case study 1 problem 5 styner/lauder intersection moscow, idaho
DESCRIPTION
Case Study 1 Problem 5 Styner/Lauder Intersection Moscow, Idaho. 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. Problem 5: U.S. 95 South of Moscow. - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
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
Problem 5: U.S. 95 South of Moscow
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
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?
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
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
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?
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?
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?
Sub-problem 5b: Future Analysis of 10-Mile Segment of U.S. 95 With Direct Recognition of the Hamlet
Input data: Volumes? Other
factors?
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?
Sub-problem 5b: Future Analysis of 10-Mile Segment of U.S. 95 With Direct Recognition of the Hamlet
Overall assessment: one approach
Sub-problem 5c: 10-Mile Analysis with a By-Pass
Exhibit 1-47. Comparative Results Using the Unsignalized Analysis Northern Section Hamlet Southern Section Overall
Condition Speed mph
Time min
PTSF %
Speed mph
Time min
PTSF %
Speed mph
Time min
PTSF %
Speed mph
Time min
PTSF %
Existing Conditions - - - - - - - - - 52.4 11.5 55.7
Raw Results 48.4 5.6 72.6 24.3 2.5 71.6 52.4 5.2 55.7 45.5 13.2 64.9 Adjusted Results 48.4 5.6 72.6 24.3 2.5 100.0 52.4 5.2 55.7 45.5 13.2 67.7 Using Unsignalized 48.4 5.6 72.6 24.3 1.8 100.0 52.4 5.2 55.7 47.9 12.5 67.7
With Bypass 48.4 4.3 72.6 51.3 4.8 58.5 52.4 4.0 55.9 50.7 13.1 63.7