HCM2010

HIGHWAY CAPACITY MANUAL

VOLUME 4: APPLICATIONS GUIDE

WASHINGTON, DC | WWW.TRB.ORG
TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD
2010 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE*

Chair: Michael R. Morris, Director of Transportation, Rebecca M. Brewster, President and COO, American
North Central Texas Council of Governments, Transportation Research Institute, Smyrna, Georgia
Arlington (ex officio)
Vice Chair: Neil J. Pedersen, Administrator, Maryland George Bugliarello, President Emeritus and University
State Highway Administration, Baltimore Professor, Polytechnic Institute of New York
Executive Director: Robert E. Skinner, Jr., Transportation University, Brooklyn; Foreign Secretary, National
Research Board Academy of Engineering, Washington, D.C. (ex officio)
Anne S. Ferro, Administrator, Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation
J. Barry Barker, Executive Director, Transit Authority of (ex officio)
River City, Louisville, Kentucky LeRoy Gishi, Chief, Division of Transportation, Bureau of
Allen D. Biehler, Secretary, Pennsylvania Department of Indian Affairs, U.S. Department of the Interior,
Transportation, Harrisburg Washington, D.C. (ex officio)
Larry L. Brown, Sr., Executive Director, Mississippi Edward R. Hamberger, President and CEO, Association of
Department of Transportation, Jackson American Railroads, Washington, D.C. (ex officio)
Deborah H. Butler, Executive Vice President, Planning, and John C. Horsley, Executive Director, American Association
CIO, Norfolk Southern Corporation, Norfolk, Virginia of State Highway and Transportation Officials,
William A. V. Clark, Professor, Department of Geography, Washington, D.C. (ex officio)
University of California, Los Angeles David T. Matsuda, Deputy Administrator, Maritime
Eugene A. Conti, Jr., Secretary of Transportation, North Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation
Carolina Department of Transportation, Raleigh (ex officio)
Nicholas J. Garber, Henry L. Kinnier Professor, Victor M. Mendez, Administrator, Federal Highway
Department of Civil Engineering, and Director,  Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation
Center for Transportation Studies, University of (ex officio)
Virginia, Charlottesville William W. Millar, President, American Public
Jeffrey W. Hamiel, Executive Director, Metropolitan Transportation Association, Washington, D.C.
Airports Commission, Minneapolis, Minnesota (ex officio) (Past Chair, 1992)
Paula J. Hammond, Secretary, Washington State Tara O’Toole, Under Secretary for Science and Technology,
Department of Transportation, Olympia U.S. Department of Homeland Security (ex officio)
Edward A. (Ned) Helme, President, Center for Clean Air Robert J. Papp (Adm., U.S. Coast Guard), Commandant,
Policy, Washington, D.C. U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Department of Homeland
Adib K. Kanafani, Cahill Professor of Civil Engineering, Security (ex officio)
University of California, Berkeley (Past Chair, 2009) Cynthia L. Quarterman, Administrator, Pipeline and
Susan Martinovich, Director, Nevada Department of Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S.
Transportation, Carson City Department of Transportation (ex officio)
Debra L. Miller, Secretary, Kansas Department of Peter M. Rogoff, Administrator, Federal Transit
Transportation, Topeka (Past Chair, 2008) Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation
Sandra Rosenbloom, Professor of Planning, University of (ex officio)
Arizona, Tucson David L. Strickland, Administrator, National Highway
Tracy L. Rosser, Vice President, Regional General Manager, Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. Department of
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Mandeville, Louisiana Transportation (ex officio)
Steven T. Scalzo, Chief Operating Officer, Marine Joseph C. Szabo, Administrator, Federal Railroad
Resources Group, Seattle, Washington Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation
Henry G. (Gerry) Schwartz, Jr., Chairman (retired), Jacobs/ (ex officio)
Sverdrup Civil, Inc., St. Louis, Missouri Polly Trottenberg, Assistant Secretary for Transportation
Beverly A. Scott, General Manager and Chief Executive Policy, U.S. Department of Transportation (ex officio)
Officer, Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority, Robert L. Van Antwerp (Lt. General, U.S. Army), Chief of
Atlanta, Georgia Engineers and Commanding General, U.S. Army
David Seltzer, Principal, Mercator Advisors LLC, Corps of Engineers, Washington, D.C. (ex officio)
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Daniel Sperling, Professor of Civil Engineering and
Environmental Science and Policy; Director, Institute Transportation Research Board publications are available
of Transportation Studies; and Interim Director, by ordering individual publications directly from the
Energy Efficiency Center, University of California, TRB Business Office, through the Internet at www.TRB.
Davis org, or by annual subscription through organizational
Kirk T. Steudle, Director, Michigan Department of or individual affiliation with TRB. Affiliates and library
Transportation, Lansing subscribers are eligible for substantial discounts. For
Douglas W. Stotlar, President and Chief Executive Officer, further information, contact the Transportation Research
Con-Way, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan Board Business Office, 500 Fifth Street, NW, Washington,
C. Michael Walton, Ernest H. Cockrell Centennial Chair in DC 20001 (telephone 202-334-3213; fax 202-334-2519; or
Engineering, University of Texas, Austin (Past Chair, e-mail TRBsales@nas.edu).
1991)
Copyright 2010 by the National Academy of Sciences.
Peter H. Appel, Administrator, Research and Innovative All rights reserved.
Technology Administration, U.S. Department of Printed in the United States of America.
Transportation (ex officio)
J. Randolph Babbitt, Administrator, Federal Aviation ISBN 978-0-309-16077-3 [Slipcased set of three volumes]
Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation ISBN 978-0-309-16078-0 [Volume 1]
(ex officio) ISBN 978-0-309-16079-7 [Volume 2]
ISBN 978-0-309-16080-3 [Volume 3]
* Membership as of December 2010.
The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished
scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and
technology and to their use for the general welfare. On the authority of the charter granted to it by the
Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on
scientific and technical matters. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone is president of the National Academy of Sciences.

The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National
Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its
administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences
the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also
sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research,
and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. Charles M. Vest is president of the National
Academy of Engineering.

The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure
the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters
pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National
Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, on
its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Harvey V. Fineberg is
president of the Institute of Medicine.

The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to
associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy’s purposes of furthering
knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies
determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the
National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the
government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered
jointly by both the Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone and Dr. Charles M.
Vest are chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council.

The Transportation Research Board is one of six major divisions of the National Research Council. The
mission of the Transportation Research Board is to provide leadership in transportation innovation
and progress through research and information exchange, conducted within a setting that is objective,
interdisciplinary, and multimodal. The Board’s varied activities annually engage about 7,000 engineers,
scientists, and other transportation researchers and practitioners from the public and private sectors
and academia, all of whom contribute their expertise in the public interest. The program is supported
by state transportation departments, federal agencies including the component administrations of
the U.S. Department of Transportation, and other organizations and individuals interested in the
development of transportation. www.TRB.org

www.national-academies.org
 Highway Capacity Manual 2010

CHAPTER 29
URBAN STREET FACILITIES: SUPPLEMENTAL

CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................29‐1

2. BASIC EXAMPLE PROBLEM CONFIGURATION ........................................29‐2

3. SIGNAL TIMING PLAN DESIGN ....................................................................29‐4
Deterministic STPD Tools ................................................................................. 29‐4
Performance Measures....................................................................................... 29‐5
Initial Timing Plan Design................................................................................. 29‐7
Initial Timing Plan Performance ...................................................................... 29‐8
Adjustments to Improve Progression Quality................................................ 29‐9
Time–Space Diagrams........................................................................................ 29‐9
Other Graphic Displays ................................................................................... 29‐11
Potential Improvements from Phasing Optimization ................................. 29‐15

4. EFFECT OF MIDSEGMENT PARKING ACTIVITIES ................................29‐17

5. EFFECT OF PLATOONED ARRIVALS AT A ROUNDABOUT ................29‐20

6. QUEUE LENGTH ANALYSIS BASED ON VEHICLE TRAJECTORIES..29‐23
Queuing Characteristics .................................................................................. 29‐23
BOQ Assessment .............................................................................................. 29‐26

7. REFERENCES .......................................................................................................29‐28
 

Chapter 29/Urban Street Facilities: Supplemental Page 29-i Contents

December 2010
Highway Capacity Manual 2010

LIST OF EXHIBITS

Exhibit 29‐1 Base Configuration for the Examples................................................ 29‐2
Exhibit 29‐2 Demand Flow Rates and Phasing Plan for Each Intersection ........ 29‐2
Exhibit 29‐3 Elements of a Typical Signal Timing Design Tool........................... 29‐5
Exhibit 29‐4 Cycle Length Optimization Results................................................... 29‐7
Exhibit 29‐5 Timing Plan Developed by Split and Offset Optimization ............ 29‐8
Exhibit 29‐6 Performance Measures for the Initial Timing Plan.......................... 29‐8
Exhibit 29‐7 Progression Quality Measures for the Initial Design ...................... 29‐9
Exhibit 29‐8 Progression Quality Measures for the Improved Progression 
Design................................................................................................................... 29‐9
Exhibit 29‐9 Time–Space Diagram for the Initial Design ................................... 29‐10
Exhibit 29‐10 Time–Space Diagram for the Modified Progression Design...... 29‐10
Exhibit 29‐11 Offset Changes for the Modified Progression Design ................ 29‐10
Exhibit 29‐12 Alternative Time–Space Diagram Format .................................... 29‐11
Exhibit 29‐13 Example Illustrating the Use of Flow Profiles.............................. 29‐12
Exhibit 29‐14 Composite Flow Profiles for the First Eastbound Segment........ 29‐13
Exhibit 29‐15 Variation of Queue Length Throughout the Signal Cycle for 
the First Eastbound Segment .......................................................................... 29‐14
Exhibit 29‐16 Time–Space Diagram with Flows and Queues ............................ 29‐14
Exhibit 29‐17 Optimized Phasing Modifications ................................................. 29‐15
Exhibit 29‐18 Time–Space Diagram for the Optimized Phasing Plan .............. 29‐16
Exhibit 29‐19 Time–Space Diagram Showing Ideal Eastbound Progression... 29‐17
Exhibit 29‐20 Parameters for the Parking Example............................................. 29‐18
Exhibit 29‐21 Effect of Parking Activity Level on Travel Time and Delay ...... 29‐18
Exhibit 29‐22 Effect of Parking Activity Level on the Percentage of Stops...... 29‐19
Exhibit 29‐23 Roundabout Configuration for Intersection 3.............................. 29‐20
Exhibit 29‐24 Time–Space Diagrams Showing Simultaneous and 
Alternating Platoon Arrivals at the Roundabout ......................................... 29‐21
Exhibit 29‐25 Performance Comparison for Simultaneous and Alternating 
Platoon Arrivals at a Roundabout.................................................................. 29‐21
Exhibit 29‐26 Queuing Results for the Theoretical Example ............................. 29‐24
Exhibit 29‐27 Queuing Results for Simultaneous Platoons................................ 29‐24
Exhibit 29‐28 Queuing Results for Alternating Platoons.................................... 29‐25
Exhibit 29‐29 Queuing Results for Isolated TWSC Operation........................... 29‐26
Exhibit 29‐30 Effect of Cross‐Street Demand Volume on Queue Backup 
Beyond 100 ft from the Stop Line ................................................................... 29‐27

Contents Page 29-ii Chapter 29/Urban Street Facilities: Supplemental

December 2010
 Highway Capacity Manual 2010

1. INTRODUCTION

Chapter 16, Urban Street Facilities, presented a methodology for combining 
the performance measures from each segment on an urban street in a manner 
that represents the operation of the facility as a whole. The stated limitations for 
each type of segment apply equally to the analysis of the facilities that they make 
up. In addition, the Chapter 16 procedures do not recognize interactions between 
segments that could occur, for example, when a queue crosses segment 
boundaries or when the operation within a segment or at a segment boundary 
disturbs the progressive movement of traffic along a route.  
Several other chapters present supplemental examples covering the use of 
alternative tools to deal with individual segment limitations such as queue 
spillover, interaction between segments, and certain types of self‐aggravating 
phenomena: 
• Chapter 24, Concepts: Supplemental, demonstrates the use of individual 
vehicle trajectory analysis to examine cyclical queuing characteristics and 
to assess queue spillover into an upstream segment. 
• Chapter 27, Freeway Weaving: Supplemental, presents a simulation 
example that demonstrates the detrimental effect of queue backup from 
an exit ramp signal on the operation of a freeway weaving section. 
• Chapter 31, Signalized Intersections: Supplemental, presents simulation 
examples that demonstrate the effect of storage bay overflow, right‐turn‐
on‐red operation, short through lanes, and closely spaced intersections. 
• Chapter 34, Interchange Ramp Terminals: Supplemental, presents a 
simulation example that demonstrates the effect of ramp metering signals 
on the operation of a diamond interchange. Another simulation example 
examines the effect of the diamond interchange on the operation of a 
nearby intersection under two‐way stop control. 
This chapter presents a few supplemental examples using alternative 
automobile traffic analysis tools to deal specifically with the limitations of the 
Chapter 16 procedures and to capitalize on the additional features of alternative 
tools. Both deterministic and stochastic tools are illustrated. The emphasis is 
exclusively on the automobile mode because alternative tools are applied more 
frequently to deal with automobile traffic. 
The need to determine performance measures from an analysis of vehicle 
trajectories was emphasized in Chapter 7, Interpreting HCM and Alternative 
Tool Results, and Chapter 24, Concepts: Supplemental. Specific procedures for 
defining measures in terms of vehicle trajectories were proposed to guide the 
future development of alternative tools. Pending further development, most of 
the examples presented in this chapter have applied existing versions of 
alternative tools and therefore do not reflect the proposed trajectory‐based 
measures.  

Chapter 29/Urban Street Facilities: Supplemental Page 29-1 Introduction

December 2010
Highway Capacity Manual 2010

2. BASIC EXAMPLE PROBLEM CONFIGURATION

The base configuration for these examples is shown in Exhibit 29‐1. Five 
signalized intersections are included with a spacing of 2,000 ft between the 
upstream stop lines of each intersection. Each intersection has the same layout, 
with two lanes for through and right‐turn movements and one 150‐ft‐long left‐
turn bay.  

Exhibit 29-1
Base Configuration for the
Examples
1 2 3 4 5

2,000 ft 2,000 ft 2,000 ft 2,000 ft  

The phasing and demand flow rates for each intersection are shown in 
Exhibit 29‐2. Leading protected phases are provided for all protected left turns. 
Intersections 1 and 5 have protected phases for all left turns. Intersections 2 and 4 
have only permitted left turns. Intersection 3 has protected left turns on the 
major street and permitted left turns on the minor street. 

Exhibit 29-2 Peak 15-min

Demand Flow Rates and Int. Adjusted Demand
Phasing Plan for Each No. Movement Left Through Right Phasing Plan
Intersection
Major st. 120 800 80
1
Minor st. 120 600 80

Major st. 80 800 120

2
Minor st. 80 600 120

Major st. 120 800 80

3
Minor st. 80 600 120

Major st. 80 800 120

4
Minor st. 80 600 120

Major st. 120 800 80

5
Minor st. 120 600 80

Basic Example Problem Configuration Page 29-2 Chapter 29/Urban Street Facilities: Supplemental
December 2010
 Highway Capacity Manual 2010

To simplify the discussion, the examples will focus on design and analysis 
features that are beyond the stated limitations of the urban street analysis 
procedures contained in Chapters 16 through 21. For example, pretimed control 
will be assumed here because the ability to deal with traffic‐actuated control is 
not a limitation of the Chapter 18 signalized intersection analysis methodology. 
For the same reason, the analysis of complex phasing schemes that fall within the 
scope of the Chapter 18 procedures (e.g., protected‐permitted phasing) will be 
avoided. Parameters that influence the saturation flow rate (e.g., trucks, grade, 
lane width, parking) will not be considered here because they are accommodated 
in other chapters.  
A symmetrical demand volume pattern will be used to facilitate 
interpretation of results. The demand volumes are assumed to be peak‐hour 
adjusted. Fixed yellow‐change and all‐red clearance intervals of 4 s and 1 s, 
respectively, will be assigned to all phases. Through‐traffic phases and protected 
left‐turn phases will be assigned minimum green times of 10 s and 8 s, 
respectively.  

Chapter 29/Urban Street Facilities: Supplemental Page 29-3 Basic Example Problem Configuration
December 2010
Highway Capacity Manual 2010

3. SIGNAL TIMING PLAN DESIGN

The procedures presented throughout the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 
were developed to determine the performance of a roadway segment under 
specific conditions. In simple cases the procedures may be applied in reverse for 
design purposes (e.g., determining the number of required lanes). In more 
complex situations requiring optimization of design parameters, the procedures 
must be applied iteratively within an external software structure. Some 
alternative tools provide this type of optimization structure and therefore offer a 
valuable extension of the HCM’s methodology. The extent of HCM compatibility 
in the analysis methodology varies among tools. 
Two deterministic optimization tools will be applied in this section to 
illustrate how they can be used to produce the signal timing parameters required 
by the procedures of Chapters 17 and 18. This discussion is not intended as a 
comprehensive tutorial on signal timing plan design (STPD). A more detailed 
treatment of this subject is available (1), which serves as a comprehensive guide 
to traffic signal timing and includes a discussion of the use of deterministic 
optimization tools. It represents a synthesis of traffic signal timing concepts and 
their application and focuses on the use of detection, related timing parameters, 
and effects on users at the intersection. 

DETERMINISTIC STPD TOOLS

Several deterministic STPD tools are available commercially. Each represents 
a comprehensive package with its own computational and interface features 
designed to provide insight into operational details and to promote user 
productivity in the development of signal timing plans. A typical STPD tool 
configuration is illustrated in Exhibit 29‐3. The following elements are included 
in the configuration: 
• The computational model, which performs the design, optimization, and 
analysis functions. Two components are included in the computational 
model. The first component computes performance measures on the basis 
of specified input data and operating parameters. The second contains the 
optimization routines that seek a combination of operating parameters 
that will produce the best performance. 
• The data input editor, which organizes and facilitates the entry of traffic 
data and operating parameters to be supplied to the computational 
model. The data input editor establishes the “look and feel” of each tool. 
The details vary considerably among tools. For example, some tools offer 
the ability to compute saturation flow rates internally by using 
procedures similar to those prescribed in Chapter 18, Signalized 
Intersections. 
• Import/export features, which facilitate communication of data sets 
between other applications and devices. These features are intended to 
enhance the productivity of each tool.  

Signal Timing Plan Design Page 29-4 Chapter 29/Urban Street Facilities: Supplemental
December 2010
 Highway Capacity Manual 2010

• Direct links to other applications, such as microscopic simulation tools 
and fully HCM‐compliant software. 
• Graphic displays, which provide insight into time–space relationships, 
queuing, and platoon propagation.  

HCM Simulation Tools Exhibit 29-3

Procedures Elements of a Typical Signal Timing
Design Tool

Import/Export

Data Input
Editor Computational Graphic Displays
Model

The urban streets analysis procedures presented in the HCM deal with the 
operation of a single artery as a set of interconnected segments. Most of the 
commonly used STPD tools are configured to accommodate traffic control 
networks involving multiple intersecting routes. To simplify the discussion, the 
example presented here is limited to a single arterial route that will be analyzed 
as a system. 
Two widely used STPD tools will be applied to this example to illustrate 
their features and to show how they can be used to supplement the urban street 
facilities analysis procedures prescribed in this manual. Both tools are 
commercially available software products. More information about these tools 
can be found elsewhere (2, 3). The discussion in this section deals with the 
combination of features available from both tools without reference to a specific 
tool. 

PERFORMANCE MEASURES
Both STPD tools deal with performance measures that are computed by the 
procedures prescribed in this manual in addition to performance measures that 
are beyond the scope of those procedures. The performance measures covered in 
Chapters 16 and 17 include delay, stops, average speed, and queue length. The 
discussion of those measures in this section will focus on their use in STPD and 
not on comparison of the values computed by different methods.  
Several other measures beyond the scope of the HCM procedures are 
commonly associated with signal timing plan design and evaluation. The 
following measures are derived from analysis of travel characteristics, including 
stops, delay, and queuing: 
• Fuel consumption (gal/h), the amount of fuel consumed because of vehicle 
miles traveled, stops, and delay, as computed by a model specific to each 
tool; 

Chapter 29/Urban Street Facilities: Supplemental Page 29-5 Signal Timing Plan Design
December 2010
Highway Capacity Manual 2010

• Operating cost ($/h), the total cost of operation of all vehicles as computed 
by a model specific to each tool; and 
• Time jammed, the percentage of time that the queue on a link has backed 
up beyond the link limit. 
STPD tools also deal with a set of performance measures related to the 
quality of progression between intersections. These measures, all of which are 
outside of the HCM scope, have been defined in the literature or by developers 
of specific tools as follows: 
• Bandwidth is defined by the number of seconds during which vehicles 
traveling at the design speed will be able to progress through a set of 
intersections. Link bandwidth is the width of the progression band (in 
seconds) passing between adjacent intersections that define the link. 
Arterial bandwidth is the width of the progression band that travels the 
entire length of the arterial route. 
• Progression efficiency is the ratio of the arterial bandwidth to the cycle 
length. It thus represents the proportion of the cycle that contains the 
arterial progression band. Suggested upper limits for “poor,” “fair,” and 
“good” progression are 0.12, 0.24, and 0.36, respectively (3). Values above 
0.36 are characterized as “great” progression. 
• Progression attainability is the ratio of the arterial bandwidth to the shortest 
green time for arterial through traffic on the route. By definition, the 
arterial progression band cannot be greater than the shortest green time. 
Therefore, an attainability of 100% indicates that further improvement is 
only possible through the provision of additional green time. The need for 
fine‐tuning is suggested for attainability values between 70% and 99%, 
with major changes needed for values below 70% (3). 
• Progression opportunities (PROS) are a measure of arterial progression 
quality that recognizes progression bands that are continuous between 
two or more consecutive links but do not travel the full length of the 
arterial. The number of PROS observed by a driver at any point in time 
and space is defined by the number of intersections that lie ahead within 
the progression band. The concept is based on the premise that driver 
perception of progression quality increases with the number of 
consecutive links that can be traversed within the progression band. The 
measure is accumulated in a manner similar to the score in a game of 
bowling, where success in one frame is passed on to the next frame to 
increase the total score if the success continues. More detailed information 
on the computation of PROS is available elsewhere (3). 
• Interference is expressed as the percentage of time that an arterial through 
vehicle entering a link on the green signal and traveling at the design 
speed will be stopped at the next signal. This measure is arguably an 
indication of poor perceived progression quality (3). 
• Dilemma zone vehicles indicates the number of vehicles arriving on the 
yellow interval. As such, it offers a potential safety‐related measure. The 
computational details are described elsewhere (2). 

Signal Timing Plan Design Page 29-6 Chapter 29/Urban Street Facilities: Supplemental
December 2010
 Highway Capacity Manual 2010

• Coordinatability factor (CF): While it is not strictly a performance measure 
as defined in this manual, the CF is a measure of the desirability of 
coordinating two intersections on the basis of several factors including 
intersection spacing, speeds, and platoon formation. It is expressed as a 
relative value between 0 and 100. This measure is described in more detail 
elsewhere (2), where it is suggested that values above 80 indicate a 
definite need for coordination. 

INITIAL TIMING PLAN DESIGN

An initial timing plan design will first be performed by using one of the 
STPD tools. From the list of performance measures just discussed, fuel 
consumption will be chosen in this example as the performance measure for 
optimization. Other measures or combinations of measures could have been 
selected. No recommendation is implied in the selection of this particular 
measure. It serves this discussion because it supports an analysis of the trade‐off 
between other measures such as stops and delay.  
A cycle length within a specified range must be selected first. Minimum and 
maximum cycle lengths of 80 and 120 s, respectively, will be used. The cycle 
optimization results are presented in Exhibit 29‐4, which shows the effect of the 
cycle length on delay, stops, and fuel consumption as computed by the STPD. 
While delay and stops move in opposite directions, their combined effect 
suggests that the minimum fuel consumption will be reached with an 80‐s cycle. 
This is not surprising because it is generally recognized that the optimal cycle 
length for balanced progression is twice the link travel time at the design speed, 
which is 2 × 34 = 68 s for a 2,000‐ft link at 40 mi/h. However, 68 s is below the 
minimum cycle length constraint. On the basis of these results, an 80‐s cycle will 
be selected for optimization of the other timing plan parameters. 

81 35 Exhibit 29-4
80 30 Cycle Length Optimization Results
79 25
Delay (s/veh)
Stops (%)

20
78
15
77
10
76 5

75 0
70 80 90 100 110 120 130 70 80 90 100 110 120 130
  Cycle Length (s)   Cycle Length (s)  
(a) Stops Optimization (b) Delay Optimization

420
Fuel Consumption (gal/h)

415

410

405

400

395

390

385
70 80 90 100 110 120 130
  Cycle Length (s)  
(c) Fuel Consumption Optimization

The split and offset optimization was carried out next. The resulting timing 
plan is shown in Exhibit 29‐5. This table represents the initial timing plan to be 
investigated and refined.  

Chapter 29/Urban Street Facilities: Supplemental Page 29-7 Signal Timing Plan Design
December 2010
Highway Capacity Manual 2010

Exhibit 29-5 Intersection Offset Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4 Total

Timing Plan Developed by 1 0 13 29 13 25 80
Split and Offset Optimization 2 34 45 35 80
3 3 13 33 34 80
4 31 45 35 80
5 78 13 29 13 25 80
Notes: All times are in seconds.
Offsets are referenced to the first arterial through-traffic phase.

INITIAL TIMING PLAN PERFORMANCE

A summary of the performance measures for the initial timing plan is 
presented in Exhibit 29‐6. Separate columns are included in this table for route 
totals, which include only the segments that make up the urban street facility as 
defined in Chapter 16, and system totals, which include the measures from the 
cross‐street segments. Note that some of the performance measures reported in 
this table are also reported by the Chapter 16 procedures. While the STPD tool 
definitions and model structures are similar to the HCM (e.g., uniform and 
random components), no comparison of the values will be offered in this 
discussion because the focus is on the STPD and not on modeling differences. 

Exhibit 29-6 System Route

Performance Measures for Performance Measure Units Totals Totals
the Initial Timing Plan Total travel veh-mi/h 4,927 3,063
Total travel time veh-h/h 240 120
Uniform delay veh-h/h 95 34
Random delay veh-h/h 22 8
Total delay veh-h/h 116 43
Average delay s/veh 23.5 17.4
Passenger delay p-h/h 140 51
Uniform stops veh/h 12,893 5,576
Uniform stops % 72 63
Random stops veh/h 1,277 440
Random stops % 7 5
Total stops veh/h 14,171 6,016
Total stops % 79 68
Links with d/c >1 0 0
Links with queue overflow 0 0
Time jammed % 0 0
Period length s 900 900
System speed mi/h 20.5 25.6
Fuel consumption gal/h 387 195
Operating cost $/h 3,063 1,049

The initial timing plan design was based on minimizing fuel consumption as 
a performance measure. The signal progression characteristics of this design are 
also of interest. The progression characteristics will be examined in both 
numerical and graphics representations. The numbers are presented in Exhibit 
29‐7 and are based on the progression performance measures that were defined 
earlier. The interference values indicate the proportion of time that a vehicle 
entering a link in the progression band would be stopped at the next signal. The 
PROS are accumulated from progression bands that pass through some adjacent 
signals along the route. The low progression efficiency and attainability and 
PROS values suggest that this design, while optimal in some respects, would not 
produce a very favorable motorist perception of progression quality. 

Signal Timing Plan Design Page 29-8 Chapter 29/Urban Street Facilities: Supplemental
December 2010
 Highway Capacity Manual 2010

Performance Measure Westbound Eastbound Average Exhibit 29-7

Bandwidth efficiency 10% 5% 8% Progression Quality Measures for
Progression attainability 28% 14% 21% the Initial Design
Interference 9% 10%
PROS 30% 28% 29%

ADJUSTMENTS TO IMPROVE PROGRESSION QUALITY

Because of the low quality of progression, it is logical to revisit the initial 
design with the objective of maximizing progression quality instead of 
minimizing fuel consumption. The same cycle length range (80 to 120 s) was 
used for this purpose, and the runs were repeated with the objective of 
maximizing PROS. The maximum value of PROS was obtained with the same 
cycle length and phase times as the initial design. The progression performance 
measures associated with this timing plan are shown in Exhibit 29‐8. These 
measures do not differ substantially from the initial design, nor do the offsets. 
The total PROS value increased from 29% to 30%, but the performance was 
somewhat better balanced by direction. Thus, there is not a large trade‐off 
between the objectives of maximizing performance and maximizing progression 
quality in this case. 
A combination of factors peculiar to this example has led to the conclusion 
that the signal timing parameters for optimizing performance and progression 
are basically the same. The symmetry of the layout and phasing created a 
situation in which fuel consumption could be minimized by favoring either 
direction at the expense of the other. The balanced design was favored by the 
PROS optimization because it offered a minimal numerical advantage (30% 
versus 29%). One of the main reasons why both design approaches chose the 
lowest acceptable cycle length is that, as pointed out previously, the theoretical 
optimum cycle length was below the lowest acceptable cycle length.  

Performance Measure Westbound Eastbound Average Exhibit 29-8

Bandwidth efficiency 8% 8% 8% Progression Quality Measures for
Attainability 21% 21% 21% the Improved Progression Design
Interference 9% 9%
PROS 30% 30% 30%

TIME–SPACE DIAGRAMS
STPD tools typically produce graphic displays depicting progression 
characteristics. The most common display is the time–space diagram, which is 
well documented in the literature and understood by all practitioners. The time–
space diagram reflecting the initial design is shown in Exhibit 29‐9. Note that, 
even though the traffic volumes are balanced in both directions, the design 
appears to favor the westbound (right‐to‐left) direction. Because of the symmetry 
of this example, it is likely that a dual solution exists that yields the same 
performance but that favors the eastbound direction.  

Chapter 29/Urban Street Facilities: Supplemental Page 29-9 Signal Timing Plan Design
December 2010
Highway Capacity Manual 2010

Exhibit 29-9
Time–Space Diagram for the
Initial Design

The time–space diagram depicting the modified progression design is shown 
in Exhibit 29‐10. This design shows a better balance between the eastbound and 
westbound directions. There is good progression into the system from both ends, 
but the band in both directions is halted at the center intersection. The PROS 
accumulation is evident in the bands that progress between some of the 
intersections.  
Exhibit 29-10
Time–Space Diagram for the
Modified Progression Design

There appears to be minimal difference between the initial and modified 
designs. The modified design will be chosen for further investigation because it 
offers a better balance between the two directions. The offset changes for this 
design are presented in Exhibit 29‐11. 

Exhibit 29-11 Initial Revised

Offset Changes for the Intersection Offsets Offsets
Modified Progression Design 1 0 0
2 34 30
3 3 76
4 31 30
5 78 0

The time–space diagram for this operation from another STPD tool is shown 
in Exhibit 29‐12. The timing plan is the same as the plan that was depicted in 
Exhibit 29‐10, but the format of the display differs slightly. Both the link band 
and the arterial band as defined previously are shown on this display. The 
individual signal phases are also depicted. Both types of time–space diagrams 
offer a manual adjustment feature whereby the offsets may be changed by 
dragging the signal display back and forth on the monitor screen. 

Signal Timing Plan Design Page 29-10 Chapter 29/Urban Street Facilities: Supplemental
December 2010
 Highway Capacity Manual 2010

Exhibit 29-12
Alternative Time–Space Diagram
Format

   

OTHER GRAPHIC DISPLAYS

Other graphics formats are not as ubiquitous as the time–space diagram but 
can provide useful insights into the operation at and between intersections.  

Flow Profile Diagrams

One example is the flow profile diagram, which is simply a plot of the flow 
rate over one complete cycle. Flow profiles may be created to depict either the 
arrival or departure flows at a stop line.  
An example illustrating the use of flow profiles is presented in Exhibit 29‐13. 
The eastbound segment between the first and second intersections is depicted in 
this example. The traffic inputs to this segment come from three independent 
movements at Intersection 1: southbound left, eastbound through, and 
northbound right. 
Four stages of the progress of traffic into and out of this segment are 
depicted in the exhibit: 
1. Uniform arrivals on external links: Each of the three movements entering the 
segment will arrive with a flow profile that is constant throughout the 
cycle because of the absence of platoon‐forming phenomena on external 
links. 
2. Departures on the green signal: Each movement proceeds on a different 
phase and therefore enters the link at a different time. 
3. Propagation on the segment with platoon dispersion: Each of the three 
movements will be propagated downstream to the next signal by using a 
model that applies the design speed and incorporates platoon dispersion. 
Arrival of the platoons at the downstream end of the segment: The 
composite arrival profile is illustrated in the figure. The profile represents 
the sum of all of the movements entering the link. 

Chapter 29/Urban Street Facilities: Supplemental Page 29-11 Signal Timing Plan Design
December 2010
Highway Capacity Manual 2010

4. Departure on the green signal: The platoons are regrouped at this point into 
a new flow profile because of the effect of the signal. The extent of 
regrouping will depend on the proportion of time that the signal is green. 
If a continuous green signal were displayed, the output flow profile 
would match the input flow profile exactly. 

Exhibit 29-13
Southbound Left Eastbound Through Northbound Right
Example Illustrating the Use
of Flow Profiles

Stage 1: Uniform arrivals on

external links

Stage 2: Departures
on green signal

Stage 3: Propagation on the segment with platoon dispersion

Combined arrival profile at

the next downstream
signal

Stage 4: Departure profile

on the green signal

The departure profile for this movement forms one input to the next link and 
is therefore equivalent to Stage 2 in the list above. The vehicles entering on 
different phases from the cross street must be added to this movement to form 
the input to the next segment as the process repeats itself throughout the facility.  

Signal Timing Plan Design Page 29-12 Chapter 29/Urban Street Facilities: Supplemental
December 2010
 Highway Capacity Manual 2010

The preceding description of the accumulation, discharge, and propagation 
characteristics of flow profiles is of special interest to this discussion because the 
same models used by the STPD tool have been adopted by the analysis 
procedures given in Chapter 17, Urban Street Segments. These procedures are 
described by Exhibit 30‐3 through Exhibit 30‐5 in Chapter 30, Urban Street 
Segments: Supplemental. Therefore the graphical representations given in 
Exhibit 29‐13 should provide a useful supplement to facilitate understanding of 
the procedures prescribed in Chapter 17. 

Composite Flow Profiles

Another form of flow profile graphics is illustrated in Exhibit 29‐14. This 
text‐based display offers a composite view of the flow profiles by showing the 
arrival and departure graphics on the same figure represented by different 
characters. The uniform arrival pattern from the external link is evident at the 
upstream intersection, which corresponds to Stages 1 and 2 of Exhibit 29‐13. The 
effect of the platooned arrivals is also evident at the downstream intersection, 
corresponding to Stages 4 and 5. More details on interpreting the composite flow 
profiles are given elsewhere (3). 

Exhibit 29-14
Composite Flow Profiles for the
First Eastbound Segment

     
(a) Upstream Intersection (Uniform Arrivals) (b) Downstream Intersection (Platooned Arrivals)

Queue Length Graphics

The accumulation and discharge of queues can also be represented 
graphically in a manner that is consistent with the analysis procedures of 
Chapters 16 through 18. An example of graphics depicting the queue length 
throughout the cycle is presented in Exhibit 29‐15. The upstream signal shows 
the familiar triangular shape that is the basis of the uniform delay equation. The 
downstream signal shows the effect of platooned arrivals on the length of the 
queue. 

Chapter 29/Urban Street Facilities: Supplemental Page 29-13 Signal Timing Plan Design
December 2010
Highway Capacity Manual 2010

Exhibit 29-15
Variation of Queue Length
Throughout the Signal Cycle
for the First Eastbound
Segment

      
(a) Upstream Intersection Queue Length (b) Downstream Intersection
(Uniform Arrivals) (Platooned Arrivals)

Adding Flows and Queues to the Time–Space Diagram

One useful display superimposes the flow profiles and queuing 
characteristics on the time–space diagram to give a complete picture of the 
operation of the facility. An example of this display representing the improved 
progression design is presented in Exhibit 29‐16. The flow rates are represented 
by the density of the lines progressing between intersections at the design speed. 
The queues are represented by horizontal lines upstream of each intersection. 
From this diagram, it is possible to visualize the effect of the design on queue 
accumulation and discharge and on the propagation of flows between 
intersections.  

Exhibit 29-16
Time–Space Diagram with
Flows and Queues

Signal Timing Plan Design Page 29-14 Chapter 29/Urban Street Facilities: Supplemental
December 2010
 Highway Capacity Manual 2010

POTENTIAL IMPROVEMENTS FROM PHASING OPTIMIZATION

The quality of progression in this example was improved from the initial 
design, but the results leave room for further improvement. There are, for 
example, minimal arterial through bands. The current design was based on 
leading phases for all protected left turns. The operation might be improved by 
the application of lagging left‐turn phases on some approaches. The procedures 
given in Chapter 17 are sensitive to the phase order. These procedures could be 
applied manually to seek a better operation. The use of STPD tools for this 
purpose will be demonstrated here because phasing optimization is internalized 
in the tools as a computational feature. 
The phasing optimization process recommended changes at two of the five 
intersections. The phasing modifications are shown in Exhibit 29‐17. Lead‐lag 
phasing was applied at both intersections. As a result of the optimization, the 
arterial bandwidth increased from 6 to 16 s in both directions. The total signal 
delay decreased from 220 to 200 s/veh. The arterial speed increased from 22.1 to 
23.0 mi/h. Thus, it is clear that the phasing optimization would improve both the 
progression quality and the operational performance of the route. The 
progression quality improvement is evident in the time–space diagram presented 
in Exhibit 29‐18.  

Exhibit 29-17
Original Phasing Optimized Phasing Optimized Phasing Modifications

Intersection 1

Intersection 5
 

Chapter 29/Urban Street Facilities: Supplemental Page 29-15 Signal Timing Plan Design
December 2010
Highway Capacity Manual 2010

Exhibit 29-18
Time–Space Diagram for the
Optimized Phasing Plan

The decision to implement lead‐lag phasing involves many factors including 
safety and local preferences. This discussion has been limited to a demonstration 
of how STPD tools can be used in the assessment of the operational effects of 
phasing optimization as one input to the decision process. The suggested 
modifications will not be implemented in the balance of the examples. 

Signal Timing Plan Design Page 29-16 Chapter 29/Urban Street Facilities: Supplemental
December 2010
 Highway Capacity Manual 2010

4. EFFECT OF MIDSEGMENT PARKING ACTIVITIES

HCM procedures recognize some midsegment activities such as cross‐street 
entry between signals and access‐point density. A procedure is provided in the 
methodology for estimating the delay due to vehicles turning left or right into an 
access‐point approach. No procedures are included for estimating the delay or 
stops due to other causes such as pedestrian interference and parking 
maneuvers. Alternative tools must be used to assess these effects.  
This section will demonstrate the use of a typical microscopic simulation tool 
(4) to assess the effects of midsegment parking maneuvers on the performance of 
an urban street facility. The signal timing plan example from the previous section 
of this chapter will be used for this purpose. The offsets will be modified first to 
create “ideal” progression in the eastbound direction at the expense of the 
westbound flow. The investigation will focus on the eastbound flow. The offsets 
and time–space diagram depicting this operation are shown in Exhibit 29‐19. 
Offset 1 is referenced to the first phase for arterial through movements. Offset 2 
is referenced to Phase 1. Their values will differ because of leading left‐turn 
phases at some intersections. Different tools require different offset references. 

Exhibit 29-19
Time–Space Diagram Showing
Ideal Eastbound Progression

Offset Offset
Signal 1 2
1 0 0
2 35 47
3 63 68
4 23 35
5 57 56

 
The treatment of parking maneuvers by the selected simulation tool is 
described in the tool’s user guide (4). The following parameters must be supplied 
for each segment that contains on‐street parking spaces: 
• Beginning of the parking area with respect to the downstream end of the 
segment, 

Chapter 29/Urban Street Facilities: Supplemental Page 29-17 Effect of MidSegment Parking Activities
December 2010
Highway Capacity Manual 2010

• Length of the parking area, 
• Mean duration of a parking maneuver, and 
• Mean frequency of parking maneuvers. 
The occurrence and duration of parking maneuvers are randomized around 
their specified mean values. The parameters that will be used in this example are 
shown in Exhibit 29‐20. 

Exhibit 29-20 Parameter Value

Parameters for the Parking Beginning of the parking area 200 ft from the downstream intersection
Example
Length of the parking area 1,600 ft (leaving 200 ft to the upstream
intersection)
Mean duration of a parking maneuver 30 s
Mean frequency of parking maneuvers 0 veh/h (no parking maneuvers)
60 veh/h
120 veh/h
180 veh/h
240 veh/h
Represents a range of approximately 15 min to
60 min average parking duration

The simulation runs covered 80 cycles of operation. Separate runs were made 
for each level of parking frequency. The default simulation parameters of the 
selected tool were used.  
The effect of the parking activity on travel time and delay is presented in 
Exhibit 29‐21, which shows the total travel time for the facility as well as the two 
delay components of travel time (total delay and control delay). Each of the 
values represents the sum of the individual segment values. The graphs 
demonstrate that all of the relationships were more or less linear with respect to 
the parking activity level. 

Exhibit 29-21 350

Effect of Parking Activity
Level on Travel Time and
300
Delay

250
Delay Time (s/veh)

200

150

100

50

0
0 50 100 150 200 250
Parking Maneuvers per Hour
Total Travel Time Total Delay Control Delay
 

Effect of MidSegment Parking Activities Page 29-18 Chapter 29/Urban Street Facilities: Supplemental
December 2010
 Highway Capacity Manual 2010

The effect of the parking activity on stops is presented in Exhibit 29‐22. For 
this example, the average percentage of stops for all eastbound vehicles 
increased from slightly more than 40% to slightly less than 60% throughout the 
range of parking activity levels. Both of these exhibits indicate that the 
simulation tool was able to extend the capability for analysis of urban street 
facilities beyond the stated limitations of the methodology presented in Chapter 
16. 

70 Exhibit 29-22
Effect of Parking Activity Level on
the Percentage of Stops
60

50

40
Stops (%)

30

20

10

0
0 50 100 150 200 250
Parking Maneuvers per Hour  

Chapter 29/Urban Street Facilities: Supplemental Page 29-19 Effect of MidSegment Parking Activities
December 2010
Highway Capacity Manual 2010

5. EFFECT OF PLATOONED ARRIVALS AT A ROUNDABOUT

Chapter 21, Roundabouts, describes a procedure for analyzing the operation 
of an isolated roundabout. The procedure does not deal with a roundabout 
operating within a signalized arterial, so no such treatment has been 
incorporated into the urban street segments analysis procedure. Therefore, the 
analysis of a roundabout as a part of a coordinated traffic control system is likely 
better accomplished with alternative tools. The alternative deterministic tools 
described earlier in this chapter do not deal explicitly with roundabouts in 
coordinated systems. Most simulation tools offer some roundabout modeling 
capability, although the level of modeling detail varies among tools.  
This section describes the use of a typical simulation tool (5) in analyzing a 
roundabout within the arterial configuration of the previous example in this 
chapter. For this purpose, Intersection 3 at the center of the system will be 
converted to a roundabout with two lanes on each approach. To simplify the 
discussion, a basic symmetrical configuration will be used, because the 
discussion will be limited to the effect of platooned arrivals on the operation. The 
design aspects of roundabouts are covered in Chapter 21, Roundabouts, with 
more details provided in Chapter 33, Roundabouts: Supplemental, and 
elsewhere (6). The default traffic modeling parameters of the simulation tool will 
be applied.  
The roundabout configuration is shown schematically in Exhibit 29‐23. 

Exhibit 29-23
Roundabout Configuration
for Intersection 3

Effect of Platooned Arrivals at a Roundabout Page 29-20 Chapter 29/Urban Street Facilities: Supplemental
December 2010
 Highway Capacity Manual 2010

This example will examine two STPDs that create substantially different 
platoon arrival characteristics on the arterial approaches to the roundabout. The 
time–space diagrams representing the two designs are shown in Exhibit 29‐24. 
The first design provides simultaneous arrival of the arterial platoons from both 
directions. The second creates a situation in which one platoon will arrive in the 
first half of the cycle and the other will arrive during the second half. The two 
cases will be described as “simultaneous” and “alternating” platoon arrivals. 

Exhibit 29-24
Time–Space Diagrams Showing
Simultaneous and Alternating
Platoon Arrivals at the Roundabout

     
(a) Simultaneous Platoon Arrivals (b) Alternating Platoon Arrivals

The platoon arrival characteristics can only be expected to influence the 
operation of a roundabout with relatively free‐flowing traffic. While a two‐lane 
roundabout could accommodate the demand volumes used in the previous 
examples in which the intersection was signalized, the initial simulation runs 
indicated enough queuing on all approaches to obscure the effect of the 
progression design. Since the focus of this example is on the effect of the adjacent 
signal timing plan, the demand volumes on the cross‐street approaches to the 
roundabout will be reduced by 100 veh/h (approximately 17%) to provide a 
better demonstration of that effect. 
Ten simulation runs were performed for both progression designs, and the 
average values of the performance measures were used to compare the two 
designs. The performance measures illustrated in Exhibit 29‐25 include delay and 
stops on all approaches to the roundabout and travel times on individual link 
segments and on the route as a whole. 

Movement Alternate Simultaneous Difference Percent Exhibit 29-25

Delay Performance Comparison for
Simultaneous and Alternating
Major-street approaches 15.81 14.18 1.64 10.34
Platoon Arrivals at a Roundabout
Minor-street approaches 19.36 19.88 –0.52 –2.69
Stops
Major-street approaches 0.59 0.52 0.08 12.71
Minor-street approaches 0.88 0.89 –0.01 –0.57
Average Travel Times
Through vehicles traveling
250.60 237.74 12.86 5.13
the full route
Approach links 58.06 56.30 1.76 3.03
Exit links 50.76 45.66 5.10 10.05

As a general observation, the simultaneous design performed noticeably 
better than did the alternating design on the major street, with a slight 
degradation to the cross‐street performance. Travel times for vehicles traveling 
the full length of the facility were improved by about 5%. Travel times on the 

Chapter 29/Urban Street Facilities: Supplemental Page 29-21 Effect of Platooned Arrivals at a Roundabout
December 2010
Highway Capacity Manual 2010

arterial segments entering and leaving the roundabout were improved by 3% 
and 10%, respectively.  
This example has demonstrated that the simulation tool was able to describe 
the effect of two signal progression schemes on the performance of a roundabout 
within a coordinated arterial signal system. The next example will deal with the 
same basic arterial layout except that the roundabout will be replaced by a two‐
way STOP‐controlled (TWSC) intersection. The platoon arrival types can be 
expected to have a greater influence on the TWSC operation than the roundabout 
because the effect is much more direct. Major‐street vehicles always have the 
right‐of‐way over minor‐street vehicles. Simultaneous platoons arriving from 
both directions will provide more opportunity for gaps in the major‐street flow. 
Alternating platoons will keep major‐street vehicles in the intersection for a 
greater proportion of time, thereby restricting cross‐street access.  
The effect at a roundabout is much more subtle because minor‐street vehicles 
have the right‐of‐way over major‐street vehicles once they have entered the 
roundabout. With simultaneous arrivals, platoons from opposite directions assist 
each other by keeping the minor‐street vehicles from entering and seizing control 
of the roadway. When there is no traffic from the opposite direction, as in the 
case of alternating arrivals, a major‐street movement is more likely to encounter 
minor‐street vehicles within the roundabout. This phenomenon explains the 10% 
improvement in performance for simultaneous arrivals in the roundabout 
example as indicated in Exhibit 29‐25. 

Effect of Platooned Arrivals at a Roundabout Page 29-22 Chapter 29/Urban Street Facilities: Supplemental
December 2010
 Highway Capacity Manual 2010

6. QUEUE LENGTH ANALYSIS BASED ON

VEHICLE TRAJECTORIES

The HCM’s segment‐based chapters provide deterministic procedures for 
estimating the extent of queue backup on either signalized or unsignalized 
approaches. Most of the procedures are sensitive to some degree to platoon 
formation from adjacent signals. Most provide estimates of the average back of 
queue (BOQ) and the expected BOQ at some level of probability.  
One additional queuing measure that can be derived from simulation is the 
proportion of time that the BOQ might be expected to extend beyond a specified 
point. This measure can be obtained directly from the analysis of individual 
vehicle trajectories by using the procedures set forth in Chapter 7, Interpreting 
HCM and Alternative Tool Results, and Chapter 24, Concepts: Supplemental. 
Those procedures will be applied in this example to examine the queuing 
characteristics on the minor‐street approach to a TWSC intersection operating 
within a signalized arterial system. The criteria and procedures prescribed in 
Chapter 24 for identifying the onset and release from the queued state will be 
used.  
The same urban street configuration will be used for this purpose. The center 
intersection that was converted to a roundabout in the previous example will 
now be converted to TWSC. Because of the unique characteristics of TWSC, a few 
changes will have to be made to the configuration. Because TWSC capacities are 
lower than those of signals or roundabouts, it will be necessary to reduce the 
minor‐street demand volumes. The two‐lane approaches will be preserved, but 
the additional left‐turn bay will be eliminated. The same two platoon arrival 
configurations (simultaneous and alternating) will be examined to determine 
their effect on the minor‐street queuing characteristics. The signal timing plans 
from the roundabout example, as illustrated in Exhibit 29‐24, will also be used 
here. Twelve cycles covering 960 s will be simulated for each case to be 
examined, and the individual vehicle trajectories will be recorded.  

QUEUING CHARACTERISTICS
The first part of this example will demonstrate TWSC operation with an 
idealized scenario to provide a starting point for more practical examples. Two 
intersecting streams of through movements with completely uniform 
characteristics will be simulated. As many of the stochastic features of the 
simulation model as possible will be disabled. This is a highly theoretical 
situation with no real practical applications in the field. Its purpose is to provide 
a baseline for comparison. 
The formation of queues under these conditions is illustrated in Exhibit 29‐
26, which shows the instantaneous BOQ at all time steps in the simulation. The 
cross‐street entry volume was 600 veh/h in each direction, representing 
approximately the capacity of the approach. The cyclical operation is quite 
evident here, with 12 discernible cycles observed. Each cycle has a similar 
appearance. The differences among cycles are due to embedded stochastic 
features that could not be disabled. 

Chapter 29/Urban Street Facilities: Supplemental Page 29-23 Queue Length Analysis Based on
Vehicle Trajectories
December 2010
Highway Capacity Manual 2010

Exhibit 29-26 240

Queuing Results for the 220

Theoretical Example
200

180

160

Back of Queue (ft)

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0
1 61 121 181 241 301 361 421 481 541 601 661 721 781 841 901 961
Time Step (s)  

The signal timing plan with simultaneous platoon arrivals should produce 
the most cyclical operation that could actually be observed in the field. This 
configuration was simulated by loading the minor street to near capacity levels 
as determined experimentally. The entry volume was 350 veh/h.  
The queuing results are shown in Exhibit 29‐27. Some cyclical characteristics 
are still evident here, but they are considerably diminished from the idealized 
case. The loss of cyclical characteristics results from cross‐street turning 
movements entering the segments at their upstream intersections and from the 
general stochastic nature of simulation modeling. 

Exhibit 29-27 240

Queuing Results for
Simultaneous Platoons 220

200

180

160
Back of Queue (ft)

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0
1 61 121 181 241 301 361 421 481 541 601 661 721 781 841 901 961
Time Step (s)  

Queue Length Analysis Based on

Vehicle Trajectories Page 29-24 Chapter 29/Urban Street Facilities: Supplemental
December 2010
 Highway Capacity Manual 2010

The operation was simulated next with alternating platoon arrivals. Again 
the demand volumes were set to the experimentally determined approach 
capacity, which was 270 veh/h, or about 25% lower than the capacity with 
simultaneous platoons. The results are presented in Exhibit 29‐28. Some further 
loss of cyclical properties due to the spreading of entry opportunities across a 
greater proportion of the cycle is observed here.  

240 Exhibit 29-28

Queuing Results for Alternating
220 Platoons
200

180

160
Back of Queue (ft)

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0
1 61 121 181 241 301 361 421 481 541 601 661 721 781 841 901 961
Time Step (s)  

The least cyclical characteristics would be expected from simulation of a 
completely isolated operation. The 2,000‐ft link lengths were retained for this 
case, but no adjacent intersections existed. All other parameters remained the 
same, including the entry volume because the entry capacity for isolated 
operation was found to be the same as the case with alternating platoons.  
The results are presented in Exhibit 29‐29. There are no cyclical 
characteristics here because there is no underlying cycle in the operation. Also, 
even with the same entry volume as the alternating platoon case, the peak BOQs 
are much lower. This is because the entry opportunities are distributed randomly 
in time instead of being concentrated at specific points in the cycle.  

Chapter 29/Urban Street Facilities: Supplemental Page 29-25 Queue Length Analysis Based on
Vehicle Trajectories
December 2010
Highway Capacity Manual 2010

Exhibit 29-29 240

Queuing Results for Isolated
220
TWSC Operation
200

180

160

Back of Queue (ft)

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0
1 61 121 181 241 301 361 421 481 541 601 661 721 781 841 901
Time Step (s)

BOQ ASSESSMENT
The discussion to this point has focused on instantaneous BOQs in an effort 
to understand the general nature of queuing under the conditions that were 
examined. With knowledge of the instantaneous BOQ values available from 
simulation, it is possible to produce useful performance measures related to 
queuing from simulation. One such measure is the proportion of time that a 
queue would be expected to back up beyond a specified point. This concept is 
different from the probability of backup to that point normally associated with 
deterministic tools. The balance of the discussion will deal with proportion of 
time with queue backup (PTQB) beyond a specified point. 
The three cases examined in this example were simulated with cross‐street 
demand volumes of 80, 160, 240, 320, and 400 veh/h, and the PTQB 
characteristics were determined by simulation for each case. The results were 
plotted for a specified distance of 100 ft from the stop line as shown in Exhibit 29‐
30. Each case is represented by a separate line that shows the percentage of time 
that the queue would be expected to back up beyond 100 ft from the stop line for 
each cross‐street entry volume level. The simultaneous platoon case showed the 
lowest BOQ levels, starting with no time with BOQ beyond 100 ft below 240 
veh/h, and reached a value of 80% of the time at the maximum volume of 400 
veh/h. Predictably, the isolated case was the most susceptible to queue backup, 
and the alternating platoon case fell somewhere in between. 

Queue Length Analysis Based on

Vehicle Trajectories Page 29-26 Chapter 29/Urban Street Facilities: Supplemental
December 2010
 Highway Capacity Manual 2010

100 Exhibit 29-30

Effect of Cross-Street Demand
90
Volume on Queue Backup Beyond
100 ft from the Stop Line
80
Time with BOQ > 100 ft (%)

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Cross-Street Demand Volume (veh/h)
Simultaneous Alternating Isolated
 

This example has demonstrated the use of simulation to produce potentially 
useful queuing measures based on the analysis of individual vehicle trajectories. 
It has also demonstrated how simulation can be used to assess the queuing 
characteristics of a minor‐street approach to a TWSC intersection operating in a 
coordinated signal environment. 
 

Chapter 29/Urban Street Facilities: Supplemental Page 29-27 Queue Length Analysis Based on
Vehicle Trajectories
December 2010
Highway Capacity Manual 2010

7. REFERENCES

1. Koonce, P., L. Rodegerdts, K. Lee, S. Quayle, S. Beaird, C. Braud, J. Bonneson, 
P. Tarnoff, and T. Urbanik. Traffic Signal Timing Manual. Report FHWA‐
HOP‐08‐024. Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C., June 2008. 
2. Husch, D., and J. Albeck. Synchro Studio 7 User’s Guide. Trafficware, Ltd., 
2006.  
3. Wallace, C., K. Courage, M. Hadi, and A. Gan. TRANSYT‐7F User’s Guide, 
Vol. 4 in a Series: Methodology for Optimizing Signal Timing. University of 
Florida, Gainesville, March 1998. 
4. Corridor‐Microscopic Simulation Program (CORSIM) Version 6.1 Userʹs  Guide. 
University of Florida, Gainesville, 2008. 
5. VISSIM 5.10 User Manual. PTV Vision, Karlsruhe, Germany, 2008. 
6. Robinson, B. W., L. Rodegerdts, W. Scarbrough, W. Kittelson, R. Troutbeck, 
W. Brilon, L. Bondzio, K. Courage, M. Kyte, J. Mason, A. Flannery, E. Myers, 
J. Bunker, and G. Jacquemart. Roundabouts: An Informational Guide. Report 
FHWA‐RD‐00‐067. Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C., 
June 2000. 

References Page 29-28 Chapter 29/Urban Street Facilities: Supplemental

December 2010