Capacity Estimation for Two-lane Two-way Highways Using Simulation

Joonhyo Kim, Ph.D

Department of Civil Engineering
Pennsylvania State University
2250 Dartmouth St. 716
College Station, TX 77840
TEL: (979) 571-4513
Email: jxk463@psu.edu

Lily Elefteriadou, Ph.D

Director, Transportation Research Center (TRC)
Associate Professor in Civil Engineering
University of Florida
365 Weil Hall
PO BOX 116580
Gainesville, FL 32611
TEL: (352) 392-9537, Ext. 1452
FAX: (352) 392-3394
Email: elefter@ce.ufl.edu

TOTAL NUMBER OF WORDS: 4,246 words + 11 tables*250 + 1 Figure*250 = 7,246

Submitted for Presentation and Publication to the Transportation Research Board
July 31, 2006

1
TRB 2007 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Original paper submittal - not revised by author.
 Capacity Estimation for Two-lane Two-way Highways Using Simulation

ABSTRACT
The Highway Capacity Manual 2000 (HCM 2000) indicates that the capacity of two-lane,
two-way highways (TLTWHW) is 1,700 pcph for a single direction and 3,400 pcph for
both directions. There are no capacity estimates provided for different traffic conditions
such as varying percentages of no-passing zones and varying traffic distributions between
the two directions of travel. Previous research has reported that capacity conditions for
TLTWHW are very difficult to observe in the field, while none of the existing simulation
models can report capacity for TLTWHW. This paper briefly describes a new two-lane,
two-way highway simulation model, called TWOSIM that is developed, verified, compared
to TWOPAS and HCS, and used for the estimation of capacity for TLTWHW under a
variety of prevailing traffic and geometric conditions. These include percentage of traffic
per direction, presence of a passing zone, a horizontal curve, a driveway, an upgrade, and
heavy vehicles. Capacity of TLTWHW under base conditions is found to range from 1,800
pcph to 2,100 pcph as a function of average free flow speed. The presence of passing zones
was not found to have an effect on capacity. When a driveway or horizontal curve or
upgrade is present, the capacity reduction ranges between 3 and 30 percent when there are
no trucks, and may reach up to 40 percent when trucks are present in the traffic stream.

INTRODUCTION
The Highway Capacity Manual 2000 (HCM 2000) defines capacity as the maximum
number of vehicles that can pass a given point during a specified period under prevailing
roadway, traffic, and control conditions and indicates that the capacity of two lane two way
highways (TLTWHW) is 1,700 pcph for a single travel direction and 3,400 pcph for both
directions. There are no capacity estimates provided for different traffic conditions such as
varying percentages of no-passing zones, varying traffic distributions between the two
directions of travel, presence of driveways, etc. According to Harwood, et al. (1999),
capacity conditions are very difficult to observe in the field, because very few TLTWHW
operate at or near capacity. The two existing commercially available simulators for
TLTWHW, TWOPAS (TWO-lane PASsing) and TRARR (TRAffic on Rural Roads),
cannot analyze traffic volumes higher than 1,700 vph, and do not provide capacity
estimates. This paper briefly describes how a new simulation model, TWOSIM (TWO-lane
two-way highway SIMulator) was developed, verified, and compared to TWOPAS and
HCS, and provides TWOSIM’s capacity estimates for various traffic and design conditions.
The objective of this study is to estimate the capacity of TLTWHW corresponding
to a variety of factors including percent of traffic per direction, presence of a passing zone,
a horizontal curve, a driveway, an upgrade, and heavy vehicles. The next section presents a
summary of the relevant literature, while the third section briefly reviews how TWOSIM is
built and verified and discusses the factors considered to affect capacity. Then capacities
estimated with TWOSIM are presented along with the results of a sensitivity analysis
examining how capacity varies with conditions such as the presence of passing zones. The
last section presents conclusions and recommendations.

2
TRB 2007 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Original paper submittal - not revised by author.
 LITERATURE REVIEW
There have been several articles analyzing operations on TLTWHW. This section discusses
those most relevant to this study, and primarily research concerned with the capacity and
simulation modeling of TLTWHW.
In one of the earliest such studies, Hammond and Sorenson (1941), Clayton (1941),
and Wardrop (1952) suggested a theoretical maximum volume for a single lane as a
function of speed and average vehicle spacing. Normann (1942) plotted the spacing against
speed and derived a theoretical lane capacity. These analytical models estimated the
theoretical capacity as a function of minimum headway. Such an approach does not
consider overtaking and the interaction of overtaking vehicles with the opposing traffic
stream. Yagar (1983), using data from Japan and Australia, indicated that 3,600 pcph can
be served in an hour if the demand is high in both travel directions. Rozic (1992) concluded
that the ideal capacity of rural TLTWHW is 4,000 pcph total in both directions. Harwood,
et al. (1999) developed the recent HCM 2000 methodology for TLTWHW. They indicated
that the capacity reported in the HCM 2000 does not represent the maximum volume and
that higher traffic volumes have been observed. They also indicated that capacity
conditions are difficult to observe, because there are very few TLTWHW operating over
capacity.
There are two microscopic simulators for TLTWHW, TWOPAS (TWOlane
PASsing) and TRARR (TRAffic on Rural Roads). These however do not allow traffic
volume to exceed 1,700 vph and they do not provide capacity estimates. In summary,
there has been no research to estimate or measure capacity reflecting various traffic and
geometric design characteristics for TLTWHW.

DEVELOPMENT OF TWOSIM (TWO-lane two-way highway SIMulator)

TWOSIM, a microscopic simulator, was developed to estimate capacity of TLTWHW.
TWOSIM consists of two main algorithms: Akcelik’s M3A arrival headway distribution
(2003) and Gipps’ car-following model (1981). The simulator integrates these algorithms
which are summarized below along with some other pertinent aspects on TWOSIM, its
output, and verification process. Detailed information on the development of the simulator
is provided in Kim (2006).

TWOSIM algorithms
M3A arrival headway distribution
According to Akcelik and Chung (2003), the M3A arrival headway distribution has been
found more realistic and its use is strongly recommended instead of the shifted negative
exponential or the negative exponential distribution. TWOSIM uses the M3A arrival
distribution to generate arrival headways:
F(t) = 1 - ϕ e - λ ( t - Δ ) for t ≥ Δ
(1)
=0 for t ≤ Δ
where,
t = headway (sec);

3
TRB 2007 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Original paper submittal - not revised by author.
 Δ = minimum arrival (intra-bunch) headway (sec);
ϕ = proportion of free (unbunched) vehicles: and
λ = ϕ qt / (1 − Δ qt ) (a decay parameter);
where qt is the total arrival flow rate in all lanes of the traffic stream
(veh/sec)

Gipps’ car-following model

Gipps’ car-following model selects the minimum between the two speeds in the following
equation:

⎧ ⎫
⎪vn (t ) + 2.5a nτ (1 − vn (t ) / Vn )(0.025 + vn (t ) / Vn )
1/ 2
⎪
⎪ ⎪
vn (t + τ ) = min⎨ ⎬ (2)
⎪ ⎪
⎩ ( [[ ] ( ) ])
⎪bnτ + bn2τ 2 − bn 2 x n −1 (t ) − sn −1 − x n (t ) − vn (t )τ − v n −1 t 2 / b$ ⎪
⎭
where,
an = the maximum acceleration which the driver of vehicle n wishes to undertake
(ft/s2);
bn = the most severe braking that the driver of vehicle n wishes to undertake (ft/s2);
sn = the effective size of vehicle, n, that is, the physical length plus a margin into
which the following vehicle is not willing to intrude, even when at rest (ft);
Vn = the speed at which the driver of vehicle n wishes to travel (ft/s);
xn = the location of the front of the vehicle n at time t (ft);
vn (t) = the speed of vehicle n at time t (ft/s);
τ = the apparent reaction time, a constant for all vehicles (0.68 sec); and
b̂ = the estimate of the most severe braking deceleration rate, bn-1 (ft/s2)

The first speed is the speed that the driver desires to achieve under free flow conditions.
The driver can accelerate up to his/her desired speed. The second speed is the speed that the
driver achieves under congested flow conditions, and it is primarily a function of the safety
margin.
Maximum acceleration rate of passenger cars was obtained from a website
(http://web.missouri.edu/~apcb20/times.html), which provides maximum acceleration rates
of all passenger cars in 1970 ~ 1999. Maximum acceleration rates in the 1990s were
selected and applied to implement Gipps’ car-following model in TWOSIM.
Gipps’ car-following model calculates the most severe braking deceleration rate by
multiplying the maximum acceleration rate by -2. Since the maximum acceleration rates of
passenger cars were modified from the original Gipps model, the most severe braking
deceleration rate is also updated to reflect the enhanced performance of newer passenger
cars.

4
TRB 2007 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Original paper submittal - not revised by author.
 Gipps’ car-following model uses a further safety margin by adopting an additional
delay of safety reaction time when a driver reacts to the vehicle ahead. The parameter adds
additional delay on the reaction of the average driver. According to Green (2000), it is
shown that drivers’ reaction time ranges from 1.25 seconds with normal and common
expectancy to 1.5 seconds with a surprise intrusion. The delay of safety reaction time is
assumed to range from 0.78 to 1.14, which results in reaction times from 1.25 to 1.5
seconds. TWOSIM assigns the parameter to each driver stochastically.

Other TWOSIM features

TWOSIM implements passing maneuvers by considering the minimum passing sight
distance, the availability of passing sight distance, and the existence of passing /no-passing
zones. Passing is initiated when minimum passing sight distance is secured. TWOSIM used
AASHTO (2004) criteria for the minimum passing sight distance and MUTCD (2003) for
the length of passing zones.
TWOSIM replicates the movement of vehicles around a driveway by considering
the percentage of vehicles exiting the main road, the turning radius of the driveway, and
vehicles entering the main road. It models the speed and deceleration of right-turning
vehicles and the gap acceptance behavior of vehicles entering the main road. TWOSIM
applies deceleration rates and exiting speeds for right turning vehicles established by
Bonneson (1998). TWOSIM estimates critical gaps as recommended by Lerner, et al.
(2005).
TWOSIM replicates the movement of vehicles along a horizontal curve by
calculating their speed as a function of the approach speed, the curve radius, and the
maximum superelevation rate. The curve speed model in TWOSIM is based on Bonneson
(1999). The trucks’ speed is determined using the AASHTO design speed equation (2004).
TWOSIM uses the work by Lan and Menendez (2003) to replicate the movement of
trucks on grades. The model estimates acceleration/deceleration as a function of velocity,
weight and power of vehicle, air density, drag coefficient, frontal cross section area, grade,
and gravity constant.

Output and Verification of TWOSIM

This section briefly describes the output obtained by TWOSIM, and the results of the
verification process.
TWOSIM generates statistical output as well as graphical output. The statistical
output includes average travel speed, percent time spent following, traffic volume, traffic
flow rate, density, number of passes, and passing time. The graphical output includes
vehicle trajectories and speed profiles. Figure 1 provides an example output of vehicle
trajectories.

5
TRB 2007 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Original paper submittal - not revised by author.
 Figure 1 Vehicle trajectories at 800 vph arrival rate

The first step in verification involved examination of several trajectory graphs to

confirm vehicles were traveling as expected. The next step involved a comparison of
TWOSIM’s macroscopic traffic flow characteristics to TWOPAS and HCS+ (which
replicates the HCM 2000 methodology). Two performance measures, percent time spent
following (PTSF) and average travel speed (ATS), were compared between TWOSIM and
TWOPAS and HCS+. The comparison indicated that TWOSIM provides results similar to
TWOPAS. However, both TWOSIM and TWOPAS give significantly different outcomes
compared with those of HCS+.
Passing maneuvers and duration of passing were examined next. The trajectories of
passing vehicles were examined, and TWOSIM was found to replicate passing maneuvers
in a realistic manner. The average passing time in TWOSIM, 10.7 sec is found to be
similar to a previously reported value (10.9 sec, reported in Polus, et al., 2000). TWOSIM’s
capabilities in replicating vehicle movement when there is a driveway, horizontal curve,
upgrade, and truck traffic were verified by examining speed profiles. It was observed that
there were significant changes in speed around the location of a driveway, along a
horizontal curve, and an upgrade section. The speed reduction was verified in the previous
studies by Leiman, et al. (1998) and Harwood, et al. (1999). In conclusion, TWOSIM was
verified to replicate traffic operations on TLTWHW according to previously reported field
data findings, and similarly to TWOPAS.

6
TRB 2007 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Original paper submittal - not revised by author.
 CAPACITY ESTIMATES

Determination of capacity
TWOSIM provides five minute traffic volumes at each observation point over the entire
segment, and calculates hourly flow rates. Capacity is the average of the maximum flow
rates when the arrival demand exceeds the throughput. Multiple runs (more than 30 runs)
were conducted to determine the capacity for each study configuration.

Estimation of capacity
Capacities for TLTWHW are estimated under a variety of conditions. This section provides
a description of those conditions and a summary of the findings.

Base conditions
First, a basic tangent section at level terrain is simulated to estimate capacities under base
conditions, which are as follows:
• All passenger cars
• No stop sign, signals, or driveways
• 2 mile length of level terrain section
• No passing allowed
The base capacity is found to range from 1,835 pcph to 2,141 pcph as a function of
the average free flow speed (Table 1). The capacity increases by about 150 pcph for every
10 mph between 40 and 60 mph speeds, however there is a slight drop (approximately 50
pcph) between 60 and 70 mph. The changes in capacity as a function of average free flow
speed may be the result of using Gipp’s car-following model, in which operating speed
associated with the average free flow speed influences the average headway at capacity.
These results are the average of 30 runs at each average free flow speed.

Table 1 Capacity under base conditions

Average free flow speed
Capacity (pcph) 40 mph 50 mph 60 mph 70 mph
1,835 2,012 2,141 2,096

Statistical testing (using the t-test) showed that the base capacity at each average
free flow speed is statistically different.

Presence of passing zones

When 80% of the analysis section allows passing, the capacity (assuming all other
conditions are as in base conditions) is estimated to be 2,109 pcph, which is the same as the
capacity when no passing is allowed. Thus the presence of a passing zone was not found to
have any impact on the capacity of TLTWHW. Capacity was measured at various locations
along the study segment, however the results did not change. This is probably because the

7
TRB 2007 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Original paper submittal - not revised by author.
 high traffic flow in the primary direction does not have many large gaps, and thus there are
few opportunities for passing.

Presence of driveway
When a driveway is present under base conditions, the capacity is estimated as a function of
curb radius and the percentage of turning flow exiting the main road. The capacity was
found to increase with curb radius and to decrease with percent of turning flow (Table 2).
T-test results showed that there is no significant difference in capacity as a function of curb
radius except when the turning flow reaches 20%. The slightly higher capacities for longer
curb radii may be due to the higher right-turning speed. There is however significant
decrease in capacities as the percentage of turning flow increases. In summary, the presence
of a driveway has significant impact (12 ~ 26 percent reduction) on the capacity of
TLTWHW.

Table 2 Capacity when a driveway is present

Capacity (pcph)
Curb radius (ft) Turning flow (%)
0 10 20
20 2,141 1,850 1,580
30 2,141 1,890 1,620
45 2,141 1,890 1,660

Presence of horizontal curve

Table 3 shows the estimated capacities of TLTWHW when a horizontal curve is present.
For this estimation, the maximum superelevation is assumed to be 10 percent and the
maximum friction factor is 0.12. T-test results showed that the horizontal curve with a very
small radius (100 feet) at 60 mph average free flow speed results in significant capacity
reduction (3 ~ 17 percent) compared with the other radii. When the horizontal curve radius
is greater or equal to 500 feet, the capacity is similar to that of a tangent segment.

Table 3 Capacity when a horizontal curve is present

Curve radius (feet) Capacity (pcph)
100 1,750
300 1,980
400 2,040
500 2,100
1000 2,100

8
TRB 2007 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Original paper submittal - not revised by author.
 Presence of upgrade section
For the estimation of capacity at an upgrade section, it was assumed that there is a 1 mile
upgrade section of three different grades (4 ~ 8 percent) with trucks (10 ~ 30 percent).
Table 4 presents the estimated capacity as a function of grade and percentage of trucks. It is
found that there is significant capacity reduction (11 ~ 40 percent) on an upgrade,
particularly for high truck percentages.
Table 4 Capacity as a function of the percentage of trucks at upgrade section

Capacity (vph)
Grade (%)
10 percent trucks 20 percent trucks 30 percent trucks
4 1,870 1,740 1,690
6 1,670 1,530 1,480
8 1,460 1,330 1,250

Sensitivity analysis
Sensitivity analysis was next performed to examine the impact of various simulation
parameters on capacity estimation.

Variability of Desired speed

The impacts of the variability of desired speed on the capacity of TLTWHW were
examined by evaluating three different standard deviation values for desired speeds. The
results shown above assumed a value of 4 mph.
Table 5 shows that capacity decreases somewhat with 8 mph standard deviation in
desired speed. T-test results show there is significant difference between the capacity at 8
mph standard deviation and the other capacities. This result implies that a mix of driver
populations with varying desired speeds may have an adverse impact on capacity.
Table 5 Capacity vs. standard deviation of desired speed

Standard deviation of desired speed

Capacity (pcph) 0 mph 4 mph 8 mph
2,137 2,141 2,053

Next, the impacts of the delay of safety reaction time (theta), one of the parameters
in Gipps’ car-following model, on capacity are examined. When the delay of safety
reaction time is at 0.07, 0.78, and 1.14, the actual reaction time becomes 0.75 seconds for
the best driver, 1.25 seconds for normal and common expectancy used in the earlier results,
and 1.5 seconds for surprise intrusions, respectively.
Table 6 shows how capacity varies with different delay of safety reaction time of
drivers at an average desired speed 60 mph. For comparison purposes the standard

9
TRB 2007 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Original paper submittal - not revised by author.
 deviation for all scenarios shown in this table is zero, i.e., all drivers have the same reaction
time. T-test results showed that there is significant difference in capacity when the delay of
safety reaction for all drivers changes.
Table 6 Capacity vs. delay of safety reaction time
Delay of safety reaction time (Perception reaction time, sec)
Capacity (pcph) 0.07 (0.75) 0.78 (1.25) 1.14 (1.5)
2,330 2,294 1,988

Geometric characteristics
When a horizontal curve with 500 feet radius is present under the base conditions, the
capacity is found to increase with the maximum superelevation rate of the curve, as shown
in Table 7. It is found that there is significant increase in capacity when the maximum
superelevation rate of the horizontal curve increases. The greater superelevation rate allows
higher vehicle speeds and leads to higher capacities.
Table 7 Capacity as a function of maximum superelevation rate of horizontal curve

Maximum superelevation (%) Capacity (pcph)

4 1,600
7 1,940
10 2,100

Table 8 shows the capacities estimated with different percentages of trucks along a
horizontal curve. It is found that there is significant difference in capacities when the radius
of the horizontal curve varies in combination with varying percent of trucks. As expected,
the capacities decrease with increasing percent of trucks for any given radius of the
horizontal curve. The capacities increase with the radius of horizontal curve for a given
percent of trucks.
Table 8 Capacity as a function of radius of horizontal curve and percentage of trucks

Capacity (vph)
Curve radius (ft)
0 percent trucks 10 percent trucks 20 percent trucks
100 1,750 1,670 1,570
500 2,100 1,990 1,870
1000 2,100 2,050 1,940

10
TRB 2007 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Original paper submittal - not revised by author.
 Traffic characteristics
It is next examined how capacity varies with the opposing flow rate. Table 9 shows the
capacities for varying opposing flow rates, assuming 20 percent no-passing zones. As
shown, capacity is not significantly affected by different amounts of opposing flow rates.

Table 9 Capacity as a function of opposing volume

Arrival volume (pcph)
Capacity (pcph)
Primary Opposing

200 2,103
400 2,096
2,300 600 2,091
800 2,073
1,000 2,066

Table 10 shows the capacities with varying percent of trucks at a section with a
driveway. T-test results showed that capacity decreases with increasing percent of trucks
when a driveway is present. At zero percent of trucks, the two curb radii give the same
capacity. When the percent of trucks increases, the capacities between the two curb radii
are slightly different.

Table 10 Capacity as a function of the percentage of trucks in the presence of a driveway

Driveway curb Capacity (vph)

radius (ft) 0 percent trucks 10 percent trucks 20 percent trucks
30 1,890 1,720 1,620
45 1,890 1,760 1,680

Table 11 shows the capacities estimated for different percents of trucks along a 1
mile upgrade section. T-test results showed that grade has significant impact on capacity.
Also, the capacity decreases with an increasing percent of trucks.

Table 11 Capacity as a function of the percentage of trucks at an upgrade section

Capacity (vph)
Slope (%)
10 percent trucks 20 percent trucks 30 percent trucks
4 1,870 1,740 1,690
6 1,670 1,530 1,480
8 1,460 1,330 1,250

11
TRB 2007 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Original paper submittal - not revised by author.
 In summary, it is found that capacity is influenced by driver characteristics such as
standard deviation of desired speed and delay of safety reaction time. In terms of geometric
factors, while the length of the segment and the presence of passing zones do not have an
impact on capacity, capacity is significantly influenced by other factors such as maximum
superelevation in the horizontal curve, driveway curb radius,, and slope of the upgrade
section. The opposing volume was not found to have an impact on capacity. On the other
hand, there is significant capacity decrease as the percentage of trucks increases,
particularly in the presence of a horizontal curve, driveway, and upgrade.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Capacity for TLTWHW using field data has not been observed frequently, because there
are a very limited number of sites operating at capacity. Also, existing simulators use
capacity as an input and cannot be used to determine capacity. In this study, a microscopic
simulator (TWOSIM) was developed to estimate the capacity of two-lane, two-way
highways. TWOSIM was verified to replicate TLTWHW traffic operations adequately, and
similarly to another microscopic simulator, TWOPAS. TWOSIM estimated capacity under
a variety of traffic conditions associated with passing zones, the presence of a driveway, the
presence of a horizontal curve, upgrade, and the presence of trucks.
Using TWOSIM, the capacity of TLTWHW was found to vary by the average free
flow speed. The capacity ranged from 1,800 pcph to 2,100 pcph at average free flow speed
from 40 mph to 70 mph under base conditions. It was found that the presence of a passing
zone does not affect capacity. Also, the directional capacity is found to be independent of
the opposing flow rate. Capacity decreased by 12 to 26 percent as a function of the turning
curb radius and percentage of turning flow when there was a driveway. Capacity decreased
by 3 to 17 percent as a function of curb radius when there was a horizontal curve. With an
increasing proportion of trucks (10~20 percent): when there was a driveway, capacity
decreased by 10 to 23 percent; when there was a horizontal curve it decreased by 3 to 36
percent; when there was an upgrade section it decreased by 11 to 40 percent. When truck
percent is constant, the capacity was found to increase with the radius of the horizontal
curve.
From the results of this study, the following recommendations are made:
• It is recommended that additional field studies be conducted to verify these results.
A difficulty in observing capacity at TLTWHW is that bottlenecks result in moving
queues rather than stop-and-go traffic. These are more difficult to detect and
quantify, because they require observations over space and time. Given the
difficulty in observing capacity under various scenarios, it would be more feasible
to validate a small sample of the scenarios simulated in this paper.
• It is recommended that the HCM analysis considers these capacity reductions for
changes in geometric and traffic conditions.
• It is recommended that traffic analysts consider the following when estimating the
capacity of a TLTWHW: In the presence of a driveway, capacity is likely to
decrease by 10 to 23 percent when the percent of trucks is 0 to 20 respectively. In
the presence of a horizontal curve, capacity is likely to decrease by 3 to 26 percent
when the percent of trucks is 0 to 20 respectively. In the presence of a 1 mile

12
TRB 2007 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Original paper submittal - not revised by author.
 upgrade section at 4 to 8 percent slope, capacity is likely to decrease by 11 to 40
percent when the percent of trucks is 0 to 20 respectively.
• The TWOSIM algorithms should be enhanced so that the package can estimate
capacity reflecting the presence of multiple driveways, multiple horizontal curves
and grades.
• It is recommended that the car-following model be improved with the development
of a model reflecting the behavior of a passenger car driver around large trucks. The
uncomfortable feeling of a passenger car driver due to lack of sight distance and due
to the truck’s slow speed particularly on upgrade sections may have an additional
adverse impact on capacity.
• It is recommended that field data for investigating trucks’ exit speed and right-turn
speed around a driveway be collected and a truck speed model along a horizontal
curve be developed.

13
TRB 2007 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Original paper submittal - not revised by author.
 REFRENCES
1. Akcelik, R. and Chung, E. Calibration of the bunched exponential distribution of
arrival headways. Akcelik & Associates Pty Ltd. June 2003.
2. A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets. American Association of
State Highway and Transportation Officials, 2004.
3. Bonneson, J. A. Delay to major-stree through vehicles due to right turn activity.
Transportation Research. –A, Vol. 32, No. 2, pp. 139-148, 1998.
4. Bonneson, J. A. Side friction and speed as controls for horizontal curve design.
Journal of Transportation Engineering. November, 1999.
5. Federal Highway Administration. Manual on Uniform Traffic Controls Devices.
2003.
6. Gipps, P. G. A behavioral car-following model for computer simulation. In
Transportation Research B. vol. 15B, 1981, pp. 105-111.
7. Green, M. ” How long does it take to stop?” Methodological Analysis of Driver
Perception-Brake Times. Transportation Human Factors, 2(3), 195-216. 2000.
8. Hammond, H. F. and Sorenson, L. J. (ed.). Traffic Engineering Handbook. New
York: Institute of Traffic Engineers and National Conservation Bureau, 1941.
9. Harwood, D. W, May, A. D, Anderson, I. B, Leiman, L, and Archilla, A.R.
Capacity and Quality of Service of Two-Lane Highways. NCHRP Final Report 3-
55(3). Midwest Research Institute, University of California-Berkeley, 1999.
10. Kim, J and Elefteriadou, L. Estimation of capacity for two-lane two-way highways
using simulation. 2006. Thesis.
11. Lan, C. and Menendez, M. Truck speed profile models for critical length of grade.
Journal of Transportation Engineering. ASCE/July/August. 2003.
12. Leiman, L., Archilla, A. R., and May, A. D. TWOPAS Model Improvements.
University of California Berkeley, California. NCHRP Project 3-55(3). 1998.
13. Lerner, N., Llaneras, R., Smiley A., Hanscom F. Comprehensive Human Factors
Guidelines for Road Systems. National Cooperative Highway Research Program.
March, 2005.
14. McLean, J. R. Two-Lane Highway Traffic Operations: Theory and Practice. New
York: Gordon and Breach Science Publishers. 1989.
15. Normann, O. K. Results of highway capacity studies. Public Roads. vol. 23, no. 4,
pp. 57-81. 1942.
16. Polus, A., Livneh, M., and Frischer, B. Evaluation of the passing process on two-
lane rural highways. Transportation Research Records No. 1701, pp. 53-60. 2000.
17. Rozic, P. Capacity of two-lane, two-way rural highways: the new approach.
Transportation Research Records 1365, pp. 19-29. 1992.
18. Transportation Research Board 2000. Highway Capacity Manual. Washington D.C.
National Research Council. HCM 2000, metric units.
19. Wardrop, J. G. Some theoretical aspects of road traffic research. In Proceedings of
the Institution of Civil Engineers, vol. 1, 1952. pp. 325-378.
20. Yagar, S. Capacities for two-lane highways. In Australian Road Research, 13(1).
1983.

14
TRB 2007 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Original paper submittal - not revised by author.