PAPER NO.

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: verkehrswesen@ruhr-uni-bochum.de

Transportation Research Board 80th Annual Meeting January 7 - 11, 2001 Washington D.C.

CAPACITY AT UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS DERIVED BY CONFLICT TECHNIQUE

PAGE 2

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: verkehrswesen@ruhr-uni-bochum.de

Also other countries. Here some movements are accounted for twice. In fact. (1994). This variability is. it is justified to say. 1997). which needs a clearly defined ranking of priorities with the assumption that each road user will exactly comply with these rules. Their impact on the results is not clear. on separate cycle paths. at least on the European continent.a. or by the socalled gap-acceptance procedures (GAP). The same aspects apply also for cyclists which can drive either on the roadway. For pedestrians. the real behavior both of pedestrians and motor vehicle drivers is of great variability. Troutbeck.a. Kita. which is mainly applied in the context of British research results (Kimber.CAPACITY AT UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS DERIVED BY CONFLICT TECHNIQUE PAGE 3 1 Introduction Capacity of unsignalized intersections is either analysed by the empirical regression method. 1997). They are. however. A rather recent state of the art for this stream of theories is also documented in Kyte (1997).a. 1997. For the HCM procedures a comprehensive investigation has been performed by Kyte e. Brilon. 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. Brilon. However. (2000). The gap-acceptance theory does completely loose its applicability when it should be extended to accounting for pedestrians or cyclists at the intersection. 1995) such as in the USA (HCM. not a framework which fits to the sophistication of the gap-acceptance theory. however. Overall these calculations produce results of a correct magnitude. that the estimation of critical gaps is a source of uncertainty within the GAP method. Thus. such that pedestrians sometimes have the right of way over cars and sometimes they do not. 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). there could be a much simpler approximation which would make the application of an estimation method much easier without loosing too much reliability. and in former publications by these authors. 1980).. • • • . As a consequence. Troutbeck. Thus. Some details of the practical aspects of critical gap estimations are also described in Tian e. a couple of drawbacks which could become a problem for practical application. they are more based on pragmatic simplifications. König. or in some illegal manner. only of approximative nature. The latter is used in many countries of the world (cf. however. Tracz. Thus it is correct to say that the theory of gap-acceptance is the predominant concept for unsignalized intersection analysis in the world. use the GAP method in their own capacity manuals. The whole set of rules is neither written explicitly in the highway code nor is it known to many road users. like Sweden. Coombe. This applies for the whole treatment of the hierarchy of four ranks of priorities at an intersection. This can be stated even if some approaches to this problem have been published (Troutbeck e. The subsequent calculation methods of the GAP look like very theoretical mathematics. looking into details of the determination. rather complicated rules of priority apply. These are: • The determination of the critical gap is rather complicated (cf. an approach which is based on suggestions from Harders (1968) confirmed through simulations by Grossmann (1991). 1997 and 2000). This aspect will be figured out in more detail in this paper. On a closer look this concept has.

i=1 i=2 Fig.passing this point . which has first been developed by Gleue (1972) for signalized intersection analysis.e. • the number of pedestrians crossing the legs of the intersection. • flared approaches. 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. Q2 > C2 ) we find that the relation is true 3600 = Q1 ⋅ t B . If we look at the situation where the intersection is oversaturated (i. it could be of interest to derive a third basic concept of analysis for unsignalized intersection operations. the concept of Additive Conflict Flows (ACF) seems to be usable. It has been modified by Wu (2000a. Consequently the vehicles from the movements involved into one conflict have to pass the area one after the other. and the conflict approach. The new procedure makes it easy to take into account • the number of lanes of the subject. 1: Conflict between two movements First we concentrate on the easy case of two conflicting streams (fig. In this paper the same concept is developed for application on Two-Way-Stop-Controlled intersections (TWSC).1). 2 [veh/h] (1) . The set of movements which are involved into the same conflict is called a conflict group. established by a yield sign or a stop sign for the minor movement.is consuming on average a service time tB. 2 2. As a conflict we treat the intersection of several movements which have to pass the same area within an intersection. One of these movements (i=1) is assumed to have priority over the other. the opposite. i . 1). As a basis. For this case the results are even easier to develop and apply than for the AWSC case. 1 + C2 ⋅ t B . Then we assume that the conflict area is comparable to a queueing system where each vehicle from movement i . • the distribution of traffic flow rates on the different approaches. b) to be applied on All-Way-Stop-Controlled intersections (AWSC).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.

j = Qi ⋅ t B .1 t B. 3 2 1 1 3 Fig. movement 2 is of intermediate priority.Bi ) is the proportion of time during which the conflict area is free from ivehicles. In analogy to these considerations further p0 . 2 ç 3600 è [veh/h] (2) where Bi p0. i.2 ⋅ (1 − B1 ) = C max.values are to be defined below.2 ⋅ p 0.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. Here a hierarchy of priorities should be applicable like it is valid for conflicts at an unsignalized intersection.1 ö ⋅ ç1 − = C max. the probability that no i-vehicle is occupying the conflict zone. i 3600 = occupancy by movement i = (1 .e.1 t B. i. 2: Conflicts between three movements 2 . j Bi is the proportion of time during which the conflict area is occupied by vehicles from movement i ("i-vehicles"). Thus (1 .i Cmax.CAPACITY AT UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS DERIVED BY CONFLICT TECHNIQUE PAGE 5 where Qi = traffic demand for movement i Ci = capacity for movement i tB.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 . and movement 3 has to yield to both of the other movements. Now we look at a conflict group consisting of three movements (fig.e. movement 1 has highest priority.Bi ) can be interpreted as an estimation for the probability p0. i = service time for movement i with the restriction Q1 ⋅ t B. 2). 2 = 3600 æ Q1 ⋅ t B. Thus (1 .

2 for the capacity of movement 2. 3) we get the capacity for a movement of rank 4: C4 = 3600 − (Q1 ⋅ t B. 3: Conflicts between four movements More movements than four can not occur within a standard cross intersection. 2 ) 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. 1/2/3 = [1 .4 ⋅ [1 − (B1 + B 2 + B 3 )] = C max.3 ⋅ [1 − (B1 + B2 )] = C max. 3 = C max. 1/2 = [1 .1 + Q2 ⋅ t B .3 ⋅ p 0.1 / 2 [veh/h] (3) where p0. 3 ) t B.4 ⋅ p 0.1 + Q 2 ⋅ t B. . 2 + Q 3 ⋅ t B.CAPACITY AT UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS DERIVED BY CONFLICT TECHNIQUE PAGE 6 With the same logic as described above we can again apply eq.( 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. For the capacity of movement 3 we can now derive: C3 = 3600 − (Q1 ⋅ t B . 4 = C max.

however. that a negative value should occur. the assumption that highest ranked through movements (i. of course. On the other hand.e. For AWSC intersections the capacity for one subject stream is the smallest capacity that can be achieved in each of the conflict groups (cf. that these simplifications are not very realistic. A significant simplification can be achieved if . 2.i-values are identical for all movements i. with queues on all entrances. Also an intermediate degree of simplification of equations 1 to 4 might be useful.usually lower tB-value tB1. Thus also a simplified set of model assumptions might be useful. with absolute priority) have their own . whereas all the non-priority and turning movements can be described by a common service time tBM.e. 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.with sufficient degree of precision . Thus. Wu 2000a). 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. The reason is the departure discipline according to the traffic rules: The vehicles depart in the sequence. 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. This task in reality can. [veh/h] (6) In each of the equations 2 to 6.it could be assumed that the tB. if they arrive rather at the same time .i. In case. This basic assumption for the model would. 4). . under such saturated conditions. in which they arrive at their respective stop lines (first in first out. i. the capacity must be set as 0. negative values for capacities Ci are not allowed. FIFO).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. not been fulfilled since too many sets of data from comparable situations would be needed. however.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. two vehicles from nonconflicting movements will depart simultaneously after they have stopped. however. 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).

can only depart in the case that all conflict groups. k. Vehicles from priority movements are not stopped. Priority movements operate independently from each other. eq. if all conflict groups would operate independently from each other. however. 7 is only valid. They occupy the conflict area as soon as they arrive. A ⋅ p 0. 7 for ni > 2 . which they need to cross. A minor stream vehicle. is the product of the individual pi-values. Thus. mathematically speaking. which is not necessarily the case for n i > 2 . B For more than two conflict groups . x ⋅ p 0. 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. 4: C x = C max. The arrival process itself has properties of randomness. i = Of course. The probability that both conflict areas are free simultaneously. k . 4: One movement passing through two subsequent conflict groups . not occupied by other vehicles) at the same moment. With that in mind we find for the cases from fig.e. i ⋅ ∏ p0. B 2 12 B A 8 2 A 4 5 Fig. which have to be passed within a hierarchical system of priorities we get: Ci = Cmax. are free (i.CAPACITY AT UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS DERIVED BY CONFLICT TECHNIQUE PAGE 8 At a TWSC-intersection we have different traffic rules. for simplicity stochastic interdependencies between succeeding conflict groups are neglected when using eq.

2000b).4). No. The whole configuration of traffic movements consists of twelve streams of motorized vehicle traffic. 6 7 No. 2 . 8 8 1 1 4 11 5 10 No. It has been tested against different alternative definitions. This formulation of conflict groups goes back on Wu (2000a). eq.4 the hierarchical system of priorities according to traffic rules is represented. however. 2 . .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. that in conjunction with the considerations for eq. we can now define the involvement of each movement into conflict groups and their conflicting movements as they are pointed out in table 1. 6 have been identified (Wu. This definition. 6). 5: Four typical conflict groups at an intersection For the further derivations an enumeration is needed for the 12 movements at the intersection. The strategy for the definition was. 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. represents the traffic rules and the hierarchy of priorities in the most accurate way. 5 11 8 10 No. 7 7 2 2 4 5 Fig. Here the system applied in the German guidelines is used (fig. Using the relations formulated in section 2 of this paper (cf. 5 (valid for conflict groups 5 8) and fig.CAPACITY AT UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS DERIVED BY CONFLICT TECHNIQUE PAGE 9 3 3. Here.

6: Arrangement of conflict groups at a simple cross intersection (for conflict groups 5 8 : see fig.8 C 9 = C max.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.11 ⋅ [1 − (B8 + B1 )] ⋅ [1 − (B2 + B7 )] ⋅ [1 − (B3 + B7 )] [veh/h] C12 = C max.3 [veh/h] [veh/h] [veh/h] (8) (9) (10) C4 = Cmax. C1 = C max. 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.9 C10 = Cmax. 4 ⋅ [1 − (B2 + B7 + B11 )] ⋅ [1 − (B8 + B1 + B11 )] ⋅ [1 − (B8 + B12 )] [veh/h] C5 = Cmax.7 ⋅ [1 − B2 ] ⋅ [1 − B3 ] C8 = C max.10 ⋅ [1 − (B8 + B1 + B5 )] ⋅ [1 − (B2 + B7 + B5 )] ⋅ [1 − (B2 + B6 )] [veh/h] C11 = Cmax.1 ⋅ (1 − B8 ) ⋅ (1 − B9 ) C 2 = C max.6 ⋅ [1 − B2 ] (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) [veh/h] [veh/h] [veh/h] [veh/h] [veh/h] C7 = Cmax. 2 C 3 = C max.12 ⋅ [1 − B8 ] (17) (18) (19) [veh/h] .5 ⋅ [1 − (B2 + B7 )] ⋅ [1 − (B8 + B1 )] ⋅ [1 − (B9 + B1 )] C 6 = C max.

or c for a specific conflict group k in table 1 are empty. If columns a. then the corresponding B = 0 . At this point it should be noted: so far the model has not the qualities of a theoretically precise mathematical model. b.19 in a more general way : Ci = Cmax. 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 . 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. Instead it is a pragmatic representation of the traffic streams at the intersection .CAPACITY AT UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS DERIVED BY CONFLICT TECHNIQUE PAGE 11 Subject movement No.

At entrances to an intersection . 1998) are expressed in table 2. in principle. 7). Boer (1999) found out that for each vehicle movement pedestrians – in case of a conflict – get priority in a specific proportion A of cases. 3. however. Only at a zebra-crossing the pedestrians have absolute priority over all vehicle movements.both at the minor and the major street . and 4 at the intersection exits. 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. has not a higher qualification. Some estimations for A to be associated with the different conflicts are given in table 2. The answer may differ from country to country according to their specific traffic rules. 3. The question is to which degree these pedestrians have priority over the car traffic. .CAPACITY AT UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS DERIVED BY CONFLICT TECHNIQUE PAGE 12 and their mutual impediments according to traffic rules. It needs some concentration to understand these rules. the usual practice is that these rules are not really applied. Also the gap-acceptance theory. and 12). 2. These are obtained from Czytich.2 Pedestrian movements Another group of conflicts has to be regarded if also pedestrians are admitted at the intersection (see fig. The rules from the German highway code (StVO. Boer (1999) and generalized into rounded values. As a consequence. Moreover.the vehicles have priority over pedestrians. they are also not really understood nor even known to street users – both to car drivers and pedestrians. 11. have priority at the exits over all turning vehicles. That means: In A per cent of conflicting situations the pedestrian is going first and the car driver waits. Some preliminary studies by Czytich. Instead motor vehicle drivers and pedestrians find their own arrangement in each individual situation. They mean: • • • • In each conflict where pedestrians are crossing the path of vehicles driving straight ahead. Moreover they become of importance at the entries to the intersection (conflict groups 9. Thus. The pedestrians have to be added to the conflict groups 1. 10. The pedestrians. the vehicle has the right of way. also jurisdictional literature in some cases expresses controversial opinions about these regulations.

f.e. in ( ) : percentages Ak. 7: Arrangement of conflict groups at a simple cross intersection including pedestrians vehicle movements i conflict group k Pedestrian movement f in ( ) : Ak.CAPACITY AT UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS DERIVED BY CONFLICT TECHNIQUE PAGE 13 k conflict group i veh-movement Fi ped-movement Fig. i of pedestrian priority for different conflicts .value in % Priority movements (i. f. 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.

. 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.

which calculates the capacity for each of the vehicle movements. j ÷ j =a è ø f [veh/h] (21) . If we combine these rules from table 2 into a table like the style of table 1. we obtain table 3. p = Cmax. 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. These movements 3 (and 9) have priority over 11 (and 5) (cf.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. This is another reason why the classical theory of gap-acceptance comes to an end when pedestrians are to be regarded at TWSC-intersections. 20 gives us the framework to indicate an equation. 8: Cycle of priorities: the round arrows are a symbol for "has priority over". We see that F3 (and F7) are of rank 5 with respect to movement 11 (and 5). in the new theory table 3 together with eq. It needs quite a lot of concentration to follow through each detail. 11 3 F7 9 F3 5 Fig. however. p ⋅ where é ê1 − ∏ each k ë öù æ Aj ç ÷ ç 100 ⋅ Bk . fig. where also the influence of pedestrians is observed: Ci . is of rank 2. Regardless of this problem. Thus a clearly structured consecutive ranking of priorities is not longer existing with pedestrian priorities in mind. With respect to movement 3 (and 9) the same movement F3 (and F7). i . 8).

and m of table 4 must be regarded for the sum in eq. j / 3600 volume of movement j 0. f.2 s is consumed. 4 Intersection with single-lane approaches Now we concentrate on an intersection where each approach has only one lane. This concept has been extended by Wu (1997) such that also additional lanes of limited length (short lane) can be taken into account. Kako. In the cases observed. By the way: eq. For the common case that all streams at an approach use the same shared lane the capacity of this shared lane. 21 would very easily allow to account for the effect of "limited priority" (Troutbeck. Cs . if j is a pedestrian movement f (cf.CAPACITY AT UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS DERIVED BY CONFLICT TECHNIQUE PAGE 16 Ci. then also the movements in column g. Thus the average blocking time per pedestrian is lower than the time needed to cross the street. i .according to the usual concept of unsignalized intersections . h. k: capacity for movement i including the influence of pedestrians 100 if j is a vehicle movement (cf. f. It can be estimated based on empirical observations. Czytich.g. 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. There may be situations. j = = Qj = = tB.a shared lane. the width of the crosswalks was not a limiting factor to pedestrian's freedom crossing the street. The capacity of shared lanes can be determined according to a formula first developed by Harders (1968). however. also to take into account that pedestrians in many cases are grouped. It has. 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. where car drivers typically give priority to other drivers. If this concept should be included into a future version of the model. p = Aj = Aj = Ak. If one entry lane is used by several movements we call this . 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. f. i = Bk. is given by . 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. j = = a. remark "limited priority" below) Ak. 21 . 1997) by using A-values less than 100% also for vehicle traffic. e. If this would happen in 40 % of such conflicts then the Aj=6-value would be 60 in eq. 21. 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.j = 3. This value seems to be quite low.

L + x s . the formula derived by Akcelik. 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.L = Cs. R in case of a shared lane Cs [h] [veh/h] [-] [-] ù 3600 ⋅ xi (xi − 1)2 + Ci 450 ⋅ T [s] (26) .R). Troutbeck (1991) which is contained in the HCM (1997. 22 and 23) the following restriction has to be observed (Q s. 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. R ⋅ t B .L = xs.R x s . on the shared lane (s). and (s.T + Q s .T + Q s . 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 . sR ) + (QF ⋅ t B . s .L ⋅ t B . R 2 s .T ) + (Qs . (s.CAPACITY AT UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS DERIVED BY CONFLICT TECHNIQUE PAGE 17 Cs = where Cs = Qs. L + Q s . s . for an exclusive lane) Qs.R ) 2 [veh/h] (23) Using both equations (eq. For non-stationary traffic conditions (which is usually the case in practice).T + x s .L). L / Cs. F ) ≤ 3600 [s] (24) again (s.e. F stands for the pedestrian movement involved into the entry conflict group.T ) + (x s .T ⋅ t B . L + Q s .T + Q s.T) stand for the index of the left (L) and right turning (R) movement and the through movement (T) respectively.L + Q s . 5 Queue length and delay To calculate the average delay d the classical solutions can be used. 1997). L = Q s. L ) + (Qs .L + x s . Cs = (x Q s .

This procedure is very similar to the procedures established in the HCM (1997. By an appropriate selection of these values the model should receive the qualification to represent the real world with sufficient quality. 1980). direct measurement could reveal quite a range of tB-values depending on experimenter's decisions for details of the measurement techniques. For this intersection an analysis has been made by the classical gap acceptance theory (cf. It was performed on a spreadsheet using the German standardized procedure for unsignalized intersection analysis. 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. For the calculations 400 different . that the minor street has flares on both entries allowing one additional space for one right turning vehicle. This means. 6 A Rough Calibration of the Model The tB-values constitute the parameters of the model. In addition we assume. Those tB-values should be selected which give the best coincidence between specific traffic performance parameters (like capacities.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. The percentiles of the queue length distribution can be estimated according to Wu (1994). 2000). The critical gaps and follow-up times were obtained from a recent study performed for rural intersections in Germany (Weinert.2 s . it would be desirable to produce the tB-estimation based on empirical studies. that the site is at a rural intersection with a population of drivers being familiar with the situation. could be used as a first approach. be assessed using minimized variances between measured values and estimated model results. data in table 4).5 s. Akcelik. mentioned above. For this calibration process we look at a rather simple intersection of a quite common shape like it is illustrated in fig. Here we assume one left turning lane for each of the major street approaches. Due to the symmetry of movements coming from the north side or the south side the number of unknown tBvalues is reduced to 6. practically speaking.g. The intersection is controlled by yield-signs on the minor street and it is assumed. 9. Thus it is only necessary to calibrate 4 tB-values. Instead the tB-values should be estimated in the sense of statistical parameter estimation. In this sense. For these parameter estimations the underlying observed demand volumes for all movements should be varied over a realistic range of magnitudes. the tB-value for the two major through movements was estimated as 2. just to demonstrate the applicability of the new method and to give an idea for the size of the tB-values. This will be made in the near future by the authors. 2000). Moreover. that exhibit 17-19 of HCM(2000) can be applied. to calibrate the model. The coincidence could e. As a preliminary estimate another solution is proposed. only the set of 12 tB-values must be estimated. For this model it is not useful to measure these values directly from field observations. For the pedestrian tB-values the estimate of 3. Of course. average delays. since the beginning and the termination of each individual tB can not clearly be defined. or average queue lengths) and the corresponding model results. Thus.

For these 400 combinations of volumes the capacity of each minor movement has been determined based on the GAP solution. cf. which would lead to a better performance of the whole procedure.400 2.20 has been programmed in a spreadsheet (Corel Quattro-Pro8).CAPACITY AT UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS DERIVED BY CONFLICT TECHNIQUE PAGE 19 combinations of traffic volumes (which were generated randomly within a reasonable range of values.6 0 . 9: Type of the intersection for calibration. table 4) for motorized vehicle traffic were applied.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. Here the optimizer tool has been used to adjust the capacities obtained from both methods as close as possible. no pedestrians were regarded in this step of calibration.5 3.1 0 .5 6.5 3.and tf-values are obtained from Weinert. movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 critical gap follow-up time range of volume resulting tc tf used for calibration tB-values 5. They give an idea about the magnitude for these parameters. 2000).120 6. for a definite use of this new technique some more empirical evidence is needed.250 2. Fig.9 0 . 1) : estimated without calibration Table 4: . For the optimization the sum of the quadratic errors was minimized.200 2. shows the practicability of this new concept.150 5. which are characteristic for Germany.6 3. This optimization gave a first estimation of the tB-values. Nevertheless.350 3.9 6. Then the parameters might also be calibrated based on an optimum approximation of observed and calculated delays.4 0 .5 0 . the simple calibration process. Since only the influence between different vehicle movements had to be analyzed.5 2. Of course. used here. As a result the tB-values given in table 4 were obtained. which reveal the best fit to the results of the GAP methodology with parameters. In addition the set of equations 8 . They may be used as a first very rough approach for applying this new ACStechnique. These are those values.51) 0 .81) 6.

An example of these results is illustrated in table 5. 9. The background of this new method is easier to understand than the theory of gap-acceptance. Thus the method makes it very easy to account for the so-called limited priority effects. Also the real road user behavior which deviates from the rules. 9 (example). as they are established in the highway code.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. 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. For the application. can rather easily and flexibly be taken into account. the whole set of equations has been programmed into another spreadsheet. also the influence of pedestrian movements on the capacity of the intersection is evaluated. With this technique it is also possible to take into account the complicated regulations of pedestrian priority as they apply on the European continent. Nevertheless. Thus. it ends up in a series of equations which need computer application to get a solution in practice. 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. 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. For other intersection layouts the computational procedure still has to be formulated. . It is based on the procedure of Additive Conflict Flows (ACF) after Gleue.

Of course. A. M.: Proceedings of the Third International Symposium on Intersections Without Traffic Signals. Washington.. They are only to be calibrated based on model results like capacities or average delays. R. U.CAPACITY AT UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS DERIVED BY CONFLICT TECHNIQUE PAGE 21 The tB-values in the model are just parameters. 1980. Australian Road Research Board. Germany. R. Balkema-publishing company Brilon. Also the realization of the concept for each possible intersection layout must still be figured out in form of a suitable computer program. It is not useful trying to measure these values in the field. 468 . The new concept is expected to have the potential to substitute the gap-acceptance theory to a great extend. In: Kyte. W. R. an exercise which is not of theoretical complication. Troutbeck. Transportation Research Circular No. Publications of the Institute for Transportation . R. Forschung Strassenbau und Strassenverkehrstechnik. Ruhr-University Bochum. 361-1. 136. Bonn Grossmann. Vol. W. Troutbeck.. (1980) Time-dependent expressions for delay. Portland. König. No. Oregon (1997) Brilon. 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. M. Karlsruhe. Tracz. D. Czytich.. Study Thesis Gleue. the new technique provides significant advantages. Especially when also pedestrian movements have to be included into the analysis. (ed. empirical evidence of the method must still be proven. (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). For this paper an estimation has been made to show the practicability of the concept and to demonstrate the magnitude of these parameters. . RuhrUniversity Bochum. (1999) Untersuchung des Fußgängerverkehrs an vorfahrtgeregelten Knotenpunkten in städtischen Gebieten (Investigation of pedestrian traffic at unsignalized urban intersections). There are various possibilities to calibrate the tB-values as the parameters of the model. 9 . stop rate and queue length at traffic signals. (1972) Vereinfachtes Verfahren zur Berechnung signalgeregelter Knotenpunkte (Simplified method for the calculation of signalized intersections). TRB.. M. Boer. (1995) Review of International Practices Used To Evaluate Unsignalized Intersections. R.): Proceedings of the First International Symposium on Highway Capacity.. (1997) Useful Estimation Procedures for Critical Gaps. M. D. Akcelik. Oct.C. Troutbeck. (1991) Implementation of the Australian roundabout analysis method in SIDRA In: Brannolte. No.W. References Akcelik. R.

pp. Transportation Research Circular E-C018. (1968) Die Leistungsfähigkeit nicht signalgeregelter städtischer Verkehrsknoten. Portland. Robinson... Troutbeck. .408 . (1996) Proposed Draft Computational Procedures..: Proceedings of the Third International Symposium on Intersections Without Traffic Signals.. J. Coombe. (1997) A Game Theoretical Analysis of Interaction Between Merging and Through Cars On-Ramps In: Kyte. (1980) The Traffic Capacity of Some Major Priority Junctions. No.M. In: Kyte. M. (1994) New measurements for saturation headways and critical gaps at stop-controlled intersections.. S. Bonn HCM (1997) Highway Capacity Manual. Australian Road Research Board. 397 . Special Report 209: Washington. Portland Kyte. R. Maui/Hawaii. In: Brilon (ed. M.): Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Highway Capacity. Kako. Crowthorne. (1997) Proceedings of the Third International Symposium on Intersections Without Traffic Signals. M. Proceedings of the 2nd International Symposium on Highway Capacity. 76.C. In: Brilon (ed. Troutbeck. Oregon Weinert. National Research Council. H.. M. A.CAPACITY AT UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS DERIVED BY CONFLICT TECHNIQUE PAGE 22 Harders. University of Idaho. Brilon. R. Transport and Road Research Laboratory. R. pp.. Z. Kittelson.): Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Highway Capacity. TRB... (2000) A Further Investigation on Critical Gap and Follow-Up Time. Kittelson. Strassenbau und Strassenverkehrstechnik. . W. National Research Council. B. . Maui/Hawaii. (1997) Limited Priority Merge at Unsignalized Intersections. W. D. W.C. 345 . Mir. Brilon.364. (2000) Estimation of Critical Gaps and Follow-up Times at Rural Unsignalized Intersections in Germany. latest edition: 1998 Tian. 1985. D. Kyte.421 Troutbeck. W. pp. Portland. Oregon Kyte. Moscow Kyte. R. 409 . Tian. R. M. Supplementary Report 582. (The Performance of non-signalized urban junctions)... Edition 2000 Kimber.. Special Report 209: Washington. Sydney StVO (1998) Straßenverkehrsordnung (German Highway Code). Capacity and Level of Service of Unsignalized Intersections (HCM 1997). Vandehey. M. TRB. revised 1997 HCM (2000) Highway Capacity Manual.: Proceedings of the Third International Symposium on Intersections Without Traffic Signals. Transportation Research Circular E-C018. Z. Z. Berkshire Kita..

(1997) Capacity of Shared-Short Lanes at Unsignalized Intersections. 00-1665 Wu. (1999) Capacities at AWSC intersections. (ed.): Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Highway Capacity. Sydney Wu. Hawaii. N. In: Proceedings of the 79th Transportation Research Board Meeting. vol. In: Akcelik. N. Bochum Wu. R. (1994) An Approximation for the Distribution of Queue Lengths at Unsignalized Intersections.CAPACITY AT UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS DERIVED BY CONFLICT TECHNIQUE PAGE 23 Wu. N. M. N. Portland. Washington. Oregon Wu. Proceedings of the Second International Symposium on Highway Capacity. In: Brilon (ed.19. N. (2000b) Capacity at All-Way Stop-Controlled and First-In-First-Out Intersections. 2. In: Kyte. (2000a) Determination of Capacity at All-Way Stop-Controlled (AWSC) Intersections.). Transportation Research Circular E-C018 . Ruhr-University Bochum. Institute for Transportation.: Proceedings of the Third International Symposium on Intersections without Traffic Signals. Technical Report No. Paper-No.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful