Saturation Flow and Capacity of Shared Lanes: Comparative Evaluation of Estimation Methods

Abstract

The operation of shared lanes, especially in the case of permitted phasing control, is still considered a complicated task and one for which many procedures and methods have been introduced. Dealt with here is the complexity when left- or right-turn movements or both are made during the unsaturated part of the opposing traffic flow. Three main methods used for estimating the shared lane's saturation flow rate and capacity values—that used in the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) and the Australian Road Research Board (ARRB) and the Canadian methods—were analyzed and evaluated. The methodology for the comparative evaluation was based on two main approaches. In the first approach, example 1 of Chapter 9 of the HCM was used as a case study in which left through and left through right shared lanes exist in permitted phase control. In this case several computer runs were performed using the programs SIDRA and SINTRAL to estimate saturation flow and capacity values of the shared lanes opposed by different traffic volumes of the conflicting movements. Results of this approach showed that the 1985 HCM and ARRB methods are fairly close in estimating saturation flow and capacity, whereas the Canadian method gave considerably different results. Analysis showed that the sensitivity of the Canadian method to estimate saturation flow rates of the shared lane in cases of different levels of opposing traffic was an average of 10 times higher than the average of the two other methods, which were very close in their estimation of levels of opposing traffic volumes. In the second approach, field measurements of saturation flow rate values of shared lanes at different locations and operational conditions were compared with the values estimated by the three methods under the same conditions. Results, based on field observations, revealed that the Canadian method estimates of saturation flow were always lower than the measured values. At low saturation flow values, HCM estimates were slightly higher than the observed values; however, at higher saturation flow rate values. HCM estimates closely matched the observed ones. The ARRB method estimates were quite close to the observed saturation flow values under all of the different conditions considered in the field observation task.