HIGHWAY CAPACITY MANUAL

6 T H E D IT ION | A G U I D E F O R M U LT IM O D A L M OBIL I T Y A N A LYS I S

VO L U M E 2 : U N I N T E RRU P T E D F L OW

CHAPTER 12
BASIC FREEWAY AND MULTILANE HIGHWAY SEGMENTS

T R A N SP ORTAT IO N R E S E A R C H B OA RD
WA S H I N G T ON , D .C . | W W W.T RB.O RG
TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine
500 Fifth Street, NW – Keck Building, 4th Floor
Washington, DC 20001
www.trb.org
http://www.trb.org/Finance/Bookstore.aspx
 Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis

CHAPTER 12
BASIC FREEWAY AND MULTILANE HIGHWAY SEGMENTS

CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 12-1

Overview ............................................................................................................... 12-1
Chapter Organization .......................................................................................... 12-1
Related HCM Content ......................................................................................... 12-2

2. CONCEPTS .............................................................................................................. 12-3

Basic Freeway and Multilane Highway Segment Description ...................... 12-3
Flow Characteristics of Basic Freeway and Multilane Highway
Segments ........................................................................................................ 12-5
Freeway Capacity Definitions ............................................................................ 12-6
Capacity under Base Conditions ....................................................................... 12-7
Speed–Flow Relationship.................................................................................... 12-9
Basic Managed Lane Segment Concepts ........................................................ 12-12
Heavy Vehicle Concepts ................................................................................... 12-15
Level of Service ................................................................................................... 12-17

3. MOTORIZED VEHICLE CORE METHODOLOGY .................................... 12-21

Scope of the Methodology ................................................................................ 12-21
Required Data and Sources .............................................................................. 12-24
Overview of the Methodology ......................................................................... 12-26
Computational Steps ......................................................................................... 12-27

4. EXTENSIONS TO THE METHODOLOGY .................................................... 12-40

Basic Managed Lane Segments ........................................................................ 12-40
Bicycle Methodology for Multilane Highways.............................................. 12-43

5. APPLICATIONS ................................................................................................... 12-45

Example Problems ............................................................................................. 12-45
Related Content in the HCMAG ...................................................................... 12-45
Example Results ................................................................................................. 12-46
Planning and Preliminary Engineering Analysis .......................................... 12-50
Design Analysis .................................................................................................. 12-50
Service Flow Rates, Service Volumes, and Daily Service Volumes ............ 12-51
Use of Alternative Tools.................................................................................... 12-57

6. REFERENCES ........................................................................................................ 12-61

Chapter 12/Basic Freeway and Multilane Highway Segments Contents

Version 6.0 Page 12-i
Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis

LIST OF EXHIBITS

Exhibit 12-1 Basic Freeway Segment Types Illustrated ......................................... 12-3

Exhibit 12-2 Multilane Highway Types Illustrated ................................................ 12-3
Exhibit 12-3 Three Types of Flow on a Basic Freeway Segment .......................... 12-6
Exhibit 12-4 Basic Freeway and Multilane Highway Segment Capacity
Under Base Conditions ....................................................................................... 12-8
Exhibit 12-5 General Form for Speed–Flow Curves on Basic Freeway and
Multilane Highway Segments ........................................................................... 12-9
Exhibit 12-6 Parameters for Speed–Flow Curves for Basic Freeway and
Multilane Highway Segments ......................................................................... 12-10
Exhibit 12-7 Speed–Flow Curves for Basic Freeway Segments .......................... 12-11
Exhibit 12-8 Speed–Flow Curves for Multilane Highway Segments ................ 12-11
Exhibit 12-9 Basic Managed Lane Segment Types .............................................. 12-13
Exhibit 12-10 Continuous Access Managed Lane Speed–Flow Data With
and Without the General Purpose Lane Approaching Capacity ................ 12-14
Exhibit 12-11 Estimated Lane Capacities for Basic Managed Lane
Segments ............................................................................................................. 12-14
Exhibit 12-12 Example Speed–Flow Relationships for a Continuous
Access Managed Lane Segment ....................................................................... 12-15
Exhibit 12-13 Speed–Flow Curve Comparison for Managed Lane
Segment Types with 60-mi/h FFS .................................................................... 12-15
Exhibit 12-14 LOS Examples for Basic Freeway Segments ................................. 12-17
Exhibit 12-15 LOS Criteria for Basic Freeway and Multilane Highway
Segments ............................................................................................................. 12-19
Exhibit 12-16 LOS Criteria and Speed–Flow Curves for Basic Freeway
Segments ............................................................................................................. 12-20
Exhibit 12-17 LOS Criteria and Speed–Flow Curves for Multilane
Highway Segments ............................................................................................ 12-20
Exhibit 12-18 Required Input Data, Potential Data Sources, and Default
Values for Basic Freeway and Multilane Highway Segment
Automobile Analysis ......................................................................................... 12-25
Exhibit 12-19 Overview of Operational Analysis Methodology for Basic
Freeway and Multilane Highway Segments.................................................. 12-26
Exhibit 12-20 Adjustment to FFS for Average Lane Width for Basic
Freeway and Multilane Highway Segments.................................................. 12-29
Exhibit 12-21 Adjustment to FFS for Right-Side Lateral Clearance, fRLC
(mi/h), for Basic Freeway Segments ................................................................ 12-29
Exhibit 12-22 Adjustment to FFS for Lateral Clearances for Multilane
Highways ............................................................................................................ 12-30

Contents Chapter 12/Basic Freeway and Multilane Highway Segments

Page 12-ii Version 6.0
 Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis

Exhibit 12-23 Adjustment to FFS for Median Type for Multilane

Highways ............................................................................................................ 12-30
Exhibit 12-24 Adjustment to FFS for Access Point Density for Multilane
Highways ............................................................................................................ 12-31
Exhibit 12-25 PCEs for General Terrain Segments ............................................... 12-35
Exhibit 12-26 PCEs for a Mix of 30% SUTs and 70% TTs .................................... 12-36
Exhibit 12-27 PCEs for a Mix of 50% SUTs and 50% TTs .................................... 12-37
Exhibit 12-28 PCEs for a Mix of 70% SUTs and 30% TTs .................................... 12-38
Exhibit 12-29 General Form for Speed–Flow Curves for Basic Managed
Lane Segments on Freeways ............................................................................ 12-40
Exhibit 12-30 Parameters for Basic Managed Lane Segment Analysis............. 12-43
Exhibit 12-31 Bicycle LOS for Two-Lane and Multilane Highways ................. 12-44
Exhibit 12-32 Illustrative Effect of Total Ramp Density and Right-Side
Lateral Clearance on Basic Freeway Segment FFS ........................................ 12-46
Exhibit 12-33 Illustrative Effect of v/c Ratio on Basic Freeway Segment
Speed .................................................................................................................... 12-47
Exhibit 12-34 Illustrative Effect of Access Point Density, Lateral
Clearance, and Median Type on Multilane Highway Segment FFS .......... 12-48
Exhibit 12-35 Illustrative Effect of Incidents and Inclement Weather on
Basic Freeway Segment FFS ............................................................................. 12-49
Exhibit 12-36 Illustrative Effect of Inclement Weather and General
Purpose Lane Friction on Managed Lane FFS ............................................... 12-49
Exhibit 12-37 Maximum Service Flow Rates for Basic Freeway Segments
Under Base Conditions ..................................................................................... 12-50
Exhibit 12-38 Maximum Service Flow Rates for Multilane Highway
Segments Under Base Conditions ................................................................... 12-51
Exhibit 12-39 Daily Service Volume Table for Urban Basic Freeway
Segments (1,000 veh/day) ................................................................................. 12-53
Exhibit 12-40 Daily Service Volume Table for Rural Basic Freeway
Segments (1,000 veh/day) ................................................................................. 12-54
Exhibit 12-41 Generalized Daily Service Volumes for Urban Multilane
Highways (1,000 veh/day) ................................................................................ 12-55
Exhibit 12-42 Generalized Daily Service Volumes for Rural Multilane
Highways (1,000 veh/day) ................................................................................ 12-56
Exhibit 12-43 Limitations of HCM Basic Freeway and Multilane
Highway Segments Procedure ......................................................................... 12-57

Chapter 12/Basic Freeway and Multilane Highway Segments Contents

Version 6.0 Page 12-iii
 Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis

1. INTRODUCTION

OVERVIEW VOLUME 2: UNINTERRUPTED FLOW

10. Freeway Facilities Core Methodology
This chapter presents methodologies for analyzing the capacity and level of 11. Freeway Reliability Analysis
12. Basic Freeway and Multilane
service (LOS) of basic freeway and multilane highway segments. These segments Highway Segments
are outside the influence of merging, diverging, and weaving maneuvers. In the 13. Freeway Weaving Segments
14. Freeway Merge and Diverge
case of multilane highways, they are also outside the influence of signalized Segments
intersections. Because of the similar operational characteristics of basic freeway 15. Two-Lane Highways
and multilane highway segments, they are analyzed with the same methodology.
The similarities include a common form of the speed–flow relationship and the
effects attributed to the number of lanes, lane width, lateral clearance, and the
presence of heavy vehicles. The chapter also provides methods for analyzing
basic managed lane segments on freeways and bicycle LOS on multilane
highways.
This chapter focuses on uninterrupted flow, which refers to access-controlled
facilities, with access and egress being controlled through grade-separated cross
streets and ramp movements to access the facility. For multilane highways,
uninterrupted flow also exists when there are no traffic control devices that
interrupt traffic and where no platoons are formed by upstream traffic signals.
Typically, this condition occurs when the multilane highway segment is 2 mi or
more from the nearest traffic signal.
The methodologies in this chapter are limited to uncongested flow conditions.
Uncongested flow conditions require that the demand-to-capacity ratio for the
segment be less than or equal to 1.0. Uncongested flow on freeways and
multilane highways further means that there are no queuing impacts on the
segment from downstream bottlenecks. Chapter 10, Freeway Facilities Core
Methodology, provides an evaluation method for analyzing oversaturated basic
freeway segments. The Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) does not currently
provide a method for evaluating oversaturated multilane highways other than to
identify them as LOS F.

CHAPTER ORGANIZATION
Section 2 of this chapter presents the basic concepts of freeway and multilane
uninterrupted-segment operations, including the definition of base conditions;
differences in the treatment of basic freeway and multilane segments; basic
managed lane concepts; speed–flow relationships; and demand, capacity, and
LOS measures for automobile traffic.
Section 3 presents the base methodology for evaluating automobile
operations on basic freeway and multilane highway segments.
Section 4 extends the core method presented in Section 3 to applications for
managed lanes, including high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) and high-
occupancy/toll (HOT) lanes (also called express or priced managed lanes) with
various types of separation from the general purpose lanes. This method is based
on findings from National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP)
Project 03-96 (1–3). Additional extensions include the effect of trucks and other

Chapter 12/Basic Freeway and Multilane Highway Segments Introduction

Version 6.0 Page 12-1
Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis

heavy vehicles on capacity and LOS and a method for evaluating bicycle LOS on
multilane highways (with details provided in Chapter 15, Two-Lane Highways).
Section 5 presents application guidance on using the results of basic freeway
and multilane highway segment analysis, including example results from the
methods, information on the sensitivity of results to various inputs, and a service
volume table for freeway and multilane highway segments.

RELATED HCM CONTENT

Other HCM content related to this chapter includes the following:
 Chapter 3, Modal Characteristics, where the motorized vehicle
“Variations in Demand” subsection describes typical travel demand
patterns for freeway and multilane highway segments.
 Chapter 4, Traffic Operations and Capacity Concepts, which provides
background for the speed, flow, density, and capacity terms specific to
freeway and multilane highway segments that are presented in this
chapter’s Section 2.
 Chapter 10, Freeway Facilities Core Methodology, and Chapter 11,
Freeway Reliability Analysis, which use the basic freeway segment
methodology described in this chapter in analyzing a larger facility
comprising freeway basic, merge and diverge, weaving, and managed
lane segments over extended time periods.
 Chapter 11, Freeway Reliability Analysis, which provides a method for
evaluating freeway facilities with basic segments in a reliability context.
The chapter also provides default speed and capacity adjustment factors
that can be applied in this chapter’s methodology.
 Chapter 25, Freeway Facilities: Supplemental, which presents a method
for evaluating mixed truck and automobile traffic streams on composite
grades.
 Chapter 26, Freeway and Highway Segments: Supplemental, which
provides state-specific heavy vehicle percentages, presents a method for
evaluating mixed truck and automobile traffic streams on single grades,
describes capacity and speed adjustments for driver populations
unfamiliar with a roadway, provides guidance for measuring freeway
capacity in the field, and presents example problems with step-by-step
calculations using this chapter’s methods.
 Case Study 4, New York State Route 7, in the HCM Applications Guide in
Volume 4, which demonstrates how this chapter’s methods can be
applied to the evaluation of an actual freeway facility.
 Section H, Freeway Analyses, and Section I, Multilane Highways, of the
Planning and Preliminary Engineering Applications Guide to the HCM, found
in Volume 4, which describes how to incorporate this chapter’s methods
and performance measures into a planning or preliminary engineering
effort.

Introduction Chapter 12/Basic Freeway and Multilane Highway Segments

Page 12-2 Version 6.0
 Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis

2. CONCEPTS

BASIC FREEWAY AND MULTILANE HIGHWAY SEGMENT DESCRIPTION

A basic freeway or multilane highway segment is outside the influence area
of any merge, diverge, or weaving segments and of any signalized intersections.
Exhibit 12-1 shows typical basic freeway segment cross sections, and Exhibit 12-2
illustrates common types of multilane highways.

Exhibit 12-1
Basic Freeway Segment Types
Illustrated

Source: © 2014 Google Source: © 2014 Google

(a) Eight-Lane Urban Freeway Segment (b) Six-Lane Rural Freeway Segment

Exhibit 12-2
Multilane Highway Types
Illustrated

(a) Divided Suburban (b) Undivided Suburban

Multilane Highway Segment Multilane Highway Segment

(c) Suburban Multilane Highway Segment (d) Undivided Rural Multilane Highway Segment
with Two-Way Left-Turn Lane

Chapter 12/Basic Freeway and Multilane Highway Segments Concepts

Version 6.0 Page 12-3
Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis

Basic freeway segments generally have four to eight lanes (in both directions)
and posted speed limits between 50 and 75 mi/h. The median type depends on
right-of-way constraints and other factors.
Multilane highways generally have four to six lanes (in both directions) and
posted speed limits between 40 and 55 mi/h. In some states, speed limits of 60 or
65 mi/h or higher are used on some multilane highways. These highways may be
undivided (with only a centerline separating the directions of flow) or divided
(with a physical median separating the directions of flow), or they may have a
two-way left-turn lane (TWLTL). Typically they are located in suburban areas
and lead into city centers or in high-volume rural corridors, where they connect
two cities or activity centers that generate a substantial number of daily trips.
Analysis segments must have All analyses are applied to segments with uniform characteristics. Uniform
uniform geometric and traffic
conditions, including demand segments must have the same geometric and traffic characteristics, including a
flow rates. constant demand flow rate.

Influence Areas of Merge, Diverge, and Weaving Segments

In general terms, the influence area of merge (on-ramp) segments extends
1,500 ft downstream of the merge point. The influence area of diverge (off-ramp)
segments extends 1,500 ft upstream of the diverge point. The influence area of
weaving segments extends 500 ft upstream and downstream of the gore-to-gore
segment length. For undersaturated operations, these distances define the areas
most affected by merge, diverge, and weaving movements. A complete
discussion of these influence areas is provided in Chapter 10, Freeway Facilities
Core Methodology, with additional discussion in Chapter 13, Freeway Weaving
Segments, and Chapter 14, Freeway Merge and Diverge Segments.

Influence of Breakdowns in Adjacent Freeway Segments

The impact of breakdowns in any type of freeway segment on an adjacent
basic segment can be addressed with the methodologies of Chapter 10, Freeway
Facilities Core Methodology, and Chapter 11, Freeway Reliability Analysis.
Breakdown events are defined in more detail below.

Influence of Traffic Signals on Multilane Highway Segments

The influence area of traffic signals on multilane highways is typically about
1 mi, which means that uninterrupted flow may exist if traffic signals are spaced
2 mi or more apart. Many multilane highways will have periodic signalized
intersections, even if the average signal spacing is well over 2 mi. In such cases,
the multilane highway segments that are more than 2 mi away from any traffic
signals are analyzed with this chapter’s methodology. Isolated signalized
intersections along multilane highways should be analyzed with the
methodology of Chapter 19, Signalized Intersections.

Concepts Chapter 12/Basic Freeway and Multilane Highway Segments

Page 12-4 Version 6.0
 Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis

FLOW CHARACTERISTICS OF BASIC FREEWAY AND MULTILANE

HIGHWAY SEGMENTS
Traffic flow within basic freeway segments can be highly dependent on the
conditions constricting flow at upstream and downstream bottleneck locations.
Such bottlenecks can be created by any or by a combination of the following:
merging, diverging, or weaving traffic; lane drops; maintenance and construction
activities; traffic accidents or incidents; objects in the roadway; and geometric
characteristics such as upgrades or sharp horizontal curves. Bottlenecks can exist
even when a lane is not fully blocked. Partial blockages will cause drivers to slow
and divert their paths. In addition, the practice of rubbernecking near roadside
incidents or accidents can cause functional bottlenecks. Many nonrecurring
congestion effects have a facilitywide impact and therefore are considered in
Chapter 10.
Uninterrupted flow on multilane highways is similar to that on basic
freeway segments. However, there are several important differences. Because
side frictions are present in varying degrees from uncontrolled driveways and
intersections, as well as from opposing flows on undivided cross sections, speeds
on multilane highways tend to be lower than those on similar basic freeway
segments. The basic geometry of multilane highways tends to be more
constrained than that of basic freeway segments, consistent with lower speed
expectations. Finally, isolated signalized intersections can exist along multilane
highways. The overall result is that speeds and capacities on multilane highways
are lower than those on basic freeway segments with similar cross sections.
As was discussed in more detail in Chapter 4, Traffic Operations and
Capacity Concepts, traffic flow within a basic freeway or multilane highway
segment can be categorized as one of three general types: undersaturated, queue
discharge, and oversaturated.
 Undersaturated flow represents conditions under which the traffic stream is
unaffected by upstream or downstream bottlenecks.
 Queue discharge flow represents congested traffic flow that has just passed
through a bottleneck and is accelerating back to the drivers’ desired
speeds. If no other downstream bottleneck exists, queue discharge flow
will be relatively stable until the queue is fully discharged.
 Oversaturated flow represents the conditions within a queue that has
backed up from a downstream bottleneck. These flow conditions do not
reflect the prevailing conditions of the segment itself but rather the
consequences of a downstream problem. All oversaturated flow is
considered to be congested.
An example of each of the three types of flow discussed is illustrated in
Exhibit 12-3, which uses data from a freeway segment in California.

Chapter 12/Basic Freeway and Multilane Highway Segments Concepts

Version 6.0 Page 12-5
Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis

Exhibit 12-3 80
UNDERSATURATED FLOW
Three Types of Flow on a
70
Basic Freeway Segment
60

Speed (mi/h)
50
QUEUE DISCHARGE FLOW
40
30
20
10
OVERSATURATED FLOW
0
0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500
Flow Rate (veh/h/ln)
Source: California Department of Transportation, 2008.
Note: I-405, Los Angeles, California.

FREEWAY CAPACITY DEFINITIONS

Freeway segment capacity is commonly understood to be a maximum flow
rate associated with the occurrence of some type of breakdown, which results in
lower speeds and higher densities. Previous research has shown that when
oversaturation begins, queues develop and vehicles discharge from the
bottleneck at a queue discharge rate that is usually lower than the throughput
rate before the breakdown. This is also known as the “capacity drop
phenomenon.” Several key terms related to freeway capacity are defined below
as they apply to this chapter. Details on the measurement of breakdown and
capacities are provided in Section 5 of Chapter 26, Freeway and Highway
Segments: Supplemental.

Freeway Breakdown
A freeway flow breakdown describes the transition from uncongested to
congested conditions. The formation of queues upstream of the bottleneck and
the reduced prevailing speeds make the breakdown evident.
In the HCM freeway methodology, a breakdown event on a freeway
bottleneck is defined as a sudden drop in speed of at least 25% below the free-
flow speed (FFS) for a sustained period of at least 15 min that results in queuing
upstream of the bottleneck.

Recovery
A freeway segment is considered to have recovered from the breakdown
event and the resulting oversaturated conditions when the average speeds (or
occupancies) reach prebreakdown conditions for a minimum duration of 15 min.
The definition of recovery is therefore the inverse of the definition of breakdown,
requiring a recovery to near prebreakdown conditions (operations above the
speed threshold) for at least 15 min.
The HCM defines the breakdown recovery on a freeway bottleneck as a
return of the prevailing speed to within 10% of the FFS for a sustained period of
at least 15 min, without the presence of queuing upstream of the bottleneck.

Concepts Chapter 12/Basic Freeway and Multilane Highway Segments

Page 12-6 Version 6.0
 Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis

Prebreakdown Flow Rate

The prebreakdown flow rate is the flow rate that immediately precedes the
occurrence of a breakdown event. The literature suggests that this flow rate does
not have a fixed value, since evidence shows that breakdowns are stochastic in
nature and could occur following a range of flow rates. The flow rate is typically
expressed in units of passenger cars per hour per lane (pc/h/ln) by converting
trucks and other heavy vehicles into an equivalent passenger car traffic stream.
In the HCM, the prebreakdown flow rate is defined as the 15-min average
flow rate immediately before the breakdown event. For the purpose of this
chapter, the prebreakdown flow rate is equivalent to the segment capacity.

Postbreakdown Flow Rate or Queue Discharge

The postbreakdown flow rate is also referred to as the queue discharge flow
rate or the average discharge flow rate. This flow rate is usually lower than the
prebreakdown flow rate, resulting in significant loss of freeway throughput
during congestion. Cases where the postbreakdown flow rate exceeds the
prebreakdown flow rate have also been observed, mostly when the
prebreakdown flow rate is low. Studies have indicated that the average
difference between the postbreakdown and the prebreakdown flow rates varies
from as little as 2% to as much as 20%, with a default value of 7% recommended.
In the HCM the queue discharge rate is defined as the average flow rate
during oversaturated conditions (i.e., during the time interval after breakdown
and before recovery).

CAPACITY UNDER BASE CONDITIONS

The base conditions under which the full capacity of a basic freeway or
multilane highway segment is achieved include good weather, good visibility, no
incidents or accidents, no work zone activity, and no pavement deterioration
serious enough to affect operations. The term “base conditions” presupposes the
existence of these conditions. If any of these conditions does not exist, the speed
and capacity of the freeway segment can be adjusted through this chapter’s
methodology to reflect prevailing conditions. Base conditions also include the
following:
 No heavy vehicles in the traffic stream,
 A driver population mostly composed of regular users who are familiar
with the facility, and
 12-ft lane widths and adequate lateral clearances (different for freeway
and multilane highways).
The capacity of a basic freeway segment under base conditions varies with
the FFS. Exhibit 12-4 gives capacity values under base conditions for a selection
of FFS values. Interpolation between FFS values is permitted. In all cases,
capacity represents a maximum flow rate for a 15-min interval.

Chapter 12/Basic Freeway and Multilane Highway Segments Concepts

Version 6.0 Page 12-7
Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis

Exhibit 12-4 FFS Capacity of Basic Freeway Capacity of Multilane Highway

Basic Freeway and Multilane (mi/h) Segments (pc/h/ln) Segments (pc/h/ln)
Highway Segment Capacity 75 2,400 NA
Under Base Conditions
70 2,400 2,300a
65 2,350 2,300a
60 2,300 2,200
55 2,250 2,100
50 NA 2,000
45 NA 1,900
Notes: NA = not available.
a
Capacities for multilane highways with 65- and 70-mi/h FFS are extrapolated and not based on field data.

It is reiterated that these base capacities reflect ideal conditions on a facility without
any capacity-reducing effects. For example, the base capacities assume no heavy
vehicles; no grades; and no additional friction effects due to poor pavement
conditions, narrow lanes, or lighting conditions. Furthermore, the capacities
shown in Exhibit 12-4 apply to a peak 15-min period (expressed as hourly flow
rates); capacities measured over a 1-h period may be less than these values.
Base capacity values refer to Finally, the base capacities do not include the effects of nonrecurring sources of
the average flow rate across all
lanes without impacts of heavy
congestion, such as severe weather, incidents, or work zones. Therefore,
vehicles, grades, or other calibration of the base capacity to reflect local conditions is important, especially
sources of friction.
when a segment is evaluated in the context of an extended freeway facility. For
Since freeways usually do not
operate under base conditions,
some adjustments, the HCM method provides explicit guidance. In other cases,
observed capacity values will available defaults for adjustment factors are limited, and these values should
typically be lower than the
base capacity values. Local
therefore be obtained by using local data.
calibration of capacity values is
Chapters 10 and 11 provide additional information allowing capacity values
critical to ensure proper
evaluation of basic freeway to be adjusted to reflect the impact of long- and short-term construction and
segments, especially in the maintenance activities, adverse weather conditions, accidents or incidents, and
context of an extended
freeway facility. the use of active traffic and demand management.
Capacity varies stochastically, The base capacity values represent national norms. Capacity varies
and any given location could
have a larger or smaller value stochastically, and any given location could have a larger or smaller value.
than the base capacity. Furthermore, capacity refers to the average flow rate across all lanes. Thus, a three-
Capacities represent an lane basic freeway segment with a 70-mi/h FFS would have an expected base
average flow rate across all
lanes. Individual lanes could capacity of 3 × 2,400 = 7,200 pc/h. This flow would not be uniformly distributed
have higher stable flows. across all lanes. Thus, one or two lanes could have stable base flows in excess of
2,400 pc/h/ln. Similarly, a two-lane (in one direction) multilane highway segment
with a 60-mi/h FFS would have an expected capacity of 2 × 2,200 = 4,400 pc/h.
This flow would not be uniformly distributed. Thus, one lane could have stable
flows in excess of 2,200 pc/h/ln.
Density at capacity for both Basic freeway and multilane highway segments reach their capacity at a
basic freeway and multilane
highway segments occurs at density of approximately 45 pc/mi/ln, although this value varies somewhat from
about 45 pc/mi/ln, or at an location to location. At this density, vehicles are spaced too closely to dampen
average vehicle spacing of
117 ft. the impact of any perturbation in flow, such as a lane change or a vehicle
entering the roadway, without causing a disruption in flow that propagates
upstream.
In a freeway facility context (Chapter 10), a basic freeway segment typically
does not break down unless a work zone, incident, or geometric constraint
results in a reduction of the segment’s capacity relative to adjacent segments.
More commonly, the throughput of the basic freeway segment is dictated by

Concepts Chapter 12/Basic Freeway and Multilane Highway Segments

Page 12-8 Version 6.0
 Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis

upstream or downstream merge, diverge, or weaving segments that tend to

govern the operations (and capacity) of the facility.

SPEED–FLOW RELATIONSHIP
Characteristics such as lane width, lateral clearance, median type, and (in the The methodology provides
adjustments for situations
case of multilane highways) access point density will affect the FFS of the facility. when the base conditions do
Changes in the FFS further translate into different speed–flow curves describing not apply.

operations under base conditions at higher volume levels.

Under base conditions, speed–flow curves for uninterrupted flow on basic
freeway and multilane highway segments follow a common form:
 Constant speed range. There is a range of flow rates (in passenger cars per
hour per lane) over which speed is constant. The range extends from a
flow rate of zero to a breakpoint value BP. Over this range, the speed is
equal to the FFS.
 Decreasing speed range. From BP to the capacity c, speed decreases from the
FFS in a generally parabolic relationship.
 Capacity. In all cases, capacity occurs when the traffic stream density D is
45 pc/mi/ln, indicated by the dashed line in Exhibit 12-5.
The general form of this relationship is illustrated in Exhibit 12-5, where the
x-axis represents the adjusted 15-min demand flow rate vp (pc/h/ln) and the y-
axis represents the space mean speed S of the traffic stream (mi/h). The equation
for the base speed–flow curve for every basic freeway and multilane highway
segment follows this form. In all cases, the value of capacity is directly related to
the FFS. For basic freeway segments, the value of BP is also directly related to the
FFS. For multilane highway segments, the breakpoint value is a constant value,
occurring at 1,400 pc/h/ln.

Exhibit 12-5
General Form for Speed–Flow
Curves on Basic Freeway and
Multilane Highway Segments

The general analytic form of the speed–flow relationship is given by

Equation 12-1, while the equations for determining the model parameters,
including the breakpoint and the capacity—both of which are based on FFS—are
given in Exhibit 12-6. The capacity adjustment (CAF) and speed adjustment
factors (SAF) shown in Exhibit 12-6 are calibration parameters used to adjust for
local conditions or to account for nonrecurring sources of congestion, and they

Chapter 12/Basic Freeway and Multilane Highway Segments Concepts

Version 6.0 Page 12-9
Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis

are discussed in the core methodology section of this chapter. The CAF and SAF
adjustments are only provided for basic freeway segments, since no empirical
research exists for equivalent capacity-reducing effects on multilane highways.

𝑆 = 𝐹𝐹𝑆𝑎𝑑𝑗 𝑣𝑝 ≤ 𝐵𝑃
Equation 12-1 𝑐𝑎𝑑𝑗 𝑎
(𝐹𝐹𝑆𝑎𝑑𝑗 − ) (𝑣𝑝 − 𝐵𝑃)
𝐷𝑐 𝐵𝑃 < 𝑣𝑝 ≤ 𝑐
𝑆 = 𝐹𝐹𝑆𝑎𝑑𝑗 − 𝑎
(𝑐𝑎𝑑𝑗 − 𝐵𝑃)
where S is the mean speed of the traffic stream under base conditions (mi/h) and
other variables are as given in Exhibit 12-6.
The development and calibration of speed–flow curves for basic freeway and
multilane highway segments and the development of a common form for
representing these curves are described elsewhere (4–7). Basic speed–flow curves
have been developed for FFS values between 55 and 75 mi/h for freeways and for
FFS values between 45 and 70 mi/h for multilane highways (however, the 65- and
70-mi/h curves should be used with caution since data for those conditions are
limited).

Exhibit 12-6 Param- Definition Basic Freeway Multilane Highway

Parameters for Speed–Flow eter and Units Segments Segments
Curves for Basic Freeway and Base segment free- Measured Measured
Multilane Highway Segments FFS
flow speed (mi/h) OR predicted with Equation 12-2 OR predicted with Equation 12-3
Adjusted free-flow
FFSadj FFSadj = FFS × SAF No adjustments
speed (mi/h)
Locally calibrated
Speed adjustment
SAF OR estimated with Chapter 11; 1.00
factor (decimal)
SAF = 1.00 for base conditions
c = 2,200 + 10(FFS – 50) c = 1,900 + 20(FFS – 45)
Base segment
c c ≤ 2,400 c ≤ 2,300
capacity (pc/h/ln)
55 ≤ FFS ≤ 75 45 ≤ FFS ≤ 70
Adjusted segment
cadj cadj = c × CAF No adjustments
capacity (pc/h/ln)
Locally calibrated
Capacity adjustment
CAF OR estimated with Chapter 11; 1.00
factor (decimal)
CAF = 1.00 for base conditions
Density at capacity
Dc 45 45
(pc/mi/ln)
Breakpoint BPadj = [1,000 + 40 × (75
BP 1,400
(pc/h/ln) – FFSadj)] × CAF 2
Exponent calibration
a 2.00 1.31
parameter (decimal)

The largest difference in the speed–flow curves for basic freeway and
multilane highway segments is in the breakpoint. For freeways, the breakpoint
varies with FFS—specifically, the breakpoint increases as the FFS decreases. This
suggests that at lower values of FFS, drivers will maintain the FFS through
higher flow levels. For multilane highways, the breakpoint is a constant. Exhibit
12-7 and Exhibit 12-8 show the base speed–flow curves for basic freeway and
multilane highway segments, respectively, for 5-mi/h increments of FFS.

Concepts Chapter 12/Basic Freeway and Multilane Highway Segments

Page 12-10 Version 6.0
 Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis

Exhibit 12-7
Speed–Flow Curves for Basic
Freeway Segments

Exhibit 12-8
Speed–Flow Curves for
Multilane Highway Segments

Note: Dashed curves are extrapolated and not based on field data.

Chapter 12/Basic Freeway and Multilane Highway Segments Concepts

Version 6.0 Page 12-11
Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis

BASIC MANAGED LANE SEGMENT CONCEPTS

Types of Managed Lane Segments
Managed lane segments may include HOV lanes, HOT lanes, or express toll
lanes. The vehicle composition, driver type, FFS, capacity, and driver behavior
characteristics of managed lane traffic streams are different from those of general
purpose lanes. In addition, interaction occurs between the two traffic streams,
especially when there is no physical barrier between the managed and the
general purpose lanes (1–3).
Five types of basic managed lane segments are identified, on the basis of the
number of managed lanes and the type of separation from the general purpose
lanes. The speed–flow characteristics of each basic managed lane segment type
are different. The five segment types are illustrated in Exhibit 12-9 and consist of
the following:
1. Continuous access: Skip-stripe or solid single line–separated, single lane;
2. Buffer 1: Buffer-separated, single lane;
3. Buffer 2: Buffer-separated, multiple lanes;
4. Barrier 1: Barrier-separated, single lane; and
5. Barrier 2: Barrier-separated, multiple lanes.

Basic Managed Lane Segment Capacity

The capacity of managed lanes can be difficult to ascertain because they are
often designed to operate at high levels of service and below capacity. While
managed lanes do fail, empirical data on their true capacity values are limited.
HOT lane users are provided with an incentive to pay for the use of the lane in
return for achieving reliable travel times. Research (1–3) has documented the
maximum observed 15-min hourly flow rates (without any breakdowns
observed) on basic managed lane segments, and these values are documented in
this chapter as the “capacity.” Actual managed lane segment capacity, therefore,
may be underestimated in some cases. Users of the HCM are encouraged to
calibrate parameters to reflect local conditions. In this chapter’s methodologies,
the speed–flow curves for both managed and general purpose lanes can be
modified to account for local measurements of capacity, FFS, or both.
The capacity of a basic managed lane segment depends on the number of
lanes on the segment. A single-lane managed lane segment does not offer the
opportunity to pass slower vehicles, which greatly reduces its capacity and
affects its speed–flow relationship. Capacity is also highly dependent on the type
of separation between the managed and general purpose lanes, with barrier-
separated managed lanes less susceptible to operational conditions in the general
purpose lanes than other types of managed lanes (continuous access, marking-
only, and buffer-separated). This effect is discussed in more detail below.

Concepts Chapter 12/Basic Freeway and Multilane Highway Segments

Page 12-12 Version 6.0
 Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis

Exhibit 12-9
Basic Managed Lane Segment
Types

Continuous Access

Source: ©2014 Google.

Note: I-5, Seattle, Washington.

Buffer 1

Source: ©2014 Google.

Note: I-394, Minneapolis, Minnesota.

Buffer 2

Source: ©2014 Google.

Note: I-110, Los Angeles, California.

Barrier 1

Source: ©2014 Google.

Note: I-5, Orange County, California.

Barrier 2

Source: ©2014 Google.

Note: I-5, Seattle, Washington.

Chapter 12/Basic Freeway and Multilane Highway Segments Concepts

Version 6.0 Page 12-13
Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis

Exhibit 12-10 shows how the speed–flow relationship at high flows diverges
for a continuous access basic managed lane segment once the neighboring
general purpose lanes approach capacity. Divergence typically occurs when the
general purpose lane density exceeds 35 pc/mi/ln, which is the threshold for
entering LOS E. This interaction starts even at low flow rates on the managed
lane at about 500 pc/h/ln. Managed lanes with barrier separation, on the other
hand, operate virtually the same as general purpose lanes and do not appear to
be sensitive to high densities in the general purpose lanes.

Exhibit 12-10
Continuous Access Managed
Lane Speed–Flow Data With
and Without the General
Purpose Lane Approaching
Capacity

Note: GP = general purpose lane.

Exhibit 12-11 provides estimated capacities for basic managed lane segments
as a function of the FFS and separation from the general purpose lanes. As
mentioned above, these values represent the maximum observed flow rates from
a national study of managed lane segments (1–3) but are not necessarily
associated with a density of 45 pc/h/ln.

Exhibit 12-11 FFS Estimated Lane Capacities (pc/h/ln) by Basic Managed Lane Segment Type
Estimated Lane Capacities for (mi/h) Continuous Access Buffer 1 Buffer 2 Barrier 1 Barrier 2
Basic Managed Lane 75 1,800 1,700 1,850 1,750 2,100
Segments 70 1,750 1,650 1,800 1,700 2,050
65 1,700 1,600 1,750 1,650 2,000
60 1,650 1,550 1,700 1,600 1,950
55 1,600 1,500 1,650 1,550 1,900

An example illustration of the resulting speed–flow curves for a managed

lane segment with continuous access is shown in Exhibit 12-12. An illustration
and comparison of the speed–flow relationships for different types of managed
lanes are shown in Exhibit 12-13. The parameters used to obtain these curves are
presented later in Exhibit 12-30.
In both exhibits, the frictional effect refers to a managed lane that is affected by
elevated density in the general purpose lanes (i.e., densities greater than 35
pc/mi/ln). This frictional effect only applies to some of the managed lane types
and specifically does not occur for barrier-separated managed lanes or two-lane
managed lanes with buffer separation.

Concepts Chapter 12/Basic Freeway and Multilane Highway Segments

Page 12-14 Version 6.0
 Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis

Exhibit 12-12
Example Speed–Flow
Relationships for a Continuous
Access Managed Lane
Segment

Exhibit 12-13
Speed–Flow Curve
Comparison for Managed Lane
Segment Types with 60-mi/h
FFS

HEAVY VEHICLE CONCEPTS

The traffic performance of heavy vehicles is significantly different from that
of automobiles. The differences relate to vehicle acceleration and deceleration
characteristics, as reflected in their weight-to-power ratios and lengths. Two
categories of heavy vehicles are defined: single-unit trucks (SUTs) and tractor- Tractor-trailers are also
sometimes referred to as
trailers (TTs). Buses and recreational vehicles are treated as SUTs in the HCM. combination trucks.
Chapter 3, Modal Characteristics, provides a more detailed discussion of the
types of heavy vehicles and compares the HCM and Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) vehicle classification schemes. FHWA Classifications 4
and 5 are treated as SUTs by the HCM, while FHWA Classifications 6 and higher
are considered as TTs.

Chapter 12/Basic Freeway and Multilane Highway Segments Concepts

Version 6.0 Page 12-15
Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis

Two distinct methodologies are offered to assess the effect of heavy vehicles
on capacity and LOS on freeways in the HCM:
1. Traditional passenger car equivalency (PCE) factors that allow the analyst
to convert a mixed stream of cars and trucks to a single uniform PCE
stream for purpose of analysis; and
2. A mixed-flow model that directly assesses the capacity, speed, and
density of traffic streams that include a significant percentage of heavy
vehicles operating on a single or composite grade.
This chapter’s core methodology uses the PCE approach, while the mixed-
flow model is presented in Volume 4 as an extension of the methodology. The
mixed-flow model for single grades is found in Chapter 26, Freeway and
Highway Segments: Supplemental, while the model for composite grades is
found in Chapter 25, Freeway Facilities: Supplemental. The mixed-flow model
form is fully consistent with Equation 12-1 and uses supporting equations to
estimate a SAF, CAF, breakpoint, density at capacity, speed at capacity, and
exponent calibration parameter. When the mixed-flow models are used, no PCEs
are needed, since the passenger car, SUT, and TT volumes are used directly in
the estimation of mixed-flow speed and density.
In fact, the mixed-flow method was used to generate the PCE tables as well
as an equation for estimating the PCE value for any traffic mix of SUTs and TTs,
as shown in Section 3. These PCE tables, and the associated equations in Volume
4, can be used to assess the LOS for a given mixed-flow segment without the
direct use of the mixed-flow model. The PCE values are predicated on
equivalency between the mixed-flow rate at capacity (in vehicles per hour per
lane) and the flow rate of the equivalent automobile-only traffic stream (in
passenger cars per hour per lane). The PCE tables assume the following splits
between SUTs and TTs: 30% SUTs and 70% TTs, 50% SUTs and 50% TTs, and
70% SUTs and 30% TTs. The PCE equation on which the tables are based allows
other truck mixes to be assessed.
If the PCE tables are used by themselves, the resulting speeds and densities
for the equivalent automobile-only traffic stream may differ from those
characterizing the mixed-flow condition. For most freeway analyses, PCE tables
are sufficient and provide a reasonable approximation of the truck effects.
However, if truck percentages are high or grades are significant, the mixed-flow
model is expected to give a more accurate result. If estimates of the actual mixed-
flow speeds and densities are desired, the mixed-flow model in Volume 4 should
be used. If the basic freeway segment is analyzed as part of a freeway facility
with the methodology in Chapter 10, a PCE approximation is typically
appropriate and recommended.

Concepts Chapter 12/Basic Freeway and Multilane Highway Segments

Page 12-16 Version 6.0
 Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis

LEVEL OF SERVICE
LOS on basic freeway and multilane highway segments is defined by
density. Although speed is a major concern of drivers related to service quality,
describing LOS on the basis of speed would be difficult, since it remains constant
up to high flow rates [i.e., 1,000 to 1,800 pc/h/ln for basic freeway segments
(depending on the FFS) and 1,400 pc/h/ln for multilane highway segments].
Density describes a motorist’s proximity to other vehicles and is related to a
motorist’s freedom to maneuver within the traffic stream. Unlike speed, density
is sensitive to flow rates throughout the range of flows. Exhibit 12-14 illustrates
the six levels of service defined for basic freeway segments.

Exhibit 12-14
LOS Examples for Basic
Freeway Segments

LOS A LOS B

LOS C LOS D

LOS E LOS F

LOS Described
LOS A describes free-flow operations. FFS prevails on the freeway or
multilane highway, and vehicles are almost completely unimpeded in their
ability to maneuver within the traffic stream. The effects of incidents or point
breakdowns are easily absorbed.
LOS B represents reasonably free-flow operations, and FFS on the freeway or
multilane highway is maintained. The ability to maneuver within the traffic
stream is only slightly restricted, and the general level of physical and

Chapter 12/Basic Freeway and Multilane Highway Segments Concepts

Version 6.0 Page 12-17
Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis

psychological comfort provided to drivers is still high. The effects of minor

incidents are still easily absorbed.
LOS C provides for flow with speeds near the FFS of the freeway or multilane
highway. Freedom to maneuver within the traffic stream is noticeably restricted,
and lane changes require more care and vigilance on the part of the driver. Minor
incidents may still be absorbed, but the local deterioration in service quality will
be significant. Queues may be expected to form behind any significant blockages.
LOS D is the level at which speeds begin to decline with increasing flows,
with density increasing more quickly. Freedom to maneuver within the traffic
stream is seriously limited, and drivers experience reduced physical and
psychological comfort levels. Even minor incidents can be expected to create
queuing, because the traffic stream has little space to absorb disruptions.
LOS E describes operation at or near capacity. Operations on the freeway or
multilane highway at this level are highly volatile because there are virtually no
usable gaps within the traffic stream, leaving little room to maneuver within the
traffic stream. Any disruption to the traffic stream, such as vehicles entering from
a ramp or an access point or a vehicle changing lanes, can establish a disruption
wave that propagates throughout the upstream traffic stream. Toward the upper
boundary of LOS E, the traffic stream has no ability to dissipate even the most
minor disruption, and any incident can be expected to produce a serious
breakdown and substantial queuing. The physical and psychological comfort
afforded to drivers is poor.
Oversaturated conditions are LOS F describes unstable flow. Such conditions exist within queues forming
represented by LOS F.
behind bottlenecks. Breakdowns occur for a number of reasons:
 Traffic incidents can temporarily reduce the capacity of a short segment,
so that the number of vehicles arriving at a point is greater than the
number of vehicles that can move through it.
 Points of recurring congestion, such as merge or weaving segments and
lane drops, experience very high demand in which the number of vehicles
arriving is greater than the number of vehicles that can be discharged.
 In analyses using forecast volumes, the projected flow rate can exceed the
estimated capacity of a given location.
In all cases, breakdown occurs when the ratio of existing demand to actual
capacity, or of forecast demand to estimated capacity, exceeds 1.00. LOS F
operations within a queue are the result of a breakdown or bottleneck at a
downstream point. In practical terms, the point of the breakdown has a d/c ratio
greater than 1.00 and is also labeled LOS F, although actual operations at the
breakdown point and immediately downstream may actually reflect LOS E
conditions. Whenever queues due to a breakdown exist, they have the potential
to extend upstream for considerable distances. In that case, the upstream
conditions (in the queue) will likely operate at LOS F speeds and densities, even
if the segment-level predictions are LOS E or better. Therefore, for accurate
estimation of the operational performance of these queue spillback effects, a
freeway facility analysis should be conducted by using the procedure in Chapter
10 whenever one or more segment demands exceed capacity.

Concepts Chapter 12/Basic Freeway and Multilane Highway Segments

Page 12-18 Version 6.0
 Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis

LOS Criteria
A basic freeway or multilane highway segment can be characterized by three
performance measures: density in passenger cars per mile per lane, space mean
speed in miles per hour, and the ratio of demand flow rate to capacity (v/c). Each
of these measures is an indication of how well traffic is being accommodated by
the basic freeway segment.
Because speed is constant through a broad range of flows and the v/c ratio is
not directly discernible to road users (except at capacity), the service measure for
basic freeway and multilane highway segments is density. Exhibit 12-15 shows
the criteria.

LOS Density (pc/mi/ln) Exhibit 12-15

LOS Criteria for Basic Freeway
A ≤11
and Multilane Highway
B >11–18
Segments
C >18–26
D >26–35
E >35–45
Demand exceeds capacity
F
OR density > 45

The LOS thresholds for basic freeway and multilane highway segments are
the same for urban and rural locations, as defined by the FHWA smoothed or
adjusted urbanized boundaries (8). However, note that a freeway facilities
analysis (Chapter 10) defines different LOS thresholds for urban and rural facilities.
For all levels of service, the density boundaries on basic freeway segments
are the same as those for multilane highways. Traffic characteristics are such that
the maximum flow rates at any given LOS are lower on multilane highways than
on similar basic freeway segments.
The specification of maximum densities for LOS A to D is based on the
collective professional judgment of the members of the Transportation Research
Board’s Committee on Highway Capacity and Quality of Service. The upper
value shown for LOS E (45 pc/mi/ln) is the maximum density at which sustained
flows at capacity are expected to occur. In effect, as indicated in the speedflow
curves of Exhibit 12-7, when a density of 45 pc/mi/ln is reached, flow is at
capacity, and the v/c ratio is 1.00.
In the application of this chapter’s methodology, however, LOS F is
identified when demand exceeds capacity because the analytical methodology
does not allow the determination of density when demand exceeds capacity.
Although the density will be greater than 45 pc/h/ln, the methodology of Chapter
10, Freeway Facilities Core Methodology, must be applied to determine a more
precise density for such cases.
Exhibit 12-16 illustrates the range of densities for a given LOS on the base
speedflow curves for basic freeway segments. On a speedflow plot, density is
a line of constant slope starting at the origin. The LOS boundaries were defined
to produce reasonable ranges for each LOS letter. Exhibit 12-17 shows the same
relationships applied to multilane highway segments. The two dashed lines in
the latter exhibit correspond to speed–flow relationships that were extrapolated
from other results but that have not been calibrated from field data.

Chapter 12/Basic Freeway and Multilane Highway Segments Concepts

Version 6.0 Page 12-19
Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis

Exhibit 12-16
LOS Criteria and Speed–Flow
Curves for Basic Freeway
Segments

Exhibit 12-17
LOS Criteria and Speed–Flow
Curves for Multilane Highway
Segments

Note: Dashed curves are extrapolated and not based on field data.

Concepts Chapter 12/Basic Freeway and Multilane Highway Segments

Page 12-20 Version 6.0
 Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis

3. MOTORIZED VEHICLE CORE METHODOLOGY

This chapter’s methodology can be used to analyze the capacity, LOS, and
lane requirements of basic freeway or multilane highway segments and the
effects of design features on their performance. The methodology is based on the
results of an NCHRP study (4), which has been partially updated (5). A number
of significant publications were also used in the development of the
methodology (6, 7, 9–17).

SCOPE OF THE METHODOLOGY

The methodology described in this section is applicable to general purpose
uninterrupted-flow, undersaturated basic freeway and multilane segments.
Oversaturated conditions on basic freeway segments can be analyzed with the
method described in Chapter 10, Freeway Facilities Core Methodology.
Extensions of the methodology described in Section 4 address basic managed
lane segments and bicycle LOS on multilane highways. Chapter 26, Freeway and
Highway Segments: Supplemental, presents a method to analyze freeway
operations on segments with significant truck presence, a prolonged single
upgrade, or both.

Spatial and Temporal Limits

Determining capacity or LOS requires uniform traffic and roadway
conditions on the analysis segment. Thus, any point where roadway or traffic
conditions change must mark a boundary of the analysis segment.
At every rampfreeway (or ramp–multilane highway) junction, the demand
volume changes as some vehicles enter or leave the traffic stream. Thus, any
ramp junction should mark a boundary between adjacent basic freeway or
multilane highway segments.
In addition to rampfreeway junctions, the following conditions generally Ramp junctions, grade changes
of 2% or more, changes in the
dictate that a boundary be established between basic freeway or multilane freeway’s geometric
highway segments: characteristics, and changes in
speed limit are some of the
 Change in the number of lanes (cross section); conditions dictating
establishment of basic freeway
 Changes in lane width or lateral clearance; segment or multilane highway
boundaries.
 Grade change of 2% or more on a specific or composite grade;
 Change in terrain category (for general terrain segments);
 Presence of a traffic signal, STOP sign, or roundabout along a multilane
highway;
 Significant change in the access point density or total ramp density;
 Presence of a bottleneck condition;
 Change in posted speed limit; or
 Presence of an access point at which a significant number or percentage of
vehicles enters or leaves a multilane highway.

Chapter 12/Basic Freeway and Multilane Highway Segments Motorized Vehicle Core Methodology
Version 6.0 Page 12-21
Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis

The last item in this list is not directly involved in the analysis of a basic
freeway or multilane highway segment but would probably reflect changes in
ramp or access point density or other features.
The analysis period for any freeway or multilane highway analysis is
generally the peak 15-min period within the peak hour. Any 15-min period can
be analyzed, however.
If demand volumes are used, demand flow rates are estimated through use
of the peak hour factor (PHF). When 15-min volumes are measured directly, the
analysis period within the hour that has the highest volumes is selected, and
flow rates are the 15-min volumes multiplied by 4. For subsequent computations
in the methodology, the PHF is set to 1.00.

Performance Measures
The core motorized vehicle methodology generates the following
performance measures:
 Capacity,
 FFS,
 Demand- and volume-to-capacity ratios,
 Space mean speed,
 Average density, and
 Motorized vehicle LOS.

Limitations of the Methodology

This chapter’s methodologies for basic freeway segments and multilane
highways do not apply to or take into account (without modification by the
analyst) the following:
Active traffic and demand  Lane controls (to restrict lane changing);
management measures for
freeways discussed in Chapter  Extended bridge and tunnel segments;
37 consist of the following:
 Ramp metering,  Segments near a toll plaza;
 Congestion pricing,  Facilities with a FFS more than 75 mi/h for basic freeway segments or
 Traveler information more than 70 mi/h for multilane highways;
systems,
 Dynamic lane and  Facilities with a base FFS less than 55 mi/h for freeways and less than 45
shoulder management, mi/h for multilane highways, although lower FFS values can be achieved
 Speed harmonization, for freeway segments by calibrating a SAF;
 Incident management,
and  Posted speed limit and enforcement practices;
 Work zone traffic  Presence of intelligent transportation systems (ITS) related to vehicle or
management.
driver guidance;
Many of these strategies can
be evaluated with  Capacity-enhancing effects of ramp metering;
methodologies in Chapter 11.
 The influence of downstream queuing on a segment;
 Operational effects of oversaturated conditions; and
 Operational effects of construction operations.

Motorized Vehicle Core Methodology Chapter 12/Basic Freeway and Multilane Highway Segments
Page 12-22 Version 6.0
 Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis

The last four items in the list of limitations above are addressed in a freeway
facility analysis context, as described in Chapter 10. The following are additional
limitations for this chapter’s multilane highway methodology:
 The effect of lane drops and lane additions at the beginning or end of
multilane highway segments;
 Possible queuing impacts when a multilane highway segment transitions
to a two-lane highway segment;
 The negative impacts of poor weather conditions, traffic accidents or
incidents, railroad crossings, or construction operations on multilane
highways;
 Differences between various types of median barriers and the difference
between the impacts of a median barrier and a TWLTL;
 Significant presence of on-highway parking;
 Presence of bus stops that have significant use; and
 Significant pedestrian activity.
The last three factors are more representative of an urban or suburban
arterial, but they may also exist on multilane highway facilities with more than 2
mi between traffic signals. When these factors are present on uninterrupted-flow
segments of multilane highways, the methodology does not deal with their
impact on flow. In addition, this methodology cannot be applied to highways
with a total of three lanes in both directions, which should be analyzed as two-
lane highways with periodic passing lanes by using the methods of Chapter 15.
Uninterrupted-flow multilane highway facilities that allow access solely Uninterrupted-flow multilane
highway facilities that allow
through a system of on-ramps and off-ramps from grade separations or service access solely through a system
roads should be analyzed as freeways. Note that some ramp access or egress of on-ramps and off-ramps
from grade separations or
points may be present on a multilane highway where most access or egress service roads should be
points are at-grade junctions of some type. analyzed as freeways.

To address most of the limitations listed above, the analyst would have to
utilize alternative tools or draw on other research information and develop
special-purpose modifications of this methodology. Operational effects of
oversaturated conditions, incidents, work zones, and weather and lighting
conditions can be evaluated with the methodology of Chapter 10 and adjustment
factors for capacity and FFS found in Chapter 11. Operational effects of active
traffic and demand management (ATDM) measures can be evaluated by using
the procedures in Chapter 11, Freeway Reliability Analysis. A broader overview
of ATDM strategies is presented in Chapter 37, ATDM: Supplemental.

Alternative Tools
Strengths of HCM Procedures
This chapter’s procedures were developed on the basis of extensive research The HCM methodology
provides FFS as an output,
supported by a significant quantity of field data. They have evolved over a incorporates geometric
number of years and represent an expert consensus. characteristics, provides
explicit capacity estimates, and
Specific strengths of the HCM basic freeway and multilane highway segment produces a single deterministic
estimate of traffic density.
methodology include the following:

Chapter 12/Basic Freeway and Multilane Highway Segments Motorized Vehicle Core Methodology
Version 6.0 Page 12-23
Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis

 It provides a detailed methodology for measuring or estimating FFS. This

methodology is based on various geometric characteristics. In simulation
packages, FFS (or an equivalent, such as desired speed) is usually an
input.
 It considers geometric characteristics (such as lane widths), which are
rarely, if ever, incorporated into simulation algorithms.
 It provides explicit capacity estimates. Simulation packages do not
provide capacity estimates directly. Capacity estimates can only be
obtained from simulators through multiple runs with oversaturated
conditions. The user can modify simulated capacities by modifying
specific input values such as the minimum acceptable headway.
 It produces a single deterministic estimate of traffic density, which is
important for some purposes such as development impact review.

Limitations of HCM Procedures That Might Be Addressed by Alternative Tools

Deterministic models yield the Basic freeway segments can be analyzed by using a variety of stochastic and
same results for the same
inputs each time they are deterministic simulation packages that include freeways. These packages can be
implemented; stochastic useful in analyzing the extent of congestion when there are failures within the
models incorporate statistical
variability. The same inputs simulated facility range and when interaction with other freeway segments and
yield different results in each other facilities is present. Less is known about the ability of simulation models to
use. For such models, the
average result of X usages is characterize multilane highway operations.
taken as output.
Additional Features and Performance Measures Available from Alternative Tools
This chapter provides a methodology for estimating the capacity, speed, and
density of a basic freeway segment, given the segment’s traffic demand and
characteristics. Alternative tools offer additional performance measures,
including delay, stops, queue lengths, fuel consumption, pollution, and
operating costs.

REQUIRED DATA AND SOURCES

The analysis of a basic freeway or multilane highway segment requires
details concerning the geometric characteristics of the segment and the demand
characteristics of the users of the segment. Exhibit 12-18 shows the data that are
required to conduct an operational analysis and suggested default values when
site-specific data are unavailable (18). The analyst may replace the default values
of Exhibit 12-18 with defaults that have been locally calibrated.
The exhibit further distinguishes between urban and rural conditions for
certain defaults. The classification of a facility into urban and rural is made on
the basis of the FHWA smoothed or adjusted urbanized boundary definition (8),
which in turn is derived from Census data.

Motorized Vehicle Core Methodology Chapter 12/Basic Freeway and Multilane Highway Segments
Page 12-24 Version 6.0
 Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis

Required Data and Units Potential Data Source(s) Suggested Default Value Exhibit 12-18
Geometric Data—Basic Freeway Segments Required Input Data, Potential
Data Sources, and Default
Direct speed measurements, Base free-flow speed: speed
Values for Basic Freeway and
Free-flow speed (mi/h) estimate from design speed or limit + 5 mi/h
Multilane Highway Segment
speed limit (range 55–75 mi/h)
Automobile Analysis
Number of mainline freeway
Road inventory, aerial photo At least 2
lanes in one direction (ln)
Lane width (ft) Road inventory, aerial photo 12 ft (range 10–12 ft)
Right-side lateral clearance (ft) Road inventory, aerial photo 10 ft (range 0–10 ft)
Must be provided
Total ramp density (ramps/mi) Road inventory, aerial photo
(range 0–6 ramps/mi)
Terrain type
Design plans, analyst judgment Must be provided
(level, rolling, specific grade)
Geometric Data—Multilane Highway Segments
Direct speed measurements, Base free-flow speed: speed
Free-flow speed (mi/h) estimate from design speed or limit + 5 mi/h
speed limit (range 45–70 mi/h)
Number of mainline freeway
Road inventory, aerial photo At least 2
lanes (one direction)
Lane width (ft) Road inventory, aerial photo 12 ft (range 10–12 ft)
Right-side lateral clearance (ft) Road inventory, aerial photo 6 ft (range 0–6 ft)
Median (left-side) lateral clearance
Road inventory, aerial photo 6 ft (range 0–6 ft)
(ft)
8 access points/mi (rural)
16 access points/mi (low-
Access point density (points/mi) Road inventory, aerial photo density suburban)
25 access points/mi (high-
density suburban)
Terrain type
Design plans, analyst judgment Must be provided
(level, rolling, specific grade)
Median type
Road inventory, aerial photo Must be provided
(divided, undivided, TWLTL)
Demand Data—Basic Freeway and Multilane Highway Segments
Hourly demand volume (veh/h) Field data, modeling Must be provided
5% (urban)
Heavy vehicle percentage (%) Field data
12% (rural)a
b
Peak hour factor (decimal) Field data Basic freeway segments 0.94
Multilane highways 0.95
(urban) or 0.88 (rural)
Driver population, capacity, and
free-flow speed adjustment Field data 1.0 (see also Chapter 26)
factors
Notes: Bold italic indicates high sensitivity (>20% change) of service measure to the choice of default value.
Bold indicates moderate sensitivity (10%–20% change) of service measure to the choice of default value.
TWLTL = two-way left-turn lane.
a
See Chapter 26 in Volume 4 for state-specific default heavy vehicle percentages and driver population
adjustment factors.
b
Moderate to high sensitivity of service measures for very low PHF values. See the discussion in the text.
PHF is not required when peak 15-min demand volumes are provided.

Research into the percentage of heavy vehicles on uninterrupted-flow

facilities (18) found a wide range of values from state to state. Section 2 of
Chapter 26 provides state-specific defaults for heavy vehicle percentage on the
basis of data from the 2004 Highway Performance Monitoring System. States or
local jurisdictions that have developed their own values may substitute them.
Analysts may wish to develop their own default values on the basis of recent
data.

Chapter 12/Basic Freeway and Multilane Highway Segments Motorized Vehicle Core Methodology
Version 6.0 Page 12-25
Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis

OVERVIEW OF THE METHODOLOGY

Exhibit 12-19 illustrates the basic methodology used in operational analysis.
The methodology can also be directly applied to determine the number of lanes
required to provide a target LOS for a given demand volume.

Exhibit 12-19
Overview of Operational
Analysis Methodology for
Basic Freeway and Multilane
Highway Segments

Exhibit 12-19 illustrates the

methodology for an operational
analysis. Other types of
analyses are described in
Section 5, Applications.

Motorized Vehicle Core Methodology Chapter 12/Basic Freeway and Multilane Highway Segments
Page 12-26 Version 6.0
 Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis

COMPUTATIONAL STEPS
Step 1: Input Data
For a typical operational analysis, as noted previously, the analyst would
have to specify (with either site-specific or default values) the demand volume;
number and width of lanes; right-side or overall lateral clearance; total ramp or
access point density; percent of heavy vehicles; PHF; terrain; and the driver
population, speed, and capacity adjustment factors (if necessary).

Step 2: Estimate and Adjust FFS

FFS can be determined directly from field measurements or can be estimated
as described below. Statement of FFS in 5-mi/h increments is no longer necessary.
This change is important in accounting for the effect of weather or work zones,
which may reduce the value of the base FFS.

Field Measurement of FFS

FFS is the mean speed of passenger cars measured during periods of low to FFS is the mean speed of
passenger cars during periods
moderate flow (up to 500 pc/h/ln). For a specific freeway or multilane highway of low to moderate flow.
segment, average speeds are virtually constant in this range of flow rates. Field
measurement of FFS, if possible, is preferable. If the FFS is measured directly, no
adjustments are applied to the measured value.
Some freeways may have lower posted speed limits for trucks, which may
affect the mixed-flow FFS. In these cases, field studies are recommended, since
the FFS estimation methodology below is not sensitive to the posted speed limit
or the presence of a high percentage of trucks.
The speed study should be conducted at a location that is representative of
the segment at a time when flow rates are less than 1,000 pc/h/ln. The speed
study should measure the speeds of all passenger cars or use a systematic sample
(e.g., every 10th car in each lane). A sample of at least 100 passenger car speeds
should be obtained. Any speed measurement technique that has been found
acceptable for other types of traffic engineering applications may be used.
Further guidance on the conduct of speed studies is provided in standard traffic
engineering publications, such as the Manual of Transportation Engineering Studies
(16).

Estimating FFS
Basic Freeway Segments
Field measurements for future facilities are not possible, and field
measurement may not be possible or practical for all existing facilities. In such
cases, the segment’s FFS may be estimated by using Equation 12-2, which is
based on the physical characteristics of the segment under study:
𝐹𝐹𝑆 = 𝐵𝐹𝐹𝑆 − 𝑓𝐿𝑊 − 𝑓𝑅𝐿𝐶 − 3.22 × 𝑇𝑅𝐷0.84 Equation 12-2

where
FFS = free-flow speed of the basic freeway segment (mi/h);
BFFS = base FFS for the basic freeway segment (mi/h);
fLW = adjustment for lane width, from Exhibit 12-20 (mi/h);

Chapter 12/Basic Freeway and Multilane Highway Segments Motorized Vehicle Core Methodology
Version 6.0 Page 12-27
Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis

fRLC = adjustment for right-side lateral clearance, from Exhibit 12-21 (mi/h);
and
TRD = total ramp density (ramps/mi).

Multilane Highway Segments

For multilane highway segments, the FFS can be estimated by using
Equation 12-3, which is based on the physical characteristics of the segment
under study. It is evident that while the base FFS and the lane width adjustment
are shared with the estimation method for basic freeway segments in Equation
12-2, the remaining terms are unique to multilane highway segments:
Equation 12-3 𝐹𝐹𝑆 = 𝐵𝐹𝐹𝑆 − 𝑓𝐿𝑊 − 𝑓𝑇𝐿𝐶 − 𝑓𝑀 − 𝑓𝐴
where
FFS = free-flow speed of the multilane highway segment (mi/h);
BFFS = base FFS for the multilane highway segment (mi/h);
fLW = adjustment for lane width, from Exhibit 12-20 (mi/h);
fTLC = adjustment for total lateral clearance, from Exhibit 12-22 (mi/h);
fM = adjustment for median type, from Exhibit 12-23 (mi/h); and
fA = adjustment for access point density, from Exhibit 12-24 (mi/h).

Adjustments to FFS
Base FFS
This methodology covers basic freeway segments with a FFS in the range of
55 to 75 mi/h. The predictive algorithm for FFS therefore starts with a value
greater than 75 mi/h, specifically a default base FFS of 75.4 mi/h, which resulted
in the most accurate predictions in the underlying research.
The methodology covers multilane highway segments with a FFS in the
range of 45 to 70 mi/h. The most significant value in Equation 12-3 is BFFS. There
is not a great deal of information available to help establish a base value. In one
sense, it is like the design speed—it represents the potential FFS based only on
the highway’s horizontal and vertical alignment, not including the impacts of
lane widths, lateral clearances, median type, and access points. The design speed
may be used for BFFS if it is available.
Although speed limits are not always uniformly set, BFFS for multilane
highways may be estimated, if necessary, as the posted or statutory speed limit
plus 5 mi/h for speed limits 50 mi/h and higher and as the speed limit plus 7 mi/h
for speed limits less than 50 mi/h.

Adjustment for Lane Width

The base condition for lane width is 12 ft or greater. When the average lane
width across all lanes is less than 12 ft, the FFS is negatively affected.
Adjustments to reflect the effect of narrower average lane width are shown in
Exhibit 12-20.

Motorized Vehicle Core Methodology Chapter 12/Basic Freeway and Multilane Highway Segments
Page 12-28 Version 6.0
 Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis

Average Lane Width (ft) Reduction in FFS, fLW (mi/h) Exhibit 12-20
≥12 0.0 Adjustment to FFS for
≥11–12 1.9 Average Lane Width for Basic
≥10–11 6.6 Freeway and Multilane
Highway Segments

Adjustment for Right Lateral Clearance on Freeway Segments

The base condition for right-side lateral clearance is 6 ft or greater. The
lateral clearance is measured from the right edge of the travel lane to the nearest
lateral obstruction. Care must be taken in identifying a “lateral obstruction.”
Some obstructions may be continuous, such as retaining walls, concrete barriers,
guardrails, or barrier curbs. Others may be periodic, such as light supports or
bridge abutments. In some cases, drivers may become accustomed to certain
types of obstructions, and their influence on traffic is often negligible.
Exhibit 12-21 shows the adjustment to FFS due to the existence of
obstructions closer than 6 ft from the right travel lane edge. Median clearances of
2 ft or more on the left side of the travel lanes generally have little impact on
traffic. No adjustments are available to reflect the presence of left-side lateral
obstructions closer than 2 ft from the left travel lane edge. Such situations are
rare on modern freeways, except in constrained work zones.

Right-Side Exhibit 12-21

Lateral Lanes in One Direction Adjustment to FFS for Right-
Clearance (ft) 2 3 4 ≥5 Side Lateral Clearance, fRLC
(mi/h), for Basic Freeway
≥6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Segments
5 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.1
4 1.2 0.8 0.4 0.2
3 1.8 1.2 0.6 0.3
2 2.4 1.6 0.8 0.4
1 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.5
0 3.6 2.4 1.2 0.6
Note: Interpolate for noninteger values of right-side lateral clearance.

The impact of a right-side lateral clearance restriction depends on both the

distance to the obstruction and the number of lanes in one direction on the basic
freeway segment. A lateral clearance restriction causes vehicles in the right lane
to move somewhat to the left. This movement, in turn, affects vehicles in the next
lane. As the number of lanes increases, the overall effect on freeway operations
decreases.

Adjustment for Total Lateral Clearance on Multilane Highway Segments

The adjustment for total lateral clearance (TLC) on multilane highway Clearance restrictions on either
the right or the left side of the
segments is based on TLC at the roadside (right side) and at the median (left highway reduce the FFS.
side). Fixed obstructions with lateral clearance effects include light standards,
signs, trees, abutments, bridge rails, traffic barriers, and retaining walls. Standard
raised curbs are not considered to be obstructions.
Right-side lateral clearance is measured from the right edge of the travel
lanes to the nearest periodic or continuous roadside obstruction. If such
obstructions are farther than 6 ft from the edge of the pavement, a value of 6 ft is
used.

Chapter 12/Basic Freeway and Multilane Highway Segments Motorized Vehicle Core Methodology
Version 6.0 Page 12-29
Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis

Left-side lateral clearance is measured from the left edge of the travel lanes to
the nearest periodic or continuous obstruction in the median. If such obstructions
are farther than 6 ft from the edge of the pavement, a value of 6 ft is used.
Left-side lateral clearances are subject to some judgment. Many types of
common median barriers do not affect driver behavior if they are no closer than 2
ft from the edge of the travel lane, including concrete and W-beam barriers. A
value of 6 ft would be used in such cases. Also, when the multilane highway
Use 6 ft as the left-side segment is undivided or has a TWLTL, no left-side lateral clearance restriction is
clearance for undivided
highways and highways with assumed, and a value of 6 ft is applied. A separate adjustment, described next,
TWLTLs. accounts for the impact of an undivided highway on FFS.
Equation 12-4 is used to determine TLC:
Equation 12-4 𝑇𝐿𝐶 = 𝐿𝐶𝑅 + 𝐿𝐶𝐿
where
TLC = total lateral clearance (ft) (maximum value 12 ft),
LCR = right-side lateral clearance (ft) (maximum value 6 ft), and
LCL = left-side lateral clearance (ft) (maximum value 6 ft).
Exhibit 12-22 shows the reduction in FFS due to lateral obstructions on the
multilane highway.

Exhibit 12-22 Four-Lane Highways Six-Lane Highways

Adjustment to FFS for Lateral TLC (ft) Reduction in FFS, fTLC (mi/h) TLC (ft) Reduction in FFS, fTLC (mi/h)
Clearances for Multilane 12 0.0 12 0.0
Highways 10 0.4 10 0.4
8 0.9 8 0.9
6 1.3 6 1.3
4 1.8 4 1.7
2 3.6 2 2.8
0 5.4 0 3.9
Note: Interpolation to the nearest 0.1 is recommended.

Adjustment for Type of Median on Multilane Highways

The FFS is reduced on The adjustment for type of median is given in Exhibit 12-23. Undivided
undivided highways.
multilane highways reduce the FFS by 1.6 mi/h.

Exhibit 12-23 Median Type Reduction in FFS, fM (mi/h)

Adjustment to FFS for Median Undivided 1.6
Type for Multilane Highways TWLTL 0.0
Divided 0.0

Adjustment for Total Ramp Density on Basic Freeway Segments

Equation 12-2 includes a term that accounts for the impact of total ramp
density on FFS. Total ramp density is defined as the number of ramps (on and
off, one direction) located between 3 mi upstream and 3 mi downstream of the
midpoint of the basic freeway segment under study, divided by 6 mi. The total
ramp density has been found to be a measure of the impact of merging and
diverging vehicles on FFS.

Motorized Vehicle Core Methodology Chapter 12/Basic Freeway and Multilane Highway Segments
Page 12-30 Version 6.0
 Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis

Adjustment for Access Point Density on Multilane Highway Segments

Exhibit 12-24 presents the adjustment to FFS for various levels of access point FFS is reduced as the access
point density increases.
density. Studies indicate that for each access point per mile, the estimated FFS
decreases by approximately 0.25 mi/h, regardless of the type of median.
The number of access points per mile is determined by dividing the total
number of access points (i.e., driveways and unsignalized intersections) on the
right side of the highway in the direction of travel by the length of the segment in
miles. An intersection or driveway should only be included in the count if it
influences traffic flow. Access points that go unnoticed by drivers or that have
little activity should not be used to determine access point density.

Access Point Density Reduction in FFS, Exhibit 12-24

(access points/mi) fA (mi/h) Adjustment to FFS for Access
0 0.0 Point Density for Multilane
10 2.5 Highways
20 5.0
30 7.5
≥40 10.0
Note: Interpolation to the nearest 0.1 is recommended.

Although the calibration of this adjustment did not include one-way

multilane highway segments, inclusion of intersection approaches and
driveways on both sides of the facility might be appropriate in determining the
access point density on one-way segments.

Speed Adjustment Factor for Basic Freeway Segments

The estimated FFS for basic freeway segments can be further adjusted to
reflect, for example, effects of inclement weather. In this case, an adjusted free-
flow speed FFSadj is calculated by multiplying the FFS by a SAF as shown in
Equation 12-5:
𝐹𝐹𝑆𝑎𝑑𝑗 = 𝐹𝐹𝑆 × 𝑆𝐴𝐹 Equation 12-5

where SAF is the speed adjustment factor. The speed adjustment factor can
represent a combination of sources, including weather and work zone effects.
Default speed adjustment factors and guidance for how to apply them are found
in Chapter 11.
The SAF may also be used to calibrate the estimated FFS for local conditions
or other effects that contribute to a reduction in FFS. For example, poor
pavement conditions or sun glare may cause drivers to reduce their speeds even
under low-volume conditions. The adjusted FFS can be used directly in the
speed–flow relationship for basic freeway segments in Exhibit 12-6 to define a
continuous speed–flow curve that explicitly considers this adjusted FFS. Finally,
the effect of unfamiliar drivers on FFS can also be accounted for by using an
adjusted FFS. While the driver population SAF defaults to 1.0 in the base
procedure, general guidance for selecting an appropriate SAF to account for this
factor is given in Section 4 of Chapter 26.
No adjustment of the speed–flow equation using these SAFs is possible for
multilane highway segments, since no empirical research exists for applying
these effects on multilane highways.

Chapter 12/Basic Freeway and Multilane Highway Segments Motorized Vehicle Core Methodology
Version 6.0 Page 12-31
Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis

Step 3: Estimate and Adjust Capacity

In this step, the base capacity for the basic freeway or multilane highway
segment is estimated. The segment capacity is principally a function of the
segment FFS, but it can be adjusted to calibrate the segment for local conditions
or to reflect impacts of adverse weather conditions, incidents, or other factors.
The base capacity values for basic freeway segments and multilane highway
segments are listed in Exhibit 12-4 for various values of FFS. Because of the
ability to interpolate between different FFS values, the resulting segment
capacities should also be interpolated. Alternatively, the base capacity c for a
basic freeway segment (in passenger cars per hour per lane) can be estimated
directly with Equation 12-6, while the base capacity for a multilane highway
segment can be estimated directly with Equation 12-7:
Equation 12-6 𝑐 (basic freeway segment) = 2,200 + 10 × (𝐹𝐹𝑆𝑎𝑑𝑗 − 50)
Equation 12-7 𝑐 (multilane highway segment) = 1,900 + 20 × (𝐹𝐹𝑆𝑎𝑑𝑗 − 45)
where all variables have been previously defined.
The capacities resulting from application of these equations can never exceed
the base capacities listed in Exhibit 12-4, which are 2,400 pc/h/ln for basic
freeway segments and 2,300 pc/h/ln for multilane highway segments. Similarly,
the FFS used in these equations should not exceed 75 mi/h for basic freeway
segments or 70 mi/h for multilane highway segments.

Adjustment to Capacity for Local Calibration

The base capacities estimated by using Equation 12-6 and Equation 12-7 are
based on ideal conditions and are expressed in units of passenger cars per hour
per lane. The presence of a significant proportion of heavy vehicles, especially in
combination with grades, will result in a net decrease in the observed capacity
when converted to units of vehicles per hour per lane. As a result, sensor-based
measurements of freeway capacities (in vehicles per hour per lane) may be
significantly less than the base values stated above.
Many factors other than heavy vehicle effects can contribute to a reduction in
basic freeway segment capacity. Examples of capacity-reducing effects include
the following:
 Capacity adjustment for driver population, which is intended to account
for the level of unfamiliar drivers in the traffic stream (see Section 4 of
Chapter 26 for additional details);
 Turbulence generated from lane drops between two basic segments;
 Turbulence due to merging, diverging, or weaving maneuvers between
two basic segments;
 Capacity reductions due to poor sight distance—for example, due to crest
vertical curves or horizontal curves;
 Narrow lane widths or low lateral clearances in addition to the effects on
FFS presented in Step 2;
 Travel through tunnels or across bridges;
 Poor pavement conditions; and

Motorized Vehicle Core Methodology Chapter 12/Basic Freeway and Multilane Highway Segments
Page 12-32 Version 6.0
 Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis

 Friction effects due to roadside features and attractions that cause drivers
to increase following headways.
In these cases, development of a local estimate of capacity and use of that
estimate to calibrate a CAF for the segment under study are highly
recommended. In the absence of generalized national data on these capacity-
reducing effects, a local calibration study or expert judgment is needed to
produce a reasonable estimate of segment performance. A methodology for
estimating freeway capacities from sensor data is provided in Section 5 of
Chapter 26.

Adjustment to Capacity for Basic Freeway Segments

The capacity of a basic freeway segment may be adjusted further to account
for the impacts of adverse weather, driver population, occurrence of traffic
incidents, or a combination of such influences. The methodology for making
these adjustments is the same as that for other types of freeway segments. CAF
defaults are found in Chapter 11, along with additional discussion on how to
apply them. For convenience, a brief summary is provided here.
The capacity of a basic freeway segment can be adjusted as shown in
Equation 12-8:
𝑐𝑎𝑑𝑗 = 𝑐 × 𝐶𝐴𝐹 Equation 12-8

where
cadj = adjusted capacity of segment (pc/h),
c = base capacity of segment (pc/h), and
CAF = capacity adjustment factor (unitless).
The CAF can have several components, including weather, incident, work
zone, driver population, and calibration adjustments. The adjustments for
weather and incidents are most commonly applied in the context of a reliability
analysis as described in Chapter 11, Freeway Reliability Analysis. If desired,
capacity can be adjusted further to account for unfamiliar drivers in the traffic
stream. While the default CAF for this effect is set to 1.0, guidance is provided in
Section 4 of Chapter 26, where estimates for the CAF based on the composition of
the driver population are provided.
No adjustment of the speed–flow equation using these CAFs is possible for
multilane highway segments, since no empirical research exists for applying
these effects to multilane highways.

Step 4: Adjust Demand Volume

Since the speedflow curves and parameters of Exhibit 12-6 are based on
flow rates in equivalent passenger cars per hour on the basic freeway segment,
demand volumes expressed as vehicles per hour under prevailing conditions
must be converted to this basis by using Equation 12-9:
𝑉
𝑣𝑝 = Equation 12-9
𝑃𝐻𝐹 × 𝑁 × 𝑓𝐻𝑉

Chapter 12/Basic Freeway and Multilane Highway Segments Motorized Vehicle Core Methodology
Version 6.0 Page 12-33
Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis

where
vp = demand flow rate under equivalent base conditions (pc/h/ln),
V = demand volume under prevailing conditions (veh/h),
PHF = peak hour factor (decimal),
N = number of lanes in analysis direction (ln), and
fHV = adjustment factor for presence of heavy vehicles (decimal).

Peak Hour Factor

The PHF represents the variation in traffic flow within an hour. Observations
of traffic flow consistently indicate that the flow rates found in the peak 15 min
within an hour are not sustained throughout the entire hour. The application of
the PHF in Equation 12-9 accounts for this phenomenon.
On freeways, typical PHFs range from 0.85 to 0.98 (18). On multilane
highways, typical PHFs range from 0.75 to 0.95. Lower values within that range
are typical of lower-volume conditions. Higher values within that range are
typical of urban and suburban peak-hour conditions. Field data should be used if
possible to develop PHFs that represent local conditions.

Adjustment for Heavy Vehicles

All heavy vehicles are classified as SUTs or TTs. Recreational vehicles and
buses are treated as SUTs. The heavy vehicle adjustment factor fHV is computed
from the combination of the two heavy vehicle classes, which are added to get an
overall truck percentage PT.
1
Equation 12-10 𝑓𝐻𝑉 =
1 + 𝑃𝑇 (𝐸𝑇 − 1)
where
fHV = heavy vehicle adjustment factor (decimal),
PT = proportion of SUTs and TTs in traffic stream (decimal), and
ET = passenger car equivalent of one heavy vehicle in the traffic stream
(PCEs).
The adjustment factor is found in a two-step process. First, the PCE for each
truck is found for the prevailing conditions under study. These equivalency
values represent the number of passenger cars that would use the same amount
of freeway capacity as one truck under the prevailing conditions. Second,
Equation 12-10 is used to convert the PCE values to the adjustment factor.
The effect of heavy vehicles on traffic flow depends on the terrain and grade
conditions on the segment as well as traffic composition. PCEs can be selected for
one of two conditions:
 Extended freeway and multilane highway segments in general terrain, or
 Specific upgrades or downgrades.

Motorized Vehicle Core Methodology Chapter 12/Basic Freeway and Multilane Highway Segments
Page 12-34 Version 6.0
 Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis

Each of these conditions is more precisely defined and discussed below.

However, research has shown that PCEs should be used mostly for addressing
capacity and LOS issues. They provide reasonable results for speeds and
densities when the grade is slight or the truck percentage is low. For
combinations that include steep grades, high truck percentages, or both, the
mixed-flow model described in Chapter 25 (for composite grades) and Chapter
26 (for single grades) is recommended for computing mixed-flow speeds and
densities and automobile and truck speeds in the mixed traffic stream.

Equivalents for General Terrain Segments

General terrain refers to extended lengths of freeway and multilane highways
containing a number of upgrades and downgrades where no one grade is long
enough or steep enough to have a significant impact on the operation of the
overall segment. General terrain can be either level or rolling. To determine
which of these terrain types applies, each upgrade and downgrade should be
considered to be a single grade, even if the grade is not uniform. The total length
of the upgrade or downgrade is used with the steepest grade it contains. The
categorization of a segment as having either level or rolling terrain is as follows:
 Level terrain: Any combination of grades and horizontal or vertical
alignment that permits heavy vehicles to maintain the same speed as
passenger cars. This type of terrain typically contains short grades of no
more than 2%.
 Rolling terrain: Any combination of grades and horizontal or vertical
alignment that causes heavy vehicles to reduce their speed below those of
passenger cars but that does not cause heavy vehicles to operate at crawl
speeds for any significant length.
No PCE is provided for mountainous terrain, which is any combination of
grades and horizontal and vertical alignment that causes heavy vehicles to
operate at crawl speed for significant distances or at frequent intervals. In this
case, the mixed-flow model presented in Chapters 25 and 26 must be used to
estimate speeds and densities. Exhibit 12-25 gives PCEs for the default mix of
trucks under level and rolling terrain conditions.

Passenger Car Terrain Type Exhibit 12-25

Equivalent Level Rolling PCEs for General Terrain
ET 2.0 3.0 Segments

Equivalents for Specific Upgrades

Freeway and multilane highway segments longer than 0.5 mi with grades
between 2% and 3% or longer than 0.25 mi with grades of 3% or greater should
be considered as separate segments. Research (19) has revealed that the SUT
population on freeways has a median weight-to-horsepower ratio of about 100
lb/hp while the TT population has a median weight-to-horsepower ratio of
150 lb/hp. These values can vary from one setting to another.
Exhibit 12-26 gives specific-segment PCE values for a 30%/70% SUT/TT mix,
Exhibit 12-27 gives PCE values for a 50%/50% mix, and Exhibit 12-28 gives PCE
values for a 70%/30% mix. The 30% SUT condition occurs more frequently on

Chapter 12/Basic Freeway and Multilane Highway Segments Motorized Vehicle Core Methodology
Version 6.0 Page 12-35
 Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis

rural facilities; the 50% condition occurs more frequently on urban facilities.
Exhibit 12-28 is recommended for conditions where the majority of the trucks in
the traffic stream are SUTs. Note that for the exhibits, segment lengths for grades
above 3.5% are limited to 1 mi, because steeper grades are rarely longer than this
in practice.

Exhibit 12-26 % Length Percentage of Trucks (%)

PCEs for a Mix of 30% SUTs Grade (mi) 2% 4% 5% 6% 8% 10% 15% 20% >25%
and 70% TTs 0.125 2.62 2.37 2.30 2.24 2.17 2.12 2.04 1.99 1.97
0.375 2.62 2.37 2.30 2.24 2.17 2.12 2.04 1.99 1.97
0.625 2.62 2.37 2.30 2.24 2.17 2.12 2.04 1.99 1.97
-2
0.875 2.62 2.37 2.30 2.24 2.17 2.12 2.04 1.99 1.97
1.25 2.62 2.37 2.30 2.24 2.17 2.12 2.04 1.99 1.97
1.5 2.62 2.37 2.30 2.24 2.17 2.12 2.04 1.99 1.97
0.125 2.62 2.37 2.30 2.24 2.17 2.12 2.04 1.99 1.97
0.375 2.62 2.37 2.30 2.24 2.17 2.12 2.04 1.99 1.97
0.625 2.62 2.37 2.30 2.24 2.17 2.12 2.04 1.99 1.97
0
0.875 2.62 2.37 2.30 2.24 2.17 2.12 2.04 1.99 1.97
1.25 2.62 2.37 2.30 2.24 2.17 2.12 2.04 1.99 1.97
1.5 2.62 2.37 2.30 2.24 2.17 2.12 2.04 1.99 1.97
0.125 2.62 2.37 2.30 2.24 2.17 2.12 2.04 1.99 1.97
0.375 3.76 2.96 2.78 2.65 2.48 2.38 2.22 2.14 2.09
0.625 4.47 3.33 3.08 2.91 2.68 2.54 2.34 2.23 2.17
2
0.875 4.80 3.50 3.22 3.03 2.77 2.61 2.39 2.28 2.21
1.25 5.00 3.60 3.30 3.09 2.83 2.66 2.42 2.30 2.23
1.5 5.04 3.62 3.32 3.11 2.84 2.67 2.43 2.31 2.23
0.125 2.62 2.37 2.30 2.24 2.17 2.12 2.04 1.99 1.97
0.375 4.11 3.14 2.93 2.78 2.58 2.46 2.28 2.19 2.13
0.625 5.04 3.62 3.32 3.11 2.84 2.67 2.43 2.31 2.23
2.5
0.875 5.48 3.85 3.51 3.27 2.96 2.77 2.50 2.36 2.28
1.25 5.73 3.98 3.61 3.36 3.03 2.83 2.54 2.40 2.31
1.5 5.80 4.02 3.64 3.38 3.05 2.84 2.55 2.41 2.32
0.125 2.62 2.37 2.30 2.24 2.17 2.12 2.04 1.99 1.97
0.375 4.88 3.54 3.25 3.05 2.80 2.63 2.41 2.29 2.22
0.625 6.34 4.30 3.87 3.58 3.20 2.97 2.64 2.48 2.38
3.5
0.875 7.03 4.66 4.16 3.83 3.39 3.12 2.76 2.57 2.46
1.25 7.44 4.87 4.33 3.97 3.50 3.22 2.82 2.62 2.50
1.5 7.53 4.92 4.38 4.01 3.53 3.24 2.84 2.63 2.51
0.125 2.62 2.37 2.30 2.24 2.17 2.12 2.04 1.99 1.97
0.375 5.80 4.02 3.64 3.38 3.05 2.84 2.55 2.41 2.32
4.5 0.625 7.90 5.11 4.53 4.14 3.63 3.32 2.90 2.68 2.55
0.875 8.91 5.64 4.96 4.50 3.92 3.56 3.07 2.82 2.67
1 9.19 5.78 5.08 4.60 3.99 3.62 3.11 2.85 2.70
0.125 2.62 2.37 2.30 2.24 2.17 2.12 2.04 1.99 1.97
0.375 6.87 4.58 4.10 3.77 3.35 3.09 2.73 2.55 2.44
5.5 0.625 9.78 6.09 5.33 4.82 4.16 3.76 3.21 2.93 2.77
0.875 11.20 6.83 5.94 5.33 4.56 4.09 3.45 3.12 2.93
1 11.60 7.04 6.11 5.47 4.67 4.18 3.51 3.17 2.97
0.125 2.62 2.37 2.30 2.24 2.17 2.12 2.04 1.99 1.97
0.375 7.48 4.90 4.36 3.99 3.52 3.23 2.83 2.63 2.51
6 0.625 10.87 6.66 5.79 5.21 4.46 4.01 3.39 3.08 2.89
0.875 12.54 7.54 6.51 5.81 4.94 4.40 3.67 3.30 3.08
1 13.02 7.78 6.71 5.99 5.07 4.51 3.75 3.37 3.14
Note: Interpolation in the exhibit is permitted.

Motorized Vehicle Core Methodology Chapter 12/Basic Freeway and Multilane Highway Segments
Page 12-36 Version 6.0
 Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis

% Length Percentage of Trucks (%) Exhibit 12-27

Grade (mi) 2% 4% 5% 6% 8% 10% 15% 20% >25% PCEs for a Mix of 50% SUTs
and 50% TTs
0.125 2.67 2.38 2.31 2.25 2.16 2.11 2.02 1.97 1.93
0.375 2.67 2.38 2.31 2.25 2.16 2.11 2.02 1.97 1.93
0.625 2.67 2.38 2.31 2.25 2.16 2.11 2.02 1.97 1.93
-2
0.875 2.67 2.38 2.31 2.25 2.16 2.11 2.02 1.97 1.93
1.25 2.67 2.38 2.31 2.25 2.16 2.11 2.02 1.97 1.93
1.5 2.67 2.38 2.31 2.25 2.16 2.11 2.02 1.97 1.93
0.125 2.67 2.38 2.31 2.25 2.16 2.11 2.02 1.97 1.93
0.375 2.67 2.38 2.31 2.25 2.16 2.11 2.02 1.97 1.93
0.625 2.67 2.38 2.31 2.25 2.16 2.11 2.02 1.97 1.93
0
0.875 2.67 2.38 2.31 2.25 2.16 2.11 2.02 1.97 1.93
1.25 2.67 2.38 2.31 2.25 2.16 2.11 2.02 1.97 1.93
1.5 2.67 2.38 2.31 2.25 2.16 2.11 2.02 1.97 1.93
0.125 2.67 2.38 2.31 2.25 2.16 2.11 2.02 1.97 1.93
0.375 3.76 2.95 2.77 2.64 2.47 2.36 2.20 2.11 2.06
0.625 4.32 3.24 3.01 2.84 2.63 2.49 2.29 2.19 2.12
2
0.875 4.57 3.37 3.11 2.93 2.70 2.55 2.33 2.22 2.15
1.25 4.71 3.45 3.17 2.99 2.74 2.58 2.36 2.24 2.17
1.5 4.74 3.47 3.19 3.00 2.75 2.59 2.36 2.24 2.17
0.125 2.67 2.38 2.31 2.25 2.16 2.11 2.02 1.97 1.93
0.375 4.10 3.13 2.92 2.77 2.57 2.44 2.26 2.16 2.10
0.625 4.84 3.52 3.23 3.03 2.77 2.61 2.38 2.26 2.18
2.5
0.875 5.17 3.69 3.37 3.15 2.87 2.69 2.43 2.30 2.22
1.25 5.36 3.79 3.45 3.22 2.92 2.73 2.47 2.33 2.24
1.5 5.40 3.81 3.47 3.24 2.93 2.74 2.47 2.33 2.25
0.125 2.67 2.38 2.31 2.25 2.16 2.11 2.02 1.97 1.93
0.375 4.89 3.54 3.25 3.05 2.79 2.62 2.39 2.26 2.19
0.625 6.05 4.15 3.75 3.47 3.11 2.89 2.58 2.42 2.32
3.5
0.875 6.58 4.43 3.97 3.66 3.26 3.01 2.67 2.49 2.39
1.25 6.88 4.58 4.10 3.77 3.35 3.09 2.72 2.53 2.42
1.5 6.95 4.62 4.13 3.80 3.37 3.10 2.73 2.54 2.43
0.125 2.67 2.38 2.31 2.25 2.16 2.11 2.02 1.97 1.93
0.375 5.83 4.03 3.65 3.39 3.05 2.84 2.55 2.39 2.30
4.5 0.625 7.53 4.92 4.38 4.01 3.53 3.24 2.83 2.62 2.50
0.875 8.32 5.34 4.72 4.29 3.75 3.42 2.97 2.73 2.59
1 8.53 5.45 4.81 4.37 3.81 3.47 3.00 2.76 2.62
0.125 2.67 2.38 2.31 2.25 2.16 2.11 2.02 1.97 1.93
0.375 6.97 4.63 4.14 3.81 3.38 3.11 2.74 2.55 2.43
5.5 0.625 9.37 5.89 5.16 4.68 4.05 3.67 3.14 2.88 2.72
0.875 10.49 6.48 5.65 5.09 4.37 3.93 3.34 3.03 2.85
1 10.80 6.64 5.78 5.20 4.46 4.01 3.39 3.08 2.89
0.125 2.67 2.38 2.31 2.25 2.16 2.11 2.02 1.97 1.93
0.375 7.64 4.98 4.43 4.05 3.56 3.26 2.85 2.64 2.51
6 0.625 10.45 6.45 5.63 5.07 4.36 3.92 3.33 3.03 2.85
0.875 11.78 7.16 6.20 5.56 4.74 4.24 3.56 3.22 3.01
1 12.15 7.35 6.36 5.69 4.85 4.33 3.62 3.27 3.05
Note: Interpolation in the exhibit is permitted.

Chapter 12/Basic Freeway and Multilane Highway Segments Motorized Vehicle Core Methodology
Version 6.0 Page 12-37
Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis

Exhibit 12-28 % Length Percentage of Trucks (%)

PCEs for a Mix of 70% SUTs Grade (mi) 2% 4% 5% 6% 8% 10% 15% 20% >25%
and 30% TTs
0.125 2.39 2.18 2.12 2.07 2.01 1.96 1.89 1.85 1.83
0.375 2.39 2.18 2.12 2.07 2.01 1.96 1.89 1.85 1.83
0.625 2.39 2.18 2.12 2.07 2.01 1.96 1.89 1.85 1.83
-2
0.875 2.39 2.18 2.12 2.07 2.01 1.96 1.89 1.85 1.83
1.25 2.39 2.18 2.12 2.07 2.01 1.96 1.89 1.85 1.83
1.5 2.39 2.18 2.12 2.07 2.01 1.96 1.89 1.85 1.83
0.125 2.39 2.18 2.12 2.07 2.01 1.96 1.89 1.85 1.83
0.375 2.39 2.18 2.12 2.07 2.01 1.96 1.89 1.85 1.83
0.625 2.39 2.18 2.12 2.07 2.01 1.96 1.89 1.85 1.83
0
0.875 2.39 2.18 2.12 2.07 2.01 1.96 1.89 1.85 1.83
1.25 2.39 2.18 2.12 2.07 2.01 1.96 1.89 1.85 1.83
1.5 2.39 2.18 2.12 2.07 2.01 1.96 1.89 1.85 1.83
0.125 2.67 2.32 2.23 2.17 2.08 2.03 1.94 1.89 1.86
0.375 3.63 2.82 2.64 2.52 2.35 2.25 2.10 2.02 1.97
0.625 4.12 3.08 2.85 2.69 2.49 2.36 2.18 2.08 2.02
2
0.875 4.37 3.21 2.96 2.78 2.56 2.42 2.22 2.11 2.05
1.25 4.53 3.29 3.02 2.84 2.60 2.45 2.24 2.13 2.07
1.5 4.58 3.31 3.04 2.86 2.61 2.46 2.25 2.14 2.07
0.125 2.75 2.36 2.27 2.20 2.11 2.04 1.95 1.90 1.87
0.375 4.01 3.02 2.80 2.65 2.46 2.33 2.16 2.06 2.01
0.625 4.66 3.35 3.08 2.88 2.64 2.48 2.26 2.15 2.08
2.5
0.875 4.99 3.52 3.21 3.00 2.73 2.56 2.32 2.19 2.12
1.25 5.20 3.64 3.30 3.08 2.79 2.60 2.35 2.22 2.14
1.5 5.26 3.67 3.33 3.10 2.80 2.62 2.36 2.23 2.15
0.125 2.93 2.45 2.34 2.26 2.16 2.09 1.98 1.92 1.89
0.375 4.86 3.46 3.16 2.96 2.69 2.53 2.30 2.18 2.10
0.625 5.88 3.99 3.59 3.32 2.98 2.76 2.46 2.31 2.22
3.5
0.875 6.40 4.26 3.81 3.51 3.12 2.88 2.55 2.38 2.28
1.25 6.74 4.43 3.96 3.63 3.21 2.96 2.60 2.42 2.32
1.5 6.83 4.48 3.99 3.66 3.24 2.98 2.62 2.44 2.33
0.125 3.13 2.56 2.43 2.34 2.21 2.13 2.01 1.95 1.91
0.375 5.88 3.99 3.59 3.32 2.98 2.76 2.46 2.31 2.22
4.5 0.625 7.35 4.75 4.22 3.85 3.39 3.10 2.71 2.51 2.39
0.875 8.11 5.15 4.54 4.13 3.60 3.27 2.83 2.61 2.47
1 8.33 5.27 4.63 4.21 3.66 3.33 2.87 2.64 2.50
0.125 3.37 2.69 2.53 2.42 2.28 2.19 2.05 1.98 1.94
0.375 7.09 4.62 4.11 3.76 3.31 3.04 2.66 2.47 2.36
5.5 0.625 9.13 5.68 4.97 4.49 3.88 3.51 3.00 2.74 2.59
0.875 10.21 6.24 5.43 4.88 4.18 3.76 3.18 2.89 2.71
1 10.52 6.41 5.57 5.00 4.27 3.83 3.24 2.93 2.75
0.125 3.51 2.76 2.59 2.47 2.32 2.22 2.08 2.00 1.95
0.375 7.78 4.98 4.40 4.01 3.51 3.20 2.78 2.56 2.44
6 0.625 10.17 6.23 5.42 4.87 4.17 3.75 3.18 2.88 2.71
0.875 11.43 6.88 5.95 5.32 4.53 4.04 3.39 3.06 2.86
1 11.81 7.08 6.11 5.46 4.64 4.13 3.45 3.11 2.90
Note: Interpolation in the exhibit is permitted.

The PCE values shown in this chapter have been estimated from simulation.
They are also based on generalized analytical equations for the propulsion and
resistance characteristics of SUTs and TTs (19). Different models based on more
detailed vehicle dynamics simulators (e.g., 20, 21) can produce different results.
The PCEs establish an equivalency between the mixed-traffic capacity and the
automobile-only capacity. The speeds associated with these PCE values are space
mean speeds, and the densities are defined over the length of the segment. As
noted previously, in evaluating composite grades, steep single grades, very high
truck percentages, or a combination, the appropriate mixed-flow model from

Motorized Vehicle Core Methodology Chapter 12/Basic Freeway and Multilane Highway Segments
Page 12-38 Version 6.0
 Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis

Chapter 25 (composite grades) or Chapter 26 (single grades) is recommended in

lieu of applying PCEs.

Check for LOS F

At this point, the demand volume has been converted to a demand flow rate
in passenger cars per hour per lane under equivalent base conditions. This
demand rate must be compared with the base capacity of the basic freeway or
multilane highway segment (see Exhibit 12-4).
If demand exceeds capacity, the LOS is F and a breakdown has been
identified. To analyze the impacts of such a breakdown, the Chapter 10
methodology must be used. No further analysis using the present chapter’s
methodology is possible. If demand is less than or equal to capacity, the analysis
continues to Step 5.

Step 5: Estimate Speed and Density

At this point in the methodology, the following have been determined: (a)
the FFS and appropriate FFS curve for use in the analysis and (b) the demand
flow rate expressed in passenger cars per hour per lane under equivalent base
conditions. With this information, the speed and density of the traffic stream
may be estimated.
With the equations specified in Exhibit 12-6, the expected mean speed of the
traffic stream can be computed. A graphical solution with Exhibit 12-7 can also
be performed.
After the speed is estimated, Equation 12-11 is used to estimate the density of
the traffic stream:
𝑣𝑃
𝐷= Equation 12-11
𝑆
where
D = density (pc/mi/ln),
vp = demand flow rate (pc/h/ln), and
S = mean speed of traffic stream under base conditions (mi/h).
As has been noted, Equation 12-11 is only used when vp/c is less than or equal
to 1.00. All cases in which this ratio is greater than 1.00 are LOS F. In these cases,
the speed S will be outside the range of Exhibit 12-6 and Exhibit 12-7, and no
speed can be estimated.
Where LOS F exists, the analyst should consult Chapter 10, which allows an
analysis of the time and spatial impacts of a breakdown, including its effects on
upstream and downstream segments.

Step 6: Determine LOS

Exhibit 12-15 is entered with the density obtained from Equation 12-11 to
determine the expected prevailing LOS.

Chapter 12/Basic Freeway and Multilane Highway Segments Motorized Vehicle Core Methodology
Version 6.0 Page 12-39
Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis

4. EXTENSIONS TO THE METHODOLOGY

BASIC MANAGED LANE SEGMENTS

This section provides information specific to managed lanes that can be used
in conjunction with the core motorized vehicle methodology to analyze the
operation of basic managed lane segments on freeways. Section 2, Concepts,
defines the five types of basic managed lane segments and presents basic speed–
flow and capacity concepts for managed lanes.
Operating speeds and capacities of managed lanes are a function of how the
managed lanes are separated from the general purpose lanes, the number of
managed lanes, and, in the case of continuous access and Buffer 1 managed lane
segments, operational conditions in the adjacent general purpose lanes.
The general form of the speed–flow relationship for managed lanes is
illustrated in Exhibit 12-29, where the x-axis represents the adjusted 15-min
demand flow rate vp and the y-axis gives the space mean speed SML for the traffic
stream.
The exhibit distinguishes two speed–flow curves that depend on a frictional
effect between the managed lanes and adjacent general purpose lane. Managed
lanes with continuous access or Buffer 1 separation exhibit a deteriorated
performance as the general purpose lanes approach capacity (i.e., their density
exceeds 35 pc/mi/ln).

Exhibit 12-29
General Form for Speed–Flow
Curves for Basic Managed
Lane Segments on Freeways

The general analytic form of the speed–flow relationship is given by

Equation 12-12, along with the equations for determining the model parameters
including the breakpoint and the capacity, both of which are based on FFS.

Extensions to the Methodology Chapter 12/Basic Freeway and Multilane Highway Segments
Page 12-40 Version 6.0
 Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis

𝑆1 𝑣𝑝 ≤ 𝐵𝑃
𝑆𝑀𝐿 = { Equation 12-12
𝑆1 − 𝑆2 − 𝐼𝑐 × 𝑆3 𝐵𝑃 < 𝑣𝑝 ≤ 𝑐
where
SML = space mean speed of the basic managed lane segment (mi/h);
S1 = speed within the linear portion of the speed–flow curve, from
Equation 12-15 (mi/h);
S2 = speed drop within the curvilinear portion of the speed–flow curve,
from Equation 12-17 (mi/h);
S3 = additional speed drop (mi/h) within the curvilinear portion of the
speed–flow curve when the density of the adjacent general purpose
lane is more than 35 pc/mi/ln, from Equation 12-19;
Ic = indicator variable, where 1 = presence of densities greater than 35
pc/mi/ln in the adjacent general purpose lane (0 or 1);
BP = breakpoint in the speed–flow curve separating the linear and
curvilinear sections (pc/h/ln), from Equation 12-13; and
vp = 15-min average flow rate (pc/h/ln).
The breakpoint in the speed–flow curve is defined by Equation 12-13:
𝐵𝑃 = [𝐵𝑃75 + 𝜆𝐵𝑃 × (75 − 𝐹𝐹𝑆𝑎𝑑𝑗 )] × 𝐶𝐴𝐹 2 Equation 12-13

where
BP = breakpoint in the speed–flow curve separating the linear and
curvilinear sections (pc/h/ln);
BP75 = breakpoint for a FFS of 75 mi/h, from Exhibit 12-30 (pc/h/ln);
λBP = rate of increase in breakpoint per unit decrease in FFS, from Exhibit 12-
30 (pc/h/ln);
FFSadj = adjusted free-flow speed (mi/h); and
CAF = capacity adjustment factor (unitless).
Similar to general purpose lanes, capacity and FFS can be adjusted to account
for the impacts of weather, incidents, and work zones and for overall calibration
purposes. Research specific to managed lanes on the magnitude of these effects is
limited, but the same adjustments provided for basic segments can be
considered. Default CAF and SAF values for basic segments are provided in
Chapter 11. The default values do not explicitly list single-lane facilities, but in
the absence of field data, defaults given for two-lane facilities may be used (e.g.,
for a single-lane managed lane shoulder closure incident).
A basic managed lane segment’s capacity is estimated by Equation 12-14:
𝑐𝑎𝑑𝑗 = 𝐶𝐴𝐹 × [𝑐75 − 𝜆𝑐 × (75 − 𝐹𝐹𝑆𝑎𝑑𝑗 )] Equation 12-14

where
cadj = adjusted basic managed lane segment capacity (pc/h/ln);
CAF = capacity adjustment factor (unitless);

Chapter 12/Basic Freeway and Multilane Highway Segments Extensions to the Methodology
Version 6.0 Page 12-41
Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis

c75 = managed lane capacity for a FFS of 75 mi/h, from Exhibit 12-30 (pc/h/ln);
λc = rate of change in capacity per unit change in FFS, from Exhibit 12-30
(pc/h/ln); and
FFSadj = adjusted free-flow speed (mi/h).
The linear portion of the speed–flow curve is computed from Equation 12-15:
Equation 12-15 𝑆1 = 𝐹𝐹𝑆𝑎𝑑𝑗 − 𝐴1 × min(𝑣𝑝 , 𝐵𝑃)
where A1 is the speed reduction per unit of flow rate in the linear section of the
speed–flow curve (mi/h), from Exhibit 12-30, and all other variables are as
defined previously.
The curvilinear portion of the speed–flow curve for basic managed lane
segments is characterized by using a calibration factor A2 that is computed with
Equation 12-16:
Equation 12-16 𝐴2 = 𝐴55
2 + 𝜆𝐴2 × (𝐹𝐹𝑆𝑎𝑑𝑗 − 55)

where
A2 = speed reduction per unit of flow rate in the curvilinear section of the
speed–flow curve (mi/h);
A55
2 = calibration factor for a FFS of 55 mi/h, from Exhibit 12-30 (mi/h);
λA2 = rate of change in A2 per unit increase in FFS, from Exhibit 12-30 (mi/h);
and
FFSadj = adjusted free-flow speed (mi/h).
The curvilinear portion of the speed–flow curve during times when the
adjacent general purpose lane density is less than or equal to 35 pc/mi/ln is
computed from Equation 12-17:
𝑐𝑎𝑑𝑗
(𝑆1,𝐵𝑃 − 𝑛𝑓 )
Equation 12-17
𝐾𝑐 𝐴2
𝑆2 = 𝐴2 (𝑣𝑝 − 𝐵𝑃)
(𝑐𝑎𝑑𝑗 − 𝐵𝑃)
where
S2 = speed drop within the curvilinear portion of the speed–flow curve
(mi/h);
S1,BP = speed at the breakpoint of the speed–flow curve, calculated from
Equation 12-15 by setting vp to BP (mi/h);
cadj = adjusted basic managed lane segment capacity (pc/h/ln);

Knfc = density at capacity, without the frictional effect of the adjacent general
purpose lane, from Exhibit 12-30 (pc/mi/ln);
BP = breakpoint in the speed–flow curve separating the linear and
curvilinear sections (pc/h/ln);
A2 = speed reduction per unit of flow rate in the curvilinear section of the
speed–flow curve (mi/h); and

Extensions to the Methodology Chapter 12/Basic Freeway and Multilane Highway Segments
Page 12-42 Version 6.0
 Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis

vp = 15-min average flow rate (pc/h/ln).

Continuous access and Buffer 1 segment types operate at lower speeds when
adjacent general purpose lane density is greater than 35 pc/mi/ln. The indicator
variable Ic is used to determine the status of the general purpose lane operation.
This variable is determined by using Equation 12-18.
0 𝐾𝐺𝑃 ≤ 35 pc/mi/ln
𝐼𝑐 = { or segment type is Buffer 2, Barrier 1, or Barrier 2 Equation 12-18

1 otherwise
where KGP is the density of the adjacent general purpose lane (pc/mi/ln).
The additional speed reduction that occurs in the curvilinear portion of the
speed–flow curve because of high density in the adjacent general purpose lanes
is computed by Equation 12-19:
𝑐 𝑐𝑎𝑑𝑗
( 𝑎𝑑𝑗
𝑛𝑓 ) − ( 𝑓 )
𝐾𝑐 𝐾𝑐 2
Equation 12-19
𝑆3 = 2 (𝑣𝑝 − 𝐵𝑃)
(𝑐𝑎𝑑𝑗 − 𝐵𝑃)
where Kcf is the density at capacity, with the frictional effect of the adjacent
general purpose lane (pc/mi/ln), from Exhibit 12-30, and other variables are as
defined previously.
Exhibit 12-30 tabulates the parameters used by speed computations for the
different basic managed lane segment types.

Segment Type BP75 λBP c75 λc A 255 λA2 A1 Kcnf Kcf Exhibit 12-30
Parameters for Basic Managed
Continuous access 500 0 1,800 10 2.5 0 0 30 45
Lane Segment Analysis
Buffer 1 600 0 1,700 10 1.4 0 0.0033 30 42a
Buffer 2 500 10 1,850 10 1.5 0.02 0 45a NA
Barrier 1 800 0 1,750 10 1.4 0 0.004 35 NA
Barrier 2 700 20 2,100 10 1.3 0.02 0 45 NA
a
Note: These are average values of density at capacity observed by NCHRP Project 03-96 (1), ranging from 40.9
to 42.5 pc/mi/ln for Buffer 1 and from 40.1 to 50.4 pc/mi/ln for Buffer 2 segment types.

BICYCLE METHODOLOGY FOR MULTILANE HIGHWAYS

Bicycle LOS Criteria
Bicycle levels of service for multilane highway segments are based on a Bicycle LOS is based on a
traveler perception model. The
bicycle LOS score, which is in turn based on a traveler perception model. measure applies only to
Chapter 15, Two-Lane Highways, provides details about this service measure, multilane highways, not
freeway segments.
which is identical for two-lane highways and multilane highways. The bicycle
LOS score is based, in order of importance, on five variables:
 Average effective width of the outside through lane,
 Motorized vehicle volumes and speeds,
 Heavy vehicle (truck) volumes, and
 Pavement condition. Follow the step-by-step
description of the bicycle LOS
The LOS ranges for bicycles on two-lane and multilane highways are given method given in Chapter 15 to
in Exhibit 12-31. calculate bicycle LOS on
multilane highways.

Chapter 12/Basic Freeway and Multilane Highway Segments Extensions to the Methodology
Version 6.0 Page 12-43
Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis

Exhibit 12-31 LOS Bicycle LOS Score

Bicycle LOS for Two-Lane and A ≤1.5
Multilane Highways B >1.5–2.5
C >2.5–3.5
D >3.5–4.5
E >4.5–5.5
F >5.5

Required Input Data

The data required for evaluating bicycle LOS on a multilane highway and
the ranges of values used in the development of the LOS model (22) are as
follows:
 Width of the outside through lane: 10 to 16 ft,
 Shoulder width: 0 to 6 ft,
 Motorized vehicle volumes: up to 36,000 annual average daily traffic
(AADT),
 Number of directional through lanes,
 Posted speed: 25 to 50 mi/h,
 Heavy vehicle percentage: 0% to 2%, and
 Pavement condition: 2 to 5 on the FHWA 5-point pavement rating scale
(23).

Methodology
The calculation of bicycle LOS on multilane and two-lane highways shares
the same methodology, since multilane and two-lane highways operate in
fundamentally the same manner for bicyclists and motorized vehicle drivers.
Bicyclists travel much more slowly than the prevailing traffic flow and stay as far
to the right as possible, and they use paved shoulders when available. This
similarity indicates the need for only one model.
The bicycle LOS model for multilane highways uses a traveler perception
index calibrated by using a linear regression model. The model fits independent
variables associated with roadway characteristics to the results of a user survey
that rates the comfort of various bicycle facilities. The resulting bicycle LOS index
computes a numerical LOS score, generally ranging from 0.5 to 6.5, which is
stratified to produce a LOS A to F result by using Exhibit 12-31.
Full details on the bicycle LOS methodology and calculation procedures are
given in Chapter 15.

Limitations
Although the bicycle LOS The bicycle methodology was developed with data collected on urban and
model has been successfully
applied to rural multilane suburban streets, including facilities that would be defined as suburban
highways, users should be multilane highways. Although the methodology has been successfully applied to
aware that conditions on many
of those highways are outside rural multilane highways in different parts of the United States, users should be
the range of values used to aware that conditions on many rural multilane highways (i.e., posted speeds of
develop the model.
55 mi/h or higher or heavy vehicle percentages over 2%) will be outside the range
of values used to develop the bicycle LOS model.

Extensions to the Methodology Chapter 12/Basic Freeway and Multilane Highway Segments
Page 12-44 Version 6.0
 Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis

5. APPLICATIONS

EXAMPLE PROBLEMS
Section 6 of Chapter 26, Freeway and Highway Segments: Supplemental,
provides seven example problems that go through each of the computational
steps involved in applying the automobile to basic freeway and multilane
highway segments:
1. Four-lane freeway LOS (operational analysis),
2. Number of lanes required to achieve a target LOS (design analysis),
3. Six-lane freeway LOS and capacity (operational and planning analysis),
4. LOS on a five-lane multilane highway with a TWLTL (operational
analysis),
5. Estimation of the mixed-flow operational performance of a basic segment
with a high truck percentage (operational analysis),
6. Severe weather effects on a basic freeway segment (operational analysis),
and
7. Basic managed lane segment with and without friction effects
(operational analysis).
Section 7 of Chapter 26 provides an example of the application of the bicycle
LOS method.

RELATED CONTENT IN THE HCMAG

The Highway Capacity Manual Applications Guide (HCMAG), accessible
through the online HCM Volume 4, provides guidance on applying the HCM on
basic freeway segments. Case Study 4 goes through the process of identifying the
goals, objectives, and analysis tools for investigating LOS on a 3-mi section of
New York State Route 7 in Albany. The case study applies the analysis tools to
assess the performance of the route, to identify areas that are deficient, and to
investigate alternatives for correcting the deficiencies.
This case study includes the following problems related to basic freeway
segments:
1. Problem 1: Analysis of two basic freeway segments
a. Subproblem 1a: Traffic flow patterns
b. Subproblem 1b: Selection of appropriate data and basic freeway
analysis
c. Subproblem 1c: Basic freeway analysis
2. Problem 4: Analysis of segments as part of an extended freeway facility
a. Subproblem 4a: Separation of Route 7 for HCM analysis
b. Subproblem 4b: Study of off-peak periods
c. Subproblem 4c: What is the operational performance of Route 7
during the peak period?

Chapter 12/Basic Freeway and Multilane Highway Segments Applications

Version 6.0 Page 12-45
Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis

Although the HCMAG was based on the HCM2000’s procedures and

chapter organization, the general thought process described in its case studies is
applicable to this edition of the HCM.

EXAMPLE RESULTS
This section presents the results of applying this chapter’s method in typical
situations. Analysts can use the illustrative results presented in this section to
observe the sensitivity of output performance measures to various inputs, as well
as to help evaluate whether their analysis results are reasonable. The exhibits in
this section are not intended to substitute for an analysis and are deliberately
provided in a format large enough to depict general trends in the results but not
large enough to pull out specific results.

Sensitivity of Freeway Results to Total Ramp Density and Right-Side

Lateral Clearance
The freeway FFS is most Exhibit 12-32 illustrates how FFS varies for a basic freeway segment with a
sensitive to the total ramp
density and the right-side base FFS of 75 mi/h when the total ramp density varies from 1 to 4 ramps/mi. The
lateral clearance. top curve shows the case with adequate right-side clearance (i.e., 6 ft or greater),
while the lower curve shows the case with no right-side clearance (i.e., no right
shoulder).

Exhibit 12-32
Illustrative Effect of Total
Ramp Density and Right-Side
Lateral Clearance on Basic
Freeway Segment FFS

Note: Calculated by using this chapter’s methods. Fixed values include BFFS = 75.4 mi/h for a basic freeway
segment and fLW = 6.6 for 10-ft lanes.

Each on- and off-ramp in the A freeway with 2 ramps/mi represents a case where there are 6 ramps within
direction of travel is counted
when total ramp density is 3 mi on either side of the study location. This occurs primarily in urban areas,
determined. where interchanges may be close to each other, sometimes even in excess of 6
ramps/mi. The FFS for that condition is nearly 70 mi/h, assuming a base FFS of 75
mi/h. In contrast, the same segment without any right-side clearance has a much
lower FFS—just above 60 mi/h.

Applications Chapter 12/Basic Freeway and Multilane Highway Segments

Page 12-46 Version 6.0
 Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis

In general, most interchanges involve two to four ramps. A full cloverleaf,

for example, has four ramps: two on‐ramps and two off‐ramps in each direction.
A diamond interchange has two ramps in each direction: one on‐ramp and one
off‐ramp. Thus, a freeway with two cloverleaf interchanges fully contained
within 1 mi would have a total ramp density of 8 ramps/mi. A freeway with two
diamond interchanges fully contained within 1 mi would have a total density of
4 ramps/mi. This suggests that in any given situation (with comparable demand
flows), cloverleaf interchanges will have a greater negative impact on FFS than
diamond interchanges.
Although the curves in Exhibit 12-32 are not straight lines, their slopes are
relatively constant. On average, an increase of 2 ramps/mi in total ramp density
causes a drop in FFS of approximately 5 mi/h. A reduction in FFS, of course,
implies reductions in capacity and service volumes.

Sensitivity of Freeway Results to v/c Ratio

Exhibit 12-33 shows the relationship between speed and v/c ratio. Not
unexpectedly, the shapes of these curves are similar to the basic speedflow
curves of Exhibit 12-7. Speed does not begin to decline until a v/c ratio of 0.42 to
0.80 is reached, depending on the FFS.

Exhibit 12-33
Illustrative Effect of v/c Ratio
on Basic Freeway Segment
Speed

Note: Calculated by using this chapter’s methods. Fixed values include CAF = 1.0, SAF = 1.0, and no heavy
vehicle or grade effects.

Sensitivity of Multilane Highway Results to Access Point Density,

Lateral Clearance, and Median Type
Exhibit 12-34 illustrates the effect of access point density, lateral clearance,
and median type (divided or undivided) on the resulting multilane highway
segment FFS, assuming a base FFS of 65 mi/h.

Chapter 12/Basic Freeway and Multilane Highway Segments Applications

Version 6.0 Page 12-47
Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis

Exhibit 12-34
Illustrative Effect of Access
Point Density, Lateral
Clearance, and Median Type
on Multilane Highway
Segment FFS

Note: Calculated by using this chapter’s methods. Fixed values include base FFS = 65 mi/h and fLW = 0 for 12-ft
lanes.

Exhibit 12-34 shows that adding a single access point per mile results in a 1-
mi/h drop in the FFS. This value represents the slope of all four lines in the
exhibit. The effect of lateral clearance is also significant; the FFS is reduced by
nearly 4 mi/h when all other parameters are held fixed. Finally, the FFS of a
divided segment is 1.6 mi/h higher than that of an undivided segment when
clearances and the number of access points are both controlled for.

Sensitivity of Freeway Results to Incidents and Inclement Weather

The speed–flow curves presented in this chapter are primarily sensitive to
flow rates, FFS, and capacity. Incidents and inclement weather reduce a basic
freeway segment’s capacity and therefore indirectly reduce its FFS. Inclement
weather also produces a direct reduction in FFS. Exhibit 12-35 shows speed–flow
curves for a basic freeway segment for three different conditions—base
condition, shoulder-closure incident, and heavy snow—for a base FFS of 70 mi/h.
The CAFs used for shoulder closure and heavy snow are 0.85 and 0.776,
respectively, on the basis of default values from Chapter 11, while the SAF for
heavy snow is 0.88.

Applications Chapter 12/Basic Freeway and Multilane Highway Segments

Page 12-48 Version 6.0
 Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis

Exhibit 12-35
Illustrative Effect of Incidents
and Inclement Weather on
Basic Freeway Segment FFS

Note: Calculated by using this chapter’s methods. Fixed values include FFS = 70 mi/h, CAF = 1.0 for base case,
SAF = 1.0 for base case, and no heavy vehicle or grade effects.

Sensitivity of Managed Lane Results to Inclement Weather and General

Purpose Lane Friction
Exhibit 12-36 depicts speed–flow curves for a single-lane continuous access
managed lane segment for combinations of weather (light snow and nonsevere)
and adjacent general purpose lane density (≤35 pc/mi/ln, resulting in no friction,
and >35 pc/mi/ln, resulting in friction). The CAF for light snow is 0.957 and the
SAF for light snow is 0.94, on the basis of default values from Chapter 11.

Exhibit 12-36
Illustrative Effect of Inclement
Weather and General Purpose
Lane Friction on Managed
Lane FFS

Note: Calculated by using this chapter’s methods. Fixed values include FFS = 60 mi/h, CAF = 1.0 for base case,
SAF = 1.0 for base case, and no heavy vehicle or grade effects.

Chapter 12/Basic Freeway and Multilane Highway Segments Applications

Version 6.0 Page 12-49
Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis

PLANNING AND PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING ANALYSIS

Planning and preliminary A frequent objective of planning or preliminary engineering analysis is to
engineering applications also
find the number of lanes develop a general idea of the number of lanes that will be required to deliver a
required to deliver a target target LOS. The primary differences are that many default values will be used
LOS but provide more
generalized input values to the and the demand volume will usually be expressed as an AADT. Thus, a planning
methodology. and preliminary engineering analysis starts by converting the demand expressed
as an AADT to an estimate of the directional peak-hour demand volume
(DDHV) with Equation 12-20:
Equation 12-20 𝑉 = 𝐷𝐷𝐻𝑉 = 𝐴𝐴𝐷𝑇 × 𝐾 × 𝐷
where K is the proportion of AADT occurring during the peak hour and D is the
proportion of peak-hour volume traveling in the peak direction.
Chapter 3 provides additional On urban freeways, the typical range of K-factors is from 0.08 to 0.10. On
guidance on K- and D-factors.
rural freeways, values typically range between 0.09 and 0.13. Directional
distributions also vary, as illustrated in Chapter 3, Modal Characteristics, but a
typical value for both urban and rural freeways is 0.55. As with all default
values, locally or regionally calibrated values are preferred and yield more
accurate results. Both the K-factor and the D-factor have a significant impact on
the estimated hourly demand volume.
Once the hourly demand volume is estimated, the methodology follows the
same path as that for design analysis, described next. Additional details and
discussion on planning applications can be found in the Planning and Preliminary
Engineering Applications Guide to the HCM in Volume 4.

DESIGN ANALYSIS
Design analyses find the In design analysis, a known demand volume is used to determine the
number of lanes required for a
target LOS, given a specified number of lanes needed to deliver a target LOS. Two modifications are required
demand volume. to the operational analysis methodology. First, since the number of lanes is to be
determined, the demand volume is converted to a demand flow rate in passenger
cars per hour, not per lane, by using Equation 12-21 instead of Equation 12-9:
𝑉
Equation 12-21 𝑣=
𝑃𝐻𝐹 × 𝑓𝐻𝑉
where v is the demand flow rate in passenger cars per hour and all other
variables are as previously defined.
Second, a maximum service flow rate for the target LOS is then selected from
Exhibit 12-37 for basic freeway segments or Exhibit 12-38 for multilane
highways. These values are selected from the base speedflow curves of Exhibit
12-6 for each LOS. In using these exhibits, the FFS should be rounded to the
nearest 5 mi/h, and no interpolation is permitted.

Exhibit 12-37 FFS Maximum Service Flow Rates for Target LOS (pc/h/ln)
Maximum Service Flow Rates (mi/h) A B C D E
for Basic Freeway Segments 75 820 1,310 1,750 2,110 2,400
Under Base Conditions 70 770 1,250 1,690 2,080 2,400
65 710 1,170 1,630 2,030 2,350
60 660 1,080 1,560 2,010 2,300
55 600 990 1,430 1,900 2,250
Note: All values rounded to the nearest 10 pc/h/ln.

Applications Chapter 12/Basic Freeway and Multilane Highway Segments

Page 12-50 Version 6.0
 Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis

FFS Maximum Service Flow Rates for Target LOS (pc/h/ln) Exhibit 12-38
(mi/h) A B C D E Maximum Service Flow Rates
60 660 1,080 1,550 1,980 2,200 for Multilane Highway
55 600 990 1,430 1,850 2,100 Segments Under Base
50 550 900 1,300 1,710 2,000 Conditions
45 290 810 1,170 1,550 1,900

Next, the number of lanes required to deliver the target LOS can be found
from Equation 12-22:
𝑣
𝑁= Equation 12-22
𝑀𝑆𝐹𝑖
where N is the number of lanes required (ln) and MSFi is the maximum service
flow rate for LOS i (pc/h/ln) from Exhibit 12-37 or Exhibit 12-38.
Equation 12-21 and Equation 12-22 can be conveniently combined as
Equation 12-23:
𝑉
𝑁= Equation 12-23
𝑀𝑆𝐹𝑖 × 𝑃𝐻𝐹 × 𝑓𝐻𝑉
where all variables are as previously defined.
The value of N resulting from Equation 12-22 or Equation 12-23 will most All fractional values of N must
be rounded up.
likely be fractional. Since only integer numbers of lanes can be constructed, the
result is always rounded to the next-higher value. Thus, if the result is 3.2 lanes, 4
must be provided. The 3.2 lanes is, in effect, the minimum number of lanes
needed to provide the target LOS. If the result were rounded to 3, a poorer LOS
than the target value would result.
The rounding-up process will occasionally produce an interesting result: a Because only whole lanes can
be built, the target LOS for a
target LOS (for example, LOS C) may not be achievable for a given demand given demand volume may not
volume. If 2.1 lanes are required to produce LOS C, providing 2 lanes would be achievable.

drop the LOS, most likely to D. However, if three lanes are provided, the LOS
might improve to B. Some judgment may be required to interpret the results. In
this case, two lanes might be provided even though they would result in a
borderline LOS D. Economic considerations might lead a decision maker to
accept a lower operating condition than that originally targeted.

SERVICE FLOW RATES, SERVICE VOLUMES, AND DAILY SERVICE

VOLUMES
This chapter’s methodology can be easily manipulated to produce service
flow rates, service volumes, and daily service volumes for basic freeway
segments and multilane highways.
Exhibit 12-37 gave values of the maximum hourly service flow rates MSFi for
each LOS for freeways of varying FFS. These values are given in terms of
passenger cars per hour per lane under equivalent base conditions. A service
flow rate SFi is the maximum rate of flow that can exist while LOS i is maintained
during the 15-min analysis period under prevailing conditions. It can be
computed from the maximum service flow rate by using Equation 12-24:
𝑆𝐹𝑖 = 𝑀𝑆𝐹𝑖 × 𝑁 × 𝑓𝐻𝑉 Equation 12-24

where all variables are as previously defined.

Chapter 12/Basic Freeway and Multilane Highway Segments Applications

Version 6.0 Page 12-51
Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis

A service flow rate can be converted to a service volume SVi by applying a

PHF, as shown in Equation 12-25. A service volume is the maximum hourly
volume that can exist while LOS i is maintained during the worst 15-min period
of the analysis hour.

Equation 12-25
𝑆𝑉𝑖 = 𝑆𝐹𝑖 × 𝑃𝐻𝐹
where all variables are as previously defined.
A daily service volume DSVi is the maximum AADT that can be
accommodated by the facility under prevailing conditions while LOS i is
maintained during the worst 15-min period of the analysis day. It is estimated
from Equation 12-26:
𝑆𝑉𝑖 𝑀𝑆𝐹𝑖 × 𝑁 × 𝑓𝐻𝑉 × 𝑃𝐻𝐹
Equation 12-26 𝐷𝑆𝑉𝑖 = =
𝐾×𝐷 𝐾×𝐷
where all variables are as previously defined.
Service flow rates SF and service volumes SV are stated for a single direction.
Daily service volumes DSV are stated as total volumes in both directions of the
freeway or multilane highway.
This method can also be used to develop daily service volume tables for
basic managed lane segments by using regional assumptions about the various
input parameters.

Generalized Daily Service Volumes for Basic Freeway Segments

Exhibit 12-39 and Exhibit 12-40 show generalized daily service volume tables
for urban and rural basic freeway segments, respectively. They are based on the
following set of typical conditions:
 Percent heavy vehicles = 5% (urban), 12% (rural);
 FFS = 70 mi/h; and
 PHF = 0.94.
Values of rural and urban daily service volumes are provided for four-lane,
six-lane, and eight-lane freeways in level and rolling terrain. A range of K- and
D-factors is provided. Users should enter Exhibit 12-39 and Exhibit 12-40 with
local or regional values of these factors for the appropriate size of freeway in the
appropriate terrain.

Applications Chapter 12/Basic Freeway and Multilane Highway Segments

Page 12-52 Version 6.0
 Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis

Four-Lane Freeways Six-Lane Freeways Eight-Lane Freeways Exhibit 12-39

LOS LOS LOS LOS LOS LOS LOS LOS LOS LOS LOS LOS Daily Service Volume Table for
K D B C D E B C D E B C D E Urban Basic Freeway
Level Terrain Segments (1,000 veh/day)
0.50 56.4 77.6 94.6 107.4 84.6 116.4 141.8 161.1 112.7 155.2 189.1 214.9
0.55 51.2 70.6 86.0 97.7 76.9 105.9 129.0 146.5 102.5 141.1 171.9 195.3
0.08
0.60 47.0 64.7 78.8 89.5 70.5 97.0 118.2 134.3 93.9 129.4 157.6 179.0
0.65 43.4 59.7 72.7 82.6 65.0 89.6 109.1 124.0 86.7 119.4 145.5 165.3
0.50 50.1 69.0 84.1 95.5 75.2 103.5 126.1 143.2 100.2 138.0 168.1 191.0
0.55 45.5 62.7 76.4 86.8 68.3 94.1 114.6 130.2 91.1 125.5 152.8 173.6
0.09
0.60 41.8 57.5 70.0 79.6 62.6 86.2 105.1 119.4 83.5 115.0 140.1 159.2
0.65 38.5 53.1 64.7 73.5 57.8 79.6 97.0 110.2 77.1 106.2 129.3 146.9
0.50 45.1 62.1 75.7 85.9 67.6 93.1 113.5 128.9 90.2 124.2 151.3 171.9
0.55 41.0 56.5 68.8 78.1 61.5 84.7 103.2 117.2 82.0 112.9 137.5 156.3
0.10
0.60 37.6 51.7 63.0 71.6 56.4 77.6 94.6 107.4 75.2 103.5 126.1 143.2
0.65 34.7 47.8 58.2 66.1 52.0 71.7 87.3 99.2 69.4 95.5 116.4 132.2
0.50 41.0 56.5 68.8 78.1 61.5 84.7 103.2 117.2 82.0 112.9 137.5 156.3
0.55 37.3 51.3 62.5 71.0 55.9 77.0 93.8 106.5 74.5 102.6 125.0 142.1
0.11
0.60 34.2 47.0 57.3 65.1 51.2 70.6 86.0 97.7 68.3 94.1 114.6 130.2
0.65 31.5 43.4 52.9 60.1 47.3 65.1 79.4 90.1 63.1 86.9 105.8 120.2
0.50 37.6 51.7 63.0 71.6 56.4 77.6 94.6 107.4 75.2 103.5 126.1 143.2
0.55 34.2 47.0 57.3 65.1 51.2 70.6 86.0 97.7 68.3 94.1 114.6 130.2
0.12
0.60 31.3 43.1 52.5 59.7 47.0 64.7 78.8 89.5 62.6 86.2 105.1 119.4
0.65 28.9 39.8 48.5 55.1 43.4 59.7 72.7 82.6 57.8 79.6 97.0 110.2
Rolling Terrain
0.50 53.8 74.1 90.3 102.5 80.7 111.1 135.4 153.8 107.6 148.2 180.5 205.1
0.55 48.9 67.4 82.1 93.2 73.4 101.0 123.1 139.8 97.8 134.7 164.1 186.4
0.08
0.60 44.8 61.7 75.2 85.5 67.3 92.6 112.8 128.2 89.7 123.5 150.4 170.9
0.65 41.4 57.0 69.4 78.9 62.1 85.5 104.2 118.3 82.8 114.0 138.9 157.8
0.50 47.8 65.9 80.2 91.2 71.7 98.8 120.4 136.7 95.7 131.7 160.5 182.3
0.55 43.5 59.9 72.9 82.9 65.2 89.8 109.4 124.3 87.0 119.7 145.9 165.7
0.09
0.60 39.9 54.9 66.9 76.0 59.8 82.3 100.3 113.9 79.7 109.8 133.7 151.9
0.65 36.8 50.7 61.7 70.1 55.2 76.0 92.6 105.2 73.6 101.3 123.4 140.2
0.50 43.0 59.3 72.2 82.0 64.6 88.9 108.3 123.1 86.1 118.6 144.4 164.1
0.55 39.1 53.9 65.6 74.6 58.7 80.8 98.5 111.9 78.3 107.8 131.3 149.2
0.10
0.60 35.9 49.4 60.2 68.4 53.8 74.1 90.3 102.5 71.7 98.8 120.4 136.7
0.65 33.1 45.6 55.5 63.1 49.7 68.4 83.3 94.7 66.2 91.2 111.1 126.2
0.50 39.1 53.9 65.6 74.6 58.7 80.8 98.5 111.9 78.3 107.8 131.3 149.2
0.55 35.6 49.0 59.7 67.8 53.4 73.5 89.5 101.7 71.1 98.0 119.4 135.6
0.11
0.60 32.6 44.9 54.7 62.1 48.9 67.4 82.1 93.2 65.2 89.8 109.4 124.3
0.65 30.1 41.5 50.5 57.4 45.2 62.2 75.7 86.1 60.2 82.9 101.0 114.7
0.50 35.9 49.4 60.2 68.4 53.8 74.1 90.3 102.5 71.7 98.8 120.4 136.7
0.55 32.6 44.9 54.7 62.1 48.9 67.4 82.1 93.2 65.2 89.8 109.4 124.3
0.12
0.60 29.9 41.2 50.1 57.0 44.8 61.7 75.2 85.5 59.8 82.3 100.3 113.9
0.65 27.6 38.0 46.3 52.6 41.4 57.0 69.4 78.9 55.2 76.0 92.6 105.2
Note: Key assumptions: 5% trucks, PHF = 0.94, FFS = 70 mi/h.

Chapter 12/Basic Freeway and Multilane Highway Segments Applications

Version 6.0 Page 12-53
Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis

Exhibit 12-40 Four-Lane Freeways Six-Lane Freeways Eight-Lane Freeways

Daily Service Volume Table for LOS LOS LOS LOS LOS LOS LOS LOS LOS LOS LOS LOS
Rural Basic Freeway K D B C D E B C D E B C D E
Segments (1,000 veh/day) Level Terrain
0.50 52.8 72.8 88.7 100.7 79.3 109.2 133.0 151.1 105.7 145.5 177.3 201.4
0.55 48.0 66.2 80.6 91.6 72.1 99.2 120.9 137.3 96.1 132.3 161.2 183.1
0.08
0.60 44.0 60.6 73.9 83.9 66.1 91.0 110.8 125.9 88.1 121.3 147.8 167.9
0.65 40.6 56.0 68.2 77.5 61.0 84.0 102.3 116.2 81.3 112.0 136.4 154.9
0.50 47.0 64.7 78.8 89.5 70.5 97.0 118.2 134.3 93.9 129.4 157.6 179.0
0.55 42.7 58.8 71.6 81.4 64.1 88.2 107.5 122.1 85.4 117.6 143.3 162.8
0.09
0.60 39.1 53.9 65.7 74.6 58.7 80.9 98.5 111.9 78.3 107.8 131.3 149.2
0.65 36.1 49.8 60.6 68.9 54.2 74.6 90.9 103.3 72.3 99.5 121.2 137.7
0.50 42.3 58.2 70.9 80.6 63.4 87.3 106.4 120.9 84.6 116.4 141.8 161.1
0.55 38.4 52.9 64.5 73.2 57.6 79.4 96.7 109.9 76.9 105.9 129.0 146.5
0.10
0.60 35.2 48.5 59.1 67.1 52.8 72.8 88.7 100.7 70.5 97.0 118.2 134.3
0.65 32.5 44.8 54.6 62.0 48.8 67.2 81.8 93.0 65.0 89.6 109.1 124.0
0.50 38.4 52.9 64.5 73.2 57.6 79.4 96.7 109.9 76.9 105.9 129.0 146.5
0.55 34.9 48.1 58.6 66.6 52.4 72.2 87.9 99.9 69.9 96.2 117.2 133.2
0.11
0.60 32.0 44.1 53.7 61.0 48.0 66.2 80.6 91.6 64.1 88.2 107.5 122.1
0.65 29.6 40.7 49.6 56.3 44.3 61.1 74.4 84.5 59.1 81.4 99.2 112.7
0.50 35.2 48.5 59.1 67.1 52.8 72.8 88.7 100.7 70.5 97.0 118.2 134.3
0.55 32.0 44.1 53.7 61.0 48.0 66.2 80.6 91.6 64.1 88.2 107.5 122.1
0.12
0.60 29.4 40.4 49.3 56.0 44.0 60.6 73.9 83.9 58.7 80.9 98.5 111.9
0.65 27.1 37.3 45.5 51.6 40.6 56.0 68.2 77.5 54.2 74.6 90.9 103.3
Rolling Terrain
0.50 47.7 65.7 80.1 91.0 71.6 98.6 120.1 136.5 95.5 131.5 160.1 181.9
0.55 43.4 59.8 72.8 82.7 65.1 89.6 109.2 124.0 86.8 119.5 145.6 165.4
0.08
0.60 39.8 54.8 66.7 75.8 59.7 82.2 100.1 113.7 79.6 109.5 133.5 151.6
0.65 36.7 50.6 61.6 70.0 55.1 75.8 92.4 105.0 73.4 101.1 123.2 140.0
0.50 42.4 58.4 71.2 80.9 63.6 87.6 106.8 121.3 84.9 116.9 142.4 161.7
0.55 38.6 53.1 64.7 73.5 57.9 79.7 97.1 110.3 77.1 106.2 129.4 147.0
0.09
0.60 35.4 48.7 59.3 67.4 53.0 73.0 89.0 101.1 70.7 97.4 118.6 134.8
0.65 32.6 44.9 54.8 62.2 49.0 67.4 82.1 93.3 65.3 89.9 109.5 124.4
0.50 38.2 52.6 64.1 72.8 57.3 78.9 96.1 109.2 76.4 105.2 128.1 145.5
0.55 34.7 47.8 58.2 66.2 52.1 71.7 87.4 99.2 69.4 95.6 116.5 132.3
0.10
0.60 31.8 43.8 53.4 60.6 47.7 65.7 80.1 91.0 63.6 87.6 106.8 121.3
0.65 29.4 40.4 49.3 56.0 44.1 60.7 73.9 84.0 58.7 80.9 98.6 112.0
0.50 34.7 47.8 58.2 66.2 52.1 71.7 87.4 99.2 69.4 95.6 116.5 132.3
0.55 31.6 43.5 52.9 60.1 47.3 65.2 79.4 90.2 63.1 86.9 105.9 120.3
0.11
0.60 28.9 39.8 48.5 55.1 43.4 59.8 72.8 82.7 57.9 79.7 97.1 110.3
0.65 26.7 36.8 44.8 50.9 40.1 55.2 67.2 76.3 53.4 73.5 89.6 101.8
0.50 31.8 43.8 53.4 60.6 47.7 65.7 80.1 91.0 63.6 87.6 106.8 121.3
0.55 28.9 39.8 48.5 55.1 43.4 59.8 72.8 82.7 57.9 79.7 97.1 110.3
0.12
0.60 26.5 36.5 44.5 50.5 39.8 54.8 66.7 75.8 53.0 73.0 89.0 101.1
0.65 24.5 33.7 41.1 46.7 36.7 50.6 61.6 70.0 49.0 67.4 82.1 93.3
Note: Key assumptions: 12% trucks, PHF = 0.94, FFS = 70 mi/h.

Generalized Daily Service Volumes for Multilane Highways

Exhibit 12-41 and Exhibit 12-42 are generalized daily service volume tables
for urban and rural multilane highways, respectively. They are based on the
following set of typical conditions:
 Percent heavy vehicles = 8% (urban), 12% (rural);
 FFS = 60 mi/h; and
 PHF = 0.95 (urban), 0.88 (rural).
Daily service volumes are provided for four-, six-, and eight-lane highways
in level and rolling terrain. A range of K- and D-factors is provided. Users should
enter Exhibit 12-41 and Exhibit 12-42 with local or regional values of these factors
for the appropriate size of multilane highway in the appropriate terrain.

Applications Chapter 12/Basic Freeway and Multilane Highway Segments

Page 12-54 Version 6.0
 Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis

Four-Lane Highways Six-Lane Highways Eight-Lane Highways Exhibit 12-41

LOS LOS LOS LOS LOS LOS LOS LOS LOS LOS LOS LOS Generalized Daily Service
K D B C D E B C D E B C D E Volumes for Urban Multilane
Level Terrain Highways (1,000 veh/day)
0.50 47.5 68.2 84.9 96.8 71.3 102.2 127.3 145.1 95.0 136.3 169.7 193.5
0.55 43.2 62.0 77.2 88.0 64.8 93.0 115.7 131.9 86.4 123.9 154.3 175.9
0.08
0.60 39.6 56.8 70.7 80.6 59.4 85.2 106.1 120.9 79.2 113.6 141.4 161.3
0.65 36.5 52.4 65.3 74.4 54.8 78.7 97.9 111.6 73.1 104.9 130.6 148.9
0.50 42.2 60.6 75.4 86.0 63.3 90.9 113.2 129.0 84.4 121.2 150.9 172.0
0.55 38.4 55.1 68.6 78.2 57.6 82.6 102.9 117.3 76.8 110.2 137.2 156.4
0.09
0.60 35.2 50.5 62.9 71.7 52.8 75.7 94.3 107.5 70.4 101.0 125.7 143.3
0.65 32.5 46.6 58.0 66.2 48.7 69.9 87.0 99.2 65.0 93.2 116.1 132.3
0.50 38.0 54.5 67.9 77.4 57.0 81.8 101.8 116.1 76.0 109.1 135.8 154.8
0.55 34.5 49.6 61.7 70.4 51.8 74.4 92.6 105.6 69.1 99.1 123.4 140.7
0.10
0.60 31.7 45.4 56.6 64.5 47.5 68.2 84.9 96.8 63.3 90.9 113.2 129.0
0.65 29.2 41.9 52.2 59.5 43.8 62.9 78.3 89.3 58.5 83.9 104.5 119.1
0.50 34.5 49.6 61.7 70.4 51.8 74.4 92.6 105.6 69.1 99.1 123.4 140.7
0.55 31.4 45.1 56.1 64.0 47.1 67.6 84.2 96.0 62.8 90.1 112.2 127.9
0.11
0.60 28.8 41.3 51.4 58.6 43.2 62.0 77.2 88.0 57.6 82.6 102.9 117.3
0.65 26.6 38.1 47.5 54.1 39.9 57.2 71.2 81.2 53.1 76.3 95.0 108.3
0.50 31.7 45.4 56.6 64.5 47.5 68.2 84.9 96.8 63.3 90.9 113.2 129.0
0.55 28.8 41.3 51.4 58.6 43.2 62.0 77.2 88.0 57.6 82.6 102.9 117.3
0.12
0.60 26.4 37.9 47.1 53.8 39.6 56.8 70.7 80.6 52.8 75.7 94.3 107.5
0.65 24.4 35.0 43.5 49.6 36.5 52.4 65.3 74.4 48.7 69.9 87.0 99.2
Rolling Terrain
0.50 44.2 63.5 79.0 90.1 66.3 95.2 118.5 135.1 88.4 126.9 158.0 180.2
0.55 40.2 57.7 71.8 81.9 60.3 86.5 107.7 122.8 80.4 115.4 143.7 163.8
0.08
0.60 36.9 52.9 65.8 75.1 55.3 79.3 98.8 112.6 73.7 105.8 131.7 150.1
0.65 34.0 48.8 60.8 69.3 51.0 73.2 91.2 103.9 68.0 97.6 121.6 138.6
0.50 39.3 56.4 70.2 80.1 59.0 84.6 105.4 120.1 78.6 112.8 140.5 160.2
0.55 35.7 51.3 63.8 72.8 53.6 76.9 95.8 109.2 71.5 102.6 127.7 145.6
0.09
0.60 32.8 47.0 58.5 66.7 49.1 70.5 87.8 100.1 65.5 94.0 117.1 133.5
0.65 30.2 43.4 54.0 61.6 45.4 65.1 81.0 92.4 60.5 86.8 108.1 123.2
0.50 35.4 50.8 63.2 72.1 53.1 76.2 94.8 108.1 70.8 101.5 126.4 144.1
0.55 32.2 46.2 57.5 65.5 48.2 69.2 86.2 98.3 64.3 92.3 114.9 131.0
0.10
0.60 29.5 42.3 52.7 60.1 44.2 63.5 79.0 90.1 59.0 84.6 105.4 120.1
0.65 27.2 39.1 48.6 55.4 40.8 58.6 72.9 83.2 54.4 78.1 97.2 110.9
0.50 32.2 46.2 57.5 65.5 48.2 69.2 86.2 98.3 64.3 92.3 114.9 131.0
0.55 29.2 42.0 52.2 59.6 43.9 62.9 78.4 89.3 58.5 83.9 104.5 119.1
0.11
0.60 26.8 38.5 47.9 54.6 40.2 57.7 71.8 81.9 53.6 76.9 95.8 109.2
0.65 24.7 35.5 44.2 50.4 37.1 53.3 66.3 75.6 49.5 71.0 88.4 100.8
0.50 29.5 42.3 52.7 60.1 44.2 63.5 79.0 90.1 59.0 84.6 105.4 120.1
0.55 26.8 38.5 47.9 54.6 40.2 57.7 71.8 81.9 53.6 76.9 95.8 109.2
0.12
0.60 24.6 35.3 43.9 50.0 36.9 52.9 65.8 75.1 49.1 70.5 87.8 100.1
0.65 22.7 32.5 40.5 46.2 34.0 48.8 60.8 69.3 45.4 65.1 81.0 92.4
Note: Key assumptions: 8% trucks, PHF = 0.95, FFS = 60 mi/h.

Chapter 12/Basic Freeway and Multilane Highway Segments Applications

Version 6.0 Page 12-55
Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis

Exhibit 12-42 Four-Lane Highways Six-Lane Highways Eight-Lane Highways

Generalized Daily Service LOS LOS LOS LOS LOS LOS LOS LOS LOS LOS LOS LOS
Volumes for Rural Multilane K D B C D E B C D E B C D E
Highways (1,000 veh/day) Level Terrain
0.50 42.4 60.9 75.8 86.4 63.6 91.3 113.7 129.6 84.9 121.8 151.6 172.9
0.55 38.6 55.4 68.9 78.6 57.9 83.0 103.4 117.9 77.1 110.7 137.8 157.1
0.08
0.60 35.4 50.7 63.2 72.0 53.0 76.1 94.8 108.0 70.7 101.5 126.3 144.0
0.65 32.6 46.8 58.3 66.5 49.0 70.3 87.5 99.7 65.3 93.7 116.6 133.0
0.50 37.7 54.1 67.4 76.8 56.6 81.2 101.1 115.2 75.4 108.2 134.8 153.7
0.55 34.3 49.2 61.3 69.8 51.4 73.8 91.9 104.8 68.6 98.4 122.5 139.7
0.09
0.60 31.4 45.1 56.2 64.0 47.1 67.7 84.2 96.0 62.9 90.2 112.3 128.0
0.65 29.0 41.6 51.8 59.1 43.5 62.4 77.7 88.6 58.0 83.3 103.7 118.2
0.50 33.9 48.7 60.6 69.1 50.9 73.1 91.0 103.7 67.9 97.4 121.3 138.3
0.55 30.9 44.3 55.1 62.9 46.3 66.4 82.7 94.3 61.7 88.6 110.3 125.7
0.10
0.60 28.3 40.6 50.5 57.6 42.4 60.9 75.8 86.4 56.6 81.2 101.1 115.2
0.65 26.1 37.5 46.6 53.2 39.2 56.2 70.0 79.8 52.2 74.9 93.3 106.4
0.50 30.9 44.3 55.1 62.9 46.3 66.4 82.7 94.3 61.7 88.6 110.3 125.7
0.55 28.1 40.3 50.1 57.1 42.1 60.4 75.2 85.7 56.1 80.5 100.2 114.3
0.11
0.60 25.7 36.9 45.9 52.4 38.6 55.4 68.9 78.6 51.4 73.8 91.9 104.8
0.65 23.7 34.1 42.4 48.4 35.6 51.1 63.6 72.5 47.5 68.1 84.8 96.7
0.50 28.3 40.6 50.5 57.6 42.4 60.9 75.8 86.4 56.6 81.2 101.1 115.2
0.55 25.7 36.9 45.9 52.4 38.6 55.4 68.9 78.6 51.4 73.8 91.9 104.8
0.12
0.60 23.6 33.8 42.1 48.0 35.4 50.7 63.2 72.0 47.1 67.7 84.2 96.0
0.65 21.8 31.2 38.9 44.3 32.6 46.8 58.3 66.5 43.5 62.4 77.7 88.6
Rolling Terrain
0.50 38.3 55.0 68.5 78.1 57.5 82.5 102.7 117.1 76.6 110.0 136.9 156.1
0.55 34.8 50.0 62.2 71.0 52.3 75.0 93.4 106.5 69.7 100.0 124.5 141.9
0.08
0.60 31.9 45.8 57.1 65.1 47.9 68.7 85.6 97.6 63.9 91.7 114.1 130.1
0.65 29.5 42.3 52.7 60.0 44.2 63.5 79.0 90.1 59.0 84.6 105.3 120.1
0.50 34.1 48.9 60.9 69.4 51.1 73.3 91.3 104.1 68.1 97.8 121.7 138.8
0.55 31.0 44.4 55.3 63.1 46.5 66.7 83.0 94.6 61.9 88.9 110.7 126.2
0.09
0.60 28.4 40.7 50.7 57.8 42.6 61.1 76.1 86.7 56.8 81.5 101.4 115.7
0.65 26.2 37.6 46.8 53.4 39.3 56.4 70.2 80.1 52.4 75.2 93.6 106.8
0.50 30.7 44.0 54.8 62.5 46.0 66.0 82.2 93.7 61.3 88.0 109.6 124.9
0.55 27.9 40.0 49.8 56.8 41.8 60.0 74.7 85.2 55.7 80.0 99.6 113.5
0.10
0.60 25.5 36.7 45.6 52.0 38.3 55.0 68.5 78.1 51.1 73.3 91.3 104.1
0.65 23.6 33.8 42.1 48.0 35.4 50.8 63.2 72.1 47.2 67.7 84.3 96.1
0.50 27.9 40.0 49.8 56.8 41.8 60.0 74.7 85.2 55.7 80.0 99.6 113.5
0.55 25.3 36.4 45.3 51.6 38.0 54.5 67.9 77.4 50.7 72.7 90.5 103.2
0.11
0.60 23.2 33.3 41.5 47.3 34.8 50.0 62.2 71.0 46.5 66.7 83.0 94.6
0.65 21.4 30.8 38.3 43.7 32.2 46.1 57.5 65.5 42.9 61.5 76.6 87.3
0.50 25.5 36.7 45.6 52.0 38.3 55.0 68.5 78.1 51.1 73.3 91.3 104.1
0.55 23.2 33.3 41.5 47.3 34.8 50.0 62.2 71.0 46.5 66.7 83.0 94.6
0.12
0.60 21.3 30.6 38.0 43.4 31.9 45.8 57.1 65.1 42.6 61.1 76.1 86.7
0.65 19.7 28.2 35.1 40.0 29.5 42.3 52.7 60.0 39.3 56.4 70.2 80.1
Note: Key assumptions: 12% trucks, PHF = 0.88, FFS = 60 mi/h.

Appropriate Use of Service Volume Tables

The preceding service volume tables must be used with care. Because the
characteristics of any given freeway or multilane highway may or may not be
typical, the values should not be used to evaluate a specific freeway or multilane
highway segment. The exhibits are intended to allow a general evaluation of
many facilities within a given jurisdiction on a first-pass basis to identify
segments or facilities that might fail to meet a jurisdiction’s operating standards.
The segments or facilities so identified should then be evaluated in more detail
with this chapter’s core methodology in combination with each segment’s site-
specific characteristics. These service volume tables should not be used to make
final decisions on which segments or facilities to improve or on specific designs
for such improvements.

Applications Chapter 12/Basic Freeway and Multilane Highway Segments

Page 12-56 Version 6.0
 Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis

USE OF ALTERNATIVE TOOLS

General guidance for the use of alternative traffic analysis tools for capacity
and LOS analysis is provided in Chapter 6, HCM and Alternative Analysis Tools.
This section contains specific guidance for the application of alternative tools to
the analysis of basic freeway and multilane highway segments.
Exhibit 12-43 tabulates the HCM limitations for basic freeway and multilane
highway segments along with the potential for improved treatment by
alternative tools.

Potential for Improved Treatment by Exhibit 12-43

Limitation Alternative Tools Limitations of HCM Basic
Freeway and Multilane
Special lanes reserved for a single vehicle type, Modeled explicitly by simulation
Highway Segments Procedure
such as truck, and climbing lanes, or specific
lane control treatments to restrict lane
changing
Can be approximated by using assumptions
Extended bridge and tunnel segments related to desired speed and number of lanes
along each segment
Can be approximated by using assumptions
Segments near a toll plaza
related to discharge at toll plaza
Facilities with FFS less than 55 mi/h or more Modeled explicitly by simulation
than 75 mi/h for basic freeway segments, or
less than 45 mi/h or more than 70 mi/h for
multilane highways
Oversaturated conditions (refer to Chapters 10 Modeled explicitly by simulation
and 26 for further discussion)
Influence of downstream blockages or queuing Modeled explicitly by simulation
on a segment
Posted speed limit and extent of police Can be approximated by using assumptions
enforcement related to desired speed along a segment
Presence of ITS features related to vehicle or Several features modeled explicitly by
driver guidance, and active traffic and demand simulation; others may be approximated by
management strategies, including ramp using assumptions (for example, by modifying
metering origindestination demands by time interval)
Evaluation of transition zones where a Modeled explicitly by simulation
multilane highway transitions to a two-lane
highway or is interrupted by a traffic signal or
roundabout intersection
The negative impacts of poor weather Limited guidance for modeling adverse
conditions, traffic accidents or incidents, conditions on multilane highways in simulation
railroad crossings, or construction operations
on multilane highways
Differences between types of median barriers Limited guidance available for modeling in
and difference between impacts of a median simulation
barrier and a TWLTL on multilane highways
Significant presence of on-street parking, bus Can be estimated in some simulation tools
stops, and pedestrians on multilane highways

As with most other procedural chapters in the HCM, simulation outputs,

especially graphics-based presentations, can provide details on point problems
that might otherwise go unnoticed with a macroscopic analysis that yields only
segment-level measures. The effect of downstream conditions on lane utilization

Chapter 12/Basic Freeway and Multilane Highway Segments Applications

Version 6.0 Page 12-57
Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis

and backup beyond the segment boundary is a good example of an analysis that
can benefit from the increased insight offered by a microscopic model.

Development of HCM-Compatible Performance Measures Using

Alternative Tools
The LOS for basic freeway and multilane highway segments is based on
traffic density expressed in passenger cars per mile per lane. The HCM
methodology estimates density by dividing the flow rate by the average
passenger car speed. Simulation models typically estimate density by dividing
the average number of vehicles in the segment by the area of the segment (in lane
miles). The result is vehicles per lane mile. Τhis measurement corresponds to
density based on space mean speed. The HCM-reported density is also based on
space mean speed. Generally, increased speed variability in driver behavior
(which simulators usually include) results in lower average space mean speed
and higher density. In obtaining density from alternative models, the following
are important to take into account:
 The vehicles included in the density estimation (for example, whether
only the vehicles that have exited the link are considered);
 The manner in which auxiliary lanes are considered;
 The units used for density, since a simulation package would typically
provide density in units of vehicles rather than passenger cars; converting
the simulation outputs to passenger cars with the HCM PCE values is
typically not appropriate, given that the simulation should already
account for the effects of heavy vehicles on a microscopic basiswith
heavy vehicles operating at lower speeds and at longer headwaysthus
making any additional adjustments duplicative;
 The units used in the reporting of density (e.g., whether it is reported per
lane mile);
 The homogeneity of the analysis segment, since the HCM does not use the
segment length as an input (unless it is a specific upgrade or downgrade
segment, where the length is used to estimate the PCE values) and
conditions are assumed to be homogeneous for the entire segment; and
 The driver variability assumed in the simulation package, since increased
driver variability will generally increase the average density.
The HCM provides capacity estimates in passenger cars per hour per lane as
a function of FFS. To compare the HCM’s estimates with capacity estimates from
a simulation package, the following should be considered:
 The manner in which a simulation package provides the number of
vehicles exiting a segment; in some cases it may be necessary to provide
virtual detectors at a specific point on the simulated segment so that the
maximum throughput can be obtained;
 The units used to specify maximum throughput, since a simulation
package would do this in units of vehicles rather than passenger cars;
converting vehicles to passenger cars by using the HCM PCE values is
typically not appropriate, since differences between automobile and

Applications Chapter 12/Basic Freeway and Multilane Highway Segments

Page 12-58 Version 6.0
 Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis

heavy vehicle performance should already be accounted for

microscopically within a simulation; and
 The incorporation of other simulation inputs, such as the “minimum
separation of vehicles,” that affect the capacity result.

Conceptual Differences Between HCM and Simulation Modeling That

Preclude Direct Comparison of Results
The HCM methodology is based on the relationship between speed and flow
for various values of FFS. One fundamental potential difference between the
HCM and other models is this relationship. For example, the HCM assumes a
constant speed for a wide range of flows. However, this is not necessarily the
case in simulation packages, some of which assume a continuously decreasing
speed with increasing flow. Furthermore, in some simulation packages, that
relationship can change when certain parameters (for example, in a car following
model) are modified. Therefore, compatibility of performance measures between
the HCM and an alternative model for a given set of flows does not necessarily
guarantee compatibility for all other sets of flows.

Adjustment of Simulation Parameters to HCM Results

The most important elements to be adjusted when a basic freeway or
multilane highway segment is analyzed are the speedflow relationship, the
capacity, or both. The speedflow relationship should be examined as a function
of the given FFS. That FFS should match the field- or HCM-estimated value.

Step-by-Step Recommendations for Applying Alternative Tools

This section provides recommendations specifically for freeway and
multilane highway segments (general guidance on selecting and applying
simulation packages is provided in Chapter 6, HCM and Alternative Analysis
Tools). To apply an alternative tool to the analysis of basic freeway and multilane
highway segments, the following steps should be taken:
1. Determine whether the chosen tool can provide density and capacity for a
basic freeway or multilane highway segment and the approach used to
obtain those values. Once the analyst is satisfied that density and capacity
can be obtained and that values compatible with those of the HCM can
also be obtained, proceed with the analysis.
2. Determine the FFS of the study site, either from field data or by
estimating it according to this chapter’s methodology.
3. Enter all available geometric and traffic characteristics into the simulation
package and install virtual detectors along the study segment, if
necessary, to obtain speeds and flows.
4. By loading the study network over capacity, obtain the maximum
throughput and compare it with the HCM estimate. Calibrate the
simulation package by modifying parameters related to the minimum
time headway so that the capacity obtained by the simulator closely
matches the HCM estimate. Estimate the number of runs required for a
statistically valid comparison.

Chapter 12/Basic Freeway and Multilane Highway Segments Applications

Version 6.0 Page 12-59
Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis

5. If the analysis requires evaluating various demand conditions for the

segment, plot the simulator’s speedflow curve and compare it with the
HCM relationship. Attempt to calibrate the simulation package by
modifying parameters related to driver behavior, such as the distribution
of driver types. Calibration of the simulation to match the HCM
speedflow relationship may not be possible. In that case, the results
should be viewed with caution in terms of their compatibility with the
HCM methods.

Sample Calculations Illustrating Alternative Tool Applications

Chapter 26, Freeway and Highway Segments: Supplemental, in Volume 4 of
the HCM, provides two supplemental problems that examine situations beyond
the scope of this chapter’s methodology by using a typical microsimulation-
based tool. Both problems analyze a six-lane freeway segment in a growing
urban area. The first supplemental problem evaluates the facility when an HOV
lane is added, and the second problem analyzes operations with an incident
within the segment.

Applications Chapter 12/Basic Freeway and Multilane Highway Segments

Page 12-60 Version 6.0
 Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis

6. REFERENCES

1. Wang, Y., X. Liu, N. Rouphail, B. Schroeder, Y. Yin, and L. Bloomberg. Some of these references can
be found in the Technical
NCHRP Web-Only Document 191: Analysis of Managed Lanes on Freeway Reference Library in Volume 4.
Facilities. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies,
Washington, D.C., Aug. 2012. http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/
nchrp/nchrp_w191.pdf.
2. Liu, X., B. J. Schroeder, T. Thomson, Y. Wang, N. M. Rouphail, and Y. Yin.
Analysis of Operational Interactions Between Freeway Managed Lanes and
Parallel, General Purpose Lanes. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of
the Transportation Research Board, No. 2262, Transportation Research Board of
the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2011, pp. 62–73.
3. Schroeder, B. J., S. Aghdashi, N. M. Rouphail, X. C. Liu, and Y. Wang.
Deterministic Approach to Managed Lane Analysis on Freeways in Context
of Highway Capacity Manual. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the
Transportation Research Board, No. 2286, Transportation Research Board of the
National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2012, pp. 122–132.
4. Schoen, J. A., A. May, W. Reilly, and T. Urbanik. Speed–Flow Relationships for
Basic Freeway Sections. Final Report, NCHRP Project 03-45. JHK & Associates,
Tucson, Ariz., May 1995.
5. Roess, R. Re-Calibration of the 75-mi/h Speed–Flow Curve and the FFS Prediction
Algorithm for HCM 2010. Research Memorandum, NCHRP Project 3-92.
Polytechnic Institute of New York University, Brooklyn, Jan. 2009.
6. Reilly, W., D. Harwood, J. Schoen, and M. Holling. Capacity and LOS
Procedures for Rural and Urban Multilane Highways. Final Report, NCHRP
Project 3-33. JHK & Associates, Tucson, Ariz., May 1990.
7. Aghdashi S., N. M. Rouphail, A. Hajbabaie, and B. J. Schroeder. Generic
Speed–Flow Models for Basic Freeway Segments on General Purpose and
Managed Lanes. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation
Research Board, No. 2483, Transportation Research Board of the National
Academies, Washington, D.C., 2015, pp. 102–110.
8. Highway Functional Classification Concepts, Criteria and Procedures, 2013 Edition.
Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C., 2013.
9. Basic Freeway Sections. In Special Report 209: Highway Capacity Manual,
Chapter 3, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council,
Washington, D.C., 1994.
10. Urbanik, T., II, W. Hinshaw, and K. Barnes. Evaluation of High-Volume
Urban Texas Freeways. In Transportation Research Record 1320, Transportation
Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1991, pp.
110–118.
11. Banks, J. H. Flow Processes at a Freeway Bottleneck. In Transportation
Research Record 1287, Transportation Research Board, National Research
Council, Washington, D.C., 1990, pp. 20–28.

Chapter 12/Basic Freeway and Multilane Highway Segments References

Version 6.0 Page 12-61
Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis

12. Hall, F. L., and L. M. Hall. Capacity and Speed–Flow Analysis of the Queen
Elizabeth Way in Ontario. In Transportation Research Record 1287,
Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington,
D.C., 1990, pp. 108–118.
13. Hall, F. L., and K. Agyemang-Duah. Freeway Capacity Drop and the
Definition of Capacity. In Transportation Research Record 1320, Transportation
Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1991, pp. 91–
98.
14. Chin, H. C., and A. D. May. Examination of the Speed–Flow Relationship at
the Caldecott Tunnel. In Transportation Research Record 1320, Transportation
Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1991, pp. 75–
82.
15. Banks, J. H. Evaluation of the Two-Capacity Phenomenon as a Basis for Ramp
Metering. Final Report. San Diego State University, San Diego, Calif., 1991.
16. Schroeder, B. J., C. M. Cunningham, D. J. Findley, J. E. Hummer, and R. S.
Foyle. Manual of Transportation Engineering Studies, 2nd ed. Institute of
Transportation Engineers, Washington, D.C., 2010.
17. Webster, N., and L. Elefteriadou. A Simulation Study of Truck Passenger Car
Equivalents (PCE) on Basic Freeway Segments. Transportation Research Part B,
Vol. 33, No. 5, 1999, pp. 323–336.
18. Zegeer, J. D., M. A. Vandehey, M. Blogg, K. Nguyen, and M. Ereti. NCHRP
Report 599: Default Values for Highway Capacity and Level of Service Analyses.
Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington,
D.C., 2008.
19. Dowling, R., G. List, B. Yang, E. Witzke, and A. Flannery. NCFRP Report 31:
Incorporating Truck Analysis into the Highway Capacity Manual.
Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington,
D.C., 2014.
20. Washburn, S. S., and S. Ozkul. Heavy Vehicle Effects on Florida Freeways and
Multilane Highways. Report TRC-FDOT-93817-2013. Florida Department of
Transportation, Tallahassee, Oct. 2013.
21. Ozkul, S., and S. S. Washburn. Updated Commercial Truck Speed Versus
Distance–Grade Curves for the Highway Capacity Manual. In Transportation
Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2483,
Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C.
2015, pp. 91–101.
22. Landis, B. W., V. R. Vattikuti, and M. T. Brannick. Real-Time Human
Perceptions: Toward a Bicycle Level of Service. In Transportation Research
Record 1578, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council,
Washington, D.C., 1997, pp. 119–126.
23. Highway Performance Monitoring System Field Manual, Chapter 4. Federal
Highway Administration, Washington, D.C., May 2005.

References Chapter 12/Basic Freeway and Multilane Highway Segments

Page 12-62 Version 6.0