|
Sub-problem 3a - Page 5 of 13 |
ID# C403A05 |
Sub-problem 3a: Weaving Analysis
The results of the
calculations are show in Exhibit 4-47. The calculations suggest that both of
these weaving sections have adequate levels of service in the AM and PM
peaks.
|
Exhibit 4-47. Weave Analysis Results A & B |
|
Weaving Segment |
Peak Period |
Ww |
Wnw |
Sw
mph |
Snw
mph |
S
mph |
Density pcpmpl |
LOS |
Type of Operation |
|
A |
AM |
1.11 |
0.18 |
41.07 |
61.59 |
49.03 |
16.63 |
B |
Constrained |
|
A |
PM |
0.66 |
0.09 |
48.06 |
65.38 |
54.91 |
8.53 |
A |
Constrained |
|
B |
AM |
0.71 |
0.09 |
47.25 |
65.25 |
55.95 |
10.02 |
B |
Constrained |
|
B |
PM |
0.92 |
0.14 |
43.69 |
63.38 |
52.07 |
13.48 |
B |
Constrained |
Before concluding that
these facilities are operating acceptably, we should note that the weaving sections are longer
than the distances that the HCM 2000 methodologies were designed to address. The HCM
2000 says that if the weaving section is longer
than 2,500 feet, it should be analyzed as a combination of an on-ramp and an
off- ramp, which we did in Sub-problem 2b. For this problem, however, we
analyze them if they were only 2,500 feet long, so we’re not outside the
range for which the HCM is intended. That produces the results shown in
Exhibit 4-47.
Notice that the
weaving and non-weaving intensity factors, Ww and Wnw
are higher when the volumes are higher. That means they’re higher in the AM
peak for Location A and in the PM peak for Location B. This increases the
densities and produces a lower level of service.
[
Back ] [ Continue ] with
Sub-problem 3a
