Names: Eric Chau and Cesar Portocarrero1

UAlberta CCIDs: echau and cportoca

Student Numbers: 1396905 and 1605521
Laboratory number: 4
1.) Performance indicators
Performance indicators for the following scenarios modelled in Synchro are provided:
a) Base scenario (Base)
b) Individual intersection optimization (Ind.)
c) Signal coordination (Coord.)
First, a comparison of the indicators corresponding to each individual direction (control delay,
queue length and v/c ratio) in each intersection is presented in the following tables.

Table 1. Control Delay in seconds for 102nd street and Jasper Ave
Direction EBL EBT WBL WBT NBT NBR SBT sum
Base 17.3 11.4 11.4 13.1 21.2 14.6 14.1 103.1
Ind. 13.8 11.8 10.9 13.1 43.8 29 28.6 151
Coord. 13.3 8.1 11.7 13.5 22 15.8 15 99.4

Table 2. Control Delay in seconds for 103rd street and Jasper Ave
Direction EBL EBT WBL WBT NBT SBT sum
Base 17 14.7 13.4 17.7 19.9 25.2 107.9
Ind. 18.5 11.2 10.8 15.4 10.5 12.9 79.3
Coord. 8 4.3 4.6 5.6 12 15.4 49.9

Table 3. Control Delay in seconds for 104th street and Jasper Ave
Direction EBL EBT WBL WBT NBT SBT sum
Base 22.8 23.8 28.1 78.6 26.2 22.4 201.9
Ind. 11.2 12 16.6 18.6 11.9 11.1 81.4
Coord. 10.3 10.4 9.6 8.3 18.5 14.1 71.2

Table 4. Queue Length in meters (95th percentile) for 102nd street and Jasper Ave
Direction EBL EBT WBL WBT NBT NBR SBT sum
Base 14.2 62.5 10.5 80 78.4 42.9 25.5 314
Ind. 12.7 44.1 8.5 56.5 41 23.1 13.6 199.5
Coord. 6.7 30.7 9 60.4 43.6 25.3 14.6 190.3

Table 5. Queue Length in meters (95th percentile) for 103rd street and Jasper Ave
Direction EBL EBT WBL WBT NBT SBT sum
Base 14.1 67.6 11.6 108.6 25 34.4 261.3
Ind. 11.2 38.3 7.8 62.4 13.1 17.2 150
Coord. 2.3 11.9 1.7 17.7 15 20.4 69

1We worked together because our official partners were absent in the third lab session. Mingjian gave us
permission to pair up.
 Table 6. Queue Length in meters (95th percentile) for 104th street and Jasper Ave
Direction EBL EBT WBL WBT NBT SBT sum
Base 9.7 92.3 30.8 146.7 63.1 40.8 383.4
Ind. 4.8 37.4 15 73.2 25.8 18.7 174.9
Coord. 5 40.1 6.7 36.8 37.2 23.6 149.4

Table 7. v/c ratio for 102nd street and Jasper Ave

Direction EBL EBT WBL WBT NBT NBR SBT average
Base 0.27 0.43 0.17 0.53 0.66 0.51 0.31 0.411
Ind. 0.37 0.55 0.22 0.66 0.56 0.41 0.25 0.431
Coord. 0.37 0.54 0.22 0.65 0.55 0.41 0.25 0.427

Table 8. v/c ratio for 103rd street and Jasper Ave

Direction EBL EBT WBL WBT NBT SBT average
Base 0.26 0.43 0.16 0.6 0.28 0.4 0.355
Ind. 0.36 0.54 0.2 0.76 0.26 0.38 0.417
Coord. 0.31 0.48 0.18 0.68 0.28 0.4 0.388

Table 9. v/c ratio for 104th street and Jasper Ave

Direction EBL EBT WBL WBT NBT SBT average
Base 0.17 0.51 0.4 0.7 0.39 0.26 0.405
Ind. 0.15 0.59 0.41 0.82 0.44 0.3 0.452
Coord. 0.14 0.48 0.33 0.67 0.5 0.33 0.408

Table 10. Splits (s) for each direction on each intersection for all three scenarios
Direction EBL EBT WBL WBT NBT/NBL NBR SBT/SBL
Intersection Scenario G Y R G Y R G Y R G Y R G Y R G Y R G Y R
6 6 6 3 3 3
Base 68 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2
8 8 8 2 2 2
2 2 2 1 1 1
102nd street Ind. 27 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2
7 7 7 8 8 8
3 3 3 2 3 2
Coord. 30 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2
0 0 0 0 0 0
7 7 7 4 4
Base 70 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 - - - 3 2
0 0 0 0 0
2 2 2 1 1
103rd street Ind. 27 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 - - - 3 2
7 7 7 8 8
3 3 3 2 2
Coord. 30 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 - - - 3 2
0 0 0 0 0
6 6 6 2 5
Base 66 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 - - - 3 2
6 6 6 4 7
1 1 1 1 1
104th street Ind. 19 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 - - - 3 2
9 9 9 6 6
3 3 3 1 1
Coord. 31 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 - - - 3 2
1 1 1 9 9
Finally, a comparison between the performance indicators corresponding to each intersection as
a whole (level of service and ideal offset time) is presented.

Table 11. Comparison of LOS and ideal offset (s) between the three scenarios
Base Ind. Coord.
Intersection
LOS Ideal offset LOS Ideal Offset LOS Ideal offset
102 St @
B 0 B 0 B 56
Jasper Ave
103 St @
C 0 B 0 A 2
Jasper Ave
104 St @
D 0 B 0 B 58
Jasper Ave

2.) Discussion

With respect to the control delay, it can be seen in Tables 1, 2 and 3 that the scenario that has
been optimized with signal coordination is the one that has the least total value for this
parameter. In other words, it can be asserted that the optimization was performed correctly as
the delay was minimized. Nevertheless, it should be noted that this does not necessarily mean
that this scenario has the least individual control delay for every single direction on all three
intersections. On some instances the delay in the scenario optimized with signal coordination is
higher than both the individual intersection optimization and the base scenarios, this is the case
of direction WBT at 102nd street and Jasper Ave (see Table 1).

Similarly, the queue length is another performance parameter that was minimized in order to
improve the quality of the intersections. In Tables 4, 5 and 6, the sum of all queue lengths for all
three intersections is reduced when executing the individual intersection optimization and even
more with the signal coordination optimization. Similar to the case of the control delay, this does
not mean that the scenario with signal coordination has the least queue lengths for all directions
for all three intersections. For example, directions NBT and SBT have longer queues in all three
intersections in this scenario compared to the one that is only optimized for individual
intersections.

Regarding the vehicle/capacity (v/c ratio), a different trend is observed. The individual
intersection optimization produced and increase in the average v/c ratio in all three intersections
(see Tables 7, 8 and 9). This is not desirable as the closest the v/c ratio is to 1, the closest the
scenario is to full saturation of vehicles. Nevertheless, by applying the signal coordination
optimization, this maximum v/c ratios are reduced. It should be noted, however, that this
reduction is not enough to achieve a v/c ratio smaller than the one obtained in the base
scenario.
With reference to the splits analysis, it can be seen that in all intersections and in all scenarios
that critical lane group is the one composed of the EBL, EBT, WBL and WBT directions because
they have the longest green time. It is also worth noting that the individual intersection
optimization produced a considerable reduction in the green time in all instances. Although it
was expected that the coordinated signal optimization would produce the same effects, the
green time was slightly increased when this procedure was applied. As for the yellow and red
times, their duration was not affected at all by the optimization procedures and thus remain
constant in each direction in all intersections for all scenarios.

Table 11 contains performance parameters that are calculated considering all directions in each
intersection. The level of service in all intersections was either improved or remained constant
when each optimization procedure was applied. The most drastic change occurred in the
intersection located at 103rd St @ Jasper Ave because the LOS improved from C to B and later
to A when the individual intersection and signal coordination optimization options were applied.
In the case of the intersection located at 102nd St @ Jasper Ave the least improvement was
observed as the LOS remained at a constant level of B regardless of the performed optimization
procedures. With respect to the ideal offset time in the intersections, this parameter has a value
of 0s on the base and individual intersection optimized scenarios because offset time
characterizes the difference between the two green initiation times, which is not evaluated when
the intersections are evaluated individually so all green times start at the same time.
Nevertheless, in the case of the signal coordination optimized scenario, the offset is set so that
when the first vehicle arrives at the downstream signal, this signal turns green. This way, the
first vehicle can go through the whole system without stopping.