vehicle from
the minor street waiting to cross the major traffic stream. The first available gap
of acceptable size would be taken by the left-turning vehicle. The minor-street
through vehicle must wait for the second available gap. In aggregate terms, a
large number of such left-turning vehicles could use up so many of the available
gaps that minor-street through vehicles would be severely impeded or unable to
make safe crossing movements.

Critical Headway and Follow-Up Headway

Critical headway tc is defined as the minimum time interval in the major-street Critical headway defined.

traffic stream that allows intersection entry for one minor-street vehicle (4). Thus,
the driver’s critical headway is the minimum headway that would be acceptable.
A particular driver would reject headways less than the critical headway and
would accept headways greater than or equal to the critical headway. Critical
headway can be estimated on the basis of observations of the largest rejected and
smallest accepted headway for a given intersection.
The time between the departure of one vehicle from the minor street and the
departure of the next vehicle using the same major-street headway, under a
condition of continuous queuing on the minor street, is called the follow-up Follow-up headway defined.
headway tf. Thus, tf is the headway that defines the saturation flow rate for the
approach if there were no conflicting vehicles on movements of higher rank.

Chapter 20/Two-Way STOP-Controlled Intersections Concepts

Version 7.0 Page 20-5
Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis

LEVEL-OF-SERVICE CRITERIA
LOS is not defined for the LOS for a TWSC intersection is determined by the computed or measured
major-street approaches or for
the overall intersection, as control delay. For motor vehicles, LOS is determined for each minor-street
major-street through vehicles movement (or shared movement), as well as the major-street left turns, by using
are assumed to experience no
delay. the criteria given in Exhibit 20-2. LOS is not defined for the intersection as a
whole or for major-street approaches for three primary reasons: (a) major-street
through vehicles are assumed to experience zero delay; (b) the disproportionate
number of major-street through vehicles at a typical TWSC intersection skews
the weighted average of all movements, resulting in a very low overall average
delay for all vehicles; and (c) the resulting low delay can mask LOS deficiencies
for minor movements. As Exhibit 20-2 notes, LOS F is assigned to a movement if
its volume-to-capacity ratio exceeds 1.0, regardless of the control delay.
The LOS criteria for TWSC intersections differ somewhat from the criteria
used in Chapter 19 for signalized intersections, primarily because user
perceptions differ among transportation facility types. The expectation is that a
signalized intersection is designed to carry higher traffic volumes and will
present greater delay than an unsignalized intersection. Unsignalized
intersections are also associated with more uncertainty for users, as delays are
less predictable than they are at signals.

Exhibit 20-2 Control Delay LOS by Volume-to-Capacity Ratio

LOS Criteria: Motorized (s/veh) v/c ≤ 1.0 v/c > 1.0
Vehicle Mode 0–10 A F
>10–15 B F
>15–25 C F
>25–35 D F
>35–50 E F
>50 F F
Note: The LOS criteria apply to each lane on a given approach and to each approach on the minor street. LOS is
not calculated for major-street approaches or for the intersection as a whole.

Pedestrian LOS at TWSC intersections is defined for pedestrians crossing a

traffic stream not controlled by a STOP sign; it also applies to midblock pedestrian
crossings. Exhibit 20-3 gives LOS criteria for pedestrians, using a perception-based
rating system considering the average proportions of pedestrians who would
rate their crossing experience as “dissatisfied” or worse.

Exhibit 20-3 LOS Condition Comments

LOS Criteria: Pedestrian Mode A PD < 0.05 Nearly all pedestrians would be satisfied
B 0.05 ≤ PD < 0.15 At least 85% of pedestrians would be satisfied
C 0.15 ≤ PD < 0.25 Fewer than one-quarter of pedestrians would be dissatisfied
D 0.25 ≤ PD < 0.33 Fewer than one-third of pedestrians would be dissatisfied
E 0.33 ≤ PD < 0.50 Fewer than one-half of pedestrians would be dissatisfied
F PD ≥ 0.50 The majority of pedestrians would be dissatisfied
Note: PD = proportion of pedestrians giving a “dissatisfied” rating or worse.

LOS F for pedestrians occurs when many pedestrians experience delay

crossing the street, due to a lack of gaps in traffic, failure of motorists to yield, or
both. LOS A and B occur when some combination of the following exists:
pedestrian safety countermeasures exist at the crossing, traffic volumes are
relatively low, and motorists frequently yield to pedestrians.

Concepts Chapter 20/Two-Way STOP-Controlled Intersections

Page 20-6 Version 7.0
 Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis

3. MOTORIZED VEHICLE CORE METHODOLOGY

SCOPE OF THE METHODOLOGY

The version of the TWSC intersection analysis procedure presented in this
section is primarily based on studies conducted by National Cooperative
Highway Research Program Project 3-46 (1).

Spatial and Temporal Limits

This methodology assumes the TWSC intersection under investigation is
isolated, with the exception of a TWSC intersection that may be affected by
vehicle platoons from upstream signals. When interaction effects (e.g., queue
spillback, demand starvation) are likely between the subject TWSC intersection
and other intersections, the use of alternative tools may result in a more accurate
analysis. Analysis boundaries may also include different demand scenarios
related to the time of day or to different development scenarios that produce
various demand flow rates.
The recommended length of the analysis period is the HCM standard of 15
min (although longer periods can be examined).

Performance Measures
This method produces the following performance measures:
x Volume-to-capacity ratio,
x Control delay,
x LOS based on control delay, and
x 95th percentile queue length.

Limitations of the Methodology

The methodologies in this chapter apply to TWSC intersections with up to
three through lanes (either shared or exclusive) on the major-street approaches
and up to three lanes on the minor-street approaches (with no more than one
exclusive lane for each movement on the minor-street approach). Effects from
other intersections are accounted for only in situations in which a TWSC
intersection is located on an urban street segment between coordinated
signalized intersections. In this situation, the intersection can be analyzed by
using the procedures in Chapter 18, Urban Street Segments. The methodologies
do not apply to TWSC intersections with more than four approaches or more
than one STOP-controlled approach on each side of the major street.
The methodologies do not include a detailed method for estimating delay at With appropriate changes in
the values of critical headway
YIELD-controlled intersections; however, with appropriate changes in the values and follow-up headway, the
of key parameters (e.g., critical headway and follow-up headway), the analyst analyst could apply the TWSC
method to YIELD-controlled
could apply the TWSC method to YIELD-controlled intersections. intersections.
All the methods are for steady state conditions (i.e., the demand and capacity
conditions are constant during the analysis period); the methods are not
designed to evaluate how fast or how often the facility transitions from one

Chapter 20/Two-Way STOP-Controlled Intersections Motorized Vehicle Core Methodology

Version 7.0 Page 20-7
Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis

demand or capacity state to another. Analysts interested in that kind of

information should consider applying alternative tools, as discussed below.

Alternative Tool Considerations

Strengths of the HCM Procedure
This chapter offers a set of comprehensive procedures for analyzing the
performance of an intersection under two-way STOP control. Simulation-based
tools offer a more detailed treatment of the arrival and departure of vehicles and
their interaction with the roadway and the control system, but for most purposes
the HCM procedure produces an acceptable approximation.
The HCM procedure offers the advantage of a deterministic evaluation of a
TWSC intersection, the results of which have been accepted by a broad
consensus of international experts. The HCM procedure also considers advanced
concepts such as two-stage gap acceptance and flared approaches based on
empirical evidence of their effects.

Limitations of the HCM Procedures That Might Be Addressed by Alternative Tools

The identified limitations for this chapter are shown in Exhibit 20-4, along
with the potential for improved treatment by alternative tools.

Exhibit 20-4 Limitation Potential for Improved Treatment by Alternative Tools

Limitations of the HCM TWSC Effects of upstream Simulation tools can include an unsignalized intersection explicitly
Intersection Motorized Vehicle intersections within a signalized arterial or network.
Procedure
YIELD-controlled intersection Treated explicitly by some tools. Can be approximated by varying
operations the gap acceptance parameters.
Non-steady-state conditions Most alternative tools provide for multiperiod variation of demand
for demand and capacity and, in some cases, capacity.
Atypical intersection
configurations, such as more Some alternative tools can be customized to model the unique
than four legs or STOP control configuration of these types of intersections.
on all but one leg

Most analyses for isolated unsignalized intersections are intended to

determine whether TWSC is a viable control alternative. Analyses of this type are
handled adequately by the procedures described in this chapter. The most
The most common application common application of alternative tools for TWSC analysis involves an
of alternative tools for TWSC
analysis involves an unsignalized intersection located between coordinated signalized intersections.
unsignalized intersection Most intersections between coordinated signalized intersections operate under
located between coordinated
signalized intersections. TWSC. These intersections tend to be ignored in the analysis of the system
because their effect on the system operation is minimal. Occasionally, it is
necessary to examine a TWSC intersection as a part of the arterial system.
Although the procedures in this chapter provide a method for approximating the
operation of a TWSC intersection with an upstream signal, the operation of such
an intersection is arguably best handled by including it in a complete simulation
of the full arterial system. For example, queue backup from a downstream signal
that blocks entry from the cross street for a portion of the cycle is not treated
explicitly by the procedures contained in this chapter.

Motorized Vehicle Core Methodology Chapter 20/Two-Way STOP-Controlled Intersections

Page 20-8 Version 7.0
 Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis

Another potential application for alternative tools is modeling intersections

with more than four legs or with control configurations other than the typical
priority control, such as STOP control on all but one leg. The operation of these
types of intersections has not been adequately researched, and no analytical
method has been developed to model their operation. It may be possible to use
an alternative tool to model these configurations provided the priorities between
movements can be customized to match field operations.

Development of HCM-Compatible Performance Measures Using Alternative Tools

Control delay, the performance measure that determines LOS for TWSC
intersections, is defined as that portion of the delay caused by a control device—
in this case, a STOP sign. Most simulation tools do not produce explicit estimates
of control delay.
The best way to determine control delay at a STOP sign from simulation is to
perform simulation runs with and without the control device in place. The
segment delays reported with no control represent the delays due to geometrics
and interaction between vehicles. The additional delay reported in the run with
the control device in place is, by definition, the control delay.
Chapter 7, Interpreting HCM and Alternative Tool Results, discusses
performance measures from various tools in more detail, and Chapter 36,
Concepts: Supplemental, provides recommendations on how individual vehicle
trajectories should be interpreted to produce specific performance measures. Of
particular interest to TWSC operation is the definition of a queued state and the
development of queue delay from that definition. For alternative tools that Delay and LOS should be
conform to the queue delay definitions and computations presented in this estimated only by using
alternative tools that conform
manual, queue delay will provide the best estimate of control delay for TWSC to the definitions and
intersections. Delay and LOS should not be estimated by using alternative tools computations of queue delay
presented in this manual.
that do not conform to these definitions and computations.

Conceptual Differences Between the HCM and Simulation Modeling That Preclude
Direct Comparison of Results
Deterministic tools and simulation tools both model TWSC operations as a
gap acceptance process that follows the rules of the road to determine the right-
of-way hierarchy. To this extent, both types of tools use the same conceptual
framework. Deterministic tools such as the HCM base their estimates of capacity
and delay on expected values computed from analytical formulations that have
been mathematically derived. Simulation tools, in contrast, take a more
microscopic view, treating each vehicle as an independent object that is subject to
the rules of the road as well as interaction with other vehicles. Differences in the
treatment of randomness also exist, as explained in the guidance provided in
Chapter 19, Signalized Intersections.
When the opposing movement volumes are very high, there is minimal
opportunity for the STOP-controlled movements to accept gaps, and these
movements often have little or no capacity. Simulation tends to produce slightly
higher capacities under these conditions because of a tool-specific overriding
logic that limits the amount of time any driver is willing to wait for a gap.

Chapter 20/Two-Way STOP-Controlled Intersections Motorized Vehicle Core Methodology

Version 7.0 Page 20-9
Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis

In general, the simulation results for a specific TWSC intersection problem

should be close to the results obtained from the procedures in this chapter. Some
differences may, however, be expected among the analysis tools.

Adjustment of Simulation Parameters to the HCM Parameters

Critical headways and follow-up headways are common to both
deterministic and simulation models. It is therefore desirable that similar values
be used for these parameters.

Sample Calculations Illustrating Alternative Tool Applications

An example of the most common application for TWSC simulation,
unsignalized intersections within a signalized arterial system, is presented in
Chapter 29, Urban Street Facilities: Supplemental. An additional example
involving blockage of a cross-street approach with STOP control by a queue from
a nearby diamond interchange is presented in Chapter 34, Interchange Ramp
Terminals: Supplemental.

REQUIRED INPUT DATA AND SOURCES

Exhibit 20-5 lists the information necessary to apply the motorized vehicle
methodology and suggests potential sources for obtaining these data. It also
suggests default values for use when intersection-specific information is not
available.

Exhibit 20-5 Suggested

Required Input Data, Potential Required Data and Units Potential Data Source(s) Default Value
Data Sources, and Default Geometric Data
Values for TWSC Motorized
Number and configuration of lanes of each
Vehicle Analysis Design plans, road inventory Must be provided
approach
Approach grades Design plans, road inventory 0%
Special geometric factors such as
x Unique channelization aspects
x Existence of a two-way left-turn lane or
raised or striped median storage (or both) Design plans, road inventory Must be provided
x Existence of flared approaches on the
minor street
x Existence of upstream signals
Demand Data
Hourly turning-movement demand volume
(veh/h) AND peak hour factor
OR Field data, modeling Must be provided
Hourly turning-movement demand flow rate
(veh/h)
Analysis period length (min) Set by analyst 15 min (0.25 h)
Peak hour factor (decimal) Field data 0.92
Heavy-vehicle percentage (%) Field data 3%
Saturation flow rate for major-street through
movement (for analysis of shared or short Field data 1,800 veh/h
major-street, left-turn lanes)
Saturation flow rate for major-street, right-turn
movement (for analysis of shared or short Field data 1,500 veh/h
major-street, left-turn lanes)

Motorized Vehicle Core Methodology Chapter 20/Two-Way STOP-Controlled Intersections

Page 20-10 Version 7.0
 Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis

A comprehensive presentation of potential default values for interrupted

flow facilities is provided elsewhere (5), with specific recommendations
summarized in its Chapter 3, Recommended Default Values. These defaults
cover the key characteristics of peak hour factor and percentage of heavy
vehicles. Recommendations are based on geographic region, population, and
time of day. All general default values for interrupted-flow facilities may be
applied to the analysis of TWSC intersections in the absence of field data or
projected conditions.

COMPUTATIONAL STEPS
The TWSC intersection methodology for the motorized vehicle mode is
applied through a series of steps that require input data related to movement
flow information and geometric conditions, prioritization of movements,
computation of potential capacities, incorporation of adjustments to compute
movement capacities, and estimation of control delays and queue lengths. These
steps are illustrated in Exhibit 20-6.

Exhibit 20-6
TWSC Intersection
Methodology

Chapter 20/Two-Way STOP-Controlled Intersections Motorized Vehicle Core Methodology

Version 7.0 Page 20-11
Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis

Step 1: Determine and Label Movement Priorities

The priority for each movement at a TWSC intersection must be identified to
designate the appropriate rank of each movement for future steps in the analysis
process. This step’s process also identifies the sequence in which the analyst will
complete the capacity computations. Because the methodology is based on
prioritized use of gaps by vehicles at a TWSC intersection, the subsequent
computations must be made in a precise order. The computational sequence is
the same as the priority of gap use, and movements are considered in the
following order:
1. Left turns from the major street,
2. Right turns from the minor street,
3. U-turns from the major street,
4. Through movements from the minor street, and
5. Left turns from the minor street.

Step 2: Convert Movement Demand Volumes to Flow Rates

For analysis of existing conditions when the peak 15-min period can be
measured in the field, the volumes for the peak 15-min period are converted to a
peak 15-min demand flow rate by multiplying the peak 15-min volumes by four.
For analysis of projected conditions or when 15-min data are not available,
hourly demand volumes for each movement are converted to peak 15-min
demand flow rates in vehicles per hour, as shown in Equation 20-1, through use
of the peak hour factor for the intersection.

Equation 20-1 =

where
vi = demand flow rate for movement i (veh/h),
Vi = demand volume for movement i (veh/h), and
If PHF is used, a single PHF = peak hour factor for the intersection.
intersectionwide PHF should be
used rather than movement- If peak hour factors are used, a single peak hour factor for the entire
specific or approach-specific intersection is generally preferred to decrease the likelihood of creating demand
PHFs. If individual approaches
or movements peak at scenarios with conflicting volumes that are disproportionate to the actual
different times, a series of 15- volumes during the 15-min analysis period. If peak hour factors for each
min analysis periods that
encompasses the peaking individual approach or movement are used, they are likely to generate demand
should be considered. volumes from one 15-min period that are in apparent conflict with demand
volumes from another 15-min period, but in reality these peak volumes do not
The use of a peak 15-min occur at the same time. Furthermore, to determine individual approach or
traffic count multiplied by four
is preferred for existing
movement peak hour factors, actual 15-min count data are likely available,
conditions when traffic counts permitting the determination of actual 15-min demand and avoiding the need to
are available. The use of a 1-h
demand volume divided by a
use a peak hour factor. If individual approaches or movements are known to
peak hour factor is preferred have substantially different peaking characteristics or peak during different 15-
with projected volumes or with
projected volumes that have
min periods within the hour, a series of 15-min analysis periods that
been added to current encompasses the peaking should be considered instead of a single analysis
volumes.
period using a single peak hour factor for the intersection.

Motorized Vehicle Core Methodology Chapter 20/Two-Way STOP-Controlled Intersections

Page 20-12 Version 7.0
 Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis

Step 3: Determine Conflicting Flow Rates

Each movement at a TWSC intersection faces a different set of conflicts that
is directly related to the nature of the subject movement. The following
subsections describe the set of conflicts facing each minor movement (Rank 2
through Rank 4) at a TWSC intersection. The exhibits and equations illustrate the
computation of the parameter vc,x, the conflicting flow rate for movement x—that
is, the total flow rate (in vehicles per hour) that conflicts with movement x.
Pedestrians may also conflict with vehicular movements. Pedestrian flow
rates (defined as vx, with x noting the leg of the intersection being crossed)
should be included as part of the conflicting flow rates. Pedestrian flows are
included because they define the beginning or ending of a gap that may be used
by a minor-street movement. Although this method recognizes some
peculiarities associated with pedestrian movements, it takes a uniform approach
to vehicular and pedestrian movements.

Major-Street Left-Turn Movements: Rank 2, Movements 1 and 4

Exhibit 20-7 illustrates the conflicting movements encountered by major-
street left-turning drivers. Equation 20-2 and Equation 20-3 compute the conflicting
flow rates for the major-street left-turn movements. Default values for conflicting
flow factors for major-street left-turn movements are shown in Exhibit 20-8.
Users may supply different conflicting flow factors for the default values in
Exhibit 20-8 when supported by field data. The left-turn movement from the major
street conflicts with the total opposing through and right-turn flow, because the
left-turning vehicles must cross the opposing through movement and are typically
in conflict with the right-turning vehicles. The method does not differentiate
between crossing and merging conflicts. Left-turning vehicles from the major
street and the opposing right-turning vehicles from the major street are assumed
to merge, regardless of the number of lanes provided in the exit roadway.

Exhibit 20-7
Illustration of Conflicting
Movements for Major-Street
Left-Turn Movements

= + + Equation 20-2
, , , , , , ,
= + + Equation 20-3
, , , , , , ,

Conflicting Flow Exhibit 20-8

Subject Conflicting
Conflicting Flow Factors for
Movement, x Movement, y Conflicting Lane Configuration Factor, fc,x,y
Major-Street Left-Turn
1 5 All 1
Movements 1 and 4
6 STOP- or YIELD-controlled channelized lane 0
All others 1
16 All 1
4 2 All 1
3 STOP- or YIELD-controlled channelized lane 0
All others 1
15 All 1
Note: Values may be modified based on field data.

Chapter 20/Two-Way STOP-Controlled Intersections Motorized Vehicle Core Methodology

Version 7.0 Page 20-13
Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis

Minor-Street Right-Turn Movements: Rank 2, Movements 9 and 12

Exhibit 20-9 illustrates the conflicting movements encountered by minor-
street right-turning drivers. The right-turn movement from the minor street is
assumed to be in conflict with only a portion of the major-street through
movement when more than one major-street lane is present. Similarly, a portion
of the right-turn movement from a shared lane on the major street is assumed to
conflict with the minor-street right-turn movement, as some of these turns tend
to inhibit the subject movement. Because right-turning vehicles from the minor
street commonly merge into gaps in the right-hand lane of the stream into which
they turn, they typically do not require a gap across all lanes of the conflicting
stream (this situation may not be true for some trucks and vans with long
wheelbases that encroach on more than one lane in making their turns).
Furthermore, a gap in the overall major-street traffic could be used
simultaneously by another vehicle, such as a major-street left-turning vehicle.

Exhibit 20-9 does not include vehicles making major-street U-turns as

conflicting vehicles. Although these conflicts may be observed in practice, they
are not assumed to be conflicts in this methodology and are assigned a
conflicting flow factor of zero as noted below. These values may be modified
when supported by field data.

Exhibit 20-9
Illustration of Conflicting
Movements for Minor-Street
Right-Turn Movements

Equation 20-4 and Equation 20-5 compute the conflicting flow rates for
minor-street right-turn movements entering a major street. Default values for
conflicting flow factors for major-street left-turn movements are shown in Exhibit
20-10. The conflicting flow factor for the major street through movement
(movements 2 and 5) varies based on the number of through lanes. Similarly, the
conflicting flow factor for the major-street right-turn movement varies based on
whether it is in an exclusive lane. Users may supply different conflicting flow
factors for the default values in Exhibit 20-10 when supported by field data.
Equation 20-4 = + + + +
, , , , , , , , , , ,
Equation 20-5 = + + + +
, , , , , , , , , , ,

Motorized Vehicle Core Methodology Chapter 20/Two-Way STOP-Controlled Intersections

Page 20-14 Version 7.0
 Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis

Conflicting Flow Exhibit 20-10

Subject Conflicting
Conflicting Flow Factors for
Movement, x Movement, y Conflicting Lane Configuration Factor, fc,x,y
Minor-Street Right-Turn
9 2 1 lane 1 Movements 9 and 12
2 lanes 0.5
3 lanes 0.5
3 Shared lane 0.5
Separate right-turn lane 0
4U All 0
14 All 1
15 All 1
12 1U All 0
5 1 lane 1
2 lanes 0.5
3 lanes 0.5
6 Shared lane 0.5
Separate right-turn lane 0
13 All 1
16 All 1
Note: Values may be modified based on field data.

Major-Street U-Turn Movements: Rank 2, Movements 1U and 4U

Exhibit 20-11 illustrates the conflicting movements encountered by major-
street U-turning drivers. The U-turn movement from the major street conflicts
with the total opposing through and right-turn flow, similar to the major-street
left-turn movement. Research has found that the presence of minor-street right-
turning vehicles significantly affects the capacity of major-street U-turns (6). The
methodology accounts for this effect in the impedance calculation rather than in
the calculation of conflicting flow. If a different priority order is desired (e.g.,
minor-street right turns yield to major-street U-turns), the analyst should adjust
the conflicting flow factors accordingly to replicate observed conditions.

Exhibit 20-11
Illustration of Conflicting
Movements for Major-Street
U-Turn Movements

Equation 20-6 and Equation 20-7 compute the conflicting flow rates for
major-street U-turns. Default values for conflicting flow factors for major-street
left-turn movements are shown in Exhibit 20-12. The conflicting flow factor for
the major street through movements varies based on the number of through
lanes. Similarly, the conflicting flow factor for the major-street right-turn
movement varies based on the number of through lanes and whether the right-
turn lane is an exclusive lane. Users may supply different conflicting flow factors
for the default values in Exhibit 20-12 when supported by field data.
= + + Equation 20-6
, , , , , , ,
= + + Equation 20-7
, , , , , , ,

Chapter 20/Two-Way STOP-Controlled Intersections Motorized Vehicle Core Methodology

Version 7.0 Page 20-15
Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis

Exhibit 20-12 Conflicting Flow

Subject Conflicting
Conflicting Flow Factors for
Movement, x Movement, y Conflicting Lane Configuration Factor, fc,x,y
Major-Street U-Turn
Movements 1U and 4U 1U 5 2 through lanes 1
3 through lanes 0.73
6 2 through lanes with shared right-turn 1
2 through lanes with separate right-turn 0
3 through lanes with shared right-turn 0.73
3 through lanes with separate right-turn 0
12 All 0
4U 2 2 through lanes 1
3 through lanes 0.73
3 2 through lanes with shared right-turn 1
2 through lanes with separate right-turn 0
3 through lanes with shared right-turn 0.73
3 through lanes with separate right-turn 0
9 All 0
Note: Values may be modified based on field data.

Minor-Street Pedestrian Movements: Rank 2, Movements 13 and 14

Minor-street pedestrian movements (those pedestrians crossing the major
street) are in direct conflict with all vehicular movements on the major street
except the right-turn and left-turn movements on the major street approaching
from the far side of the intersection. The volume of minor-street pedestrians is an
input parameter in the computation of the conflicting flow rates for all Rank 3
and Rank 4 movements.

Minor-Street Through Movements: Rank 3, Movements 8 and 11

Minor-street through movements have a direct crossing or merging conflict
with all movements on the major street except the right turn into the subject
approach. Similar to the minor-street right-turn movement, one-half of each
right-turn movement from the major street is considered to conflict with the
minor-street through movement. In addition, field research (1) has shown that
the effect of left-turning vehicles is approximately twice their actual number.
Drivers executing minor-street through movements may complete their
maneuver in one or two stages. One-stage gap acceptance assumes no median
refuge area is available for minor-street drivers to store in and that the minor-
street drivers will evaluate gaps in both major-street directions simultaneously.
Conversely, the two-stage gap acceptance scenario assumes a median refuge area
is available for minor-street drivers. During Stage I, minor-street drivers evaluate
major-street gaps in the nearside traffic stream (conflicting traffic from the left);
during Stage II, minor-street drivers evaluate major-street gaps in the farside
traffic stream (conflicting traffic from the right). For one-stage crossings, the
conflicting flows for Stage I and Stage II are combined; for two-stage crossings,
the conflicting flows are considered separately.
Exhibit 20-13 illustrates the conflicting movements encountered by minor-
street through-movement drivers.

Motorized Vehicle Core Methodology Chapter 20/Two-Way STOP-Controlled Intersections

Page 20-16 Version 7.0
 Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis

Exhibit 20-13
Illustration of Conflicting
Movements for Minor-Street
Through Movements

Equation 20-8 and Equation 20-9 compute the conflicting flows encountered
by minor-street through-movement drivers during Stage I. Default values for
conflicting flow factors for major-street left-turn movements are shown in Exhibit
20-13. The conflicting flow factor for the major street right-turn movements
varies based on its configuration.
= + + + + Equation 20-8
,I, , , , , , , , , , ,
= + + + + Equation 20-9
,I, , , , , , , , , , ,

Equation 20-10 and Equation 20-11 compute the conflicting flows

encountered by minor-street through-movement drivers during Stage II. These
use default values for conflicting flow factors from Exhibit 20-13. The conflicting
flow factor for the major street right-turn movements varies based on its
configuration.
= + + + + Equation 20-10
,II, , , , , , , , , , ,
= + + + + Equation 20-11
,II, , , , , , , , , , ,

Chapter 20/Two-Way STOP-Controlled Intersections Motorized Vehicle Core Methodology

Version 7.0 Page 20-17
Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis

Exhibit 20-14 Conflicting

Conflicting Flow Factors for Subject Conflicting Flow Factor,
Minor-Street Through Movement, x Stage Movement, y Conflicting Lane Configuration fc,x,y
Movements 8 and 11
8 I 1 All 2
1U All 2
2 All 1
3 Shared lane 0.5
Separate right-turn lane 0
15 All 1
II 4 All 2
4U All 2
5 All 1
6 Shared lane 0.5
Separate right-turn lane 0
16 All 1
11 I 4 All 2
4U All 2
5 All 1
6 STOP- or YIELD-controlled channelized lane 0
All others 1
16 All 1
II 1 All 2
1U All 2
2 All 1
3 STOP- or YIELD-controlled channelized lane 0
All others 1
15 All 1
Note: Values may be modified based on field data.

Minor-Street Left-Turn Movements: Rank 4, Movements 7 and 10

The left-turn movement from the minor street is the most difficult maneuver
to execute at a TWSC intersection, and it faces the most complex set of conflicting
movements, which include all major-street movements in addition to the
opposing right-turn and through movements on the minor street. Only one-half
the opposing right-turn and through-movement flow rate is included as
conflicting flow rate because both movements are STOP-controlled, which
diminishes their effect on left turns. The additional capacity impedance effects of
the opposing right-turn and through-movement flow rates are taken into account
elsewhere in the procedure.
Similar to minor-street through movements, minor-street left-turn
movements may be completed in one or two stages. Exhibit 20-15 illustrates the
conflicting movements encountered by minor-street left-turning drivers.

Motorized Vehicle Core Methodology Chapter 20/Two-Way STOP-Controlled Intersections

Page 20-18 Version 7.0
 Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis

Exhibit 20-15
Illustration of Conflicting
Movements for Minor-Street
Left-Turn Movements

Equation 20-12 and Equation 20-13 compute the conflicting flows

encountered by minor-street through-movement drivers during Stage I. Default
values for conflicting flow factors for major-street left-turn movements are
shown in Exhibit 20-16. The conflicting flow factor for the major street right-turn
movements varies based on its configuration.
= + + + + Equation 20-12
,I, , , , , , , , , , ,
= + + + + Equation 20-13
,I, , , , , , , , , , ,

Equation 20-14 and Equation 20-15 compute the conflicting flows

encountered by minor-street through-movement drivers during Stage II. These
use default values for conflicting flow factors from Exhibit 20-16. The conflicting
flow factor for the major street right-turn movements varies based on its
configuration.
= + + + + Equation 20-14
,II, , , , , , , , , , ,
= + + + + Equation 20-15
,II, , , , , , , , , , ,

Chapter 20/Two-Way STOP-Controlled Intersections Motorized Vehicle Core Methodology

Version 7.0 Page 20-19
Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis

Exhibit 20-16 Conflicting

Conflicting Flow Factors for Subject Conflicting Flow Factor,
Minor-Street Left-Turn Movement, x Stage Movement, y Conflicting Lane Configuration fc,x,y
Movements 7 and 10
7 I 1 All 2
1U 2 or 3 lanes 2
2 All 1
3 Shared lane 0.5
Separate right-turn lane 0
15 All 1
II 4 All 2
4U 2 or 3 lanes 2
5 1 lane 1
2 lanes 0.5
3 lanes 0.4
6 STOP- or YIELD-controlled channelized lane 0
All others 0.5
13 All 1
10 I 4 All 2
4U 2 or 3 lanes 2
5 All 1
6 Shared lane 0.5
Separate right-turn lane 0
16 All 1
II 1 All 2
1U 2 or 3 lanes 2
2 1 lane 1
2 lanes 0.5
3 lanes 0.4
3 STOP- or YIELD-controlled channelized lane 0
All others 0.5
14 All 1
Note: Values may be modified based on field data.

Step 4: Determine Critical Headways and Follow-Up Headways

The critical headways tc,x and follow-up headways tf,x must be determined for
the major-street left turns (vc,1 and vc,4), the minor-street right turns (vc,9 and vc,12),
the major-street U-turns (vc,1U and vc,4U), the minor-street through movements (vc,8
and vc,11), and the minor-street left turns (vc,7 and vc,10) as they occur at a TWSC
intersection.
To compute the critical headways for each movement, the analyst begins with
the base critical headway given in Exhibit 20-17 and makes movement-specific
adjustments relating to the percentage of heavy vehicles, the grade encountered,
and a three-leg versus four-leg intersection as shown in Equation 20-16.
Equation 20-16 = + + −
, ,base , , ,

where
tc,x = critical headway for movement x (s);
tc,base = base critical headway from Exhibit 20-17 (s);
tc,HV = adjustment factor for heavy vehicles (1.0 for major streets with one
lane in each direction; 2.0 for major streets with two or three lanes in
each direction) (s);
PHV = proportion of heavy vehicles for movement (expressed as a decimal;
e.g., PHV = 0.02 for 2% heavy vehicles);

Motorized Vehicle Core Methodology Chapter 20/Two-Way STOP-Controlled Intersections

Page 20-20 Version 7.0
 Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis

tc,G = adjustment factor for grade for given movement (0.1 for Movements 9
and 12; 0.2 for Movements 7, 8, 10, and 11) (s);
G = percentage grade (expressed as an integer; e.g., G = −2 for a 2%
downhill grade); and
t3,LT = adjustment factor for intersection geometry (0.7 for minor-street left- t3,LT is applicable to Movements
7, 8, 10, and 11.
turn movement at three-leg intersections; 0.0 otherwise) (s).

Vehicle Base Critical Headway, tc,base (s) Exhibit 20-17

Movement Two Lanes Four Lanes Six Lanes Base Critical Headways for
Left turn from major TWSC Intersections
4.1 4.1 5.3
street
U-turn from major 6.4 (wide)a
NA 5.6
street 6.9 (narrow)a
Right turn from minor
6.2 6.9 7.1
street
1 stage: 6.5 1 stage: 6.5 1 stage: 6.5b
Through traffic on
2 stage, Stage I: 5.5 2 stage, Stage I: 5.5 2 stage, Stage I: 5.5b
minor street
2 stage, Stage II: 5.5 2 stage, Stage II: 5.5 2 stage, Stage II: 5.5b
1 stage: 7.1 1 stage: 7.5 1 stage: 6.4
Left turn from minor
2 stage, Stage I: 6.1 2 stage, Stage I: 6.5 2 stage, Stage I: 7.3
street
2 stage, Stage II: 6.1 2 stage, Stage II: 6.5 2 stage, Stage II: 6.7
Notes: NA = not available.
a
Narrow U-turns have a median nose width <21 ft; wide U-turns have a median nose width ≥21 ft.
b
Use caution; values estimated.

The critical headway data for four- and six-lane sites account for the actual
lane distribution of traffic flows measured at each site. For six-lane sites, minor-
street left turns were commonly observed beginning their movement while
apparently conflicting vehicles in the farside major-street through stream passed.
The values for critical headway for minor-street through movements at six-lane
streets are estimated, as the movement is not frequently observed in the field.
Similar to the computation of critical headways, the analyst begins the
computation of follow-up headways with the base follow-up headways given in
Exhibit 20-18. The analyst then makes movement-specific adjustments to the base
follow-up headways with information gathered on heavy vehicles and the
geometrics of the major street per the adjustment factors given in Equation 20-17.
= + Equation 20-17
, ,base ,

where
tf,x = follow-up headway for movement x (s);
tf,base = base follow-up headway from Exhibit 20-18 (s);
tf,HV = adjustment factor for heavy vehicles (0.9 for major streets with one
lane in each direction; 1.0 for major streets with two or three lanes in
each direction); and
PHV = proportion of heavy vehicles for movement (expressed as a decimal;
e.g., PHV = 0.02 for 2% heavy vehicles).

Chapter 20/Two-Way STOP-Controlled Intersections Motorized Vehicle Core Methodology

Version 7.0 Page 20-21
Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis

Exhibit 20-18 Base Follow-Up Headway, tf,base (s)

Base Follow-Up Headways for Vehicle Movement Two Lanes Four Lanes Six Lanes
TWSC Intersections Left turn from major street 2.2 2.2 3.1
2.5 (wide)a
U-turn from major street NA 2.3
3.1 (narrow)a
Right turn from minor street 3.3 3.3 3.9
Through traffic on minor street 4.0 4.0 4.0
Left turn from minor street 3.5 3.5 3.8
Notes: NA = not available.
a
Narrow U-turns have a median nose width <21 ft; wide U-turns have a median nose width ≥21 ft.

Values from Exhibit 20-17 and Exhibit 20-18 are based on studies throughout
the United States and are representative of a broad range of conditions. If smaller
values for tc and tf are observed, capacity will be increased. If larger values for tc
and tf are used, capacity will be decreased.

Step 5: Compute Potential Capacities

Step 5a: Potential Capacity Without Upstream Signal Effects
The potential capacity cp,x of a movement is computed according to the gap
acceptance model provided in Equation 20-18 (7).
, , / ,
Equation 20-18 , = , / ,
1− , ,

where
cp,x = potential capacity of movement x (veh/h),
vc,x = conflicting flow rate for movement x (veh/h),
tc,x = critical headway for minor movement x (s), and
tf,x = follow-up headway for minor movement x (s).
For two-stage Rank 3 or Rank 4 movements, the potential capacity is
computed three times: cp,x assuming one-stage operation, cp,I,x for Stage I, and cp,II,x
for Stage II. The conflicting flow definitions for each calculation are as provided
in Step 4.

Step 5b: Potential Capacity with Upstream Signal Effects

To evaluate the impact of coordinated upstream signals, the urban street
segments methodology (Chapter 30) is used to estimate the proportion of time
that each Rank 2 or lower movement will be effectively blocked by a platoon. The
proportion of time blocked is denoted by pb,x, where x is the movement using the
movement conventions provided in Exhibit 20-1.
With these values, the proportion of the analysis period that is blocked for
each minor movement can be computed by using Exhibit 20-19.

Motorized Vehicle Core Methodology Chapter 20/Two-Way STOP-Controlled Intersections

Page 20-22 Version 7.0
 Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis

Proportion Blocked for Movement, pb,x Exhibit 20-19

Two-Stage Movements Proportion of Analysis Period
Movement(s) x One-Stage Movements Stage I Stage II Blocked for Each Movement
1, 1U pb,1 NA NA
4, 4U pb,4 NA NA
7 pb,7 pb,4 pb,1
8 pb,8 pb,4 pb,1
9 pb,9 NA NA
10 pb,10 pb,1 pb,4
11 pb,11 pb,1 pb,4
12 pb,12 NA NA
Note: NA = not applicable.

The flow for the unblocked period (no platoons) is determined in this step.
This flow becomes the conflicting flow for the subject movement and is used to
compute the capacity for this movement. The minimum platooned flow rate vc,min
is approximately 1,000N, where N is the number of through lanes per direction
on the major street (8).
The conflicting flow for movement x during the unblocked period is given by
Equation 20-19.
, − 1.5 , ,
if , > 1.5 , ,
, , = 1− , Equation 20-19

0 otherwise
where
vc,u,x = conflicting flow for movement x during the unblocked period (veh/h);
vc,x = total conflicting flow for movement x as determined from Step 3
(veh/h);
vc,min = minimum platooned flow rate (veh/h), assumed to be 1,000N, where N
is the number of through lanes per direction on the major street; and
pb,x = proportion of time the subject movement x is blocked by the major-
street platoon, which is determined from Exhibit 20-19.
The potential capacity of the subject movement x, accounting for the effect of
platooning, is given by Equation 20-20 and Equation 20-21.
= 1− Equation 20-20
, , ,

, , , / ,
⎧ Equation 20-21
⎪ , , / ,
if , , >0
= 1− , , ,
,
⎨
⎪3,600/ when , , =0
⎩
where
cp,x = potential capacity of movement x (veh/h),
pb,x = proportion of time that movement x is blocked by a platoon,
cr,x = capacity of movement x assuming random flow during the unblocked
period, and
tf = follow-up headway of the movement.

Chapter 20/Two-Way STOP-Controlled Intersections Motorized Vehicle Core Methodology

Version 7.0 Page 20-23
Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis

These equations use the same critical headway and follow-up headway
inputs as a normal calculation, but they use only the conflicting flow during the
unblocked period.

Steps 6–9: Compute Movement Capacities

For clarity, these steps assume pedestrian impedance effects can be neglected,
and in many cases this assumption is reasonable. However, pedestrians can be
accounted for in the analysis of the motorized vehicle mode by replacing these
steps with those provided in Section 4, Extension to the Motorized Vehicle
Methodology, which incorporate the effects of pedestrian impedance.

Step 6: Compute Rank 1 Movement Capacities

Rank 1 major-street movements are assumed to be unimpeded by any
movements of lower rank. This rank also implies that major-street movements of
Rank 1 are not expected to incur delay or slowing as they travel through the
TWSC intersection. Empirical observations have shown that such delays do
occasionally occur, and they are accounted for by using adjustments provided
later in this procedure.

Step 7: Compute Rank 2 Movement Capacities

Movements of Rank 2 (left turns and U-turns from the major street and right
turns from the minor street) must yield to conflicting major-street through and
right-turning vehicular movements of Rank 1. Minor-street right turns are
assumed to yield to major-street U-turns, although sometimes the reverse occurs.

Step 7a: Movement Capacity for Major-Street Left-Turn Movements

The movement capacity cm,j for Rank 2 major-street left-turn movements
(1 and 4) is equal to its potential capacity cp,j, as shown in Equation 20-22.
Equation 20-22 =
, ,

Step 7b: Movement Capacity for Minor-Street Right-Turn Movements

The movement capacity cm,j for Rank 2 minor-street right-turn movements
(9 and 12) is equal to its potential capacity cp,j, as shown in Equation 20-23.
Equation 20-23 =
, ,

Step 7c: Movement Capacity for Major-Street U-Turn Movements

The movement capacity cm,j for Rank 2 major-street U-turn movements (1U
and 4U) is found by first computing a capacity adjustment factor that accounts
for the impeding effects of higher-ranked movements. Field observations are
mixed in terms of the degree to which major-street U-turn movements yield to
minor-street right-turn movements and vice versa (5). It is assumed that the
presence of minor-street right-turning vehicles will impede U-turning vehicles
from accepting gaps in the major-street traffic stream; therefore, the capacity of
the U-turn movement is affected by the probability that the minor-street right-
turning traffic will operate in a queue-free state. The capacity adjustment factors

Motorized Vehicle Core Methodology Chapter 20/Two-Way STOP-Controlled Intersections

Page 20-24 Version 7.0
 Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis

are denoted by f1U and f4U for the major-street U-turn movements 1U and 4U,
respectively, and are given by Equation 20-24 and Equation 20-25, respectively.

= , =1− Equation 20-24

,

= , =1− Equation 20-25

,

where
f1U, f4U = capacity adjustment factor for Rank 2 major-street U-turn movements
1 and 4, respectively;
p0,j = probability that conflicting Rank 2 minor-street right-turn movement j
will operate in a queue-free state;
vj = flow rate of movement j;
cm,j = capacity of movement j; and
j = 9 and 12 (minor-street right-turn movements of Rank 2).
The movement capacity for major-street U-turn movements is then
computed with Equation 20-26.
= × Equation 20-26
, ,

where In almost all cases, major-

street left-turning vehicles
cm,jU = movement capacity for Movements 1U and 4U, share a lane with U-turning
vehicles. If Rank 2 major-street
cp,jU = potential capacity for Movements 1U and 4U (from Step 5), and U-turn movements are present
to a significant degree, then
fjU = capacity adjustment factor for Movements 1U and 4U. Equation 20-27 should be used
to compute the shared-lane
Because left-turn and U-turn movements are typically made from the same capacity.
lane, their shared-lane capacity is computed with Equation 20-27.
∑
= Equation 20-27
∑
,

where
cSH = capacity of the shared lane (veh/h),
vy = flow rate of the y movement in the subject shared lane (veh/h), and
cm,y = movement capacity of the y movement in the subject shared lane
(veh/h).

Step 7d: Effect of Major-Street Shared Through and Left-Turn Lane

The probability that the major-street left-turning traffic will operate in a
queue-free state is expressed by Equation 20-28.

, =1− Equation 20-28

,
Use Equation 20-28 to
where j = 1+1U and 4+4U (major-street left-turn and U-turn movements of Rank compute the probability of a
2, using shared volume and capacity as appropriate). queue-free state for Rank 2
movements. If major-street
through and left-turn
movements are shared, use
Equation 20-33 and Equation
20-34.

Chapter 20/Two-Way STOP-Controlled Intersections Motorized Vehicle Core Methodology

Version 7.0 Page 20-25
Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis

If, however, a shared left-turn lane or a short left-turn pocket is present on a

major-street approach (as in Exhibit 20-20), the analyst accounts for this
occurrence by computing the probability that there will be no queue in the
major-street shared lane, p*0,j, according to Equation 20-29 and Equation 20-31 for
Movements 1+1U and 4+4U, respectively. This probability is then used by the
analyst in lieu of p0,j from Equation 20-28.

Exhibit 20-20
Short Left-Turn Pocket on
Major-Street Approach

The methodology implicitly assumes an exclusive lane is provided to all left-

turning traffic from the major street. If a left-turn lane is not provided or the left-
turn pocket is not long enough to accommodate all queuing left-turn and U-turn
vehicles, major-street through (and possibly right-turning) traffic could be
delayed by left-turning vehicles waiting for an acceptable gap in opposing major-
street through traffic. To account for this occurrence, the factors p*0,1+1U and p*0,4+4U
may be computed according to Equation 20-29 through Equation 20-32 as an
indication of the probability there will be no queue in the respective major-street
shared or short lanes (9).
( )
∗
Equation 20-29 , =1− 1− , 1+
1−

Equation 20-30 = , +

( )
∗
Equation 20-31 , =1− 1− , 1+
1−

Equation 20-32 = , +

where
p0,j = probability of queue-free state for movement j (1+1U or 4+4U)
assuming an exclusive left-turn lane on the major street (per
Equation 20-28);
p*0,j = probability of queue-free state for movement j (1+1U or 4+4U)
assuming a shared left-turn lane on the major street;
x2+3, x5+6 = combined degree of saturation for the major-street through and
right-turn movements;

Motorized Vehicle Core Methodology Chapter 20/Two-Way STOP-Controlled Intersections

Page 20-26 Version 7.0
 Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis

fLL,2+3, fLL,5+6 = factor to estimate portion of through and right-turn traffic using
left lane (equals 1 for one through lane; default value of 0.5 for
two through lanes and 0.33 for three through lanes; however,
this parameter can be measured in the field);
s2, s5 = saturation flow rate for the major-street through movements
(default assumed to be 1,800 veh/h; however, this parameter can
be measured in the field);
s3, s6 = saturation flow rate for the major-street right-turn movements
(default assumed to be 1,500 veh/h; however, this parameter can
be measured in the field);
v2, v5 = major-street through-movement flow rate (veh/h);
v3, v6 = major-street right-turn flow rate (veh/h) (0 if an exclusive right-
turn lane is provided); and
nL = number of vehicles that can be stored in the left-turn pocket (see
Exhibit 20-20).
For the special situation of shared lanes (nL = 0), Equation 20-29 and Equation
20-31 become Equation 20-33 and Equation 20-34, respectively, as follows:
∗
1− ,
, =1− Equation 20-33
1−

∗
1− ,
, =1− Equation 20-34
1−
where all terms are as previously defined.
By using p*0,1+1U and p*0,4+4U in lieu of p0,1+1U and p0,4+4U (as computed by
Equation 20-28), the potential for queues on a major street with shared or short
left-turn lanes may be taken into account.

Step 8: Compute Rank 3 Movement Capacities

Rank 3 minor-street traffic movements (minor-street through movements at
four-leg intersections and minor-street left turns at three-leg intersections) must
yield to conflicting Rank 1 and Rank 2 movements. Not all gaps of acceptable
length that pass through the intersection will normally be available for use by
Rank 3 movements, because some of these gaps are likely to be used by Rank 2
movements.
If the Rank 3 movement is a two-stage movement, the movement capacity
for the one-stage movement is computed as an input to the two-stage calculation.

Step 8a: Rank 3 Capacity for One-Stage Movements

For Rank 3 movements, the magnitude of vehicle impedance depends on the
probability that major-street left-turning vehicles will be waiting for an
acceptable gap at the same time as vehicles of Rank 3. A higher probability that
this situation will occur means greater capacity-reducing effects of the major-
street left-turning traffic on all Rank 3 movements.
The movement capacity cm,k for all Rank 3 movements is found by first
computing a capacity adjustment factor that accounts for the impeding effects of

Chapter 20/Two-Way STOP-Controlled Intersections Motorized Vehicle Core Methodology

Version 7.0 Page 20-27
Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis

higher-ranked movements. The capacity adjustment factor is denoted by fk for all

movements k and for all Rank 3 movements and is given by Equation 20-35.
Equation 20-35
= ,

where Π indicates the product of a series of terms, and

p0,j = probability that conflicting Rank 2 movement j will operate in a queue-
free state, and
k = Rank 3 movements.
The movement capacity cm,k for Rank 3 minor-street movements is computed
with Equation 20-36.
Equation 20-36 = ×
, ,

where cp,k is the potential capacity of Rank 3 minor-street movements, and fk is the
capacity adjustment factor that accounts for the impeding effects of higher-
ranked movements computed according to Equation 20-35.

Step 8b: Rank 3 Capacity for Two-Stage Movements

If the Rank 3 movement is a two-stage movement, the procedure for
computing the total movement capacity for the subject movement considering
the two-stage gap acceptance process is as follows. An adjustment factor a and an
intermediate variable y are computed with Equation 20-37 and Equation 20-38,
respectively.
Equation 20-37 .
= 1 − 0.32 for >0
I− ,
Equation 20-38 =
II − − ,

where
nm = number of vehicles that can be stored in the median;
The terms cI, cII, and cm,x are cI = movement capacity for the Stage I process (veh/h);
capacities after being adjusted
for upstream signals and cII = movement capacity for the Stage II process (veh/h);
impedance. Use v1 + v1U when
considering Movements 7 and 8 vL = major left-turn and U-turn combined flow rate, either v1 + v1U or v4 + v4U
and v4 + v4U when considering (veh/h); and
Movements 10 and 11.
cm,x = capacity of subject movement, considering the total conflicting flow
rate for both stages of a two-stage gap acceptance process (from Step 8a).
The total capacity cT for the subject movement, considering the two-stage gap
acceptance process, is computed by using Equation 20-39 and Equation 20-40 and
incorporating the adjustment factors derived from Equation 20-37 and Equation
20-38.
For y ≠ 1:

Equation 20-39 = ( − 1)( II − ) + ( − 1) ,

−1
For y = 1:

Equation 20-40 = ( II − )+ ,
+1

Motorized Vehicle Core Methodology Chapter 20/Two-Way STOP-Controlled Intersections

Page 20-28 Version 7.0
 Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis

Step 9: Compute Rank 4 Movement Capacities

Rank 4 movements occur only at four-leg intersections. Rank 4 movements
(i.e., only the minor-street left turns at a four-leg intersection) can be impeded by
all higher-ranked movements (Ranks 1, 2, and 3).

Step 9a: Rank 4 Capacity for One-Stage Movements

The probability that higher-ranked traffic movements will operate in a
queue-free state is central to determining their overall impeding effects on the
minor-street left-turn movement. However, not all these probabilities are
independent of each other. Specifically, queuing in the major-street left-turning
movement affects the probability of a queue-free state in the minor-street
crossing movement. Applying the simple product of these two probabilities will
likely overestimate the impeding effects on the minor-street left-turning traffic
(10, 11).
The queue-free probability within statistically dependent queues in
movements of Ranks 2 and 3 is determined with Equation 20-41 and Equation 20-
42 for Rank 4 movements 7 and 10, respectively.

1
, = , Equation 20-41
1 1
+ −1
, , ,

1
, = , Equation 20-42
1 1
+ −1
, , ,
where
fp,7, fp,10 = capacity adjustment factor to represent the impedance by the major-
street left and minor-street through movements, and
p0,j = probability of a queue-free state for the conflicting movement j.
Finally, the movement capacities for the minor-street left-turn movements of
Rank 4 are determined with Equation 20-43 and Equation 20-44, where fp,l is the
capacity adjustment factor that accounts for the impeding effects of higher-
ranked movements.
= × Equation 20-43
, , ,

= × Equation 20-44
, , ,

Step 9b: Rank 4 Capacity for Two-Stage Movements

The procedure for computing the total movement capacity for the subject
movement considering the two-stage gap acceptance process is as follows. An
adjustment factor a and an intermediate variable y are computed with Equation
20-45 and Equation 20-46, respectively.
. Equation 20-45
= 1 − 0.32 for >0
I − ,
= Equation 20-46
II − − ,

Chapter 20/Two-Way STOP-Controlled Intersections Motorized Vehicle Core Methodology

Version 7.0 Page 20-29
Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis

where
nm = number of storage spaces in the median;
The terms cI, cII, and cm,x are
cI = movement capacity for the Stage I process (veh/h);
capacities after being adjusted
for upstream signals and cII = movement capacity for the Stage II process (veh/h);
impedance. Use v1 + v1U when
considering Movements 7 and 8 vL = major left-turn and U-turn combined flow rate, either v1 + v1U or v4 + v4U
and v4 + v4U when considering (veh/h); and
Movements 10 and 11.
cm,x = capacity of subject movement, including the total conflicting flow rate
for both stages of a two-stage gap acceptance process (from Step 9a).
The total capacity cT for the subject movement considering the two-stage gap
acceptance process is computed by using Equation 20-47 and Equation 20-48 and
incorporating the adjustment factors computed in Equation 20-45 and Equation
20-46.
For y ≠ 1:
Equation 20-47
= ( − 1)( II − ) + ( − 1) ,
−1
For y = 1:
Equation 20-48
= ( II − )+ ,
+1

Step 10: Final Capacity Adjustments

Step 10a: Shared-Lane Capacity of Minor-Street Approaches
Where two or more movements share the same lane and cannot stop side by
side at the stop line, Equation 20-49 is used to compute shared-lane capacity.
Equation 20-49 ∑
=
∑
,

where
cSH = capacity of the shared lane (veh/h),
vy = flow rate of the y movement in the subject shared lane (veh/h), and
cm,y = movement capacity of the y movement in the subject shared lane
(veh/h).

Step 10b: Flared Minor-Street Lane Effects

To estimate the capacity of a flared right-turn lane (such as in Exhibit 20-21),
the capacity for each movement sharing the right lane on the minor street
approach must first be computed.

Exhibit 20-21
Capacity of a Flared-Lane
Approach

Motorized Vehicle Core Methodology Chapter 20/Two-Way STOP-Controlled Intersections

Page 20-30 Version 7.0
 Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis

Where several movements share the same lane, the capacity for this lane
results from the capacity of the individual movements. If the shared lane flares
out near the entrance to the major street more than one vehicle can wait near the
stop line side by side (as in Exhibit 20-21), which increases the capacity. Equation
20-50 is used to estimate the capacity of a flared right-turn lane (12).

+
= Equation 20-50
( ) ( )
+

where
cF = capacity of the flared lane (veh/h), subject to less than the saturation
flow rate of the considered lane (default assumed to be 1,800 veh/h;
however, this parameter can be measured in the field);
cR = capacity of the right-turn movement (veh/h);
cL+TH = capacity of the through and left-turn movements as a shared lane
(veh/h);
vR = right-turn movement flow rate (veh/h);
vL+TH = through and left-turn movement combined flow rate (veh/h); and
nR = actual storage area for right-turning vehicles as defined in Exhibit 20-21.
For the special situation of shared lanes without any flaring effects (nR = 0)
Equation 20-50 yields Equation 20-49.

Step 10c: Shared Major-Street Lane Effects

Where the left-turn lane on the major approach is too short to accommodate
the queue of the left-turn movement, the major-street through movement can be
impeded by the left-turn queue.
Equation 20-51 through Equation 20-60 are used to compute the shared-lane
capacity (9). If the major-street right-turn movement is in its own lane, it is
excluded from the shared lane calculation.
+ + Equation 20-51
, = min ,

( )
Equation 20-52
= 1+
1−

= Equation 20-53
,

= + Equation 20-54
,

+
= Equation 20-55
+

Chapter 20/Two-Way STOP-Controlled Intersections Motorized Vehicle Core Methodology

Version 7.0 Page 20-31
Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis

and
Equation 20-56 , = min ,

( )

Equation 20-57 = 1+
1−

Equation 20-58 =
,

Equation 20-59 = , +

+
Equation 20-60 =
+
where
cSS,1+1U+2+3 = capacity of the shared short lane on the major street for
movements 1, 1U, 2, and 3, subject to cSS,1+1U+2+3 < s2;
cSS,4+4U+5+6 = capacity of the shared short lane on the major street for
movements 4, 4U, 5, and 6, subject to cSS,4+4U+5+6 < s5;
x1+1U, x4+4U = degree of saturation for the major-street left-turn and U-turn
movements;
x2+3, x5+6 = combined degree of saturation for the major-street through and
right-turn movements;
fLL,2+3, fLL,5+6 = factor to estimate portion of through and right-turn traffic using
left lane (equals 1 for one through lane; default value of 0.5 for
two through lanes and 0.33 for three through lanes; however,
this parameter can be measured in the field);
cm,1+1U, cm,4+4U = movement capacity of the major-street left-turn and U-turn
movements (veh/h);
s2, s5 = saturation flow rate for the major-street through movements
(default assumed to be 1,800 veh/h; however, this parameter can
be measured in the field);
s3, s6 = saturation flow rate for the major-street right-turn movements
(default assumed to be 1,500 veh/h; however, this parameter can
be measured in the field);
v1+1U, v4+4U = major-street left-turn and U-turn movement flow rate (veh/h);
v2, v5 = major-street through movement flow rate (veh/h);
v3, v6 = major-street right-turn movement flow rate (veh/h) (0 if an
exclusive right-turn lane is provided);
N = number of through lanes per direction on the major street; and
nL = number of vehicles that can be stored in the left-turn pocket for
the appropriate left-turn and U-turn movement (see Exhibit 20-
20).

Motorized Vehicle Core Methodology Chapter 20/Two-Way STOP-Controlled Intersections

Page 20-32 Version 7.0
 Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis

Step 11: Compute Movement Control Delay

The delay experienced by a motorist is related to factors such as control type,
geometrics, traffic, and incidents. In the TWSC intersection methodology, only
that portion of delay attributed to the STOP-control aspect of the intersection,
referred to as control delay, is quantified.
Control delay includes delay due to deceleration to a stop at the back of the The delay equations in Step 11
are only approximate for
queue from free-flow speed, move-up time within the queue, stopped delay at shared lanes (especially shared
the front of the queue, and delay due to acceleration back to free-flow speed. lanes with flaring). Only the
control delay behind the
With respect to field measurements, control delay is defined as the total time that shared point is calculated;
elapses from the time a vehicle stops at the end of the queue to the time the control delays for individual
movements cannot be
vehicle departs from the stop line. This total elapsed time includes the time estimated accurately.
required for the vehicle to travel from the last-in-queue position to the first-in-
queue position, including deceleration of the vehicle from free-flow speed to the
speed of vehicles in the queue.

Step 11a: Compute Control Delay to Rank 2 Through Rank 4 Movements

Average control delay for any particular minor movement is a function of
the capacity of the approach and the degree of saturation. The analytical model
used to estimate control delay (Equation 20-61) assumes demand is less than
capacity for the period of analysis. If the degree of saturation is greater than
about 0.9, average control delay is significantly affected by the length of the
analysis period. In most cases, the recommended analysis period is 15 min. If
demand exceeds capacity during a 15-min period, the delay results computed by
the procedure may not be accurate. In this case, the period of analysis should be
lengthened to include the period of oversaturation.

⎡ 3,600 ⎤
3,600 ⎢ , , ⎥
= + 900 ⎢ −1+ −1 + Equation 20-61
450 ⎥+5
, , ,
⎢ ⎥
⎣ ⎦
where
dx = control delay for movement x (s/veh),
vx = flow rate for movement x (veh/h),
cm,x = capacity of movement x (veh/h), and
T = analysis period (0.25 h for a 15-min period) (h).
The constant 5 s/veh is included in Equation 20-61 to account for the A constant value of 5 s/veh is
used to reflect delay during
deceleration of vehicles from free-flow speed to the speed of vehicles in the deceleration to and
queue and the acceleration of vehicles from the stop line to free-flow speed. acceleration from a stop.

Step 11b: Compute Control Delay to Rank 1 Movements

The effect of a shared lane on the major-street approach where left-turning
vehicles may block Rank 1 through or right-turning vehicles can be significant. If
no exclusive left-turn pocket is provided on the major street, a delayed left-
turning vehicle may block the Rank 1 vehicles behind it. This will delay not only
Rank 1 vehicles but also lower-ranked movements. While the delayed Rank 1

Chapter 20/Two-Way STOP-Controlled Intersections Motorized Vehicle Core Methodology

Version 7.0 Page 20-33
Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis

vehicles are discharging from the queue formed behind a left-turning vehicle,
they impede lower-ranked conflicting movements.
Field observations have shown that such a blockage effect is usually very
small, because the major street usually provides enough space for the blocked
Rank 1 vehicle to bypass the left-turning vehicle on the right. At a minimum,
incorporating this effect requires estimating the proportion of Rank 1 vehicles
being blocked and computing the average delay to the major-street left-turning
vehicles that are blocking through vehicles.
In the simplest procedure, the proportion of Rank 1 major-street vehicles not
being blocked (i.e., in a queue-free state) is given by p*0,j in Equation 20-29 and
Equation 20-31 for Movements 1+1U and 4+4U, respectively (p*0,j should be
substituted for the major left-turn factor p0,j in Equation 20-28 in computing the
capacity of lower-ranked movements that conflict). Therefore, the proportion of
Rank 1 vehicles being blocked is 1 – p*0,j.
The average delay to Rank 1 vehicles is computed with Equation 20-62 and
Equation 20-63.
∗ ( )
1− , , +
>1
= + , ( + )
Equation 20-62
∗
1− , =1

∗ ( )
1− , , +
>1
= + , ( + )
Equation 20-63
∗
1− , =1
where
d2+3, d5+6 = delay to Rank 1 vehicles (s/veh);
N = number of through lanes per direction on the major street;
p*0,j = proportion of Rank 1 vehicles not blocked (from Equation 20-29
and Equation 20-31 for Movements 1+1U and 4+4U, respectively);
d1+1U , d4+4U = delay to major-street left-turning and U-turning vehicles (from
Equation 20-61) (s/veh);
v1+1U, v4+4U = major-street left-turning vehicles in shared lane (veh/h);
v2, v5 = major-street through vehicles in shared lane (veh/h);
v3, v6 = major-street right-turn movement flow rate (veh/h) (0 if an
exclusive right-turn lane is provided); and
fLL,2+3 , fLL,5+6 = factor to estimate portion of through traffic using left lane
(equals 1 for one through lane, with a default value of 0.5 for two
through lanes and 0.33 for three through lanes; however, this
parameter can be measured in the field).
On a multilane street, only the major-street volumes in the lane that may be
blocked should be used in the computation. If it is assumed blocked Rank 1
vehicles do not bypass the blockage by moving into other through lanes (a
reasonable assumption under conditions of high major-street flows), the default
values may be used for fLL,2+3 and fLL,5+6. Because of the unique characteristics

Motorized Vehicle Core Methodology Chapter 20/Two-Way STOP-Controlled Intersections

Page 20-34 Version 7.0
 Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis

associated with each site, the decision on whether to account for this effect is left
to the analyst.

Step 12: Compute Approach and Intersection Control Delay

The control delay for all vehicles on a particular approach can be computed
as the weighted average of the control delay estimates for each movement or lane
on the approach. Equation 20-64 is used for the computation.
∑ , ,
= Equation 20-64
,
∑ ,

where dA,x is the control delay on approach x (s/veh), di,x is the control delay for
movement or lane i on approach x (s/veh), and vi,x is the volume or flow rate for
movement or lane i on approach x (veh/h).
Similarly, the intersection control delay dI can be computed with Equation 20-65.

, , + , , + , , + , ,
= Equation 20-65
, + , + , + ,

where dA,x is the control delay on approach x (s/veh), and vA,x is the volume or
flow rate on approach x (veh/h).
In applying Equation 20-64 and Equation 20-65, the delay for all Rank 1
major-street movements is assumed to be 0 s/veh. LOS is not defined for an
overall intersection because major-street movements with 0 s of delay typically
result in a weighted average delay that is extremely low. As such, total
intersection control delay calculations are typically used only when comparing
control delay among different types of traffic control, such as two-way STOP
control versus all-way STOP control.

Step 13: Compute 95th Percentile Queue Lengths

Queue length is an important consideration at unsignalized intersections.
Theoretical studies and empirical observations have demonstrated that the
probability distribution of queue lengths for any minor movement at an
unsignalized intersection is a function of the capacity of the movement and the
volume of traffic being served during the analysis period. Equation 20-66 can be
used to estimate the 95th percentile queue length for any minor movement at an
unsignalized intersection during the peak 15-min period on the basis of these
two parameters (13).

⎡ 3,600 ⎤
⎢ , , ⎥ ,
≈ 900 ⎢ −1+ −1 + ⎥ 3,600 Equation 20-66
, , 150
⎢ ⎥
⎣ ⎦
where
Q95 = 95th percentile queue (veh),
vx = flow rate for movement x (veh/h),
cm,x = capacity of movement x (veh/h), and
T = analysis period (0.25 h for a 15-min period) (h).

Chapter 20/Two-Way STOP-Controlled Intersections Motorized Vehicle Core Methodology

Version 7.0 Page 20-35
Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis

The mean queue length is computed as the product of the average delay per
vehicle and the flow rate for the movement of interest. The expected total delay
(vehicle hours per hour) equals the expected number of vehicles in the average
queue; that is, the total hourly delay and the average queue are numerically
identical. For example, four vehicle hours per hour of delay can be used
interchangeably with an average queue length of four vehicles during the hour.

Motorized Vehicle Core Methodology Chapter 20/Two-Way STOP-Controlled Intersections

Page 20-36 Version 7.0
 Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis

4. EXTENSION TO THE MOTORIZED VEHICLE

METHODOLOGY

INTRODUCTION
This section presents the details of incorporating pedestrian effects on
motorized vehicle capacity into the motorized vehicle methodology. The steps
below replace Steps 6 through 9 from Section 3.

REPLACEMENT STEPS TO INCORPORATE PEDESTRIAN EFFECTS ON

MOTORIZED VEHICLE CAPACITY
Step 6: Compute Rank 1 Movement Capacities
Rank 1 major-street movements are assumed to be unimpeded by any
movements of lower rank. Major-street movements of Rank 1 are not expected to
incur delay or slowing as they travel through the TWSC intersection. Empirical
observations have shown that such delays occasionally occur, and they are
accounted for by using adjustments provided later in this procedure.
For the purposes of this procedure, major-street movements of Rank 1 are
assumed to be unimpeded by pedestrians at a TWSC intersection, even though
research indicates some degree of Rank 1 vehicular yielding to pedestrians (see
the pedestrian methodology in Section 5). The assumption that pedestrians do
not impede Rank 1 major-street movements, including major-street right-turning
movements, is a known limitation in the procedure.

Step 7: Compute Rank 2 Movement Capacities

Movements of Rank 2 (left turns from the major street and right turns from
the minor street) must yield to conflicting major-street through and right-turning
vehicular movements of Rank 1 as well as conflicting pedestrian movements of
Rank 1. The movement capacity of each Rank 2 movement is equal to its
potential capacity, factored by any impedance due to pedestrians.

Step 7a: Pedestrian Impedance

Minor vehicular movements must yield to conflicting pedestrian movements
at a TWSC intersection. A factor accounting for pedestrian blockage is computed
by Equation 20-67 on the basis of pedestrian volume, pedestrian walking speed,
and width of the lane the minor movement is negotiating into.
×
= Equation 20-67
3,600
where
fpb = pedestrian blockage factor or proportion of time that one lane on an
approach is blocked during 1 h;
vx = number of groups of pedestrians, where x is Movement 13, 14, 15, or 16;
w = width of the lane the minor movement is negotiating into (ft); and
Sp = pedestrian walking speed, assumed to be 3.5 ft/s.

Chapter 20/Two-Way STOP-Controlled Intersections Extension to the Motorized Vehicle Methodology

Version 7.0 Page 20-37
Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis

The pedestrian impedance factor for pedestrian movement x, pp,x, is

computed by Equation 20-68.
Equation 20-68 =1−
,

Exhibit 20-22 shows that Rank 2 movements v1 and v4 must yield to

pedestrian movements v16 and v15, respectively. Exhibit 20-22 also shows that
Rank 2 movement v9 must yield to pedestrian movements v15 and v14, and Rank 2
movement v12 must yield to pedestrian movements v16 and v13. Rank 2 U-turn
movements v1U and v4U are assumed to not yield to pedestrians crossing the
major street, consistent with the assumptions stated previously for Rank 1
vehicles.

Exhibit 20-22 Vehicular Movement Must Yield to Pedestrian Impedance Factor for
Relative Pedestrian–Vehicle (vx) Movement Pedestrians (pp,x)
Hierarchy for Rank 2
v1 v16 pp,16
Movements
v1U — —
v4 v15 pp,15
v4U — —
v9 v15,v14 (pp,15)(pp,14)
v12 v16,v13 (pp,16)(pp,13)

Step 7b: Movement Capacity for Major-Street Left-Turn Movements

Rank 2 major-street left-turn movements can be impeded by conflicting
pedestrians. The movement capacity cm,j for major-street left-turn movements is
computed with Equation 20-69.
Equation 20-69 = ×
, , ,

where j denotes movements of Rank 2 priority, i denotes movements of Rank 1

priority, and cp,j is the potential capacity of movement j.

Step 7c: Movement Capacity for Minor-Street Right-Turn Movements

The movement capacity cm,j for Rank 2 minor-street right-turn Movements 9
and 12 is impeded by two conflicting pedestrian movements. The capacity
adjustment factors are denoted by f9 and f12 for minor-street right-turn
Movements 9 and 12, respectively, and are given by Equation 20-70 and Equation
20-71, respectively.
Equation 20-70 = ×
, ,
Equation 20-71 = ×
, ,

where
f9, f12 = capacity adjustment factor for Rank 2 minor-street right-turn
Movements 9 and 12, respectively; and
pp,j = probability that conflicting Rank 2 pedestrian movement j will operate
in a queue-free state.
The movement capacity for minor-street right-turn movements is then
computed with Equation 20-72.
Equation 20-72 = ×
, ,

Extension to the Motorized Vehicle Methodology Chapter 20/Two-Way STOP-Controlled Intersections

Page 20-38 Version 7.0
 Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis

where
cm,j = movement capacity for Movements 9 and 12,
cp,j = potential capacity for Movements 9 and 12 (from Step 5), and
fj = capacity adjustment factor for Movements 9 and 12.

Step 7d: Movement Capacity for Major-Street U-Turn Movements

This step is the same as Step 7c in Section 3.

Step 7e: Effect of Major-Street Shared Through and Left-Turn Lane

This step is the same as Step 7d in Section 3.

Step 8: Compute Rank 3 Movement Capacities

Rank 3 minor-street traffic movements (minor-street through movements at
four-leg intersections and minor-street left turns at three-leg intersections) must
yield to conflicting Rank 1 and Rank 2 movements. Not all gaps of acceptable
length that pass through the intersection are normally available for use by Rank 3
movements because some of them are likely to be used by Rank 2 movements.
If the Rank 3 movement is a two-stage movement, the movement capacity
for the one-stage movement is computed as an input to the two-stage calculation.

Step 8a: Pedestrian Impedance

Exhibit 20-23 shows that Rank 3 movements v8 and v11 must yield to
pedestrian movements v15 and v16.

Vehicular Must Yield to Pedestrian Impedance Factor for Exhibit 20-23

Movement (vx) Movement Pedestrians (pp,x) Relative Pedestrian–Vehicle
Hierarchy for Rank 3
v8 v15,v16 (pp,15)(pp,16)
Movements
v11 v15,v16 (pp,15)(pp,16)

The pedestrian impedance factor for Rank 3 movements is computed

according to Equation 20-67 and Equation 20-68.

Step 8b: Rank 3 Capacity for One-Stage Movements

This step is the same as Step 8a in Section 3, except that the capacity
adjustment factor fk for all movements k and for all Rank 3 movements is given
by Equation 20-73.

= , × , Equation 20-73

where Π indicates the product of a series of terms, and

p0,j = probability that conflicting Rank 2 movement j will operate in a queue-
free state,
pp,x = probability of pedestrian movements of Rank 1 or Rank 2 priority,
k = Rank 3 movements, and
x = 13, 14, 15, or 16 (pedestrian movements of both Rank 1 and Rank 2).

Chapter 20/Two-Way STOP-Controlled Intersections Extension to the Motorized Vehicle Methodology

Version 7.0 Page 20-39
Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis

Step 8c: Rank 3 Capacity for Two-Stage Movements

This step is the same as Step 8b in Section 3.

Step 9: Compute Rank 4 Movement Capacities

Rank 4 movements (i.e., only the minor-street left turns at a four-leg
intersection) can be impeded by all higher-ranked movements (Ranks 1, 2, and 3).

Step 9a: Pedestrian Impedance

Exhibit 20-24 shows that Rank 4 movement v7 must yield to pedestrian
movements v15 and v13, and Rank 4 movement v10 must yield to pedestrian
movements v16 and v14.

Exhibit 20-24 Vehicular Must Yield to Pedestrian Impedance Factor for

Relative Pedestrian–Vehicle Movement (vx) Movement Pedestrians (pp,x)
Hierarchy for Rank 4 v7 v15,v13 (pp,15)(pp,13)
Movements v10 v16,v14 (pp,16)(pp,14)

The pedestrian impedance factor for Rank 4 movements is computed

according to Equation 20-67 and Equation 20-68.

Step 9b: Rank 4 Capacity for One-Stage Movements

This step is the same as Step 9a in Section 3, except that the capacity
adjustment factor for the Rank 4 minor-street left-turn movements can be
computed by Equation 20-74 and Equation 20-75.

1
Equation 20-74 , = , ,
1 1
+ −1
, , ,

1
Equation 20-75 =
, 1 1 , ,
+ −1
, , ,
where
fp,7, fp,10 = capacity adjustment factor to represent the impedance by the major-
street left and minor-street through movements;
p0,j = probability of a queue-free state for the conflicting movement j; and
pp,x = values shown in Equation 20-68 (the variable p0,j should be included
only if movement j is identified as a conflicting movement).

Step 9c: Rank 4 Capacity for Two-Stage Movements

This step is the same as Step 9b in Section 3.

Extension to the Motorized Vehicle Methodology Chapter 20/Two-Way STOP-Controlled Intersections

Page 20-40 Version 7.0
 Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis

5. PEDESTRIAN MODE

SCOPE OF THE METHODOLOGY

This methodology applies to TWSC intersections and midblock crossings at
which pedestrians cross up to four through lanes at a time on the major street. It
is applied through a series of steps requiring input data related to vehicle and
pedestrian volumes, geometric conditions, and motorist yield rates to pedestrians.

Spatial and Temporal Limits

This section’s methodology applies to pedestrian crossings across an
uncontrolled approach of a TWSC intersection or at a midblock location. The
recommended length of the analysis period is the HCM standard of 15 min
(although longer periods can be examined).

Performance Measures
This methodology produces the following performance measures:
x Average pedestrian delay, and
x Perception-based LOS based on the probability of crossing without delay
and the type(s) of treatment(s) provided at the crossing.

Limitations of the Methodology

The pedestrian methodology’s limitations differ from the limitations of the
motorized vehicle mode because the methods were developed in separate
research efforts. The pedestrian methodology does not apply to undivided streets
with more than four through lanes, although it can accommodate up to four
lanes in each direction separated by a median refuge. It does not account for
interaction effects of upstream signalized intersections, it assumes random
arrivals and equal lane distribution on the major street and, for one-stage
crossings, it assumes equal directional distribution on the major street.
The methodology does not take into account pedestrian cross flows (i.e.,
pedestrian flows approximately perpendicular to and crossing another
pedestrian stream), and it assumes the pedestrian will reach the crossing without
delay from pedestrians traveling parallel to the major street. Under high
pedestrian volumes, this assumption may not be reasonable.
The method is for steady state conditions (i.e., the demand and capacity
conditions are constant during the analysis period); it is not designed to evaluate
how fast or how often the facility transitions from one demand or capacity state
to another.
The pedestrian crossing LOS model indicates improved pedestrian Although the model only
directly accounts for improved
satisfaction when specific pedestrian safety countermeasures exist: marked pedestrian satisfaction from
crosswalks, median refuge islands, rectangular rapid-flashing beacons (RFFBs), selected pedestrian safety
countermeasures, the effects
or a combination of these. The research that developed this model (14) did not of other countermeasures on
study the full range of safety countermeasures in use and therefore may satisfaction can be indirectly
incorporated.
underpredict pedestrian satisfaction with other types of safety countermeasures.
However, the effects of other types of safety countermeasures are indirectly

Chapter 20/Two-Way STOP-Controlled Intersections Pedestrian Mode

Version 7.0 Page 20-41
Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis

accounted for through improvements in driver yielding, reductions in crossing

length, or both.

Alternative Tool Considerations

This section offers a method for estimating the delay and LOS for pedestrians
crossing a major street at a TWSC intersection or midblock location. Some
simulation-based tools offer a more detailed treatment of the arrival and
departure of vehicles and their interaction with pedestrians, but for most
purposes the HCM procedure produces an acceptable approximation.
The identified limitations for this chapter are shown in Exhibit 20-25, along
with the potential for improved treatment by alternative tools.

Exhibit 20-25 Limitation Potential for Improved Treatment by Alternative Tools

Limitations of the HCM TWSC Crossing more than four Simulation tools may be able to accommodate larger lane
Pedestrian Procedure through lanes in one stage configurations.
Effects of upstream Simulation tools can include an unsignalized intersection explicitly
intersections within a signalized arterial or network.
Pedestrian cross flows parallel
to the major street that Simulation tools that model pedestrian flows explicitly may be
impede pedestrian crossings able to capture this effect.
across the major street
Non–steady state conditions Most alternative tools provide for multiperiod variation of demand
for demand and capacity and, in some cases, capacity.

REQUIRED INPUT DATA AND SOURCES

Exhibit 20-26 lists the information necessary to apply the pedestrian
methodology and suggests potential sources for obtaining these data. It also
suggests default values for use when specific information is not available.

Exhibit 20-26 Suggested

Required Input Data, Potential Required Data and Units Potential Data Source(s) Default Value
Data Sources, and Default Geometric Data
Values for TWSC Pedestrian
Number of lanes on the major street Design plans, road inventory Must be provided
Analysis
Crosswalk length (ft) Design plans, road inventory Must be provided
Crosswalk width (ft) Design plans, road inventory Must be provided
Presence of crossing treatments: marked
crosswalk, median refuge, rectangular Design plans, road inventory Must be provided
rapid-flashing beacon
Demand Data
Pedestrian flow rate (p/s) Field data, modeling Must be provided
Presence of pedestrian platooning Field data, modeling Must be provided
Conflicting vehicular flow rate (veh/s) Field data, modeling Must be provided
Pedestrian walking speed (ft/s) Field data See discussion below
Pedestrian start-up time and end clearance
Field data See discussion below
time (s)
Mean motorist yielding rate to pedestrians Field data, literature Must be provideda
a
Note: Sample values from the literature are provided in this section (see Exhibit 20-28).

The choice of pedestrian walking speed depends on the analysis purpose:

x For estimating average pedestrian delay (e.g., as part of a person delay
analysis) or pedestrian LOS under existing conditions, a locally measured
average walking speed for uncontrolled crossings is recommended. In the
absence of local data, research (14–16) has found an average pedestrian

Pedestrian Mode Chapter 20/Two-Way STOP-Controlled Intersections

Page 20-42 Version 7.0
 Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis

speed while crossing of 4.7 ft/s, which is slightly higher than the average
pedestrian speed on sidewalks of 4.4 ft/s given in Chapter 18.
x For planning and design purposes, for example to assess the adequacy of
the crossing to accommodate pedestrians with a variety of abilities, a
walking speed of 3.5 ft/s, representative of a 15th-percentile pedestrian,
may be appropriate.
The research that developed this method (14) found that field-measured
values of average delay best matched the estimated delay when the pedestrian
start-up and end clearance time was 0 s. This value implies that pedestrians
anticipate the arrival of an adequate gap (i.e., they do not require any start-up
time) and start immediately upon its arrival. It also implies that pedestrians do
not require any end clearance time. However, it is more likely that the vehicles
defining the start and end of the adequate gap are often not traveling in the first
and last lanes, respectively, crossed by the pedestrian (hence, crossing safety is
assured spatially by lane separation rather than temporally by a second or two of
clearance time). As always, the use of local values is encouraged when available.
For design purposes, a start-up and end clearance time value of 3.0 s provides a
more conservative estimate.

COMPUTATIONAL STEPS
The required steps are illustrated in Exhibit 20-27.

Exhibit 20-27
TWSC Pedestrian
Methodology

Chapter 20/Two-Way STOP-Controlled Intersections Pedestrian Mode

Version 7.0 Page 20-43
Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis

Step 1: Identify Two-Stage Crossings

When a median refuge is available, pedestrians typically cross in two stages,
similar to the two-stage movement described for motorized vehicles earlier in
this chapter. Determination of whether a median refuge exists may require
engineering judgment; however, two-way left-turn lanes and raised medians
narrower than 6 ft are not treated as median refuges for the purposes of this
procedure. The main issue to determine is whether pedestrians cross the traffic
streams in one or two stages. When pedestrians cross in two stages, pedestrian
delay should be estimated separately for each stage of the crossing by using the
procedures described in Steps 2 through 6, separating the conflicting vehicular
volume accordingly. The pedestrian delay for each stage should be summed to
establish the average pedestrian delay associated with the entire crossing.

Step 2: Determine Critical Headway

Critical headway for The procedure for estimating critical headway for pedestrians is similar to
pedestrians is similar to critical
headway for motorized that described for motorized vehicles. The critical headway is the minimum time
vehicles. interval in seconds below which a pedestrian will not attempt to begin crossing
the street. Pedestrians use their judgment to determine whether the available
headway between conflicting vehicles is long enough for a safe crossing. If the
available headway is greater than the critical headway, it is assumed the
pedestrian will cross, but if the available headway is less than the critical
headway, it is assumed the pedestrian will not cross.
For a single pedestrian, critical headway is computed with Equation 20-76.

Equation 20-76 = +
where
tc = critical headway for a single pedestrian (s),
Sp = average pedestrian walking speed (ft/s),
L = crosswalk length (ft), and
ts = pedestrian start-up time and end clearance time (s).
Groups of pedestrians require If groups of pedestrians are observed crossing in the field (i.e., a platoon, or
computation of their spatial
distribution. more than one pedestrian crossing at a time), then the spatial distribution of
pedestrians should be computed with Equation 20-77. The spatial distribution of
pedestrians represents the number of rows of pedestrians waiting to cross, with
the first row in position to cross and subsequent rows lined behind the first row.
If the crosswalk is wide enough to accommodate a group of pedestrians traveling
side-by-side without needing to also travel behind one another, then the spatial
distribution of pedestrians equals one row. If no pedestrian grouping is
observed, the spatial distribution of pedestrians is assumed to be one row.
8.0
Equation 20-77 = max , 1.0

Pedestrian Mode Chapter 20/Two-Way STOP-Controlled Intersections

Page 20-44 Version 7.0
 Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis

where
Np = spatial distribution of pedestrians (pedestrian rows),
Nc = total number of pedestrians in the crossing platoon (from Equation
20-78) (p),
Wc = crosswalk width (ft), and
8.0 = default clear effective width used by a single pedestrian to avoid
interference when passing other pedestrians (ft).
To compute spatial distribution, the analyst must make field observations or
estimate the platoon size by using Equation 20-78.
+
= Equation 20-78
+
where
Nc = total number of pedestrians in the crossing platoon (p),
vp = pedestrian flow rate (p/s),
v = conflicting vehicular flow rate (veh/s) (combined flows for one-stage
crossings; separate flows for two-stage crossings), and
tc = single pedestrian critical headway (s).
The value of v should always be positive to avoid division-by-zero errors in
subsequent equations; a minimum value of 0.0001 veh/s is recommended in
Equation 20-78 and subsequent equations in this methodology that use v.
The group critical headway is the critical headway needed to accommodate a
group of pedestrians. The group critical headway is determined with Equation
20-79.

= + 2( − 1) Equation 20-79
,

where
tc,G = group critical headway (s),
tc = critical headway for a single pedestrian (s), and
Np = spatial distribution of pedestrians (pedestrian rows).

Step 3: Estimate Probability of a Delayed Crossing

On the basis of the calculation of the critical headway tc,G, the probability that
a pedestrian will not incur any crossing delay is equal to the likelihood that a
pedestrian will encounter a gap greater than or equal to the critical headway
immediately upon arrival at the intersection.
Assuming random arrivals of vehicles on the major street and equal
distribution of vehicles among all through lanes on the major street, the
likelihood that a gap in a given lane does not exceed the critical headway is as
shown in Equation 20-80. Because traffic is assumed to be distributed
independently in each through lane, Equation 20-81 shows the probability that a
pedestrian incurs nonzero delay at a TWSC crossing.

Chapter 20/Two-Way STOP-Controlled Intersections Pedestrian Mode

Version 7.0 Page 20-45
Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis

,
Equation 20-80 = 1−
Equation 20-81 = 1 − (1 − )
where
Pb = probability of a blocked lane,
Pd = probability of a delayed crossing,
NL = number of through lanes crossed,
tc,G = group critical headway (s), and
v = conflicting vehicular flow rate (veh/s) (combined flows for one-stage
crossings; separate flows for two-stage crossings).

Step 4: Calculate Average Delay to Wait for Adequate Gap

Research indicates average delay to pedestrians at unsignalized crossings,
assuming no motor vehicles yield and the pedestrian is forced to wait for an
adequate gap, depends on the critical headway, the vehicular flow rate of the
subject crossing, and the mean vehicle headway (17). The average delay per
pedestrian to wait for an adequate gap is given by Equation 20-82.
1
Equation 20-82 = , − , −1

where
dg = average pedestrian gap delay (s),
tc,G = group critical headway (s), and
v = conflicting vehicular flow rate (veh/s) (combined flows for one-stage
crossings; separate flows for two-stage crossings).
The average delay for any pedestrian who is unable to cross immediately
upon reaching the intersection (e.g., any pedestrian experiencing nonzero delay)
is thus a function of Pd and dg, as shown in Equation 20-83.

Equation 20-83 =

where
dgd = average gap delay for pedestrians who incur nonzero delay,
dg = average pedestrian gap delay (s), and
Pd = probability of a delayed crossing.

Step 5: Calculate Average Pedestrian Delay for the Crossing Stage

When a pedestrian arrives at a crossing and finds an inadequate gap, that
pedestrian is delayed until one of two situations occurs: (a) a gap greater than the
critical headway is available, or (b) motor vehicles yield and allow the pedestrian
to cross. Equation 20-82 estimates pedestrian delay when motorists on the major
approaches do not yield to pedestrians. When motorist yield rates are
significantly higher than zero, pedestrians will experience considerably less
delay than that estimated by Equation 20-82.

Pedestrian Mode Chapter 20/Two-Way STOP-Controlled Intersections

Page 20-46 Version 7.0
 Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis

In the United States, motorists are legally required to yield to pedestrians,

under most circumstances, in both marked and unmarked crosswalks. However,
actual motorist yielding behavior varies considerably. Exhibit 20-28 provides Depending on the crossing
treatment and other factors,
information on average motorist responses to typical pedestrian crossing motorist behavior varies
treatments summarized from a number of research efforts (14, 15, 18–33). As significantly.
indicated by the large range of observed yielding rates for many pedestrian
crossing safety countermeasures, motorist yield rates are influenced by a range of
factors. These factors include roadway geometry, travel speeds, isolated vs.
corridor- or citywide pedestrian crossing treatments, local culture, and law
enforcement practices. In nearly all cases, safety countermeasures improved
yielding rates at a given site compared to the “before” condition (e.g., crosswalk
markings only). As always, practitioners should supplement or replace these
values with local knowledge and engineering judgment. Furthermore, decisions
to install a particular treatment should also consider the treatment’s effect on
safety and whether site-specific conditions make the treatment inappropriate for
that location.

Yield Rate (%) Sample Size Exhibit 20-28

Crossing Treatment Average Range (sites) Effect of Pedestrian Crossing
No treatment (unmarked) 24 0–100 37 Treatments on Motorist Yield
Crosswalk markings only (any type) 33 0–95 58 Rates
Crosswalk markings, plus:
Pedestal-mounted flashing beacon 26 0–52 2
Overhead sign 35 12–57 2
Overhead flashing beacon (push-button activation) 51 13–91 14
Overhead flashing beacon (passive activation) 73 61–76 29
In-roadway warning lights 58 53–65 11
Median refuge island 60 0–100 21
Pedestrian crossing flags 74 72–80 6
In-street pedestrian crossing signs 76 35–88 20
Rectangular rapid-flashing beacon (RFFB) 82 31–100 64
School crossing guard 86 — 1
School crossing guard and RFFB 92 — 1
Pedestrian hybrid beacon (HAWK) 91 73–99 37
Mid-block crossing signals, half signals 98 94–100 13
Sources: Ryus et al. (14), Fitzpatrick et al. (15), Huang et al. (18), Turner et al. (19), Banerjee and Ragland (20),
Ellis Jr. et al. (21), Shurbutt et al. (22), Mitman et al. (23), Pécheaux et al. (24), Mitman et al. (25), Ross
et al. (26), Brewer and Fitzpatrick (27), Fitzpatrick et al. (28), Nemeth et al. (29), Yang et al. (30), Zheng
and Elefteriatou (31), Schneider et al. (32), Al-Kaisy et al. (33), and Hockmuth and Van Houten (34).

It is possible for pedestrians to incur less actual delay than dg because of

yielding vehicles. The likelihood of this situation occurring is a function of
vehicle volumes, motorist yield rates, and number of upstream lanes on the
major street. Consider a pedestrian waiting for a crossing opportunity at a TWSC
intersection or midblock crossing, with vehicles in each conflicting through lane
arriving every h seconds. On average, a potential yielding event will occur every
h seconds. As vehicles are assumed to arrive randomly, each potential yielding
event is considered to be independent. Turn lanes are usually fed from upstream
through lanes (i.e., a vehicle moves from an upstream through lane into a turn
pocket) and therefore are not counted separately from the upstream through
lanes except when a through lane is dropped as a turn lane at an intersection.

Chapter 20/Two-Way STOP-Controlled Intersections Pedestrian Mode

Version 7.0 Page 20-47
Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis

For each potential yielding event, each through lane is in one of two states:
1. Clear—no vehicles are arriving within the critical headway window, or
2. Blocked—a vehicle is arriving within the critical headway window.
If all through lanes are clear when a pedestrian arrives, the pedestrian
experiences no delay and can cross immediately. If at least one lane is blocked,
the pedestrian may only cross immediately if vehicles in each blocked lane
choose to yield. If one or more blocking vehicles do not yield, the pedestrian
must wait an additional h seconds for the next potential yielding event. On
average, this process will be repeated until the wait exceeds the expected delay
required for an adequate gap in traffic (dgd), at which point the average
pedestrian will receive an adequate gap in traffic and will be able to cross the
street without having to depend on yielding motorists.
Average pedestrian delay can be calculated with Equation 20-84, where the
first term in the equation represents expected delay from crossings occurring
when motorists yield, and the second term represents expected delay from
crossings when pedestrians wait for an adequate gap.

Equation 20-84 = ℎ( − 0.5) ( ) + − ( )

,

where
dp,s = average pedestrian delay for crossing stage s (s);
i = potential yielding event (i = 0 to n);
h = average headway of those headways less than group critical headway
(s), from Equation 20-85;
P(Yi) = probability that motorists yield to pedestrian on potential yielding
event i;
Pd = probability of a potentially delayed crossing; and
Note the possibility for n to n = average number of potential yielding events before an adequate gap is
have large values with high
traffic volumes. For example, available = int(dgd/h).
n = 148 when v × tc,G = 5.
Equation 20-85 computes the average headway of those headways less than
group critical headway h (35).
1/ − , + 1/ ,
Equation 20-85 ℎ=
1 − ,

where
h = average headway of those headways less than group critical headway (s),
tc,G = group critical headway (s), and
v = conflicting vehicular flow rate (veh/s) (combined flows for one-stage
crossings; separate flows for two-stage crossings).
Equation 20-84 requires the calculation of P(Yi). The probabilities P(Yi) that
motorists will yield for a given potential yielding event are considered below for
pedestrian crossings of one, two, three, and four through lanes. The probability

Pedestrian Mode Chapter 20/Two-Way STOP-Controlled Intersections

Page 20-48 Version 7.0
 Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis

of yielding P(Y0) when there are no potential yielding events (i.e., n = 0) equals
0.0 regardless of how many lanes are crossed.

One-Lane Crossing
Under the scenario in which a pedestrian crosses one through lane, P(Yi) is
found simply. When i = 1, P(Yi) is equal to the probability of a delayed crossing
Pd multiplied by the motorist yield rate My, as given by Equation 20-86:
( )= Equation 20-86

For i = 2, P(Yi) is equal to My multiplied by the probability that the second

potential yielding event occurs (i.e., that the pedestrian did not cross on the first
potential yielding event), Pd*(1 – My). Equation 20-87 gives P(Yi) for any i.
( )= 1− Equation 20-87

where
My = motorist yield rate (decimal) (My ≤ 0.9999), and
i = potential yielding event (i = 0 to n).
Because the value 00 is undefined in calculation tools, a 100% motorist
yielding rate should be reduced to 99.99% (i.e., 0.9999) for use in Equation 20-87.

Two-Lane Crossing
For a two-lane pedestrian crossing, P(Yi) requires either (a) motorists in both
lanes to yield simultaneously if both lanes are blocked or (b) a single motorist to
yield if only one lane is blocked. Because these cases are mutually exclusive,
where i = 1, P(Yi) is given by Equation 20-88.
( )=2 (1 − ) + Equation 20-88

where Pb is the probability of a blocked lane.

Equation 20-89 shows P(Yi) where i is greater than one. Equation 20-89 is
equivalent to Equation 20-88 if P(Y0) is set to equal zero.

2 [1 − ] +( )
( )= − ( ) Equation 20-89

Three-Lane Crossing
A three-lane crossing follows the same principles as a two-lane crossing. The
probability of all blocking vehicles yielding on the first potential yielding event is
given by Equation 20-90.
( )= +3 (1 − ) +3 (1 − ) Equation 20-90

Equation 20-91 shows the calculation for P(Yi) where i is greater than one.

+3 (1 − ) +3 (1 − )
( )= − ( ) Equation 20-91

Chapter 20/Two-Way STOP-Controlled Intersections Pedestrian Mode

Version 7.0 Page 20-49
Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis

Four-Lane Crossing
A four-lane crossing follows the same principles as above. The probability of
all blocking vehicles yielding on the first potential yielding event is given by
Equation 20-92.
Equation 20-92 ( )= +4 (1 − ) +6 (1 − ) +4 (1 − )
Equation 20-93 shows the calculation for P(Yi) where i is greater than one.

Equation 20-93 ( )= −

+4 (1 − ) +6 (1 − ) +4 (1 − )
×

Step 6: Calculate Average Pedestrian Delay

In the case of a one-stage crossing, the average pedestrian delay dp is the
same as the average pedestrian delay for the first crossing stage dp,1. Equation 20-
94 gives the average pedestrian delay for multiple-stage crossings.

Equation 20-94 = ,

where
dp = average pedestrian control delay (s),
dp,s = average pedestrian delay for crossing stage s (s), and
ncs = number of crossing stages.
Exhibit 20-29 provides interpretations of different ranges of pedestrian delay.

Exhibit 20-29 Control Delay

Interpretation of Different (s/p) Comments
Levels of Pedestrian Control 0–5 Usually no conflicting traffic
Delay 5–10 Occasionally some delay due to conflicting traffic
10–20 Delay noticeable to pedestrians, but not inconveniencing
20–30 Delay noticeable and irritating, increased likelihood of risk taking
30–45 Delay approaches tolerance level, risk-taking behavior likely
>45 Delay exceeds tolerance level, high likelihood of pedestrian risk taking

Step 7: Calculate Pedestrian Satisfaction Probabilities and Determine LOS

The service measure for a pedestrian crossing at a mid-block or TWSC
intersection location is based on the predicted average proportion of pedestrians
who would say they were “dissatisfied” or worse with their crossing experience.
The research that developed this portion of the methodology (14) surveyed
actual pedestrians using four potential levels of satisfaction: very satisfied,
satisfied, dissatisfied, and very dissatisfied. These levels have been condensed to
two levels—satisfied or dissatisfied—for ease of implementation.
Equation 20-95 estimates the odds that pedestrians would be satisfied with
their crossing experience relative to being dissatisfied.
Equation 20-95 ( / ) = exp(0.9951 − 0.0438 + 1.9572 + 0.9843
+ 1.5496 − 1.9059 )

Pedestrian Mode Chapter 20/Two-Way STOP-Controlled Intersections

Page 20-50 Version 7.0
 Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis

where
O(S/D) = odds that a pedestrian would be satisfied with their crossing
experience relative to being dissatisfied;
exp = exponential function;
VKAADT = annual average daily traffic of the street being crossed (1000s of veh);
IRRFB = indicator variable for the presence of a rectangular rapid-flashing
beacon (RRFB) at the crossing (1 = present, 0 = not present);
IMC = indicator variable for the presence of a marked crosswalk
(1 = present, 0 = not present);
IMR = indicator variable for the presence of a median refuge (1 = present,
0 = not present); and
INY = indicator variable for the pedestrian experiencing a vehicle not
yielding while using the crossing (1 = not yielding, 0 = yielding).
Equation 20-96 estimates the probability of a given pedestrian being satisfied
with their crossing. The probability of a given pedestrian being dissatisfied is
then one minus the probability of being satisfied, as shown by Equation 20-97.
( / )
( )= Equation 20-96
( / )+1
( )=1− ( ) Equation 20-97
where
P(S) = probability that a pedestrian would be satisfied with their crossing
experience (decimal),
P(D) = probability that a pedestrian would be dissatisfied with their
crossing experience (decimal), and
all other terms are as defined previously.
When INY = 0, Equation 20-96 and Equation 20-97 produce the probabilities of
being satisfied and dissatisfied when the pedestrian is not delayed while using
the crossing (i.e., either a sufficient gap exists when the pedestrian arrives to
allow an immediate crossing, or all blocking vehicles yield to the pedestrian).
Similarly, when INY = 1, these equations produce the probabilities of being satisfied
and dissatisfied when the pedestrian is delayed while using the crossing.
The probability of a non-delayed crossing is the sum of the probability of a
sufficient gap existing to allow an immediate crossing when the pedestrian
arrives (i.e., one minus the probability of a delayed crossing), plus the proportion
of the potentially delayed crossings in which all blocking vehicles yield to the
pedestrian on the first potential yielding event. Equation 20-98 calculates the
probability of a non-delayed crossing.

Chapter 20/Two-Way STOP-Controlled Intersections Pedestrian Mode

Version 7.0 Page 20-51
Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis

Equation 20-98 = (1 − )+ ( )
where
Pnd = probability of a non-delayed crossing (decimal);
Pd = probability of a potentially delayed crossing (decimal), from Equation
20-81; and
P(Y1) = probability of all blocking vehicles yielding on the first potential
yielding event (decimal), from Equation 20-86, Equation 20-88,
Equation 20-90, or Equation 20-92 for one-, two-, three, or- four-lane
crossings, respectively.
Over the course of the analysis period, a proportion of crossing pedestrians
Pnd will experience no delay while using the crossing; the number of “satisfied”
and “dissatisfied” ratings from these pedestrians will be in proportion to the
respective satisfaction probabilities when no delay occurs. Similarly, the
remaining proportion of crossing pedestrians Pd will be delayed while using the
crossing; the number of ratings in each category from these pedestrians will be in
proportion to the respective satisfaction probabilities when a delay occurs. The
overall proportion of “dissatisfied” ratings is therefore the volume-weighted
average of the probabilities of being “dissatisfied” under no-delay and delay
conditions, as given by Equation 20-99.
Equation 20-99 = ( , no delay) + (1 − ) ( , delay)
where
PD = average proportion of “dissatisfied” ratings for the crossing
(decimal),
Pnd = probability of a non-delayed crossing (decimal),
P(D, no delay) = probability of a “dissatisfied” rating when no delay occurs
(decimal), and
P(D, delay) = probability of a “dissatisfied” rating when a delayed
crossing occurs (decimal).
The value of PD can be used with Exhibit 20-3 to determine the crossing’s LOS.

Pedestrian Mode Chapter 20/Two-Way STOP-Controlled Intersections

Page 20-52 Version 7.0
 Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis

6. BICYCLE MODE

As of the publication of this edition of the HCM, no methodology specific to

bicyclists has been developed to assess the performance of bicyclists at TWSC
intersections, as few data are available in the United States to support model
calibration or LOS definitions. Depending on individual comfort level, ability,
geometric conditions, and traffic conditions, a bicyclist may travel through the
intersection either as a motor vehicle or as a pedestrian. Critical headway
distributions have been identified in the research (36, 37) for bicycles crossing
two-lane major streets. Data on critical headways for bicycles under many
circumstances are not readily available, however. Bicycles also differ from motor
vehicles in that they normally do not queue linearly at a STOP sign. Instead,
multiple bicycles often use the same gap in the vehicular traffic stream. This
practice probably affects the determination of bicycle follow-up time. This
phenomenon and others described in this section have not been adequately
researched and are not explicitly included in the methodology.

Chapter 20/Two-Way STOP-Controlled Intersections Bicycle Mode

Version 7.0 Page 20-53
Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis

7. APPLICATIONS

TYPES OF ANALYSIS
The methodology of this chapter can be used in three types of analysis:
operational analysis, design analysis, and planning and preliminary engineering
analysis.

Operational Analysis
The methodology is most easily applied in the operational analysis mode. In
operational analysis, all traffic and geometric characteristics of the analysis
segment must be specified, including analysis-hour demand volumes for each
turning movement in vehicles per hour, percentage of heavy vehicles for each
approach, peak hour factor for all demand volumes, lane configurations, specific
geometric conditions, and upstream signal information. The outputs of an
operational analysis are estimates of capacity, control delay, and queue lengths.
The steps of the methodology, described in this chapter’s methodology section,
are followed directly without modification.

Design Analysis
The operational analysis described earlier in this chapter can be used for
design purposes by using a given set of traffic flow data and iteratively
determining the number and configuration of lanes that would be required to
produce a given LOS.

Planning and Preliminary Engineering Analysis

The operational analysis method described earlier in this chapter provides a
detailed procedure for evaluating the performance of a TWSC intersection. To
estimate LOS for a future time horizon, a planning analysis based on the
operational method is used. The planning method uses all the geometric and
traffic flow data required for an operational analysis, and the computations are
identical. However, input variables for percentage of heavy vehicles and peak
hour factor are typically estimated (or defaults are used) when planning
applications are performed.

EXAMPLE PROBLEMS
Section 2 of Chapter 32, STOP-Controlled Intersections: Supplemental,
provides five example problems that illustrate each of the computational steps
involved in applying the motorized vehicle method:
1. Analyze a TWSC intersection with three legs,
2. Analyze a pedestrian crossing at a TWSC intersection,
3. Analyze a TWSC intersection with flared approaches and median storage,
4. Analyze a TWSC intersection within a signalized urban street segment,
and
5. Analyze a TWSC intersection on a six-lane street with U-turns and
pedestrians.

Applications Chapter 20/Two-Way STOP-Controlled Intersections

Page 20-54 Version 7.0
 Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis

EXAMPLE RESULTS
Analysis of TWSC intersections is commonly performed to determine
whether an existing intersection or driveway can remain as a TWSC intersection
or whether additional treatments are necessary. These treatments, including
geometric modifications and changes in traffic control, are discussed in other
references, including the presentation of traffic signal warrants in the Manual on
Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways (38). This section discusses
two common situations analysts face: the analysis of shared versus separate lanes
and the interpretation of LOS F.

Analysis of Shared Versus Separate Lanes

Some movements, most often left-turn movements, can sometimes have a Interpretation of the effects of
shared lanes should consider
poorer LOS when given a separate lane than when they share a lane with another both delay associated with
movement (usually a through movement). This is not inconsistent in terms of the individual movements and
delay associated with all
stated criteria. Left-turn movements will generally experience longer control vehicles on a given approach.
delays than other movements because of the nature and priority of the
movement. The control delay for left turns in a shared lane may be less than the
control delay for left turns in a separate lane. However, if delay for all vehicles
on the approach or at the intersection is considered, providing separate lanes will
result in lower total delay.

Interpretation of LOS F
LOS F occurs when there are not enough gaps of suitable size to allow
minor-street vehicles to enter or cross through traffic on the major street; this
results in long average control delays (greater than 50 s/veh). Depending on the
demand on the approach, long queues on the minor approaches may result. The
method, however, is based on a constant critical headway.
LOS F may also appear in the form of drivers on the minor street selecting
smaller-than-usual gaps. In such cases, safety issues may occur, and some
disruption to the major traffic stream may result. With lower demands, LOS F
may not always result in long queues.
At TWSC intersections, the critical movement, often the minor-street left
turn, may control the overall performance of the intersection. The lower
threshold for LOS F is set at 50 s of delay per vehicle. In some cases, the delay
equations will predict delays greater than 50 s for minor-street movements under
very low-volume conditions on the minor street (fewer than 25 veh/h). On the
basis of the first term of the delay equation, the LOS F threshold is reached with a
movement capacity of approximately 85 veh/h or less, regardless of the minor-
street movement volume.
This analysis procedure assumes random arrivals on the major street. For a
typical major street with two lanes in each direction and an average traffic
volume in the range of 15,000 to 20,000 veh/day (roughly equivalent to a peak
hour flow rate of 1,500 to 2,000 veh/h), the delay equation will predict greater
than 50 s of delay (LOS F) for many urban TWSC intersections that allow minor-
street left-turn movements. LOS F will be predicted regardless of the volume of
minor-street left-turning traffic. Even with a LOS F estimate, most low-volume

Chapter 20/Two-Way STOP-Controlled Intersections Applications

Version 7.0 Page 20-55
Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis

minor-street approaches would not meet any of the volume or delay warrants for
signalization noted in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (38). As a
result, analysts who use the HCM LOS thresholds as the sole measure to
determine the design adequacy of TWSC intersections should do so with caution.
In evaluating the overall performance of TWSC intersections, it is important
to consider measures of effectiveness such as volume-to-capacity ratios for
individual movements, average queue lengths, and 95th percentile queue lengths
in addition to considering delay. By focusing on a single measure of effectiveness
for the worst movement only, such as delay for the minor-street left turn, users
may make less effective traffic control decisions.

Applications Chapter 20/Two-Way STOP-Controlled Intersections

Page 20-56 Version 7.0