Advisory Committee - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

slide1 n.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Advisory Committee PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Advisory Committee

play fullscreen
1 / 54
Advisory Committee
225 Views
Download Presentation
decima
Download Presentation

Advisory Committee

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. Leveraging Existing Traffic Signal Infrastructure toProduce Performance Measures for System Optimization and Construction Acceptance

  2. Advisory Committee • Study Advisory Committee • Indiana LTAP • Neal Carboneau and John Habermann • Local Highway Departments and Engineering Firms • Lafayette: Fred Koning • Elkhart County: Jay Grossman • BFS Engineering: Steve Hardesty • BFS Engineering: Tom Vandenberg • Vendors • Traffic Control Corp: Chip Lang • Purdue University Researchers • Principal Investigator: Darcy Bullock • Research Assistants: Ross Haseman and Chris Day

  3. Background What are Traffic Signal Performance Measures? • Using the new generation of signal controllers to monitor and record actual traffic data • Analyzing the data to get a sense of how well the signal is performing, and plan changes • Analyzing the data later to verify that changes worked as planned

  4. Why Do We Care? National Traffic Signal Report Card

  5. Why Do We Care? BENEFITS OF EXCELLENCE IN TRAFFIC SIGNAL OPERATIONS If the nation supported its signals at an A grade level, quality of life and protection of the environment would benefit significantly, including: Reductions in traffic delay ranging from 15–40 percent; reductions in travel time up to 25 percent; and reductions in stops ranging from 10–40 percent. Reductions in fuel consumption of up to 10 percent. Reductions in harmful emissions (carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds) up to 22 percent. According to the Surface Transportation Policy Project, motor vehicles are the largest source of urban air pollution. Source: 2007 National Traffic Signal Report Card

  6. Traffic Signal Timing Process Performance Measures Performance Measures

  7. Current Practice Observe and Adjust Collect Model Deploy

  8. Current Vendor Provided Performance Measures Not Enough for Real Optimization/Analysis Vendors will respond to specifications, but we need to know what to ask for

  9. Issues • Data Collected is Expensive and Sparse • 6 AM to 6 PM one work day every three years • Analysis of Implemented Changes can be Subjective • ‘Watch’ traffic for 20 minutes • Phone calls from public

  10. Performance Measure Evolution 2003 2006 Procurement Specification 2010 2008

  11. Six Recommended Performance Measures

  12. Cycle Length

  13. Equivalent Hourly Flow Rate

  14. Green Time Plot

  15. Volume to Capacity Ratio

  16. Split Failures Per Half Hour

  17. Purdue Coordination Diagram (PCD)

  18. Percentage of Phases with Peds

  19. Draft Specification

  20. Indiana LTAP Research Project • Adapt previous research to local agency level • Try performance measures with a wider array of equipment installations • Develop base number of recommended performance measures • Train agencies to implement tools

  21. Elkhart County

  22. CR17 at Missouri • Test of performance measures at isolated LPA intersection. • Use of video detection with performance measures.

  23. Sample Use of Performance Measures Purdue Progression Diagrams as Changes Were Implemented at CR17/Missouri

  24. PCD Before Change,Phase 6, 02/17/09 Start of Yellow Triple Cycle End of Cycle End of Cycle Double Cycle N We want to shift platoon earlier Φ2 Φ3 Φ4 Φ1 Start of Green Φ5 Φ6 Φ7 Φ8 T

  25. Predicted PCDAfter Change, Phase 602/17/09 Calc Offset 35s+19s=54s N We want to shift platoon earlier Φ2 Φ3 Φ4 Φ1 Φ5 Φ6 Φ7 Φ8 T

  26. PCD After Change,Phase 6, 02/24/09 Time Change Was Implemented N Φ2 Φ3 Φ4 Φ1 Φ5 Φ6 Φ7 Φ8

  27. PCDPhase 6, 02/25/09 54s offset ok with 60s cycle Subsequently Fixed on 3/09/09 N Φ2 Φ3 Φ4 Φ1 Φ5 Φ6 Φ7 Φ8 54s offset fails with 50s cycle

  28. PCDPhase 6, 03/07/09 Not set back to TOD after correction, fixed 3/09 N Φ2 Φ3 Φ4 Φ1 Φ5 Φ6 Φ7 Φ8

  29. PCDPhase 6, 03/20/09 N Φ2 Φ3 Φ4 Φ1 Φ5 Φ6 Φ7 Φ8

  30. Future Work: CR17 Corridor • Apply performance measures to an LPA corridor • Follow after similar study on Indiana SR37

  31. 2010-2011: CR17 Corridor • 14 Signals • Links I-80/90 Toll Road with US20 and US33 • Volumes from 12,000 – 30,000 vpd • Letting this spring for communications interconnect project • Downloading of event logs from individual intersections to central database • Tools for performance measures work on downloaded database files

  32. CR350 – Lafayette, IN Performance Measures as a Construction Acceptance Tool

  33. Multiscale: Intersection Details Where are my Opportunities for improvement

  34. Role of Performance Measures OurFocus

  35. How do we know if the signal system is functioning as intended when we turn it on after construction? 9th St. 18th St. Regal Valley Osborne Concord

  36. Data Collection • About 150,000 events occur every day at each intersection • Current generation controllers can record these events to 0.1 second fidelity for analysis 9th St. 18th St. Regal Valley Osborne Concord

  37. Abbreviated Performance Measure Based Checklist • Are the detectors detecting? • Are the counts reasonable? • Are all of the phases active? • Are the TOD plans working correctly? • Are our green time allocations reasonable? • Is our progression functioning?

  38. 1. Are the detectors detecting? NA NB NL EA EAc EL ELc SA SL Sac SLc WA WB WAcWBc WL WLc Detectors 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7 (NA, NB, and NL) not reporting detections, as their conduit was crushed during construction. (9th St.) Detectors 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7 (NA, NB, and NL) not reporting detections, as their conduit was crushed during construction. (9th St.)

  39. 1. Corridor Overview 3 Detectors Not Reporting Data 2 Detectors Not Reporting Data 0 Detectors Not Reporting Data 1 Detector Not Reporting Data 1 Detector Not Reporting Data 9th St. 18th St. Regal Valley Osborne Concord 39

  40. 2. Are the counts reasonable? NA NB NAc NBc NL EA NLc EAc EB EL EBc ELc SA SAc SL SLc WB WL WBc WLc SA and SL have far too many detections (chatter) (18th St.) Count Detector for EB counting far too few vehicles (18th St.)

  41. 2. Corridor Overview 0 Detectors Miscounting 3 Detectors Miscounting 3 Detectors Miscounting 0 Detectors Miscounting 0 Detector Miscounting 9th St. 18th St. Regal Valley Osborne Concord

  42. 3. Are all phases receiving reasonable green time? Are min times as expected? 1 EL 2 W 3 NL 4 S X WL Phase Not Active (Concord) 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 12:00 12:00 12:00 12:00 24:00 24:00 24:00 24:00 5 WL 6 E 7 SL 8 N

  43. 3. Corridor Overview 0 Phases Not Active 0 Phases Not Active 0 Phases Not Active 0 Phases Not Active 1 Phase Not Active 9th St. 18th St. Regal Valley Osborne Concord

  44. 4. Are the TOD plans working correctly? Coordinating 5 intersections is like trying to have 5 people record the same sequence of TV shows Only the 11:30 to 13:00 Timing Plan is Running, Intersection Free for the Rest of the Day (Concord)

  45. 4. Corridor Overview 1 TOD Plan Not Correct 0 TOD Plans Not Correct 0 TOD Plans Not Correct 1 TOD Plan Not Correct 4 TOD Plans Not Correct 9th St. 18th St. Regal Valley Osborne Concord

  46. 5. Are our green time allocations reasonable? Southbound Could Use Some More Green Time EL W NL S 100% 50% 0 Volume to Capacity Ratio 100% WL E SL N 50% 0 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 12:00 12:00 12:00 12:00 24:00 24:00 24:00 24:00 Time of Day

  47. Methodology: Build From Measurable Quantities Uniform Delay g = green time (s) C = cycle length (s) X = volume to capacity ratio Measurable Quantities Volume to Capacity Ratio v = flow rate (veh/h) s = saturation flow rate (veh/h)

  48. Eastbound V/C Ratios Morning TOD Plan Should Start Earlier

  49. Eastbound V/C Ratios Morning TOD Plan Should Start Earlier

  50. Is the Progression FunctioningUsing the PCD Before After 9th St. 18th St. Regal Valley Osborne Concord