Comparison of Planning and Operational Analysis Procedures for Signalized Intersections from the Highway Capacity Manual

Abstract

The 1994 update of the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) includes a planning procedure to estimate the capacity condition of a signalized intersection (Xcm). The planning method results can also be extended to a planning application of the more data-intensive HCM operational procedure to estimate intersection critical flow-to-capacity ratio (Xc) and level of service with only planning-level data. Both the planning procedure and the planning application of the operational procedure involve default adjustment factors and synthesized traffic signal timing (called the “default signal timing”). Data from 166 Missouri intersections were used to determine how well the planning approaches predict operational analysis results. In general, the default signal timings had shorter cycle lengths than the timing plans used at pretimed signals. The shorter cycle lengths led to slightly higher flow-to-capacity ratios, since a higher proportion of each cycle was devoted to lost time. The default signal timings also had more equal flow-to-capacity ratios within critical lane groups. The shorter cycle lengths and more equal flow-to-capacity ratios led to a predicted level of service that was the same or better than that calculated for actual conditions. For the subject intersections, locally calibrated default adjustment factors yielded better predictions of flow-to-capacity ratios and level of service than the HCM defaults. The planning value for Xcm was often less than the actual Xc for operational analysis of actual conditions. This was to be expected since Xcm is based on the maximum allowable cycle length. The HCM planning procedure is expected to receive wide use in a variety of planning and design applications. Calibration of appropriate local default values should improve the accuracy of the planning procedure results.