Task 1

- Average Daily Traffic (ADT)

Data in table1 was collected on Tuesday:

Time 7:00 – 8:00 am 8:00 – 9:00 am 9:00 – 10:00 am 10:00 – 11:00 am 11:00 – 12:00 noon
Volume 210 200 110 50 40
HEF 2.90 3.05 5.54 12.2 15.25

∑ 𝑉𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑚𝑒 𝑓𝑜𝑟 24ℎ𝑟 𝑃𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑜𝑑

𝐻𝐸𝐹 =
𝑣𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑚𝑒 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑢𝑙𝑎𝑟 ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑟

210 + 200 + 110 + 50 + 40 610

𝐻𝐸𝐹1 = = = 2.90
210 210

610
𝐻𝐸𝐹2 = = 3.05
200

610
𝐻𝐸𝐹3 = = 5.54
110

610
𝐻𝐸𝐹4 = = 12.2
50

610
𝐻𝐸𝐹5 = = 15.25
40

To Find Average Daily Traffic (ADT)

∑ 𝑉𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑚𝑒 × 𝐻𝐸𝐹
𝐴𝐷𝑇 =
𝑁𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑟𝑠

(210 × 2.9) + (200 × 3.05) + (110 × 5.54) + (50 × 12.2) + (40 × 15.25)
𝐴𝐷𝑇 =
5
= 609.68 𝑉𝑒ℎ⁄𝐷𝑎𝑦
- Determinations of the design value
- Minimum Design Speed

Since the planed road is to be a rural collector highway, table in figure1 is selected to
determine the minimum speed for average daily traffic of 609.68 Veh/day.

Fig 1: Design Speed for Specified Design Volume

Where the value of the average daily traffic lays between 400 to 2000 and the area of
the planned highway is a rolling terrain area, the minimum speed is 40 mi/h.

- Lane Width

Average daily traffic for this road is high for a day so, the suitable lane width for this road
is lays between 10ft to 11ft which are 3.05m to 3.35. To design this highway, I choose 3.05 m
since is it a rural collector road.

- Shoulder Width

Average daily traffic for this road is medium for a day so, the minimum shoulder is about
1.5m (5ft) to 10ft (3.05) the suitable shoulder for a rural road is about 8ft (2.4m).

- Right of Way

The chosen road is four lane highway which is divided arterials. So, the suitable right way
is lays between 120 to 300ft (36.57-99.44m) and I chose 210ft (64m) to be the right way for
this project.
- Maximum Grade

Fig 2: Recommended Maximum Grade

For the rolling rural collector road of ADT of 609.68 Veh/day, the suitable maximum
grade is 8% for speed of 40 mi/h.

- Minimum length of curve and sage vertical curve

Table2: Grade for the curve
Up fill Grade (G1) 6
Down fill Grade (G2) -3
- Assume that a= 11.2ft/sec2 = 3.41m/sec2
- u= 40 mi/h = 64.37 Km/h = 17.88m/sec
- Assume perception-reaction time, t= 2.5 sec
- g= 9.81 m/sec2
- G = 0.04 mi/h
- A= G1 - G2 = 6- (-3) = 9%

Determined the Stopping Sight Distance (SSD)

𝑢2
𝑆𝑆𝐷 = 1.47𝑢𝑡 + 𝑎
30 × (32.3 ± 𝐺)

402
𝑆𝑆𝐷 = 1.47 × 40 × 2.5 + = 320.86 𝑓𝑡 = 97.79𝑚
11.2
30 × (32.3 − 0.04)

Minimum Length for the comfort criterion (Lmin)

 𝐴𝑢2
𝐿𝑚𝑖𝑛 =
46.5

9 × 402
𝐿𝑚𝑖𝑛 = = 309.67𝑓𝑡 = 94.38 𝑚
46.5

Minimum Length for the general appearance criterion (Lmin)

𝐿 = 100𝐴

𝐿 = 100 × 9 = 900 𝑓𝑡 = 247.32𝑚

Next formulas from

file:///C:/Users/admin/Downloads/GEOMETRIC%20DESIGN%20of%20CURVES.pdf

Minimum length of a crest vertical curve

Using U.S customary units

𝐴𝑆 2
𝐿= 𝑤ℎ𝑒𝑛 𝑆 ≤ 𝐿
2158

9 × 320.862
𝐿= = 429.36𝑓𝑡 = 130.86𝑚
2158

2158
𝐿 = 2𝑆 − 𝑤ℎ𝑒𝑛 𝑆 > 𝐿
𝐴

2158
𝐿 = 2 × 320.86 − = 401.94 𝑓𝑡 = 122.51𝑚
9

Minimum length of a sage vertical curve

Using U.S customary units

𝐴𝑆 2
𝐿= 𝑤ℎ𝑒𝑛 𝑆 ≤ 𝐿
400 + 3.5𝑆

9 × 320.862
𝐿= = 608.37𝑓𝑡 = 185.43𝑚
400 + 3.5 × 320.86

400 + 3.5𝑆
𝐿 = 2𝑆 − 𝑤ℎ𝑒𝑛 𝑆 > 𝐿
𝐴
 400 + 3.5 × 320.86
𝐿 = 2 × 320.86 − = 472.49𝑓𝑡 = 144.01𝑚
9

Task 2

For the given data in the table3, free flow speed, level of service, and density should
determine for a urban freeway segment from Muscat to Albatina.

Table3 traffic characteristic for the segment

Traffic volumes Trucks % Number of lane in each direction PHF Lateral clearance Terrain
5000
Traffic volumes 19%
Trucks %4 Number of lane in each direction 92PHF 1 Lateral clearance Rolling
Terrain
5000 13% 4 92 1 Rolling
Table3 traffic characteristic for the segment
- Flow Rate
PHF= 92= 0.90
V= 5000
N= 4
f p= 1
Proportion of trucks Pt = 0.19
Proportion of RVs = 0
Et= 2.5 from the table 9.25
ER= 2.0 from the table 9.25
1 1
f𝐻𝑉 = = = 0.77
1 + 𝑃𝑇 (𝐸𝑇 − 1) + 𝑃𝑅 (𝐸𝑅 − 1) 1 + 0.19 × (2.5 − 1) + 0 × (2.0 − 1)

𝑉
𝑉𝑝 =
(𝑃𝐻𝐹)(𝑁)(𝑓𝑝 )(𝑓𝐻𝑉 )
5000
𝑉𝑝 = = 1803.75 𝑝𝑐⁄ℎ⁄𝐼𝑛
0.90 × 4 × 1 × 0.77
- Free Flow Speed
𝐹𝐹𝑆 = 𝐵𝐹𝐹𝑆 − 𝑓𝐿𝑊 − 𝑓𝐿𝐶 − 𝑓𝑁 − 𝑓𝐼𝐷
BFFS= 70 mi/h (since it is urban)
f LW= 1.9 mi/h from table 9.29 (for lane width of 11ft)
f LC= 1 mi/h from table 9.30 (for 1ft Right-Shoulder)
 f N= 1.5 mi/h from table 9.31 (for 4 lane)
f ID= 1.3 mi/h from table 9.32 (for 0.75 interchange density)
Assuming that the way from Muscat to Albatinah is about 127.87 mile and there are 96
interchanges. So interchange density = 96/127.87= 0.75
𝐹𝐹𝑆 = 70 − 1.9 − 1 − 1.5 − 1.3 = 64.30 𝑚𝑖/ℎ
- Compare S , VP
𝑉𝑝 < 3400 − 30 𝐹𝐹𝑆 𝑆 = 𝐹𝐹𝑆
𝑉𝑝 > 3400 − 30 𝐹𝐹𝑆 𝑆 ≠ 𝐹𝐹𝑆
𝑉𝑝 = 1803.75 > 3400 − 30 × 64.30 = 1471
So
1 𝑉𝑝 + 30 × 𝐹𝐹𝑆 − 3400 2.6
𝑆 = × (7 × 𝐹𝐹𝑆 − 340) × ( )
9 40 × 𝐹𝐹𝑆 − 1700
1 1803.75 + 30 × 64.30 − 3400 2.6
𝑆= × (7 × 64.30 − 340) × ( ) = 0.97 𝑚𝑖/ℎ
9 40 × 64.30 − 1700
- Density
𝑉𝑝 1803.75
𝐷= = = 1859.53
𝑆 0.97
- Level Of Service (L.O.S)
Since the flow rate is 1803.75 pc/h/In and the free flow speed is 64.30 mi/h≈ 65 𝑚𝑖/ℎ, it
is in class D.
So, from table 9.24
Maximum density = 35 pc/mi/In
Maximum speed = 59.7 mi/h
Maximum v/c = 0.89
Maximum service flow rate = 2090 pc/mi/In
 Task 3
To select the suitable alternative for replacing a road of tow lane to four lane road
where this road connecting two towns that are 12.0niles apart along the existing highway.
So
Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C
Length (mile) 11.5 10 11
Design Speed (mi/h) 65 60 55
Time to Pass the Road (h) 11.5/65 = 0.17 10/60 = 0.16 11/55 = 0.2
Business Displacement 12 9 12
Residential Displacement 1 0 3
Wetland Impact 1.2 acres 1.5 acres 1.8 acres
Annual Crush Reductions 10 4 6
Cost of the development 120,000.000 150,000.000 130,000.000

𝑇𝑟𝑎𝑣𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑇𝑖𝑚𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑆ℎ𝑜𝑟𝑡𝑒𝑠𝑡 𝑎𝑙𝑡𝑎𝑟𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒

𝑀𝑜𝑏𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑦 =
𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑣𝑒𝑙 𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑎𝑙𝑡𝑎𝑟𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒

𝐴𝑛𝑛𝑢𝑎𝑙 𝑅𝑒𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑖𝑛 𝑁𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝑐𝑟𝑢𝑠ℎ𝑒𝑠

𝑆𝑎𝑓𝑒𝑡𝑦 =
𝐻𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑒𝑠𝑡 𝐴𝑛𝑛𝑢𝑎𝑙 𝑅𝑒𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑖𝑛 𝑛𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝑐𝑟𝑢𝑠ℎ𝑒𝑠

𝑃𝑟𝑜𝑗𝑒𝑐𝑡 𝐷𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑙𝑜𝑝𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑜𝑓 𝑙𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑡 𝑒𝑥𝑝𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑣𝑒 𝑎𝑙𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒

𝐶𝑜𝑠𝑡 𝐸𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒 =
𝑃𝑟𝑜𝑗𝑒𝑐𝑡 𝐷𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑙𝑜𝑝𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝐶𝑜𝑠𝑡 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝐴𝑙𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒

𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑎 𝑜𝑓 𝑊𝑒𝑎𝑡𝑙𝑎𝑛𝑑𝑠 𝐼𝑚𝑝𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑜𝑓 𝐿𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑡 − 𝑖𝑚𝑝𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝐴𝑙𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒

𝐸𝑛𝑣𝑖𝑟𝑜𝑛𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝐼𝑚𝑝𝑎𝑐𝑡 =
𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑎 𝑜𝑓 𝑊𝑒𝑎𝑡𝑙𝑎𝑛𝑑𝑠 𝐼𝑚𝑝𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑏𝑦 𝐴𝑙𝑡𝑎𝑒𝑟𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒

𝑁𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝐵𝑢𝑠𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑠𝑠 & 𝑅𝑒𝑠𝑖𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒𝑠 𝑑𝑖𝑠𝑝𝑙𝑎𝑐𝑒 𝑏𝑦 𝐿𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑡 − 𝑖𝑚𝑝𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝐴𝑙𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒

𝐶𝑜𝑚𝑚𝑢𝑛𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝐼𝑚𝑝𝑎𝑐𝑡 =
𝑁𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝐵𝑢𝑠𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑠𝑠 & 𝑅𝑒𝑠𝑖𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒𝑠 𝑑𝑖𝑠𝑝𝑙𝑎𝑐𝑒 𝑏𝑦 𝐴𝑙𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒
 Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C
Mobility 0.86 1 0.90
Weight 25% 0.215 0.25 0.225
Safety 1 0.4 0.6
Weight 25% 0.25 0.1 0.15
Cost Effectiveness 1 0.8 0.92
Weight 20% 0.20 0.16 0.184
Environmental Impact 1 0.8 0.66
Weight 15% 0.15 0.12 0.099
Community Impact 0.7 1 0.6
Weight 15% 0.105 0.15 0.09
Total Weights 0.92 0.78 0.76

By comparing the three alternatives, alternative (C) is the best choice for this case. Where
when compare it with the other alternatives in term of mobility it shows that it has the medium
weight of 0.225% where A has 0.21% which is the lowest mobility and B has the highest mobility
of 0.25%of its total weight. What is worth to mention is mobility is not that much important in this
case since it is a road to connect two towns. However, overall weight shows that (C) is the middle
option from the others with total weight of 0.76%. Furthermore, the most important factors in this
study for the towns are environmental and community impact where it effects local people, that
why alternative (C) is chosen since it has the lowest impacts on those factors in comparing with
the other alternative. Also, it effectivity of cost is sufficient as well as for safety.