Problem 4 okeechobee road stopped control analysis
Download
1 / 33

- PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 112 Views
  • Uploaded on

Problem 4: Okeechobee Road Stopped Control Analysis. N. Location and Configuration. Observations?. N. T Intersection Very wide median Might operate as separate conflict points Right turns removed. What’s missing and why? What’s critical? How Critical? What do we need to analyze?.

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about '' - axelle


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
Problem 4 okeechobee road stopped control analysis l.jpg
Problem 4: Okeechobee Road Stopped Control Analysis


Location and configuration l.jpg

N

Location and Configuration


Slide3 l.jpg

Observations?

N

  • T Intersection

  • Very wide median

  • Might operate as separate conflict points

  • Right turns removed


Peak hour volumes l.jpg

What’s missing and why?

What’s critical?

How Critical?

What do we need to analyze?

Left Thru Right

NB 257 --- 433

EB --- 2,010 389

WB 120 358 ---

Observations?

Peak Hour Volumes


Sub problem 4a l.jpg
Sub-problem 4a

Examine the capacity of the critical minor street movement (the northbound left turn) using the graphical solution presented in the HCM, without going through the full procedure


Slide6 l.jpg

Conclusion:

Volume > Capacity

NBLT

Conflicting Flow = 2010 vph

Volume (257) vph

Capacity (< 100 vph)

HCM Exhibit 17-7


What to do next l.jpg

Normally we would stop at this point and declare that TWSC is not a viable choice

In this case, we will proceed with more problems to illustrate more features of the TWSC procedure

What to do next?

Conclusion:

Volume > Capacity


Sub problem 4b l.jpg

Conventional T Intersection is not a viable choice Conflict Points

Sub-problem 4b

Invoke the full HCM procedure, treating the operation as a conventional TWSC intersection and ignoring the unusual separation between the conflict points.

Then examine the results to determine if our treatment was appropriate.



Assumptions l.jpg
Assumptions is not a viable choice

  • Analysis period=15 min

  • No pedestrians

  • No upstream signals

  • PHF = 0.93 for all movements

  • Level Terrain


Input data l.jpg

Run is not a viable choice

Input Data


Results l.jpg

Observations? is not a viable choice

Results

While the HCM equations do not limit the range of v/c ratios for which delay may be computed, some software products impose limitations as a practical consideration


Results13 l.jpg
Results is not a viable choice

Why does the WBL have a higher capacity than the NBL when both movements have to yield to same conflicting volume of EB through traffic?


Results14 l.jpg
Results is not a viable choice

Because the HCM tells us that the critical gap and follow up times are both lower for a left turn from the major street than from the minor street. In other words drivers on the major street are willing to accept smaller gaps, so more vehicles can get through the same volume of conflicting traffic


Slide15 l.jpg

N is not a viable choice

Because of the wide separation of conflicts at this intersection, it should occur to us that we probably shouldn’t treat this situation as a typical urban intersection.

So, we will examine the separation of conflict points in the next subproblem.


Sub problem 4c l.jpg

Separated Conflict Points is not a viable choice

Sub-problem 4c

·Separate the conflict points for TWSC control and treat each conflict point individually.

Then compare the results with the treatment of the previous sub-problem.


Slide17 l.jpg

Conventional T Intersection is not a viable choice Conflict Points

Separated Conflict Points

Why will the separation of conflict points usually give a more optimistic assessment of the operation than the aggregation of conflict points into a single intersection?

Because there is no need to adjust the potential capacity of any movement because of impedance from other movements


When is it appropriate to separate the conflict points l.jpg

Conventional T Intersection is not a viable choice Conflict Points

Separated Conflict Points

When is it appropriate to separate the conflict points?

Only when the queue from one conflict point does not back up into an upstream conflict point


Input data19 l.jpg

Run is not a viable choice

Input Data


Nb left vs eb through l.jpg

Observations? is not a viable choice

NB Left vs EB Through


Nb left vs wb through and left l.jpg

Observations? is not a viable choice

NB Left vs WB Through and Left


Wb left vs eb through l.jpg

Observations? is not a viable choice

WB Left vs EB Through


Nb right vs eb through l.jpg

Observations? is not a viable choice

NB Right vs EB Through


Nb right vs eb through24 l.jpg

Is this really a TWSC operation? is not a viable choice

NB Right vs EB Through

Have we used the proper procedure for analyzing the operation of the NB right turn?


Nb right vs eb through25 l.jpg

Is this really a TWSC operation? is not a viable choice

Would it be better to consider this operation in the context of freeway merging

NB Right vs EB Through


Sub problem 4d l.jpg

Intersection is not a viable choice

Merge Area

Sub-problem 4d

Further Consideration of the Northbound Right Turn


Slide27 l.jpg


Slide28 l.jpg

  • The logical next step would be to treat this entrance as a freeway merge, using HCM Chapter 25, which prescribes a procedure for estimating freeway merge area performance in terms of the traffic density.

  • Density is used in all HCM freeway-related chapters as an indicator of congestion level. The density thresholds for each LOS are given in HCM Exhibit 25-4.


Los thresholds for merging hcm exhibit 25 4 l.jpg
LOS Thresholds for Merging freeway merge, using HCM Chapter 25, which prescribes a procedure for estimating freeway merge area performance in terms of the traffic density.(HCM Exhibit 25-4)


Assumptions and parameters l.jpg

Run freeway merge, using HCM Chapter 25, which prescribes a procedure for estimating freeway merge area performance in terms of the traffic density.

Assumptions and Parameters

  • Right side entry, No other ramps present

  • Driver pop. adjustment =1.0, PHF =1

  • 10% Trucks and RVs

  • Level terrain, 1200 foot acceleration lane


Results31 l.jpg

Observations? freeway merge, using HCM Chapter 25, which prescribes a procedure for estimating freeway merge area performance in terms of the traffic density.

Results


Problem 4 conclusions l.jpg
Problem 4 Conclusions freeway merge, using HCM Chapter 25, which prescribes a procedure for estimating freeway merge area performance in terms of the traffic density.

  • HCM TWSC procedure applies to all movements except the channelized right turns, which may be eliminated from the analysis

  • Conflict points may be separated because queues do not block upstream conflict points

  • TWSC is not a viable control mode because it will not provide adequate capacity for all movements

  • Problem 5 will therefore examine signalization of this intersection.


End of presentation l.jpg
End of Presentation … freeway merge, using HCM Chapter 25, which prescribes a procedure for estimating freeway merge area performance in terms of the traffic density.


ad