I seem to remember that Paul Welsh did a paper on sat flows a few years back - might be worth a look at. But I think that for straightforward situations (e.g. those not involving coordinated approaches such as within a roundabout) RR67 is the sensible thing to use. Whatever it's faults, It has the merit of being accepted as 'definitive' in such situations as public inquiries. Mervyn Leeds 0113 2476750 "Kirk-Ellis, Ian B" <i.b.kirk-ellis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent by: tcug-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 03/07/2008 10:14 Please respond to tcug@xxxxxxxxxxxxx To "tcug@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <tcug@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> cc Subject [TCUG] RR67 sat Flow We use RR67 to derive sat flows for TRANSYT when it's a new build that can't be measured onsite, but a colleague from another office has said that he recalls a paper that was subsequent to RR67 and defined Sat flow in bands directly relating to width for use in transyt. We use RR67 as this is the latest we know of and its use in LINSIG backs up this view but I thought I'd ask the forum if anyone knew of this work and if it was subsequent to RR67 ? Thanks Ian Ian Kirk-Ellis Principal Engineer Waterman Civils Lockington Hall, Lockington, Derbyshire, DE74 2RH TEL (01509) 674567 FAX. (01509) 674623 ----------------------------------------------------------- A message from the TCUG mailing list. For information about the list visit //www.freelists.org/webpage/tcug ________________________________________________________________________ The information in this email (and any attachment) may be for the intended recipient only. If you know you are not the intended recipient, please do not use or disclose the information in any way and please delete this email (and any attachment) from your system. The Council does not accept service of legal documents by e-mail. ________________________________________________________________________ ----------------------------------------------------------- A message from the TCUG mailing list. For information about the list visit //www.freelists.org/webpage/tcug