2003Transportation Research Record Journal of the Transportation Research BoardRequires access

Freeway Weaving: Comparison of Highway Capacity Manual 2000 and Dutch Guidelines

M M Minderhoud, Lily Elefteriadou

Open publisher page 7 citations

Abstract

Weaving sections are a commonly adopted freeway facility both in the United States and in Europe. Knowledge about the capacity and level of service achievable on different types of weaving segments is necessary for the design and management of freeways. Guidelines such as those of the U.S. Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) provide capacity values for different weaving configuration types. The Dutch guidelines for the design of weaving segments are compared with those of the U.S. HCM. Differences between their respective approaches are identified, and a comparison of capacity values is conducted. It was found that there are large differences in capacity estimates for certain weaving configuration types. The results of a sensitivity analysis explain these differences in capacity values to a large extent. This analysis showed that it is important to consider the weaving proportions per leg. Currently, neither the HCM nor the Dutch approach considers different weaving flows per incoming leg. The introduction of an additional variable into the calculation procedure that takes into account the presence of asymmetrical weaving flows is recommended.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

Weaving sections are a commonly adopted freeway facility both in the United States and in Europe. Knowledge about the capacity and level of service achievable on different types of weaving segments is necessary for the design and management of freeways. Guidelines such as those of the U.S. Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) provide capacity values for different weaving configuration types. The Dutch guidelines for the design of weaving segments are compared with those of the U.S. HCM. Differences between their respective approaches are identified, and a comparison of capacity values is conducted. It was found that there are large differences in capacity estimates for certain weaving configuration types. The results of a sensitivity analysis explain these differences in capacity values to a large extent. This analysis showed that it is important to consider the weaving proportions per leg. Currently, neither the HCM nor the Dutch approach considers different weaving flows per incoming leg. The introduction of an additional variable into the calculation procedure that takes into account the presence of asymmetrical weaving flows is recommended.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 7 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

Weaving sections are a commonly adopted freeway facility both in the United States and in Europe. Knowledge about the capacity and level of service achievable on different types of weaving segments is necessary for the design and management of freeways. Guidelines such as those of the U.S. Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) provide capacity values for different weaving configuration types. The Dutch guidelines for the design of weaving segments are compared with those of the U.S. HCM. Differences between their respective approaches are identified, and a comparison of capacity values is conducted. It was found that there are large differences in capacity estimates for certain weaving configuration types. The results of a sensitivity analysis explain these differences in capacity values to a large extent. This analysis showed that it is important to consider the weaving proportions per leg. Currently, neither the HCM nor the Dutch approach considers different weaving flows per incoming leg. The introduction of an additional variable into the calculation procedure that takes into account the presence of asymmetrical weaving flows is recommended.

Key concepts: Weaving, Highway Capacity Manual, Transport engineering, Level of service, Variable (mathematics), Engineering, Operations management, Operations research

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Freeway Weaving: Comparison of Highway Capacity Manual 2000 and Dutch Guidelines — Research Paper | ScholarLens