Benefit Analysis for Urban Grade Separated Interchanges
Publication: Journal of Transportation Engineering
Volume 114, Issue 1
Abstract
A procedure for evaluating the user benefits from highway improvement is demonstrated through a hypothetical case study. A comparison is made between an urban‐grade separated interchange and an at‐grade intersection in terms of the delay, vehicle operating cost, accidents, and vehicle emissions for several traffic demand levels. The results indicate that the urban‐grade separated interchange may be economically viable at an average daily demand as low as 40,000 total entering vehicles. Benefit cost ratios of 2.4 and 3.6 are generated with an initial average daily demand level of 80,000 total entering vehicles depending on the assumed traffic growth rate. A benefit/cost ratio of 2.9 is generated with an initial average daily demand of 60,000 total entering vehicles, assuming a 2.5 percent annual growth rate. Potential reductions in annual delay, fuel consumption, total vehicle emissions, and accident costs amounting to 73, 21, 40, and 80 percent, respectively, are indicated.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
References
1.
A manual on user benefit analysis of highway and bus‐transit improvements 1977, (1978). American Assoc. of State Highway and Transp. Officials, Washington, D.C.
2.
Arizona traffic accident summary 1984, (1985). Arizona Dept. of Transp., Traffic Engrg. Sec., Phoenix, Arizona.
3.
Curry, D. A., and Anderson, D. G. (1972). “Procedures for estimating highway user costs, air pollution and noise effects,” National cooperative highway research program report 133, Highway Res. Board, Washington, D.C.
4.
Dale, C. W. (1981). Procedure for estimating highway user costs, fuel consumption and air pollution, U.S. Dept. of Transp., Federal Highway Admin., Washington, D.C.
5.
“Highway capacity manual,” (1965). Special report 87, Highway Res. Board., Washington, D.C.
6.
“Highway capacity manual,” (1985). Special report 209, Transp. Res. Board, Washington, D.C.
7.
Ismart, D. (1982). “Mobile source emission and energy analysis at an isolated intersection,” Transportation research record 842, Transp. Res. Board, Washington, D.C., 5–10.
8.
Messer, C. J., Fambro, D. B., and Richards, S. H. (1977). “Optimization of pretimed signalized diamond interchange,” Transportation research record 644, Transp. Res. Board, Washington, D.C., 78–84.
9.
“Traffic volume in metropolitan Tucson and Eastern Pima County—1985” (1986). Pima Association of Governments Transp. Planning Div., Tucson, Arizona.
10.
“Urban interchange feasibility study—Broadway and Wilmot Road, Tucson, Arizona,” (1984). Greiner Engrg. Sci. Inc., Tucson, Arizona, Feb.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Journal of Transportation Engineering
Volume 114 • Issue 1 • January 1988
Pages: 93 - 109
Copyright
Copyright © 1988 ASCE.
History
Published online: Jan 1, 1988
Published in print: Jan 1988
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Download citation
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.