1 / 15

Future Traffic Analysis for U.S. 95 South of Moscow

Explore traffic analysis options for U.S. 95 South of Moscow, considering existing and future scenarios to optimize road performance. Evaluate data, factors, and measures for effective solutions.

thaddeus-munoz
Download Presentation

Future Traffic Analysis for U.S. 95 South of Moscow

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. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Case Study 1Problem 5Styner/Lauder IntersectionMoscow, Idaho

  2. Problem 5: U.S. 95 South of Moscow How will U.S. 95 operate in the future? • 1100 veh/hr in PM peak • 700 trips from new development • 400 trips from hamlet

  3. Problem 5: U.S. 95 South of Moscow How should this problem be defined and analyzed?

  4. What are the possible options? What analysis plan should be followed? Existing analysis of 10-mile segment Future analysis of 10-mile segment Analysis of 10-mile segment with bypass Problem 5: U.S. 95 South of Moscow

  5. Sub-problem 5a: Existing Analysis of 10-Mile Segment of U.S. 95 • What data are required for analysis? • What other factors should be considered? • What measure should be used to determine the performance of the facility?

  6. Sub-problem 5a: Existing Analysis of 10-Mile Segment of U.S. 95 What data are required for analysis? • ADT = 600 veh/hr • Shoulder widths = 6 ft • Lane widths = 12 ft • Directional split = 54/46 • PHF = 0.88 • %trucks/buses = 10% • Free flow speed = 60 mph • %no pass zones = 30 • 2 access points/mile

  7. Sub-problem 5a: Existing Analysis of 10-Mile Segment of U.S. 95 What other factors should be considered? • Class I facility What measure should be used to determine the performance of the facility? • Travel speed • Percent time following Results • 52.4 mph • 55.7% time following • LOS = C

  8. Sub-problem 5b: Future Analysis of 10-Mile Segment of U.S. 95 With Direct Recognition of the Hamlet Consider these issues • What can be done to assess the future performance characteristics of the one-mile section of U.S. 95 that passes through the hamlet? • How can the estimated performance characteristics of the section of U.S. 95 that is within the hamlet be incorporated into an overall assessment of the 10-mile segment?

  9. Sub-problem 5b: Future Analysis of 10-Mile Segment of U.S. 95 With Direct Recognition of the Hamlet Consider these issues • What can be done to assess the future performance characteristics of the one-mile section of U.S. 95 that passes through the hamlet? • How can the estimated performance characteristics of the section of U.S. 95 that is within the hamlet be incorporated into an overall assessment of the 10-mile segment?

  10. Sub-problem 5b: Future Analysis of 10-Mile Segment of U.S. 95 With Direct Recognition of the Hamlet Here are some issues to consider as you proceed with the analysis of the future conditions. • What volumes should be used in the future conditions analysis? • What additional assumptions are necessary for the analysis? • What common measure should be used to determine the performance of the facility throughout the various sections?

  11. Sub-problem 5b: Future Analysis of 10-Mile Segment of U.S. 95 With Direct Recognition of the Hamlet Input data: • Volumes? • Other factors?

  12. Sub-problem 5b: Future Analysis of 10-Mile Segment of U.S. 95 With Direct Recognition of the Hamlet The HCM procedure assumes rank 1 movements do not yield to lower-ranked movements. Why, then, is delay reported for the NB and SB through- and right-turn movements?

  13. Sub-problem 5b: Future Analysis of 10-Mile Segment of U.S. 95 With Direct Recognition of the Hamlet Overall assessment: one approach

  14. Sub-problem 5c: 10-Mile Analysis with a By-Pass

  15. Sub-problem 5: Discussion What have we learned in this problem? • The existing HCM procedure for two-lane highways has some limitations • An alternative methodology might provide important insights • The results may be useful in determining the proper course of action

More Related