This presentation shows a case study conducted at a intersection at Moscow, ID. provides a brief outline about the points to be considered for analyzing a intersection.

1. Parcel: Vacant lot at
Jackson and 3rd. Primary
intersection: Jackson/3rd,
Moscow, ID
KUS HAL PAT E L

2. INSIGHTS FROM HCM APPLICATION
GUIDE
Development of analysis procedure
Type of alternatives to be considered
Problems to be address

3. Analysis to be carried out
Problem: 1- Analysis of subject Intersection with current and Future volume with existing signalized
condition but with isolated intersection.
Problem: 2- Analysis of subject Intersection as a part of urban street and analyzing & comparing
current and future conditions
Problem: 3- Analysis of urban street with different cases such as changing offset time, Changing phase
sequence or increasing pretimed cycle length.
◦ Problem: 3a- Changing offset time: it should be adjusted in such a way that almost all the vehicle should arrive
during green time.
◦ Problem: 3b- Analysis using Changing signal sequence
◦ Problem: 3c- Analysis using Changing pretimed cycle duration from 52s to 80s
Problem: 4- Analysis of urban street with considering subject approach as actuated and all the
intersection actuated.
◦ Problem: 4a- Analysis considering subject approach as actuated
◦ Problem: 4b- Analysis considering all approaches as actuated

4. Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT SBL SBT SBR
Assigned Movement 2 12 1 6 7 4 14
Current 4.9 2.5 1.8 1.7 0.8 1.1 0.1
Future 9.8 5.2 4.1 2.1 0.8 1.7 0.3
Current 38.3 27.4 13.9 9.7 11 11.2 10
Future 79.2 48.1 24.2 10.3 11.1 12 10.3
Control Delay (d), s/veh
TABLE: 2 COMPARISON OF DELAYS AND QUEUE LENGTH OF EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS
Back of Queue (Q), veh/ln
(50th percentile)
3rd/Jackson
Street
3rd Street &
Main Street
3rd Street &
S WA Street
Current 15 30 4
Future 18 36 4
Current 92.5 314.8 13.4
Future 122.9 384 13.5
Current F F B
Future F F B
COMPARING VALUES FOR EACH INTERSECTION
Back of Queue (Q), veh/ln
(50th percentile) (MAX FORM
Control Delay (d), s/veh
LOS
TABLE: 4 PERFORMANCE COMPARISON OF CURRENT AND FUTURE CONDITION OF URBAN
STREET

6. Eastbound Westbound Eastbound Westbound
Movement 2, 12 1,6 2, 12 1,6
Base Free-Flow Speed, mph 41.72 41.72 41.72 41.72
Running Time, s 12.1 12.04 12.16 12.16
Running Speed, mph 18.59 18.69 18.5 18.5
Through Delay, s/veh
199.09 5.52 33.43 7.66
Travel Speed, mph
1.07 12.82 4.94 11.35
Stop Rate, stops/veh
2.94 0.22 0.87 0.31
Spatial Stop Rate, stops/mi 46.97 3.52 13.89 4.9
Through vol/cap Ratio 1.37 0.11 0.62 0.19
Percent of Base FFS 2.55 30.72 11.83 27.21
Level of Service F E F F
Auto Traveler Perception Score 6 2.7 4.68 2.95
Facility Travel Time, s 239.45 856.37 73.07 85.7
Facility Travel Speed, mph 1.88 0.53 6.16 5.25
Facility Base Free Flow Speed, mph 41.72 41.72 41.72 41.72
Facility Percent of Base FFS 4.5 1.26 14.76 12.59
Facility Level of Service F F F F
Facility Auto Traveler Perception Score 4.81 3.73 4.29 3.83
FUTURE W MODIFICATION
Segment Output Data
FUTURE W/O MODIFICATION