Citation
Unsignalized intersection analysis

Material Information

Title:
Unsignalized intersection analysis effect of overlapping conflicting traffic flow on minor movement potential capacity
Portion of title:
Effect of overlapping conflicting traffic flow on minor movement potential capacity
Creator:
Fasching, Christopher J
Publication Date:
Language:
English
Physical Description:
ix, 68 leaves : illustrations ; 29 cm

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Roads -- Interchanges and intersections ( lcsh )
Traffic flow ( lcsh )
Roads -- Interchanges and intersections ( fast )
Traffic flow ( fast )
Genre:
bibliography ( marcgt )
theses ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )

Notes

Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references (leaf 68).
General Note:
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree, Master of Science, Civil Engineering.
General Note:
Department of Civil Engineering
Statement of Responsibility:
by Christopher J. Fasching.

Record Information

Source Institution:
|University of Colorado Denver
Holding Location:
Auraria Library
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
37898934 ( OCLC )
ocm37898934
Classification:
LD1190.E53 1997m .F37 ( lcc )

Full Text
UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION ANALYSIS;
EFFECT OF OVERLAPPING CONFLICTING TRAFFIC
FLOW ON MINOR MOVEMENT POTENTIAL CAPACITY
by
Christopher J. Fasching
B.S., Colorado State University, 1985
A thesis submitted to the
University of Colorado At Denver
in partial fulfillment
of the requirements of
Master of Science
Civil Engineering
1997


This thesis for a Masters of Science
degree by
Christopher J. Fasching
has been approved
by
/
Sarosh I. Kahn
Apr-;l /f, Mi 7
Date


Fasching, Christopher J. (M.S., Civil Engineering)
TITLE:
Unsignalized Intersection Analysis; Effect of Overlapping Conflicting
Traffic Flow on Minor Movement Potential Capacity
Thesis directed by Bruce Janson, Associate Professor
ABSTRACT:
This paper evaluates a particular component of two-way stop unsignalized
intersection analyses as presented in the 1994 Highway Capacity Manual
(HCM). Specifically, advantages to the minor movement capacity are evaluated
where traffic flows overlap in multiple lanes. From vehicular arrival data
collected by the author, it was determined that the current HCM can significantly
underestimate the true potential capacity of minor movements which face
multiple lanes of free-flow conflicting traffic. A modification to the HCM
procedure is introduced in which an "effective" conflicting flow is calculated on
the basis of "blockage" caused by individual lanes of traffic assuming a Poisson
count distribution. In every case examined (24 total), a more accurate potential
capacity estimate resulted relative to that determined by the HCM procedure.
The modification also resulted in a more accurate level of service in eight of the
24 cases.


This abstract accurately represents the content of the candidates thesis. I
recommend its publication.
Signed
U'
Bruce N. Janson
IV


Acknowledgments:
Acknowledgment is gratefully given to Dr. Bruce Janson of the University of
Colorado at Denver for providing direction and input on the composition of this
paper. Acknowledgment is also extended to Dr. Michael Kyte of the University
of Idaho for offering his views on this topic.
V


CONTENTS
Chapter
1. Introduction...........................................................1
1.1 Background and Problem Identification...............................1
1.2 Problem Approach....................................................4
2. Data Collection and Summary...........................................5
2.1 Locations...........................................................5
2.2 Data Summary........................................................7
3. Data Analysis.........................................................12
4. Proposed Procedure....................................................17
4.1 Description........................................................17
4.2 Hypothesis Test....................................................21
4.3 Order of Lane Reduction Factors...................................26
VI


4.4 Delay and Level of Service....................................27
5. Conclusions......................................................32
Appendix A Reduced Arrival Traffic Data...........................34
Appendix B Chi Square Goodness of Fit Analysis....................43
Appendix C Delay Calculation Spreadsheets........................ 64
References..........................................................68
Vll


TABLES
Table
2.1 Four-Lane Roadway Data and Chi-Square Goodness of Fit Results
......................................................................9
2.2 Two-Lane Roadway Data and Chi-Square Goodness of Fit
Results.......................................................10
3.1 Potential Capacity Comparisons (vph); Four-Lane Roadways......14
3.2 Potential Capacity Comparisons (vph); Two-Lane Roadways.......15
3.3 Summary of HCM Potential Capacity vs. Actual Capacity.........16
4.1 Potential Capacity Comparisons for Four-Lane Roads............23
4.2 Potential Capacity Comparisons for Two-Lane Roads.............25
4.3 Average Difference HCM and Modified Potential Capacity Estimates are
Relative to Actual Potential Capacity.........................26
4.4 Delay and Level of Service Comparisons for Four-Lane Roads; Actual vs.
HCM vs. Modified..............................................29
viii


4.5 Delay and Level of Service Comparisons for Two-Lane Roads; Actual vs.
HCM vs. Modified................................................31
IX


1. Introduction
1.1 Background and Problem Identification
This paper evaluates a particular component of two-way stop unsignalized
intersection analyses as presented in the 1994 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM)
(1). Specifically, potential capacity advantages are evaluated where conflicting
traffic flows overlap in multiple lanes.
The analysis of unsignalized intersections is presented in Chapter 10 of the HCM.
The procedure entails isolating each individual intersection movement required
to yield the right-of-way (to at least one other movement), and calculate its capacity,
delay, and corresponding level of service based primarily on movement traffic
demand and conflicting traffic volumes. Calculating the potential capacity of a
particular minor movement is an essential step to calculating delay and level of
service.
The considerations that enter into the HCM potential capacity equation include
the specific minor movement in question, the number of mainline through-lanes,
and the conflicting traffic flow which impedes the subject movement.
The HCM potential Capacity equation is as follows:
c
p, x
3600
y e,y
3 600
(l)
l


where the HCM defines the variables as follows:
cpx = potential capacity of minor movement x (pcph);
VCiy = volume of traffic in conflicting stream y (vph);
f0= tg~(V2)\
tg = critical gap (i.e., minimum length time interval in seconds that allows
intersection entry of one minor stream vehicle); and
ff = follow-up time (i.e., time span in seconds between departure of one vehicle
from minor street and departure of next under a continuous queue condition).
This equation represents a negative exponential distribution, which can be derived
from the Poisson distribution of arrivals (2). The Poisson distribution is largely
accepted as a reasonable representation of random vehicular arrivals.
The I\/cy term reflects the summation of traffic flows through the intersection which
have a higher ranked right-of-way designation than the subject movement. This
term is not dependent upon the number of mainline lanes. For example, the
conflicting flow for a minor through movement crossing a two-lane highway carrying
500 vehicles per hour (vph) in each direction is 1000 vph (500 plus 500). Now,
consider an extreme case where one lane carries 1000 vph and the opposing
lane doesn't carry any traffic. This too would be considered as a conflicting volume
of 1000 vph and would be handled by the current HCM procedure in the exact
same manner.
The hypothesis explored in this paper suggests that these two scenarios provide
very different gap opportunities for the crossing movement or any other movement
which conflicts with both lanes. In the first case, it is possible (although highly
improbable) that opposing vehicles could pass the subject intersection at exactly
2


the same time, so while there would be 1000 vph conflicting with a cross-street
movement, this movement would only "feel" 500 vph since two vehicles would '
always pass concurrently. The "effective" conflicting flow would be only 500 vph.
In the second scenario, where 100 percent of the traffic is all in one lane, the cross-
street movement would indeed "feel" 1000 vph of conflicting traffic.
It is unrealistic to assume that vehicles would always pass by at exactly the same
time in the first scenario. On the other hand, it is unrealistic to assume that there
would not be any simultaneous arrivals. Logic suggests that the greater the traffic
flow in each direction, the greater the chance for simultaneous arrivals, and hence
the more generous of a reduction that could be applied to the total conflicting flow
to calculate an "effective" conflicting flow.
The focus of this paper is to develop an appropriate procedure to calculate an
"effective" conflicting flow where it is carried by two or more lanes. The analysis
presented here is within the framework of the 1994 HCM procedure.
3


1.2 Problem Approach
This effort involved collecting and reducing 15-minute traffic data samples along
two-lane and four-lane roadways. For each sample, vehicle arrival times were
tabulated to the nearest second. These data were converted into gap data which
were compiled by individual lane, by direction (four-lane data only), and for all
lanes combined. The single and multiple lane gap data were compared against
the negative exponential distribution.
Collected data were also used to measure the true potential capacity of minor
movements. This was measured from the critical gaps and follow-up times shown
in the HCM relative to collected gap data. These measured results were then
compared with the calculated potential capacity results estimated from HCM equation
10-1.
A third capacity estimate was calculated using a reduced "effective" conflicting
flow in HCM equation 10-1, for minor movements required to cross multiple lanes
of traffic. The "effective" conflicting flow is based on the amount of "blockage"
each traffic lane imposes on the subject minor movement.
To restate the hypothesis, as the number of mainline traffic lanes increases and
as conflicting flows become evenly distributed across these lanes, the greater
the likelihood of conflicting movements passing at exactly (or near exactly) the
same time. Hence, an "effective" conflicting flow rate, less than the true conflicting
flow rate, should be considered in estimating movement potential capacity.
4


2. Data Collection and Summary
2.1 Locations
Traffic along two-lane and four-lane roadways was video-taped and reduced to
arrival times (to the nearest second) and subsequently gap data. Video-taped
locations were at least one mile from traffic signals, or any other traffic control
device which may affect vehicular arrival patterns. The data were not actually
collected at unsignalized intersections; all data were collected at mid-block locations
so as to eliminate any impedance effects from intersection minor movements.
The emphasis of this analysis is on vehicle arrival patterns along multiple lanes
and the impact on gap availability for minor movements. As such, any element
that could affect capacity results was filtered out.
Traffic data were collected along roadways in the Denver, Colorado metropolitan
area. Four 15-minute samples were collected along four-lane roads at two locations,
and four samples were collected along two-lane roads also at two locations (two
samples at each location). The four-lane locations are as follows:
o Lincoln Avenue in Douglas County approximately 1.2 miles east of Havana
Street. These data were collected on Sunday March 10, 1996.
o US 285 in Jefferson County approximately 0.5 miles northeast of the
Parmelee Gulch Road overpass. These data were collected on Saturday
March 23, 1996.
5


The two-lane data locations are as follows:
o Parker Road (State Highway 83) approximately 1.1 miles north of Franktown.
These data were collected on Sunday March 10, 1996.
o US 285 in Jefferson County approximately 0.2 miles northeast of Sourdough
Drive (approximately mile post 242.7). These data were collected on
Saturday March 23, 1996.
6


2.2 Data Summary
Table 2.1 summarizes the four-lane roadway data by lane, by direction, and for
the four lanes combined, and Table 2.2 summarizes the two-lane data. The results
of a chi-square goodness of fit test comparing the distribution of collected gap
data against the negative exponential distribution are also shown in Table 2.1.
The underlying assumption in the HCM potential capacity equation is that gaps
are distributed in a negative exponential fashion, which is the reason why the data
were compared against this distribution.
The chi-square analyses were performed employing a unique grouping of gap
intervals. For each evaluation, the first group was comprised of the zero to 2.5
second range. Again, arrival data were recorded to the nearest second, so the
zero-to-2.5 range is assumed to represent zero, one, and two second data gaps.
Subsequent ranges were comprised of whole second intervals ensuring that each
range was large enough to result in a minimum expected value of five.
The first grouping of zero to 2.5 seconds was chosen because of the nature of
the negative exponential distribution relative to the reality of vehicular gap
distributions. The negative exponential distribution is a continuously decreasing
function; its maximum magnitude occurs for a gap time of zero seconds. In reality,
gaps between successive vehicles is equal to zero only when two vehicles pass
a particular point at exactly the same time. For a single lane, this is physically
impossible except for smaller vehicles such as motorcycles riding abreast. The
headway between successive vehicles in platoons is one to two seconds based
on the collected data. As such, the negative exponential distribution tends to
overestimate the number of gaps in close proximity to zero seconds and
7


underestimates the number of gaps in the proximity of typical minimum headways.
The zero to 2.5 second interval roughly encompasses both the overestimated
and underestimated segments in attempt to achieve a balance.
Very few degrees of freedom resulted for the larger volume analyses (both US
285 data samples) because higher traffic volumes result in lower average gaps
which in turn results in fewer gap intervals (greater than 2.5 seconds) in which
a minimum expected value of five can be obtained.
8


Table 2.1
Four-Lane Roadway Data and Chi-Square Goodness of Fit Results (1)
Location Lane/ Hourly Chi DOF Crit. Reject
Date & Time Lane Flow Square 12) Value Neg. Exp.
Period Group Rate Value (3) Dist.?
Lincoln Avenue EB Curb 292 3.47 8 15.51 No
3/10/96 EB Median 160 9.53 5 11.07 No
EB Both 452 15.48 10 18.31 No
11:00 AM to WB Curb 432 6.19 9 16.92 No
11:15 WB Median 252 9.00 7 14.07 No
WB Both 684 19.41 9 16.92 Yes
All Lanes 1136 20.73 7 14.07 Yes
Lincoln Avenue EB Curb 372 11.69 9 16.92 No
3/10/96 EB Median 232 4.22 7 14.07 No
EB Both 604 20.48 9 16.92 Yes
11:15 AM to WB Curb 476 15.87 10 18.31 No
11:30 WB Median 232 7.06 7 14.07 No
WB Both 708 23.47 9 16.92 Yes
All Lanes 1312 25.06 6 12.59 Yes
US 285 NB Curb 528 40.08 10 18.31 Yes
3/23/96 NB Median 296 22.44 8 15.51 Yes
NB All 824 17.53 8 15.51 Yes
1:40 PM SB Curb 576 29.66 9 16.92 Yes
to 1:55 SB Median 344 7.49 9 15.51 No
SB All 920 11.51 8 16.92 No
All Lanes 1744 75.42 3 7.82 Yes
US 285 NB Curb 548 36.16 10 18.31 Yes
3/23/96 NB Median 244 16.75 7 14.07 Yes
NB All 792 14.24 8 15.51 No
1:55 PM SB Curb 588 20.91 9 16.92 Yes
to 2:10 SB Median 364 8.65 9 16.92 No
SB All 952 11.89 8 15.51 No
All Lanes 1744 78.50 3 7.82 Yes
1) Chi-Square goodness of fit analyses compares collected gap data against the negative
exponential distribution.
(2) Two degrees of freedom are lost; one for total number of observations and one for
the average gap size (calculated from collected data).
.(3) For the 5 percent level of significance.
9



Table 2.2
Two-Lane Roadway Data and Chi-Square Goodness of Fit Results (1)
Location Date & Time Period Lane/ Lane Group Hourly Flow Rate Chi Square Value DOF (2) Crit. Value (3) Reject Neg. Exp. Dist.?
Parker Road NB Lane 372 26.36 9 16.92 Yes
3/10/96 SB Lane 424 20.40 9 16.92 Yes
11:56 AM to 12:11 Both Lanes 796 20.41 8 15.51 Yes
Parker Road NB Lane 348 11.06 9 16.92 No
3/10/96 SB Lane 480 38.69 10 18.31 Yes
12:22 PM to 12:37 Both Lanes 828 27.19 8 15.51 Yes
US 285 NB Lane 560 33.82 9 16.92 Yes
3/23/96 SB Lane 568 44.28 9 16.92 Yes
12:53 PM to 1:08 Both Lanes 1128 36.75 7 14.07 Yes
US 285 NB Lane 636 18.98 9 16.92 Yes
3/23/96 SB Lane 660 17.56 9 16.92 Yes
1:08 PM to 1:23 Both Lanes 1296 14.58 6 12.60 Yes
(1) Chi-Square goodness of fit analyses compares collected gap data against the negative
exponential distribution.
(2) Two degrees of freedom are lost; one for total number of observations and one for
the average gap size (calculated from collected data).
(3) For the 5 percent level of significance.
10


The last column of Tables 2.1 and 2.2 suggests that the negative exponential
distribution may not always be a good representative gap model. The negative
exponential goodness of fit is rejected at the 5 percent level of significance
in many cases. A closer look at Table 2.1 shows that the negative exponential
distribution could not be rejected for any of the individual Lincoln Avenue lanes,
but it was rejected three out of four times for the directional two-lane
combinations. Conversely, the negative exponential distribution was rejected
in all but one case for the individual US 285 lanes, but it was not rejected
three out of the four directional two-lane cases. It was rejected in every four-lane
combination case with the higher volume roadways yielding a very high chi-
square value. The higher volume roadways may lead to a stronger level of
rejection due to increased vehicle interaction resulting in less true randomness.
Rejection of the negative exponential distribution occurred more frequently
along two-lane roads than the four-lane roads. Table 2.2 shows that there
was only one case where the negative exponential distribution was not rejected,
and this was for the least traveled single lane in the two-lane data group.
Two-lane roadways offer fewer passing opportunities than four lane-roads,
especially as traffic volumes increase. As such, vehicle arrivals on two-lane
roads are probably less random than four-lane roads (given equal flow rates)
due to increased vehicular interaction.
Tables 2.1 and 2.2 seem to indicate that the negative exponential distribution
loses credence as the traffic volumes and associated laneage increase. Of
significance is the notion that the negative exponential distribution, which
is the underlying assumption for the HCM potential capacity equation 10-1,
loses merit as the number of lanes carrying conflicting flow increases.
ll


3. Data Analysis
In this section, the data are more closely examined, and potential capacity
comparisons are made between collected data and the HCM equation 10-1.
As mentioned, Chapter 10 of the HCM defines two types of gaps in analyzing
minor stream intersection movements; the critical gap and the follow-up time.
The HCM defines the former as "the minimum-length time interval that allows
intersection entry of one minor stream vehicle" and the latter as "the time
span between the departure of one vehicle from the minor street and the
departure of the next, under a condition of continuous queuing."
Using these definitions and the gap/foliow-up time values presented in the
HCM for varying conditions, the potential capacity was determined from collected
gap data. The critical gap and follow-up time characteristics of a major road
left turn, a minor road through movement, and a minor road left turn were
used in the calculations. The potential capacity was calculated across each
lane, each direction (two-lane combinations), and across all four lanes. This
exercise was conducted to compare collected gap distribution data against
the HCM potential capacity equation over different combinations of critical
gaps and follow-up times.
Table 3.1 shows the results of this comparative analysis. It should be noted
that the minor street right turn was excluded from the analysis because the
current HCM procedure only considers one lane of conflicting traffic for this
movement, and the thrust of this entire effort is to evaluate conflicting traffic
12


characteristics where it is carried by two lanes or more.
Results of the two-lane roadway data are shown in Table 3T
few exceptions, the low percentage differences in Tables 3.'
to coincide with non-rejection results of Tables 2.1 and 2.2.
. With only a
and 3.2 tend
13


Table 3.1
Potential Capacity Comparisons (vph); Four-Lane Roadways (1)
Location Date & Time Pe- riod Lane or Lane Group Left Turn from Major Road tg= 5.5, tf= 2.1 Through Mvmt. from Minor Road tg= 6.5, t,= 3.3 Left Turn from Minor Road tg= 7.0, tf= 3.4
Lincoln Avenue 3/10/96 EB Curb EB Med. EB Both 1216/1188/ -2% 1448/1400/ -3% 1080/ 976/-10% 748/732/ -2% 904/876/ -3% 648/592/ -9% 704/684/ -3% 868/832/ -4% 632/540/-1 5%
11:00 AM to 11:15 WB Curb WB Med. WB Both 1040/1004/ -3% 1304/1 256/ -4% 944/ 736/-22% 640/608/ -5% 816/776/ -5% 572/436/-24% 580/560/ -3% 764/732/ -4% 524/388/-26%
All Lanes 572/ 420/-27% 31 2/236/-24% 296/200-32%
Lincoln Avenue 3/10/96 EB Curb EB Med. EB Both 1076/1084/ +1% 1320/1288/ -2% 912/ 812/-11 % 664/660/ -1 % 820/800/ -2% 536/484/-10% 616/612/ -1 % 780/752/ -4% 51 2/436/-1 5%
11:15 AM to 11:30 WB Curb WB Med. WB Both 952/ 952/ 0% 1312/1288/ -2% 840/ 716/-1 5% 556/576/ +4% 828/800/ -3% 492/420/-1 5% 528/524/ -1 % 788/752/ -5% 460/372/-19%
All Lanes 420/ 340/-19% 21 2/188/-11 % 1 92/1 52/-21 %
US 285 3/23/96 NB Curb NB Med. NB Both 840/ 892/ +6% 1280/1188/ -7% 736/ 620/-1 6% 504/536/ +6% 784/732/ -7% 448/3607-20% 460/488/ +6% 752/684/- 9% 408/31 6/-23%
1:40 PM to 1:55 SB Curb SB Med. SB Both 736/ 840/ +14% 1184/1120/ -5% 600/ 548/ -9% 420/504/+ 20% 740/688/ -7% 344/316/ -8% 396/452/+ 14% 692/640/ -8% 31 2/272/-1 3%
All Lanes 272/ 200/-26% 144/104/-28% 140/ 80/-43%
US 285 3/23/96 NB Curb NB Med. NB Both 840/ 872/ +4% 1148/1 268/ + 10% 740/ 644/-1 3% 516/520/ +1% 724/784/ +8% 452/376/-17% 480/472/ -2% 692/740/ +7% 428/328/-23%
1:55 PM to 2:10 SB Curb SB Med. SB Both 744/ 828/+ 11 % 1164/1092/ -6% 592/ 528/-1 1 % 436/496/+14% 704/668/ -5% 340/304/-11 % 400/444/ +11% 680/620/ -9% 308/260/-16%
All Lanes 268/ 200/-25% 1 52/104/-32% 144/ 80/-44%
1) First value in each cell is the measured potential capacity from the traffic data using
the critical gap and follow-up time values as indicated in column headings; second value
is the estimated potential capacity calculated from HCM equation 10-1; third value is
the percentage difference HCM result is from the measured potential capacity.
14


Table 3.2
Potential Capacity Comparisons (vph); Two-Lane Roadways (1)
Location, Date & Time Lane or Lane Group Left Turn From Major Street tg = 5.0 tf = 2.1 Through Mvmt. from Minor Road tg = 6.0 t, = 3.3 Left Turn from Minor Road tg = 6.5 tf = 3.4
Parker Road 3/10/96 NB Lane SB Lane 1152/1140/ -1% 1140/1076/ -6% 724/696/ -4% 704/652/ -7% 668/644/ -4% 664/600/-10%
11:00 AM to 11:15 Both Lanes 768/ 716/ -7% 480/416/-13% 420/368/-1 2%
Parker Road 3/10/96 NB Lane SB Lane 1188/1172/ -1% 1140/1012/-11 % 744/716/ -4% 704/612/-13% 684/664/ -3% 652/560/-14%
11:15 AM to 11:30 Both Lanes 804/ 692/-14% 484/400/-17% 436/352/-19%
US 285 3/23/96 NB Lane SB Lane 1096/ 928/-1 5% 1072/ 920/-14% 664/556/-16% 648/548/-1 5% 632/500/-21 % 600/496/-1 7%
12:53 PM to 1:08 Both Lanes 684/ 496/-27% 384/280/-27% 348/236/-32%
US 285 3/23/96 NB Lane SB Lane 1000/ 852/-1 5% 944/ 832/-1 2% 608/504/-17% 568/492/-13% 556/452/-1 9% 520/440/-15%
1:08 PM to 1:23 Both Lanes 560/ 4121-26% 328/228/-30% 288/1 88/-35%
(1) First value in each cell is the measured potential capacity from the traffic data using
the critical gap and follow-up time values as indicated in column headings; second value
is the estimated potential capacity calculated from HCM equation 10-1; third value is
the percentage difference HCM result is from the measured potential capacity.


Information shown in Tables 3.1 and 3.2 is summarized in Table 3.3. It can
be seen that the HCM potential capacity equation estimates are typically lower
than the actual capacity. The percentage difference increases as the critical
gaps and follow-up times increase. The number of lanes carrying conflicting
traffic also seems to have a significant impact on the accuracy of potential
capacity. The potential capacity was underestimated an average of 24 to
35 percent for the four-lane analyses. For single lanes of traffic, HCM equation
10-1 predicted fairly reasonable potential capacities relative to that measured
from field data.
Table 3.3
Summary of HCM Potential Capacity vs. Actual Capacity (1)
Number of Traffic Lanes Be- ing Crossed/ Road- way Laneage Left Turn from Major Road (2) Through Mvmt. from Minor Road (3) Left Turn from Minor Road (4)
Mean Std. Dev. Mean Std. Dev. Mean Std. Dev.
One Lane 2-Lane Roads 4-Lane Roads -9.4% + 0.8% 5.5% 6.2% -11.1% + 0.8% 5.0% 7.5% -12.9% -0.9% 6.2% 6.7%
Two Lanes 2-Lane Roads 4-Lane Roads -18.5% -13.4% 8.4% 4.0% -21.8% -14.3% 7.0% 5.4% -24.5% -18.7% 9.4% 4.4%
Four Lanes 4-Lane Roads -24.2% 3.1% -23.8% 7.9% -35.0% 9.4%
(1) Table values represent the average percentage difference (and standard deviation)
HCM potential capacity results are relative to measured potential capacity.
(2) Critical gap for 2-lane roads and 4-lane roads is 5.0 and 5.5 seconds respectively.
Follow-up time is 2.1 seconds.
(3) Critical gap for 2-lane roads and 4-lane roads is 6.0 and 6.5 seconds respectively.
Follow-up time is 3.3 seconds.
(4) Critical gap for 2-lane roads and 4-lane roads is 6.5 and 7.0 seconds respectively.
Follow-up time is 3.4 seconds.
16


4. Proposed Procedure
4.1 Description
It has been demonstrated that the HCM tends to underestimate the potential
capacity of unsignalized minor movements where these movements must cross
more than one lane of conflicting traffic. This section of the paper considers
a revision to the HCM procedure for more reliable potential capacity estimates.
The premise of the proposed revision is based on the level of "blockage" that
a particular lane of conflicting traffic imposes on a minor movement. In other
words, when one mainline lane experiences a platoon of vehicles, traffic which
passes by in any and all of the other conflicting lanes is irrelevant, since the
platoon effectively "shuts down" the minor movement. Traffic that happens
to pass by in the other conflicting lane(s), while the platoon passes by, should
be discounted from the total conflicting traffic flow. So in HCM equation 10-1,
the total conflicting flow could be replaced with an "effective" conflicting flow
based on theoretical lane "blockage."
As previously mentioned, random arrival distributions have been modeled using
the Poisson count distribution in which the number of vehicular arrivals that
occur within a specified time period has a Poisson distribution as follows:
P(X)
x!
(2)
17


Where:
P(x) = Probability of x vehicles arriving in a specified time period,
u = Average number of vehicles which arrive during a specific time period,
x = Number of vehicles which do arrive during specified time period,
e = Napierian base of logarithms (2.71828..........).
The average number of arrivals per time period (u) can be calculated from
the hourly flow rate. Using equation (2), one can calculate the probability
of there being sufficient lane arrivals such that the average gap is less than
what the minor intersection movements can theoretically use. From Table
10-2 in the HCM, any gap that is less than five seconds is analytically worthless.
Therefore, it is of interest to calculate how often the average gap is less than
five seconds for a particular lane of traffic. This percentage can then be
translated into a reduction factor applied to the traffic volume in other conflicting
lanes.
A 30 second time period was chosen for this analysis. Any time a travel lane
experiences at least seven arrivals in a 30 second period (which translates
into an average gap of 4.3 seconds) the entire 30 second period is deemed
worthless in processing minor intersection movements which conflict with
the subject mainline lane. It then becomes a matter of estimating the percentage
of 30-second periods in which seven or more arrivals will occur. This is done
by using the following equation:
f.
1
1
E
x = 0
u e
x!
(3)
18


The variable fx is the reduction or "blockage" factor to be applied to the traffic
volume in the remaining conflicting lanes. The other variables were previously
defined; u will be substituted with the hourly lane flow rate divided by 1 20
(there are 120 30-second periods in an hour).
The result of this equation is then multiplied by the traffic volumes in the other
conflicting lanes. For a minor movement crossing two lanes, the flow rate
in one lane would be processed through the above equation to determine the
reduction to apply to the second lane flow. The effective conflicting volume
would be comprised of the total flow in the first lane plus the discounted flow
in the second lane.
For a four-lane road, this principal is expanded. The primary lane volume will
yield a reduction factor to be applied to the remaining three traffic lanes. A
chosen second traffic lane, carrying a different magnitude of traffic than the
first, will yield a different reduction factor which is applied to flows in the
remaining two lanes. The third traffic lane, carrying a different level of traffic
than lane one or two, would yield yet another reduction factor to be applied
to the fourth lane traffic volume. As such, the effective conflicting volume
to cross four lanes of traffic would be calculated as follows:
'/'ce = V, + f,*V2 + f,*f2*V3 + f,*f2*f3*V4 (4)
Where:
VCB = Effective Conflicting Traffic Flow,
Vi = flow rate in the heaviest traveled lane (vph).
19


V2 = flow rate in the second heaviest traveled lane,
V3 = flow rate in the third heaviest traveled lane,
V4 = flow rate in the fourth heaviest traveled lane,
f, = percentage of time does not create continuous blockage,
f2 = percentage of time V2 does not create continuous blockage, and
f3 = percentage of time \/3 does not create continuous blockage.
As mentioned, the / factors are determined from equation (3).
Combining these equations with equation 10-1 in the HCM, the revised potential
capacity formula would take on the following form:
c
P,x
3600
3600
(5)
Where
t0 = fg- (tf /2);
fg = critical gap (i.e., minimum length time interval in seconds that allows
intersection entry of one minor stream vehicle); and
tf = follow-up time (i.e., time span in seconds between departure of one vehicle
from minor street and departure of next under a continuous queue condition).
Vce = V, + ff*V2 + ff*f2*V3 + f,*f2*f3*V4 + Vother
Vf = flow rate in the heaviest traveled lane (vph).
V2 = flow rate in the second heaviest traveled lane,
V3 = flow rate in the third heaviest traveled lane,
VA = flow rate in the fourth heaviest traveled lane,
Mother = flow rate traveling in all other non-free-flow lanes, and where
20


- [ V, /12 0 ]
f.
1
6
[V2/120]xe
-[V,/120]
x = 0
6
t V"3 /12 0 ] x e
-[V,/120]
x!
The Vother term was not a consideration in this analysis since the data were
collected at mid-block locations where minor street movements were non-
existent. This term represents the combined traffic demand for the higher-
ranking turn movements; it should not be subjected to any discounting, since
these movements are not free-flow.
While these series of equations may be a bit cumbersome to compute manually,
the popular HCM software packages could easily incorporate them into the
calculations.
4.2 Hypothesis Test
The proposed model was applied to the collected arrival data, and potential
capacity comparisons were made for movements which would cross more
than one lane of conflicting traffic. Table 4.1 shows the results.
21


To illustrate the modified procedure, one of the Table 4.1 entries is described
here. Consider the minor street through movement (fourth column) for the
first set of data in Table 4.1, which represents traffic along Lincoln Avenue
on March Tenth, 1996 between 11:00 and 11:15 AM. The actual potential
capacity for that 1 5 minute period was 312 vph from collected data. Using
equation 10-1 from the HCM, the estimated potential capacity for this movement
(with a conflicting flow of 1136 vph) is 236 vph; 24 percent less than the
actual capacity.
The modified procedure first considers the heaviest traveled lane of the four
(WB curb lane). Using equation (3), it was estimated that traffic in this lane
creates gaps of less than five seconds 7.3 percent of the time (or 7.3 percent
of all 30 second intervals experience seven or more arrivals). Therefore, the
conflicting traffic volume in the other three lanes can be discounted 7.3 percent.
22


Table 4.1
Potential Capacity Comparisons for Four-Lane Roads
Actual vs. HCM vs. Modified (1)
Location Date &Time Period Lanes and Potential Ca- pacity Method (vph) Left Turn from Major Road tg= 5.5 tf= 2.1 Through Mvmt. from Minor Road tg= 6.5 tf= 3.3 Left Turn from Minor Road tg= 7.0 t,= 3.4
Lincoln Avenue 3/10/96 EB Actual EB HCM EB Modified 1080 / 0% 976 /-10% 984 / -9% (2) (2)
11:00 AM to 11:15 WB Actual VVB HCM WB Modified 944 / 0% 736 1-22% 752 /-20% (2) 12)
All Actual All HCM All Modified (3) 312 / 0% 236 /-24% 256 /-I 8% 296 / 0% 200 1-22% 216 1-21%
Lincoln Avenue 3/10/96 EB Actual EB HCM EB Modified 912 / 0% 812 /-11 % 820 /-10% (2) (2)
11:15 AM to 11:30 WB Actual WB HCM WB Modified 840 / 0% 716 /-1 5 % 736 /-12% (2) (2)
All Actual All HCM All Modified (3) 212 / 0% 188 /-11 % 216 / +2% 192 / 0% 152 /-21 % 180 / -6%
US 285 3/23/96 NB Actual NB HCM NB Modified 736 / 0% 620 /-16% 656 /-11 % (2) (2)
1:40 PM to 1:55 SB Actual SB HCM SB Modified 600 / 0% 548 / -9% 600 / 0% (2) (2)
All Actual All HCM All Modified (3) 144 / 0% 104 /-28% 164 /+14% 140 / 0% 80 /-43% 132 / -6%
1) First value in each cell is the potential capacity determined as indicated; second value
is the percentage difference relative to the actual potential capacity from the data.
(2) Movement involves conflict with all four lanes of traffic; potential capacity across
two lanes is irrelevant.
(3) Movement involves conflict with only two lanes of traffic; potential capacity across
four lanes is irrelevant.
23


Table 4.1 (continued)
Potential Capacity Comparisons for Four-Lane Roads
Actual vs. HCM vs. Modified (1)
Location Date & Time Period Lanes and Potential Capacity Method (vph) Left Turn from Major Road *.= 5-5 t,= 2.1 Through Mvmt. from Minor Road tB= 6.5 t,= 3.3 Left Turn from Minor Road tg= 7.0 t,= 3.4
US 285 3/23/96 1:55 PM to 2:10 NB Actual NB HCM NB Modified 740 / 0% 644 /-13% 680 / -8% 12) (2)
SB Actual SB HCM SB Modified 592 / 0% 528 /-11 % 584 /-1% (2) (2)
All Actual All HCM All Modified. (3) 152 / 0% 104 /-32% 168 / +11% 144/ 0% 80 /-44% 136 / -6%
(1) First value in each cell is the potential capacity determined as indicated; second value
is the percentage difference relative to the actual potential capacity from the data.
(2) Movement involves conflict with all four lanes of traffic; potential capacity across
two lanes is irrelevant.
(3) Movement involves conflict with only two lanes of traffic; potential capacity across
four lanes is irrelevant.
The traffic in the second heaviest traveled lane alone causes blockage of the
minor through movement 1.2 percent of the time. Therefore, the traffic volume
in the remaining two lanes is discounted an additional 1.2 percent. Lastly,
the third busiest lane causes continuous blockage 0.6 percent of the time which
is applied as another reduction to lane four traffic.
Therefore, the "effective" conflicting flow for this case can be calculated as
follows:
VCe = 432 + (0.927*292) + (0.927*0.988*252) + (0.927*0.988*0.994*160)
24


The effective conflicting volume results in 1079 vph versus the true conflicting
volume of 1136 vph. Entering 1079 vph in equation 10-1, along with the
critical gap and follow-up time for the minor street through movement on a
four lane road, yields a potential capacity of 256 vph.
The remainder of Table 4.1 was calculated in the same manner. Left turns
off of the major street were analyzed using only two travel lanes in each direction
where the minor street through and minor street left turn movements conflict
with all four lanes.
Potential capacity of the two-lane data are shown in Table 4.2. The left turn
from the major street was excluded, since this movement conflicts with only
one opposing lane.
Table 4.2
Potential Capacity Comparisons for Two-Lane Roads
Actual vs. HCM vs. Modified (1)
Location Date & Time Period Potential Capacity Method (vph) Through Mvmt. from Minor Road tQ= 6.0, t,= 3.3 Left Turn from Minor Road tg= 6.5, tf= 3.4
Parker Road Actual 480 / 0% 420 / 0%
3/10/96 HCM 416/-13% 368 /-1 2 %
11:56 AM to 12:11 Modified 428 /-11 % 380 /-10%
Parker Road Actual 484 / 0% 436 / 0%
3/10/96 HCM 400 /-17% 352 /-19%
12:22 PM to 12:37 Modified 420 /-13 % 368 /-1 6%
US 285 Actual 384 / 0% 348 / 0%
3/23/96 HCM 280 1-21% 236 1-22%
12:53 PM to 1:08 Modified 320 /-1 7% 212 1-22%
US 285 Actual 328 / 0% 288 / 0%
3/23/96 HCM 228 1-20% 188 1-22%
1:08 PM to 1:23 Modified 292 /-11 % 244 /-1 5 %
(1) First value in each cell is the potential capacity determined as indicated; second value
is the percentage difference relative to the actual potential capacity from the data.
25


Table 4.3 shows the average percent differences (and standard deviations)
of the HCM and modified potential capacity results relative to actual measured
results. In general, the HCM potential capacity results are increasingly inaccurate
as the number of lanes carrying conflicting traffic increases and as larger gaps
are needed to process minor movements. Also, the modified procedure provides
the greatest correction for movements conflicting with four lanes of traffic;
minor street through movements and minor street left turns improved an average
of 25 percent.
Table 4.3
Average Difference HCM and Modified Potential Capacity Estimates are Relative to Actual
Potential Capacity
Number of Roadway Lanes/ Potential Capacity Method Left Turn from Major Street Minor Through Movement Left Turn from Minor Street
Mean Std. Dev. Mean Std. Dev. Mean Std. Dev.
TWO LANES HCM Modified (1) (1) (1) (1) -22% -13% 7.0% 2.5% -25% -16% 9.4% 4.2%
FOUR LANES HCM Modified -13% -9% 4.0% 5.9% -24% + 2% 7.9% 12.5% -35% -11 % 9.4% 9.1%
1) Left turns from the major street need only cross one lane of traffic on a two-lane
roadway. Therefore, proposed modified procedure does not apply.
4.3 Order of Lane Reduction Factors
Potential capacity results from the modified procedure were calculated here
using reduction factors developed from the busiest lane(s) of traffic.
Consideration was made to derive the reduction factors from the least traveled
lanes and apply them to volumes in the heaviest traveled lanes; a reverse of
the analysis presented to this point.
26


In varying the order of developing traffic lane reduction factors, it was
determined that the procedure presented has the most desirable effect. If
V, (traffic flow rate in the heaviest traveled lane) was switched with (traffic
flow rate in the least traveled lane of a four lane roadway), and V2 was reversed
with V3 (the second and third busiest lanes, respectively) in equation (4) (in
addition to changes in the appropriate lane reduction factors), the potential
capacity result decreases (effective conflicting flow increases). This, in turn,
dampens the impact of the modified procedure. Any order of lane reduction
factors other than that which has been presented dampens the effect. Therefore,
the lane reduction factors in the potential capacity equation should be derived
from heaviest to least traveled lane.
4.4 Delay and Level of Service
This section of the paper carries the modified procedure to the next step and
considers impacts on calculated delay and level of service (LOS); both are
dependent upon the potential capacity as well as the traffic demand. Delays
and LOS's were calculated using the HCM and modified procedure potential
capacities assuming a demand of 50 vph. Again, impedance effects from
higher ranking minor movements are not accounted for. The arrival data were
collected at mid-block locations. No changes to how impedance effects are
handled are suggested in this paper, and in fact the data collection and analyses
have been carried out so as to omit these effects.
Table 4.4 shows the results of the four-lane analyses and Table 4.5 shows
the results of the two-lane analyses. These tables indicate a similar finding
as previous tables; the modified procedure is most effective for higher traffic
27


volumes and multi-lane roadways. Tables 4.4 and 4.5 also show that the
modified procedure can make a difference in the LOS determination. For
example, minor street through movements and minor street left turns across
US 285 (four-lane data) are estimated to operate at LOS F from the HCM
procedure, whereas the modified procedure results in LOS E, consistent with
the LOS calculation from the measured potential capacity. Between Tables
4.4 and 4.5, there were eight cases (out of 24) in which the modified procedure
resulted in a more accurate LOS.
28


Table 4.4
Delay and Level of Service Comparisons for Four-Lane Roads
Actual vs. HCM vs. Modified (1)
Location Date & Time Period Lanes and Poten- tial Capacity Method (vph) Left Turn from Major Road Through Mvmt. from Minor Road Left Turn from Minor Road
Delay in Sec. LOS Delay in Sec. LOS Delay in Sec. LOS
Lincoln EB Actual 3.5 A
Avenue EB HCM 3.9 A (2) (2)
3/10/96 EB Modified 3.9 A
11:00 WB Actual 4.0 A
AM to WB HCM 5.3 B (2) (2)
11:15 WB Modified 5.1 B
All Actual 13.7 C 14.6 C
All HCM (3) 19.3 c 24.0 D
All Modified 17.5 c 21.7 D
Lincoln EB Actual 4.2 A
Avenue EB HCM 4.7 A (2) (2)
3/10/96 EB Modified 4.7 A
11:15 WB Actual 4.6 A
AM to WB HCM 5.4 B (2) (2)
11:30 WB Modified 5.3 B
All Actual 22.2 D 25.3 D
All HCM (3) 26.1 D 35.2 E
All Modified 21.7 D 27.7 D
US 285 NB Actual 5.3 B
3/23/96 NB HCM 6.3 B (2) (2)
NB Modified 5.9 B
1:40 PM SB Actual 6.6 B
to 1:55 SB HCM 7.2 B (2) (2)
SB Modified 6.6 B
All Actual 38.2 E 39.8 E
All HCM (3) 65.6 F 113.1 F
All Modified 31.5 E 43.7 E
(1) Assumes minor movement demand of 50 vph.
(2) Movement involves conflict with all four lanes of traffic.
(3) Movement involves conflict with only two lanes of traffic.
29


Table 4.4 (continued)
Delay and Level of Service Comparisons for Four-Lane Roads
Actual vs. HCM vs. Modified (1)
Location Date & Time Period Lanes and Poten- tial Capacity Method (vph) Left Turn from Major Road Through Mvmt. from Minor Road Left Turn from Minor Road
Delay in Sec. LOS Delay in Sec. LOS Delay in Sec. LOS
US 285 NB Actual 5.2 B
3/23/96 NB HCM 6.1 B (2) (2)
NB Modified 5.7 B
1:40 PM SB Actual 6.6 B
to 1:55 SB HCM 7.5 B (2) (2)
SB Modified 6.7 B
All Actual 35.2 E 38.2 E
All HCM (3) 65.6 F 113.1 F
All Modified 30.4 E 41.7 E
(1) Assumes minor movement demand of 50 vph.
(2) Movement involves conflict with all four lanes of traffic.
(3) Movement involves conflict with only two lanes of traffic.
30


Table 4.5
Delay and Level of Service Comparisons for Two-Lane Roads
Actual vs. HCM vs. Modified (1)
Location Date & Time Potential Capacity Method (vph) Through Mvmt. from Minor Road Left Turn from Minor Road
Period Delay in Sec. LOS Delay in Sec. LOS
Parker Road Actual 8.4 B 9.7 B
3/10/96 HCM 9.8 B 11.3 C
11:56 AM to 12:11 Modified 9.5 B 10.9 . C
Parker Road Actual 8.3 B 9.3 B
3/10/96 HCM 10.3 C 11.9 C
12:22 PM to 12:37 Modified 9.7 B 11.3 C
US 285 Actual 10.8 C 12.1 C
3/23/96 HCM 15.7 C 19.3 C
12:53 PM to 1:08 Modified 13.3 C 16.2 C
US 285 Actual 13.0 C 15.1 C
3/23/96 HCM 20.2 D 26.1 D
1:08 PM to 1:23 Modified 14.5 C 18.6 C
(1) Assumes minor movement demand of 50 vph.
31


5. Conclusions
This analysis has shown that the HCM potential capacity equation 10-1 can
significantly under-estimate potential capacity at unsignalized intersections
where secondary movements conflict with more than one lane of traffic. The
accuracy of the HCM procedure diminishes as critical gaps and follow-up times
increase, and as the number of lanes carrying conflicting traffic increases.
A modified procedure to account for simultaneous arrival of vehicles in adjacent
free-flow lanes was proposed in this paper. From collected data, it was found
that the Poisson distribution can be used to estimate the amount of "obstruction"
caused by a single lane of traffic which in turn can be used to discount the
traffic volumes in the remaining conflicting free-flow lanes. The result is an
"effective" conflicting flow for input into HCM equation 10-1. Using an effective
conflicting volume rather than the true volume across multiple conflicting lanes
yields a more accurate potential capacity result in all 24 cases examined, and
subsequently a more accurate LOS result in eight of the 24 cases.
It is recommended that HCM equation 10-1 be expanded to allow for the
calculation of an effective conflicting volume for secondary movements crossing
more than one lane of traffic. This should be done in a manner based on the
percentage of time that traffic in individual lanes obstructs a particular minor
movement; obstruction, or blockage, is defined as continuous arrivals resulting
in gaps of less than five seconds. This is best determined from the Poisson
count distribution to estimate the proportion of the time when seven or more
vehicles arrive along a given lane within a 30 second period.
32


While the results presented in this paper are promising, it would be desirable
for more research to validate these results. Data for six-lane facilities should
also be collected to determine if this procedure can be applied to six-lane
roadways. Since six-lane data are not yet available, the recommendation is
to apply this modified procedure to the four heaviest traveled lanes of the six.
Volumes in the two lightest traveled lanes should not be discounted; flow
in these two lanes should be directly added to the effective conflicting flow
indicative of the four heaviest traveled lanes.
Also, higher ranking minor movements through the intersection should not
be discounted. Only free-flow lanes should be subject to any discounting.
This paper only considered arrival, patterns for the free-flow mainline lanes.
It should be noted that traffic data available to the average HCM user is not
usually tabulated by lane along multi-lane roadways. Assumptions on the lane
distribution of traffic may be necessary to apply the modified procedure
presented here.
33


Appendix A
Reduced Arrival Traffic Data


Date: 3/10/96
Time: 11:00 to 11:15 AM MST
Roadway/Location: Weather: 60's, Partly Cloudy
Lincoln Avenue east of I-25
4-Lanes
Eastbound Arrival Times Westbound Arrival Times
Curb Lane Median Lane Median Lane Curb Lane
:20, :24, :25, :29, :1 1, :30, 1:55, 3:00, 3:05, :00, :1 7, :43, 1:00,
:43, :48, :54, 1:39, 1:58, 1:59, 2:01, 3:07, 3:08, 1:04, 1:06, 1:10, 1:14,
1:59, 2:01, 2:03, 2:03, 2:38, 2:39, 3:11, 3:16, 1:15, 1:16, 1:20, 1:28,
2:04, 2:09, 2:38, 3:06, 3:33, 3:43, 3:43, 3:56, 1:36, 1:48, 2:45, 3:02,
2:39, 2:41, 2:52, 3:55, 4:31,4:45, 4:26, 4:35, 3:09, 3:11, 3:12, 3:14,
3:32, 3:36, 3:38, 4:57, 5:04, 6:24, 4:36, 5:03, 3:16, 3:19, 3:21, 3:32,
3:47, 3:59, 4:32, 6:46, 6:52, 6:53, 5:04, 5:05, 3:42, 3:56, 4:01, 4:15,
4:34, 4:37, 4:44, 6:55, 7:40, 7:52, 5:07, 5:12, 4:23, 4:25, 4:27, 4:37,
4:48, 5:07, 5:17, 8:12, 8:57, 8:58, 5:19, 5:20, 4:39, 5:02, 5:05, 5:13,
5:21, 5:27, 5:41, 9:28, 9:35, 9:36, 6:02, 6:04, 5:16, 5:17, 5:19, 5:26,
6:11, 6:22, 6:52, 9:37, 9:52, 9:53, 6:13, 6:17, 5:53, 5:57, 6:03, 6:10,
6:54, 7:06, 7:37, 9:54, 10:13, 10:26, 6:24, 6:27, 6:13, 6:27, 6:30, 6:33,
7:40, 7:51, 7:52, 10:27, 11:53, 7:04, 7:08, 6:38, 6:40, 6:52, 6:55,
7:54, 7:56, 8:16, 13:19, 14:14 7:20, 7:21, 7:01,7:08, 7:09, 7:19,
8:41, 9:17, 9:30, 7:58, 8:09, 7:44, 7:59, 8:10, 8:15,
9:35, 9:36, 9:37, Total: 40 8:18, 8:19, 8:19, 8:20, 8:22, 8:23,
9:53, 10:20, 10:24, 8:23, 8:25, 8:25, 8:26, 8:58, 9:06,
10:33, 10:52, 10:56, 8:58, 9:08, 9:10, 9:43, 9:51, 9:56,
11:31, 11:39, 11:41, 9:39, 9:52, 10:10, 10:14, 10:15,
11:43, 11:45, 11:59, 10:10, 10:15, 10:19, 10:22, 10:24,
12:08, 12:12, 12:35, 10:18, 10:19, 10:26, 10:43, 10:49,
12:41, 12:48, 12:49, 10:21, 10:27, 10:52, 11:10, 11:11,
14:00, 14:16, 14:20, 11:12, 11:13, 11:26, 11:35, 11:36,
14:27, 14:29 11:18, 11:25, 11:35, 12:09, 12:20, 12:38, 12:43,, 13:00, 13:01, 13:11,
Total: 73 12:40, 13:00, 13:01, 13:02, 13:18, 13:32, 13:37, 13:38, 14:39, 14:40, 14:51, 14:52, 14:55 Total: 63 13:17, 13:33, 13:34, 13:36, 13:42, 13:43, 14:30, 14:38, 14:39, 14:41, 14:44, 14:45, 14:48 14:52, 14:57 Total: 108
35


Date: 3/10/96
Time: 11:15 to 11:30 AM MST
Roadway/Location: Weather: 60's, Partly Cloudy
Lincoln Avenue east of I-25
4-Lanes
Eastbound Arrival Times Westbound Arrival Times
Curb Lane Median Lane Median Lane Curb Lane
15:31, 15:44, 15:55, 15:46, 16:08 15:21, 15:28 15:03, 15:09, 15:15, 15:21,
16:01, 16:11, 16:17, 16:11, 17:35 15:42, 16:22 15:41, 15:43, 15:49, 15:55,
16:22, 16:24, 16:29, 17:43, 17:44 16:32, 17:32 15:59, 16:06, 16:22, 16:26,
16:43, 16:57, 16:58, 17:45, 17:47 17:50, 17:58 16:34, 16:38, 16:53, 16:56,
17:00, 17:40, 17:44, 17:49, 18:03 18:39, 18:42 16:59, 17:32, 17:42, 17:47,
17:48, 18:03, 18:10, 18:10, 18:11 18:46, 18:47 17:49, 17:53, 17:58, 17:59,
18:14, 18:22, 18:41, 18:21, 18:23 19:06, 19:32 18:17, 18:25, 18:31, 18:40,
18:45, 19:15, 19:17, 18:26, 18:28 19:35, 20:57 18:42, 18:44, 18:45, 18:46,
19:42, 19:51, 20:01, 18:43, 19:18 21:24, 21:27 18:49, 18:53, 18:59, 19:02,
20:02, 20:25, 20:30, 19:20, 19:44 21:32, 21:33 19:10, 19:31, 19:36, 19:39,
20:34, 20:57, 21:02, 20:15, 20:21 21:38, 21:42 19:46, 19:49, 20:01, 20:25,
2V.08, 2V.09, 2V.11, 20:24, 20:43 2V.59, 22:51 20:41, 20:51, 20:53, 21:05,
21:13, 21:15, 21:24, 21:03, 21:05 22:58, 22:59 21:08, 21:11, 21:25, 21:26,
21:41, 21:48, 21:52, 21:10, 21:31 23:05, 23:11 21:28, 21:32, 21:47, 21:55,
22:00, 22:08, 22:18, 21:42,21:49 23:54, 23:56 22:04, 22:49, 22:52, 22:54,
22:43, 22:55, 22:57, 22:40, 23:11 24:03, 25:05 22:55, 23:00, 23:02, 23:09,
23:30, 23:40, 23:44, 23:19, 23:24 25:08, 25:10 23:10, 23:18, 23:23, 23:38,
23:47, 23:49, 24:13, 23:32, 23:43 25:13, 25:14 23:52, 24:00, 24:02, 24:19,
24:15, 24:16, 24:30, 24:13, 24:15 25:32, 25:55 24:22, 24:35, 24:47, 25:03,
24:47, 24:53, 24:57, 24:16, 25:15 26:03, 26:05 25:08, 25:10, 25:12, 25:15,
25:15, 25:16, 25:17, 25:47, 26:00 26:24, 26:31 25:16, 25:18, 25:22, 25:24,
25:41, 26:05, 26:09, 26:10, 26:43 26:51, 27:03 25:55, 25:56, 26:03, 26:04,
26:17, 26:19, 26:37, 27:03, 27:17 27:04, 27:11 26:07, 26:25, 26:26, 26:29,
26:46, 27:03, 27:05, 27:33, 27:37 27:14, 27:15 26:55, 27:03, 27:05, 27:06,
27:06, 27:08, 27:09, 27:38, 27:41 27:17, 27:18 27:10, 27:13, 27:19, 27:20,
27:11, 27:16, 27:34, 27:43, 27:44 28:02, 28:14 27:45, 27:50, 27:52, 27:54,
27:39, 27:44, 27:49, 28:08, 28:14 28:15, 28:16 27:56, 28:00, 28:06, 28:15,
27:52, 28:28, 28:31, 28:38, 29:15 28:26, 28:58 28:17, 28:18, 28:21, 28:24,
28:34, 28:37, 28:41, 28:43, 28:46, 29:14, 29:16, 29:22, 29:31 Total: 93 29:17, 29:23 Total: 58 29:00, 29:24 Total: 58 28:37, 28:54, 28:55, 29:02, 29:23, 29:25, 29:52 Total: 119
36


Date: 3/10/96
Time Period: 1:56 to 2:11 PM MST
Roadway/Location: Weather: 60's, Partly Cloudy
Parker Road N/Franktown
2-Lanes
Northbound Arrival Times
56:06, 56:20, 56:21, 56:35,
56:52, 56:58, 57:09, 57:13,
57:28, 57:31, 57:34, 57:35,
57:38, 57:41, 57:48, 57:49,
57:50, 58:10, 58:21, 58:22,
58:23, 58:35, 58:40, 58:49,
58:59, 59:08, 59:14, 59:19,
59:22, 59:24, 59:25, 59:28,
59:29, 59:32, 59:55, 00:03,
00:04, 00:25, 00:33, 00:42,
01:08, 01:09, 01:13, 02:28,
02:30, 02:33, 02:58, 03:18,
03:21, 03:47, 03:48, 03:49,
04:19, 04:27, 04:58, 04:59,
05:13, 05:16, 05:32, 05:51,
05:54, 06:04, 06:14, 07:12,
07:15, 07:31, 07:32, 07:39,
08:15, 08:38, 08:40, 08:43,
08:50, 08:52, 08:56, 08:57,
09:12, 09:13, 09:16, 09:48,
09:51, 09:56, 09:59, 10:01,
10:07, 10:14, 10:21, 10:25,
10:28, 10:43, 10:46, 10:56,
10:58
Total: 93
Southbound Arrival Times
56:10, 56:29, 56:33, 56:36,
56:41, 56:43, 56:44, 56:48,
57:15, 57:16, 57:37, 58:25,
58:29, 58:36, 58:47, 58:49,
58:57, 58:58, 59:07, 59:17,
59:22, 59:38, 59:39, 59:40,
59:44, 59:46, 59:47, 00:01,
00:03, 00:07, 00:09, 00:34,
01:23, 01:26, 01:29, 01:30,
01:31, 01:32, 01:33, 01:34,
01:35, 01:38, 01:42, 01:44,
01:46, 01:48, 01:51, 01:56,
02:05, 02:38, 02:40, 02:48,
03:15, 03:40, 03:44, 04:10,
04:11, 04:20, 04:29, 05:07,
05:08, 05:31, 05:47, 05:55,
05:57, 05:58, 06:02, 06:16,
06:32, 06:43, 06:47, 06:53,
06:55, 06:56, 07:00, 07:01,
07:02, 07:31, 07:38, 07:59,
08:02, 08:04, 08:05, 08:29,
09:15, 09:16, 09:44, 09:46,
09:48, 09:53, 09:54, 10:01,
10:03, 10:05, 10:07, 10:08,
10:10, 10:13, 10:18, 10:19,
10:20, 10:46, 10:49, 10:52,
10:53, 10:55
Total: 1 06
37


Date: 3/10/96
Time: 2:22:03 to 2:37:03 AM MST
Roadway/Location: Weather: 60's, Partly Cloudy
Parker Road North of Franktown
2-Lanes
Northbound Arrival Times Southbound Arrival Times
22:29, 22:53, 22:55, 23:03, 22:06, 22:13, 22:25, 22:57,
23:07, 23:57, 24:18, 24:22, 23:12, 23:24, 23:36, 23:39,
24:24, 24:37, 24:30, 24:31, 24:13, 24:15, 24:17, 24:18,
24:32, 24:34, 24:55, 25:13, 24:20, 24:21, 24:22, 24:57,
25:19, 25:23, 25:28, 25:39, 25:00, 25:01, 25:02, 25:04,
25:56, 25:57, 26:24, 26:35, 25:06, 25:08, 25:10, 25:13,
26:52, 26:53, 27:21, 27:28, 25:14, 25:16, 25:22, 25:24,
27:30, 27:57, 28:23, 28:27, 25:26, 25:48, 26:16, 26:18,
28:28, 28:44, 28:57, 29:06, 26:38, 26:54, 27:10, 27:12,
29:11, 29:27, 29:39, 29:40, 27:13, 27:15, 27:16, 27:17,
29:42, 29:45, 30:02, 30:26, 27:17, 27:17, 27:18, 27:19,
30:44, 30:52, 30:56, 30:57, 27:19, 27:20, 27:21, 27:23,
31:02, 31:20, 31:51, 31:53, 27:24, 27:26, 27:28, 27:29,
32:09, 32:10, 32:11, 32:24, 27:35, 27:39, 28:34, 29:08,
32:58, 32:58, 33:01, 33:09, 29:10, 29:13, 29:16, 29:19,
33:12, 33:20, 33:45, 33:49, 29:19, 29:20, 29:25, 29:29,
33:50, 34:10, 34:26, 34:40, 29:31, 29:50, 30:33, 30:35,
34:42, 34:46, 35:14, 35:17, 30:36, 30:37, 30:39, 30:44,
35:24, 35:34, 35:40, 35:45, 30:47, 30:49, 30:58, 31:16,
35:49, 36:12, 36:13, 36:15, 31:17, 31:19, 31:21, 31:32,
36:29, 36:40, 36:42, 36:43, 31:34, 31:36, 31:39, 31:40,
36:45, 36:58, 37:01 31:52, 31:55, 31:56, 32:32,
32:54, 32:58, 33:16, 33:18,
Total: 87 33:20, 33:23, 33:32, 33:35,
33:44, 33:50, 33:53, 33:53,
34:23, 34:25, 34:28, 34:30,
34:31, 34:45, 35:01, 35:08,
35:09, 35:24, 35:25, 35:27,
35:28, 35:30, 36:10, 36:40,
36:45, 36:46, 37:20, 37:03
Total: 1 20
38


Date: 3/23/96
Time Period: 12:53 to 1:08 PM MST
Roadway/Location: Weather: 50's, Overcast
US 285 Near Sourdough Drive
2-Lanes
Northbound Arrival Times
53:01, 53:02, 53:03, 53:04, 53:09,
53:17, 55:07, 55:12, 55:16, 55:18,
55:19, 55:20, 55:21, 55:23, 55:33,
55:35, 55:36, 55:37, 55:38, 55:39,
55:40, 55:41, 55:46, 55:48, 55:50,
55:52, 56:00, 56:02, 56:20, 56:21,
56:22, 56:23, 56:25, 56:28, 56:29,
56:30, 56:32, 56:35, 56:39, 56:42,
56:43, 56:44, 56:45, 56:47, 56:48,
56:49, 56:51, 56:53, 56:55, 56:58,
57:18, 57:27, 57:28, 57:29, 57:30,
57:32, 57:33, 57:35, 57:37, 57:39,
57:47, 57:48, 57:50, 57:51, 58:23,
58:42, 58:44, 58:45, 58:46, 58:49,
58:50, 59:01, 59:41, 59:43, 59:44,
59:45, 59:48, 59:58, 00:01, 00:06,
00:25, 00:38, 01:03, 01:30, 01:31,
01:33, 01:45, 01:53, 01:57, 01:58,
02:06, 02:30, 02:31, 02:36, 02:45,
02:47, 03:38, 03:41, 03:42, 03:43,
03:44, 03:52, 03:55, 03:57, 04:04,
04:05, 04:06, 04:07, 04:08, 04:10,
04:13, 04:21, 04:31, 04:38, 04:40,
04:41, 04:42, 04:43, 04:48, 04:51,
05:04, 05:12, 05:13, 05:16, 05:17,
05:18, 05:22, 05:30, 05:31, 05:37,
05:38, 05:40, 05:41, 05:42, 06:00,
06:37, 07:00, 07:02, 07:04, 07:05
Total: 140
Southbound Arrival Times
53:22, 53:24, 53:28, 53:52, 53:53,
54:21, 54:22, 54:23, 54:40, 54:44,
54:50, 54:51, 54:53, 54:59, 55:24,
55:26, 55:27, 55:30, 55:32, 55:33,
57:02, 57:04, 57:06, 57:08, 57:10,
57:11, 57:13, 57:14, 57:17, 57:18,
57:19, 57:20, 57:25, 57:26, 57:27,
57:28, 57:31, 57:33, 57:34, 57:35,
57:38, 57:41, 57:42, 57:45, 57:47,
57:50, 57:51, 57:54, 57:55, 58:18,
58:23, 58:29, 58:37, 59:14, 59:17,
59:20, 59:23, 59:26, 59:40, 59:41,
59:42, 00:00, 00:02, 00:04, 00:05,
00:06, 00:07, 00:09, 00:11, 00:36,
00:39, 00:41, 00:42, 00:43, 00:47,
00:52, 00:54, 00:56, 00:57, 01:20,
01:25, 01:44, 02:00, 02:07, 02:08,
02:23, 02:38, 02:39, 02:41, 02:43,
02:48, 02:50, 02:52, 02:53, 02:55,
02:57, 02:59, 03:04, 03:06, 03:07,
03:40, 03:42, 03:44, 03:47, 03:54,
04:02, 04:03, 04:29, 04:30, 04:32,
04:34, 04:37, 04:39, 04:59, 05:00,
05:04, 05:06, 05:11, 05:12, 05:21,
05:22, 05:23, 05:24, 05:25, 05:27,
05:29, 05:31, 06:02, 06:03, 06:06,
06:09, 06:32, 06:34, 06:52, 06:54,
06:55, 07:24, 07:29, 07:31, 07:32,
07:33, 07:42
Total: 142
39


Date: 3/23/96
Time Period: 1:08 to 1:23 PM MST
Roadway/Location: Weather: 50's, Overcast
US 287 Near Sourdough Drive
2-Lanes
Northbound Arrival Times
Southbound Arrival Times
08:06, 08:12, 08:13, 08:14, 08:16, 08:04, 08:09, 08:10, 08:13, 08:17,
08:17, 08:19, 08:20, 08:22, 08:39, 08:19, 08:33, 08:34, 08:39, 08:41,
08:46, 08:52, 08:55, 08:56, 08:57, 08:42, 08:44, 08:46, 08:58, 08:59,
09:03, 09:05, 09:08, 09:09, 09:14, 09:14, 09:18, 09:24, 09:25, 09:28,
09:17, 09:29, 09:38, 09:43, 09:44, 09:29, 09:30, 09:45, 09:50, 10:00,
09:46, 09:52, 10:33, 10:35, 10:36, 10:02, 10:51, 10:52, 11:08, 11:10,
10:37, 10:43, 10:44, 10:45, 10:47, 11:12, 12:29, 12:31, 12:33, 12:34,
10:48, 10:50, 10:59, 11:02, 11:03, 12:36, 12:38, 12:40, 12:41, 12:43,
11:05, 11:12, 11:21, 11:26, 11:32, 12:44, 12:46, 12:47, 12:48, 12:49,
11:43, 11:57, 12:51, 12:53, 13:09, 12:52, 12:55, 12:56, 12:57, 12:58,
13:11, 13:13, 13:14, 13:15, 13:27, 13:01, 13:02, 13:03, 13:05, 13:06,
13:39, 13:42, 13:43, 13:46, 13:48, 13:10, 13:14, 13:15, 13:17, 13:19,
13:50, 13:52, 13:55, 14:13, 14:16, 13:23, 13:24, 13:25, 13:27, 13:28,
14:20, 14:21, 14:22, 14:36, 15:36, 13:31, 13:33, 13:39, 13:42, 13:44,
15:37, 15:41, 15:43, 15:46, 15:48, 13:46, 13:49, 13:57, 13:58, 14:01,
15:50, 15:51, 15:52, 15:55, 15:57, 14:03, 14:11, 14:13, 14:17, 14:42,
15:59, 16:14, 16:15, 16:19, 16:22, 14:47, 14:48, 15:14, 15:17, 15:24,
16:26, 16:27, 16:35, 16:36, 16:50, 15:34, 15:39, 15:41, 15:43, 15:44,
16:51, 16:53, 16:58, 16:59, 17:44, 15:45, 16:10, 16:13, 16:17, 16:19,
17:46, 17:47, 17:48, 17:49, 17:50, 16:20, 16:23, 16:28, 16:30, 16:33,
17:53, 18:02, 18:04, 18:21, 18:56, 16:35, 16:38, 16:39, 16:58, 17:00,
18:57, 18:59, 19:00, 19:01, 19:02, 17:07, 17:15, 17:20, 17:21, 17:22,
19:03, 19:05, 19:06, 19:08, 19:10, 17:24, 17:28, 17:32, 17:37, 17:40,
19:11, 19:13, 19:15, 19:16, 19:17, 17:52, 17:53, 17:54, 18:18, 18:19,
19:22, 19:34, 19:35, 19:43, 19:45, 18:20, 18:22, 18:27, 18:55, 19:04,
20:32, 20:32, 20:33, 20:35, 20:36, 19:27, 19:47, 19:49, 19:59, 20:00,
20:37, 20:38, 20:41, 20:42, 20:45, 20:03, 20:12, 20:13, 20:14, 20:17,
20:52, 20:53, 20:56, 20:59, 21:01, 20:19, 20:24, 20:26, 20:32, 20:33,
21:05, 21:06, 21:48, 22:12, 22:14, 20:43, 20:44, 20:46, 20:47, 21:00,
22:16, 22:26, 22:31, 22:34, 22:36, 21:01, 21:10, 21:11, 21:31, 21:32,
22:38, 22:39, 22:40, 22:42, 22:43, 21:33, 21:34, 21:35, 21:37, 21:38,
22:45, 22:46, 22:52, 22:58 21:40, 21:41, 21:55, 22:03, 22:04,
22:13, 22:15, 22:31, 22:48, 22:50
Total: 159
Total: 165
40


Date: 3/23/96
Time Period: 3:40 to 3:45 AM MST
Roadway/Location: Weather: 50's, Overcast
US 285 Near Parmalee Gulch
4-Lanes
Northbound Arrival Times
Southbound Arrival Times
Curb Lane
Median Lane
Median Lane
Curb Lane
40:00, 40:10, 40:13, 40:05, 40:13, 40:14, 40:23, 40:24, 40:00, 40:02, 40:15, 40:22,
40:17, 40:20, 40:23, 40:15, 40:16, 40:18, 40:30, 40:31, 40:28, 40:33, 40:38, 40:53,
40:38, 40:39, 40:46, 40:38, 40:47, 41:37, 40:32, 40:33 41:03, 41:18, 41:23, 41:32,
40:57, 41:15, 41:25, 41:38, 41:40, 41:43, 40:34, 40:42, 41:36, 41:40, 41:59 42:01,
41:37, 41:41, 41:43, 42:08, 43:14, 43:26, 40:44, 40:49, 42:12, 42:28, 42:39, 42:50,
42:08, 42:34, 42:37, 43:28, 43:30, 43:31, 40:53, 40:54 42:54, 43:16, 43:25, 43:38,
42:42, 43:15, 43:17, 43:32, 43:34, 43:36, 40:57, 41:18, 43:46, 43:55, 44:02, 44:09,
43:24, 43:27, 43:28, 43:38, 43:39, 43:41, 41:29, 42:49, 44:19, 44:22 44:30, 44:33,
43:30, 43:34, 43:42, 43:45, 43:46, 44:11, 43:23, 43:24 44:44, 44:53, 44:55, 45:06,
43:50, 43:51, 44:01, 44:20, 44:59, 45:01, 43:27, 43:29, 45:07, 45:15, 45:24, 45:28,
44:03, 44:13, 44:16, 45:06, 45:08, 45:12, 43:30, 43:32, 45:31, 45:36, 45:42, 45:53,
44:25, 44:29, 44:41, 45:13, 45:14, 45:16, 43:47, 43:57, 45:54 46:00, 46:28, 46:30,
44:46, 44:51, 45:01, 45:20, 45:24, 45:29, 44:53, 44:54, 46:36, 46:42, 46:46, 46:50,
45:03, 45:04, 45:07, 46:05, 46:21, 46:35, 44:55, 45:04, 46:53, 46:56, 46:59, 47:06,
45:09, 45:12, 45:18, 46:52, 47:20, 47:23, 45:06, 45:17, 47:10, 47:12, 47:15, 47:19
45:20, 45:22, 45:23, 48:13, 48:28, 48:40, 45:19, 45:31, 47:24, 47:29, 47:31, 47:33,
45:32, 45:41, 46:01, 48:52, 49:06, 49:10, 45:39, 45:45, 47:34 47:39, 47:46, 47:47,
46:04, 46:06, 46:13, 49:24, 50:43, 50:44, 45:49, 45:51, 47:52, 47:58, 48:03, 48:08,
46:16, 46:22, 46:32, 51:00, 51:04, 51:16, 45:53, 45:54, 48:09, 48:13, 48:14 48:19,
46:37, 46:42, 46:58, 51:18, 51:19, 51:23, 45:55, 46:27, 48:20, 48:37, 48:46, 48:50,
47:06, 47:09, 47:14, 52:00, 52:01, 52:10, 46:29, 46:35, 49:00, 49:10, 49:13, 49:19,
47:22, 47:25, 47:27, 52:11, 52:20, 52:22, 46:44, 46:53, 49:21, 49:27, 49:29, 49:31,
47:32, 47:41, 47:46, 54:04, 54:07, 54:10, 46:54, 47:1 1, 49:32, 49:36 49:43, 49:45,
47:55, 47:56, 48:20, 54:11, 54:15, 54:16, 47:13, 47:14, 49:56, 50:02, 50:05, 50:07,
48:28, 48:31, 48:32, 54:25, 54:27 47:19, 47:21, 50:09, 50:13, 50:15, 50:16,
48:40, 48:41, 48:45, 47:25, 47:33, 50:36, 50:39, 50:43, 51:01,
48:52, 48:55, 48:59, Total: 74 47:44, 47:47, 51:07 51:14, 51:20, 51:21,
49:02, 49:08, 49:19, 48:16, 48:20, 51:22, 51:36, 51:41, 51:46,
49:22, 49:23, 49:36, 48:41, 48:43, 51:51, 52:02, 52:05, 52:08,
49:45, 50:02, 50:18, 48:44, 48:46, 52:09, 52:11, 52:16, 52:19
50:42, 50:45, 50:48, 49:27, 49:33, 52:21, 52:25, 52:37, 52:39,
50:49, 50:54, 51:01, 49:38, 49:40, 52:42, 52:51, 52:53, 52:56,
51:03, 51:09, 51:16, 49:47, 50:01, 52:58, 53:02, 53:13, 53:14,
51:17, 51:19, 51:23, 50:04, 50:14, 53:29, 53:45, 53:54 54:01,
51:29, 51:34, 51:47, 50:37, 50:41, 54:03, 54:05, 54:07, 54:13,
52:00, 52:03, 52:12, 50:42, 50:44, 54:25, 54:37, 54:39, 54:45
52:14, 52:17, 52:20, 51:16, 51:39,
52:22, 52:23, 52:24, 51:43, 51:57, Total: 44
52:27, 52:30, 52:31, 52:01, 52:08,
52:49, 52:56, 53:10, 52:15, 52:20,
53:34, 53:42, 53:52, 52:22, 52:39,
54:02, 54:07, 54:10, 52:55, 52:57,
54:11, 54:14, 54:18, 53:30, 54:36
54:26, 54:30, 54:38,
Total: 86
Total: 32
41


Date: 3/23/96
Time Period: 3:55 to 4:10 PM MST
Roadway/Location: Weather: 50's, Overcast
US 285 Near Parmalee Gulch
4-Lanes
Northbound Arrival Times
Southbound Arrival Times
Curb Lane
Median
Lane
Median Lane
Curb Lane
55:04, 55:30, 55:32, 55:59, 56:07, 56:10 55:40, 55:41, 55:45, 55:03, 55:22, 55:40, 55:41,
56:06, 56:09, 56:12, 56:15, 56:12, 56:15 55:46, 55:47, 55:51, 55:43 55:44, 55:45, 55:51,
56:19, 56:22, 56:25, 56:26 56:18, 56:23 55:52, 55:53, 55:54, 55:53, 56:00, 56:04, 56:09,
56:27, 56:29, 56:31, 56:33, 56:24, 56:25 55:55, 56:10, 56:13, 56:10, 56:15, 56:24 56:29,
56:37, 57:01, 57:24, 57:26, 56:26, 56:35 56:14, 56:16, 56:25, 56:44, 56:58, 57:02, 57:04,
57:28, 57:30, 57:34, 57:37, 56:46, 56:53 56:41, 56:57, 56:58, 57:12, 57:21, 57:29, 57:32,
57:38, 58:06, 58:15, 58:17, 57:02, 57:26 56:59, 57:01, 57:12, 57:37, 57:49, 57:50 ,57:59,
58:20, 58:24, 58:26, 58:30, 57:35, 57:36 57:21, 57:32, 57:48, 58:01, 58:03 58:08, 58:18,
58:33, 58:38, 58:45, 58:46, 58:16, 58:45 57:49, 57:52, 57:57, 58:25, 58:34, 58:41, 58:45,
59:08, 59:15, 59:17, 59:40, 01:08, 01:15 57:59, 58:01, 58:02, 58:46, 58:51, 59:02 59:04,
59:44, 59:46, 59:53, 00:00, 01:18, 01:26 58:05, 58:23, 58:46, 59:09, 59:10, 59:12, 59:20,
00:05, 00:11, 00:17, 00:45, 01:28, 01:31 59:07, 59:21, 59:23, 59:24 59:27, 59:29, 59:36,
00:57, 01:08, 01:11, 01:14, 01:34, 01:37 59:54, 00:07, 00:08, 59:39, 59.54, 59:57, 00:00,
01:20, 01:25, 01:28, 01:30, 01:41, 01:48 00:13, 00:37, 01:01, 00:07, 00:12 00:21, 00:23,
01:38, 01:39, 01:49, 01:50, 02:02, 02:20 01:20, 01:45, 01:48, 00:34, 00:47, 00:56, 00:57
01:51, 02:00, 02:12, 02:15, 02:22, 02:23 01:58, 02:05, 02:06, 01:00, 01:12, 01:14, 01:18,
02:24, 02:25, 02:36, 02:43, 02:28, 02:30 02:34, 02:48, 03:17, 01:20, 01:28, 01:44, 01:50,
03:03, 03:06, 03:09, 03:28, 03:01, 03:35 03:18, 03:20, 03:22, 01:57, 02:03, 02:12, 02:15,
03:36, 03:38, 03:40, 03:46, 03:39, 04:31 03:53, 04:01, 04:03, 02:17, 02:23, 02:31, 02:44,
03:51, 03:52, 04:11, 04:18, 04:49, 04:57 04:07, 04:09, 04:10, 02:46, 02:51, 02:52, 03:12,
04:23, 04:30, 04:32, 04:40, . 05:00, 05:34 04:15, 04:21, 04:22, 03:22, 03:35, 03:37, 03:39,
04:51, 05:00, 05:01, 05:04, 05:39, 05:42 04:24, 04:25, 04:26, 03:43, 03:49, 03:52, 03:59,
05:07, 05:13, 05:21, 05:25, 06:03, 06:46 04:32, 05:02, 05:07, 04:18, 04:24, 04:34, 04:36,
05:27, 05:36, 05:39, 05:41, 06:47, 06:51 05:15, 05:24, 05:34, 04:38, 04:49, 04:51, 04:56,
05:42, 05:56, 05:57, 06:05, 06:52, 06:53 05:37, 05:40, 05:44, 05:06, 05:07, 05:13, 05:15,
06:11, 06:15, 06:17, 06:28, 06:54, 06:55 05:46, 05:52, 05:55, 05:21, 05:23, 05:26, 05:30,
06:31, 06:32, 06:36. 06:39, 06:56, 07:02 05:57, 06:20, 06:29, 05:33, 05:36, 05:37, 05:5.1,
06:40, 06:47, 06:53, 06:54, 07:29, 07:52 06:41, 07:22, 07:28 05:54, 05:58, 06:03, 06:05,
06:55, 06:57, 06:59, 07:01, 07:53, 07:54 07:35, 08:21, 09:09, 06:15, 06:16, 06:18, 06:19,
07:04, 07:11, 07:18, 07:22, 08:02, 08:17 09:11, 09:20, 09:25, 06:20, 06:23, 06:26, 06:31
07:50, 07:54, 07:57, 08:01, 08:25 10:00 06:51, 06:58, 07:06, 07:18,
08:04, 08:12, 08:15, 08:25, 07:20, 07:24, 07:29, 07:31,
08:26, 08:37, 08:49, 08:59, Total: 61 Total: 91 07:38 07:56, 08:06, 08:15,
09:02, 09:04, 09:19, 09:46, 08:21, 08:25, 08:28 08:41,
09:50 08:43, 08:45, 08:46, 08:49,
08:58, 09:00, 09:10, 09:11,
Total: 37 09:18, 09:25, 09:49
Total: 147
42


Appendix B
Chi-Square Goodness of Fit Analysis
43


Chi Square Test
Lincoln Avenue; 3-10-96;
EB Curb lane
4 Lanes
Sec. i- Gaps # Gaps
Group Obs. Expct
0 - 2.5 1 9 18.505
2.50 - 4.5 1 1 8.4149
4.50 - 6.5 6 7.1389
6.50 - 8.5 4 6.0564
8.50 -10.5 4 5.1380
10.5 -13.5 6 6.2839
13.5 -17.5 5 6.2956
17.5 -22.5 5 5.4495
22.5 -30.5 6 5.1656
30.5 - 999 8 5.5514
999. - 0
0.00 - ' 0
Totals 74 74
15 Min. vol= 73
11:00 to 11:15 AM
Chi S q
Value
0.0132 D0F= 8
0.7941
0.1817
0.6982
0.2520
0.0128
0.2666
0.0370
0.1347
1.0799
0
0
3.4706
Chi Square Test 15 Min. vol= 40
Lincoln Avenue; 3-10-96; 11:00 to 11:15 AM
EB Median lane
4 Lanes
Sec. # Gaps # Gaps Chi Sq.
Group Obs. Expct. Value
0 - 2.5 1 2 6.0426
2.50 - 6.5 2 5.8233
6.50 -11.5 4 5.9345
11.5 -17.5 6 5.5483
17.5 -25.5 4 5.3909
25.5 -37.5 5 5.1630
37.5 - 999 8 7.0970
999. - 0
0.00 - 0
0.00 - 0
0.00 - 0
0.00 - 0
Totals 41 41
5.8731 D0F= 5
2.5102
0.6306
0.0367
0.3588
0.0051
0.1148
0
0
0
0
0
9.5296
44


Chi Square Test
Lincoln Avenue; 3- -10-96;
EB ' Curb lane and median
/ H Lanes
Sec JL V Gaps # Gaps
Group Obs . Expct.
0 - 2.5 46 40.824
2.50 - 3.5 6 8.7059
3.50 - 4.5 10 7.6701
4.50 - 5.5 4 6.7576
5.50 - 6.5 6 5.9536
6.50 - 7.5 5 5.2453
7.50 - 9.5 6 8.6927
9.50 -11.5 7 6.7473
11.5 -13.5 1 5.2373
13.5 -16.5 7 5.7428
16.5 -21.5 3 5.8285
21 5 - 999 1 3 6.5942
Totals 1 14 114
15 Min. voi= 113
11:00 to 11:15 AM
lanes
Chi Sq.
Value
0.6562 DOF = 10
0.8410
0.7076
1.1253
0.0003
0.0114
0.8341
0.0094
3.4283
0.2751
1.3726
6.2226
15.484
Chi Square Test 15 Min. vol= 108
Lincoln Avenue; 3-10-96; 11:00 to 11:15 AM
WB Curb Lane
4 Lanes
Sec. # Gaps # Gaps Chi Sq.
Group Obs. Expct. Value
0 2.5 33 37.659
2.50 3.5 12 8.1373
3.50 4.5 10 7.2091
4.50 5.5 6 6.3868
5.50 6.5 5 5.6583
6.50 8.5 1 1 9.4540
8.50 -10.5 5 7.4203
10.5 -12.5 / H 5.8240
12.5 -15.5 6 6.4736
15.5 -19.5 8 5.6734
19.5 999 9 9.1026
999. - 0
Totals 109 109
0.5765 D0F= 9
1.8334
1.0803
0.0234
0.0766
0.2527
0.7894
0.5713
0.0346
0.9540
0.0011
0
6.1939
45


3
Chi Square Test
Lincoln Avenue; 3-10-96;
WB Median Lane
4 Lanes
Sec. ir Gaps y Gaps
Group Obs . Expct
0 - 2.5 19 14.101
2.50 - 4.5 7 6.6151
4.50 - 6.5 8 5.7381
6.50 - 9.5 6 7.2129
9.50 -12.5 5 5.8272
12.5 -16.5 4 6.0666
16.5 -21 5 2 5.5170
21 5 -28.5 2 5.0667
28.5 - 999 1 1 7.8546
999. - 0
0.00 - 0
0.00 - 0
Totals 64 64
15 Min. vol= 63
11:00 to 11:15 AM
Chi Sq
Value
1.7017 D0F=
0.0223
0.8915
0.2039
0.1174
0.7040
2.2421
1.8561
1.2595
0
0
0
8.9989
Chi Square Test 15 Min. vol=
Lincoln Avenue; 3-10-96; 11:00 to 11:15 AM
WB Curb and Median Lanes
4 Lanes
Sec. Group ir i Gaps Obs. # Gaps Expct Chi Sq. Value
0 - 2.5 93 83.888 0.9896
2.50 - 3.5 18 15.327 0.4658
3.50 - 4.5 11 12.661 0.2180
4.50 - 5.5 6 10.458 1.9009
5.50 - 6.5 5 8.6394 1.5331
6.50 - 7.5 2 7.1365 3.6970
7.50 - 8.5 7 5.8950 0.2071
8.50 -10.5 5 8.8920 1.7035
10.5 -12.5 4 6.0674 0.7044
12.5 -15.5 6 5.6870 0.0172
15.5 - 999 1 5 7.3460 7.9747
999. - 0 0
Totals 172 172 19.411
171
9
46


Chi Square Test 15 Min. voi= 2S4
Lincoln Avenue; 31096; 11:00 to 11:15 AM
EB AND WB Curb lane and median lanes
4 Lanes
Sec . F Gaps Gaps Chi Sq
Group Obs . Expct . Value
0 - 2.5 1 76 190.91 1 1658
2.50 - 3.5 26 25.536 0.0084
3.50 - 4.5 18 18.604 0.0196
4.50 - 5.5 1 3 13.555 0.0227
5.50 - 6.5 1 1 9.8758 0.1279
6.50 - 7.5 6 7.1952 0.1985
7.50 - 8.5 10 5.2422 4.3179
8.50 -10.5 7 6.6021 0.0239
10.5 - 999 18 7.4694 14.846
999. - 0 0
0.00 - 0 0
0.00 - 0 0
Totals 285 285 20.731
Chi Square Test 15 Min. vol= 93
Lincoln Avenue; 3-10-96; 11:15 to 11:30 AM
EB Curb lane
4 Lanes
Sec. 4 Group Gaps Obs. it Gaps Expct. Chi Sq Value
0 - 2.5 24 28.781 0.7944
2.50 - 3.5 5 6.4680 0.3331
3.50 - 4.5 10 5.8265 2.9893
4.50 - 5.5 8 5.2487 1.4421
5.50 - 7.5 7 8.9874 0.4394
7.50 - 9.5 8 7.2931 0.0685
9.50 -11.5 5 5.9182 0.1424
11.5 -14.5 5 6.8529 0.5009
14.5 -17.5 4 5.0095 0.2034
17.5 -22.5 4 5.5380 0.4271
22.5 - 999 14 8.0756 4.3461
999. - 0 0
Totals 94 94 11.687
47


3
Chi Square Test 15 Min. vol= 58
Lincoln Avenue; 3-10-95; 11:15 to 11:30 AM
EB Median Lane
4 Lanes
Sec. Group Gaps Obs . Gaps Expct. Chi Sq Value
0 - 2.5 1 5 12.096 0 .6969
2.50 - 4.5 5 5.7634 0 .1011
4.50 - 6.5 5 5.05 d2 0 .0006
6.50 - 9.5 5 6.4424 0 .3229
9.50 -12.5 4 5.2922 0 .3155
12.5 -16.5 5 5.6166 0 .067 6
16.5 -21.5 4 5.2355 0 .2915
21 5 -29.5 4 5.5087 0 .4132
29.5 - 999 1 2 7.9892 2 .0135
999 . - 0 0
0.00 - 0 0
0.00 - 0 0
Totals 59 59 / . 2231
Chi Square Test 15 Min. vol= 151
Lincoln Avenue; 3-10-96; 11:15 to 11:30 AM
EB Curb lane and Median Lane
4 Lanes
Sec. (: Gaps # Gaps Chi Sq.
Group Obs . Expct, . Value
0 - 2.5 68 67.835 0.0003
2.50 - 3.5 1 8 13.078 1.8516
3.50 - 4.5 3 11.046 5.8612
4.50 - 5.5 10 9.3298 0.0481
5.50 - 6.5 9 7.8800 0.1591
6.50 - 7.5 6 6.6554 0.0645
7.50 - 8.5 5 5.6212 0.0686
8.50 -10.5 6 8.7576 0.8683
10.5 -12.5 1 6.2473 4.4073
12.5 -15.5 1 1 6.1800 3.7592
15.5 - 999 1 5 9.3671 3.3871
999. - 0 0
Totals 152 152 20.475


6

Chi Square Test 15 Min. vol=
Lincoln Avenue; 3-10-96; 11:15 to 11:30 AM
WB Curb lane
4 Lanes
Sec */ Gaps v Gaps Chi Sq.
Group Obs . Expct . Value
0 - 2.5 33 44.749 3.0848
2.50 - 3.5 1 7 9.3932 6.1599
3.50 - 4.5 9 8.2207 0.0738
4.50 - 5.5 7 7.1945 0.0052
5.50 - 6.5 9 6.2965 1.1607
6.50 - 7.5 5 5.5105 0.0473
7.50 - 9.5 1 1 9.0433 0.4233
9.50 -11.5 2 6.9265 3.5040
11.5 -13.5 5 5.3052 0.0175
13.5 -16.5 8 5.7231 0.9057
16.5 -21 5 7 5.6621 0.3160
21 5 - 999 7 5.9744 0.1760
Totals 120 120 15.874
Chi Square Test 15 Min.
Lincoln Avenue; 3- O 1 Oh 11:15 t<
WB Median lane
4 Lanes
Sec . JL ir Gaps # Gaps Chi Sq.
Group Obs. Expct. . Value
0 - 2.5 14 12.096 0.2995
2.50 - 4.5 8 5.7634 0.8678
4.50 - 6.5 4 5.0552 0.2202
6.50 - 9.5 7 6.4424 0.0482
9.50 -12.5 4 5.2922 0.3155
12.5 -16.5 1 5.6166 3.7946
16.5 -21 .5 7 5.2355 0.5946
21 .5 -29.5 4 5.5087 0.4132
29.5 - 999 10 7.9892 0.5060
999. - 0 0
0.00 - 0 0
0.00 - 0 0
Totals 59 59 7.0600
D0F =
D0F =
1 1 9
10
58
/
49


7
Chi Square Test
Lincoln Avenue; 3-10-96;
WB Curb and Median lanes
4 Lanes
Sec. Group Gaps Obs . v G 3. p s Expct
0 - 2.5 88 88.917
2.50 - 3.5 1 8 15.985
3.50 - 4.5 1 7 13.117
4.50 - 5.5 7 10.763
5.50 - 6.5 8 8.8317
6.50 - 7.5 5 7.2469
7.50 - 8.5 8 5.9464
8.50 -10.5 2 8.8832
10.5 -12.5 3 5.9811
12.5 -15.5 6 5.5165
15.5 - 999 16 6.8103
999. - 0
Totals 178 1 78
15 M i n. v o1= 1/7
11:15 to 11:30 AM
Chi Sq
Value
0.0094 D0F= 9
0.2538
1 .1494
1.3157
0.0783
0.6966
0.7091
5.3335
1.4858
0.0423
12.399
0
23.474
Chi Square Test 15 Min. vol= 328
Lincoln Avenue; 3-10-96; 11:15 to 11:30 AM
WB and EB Curb and Median lanes
4 Lanes
Sec. # Gaps # Gaps Chi Sq.
Group Obs. Expct. Value
0 2.5 205 237.47
2.50 3.5 43 28.023
3.50 4.5 22 19.443
4.50 5.5 14 13.490
5.50 6.5 1 7 9.3595
6.50 7.5 5 6.4937
7.50 9.5 10 7.6313
9.50 999 1 3 7.0831
999. - 0
0.00 - 0
0.00 - 0
0.00 - 0
Totals 329 329
4.4409 D0F= 6
8.0031
0.3361
0.0192
6.2371
0.3436
0.7351
4.9424
0
0
0
0
25.058
50


Chi Square Test 15 Min.
US 28$: 3-23-96: 1:40 to 1:55 PM
NB Curb lane
4 Sec. Group Lanes i Gaps Obs . 0 Gaps Expct Chi Sq. Value
0 - 2.5 30 53.708 10.465
2.50 - 3.5 2 5 10.892 18.270
3.50 - 4.5 9 9.3963 0.0167
4.50 - 5.5 1 1 8. 1055 1.0336
5.50 - 6.5 5 6.9920 0.5675
6.50 - 7.5 7 6.0314 0.1555
7.50 - 8.5 9 5.2028 2.7711
8.50 -10.5 1 5 8.3596 5.2745
10.5 -12.5 4 6.2205 0.7926
12.5 -15.5 5 6.4780 0.3372
15.5 -19.5 5 5.1821 0.0064
19.5 - 999 8 6.4295 0.3835
Totals 1 33 133 40.075
Chi Square Test 15 Min.
US 285: 3-23- -96: 1 : 40 to 1:55 PM
NB Median Lane
4 Lanes Sec. # Gaps i'r Gaps Chi Sq.
Group Obs . Expct. . Value
0-2.5 30 18.973 6.4077
2.50 4.5 1 2 8.6010 1.3431
4.50 6.5 3 7.2806 2.5167
6.50 8.5 1 6.1629 4.3251
8.50 -10.5 5 5.2168 0.0090
10.5 -13.5 4 6.3627 0.8773
13.5 -17.5 7 6.3502 0.0664
17.5 -22.5 1 5.4698 3.6526
22.5 -30.5 3 5.1490 0.8969
30.5 999 9 5.4329 2.3419
999. - 0 0
0.00 - 0 0
Totals 75 75 22.437
voi
DOF
vol
DOF


9
Chi Square Test
US 28gT 3-23-96: 1:40 to
NB Curb and Median Lanes
4 Lanes
Sec. Gaps d Gaps
Group Obs . Expct
0 - 2.5 1 10 114.45
2.50 - 3.5 24 19.015
3.50 - 4.5 7 15.108
4.50 - 5.5 1 5 12.004
5.50 - 6.5 4 9.5376
6.50 -7.5 9 7.5779
7 50 - 8.5 7 6.0209
8.50 -10.5 1 2 8.5847
10.5 -12.5 3 5.4194
12.5 - 999 16 9.2786
999. - 0
0.00 - 0
Totals 207 207
15 Min. vo1= 206
1:55 PM
Chi Sq
Value
0.1732 D0F= 8
1.3066
4.3515
0.7477
3.2152
0.2668
0.1591
1.3586
1.0801
4.8688
0
0
17.528
Chi Square Test 15 Min. vol= 144
US 28S: 3-23-96: 1:40 to 1:55 PM
SB Curb Lane
4 Lanes
Sec. Gaps # Gaps Chi Sq.
Group Obs . Expct, . Value
0 -2.5. 37 62.496 10.401
2.50 - 3.5 1 5 12.276 0.6040
3.50 - 4.5 1 5 10.449 1.9811
4.50 - 5.5 1 5 8.8949 4.1901
5.50 - 6.5 1 3 7.5713 3.8922
6.50 - 7.5 8 6.4447 0.3753
7.50 - 8.5 3 5.4857 1 1263
8.50 -10.5 1 2 8.6440 1.3028
10.5 -12.5 1 2 6.2629 5.2552
12.5 -15.5 7 6.3137 0.0745
15.5 - 999 8 10.159 0.4589
999. - 0 0
Totals 145 145 29.662
52


VO I
Chi Square Test
US 28%: 3-23-96:
SB Median Lane
! 4 Lanes
Sec. it Gaps
Group Obs .
0 - 2.5 32
2.50 - 3.5 t 4
3.50 -4.5 7
4.50 - 6.5 8
6.50 -8.5 6
8.50 -10.5 5
10.5 -12.5 4
12.5 -15.5 3
15.5 -19.5 3
19.5 -25.5 6
25.5 - 999 9
999. -
Totals 87
15 Min.
:40 to 1:55 PM
f Gaps Chi Sq
Expct. Value
24.972 1 9774 'D0F =
5.7152 0.5147
5.1886 0.6323
8.9871 0.1084
7.4072 0.2673
6.1051 0.2000
5.0318 0.2116
5.9389 1.4543
5.6610 1.2508
5.2777 0.0988
6.7143 0.7780
0 0
87 7.4941
so
Q
Chi Square Test 15 Min. vol= 230
US 28 5": 3-23-96: 1:40 to 1:55 PM
SB Curb and Median Lanes
4 Lanes
Sec. ir Gaps # Gaps Chi Sq.
Group Obs. Expct. Value
0 2.5 124 136.92
2.50 3.5 22 21.295
3.50 4.5 21 16.475
4.50 5.5 1 4 1 2.745
5.50 6.5 1 1 9.8603
6.50 7.5 6 7.6281
7.50 8.5 4 5.9013
8.50 -10.5 9 8.0974
10.5 -13.5 8 6.4816
13.5 999 12 5.5887
999. - 0
0.00 - 0
Totals 231 231
1.2201 D0F= 8
0.0232
I. 2427
0.1234
0.1317
0.3475
0.6126
0.1006
0.3556
7.3548
0
0
II. 512
53


i
Chi Square Test 15 Min. voi=
US 285: 3-23-96: 1:40 to 1:55 PM
MB, SB Curb and Median Lanes
4 Lanes
Sec. Group Gaps Obs . i> Gaps Expct, Chi S q Value
0 2.5 322 378.28 8.3743
2.50 3.5 44 25.626 13.173
3.50 4.5 24 14.441 6.3258
4.50 5.5 1 6 8.1387 7.5930
5.50 999 31 10.509 39.953
999. - 0 0
0.00 - 0 0
0.00 - 0 0
0.00 - 0 0
0.00 - 0 0
0.00 - 0 0
0.00 - 0 0
Totals 437 437 75.420
Chi Square Test 15 Min. vol= 137
US 28if: 3-23-96: 1:55 to 2:10 PM
NB Curb lane
4 Lanes
Sec. fr Gaps # Gaps Chi Sq.
Group Obs. Expct. Value
0 2.5 39 57.312
2.50 3.5 24 1 1.470
3.50 4.5 14 9.8397
4.50 5.5 5 8.4409
5.50 6.5 7 7.2409
6.50 7.5 1 1 6.2116
7.50 8.5 6 5.3286
8.50 -10.5 9 8.4924
10.5 -12.5 8 6.2495
12.5 -15.5 2 6.4206
15.5 -19.5 2 5.0397
19.5 999 1 1 5.9531
Totals 1 38 1 38
5.8510 D0F= 10
13.687
1.7590
1.4026
0.0080
3.6911
0.0845
0.0303
0.4902
3.0436
1.8334
4.2785
36.159
54


Chi Square Test 15 Min.
US 285": 3-23-96: 1:55 to 2:10 PM
N B Median lane
4 Lanes
Sec. :: Gaps Gaps Chi Sq.
Group Obs . Expct. . Value
0 2.5 1 7 13.283 1 .0399
2.50 4.5 12 6.2702 5.2359
4.50 6.5 / 4 5.4631 0.3918
6.50 9.5 10 6.9051 1.3871
9.50 -12.5 1 5.6158 3.7939
12.5 -16.5 2 5.8917 2.5706
16.5 -21.5 3 5.4112 1.0744
21.5 -28.5 3 5.0346 0.8222
28.5 999 10 8.1247 0.4328
999. - 0 0
0.00 - 0 0
0.00 - 0 0
Totals 62 62 16.749
vo 1 =
DOF =
o i
Chi Square Test 15 Min.
US 285": 3-23 -96: 1 : 55 to 2:10 PM
NB Curb and Medial lanes
4 Lanes
Sec. £ Gaps ir Gaps Chi Sq.
Group Obs . Expct. . Value
0 2.5 103 107.21 0.1659
2.50 3.5 23 18.207 1.2617
3.50 4.5 12 14.595 0.4614
4.50 5.5 6 1 1.699 2.7768
5.50 6.5 9 9.3790 0.0153
6.50 7.5 1 5 7.5184 7.4447
7.50 8.5 5 6.0270 0.1750
8.50 -10.5 7 8.7044 0.3337
10.5 -12.5 5 5.5935 0.0629
12.5 999 14 10.057 1.5455
999. - 0 0
0.00 - 0 0
Totals 1 99 1 99 14.243
198
8
55


13
Chi Square Test.
US 287: 3-23-96:
SB Curb Lane
15 Min. vol:
55 to 2:10 PM
4 Sec. Group Lanes Gaps Obs . v Gaps Expct. Chi Sq. Value
0 - 2.5 43 64.765 7.3148
2 50 - 3.5 1 7 12.621 1.5191
3 50 - 4.5 10 10.707 0.0467
4.50 - 5.5 1 3 9.0837 1.6883
5 50 - 6.5 9 7.7063 0.2171
6.50 - 7.5 1 1 6.5378 3.0455
7 50 - 8.5 6 5.5464 0.0370
8.50 -10.5 1 6 8.6973 6.1317
10.5 -12.5 7 6.2596 0.0875
12.5 -15.5 8 6.2594 0.4839
15.5 - 999 8 9.8146 0.3355
999. - 0 0
Totals 148 148 20.907
Chi Square Test 15 Min.
US 287: 3-23 -96: 1 : 55 to 2:10 PM
SB Median Lane
/ 4 Lanes
Sec . Gaps # Gaps Chi Sq.
Group Obs . Expct. . Value
0 - 2.5 33 27.670 1.0262
2.50 - 3.5 7 6.2509 0.0897
3.50 -4.5 / 4 5.6435 0.4786
4.50 - 5.5 5 5.0951 0.0017
5.50 -7.5 6 8.7530 0.8659
7.50 - 9.5 7 7 1346 0.0025
9.50 -11.5 4 5.8154 0.5667
11.5 -14.5 4 6.7706 1 1337
14.5 -18.5 5 6.3315 0.2800
18.5 -23.5 4 5.0157 0.2057
23.5 - 999 1 3 7.5183 3.9967
999. - 0 0
Totals 92 92 8.6479
D0F =
o
91
9
56


Chi Square Test
US 287: 3-23-96: 1:55 to
SB Curb and Median Lanes
4 Lanes
Sec. v Group Gaps Obs . Gaps Expct
0 - 2.5 131 144.64
2.50 - 3.5 27 22.004
3.50 - 4.5 14 16.872
4.50 - 5.5 1 3 12.937
5.50 - 6.5 9 9.9202
6.50 - 7.5 6 7.6066
7.50 - 8.5 8 5.8326
8.50 -10.5 1 3 7.9016
10.5 -13.5 1 1 6.1918
13.5 - 999 7 5.0830
999. - 0
0.00 - 0
Totals 239 239
15 Min. voi = 2 38
2:10 PM
Chi Sq
. Value
i .287 9 D0F= 8
I. 1340
0.4890
0.0003
0.0853
0.3393
0.8053
3.2895
3.7337
0.7229
0
0
II. 887
Chi Square Test 15 Min. vol=
US 287: 3-23-96: 1:55 to 2:10 PM
NB and SB Curb and Median Lanes
4 Lanes
Sec. # Gaps # Gaps Chi Sq.
Group Obs . Expct. . Value
0 2.5 322 377.04 8.0364
2.50 3.5 46 25.964 15.460
3.50 4.5 23 14.719 4.6576
4.50 5.5 12 8.3450 1.6008
5.50 7.5 r17 7.4130" 11-3-T-3-9FD
7.50 999 U7 3.5110 15+^235
999. - 0 0
0.00 - 0 0
0.00 - 0 0
0.00 - 0 0
0.00 - 0 0
0.00 - 0 0
Totals 437 437
D0F=

436
X^
57


Chi Square Test 15 Min. vol=
Parker Road: 3-10-96; 11:56 to 12:11 PM
MB Curb lane
2 Lanes
Sec. Jl ir Gaps f> Gaps Chi Sq.
Group Obs . Expct . Value
0 - 2.5 23 28.781 1.1614
2.50 - 3.5 1 8 6.4680 20.560
3.50 - 4.5 4 5.8265 0.5726
4.50 - 5.5 3 5.2487 0.9634
5.50 - 7.5 9 8.9874 0.0000
7.50 - 9.5 6 7.2931 0.2292
9.50 -11.5 6 5.9182 0.0011
11.5 -14.5 4 6.8529 1.1876
14.5 -17.5 6 5.0095 0.1958
17.5 -22.5 4 5.5380 0.4271
22.5 - 999 11 8.0756 1.0589
999. - 0 0
Totals 94 94 26.358
Chi Square Test 15 Min.
Parker Road: 3-10- to ON i : 56 to 1
SB Curb lane
2 Lanes
Sec. # Gaps # Gaps Chi Sq.
Group Obs . Expct. Value
0 - 2.5 44 36.422 1.5766
2.50 - 3.5 9 7.9113 0.1498
3.50 - 4.5 10 7.0245 1.2603
4.50 - 5.5 6 6.2371 0.0090
5.50 - 6.5 1 5.5379 3.7185
6.50 - 8.5 6 9.2832 1.1611
8.50 -10.5 6 7.3186 0.2376
10.5 -12.5 2 5.7698 2.4631
12.5 -15.5 2 6.4484 3.0687
15.5 -19.5 4 5.6945 0.5042
19.5 - 999 17 9.3521 6.2541
999. - 0 0
Totals 107 107 20.403
D0F =
D0F =
93
9
106
9
58


/
c
Chi Square Test 15 Min. vol =
Parker Road: 3-10-96; 11:56 to 12:11 PM
Both directions
99
2 Lanes
Sec. . Tf Gaps v Gaps Chi Sq.
Group Obs . Expc t . Value
0 - 2.5 100 108.11 0.6090
2.50 - 3.5 28 18.309 5.1291
3.50 - 4.5 18 14.660 0.7604
4.50 - 5.5 4 11.739 5.1024
5.50 - 6.5 8 9.4002 0.2085
6.50 - 7.5 4 7.5271 1.6528
7.50 - 8.5 9 6.0272 1.4661
8.50 -10.5 8 8.6908 0.0549
10.5 -12.5 4 5.5724 0.4436
12.5 - 999 17 9.9574 4.9810
999. - 0 0
0.00 - 0 0
Totals 200 200 20.408
Chi Square Test 15 Min.
Parker Road; 3-10- -96; 12: : 22 : 03 t<
NB lane
2 Lanes
Sec. ft Gaps ii Gaps Chi Sq.
Group Obs. Expct. Value
0 - 2.5 24 25.503 0.0886
2.50 - 3.5 7 5.8215 0.2385
3.50 - 4.5 8 5.2792 1.4021
4.50 - 6.5 6 9.1290 1.0725
6.50 - 8.5 6 7.5075 0.3027
8.50 -10.5 2 6.1740 2.8219
10.5 -12.5 4 5.0773 0.2286
12.5 -15.5 5 5.9763 0.1595
15.5 -19.5 10 5.6748 3.2963
19.5 -25.5 7 5.2622 0.5738
25.5 - 999 9 6.5944 0.8775
999. - 0 0
Totals 88 88 11.062
DOF =
87
D0F =
59


Chi Square Test 15 Min. voi= l20
Parker Road; 3-10- -96; 12 :22:03 to 1?:37:03 PM
SB lane
2 Lanes
Sec . V Gaps -v Gaps Chi Sq.
Group Obs. Expc t . Value
0 - 2.5 64 45.416 7.6037 D0F= 10
2.50 - 3.5 14 9.5082 2.1219
3.50 - 4.5 3 8.3121 3.3948
4.50 - 5.5 3 7.2664 2.5050
5.50 - 6.5 3 6.3523' 1.7691
6.50 - 7.5 2 5.5532 2.2735
7.50 - 9.5 3 9.0986 4.0877
9.50 -11.5 1 6.9534 5.0972
11.5 -13.5 4 5.4293 0.3763
13.5 -16.5 7 5.6016 0.3490
16.5 -21.5 4 5.6321 0.4729
21 5 - 999 1 3 5.8754 8.6390
Totals 121 121 38.690
Chi Square Test 15 Min
Parker Road; 3-10- -96; 12 :22:03
Both Lanes
2 Lanes
Sec JL Gaps # Gaps Chi Sq
Group Obs . Expct. . Value
0 - 2.5 1 1 9 115.36 0.1144
2.50 - 3.5 23 19.114 0.7897
3.50 - 4.5 1 1 15.170 1.1464
4.50 - 5.5 7 12.040 2.1098
5.50 - 6.5 4 9.5556 3.2300
6.50 - 7.5 4 7.5838 1.6935
7.50 - 8.5 4 6.0189 0.6771
8.50 -10.5 6 8.5681 0.7697
10.5 -12.5 10 5.3969 3.9260
12.5 - 999 20 9.1846 12.735
999. - 0 0
0.00 - 0 0
Totals 208 208 27.192
vol =
12:37:03
DOF =
207
PM
8
60



Chi Square Test 15 Min. vol= 140
US 28$: 3-23-96: 12:53 to 1:08 PM
NB lane
2 Lanes
Sec. Group Gaps Obs . -v Gaps Expct, Chi Sq Value
0 -2.5 83 59.514 9.2679
2.50 - 3.5 1 2 11.816 0.0028
3.50 - 4.5 4 10.102 3.6865
4.50 - 5.5 6 8.6377 0.8055
5.50 - 6.5 1 7.3852 5.5206
6.50 - 7.5 2 6.3142 2.9477
7.50 - 8.5 9 5.3986 2.4024
8.50 -10.5 5 8.5622 1.4820
10.5 -12.5 2 6.2590 2.8981
12.5 -15.5 2 6.3784 3.0055
15.5 - 999 1 5 10.630 1.7956
999. - 0 0
Totals 141 141 33.815
Chi Square Test 15 Min. vol= 142
US 28$: 3-23-96: 12:53 to 1:08 PM
SB Lane
2 Lanes
Sec. i Gaps # Gaps Chi Sq.
Group Obs . Expct. . Value
0 - 2.5 81 60.998 6.5582
2.50 - 3.5 1 7 12.046 2.0366
3.50 -4.5 4 10.276 3.8338
4.50 - 5.5 8 8.7671 0.0671
5.50 -6.5 3 7.4791 2.6825
6.50 - 7.5 2 6.3804 3.0073
7.50 - 8.5 2 5.4430 2.1779
8.50 -10.5 2 8.6047 5.0695
10.5 -12.5 0 6.2622 6.2622
12.5 -15.5 3 6.3472 1.7651
15.5 - 999 21 10.393 10.823
999. - 0 0
Totals 143 143 44.284
61


Chi Square Test 15 Min. vol=
US 28£: 3-23-96: 12:53 to 1:08 PM
NB and SB lanes
2 Lanes
Sec. Gaps e Gaps Chi Sq
Group Obs . Expc t. , Value
0 2.5 1 98 188.84 0.4433
2.50 3.5 23 25.402 0.2271
3.50 4.5 8 18.548 5.9989
4.50 5.5 18 13.544 1.4659
5.50 6.5 6 9.8898- 1.5299
6.50 7.5 1 7.2214 5.3599
7.50 8.5 8 5.2730 1.4101
8.50 -10.5 2 6.6619 3.2623
10.5 999 1 9 7.6090 17.052
999. - 0 0
0.00 - 0 0
0.00 - 0 0
Totals 283 283 36.750
Chi Square Test 15 Min.
US 28£: 3-23-96: 1:08 to 1:23 PM
NB lane
2 Lanes
Sec . 7r Gaps it Gaps Chi Sq
Group Obs . Expct, . Value
0 - 2.5 92 74.119 4.3132
2.50 -3.5 1 7 13.987 0.6488
3.50 -4.5 5 11.709 3.8443
4.50 - 5.5 6 9.8021 1 .4748
5.50 - 6.5 9 8.2056 0.0768
6.50 - 7.5 3 6.8691 2.1793
7.50 - 8.5 2 5.7503 2.4460
8.50 -10.5 5 8.8436 1.6705
10.5 -12.5 5 6.1974 0.2313
12.5 -15.5 4 5.9997 0.6665
15.5 - 999 12 8.5150 1.4262
999. - 0 0
Totals 160 160 18.978
D0F =
vol =
D0F =
282
159
9
62


Chi Square Test 15 Min. voi=
US 285: 3-23-96: 1:08 to 1:23 PM
SB Lane
2 Lanes Sec. ; Group Gaps Obs . 4 Gaps Expc t Chi Sq. Value
0 - 2.5 90 78.954 1 .5452
2.50 -3.5 1 7 14.661 0.3730
3.50 - 4.5 10 12.191 0.3940
4.50 - 5.5 10 10.138 0.0018
5 50 - 6.5 3 8.430? 3.4982
6.50 - 7.5 2 7.0107 3.5812
7.50 - 8.5 4 5.8298 0.5743
8.50 -10.5 9 8.8793 0.0016
10.5 -12.5 2 6.1400 2.7915
12.5 -15.5 5 5.8488 0.1232
15.5 - 999 14 7.9141 4.6798
999. - 0 0
Totals 166 1 66 17.564
Chi Square Test 15 Min.
US 28F: 3-23 -96: 1:08 to 1:23 PM
NB and SB Lanes
2 Lanes
Sec. # Gaps # Gaps Chi Sq.
Group Obs . Expct, . Value
0 2.5 236 233.17 0.0343
2.50 3.5 27 27.833 0.0249
3.50 4.5 9 19.397 5.5730
4.50 5.5 14 13.517 0.0171
5.50 6.5 8 9.4206 0.2142
6.50 7.5 6 6.5652 0.0486
7.50 9.5 10 7.7639 0.6440
9.50 999 1 5 7.3313 8.0214
999. - 0 0
0.00 - 0 0
0.00 - 0 0
0.00 - 0 0
Totals 325 325 14.577
D0F =
vol =
D0F =
1 03

324
6
63


Appendix C
Delay Calculation Spreadsheets


4

Delay and Level of Service Calculations
(Assumes a demand of 50 vph)
Location Direction/ Movement Time Period
US 285 (4-In.) EB Major Left 1:40-1:55
US 285 (4-In.) WB Major Left 1:40-1:55
US 285 (4-In.) Minor Thru 1:40-1:55
US 285 (4-In.) Minor Left 1:40-1:55
US 285 (4-In.) EB Major Left 1:55-2:10
US 285 (4-In.) WB Major Left 1:55-2:10
US 285 (4-In.) Minor Thru 1:55-2:10
US 285 (4-In.) Minor Left 1:55-2:10
Capacity Cap Calc Type Delay (Eq. 10-11)
736 Actual 5.25
620 HCM 6.32
656 Modified 5.94
600 Actual 6.55
548 HCM 7.23
600 Modified 6.55
144 Actual 38.15
104 HCM 65.64
164 Modified 31.51
140 Actual 39.83
80 HCM 113.12
132 Modified 43.66
740 Actual 5.22
644 HCM 6.06
680 Modified 5.71
592 Actual 6.64
528 HCM 7.53
584 Modified 6.74
152 Actual 35.18
104 HCM 65.64
168 Modified 30.44
144 Actual 38.15
80 HCM 113.12
136 Modified 41.66
65


Delay and Level of Service Calculations
(Assumes a demand of 50 vph)
Direction/ Delay
Location Movement Time Period Capacity Cap Calc (Eq. 10-11)
Lincoln EB Major Left 11:00-11:15 1080 Actual 3.50
976 HCM 3.89
985 Modified 3.85
Lincoln WB Major Left 11:00-11:15 944 Actual 4.03
736 HCM 5.25
752 Modified 5.13
Lincoln Minor Thru 11:00-11:15 312 Actual 13.74
236 HCM 19.34
256 Modified 17.47
Lincoln Minor Left 11:00-11:15 296 Actual 14.63
200 HCM 23.97
216 Modified 21.67
Lincoln EB Major Left 11:15-11:30 912 Actual 4.18
812 HCM 4.72
820 Modified 4.68
Lincoln WB Major Left 11:15-11:30 840 Actual 4.56
716 . HCM 5.41
736 . Modified 5.25
Lincoln Minor Thru 11:15-11:30 212 Actual 22.20
188 HCM 26.05
216 Modified 21.67
Lincoln Minor Left 11:15-11:30 192 Actual 25.32
152 HCM 35.18
180 Modified 27.65
66


4
Delay and Level of Service Calculations
(Assumes a demand of 50 vph)
Location Direction/ Movement Time Period
Parker Rd Minor Thru 11:56-12:11
Parker Rd Minor Left 11:56-12:11
Parker Rd Minor Thru 12:22-12:37
Parker Rd 2 Minor Left 12:22-12:37
US 85 (2 In.) Minor Thru 12:53-1:08
US£85 (2 In.) Minor Left 12:53-1:08
US 85 (2 In.) -2. Minor Thru . 1:08-1:23
US 85 (2 In.) Minor Left 1:08-1:23
Delay
Capacity Cap Calc (Eq. 10-11)
480 Actual 8.37
416 HCM 9.84
428 Modified 9.52
420 Actual 9.73
368 HCM 11.32
380 Modified 10.91
484 Actual 8.29
400 HCM 10.28
420 Modified 9.73
436 Actual 9.33
352 HCM 11.92
368 Modified 11.32
384 Actual 10.78
280 HCM 15.65
320 Modified 13.33
348 Actual 12.08
236 HCM 19.34
272 Modified 16.21
328 Actual 12.95
228 HCM 20.21
292 Modified 14.87
288 Actual 15.12
188 HCM 26.05
244 Modified 18.55
67


References:
1. Special Report 209; Highway Capacity Manual. TRB, National Research
Council, Washington D.C., 1985 (updated 1994).
2. A. D. May. Traffic Flow Fundamentals. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs,
N.J. 1990.
3. R. H. McCuen. Statistical Methods for Engineers. Prentice Hall, Englewood
Cliffs, N.J. 1985.
4. M. Kyte, B. K. Lall, and N. Mahfood. Empirical Method to Estimate the
Capacity and Delay of the Minor Street Approach of a Two-Way Stop-
Controlled Intersection. In Transportation Research Record 1365, TRB,
National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1992.
5. A. J. Khattak and P.P. Jovanis. Capacity and Delay Estimation for Priority
Unsignalized Intersections: Conceptual and Empirical Issues. In
Transportation Research Record 1287, TRB, National Research Council,
Washington, D.C., 1990.
6. R.T. Luttinen, Statistical Properties of Vehicle Time Headways. In
Transportation Research Record 1365, TRB, National Research council,
Washington, D.C., 1992.
68