operational effects to different transportation...
TRANSCRIPT
1
OPERATIONAL EFFECTS TO DIFFERENT TRANSPORTATION MODES AT SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS FROM DIFFERING GEOMETRIES, SIGNAL
SYSTEMS, AND VOLUME LEVELS
By
TYLER J. VALILA
A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF
FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ENGINEERING
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
2017
2
© 2017 Tyler J. Valila
3
To my parents, Paul and Victoria Valila
4
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I have many people to thank for their help and support in completing graduate
school and this thesis. First, I would like to thank my friends and family, especially my
parents, for their unwavering support throughout my journey in school. I deeply thank
the friends who gave me advice on how to deal with such a large workload and
guidance in general. I thank Nithin Agarwal, Pruthvi Manjunatha, and Ryan Casburn for
their help teaching me how to use VISSIM. I thank the professors at the University of
Florida Transportation Institute, especially my thesis committee members, Dr. Scott
Washburn and Dr. Siva Srinivasan. Most of all, I would like to thank my supervisory
committee chair and advisor, Dr. Lily Elefteriadou, for her support, guidance, and help
throughout the course of this study.
5
TABLE OF CONTENTS page
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................... 4
LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................ 7
LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................................... 9
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ........................................................................................... 12
ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................... 13
CHAPTER
1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 15
Background ............................................................................................................. 15 Research Objectives ............................................................................................... 16
Document Organization .......................................................................................... 16
2 LITERATURE REVIEW .......................................................................................... 17
Signal Control and Phasing .................................................................................... 17 Vehicles ............................................................................................................ 17
Bicyclists ........................................................................................................... 21 Pedestrians ...................................................................................................... 24
Detection ................................................................................................................. 26
Vehicles ............................................................................................................ 27 Bicyclists ........................................................................................................... 28
Pedestrians ...................................................................................................... 29 Intersection Design ........................................................................................... 31
Summary ................................................................................................................ 34
3 METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................... 35
Intersection Configuration ....................................................................................... 35 Simulation ............................................................................................................... 41 Scenarios ................................................................................................................ 42 Performance Measures ........................................................................................... 46
Statistical Comparison Process .............................................................................. 46
4 RESULTS ............................................................................................................... 49
Delays ..................................................................................................................... 49 Vehicle Queues ...................................................................................................... 57 Average Vehicle Speed .......................................................................................... 63
6
5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................... 69
APPENDIX: RESULT SHEETS ..................................................................................... 74
LIST OF REFERENCES ............................................................................................. 119
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH .......................................................................................... 121
7
LIST OF TABLES
Table page 3-1 Criteria table for VISSIM analysis. ...................................................................... 45
3-2 Volume table for vehicles (vehicles per hour). .................................................... 46
3-3 Volume table for pedestrians and bicyclists (individuals per hour). .................... 46
3-4 Criteria table for comparative analysis. ............................................................... 48
5-1 Summarized results by configuration. ................................................................. 70
A-1 Base, pre-timed, medium veh, low bike, low ped. ............................................... 74
A-2 Base, pre-timed, medium veh, high bike, high ped. ............................................ 75
A-3 Base, pre-timed, high veh, low bike, low ped...................................................... 76
A-4 Base, pre-timed, high veh, high bike, high ped. .................................................. 77
A-5 Base, semi-actuated, medium veh, low bike, low ped. ....................................... 78
A-6 Base, semi-actuated, medium veh, high bike, high ped. .................................... 79
A-7 Base, semi-actuated, high veh, low bike, low ped. ............................................. 80
A-8 Base, semi-actuated, high veh, high bike, high ped. .......................................... 81
A-9 Pedestrian, pre-timed, medium veh, low bike, low ped. ...................................... 83
A-10 Pedestrian, pre-timed, medium veh, high bike, high ped. ................................... 84
A-11 Pedestrian, pre-timed, high veh, low bike, low ped. ............................................ 85
A-12 Pedestrian, pre-timed, high veh, high bike, high ped. ......................................... 86
A-13 Pedestrian, semi-actuated, medium veh, low bike, low ped. .............................. 87
A-14 Pedestrian, semi-actuated, medium veh, high bike, high ped. ........................... 88
A-15 Pedestrian, semi-actuated, high veh, low bike, low ped. .................................... 89
A-16 Pedestrian, semi-actuated, high veh, high bike, high ped. ................................. 90
A-17 Bicyclist, pre-timed, medium veh, low bike, low ped. .......................................... 92
A-18 Bicyclist, pre-timed, medium veh, high bike, high ped. ....................................... 93
8
A-19 Bicyclist, pre-timed, high veh, low bike, low ped. ................................................ 94
A-20 Bicyclist, pre-timed, high veh, high bike, high ped. ............................................. 95
A-21 Bicyclist, semi-actuated, medium veh, low bike, low ped. .................................. 96
A-22 Bicyclist, semi-actuated, medium veh, high bike, high ped. ................................ 97
A-23 Bicyclist, semi-actuated, high veh, low bike, low ped. ........................................ 98
A-24 Bicyclist, semi-actuated, high veh, high bike, high ped. ...................................... 99
A-25 Combination, pre-timed, medium veh, low bike, low ped. ................................. 101
A-26 Combination, pre-timed, medium veh, high bike, high ped. .............................. 102
A-27 Combination, pre-timed, high veh, low bike, low ped. ....................................... 103
A-28 Combination, pre-timed, high veh, high bike, high ped. .................................... 104
A-29 Combination, semi-actuated, medium veh, low bike, low ped. ......................... 105
A-30 Combination, semi-actuated, medium veh, high bike, high ped. ...................... 106
A-31 Combination, semi-actuated, high veh, low bike, low ped. ............................... 107
A-32 Combination, semi-actuated, high veh, high bike, high ped. ............................ 108
A-33 Alternative, pre-timed, medium veh, low bike, low ped. .................................... 110
A-34 Alternative, pre-timed, medium veh, high bike, high ped. ................................. 111
A-35 Alternative, pre-timed, high veh, low bike, low ped. .......................................... 112
A-36 Alternative, pre-timed, high veh, high bike, high ped. ....................................... 113
A-37 Alternative, semi-actuated, medium veh, low bike, low ped. ............................ 114
A-38 Alternative, semi-actuated, medium veh, high bike, high ped. .......................... 115
A-39 Alternative, semi-actuated, high veh, low bike, low ped. .................................. 116
A-40 Alternative, semi-actuated, high veh, high bike, high ped. ................................ 117
9
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure page 2-1 Sun glare on a traffic camera in Pinellas County, Florida. .................................. 20
2-2 Types of bicycle paths. ....................................................................................... 21
2-3 Phasing scheme to accommodate bicyclists and pedestrians. ........................... 22
2-4 Average user delay (s) for current versus alternative plan in Boston crossing. .. 23
2-5 Overhead view of influence area of pedestrian detection technology. ................ 25
2-6 Types of overhead detection for vehicles. .......................................................... 27
2-7 Strengths and weaknesses of detection technologies for vehicles. .................... 28
2-8 Series of different detection technologies for bicyclists. ..................................... 29
2-9 Iteris PedTrax video detection. ........................................................................... 30
2-10 The CITIX-IR overhead pedestrian detection device. ......................................... 30
2-11 Dutch style intersection designed to accommodate bicyclists safely. ................. 31
2-12 Two stage turn queue box. ................................................................................. 32
2-13 Effect of curb radii and parking on right-turning paths. ....................................... 32
2-14 Walking distance versus curb radius. ................................................................. 33
3-1 Base intersection. ............................................................................................... 36
3-2 Pedestrian intersection. ...................................................................................... 37
3-3 Bicyclist intersection. .......................................................................................... 38
3-4 Combined feature intersection. ........................................................................... 39
3-5 Staggered pelican crossing. ............................................................................... 40
3-6 Alternate intersection. ......................................................................................... 40
3-7 Base lane configuration. ..................................................................................... 43
4-1 Base design vs. pedestrian design – individual weighted delays........................ 49
4-2 Base design vs. bicyclist design – individual weighted delays. ........................... 50
10
4-3 Base design vs. combination design – individual weighted delays ..................... 51
4-4 Base design vs. alternative design – individual weighted delays. ....................... 51
4-5 Combined weighted delay – base vs. pedestrian. .............................................. 52
4-6 Combined weighted delay – base vs. bicyclist.................................................... 53
4-7 Combined weighted delay – base vs. combination. ............................................ 53
4-8 Combined weighted delay – base vs. alternative. ............................................... 54
4-9 Total vehicle delay – base vs. pedestrian. .......................................................... 55
4-10 Total vehicle delay – base vs. bicyclist. .............................................................. 56
4-11 Total vehicle delay – base vs. combination. ....................................................... 56
4-12 Total vehicle delay – base vs. alternative. .......................................................... 57
4-13 Base design vs. pedestrian design – queue changes – pre-timed. ..................... 58
4-14 Base design vs. pedestrian design – queue changes – semi-actuated. ............. 59
4-15 Base design vs. bicyclist design – queue changes – pre-timed. ......................... 60
4-16 Base design vs. bicyclist design – queue changes – semi-actuated. ................. 60
4-17 Base design vs. combination design – queue changes – pre-timed. .................. 61
4-18 Base design vs. combination design – queue changes – semi-actuated. ........... 61
4-19 Base design vs. alternative design – queue changes – pre-timed. ..................... 62
4-20 Base design vs. alternative design – queue changes – semi-actuated. ............. 63
4-21 Vehicle average speed fluctuations – base vs. pedestrian. ................................ 64
4-22 Vehicle average speed fluctuations – base vs. bicyclist. .................................... 65
4-23 Vehicle average speed fluctuations – base vs. combination. ............................. 65
4-24 Vehicle average speed fluctuations – base vs. alternative. ................................ 66
4-25 Alternative intersection right turn queueing. ....................................................... 67
5-1 Base configuration right turn issue. .................................................................... 69
A-1 Base configuration on VISSIM as pre-timed. ...................................................... 82
11
A-2 Base configuration on VISSIM as semi-actuated. ............................................... 82
A-3 Pedestrian configuration on VISSIM as pre-timed. ............................................. 91
A-4 Pedestrian configuration on VISSIM as semi-actuated. ...................................... 91
A-5 Bicyclist configuration on vissim as pre-timed. ................................................. 100
A-6 Bicyclist configuration on vissim as semi-actuated. .......................................... 100
A-7 Combination configuration on VISSIM as pre-timed. ........................................ 109
A-8 Combination configuration on VISSIM as semi-actuated. ................................. 109
A-9 Alternative configuration on VISSIM for pre-timed. ........................................... 118
A-10 Alternative configuration on VISSIM for semi-actuated. ................................... 118
12
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
AASHTO American Association of State and Highway Transportation Officials
ALT Alternative intersection
BASE Base intersection
BIKE Bicyclist intersection
COMBO Combination intersection
HB High volume bicyclists
HCM Highway Capacity Manual
HP High volume pedestrians
HV High volume vehicles
LB Low volume bicyclists
LP Low volume pedestrians
MV Medium volume vehicles
PED Pedestrian intersection
PRET Pre-timed signal system
SEMI Semi-actuated signal system
13
Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Master of Engineering
OPERATIONAL EFFECTS TO DIFFERENT TRANSPORTATION MODES AT SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS FROM DIFFERING GEOMETRIES, SIGNAL
SYSTEMS, AND VOLUME LEVELS
By
Tyler J. Valila
December 2017
Chair: Lily Elefteriadou Major: Civil Engineering
In the United States, walking and bicycling have become larger shares of
transportation. Signalized intersections have not changed to a high degree
geometrically or technologically to accommodate larger volumes of these modes in the
presence of motor vehicles. The most advanced signal systems used today do not take
pedestrians or bicyclists into account as being equal to the motor vehicle. Simple steps
can be taken at the signalized intersection to improve serviceability for all users.
The first objective of this research is to identify safe designs for pedestrians and
bicyclists at signalized intersection. The second objective is to create and simulate
these intersection characteristics with altering geometries, signal systems, and volumes
to determine which combinations produce reduction in delay. The third objective is to
create a set of guidelines based on the results that summarizes these operational
effects.
This research is meant to take an in depth look at design considerations and
resulting operational effects that an engineer will need to consider for intersection
betterment projects. The methodology involves building common scenarios seen in a
signalized intersection using a micro simulator and finding which designs can improve
14
intersection functionality the best. All results were yielded from the micro simulator
VISSIM. Measures of effectiveness include delay, vehicle queueing, and average
vehicle speed. These measurements were compared to base data to look for relative
impacts.
The results show good improvements are possible to an intersection with simple
modifications. Implementing set back cross walks can reduce vehicle delay.
Downstream crossing points for bicyclists can increase vehicle average speed. A
combination of these features gives favorable results for weighted mode delay. Finally,
staggered crosswalks at intersections give little to no operational benefits. This research
was performed solely in simulation and should be confirmed with real world field results.
15
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
Background
The United States (US) has a car-centric society that permeates into signal
operations across the country. Only recently have attempts been made to give bicyclists
shared or individual lanes. Pedestrian crossings are utilized in intersections at the
expense of vehicle delay. In a new future of transportation growth and innovation, these
three mode choices will need molding to create next generation intersections that can
reduce delay and increase safety. Through advanced signal phasing plans, new signal
systems, and effective geometric layouts, the new American intersection can strengthen
the transportation network and elevate US guidelines.
Many standards exist for different geometric layouts that affect operations. Many
signalized intersections now incorporate bike lanes in the pavement or sidewalk as a
shared or singular lane. The US is experiencing rising bicycle usage for commutes to
work with a 60.8% increase from 2000 to 2010 (McKenzie 2014). Many communities in
the US have high pedestrian and bicyclist traffic and are in need of innovative ideas.
Installations of bicyclist friendly intersections are a reflection of this growth. In these
intersections, bicyclists and pedestrians have more advantages.
Standard signal systems have fixed pedestrian signal times with phases pre-
determined. Adaptive signal systems have reduced delay for vehicles in many scenarios
but do not account for pedestrians or bicyclists. Attempts at creating adaptive signals
that accommodate these modes are in the development stages. Preferred phasing
plans for bicyclist and pedestrian movements typically implement concurrent phases
parallel to vehicle movements.
16
Detection systems have advanced enough to detect individual pedestrians and
bicyclists with direction of travel. These detection systems for pedestrians and bicyclists
are not typically used in conjunction with vehicle signals to enhance operations.
Research Objectives
The objectives of this research are to:
1. Identify safe designs for pedestrians and bicyclists at signalized intersections.
2. Create and simulate signalized intersections selected from objective 1 with alternating combinations of geometric characteristics and phasing patterns to determine which combinations produce optimal changes in delay for all modes, queueing for vehicles, and speed for vehicles.
3. Create a set of guidelines based on the summarized conclusions for the operational effects of different scenarios.
Document Organization
The literature review in Chapter 2 will present an in-depth look at current
technologies and ideas such as signal systems and designs that can help advance this
research further. Chapter 3 reviews methodology and the simulator VISSIM’s
capabilities. Chapter 4 contains results and explains the trends of the data. Chapter 5
contains conclusions and recommendations drawn from the results to determine what
designs work best to enhance operational effects at the signalized intersection.
17
CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW
Chapter 2 describes current signal technology and detection for vehicles,
bicyclists, and pedestrians with critiques of intersections accommodating all modes.
Chapter 2 also discusses effective geometric layouts and phasing patterns for an
intersection to accommodate all modes. Examples of current systems around the world
that effectively combine modes are discussed. Adaptive signals are not used in these
analyses but in the future can be used to further similar research. Adaptive signals are
discussed to outline where the technology could improve to better intersections in the
future in conjunction with findings herein.
Adaptive signals have existed for decades and have been exclusive to motor
vehicles. Technologies that can detect bicyclists and pedestrians either are beginning to
be implemented or are being designed. The intersection itself has undergone changes
in recent years in the United States including more bicyclist friendly layouts. Pedestrian
crossings have not changed by any appreciable degree. To ensure safe and effective
future intersections, the outlined modes will need sensible systems and ideal geometry.
Signal Control and Phasing
The primary types of signal control in the US is pre-timed, semi-actuated, fully
actuated, and adaptive; each have benefits and dis-benefits.
Vehicles
Pre-timed signals have green times that are fixed, based on historical data.
Semi-actuated signals allow for a major road to continuously flow with permitted lefts
until a side street sends a call for a phase. Pre-timed and Semi-actuated signals are
popular at isolated intersections. Fully actuated signals utilize minimum and maximum
18
greens for all approaches with detection on all approaches. Many types of adaptive
signal systems have been developed. Adaptive signals are installed at 3% of the
nation's traffic signals (Sanburn 2015). The elements of an adaptive signal control
system include utilizing different detection methods to feed algorithms that have the
goal of increasing capacity of an intersection and reducing delay in real time based on
existing traffic (Gettman et al. 2013). The five primary adaptive signal systems are
SCOOT, SCATS, OPAC, RHODES, and ACS Lite.
SCOOT stands for the split cycle offset optimization technique and is a popular
system in the world developed by the Transport Research Laboratory in the United
Kingdom. It works by dividing a network into regions with nodes meant to represent
signalized intersections. The three optimizers in SCOOT are the split, offset, and cycle
time. Based on prevailing conditions, the system will slowly adjust the signal-timing
plan. Zhao and Tian (2012) wrote that the system could maintain a constant
coordination of the entire signal network. SCOOT systems take traffic data in real time
and works to minimize wasted green time at any intersection while reducing delays by
synchronizing adjacent signal phases (Elefteriadou et al. 2015).
SCATS stands for the Sydney coordinated adaptive traffic system and is a
popular system in the world, which has been installed in 27 countries (Elefteriadou et al.
2015). The system was developed by the Roads and Traffic Authority of New South
Wales in Australia. SCATS has three control levels represented by central, regional,
and local levels. Each intersection distributes computations between a regional
computer and a field controller, and over time can optimize itself. Zhao and Tian (2012)
say that this system can be utilized in time of week coordination, individual
19
intersections, and more. SCATS limitations include not providing arrival prediction,
queue estimation, or phase sequence optimization. So, it only acts as a regular signal
system but is fully actuated.
OPAC stands for optimized policies for adaptive control and features an
algorithm that calculates signal timings to minimize total intersection delays and stops.
OPAC was the first demand responsive signal control. Developed at the University of
Massachusetts Lowell, this system can make decisions on whether or not a phase
should run (Zhao and Tian 2012). According to the developers, it provides better results
than off line systems. Unfortunately, due to technology at the time, the approach could
not be implemented in real time. Numerous versions of OPAC were released in
subsequent years and can optimize up to eight phases within the ring and barrier
configuration along with lead/lag left turns (Elefteriadou et al. 2015).
RHODES stands for real time hierarchical optimized distributed effective system
and was developed at the University of Arizona in the 1990's. RHODES can take in data
from multiple sensor types and generate optimal signal control plans. The system
produces real time traffic flow predictions on a corridor and optimizes the flow with
phase timing. Utilization of prediction techniques for individual cars and platoons are
considered for the system (Zhao and Tian 2012). RHODES uses a hierarchy structure
that ranks from highest to lowest dynamic network loading which captures
characteristics of geometry and route selection of travelers. Then network flow control
allocates green times made by the decisions. There is intersection control that selects
individual phases from observed and predicted volumes (Elefteriadou et al. 2015).
20
ACS Lite stands for adaptive control software lite and is sponsored by the
Federal Highway Administration (FWHA), which similar features to the other systems
but also boasts low cost, compatibility with many current sensor networks, and simple
calibration (Zhao and Tian 2012). ACS Lite can control up to 16 consecutive
intersections in a loop (Elefteriadou et al. 2015). This system's primary goal is to be
adaptive to traffic changes but maintain time of day schedules. This system is closest in
similarity to a regular non-adaptive signal and has low incremental cost of installation.
The system adjusts splits every 5 to 10 minutes, a much higher rate than other systems
described. This system was designed to minimize operation and maintenance costs,
and improvements at intersections are modest (Elefteriadou et al. 2015).
Rhythm Engineering has been implementing a new adaptive control system
called InSync. InSync works by using cameras to identify vehicles in queue and assign
them “tokens” to weigh which vehicle phase will proceed next. A drawback of the
cameras is weather related events including the suns glare as shown in Figure 2-1 from
the Pinellas County Traffic Management Center (PCTMC). The suns glare can make
the system believe vehicles are present that are not and vice versa.
Figure 2-1. Sun glare on a traffic camera in Pinellas County, Florida (image courtesy of
PCTMC).
21
In the bottom right quadrant of Figure 2-1, the suns glare makes the camera
believe a vehicle is in queue when no vehicle is present. This issue is not exclusive to
adaptive signal systems. There are no set cycle lengths, transition periods, or phasing
patterns (Elefteriadou et al. 2015). The system converts analog control to digital control,
optimizes the individual intersection, and then optimizes the total system of
intersections. Other systems do not go to this level of detail. Some issues with camera
detection and software persist but the company has worked out most problems. Rhythm
has installed InSync at more than 2000 intersections across 31 states (Rhythm 2017).
The University of Florida Transportation Institute has studied the before and after
implementations of adaptive deployments across Florida. Results have shown modest
decreases in travel time per mile across all InSync deployments studied with the
exception of heavily congested corridors (Elefteriadou et al. 2015).
Bicyclists
Signal technology for bicyclists is behind the technology used for vehicles.
Adaptive signals for bicyclists have not been found in literature but InSync is expecting
to release a feature that includes minimum green timing for bicyclists in corresponding
through movements. Bicycle lanes are categorized in the HCM as shown in Figure 2-2.
Figure 2-2. Types of bicycle paths (reprinted from TRB 2010).
22
In the US, bicycle lanes are becoming more commonplace. Most of the types of
bike paths shown in Figure 2-2 coincide with vehicles in the immediate vicinity. Bicycle
usage is rising in the United States, and therefore the issue of accommodating bicycles
in intersections will continue. Copenhagen, Denmark sees volumes exceeding 30,000
bicycles per day in both directions on spring and fall days with good weather (TRB
2010). This number is much higher than virtually any American city corridor and
explains why more measures are taken in European centers.
When bicyclists are present at an intersection, the users typically get a sole
phase for all movements or concurrent and parallel phases with vehicle movements.
Sole phases reduce an intersections capacity and increase cycle length. All pedestrian
phases are usually necessary within college campuses and similar areas with
remarkably high pedestrian volumes. An advantage to protected-yet-concurrent phasing
is most helpful when the stop line for a bike is further downstream than the vehicle stop
bar. One phasing scheme that accommodates bicyclists and pedestrians with conflicting
right turns is in Figure 2-3.
Figure 2-3. Phasing scheme to accommodate bicyclists and pedestrians (reprinted from
Furth et al. 2014).
23
Figure 2-3 shows that bicyclists move with the flow of traffic for this particular
phasing plan. A study on European intersections has found some intersections utilize
leading bicycle intervals (Gilpin et al. 2015).
A study of Roxbury Crossing in Boston was completed comparing the current all
pedestrian phase with a concurrent but protected phase with results in Figure 2-4. The
intersection has high pedestrian volumes due to its proximity to schools. At this
particular intersection, bicyclists can be unwilling to wait for an all-pedestrian phase and
proceed without any protection. The following protected-but-concurrent phasing can
help optimize efficiency of time for pedestrians, bicyclists, and vehicles. Giving
pedestrians and bicyclists protected phase’s increases safety for all.
Figure 2-4. Average user delay (s) for current versus alternative plan in Boston
crossing (reprinted from Furth et al. 2014).
The data shows that changing from an all pedestrian and bicyclist phase to
concurrent phases can significantly reduce delay for bicyclists and pedestrians. Within
the US, no national guidelines exist for permitted conflicts at bike crossings (Furth et al.
2014). Dutch stop bars for bicyclists are between 40 and 60 feet downstream and have
their own phases (Furth et al. 2014). These bicyclist phases may begin earlier or later
than the vehicular phase to allow more time to reduce conflicting right turns (Furth et al.
2014).
24
Pedestrians
Pedestrians currently cross intersections with pre-set crossing times. There are
no implemented adaptive signals for pedestrian usage. Some areas such as Ithaca, NY
and Athens, OH have more than 35% of commuters walking to work but the average for
the country is around 3% (McKenzie 2014). With some areas having such large
pedestrian volumes, a change in technology could help enhance operations. Some
intersections allow through movements of vehicles to run at the same time as parallel
pedestrian crossings, similar to bicyclists. This works if the signals are pre-timed to
allow enough time for a pedestrian to clear the intersection. The length of time it takes a
fixed group of pedestrians to cross an intersection does not change, so running
pedestrians parallel to actuated or adaptive signals for vehicles would not always work
effectively. If a through movement requires less green time then pedestrians need to
clear an intersection, the efficiencies lessened. There are cases where pedestrians are
given pre-timed phases in an adaptive signal intersection and the benefits of the
adaptive signal reduced. One study suggests a “protected-yet-concurrent” phasing
scheme can be more efficient than giving pedestrians and bicyclists an individual phase
(Furth et al. 2014) which is similar to bicyclist findings. A thesis by Hu (2014) describes
the problem with pedestrians in adaptive intersections. The thesis involved simulated
movements using real data of pedestrian and traffic volumes in synchro. Hu’s (2014)
findings were the following:
1. Pedestrian actuations can increase the control delay both under TOD plan and ASCT plan.
2. The impact of pedestrian activities is more significant on the ASCT system than the TOD coordination.
3. Pedestrian activities offset some of the benefits on delays brought by ASCT.
25
4. ASCT reduces delay when compared to a TOD plan even when pedestrian activities increase delay.
The study also gave recommendations for future ASCT projects on urban roads.
The delays caused by pedestrian activities should be considered during both the design
and planning phases. A recommendation for future research includes incorporating new
detection devices to determine durations and sequence of pedestrian intervals without
compromising safety.
A research team in China developed an adaptive pedestrian crossing signal
control system. The developed system was able to effectively identify the pedestrian
waiting area and calculate pedestrian wait time and total pedestrians (Xiao et al. 2013).
According to the research team, the video sampling device is fitted on a stand on the
side of the crossing and the video sequences are taken in real time (Xiao et al. 2013).
The control unit calculates the amount of pedestrians and their respective waiting time.
If the amount of pedestrians or waiting time goes beyond a certain limit, a crossing
signal is activated by the control unit and displayed by the display unit. The video unit in
the study scanned the area surrounded by a black rectangle in Figure 2-5.
Figure 2-5. Overhead view of influence area of pedestrian detection technology
(reprinted from Xiao et al. 2013).
26
The proposed background algorithm follows seven (7) steps that take the
intensities of pedestrian volumes and determine when a green signal is warranted. To
test the validity of the algorithms, most of the simulations were completed at T-junctions
without traffic signals. The results showed hardware components of adaptive pedestrian
signals are viable, the algorithm used can build the background reconstruction well, and
image sequence processing is effective. The researchers noted that future work needs
to be done with experiments that are more realistic.
Currently at signalized intersections, pedestrians either have one entire phase or
run parallel to vehicle movements. The problem with one phase is it reduces the
effectiveness of the adaptive signal for vehicles. The problem with pedestrians moving
parallel to adaptive signals when green is when the minimum time required to clear is
greater than time allotted for vehicular traffic. This causes unnecessary delay for
vehicles on the opposing approaches. Coordination can be lost if the pedestrian timing
exceeds allocated time for the corresponding vehicle movement. InSync has deployed
time of day pedestrian exclusive phases for school release.
Detection
Detection technology is rapidly advancing for all modes of transportation. The
purpose for including detection technologies is to show advancements in the field,
especially for pedestrians and bicyclists. This information can be useful for future
research when determining efficient ways to calculate crossing times. All actuated and
adaptive signal systems rely on detection to make algorithms work.
Vehicles have overhead cameras, radar, loop detectors, pressure plates, and
more. Bicyclists use loop detectors, overhead and side detection, and push buttons.
Pedestrians typically only have push buttons but many companies are developing both
27
overhead and side detection systems that can accurately count the number of
pedestrians entering a crosswalk area.
Vehicles
Vehicle sensors are either in-roadway or over-roadway. In-roadway sensors
include loop detectors, weigh in motion sensors, magnetometers, tape switches,
microloops, pneumatic road tubes, piezoelectric cables (Mimbela and Klein 2007).
These are installed either in the pavement, subgrade, and attached to the road surface.
These do require disruption to traffic flow to install and maintain. Resurfacing work can
create the need to re-install these technologies as well (Mimbela and Klein 2007).
Over-roadway sensors include video image processors, microwave radar
sensors, ultrasonic, passive infrared, and laser radar sensors. Passive acoustic sensors
can be used for adjacent roadway sensing (Mimbela and Klein 2007). Some over-
roadway technologies are outlined in Figure 2-6.
Figure 2-6. Types of overhead detection for vehicles (reprinted from Mimbela and Klein
2007).
28
These overhead detection devices are commonplace in intersections in the US.
A comparison between strengths and weaknesses for different sensor technologies is
presented in Figure 2-7.
Figure 2-7. Strengths and weaknesses of detection technologies for vehicles (reprinted
from Mimbela and Klein 2007).
Some agencies prefer radar to cameras due to natural events such as the suns
glare.
Bicyclists
Many companies have developed products capable of accurately counting
bicyclists in urban environments. These real time detection systems technologies range
from tubes to in-ground sensors to post-mounted sensors (Eco-Counter 2017). Eco-
Counter is a company out of Canada that specializes in these types of detection
systems. One detection system called MULTI can count both pedestrians and bicyclists
29
at the same time accurately at distances of up to 6 meters. Another technology called
the ZELT Loop (Figure 2-8) can detect direction and speed of traveling bicyclists on
shared roads.
A B Figure 2-8. Series of different detection technologies for bicyclists. A) Sketch of
sublayer ZELT installation, B) Bicycle detection system on shared road (reprinted from Eco-Counter 2017).
These technologies integrate well into communities and have an aesthetic touch
while serving an engineering purpose. They also can accurately tell which way a bike is
heading.
Pedestrians
Pedestrian detection systems generally rely on mounted detection devices. Many
companies have developed detection systems used for a wide variety of
implementations.
Iteris is a company from California that develops pedestrian detection systems.
One product called PedTrax is a video detection device that “provides bi-directional
counting and speed tracking of pedestrians within the crosswalk (Iteris 2017).” A
30
camera view of a pedestrian crossing is shown in Figure 2-9. The company Eco-
Counter sells the CITIX-IR camera (Figure 2-10) that counts pedestrian movements
overhead over a sidewalk.
Figure 2-9. Iteris PedTrax video detection (reprinted from Iteris 2017).
The CITIX-IR is considered the, “most advanced and precise counting system
available on the market” and is, “ideal for counting pedestrians on high traffic
sidewalks.” (Eco-Counter 2017).
A B Figure 2-10. The CITIX-IR overhead pedestrian detection device shown as A) From the
pedestrian view, B) Sketch of the technology (reprinted from Eco-Counter 2017).
31
The system can indicate direction of travel as well. Standard equations exist that
take crosswalk length, width, and pedestrian volumes into account for a preset
clearance time. If the amount of pedestrians are detected, the time can adjust to reduce
delay. However, this is not current practice.
Intersection Design
In the United States, bicyclist friendly intersections are installed in some
locations. The bicyclist friendly intersection is a viable option to accommodate vehicles,
bicyclists, and pedestrians safely (Gilpin et al. 2015). Figure 2-11 in Davis, CA shows a
Dutch style protected intersection designed for bicyclist safety.
Figure 2-11. Dutch style intersection designed to accommodate bicyclists safely
(reprinted from Andersen 2015).
Many intersections utilize this type of design involving downstream and offset
bicyclist crossings that can help bicyclists stay protected. Bumping out corners can
reduce the turning time of vehicles to reach bicyclists in crosswalks and increases
safety. The two-stage turn queue box lets bicyclists complete safe left turns with less
conflicts at the expense of higher delay (NACTO 2011) as shown in Figure 2-12.
32
Figure 2-12. Two stage turn queue box (reprinted from NACTO 2011).
A report in 2003 for the FHWA outlined signalized intersection safety in Europe.
One method used by the Dutch to improve intersection safety is to install grade-
separated crossings for bicyclists and pedestrians (Fong et al. 2003). AASHTO
guidelines on intersection geometry states that, “for arterial street design, adequate radii
for vehicle operations should be balanced against the needs of pedestrians and the
difficulty of acquiring additional right-of-way” (AASHTO 2012). Crosswalk distances
change along with adjustments to curb radius as shown in Figure 2-13.
A B Figure 2-13. Effect of curb radii and parking on right-turning paths for A) 15 foot curb
radius, B) 25 foot curb radius (reprinted from AASHTO 2012).
33
The difference in curb radii makes a distinct change in movement capability for
vehicles. Figure 2-14 shows how changes in curb radii affect length of crosswalks.
Figure 2-14. Walking distance versus curb radius (reprinted from AASHTO 2012).
AASHTO (2012) recommends that the curb radii should be coordinated with
crosswalk distances or special designs should be used to make crosswalks efficient for
all pedestrians, For large radiuses of 40 feet or more (typical for refuge islands), tapers
should be provided to fit paths of large trucks or buses. Setback crosswalks allow for
pedestrians to be removed from vehicular traffic movements conflicts. Curb parking
lanes and restrictive parking can increase the usable radius. Proper channelization can
increase capacity for pedestrian and enhanced guidance for motorists (AASHTO 2012).
Mitigating the right turn bicycle and pedestrian conflicts through pocket bike lanes, and
raised crossings like in Boulder, CO can increase safety (Furth et al. 2014).
34
Summary
Adaptive signal technology has been effective in reducing delay for motorists but
does not accommodate bicyclists or pedestrians well. Pedestrian and bicycle phases
can reduce benefits from adaptive signal installation. Detection methods are present
and sophisticated for both pedestrians and bicyclists, but no adaptive signal system has
implemented these detections into algorithms for all modes. Intersection geometry has
fundamentally changed with the incorporation of bicycle lanes. Changes to curb radii
can affect the travel distance for pedestrians and bicyclists across roads but comes at
the cost of motorist comfort and right-of-way. The two most prevalent safety
enhancements that will be used for analysis is the setback crosswalk and the
downstream bicyclist crossing.
In order to enhance operational effects for vehicles, pedestrians, and bicyclists at
signalized intersections, a combination of phasing patterns, intersection geometry, and
detection technology can be implemented.
35
CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY
Chapter 3 will review intersection configurations used for testing, the simulator
software, scenarios to be included, and how data results are analyzed. The objectives
of this research are to identify safe designs, simulate the designs, and then determine
which work best for certain situations. To accomplish this, safe designs from literature
review are simulated in VISSIM.
Intersection Configuration
Before beginning the analysis, safe designs and features of intersections must be
incorporated into the different scenarios. The configurations are base design, pedestrian
design, bicyclist design, combination (bike/ped) design, and an alternative design. All
scenarios will have the same lane geometry. All intersections will share the following
characteristics:
No coordination with any other intersection
Zero grade on all approaches
12 foot Lanes
2% Heavy vehicles for all turning movements
10 foot Wide crosswalks
Stop bars in line with each-other by approach
Good sight distance (no buildings or objects in the drivers way)
A 40 MPH speed limit for the major road, 25 MPH speed limit for the minor road
Left turn and right turn bays of 100 feet
For all scenarios, pedestrians and bikes have concurrent phasing with vehicle
movements. Bike movements for the base configuration are in line with the vehicle
lanes as shown in Figure 3-1. Bike movements follow the original direction of travel. Left
and right turns will not be simulated. The downstream and perpendicular distance from
the vehicle stop bar to the parallel pedestrian crosswalk is 20 feet and 10 feet
36
respectively with an exception for southbound through/right movements due to lane
geometry.
Figure 3-1. Base intersection.
The base intersection is the source of comparison for all other scenarios. For the
pedestrian intersection, A downstream crossing point of 40 feet and perpendicular
distance of 30 feet to a crosswalk is used for the design. The turn radius is small
enough to reduce vehicle speed. This design utilizes setback crosswalks, shown in
Figure 3-2. Vehicles and bicyclists have to cross a further distance to clear.
The 40-foot measurement is a typical lower side measurement for Dutch
intersections that use this kind of geometry and will allow space for right turning vehicles
to queue without impeding through movements. Pedestrians are given a head start for
37
crossing the street. This scenario will not reduce the length that a pedestrian must
cross, as no lanes are eliminated.
Figure 3-2. Pedestrian intersection.
Pedestrians have a downstream starting point relative to vehicles. This coupled
with the head start timing allows pedestrians to get out of a vehicles way quicker, and
allows right turning vehicles to not obstruct through movements. This design can effect
sight distance for vehicles.
The bicyclist intersection has through and right moving bikes in exclusive lanes
next to the pedestrian sidewalk. A bike ramp from the road to the sidewalk is used. This
feature is shown in Figure 3-3.
38
Figure 3-3. Bicyclist intersection.
The bicyclist design reduces the proximity of a bicyclist to a motor vehicle by
shifting the crossing point. In a paper by Stanek and Alexander (2015), tests were
performed using VISSIM to determine the operational effects to vehicles when placing a
bicyclist crossing downstream of the vehicle stop bar. There are four scenarios
identified in the research for when bicyclists and vehicles interact which are right turning
drivers yielding, bicyclists getting a lead interval, bicyclists getting separated and
protected phasing, and right turning cars move unimpeded while bikes move with
through traffic (Stanek and Alexander 2015). The bicyclist design in Figure 3-3 has
downstream crossings for bicyclists that for the westbound approach utilizes the
39
authors’ fourth method. Bicyclists have the same signal timings as vehicles in this
design.
The combined intersection utilizes the features of both the pedestrian and
bicyclist friendly intersection together. The combined intersection is shown in Figure 3-4.
Figure 3-4. Combined feature intersection.
The setback crosswalks coupled with shifted bicyclist crossing points should
allow through moving vehicles in shared right turn lanes to move unimpeded. An
alternate intersection is also tested. This intersection design is based on the staggered
pelican crossing (Department for Transport 2017) used in the United Kingdom. An
example of a staggered pelican crossing is shown in Figure 3-5.
40
Figure 3-5. Staggered pelican crossing (reprinted from Department for Transport 2017).
The alternate design (Figure 3-6) utilizes the concept of the staggered pelican
crossing but at a signalized intersection crossing. This allows right turning vehicles
ample queue storage to allow through movements to proceed uninhibited.
Figure 3-6. Alternate intersection.
41
The staggered pelican requires two separate crossing times, but this alternate
design utilizes one crossing time with an advanced pedestrian start. In a real world
situation if a pedestrian is unable to clear the intersection, they can use the island as
refuge until the next crossing available. The alternate design also utilizes a median
refuge island in conjunction with the staggered crosswalk. Not pictured in Figure 3-6 is
the required median space for the design. The design would make more sense at an
intersection where all approaches have medians already in place. Bicyclists will not use
this crosswalk feature. One benefit of this design is better sight distance for vehicles
compared to the pedestrian or combination design.
Simulation
The program used to simulate the criteria is the micro-simulator VISSIM. The
program has many capabilities that are useful for this analysis. VISSIM capabilities
include displaying different stop bars for different modes to cross the street, the use of
external controllers, all types of signal systems, determining queues of all modes, and
accurate representations of all modes and respective characteristics. Downsides to the
program VISSIM are a steep learning curve and the program being a blank canvas
where minor details can be over looked. Dynamic crossing times similar to discussion in
literature review can be coded into VISSIM but would be out of scope for this research.
Challenges from using VISSIM began with learning how to properly incorporate
pedestrians and bicyclists. These types of modes require separate “lanes” and models
in the simulator. Vehicles use wiedemann 74, bicyclists use wiedemann 99, and
pedestrians use a social force model. The volumes could also be set to stochastic or
fixed. Fixed was chosen because a similar amount of volumes will occur between runs
of a scenario. VISSIM requires the user to manually assign conflict areas where
42
pedestrians have right of way over vehicles, opposing through moving vehicles have
right of way over permitted left turns, and more. The user must also identify reduced
speed areas for vehicles that clear the stop bar and are using reduced speed to
complete a turn.
VISSIM defines delay of a mode as the optimal time subtracted from the actual
time. Vehicle queues are measured simultaneously through the simulation, regardless
of whether the signal is green or red. For this research, queues are defined in VISSIM
as vehicles that are fully stopped.
The use of VISSIM lead to some issues in each configuration. The base
configuration was the “test” where I would use it to learn how to use VISSIM properly
before moving onto other configurations. Some issues were lining up opposing
movements, using simple connections, and making the correct modes appear in the
correct lanes. One situation involved pedestrians traveling at the speed of vehicles
using the vehicle lanes.
No major issues arose with the pedestrian configuration or the bicyclist
configuration. The combination configuration was very complex along with the
alternative configuration. When moving the lanes to create the configurations, the
conflict areas had to be re-made and fitting the crosswalks into the medians required
minor geometric adjustments.
Scenarios
Different volumes of vehicles, bicyclists, and pedestrians are inter-changed along
with the signal system and configuration. The intersections all have the same lane
configuration as shown in Figure 3-7 regardless of signal system or geometry.
43
Figure 3-7. Base lane configuration.
Differentiating combinations of lane movements are used to get a better idea of
how the geometry and signal system affect turning movements. Cycle lengths and
green time splits calculations are based on standard equations for the pre-timed and
semi-actuated scenarios. The optimal cycle length was used in nearly all pre-timed
scenarios with some exceptions where the minimum time was used. All pre-timed
scenarios have three phases beginning with eastbound and westbound left turns, then
eastbound and westbound through and right turns, and finally all northbound and
southbound movements. All semi-actuated scenarios have two phases starting with all
eastbound and westbound movements with permitted left turns and ending with all
northbound and southbound movements.
Using existing technology, current equations could determine required crossing
time for pedestrians and bicyclists as they arrive to cross the street. This is different
from current systems that have a pre-set walk time for pedestrians based on historical
data. Some intersections utilize “adaptive” timing for bicyclists with extended green time
44
through loop detector detection (AASHTO Executive Committee 2012). This technology
is not used in these designs.
For this research, a dynamic crosswalk timing is not used due to its complexity.
Different volumes of pedestrians and bicyclists are simulated into the network with an
appropriately pre-timed crossing time. To determine the cross time necessary for the
pedestrians, Equation 3-1 (TRB 2010) will be used.
𝐺𝑝 = 3.2 + 𝐿
𝑆𝑝+ (0.27 𝑥 𝑁𝑝𝑒𝑑)𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑊𝐸 ≤ 10 𝑓𝑡 (3-1)
Where,
Gp = minimum pedestrian green time in seconds
3.2 = pedestrian start-up time in seconds
L = crosswalk length in ft
Sp = walking speed of pedestrians, usually taken as 3.5 ft/s
Nped = number of pedestrians crossing during an interval
WE = effective crosswalk width in ft
Bicyclist crossing times are calculated from, Equation 3-2 and 3-3 (AASHTO
Executive Committee 2012).
𝐵𝐶𝑇𝑆𝑇𝐴𝑁𝐷𝐼𝑁𝐺 = 𝑃𝑅𝑇 + 𝑉
2𝑎+
(𝑊+𝐿)
𝑉
(3-2)
𝐵𝑀𝐺 = 𝐵𝐶𝑇𝑆𝑇𝐴𝑁𝐷𝐼𝑁𝐺 − 𝑌 − 𝑅𝐶𝐿𝐸𝐴𝑅 (3-3)
Where,
BCTSTANDING= Bicycle crossing time (s)
PRT = perception reaction time (1 sec)
45
V = attained bike crossing speed (ft/s, 14.7 ft/s for most people)
a = bike acceleration (1.5 ft/s2)
W = Intersection width (ft)
L = typical bike length (6 ft)
BMG = Bicycle minimum green time (s)
Y = yellow change interval (s)
RCLEAR = all-red (s)
The pre-timed scenarios all have pedestrian crossing times (walk and do not
walk) that are equal to or less than the concurrent vehicle movements green time. The
semi-actuated signals have some situations where the minimum green time is increased
for minor street movements to accommodate pedestrian arrivals. Minimum and
pedestrian recalls are also implemented. The criteria used in VISSIM simulations is
outlined in Table 3-1.
Table 3-1. Criteria table for VISSIM analysis.
Geometric Design Signal System Vehicle Volume Ped/Bike Volume
Base Pre-Timed Medium Low
Pedestrian Semi-Actuated High High
Bicyclist Combination Alternative
These criteria are used for all scenarios and for comparison between each other.
The vehicle volumes used reflect intermediate peak and peak period volumes while the
pedestrian and bicyclist volumes will reflect an intersection with little demand versus
high demand. A summary of volumes for vehicles, pedestrians, and bicyclists is
presented below in Table 3-2 and Table 3-3:
46
Table 3-2. Volume table for vehicles (vehicles per hour).
Vehicle Movements
Level NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR
Medium 20 120 50 40 300 85 100 880 30 60 350 30
High 24 144 60 44 330 94 140 1232 42 78 455 39
Table 3-3. Volume table for pedestrians and bicyclists (individuals per hour).
Pedestrian Movements Bicyclist Movements
Level North South East West North South East West
Low 100 100 50 50 50 50 40 40
High 400 400 200 200 200 200 160 160
Performance Measures
Performance measures sought for analysis include:
1. The overall delay of left, through, and right turning vehicles by approach 2. Bicyclist and pedestrian delay at crossing points 3. The average vehicle speed of the system 4. Queue length changes on all vehicle lanes
The program VISSIM produces reports on delay, queues, level of service (LOS),
and average speeds. The HCM provides a separate methodology on calculating delay
for pedestrians. VISSIM results are used for all analyses. Delay in the program is
defined as the optimal travel time subtracted from the actual travel time. Queues in
VISSIM are defined as any vehicle traveling at less than 0.1 mph, effectively fully
stopped. VISSIM collects queue data continuously during an entire analysis period so
queue results do not represent the average queue when a phase begins (HCM
methodology) but rather at all times.
Statistical Comparison Process
The intersections analysis are performed by comparing the base geometric
layout results to different designs. A confidence level of 95% is used for each scenario.
47
This yields N runs per scenario from Equation 3-4. There are 40 different scenarios
(yielded from Table 3-1).
𝑁 = [𝑆𝑡𝑑.𝑆 𝑥 𝑡
(1−𝑎2
,𝑁−1)
𝐸]2
(3-4)
Where,
N = number of runs
Std.S = Sample standard deviation from an initial ten runs (0.3 mph)
t(1-a/2, N-1) = T-score for 2-tail, 95% confidence, 9 degrees of freedom (2.2622)
E = desired margin of error (taken as 0.5 mph)
Equation 3-4 yields a required two runs per scenario, but ten runs are used for all
scenarios. The sample collection sheet in Table 3-4 is used for inputting data for the
appendix. The collection sheet allows all required performance measures to be
recorded in one sheet. One sheet is an average of ten runs and all sheets are included
in appendix.
48
Table 3-4. Criteria table for comparative analysis.
Signal System Type x Vehicle Average Speed (mph) x
Vehicle Volume Category x Weighted Veh Average Delay (s/veh) x
Pedestrian Volume Category x Weighted Ped Average Delay (s/ped) x
Bicyclist Volume Category x Weighted Bike Average Delay (s/bike) x
Geometric Layout x Cycle Length (s) x
Vehicle Approach
Average Queue Length (ft)
Average Delay per Vehicle (s)
Pedestrian Approach
Average Delay per Pedestrian (s)
Bicyclist Approach
Average Delay per Bicyclist (s)
NBL x x *NB East x NB x
NBT x x NB West x SB x
NBR x x SB East x EB x
SBL x x SB West x WB x
SBT x x EB North x SBR x x EB South x EBL x x WB North x EBT x x WB South x EBR x x WBL x x WBT x x WBR x x *NB East denotes NB travel on the eastern most crosswalk
49
CHAPTER 4 RESULTS
Chapter 4 reviews the results from simulations of all scenarios. This includes
delay, vehicle queueing, and vehicle average speed. First, the individual weighted delay
of each mode are reviewed. Then, the weighted delay of all modes combined are
reviewed. The final delay measurement will be total vehicle delay. The vehicle queue
changes of all scenarios broken down by direction and approach are reviewed. Finally,
vehicle average speed changes are compared.
Delays
The first measure of effectiveness is the delay of vehicles, bicyclists, and
pedestrians at the intersection. Delay is a great indicator of gas usage with more delay
totaling to more gas usage. Minimizing delay for all modes is imperative for an efficient
intersection. Individual weighted delay is defined as the per person delay per mode. The
total given in Figures 4-1 to 4-4 are sums of these individual delays and is not the
weighted delay of all modes. The pedestrian designs delays are very consistent with the
base design except for LP LB MV PRET where delays mostly decrease and LP LB HV
SEMI where delays mostly increase (Figure 4-1).
Figure 4-1. Base design vs. pedestrian design – individual weighted delays.
-4-3-2-10123456
LP LB MVPRET
LP LB HVPRET
HP HB MVPRET
HP HB HVPRET
LP LB MVSEMI
LP LB HVSEMI
HP HB MVSEMI
HP HB HVSEMI
Ch
ange
in D
elay
(se
c)
Scenario
Individual Weighted Delay - Pedestrian vs. Base
Vehicle
Pedestrian
Bicyclist
50
Delay goes down for vehicles in the pedestrian configuration because right
turning vehicles are not immediately yielding to the crosswalk. The bicyclist
configuration results in Figure 4-2 shows little to no improvement in any system.
Bicyclists receive a downstream head start on vehicles with a small offset. This design
had virtually no positive impact for bicyclists delay, but does give bicyclists a shorter
crossing distance.
Figure 4-2. Base design vs. bicyclist design – individual weighted delays.
When both the pedestrian and bicyclist features were combined, delay reduction
was expected to be significant (Figure 4-3). The results show that only one scenario, LP
LB MV SEMI provides a reduction in all modes delay, albeit small.
With such little interaction between vehicles, bicyclists, and pedestrians, this
makes sense. The pre-timed version did not have the same result most likely due to
less time to cross per cycle. Bicyclist delay increased in the other seven scenarios.
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
LP LB MVPRET
LP LB HVPRET
HP HB MVPRET
HP HB HVPRET
LP LB MVSEMI
LP LB HVSEMI
HP HB MVSEMI
HP HB HVSEMI
Ch
ange
in D
elay
(se
c)
Scenario
Individual Weighted Delay - Bicyclist vs. Base
Vehicle
Pedestrian
Bicyclist
51
Figure 4-3. Base design vs. combination design – individual weighted delays
The alternate configuration has large increases in delay for pedestrians. This
occurs because the crossing time required for pedestrians increases, which in turn
reduces the walk time allowed. The alternative layout also requires pedestrians to cross
a longer distance than in other scenarios. The layout provides better sight distance to
vehicles but as a whole does not help the system itself except for a slight betterment in
HP HB HV Semi-actuated scenarios. Bicyclist delay remains close to the base data.
Figure 4-4. Base design vs. alternative design – individual weighted delays.
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
LP LB MVPRET
LP LB HVPRET
HP HB MVPRET
HP HB HVPRET
LP LB MVSEMI
LP LB HVSEMI
HP HB MVSEMI
HP HB HVSEMI
Ch
ange
in D
elay
(se
c)
Scenario
Individual Weighted Delay - Combination vs. Base
Vehicle
Pedestrian
Bicyclist
-2-1012345678
LP LB MVPRET
LP LB HVPRET
HP HB MVPRET
HP HB HVPRET
LP LB MVSEMI
LP LB HVSEMI
HP HB MVSEMI
HP HB HVSEMI
Ch
ange
in D
elay
(se
c)
Scenario
Individual Weighted Delay - Alternative vs. Base
Vehicle
Pedestrian
Bicyclist
52
The delay of the three modes are also combined into a weighted average of all
users in the intersection. Figure 4-5 to 4-8 show the weighted delay for every mode
combined. The value was calculated by finding the sum of vehicle-seconds delay,
bicyclist-seconds delay, and pedestrian-seconds delay and dividing the sum by the total
users in the system.
The pedestrian scenarios saw the best decrease in delay in the LP LB MV PRET
scenario of 13 seconds to approximately 10.5 seconds. This is because the scenario
has the lowest possible traffic volumes combined with more phases in a pre-timed
setting. The pedestrian design helps with reducing weighted delay best overall. The
combination design also has slight improvements as well due to the similar design.
Figure 4-5. Combined weighted delay – base vs. pedestrian.
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
LP LB MVPRET
LP LB HVPRET
HP HB MVPRET
HP HB HVPRET
LP LB MVSEMI
LP LB HVSEMI
HP HB MVSEMI
HP HB HVSEMI
Wei
ghte
d D
elay
of
all m
od
es (
s)
Scenario
Combined Weighted Delay - Pedestrian vs. Base
Base Pedestrian
53
The bicyclist weighted delay in Figure 4-6 shows expected results. Since the
geometric changes are minimal, the delay of all modes is expected to remain close to
the base.
Figure 4-6. Combined weighted delay – base vs. bicyclist.
As expected, the combined weighted delay in Figure 4-7 follows a similar trend to
the pedestrian delay.
Figure 4-7. Combined weighted delay – base vs. combination.
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
LP LB MVPRET
LP LB HVPRET
HP HB MVPRET
HP HB HVPRET
LP LB MVSEMI
LP LB HVSEMI
HP HB MVSEMI
HP HB HVSEMIW
eigh
ted
Del
ay o
f al
l mo
des
(s)
Scenario
Combined Weighted Delay - Bicyclist vs. Base
Base Bicyclist
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
LP LB MVPRET
LP LB HVPRET
HP HB MVPRET
HP HB HVPRET
LP LB MVSEMI
LP LB HVSEMI
HP HB MVSEMI
HP HB HVSEMI
Wei
ghte
d D
elay
of
all m
od
es (
s)
Scenario
Combined Weighted Delay - Combination vs. Base
Base Combination
54
The alternative configuration experiences rises in all scenarios with combined
weighted delay. This configuration requires pedestrians to walk further distances than
the base. The configuration is the same as the combination configuration with the
exception of a further pedestrian crossing distance, and a setback crosswalk. The rising
effect is due to the large rises in pedestrian delay.
Figure 4-8. Combined weighted delay – base vs. alternative.
Weighted delay increases considerably for some scenarios in the alternative
configuration. The alternative design reduces the available green time for pedestrians. If
a design featured the alternative layout but bikes moved with pedestrians, the vehicle
average speed could theoretically increase, vehicle delay would go down, but
pedestrians and bicyclist would have to both cross further distances.
The next comparison method for delay is the total vehicle delay of all motor
vehicles. This measurement shows how many total seconds of waiting for motor
vehicles are removed or gained from the system from geometric changes.
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
LP LB MVPRET
LP LB HVPRET
HP HB MVPRET
HP HB HVPRET
LP LB MVSEMI
LP LB HVSEMI
HP HB MVSEMI
HP HB HVSEMI
Wei
ghte
d D
elay
of
all m
od
es (
s)
Scenario
Combined Weighted Delay - Alternative vs. Base
Base Alternative
55
The most noticeable change is the pedestrian design in Figure 4-9. Every
scenario sees a drop in delay of over 1,000 seconds each with a maximum of almost
6,000 seconds of delay removed from the system in the LP LB MV PRET scenario.
Figure 4-9. Total vehicle delay – base vs. pedestrian.
The bicyclist design does not show any noticeable improvements to the system
for any scenario in Figure 4-10. Some scenarios see an increase in time such as the LP
LB HV SEMI and the HP HP HV SEMI.
These two scenarios share the same amount of vehicles and the same signal
system, with the only change coming from the amount of pedestrians and bicyclists.
This indicates that vehicles are sensitive to this geometric change in high vehicle
volume environments.
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
LP LB MVPRET
LP LB HVPRET
HP HB MVPRET
HP HB HVPRET
LP LB MVSEMI
LP LB HVSEMI
HP HB MVSEMI
HP HB HVSEMI
Tota
l Del
ay (
Tho
usa
nd
s o
f se
c)
Scenario
Total Vehicle Delay - Pedestrian vs. Base
Base Pedestrian
56
Figure 4-10. Total vehicle delay – base vs. bicyclist.
Similar to other results in the delay measurements, the combination design
performs well (Figure 4-11) with every scenario seeing a drop in total vehicle delay. The
alternative design in Figure 4-12 contains only one scenario with a drop in total vehicle
delay in LP LB MV SEMI.
Figure 4-11. Total vehicle delay – base vs. combination.
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
LP LB MVPRET
LP LB HVPRET
HP HB MVPRET
HP HB HVPRET
LP LB MVSEMI
LP LB HVSEMI
HP HB MVSEMI
HP HB HVSEMI
Tota
l Del
ay (
Tho
usa
nd
s o
f se
c)
Scenario
Total Vehicle Delay - Bicyclist vs. Base
Base Bicyclist
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
LP LB MVPRET
LP LB HVPRET
HP HB MVPRET
HP HB HVPRET
LP LB MVSEMI
LP LB HVSEMI
HP HB MVSEMI
HP HB HVSEMI
Tota
l Del
ay (
Tho
usa
nd
s o
f se
c)
Scenario
Total Vehicle Delay - Combination vs. Base
Base Combination
57
Figure 4-12. Total vehicle delay – base vs. alternative.
The delay measure of effectiveness indicates that the pedestrian design works
best overall, especially for pre-timed signals.
Delay decreases generally for all modes when set back crosswalks are
implemented in configurations like pedestrian and combination. Designs with minimal
geometric changes like the bicyclist configuration has virtually no change to the system.
The alternative configuration in theory should see bicyclist and pedestrian waiting delay
remain similar to the base but because less green time is allotted, delay goes up.
Vehicle Queues
Queueing results are the second measure of effectiveness. When looking at the
marginal results from changes in an intersection, the queue data can tell how many
vehicles are waiting for their respective phase. Pedestrian and bicyclist queues are not
used for comparison because vehicle queueing is considered to be more significant to
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
LP LB MVPRET
LP LB HVPRET
HP HB MVPRET
HP HB HVPRET
LP LB MVSEMI
LP LB HVSEMI
HP HB MVSEMI
HP HB HVSEMI
Tota
l Del
ay (
Tho
usa
nd
s o
f se
c)
Scenario
Total Vehicle Delay - Alternative vs. Base
Base Alternative
58
overall operational effects due to fuel usage and pedestrians and bikes moving as a
group from queue where vehicles have to wait for the downstream vehicle to move first.
The pedestrian configuration has little change in queueing in pre-timed signals
with the exception of the southbound through/right movement, eastbound left
movement, and eastbound through/right movement in the HP HB MV scenario (Figure
4-13).
These movements contain the critical volumes for the three phases. In a
maximum volume scenario, queue increases are expected. The semi-actuated signals
for pedestrian design shows minimal change in queue (Figure 4-14).
Figure 4-13. Base design vs. pedestrian design – queue changes – pre-timed.
-20
0
20
40
60
80
100
NBL/T/R SBL SBT/R EBL EBT/R WBL WBT WBR
Ch
ange
in Q
ueu
e (f
eet)
Movement
Change in Queue - Pre-timed - Pedestrian vs. Base
LP LB MV PRET LP LB HV PRET HP HB MV PRET HP HB HV PRET
59
Figure 4-14. Base design vs. pedestrian design – queue changes – semi-actuated.
The bicyclist configuration has many more movements seeing varying changes in
queues than the pedestrian configuration. Sharp increases in northbound movements
and southbound through/right movements persist for the LP LB HV PRET scenario as
seen in Figure 4-15. This is likely because the minor street movements have a lower
share of green time.
The eastbound and westbound through movements see a decrease in queue
with indicates this may be true. Semi-actuated scenarios for the bicyclist configuration
show little improvement (Figure 4-16).
-20
0
20
40
NBL/T/R SBL SBT/R EBL EBT/R WBL WBT WBR
Ch
ange
in Q
ueu
e (f
eet)
Movement
Change in Queue - Semi-actuated - Pedestrian vs. Base
LP LB MV SEMI LP LB HV SEMI HP HB MV SEMI HP HB HV SEMI
60
Figure 4-15. Base design vs. bicyclist design – queue changes – pre-timed.
Figure 4-16. Base design vs. bicyclist design – queue changes – semi-actuated.
The combination configuration has queue increases for almost every movement
in pre-timed settings except for the southbound through/right movement in heavy
pedestrian and bicyclist scenarios (Figure 4-17). There are no significant changes for
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
NBL/T/R SBL SBT/R EBL EBT/R WBL WBT WBR
Ch
ange
in Q
ueu
e (f
eet)
Movement
Change in Queue - Pre-timed - Bicyclist vs. Base
LP LB MV PRET LP LB HV PRET HP HB MV PRET HP HB HV PRET
-40
-20
0
20
NBL/T/R SBL SBT/R EBL EBT/R WBL WBT WBR
Ch
ange
in Q
ueu
e (f
eet)
Movement
Change in Queue - Semi-actuated - Bicyclist vs. Base
LP LB MV SEMI LP LB HV SEMI HP HB MV SEMI HP HB HV SEMI
61
semi-actuated scenarios (Figure 4-18) except for a decrease in queue for northbound
movements in the maximum volume setting.
Figure 4-17. Base design vs. combination design – queue changes – pre-timed.
Figure 4-18. Base design vs. combination design – queue changes – semi-actuated.
The alternate configuration has an abnormal increase in queue for southbound
through/right movements in the maximum volume scenario for a pre-timed signal
system (Figure 4-19). The opposite effect occurs with medium vehicles. The alternative
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
NBL/T/R SBL SBT/R EBL EBT/R WBL WBT WBR
Ch
ange
in Q
ueu
e (f
eet)
Movement
Change in Queue - Pre-timed - Combination vs. Base
LP LB MV PRET LP LB HV PRET HP HB MV PRET HP HB HV PRET
-40
-20
0
20
NBL/T/R SBL SBT/R EBL EBT/R WBL WBT WBR
Ch
ange
in Q
ueu
e (f
eet)
Movement
Change in Queue - Semi-actuated - Combination vs. Base
LP LB MV SEMI LP LB HV SEMI HP HB MV SEMI HP HB HV SEMI
62
design has the same relative green time for the north and south movements to the other
two phases. The simulation of the alternative design shows that the southbound queues
increase because southbound right turning vehicles flow are impeded by concurrent
bicyclist movements. Once vehicles clear the bicyclist traffic, pedestrian traffic continues
to impede flow. This makes vehicles back up further than in the base scenario, which
leads to cycle failure. Simulations of the HP HB HV PRET scenario without bicyclists
present showed the SB T/R queue length increase fully dissipate. Further testing
revealed that by increasing the green time for the phase by up to 15 seconds, all cycle
failure is removed without causing any considerable changes to other operations. When
comparing the alternative configuration to the combination configuration, (both have the
same offset crosswalk distance) the combination configuration decreases queueing.
This is because the combination configuration includes bicyclists in the setback
crossings. The semi-actuated results for the alternative configuration show no changes
in queueing in Figure 4-20.
Figure 4-19. Base design vs. alternative design – queue changes – pre-timed.
-60-40-20
020406080
100120140160180
NBL/T/R SBL SBT/R EBL EBT/R WBL WBT WBR
Ch
ange
in Q
ueu
e (f
eet)
Movement
Change in Queue - Pre-timed - Alternative vs. Base
LP LB MV PRET LP LB HV PRET HP HB MV PRET HP HB HV PRET
63
Figure 4-20. Base design vs. alternative design – queue changes – semi-actuated.
The queueing measure of effectiveness shows the bicyclist configuration does
the best job in queue reduction for the system in both pre-timed and semi-actuated
scenarios. This is because vehicles can freely begin to move from a complete stop and
yield to any bikes and pedestrians downstream. In the base configuration, vehicles
would wait for the bikes to complete their through movement before moving.
The pedestrian configurations queues mostly increase, similar to the combination
configuration. The alternative design mostly stays the same as the base except for one
outlier. In all systems and configurations, the most sensitive mode and volume to
geometric changes were high volumes of vehicles.
Average Vehicle Speed
The average speed of vehicles in a system is the last measure of effectiveness.
Vehicle average speed is a good indicator of if vehicles benefited from any changes to a
signal or geometry. Average vehicle speed is not typically used for analyzing isolated
intersections but for this research was determined to be significant. Although delay can
-20
0
20
40
NBL/T/R SBL SBT/R EBL EBT/R WBL WBT WBR
Ch
ange
in Q
ueu
e (f
eet)
Movement
Change in Queue - Semi-actuated - Alternative vs. Base
LP LB MV SEMI LP LB HV SEMI HP HB MV SEMI HP HB HV SEMI
64
be used to indirectly measure speed characteristics, the average speed can also
indicate if vehicles are seeing improved flow with minor geometric changes.
The pedestrian scenario results shown in Figure 4-21 show vehicle average
speed reducing in most scenarios. This is ironic given the large reduction in vehicle
delay observed. This observation occurs because vehicles clear the stop bar and then
slow down to turn past bicycles and then again for pedestrians.
Figure 4-21. Vehicle average speed fluctuations – base vs. pedestrian.
The bicyclist scenarios have vehicle average speeds either staying the same or
rising except for low pedestrian and bicyclist scenarios in pre-timed signals (Figure 4-
22) and the semi-actuated results show slight net increases.
Once volumes of pedestrians and bicyclists are increased, the average speed
increases for vehicles. This may be because vehicles do have slightly more turning
space and therefore do not impede through moving vehicles.
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
LP LB MVPRET
LP LB HVPRET
HP HB MVPRET
HP HB HVPRET
LP LB MVSEMI
LP LB HVSEMI
HP HB MVSEMI
HP HB HVSEMI
Veh
icle
Ave
rage
Sp
eed
(m
ph
)
Scenario
Vehicle Average Speed Changes - Pedestrian vs. Base
Base Configuration Pedestrian Configuration
65
Figure 4-22. Vehicle average speed fluctuations – base vs. bicyclist.
The combination configuration results in Figure 4-23 show varying changes in
vehicle average speed. The pre-timed results show mainly decreasing average speed.
This decrease in pre-timed scenarios is because vehicles must slow down while waiting
for bicyclists and pedestrians to clear, similar to the pedestrian intersection.
Figure 4-23. Vehicle average speed fluctuations – base vs. combination.
89
1011121314151617181920
LP LB MVPRET
LP LB HVPRET
HP HB MVPRET
HP HB HVPRET
LP LB MVSEMI
LP LB HVSEMI
HP HB MVSEMI
HP HB HVSEMI
Veh
icle
Ave
rage
Sp
eed
(m
ph
)
Scenario
Vehicle Average Speed Changes - Bicyclist vs. Base
Base Configuration Bicyclist Configuration
89
1011121314151617181920
LP LB MVPRET
LP LB HVPRET
HP HB MVPRET
HP HB HVPRET
LP LB MVSEMI
LP LB HVSEMI
HP HB MVSEMI
HP HB HVSEMI
Veh
icle
Ave
rage
Sp
eed
(m
ph
)
Scenario
Vehicle Average Speed Changes - Combination vs. Base
Base Configuration Combination Configuration
66
The alternative results for average speed in Figure 4-24 show little to no
improvements to any scenario.
Figure 4-24. Vehicle average speed fluctuations – base vs. alternative.
The lack of improvement for vehicle average speed in the alternative design
stems from the queueing issues derived from bicyclist movements impeding use of the
extra right turn queue storage. For vehicle average speeds, the best improvements
come from semi-actuated signals in all configurations. Pre-timed signals mostly showed
decreases in vehicle average speed. Semi-actuated scenarios are not as sensitive to
vehicles that have to slow down for turns due to pedestrians or bicyclists because the
queue reductions correlate to higher vehicle speeds.
The delay comparisons show great improvements in the pedestrian configuration
for pre-timed signals. The best queue reductions come from bicyclist configurations.
Stanek and Alexander’s (2015) research found that motor vehicle delay could be
reduced when right turn yields are implemented with downstream crossings for
89
1011121314151617181920
LP LB MVPRET
LP LB HVPRET
HP HB MVPRET
HP HB HVPRET
LP LB MVSEMI
LP LB HVSEMI
HP HB MVSEMI
HP HB HVSEMI
Veh
icle
Ave
rage
Sp
eed
(m
ph
)
Scenario
Vehicle Average Speed Changes - Alternative vs. Base
Base Configuration Alternative Configuration
67
bicyclists. The configuration used by the researcher is similar to the combination
configuration in this research. This research found that in the bicyclist configuration,
queues can be reduced and vehicle average speed can go up. The combination
configuration found weighted mode delay and total vehicle delay can drop for virtually all
scenarios. Stanek and Alexander (2015) also reaffirm literature review that a sole phase
for all pedestrian and bicyclist movements would make delay worsen for all modes.
Semi-actuated signals fair better than pre-timed signals for most configurations with
vehicle average speed increases. The results for the alternative intersection were not
expected. Figure 4-25 shows what happens during the VISSIM simulation in this
configuration.
Figure 4-25. Alternative intersection right turn queueing.
68
This design shown in Figure 4-25 utilizes a median refuge island with a
staggered crosswalk. The white vehicle that made an eastbound right turn (see red
circle) can stop after completing the turn while eastbound through moving vehicles
continue unimpeded. The expected result was for the alternate configuration to mimic
those of the pedestrian configuration.
Raw data results from simulations are summarized in the appendix Tables A-1 to
A-40 and screenshots of VISSIM configurations are provided in Figure A-1 to A-10.
69
CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Chapter 5 focuses on interpretation of results. Recommendations are provided
based on trends found in results. The information provided is meant to help engineers
make more informed decisions when weighing how operations are affected by the
intersection design.
The results from the analyses indicate that some of the newer configurations
perform better when compared to the base configuration. The primary goal of the
analysis is to identify scenarios that result in better operations under each particular
type of design. One common issue in shared through/right lanes is when right turning
vehicles cannot complete a movement because of concurrent pedestrian movements.
This causes brief queues of through moving vehicles behind the right turning vehicle as
shown in Figure 5-1.
Figure 5-1. Base configuration right turn issue.
The eastbound moving black vehicle is attempting to turn right but is blocked by
pedestrians. This results in the vehicles behind the black vehicle queueing until the
black car can turn, or the queued vehicles can change lanes. Changes to the base
70
configuration show encouraging results. Table 5-1 summarizes operational effects pros
and cons from the different configurations followed by more in depth conclusions.
Table 5-1. Summarized results by configuration.
The pedestrian configuration aimed to give right turning vehicles space to turn
while letting bicyclists remain in line with vehicular traffic. The added benefit of this
configuration is right turning cars face pedestrians directly. This is safer for the
pedestrians who can clear the crossing before a vehicle approaches. Sight distance for
queued vehicles shortens. The pedestrian configuration will reduce total weighted delay
for pre-timed signals and see no significant changes for semi actuated signals. Total
vehicle delay is reduced for a pre-timed signal or semi-actuated signal with this
geometric adjustment. Vehicle queues increase for critical volume movements,
Configuration
Description
Pros Cons
Pedestrian
Reduction in combined weighted delay for pre-timed signals and no change to semi-
actuated signals. Reduction in total vehicle delay in all scenarios.
Increase in vehicle queueing for critical volume movements in pre-timed
signals. Reduction in vehicle average speed for all scenarios.
Bicyclist
Reduction in vehicle queueing for most pre-timed and semi-actuated scenarios. Vehicle
average speed increases for all scenarios except for LP LB pre-timed scenarios.
Combined weighted delay increase for semi-actuated scenarios. Total vehicle
delay increase for high vehicle volumes in semi-actuated scenarios. Minor
street through movements see large queue increase in LP LB HV PRET.
Combination
Reduction in combined weighted delay for all scenarios except for HP HB HV SEMI.
Reduction in total vehicle delay for all scenarios. Increase in vehicle average
speed for most semi-actuated scenarios.
Vehicle queue increases for most pre-timed scenarios movements. Vehicle
average speed reduction in high vehicle volumes in pre-timed scenarios.
Alternative
Slight reduction in total vehicle delay for LP LB MV SEMI scenario. Slight increase in
vehicle average speed for HP HB MV SEMI scenario.
Increase in combined weighted delay for most scenarios. Total vehicle delay
increases for all scenarios. Slight increase in vehicle queueing for pre-
timed scenarios. Vehicle average speed reduces in some scenarios.
71
particularly for the heaviest volume scenario for a pre-timed signal and no significant
changes for semi actuated signals. Vehicle average speed will drop for pre-timed and
semi-actuated scenarios due to the reduction in distance between nodes.
In the bicyclist configuration, bicycles cross downstream and in line with
pedestrians. This design reduces right turning conflicts with vehicles and bikes. The
shorter crossing distance for bicyclists is safer because of the separation from vehicles.
No quantifiable safety measurements are recorded however because this research
focuses on operational effects. There is no significant change in total weighted delay for
this configuration due to little geometric changes made. No significant changes in total
vehicle delay exist except for high vehicle volume semi-actuated scenarios where delay
rises. This is because the increase of turning movements creates more conflicts with
bikes at the crosswalk that normally would not occur. This benefits queueing of vehicles
because vehicles can clear the intersection immediately. Queues reduce or stay the
same for all semi-actuated and pre-timed scenarios except for the minor street
through/right movements in a LP LB HV pre-timed setting. This particular scenario has
high increases because through moving vehicles in shared lanes are impeded by right
turning movements. The shared lane for the eastbound direction sees no increase
because of a relatively low right turn to through movement ratio compared to minor
street movements. Vehicle average speed mostly increases for all scenarios due to the
reduction in queueing.
The combination configuration utilizes pedestrian and bicyclist friendly design.
This design was tested to see if benefits gained from both of the previous designs would
hold when together. The design forces bicyclists to travel further relative distances. This
72
configuration experiences drops in total weighted delay and total vehicle delay for all
scenarios as expected. Queues do not change for semi-actuated scenarios but do rise
slightly for pre-timed scenarios with high vehicle volumes, similar to the pedestrian
configuration but to a lesser degree. This occurs because vehicles have more space to
clear the stop bar and complete a turn versus the pedestrian configuration where
bicyclists can impede flow more.
The alternative configuration was designed keep benefits of the pedestrian
intersection but let vehicles have similar sight distance as the base configuration. This
configuration forces pedestrians to travel in a staggered crossing. The only two main
differences from the alternative design to the pedestrian design is that vehicles do not
have a setback stop bar and pedestrians must travel a further distance. Individual
vehicle delay does not change significantly compared to the base scenario. This
configuration increases total weighted delay for all scenarios and slightly increases total
vehicle delay for some scenarios. No vehicle queue changes occur for semi-actuated
scenarios or pre-timed scenarios with the exception of one outlier for the heaviest
volume category for southbound through/right vehicle movements. This particular
scenario movement crosses a tipping point where vehicles that turn right have little to
no gap opportunities to complete their respective turn. This causes cycle failure. This
configuration will increase vehicle queues for shared through/right lanes if there is a
large proportion of right turning vehicles with heavy pedestrian and bicyclist movement.
A benefit and cost analysis is not included in this research but the cost of right of
way should be considered when comparing how intrusive the designs are to any
surrounding property.
73
The following recommendations of this research are:
The pedestrian configuration will reduce total vehicle delay in all scenarios and reduce combined weighted delay for all modes in pre-timed signal systems. The configuration will also increase queueing for high vehicle volume scenarios and slightly reduce sight distance for vehicles.
The bicyclist configuration will reduce vehicle queueing in most scenarios, regardless of the signal system. Vehicle average speed will also increase. Delay for vehicles will increase in heavy vehicle, semi-actuated scenarios and combined weighted delay will increase slightly for most scenarios.
The combination configuration will reduce vehicle delay for all scenarios but increase bicyclist delay for all scenarios. This configuration involves added distance for bicyclist’s movements. Vehicle queues are not affected in semi-actuated settings, and generally rise in pre-timed settings.
The alternative configuration offers no beneficial operational effect to an intersection for any mode. Queue increases are minimal but dissipate if no bicyclists are present. This configuration’s uniqueness requires large medians and changes to signage to not confuse pedestrians.
Future research can find the ideal volume scenarios or ideal geometric changes
where certain operational effects are maximized. Adaptive signal control technology can
be simulated in the future to see how that technologies efficiency is effected by these
configurations. A technology that allows crossing times for pedestrians to represent the
amount present and not historically expected can potentially have a significant impact to
operational effects for the system as well. All results are simulated in VISSIM and
should be tested in a real world environment to confirm results.
74
APPENDIX RESULT SHEETS
Table A-1. Base, pre-timed, medium veh, low bike, low ped.
Signal System Type Pre-timed Vehicle Average Speed (mph) 15.79 Vehicle Volume Category Medium Weighted Veh Average Delay (s/veh) 10.35 Pedestrian Volume Category Low Weighted Ped Average Delay (s/ped) 30.16 Bicyclist Volume Category Low Weighted Bike Average Delay (s/bike) 17.69 Geometric Layout Base Cycle Length (s) 85
Vehicle Approach
Average Queue Length (ft)
Average Delay per Vehicle (s)
Pedestrian Approach
Average Delay per Pedestrian (s) Bicyclist Approach
Average Delay per Bicyclist (s)
NBL 24.5 19.53 *NB East 36.57 NB 19.73 NBT 24.5 11.85 NB West 38.53 SB 19.14 NBR 24.5 11.84 SB East 37.13 EB 17.10 SBL 3.4 21.68 SB West 36.84 WB 15.30 SBT 55.4 6.45 EB North 25.95 SBR 55.4 6.78 EB South 25.02 EBL 20.4 29.26 WB North 27.06 EBT 49.1 8.42 WB South 25.67 EBR 49.1 8.66 WBL 10.0 29.28 WBT 30.3 8.02 WBR 2.1 15.17 *NB East denotes NB travel on the eastern most crosswalk
75
Table A-2. Base, pre-timed, medium veh, high bike, high ped.
Signal System Type Pre-timed Vehicle Average Speed (mph) 14.35
Vehicle Volume Category Medium Weighted Veh Average Delay (s/veh) 11.09
Pedestrian Volume Category High Weighted Ped Average Delay (s/ped) 29.56
Bicyclist Volume Category High Weighted Bike Average Delay (s/bike) 18.11
Geometric Layout Base Cycle Length (s) 85
Vehicle Approach
Average Queue Length (ft)
Average Delay per Vehicle (s)
Pedestrian Approach
Average Delay per Pedestrian (s) Bicyclist Approach
Average Delay per Bicyclist (s)
NBL 28.6 25.57 *NB East 36.91 NB 20.12
NBT 28.6 13.17 NB West 37.34 SB 20.53
NBR 28.6 13.22 SB East 37.14 EB 16.58
SBL 4.1 28.35 SB West 37.50 WB 16.03
SBT 95.3 6.69 EB North 25.48 SBR 95.3 10.52 EB South 25.67 EBL 20.2 30.22 WB North 25.53 EBT 50.0 8.66 WB South 26.14 EBR 50.0 8.96 WBL 10.4 28.04 WBT 31.0 8.49 WBR 1.8 19.04 *NB East denotes NB travel on the eastern most crosswalk
76
Table A-3. Base, pre-timed, high veh, low bike, low ped.
Signal System Type Pre-timed Vehicle Average Speed (mph) 12.54
Vehicle Volume Category High Weighted Veh Average Delay (s/veh) 9.66
Pedestrian Volume Category Low Weighted Ped Average Delay (s/ped) 35.40
Bicyclist Volume Category Low Weighted Bike Average Delay (s/bike) 22.63
Geometric Layout Base Cycle Length (s) 120
Vehicle Approach
Average Queue Length (ft)
Average Delay per Vehicle (s)
Pedestrian Approach
Average Delay per Pedestrian (s)
Bicyclist Approach
Average Delay per Bicyclist (s)
NBL 79.0 26.72 *NB East 52.23 NB 28.30
NBT 79.0 14.33 NB West 51.50 SB 29.83
NBR 79.0 12.91 SB East 52.32 EB 18.34
SBL 6.8 27.47 SB West 50.74 WB 16.29
SBT 108.0 6.00 EB North 26.58 SBR 108.0 7.88 EB South 24.85 EBL 66.4 31.71 WB North 25.76 EBT 114.3 6.12 WB South 27.06 EBR 114.3 4.74 WBL 21.5 33.97 WBT 53.7 6.34 WBR 3.3 16.63 *NB East denotes NB travel on the eastern most crosswalk
77
Table A-4. Base, pre-timed, high veh, high bike, high ped.
Signal System Type Pre-timed Vehicle Average Speed (mph) 11.54
Vehicle Volume Category High Weighted Veh Average Delay (s/veh) 10.11
Pedestrian Volume Category High Weighted Ped Average Delay (s/ped) 34.19
Bicyclist Volume Category High Weighted Bike Average Delay (s/bike) 23.50
Geometric Layout Base Cycle Length (s) 120
Vehicle Approach
Average Queue Length (ft)
Average Delay per Vehicle (s)
Pedestrian Approach
Average Delay per Pedestrian (s) Bicyclist Approach
Average Delay per Bicyclist (s)
NBL 112.2 29.93 *NB East 48.25 NB 30.21
NBT 112.2 14.35 NB West 50.37 SB 29.02
NBR 112.2 16.10 SB East 50.24 EB 18.57
SBL 8.3 33.37 SB West 48.27 WB 18.64
SBT 141.1 6.59 EB North 26.70 SBR 141.1 9.47 EB South 27.28 EBL 71.4 30.89 WB North 26.31 EBT 116.5 6.28 WB South 26.23 EBR 116.5 7.39 WBL 20.5 34.83 WBT 55.9 6.23 WBR 3.2 21.44 *NB East denotes NB travel on the eastern most crosswalk
78
Table A-5. Base, semi-actuated, medium veh, low bike, low ped.
Signal System Type Semi-actuated Vehicle Average Speed (mph) 19.19
Vehicle Volume Category Medium Weighted Veh Average Delay (s/veh) 8.54
Pedestrian Volume Category Low Weighted Ped Average Delay (s/ped) 25.34
Bicyclist Volume Category Low Weighted Bike Average Delay (s/bike) 12.01
Geometric Layout Base Cycle Length (Critical) (s) 57
Vehicle Approach
Average Queue Length (ft)
Average Delay per Vehicle (s)
Pedestrian Approach
Average Delay per Pedestrian (s) Bicyclist Approach
Average Delay per Bicyclist (s)
NBL 12.1 14.72 *NB East 31.01 NB 12.49 NBT 12.1 8.55 NB West 33.80 SB 12.42 NBR 12.1 8.25 SB East 30.52 EB 12.34 SBL 2.2 17.02 SB West 29.60 WB 11.01 SBT 31.5 6.95 EB North 23.62 SBR 31.5 6.21 EB South 21.78 EBL 6.7 17.53 WB North 22.12 EBT 32.1 7.48 WB South 22.40 EBR 32.1 7.48 WBL 3.7 23.44 WBT 19.6 6.56 WBR 1.3 11.21 *NB East denotes NB travel on the eastern most crosswalk
79
Table A-6. Base, semi-actuated, medium veh, high bike, high ped.
Signal System Type Semi-actuated Vehicle Average Speed (mph) 17.98
Vehicle Volume Category Medium Weighted Veh Average Delay (s/veh) 9.53
Pedestrian Volume Category High Weighted Ped Average Delay (s/ped) 25.55
Bicyclist Volume Category High Weighted Bike Average Delay (s/bike) 12.21
Geometric Layout Base Cycle Length (Critical) (s) 57
Vehicle Approach
Average Queue Length (ft)
Average Delay per Vehicle (s)
Pedestrian Approach
Average Delay per Pedestrian (s) Bicyclist Approach
Average Delay per Bicyclist (s)
NBL 13.8 22.05 *NB East 31.01 NB 12.01 NBT 13.8 9.18 NB West 31.60 SB 12.37 NBR 13.8 9.75 SB East 31.11 EB 11.90 SBL 2.2 19.17 SB West 32.10 WB 12.54 SBT 37.5 6.98 EB North 22.64 SBR 37.5 10.42 EB South 22.91 EBL 9.7 20.73 WB North 22.15 EBT 36.4 7.94 WB South 22.47 EBR 36.4 11.54 WBL 5.5 22.39 WBT 20.7 7.18 WBR 1.5 18.09 *NB East denotes NB travel on the eastern most crosswalk
80
Table A-7. Base, semi-actuated, high veh, low bike, low ped.
Signal System Type Semi-actuated Vehicle Average Speed (mph) 13.05
Vehicle Volume Category High Weighted Veh Average Delay (s/veh) 7.66
Pedestrian Volume Category Low Weighted Ped Average Delay (s/ped) 43.54
Bicyclist Volume Category Low Weighted Bike Average Delay (s/bike) 28.22
Geometric Layout Base Cycle Length (Critical) (s) 192
Vehicle Approach
Average Queue Length (ft)
Average Delay per Vehicle (s)
Pedestrian Approach
Average Delay per Pedestrian (s) Bicyclist Approach
Average Delay per Bicyclist (s)
NBL 112.9 32.09 *NB East 83.24 NB 46.16
NBT 112.9 14.86 NB West 93.52 SB 44.84
NBR 112.9 14.44 SB East 86.17 EB 13.68
SBL 6.4 34.88 SB West 94.91 WB 14.32
SBT 163.5 8.82 EB North 21.65 SBR 163.5 8.56 EB South 20.85 EBL 10.6 12.93 WB North 21.54 EBT 91.7 4.43 WB South 18.63 EBR 91.7 3.88 WBL 9.2 21.05 WBT 47.7 4.46 WBR 2.4 11.74 *NB East denotes NB travel on the eastern most crosswalk
81
Table A-8. Base, semi-actuated, high veh, high bike, high ped.
Signal System Type Semi-actuated Vehicle Average Speed (mph) 11.50
Vehicle Volume Category High Weighted Veh Average Delay (s/veh) 8.58
Pedestrian Volume Category High Weighted Ped Average Delay (s/ped) 46.67
Bicyclist Volume Category High Weighted Bike Average Delay (s/bike) 27.96
Geometric Layout Base Cycle Length (Critical) (s) 192
Vehicle Approach
Average Queue Length (ft)
Average Delay per Vehicle (s)
Pedestrian Approach
Average Delay per Pedestrian (s) Bicyclist Approach
Average Delay per Bicyclist (s)
NBL 163.5 36.86 *NB East 93.63 NB 40.63 NBT 163.5 16.49 NB West 93.68 SB 41.49 NBR 163.5 14.00 SB East 95.31 EB 17.77 SBL 7.6 35.60 SB West 92.11 WB 17.06 SBT 179.6 8.62 EB North 23.32 SBR 179.6 11.09 EB South 22.88 EBL 13.4 16.49 WB North 23.07 EBT 109.6 4.85 WB South 23.91 EBR 109.6 4.83 WBL 9.9 25.74 WBT 57.0 4.98 WBR 3.0 17.12 *NB East denotes NB travel on the eastern most crosswalk
82
Figure A-1. Base configuration on VISSIM as pre-timed.
Figure A-2. Base configuration on VISSIM as semi-actuated.
83
Table A-9. Pedestrian, pre-timed, medium veh, low bike, low ped.
Signal System Type Pre-timed Vehicle Average Speed (mph) 15.01
Vehicle Volume Category Medium Weighted Veh Average Delay (s/veh) 7.48
Pedestrian Volume Category Low Weighted Ped Average Delay (s/ped) 31.12
Bicyclist Volume Category Low Weighted Bike Average Delay (s/bike) 15.05
Geometric Layout Pedestrian Cycle Length (s) 90
Vehicle Approach
Average Queue Length (ft)
Average Delay per Vehicle (s)
Pedestrian Approach
Average Delay per Pedestrian (s) Bicyclist Approach
Average Delay per Bicyclist (s)
NBL 26.1 24.78 *NB East 41.13 NB 15.63 NBT 26.1 11.27 NB West 41.80 SB 12.26 NBR 26.1 9.83 SB East 36.58 EB 17.61 SBL 3.8 18.83 SB West 39.65 WB 14.20 SBT 57.4 4.65 EB North 25.87 SBR 57.4 6.17 EB South 25.30 EBL 29.0 20.02 WB North 26.86 EBT 56.0 4.97 WB South 26.29 EBR 56.0 4.60 WBL 11.1 24.65 WBT 34.0 5.75 WBR 2.4 14.16 *NB East denotes NB travel on the eastern most crosswalk
84
Table A-10. Pedestrian, pre-timed, medium veh, high bike, high ped.
Signal System Type Pre-timed Vehicle Average Speed (mph) 13.98
Vehicle Volume Category Medium Weighted Veh Average Delay (s/veh) 10.13
Pedestrian Volume Category High Weighted Ped Average Delay (s/ped) 30.00
Bicyclist Volume Category High Weighted Bike Average Delay (s/bike) 17.93
Geometric Layout Pedestrian Cycle Length (s) 90
Vehicle Approach
Average Queue Length (ft)
Average Delay per Vehicle (s)
Pedestrian Approach
Average Delay per Pedestrian (s) Bicyclist Approach
Average Delay per Bicyclist (s)
NBL 30.1 26.85 *NB East 37.56 NB 19.30
NBT 30.1 11.96 NB West 39.79 SB 18.71
NBR 30.1 14.28 SB East 38.65 EB 17.36
SBL 4.6 24.90 SB West 38.88 WB 16.78
SBT 93.4 6.51 EB North 25.08 SBR 93.4 11.66 EB South 26.23 EBL 22.9 29.82 WB North 25.77 EBT 56.2 8.10 WB South 25.26 EBR 56.2 8.21 WBL 11.0 23.97 WBT 31.9 6.12 WBR 1.9 16.73 *NB East denotes NB travel on the eastern most crosswalk
85
Table A-11. Pedestrian, pre-timed, high veh, low bike, low ped.
Signal System Type Pre-timed Vehicle Average Speed (mph) 11.84
Vehicle Volume Category High Weighted Veh Average Delay (s/veh) 8.48
Pedestrian Volume Category Low Weighted Ped Average Delay (s/ped) 35.04
Bicyclist Volume Category Low Weighted Bike Average Delay (s/bike) 23.86
Geometric Layout Pedestrian Cycle Length (s) 130
Vehicle Approach
Average Queue Length (ft)
Average Delay per Vehicle (s)
Pedestrian Approach
Average Delay per Pedestrian (s) Bicyclist Approach
Average Delay per Bicyclist (s)
NBL 82.3 27.32 *NB East 45.53 NB 29.21 NBT 82.3 15.28 NB West 49.09 SB 29.00 NBR 82.3 10.74 SB East 48.33 EB 20.16 SBL 5.9 21.28 SB West 47.81 WB 19.39 SBT 110.7 5.43 EB North 26.46 SBR 110.7 7.69 EB South 26.05 EBL 92.1 29.17 WB North 29.20 EBT 132.0 5.66 WB South 29.48 EBR 132.0 4.58 WBL 27.1 25.97 WBT 65.7 4.46 WBR 2.9 12.92 *NB East denotes NB travel on the eastern most crosswalk
86
Table A-12. Pedestrian, pre-timed, high veh, high bike, high ped.
Signal System Type Pre-timed Vehicle Average Speed (mph) 10.17
Vehicle Volume Category High Weighted Veh Average Delay (s/veh) 9.14
Pedestrian Volume Category High Weighted Ped Average Delay (s/ped) 34.36
Bicyclist Volume Category High Weighted Bike Average Delay (s/bike) 22.61
Geometric Layout Pedestrian Cycle Length (s) 130
Vehicle Approach
Average Queue Length (ft)
Average Delay per Vehicle (s)
Pedestrian Approach
Average Delay per Pedestrian (s) Bicyclist Approach
Average Delay per Bicyclist (s)
NBL 113.1 33.10 *NB East 47.40 NB 27.41 NBT 113.1 14.98 NB West 48.40 SB 24.16 NBR 113.1 14.62 SB East 49.47 EB 20.87 SBL 6.3 30.75 SB West 47.21 WB 19.35 SBT 217.6 6.69 EB North 26.97 SBR 217.6 9.39 EB South 28.20 EBL 108.1 29.77 WB North 28.14 EBT 147.7 5.87 WB South 27.48 EBR 147.7 4.53 WBL 24.6 26.43 WBT 64.3 4.49 WBR 3.3 18.06 *NB East denotes NB travel on the eastern most crosswalk
87
Table A-13. Pedestrian, semi-actuated, medium veh, low bike, low ped.
Signal System Type Semi-actuated Vehicle Average Speed (mph) 18.98
Vehicle Volume Category Medium Weighted Veh Average Delay (s/veh) 7.99
Pedestrian Volume Category Low Weighted Ped Average Delay (s/ped) 25.34
Bicyclist Volume Category Low Weighted Bike Average Delay (s/bike) 12.79
Geometric Layout Pedestrian Cycle Length (Critical) (s) 61
Vehicle Approach
Average Queue Length (ft)
Average Delay per Vehicle (s)
Pedestrian Approach
Average Delay per Pedestrian (s) Bicyclist Approach
Average Delay per Bicyclist (s)
NBL 14.6 16.58 *NB East 31.55 NB 12.60 NBT 14.6 8.44 NB West 34.97 SB 13.52 NBR 14.6 9.25 SB East 33.02 EB 12.74 SBL 2.3 16.08 SB West 34.04 WB 12.41 SBT 35.6 5.36 EB North 20.57 SBR 35.6 6.00 EB South 21.64 EBL 5.9 16.66 WB North 22.46 EBT 32.8 7.42 WB South 20.60 EBR 32.8 7.12 WBL 3.5 20.49 WBT 19.1 5.74 WBR 1.2 9.77 *NB East denotes NB travel on the eastern most crosswalk
88
Table A-14. Pedestrian, semi-actuated, medium veh, high bike, high ped.
Signal System Type Semi-actuated Vehicle Average Speed (mph) 18.12
Vehicle Volume Category Medium Weighted Veh Average Delay (s/veh) 8.91
Pedestrian Volume Category High Weighted Ped Average Delay (s/ped) 25.80
Bicyclist Volume Category High Weighted Bike Average Delay (s/bike) 13.21
Geometric Layout Pedestrian Cycle Length (Critical) (s) 61
Vehicle Approach
Average Queue Length (ft)
Average Delay per Vehicle (s)
Pedestrian Approach
Average Delay per Pedestrian (s) Bicyclist Approach
Average Delay per Bicyclist (s)
NBL 14.0 18.11 *NB East 31.50 NB 12.73 NBT 14.0 8.96 NB West 32.76 SB 14.10 NBR 14.0 10.06 SB East 33.73 EB 13.35 SBL 2.7 18.65 SB West 32.87 WB 12.69 SBT 39.8 5.80 EB North 23.01 SBR 39.8 8.67 EB South 22.58 EBL 6.1 19.13 WB North 22.23 EBT 34.1 7.70 WB South 21.42 EBR 34.1 10.81 WBL 5.2 24.94 WBT 19.9 6.07 WBR 1.3 14.82 *NB East denotes NB travel on the eastern most crosswalk
89
Table A-15. Pedestrian, semi-actuated, high veh, low bike, low ped.
Signal System Type Semi-actuated Vehicle Average Speed (mph) 12.46
Vehicle Volume Category High Weighted Veh Average Delay (s/veh) 7.29
Pedestrian Volume Category Low Weighted Ped Average Delay (s/ped) 48.13
Bicyclist Volume Category Low Weighted Bike Average Delay (s/bike) 28.75
Geometric Layout Pedestrian Cycle Length (Critical) (s) 207
Vehicle Approach
Average Queue Length (ft)
Average Delay per Vehicle (s)
Pedestrian Approach
Average Delay per Pedestrian (s) Bicyclist Approach
Average Delay per Bicyclist (s)
NBL 118.3 32.11 *NB East 103.04 NB 43.81 NBT 118.3 14.88 NB West 97.61 SB 47.65 NBR 118.3 11.97 SB East 104.58 EB 14.11 SBL 6.7 27.35 SB West 100.66 WB 14.80 SBT 179.2 6.28 EB North 20.22 SBR 179.2 6.90 EB South 19.84 EBL 9.2 14.05 WB North 20.62 EBT 99.5 4.43 WB South 19.87 EBR 99.5 5.43 WBL 8.5 28.28 WBT 53.1 3.73 WBR 2.5 10.43 *NB East denotes NB travel on the eastern most crosswalk
90
Table A-16. Pedestrian, semi-actuated, high veh, high bike, high ped.
Signal System Type Semi-actuated Vehicle Average Speed (mph) 11.07
Vehicle Volume Category High Weighted Veh Average Delay (s/veh) 8.39
Pedestrian Volume Category High Weighted Ped Average Delay (s/ped) 48.76
Bicyclist Volume Category High Weighted Bike Average Delay (s/bike) 27.38
Geometric Layout Pedestrian Cycle Length (Critical) (s) 207
Vehicle Approach
Average Queue Length (ft)
Average Delay per Vehicle (s)
Pedestrian Approach
Average Delay per Pedestrian (s) Bicyclist Approach
Average Delay per Bicyclist (s)
NBL 173.2 37.52 *NB East 99.62 NB 36.97 NBT 173.2 15.18 NB West 101.54 SB 41.42 NBR 173.2 15.84 SB East 101.76 EB 17.72 SBL 8.7 28.47 SB West 101.65 WB 17.82 SBT 201.0 6.57 EB North 23.17 SBR 201.0 9.05 EB South 21.92 EBL 11.0 18.70 WB North 21.55 EBT 106.6 4.70 WB South 22.71 EBR 106.6 7.59 WBL 11.4 35.48 WBT 56.3 3.93 WBR 2.8 17.64 *NB East denotes NB travel on the eastern most crosswalk
91
Figure A-3. Pedestrian configuration on VISSIM as pre-timed.
Figure A-4. Pedestrian configuration on VISSIM as semi-actuated.
92
Table A-17. Bicyclist, pre-timed, medium veh, low bike, low ped.
Signal System Type Pre-timed Vehicle Average Speed (mph) 15.74
Vehicle Volume Category Medium Weighted Veh Average Delay (s/veh) 10.45
Pedestrian Volume Category Low Weighted Ped Average Delay (s/ped) 30.02
Bicyclist Volume Category Low Weighted Bike Average Delay (s/bike) 17.31
Geometric Layout Bicyclist Cycle Length (s) 85
Vehicle Approach
Average Queue Length (ft)
Average Delay per Vehicle (s)
Pedestrian Approach
Average Delay per Pedestrian (s) Bicyclist Approach
Average Delay per Bicyclist (s)
NBL 23.5 19.38 *NB East 38.37 NB 19.21 NBT 23.5 11.44 NB West 38.13 SB 19.13 NBR 23.5 11.78 SB East 39.67 EB 15.86 SBL 3.8 21.99 SB West 36.04 WB 15.64 SBT 54.4 6.22 EB North 25.90 SBR 54.4 7.02 EB South 25.64 EBL 21.8 29.98 WB North 27.46 EBT 50.0 8.55 WB South 24.85 EBR 50.0 6.59 WBL 10.8 30.83 WBT 29.9 8.02 WBR 2.2 15.16 *NB East denotes NB travel on the eastern most crosswalk
93
Table A-18. Bicyclist, pre-timed, medium veh, high bike, high ped.
Signal System Type Pre-timed Vehicle Average Speed (mph) 15.17
Vehicle Volume Category Medium Weighted Veh Average Delay (s/veh) 10.84
Pedestrian Volume Category High Weighted Ped Average Delay (s/ped) 29.54
Bicyclist Volume Category High Weighted Bike Average Delay (s/bike) 18.25
Geometric Layout Bicyclist Cycle Length (s) 85
Vehicle Approach
Average Queue Length (ft)
Average Delay per Vehicle (s)
Pedestrian Approach
Average Delay per Pedestrian (s) Bicyclist Approach
Average Delay per Bicyclist (s)
NBL 25.8 21.38 *NB East 36.70 NB 20.22 NBT 25.8 12.09 NB West 36.77 SB 19.49 NBR 25.8 14.15 SB East 36.81 EB 17.14 SBL 3.6 24.64 SB West 36.70 WB 16.70 SBT 67.8 6.93 EB North 25.72 SBR 67.8 8.25 EB South 25.68 EBL 20.3 29.08 WB North 26.52 EBT 50.0 8.68 WB South 25.62 EBR 50.0 11.00 WBL 10.0 29.35 WBT 30.3 8.03 WBR 2.1 20.65 *NB East denotes NB travel on the eastern most crosswalk
94
Table A-19. Bicyclist, pre-timed, high veh, low bike, low ped.
Signal System Type Pre-timed Vehicle Average Speed (mph) 12.24
Vehicle Volume Category High Weighted Veh Average Delay (s/veh) 9.49
Pedestrian Volume Category Low Weighted Ped Average Delay (s/ped) 35.98
Bicyclist Volume Category Low Weighted Bike Average Delay (s/bike) 25.18
Geometric Layout Bicyclist Cycle Length (s) 120
Vehicle Approach
Average Queue Length (ft)
Average Delay per Vehicle (s)
Pedestrian Approach
Average Delay per Pedestrian (s) Bicyclist Approach
Average Delay per Bicyclist (s)
NBL 108.6 25.79 *NB East 49.91 NB 37.32
NBT 108.6 15.34 NB West 55.68 SB 36.31
NBR 108.6 15.14 SB East 56.73 EB 15.16
SBL 8.2 29.69 SB West 56.14 WB 16.45
SBT 155.3 7.07 EB North 24.93 SBR 155.3 7.72 EB South 27.45 EBL 56.6 30.11 WB North 27.00 EBT 92.7 5.69 WB South 25.47 EBR 92.7 4.50 WBL 20.2 33.95 WBT 47.3 5.91 WBR 2.5 12.63 *NB East denotes NB travel on the eastern most crosswalk
95
Table A-20. Bicyclist, pre-timed, high veh, high bike, high ped.
Signal System Type Pre-timed Vehicle Average Speed (mph) 12.03
Vehicle Volume Category High Weighted Veh Average Delay (s/veh) 10.03
Pedestrian Volume Category High Weighted Ped Average Delay (s/ped) 33.94
Bicyclist Volume Category High Weighted Bike Average Delay (s/bike) 24.16
Geometric Layout Bicyclist Cycle Length (s) 120
Vehicle Approach
Average Queue Length (ft)
Average Delay per Vehicle (s)
Pedestrian Approach
Average Delay per Pedestrian (s) Bicyclist Approach
Average Delay per Bicyclist (s)
NBL 82.5 24.61 *NB East 48.88 NB 30.33 NBT 82.5 14.54 NB West 51.28 SB 31.41 NBR 82.5 17.04 SB East 48.01 EB 18.66 SBL 7.4 31.70 SB West 50.31 WB 19.02 SBT 139.1 6.47 EB North 26.27 SBR 139.1 8.52 EB South 25.90 EBL 62.4 31.08 WB North 25.94 EBT 107.8 6.36 WB South 26.48 EBR 107.8 6.69 WBL 22.3 33.10 WBT 58.8 6.37 WBR 3.1 20.44 *NB East denotes NB travel on the eastern most crosswalk
96
Table A-21. Bicyclist, semi-actuated, medium veh, low bike, low ped.
Signal System Type Semi-actuated Vehicle Average Speed (mph) 19.35
Vehicle Volume Category Medium Weighted Veh Average Delay (s/veh) 8.60
Pedestrian Volume Category Low Weighted Ped Average Delay (s/ped) 27.05
Bicyclist Volume Category Low Weighted Bike Average Delay (s/bike) 12.42
Geometric Layout Bicyclist Cycle Length (Critical) (s) 57
Vehicle Approach
Average Queue Length (ft)
Average Delay per Vehicle (s)
Pedestrian Approach
Average Delay per Pedestrian (s) Bicyclist Approach
Average Delay per Bicyclist (s)
NBL 14.8 17.27 *NB East 46.88 NB 13.55 NBT 14.8 7.34 NB West 35.44 SB 14.09 NBR 14.8 8.13 SB East 37.40 EB 11.80 SBL 2.3 17.68 SB West 32.32 WB 10.84 SBT 31.4 8.34 EB North 21.87 SBR 31.4 8.56 EB South 22.02 EBL 6.9 15.54 WB North 21.69 EBT 31.0 6.98 WB South 20.42 EBR 31.0 6.62 WBL 4.2 20.38 WBT 18.7 7.90 WBR 1.2 10.22 *NB East denotes NB travel on the eastern most crosswalk
97
Table A-22. Bicyclist, semi-actuated, medium veh, high bike, high ped.
Signal System Type Semi-actuated Vehicle Average Speed (mph) 18.14
Vehicle Volume Category Medium Weighted Veh Average Delay (s/veh) 9.68
Pedestrian Volume Category High Weighted Ped Average Delay (s/ped) 25.41
Bicyclist Volume Category High Weighted Bike Average Delay (s/bike) 12.97
Geometric Layout Bicyclist Cycle Length (Critical) (s) 57
Vehicle Approach
Average Queue Length (ft)
Average Delay per Vehicle (s)
Pedestrian Approach
Average Delay per Pedestrian (s) Bicyclist Approach
Average Delay per Bicyclist (s)
NBL 14.0 16.08 *NB East 31.39 NB 12.85
NBT 14.0 8.47 NB West 31.57 SB 13.07
NBR 14.0 7.63 SB East 30.80 EB 13.03
SBL 2.1 19.05 SB West 31.15 WB 12.92
SBT 33.6 8.21 EB North 23.19 SBR 33.6 10.19 EB South 22.33 EBL 8.5 20.48 WB North 22.00 EBT 37.0 7.75 WB South 22.25 EBR 37.0 10.55 WBL 6.9 28.36 WBT 19.9 8.38 WBR 1.7 16.33 *NB East denotes NB travel on the eastern most crosswalk
98
Table A-23. Bicyclist, semi-actuated, high veh, low bike, low ped.
Signal System Type Semi-actuated Vehicle Average Speed (mph) 13.32
Vehicle Volume Category High Weighted Veh Average Delay (s/veh) 8.40
Pedestrian Volume Category Low Weighted Ped Average Delay (s/ped) 43.57
Bicyclist Volume Category Low Weighted Bike Average Delay (s/bike) 27.72
Geometric Layout Bicyclist Cycle Length (Critical) (s) 192
Vehicle Approach
Average Queue Length (ft)
Average Delay per Vehicle (s)
Pedestrian Approach
Average Delay per Pedestrian (s) Bicyclist Approach
Average Delay per Bicyclist (s)
NBL 104.7 32.41 *NB East 88.47 NB 45.92 NBT 104.7 14.71 NB West 92.60 SB 43.92 NBR 104.7 13.59 SB East 96.39 EB 14.08 SBL 6.4 34.84 SB West 85.71 WB 13.69 SBT 165.0 10.77 EB North 20.34 SBR 165.0 12.70 EB South 19.20 EBL 10.2 14.17 WB North 21.13 EBT 84.3 4.18 WB South 21.48 EBR 84.3 3.81 WBL 8.3 32.16 WBT 44.6 5.30 WBR 2.1 11.91 *NB East denotes NB travel on the eastern most crosswalk
99
Table A-24. Bicyclist, semi-actuated, high veh, high bike, high ped.
Signal System Type Semi-actuated Vehicle Average Speed (mph) 11.90
Vehicle Volume Category High Weighted Veh Average Delay (s/veh) 9.57
Pedestrian Volume Category High Weighted Ped Average Delay (s/ped) 45.21
Bicyclist Volume Category High Weighted Bike Average Delay (s/bike) 28.30
Geometric Layout Bicyclist Cycle Length (Critical) (s) 192
Vehicle Approach
Average Queue Length (ft)
Average Delay per Vehicle (s)
Pedestrian Approach
Average Delay per Pedestrian (s)
Bicyclist Approach
Average Delay per Bicyclist (s)
NBL 143.7 32.29 *NB East 91.57 NB 43.39 NBT 143.7 16.66 NB West 93.80 SB 45.23 NBR 143.7 14.87 SB East 91.52 EB 15.24 SBL 7.9 39.29 SB West 90.42 WB 15.99 SBT 173.2 11.14 EB North 21.48 SBR 173.2 12.82 EB South 22.33 EBL 11.7 20.01 WB North 22.32 EBT 96.2 4.42 WB South 21.10 EBR 96.2 7.34 WBL 14.1 42.44 WBT 52.8 5.57 WBR 2.7 18.33 *NB East denotes NB travel on the eastern most crosswalk
100
Figure A-5. Bicyclist configuration on vissim as pre-timed.
Figure A-6. Bicyclist configuration on vissim as semi-actuated.
101
Table A-25. Combination, pre-timed, medium veh, low bike, low ped.
Signal System Type Pre-timed Vehicle Average Speed (mph) 15.14
Vehicle Volume Category Medium Weighted Veh Average Delay (s/veh) 9.45
Pedestrian Volume Category Low Weighted Ped Average Delay (s/ped) 30.96
Bicyclist Volume Category Low Weighted Bike Average Delay (s/bike) 18.90
Geometric Layout Combination Cycle Length (s) 90
Vehicle Approach
Average Queue Length (ft)
Average Delay per Vehicle (s)
Pedestrian Approach
Average Delay per Pedestrian (s) Bicyclist Approach
Average Delay per Bicyclist (s)
NBL 26.9 24.04 *NB East 41.70 NB 19.64 NBT 26.9 10.70 NB West 41.65 SB 20.02 NBR 26.9 9.67 SB East 36.63 EB 18.78 SBL 3.7 21.36 SB West 39.49 WB 17.53 SBT 54.9 5.53 EB North 27.11 SBR 54.9 7.15 EB South 25.01 EBL 28.8 30.14 WB North 27.43 EBT 56.1 7.73 WB South 26.45 EBR 56.1 7.26 WBL 11.1 25.04 WBT 33.9 6.01 WBR 2.4 15.53 *NB East denotes NB travel on the eastern most crosswalk
102
Table A-26. Combination, pre-timed, medium veh, high bike, high ped.
Signal System Type Pre-timed Vehicle Average Speed (mph) 14.88
Vehicle Volume Category Medium Weighted Veh Average Delay (s/veh) 9.91
Pedestrian Volume Category High Weighted Ped Average Delay (s/ped) 30.04
Bicyclist Volume Category High Weighted Bike Average Delay (s/bike) 19.59
Geometric Layout Combination Cycle Length (s) 90
Vehicle Approach
Average Queue Length (ft)
Average Delay per Vehicle (s)
Pedestrian Approach
Average Delay per Pedestrian (s) Bicyclist Approach
Average Delay per Bicyclist (s)
NBL 33.7 26.74 *NB East 38.04 NB 22.07 NBT 33.7 11.24 NB West 38.81 SB 21.89 NBR 33.7 12.39 SB East 38.79 EB 17.90 SBL 3.2 22.17 SB West 40.40 WB 17.48 SBT 60.2 6.63 EB North 25.14 SBR 60.2 7.89 EB South 25.93 EBL 23.7 30.13 WB North 26.20 EBT 53.8 7.94 WB South 24.87 EBR 53.8 9.05 WBL 11.2 24.50 WBT 33.3 6.05 WBR 2.1 18.92 *NB East denotes NB travel on the eastern most crosswalk
103
Table A-27. Combination, pre-timed, high veh, low bike, low ped.
Signal System Type Pre-timed Vehicle Average Speed (mph) 11.62
Vehicle Volume Category High Weighted Veh Average Delay (s/veh) 8.57
Pedestrian Volume Category Low Weighted Ped Average Delay (s/ped) 33.45
Bicyclist Volume Category Low Weighted Bike Average Delay (s/bike) 24.97
Geometric Layout Combination Cycle Length (s) 130
Vehicle Approach
Average Queue Length (ft)
Average Delay per Vehicle (s)
Pedestrian Approach
Average Delay per Pedestrian (s) Bicyclist Approach
Average Delay per Bicyclist (s)
NBL 88.1 26.46 *NB East 45.33 NB 32.52 NBT 88.1 12.28 NB West 47.35 SB 31.95 NBR 88.1 10.81 SB East 43.28 EB 20.01 SBL 6.8 26.52 SB West 48.59 WB 18.58 SBT 109.4 5.85 EB North 27.52 SBR 109.4 6.53 EB South 26.89 EBL 105.6 29.88 WB North 28.35 EBT 140.2 5.69 WB South 26.20 EBR 140.2 4.95 WBL 27.4 25.65 WBT 66.1 4.57 WBR 3.4 13.85 *NB East denotes NB travel on the eastern most crosswalk
104
Table A-28. Combination, pre-timed, high veh, high bike, high ped.
Signal System Type Pre-timed Vehicle Average Speed (mph) 10.75
Vehicle Volume Category High Weighted Veh Average Delay (s/veh) 8.95
Pedestrian Volume Category High Weighted Ped Average Delay (s/ped) 34.16
Bicyclist Volume Category High Weighted Bike Average Delay (s/bike) 25.69
Geometric Layout Combination Cycle Length (s) 130
Vehicle Approach
Average Queue Length (ft)
Average Delay per Vehicle (s)
Pedestrian Approach
Average Delay per Pedestrian (s) Bicyclist Approach
Average Delay per Bicyclist (s)
NBL 153.8 31.05 *NB East 49.49 NB 32.97 NBT 153.8 12.81 NB West 48.25 SB 31.64 NBR 153.8 16.02 SB East 46.29 EB 20.32 SBL 5.7 26.87 SB West 47.52 WB 20.78 SBT 114.8 6.02 EB North 28.47 SBR 114.8 9.26 EB South 27.76 EBL 106.4 29.46 WB North 26.50 EBT 141.4 5.79 WB South 27.05 EBR 141.4 7.00 WBL 24.5 25.94 WBT 67.3 4.51 WBR 3.4 19.26 *NB East denotes NB travel on the eastern most crosswalk
105
Table A-29. Combination, semi-actuated, medium veh, low bike, low ped.
Signal System Type Semi-actuated Vehicle Average Speed (mph) 19.15
Vehicle Volume Category Medium Weighted Veh Average Delay (s/veh) 7.91
Pedestrian Volume Category Low Weighted Ped Average Delay (s/ped) 24.69
Bicyclist Volume Category Low Weighted Bike Average Delay (s/bike) 11.86
Geometric Layout Combination Cycle Length (Critical) (s) 61
Vehicle Approach
Average Queue Length (ft)
Average Delay per Vehicle (s)
Pedestrian Approach
Average Delay per Pedestrian (s) Bicyclist Approach
Average Delay per Bicyclist (s)
NBL 14.0 15.34 *NB East 32.92 NB 13.15 NBT 14.0 8.44 NB West 34.06 SB 13.20 NBR 14.0 7.83 SB East 31.55 EB 9.94 SBL 2.3 15.23 SB West 31.50 WB 11.71 SBT 32.5 5.21 EB North 20.73 SBR 32.5 5.61 EB South 20.80 EBL 6.3 16.92 WB North 21.09 EBT 32.6 7.42 WB South 20.75 EBR 32.6 8.40 WBL 3.6 19.90 WBT 19.5 5.72 WBR 1.3 10.24 *NB East denotes NB travel on the eastern most crosswalk
106
Table A-30. Combination, semi-actuated, medium veh, high bike, high ped.
Signal System Type Semi-actuated Vehicle Average Speed (mph) 18.62
Vehicle Volume Category Medium Weighted Veh Average Delay (s/veh) 8.48
Pedestrian Volume Category High Weighted Ped Average Delay (s/ped) 25.09
Bicyclist Volume Category High Weighted Bike Average Delay (s/bike) 13.37
Geometric Layout Combination Cycle Length (Critical) (s) 61
Vehicle Approach
Average Queue Length (ft)
Average Delay per Vehicle (s)
Pedestrian Approach
Average Delay per Pedestrian (s) Bicyclist Approach
Average Delay per Bicyclist (s)
NBL 16.1 17.85 *NB East 32.65 NB 14.39 NBT 16.1 8.98 NB West 32.96 SB 14.60 NBR 16.1 8.45 SB East 32.71 EB 12.04 SBL 1.9 15.78 SB West 33.23 WB 12.88 SBT 34.8 5.32 EB North 20.74 SBR 34.8 7.52 EB South 21.85 EBL 5.8 18.93 WB North 21.14 EBT 33.5 7.63 WB South 21.31 EBR 33.5 9.73 WBL 4.2 24.27 WBT 20.9 6.00 WBR 1.2 12.91 *NB East denotes NB travel on the eastern most crosswalk
107
Table A-31. Combination, semi-actuated, high veh, low bike, low ped.
Signal System Type Semi-actuated Vehicle Average Speed (mph) 12.63
Vehicle Volume Category High Weighted Veh Average Delay (s/veh) 7.22
Pedestrian Volume Category Low Weighted Ped Average Delay (s/ped) 45.87
Bicyclist Volume Category Low Weighted Bike Average Delay (s/bike) 29.30
Geometric Layout Combination Cycle Length (Critical) (s) 207
Vehicle Approach
Average Queue Length (ft)
Average Delay per Vehicle (s)
Pedestrian Approach
Average Delay per Pedestrian (s) Bicyclist Approach
Average Delay per Bicyclist (s)
NBL 125.8 40.29 *NB East 97.60 NB 50.42 NBT 125.8 14.06 NB West 97.71 SB 46.89 NBR 125.8 12.24 SB East 100.59 EB 13.88 SBL 7.3 27.52 SB West 100.27 WB 14.43 SBT 180.1 6.51 EB North 18.89 SBR 180.1 5.61 EB South 19.36 EBL 9.3 14.81 WB North 19.46 EBT 94.8 4.29 WB South 19.40 EBR 94.8 4.55 WBL 9.6 29.51 WBT 47.6 3.70 WBR 2.5 11.81 *NB East denotes NB travel on the eastern most crosswalk
108
Table A-32. Combination, semi-actuated, high veh, high bike, high ped.
Signal System Type Semi-actuated Vehicle Average Speed (mph) 12.08
Vehicle Volume Category High Weighted Veh Average Delay (s/veh) 7.86
Pedestrian Volume Category High Weighted Ped Average Delay (s/ped) 47.31
Bicyclist Volume Category High Weighted Bike Average Delay (s/bike) 31.45
Geometric Layout Combination Cycle Length (Critical) (s) 207
Vehicle Approach
Average Queue Length (ft)
Average Delay per Vehicle (s)
Pedestrian Approach
Average Delay per Pedestrian (s) Bicyclist Approach
Average Delay per Bicyclist (s)
NBL 128.7 35.49 *NB East 97.87 NB 48.58 NBT 128.7 15.07 NB West 97.09 SB 50.78 NBR 128.7 11.02 SB East 96.89 EB 16.08 SBL 6.8 26.36 SB West 98.19 WB 16.66 SBT 183.7 5.89 EB North 22.17 SBR 183.7 9.11 EB South 21.12 EBL 10.1 18.58 WB North 21.24 EBT 105.1 4.49 WB South 21.40 EBR 105.1 9.14 WBL 10.6 34.59 WBT 54.9 3.71 WBR 2.1 13.81 *NB East denotes NB travel on the eastern most crosswalk
109
Figure A-7. Combination configuration on VISSIM as pre-timed.
Figure A-8. Combination configuration on VISSIM as semi-actuated.
110
Table A-33. Alternative, pre-timed, medium veh, low bike, low ped.
Signal System Type Pre-timed Vehicle Average Speed (mph) 14.93
Vehicle Volume Category Medium Weighted Veh Average Delay (s/veh) 10.87
Pedestrian Volume Category Low Weighted Ped Average Delay (s/ped) 35.91
Bicyclist Volume Category Low Weighted Bike Average Delay (s/bike) 19.56
Geometric Layout Alternate Cycle Length (s) 85
Vehicle Approach
Average Queue Length (ft)
Average Delay per Vehicle (s)
Pedestrian Approach
Average Delay per Pedestrian (s) Bicyclist Approach
Average Delay per Bicyclist (s)
NBL 21.2 21.52 *NB East 39.38 NB 18.95 NBT 21.2 10.40 NB West 39.85 SB 18.00 NBR 21.2 10.90 SB East 39.79 EB 20.30 SBL 3.2 19.30 SB West 41.41 WB 20.53 SBT 46.9 5.52 EB North 35.01 SBR 46.9 6.56 EB South 34.53 EBL 28.3 33.42 WB North 33.82 EBT 63.5 9.11 WB South 31.80 EBR 63.5 7.67 WBL 11.1 31.77 WBT 40.7 9.15 WBR 2.3 16.73 *NB East denotes NB travel on the eastern most crosswalk
111
Table A-34. Alternative, pre-timed, medium veh, high bike, high ped.
Signal System Type Pre-timed Vehicle Average Speed (mph) 14.62
Vehicle Volume Category Medium Weighted Veh Average Delay (s/veh) 11.27
Pedestrian Volume Category High Weighted Ped Average Delay (s/ped) 36.70
Bicyclist Volume Category High Weighted Bike Average Delay (s/bike) 19.28
Geometric Layout Alternate Cycle Length (s) 85
Vehicle Approach
Average Queue Length (ft)
Average Delay per Vehicle (s)
Pedestrian Approach
Average Delay per Pedestrian (s) Bicyclist Approach
Average Delay per Bicyclist (s)
NBL 23.4 24.28 *NB East 40.63 NB 18.36 NBT 23.4 11.25 NB West 40.66 SB 18.34 NBR 23.4 12.58 SB East 42.20 EB 20.37 SBL 3.0 22.84 SB West 40.84 WB 19.67 SBT 54.8 5.84 EB North 34.62 SBR 54.8 9.61 EB South 34.51 EBL 24.0 32.37 WB North 34.27 EBT 62.5 9.24 WB South 34.61 EBR 62.5 14.47 WBL 11.2 32.24 WBT 38.4 8.69 WBR 2.2 19.75 *NB East denotes NB travel on the eastern most crosswalk
112
Table A-35. Alternative, pre-timed, high veh, low bike, low ped.
Signal System Type Pre-timed Vehicle Average Speed (mph) 12.04
Vehicle Volume Category High Weighted Veh Average Delay (s/veh) 9.67
Pedestrian Volume Category Low Weighted Ped Average Delay (s/ped) 37.61
Bicyclist Volume Category Low Weighted Bike Average Delay (s/bike) 23.18
Geometric Layout Alternate Cycle Length (s) 120
Vehicle Approach
Average Queue Length (ft)
Average Delay per Vehicle (s)
Pedestrian Approach
Average Delay per Pedestrian (s) Bicyclist Approach
Average Delay per Bicyclist (s)
NBL 110.3 31.01 *NB East 54.05 NB 29.09 NBT 110.3 13.34 NB West 49.98 SB 30.34 NBR 110.3 14.87 SB East 55.67 EB 17.73 SBL 6.3 28.33 SB West 54.94 WB 18.10 SBT 122.3 6.20 EB North 28.31 SBR 122.3 8.18 EB South 29.48 EBL 64.2 31.44 WB North 28.99 EBT 109.7 6.08 WB South 31.13 EBR 109.7 4.57 WBL 20.4 35.66 WBT 56.9 6.41 WBR 2.9 14.18 *NB East denotes NB travel on the eastern most crosswalk
113
Table A-36. Alternative, pre-timed, high veh, high bike, high ped.
Signal System Type Pre-timed Vehicle Average Speed (mph) 10.04
Vehicle Volume Category High Weighted Veh Average Delay (s/veh) 10.31
Pedestrian Volume Category High Weighted Ped Average Delay (s/ped) 37.73
Bicyclist Volume Category High Weighted Bike Average Delay (s/bike) 23.33
Geometric Layout Alternate Cycle Length (s) 120
Vehicle Approach
Average Queue Length (ft)
Average Delay per Vehicle (s)
Pedestrian Approach
Average Delay per Pedestrian (s) Bicyclist Approach
Average Delay per Bicyclist (s)
NBL 107.0 34.61 *NB East 53.08 NB 29.28 NBT 107.0 15.71 NB West 54.31 SB 29.67 NBR 107.0 18.40 SB East 54.32 EB 18.72 SBL 7.3 30.91 SB West 52.90 WB 18.21 SBT 303.2 6.88 EB North 30.00 SBR 303.2 11.52 EB South 30.51 EBL 82.1 30.51 WB North 29.19 EBT 117.1 6.16 WB South 29.12 EBR 117.1 9.13 WBL 20.3 36.34 WBT 55.2 6.32 WBR 3.1 17.51 *NB East denotes NB travel on the eastern most crosswalk
114
Table A-37. Alternative, semi-actuated, medium veh, low bike, low ped.
Signal System Type Semi-actuated Vehicle Average Speed (mph) 19.33
Vehicle Volume Category Medium Weighted Veh Average Delay (s/veh) 8.36
Pedestrian Volume Category Low Weighted Ped Average Delay (s/ped) 25.84
Bicyclist Volume Category Low Weighted Bike Average Delay (s/bike) 11.65
Geometric Layout Alternate Cycle Length (Critical) (s) 57
Vehicle Approach
Average Queue Length (ft)
Average Delay per Vehicle (s)
Pedestrian Approach
Average Delay per Pedestrian (s) Bicyclist Approach
Average Delay per Bicyclist (s)
NBL 12.8 16.31 *NB East 41.17 NB 12.18 NBT 12.8 8.79 NB West 35.00 SB 11.65 NBR 12.8 7.80 SB East 31.46 EB 12.09 SBL 2.1 17.53 SB West 32.30 WB 10.71 SBT 30.2 6.93 EB North 20.51 SBR 30.2 7.69 EB South 21.98 EBL 6.9 15.85 WB North 20.50 EBT 32.1 7.35 WB South 21.80 EBR 32.1 6.80 WBL 3.9 19.50 WBT 19.5 6.57 WBR 1.2 11.44 *NB East denotes NB travel on the eastern most crosswalk
115
Table A-38. Alternative, semi-actuated, medium veh, high bike, high ped.
Signal System Type Semi-actuated Vehicle Average Speed (mph) 17.10
Vehicle Volume Category Medium Weighted Veh Average Delay (s/veh) 10.19
Pedestrian Volume Category High Weighted Ped Average Delay (s/ped) 31.98
Bicyclist Volume Category High Weighted Bike Average Delay (s/bike) 13.77
Geometric Layout Alternate Cycle Length (Critical) (s) 57
Vehicle Approach
Average Queue Length (ft)
Average Delay per Vehicle (s)
Pedestrian Approach
Average Delay per Pedestrian (s) Bicyclist Approach
Average Delay per Bicyclist (s)
NBL 12.4 18.91 *NB East 34.34 NB 11.38 NBT 12.4 8.00 NB West 33.59 SB 11.22 NBR 12.4 9.05 SB East 34.23 EB 15.79 SBL 2.0 20.59 SB West 33.53 WB 15.70 SBT 28.5 6.17 EB North 31.00 SBR 28.5 8.85 EB South 31.49 EBL 13.2 25.68 WB North 30.42 EBT 48.1 8.81 WB South 31.13 EBR 48.1 13.66 WBL 6.6 29.37 WBT 28.3 7.87 WBR 1.9 17.99 *NB East denotes NB travel on the eastern most crosswalk
116
Table A-39. Alternative, semi-actuated, high veh, low bike, low ped.
Signal System Type Semi-actuated Vehicle Average Speed (mph) 13.09
Vehicle Volume Category High Weighted Veh Average Delay (s/veh) 7.63
Pedestrian Volume Category Low Weighted Ped Average Delay (s/ped) 45.44
Bicyclist Volume Category Low Weighted Bike Average Delay (s/bike) 27.09
Geometric Layout Alternate Cycle Length (Critical) (s) 192
Vehicle Approach
Average Queue Length (ft)
Average Delay per Vehicle (s)
Pedestrian Approach
Average Delay per Pedestrian (s) Bicyclist Approach
Average Delay per Bicyclist (s)
NBL 104.1 35.66 *NB East 86.32 NB 43.84 NBT 104.1 14.18 NB West 103.77 SB 42.06 NBR 104.1 13.55 SB East 82.20 EB 15.42 SBL 6.9 30.97 SB West 89.98 WB 13.76 SBT 167.1 8.43 EB North 21.11 SBR 167.1 10.99 EB South 21.75 EBL 11.5 12.90 WB North 25.76 EBT 91.9 4.51 WB South 22.05 EBR 91.9 3.46 WBL 7.3 20.67 WBT 50.8 4.58 WBR 2.2 9.51 *NB East denotes NB travel on the eastern most crosswalk
117
Table A-40. Alternative, semi-actuated, high veh, high bike, high ped.
Signal System Type Semi-actuated Vehicle Average Speed (mph) 11.56
Vehicle Volume Category High Weighted Veh Average Delay (s/veh) 8.99
Pedestrian Volume Category High Weighted Ped Average Delay (s/ped) 47.41
Bicyclist Volume Category High Weighted Bike Average Delay (s/bike) 26.66
Geometric Layout Alternate Cycle Length (Critical) (s) 192
Vehicle Approach
Average Queue Length (ft)
Average Delay per Vehicle (s)
Pedestrian Approach
Average Delay per Pedestrian (s) Bicyclist Approach
Average Delay per Bicyclist (s)
NBL 164.0 36.81 *NB East 89.23 NB 38.56 NBT 164.0 15.75 NB West 93.31 SB 41.97 NBR 164.0 16.84 SB East 92.60 EB 15.56 SBL 8.0 39.95 SB West 90.56 WB 15.58 SBT 181.0 9.36 EB North 25.26 SBR 181.0 11.13 EB South 25.24 EBL 13.9 19.32 WB North 25.68 EBT 100.4 4.87 WB South 24.81 EBR 100.4 9.88 WBL 8.8 26.80 WBT 54.5 5.01 WBR 2.9 16.33 *NB East denotes NB travel on the eastern most crosswalk
118
Figure A-9. Alternative configuration on VISSIM for pre-timed.
Figure A-10. Alternative configuration on VISSIM for semi-actuated.
119
LIST OF REFERENCES
AASHTO (American Association of State and Highway Transportation Officials). (2012). A policy on geometric design of highways and streets, Washington, D.C.
AASHTO Executive Committee. (2012). Guide for the development of bicycle facilities, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, D.C.
Andersen, M. (2015). “America's First Protected Intersection Is Open In Davis - And
Working Like A Charm.” <http://peopleforbikes.org/blog/americas-first-protected-
intersection-is-open-in-davis-and-working-like-a-charm/>
Department for Transport. (2015). “The Highway Code: Rules for Pedestrians.”
<https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/rules-for-pedestrians-1-to-35>
Eco-Counter. (2017). “CITIX-IR System Overview.” <http://www.eco-
compteur.com/en/products/citix-ir>
Elefteriadou, L., Chase, T., Zheng, Y., and Kontou, R. (2015). Before and After-Implementation Studies of Advanced Signal Control Technologies in Florida. University of Florida Transportation Institute, Gainesville, Florida.
Fong, G., Kopf, J., Clark, P., Collins, R., Cunard, R., Kobetsky, K., Lalani, N., Ranck, F., Seyfried, R., Slack, K., Sparks, J., Umbs, R., and Van Winkle, S. (2003). Signalized Intersection Safety In Europe. US Department of Transportation, Office of International Programs, Washington, D.C.
Furth, P., Yu, M., Peng, F., and Littman, M. (2014). “Mitigating the Right Turn Conflict Using Protected-Yet-Concurrent Phasing for Cycle Track and Pedestrian Crossings.” Proc., Transportation Research Board 93rd Annual Meeting, Washington, D.C. 2197.
Gettman, D., Folk, E., Curtis, E., Kacir, K., Ormand, D., Mayer, M., and Flanigan, E. (2013). Measures of effectiveness and validation guidance for adaptive signal control technologies. US Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C.
Gilpin, J., Falbo, N., Repsch, M., and Zimmerman, A. (2015). Evolution of the Protected Intersection. Alta Planning + Design, Portland, Oregon.
Hu, Y. (2014). The Impact of Pedestrian Activities in Adaptive Traffic Signal Control System Operations. University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
120
Iteris (2017). “PedTrax.” < https://www.iteris.com/products/pedestrian-and-
cyclist/pedtrax >
McKenzie, B. (2014). Modes Less Traveled - Bicycling and Walking to Work in the United States: 2008 - 2012. US Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, New York.
Mimbela, L. E. Y., Klein, L. A., and United States. Joint Program Office for Intelligent Transportation Systems. (2007). Summary of vehicle detection and surveillance technologies used in intelligent transportation systems. Federal Highway Administration, Intelligent Transportation Systems Joint Program Office, Washington, D.C.
NACTO (National Association of City Transportation Officials). (2011). Urban bikeway design guide. New York.
Rhythm Engineering. (2017). “InSync Overall Results.”
<https://rhythmtraffic.com/results/>
Sanburn, J. (2015). “How Smart Traffic Lights Could Transform Your Commute.”
<http://time.com/3845445/commuting-times-adaptive-traffic-lights/>
Stanek, D., and Alexander, C. (2015). “Simulation Analysis of Intersection Treatments for Cycle Tracks.” Proc., 2015 ITE Western District Annual Meeting., Las Vegas, Nevada.
TRB (Transportation Research Board). (2010). Highway Capacity Manual, National Research Council, Washington, D.C.
Xiao, M., Zhang, L., Hou, Y., and Chuan, S. (2013). “An adaptive pedestrian crossing signal control system for intersection.” Proc., COTA International Conference of Transportation Professionals, Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, Shenzhen, China. 1585 - 1592.
Zhao, Y., and Tian, Z. (2012). “An overview of the usage of adaptive signal control system in the United States of America.” Applied Mechanics and Materials, 178, 2591-2598.
121
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH
Tyler Valila was born and raised in Gardner, Massachusetts where he graduated
from Gardner High School in 2012. He completed his undergraduate studies at the
University of Massachusetts Lowell and graduated Cum Laude in the spring of 2016
with a Bachelor of Science in civil engineering. Upon graduating, Tyler began graduate
studies at the University of Florida. While simultaneously working for the University of
Florida Transportation Institute and dedicating time to the Institute of Transportation
Engineers, he graduated with his Master of Engineering degree in the fall of 2017.