Sub-problem 3a - Page 4 of 7 |
ID# C203A04 |
Sub-problem 3a: Shenendehowa Campus AM & PM peak - Existing Conditions
Let’s first look at the 15-minute
intervals that makeup the AM peak. The volumes were shown in
Exhibit 2-27. We
have to create four datasets and get four separate results. Then we
can compare those results with the original “peak hour” solutions we
obtained, shown in
Exhibit 2-30, to see where the differences are. We could also perform a pair of analyses in which the peak hour factors are different for every movement. That produces yet a third assessment
of the intersection’s performance.
Click here to see the input data for each of these analyses.
The delays and levels
of service that we obtain for the AM peak are shown in Exhibit 2-31.
The first line shows our original AM peak hour analysis. The next
shows the results if we use movement-specific peak hour factors, and the
last four lines show the results for each 15-minute interval during the PM
peak. (Where a movement has zero flow, no LOS has been computed.)
Exhibit 2-31. Shenendehowa Campus AM peak hour delays by 15 minute interval |
Dataset |
PHF Condition |
HV Correction |
Performance Measure |
EB |
WB |
NB |
SB |
OA |
L |
T |
R |
Tot |
L |
T |
R |
Tot |
L |
T |
R |
Tot |
L |
T |
R |
Tot |
22 |
Base Case Overall |
Yes |
delay |
33.9 |
12.4 |
27.5 |
39.8 |
12.0 |
22.0 |
25.0 |
33.9 |
30.7 |
19.2 |
19.2 |
25.9 |
LOS |
C |
B |
C |
D |
B |
C |
C |
C |
C |
B |
B |
C |
24 |
By Movement |
Yes |
delay |
50.0 |
21.8 |
39.6 |
58.3 |
15.4 |
32.2 |
35.8 |
54.9 |
47.9 |
25.1 |
25.1 |
38.0 |
LOS |
D |
C |
D |
E |
B |
C |
D |
D |
D |
C |
C |
D |
25 |
Internal 8:00-8:15 |
Yes |
delay |
31.8 |
21.8 |
27.8 |
51.6 |
12.2 |
29.7 |
29.9 |
34.3 |
32.6 |
24.5 |
24.5 |
29.2 |
LOS |
C |
C |
C |
D |
B |
C |
C |
C |
C |
C |
C |
C |
26 |
Internal 8:15-8:30 |
Yes |
delay |
28.1 |
12.1 |
24.3 |
48.5 |
15.6 |
26.6 |
- |
33.7 |
- |
19.7 |
19.7 |
- |
LOS |
C |
B |
C |
D |
B |
C |
- |
C |
- |
B |
B |
- |
27 |
Internal 8:30-8:45 |
Yes |
delay |
20.8 |
10.8 |
18.4 |
28.4 |
11.0 |
16.3 |
19.4 |
19.7 |
19.6 |
17.1 |
17.1 |
17.8 |
LOS |
C |
B |
B |
C |
B |
B |
B |
B |
B |
B |
B |
B |
28 |
Internal 8:45-9:00 |
Yes |
delay |
34.9 |
18.0 |
18.0 |
37.6 |
12.9 |
21.3 |
26.5 |
34.0 |
31.7 |
24.9 |
24.9 |
26.7 |
LOS |
C |
B |
B |
D |
B |
C |
C |
C |
C |
C |
C |
C |
In the original
analysis, the average delay per vehicle is 25.9 seconds. When
we use movement-specific PHF values, the average delay is 38 seconds, or 47% higher. Is
this realistic? We’ll see. The average delays on
a 15-minute basis range from 17.8 to 29.2 seconds per vehicle. So the 38.0
seconds is clearly too high. The
original analysis underestimates the delays during
the peak 15 minutes where it is 13% higher.
Discussion:
Look at the datasets used for each of the 15-minute
analyses. Check the values for the analysis parameters we set, such as the
value for T, the duration of the analysis, and the peak hour factor. Think
about whether you would have chosen the same or a different set of parameter
values.
[ Back ] [ Continue ] with
Peak Hour Factor Analysis |