Problem 3: Weaving & Ramp

Sections
3a: Analysis of a

Weaving Section
3b: Freeway
Ramp Analysis
3c: Non-standard
Ramp and Weave
Analysis
3d: Analysis of a
Collector/Distribut
or Road

Sub-Problem 3a
This sub-problem focuses
on four weaving sections
in the Route 7 / I-787
interchange.

Observations?

Questions to
consider:
What are some of
the elements to
consider when
studying a weave
section?
How do we
determine the LOS
for weave sections?

Route 7 / I-787
Route 7
Interchange

Alternate
Rte. 7

North

J
F
G

E L

B
H

I-787
D

I-787

Weaving sections of
interest include:

23rd Street

Observations?

Weaving Sections
What is important to consider
when analyzing a weaving section?
1) Type of weave
2) Weaving length
3) Distribution of flows within the
weave
4) Speeds of the weaving & nonweaving movements
5) PHF
6) Percentages of trucks, buses, &
recreational vehicles
7) Passenger car equivalents

Observations?

Weaving Segments A & B

Characteristics:

4 lanes
Length of A = 3100
Length of B = 2600
Entering & exiting
facilities each 2 lanes

What type of weave is at each of

these locations?

Type A

View of Route 7 looking west at the

western end of Location A

How can the speeds for weaving

(Sw) & non-weaving (Snw) vehicles
be computed? HCM 2000 Eqn 24-2

Weaving Segments A & B

At higher volumes what

happens to Ww and Wnw?

They are also higher

What does this mean?

Density increases,
therefore, LOS decreases

Weaving Segments A & B

Observations?

There is a signal at the end of weaving section B,

where the PM peak traffic is heavy enough that the
length of the double-lane queue often extends
across the bridge. WHAT DOES THIS MEAN?
Weaving vehicles cant take advantage of the length of
the bridge to make their lane changes. Motorists must
make a lane change before the end of queue if they want
to go north on I-787.
Then what length of weaving section is required to
have a reasonable LOS?

Weaving Segment C
Characteristics:
Inbound facilities:
I-787 NB 3 lanes
23rd St on-ramp 1 lane
Outbound facilities:
I-787 NB 2 lanes
Rt 7 EB off-ramp 2 lanes

What type of weave is this?

Type C

Observations?

View of I-787 North at

Location C just before the
two right hand lanes leave to
go toward Route 7 east

Weaving Segment C

3392
I-787NB

1013
Rte. 7EB
off ramp

Do we know the

distribution of flows for

the weaving and nonweaving segments?
No, collecting this type of data in the field
requires significant data collection
coordination and significant time.

3997
I-787NB

408
23rd Street
on ramp

How do we get

these volumes?
Observations?

Estimate the volumes, then conduct a

sensitivity analysis to determine the
validity of the estimates

Weaving Segment C
3 possible scenarios for flow

distributions
1)
2)
3)

All the 23rd St on-ramp traffic goes to I-787

N. This maximizes the weaving volumes.
Inbound flows go to the outbound legs
proportional to the exiting volumes.
A larger percentage going to D from B
(40%). This reduces the amount of traffic
from A going to D. Thus, the weaving traffic
decreases and the non-weaving traffic
increases.

Weaving Segment C

What does it mean that the LOS

= C in all cases?
The LOS isnt very sensitive to the
distribution of volumes among the
four weaving movements

Observations?

Why is the density greatest in

scenario 1? What does this mean?
Greatest weaving volumes in Scenario 1. The
higher the weaving volume the higher the density

Weaving Segment E
Characteristics:

View of I-787 North at

Location E just before the
loop ramp diverges to go
toward Route 7 west

3 lanes
Located on I-787 north
between Route 7 east onramp & Route 7 west offramp
Length = 790
Heavy PM volumes

Observations?
What type of weave is at this
location?

Type A

Weaving Segment E
Assumptions to be made with the input
data
1) The FFS on the freeway = 55 mph
2) The speed on the on- and off-ramps = 25 mph
3) The peak hour factor = 1.0.

Weaving Segment E

Based on the results what

conclusions can be made?
Much better service in the
AM

Observations?

Weaving Segment E
How would changing the

PHF or Speed affect the

results of this weave?

As the PHF increases, the

density of traffic in the
weaving segment decreases
and the speeds increase
As the free flow speed
increases, the densities
decrease and the speeds
increase.

Why might the only case of LOS E occur

when the PHF = 1 and the FFS = 65 mph?

Observations?

Weaving Segment E
What could be done
to this facility to
improve the LOS?

Change geometric
constraints (i.e. length of
weave and number of lanes
in the weave)

Existing

HCM Max

Observations?

Conclusions from the Weave

Analysis
Although there are only several types of

weaves, each may have unique

characteristics that need to be considered
Changing geometric constraints may improve

the operation of a particular weaving section

HCM guidelines need to be checked versus

field observations to accurately depict what is

going

Sub-Problem 3b
This sub-problem
focuses on some
basic issues in ramp
analysis.

Questions to
consider:
What analyses might
be applied in this
problem?
What are some of

Observations?

the unique attributes

of this analysis that
need to be
addressed?

Ramps of Interest

from
Data for Ramps of InterestCapacities
HCM Exhibit 23-3

Observations? What ramps may

have problems and
at what time of
day?

What factors affect

the capacity?
- Number of lanes on the
ramp
- Ramp FFS

Merge sections of interest

Alternate
Route 7 Rte. 7
include:

North

Location I Characteristics:
- single lane on-ramp
- 2-lane freeway
- Acceleration lane ~ 1/10 of a
mile long
- FFS on the ramp = 25 mph
Location J Characteristics:
- single lane on-ramp
- 2-lane freeway
- On-ramp continues as 3rd
lane
- FFS on the ramp = 35 mph

F
G

E L
A
B

I-787
D

C
I-787

23rd Street

What can be done to

improve the LOS to A?
Extend acceleration
lane

Observations?

What would be the

effect of changing
the acceleration
lane length at
Location I?

Existing I w/ J = 3000 La
Max I, Min La @ J
Max I, w/ J = 1650 La

Observations?

What are the benefits of each

choice?

What did we learn from this sub-problem?

We learned what is involved and that the HCM methodologies

are distributed among 4 chapters: ramps, weaving sections,

unsignalized intersections, and signalized intersections.

We used the v/c ratio analysis technique in the ramps

chapter of the HCM and determined that 2 of the ramps in

the interchange are at or near capacity. Ideally, their curve
radii should be larger or more lanes should be present.

We studied the 2 merges that occur on Route 7 going WB. We

noticed that one ramp is difficult to analyze because the

acceleration lane never ends, it continues on as a 3rd lane on
the freeway. We determined how to analyze the level of
service of this. We lengthened the acceleration lane on the
1st ramp to determine how to achieve LOS A. We found that
the pair of ramps could be made to work well, and the length
of the ramp had an impact on performance.

Sub-Problem 3c
This sub-problem focuses
on the southwestern
quadrant of the I-787
interchange, where the
ramps are all nonstandard.

Observations?

What is non-standard?
The diverge from Route 7
EB
The split into a
collector/distributor road
The right-hand ramp from
Route 7 EB to I-787 SB
The semi-direct ramp from
Route 7 WB to I-787 SB
The merger of these two
ramps with each other and
with I-787 SB

The Southwestern Quadrant

Route 7 EB Diverge

No deceleration lane. (The exit ramp

leaves Route 7 as soon as it appears. So

we need to set the length of the
deceleration lane at zero.)
Exit ramp leads to the
collector/distributor road (we need to
include the traffic taking the loop ramp
to I-787 north as well as the traffic
taking the right-hand ramp to I-787
south.)

The Short Connector

150-foot long single-lane ramp between

Route 7 east and the beginning of the lane for

the collector/distributor road.
An analysis of this roadway segment will tell
us if this might be the bottleneck. Well
compare the volume it handles with the
capacity it ought to have per the HCM.
The exiting volume is 2,020 veh/hr, while the
suggested capacity for a single-lane ramp is
2,000 veh/hr; so the v/c ratio is 1.01.

The Right-Hand Ramp

AM Peak volume on the right-hand

ramp = 1,865 veh/hr

The HCM says capacity for a single lane
ramp with a free flow speed of 30 mph
should be 1,900 veh/hr; so the v/c ratio
is 0.98

 4-lane basic freeway section at the merge

point

FFS= 65 mph
Volume = 5,290 veh/hr
Density = 20.8pc/mi/ln, which is LOS C.

The HCM ramp procedure asks us to specify

lengths for both the 1st and 2nd acceleration

lane.
The 1st ramp ends 790 feet downstream of the
initial merge, but the 2nd lane doesnt end (so
assume a long arbitrary distance)

Merge Analysis
Set 1st lane length to 790
Set 2nd lane length to 4,000
What is the new
influence area
Density?
What was the
density of where the
4 lane merge starts?
Why is there such a
difference in the
densities?

D = 3.9 pcpmpl

D = 20.8 pcpmpl

The introduction of a long

acceleration lane
significantly reduces the
density

With D = 3.9 pcpmpl

what is the LOS of this
merge?
A or F ?
Why such a poor
LOS with a low
density?
The combined volume from the
ramps and the freeway (5,400
veh/hr) produce an influx into
the influence area, which is
more than the 4,600 veh/hr
allowed

I-787 SB Weave Analysis

1904

What type of
weave is this?

100

Type B
3123
A

C
164

Note: The starting point of the weave

is ambiguous. The striping at the
north end of the weave tries to keep
the weave from starting until the lane
drop occurs.

Observations?

Weaving Diagram for

Weave D AM Peak Hour
Volumes

Would the weave start early

or later under heavier traffic
conditions?
Earlier

Conditions Depending on Length of Weave

What are the effects of
having a weave that
varies in length?

1904

100

3123
A

C
164

What would have to

happen to improve the
LOS?
Although LOS remains poor, as
length increases, density
decreases!!

Much greater weave

length

What did we learn from this sub-problem?

This sub-problem shows that we can use engineering

judgment in combination with the HCM capacities for

single and multi-lane ramp sections to determine
where problem spots might exist in the interchange.
We also see the attention to detail that is required to
identify bottlenecks.
In summary, there is more than one way to view a
given situation. Different views are possible, producing
different results. Our responsibility as traffic engineers
is to identify these views, study the system from each,
and portray the results clearly and concisely to decide
what recommendations to make regarding facility
enhancements.

Sub-Problem 3d
This sub-problem deals
with the short, single-lane
collector/distributor road
that connects to two
ramps: the I-787 SB to
Route 7 EB loop ramp at
its end and the Route 7 EB
to I-787 NB loop ramp at
its beginning.

Observations?

The focus of this sub-problem

is not on the high volumes or
congested conditions but on
the complexities of
performing the analysis. The
collector-distributor doesnt
fit any standard facility type,
yet it needs to be analyzed.

Consider how you might

analyze this
collector/distributor roadway
using the methodologies
presented in the HCM 2000

Layout of the Collector-Distributor

The collector-distributor (C-D) connects to Route 7 EB as a single lane

exit without a deceleration lane.
It continues as a single lane for approximately 250 and a new lane is
added on the left-hand side. The new left-hand lane becomes the
continuation of the C-D road, which means the C-D traffic has to jog
left one lane, while the original lane continues ahead to become the
start of the right-hand ramp leading to I-787 SB.
These two lanes parallel each other for about 1,000 until the righthand lane turns toward I-787 SB. The left-hand lane, the C-D road,
continues on for 1,800 until it joins with the I-787 SB/Route 7 EB loop
ramp.
The 1 lane C-D road and the 1 lane loop ramp now become a 2-lane
facility.
These 2 lanes continue across a bridge for about 260 until the righthand lane becomes the beginning of the loop ramp to I-787 NB.
We have a small weaving section that starts with the end of the loop
ramp from I-787 SB and ends with the beginning of the loop ramp to I787 NB.
After the loop ramp to I-787 NB turns off to the right, the C-D road
continues on another 300 where it rejoins Route 7 EB.

Collector-Distributor Weaving Section

Here we will focus on the weaving
section that takes place with the C-D
Road
When doing the weaving
analysis for the C-D Road
what makes it difficult?
How can that be
worked around?

There is only 1 lane on the

freeway
Assume 2 lanes on the C-D
Road

Characteristics of the Weave:

2 lanes on the C-D Road

Length of Weave = 264
FFS = 40 MPH
Type A Weave
B-D volume = 0

Results of the C-D Weave

D = 5.02 pc/mi/ln
LOS = A
Unconstrained operation
Weaving & non-weaving speeds are about 33-35 mph
The number of lanes required (Nw = 1.18) is less than
the number needed for unconstrained operation (1.4).
What does this
mean?
Although we assumed the C-D road was 2
lanes wide, and the weaving section 3 lanes
wide, only 1.18 lanes were required for the
weaving movements to be unconstrained.
The remaining 0.82 lanes were available for
any non-weaving traffic using the C-D road as
an alternative to the mainline lanes for Route
7 EB.

What did we learn from this sub-problem?

We encountered another situation where the highway

geometrics are non-standard from the perspective of

the HCM; so we need to determine how the situation
should be analyzed.

Second, a weaving analysis is possible and

appropriate between the loop ramps, provided morethan-normal care is taken in examining and
interpreting the results of the analysis.

Third, the computed number of lanes required for an

unconstrained weave needs to be compared with the

number of lanes available, realizing that the nonweaving movements are effectively zero. This means
that if the weaving movements are acceptable, the
entire weaving section is also acceptable.