DATA COLLECTION USING ZIGBEE NETWORK Timothy Melton Moscow, ID.
Moscow, ID case study traffic operation
-
Upload
patel-kushalkumar -
Category
Engineering
-
view
169 -
download
5
Transcript of Moscow, ID case study traffic operation
Parcel: Vacant lot at Jackson and 3rd. Primary intersection: Jackson/3rd, Moscow, ID
KU S H A L PAT E L
INSIGHTS FROM HCM APPLICATION GUIDE
Development of analysis procedure
Type of alternatives to be considered
Problems to be address
Analysis to be carried out Problem: 1- Analysis of subject Intersection with current and Future volume with existing signalized condition but with isolated intersection.
Problem: 2- Analysis of subject Intersection as a part of urban street and analyzing & comparing current and future conditions
Problem: 3- Analysis of urban street with different cases such as changing offset time, Changing phase sequence or increasing pretimed cycle length.
◦ Problem: 3a- Changing offset time: it should be adjusted in such a way that almost all the vehicle should arrive during green time.
◦ Problem: 3b- Analysis using Changing signal sequence◦ Problem: 3c- Analysis using Changing pretimed cycle duration from 52s to 80s
Problem: 4- Analysis of urban street with considering subject approach as actuated and all the intersection actuated.
◦ Problem: 4a- Analysis considering subject approach as actuated◦ Problem: 4b- Analysis considering all approaches as actuated
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT SBL SBT SBRAssigned Movement 2 12 1 6 7 4 14
Current 4.9 2.5 1.8 1.7 0.8 1.1 0.1Future 9.8 5.2 4.1 2.1 0.8 1.7 0.3Current 38.3 27.4 13.9 9.7 11 11.2 10Future 79.2 48.1 24.2 10.3 11.1 12 10.3
Control Delay (d), s/veh
TABLE: 2 COMPARISON OF DELAYS AND QUEUE LENGTH OF EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS
Back of Queue (Q), veh/ln (50th percentile)
3rd/Jackson Street
3rd Street & Main Street
3rd Street & S WA Street
Current 15 30 4Future 18 36 4Current 92.5 314.8 13.4Future 122.9 384 13.5Current F F BFuture F F B
COMPARING VALUES FOR EACH INTERSECTION
Back of Queue (Q), veh/ln (50th percentile) (MAX FORM
Control Delay (d), s/veh
LOS
TABLE: 4 PERFORMANCE COMPARISON OF CURRENT AND FUTURE CONDITION OF URBAN STREET
Eastbound Westbound Eastbound WestboundMovement 2, 12 1,6 2, 12 1,6Base Free-Flow Speed, mph 41.72 41.72 41.72 41.72Running Time, s 12.1 12.04 12.16 12.16Running Speed, mph 18.59 18.69 18.5 18.5
Through Delay, s/veh199.09 5.52 33.43 7.66
Travel Speed, mph1.07 12.82 4.94 11.35
Stop Rate, stops/veh2.94 0.22 0.87 0.31
Spatial Stop Rate, stops/mi 46.97 3.52 13.89 4.9Through vol/cap Ratio 1.37 0.11 0.62 0.19Percent of Base FFS 2.55 30.72 11.83 27.21Level of Service F E F FAuto Traveler Perception Score 6 2.7 4.68 2.95Facility Travel Time, s 239.45 856.37 73.07 85.7Facility Travel Speed, mph 1.88 0.53 6.16 5.25
Facility Base Free Flow Speed, mph 41.72 41.72 41.72 41.72Facility Percent of Base FFS 4.5 1.26 14.76 12.59Facility Level of Service F F F FFacility Auto Traveler Perception Score 4.81 3.73 4.29 3.83
FUTURE W MODIFICATIONSegment Output Data
FUTURE W/O MODIFICATION