This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
01-2167 CAPACITY AT UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS DERIVED BY CONFLICT TECHNIQUE
Duplication for publication or sale is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the Transportation Research Board.
Werner Brilon and Ning Wu Institute for Transportation and Traffic Engineering Ruhr-University, D-44780 Bochum, Germany Phone: +49 234 322 5936 Fax: +49 234 3214151 e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
Transportation Research Board 80th Annual Meeting January 7 - 11, 2001 Washington D.C.
CAPACITY AT UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS DERIVED BY CONFLICT TECHNIQUE
Abstract A new simplified theoretical approach for the determination of capacities at unsignalized intersections has been derived. This approach is based on the method of Additive Conflict Streams (ACS). The method is much easier to handle compared to the method of gap-acceptance. It avoids a lot of theoretical complications imbedded into the method of gap-acceptance which, under certain circumstances, seem to be rather unrealistic. The new method has been developed for application on each potential intersection configuration where one street has priority over the other. A calibration of the parameters within the model is given for German conditions. The new procedure can deal with shared lanes, short lanes and flared entries and also with cases of so-called limited priority. For the estimation of traffic performance measures - like average delay and queue lengths - the classical methods can be applied. Keywords: Capacity, unsignalized intersection, traffic flow quality
Author’s address: Prof. Dr.-Ing. Werner Brilon, Dr.-Ing. habil. Ning Wu Ruhr-University Bochum D-44780 Bochum, Germany Phone: +49 234 32 25936 Fax: +49 234 32 14 151 e-mail: email@example.com
The whole set of rules is neither written explicitly in the highway code nor is it known to many road users. (1994). Coombe. Thus.a. an approach which is based on suggestions from Harders (1968) confirmed through simulations by Grossmann (1991). it is justified to say. not a framework which fits to the sophistication of the gap-acceptance theory. or in some illegal manner.CAPACITY AT UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS DERIVED BY CONFLICT TECHNIQUE PAGE 3 1 Introduction Capacity of unsignalized intersections is either analysed by the empirical regression method. In fact. and in former publications by these authors. Troutbeck. Their impact on the results is not clear.a. which is mainly applied in the context of British research results (Kimber. These are: • The determination of the critical gap is rather complicated (cf. A rather recent state of the art for this stream of theories is also documented in Kyte (1997). Some details of the practical aspects of critical gap estimations are also described in Tian e. The gap-acceptance theory does completely loose its applicability when it should be extended to accounting for pedestrians or cyclists at the intersection. however. Brilon. 1980). which needs a clearly defined ranking of priorities with the assumption that each road user will exactly comply with these rules. Tracz. Brilon. however. 1997). looking into details of the determination. As a consequence. The subsequent calculation methods of the GAP look like very theoretical mathematics. use the GAP method in their own capacity manuals. they are more based on pragmatic simplifications. The same aspects apply also for cyclists which can drive either on the roadway. only of approximative nature.a. This applies for the whole treatment of the hierarchy of four ranks of priorities at an intersection. They are. • • • . Troutbeck. it turns out that for the determination a couple of definitions must be made which are not self-explaining and which contain elements of arbitrariness. or by the socalled gap-acceptance procedures (GAP). Here some movements are accounted for twice. like Sweden. 1997 and 2000). on separate cycle paths. the real behavior both of pedestrians and motor vehicle drivers is of great variability. rather complicated rules of priority apply. The gap-acceptance theory has no real good chance to apply on driver behavior which is not exactly complying with the rules of priority such as gap forcing or polite behavior of priority drivers (priority reversal). For the HCM procedures a comprehensive investigation has been performed by Kyte e. König. Kita. Thus it is correct to say that the theory of gap-acceptance is the predominant concept for unsignalized intersection analysis in the world. Also other countries. This variability is. 1997). This aspect will be figured out in more detail in this paper. 1997. that the estimation of critical gaps is a source of uncertainty within the GAP method. at least on the European continent. This can be stated even if some approaches to this problem have been published (Troutbeck e.. Overall these calculations produce results of a correct magnitude. For pedestrians. The latter is used in many countries of the world (cf. such that pedestrians sometimes have the right of way over cars and sometimes they do not. On a closer look this concept has. however. a couple of drawbacks which could become a problem for practical application. there could be a much simpler approximation which would make the application of an estimation method much easier without loosing too much reliability. However. (2000). 1995) such as in the USA (HCM. Thus.
• the number of pedestrians crossing the legs of the intersection. i . 1). In this paper the same concept is developed for application on Two-Way-Stop-Controlled intersections (TWSC). i=1 i=2 Fig. established by a yield sign or a stop sign for the minor movement. Consequently the vehicles from the movements involved into one conflict have to pass the area one after the other. For this case the results are even easier to develop and apply than for the AWSC case. Q2 > C2 ) we find that the relation is true 3600 = Q1 ⋅ t B .passing this point . As a basis. • flared approaches. • the distribution of traffic flow rates on the different approaches. which has first been developed by Gleue (1972) for signalized intersection analysis.1 Departure mechanisms at TWSC intersections Capacity of traffic streams in a conflict group We start our derivations looking at a conflict between several movements (fig. The set of movements which are involved into the same conflict is called a conflict group. and the conflict approach. Then we assume that the conflict area is comparable to a queueing system where each vehicle from movement i . the opposite. 1 + C2 ⋅ t B .1).e. As a conflict we treat the intersection of several movements which have to pass the same area within an intersection. If we look at the situation where the intersection is oversaturated (i. 2 [veh/h] (1) . the concept of Additive Conflict Flows (ACF) seems to be usable. The new procedure makes it easy to take into account • the number of lanes of the subject.is consuming on average a service time tB. it could be of interest to derive a third basic concept of analysis for unsignalized intersection operations. The total time available for vehicles from both movements is 3600 s per hour.CAPACITY AT UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS DERIVED BY CONFLICT TECHNIQUE PAGE 4 Therefore. One of these movements (i=1) is assumed to have priority over the other. 1: Conflict between two movements First we concentrate on the easy case of two conflicting streams (fig. It has been modified by Wu (2000a. 2 2. b) to be applied on All-Way-Stop-Controlled intersections (AWSC).
1 t B. 2: Conflicts between three movements 2 . movement 2 is of intermediate priority. i 3600 = occupancy by movement i = (1 .e. 2).2 ⋅ (1 − B1 ) = C max.1 ö ⋅ ç1 − = C max.Bi ) is the proportion of time during which the conflict area is free from ivehicles. j Bi is the proportion of time during which the conflict area is occupied by vehicles from movement i ("i-vehicles").1 ≤ 3600 Thus we get for the capacity of the minor street movement i=2 : [veh/h] [veh/h] [s] C2 = 3600 − Q1 ⋅ t B. i = service time for movement i with the restriction Q1 ⋅ t B.values are to be defined below.i .e. movement 1 has highest priority. Thus (1 . 2 = 3600 æ Q1 ⋅ t B. Now we look at a conflict group consisting of three movements (fig.Bi ) = probability that the conflict area is not occupied by movement i = 3600 = maximum capacity of movement 1 in case of no conflicting streams t B. 2 ç 3600 è [veh/h] (2) where Bi p0. Here a hierarchy of priorities should be applicable like it is valid for conflicts at an unsignalized intersection. 3 2 1 1 3 Fig.CAPACITY AT UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS DERIVED BY CONFLICT TECHNIQUE PAGE 5 where Qi = traffic demand for movement i Ci = capacity for movement i tB. In analogy to these considerations further p0 . the probability that no i-vehicle is occupying the conflict zone.1 t B. j = Qi ⋅ t B .i Cmax.2 ⋅ p 0. Thus (1 . and movement 3 has to yield to both of the other movements. i.Bi ) can be interpreted as an estimation for the probability p0. i.
4 = C max. 3: Conflicts between four movements More movements than four can not occur within a standard cross intersection. 2 for the capacity of movement 2. For the capacity of movement 3 we can now derive: C3 = 3600 − (Q1 ⋅ t B . 3 = C max. 1/2 = [1 .4 ⋅ [1 − (B1 + B 2 + B 3 )] = C max.3 ⋅ p 0. .( B1 + B2)] = probability that the conflict area is neither occupied by vehicles from stream1 nor from stream 2 Extending the same technique to a conflict group consisting of four movements (fig. 2 ) t B. 2 + Q 3 ⋅ t B.( B1 + B2 + B3)] = probability that the conflict area is neither occupied by vehicles from stream1 nor from stream 2 nor from stream 3 3 2 1 4 Fig.1 / 2 / 3 [veh/h] (4) where p0.1 / 2 [veh/h] (3) where p0. 3) we get the capacity for a movement of rank 4: C4 = 3600 − (Q1 ⋅ t B.3 ⋅ [1 − (B1 + B2 )] = C max. 3 ) t B.1 + Q 2 ⋅ t B.CAPACITY AT UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS DERIVED BY CONFLICT TECHNIQUE PAGE 6 With the same logic as described above we can again apply eq.1 + Q2 ⋅ t B . 1/2/3 = [1 .4 ⋅ p 0.
i-values are identical for all movements i.usually lower tB-value tB1. On the other hand. negative values for capacities Ci are not allowed. the capacity must be set as 0. 2.e. that a negative value should occur. i. Thus. however. imply that after the whole formulation of the model a calibration process will be needed to estimate useful values for the whole variety of tB-values. with absolute priority) have their own . not been fulfilled since too many sets of data from comparable situations would be needed. A significant simplification can be achieved if . however. . The reason is the departure discipline according to the traffic rules: The vehicles depart in the sequence. however. This basic assumption for the model would. In case. This task in reality can. Thus also a simplified set of model assumptions might be useful. FIFO). in which they arrive at their respective stop lines (first in first out. Then we come to the following set of equations: C2 = C3 = C4 = 3600 − Q1 tB 3600 − (Q1 + Q 2 ) = C 2 − Q 2 tB 3600 − (Q1 + Q 2 + Q 3 ) = C 3 − Q 3 tB [veh/h] (5) (For a negative result of the equations the corresponding capacity is always = 0). Then we get as a set of capacity equations: C2 = 3600 − Q1 ⋅ t B1 t BM C3 = C 2 − Q 2 C 4 = C3 − Q3 Calibrations will show. 4). that these simplifications are not very realistic. of course. the assumption that highest ranked through movements (i. whereas all the non-priority and turning movements can be described by a common service time tBM.it could be assumed that the tB. two vehicles from nonconflicting movements will depart simultaneously after they have stopped.CAPACITY AT UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS DERIVED BY CONFLICT TECHNIQUE PAGE 7 Up to this point the equations are formulated for the case that each movement i has its own average service time tB.i. For AWSC intersections the capacity for one subject stream is the smallest capacity that can be achieved in each of the conflict groups (cf. vehicles from all the conflicting movements will wait and give way if (according to FIFO) it is the term for a subject stream vehicle to depart. if they arrive rather at the same time .2 Involvement of one stream into more than one conflict group At real intersections all movements have to travel through several conflict groups (for examples see fig. [veh/h] (6) In each of the equations 2 to 6. Wu 2000a).with sufficient degree of precision . with queues on all entrances.e. Also an intermediate degree of simplification of equations 1 to 4 might be useful. under such saturated conditions.
7 is only valid. mathematically speaking. i k =1 ni (7) where i Ci = = index for a movement capacity of movement i capacity of movement i for the case that all other movements have no traffic index for a conflict group probability that conflict group k is free for movement i number of conflict groups which a vehicle from movement i has to pass [-] [veh/h] [veh/h] [-] [-] [-] Cmax = k ni = = p0. however. A minor stream vehicle. With that in mind we find for the cases from fig.e. not occupied by other vehicles) at the same moment.CAPACITY AT UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS DERIVED BY CONFLICT TECHNIQUE PAGE 8 At a TWSC-intersection we have different traffic rules. eq. which they need to cross. The probability that both conflict areas are free simultaneously. i = Of course. 7 for ni > 2 . k . is the product of the individual pi-values. which is not necessarily the case for n i > 2 . A ⋅ p 0. are free (i. Priority movements operate independently from each other. can only depart in the case that all conflict groups. B 2 12 B A 8 2 A 4 5 Fig. Vehicles from priority movements are not stopped. i ⋅ ∏ p0. B For more than two conflict groups . x ⋅ p 0. for simplicity stochastic interdependencies between succeeding conflict groups are neglected when using eq. k. They occupy the conflict area as soon as they arrive. The arrival process itself has properties of randomness. if all conflict groups would operate independently from each other. Thus. which have to be passed within a hierarchical system of priorities we get: Ci = Cmax. 4: C x = C max. 4: One movement passing through two subsequent conflict groups .
. It has been tested against different alternative definitions. that in conjunction with the considerations for eq. Here the system applied in the German guidelines is used (fig. 2 . 8 8 1 1 4 11 5 10 No. 2000b). 6 have been identified (Wu. however. This definition. as a first approach we assume that on the four approaches of the intersection there is exactly one lane available for each of the twelve movements. The whole configuration of traffic movements consists of twelve streams of motorized vehicle traffic. The strategy for the definition was. This formulation of conflict groups goes back on Wu (2000a). 5 11 8 10 No. Using the relations formulated in section 2 of this paper (cf. 5: Four typical conflict groups at an intersection For the further derivations an enumeration is needed for the 12 movements at the intersection. 2 . 5 (valid for conflict groups 5 8) and fig. 7 7 2 2 4 5 Fig. eq. Here.CAPACITY AT UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS DERIVED BY CONFLICT TECHNIQUE PAGE 9 3 3. represents the traffic rules and the hierarchy of priorities in the most accurate way.1 Conflict groups at an intersection Motorized vehicle movements We now look on a simple intersection of two streets. For this configuration the conflict groups outlined in fig. No. 6). we can now define the involvement of each movement into conflict groups and their conflicting movements as they are pointed out in table 1.4 the hierarchical system of priorities according to traffic rules is represented.4). 6 7 No.
3 [veh/h] [veh/h] [veh/h] (8) (9) (10) C4 = Cmax.CAPACITY AT UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS DERIVED BY CONFLICT TECHNIQUE PAGE 10 12 11 10 k conflict group 1 8 4 i movement 1 2 3 9 8 7 5 7 3 6 2 4 5 6 Fig. 2 C 3 = C max.1 ⋅ (1 − B8 ) ⋅ (1 − B9 ) C 2 = C max.10 ⋅ [1 − (B8 + B1 + B5 )] ⋅ [1 − (B2 + B7 + B5 )] ⋅ [1 − (B2 + B6 )] [veh/h] C11 = Cmax. 5) Based on these conflicts and on the derivations in paragraph 2 the following set of equations turns out to be formulated very easily if the system obtained from table 1 is applied.8 C 9 = C max.12 ⋅ [1 − B8 ] (17) (18) (19) [veh/h] .11 ⋅ [1 − (B8 + B1 )] ⋅ [1 − (B2 + B7 )] ⋅ [1 − (B3 + B7 )] [veh/h] C12 = C max.7 ⋅ [1 − B2 ] ⋅ [1 − B3 ] C8 = C max. C1 = C max. 4 ⋅ [1 − (B2 + B7 + B11 )] ⋅ [1 − (B8 + B1 + B11 )] ⋅ [1 − (B8 + B12 )] [veh/h] C5 = Cmax.6 ⋅ [1 − B2 ] (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) [veh/h] [veh/h] [veh/h] [veh/h] [veh/h] C7 = Cmax. 6: Arrangement of conflict groups at a simple cross intersection (for conflict groups 5 8 : see fig.5 ⋅ [1 − (B2 + B7 )] ⋅ [1 − (B8 + B1 )] ⋅ [1 − (B9 + B1 )] C 6 = C max.9 C10 = Cmax.
b. Instead it is a pragmatic representation of the traffic streams at the intersection . or c for a specific conflict group k in table 1 are empty. i ⋅ each k ∏ [1 − (B a + Bb + Bc )] [veh/h] (20) The relevant conflict groups k for each individual movement i are given in table 1. i 1 rank r 2 Conflict group k 5 8 4 priority 2 6 5 1 7 8 4 3 7 6 2 priority 4 8 7 3 5 6 2 1 k conflicting movements higher priority ranking rank : lower rank 1 2 3 a 8 8 9 b c 4 5 5 7 11 10 2 3 4 1 1 4 11 5 3 6 7 2 2 2 8 8 2 8 9 2 2 2 3 7 1 12 7 1 1 11 11 10 10 10 5 4 11 1 10 11 8 9 10 1 1 4 5 11 3 12 i Table 1: 2 r 8 2 2 8 2 3 8 a 1 7 6 1 7 7 b 5 5 4 4 4 c Conflict groups and conflicting movements for each traffic stream at the intersection With the denotation of the last line in table 1 we can write these equations 8 . At this point it should be noted: so far the model has not the qualities of a theoretically precise mathematical model. If columns a.CAPACITY AT UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS DERIVED BY CONFLICT TECHNIQUE PAGE 11 Subject movement No. then the corresponding B = 0 .19 in a more general way : Ci = Cmax.
These are obtained from Czytich. has not a higher qualification. also jurisdictional literature in some cases expresses controversial opinions about these regulations. The answer may differ from country to country according to their specific traffic rules. As a consequence.both at the minor and the major street . however. in principle. The pedestrians have to be added to the conflict groups 1.2 Pedestrian movements Another group of conflicts has to be regarded if also pedestrians are admitted at the intersection (see fig. the usual practice is that these rules are not really applied. Only at a zebra-crossing the pedestrians have absolute priority over all vehicle movements. 1998) are expressed in table 2. Moreover they become of importance at the entries to the intersection (conflict groups 9. and 4 at the intersection exits. Boer (1999) found out that for each vehicle movement pedestrians – in case of a conflict – get priority in a specific proportion A of cases. It needs some concentration to understand these rules. Boer (1999) and generalized into rounded values. the vehicle has the right of way.the vehicles have priority over pedestrians. Also the gap-acceptance theory. Some preliminary studies by Czytich. The rules from the German highway code (StVO. 10. and 12). The pedestrians.CAPACITY AT UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS DERIVED BY CONFLICT TECHNIQUE PAGE 12 and their mutual impediments according to traffic rules. Some estimations for A to be associated with the different conflicts are given in table 2. 11. They mean: • • • • In each conflict where pedestrians are crossing the path of vehicles driving straight ahead. . Moreover. Instead motor vehicle drivers and pedestrians find their own arrangement in each individual situation. At entrances to an intersection . 7). 3. Thus. 3. have priority at the exits over all turning vehicles. they are also not really understood nor even known to street users – both to car drivers and pedestrians. 2. The question is to which degree these pedestrians have priority over the car traffic. That means: In A per cent of conflicting situations the pedestrian is going first and the car driver waits. More generalized values for A based on a larger sample size are going to be analyzed by the authors for German conditions in the next future within a research project funded by the German Federal DOT.
CAPACITY AT UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS DERIVED BY CONFLICT TECHNIQUE PAGE 13 k conflict group i veh-movement Fi ped-movement Fig. f.value in % Priority movements (i. i . 1998). peds have to give priority to vehicles from these movements) Priority to peds over vehicles from these movements 1 2 3 4 9 10 11 12 Table 2: F1 F3 F5 F7 F2 F4 F6 F8 8 (0) 11 (10) 2 (0) 5 (10) 1 (0) 4 (50) 7 (0) 10 (50) 2 (0) 5 (50) 8 (0) 11 (50) 3 (10) 6 (50) 9 (10) 12 (50) 4 (30) 3 (70) 6 (70) 1 (30) 12 (70) 7 (30) 10 (30) 9 (70) Definition of pedestrian priority according to the German Highway Code (StVO. i of pedestrian priority for different conflicts . 7: Arrangement of conflict groups at a simple cross intersection including pedestrians vehicle movements i conflict group k Pedestrian movement f in ( ) : Ak. in ( ) : percentages Ak. f.e.
. 1 r rank 3 Conflict group k 9 5 8 4 9 6 7 3 9 2 10 6 5 1 10 7 8 4 10 3 11 7 6 2 11 8 5 1 11 4 12 8 7 3 12 5 6 2 12 1 conflicting movements of higher priority ranking rank r a b c d e f 1 2 3 4 5 F2 8 8 9 F7 F2 lower rank g 4 5 5 4 5 6 h 11 10 m 2 1 3 4 2 5 F5 F2 F3 F4 2 8 8 2 8 9 2 2 2 3 F3 F6 1 1 F1 F6 F7 F8 8 2 2 8 2 3 8 F1 1 7 6 1 7 7 5 5 F8 4 4 F3 F8 4 1 F5 F6 5 4 11 7 1 12 7 1 1 11 11 F4 10 10 F7 F4 10 7 7 7 10 11 11 10 F1 5 4 6 7 3 3 10 11 8 1 5 4 10 11 9 10 2 5 5 F5 11 4 12 3 i Table 3: r k a b c d e f g h m Conflict groups and conflicting movements for each traffic stream at the intersection including pedestrians.CAPACITY AT UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS DERIVED BY CONFLICT TECHNIQUE PAGE 14 Subject movement i No.
Thus a clearly structured consecutive ranking of priorities is not longer existing with pedestrian priorities in mind. If we combine these rules from table 2 into a table like the style of table 1. 20 gives us the framework to indicate an equation. Regardless of this problem.CAPACITY AT UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS DERIVED BY CONFLICT TECHNIQUE PAGE 15 Subject movement i F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 r 2 4 5/1 6 2 4 5/1 6 Conflict group k 1 9 2 10 3 11 4 12 conflicting movements of higher priority ranking rank r a b c d e f 8 2 3 1 6 2 8 9 7 12 5 11 11 5 lower rank g 4 3 h 12 7 10 9 m 4 6 1 10 i r k a b c d e f g h m Table 3 (continued): Conflict groups and conflicting movements for each traffic stream at the intersection including pedestrians. fig. p ⋅ where é ê1 − ∏ each k ë öù æ Aj ç ÷ ç 100 ⋅ Bk . j ÷ j =a è ø f [veh/h] (21) . which calculates the capacity for each of the vehicle movements. We see that F3 (and F7) are of rank 5 with respect to movement 11 (and 5). 11 3 F7 9 F3 5 Fig. These movements 3 (and 9) have priority over 11 (and 5) (cf. With respect to movement 3 (and 9) the same movement F3 (and F7). 8: Cycle of priorities: the round arrows are a symbol for "has priority over". in the new theory table 3 together with eq. i . we obtain table 3. It needs quite a lot of concentration to follow through each detail. is of rank 2. This is another reason why the classical theory of gap-acceptance comes to an end when pedestrians are to be regarded at TWSC-intersections. With table 3 it becomes also obvious that the classical hierarchy of priority ranking is not longer easy to be applied if pedestrian crossings are included. p = Cmax. however. where also the influence of pedestrians is observed: Ci . 8).
and m of table 4 must be regarded for the sum in eq. h. This value seems to be quite low. where car drivers typically give priority to other drivers.2 s is consumed. 21.CAPACITY AT UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS DERIVED BY CONFLICT TECHNIQUE PAGE 16 Ci. It has. It can be estimated based on empirical observations. is given by . This concept has been extended by Wu (1997) such that also additional lanes of limited length (short lane) can be taken into account. If this would happen in 40 % of such conflicts then the Aj=6-value would be 60 in eq.according to the usual concept of unsignalized intersections . For the common case that all streams at an approach use the same shared lane the capacity of this shared lane. If one entry lane is used by several movements we call this . There may be situations. In the cases observed. if the relevant cell in table 3 is empty average service time for one vehicle or pedestrian in movement j duration of blocked time caused on average by one vehicle or pedestrian see bottom line of table 3 [veh/h] [%] [-] [-] [veh/h or ped/h] [s] The time during which a crosswalk near an unsignalized intersection is occupied by one pedestrian may be depending on pedestrian volume as well as on width of the crosswalk. 1997) by using A-values less than 100% also for vehicle traffic. j / 3600 volume of movement j 0. if j is a pedestrian movement f (cf. k: capacity for movement i including the influence of pedestrians 100 if j is a vehicle movement (cf. i = Bk. also to take into account that pedestrians in many cases are grouped.a shared lane. table 2) probability of priority for pedestrians from movement f in conflict group k over vehicles from movement i occupancy in conflict group k by movement j Qj ⋅ tB. f. the width of the crosswalks was not a limiting factor to pedestrian's freedom crossing the street. 21 would very easily allow to account for the effect of "limited priority" (Troutbeck. f. j = = Qj = = tB. 4 Intersection with single-lane approaches Now we concentrate on an intersection where each approach has only one lane. This adds another degree of complication since we now have also a limitation of entry capacity due to the mutual interaction of movements on each of the entries to the intersection. 21 . Kako. f. The capacity of shared lanes can be determined according to a formula first developed by Harders (1968). remark "limited priority" below) Ak. a minor right turner (i=6) is polite enough to give priority to opposite minor left turners (i=10) to improve their chance to depart. j = = a. If this concept should be included into a future version of the model. i . Czytich. By the way: eq. p = Aj = Aj = Ak. Cs .j = 3. however. then also the movements in column g. e. Boer (1999) found from a limited sample of observations in Germany that for a single pedestrian using the crosswalk on average a service time of tB.g. Thus the average blocking time per pedestrian is lower than the time needed to cross the street.
T) stand for the index of the left (L) and right turning (R) movement and the through movement (T) respectively. L = degree of saturation [veh/h] [veh/h] [veh/h] [-] For the case of a single-lane approach with an additional short lane near the intersection (flared entry) offering space for one right-turning vehicle the capacity of the shared traffic lane can be calculated from (Wu.R ) 2 [veh/h] (23) Using both equations (eq. L / Cs. L + x s . L = Q s. For non-stationary traffic conditions (which is usually the case in practice).L + x s . on the shared lane (s).CAPACITY AT UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS DERIVED BY CONFLICT TECHNIQUE PAGE 17 Cs = where Cs = Qs.L ⋅ t B .e. 22 and 23) the following restriction has to be observed (Q s. 1997).T ) + (x s .T + Q s . L ) + (Qs . the formula derived by Akcelik.T + x s .T ⋅ t B . s . sR ) + (QF ⋅ t B . and (s. L + Q s . (s. R ⋅ t B . R 2 s . 5 Queue length and delay To calculate the average delay d the classical solutions can be used. R in case of a shared lane Cs [h] [veh/h] [-] [-] ù 3600 ⋅ xi (xi − 1)2 + Ci 450 ⋅ T [s] (26) .L = xs. 2000) can be applied for the calculation of average delay di for vehicles from movement i : é ê 3600 di = + 900 ⋅ T ⋅ ê xi − 1 + ê Ci ê ë where T Ci xi = = = = observation period (usually 1 hour) capacity of the movement i or for a shared lane degree of saturation = Qi / Ci xs = Q s . s . L + Q s .L + Q s . for an exclusive lane) Qs.R x s . Troutbeck (1991) which is contained in the HCM (1997. Cs = (x Q s .T ) + (Qs .T + Q s .T + Q s. F ) ≤ 3600 [s] (24) again (s.R).L).L = Cs. R [veh/h] (22) capacity of the shared lane volume for left turners using the shared lane ( in analogy: T : through movement / R : right turner) capacity for left turners according to the equations mentioned above (i. F stands for the pedestrian movement involved into the entry conflict group.
The intersection is controlled by yield-signs on the minor street and it is assumed. only the set of 12 tB-values must be estimated. The percentiles of the queue length distribution can be estimated according to Wu (1994). This means. For this calibration process we look at a rather simple intersection of a quite common shape like it is illustrated in fig. or average queue lengths) and the corresponding model results. 9. average delays. practically speaking. just to demonstrate the applicability of the new method and to give an idea for the size of the tB-values.CAPACITY AT UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS DERIVED BY CONFLICT TECHNIQUE PAGE 18 The average queue length can be obtained according to Little's rule N i = Qi ⋅ d i [veh] only for the case of stationary conditions. Of course. Thus. For this intersection an analysis has been made by the classical gap acceptance theory (cf. The coincidence could e. that exhibit 17-19 of HCM(2000) can be applied. It was performed on a spreadsheet using the German standardized procedure for unsignalized intersection analysis. In addition we assume. Akcelik. For the calculations 400 different . that the site is at a rural intersection with a population of drivers being familiar with the situation. that the minor street has flares on both entries allowing one additional space for one right turning vehicle. For the pedestrian tB-values the estimate of 3. For these parameter estimations the underlying observed demand volumes for all movements should be varied over a realistic range of magnitudes. data in table 4). since the beginning and the termination of each individual tB can not clearly be defined. could be used as a first approach. mentioned above. be assessed using minimized variances between measured values and estimated model results. This will be made in the near future by the authors. Moreover. the tB-value for the two major through movements was estimated as 2. 2000). As a preliminary estimate another solution is proposed. This procedure is very similar to the procedures established in the HCM (1997. For this model it is not useful to measure these values directly from field observations.g. Thus it is only necessary to calibrate 4 tB-values. In this sense. 2000). 1980). Here we assume one left turning lane for each of the major street approaches. it would be desirable to produce the tB-estimation based on empirical studies. In case of non-stationary (over-saturated) conditions the relationship æ 3600 ö Ni = ç ⋅ xi ç di − C i è [veh] can be applied (cf. The critical gaps and follow-up times were obtained from a recent study performed for rural intersections in Germany (Weinert. Instead the tB-values should be estimated in the sense of statistical parameter estimation. Due to the symmetry of movements coming from the north side or the south side the number of unknown tBvalues is reduced to 6. By an appropriate selection of these values the model should receive the qualification to represent the real world with sufficient quality. Those tB-values should be selected which give the best coincidence between specific traffic performance parameters (like capacities.2 s . 6 A Rough Calibration of the Model The tB-values constitute the parameters of the model. to calibrate the model. direct measurement could reveal quite a range of tB-values depending on experimenter's decisions for details of the measurement techniques.5 s.
4 0 .5 0 .9 0 .CAPACITY AT UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS DERIVED BY CONFLICT TECHNIQUE PAGE 19 combinations of traffic volumes (which were generated randomly within a reasonable range of values. Of course. no pedestrians were regarded in this step of calibration.350 3. In addition the set of equations 8 .9 6. which reveal the best fit to the results of the GAP methodology with parameters.6 0 .51) 0 .5 3. shows the practicability of this new concept. for a definite use of this new technique some more empirical evidence is needed.81) 6. Fig.5 2.8 movements 7 through 12 correspond to movements 1 through 6 s s veh/h s Parameters used for the calibration process together with calibrated tB-values (tc.6 3.5 3. movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 critical gap follow-up time range of volume resulting tc tf used for calibration tB-values 5.and tf-values are obtained from Weinert. They give an idea about the magnitude for these parameters. Here the optimizer tool has been used to adjust the capacities obtained from both methods as close as possible.400 2.120 6. 1) : estimated without calibration Table 4: .200 2. This optimization gave a first estimation of the tB-values.150 5. used here. Nevertheless. cf. For the optimization the sum of the quadratic errors was minimized.1 0 . which are characteristic for Germany. Since only the influence between different vehicle movements had to be analyzed. These are those values. table 4) for motorized vehicle traffic were applied. which would lead to a better performance of the whole procedure.5 6. 9: Type of the intersection for calibration. 2000). They may be used as a first very rough approach for applying this new ACStechnique. As a result the tB-values given in table 4 were obtained. the simple calibration process.250 2. Then the parameters might also be calibrated based on an optimum approximation of observed and calculated delays.20 has been programmed in a spreadsheet (Corel Quattro-Pro8). For these 400 combinations of volumes the capacity of each minor movement has been determined based on the GAP solution.
can rather easily and flexibly be taken into account. also the influence of pedestrian movements on the capacity of the intersection is evaluated. Also the real road user behavior which deviates from the rules. For other intersection layouts the computational procedure still has to be formulated. it ends up in a series of equations which need computer application to get a solution in practice. the whole set of equations has been programmed into another spreadsheet. 9. Thus the method makes it very easy to account for the so-called limited priority effects.CAPACITY AT UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS DERIVED BY CONFLICT TECHNIQUE PAGE 20 movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 F1 / F2 F3 / F4 F5 / F6 F7 / F8 Table 5: volume 45 220 67 56 88 78 76 240 56 45 120 45 180 230 300 250 veh/h or ped/h capacity from the new approach 920 1337 307 932 1348 292 - average delay 4 3 41 4 3 42 - veh/h s Application of the new technique for an intersection like it is sketched out in fig. . For the application. With this technique it is also possible to take into account the complicated regulations of pedestrian priority as they apply on the European continent. Also delays and percentile queue lengths can be calculated by this spreadsheet program if the traffic volumes of the 12 vehicle movements and the pedestrian volumes are given. The background of this new method is easier to understand than the theory of gap-acceptance. An example of these results is illustrated in table 5. Thus. as they are established in the highway code. 7 Conclusion In addition to the classical methods for TWSC-intersection analysis (the empirical regression method and the critical gap method) a new technique has been developed. It is based on the procedure of Additive Conflict Flows (ACF) after Gleue. This enables the calculation of the capacity for each of the non-priority movements at a 2WSCintersection with a shape like the sketch in fig. Nevertheless. 9 (example).
M. 1980.): Proceedings of the First International Symposium on Highway Capacity. Oregon (1997) Brilon. No. (1999) Untersuchung des Fußgängerverkehrs an vorfahrtgeregelten Knotenpunkten in städtischen Gebieten (Investigation of pedestrian traffic at unsignalized urban intersections). Balkema-publishing company Brilon. Karlsruhe. an exercise which is not of theoretical complication. An extended analysis for the potential of the methodology at a series of urban intersections with real world data is currently under investigation in Germany to be finished in 2001. 136. empirical evidence of the method must still be proven. the new technique provides significant advantages. R. Ruhr-University Bochum. Australian Road Research Board. (1972) Vereinfachtes Verfahren zur Berechnung signalgeregelter Knotenpunkte (Simplified method for the calculation of signalized intersections).W. Troutbeck. König. R. For this paper an estimation has been made to show the practicability of the concept and to demonstrate the magnitude of these parameters. TRB... M. M. Transportation Research Circular No.. Washington. Czytich. In: Kyte. (ed. (1991) Implementation of the Australian roundabout analysis method in SIDRA In: Brannolte. Bonn Grossmann.. W. Also the realization of the concept for each possible intersection layout must still be figured out in form of a suitable computer program. (1991) Methoden zur Berechnung und Beurteilung von Leistungsfähigkeit und Verkehrsqualität an Knotenpunkten ohne Lichtsignalanlagen (Methods for calculation and assessment of traffic performance at unsignalized intersections). Akcelik. R. 361-1. 468 . Tracz.: Proceedings of the Third International Symposium on Intersections Without Traffic Signals. Publications of the Institute for Transportation . A. They are only to be calibrated based on model results like capacities or average delays. R. R.. Germany. (1997) Useful Estimation Procedures for Critical Gaps. Of course. (1995) Review of International Practices Used To Evaluate Unsignalized Intersections. There are various possibilities to calibrate the tB-values as the parameters of the model. . Boer. Oct. 9 . U. stop rate and queue length at traffic signals. Forschung Strassenbau und Strassenverkehrstechnik. R. RuhrUniversity Bochum. (1980) Time-dependent expressions for delay.CAPACITY AT UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS DERIVED BY CONFLICT TECHNIQUE PAGE 21 The tB-values in the model are just parameters. References Akcelik. No. Troutbeck. D. D. M. The new concept is expected to have the potential to substitute the gap-acceptance theory to a great extend. Study Thesis Gleue. Especially when also pedestrian movements have to be included into the analysis. It is not useful trying to measure these values in the field. Portland.C. W. Troutbeck. Vol.
.: Proceedings of the Third International Symposium on Intersections Without Traffic Signals. R. W. Kittelson. Proceedings of the 2nd International Symposium on Highway Capacity. R. M.C. Brilon. Troutbeck. M. M. pp. No. . Oregon Kyte. Transport and Road Research Laboratory. D..408 . J. R. 76. H.... Supplementary Report 582. Special Report 209: Washington. Vandehey. pp. Kyte. 409 . Maui/Hawaii. National Research Council. D. Kittelson. Transportation Research Circular E-C018. M. Brilon. 1985. TRB. Portland..): Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Highway Capacity. Australian Road Research Board.C. 345 .421 Troutbeck. (1980) The Traffic Capacity of Some Major Priority Junctions.. 397 . Capacity and Level of Service of Unsignalized Intersections (HCM 1997). University of Idaho. S. Coombe. (2000) Estimation of Critical Gaps and Follow-up Times at Rural Unsignalized Intersections in Germany. B.. Special Report 209: Washington.364. W. Moscow Kyte. Z. Transportation Research Circular E-C018. Portland Kyte. In: Brilon (ed. Strassenbau und Strassenverkehrstechnik. TRB. Mir. Portland. A. W.: Proceedings of the Third International Symposium on Intersections Without Traffic Signals. Maui/Hawaii. pp. (1996) Proposed Draft Computational Procedures. National Research Council. Crowthorne.M. Robinson. Bonn HCM (1997) Highway Capacity Manual. In: Kyte. R.. Kako..): Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Highway Capacity. W. Sydney StVO (1998) Straßenverkehrsordnung (German Highway Code). (1968) Die Leistungsfähigkeit nicht signalgeregelter städtischer Verkehrsknoten. Z. (The Performance of non-signalized urban junctions).. (1997) A Game Theoretical Analysis of Interaction Between Merging and Through Cars On-Ramps In: Kyte. Oregon Weinert. M.. Z.. Troutbeck. (2000) A Further Investigation on Critical Gap and Follow-Up Time. R. In: Brilon (ed.CAPACITY AT UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS DERIVED BY CONFLICT TECHNIQUE PAGE 22 Harders. . Tian. Edition 2000 Kimber.. (1994) New measurements for saturation headways and critical gaps at stop-controlled intersections. (1997) Limited Priority Merge at Unsignalized Intersections. Berkshire Kita. revised 1997 HCM (2000) Highway Capacity Manual. M. latest edition: 1998 Tian. (1997) Proceedings of the Third International Symposium on Intersections Without Traffic Signals.
Proceedings of the Second International Symposium on Highway Capacity. Institute for Transportation. (1999) Capacities at AWSC intersections. N. N. In: Akcelik. Portland. Oregon Wu. Washington. (2000a) Determination of Capacity at All-Way Stop-Controlled (AWSC) Intersections. Transportation Research Circular E-C018 . In: Kyte.19. (2000b) Capacity at All-Way Stop-Controlled and First-In-First-Out Intersections. N. Bochum Wu. N.): Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Highway Capacity. In: Proceedings of the 79th Transportation Research Board Meeting. R. (1997) Capacity of Shared-Short Lanes at Unsignalized Intersections.: Proceedings of the Third International Symposium on Intersections without Traffic Signals. Technical Report No. 2.CAPACITY AT UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS DERIVED BY CONFLICT TECHNIQUE PAGE 23 Wu. N.). Ruhr-University Bochum. (1994) An Approximation for the Distribution of Queue Lengths at Unsignalized Intersections. In: Brilon (ed. Paper-No. (ed. vol. Sydney Wu. Hawaii. 00-1665 Wu. M.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?