1 / 18

Comparison of Queue Length Models at Signalized Intersections

Comparison of Queue Length Models at Signalized Intersections. Fadhely Viloria Kenneth Courage Donald Avery. Acknowledgements: Florida DOT Southeastern Transportation Center. DETERMINISTIC COMPONENTS. Uniform Queue Adjustment for Progression Adjustment for Overflow

apollo
Download Presentation

Comparison of Queue Length Models at Signalized Intersections

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Comparison of Queue Length Models at Signalized Intersections Fadhely Viloria Kenneth Courage Donald Avery Acknowledgements: Florida DOT Southeastern Transportation Center

  2. DETERMINISTIC COMPONENTS • Uniform Queue • Adjustment for Progression • Adjustment for Overflow • Adjustment for Confidence

  3. UNIFORM QUEUE DEFINITIONS # Reach Accumulation 0 Time

  4. MODEL COMPUTATIONS # UAC AMQR UMQR UMQA UAQA 0 Time

  5. UMQA

  6. UMQR UMQA

  7. HCM 2000 SIDRA CORSIM TRANSYT-7F SOAP SIGNAL 97 NCHRP 279 Oppenlander Teply MODELS

  8. Progression Adjustment UMQR SOAP UMQR PASSER & TRANSYT-7F

  9. TEPLY Poisson adjustment for confidence based on P(no failure) = [1-P(failure)]2 UMQR (Liberal) UAC (Conservative)

  10. NCHRP 279 UAC X 2.0 SIGNAL 97 UMQA X 2.0

  11. SIDRA & HCM 2000 Progression and Actuated Control Adjustment Empirical Confidence Adjustment AMQR

  12. CORSIM UAQA Explicit results of Microscopic Simulation and Historical Max QA

  13. OPPENLANDER UAQA Derived from Macroscopic Simulation and Percentile QA

  14. COMPARISON DATA SETS • 150 RUNS TOTAL • Cycle: 60, 90, 120 • g/C: 0.1 to 0.6 • v/c: .65 to 1.0

  15. HCM 2000 ADJUSTMENTS • SIDRA AMQR • SOAP UMQR • TRANSYT-7F UMQR • PASSER II UMQR • NCHRP 279 UAC • NETSIM UMQA • SIGNAL 97 UMQA • OPPENLANDER UMQA

  16. Example: Convert T7F UMQR to HCM 2000 90% QR Q90% = 3.22 + 1.68 UMQR + 0.02 UMQR 2 r2 = 0.97

  17. HCM 2000Queue Expansion Ratio (Adjusted Queue / Uniform Queue) C=60 C=120

  18. Summary and Observations • Conceptual comparison of models • Benchmark data comparison and adjustments • 90% confidence may be a myth • The least scientific method (NCHRP 279) comes closest to the most scientific (SIDRA/HCM2000) under many conditions

More Related