Problem 1:
Determination of
Facility Types for
Analysis
Key Issues
 Why are we analyzing Krome Avenue?
 What is the regional significance of Krome Avenue?
 What is the regional significance of roadways
intersecting Krome Avenue?
 Based on the map of the area where do you think
traffic that is using Krome Avenue is going
to/coming from?
Sub-problems:
Sub-problem 1a: At what point does Krome
Avenue change from a two-lane highway to a
signalized arterial?
Sub-problem 1b: What Class should be
assigned to each of the facilities that are
identified?
Sub-problem 1c: What, if any, conditions exist
at the controlled intersections that could
impact the analyses?
Two-lane highway
Sub-problem 1a: At what point does
Krome Avenue change from a two-lane
highway to a signalized arterial?
Signalized arterial
Primary criterion for
distinguishing an urban street
vs. a two-lane highway?
 Signalized intersection spacing:


> 2 miles: Probably a two-lane highway (Use
Chapter 20)
 2 miles: Probably an urban street (Use
Chapter 15)
Proposed Facility Types
10
Mile
spacing
Two
Lane
Highway
Signalized
Arterial
1 Mile spacing
What additional information might be needed
 Land use and zoning along the corridor
(potential for development and type)
 Transportation (potential intersection or
parallel roadways)
 Supporting policies of the local jurisdiction
(air quality, VMT reduction techniques that
may affect the assumptions)
Sub-problem 1b:
Determining the Facility Class and Scope of the
Analysis
Two-lane Highways


Class I
Class II
Urban Arterials




Class
Class
Class
Class
I
II
III
IV
Why is there a further distinction
within facility types?
Because drivers have different
expectations for speed, delay etc. on
different classes of two-lane
highways and urban arterials.
What parameters contribute
to the distinction?
Urban Streets
roadside development
pedestrian activity
posted speeds
Two-lane highways
cross section
Length of trip
signal spacing
Type of trip
Are the segments under
consideration homogenous
throughout?
There are no observations in the field
that would indicate otherwise.
Arterial Class
Access Density: Very Low
Pedestrian Activity: Very little
Both conditions suggest Class I
HCM Depiction of Class I
Typical View of this section
of Krome Ave
Two Lane Highway
Class
Class I: Expectation of high speed
Class II: High Speed is not essential
 Lower speed limit

Scenic route, etc.
North Section: Posted speed 50 mph
Definitely Class I
South Section: Posted speed 45 mph
•This section could go either way
•If Class I is assigned, LOS will be very low because of the
posted speed.
Summary of Krome Avenue Facility Types for
Analysis
Section
Boundaries
Facility
Type
North
Okeechobee
to Kendall
Two-lane
highway
I
Center
Kendall to
Eureka
Two-lane
highway
I, II
South
Eureka to
Avocado
Signalized
Arterial
I
Class
Sub-problem 1c:
Special Considerations for the Analysis
Need to identify conditions that
Could affect the outcome of the analysis
beyond the scope of the procedures
Would require some modification of the
procedures to achieve valid results.
Examples of Special Considerations
 Significant queues occurring on a two-lane highway
 Backup from one intersection into another




intersection
Overflow of a storage bay
Short sections of a longer facility that have a
different cross section than the main facility.
Control features that are not covered by the HCM
procedures
Conditions that would suggest the use of traffic
models that are more complex than the HCM
Special Conditions
Excessive queuing on
the northbound approach
to Okeechobee during
the PM peak.
A short piece of four-lane
divided roadway on
Krome Avenue
immediately south of
Okeechobee.
Special Conditions (continued)
 Geometric improvements to eliminate congestion
during the peak period
 Okeechobee Road
 Kendall
 Biscayne.
 There are no conditions observed that would
suggest the need to use traffic models that are
more complex than the HCM.
End of Problem 1